I’d love to see that. Fingers crossed! Personally I’m hoping for some convoluted sci-fi in universe explanation for it all (I actually liked the augment virus episodes...!)
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
You don't seem to grasp the idea of visual reboots or retcons, even though they've been discussed countless times already. The producers of a show or the author of a work can change things retroactively as he or she sees fit.
If you want primitive, I would've prefered using the Conestoga design for NX-01.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Funnily enough windows in space isn't too difficult as its a vacuum, whereas doing so at extreme depth is difficult and extremely dangerous due to the incredible pressures down there.But, is it really a problem is my question? I mean, think about it. If the TMP refit happened within two to three years (by some estimates) then is it really that difficult to imagine the, changing the look to the Constitution again prior to Kirk's mission? Updated to reflect a new era of peace and exploration? I mean, if the window bothers you that much then they installed bulkheads over it. Problem solved. I struggle with the idea that all these designs are immutable.
I like the submarine feel as well, but (and call me weird-it's ok) I have always thought that submarines could do with a window or two. Now, I get that underwater is dark and so is space. But these are supposed to be advanced starships with state of the art technology. I have no doubt there is a way to illuminate or have "enhanced windows" or something. But, that might come from growing up reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
So in truth the windows on a Starship can be any size the designers want really.
That’s a nice design. And given that the rest of the 22nd century had a somewhat distinctive design language (delta shaped ships, cut up saucers, etc.) it would have helped give the era its own style. And when they got to the warp ships to break warp 5 the Conestoga would have looked like an extension of those.
On another tangent - I always thought it weird that the NX alpha, beta ships looked like the Phoenix. I was like “oh that’s cool it’s a reference to the Cochrane ship, but it’s been like 90 years and now they have to wear a space suit when in FC they only wore overalls...”
I liked Enterprise. But man it had some issues.
It was more than temp. There's production art and early renderings of the Shenzhou and Discovery using the TOS font, and there's even a finaled shot in the aired pilot that snuck in where they didn't redo it when they changed the font.
Considering that they started with Microgramma in the first place (not even the TMP font, the unmodified version without the pinstripes and with the big-hatted "1"), that's the kind of behind-the-scenes indecision and vacillation that makes me think all these variations with the bridge window and nacelle detailing are coming straight from the show's art department, and aren't the result of the licensors tweaking things.
Last edited:
I think there was also more then was VFX company working on the show, which could cause problems if they were not given the right model revision.
According to one of the STO devs (they were given the model files for reference) They also had several different models of the ships for different scenes, like ones made just for specific angles or close ups.
According to one of the STO devs (they were given the model files for reference) They also had several different models of the ships for different scenes, like ones made just for specific angles or close ups.
Remember, Zefram was doing everything on the fly.
As far as he was concerned Spacesuits were superfluous.
(and they probably would have cramped his style)
Hard to rock and roll in a spacesuitRemember, Zefram was doing everything on the fly.
As far as he was concerned Spacesuits were superfluous.
(and they probably would have cramped his style)
Or drink an entire bottle of whiskey.
On the contrary:Hard to rock and roll in a spacesuit
He's an enginner, he can design a lifesupport tank that has a whiskey reserve built in.
*scratches chin*
No one steal that idea!
Yikes, what's up with the aztecing on that graphic? Aztecing is supposed to represent the minor surface variations among adjacent hull plates. Given that (and setting aside that 23rd century fabrication techniques, or even a good paint job, should IMHO make those variations nonexistent), it should be (A) subtle and (B) show an organized pattern of hull plates. Most Trek ships live up to that. This one doesn't come close on either front. It looks like somebody built the hull out of papier-maché, for heaven's sake.
I usually agree with your remarks about Trek design, so these surprised me. I can't speak for BillJ, of course, but IMHO Eaves has simply never grasped the basics of Trek aesthetics. He loves layers and cutouts and greebles and garish aztecing and extraneous details. He hates anything resembling a smooth surface or an elegant uninterrupted curve. He doesn't comphrehend that "form follows function" or that "less is more" (to quote a couple of famous architects). But most annoyingly — and this is true from the Ent-E all the way up to his latest designs for DSC — his ships only ever look good from (at most) one or two angles. In particular, they look horrible in profile... generally squashed flat and kind of shapeless. The original Ent is gorgeous in profile, a tall and graceful ship, and looks just as good from just about any other angle, and the same can be said about most traditional Trek ship designs. Eaves' work just doesn't measure up.
This one, now, I completely agree with!
I think that’s just a fault on the side of the game artists
So many times this!
