Which do you prefer?
Favorite incarnation of the NCC-1701
- Thread starter Ensign_Redshirt
- Start date
Refit
Seconded.
It's close, EXTREMELY close, but if not for the existence of NCC-1701-A I would pick the refit version. At the moment, I think the STXI Enterprise is its best incarnation and then I simply assume that 1701-A is actually a different class of vessel. This way, I don't have to choose between them.
I like each for different reasons.
TOS is just beautiful so sleek and smooth, classic.
Refit was good, I have to say for the movies it worked well, more rugged and a few more details good move for the big screen.
I like the new one. The hull is fine not great and is a good fit for a modern movie. I really do love the interior though, but I seem to be in the minority here. I think the bridge looks wonderful being so bright and I love that engineering looks functional and is something we can relate to instead of the TNG wrap core look.
For me in the wnd TOS wins out, what can i say i like vintage
TOS is just beautiful so sleek and smooth, classic.
Refit was good, I have to say for the movies it worked well, more rugged and a few more details good move for the big screen.
I like the new one. The hull is fine not great and is a good fit for a modern movie. I really do love the interior though, but I seem to be in the minority here. I think the bridge looks wonderful being so bright and I love that engineering looks functional and is something we can relate to instead of the TNG wrap core look.
For me in the wnd TOS wins out, what can i say i like vintage
Nothing else has ever inspired me the way the original Enterprise has. It is beyond like, I love it so much that I've invested massive amounts of time and energy in knowing every little aspect of her.
With that having been said, only the TMP Enterprise has shown the same level of depth, and it is a tribute to her designers. But she still feels like a pale copy of the original to me, with too much emphasis on style. The original Enterprise is timeless because it is utilitarian in nature rather than stylized.
She is a natural beauty... she is beautiful by accident rather than on purpose, which is why I think it has been so hard to recreate that in other ships.
With that having been said, only the TMP Enterprise has shown the same level of depth, and it is a tribute to her designers. But she still feels like a pale copy of the original to me, with too much emphasis on style. The original Enterprise is timeless because it is utilitarian in nature rather than stylized.
She is a natural beauty... she is beautiful by accident rather than on purpose, which is why I think it has been so hard to recreate that in other ships.
Utilitarian? Sorry, really have to disagree with you on that one.
Something like this looks utilitarian:
Compared to that, the Enterprise looks like a cruiseboat; almost pretty but not quite it. The latest model does a much better job of looking pretty and fast.
Utilitarian... as in form follows function.Utilitarian? Sorry, really have to disagree with you on that one.
Something like this looks utilitarian:
Compared to that, the Enterprise looks like a cruiseboat; almost pretty but not quite it. The latest model does a much better job of looking pretty and fast.
For example... current passenger airplanes look essentially the same as they did in the 1960s. Why? Because they weren't designed around style, they were designed around function. Aircraft carriers today look essentially the same as they did in the 1960s. Why? Because they weren't designed around style, they were designed around function.
What you posted brings up the first question that Matt Jefferies asked... why put anything that might need work done on it on the outside of the spacecraft?
Utilitarian to you might mean crap on the surface... to me, it is form follows function.
Crap on the surface is a backwards progression of design. Our current subs have almost no surface features... but the subs of the 1930s and 1940s had tons of crap on the outside. But scifi artists today would say that the old subs look more visually interesting.
And lets face it, what you posted follows the visually interesting ideals... and not utilitarian ideals (simple, plain, form follows function).
I know what the word "utilitarian" means.
The example I posted has far to many crap on its surface for my liking, as well.
However, you seem to equate "utilitarian" with a "plastic" surface, which is untrue. The example I gave is more utilitarian because of these points:
Real missile bays; and a finite number of them. No complicated reload system that can break down. No paint on the hull; you don't need a paintjob for people to know who you are. You certainly won't see it, since you're on the inside. Big hangar bays; quite necessary seeing as transporter capability is just as limited as on the Enterprise. The weapons are on the outside, instead of hidden between hatches that can break. The hangar bays have doors at the front and the back end, so shuttles don't have to double back to enter. Sensor equipment looks like sensor equipment, instead of a single copper dome. Few windows; it isn't a cruise liner. And there are more points to make; just look at it.
As such, I do stick with my point; compared to that thing the original Enterprise isn't utilitarian designed at all. It looks like a pleasure cruiser, but fails in that regard.
Doors are less likely to breakdown than the guns. If the guns are on the outside, then them breaking down becomes a major issue. And there weren't originally windows on the Enterprise. That was done at Roddenberry's request.
Frankly, anything in the outside is dressing... pure and simple.
Again, the history of design of even todays war ships shows that they have fewer visible weapons on the outside of them compared to years past... and yet they are far more deadly.
You point out a finite number of missile bays... why can you make them out on the surface at all? You shouldn't be able to. The fact that you can see them is so you can see them. There were no visible weapons on the Enterprise... but it had them none the less.
As for paint... what paint? The color of the Enterprise is the material it is made of. Beyond the hull markings, you get what you get.
If you want to read more into what is there than actually is, that is fine... what I see in that ship you posted is a bad copy of the TOS Galatica with elements from the Nostromo and Sulaco. It is painfully... PAINFULLY, derivative work. And totally uninspired.
I don't care if you like the Enterprise or not (actually, I'm relieved you don't
), but at least show some initiative to find a decent example ship of what you do like that isn't a hack. Something original (maybe even one of the ones that that one stoled ideas from).As for your understanding of utilitarian... you said:
"The latest model does a much better job of looking pretty and fast."
Looking pretty or fast was not what the original Enterprise was meant to do. In fact, the swept aspects of the TMP Enterprise are what is wrong with that design. But attempting to look either pretty or fast (or heavily armed for that matter) are all far outside of utilitarian. If a design is intended to invoke something like that, it wasn't utilitarian.I see this with designers all the time these days... they are practically phobic about blank areas. And designers of scifi spaceships these days are the worst about this.
I don't expect you to understand any of those points... in fact, I hope you disagree with all of them (you should stand behind your ideas, no matter how misguided they might seem to me).
Refit hands down. NuE second. Original a far away last.
I have a feeling those who grew up with TOS will vote the original. Those who grew up with the TOS movies will vote refit. And teens today will vote the new one.
I have a feeling those who grew up with TOS will vote the original. Those who grew up with the TOS movies will vote refit. And teens today will vote the new one.
Similar threads
