Do you like the *NEW* NCC-1701? Simple Yes or No.

[Neopeius]

Slightly off topic Neopeius for a moment...please forgive the intrusion. I like your Avatar. Bright Noah is one of my alltime favorite characters. Nice watercolor...where was it from..a illustration portfolio or from a Roman Album? Would like to see the entire piece it came from. Long time old school Gundam fan here since 1985. Even had a ( old..) friend who has worked on some of the 0083 and later series. That's one show I would like to see brought to America in CGI. Big long time Yashihiku Yazikazu fan here.

I couldn't tell you where I got it, but thank you. My wife and I cosplayed Bright and Mirai at Worldcon last year. Our little daughter was Kika

Gundam is excellent science fiction and an amazing show. It's great to meet a fellow fan. Feel free to message me if you like.

 

[SalvorHardin]

So, since a lot has been said about Koerner and his Enterprise, how about the man's own thoughts on the new ship :

Koerner notes that he and Ryan ‘threw some similar ideas into the mix’ and he also has a word for critics of Church’s work, saying "no one attack the artistic merits or design abilities of Ryan Church if you do not favor his design." Koerner points out that when working on a major film, final designs are based on what the producers want in the end and "we don’t even know how closely it represents the designer’s own taste."

On the pro side Koerner writes:

I like how clean it is, how uncluttered by greebles and decals while still retaining scale. If anything it adds to the scale. I like that it got away from the VERY RED bussards VERY BLUE BLUE STUFF of TNG era ships (and NX-01). I like the blades on the engine
…
I like the shapes of the individual components: The turbine-esque nacelles, the reinforced neck, and the nuevo-TMP saucer. But the engines and the saucer look a bit foreign from one another. I like the deflector dish. Its a cleaver way to both be a detached dish with a spike, and pay homage to the TMP blue glowing dish as well.
​

On the con side he notes:

It’s very front heavy. I see the rationale of putting the mass of the engine hull that much further forward.
Ryan pushed the neck back and has it sweep back much further, and by taking the engine hull and squeezing it like a half full tube of toothpaste to put all the weight up front, he’s admittedly got a balance between engine hull and neck that’s a lot sturdier than the classic in its distribution of mass.
I just don’t find that balance as aesthetically pleasing. I’m not big on how the struts taper in at the top and that they mount almost at the very front of the engines.
And with so much up front, the engine hull has a long skinny tail that makes the engines seem like they’re overwhelming the struts.
​

But in the end Koerner feels he will "come to like" the ship and buy the model kits as well.

full article : http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/13/gabriel-koerners-weighs-in-on-new-uss-enterprise/

 

[CuttingEdge100]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

 

[Qonos]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

 

[trekkerguy]

No significant percentage of the Trek fanbase did not see "Nemesis" in the theaters, and most saw it opening weekend. The box office gross demonstrates that.

It's simply that no one other than the hard core bothered with it - not because of bad things said by fans, but because most people were just about five years past caring about anything "Star Trek" when the film opened.

Some folks have an exaggerated notion of how extensive the hard core fanbase is, and so have imagined that many didn't see the movie. That's mistaken.

Well said and true.

 

[3D Master]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

 

[trekkerguy]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

I'm sure the posters vision is just fine, it thankfully just isn't yours.

 

[Qonos]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

What parts is it lacking, yes theres some extra greebles and doodads that is has and some extra greebles and doodahs that it lacks from the old, but in essence it looks like an updated version of the TOS ship and anyone who says otherwise needs to see a shrink. I'm about damn ready to send a bunch of PM's to people and tell them exactly what I think of them.


BTW my vision is 20/20 in my right eye and 20/30 in my left eye due to an eye operation that saved my vision when I was twelve thank you much.

 

[M'Sharak]

No

I don't like the design. They eliminated virtually all the good qualities from the TOS Enterprise and put all the bad qualities from various other Enterprises in it.

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

Perhaps he simply used his imagination.

