ST XI Enterprise conjecture
- Thread starter judexavier
- Start date
Wow. That's an incredible amount of work and detail! I'm keeping silent on the whole design debate, but that's some amazing artistry just based on a few grainy pictures!
I suppose that it could be argued that, due to excessive stress on space frames and skins (based on the nature of space travel), these ships wear out a lot quicker than earth-bound (or sea-bound) vessels and thus require more refits and upgrades. This is not terribly cost-effective (particularly when there is no money to speak of), but it is possible.
^^ I don't find that at all credible.
Fact is Star Trek has been remade numerous times since TOS. And every new version has ignored aspects previously established. It was somewhat tolerable up into TNG and was still possible to somehow rationalize changes made. But since early TNG it's become more and more ridiculous while still insisting it's all one complete continuity.
Bullshit. It's long past to get heads on straight. There comes a point you can't ignore nonsensical changes anymore.
The fucking ship is different in Trek XI simply because it's not the same ship we knew in TOS. Call it alternate timeline or whatever but that's the bottom line. J.J. and company are starting from scratch.
No, I don't like what they've done to the design, but it doesn't matter a damn because it's not the same as the original.
If Berman and gang can screw the continuity in ENT then J.J. can screw it again in Trek XI.
Hell, even GR advised the TNG writers that they needn't be bound by what had already been established in TOS and the films if they so wished. And so they did when they felt like it. And they've been doing it ever since. But it's no problem because they're all doing new versions of Trek that are only incidently connected to the original.
And it's an easy thing to get your head around. Is Christopher Nolan's Batman the same as Tim Burtun's or Schumacher's? No, of course not. Is Daniel Craig's 007 of the same world as Connery's or Moore's or Brosnan's? No, of course not. Is the movie Lost In Space of the same continuity as the '60s TV series? No, of course not. Is the new BSG of the same continuity as the '70s series? No, of course not.
So why the hell does Trek XI have to be of the same universe as TOS when it so obviously isn't?
Only for those who like the taste of sand and don't mind being in a posture of submission.
Fact is Star Trek has been remade numerous times since TOS. And every new version has ignored aspects previously established. It was somewhat tolerable up into TNG and was still possible to somehow rationalize changes made. But since early TNG it's become more and more ridiculous while still insisting it's all one complete continuity.
Bullshit. It's long past to get heads on straight. There comes a point you can't ignore nonsensical changes anymore.
The fucking ship is different in Trek XI simply because it's not the same ship we knew in TOS. Call it alternate timeline or whatever but that's the bottom line. J.J. and company are starting from scratch.
No, I don't like what they've done to the design, but it doesn't matter a damn because it's not the same as the original.
If Berman and gang can screw the continuity in ENT then J.J. can screw it again in Trek XI.
Hell, even GR advised the TNG writers that they needn't be bound by what had already been established in TOS and the films if they so wished. And so they did when they felt like it. And they've been doing it ever since. But it's no problem because they're all doing new versions of Trek that are only incidently connected to the original.
And it's an easy thing to get your head around. Is Christopher Nolan's Batman the same as Tim Burtun's or Schumacher's? No, of course not. Is Daniel Craig's 007 of the same world as Connery's or Moore's or Brosnan's? No, of course not. Is the movie Lost In Space of the same continuity as the '60s TV series? No, of course not. Is the new BSG of the same continuity as the '70s series? No, of course not.
So why the hell does Trek XI have to be of the same universe as TOS when it so obviously isn't?
Only for those who like the taste of sand and don't mind being in a posture of submission.
Last edited:
Well, the command tower of CVN-65 has changed quite a bit.
And if we accept the TOS to TMP refit 15 years before the ships planned retirement (after 25 years of service)
we can also accept a refit as drastic before TOS. Which would give us a 10 to 15 year service live between refits.
And if we accept the TOS to TMP refit 15 years before the ships planned retirement (after 25 years of service)
we can also accept a refit as drastic before TOS. Which would give us a 10 to 15 year service live between refits.
Also, the internal technologies have been dramatically updated in the past 50 years.
^^ Yeah, over fifty years. Not over a mere five or so.
