USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

The second one is from the ENT series finale

Hence why it says 1701

 

It’s an impossible test. Even non-Trek fans recognise it, and it’s the progenitor of Treks design lineage. You’d have to find a tribe of graphic designers in the Amazon or something. I don’t like the TOS style either, I probably agree with more of your points in that area than disagree, but so much of this discussion is...daft? Wrong? Hoxton Cowboy nonsense?
Even this Deco stuff...The Orville is Deco, Passengers was Deco, Blade Runner 2049 drips with Deco....and TOS was Deco (on the enterprise as least. Look at the junction of the engineering hull and deflector, the shuttle bay.)
I can’t stand what you refer to as Atomic Age design. Have never liked it. It always seems childish to me, because that’s where it continued to exist for so long..reruns of the jetsons and lost in space. But I am not sure you see the forest for the trees, even if we are on that same page. The enterprise, particularly the post-second pilot version, is not quite in that style. (They drop the silly spires and exhausts on the nacelles.) It’s forms are different as a whole. Sure you can cut the saucer off and call it a UFO, or point at the ‘cigar tube’ shapes and do similar or decry Flash Gordoness. But...you can do that with modern stuff too. The Normandy is just the same Flas Gordon shit with some eighties jet fighter stuck on for example.
I don’t think you are looking at the points people are making, and I say that as someone who wholeheartedly agrees with your dislike of the TOS styling, but don’t think your grasp on design history is quite backing you up here.

 

I think you are in a chicken and egg scenario. Not least as I can point to other trends in 60s SF that are totally distinct. This is no more in the same design school as the Enterprise than Moyà (Farscape) is with whatever the heck that ship in SG1 was, despite being contemporaries. (Though the late nineties bioship trend is another discussion.)
Do you know the design history at work here? The way the enterprise was specifically aiming to not be part of the design trends at the time? It seems you have your labels set up, but I am not sure you are applying them to the right schools. (Retrofuturism is not what you describe.)

 

Once again my boredom takes control and I scribble out more thingys. Decided to do a quick sketch of the New/Old Enterprise and a take on the DSC uniform retooled for a season 2 pilot-esque appearance.
IMG_1267 by Jason Soto, on Flickr
IMG_1262 by Jason Soto, on Flickr

 

Thanks

 

The second one is from 'These Are the Voyages'

 

At the end of the day, I'm satisfied with Discovery's interpretation of the Enterprise/Connie, but I think if they left it untouched it would have been fine too.These are pics of the 11 footer before it received it's restoration inserted into the movies. I think it looks great. Picture credits goes to Nick Acosta.

 

It is definitely not.

 

I guess it could have been worse.

 

Meh. Saucer, nacelles, pylons, secondary tube-like hull, deflector dish...close enough for me (though not as aesthetically pleasing as either what DSC did use, or other variations I've seen around here and elsewhere). To the casual viewer...it's the Enterprise.

 

Your point being this....

Which is untrue since we have seen the TOS design in other series.

It's easy to understand why no one remembers (or wants to remember) that episode.

 

This is karma because I said that thing the other day about not being sure if people knew who Dennis was, isn't it? Yes, it is I, the person whose blog that is. I've been in the thread the whole time.

I should really update that post with a link to John Knoll's making-of talk where he goes into more detail and the post-release VFX breakdown showing details of the CG model compared to the original three footer (fun fact: that wasn't the finished R1 model in the trailer, which is probably part of the reason that exact shot wasn't in the movie. Something similar happened with the Falcon in the first TFA trailer, except that one made it through to the final cut, so there are just some subtle inconsistencies in that film).

Aw, you're a pal. In fact, the far-more-dedicated SW fan Stinson Lenz did eventually observe some very subtle changes in the X-Wing's shape for Rogue One (never minding extra detailing around the engines and such). He's also the one who noticed the Falcon was different in the barrel-roll shot that I mentioned above.

Bingo. I wrote that immediately after the first teaser was released (I hadn't noticed anyone else talking in detail about how they were using a faithful ANH destroyer instead of the ubiquitous ESB version, and I didn't want to be scooped). Plus, as I noted above, the model in the trailer wasn't finished.

Were there? I'm pretty sure the blast door was always closed when we saw the hangar, as in ANH.

Also, as is standard, there's some variation in the detailing for sections built for close-ups like the collision scenes that isn't present on the main model.

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that my biggest issues with the DSC are reducing the height of the ship and giving it the TMP nacelle pylons. Those straight pylons, while admittedly a bit ugly and simplistic, are what make the TOS ship the TOS ship. It's how you can tell it apart from the movie version even when it's shrunk down to a handful of pixels across. More than the satellite dish or the nacelle caps, I think that ‾‾|_/‾‾ arrangement is the TOS ship on a fundamental level. Like, I think this shot from ST09 looks more like the '60s design than the DSC version would from the same angle and distance, and I don't think anyone would argue that that version of the ship wasn't sufficiently redesigned for modern styles (I'd say giving the Enterprise the post-'80s-car look with no straight lines or corners is more faithful to the ideal of "technology so powerful it doesn't need a lot of visible crap on the outside to work" than DSC making the ship even pointier and giving it a neon body-kit).

 

True to the casual viewer anything that looks vaguely like this is the Enterprise

 

Still looks older than the TOS Enterprise and far more primitive.

I agree with Doug on this one.

I agree with @Serveaux on this one. The NX simply looks more primitive.

Thus far, the arguments have gone circular, with no willingness on either side to actually meet the other side in any sense of a middle ground. Seriously, need a Neutral Zone on this one.

 

Where on earth did that come from, anyway?

 

Gorgeous
They are all stunning but that tmp warp effect one is mesmerizing
That warp effect has never been equaled

 

Yeah, I completely agree. It changes the profile of the ship considerably.

 

Huh. Interesting site. I poked around a little and was intrigued to discover his post showing that there is absolutely no conceivable way the interior sets for the Millennium Falcon could fit inside the dimensions of the exterior prop. (The Correllian shipyards must've borrowed some tech from the folks who built the TOS shuttlecraft!... )

 

Well, you never know who you'll encounter on TrekBBS. This time I really did have no idea.