By the way, has anyone seen the different designs of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E in the Generations/First Contact 'Making of...' book? Some of them are beyond recognizable!
For those of us who don't hate the Nu Enterprise but don't love it
- Thread starter sunburn800
- Start date
- Status
Rii
Rear Admiral
That's a nice comparison PixelMagic, thanks. 
I wasn't thrilled with the first image of the new Enterprise released, but everything we've seen in the trailers since looks great. I've nothing against a more conservative rendition per se, but Church and co. have done fine work here. I've even come around to the nacelle proportions.
The interiors, particularly the bridge, I'm rather less sanguine about.
I wasn't thrilled with the first image of the new Enterprise released, but everything we've seen in the trailers since looks great. I've nothing against a more conservative rendition per se, but Church and co. have done fine work here. I've even come around to the nacelle proportions.
The interiors, particularly the bridge, I'm rather less sanguine about.
I didn't like it but have come to accept it. I don't think there could have been a single perfect redesign that accomplished their goals and made everyone happy. I think it's rather obvious there are in-universe plot reasons that the ship looks like it does (which could and should be debated separately.)
My reasons for dislike? See below:
Thanks for doing that, PixelMagic.
I'm really not that bothered by the style, just the proportions. I'd tempted to do a further cut and paste to illustrate what I mean.
My reasons for dislike? See below:
Thanks for doing that, PixelMagic.
I'm really not that bothered by the style, just the proportions. I'd tempted to do a further cut and paste to illustrate what I mean.
Last edited:
My monitor is 1440x900, but my browser window is set at 1024x768. The current image is 800 pixels wide and the original image was more like 920, and I was having to scroll side-to-side to read single lines.
TrekBBS policy, on the other hand, recommends a maximum of 640x480 for inline images under ordinary circumstances, with some leeway allowed for image-heavy threads such as picture threads, caption contests and image-heavy threads in the Tech and Art Forums. As far as "a certain few still hobbling themselves with antiquated technology" goes, there are still significant portions of the US where broadband is not available in any form, let alone the rest of the world (this adds up to something like 25 or 30% of TrekBBS membership.) Unless a thread is identified as "image-heavy" or "large images", it's reasonable to give someone with only a slow connection available to them some warning so that they may avoid large images which may slow them to a crawl. Just don't surprise them, is all I'm asking.
I think I've been quite relaxed about this, really, and usually anything 800 pixels wide and under has not been challenged. I further encourage the use of thumbnails when posting large images, to give members the choice.
Whereas the TOS proportions would have been more likely to be approved by the majority of the fans, I believe that the proportions HAD to be changed to work. They did what they were supposed to, keep the elements of the ship, but make it more sleek, make it look like something that would move well. The TOS saucer, neck, engineering, and nacelles layout/proportions wouldn't be too effective for combat. One or two torpedoes could blow off a nacelle. Church's design (along with the others that I'm sure he came up with) is suburb, because while still essentially being the Enterprise, it manages to look aggressive and elegant.
On a side note, I actually prefer Church's design of the Venator class (Star Wars Episode II and III) more than it's inspiration, the Star Destroyer from the Original Trilogy.
When the film finally comes out and the gag order is over, I REALLY hope Church updates his website with the Star Trek production materials.
On a side note, I actually prefer Church's design of the Venator class (Star Wars Episode II and III) more than it's inspiration, the Star Destroyer from the Original Trilogy.
When the film finally comes out and the gag order is over, I REALLY hope Church updates his website with the Star Trek production materials.
I love the way the NuEnterprise got rid of the utilitarian design ethic of the 1960s, and instead replaced it with the "futuristic" design ethic of the totally un-dated and un-obsolete 1950s.
Thank God that the nacelles now look almost exactly like the upper front and rear fenders of a mid-50s Chevy Belair, from the great big round headlight bezel up front, to the demi-fins on the back.
And those curved nacelle struts positively reek of visions of futures past.
Visually, this isn't your father's Enterprise, but your grandfather's Enterprise.
Not saying I don't like it. I do. I'm just saying that it's every bit as dated looking, if not more so, than the original Gray Lady was, and as such, the supposed "need to make these changes for modern audiences to accept them" is somewhat suspect.
Thank God that the nacelles now look almost exactly like the upper front and rear fenders of a mid-50s Chevy Belair, from the great big round headlight bezel up front, to the demi-fins on the back.
And those curved nacelle struts positively reek of visions of futures past.
Visually, this isn't your father's Enterprise, but your grandfather's Enterprise.
Not saying I don't like it. I do. I'm just saying that it's every bit as dated looking, if not more so, than the original Gray Lady was, and as such, the supposed "need to make these changes for modern audiences to accept them" is somewhat suspect.
Besides the proportions, the Kelvin looks a lot closer to the TOS aesthetic. If that design was good enough for the movie, then why couldn't something like that be used for the Enterprise and something closer to ENT-era be used for the Kelvin?
Oh well. It's growing on me in its current form, but I do like the Kelvin a lot.
Oh well. It's growing on me in its current form, but I do like the Kelvin a lot.
I think we all have a TOS-design bias.
PixelMagic -- You did a good job with that comparison, but when we are talking about the aesthetic value of this new Enterprise, why do we need to compare it -- or its proportions -- to the original? Why do we think the original ship's proportions are the baseline for "looking good"? I think the answer to that is that we have a bias towards the TOS Enterprise, and that is the only design we know, so in our minds TOS must be the "right" design.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not flaming you. I'm guilty of the same thing, and that is thinking that the TOS Enterprise is the pinnacle of what constitutes good proportions. We have no other design on which to base our opinions except the TOS Enterprise, so of course we will be biased toward those proportions. That doesn't make the TOS proportions "right", it only makes them familiar.
