For what it's worth, I believe this was essential John Eaves' final NX-01 design. I can understand the conundrum of trying to sell a pre-TOS design that wasn't a radical departure from the original 1701 and was recognizably Star Trek. I would have been happy with a design like the Conestoga class but, like I said, recognizable. Psychologically I think a lot of us were jarred to see a ship that was in pristine condition. When a lot of us thought of pre-TOS we'd imagined sort of dingy, poorly lit, with exposed piping everywhere. At the end of the day, though, the NX-01 was the flagship and the first ship meant for a mission of its duration.
Personally, I'd have loved the NX-01 to have exposed piping and wiring trunks everywhere. Especially after a couple of years of service and some haphazard field repairs and upgrades. It would have made for a more unique Trek hero ship look as well.
That has been fleshed out: http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/...John-Eaves-concept-for-the-NX-01-with-a-twist http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=107926&d=1396853677 There is another version that made the cover of the latest SHIPS OF THE LINE but it is small--even more TOS like--but in the background.
Same here. Great blog. Shame everything had to go because someone got uppity about doug watermarking their work to stop other sites taking it. It was the blog that made me appreciate the NX and all the little details of it that were never explored fully in the series. I was one of the people who didn't like it originally because I thought it was too close to the Akira and I wanted something primitive without a saucer. The NX design and series have aged better with time though.
As good of a blog as it was, that is still kind of eh; putting your watermark on something implicitly connotes ownership, especially when people take it and use it context-free anyway as they do. Watermarks nowadays are essentially the new artwork signature online, because they aren't to prevent people from stealing images (literally nothing will do that, after all), they're just there to make it harder to strip credit from an image when it does get stolen. He could've at least watermarked images with the creator's information rather than (or even in addition to) his own blog when he was watermarking someone else's work. Like, it's not even something I'm really upset at him for doing, and I can see why he did it, it was definitely well-intentioned. But it's not hard for me to see why someone would feel slighted by it, and it's not really unfair to me that someone was.
He gave plenty of credit to the artist in his blog post though and was basically showing love for what they designed. He's a professional artist, Oscar winner with decades of experience in the business. To think he was somehow taking credit for someone else's work seems a bit childish and cooler heads could have prevailed instead of his blog coming down.
Right, but I'm talking about what happens outside the blog post. Like I said, the point of putting a watermark isn't to prevent stealing, because that's not going to happen, it doesn't actually do anything at all to reduce the rate at which that happens. The point of putting a watermark is so that when images are inevitably stolen and external context is stripped away, the people stealing it can't strip the credit from the work by just cropping the image (which people actually do go to the effort of doing). It's to ensure that when it is stolen, credit is still given where it's due. I'm not saying it's intentional or that he was trying to steal credit or anything like that, I'm saying that it was good-intentioned but not entirely well-thought-out and that I can understand why people would be upset with it. If someone created a 3D model, Drexler put it on his blog with a Drexler watermark, and that image starts circulating in a fan community without any link-back, then people will assume that Drexler made it. And I can understand why that would bug people, even though Drexler never meant any ill will for it and was just trying to protect the work.
I didn't really buy that argument -- at least not across eras. The closest analog we saw to NX / Akira would have been the Constitution / TMP Refit -- and that made a lot of sense considering it was supposed to be the same ship with various upgrades. (And we never did see a scratch build of that design, and no support that it exists, unless we accept that the 1701-A was such a ship even though it makes no sense to continue producing ships of that lineage so close to their retirement). And while the general design -- saucer, neck, secondary hull, and dual nacelles on pylons -- appears throughout Trek, there are substantial enough changes to shape, size, and arrangement between classes (Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, Sovereign, Intrepid) to make them each distinctly different. Similarly, with the Miranda and Nebula, there are, again, substantial changes to the layout across eras. Drexler's logic just doesn't hold water in the context of 200 years. That said, I understand that the producers wanted something even worse -- flipping the Akira upside down -- and that he did the best he could given the assignment. I work in a creative field also, and can't tell you how many times clients turned works of beauty into barely functioning pieces of garbage. It happens. A lot. I think Drexler should have been upfront with that saying "Hey, it's flawed, I know it. I'm really proud of what I was able to do given the constraints of the project, but I'm not blind to what everybody else is seeing. I wish I'd had more time and greater creative license to work with. But I didn't. It is what is is." He might even have quoted Herb Lubalin. "We have three divisions: a sensational division, a mediocre division, and a rotten division. The sensational division is on the top floor ... There aren't too many clients who want to operate in that rarefied atmosphere. In the mediocre division, we have clients who compromise: Put in some sensational ingredients, some rotten ones, and you have the opportunity to do mediocre work. The rotten division is where the bulk of the work is -- and the reason it's rotten is that clients determine the product." Even in this case, there are rather substantial differences to the design. If not for the rarity of Starfleet employing a sphere on its ships, we'd probably not be noting any kind of similarity at all. But even if it was uncomfortably similar, the Pasteur was a throw-away design seen in one episode while the NX-01 was an Enterprise; and not just an Enterprise, but the hero ship for a show of the same name. It deserved better. Honestly, looking back over the years, I'm not at all sure they cared. Not really. Star Trek: Enterprise had all the hallmarks of carelessness. It's like they phoned it in, producing lackluster same-ol' content one week after another -- with a bit more interpersonal conflict baked in. I'm sure they wanted their paychecks to continue coming, but I really think almost everybody at the top was pretty much all set with Trek and ready to move on. The saddest part is that Abrams and company could have done it without such dramatic alterations. I can remember watching the opening scene of ST09 and sitting on the edge of my seat. Almost everything about it was perfect (one standout exception being the horsey hull markings on the Kelvin), and I remember feeling eminently satisfied with this new Star Trek. And then the movie continued...