I recall seeing photos of the CVAN-65 after her island superstructure had been extensively altered. And I can see periodic equipment upgrades. But frequent drastic structural and physical changes aren't the same.
The extensive changes seen in TMP happening once in the lifetime of a ship only twenty years old I can buy, but having it happen more often in such a short time is nonsense.
I recall seeing photos of the CVAN-65 after her island superstructure had been extensively altered. And I can see periodic equipment upgrades. But frequent drastic structural and physical changes aren't the same.
The extensive changes seen in TMP happening once in the lifetime of a ship only twenty years old I can buy, but having it happen more often in such a short time is nonsense.
Last edited:
I think I'll quote this again before it gets lost in all of the rhetoric.
Thanks for posting this excellent work in a more appreciable size, judexavier. I look forward to seeing what PixelMagic does with it.
You do realized you're trying to apply recent technological trends on a fictional space vessel 300 years in the future.
Apples and oranges.
Good SF roots itself in the credibility factor. It makes an effort to make the fantastic seem believable. One of the wonderful aspects of TOS was its sense of credibility. Yes, it was fictional, but they made an effort to make it seem believable. But since then Trek has become evermore difficult to suspend disbelief.
If I have to throw away that sense of credibility than it's bad storytelling on their part.
But as I've said before a reboot doesn't have that problem because you can do whatever you want and not have to rationalize it.
If I have to throw away that sense of credibility than it's bad storytelling on their part.
But as I've said before a reboot doesn't have that problem because you can do whatever you want and not have to rationalize it.
What did you use to create this? Textures from web? Vector (pen tool)? Blueprints? Or just hand painted?
Glad someone's paying attention...
That Trek XI is a franchise reboot is in little doubt, but trying to justify the "refit-fest" is just enjoyable to me.
As mentioned above, 23rd century fabrication tech is anyone's guess (guys with stick-welders not withstanding), so drastic physical alterations to optimize frontline ship performance ("Hey, look captain, this memo from starfleet says our nacelles are crap") might not represent the hardship of gutting ol' CVAN-65 in drydock every few years with present day methods. Different primary contractors, shipyards and suppliers across a multi-race federation (with a mandatory, baseline tech-spec to ensure it all meshes together) pumping out a "rainbow" of ship variants could well be the norm.
Granted, drastic, frequent refits don't seem likely in 2008, but how much trek-tech does? I enjoy dreaming up far-fetched rationals for trying to keep continuity in the most discontinuous amalgam of stories and ideas there is. To quote Kirk's final words - "It was fun".
As mentioned above, 23rd century fabrication tech is anyone's guess (guys with stick-welders not withstanding), so drastic physical alterations to optimize frontline ship performance ("Hey, look captain, this memo from starfleet says our nacelles are crap") might not represent the hardship of gutting ol' CVAN-65 in drydock every few years with present day methods. Different primary contractors, shipyards and suppliers across a multi-race federation (with a mandatory, baseline tech-spec to ensure it all meshes together) pumping out a "rainbow" of ship variants could well be the norm.
Granted, drastic, frequent refits don't seem likely in 2008, but how much trek-tech does? I enjoy dreaming up far-fetched rationals for trying to keep continuity in the most discontinuous amalgam of stories and ideas there is. To quote Kirk's final words - "It was fun".
Last edited:
Squiggyfm said:
Ha. That's the best argument that can be made for this pointless debate.
I really don't know how you can say that with a straight face. They are "starting from scratch"? Have we seen the same teaser? Granted, the ship from the teaser isn't exactly a carbon-copy of the TOS Enterprise. But they are VERY similar. People WILL recognize it as the same ship. Saying they started from scratch with the ship design is bullshit.
Ya know, I haven't actually said this... because I didn't think it NEEDED to be said... but the efforts of the OP are actually fairly impressive. For the record, judexavier, I think you've done a great job of what you set out to do (as you explained it).
That doesn't mean I like the changes to the design, but last time I checked, you're not the guy who did it for the film. So any criticism of the design is not targetted at you.
You haven't reacted badly to the conversation, anyway, so it's 99% clear that you "get that" already. I just thought it would be a good idea to try to chill out the attempts at starting flamewars in here by pointing that out in an unambiguous fashion.
