View of USS Newton and USS Defiant

[canuck87]

So first post,so if anythings wrong,a quick swift kick to the shins please.

watching a promo for the dvd,i came across a beauty of a shot with a front and side view of both the Newton and the Defiant.
Not to sure if this has been posted,and if so,my mistake and please delete thread. but this is the video and the shot is at the 1.45 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYZBwTNXNXM

And the defiant looks amazingly mirnada like with a registry of 1784?

 

[Timo]

Hmm... Did we ever see a ship that would have looked like the Defiant? Or did TPTB take a look at those drawings, say "Naah, not distinct-looking enough" and go for the three-nacelled ship that seemingly combines Defiant and Kelvin features?

Also, I think the number is actually NCC-1764, not NCC-1784, to jibe with that old Greg Jein number that got canonized as the registry of the Constitution class Defiant in ENT "In a Mirror, Darkly"... Apparently, in the Abramsverse, different classes were built, but the names and numbers stayed...

The Newton looks like the real deal, though. Too bad there isn't an aft view, with all the intriguing detail that we could compare with the final onscreen product...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[cooleddie74]

Perhaps in the altered timeline(or even in the Prime one as well)this is what Miranda-class starships looked like before the fleetwide styling refits of the 2270s and 2280s?

 

[urbandk]

The black Defiant is striking.

and it's great that they aren't all Constitutions.

 

[Brandonv]

Thanks for posting that video, it was nice seeing some of the behind the scenes stuff.

Do I really have wait until November?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And the defiant looks amazingly mirnada like with a registry of 1784?

There is a ship called the Defiant, with the same registry (NCC-1764), in both the prime timeline and the Abramsverse. The ship itself is not the same, though. The TOS Defiant was Constitution class, same as the Enterprise. In the Abramsverse, the Defiant is Miranda class.

 

[Cyke101]

Oh, that's definitely neat. And yeah, I wish some of these designs made it to the TOS onscreen canon!

I wonder... the original design of the Miranda was that it was supposed to be upside down from the version we got; the powers that be simply signed off on the design not knowing which side was up! If the Miranda was properly signed off, would the Abramsverse Defiant be upside down as well? It's fun to think up these things, really

 

[Timo]

...this is what Miranda-class starships looked like before the fleetwide styling refits of the 2270s

Since all those background ships look so much like the 2230-vintage Kelvin, I'd say the Defiant here might be what the Mirandas looked before their late 2250s refit instead. In that refit, they came to look much like Kirk's TOS ship; then they were further refitted to look like Kirk's TMP ship...

...Which stretches credibility a bit, IMHO. The design would be something like 150 years old in DS9, then! And some individual ships (Lantree, with its four-digit rego) would probably be 140 years old in TNG.

It's a bit silly that both of these background ships have registries that are higher than the one assigned to the ultramodern, brand new Enterprise. I hope that the ships we actually saw in the movie were not given these registries, but rather something in the 1000 through 1300 range. Or perhaps even lower. Is there any shot in the movie where a registry could be discerned? Or are the pennants of the ships always out of focus or aimed away from the camera?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[cooleddie74]

...this is what Miranda-class starships looked like before the fleetwide styling refits of the 2270s

Since all those background ships look so much like the 2230-vintage Kelvin, I'd say the Defiant here might be what the Mirandas looked before their late 2250s refit instead. In that refit, they came to look much like Kirk's TOS ship; then they were further refitted to look like Kirk's TMP ship...

...Which stretches credibility a bit, IMHO. The design would be something like 150 years old in DS9, then! And some individual ships (Lantree, with its four-digit rego) would probably be 140 years old in TNG.

It's a bit silly that both of these background ships have registries that are higher than the one assigned to the ultramodern, brand new Enterprise. I hope that the ships we actually saw in the movie were not given these registries, but rather something in the 1000 through 1300 range. Or perhaps even lower. Is there any shot in the movie where a registry could be discerned? Or are the pennants of the ships always out of focus or aimed away from the camera?

Timo Saloniemi

True. I suppose in the altered timeline, Starfleet initiated its TMP-style refits and upgrades to the look of the fleet earlier than it did in the Prime history. The Enterprise herself looks like the classic TOS and movie ships were meshed together in many respects, so for all we know the period 2255-58 was when this timeline experienced the upgrades and technological innovations the original, classic history didn't experience until just prior to the V'Ger crisis.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

On that same note, I totally hope that none of the 23rd century ships get reused as "background starships" in the 24th century. Lantree, Saratoga, Brattain, Hood, these should all be NEW ships less than fifty years old) by the time of Abrams-TNG-era. With the age of CG starships and all, this shouldn't be hard to accomplish. No need to reuse old models when you can just refit them using newer parts and call it a new class.

 

[Nick Ryder]

I dunno about that man, if the ship is well maintained, upgraded periodically and didn't blow up... no reason a starship can't last a couple hundred years easy. Look at homes, you can have a house built 150 years ago and it can look as good and be as modern as a home built last week, yet still "look" old.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I dunno about that man, if the ship is well maintained, upgraded periodically and didn't blow up... no reason a starship can't last a couple hundred years easy. Look at homes, you can have a house built 150 years ago and it can look as good and be as modern as a home built last week, yet still "look" old.