 

[3D Master]

What picture are you looking at. Looks like a version of the TOS Ship to me just done on a bigger budget

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

What parts is it lacking, yes theres some extra greebles and doodads that is has and some extra greebles and doodahs that it lacks from the old, but in essence it looks like an updated version of the TOS ship and anyone who says otherwise needs to see a shrink. I'm about damn ready to send a bunch of PM's to people and tell them exactly what I think of them.

BTW my vision is 20/20 in my right eye and 20/30 in my left eye due to an eye operation that saved my vision when I was twelve thank you much.

If that JJunkise looks like the TOS ship, glueing a paper plate and 6 sticks to it also looks like the TOS ship. It's got all the things the TOS ship has, a saucer, 3 tubes, connected with three sticks.

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise; while the Enterprise is a graceful lady, this new thing's proportions are so wrong and unbalanced it looks like a turd pushed out of a constipated a-hole by comparison. Apart from some vague basic shapes, it looks NOTHING like the Enterprise.

And if you can't see that... sorry, but no. Vektor's design is a big-screen updated of the TOS Enterprise, the Abramprise doesn't even come ffing close.

 

[Qonos]

You should go see an eye doctor, because trust me, if you spoke the truth, you need glasses.

What parts is it lacking, yes theres some extra greebles and doodads that is has and some extra greebles and doodahs that it lacks from the old, but in essence it looks like an updated version of the TOS ship and anyone who says otherwise needs to see a shrink. I'm about damn ready to send a bunch of PM's to people and tell them exactly what I think of them.

BTW my vision is 20/20 in my right eye and 20/30 in my left eye due to an eye operation that saved my vision when I was twelve thank you much.

If that JJunkise looks like the TOS ship, glueing a paper plate and 6 sticks to it also looks like the TOS ship. It's got all the things the TOS ship has, a saucer, 3 tubes, connected with three sticks.

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise; while the Enterprise is a graceful lady, this new thing's proportions are so wrong and unbalanced it looks like a turd pushed out of a constipated a-hole by comparison. Apart from some vague basic shapes, it looks NOTHING like the Enterprise.

And if you can't see that... sorry, but no. Vektor's design is a big-screen updated of the TOS Enterprise, the Abramprise doesn't even come ffing close.

Vektors design is no where near Film quality. Which doesn't mean I don't like it, it's just not nearly as well rendered as the one that they have coming in the movie. I like it, I like Abrams one, I like Korners.. See that the point I'm trying to make I can see what the artist is going for while you are stuck in absolutes. And you wish to keep on about Imagination. Imagination has nothing to do with any point you ever bring up. You wish to stop your feet because you want Trek to remain stagnant and never be recast into something eveyrone can enjoy. You'd much rather rail about the things you hate than find something you like.

The ship looks like the TOS one. It doesn't look like an Excelcior class. It doesn't look like and Ambassador class, it doesn't look like a Galaxy class, and it certainly doesn't look like the E-e or Voyager. It fits the sillouhette of the constitution class.. It makes some changes that :YOU: don't like, but my biggest problem was what looked like chrome on the nacalles which has lately been proven to just be the glass bussard cover. I don't understand how this one looks like a turd to you, because sorry if your shitting shit out like that you need to change your diet. (The Doomsday machine looked like a turd.) So obviously MY eyes look fine. You're just so stuck in "THIS MUST BE HOW I DECREE" that your bordering on being an ignoramous and yet you're totally allowed to feel how you feel about it. You're totaly fing wrong, but you have the freedom to be.

 

[trekkerguy]

If that JJunkise looks like the TOS ship, glueing a paper plate and 6 sticks to it also looks like the TOS ship. It's got all the things the TOS ship has, a saucer, 3 tubes, connected with three sticks.

Yup that's pretty much every iteration of every Enterprise.

