ST XI Enterprise conjecture
- Thread starter judexavier
- Start date
I think there is some validity to viewing everything that didn't involve the main creative staff responsible for TOS as -- at best -- supplemental to TOS. That means, TAS and TMP would be considered to have the closest relationship because of the number of people those projects shared with TOS. TNG would follow closely behind. DS9, VOY and ENT, as well as the Bennett Treks would have the most tenuous relationship because they share little beyond ownership in common with TOS, and even there you can argue a second-hand link.
The fact that the same actors portray the main characters in Roddenberry, Bennett and Berman Treks means almost nothing -- those actors are performing what has been written for them and are playing within the reality the creative staff have made, so their ability to tie any project to TOS is somewhat superficial.
This kind of assessment is quite apart from any judgement on the quality of any of the respective series or movies. It is merely an ordering by kinship, much as a half-Fleming story like Thunderball might be considered to have closer kinship to other Fleming Bonds than a movie or book that didn't involve him or his work at all.
The fact that the same actors portray the main characters in Roddenberry, Bennett and Berman Treks means almost nothing -- those actors are performing what has been written for them and are playing within the reality the creative staff have made, so their ability to tie any project to TOS is somewhat superficial.
This kind of assessment is quite apart from any judgement on the quality of any of the respective series or movies. It is merely an ordering by kinship, much as a half-Fleming story like Thunderball might be considered to have closer kinship to other Fleming Bonds than a movie or book that didn't involve him or his work at all.
Aridas, I agree with that, except for the TAS part, of course. 
No, I take a bit of that back. I think that, there's validity there too. I'm just not ready to accept it whole cloth. A guy has to have his standards, ya know
I mean, we've ALL been through the ENT arguments, and we're not gonna change each other's minds on it. Just like me, I don't care for DS9 (too much of a Babylon 5 ripoff, being so much darker and violent than previous and future Treks), but I don't come into forae and berate those who do. I just stay away. That's it.
We're adults, here.
No, I take a bit of that back. I think that, there's validity there too. I'm just not ready to accept it whole cloth. A guy has to have his standards, ya know I mean, we've ALL been through the ENT arguments, and we're not gonna change each other's minds on it. Just like me, I don't care for DS9 (too much of a Babylon 5 ripoff, being so much darker and violent than previous and future Treks), but I don't come into forae and berate those who do. I just stay away. That's it.
We're adults, here.
Wow... just WOW.
I don't need to "validate myself" in any way. I'm quite comfortable with myself regardless of whether or not you give a flying @#$*.
And I find it just hillarious that you actually refer, in "normal conversation" to Gene Roddenberry as "The Great Bird." Without any humor or irony behind it that I can see.
Gene Roddenberry was not God. He was not even a particularly great man. He was a pretty decent scriptwriter who wasn't a particularly good producer. He came up with a good idea, surrounded himself with some very talented people, and TOGETHER WITH THEM a remarkably good show came out of it.
And of course, he then proceeded to drive away most of his better writers, and to take credit for ideas and work done by other people on the show. The single most widely recognized example of this was his creating "lyrics" for the series theme so he could steal half of all the royalty payments for that music from the pocket of Alexander Courage.
No... I do not worship at the altar of Roddenberry. I give him credit where it's due, but the fact that he was the kernel around which the group which made the show grew around does not make him some supernatural deity.
I find it laughable that you actually, with a straight face, seem to take umbrage at the fact that I don't share your idolatry.
If you guys don't need to validate yourselves, why do you come into a thread specifically about the subject that you detest? And belittle another person's art by insulting the source. Because it doesn't fit your tastes? Does every thread have to fit your tastes?
Whose work is being belittled?
Oh, yes, it was Matt Jeffries whose work was belittled by being called "out of date" and so forth.
I haven't seen anyone belittle the work of the guy who did the "artists interpretation" at the core of this thread. Has anyone else?
Correct... my bad!
Whose work is being belittled?
Oh, yes, it was Matt Jeffries whose work was belittled by being called "out of date" and so forth.
I haven't seen anyone belittle the work of the guy who did the "artists interpretation" at the core of this thread. Has anyone else?
"The rendering looks pretty accurate to me, which is to say that it looks just as hideous as what we saw in the trailer." - Captain Robert April
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Whose work is being belittled?
Oh, yes, it was Matt Jeffries whose work was belittled by being called "out of date" and so forth.
