Do you like the *NEW* NCC-1701? Simple Yes or No.

[Cky]

It is too 60's and outdated, and now it looks like it will appeal to the younger generation.

And on that picture above, I think that image is trying TOO hard to be the 1701.

 

[CoveTom]

Did the only two choices have to be "yes" or "no?" I think I'd go with an "I'm indifferent" choice.

I don't love it, like I do the TMP refit design, for example. Nor do I hate it, as I do the NX-01. It's just... okay. I'd prefer they had not made some of the changes, particularly the warp nacelles. But I don't totally hate the design either. In fact, I'd say it's more faithful to the original than the NX-01 was.

So a solid "meh" from me.

 

[Captain Robert April]

God, no. The way the engineering hull is moved forward will never, ever feel right to me.
And don't get me started on the Apple Store bridge.

To quote ex-astris-scientia.org:

While I think the idea to redesign the ship was wrong in the first place, the obvious good craftsmanship in the CGI creation of the new Enterprise NCC-1701 will allow scenes with stunning realism. But the same could have been achieved with a ship design closely resembling the original Enterprise. It would have even been a much more interesting challenge to get its look right. There are some fan-made examples of slightly refined TOS Enterprises, of which I like Vektor's subtle approach best. This one would have been perfect for the movie.

There is a reason they didn't want to copy the original design - it's too 60's They needed to update the design.

And that reason is a load of crap.

The only thing about the design that says "1960's" is your knowledge that it was designed in the '60s! There is nothing inherently "60s" about the design, it's as utilitarian as it comes.

The only one that actually looks like a typical '60s design is JJ Abrams' Uglyprise.

Kinda defeats the purpose, doncha think?

 

[JoeZhang]

There is nothing inherently "60s" about the design, it's as utilitarian as it comes.

Don't use words you don't (clearly) understand - it makes you look silly - the word you are groping for is "functional" and even that is completely bogus when we consider the fictional nature of the enterprise.

 

[ST-One]

And that reason is a load of crap.

The only thing about the design that says "1960's" is your knowledge that it was designed in the '60s! There is nothing inherently "60s" about the design, it's as utilitarian as it comes.

She would never be designed the way she was in the 60s today.
She has written 1960s all over her.

 

[StarTrek1701]

And that reason is a load of crap.

Because you say so?

The only thing about the design that says "1960's" is your knowledge that it was designed in the '60s! There is nothing inherently "60s" about the design, it's as utilitarian as it comes.

It would still look like an old designed ship to me if it was designed the exact same way today. Face it, the only reason you are defending the old design if because you are too emotionally involved with it.

The only one that actually looks like a typical '60s design is JJ Abrams' Uglyprise.

I disagree. JJPrise looks marvelous compared to the old 'Prise.

 

[ST-One]

And that reason is a load of crap.

Because you say so?

The only thing about the design that says "1960's" is your knowledge that it was designed in the '60s! There is nothing inherently "60s" about the design, it's as utilitarian as it comes.

It would still look like an old designed ship to me if it was designed the exact same way today. Face it, the only reason you are defending the old design if because you are too emotionally involved with it.

The only one that actually looks like a typical '60s design is JJ Abrams' Uglyprise.

I disagree. JJPrise looks marvelous compared to the old 'Prise.

Yeah, but as your avatar indicates, you hate TOS and everyone who was involved with it...

 

[StarTrek1701]

Yeah, but as your avatar indicates, you hate TOS and everyone who was involved with it...

Just cheering the new movie out. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Eagle]

I think the JJ-prise's viewscreen is very similar to a Sovereign class ( Insurrection onwards ) viewscreen - from what I can make of it after watching/pausing the new trailer anyway. As for the TOS Enterprise looking "1960's" I will have to agree and it's a classic design of those times but it's time for an update. I'm happy with the new design but I didn't expect to see some aspects of the re-fit included - not that I'm complaining about that in anyway.

 

[Supernova]

As for the TOS Enterprise looking "1960's" I will have to agree and it's a classic design of those times but it's time for an update. I'm happy with the new design but I didn't expect to see some aspects of the re-fit included - not that I'm complaining about that in anyway.

