Trek 11's ship IS the Enterprise

[number6]

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

No, it's just cool, which is a compelling reason.

That's why most people come up with interesting designs.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

No, it's just cool, which is a compelling reason.

Of course it is. The new nacelles on the Star Trek Phase II ship were only there for the kewl factor, after all.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

No, it's just cool, which is a compelling reason.

Of course it is. The new nacelles on the Star Trek Phase II ship were only there for the kewl factor, after all.

I have to admit that I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that some people might look at movie listings and think to themselves "hmmm... now which one of these films looks the most technically reasonable?".

 

[Cary L. Brown]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Yup.

And Cary knows exactly what he's doing when he uses it. He's definitely not fooling anyone, no matter how many paragraphs he uses to "explain" himself.

That's bullshit and you know it.

I've said what I meant, and nothing you and the clique-boys try to say will alter that.

If you, personally, are unable to grasp the difference between criticism of the design and criticism of yourself, you might want to consider therapy.

If you think you have psychic powers that let you know what someone "really means" (even when they're saying something entirely different) than you DEFINITELY want to consider therapy.

Of course, it's more likely that what you're doing is trying to convince people who aren't really watching... they might remember your "synopsis" rather than what really happened.

I criticised the design, and the thought-process of the people behind the design. And, yet again, you and your gang are turning it into an attack on me. And, if past history is any indication, I expect this to be let go without challenge, while if I defend myself, I'm sure you can get one of your pet moderators to warn me over it.

I was talking about the design, and the filmmakers. I didn't make this into a personal attack on another boardmember. You guys did that.

And it's, not surprisingly, the "usual suspects" who are doing so.

 

[QuasarVM]

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

So while a few of the people here think that minutae like this will sink this film, most people won't care.

No, it's MY decision as it's MY perception. My perception and my reality is it's ugly.

I'll still see the film though. One has nothing to do with the other.

You might be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of person but I'm not.

I am sure this film will have things I love and things I hate...like this new ship. But...I am still cautiously optimistic about the film overall.

As for all the dweebs who can't tell the difference between ships....

All I can say is that wouldn't surprise me given the attention spans of a lot of people these days...;-)

First of all..categorizing me as a "throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of person" is simply unfair. I am pointing out that most people don't care about this minutae as a matter of relevant fact, nothing more.

I would have loved to have seen the 1965 version of the mighty E on the big screen just as much as you. I would have loved to see that original Cage bridge too. It's not going to happen. Now I could go see the film and judge it on its own merits or I can stamp my feet and cry like a three year old until I get my way. Abrams and Co. have finished their film. It's done. They're not going to go back and change it because YOU don't like the ship. Sorry. Not. Going. To. Happen.

My feeling is that I may as well see this film and judge it as its own thing. That's MY decision. It's not up to you or anyone else here to decide for me.

Second of all...The percentage of people who are going to care about all this whining and posturing is pretty small in the relative scheme of things. Sure when Spiderman came out there were some comic book guys who were upset about what was changd from the original comic. That film was successful enough with the general public to make two sequels with another being considered. There are those who felt the same about Batman and Bond, too. Ultimately it didn't matter. Those movies attracted a new generation of fans, too. That's what this film is about.

Third of all... If this film really tanks, it won't be because of the design of the ship.

These are realities. And the shrill voice of a few vocal purists isn't going to change that.

As I've said before...and I think Dennis gets where I'm coming from...

I just don't care for it.

I don't expect...and am not so naieve to think anyone from the pre-production team is going to say "Oh NO!! Quasar doesn't like our design! We'd better push back our release date and go back to ILM and redo the effects! Oh! And somebody call Playmates and tell them they are going to have trash all those toy Enterprises, cos a new Quasar-approved design is forthcoming!!!".

Please.

You know that's not where I'm coming from.

I just don't like it. Others don't like it.

What else is there to say?

If you like it -- cool...I hope it rocks your world in every way imaginable.

It just doesn't do it for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As I've said before...and I think Dennis gets where I'm coming from...

Strangely enough, we're more or less on the same page.

 

[number6]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Yup.

And Cary knows exactly what he's doing when he uses it. He's definitely not fooling anyone, no matter how many paragraphs he uses to "explain" himself.

That's bullshit and you know it.

I've said what I meant, and nothing you and the clique-boys try to say will alter that.