Well I can’t say I’m a fan of all of Eaves’ work - especially the modifications to the Enterprise B...Yikes, what's up with the aztecing on that graphic? Aztecing is supposed to represent the minor surface variations among adjacent hull plates. Given that (and setting aside that 23rd century fabrication techniques, or even a good paint job, should IMHO make those variations nonexistent), it should be (A) subtle and (B) show an organized pattern of hull plates. Most Trek ships live up to that. This one doesn't come close on either front. It looks like somebody built the hull out of papier-maché, for heaven's sake.
I usually agree with your remarks about Trek design, so these surprised me. I can't speak for BillJ, of course, but IMHO Eaves has simply never grasped the basics of Trek aesthetics. He loves layers and cutouts and greebles and garish aztecing and extraneous details. He hates anything resembling a smooth surface or an elegant uninterrupted curve. He doesn't comphrehend that "form follows function" or that "less is more" (to quote a couple of famous architects). But most annoyingly — and this is true from the Ent-E all the way up to his latest designs for DSC — his ships only ever look good from (at most) one or two angles. In particular, they look horrible in profile... generally squashed flat and kind of shapeless. The original Ent is gorgeous in profile, a tall and graceful ship, and looks just as good from just about any other angle, and the same can be said about most traditional Trek ship designs. Eaves' work just doesn't measure up.
This one, now, I completely agree with!
But I’m not sure what it is about the E I like. I should perhaps say at this point that FC is my favourite Star Trek film, that I grew up on TNG, and that I was somewhat younger when I first saw FC at the cinema - so some of these factors may be influencing my judgment when it comes to the Enterprise E.
I must also admit that I prefer the physical FC model that I think had slightly smoother lines than the cgi versions that followed (especially the nemesis refit).
But, phaser to my head, if I had to explain what I like about the E it’s mainly the sleek profile that incorporates the necklessness of the intrepid class, and I think she’s more balanced than the intrepid as the E has those long nacelles. I preferred sternbach’s original nacelle designs on the prototype of voyager to the tiny ones - although I understand the logic of the tiny nacelles and I love the intrepid design too (though not voyager as a show - the Bellerophon was my favourite in “inter arma”...!). I also liked the stepped nature of the underside of the E primary hull as I thought that helped give a sense of scale to the ship as you could see where the decks are at. I agree the E doesn’t look as good from quite as many angles as the original Connie, and she’s not my favourite Enterprise design - that would have to be the 1701D (and again my tng favouritism from my youth is making it impossible for me to be impartial there) - but I always liked the 1701E.
Anyway, bringing this back to the topic of the thread - I see where you’re coming from when you say:
“He loves layers and cutouts and greebles and garish aztecing and extraneous details. He hates anything resembling a smooth surface or an elegant uninterrupted curve. He doesn't comphrehend that "form follows function" or that "less is more"
In relation to the DSC Enterprise redesign. I don’t like the fins on the underside of the nacelles, the recessed bit where the registry is with the floodlights (although in a universe where every ship has a freaking window at the front of it, headlights to blind the enemy make all the sense), the 100 year old nacelle design that harks back to the nx class for no reason other than the fact that ENT was a thing, and the larger impulse engine assembly are all things that I find unnecessary in the design.
I think Jefferies’ head was in the right place when he designed a smooth, clean starship unemcumbered by greeblies and gave Star Trek a visual identity for its ships - federation and alien (the prime D7 and romulan BoP were also smooth as an android’s bottom), and so were the TMP refit and Enterprise D for that matter - it wasn’t until the godawful 4 foot model of the 1701D that the aztecking was *that* pronounced (seriously I hate that model. Who cares that the 10 forward windows don’t look right... well, I guess we do, but make a better model dammit).
The prime 1701 design was way ahead of its time in my opinion, and still is (I know many won’t agree but those arguments have been made and remade to the point of them being rendered moot at this point) and the changes Eaves has made (or been made to make) do nothing for the design other than to make it align with the rest of the DSC aesthetic (which looks like it belongs in the 24th century anyway).
Plus, I think Eaves does good work in certain contexts. The Phoenix warp ship is one of his best designs - but that was meant to have greeblies and such. I think you’re right in that he doesn’t know when not to use (or is brought in precisely because he doesn’t like not using) greeblies and cut outs and textures and such. But when he does that well (i.e. Phoenix) he does it very well. I kinda like the Son’a ships too
I think that is meant to be a call forward to the movie Refit. It had fins there as well, though not as big.
Usually in games like this you'd never get very close to the ship with the "camera" so the hull texture needs to be bigger so you can spot it from further away, to avoid the hull looking too smooth and featureless.
Given how much he's contributed to Trek aesthetics in the last TWENTY years I'd say he grasps it pretty well.
Now, you could say that his designs are too "busy" with unnecessary stuff, but saying he doesn't understand the very thing he's been actually producing as part of the team that MAKES Trek is ridiculous.
That explains the Pancakeprise and the fritter formerly known as the Europa.
Similar threads