I haven't seen anyone belittle the work of the guy who did the "artists interpretation" at the core of this thread. Has anyone else?
Well, while you don't worship at the altar of Gene Roddenberry you denfinitely do so at the altar of Matt Jefferies.
How is it belittleing calling a design 'out of date'?
Biplanes are out of date - this doesn't belittle the designers of biplanes!
And while others, like the creative team behind the new Star Trek movie (yes THAT reboot) and the OP of this thread, have the creativity to bring this great design of Matt Jefferies Enterprise up to date to the aesthetic expectations of the audiences of the 21st century (as Mr. Jefferies himself would have done; prime example being the TMP-Enterprise - THE design to which all others are second, IMO) you like to wallow in your own creative stagnation.
I, for one, would love to see more of this ship this thread is really about.
I have to say, I didn't see that as an attack on the work of the OP, but rather the design in the trailer on which it was based.
The way some posters in this thread are talking about this ship design gives new meaning to the term "trailer trash". I quite like it despite my predilection for maintaining TOS continuity. I accept that Trek XI (Trek "O"?) will be a reboot of sorts and you can't say this boat looks any less like the TOS version than Chris Pine looks like the young Shat, but consider this - is there anything in TOS that explicitly contradicts frontline ship service lives being a refit-fest?
We saw the 1701 in 2254 (The Cage) with a few visible differences (bridge dome, bussard spikes) from 3 years in the mid-2260's. She may well have launched around 2245 looking "trailerish" and then been refit after a decade or so. What's to say the Constitution class doesn't have quite a number of variants in a big, diverse trekverse? Yes, we saw 4 carbon copies of the 1701 in TOS:The Ultimate Computer, but wouldn't starfleet want The M5 controlled 1701 up against ships of similar spec to gauge it's performance evenly? The Constellation in TOS:The Doomsday Machine had that low registry number (NCC-1017), which you could ascribe to it being originally an older ship that was refit to more modern spec.
When it comes down to it, how you "want" to see trek is what matters - it's entertainment - "choose" to be entertained. The fans are as much a part of creating trek today as anyone on the studio dime is, long before and after Trek XI,XII,XIII...suck up a little box-office. As stated earlier in the thread, Gene R. didn't work in a vacuum - trek has always been a creative collaberation, and I think that now spreads right across fandom. There's some gorgeous takes on our fave ship out there: Vector's redo, Gabe K's, Dennis Bailey's Phoenix and a pretty tasty re-think by "MadKoiFish" coming together over at scifi-meshes to name just a few of the best. There's more than enough room in the trekverse for all of them depending on where the pen or keyboard leads you.
Infinite diversity just seems more Star Trek to me than linear myopia.
Take or leave my pratting on here people, but I did just give up caffeine, so you've got to make some allowances.
We saw the 1701 in 2254 (The Cage) with a few visible differences (bridge dome, bussard spikes) from 3 years in the mid-2260's. She may well have launched around 2245 looking "trailerish" and then been refit after a decade or so. What's to say the Constitution class doesn't have quite a number of variants in a big, diverse trekverse? Yes, we saw 4 carbon copies of the 1701 in TOS:The Ultimate Computer, but wouldn't starfleet want The M5 controlled 1701 up against ships of similar spec to gauge it's performance evenly? The Constellation in TOS:The Doomsday Machine had that low registry number (NCC-1017), which you could ascribe to it being originally an older ship that was refit to more modern spec.
When it comes down to it, how you "want" to see trek is what matters - it's entertainment - "choose" to be entertained. The fans are as much a part of creating trek today as anyone on the studio dime is, long before and after Trek XI,XII,XIII...suck up a little box-office. As stated earlier in the thread, Gene R. didn't work in a vacuum - trek has always been a creative collaberation, and I think that now spreads right across fandom. There's some gorgeous takes on our fave ship out there: Vector's redo, Gabe K's, Dennis Bailey's Phoenix and a pretty tasty re-think by "MadKoiFish" coming together over at scifi-meshes to name just a few of the best. There's more than enough room in the trekverse for all of them depending on where the pen or keyboard leads you.
Infinite diversity just seems more Star Trek to me than linear myopia.
Take or leave my pratting on here people, but I did just give up caffeine, so you've got to make some allowances.
