SF ships should be built to defend themselves with bloodthirsty rivals you need powerful ships
Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
- Status
SF ships should be built to defend themselves with bloodthirsty rivals you need powerful ships
Photon torpedoes in TOS were always portrayed as powerful. As for the phasers, there's no reason to think that the old ship didn't have a rapid-fire mode. The trip to Vulcan... we're not really sure how long that took. I don't think the new ship is a whole lot more powerful than the old one at all, really.
Yes, that is too rational for this forum. How dare you try being logical in the TrekBBS?!
Pfft. Bring it on!You are SO lucky I can't locate you on my sensors, beam to your location, & open up a can of Finnegan whoopass on your butt for that remark...
*pulls type-1 phaser from boot, blows up agony booth*Your blasphemy has earned you a full day in the agony booth.
But in all seriousness...
Sorry, but I really do find it ugly. From the spinny pinwheel nacelle caps, to the "it's just a big satellite dish" deflector, to the spindly, straight nacelle pylons, to this overall retro look... I just do not like it. Never did. Especially when compared to Starfleet ships of the TNG/DS9 era... in general, mind you... I'm not saying that every last 24th century design is a masterwork; there are a few really ugly ones from that era, too. But for my money, it's hard to top - for example - this:
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion on the subject, even those who think I'm the devil because of it.
They are. They're not built ONLY for war, but they are most certainly built for war as well as other things. In all eras of Trek, when the shit hits the fan and a fleet of Klingon/Romulan/Borg/Dominion/whoever the hell ships are incoming, who is sent to fight them? Of course, this also depends on the class; some ships are designed more with combat in mind than others. Based on what it was used for and how capable it seemed to be in combat situations, the Constitution class is certainly one of those designs that is built just as much for war as for anything else.
Though come to think of it... is the Enterprise in STXI still "Constitution class"?
Not necessarily. I've seen many ship designs that look really cool from almost any angle, but have one particular angle from which the ship just looks awkward.
It just might be, actually.
Well then it wasn't a good decision to chose that particular angle for the sequence, or for the promo picture.
You know, you play with the playmates toy here & there... it grows on you...
Personally, I wasn't so pleased with the overall design until my Son got me the toy. Then slowly I began to accept it, then even LIKE it. I was just thinking maybe some peeps in this sector might be a little behind me in that way.
That presupposes that initial opinions cannot change, and that belief would be illogical IMO.
Exterior: yes
Bridge: yes
Engineering: definitely not
Bridge: yes
Engineering: definitely not
Meh, not the best. I dunno, it just looks ugly from certain angles.
Oh and a big hello to you fellers here!
Oh and a big hello to you fellers here!
A big hello to you also. Welcome to TrekBBS... be afraid... be very afraid.
We look forward to your input, we really don't bite... much.
Thought the ship looked pretty good but a bit odd in the first still that was released - BTW, there's no such thing as a "neutral angle" and the first still was anything but (it was simply a familiar angle).
Once I saw the ship in motion I was completely fine with it. The damn thing is gorgeous, and it's intended to be seen moving rather than in still images obsessively pored over.
Once I saw the ship in motion I was completely fine with it. The damn thing is gorgeous, and it's intended to be seen moving rather than in still images obsessively pored over.
Dennis, I find your analysis completely logical.
Seriously, there are angles that TOS Enterprise looks 'fishy' as well. Such a skinny 'neck' between the primary & secondary hulls?
Ahh, perfection is a road, not a destination.
What I like about this Enterprise the most is that it is designed with improvements and refits in mind, this ship is going to evolve over the years to become more advanced and hopefully that will translate visually. That is why I feel that this approach to the Enterprise is sophisticated in respect that there is room for improvement as the crew ages through the future films (and I hope they do a lot; Star Trek XVI anyone?).
).
I fall into the middle category, I think. The nacelles have grown on me, but I still think the neck is too far back on the engineering hull. But, it's obviously a bit late at this point to do anything about it...
However you feel about the JJprise design, know that it could have been alot worse.
^I kinda like the top one and the one at the bottom with the head-on view. The former has a larger engineering hull with is more proportional than the final version. The one on the bottom preserves the curved nacelles of the final (which is an okay design choice) with the more spread out positioning of the previous Enterpises.
As for the OT. I have accepted the ship as the current Enterprise. However, I still find it aesthetically unbalanced will continue to do so unless they refit/redesign it.
As for the OT. I have accepted the ship as the current Enterprise. However, I still find it aesthetically unbalanced will continue to do so unless they refit/redesign it.
Disillusioned
Commander
It honestly couldn't have been any worse from my perspective. If it had been another one of those ugly designs, it wouldn't have made any difference to me.
Nope, I don't like it. The premise allowed for radical changes in design, but this was the worst implementation of the 1701 I've seen yet. Nor do I like any of the interior sets with the exception of the transporter room and possibly sickbay. And I'm even less comfortable since the movie with the realization the thing is supposed to be huge -- I don't accept that the details support the increased size.
- Status
Similar threads
