Says the guy who went into the "Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness" thread to complain about said film. I believe the term for that is pot and kettle. To look at Starship designs in a thread that has nothing to do with JJ Abrams' Star Trek films. Not yet again listen to the same criticisms about a movie that came out 5 years ago that has f@$kall to do with the thread subject matter.
Too bad you don't believe in accurate recollection or applying that term to yourself. You'd be a lot more persuasive. (Also rather sad that you're still bearing grudges from some random thread on the movie forums... how many weeks ago, now? ) If the thread has nothing to do with the films, then the OP's opinion coming up tangentially in one sentence after someone referenced the new Enterprise shouldn't be threatening to you, should it? Especially when it's a completely unsurprising opinion that you already knew they held, right? Yet here you are, still spinning out. Why?
Love them or hate them, the Abrams films have definitely made their mark on fandom. Here we are, arguing petty semantics five years after the first one released.
No argument. And I'm not apologizing for thinking they're trash and totally dismissing them as not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Star Trek has done better, far better in film and particularly television. Anything JJ has done has already been done far better before in Trek and elsewhere. I will take anything in TOS and TAS' lesser efforts as well as TNG and DS9 over JJtrek anytime. Hell, I'll even watch ENT and things they've done in that series over JJtrek. Fan productions do better work than JJtrek. To that end I wouldn't put JJ and those behind those films anywhere in the same class as those who came before them. If I sound emphatic then you're goddamned right I am. I am so sick of hearing praise heaped on rotting garbage as those films. Please do not bring them up in regard to discussing the contents of this thread.
Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about someone doing something you did while basically trying to act morally superior about the whole thing. It doesn't I'm just tired of the the pointless bitching about a five 5 year old movie. I really don't give a shit what anyone thinks about the damned movies, I just don't want to hear about it every f@#king time anyone so much as acknowledges that they exist becuase apparently the existence of a movie they don't like is some kind of crime to them. Hey, I think Stargate Universe was bad, but you don't see me complaining about it everytime someone mentions the damned show.
A minor quibble, I only bring up because I suppose you may find it interesting... FJ was not inspired by TAS at all. Not one little jot. He was already well into the artwork for the TM before TAS ever aired. The fact that both he and the TAS crew felt there should have been a second exit is merely a case of great minds thinking alike. --Alex
It's a long time ago and the recollection of sequence of events can get murky. I only recall having seen that added exit door on TAS and that FJ had one as well leading to a service corridor.
In hindsight, yes. But then when TOS was made they simply didn't think it would be scrutinized this way for decades on end. Today we can obsess over getting as much possible as right as possible while those in the business have to be concerned with getting the show made within a given time frame and also having only so much money and resources to fashion something acceptable.
Okay, so I'm open to suggestions to help get my imagination going. I don't know yet how much of Deck 1 I will do, but if we assume that I could eventually tackle other areas of the ship what could be some ideas going forward? What sort of things could perhaps be incorporated? What sort of things might it have been nice to see? - Transporter room - Main Engineering - Sickbay - Main crew lounges - Captain's (or officer's) quarters - Uniforms Anything else or thoughts on those listed above? Note what I've gotten done so far: - Starship exterior - Shuttlecraft exterior - Shuttlecraft interior - Shuttlecraft flight deck and service bay - Main bridge (still in progress, but almost completed) - Main briefing room (still in progress, but almost finished)
If it's really the 29th century, there shouldn't be a transporter room. It can all be site-to-site. There can be a staging area right on the bridge, like in SG-1. Transporter consoles could pop up on any general-purpose console, whenever and wherever they're needed. There should even be the option to grant landing parties the authorization to beam themselves up at their own discretion, to any one of the designated staging areas throughout the ship, under all bio-filters and security filters required as per standard procedure. In first-contact situations, beam-ups might be automatically routed to quarantine in the sickbay as a standard precaution. That authorization can be based on DNA and guests without security clearance can be beamed directly into secure guest quarters.
Interesting ideas. Hmm... I have also been toying with the idea of rethinking the transporter. What if it were more like an Iconian portal where you just step through what is essentially a kind of wormhole? The more I've thought about the transport process it doesn't make sense to me that it would actually take so long to dematerialize and rematerialize. Maybe what we see is really a visual echo or illusion and the process is really much more instantaneous. Even as you're dematerializing in one place you are materializing in another simultaneously. You know I've long imagined that the flash we see when Q appears and disappears seems much more like what the familiar transporter process could look like. Zap--you're gone and instantly somewhere else. When we see you appear it's not really a second or so after you disappeared but actually the same instant as you disappeared.
The design of the TNG bridge is a totally different idea than what you and the creative team behind the two new films came up with. The idea to place the bridge not at the very top of the ship is good here; it was good five years ago in Star Trek; it was good when it was first discussed.
^^ Not really. TNG gave the bridge a transparent dome (apparently) that put it at the top, but in every other respect it's essentially the same concept as what I'm doing. All I've done is expand the idea a bit further and layer sensor arrays above the bridge instead of a transparent dome. But it's not worth arguing about. Let's move on.
Yes, really. The Enterprise-D's bridge-module (deck 1) is just the bridge with an office, a lounge, and toilets attached to it. Whereas your and nuTrek's bridge are part of a larger deck they are a located on.
Yeah, and I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but the USS Voyager had something similar, too. Though we never really see what's back there, there are accesses to other parts of deck 1 in the conference room and ready room, and we can see escape pods and stuff on deck 1, too. Not to mention JJ's Enterprise bridge is connected to a MUCH larger deck. Yours is more like the Galaxy-class and Intrepid-class bridges, but more spacious. That seems totally logical to me. And totally in-line with Prime Trek. At any rate, I don't think it's very sensible to fight about it. Regardless of what it's similar to, Warped9 is making a pretty gosh-darn cool ship, and I'm interested to see what else comes down the road.
We also see something very similar on Babylon 5 and Crusade back in the '90s where the Bridge was on the same level as other facilities.