Surely, if we take a step back and consider this new ship on its own merits -- and not compared proportionally to the TOS ship -- we could possibly see that it may be quite beautiful.
Of course, having said that, I myself have a bit of a problem with the size of the nacelles compared to the secondary hull. Is that a fundamental design flaw, or is it simply "different" than the familiar TOS proportions? Therefore, in my mind different = bad. However, does different really = bad? Why do the nacelles need to be smaller, except to make them more proportional to TOS?
I think the difference in look will NOT be obviously an in-universe change. The Alternate Timeline might be a way for some fans to reconcile the new look, but I personally don't think that will be an overt "in-film" reason for the change. I think it looks different just because the film is made in 2009 instead of with a 1966 aesthetic. That's the only reason.
If a "fanon" reason for the change in look is the alternate timeline, then that's fine...but I don't think that will be an obvious plot point to this film.
PixelMagic -- You did a good job with that comparison, but when we are talking about the aesthetic value of this new Enterprise, why do we need to compare it -- or its proportions -- to the original? Why do we think the original ship's proportions are the baseline for "looking good"? I think the answer to that is that we have a bias towards the TOS Enterprise, and that is the only design we know, so in our minds TOS must be the "right" design.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not flaming you. I'm guilty of the same thing, and that is thinking that the TOS Enterprise is the pinnacle of what constitutes good proportions. We have no other design on which to base our opinions except the TOS Enterprise, so of course we will be biased toward those proportions. That doesn't make the TOS proportions "right", it only makes them familiar.
Surely, if we take a step back and consider this new ship on its own merits -- and not compared proportionally to the TOS ship -- we could possibly see that it may be quite beautiful.
Of course, having said that, I myself have a bit of a problem with the size of the nacelles compared to the secondary hull. Is that a fundamental design flaw, or is it simply "different" than the familiar TOS proportions? Therefore, in my mind different = bad. However, does different really = bad? Why do the nacelles need to be smaller, except to make them more proportional to TOS?
I think the difference in look will NOT be obviously an in-universe change. The Alternate Timeline might be a way for some fans to reconcile the new look, but I personally don't think that will be an overt "in-film" reason for the change. I think it looks different just because the film is made in 2009 instead of with a 1966 aesthetic. That's the only reason.
If a "fanon" reason for the change in look is the alternate timeline, then that's fine...but I don't think that will be an obvious plot point to this film.
Last edited:
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
My one REAL complaint is that those nacelles are too frakking close together! I could live with the other changes (don't like them, but it's an AU, so I can deal), but she just doesnt' look "balanced" with them tucked so close together...
Jackson, I get what you are saying, and you're totally right. The reason that I think the TOS proportions look right, is because that's what I've known all my life.
Had this been the first incarnation of Star Trek ever, I'm not sure what I would think about the Enterprise.
Had this been the first incarnation of Star Trek ever, I'm not sure what I would think about the Enterprise.
Absolutely Right(TM).
Typical of this is the oft-made assertion that the engines are somehow "too close together." Of course they're not; they look just fine. What is meant is that they are closer together, proportionally, than those of the TOS Enterprise.
I understand what you're saying, but can't a 2009 design borrow from 1955 and still be a 2009 design? How often is an era's design aesthetic completely original to that era?I love the way the NuEnterprise got rid of the utilitarian design ethic of the 1960s, and instead replaced it with the "futuristic" design ethic of the totally un-dated and un-obsolete 1950s.
Thank God that the nacelles now look almost exactly like the upper front and rear fenders of a mid-50s Chevy Belair, from the great big round headlight bezel up front, to the demi-fins on the back.
And those curved nacelle struts positively reek of visions of futures past.
Visually, this isn't your father's Enterprise, but your grandfather's Enterprise.
Not saying I don't like it. I do. I'm just saying that it's every bit as dated looking, if not more so, than the original Gray Lady was, and as such, the supposed "need to make these changes for modern audiences to accept them" is somewhat suspect.
I own a lamp that will never be confused for anything other than a modern lamp, but it has hints of 1930s art deco. Does that make the whole design "old fashioned"? Not at all. It has art deco qualities, but the overall design is modern and is not something that would have come out of the 1930s.
The new Enterprise design may have hints of a 1950s design, and many of the details are directly lifted from a 1950s aesthetic, but there is no way I could imagine a 1950s era designer coming up with the overall design of this new Enterprise. Its overall look is definitely modern.
Granted, there are details in this ship that are deliberate attempts at giving us a subconcious feeling of nostalgia, even though that nostalgia is for the 1950s and not the 1960s Star Trek TV era...but a general feeling of nostalgia -- regardless of the era -- is a positive feeling nevertheless.
You might be right for all I know. I'm just guessing.
As are all of us.
I think it's that, if they're going to go for nostalgia, why not go for the nostalgia of the era of the show? Also, there's a difference between the design aesthetic of TOS and the new movie's ship. In TOS Matt Jefferies had a mandate to make things look very practical. His background was in real-world airplane and military design. It was supposed to look utilitarian, yet impressive. The Kelvin achieves this flawlessly. The Enterprise in this movie is very showy. I understand the function of having it look that way story-wise: it's supposed to be the impressive brand-new powerful ship. But it's still essentially much more a military vessel than, say, a Galaxy-class ship, whose mission is more focused on diplomacy.
Ultimately it doesn't matter much because the movie looks like it'll be spectacular. But I think it's based on a little more than simply TOS-bias (though I am definitely guilty of that too).
- Status