Last edited:
Interestingly, I got called an "anti-Jefferies" guy a while back when I pointed out that his work did not qualify as fully-realized designs, but rather as "sketches" and I said that I didn't think that there was anything wrong with the idea of extending the length of the TOS design upwards from the 940'-ish length Jeffries put on one of his sketches, by however much was required to make everything "fit."
I don't think his work was "perfectly realized." And I doubt he did, either. He was hired to do a job, and he did it... very well. But he didn't work out every miniscule detail of the design, nor should he have been expected to.
BUT... I do think that he'd thought things through fairly well... and I think that the thought process behind his design work was excellent. I dont think he put ANYTHING into the design without a specific reason, whether it was because it was intended to stir up subconscious recognition of old-style sailing vessels or whether it was intended to "borrow" from his aerospace engineering background.
Probert and Jefferies have, or had, this in common... both did ART, but the art was thought through so that it seemed real and plausible. Nothing was done JUST FOR APPEARANCES SAKE. It all had to have a rationale behind it... even if it was a bogus one, based upon some made-up "science," that rationale was still there.
Now, on the other hand, Eaves' 1701-E was done almost entirely as an exercise in "cool-looking stylistic elements." That's why this design, while LOOKING very "cool" is not particularly well-loved.
Style must never trump substance.
That's why I like Jefferies' work on the original 1701. It was heavy on the style, but also heavy on the substance.
My criticism of the "revised" design we've been shown so far seems to involve many changes that have no evident justification in that "substance" arena... and thus are done only as an exercise in style.
There might be justification... the aforementioned "alternative timeline" for instance... in which case there might be substance behind it as well. But so far, with the TINY bit we know, there doesn't seem to be any justification behind the changes other than "well, we changed it because WE COULD! BWAAAAHAHAHAAHHA!"
Actually, biplanes aren't entirely out of date... it all depends on the purpose you're going to use them for. Just try crop-dusting with a Cessna Citation!
But yeah, you have a point... however, this particular point is one of SUBSTANCE. A biplane isn't the most effective design for air-to-air combat anymore. So we don't see the US Air Force flying Sopwith Camels into wars.
I can guarantee you that if the biplane design made the most technical sense, that's what we'd see in use, though. They didn't abandon that design type due to LOOKS. They did so due to a valid, technologically-driven reason.
The also haven't replaced the biplanes in movies set in that timeframe with Eurofighters or MiG 29s.
There's nothing about the 1701 design that I see being "dated" to the 1960s. There's nothing about the design that is no longer in agreement with known science, and which would be need "updated" to match our better understanding of science today.
If, next year, someone invents Warp Drive and it requires three spherical "nacelles" rather than two long cylindrical ones in order to work... HELL YES, UPDATE THE DESIGN TO MATCH REALITY. Because, in THAT case, the design would actually, LITERALLY, be "out of date."
That's not what we're talking about, though, is it?
And while others, like the creative team behind the new Star Trek movie (yes THAT reboot) and the OP of this thread, have the creativity to bring this great design of Matt Jefferies Enterprise up to date to the aesthetic expectations of the audiences of the 21st century (as Mr. Jefferies himself would have done; prime example being the TMP-Enterprise - THE design to which all others are second, IMO) you like to wallow in your own creative stagnation.ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL SNIPES!
How many times, ST-One, have I attacked you in this thread? ZERO. If you're incapable of having a discussion without attacking the PERSON you're talking to, you're not worth talking to.
What the hell is wrong with some folks around here? What gives you the right to attack ME... PERSONALLY? What gives some of your other "buddies" here the same right? To me or to anyone else who you may happen to disagree with?
I'm really sick of it. I'm discussing STARSHIP DESIGN, not ST-One and whatever personal quirks you have. Please be an adult and return the favor.
I am not "wallowing in creative stagnation." Nor is anyone else who's not all tingly and erect over the "new and kewl improvements" we seem to be seeing in this new ship design.
I am not being, nor has anyone else been, critical of the work of the OP. NO ONE POST HAS BEEN MADE DENIGRATING HIS WORK. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
I don't like the changes I'm seeing, because they seem to have been made, not for any RATIONAL reaason, but just because they "look hot, look rad, look NOW."
Which, like every other choice made for purely stylistic purposes without logic or a well-thought-through justification, means that they'll be OUTDATED in just a couple of years (if not sooner!).