For the record, as well... I've said it several times... there are ways that this version could appear in the movie and actually make a certain degree of sense (alternative timelines, etc). I don't think it's a HORRIFIC DESIGN. It's just a CHANGE... and change is only a good thing when you're going from something not so good to something better. Sometime change is change for the worse, after all.
That's my point in this discussion. There are people in the world who think that change... ANY CHANGE... is always good. There are other people in the world who go by the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm one of those. My argument is with the proposition that there's something inherently "broke" about the original 1701 design, which NECESSITATES CHANGE. I really, REALLY don't see that as being the case, nor do many many other people.
I'm not opposed to doing new things... I don't want to see the same thing over and over. But I do not want to order my steak at dinner and have them bring me a "Vegan-burger" instead, and try to tell me it's the same thing! I may actually LIKE that sort of thing sometimes... but I know the difference, and I hate the "bait and switch" game that would entail.
The 1701 is top sirloin. I'm not sure what this new thing is... it may be prime rib.. it may be shoeleather. But it's not sirloin, that's for sure. Yet it SEEMS that it's being served to us on the menu as "sirloin."
That doesn't mean I like the changes to the design, but last time I checked, you're not the guy who did it for the film. So any criticism of the design is not targetted at you.
You haven't reacted badly to the conversation, anyway, so it's 99% clear that you "get that" already. I just thought it would be a good idea to try to chill out the attempts at starting flamewars in here by pointing that out in an unambiguous fashion.
For the record, as well... I've said it several times... there are ways that this version could appear in the movie and actually make a certain degree of sense (alternative timelines, etc). I don't think it's a HORRIFIC DESIGN. It's just a CHANGE... and change is only a good thing when you're going from something not so good to something better. Sometime change is change for the worse, after all.
That's my point in this discussion. There are people in the world who think that change... ANY CHANGE... is always good. There are other people in the world who go by the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm one of those. My argument is with the proposition that there's something inherently "broke" about the original 1701 design, which NECESSITATES CHANGE. I really, REALLY don't see that as being the case, nor do many many other people.
I'm not opposed to doing new things... I don't want to see the same thing over and over. But I do not want to order my steak at dinner and have them bring me a "Vegan-burger" instead, and try to tell me it's the same thing! I may actually LIKE that sort of thing sometimes... but I know the difference, and I hate the "bait and switch" game that would entail.
The 1701 is top sirloin. I'm not sure what this new thing is... it may be prime rib.. it may be shoeleather. But it's not sirloin, that's for sure. Yet it SEEMS that it's being served to us on the menu as "sirloin."
The point it this. The Enterprise from TOS cannot be used and taken seriously in a 2009 film. It screams 1960s. I love the TOS Enterprise, but it would not look proper in a 2009 film. It IS outdated, whether or not the fan boys want to admit it. Some people are just blinded by their love of it, rather than looking at it objectively.
I think you can keep some of the same lines, but it definately needs more curves, and far more detail and texture to fix a modern audience's aesthetic expectations. If they used the TOS Enterprise, unchanged, most of the audience would laugh at how absurd it is that a design like that is supposed to be futuristic. Especially the interior control panels on the bridge. I work in a TV control room that looks more futuristic than the TOS Enterprise Bridge.
Some can accept change, and some cannot, but it IS needed to appeal to a wider audience, rather than the fanboys. If this movie can't capture anyone other than die hard fans, then Star Trek will be dead for a long time after, if not forever.
I think you can keep some of the same lines, but it definately needs more curves, and far more detail and texture to fix a modern audience's aesthetic expectations. If they used the TOS Enterprise, unchanged, most of the audience would laugh at how absurd it is that a design like that is supposed to be futuristic. Especially the interior control panels on the bridge. I work in a TV control room that looks more futuristic than the TOS Enterprise Bridge.
Some can accept change, and some cannot, but it IS needed to appeal to a wider audience, rather than the fanboys. If this movie can't capture anyone other than die hard fans, then Star Trek will be dead for a long time after, if not forever.
Tou did these in photoshop, judexavier? Freakin' a. Damned impressive work. Especially after seeing the high-res version, it really makes me appreciate the level of detail in these images. You've done a great job and accomplished your goal quite admirably IMO.
Oh-oh.