Homes, yes. Other things, not so much. Cars, planes, trains, trucks, boats, things that have to MOVE from place to place, these seldom last more than a few decades and even then only with really intense maintenance and upkeep. Homes can last for a couple of hundred years, sure, but only because they don't have to do anything but sit there and passively deal with the elements day after day.

Take an example from modern space craft. The Russians have been using variants of the Soyuz class for decades, and now it's time for a replacement. It's basically the same design, but slightly upgraded to the point where now there are fifty different versions that all look slightly different (not even counting the Chinese knockoff version that is supposed to be pretty high tech). Even the Mir--which lasted nearly two decades--was just a hodgepodge of older space craft modules cobbled together. So, yeah, the same DESIGN can stay in service for a couple of years, but not the same SHIP. And those designs should be replaced or noticeably upgraded when something better comes along.

That's one of the reasons I like the NuEnterprise being around 760 meters long. If you give it different nacelles and tinker with the nacelle pylons a bit, you could easily make this ship an immediate precursor to the Ambassador class, and they wouldn't even look THAT different. Same again fro the Mirandas and Nebulas, but only IF the Mirandas are built to a vastly larger scale than we're used to thinking. Modular starship designs that can literally mix and match different ship components in a real-world kitbashing scheme... that makes sense to me, so you can really take an existing saucer and give it new nacelles. Then change the outer casing of the saucer and a few internal modules. Then change the impulse engines. Then change secondary hull. And one thing at a time, etc etc. It could be the same basic design, but it should LOOK considerably different from the version a hundred years ago.

And that is what I look forward too in a TNG-Abramsverse.

 

[JuanBolio]

^ I don't think Abrams is the type to put that much thought into starship design lineage. He seems to be more the type to go with what looks "kewl".

 

[Devon]

^ I don't think Abrams is the type to put that much thought into starship design lineage.

Nor should he have to as he isn't the designer. Abrams is there to see things how the general audience would see them. The percentage of people who honestly care about the things that we do regarding starship designs (and even then, I'm sure it's just a certain percentage of us here) is so small that all the designers need to do is make something that has basic function and most importantly looks good.

I mean, how many people say "Wow, the Enterprise is a graceful lady" vs. "Wow, the Enterprise is a very functional lady?"

The extra stuff about functionality and having two nacelles line up and blah blah blah is there for a niche market mainly (which I sort of include myself in.)

 

[JuanBolio]

^ I don't think Abrams is the type to put that much thought into starship design lineage.

Nor should he have to as he isn't the designer. Abrams is there to see things how the general audience would see them. The percentage of people who honestly care about the things that we do regarding starship designs (and even then, I'm sure it's just a certain percentage of us here) is so small that all the designers need to do is make something that has basic function and most importantly looks good.

I mean, how many people say "Wow, the Enterprise is a graceful lady" vs. "Wow, the Enterprise is a very functional lady?"

The extra stuff about functionality and having two nacelles line up and blah blah blah is there for a niche market mainly (which I sort of include myself in.)

That was the great thing about the original - you could say both.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I don't think Abrams is the type to put that much thought into starship design lineage.

Nor should he have to as he isn't the designer. Abrams is there to see things how the general audience would see them. The percentage of people who honestly care about the things that we do regarding starship designs (and even then, I'm sure it's just a certain percentage of us here) is so small that all the designers need to do is make something that has basic function and most importantly looks good.

I mean, how many people say "Wow, the Enterprise is a graceful lady" vs. "Wow, the Enterprise is a very functional lady?"

The extra stuff about functionality and having two nacelles line up and blah blah blah is there for a niche market mainly (which I sort of include myself in.)

That was the great thing about the original - you could say both.

Fortunately, the same can still be said for the new one.

 

[Mysterion]

So first post,so if anythings wrong,a quick swift kick to the shins please.

watching a promo for the dvd,i came across a beauty of a shot with a front and side view of both the Newton and the Defiant.
Not to sure if this has been posted,and if so,my mistake and please delete thread. but this is the video and the shot is at the 1.45 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYZBwTNXNXM

And the defiant looks amazingly mirnada like with a registry of 1784?

Am hoping we get to see this chart in the "Art of The film" book that is coming out in November.

 

[Captain Fine]

I really like that black Defiant. I wonder what a black Federation ship would look like on-screen?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Heh... I once heard this was the main reason why Starfleet ships were never given cloaking devices in the show. Some smartass apparently asked "How do you do an establishing shot for a cloaked starship?"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^ I don't think Abrams is the type to put that much thought into starship design lineage.

Nor should he have to as he isn't the designer. Abrams is there to see things how the general audience would see them. The percentage of people who honestly care about the things that we do regarding starship designs (and even then, I'm sure it's just a certain percentage of us here) is so small that all the designers need to do is make something that has basic function and most importantly looks good.

Bingo!