I'm with you all the way. This design is a heck of a lot better than we Trekkies could've been saddled with. I think this new Enterprise's reception is similar to that of the Batmobile. I'm not a big fan of comic books or Batman, but I have friends who are. They hated that new "tank" when the pics started doing the 'rounds, but then adored the thing in the movies. I think the same applies here. I personally think the new E looks great. -Dan

 

[SG-17]

Yes I like the redesigned Enterprise. It looks sleeker and more modern (despite it being set before TOS :P) than the original Enterprise.
I think the new design was meant to catch the eye of the casual watcher along with impress the hardcore fans.

 

[cooleddie74]

God, no. The way the engineering hull is moved forward will never, ever feel right to me.
And don't get me started on the Apple Store bridge.

To quote ex-astris-scientia.org:

While I think the idea to redesign the ship was wrong in the first place, the obvious good craftsmanship in the CGI creation of the new Enterprise NCC-1701 will allow scenes with stunning realism. But the same could have been achieved with a ship design closely resembling the original Enterprise. It would have even been a much more interesting challenge to get its look right. There are some fan-made examples of slightly refined TOS Enterprises, of which I like Vektor's subtle approach best. This one would have been perfect for the movie.

There is a reason they didn't want to copy the original design - it's too 60's They needed to update the design.

The 2006-2008 Remastering version upgraded the appearance and added needed surface detailing and dynamics to make it look more three-dimensional and "real." It's not the age of the design. Its what you do with it.

 

[ST-One]

The 2006-2008 Remastering version upgraded the appearance and added needed surface detailing and dynamics to make it look more three-dimensional and "real." It's not the age of the design. Its what you do with it.

No. It's the age. All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

By now we have all seen the Big E. The question remains though, do you like it? No reason needs to be given for your choice, but you are more than welcome to do so. Just an unscientific poll to see if the majority likes it or not.

A simple yes...

 

[gastrof]

...All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

Please tell me how the new design shows it was created in the early 21st century (and at no other time), and how the original, despite having been made to depict the future, apparently "screams" that it was created in the 60's.

Please...

Explain this to me.

Aspect by aspect, piece by piece, explain this to me.

 

[ST-One]

Please tell me how the new design shows it was created in the early 21st century (and at no other time),

Sleeker, yet rounder lines with some hard edges
detailed, yet not cluttered

and how the original, despite having been made to depict the future, apparently "screams" that it was created in the 60's.

Because it was designed to depict a futuristic (from a 1960s aesthetic perspective) vessel, it is a futuristic vessel?

 

[cooleddie74]

The 2006-2008 Remastering version upgraded the appearance and added needed surface detailing and dynamics to make it look more three-dimensional and "real." It's not the age of the design. Its what you do with it.

No. It's the age. All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

And if Lucas suddenly decided to change how the Death Star or Millennium Falcon looked in an all-new CGI edit of A NEW HOPE? Would you be so willing to embrace such pop culture changes then?

 

[ST-One]

The 2006-2008 Remastering version upgraded the appearance and added needed surface detailing and dynamics to make it look more three-dimensional and "real." It's not the age of the design. Its what you do with it.

No. It's the age. All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

And if Lucas suddenly decided to change how the Death Star or Millennium Falcon looked in an all-new CGI edit of A NEW HOPE? Would you be so willing to embrace such pop culture changes then?

It's his film, and he can do whatever he wants to do with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The 2006-2008 Remastering version upgraded the appearance and added needed surface detailing and dynamics to make it look more three-dimensional and "real." It's not the age of the design. Its what you do with it.

No. It's the age. All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

And if Lucas suddenly decided to change how the Death Star or Millennium Falcon looked in an all-new CGI edit of A NEW HOPE? Would you be so willing to embrace such pop culture changes then?

I wouldn't care. I saw "Star Wars" in 1977.

 

[cooleddie74]

No. It's the age. All the details and cosmetic changes aren't hiding the fact that this ship (as it is) was designed in the 60s.

And if Lucas suddenly decided to change how the Death Star or Millennium Falcon looked in an all-new CGI edit of A NEW HOPE? Would you be so willing to embrace such pop culture changes then?

It's his film, and he can do whatever he wants to do with it.

Doesn't mean the fanbase has to LIKE or ACCEPT it. That was my point.

Of course the TREK property belongs to CBS/Paramount and is in the hands of Abrams. But that doesn't mean we have to find excuses to swallow and like all the changes...some of which were obviously done to pander to a short-attention span 2008 audience easily impressed by CGI monsters and big snazzy explosions.