If you, personally, are unable to grasp the difference between criticism of the design and criticism of yourself, you might want to consider therapy.

If you think you have psychic powers that let you know what someone "really means" (even when they're saying something entirely different) than you DEFINITELY want to consider therapy.

Of course, it's more likely that what you're doing is trying to convince people who aren't really watching... they might remember your "synopsis" rather than what really happened.

I criticised the design, and the thought-process of the people behind the design. And, yet again, you and your gang are turning it into an attack on me. And, if past history is any indication, I expect this to be let go without challenge, while if I defend myself, I'm sure you can get one of your pet moderators to warn me over it.

I was talking about the design, and the filmmakers. I didn't make this into a personal attack on another boardmember. You guys did that.

And it's, not surprisingly, the "usual suspects" who are doing so.

Translation: "My opinion is very very important and if you have a problem with that, you need therapy...and everyone is attacking me because I'm so much smarter."
Basically every post seems to come down to this. Now I said "seems to." That doesn't mean I am attacking any one particular person. If people want to take it that way, it's their problem and they should seek professional help.

Are we kewl?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Translation: "My opinion is very very important and if you have a problem with that, you need therapy...and everyone is attacking me because I'm so much smarter."

Oddly, though, since I never said anything remotely like that, I guess this is another example of you believing in your personal psychic powers?

Basically every post seems to come down to this. Now I said "seems to." That doesn't mean I am attacking any one particular person. If people want to take it that way, it's their problem and they should seek professional help.

Are we kewl?

Why, exactly, is it that you and a few others always take this tact? Turning a discussion of something about the movie into a series of (very thinly veiled) personal attacks on those who you disagree with or just plain don't like?

You wanna talk about the fucking ship design, or about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed in your playpen? Naturally, never saying who "those people" are?

 

[Rii]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

I don't find "kewl" derogatory, but then I'm a very kewl person.

 

[number6]

Translation: "My opinion is very very important and if you have a problem with that, you need therapy...and everyone is attacking me because I'm so much smarter."

Oddly, though, since I never said anything remotely like that, I guess this is another example of you believing in your personal psychic powers?

Basically every post seems to come down to this. Now I said "seems to." That doesn't mean I am attacking any one particular person. If people want to take it that way, it's their problem and they should seek professional help.

Are we kewl?

Why, exactly, is it that you and a few others always take this tact? Turning a discussion of something about the movie into a series of (very thinly veiled) personal attacks on those who you disagree with or just plain don't like?

You wanna talk about the fucking ship design, or about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed in your playpen? Naturally, never saying who "those people" are?

Was that not you who employed the term "clique-boys" when discussing the design of the ship??

We can discuss the design of the ship or anything else you want. Your posts come off as consescending. People are calling you on it. Telling me that I need therapy and implying that I have a playpen is certainly not conducive towards productive debate. Nor is your obviously derogatory use of the word "kewl," which you have admitted yourself you are using as an insult to people who disagree with your opinion.

Move out of your glass house. There are definitely cracks at your feet.

 

[Tom Servo]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Yup.

And Cary knows exactly what he's doing when he uses it. He's definitely not fooling anyone, no matter how many paragraphs he uses to "explain" himself.

That's bullshit and you know it.

I've said what I meant, and nothing you and the clique-boys try to say will alter that.

If you, personally, are unable to grasp the difference between criticism of the design and criticism of yourself, you might want to consider therapy.

If you think you have psychic powers that let you know what someone "really means" (even when they're saying something entirely different) than you DEFINITELY want to consider therapy.

Of course, it's more likely that what you're doing is trying to convince people who aren't really watching... they might remember your "synopsis" rather than what really happened.

I criticised the design, and the thought-process of the people behind the design. And, yet again, you and your gang are turning it into an attack on me. And, if past history is any indication, I expect this to be let go without challenge, while if I defend myself, I'm sure you can get one of your pet moderators to warn me over it.

I was talking about the design, and the filmmakers. I didn't make this into a personal attack on another boardmember. You guys did that.

And it's, not surprisingly, the "usual suspects" who are doing so.

I should say I do not view the "kewl" use as an attack on other board members, it's just when used in the context that you use it, it just seems like it's intended as a sarcastic comment to those who think the new ship actually is cool, or hot, or whatever.

I must ask however, if the curved pylons on this ship are so bad to you, do you feel the same way about the Enterprise D and her nacelle pylons?

