What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I'm kind of the opposite myself, as I get what Doug Drexler wanted to do with the design. But I don't consider it a particularly good design personally.
It's aesthetically wonky and doesn't seem to make a lot of engineering sense to me. I think it's a decent episode that could be improved in ways, as some aspects are problematic. Marla's infatuation with Khan is one, as it doesn't seem to have the proper depth for her to betray the crew so readily. It's also odd that Kirk (and other seniors officers like Scott) would let Khan have such easy access to the ship's technical plans, but the plot requires it to happen.
You just described futuristic design in one sentence.
Given how fantastically sophisticated the distant future is almost always portrayed in the franchise for the 1701-J to not look like a mixture of a gigantic space jellyfish, a frying pan and the pinching grips in the game Operation would be a complete surprise.
Star Trek Into Darkness is a good film
TFF is better than STID.
What I like about the Ent-J is how sleek and petite the engines look by comparison to the primary hull. I was reminded of the "vessels this size with engines the size of walnuts" line from "Return to Tomorrow." Those are still way bigger than walnuts, so no doubt even more powerful.
Well Voyager has smallish engines compared to the rest of the hull and yet it looks like a nice ship. Discovery is a lovely looking ship and so is the shenzhou. I love all the disco ships. I like the Enterprise J too and hope one day we see it on screen, speaking of which Discovery season 4 and they are in about the right timeframe so who knows.
Into Darkness is a good movie, it just falls a bit in that ending scene. Kirk should have died.
Into Darkness is a good movie, it just falls a bit in that ending scene. Kirk should have died.
The 1701-J is an additional 185 or so years of technology on top of the Enterprise-D so I can imagine such a colossal starship propelled by such frail-looking nacelles.
But I just want to see her fly.... I wonder if she is around now that Disco is in the future.
She'd be over 600 years old by that point so if she is she's probably a museum ship.
Still would be neat. Maybe she's parked on Earth in a museum to remember the temporal wars
Last edited:
I tend to agree, but the square nacelles are hit or miss for me. But, I love the vast majority of the designs and feel like a nice collaboration of different designs, as I would expect from an interstellar power.
Fact check:
Neither the TOS nor the TMP Enterprise models were "kitbashed."
I know less about about the construction of the Ent-D than these two, so I won't comment on it, or any of the others.
As I wrote some years ago on another thread in more detail: TWoK is a sequel to "Space Seed" and is in no way a sequel to TMP. TMP exists in a pocket universe, a sort of bubble. It did not take place "before" TWoK. There is no elapsed time between the movies. TWoK was originally released without the "II" for that very reason. Kirk begins each movie as an admiral at a desk job and regains his ship relatively soon. The mostly-used-up Enterprise we see in TWoK only superficially resembles the newly refit one we are shown at great length in TMP. That is, the Enterprise of TWoK is the TV Enterprise of 15 years earlier, shown in greater detail.
There were counterarguments that Spock grew from one movie to the next, that his experiences as shown in TMP had an impact on the personality he displayed in TWoK. I think that's a weak argument; the ostensibly more relaxed Spock of TWoK was often on display in the TV series.
There were counterarguments that Spock grew from one movie to the next, that his experiences as shown in TMP had an impact on the personality he displayed in TWoK. I think that's a weak argument; the ostensibly more relaxed Spock of TWoK was often on display in the TV series.
Similar threads
- Locked