And there are substantial differences to the layout between the Akira and the NX-01. The similarities between them are cosmetic at best; similar shapes and similar design elements that even then aren't totally identical. This is why I compared, say, the TOS Constitution and the Ambassador or the Daedalus and Olympic designs. It's the same cosmetic similarity with the same massive structural differences. I don't really see how. A flintlock musket looks similar enough to a winchester rifle despite their massive differences. Argument from sentimentality. Doesn't change the fact that the Akira and the NX are more different from each other than the Daedalus and Olympic. At least the former actually changes the nacelle placement; the latter does not. Can't really disagree there. Sure, but that wouldn't have been nearly as fun IMO. Especially two movies later when we finally found out what those weird decorative wall panels were all over the bridge.
That's pretty harsh. Just because they didn't go in some direction you'd like doesn't mean they were coasting. I doubt Drexler, an artist who won an Oscar, would continue interacting with fans, as he does, if he didn't care.
In that particular passage, I was referring to Enterprise's producers, not guys like Drexler -- who I rather overtly note did the best he could with the orders he was given.
From what I understand, the Producers had an idea for what they show was going to be, but UPN nixed it for more of what had worked for TNG and Voyager, so they did what they could and still get to make the show.
I think that might be giving them too much credit, considering that they ended the series on "These are the Voyages" and also considering that they -- OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL -- ended Season 2 with a deranged Alien Space Nazi Cliffhanger. I'm tempted to think that too much executive meddling left them feeling like "Fuck it, it's going to suck anyway, so let's do something different!" OTOH, I'm reminded of the Peter Principle, which tells us we should never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ST:E's producers to this day still think TATV was a really good episode and are proud of themselves for having made it.
You're thinking of Hanlon's Razor; the Peter Principle is that people get promoted to their level of incompetence.
Mostly this. From what I understood, there were no plans for transporters, or phase pistols, or introducing the first force fields. I even recall reading that most of season 1 was to be set on Earth itself, with the ship still under construction. Not sure how true that was. But yes, studio execs basicly said, make it more recognizable as Star Trek to average viewers.
That's my understanding as well. But what we ended up with was pretty much the same old '90s Star Trek. Just with a little different technobabble. Phase pistols and phase cannons instead of phaser pistols and phaser banks, spatial torpedoes and photonic torpedoes instead of photon torpedoes and quantum torpedoes, polarized hull plating instead of deflector shields, shuttlepods instead of shuttlecraft, warp reactor instead of warp core, food synthesizers instead of food replicators, tactical and 'Reed' alerts instead of red alerts, NX-class instead of Akira-class, etc.
That is what happens when the network thinks it knows better than the actual producers of the show. Almost all of ENT's problems can be attributed to UPN, not to the people who actually worked on the show.
Season 3 ended with the aliens helping Hitler and the NX-01 in the 1940s. For what it's worth, Brannon Braga has more or less apologized for TATV and he understands what was wrong with it. http://io9.gizmodo.com/5151942/sorry-about-that-whole-enterprise-ending-thing As was said before, B&B wanted to really start something fresh with Enterprise by being planet-bound for the first season and changing things up a little more. They were overridden by TPTB above them and the rest is history. I really it would be a really damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Take out the phasers and you lose an element of Star Trek. Take out the warp drive and you lose an element of Star Trek.
I'm saying that with a little creativity and a little less cookie cutter "It's always been this way so we have to do it like this again" it could have been a lot more interesting. Not JUST the technical aspects, but particularly characterization and dialog. The only member of the crew who gets to step out of the traditionally Star Trekian stiff/wooden characterization is Trip Tucker, and then only because he comes off as a half-assed cowboy who only even got this job because he's the Captain's BFF. Recall, for a moment, the second half of "For the Uniform" where the DS9 crew had to run the Defiant on manual control because Eddington had fragged their computers. If you actually want to show a more primitive time for Starfleet before they had solved all their problems, try THAT mode of operation for an entire season. It would have accomplished that task a lot more effectively than "Captain, I think you should take a look at this... um, according to our service records, we're actually a bunch of idiots who don't understand how most of our technology even works." The show gave indications of a writing staff that was trying to be original but couldn't think of anything other than "do the same things we've done before, just change the names and make it not work the first time."
I consider them related concepts: you can't judge a showrunner or political figure to be malicious, since chances are the guy has simply reached his level of incompetence and genuinely can't help but fuck things up.