Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise
- Thread starter Lowdarzz
- Start date
- Status
Just left another site where the 'looks great' vs. 'sucks eggs' debate is raging. My personal view, as a Trek fan from the beginning ... it'll take some getting used to. I have immense respect for Matt Jeffries' original design, so I confess to gulping a couple of times after seeing this one. Still, on its own, this Enterprise is a gorgeous ship, and it certainly looks like a logical progression from NX-01 (which prompts cries of 'heresy' from some camps). I'm trying to keep an open mind; ultimately, the success of the film will be in its story, not in its ship design.
Hideous...
The only think I like is the dome underneath the saucer (which is like TMP's dome without the "lighting boxes") in terms of it's shape, but I don't think it goes with TOS.
The only think I like is the dome underneath the saucer (which is like TMP's dome without the "lighting boxes") in terms of it's shape, but I don't think it goes with TOS.
Hey isn't this design just a re-hash of the Enterprise designed for that Animated Series that was planned a year or two ago?
I'll just try and keep my eyes on the saucer whenever the new 1701 is on screen. Everything else is somewhat at odds with what I'd hoped for, but maybe this old dog will warm up to it in time.
I'm relatively satisfied with the aesthetic of this design - I think it serves just fine as the visual lead of the movie's VFX orgies. But that's sort of secondary for me, as I in general like to believe in Trek as one unified fictional universe. I mean, it's not really worth all the excitement in terms of the standalone elements only, IMHO.
How does this design fit in the fictional universe? Nacelles and pylons are no problem: these early, primitive models can no doubt be replaced by the more advanced TOS cylinders at some point, probably just as easily as I swap snow tires for my car. Similarly, the ornamentation on the saucer can come and go; the basic dimensions seem to remain (unless this ship is established as significantly larger than the TOS one, which may yet happen).
So the secondary hull is the problem. Yes, it, too, can be swapped - that's the beauty of Jeffries' original modular approach. And it apparently was, between TOS and TMP, as its dimensions changed radically in that refit. But why would Starfleet keep doing these "refits" where every element of the ship is swapped for a different one?
A nice design, yeah. Not a good choice from the big pool of possible nice designs, in terms of Star Trek unity. In a way, it almost seems as if the design was deliberately chosen to alienate those hoping for such unity. But at least it's not Battlestar Galactica, as everything else we hear about the movie seems to suggest that the "Trek universe" is going to be acknowledged. (I for one cheered when they name-dropped the Cardassians, establishing that they don't think just in terms of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and their most iconic adventures.)
Timo Saloniemi
How does this design fit in the fictional universe? Nacelles and pylons are no problem: these early, primitive models can no doubt be replaced by the more advanced TOS cylinders at some point, probably just as easily as I swap snow tires for my car. Similarly, the ornamentation on the saucer can come and go; the basic dimensions seem to remain (unless this ship is established as significantly larger than the TOS one, which may yet happen).
So the secondary hull is the problem. Yes, it, too, can be swapped - that's the beauty of Jeffries' original modular approach. And it apparently was, between TOS and TMP, as its dimensions changed radically in that refit. But why would Starfleet keep doing these "refits" where every element of the ship is swapped for a different one?
A nice design, yeah. Not a good choice from the big pool of possible nice designs, in terms of Star Trek unity. In a way, it almost seems as if the design was deliberately chosen to alienate those hoping for such unity. But at least it's not Battlestar Galactica, as everything else we hear about the movie seems to suggest that the "Trek universe" is going to be acknowledged. (I for one cheered when they name-dropped the Cardassians, establishing that they don't think just in terms of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and their most iconic adventures.)
Timo Saloniemi
lol
It reminds me of Trigger's broom in Only Fools And Horses. He's had the same broom for twenty years, which has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles 
(Did a bit of travelling round Wikipedia and apparently it's known as Theseus' Paradox... I learn something new every day)The rest of the post I agree with - it's hit the nail on the head of what I'm not sure about this new Enterprise. I think I was also looking for the 'unity' between the ships, and as you mentioned, it's almost deliberately gone out of its way to be something new.
Hopefully this is only true for the visuals of the ship, and not the minor details of the Trekverse and characterisations...
Here's how I look at it:
I don't hear anyone suggesting that the entire crew got plastic surgery and had their vocal cords altered between this movie and TOS. It's accepted that even though Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. look and sound different, they're still supposed to be the same people. The differences in appearance are just different interpretations of the same thing.
So if the characters can be recast, why can't the ship be "recast" in the same way? If we can gloss over details like Kirk having blue eyes, McCoy having brown eyes, Scotty having a receding hairline, Chekov having curly hair, and Sulu being a tenor, then surely we can gloss over visual differences in how the Enterprise is depicted, and treat it simply as an alternate interpretation of the same thing.
I didn't like the altered proportions at first, but I'm getting used to it now. And I like the TMP-influenced elements. I figure the idea is supposed to be that Starfleet vessels "always" looked like that but we just didn't see them clearly in the original show. Kind of like how Roddenberry insisted that Klingons had always had bumpy heads despite what TOS showed us.