 

[shapeshifter]

I am no engineer, hell I don't even understand how the straight struts of the original 1701 attached to the Engineering Hull, I assume it was a "V".

But perhaps it would help to envision how the struts may exist below the skin of the EH in this version compared to the Orignal:

_._. _____
_V___/


Now the new ship, I am imagining the visible struts continuing deep into the ship in a continuous arc. You know, like those bracelets that are round and flat but have an opening. Example IMG So it ends up more like this, with a U instead of a V

_._. _____
_U___X_

In this comparison we also see how sliding the dorsal back allows for a stronger connection to be made between the saucer and the EH. Instead of a '/' connection an 'X' connection is made possible.

Does knowing this make it less ugly, probably not but trying to understand why it looks the way it does helps me better appreciate it.

 

[number6]

I must ask however, if the curved pylons on this ship are so bad to you, do you feel the same way about the Enterprise D and her nacelle pylons?

FWIW, I never liked the D myself. I think it looks like a Ford Taurus wagon.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I must ask however, if the curved pylons on this ship are so bad to you, do you feel the same way about the Enterprise D and her nacelle pylons?

Actually, I do. The engine attachments on the 1701-D are the worst we've ever seen in Trek, as far as I'm concerned. Fragile, flimsy things. I've never been a big fan of the 1701-D in general. And this is one of a couple of things that I've been critical of Andrew's work over in conversations he and I have had in the past. I don't care for the use of strange shapes throughout the ship, and we had a fairly lengthy exchange a couple of years ago (not on this BBS) over the "fan-type" doors for cargo areas on the ship as well.

That said... the 1701-D was supposed to be "so much more advanced as to almost be magic," and I'm sure that was part of the rationale behind the odd shapes used throughout.

This is why I really like the 1701-E better than the 1701-D. It seems to be a mechanically-practical design. Granted, there are elements (the color scheme, the odd "tiering" on the underside of the primary hull, etc) which I don't care for, but overall, I think it's a tremendous improvement over the 1701-D.

And yes, the 1701-E's pylons are excellent from a mechanical standpoint... though I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or were just trying to capture elements of the TMP Enterprise (which also had pretty good pylons, though not as good as the 1701-E's are).

 

[Longinus]

I must ask however, if the curved pylons on this ship are so bad to you, do you feel the same way about the Enterprise D and her nacelle pylons?

Galaxy-class pylons have one rather sharp curve, instead the whole pylon being slightly curved, so it does not give the same impression. However, my main problem with the Galaxy was always that it had a bit too rounded shapes for my liking, which made it look "soft". It may be just my imagination, but it seems to me that when they changed the filming model they slightly sharpened some angles (including the pylon curve) resulting a crispier, more powerful appearance.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I am no engineer, hell I don't even understand how the straight struts of the original 1701 attached to the Engineering Hull, I assume it was a "V".

But perhaps it would help to envision how the struts may exist below the skin of the EH in this version compared to the Orignal...

Really, the struts on the TOS ship just stick into the hull and go nowhere, just forward of the hangar deck (and depending on who's doing the reconstruction of the design and how it's scaled, some artists find the struts going right into the hangar bay ).

The way in which the hulls connect on the TOS ship has everything to do with looks and virtually nothing to do with functionality - everything just dangles precariously on the end of everything else, resembling the act of one of those plate-jugglers that Ed Sullivan used to book.

Church's design functionally improves the connection between the saucer and the engineering hull, but makes the connection between the engineering hull and the nacelles look even more unbalanced than TOS. So it's kind of a wash.

 

[Guartho]

You wanna talk about the fucking ship design, or about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed in your playpen? Naturally, never saying who "those people" are?

If the ship in your avatar is any indication I'm afraid that I must, by the power vested in me as a user of the internet, revoke your privilege of having an opinion on what constitutes good starship design.

 

[number6]

You wanna talk about the fucking ship design, or about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed in your playpen? Naturally, never saying who "those people" are?

If the ship in your avatar is any indication I'm afraid that I must, by the power vested in me as a user of the internet, revoke your privilege of having an opinion on what constitutes good starship design.

Yes. I lolled.
It's funny because it's true.

 

[M'Sharak]

Closing, while I read through the last several pages of crapfest into which this thread has devolved, thanks to (mostly) the Usual Suspects.

Kewl, guys.

It may reopen, or it may not.