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise

All opinion, no fact. Jolan Tru sir.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well I for one like the new ship and its not like these two are going to get erased by the new movie http://s358.photobucket.com/albums/oo30/Hartzilla2007/?action=view&current=121608_1433.jpg

P.S. Sorry about the picture quality this was the best I can do with a cellphone camera taking a picture off a laptop screen. Oh and the ship that got cut off to the side their is the pilot design where as the ship nearer to the bottom of the screen is the regular series design.

 

[M'Sharak]

[...]

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise; while the Enterprise is a graceful lady, this new thing's proportions are so wrong and unbalanced it looks like a turd pushed out of a constipated a-hole by comparison. Apart from some vague basic shapes, it looks NOTHING like the Enterprise.
[...]

I have seen this opinion stated by you on several occasions with little (if any) variation in wording. Stating your opinion is fine (if, in this case, less than picturesque or decorous); stating something again and again may be considered spam under board rules.

Opinion: good

Repetition to the point of harangue: not good, and a recurring problem for you

 

[3D Master]

What parts is it lacking, yes theres some extra greebles and doodads that is has and some extra greebles and doodahs that it lacks from the old, but in essence it looks like an updated version of the TOS ship and anyone who says otherwise needs to see a shrink. I'm about damn ready to send a bunch of PM's to people and tell them exactly what I think of them.

BTW my vision is 20/20 in my right eye and 20/30 in my left eye due to an eye operation that saved my vision when I was twelve thank you much.

If that JJunkise looks like the TOS ship, glueing a paper plate and 6 sticks to it also looks like the TOS ship. It's got all the things the TOS ship has, a saucer, 3 tubes, connected with three sticks.

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise; while the Enterprise is a graceful lady, this new thing's proportions are so wrong and unbalanced it looks like a turd pushed out of a constipated a-hole by comparison. Apart from some vague basic shapes, it looks NOTHING like the Enterprise.

And if you can't see that... sorry, but no. Vektor's design is a big-screen updated of the TOS Enterprise, the Abramprise doesn't even come ffing close.

Vektors design is no where near Film quality. Which doesn't mean I don't like it, it's just not nearly as well rendered as the one that they have coming in the movie. I like it, I like Abrams one, I like Korners.. See that the point I'm trying to make I can see what the artist is going for while you are stuck in absolutes. And you wish to keep on about Imagination. Imagination has nothing to do with any point you ever bring up. You wish to stop your feet because you want Trek to remain stagnant and never be recast into something eveyrone can enjoy. You'd much rather rail about the things you hate than find something you like.

You obviously have never bothered to read anything I wrote. I do not want Star Trek to be stagnant at all, I've been saying how stagnant it became with Voyager and Enterprise and the last two movies for ages, and that it should have grown and changed a long time ago.

But eh, just make bullshit claims about me.

Another one:

Imagination has EVERYTHING to do, with EVERY point I've brought up, indeed I've been explain WHY to.

But you know; don't bother reading my stuff and make up baseless accusations.

I can see what he's going for as well; kewl redesign - which comes out as an ugly turd.

And if the ONLY way to make Star Trek likeable by everyone is to turn it into a meaningless pile fantasy junk, then it should not turn into something that everyone can like. However, that does not mean it should be stagnant at all; it simply means growing, instead cutting it down and turning it into Trek Wars.

The ship looks like the TOS one. It doesn't look like an Excelcior class. It doesn't look like and Ambassador class, it doesn't look like a Galaxy class, and it certainly doesn't look like the E-e or Voyager. It fits the sillouhette of the constitution class.. It makes some changes that :YOU: don't like, but my biggest problem was what looked like chrome on the nacalles which has lately been proven to just be the glass bussard cover. I don't understand how this one looks like a turd to you, because sorry if your shitting shit out like that you need to change your diet. (The Doomsday machine looked like a turd.) So obviously MY eyes look fine. You're just so stuck in "THIS MUST BE HOW I DECREE" that your bordering on being an ignoramous and yet you're totally allowed to feel how you feel about it. You're totaly fing wrong, but you have the freedom to be.