Now that brings up an interesting angle. People like Picard or Spock have already been played by multiple actors, so that the less prominent ones have portrayed the characters in their youth. It has been relatively simple to accept that a boy who doesn't look like young Patrick Stewart could still look exactly like young Jean-Luc Picard - and minor differences there can be explained away by, yes, aesthetic surgery. People probably do a lot of that just for fun in the 24th century.
However, we have also seen lesser characters such as Saavik, Braxton or Owen Paris portrayed by different actors within a narrow "ageframe". That takes a bit more suspension of disbelief.
What are we really facing here with STXI? All the heroes appear very young, and it's quite plausible that for example Scotty or Spock would yet grow up to the likenesses of Doohan and Nimoy, even if Uhura or Sulu have less chance of that. But is that all we will see - these heroes in their youth? Or will this movie, or its hopefully inevitable sequel, start to overlap the adventures formerly conducted by Shatner, Nimoy, Doohan, Nichols, Takei?
The same goes for the starship. Can we go on pretending that the ship is in her youth and will grow up (Picards style) - or are we going to see outright displacement (Saaviks style)?
For me personally, it would be greater fun to follow the adventures of the young pre-TOS crew, rather than the TOS era one. If so, "recasting" of the characters or the ship would not be a matter of having to choose...
Timo Saloniemi
The characters must necessarily be recast because actors age and change. The ship design doesn't have those constraints. But it does have limitations. Jeffries operated under a wise design edict that they wouldn't put anything unnecessary on the hull of the ship to preclude exterior repairs. While this is sound, it did leave the original 1701 too devoid of detail for film duty. I've seen many "redesigns" by fans that overcome this deficiency without ruining the original design (Vektor's may be king among them). Abrams and/or the ILM team made radical changes to the design. Worst of all, it doesn't look much like a precursor to The Motion Picture 1701, but more like a contemporary.
Is that really such a bad thing? As much as I like the TMP aesthetic, one thing that's always bugged me about it is how radically different it was from the TOS design style. It didn't seem to follow organically from previous designs, even though it was supposedly separated from TOS by only a few years. It's hard to buy such a radical, wholesale transformation in the design of everything in such a short period. If the idea of the new movie is that the Enterprise "really" looked like this all along, then that actually makes for a smoother progression to the TMP era; the new aesthetic doesn't just suddenly materialize out of nowhere.
At least TMP had the advantage of coming after TOS, both in real time and Star Trek time. One would expect the technology to get exponentially better. And as I stated, both then and now, it would not be reasonable to expect TOS ship to transfer over to the big screen as-is. I've seen many good "redesigns" of TOS ship that when done professionally would look great on screen. Abrams hasn't adapted TOS ship to the big screen; he took the broadstrokes of the design and made a new ship.
And that's fine. It is his movie, not mine. I just don't think such wholesale changes were necesary. It was change for the sake of change, and despite his paranoia over Galaxy Quest he's made the Enterprise look more like that ship than ever before.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Aside from the TOS credit narration, Kirk's log entry in Shore Leave suggests that the NCC-1701 had by that point been away from Earth for an extended period of time, so it is perfectly natural to expect technologies and fashions to continue evolving on the home world while remaining comparatively static aboard a starship engaged in an exploration mission beyond the outer periphery.
TGT
I (sort of) accept the recasting, but not that of changing the ship design or the props,etc.
I do not see the design as fitting in with the NX-01 design and going into the TMP ship design. The same with the few interior shots. Do they change the movie Enterprise exterior and interiors from what we already know?
I do not see the design as fitting in with the NX-01 design and going into the TMP ship design. The same with the few interior shots. Do they change the movie Enterprise exterior and interiors from what we already know?
The same reason the Airforce "refits" B-52's. it's easier to get money from congress to "keep our fighting force in good repair" than it is for a new weapon system.
Though the U-2 spyplane may be a better example. Not much left of the original craft there by the time they were retired.
Probert, Probert, PROBERT!!!
On Trekmovie.com's article for this image, Rick Sternbach expressed that he was disappointed by the design. Ryan Church, designer of this Enterprise stated that some of the awkwardness of the design is due to the camera angle according to his comments here
Edit: Here are Sternbach and Church's comments excised from the comments of the first article.
Edit: Here are Sternbach and Church's comments excised from the comments of the first article.
Last edited:
Nice, we get a Star Wars III designer to design the latest Enterprise. I'm... I dunno, just irritated by this decision. If I read it correctly, the newest E was made by commitee, instead of saying to a designer *Here's a piece of paper, take a pen and design a new Enterprise*, which I gotta agree with Mr. Sternbach is quite full of epic fail.
Enterprise designed by Star Wars designer... I gotta sleep over that...
Enterprise designed by Star Wars designer... I gotta sleep over that...
- Status