Bell-bottoms... bee-hive hair... Alan Alda perms... pastel jackets over pastel t-shirts and penney-loafers without socks... 70s "big hair"... 60s "long stringy unwashed naturalist" hair... none of them made sense, none of them where ever universally accepted, and all are totally dated and laughed at today. But the things that made sense... they're still around.
MJ's design made sense, and looked good. I don't see changes JUST FOR THE SAKE OF STYLE to be changes for the better.
Until I see some sort of jusification for the changes we've been shown, I'll remain critical. That's not being "closed minded" or "wallowing in stagnation" (what an obnoxious statement...Well, we will see more of it eventually. And the OP can post all of his thoughts on what he did.
And we should be able to DISCUSS IT.
Yes, even those of us who don't like it should be allowed to discuss it. Even if ST-One, or others, don't want any criticism to be allowed.
The design is fair game... the individuals TALKING about the design aren't.
Get it?
And what lyrics!
Beyond the rim of the starlight,
my love is wandering in star flight.
I know he'll find
In star clustered reaches
Love, strange love
A star woman teaches.
I know his journey ends never.
His Star Trek will go on forever.
But tell him while
He wanders his starry sea,
Remember,
Remember me.
If that doesn't scream "I just did a mountain of blow, drank a bottle of Jack and banged 2 extras in the futuristic year of 1968"...I don't know what does.
Very succinctly said and exactly right. Well said, sir.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So you just dismiss every 'explanation' for the stylistic elements design by John Eaves?
Where?
Maybe... mhmm... because we haven't been presented with the final picture and/or any explanation?
There might be justification... the aforementioned "alternative timeline" for instance... in which case there might be substance behind it as well. But so far, with the TINY bit we know, there doesn't seem to be any justification behind the changes other than "well, we changed it because WE COULD! BWAAAAHAHAHAAHHA!"
So?
There never was anything in agreement with known science to begin with.
I didn't realize that in reality warp drive need two cylindrical nacelles.
I must have missed that issue of 'FTL-Monthly'...
Not me personally... but...
here:
you do it again; belittleing everyone who sees potential the the redesign.
No, of course not
You (as well as I) don't know any reasons for why certain elements of the redesign look the way they do, yet.
Yes it does look good. But it made sense?
Until I see some sort of jusification for the changes we've been shown, I'll remain critical. That's not being "closed minded" or "wallowing in stagnation" (what an obnoxious statement...
And we should be able to DISCUSS IT.
Yes, discuss it!
But, for the love of Pete, stop dismissing this redesign just because you don't want any changes to the original.
Because, that is exactly what you are doing.
You don't like the design (which is perfectly okay and your right). But stop painting everyone who does like it so far as an idiot who jumps at the next best 'kewl' thing that grabs his attention (well, the art of movie-making is actually attention-grabbing...)
PixelMagic, I've uploaded bigger versions of the side/front/top. Let me know if these work or not.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXINCC-1701Top50p.jpg
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXINCC-1701Side-Front50p.jpg
One of the things I've always found laughable about some Trek fans is how quickly they latch onto the idea of drastic refits for starships within a framework of only a few years.
How often has the U.S.S. Enterprise CVAN-65 been refit since her launch in the early '60s and how drastically has she changed in form. And by that I mean how obvious are the changes externally?
The mere idea that the thing seen in the Trek XI trailer is the TOS E's original form that is then changed drastically to "The Cage" era version only a few short years later and then refit again nearly twenty years later strikes me as rather implausible. The moderate changes from "The Cage" to WNMHGB to series is reasonable and then the drastic refit in TMP.
But the drastic differences seen in the Trek XI trailer to the Pike era version are laughable and have no apparent rationale. That is for those who insist the film is in the same continuity as TOS.
However, it makes perfect sense if it's a reboot because then the design is drastically different because...well just because they can.
How often has the U.S.S. Enterprise CVAN-65 been refit since her launch in the early '60s and how drastically has she changed in form. And by that I mean how obvious are the changes externally?
The mere idea that the thing seen in the Trek XI trailer is the TOS E's original form that is then changed drastically to "The Cage" era version only a few short years later and then refit again nearly twenty years later strikes me as rather implausible. The moderate changes from "The Cage" to WNMHGB to series is reasonable and then the drastic refit in TMP.
But the drastic differences seen in the Trek XI trailer to the Pike era version are laughable and have no apparent rationale. That is for those who insist the film is in the same continuity as TOS.
However, it makes perfect sense if it's a reboot because then the design is drastically different because...well just because they can.