• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

StarFleet One - "Star Trek: United" Ft. Michael Sussman “EXCLUSIVE”

"Probert-shape"? Funny you say that, since I have used the term "Eaveshape" for his constant use of swept, chopped half-ovals with harsh linear breaks ... the _Sarajevo_ was literally a whole ship composed of them, as if in self-parody. Also, I don't see anything typically Probert except for the clean lines and pleasant bow so loathed by other Trek designers.

I was thinking this myself after I posted it, since I was having trouble putting my finger on what seemed so generically Probert-y about it. The only thing that immediately came to mind was the "Salvage Tug," which leads me to some of his more bubble-like Workbee concept art, like the top drawing on that page where the side panels seem to be bulging out at the middle. And then there's the Type 7 shuttle, and this particular painting lets me nail it down.

Look at the lower outboard corner of the shuttlebay door. He likes to exaggerate curves, especially in places that should be flat or corners that should be sharp. Everything tends towards being a little rounder, like it's inflated. Look at the Sphinx Workpod, even the not-bubble part looks like its made of metaballs.

So, you take his idea of an industrial shape, like his salvage tug, or a primitive one, like the TFF shuttle, but still give it some swooping transitions and making the major planes into the major domes, and you get something that looks, well, like Andrew Probert quickly knocked it out.
 
Probert definitely has a recognizable style. Just like Eaves, Sternbach, Jefferies, or most other well-known concept artists and designers. That's neither good nor bad, but some people's designs do seem to fit better in some places/eras than others.
 
Probert definitely has a recognizable style. Just like Eaves, Sternbach, Jefferies, or most other well-known concept artists and designers. That's neither good nor bad, but some people's designs do seem to fit better in some places/eras than others.
Apologies for replying to myself, but to add onto this, I think a major reason why certain designers fit into certain eras better is because they pretty much defined the look for that era.
 
Apologies for replying to myself, but to add onto this, I think a major reason why certain designers fit into certain eras better is because they pretty much defined the look for that era.

Well, that was fine up until the end of Voyager. Then when a prequel series taking place 200 years before VOY looked and felt just like VOY, that's when the 'look defines the era' thing started to get skewed.

Also, some designers seem the have the same design style no matter what the era is. This also does not help things.
 
Well, that was fine up until the end of Voyager. Then when a prequel series taking place 200 years before VOY looked and felt just like VOY, that's when the 'look defines the era' thing started to get skewed.

Also, some designers seem the have the same design style no matter what the era is. This also does not help things.
It's okay, you can say Eaves. Hot swapping nacelles to vaguely fit the time period but otherwise identical design language... sure, they've all done it at least a tiny bit, but Eaves is Eaves is Eaves.

As much as it's true that certain designers fit into certain eras better is because they pretty much defined the look for those eras, they still have range. Probert, for whatever his faults or limitations these days, still made his TMP era work look radically different than his TNG era work, even though they shared a lot of DNA. Not so much with the design in question here.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
This just got released online.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top