It doesn't have the silhouette of the TOS ship AT ALL, it doesn't even come close. The secondary hull is ridiculously small, the deflector dish seems to be something it vomitted after it realized the designers forgot it, the saucer seems to be coming from late 23rd century and tacked on and the engines are nothing like the TOS ship, least of all in their placing; all the way on the back of the tiny tiny secundairy hull, and hanging only at the very front on the pylons. It seems like a rapidly cobbled together ship of the early 24th century putting together parts of multiple different ships and ship-classes even bigger and smaller classes. A misshapen rapidly stuffed together ship for an emergency. The pieces don't even seem to follow a single design ethic; like I said, a pieces of different ships cobbled togetehr.

It doesn't even look like a ship that would actually be designed as a ship build massed produced like that, let alone the Enterprise. It likes something cobbled together.

Now Koerner's Enterprise looks like the Enterprise; it has the right proportions and scale and unifed whole to it. I couldn't possibly consider it being the actual Enterprise, but it at least looks like it. The JJprise: not even close.

[...]

This misshapen turd looks NOTHING like the TOS Enterprise; while the Enterprise is a graceful lady, this new thing's proportions are so wrong and unbalanced it looks like a turd pushed out of a constipated a-hole by comparison. Apart from some vague basic shapes, it looks NOTHING like the Enterprise.
[...]

I have seen this opinion stated by you on several occasions with little (if any) variation in wording. Stating your opinion is fine (if, in this case, less than picturesque or decorous); stating something again and again may be considered spam under board rules.

Opinion: good

Repetition to the point of harangue: not good, and a recurring problem for you

Ah, I see, so when some other people not only repeat things over and ever in the exact same thread even, not to mention these things are insults and what not tossed about toward those who are critical of the new Trek, it's a-ok to do so, but when in entirely different threads the same point comes up, and I'm simply in the discussion I have to... shut up, otherwise it's spam?

Of course, I get it. God forbid there might actually be a counter point raised to the umpteenth exact same statements about how kewl-looking the new Enterprise we've got a problem; because god forbid readers might notice that not all Trek-fans are jumping up and down with their Spock ears in with delight.

 

[trekkerguy]

... yeah I'm gunna go with same ship, bigger budget.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

... yeah I'm gunna go with same ship, bigger budget.

Except, of course, that it's NOT the "same ship" and there's nothing about the "new and improved" design that in any fashion whatsoever implies a "bigger budget."

The issues of "design" and of "production values" are not the same thing. Not remotely similar, in fact.

You could EASILY do a low-production-values version of the "new" ship and have it look like utter and complete crap, and you can also do a high-production-values version of the original design and have it look absolutely fantastic, without changing the design one iota.

The "new" version is NOT the same design. It is a new design which has a few surface-level things in common with the original but is notably different in every way. Not one single detail is "the same" between the two designs. NOT ONE.

If this were being presented as, say, a "Mirror-universe" version of the ship... or as a TNG-era new design which was made to pay homage to the classic Constitution-class design... it would be acceptable. If, at the end of this movie, we see the original design restored, and this is a "variation" which is only seen in the "wrong" timeline, I'd be fine with that too (though I can easily imagine the audience throwing a fit if they pulled that sort of "fast-one" on them!).

But it's NOT the same ship, any more than a contemporary car is the same as a 1960s car, even when the design is "paying homage" to that car.

The main difference between the "car" analogy and this one is that with cars, style is central to the design in both cases, where in the Enterprise issue, the original is a "pseudo-functional naval-vessel" in appearance, while the new one is just conglomeration of nonsensical "style" features that neither form a coherent whole nor make any logical sense to the technically-minded.

In other words... the original works because it looks more real. The new one looks like someone who doesn't understand science or engineering... who's never built anything real in his or her life... went nuts with a CG program in a pointless attempt to "kewlify" the design.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well I do not see how you can say that one ship looks more "real" then the other. We have no clue how a 23rd Century starship works, and the design features that make it work well.

The same argument about the supposed "swoopyness" of the design can also be applied to Proberts Enterprise-D, and while she is not my favorite design, a lot of people seem to like.

