The Death Star and the Millennium Falcon, true icons of SF and pop culture, were designed in the mid-1970s. As of Rogue One (2016) and The Last Jedi (2018), they look the same as they did onscreen in 1977.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
But Star Wars has never tried to look like our future. It's the future and the past, and not even necessarily the future and past of Earth. It's already rusted and falling apart. The fact that SW tech is meant to look outmoded helps it look fine today. And frankly, there's a reason Star Wars wowed audiences. It created spaceships for the big screen that weren't like things previously seen, and with quite a bit of detail. That gives them a leg up on a TV show from the mid-1960s. What Star Trek designed in the 1960s was far closer to pulp flying saucers that had graced serials for some time prior.
The TOS Enterprise isn't remotely as bad as any of those flying saucers. I get that some fans don't like the old Matt Jefferies design and prefer something more detailed and "sexier," but some of the reasons that people come up with for why the TOS Connie would look terrible on a modern show are pretty flimsy and say more about the fans than the ship's design.
A design, I might add, both DS9 and ENT lovingly recreated while adding extra surface detail and features to make the ship look more dynamic and realistic. Those shows aren't from 1966 so if some fans hate the old Connie so much they ought to ask themselves why.
A design, I might add, both DS9 and ENT lovingly recreated while adding extra surface detail and features to make the ship look more dynamic and realistic. Those shows aren't from 1966 so if some fans hate the old Connie so much they ought to ask themselves why.
The important thing to bear in mind about how brilliant Jefferies' design isn't in the detail - it's that every real "hero" starship of note designed for Trek since then has chosen to use the layout he defined: Saucer at front, raised above center; two engines to the rear, raised above center, connected by pylons to an engineering hull below center.
Just as every bridge has been more or less a big round room with stations along the side, a big viewer and the navigator forward, and the captain seated in the center.
Just as every bridge has been more or less a big round room with stations along the side, a big viewer and the navigator forward, and the captain seated in the center.
TOS and it’s design work are far from my favourite Trek, but I’ve got to agree.
I think it’s because of some kind of...reflected shame or embarrassment for the era?
Almost every Federation starship design in any version of Trek, including Discovery, is a variation on the original Matt Jefferies design from 1964. If this design is so hokey and out-of-date now, the Starfleet ships in Discovery should look nothing like they do. Ditch the saucer and twin nacelles entirely, take the "reimagining for modern audiences" to the next level, and make Discovery look like the Orville instead.
Also, the show is called Discovery, not Enterprise. Putting a TOS Constitution design onscreen for a few seconds as a respectful nod isn't going to hurt anyone, especially if we don't ever see one again. None of the other series felt the need to change it.
The ships in Star Wars were also designed and built on a movie budget a decade later, using more realistic materials and and more detailed designs.
The TOS connie looks cheap. The TMP Connie doesn't. The TMP Connie holds up better.
Looks pretty good with the Gagarin saucer texture.
The design isn't out of date. The construction and detailing are. The Enterprise in the new films shows what an updated Connie detailing looks like. And apparently, so will DISC.
That's why I'm hoping whatever they came up with tonight used that as the starting point. TOS can fall victim to a soft visual reboot if it absolutely must, but there's no reason TMP-TUC should. The Enterprise should look like it is, or rather one day will be, the same ship from TMP.
I think someone likened it to a "pulp-flying saucer" upthread, so apparently the design itself is the problem for some.
The 1960s primary hull has the same level of detail as a "pulp flying saucer", sure. However, this can be fixed with detailing, without changing the design. Just like pulp flying saucers can be modernized to look imposing (e.g. Independence Day, etc...).
Or like ENT did to the Defiant in "In A Mirror Darkly."
Exact same design, only with greater surface detailing, faint hull aztecing and an aft phaser bank situated just above the main hangar deck. She looked and still looks gorgeous. A loving tribute to Matt Jefferies.
Exact same design, only with greater surface detailing, faint hull aztecing and an aft phaser bank situated just above the main hangar deck. She looked and still looks gorgeous. A loving tribute to Matt Jefferies.
Were I watching, I would hope to see Enterprise's lines remain the same. Kick up the detail and give her modern refinement, that's fine. But don't reinvent her.
You might like it. Depending on your definition of “reinvent.” It won’t be as faithful as DS9 and ENT. That, I can tell you.
I for one can't wait. I'm ready to rip the band-aid off. Hopefully I like it.
Seconded.
to me the most important thing, is that I see it, and be able to say "It's the Enterprise" without any doubt about what it's supposed to be, I certainly want to see something more Faithful than the JJ ship, which had very nice detailing on it, but the proportions were an eyesore
I'm sure it will be all over YouTube shortly after the episode drops.
The 2009 film was a reinvention, and not a good one. I'd rather not see that happen again.
I was okay with the Kelvin Enterprise aside from it's ugly beefed up nacelles. The Kelvin Enterprise-A is much better.
Similar threads