 

[Qonos]

... yeah I'm gunna go with same ship, bigger budget.

Except, of course, that it's NOT the "same ship" and there's nothing about the "new and improved" design that in any fashion whatsoever implies a "bigger budget."

The issues of "design" and of "production values" are not the same thing. Not remotely similar, in fact.

You could EASILY do a low-production-values version of the "new" ship and have it look like utter and complete crap, and you can also do a high-production-values version of the original design and have it look absolutely fantastic, without changing the design one iota.

The "new" version is NOT the same design. It is a new design which has a few surface-level things in common with the original but is notably different in every way. Not one single detail is "the same" between the two designs. NOT ONE.

If this were being presented as, say, a "Mirror-universe" version of the ship... or as a TNG-era new design which was made to pay homage to the classic Constitution-class design... it would be acceptable. If, at the end of this movie, we see the original design restored, and this is a "variation" which is only seen in the "wrong" timeline, I'd be fine with that too (though I can easily imagine the audience throwing a fit if they pulled that sort of "fast-one" on them!).

But it's NOT the same ship, any more than a contemporary car is the same as a 1960s car, even when the design is "paying homage" to that car.

The main difference between the "car" analogy and this one is that with cars, style is central to the design in both cases, where in the Enterprise issue, the original is a "pseudo-functional naval-vessel" in appearance, while the new one is just conglomeration of nonsensical "style" features that neither form a coherent whole nor make any logical sense to the technically-minded.

In other words... the original works because it looks more real. The new one looks like someone who doesn't understand science or engineering... who's never built anything real in his or her life... went nuts with a CG program in a pointless attempt to "kewlify" the design.

Actually it seems to me that the newer design is alot more fuctional that the original. The cowling over the front portion of the nacelles looks like it could actually house the Bussard collectors that are Supposed to be at the front of the nacellels. There are now visible docking ports on the ship instead of having to shuttle or beam everything over to the Enterprise you can now connect a docking tube from a frieghter for faster resupplies as then you could use every method to transport goods and cargo. The neck of the ship now looks like it's sturdy enough to support the stresses caused by the ships movement in space. You now have a deffinate idea of where the weaponry is on the ship, instead of having to guess (You know like how real navel vessels have batteries and the large guns on battleships) The nacelle pylons look big enough to support the nacelles under stress.

I'm sorry Abrams ship looks far superior in functionality than the original does. I know you won't see it because you think it was done for the "ooh it looks so cool" well I can see the functionality in the new design and like I said to me it looks more functional than a bare bones ship which is what the TOS Ship looks like "Bare bones just get the job done styling". The new design has a simple elegance and grace that the original lacked, in my opinion, because the original lacked any type of streamlining it lacked curves and beauty, it was a plain vanilla design, and that was all due to the design budget and the medium they were working in and not because of Jefferies. Jeffieries was a competent designer and is one of the reason the TOS design became the Archetype for Trek ships (Because realistically they could have changed the ship design alot more drasticly when TMP or TNG came about, but they stayed with Jefferies basic ship design (until the unveiling of the Defiant in DS9). It not only looks cool, but it looks much more sophisticated and well thought out. Not like something that was drawn originally on a paper napkin in a greasy spoon. And the picture shows that is does match the sillouhette of the original, which was what I was saying all along. A person who has only ever seen fleeting glances of the original show will be shown this ship compared to the other and would say that one looks like a mondernized version of the other. That doesn't mean I don't love the original design, it is in fact because I have a love for the original that I see so much of it in this new interpretation. I can see where the artist took what worked from the old design and added to it to make it look more believable. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's my opinion. I know I've been overly snarky lately but I won't get too snarky with you because you've actually been more than intelligent with your replies Cary.

 

[cooleddie74]

... yeah I'm gunna go with same ship, bigger budget.

Maybe so. And fair enough to accept.

But it still looks ugly. A more TMP-style ship with smaller nacelles would be much more attractive...at least IMHO.