I never had a problem with the design. I always viewed took the message of the original series and the actual events as the most important thing (obviously), and ignored little details. For example, of course in the 23rd century Checkov wouldn't have a 60's Beatles haircut, and the technology wouldn't look so retro. I guess I'd compare it to how Christians who aren't fundamentalists view the bible. I strictly view all the events and each episode as canon, but not certain visuals, is that makes sense.
Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
- Status
How do you know this?
Agreed, she looks better in motion. Additionally, I'm glad that the ship isn't as swift as Voyager or the E-E (and certainly Defiant) as well. I had missed how deliberate the movements for the E-D and the Refit E/E-A were. It's a funny thing to me: if the Abramsprise were as swift as the E-E, I think it would have looked worse.
Yes, I'm not quite sure if that makes sense either, but work with me here!
The TMP ship is still the best looking of the lot.
That said I don't really mind this design so much. Some of the things that bothered others did not bother me - I actually like the fat nacelles with their 'hot-rod' style caps for instance, and I don't mind that they are closer together.
I've never really dug the curved nacelle strutts though, but I can see that this combined with other features such as the way they join with the secondary hull are meant to show a common design lineage through to the TNG era ships.
That said I don't really mind this design so much. Some of the things that bothered others did not bother me - I actually like the fat nacelles with their 'hot-rod' style caps for instance, and I don't mind that they are closer together.
I've never really dug the curved nacelle strutts though, but I can see that this combined with other features such as the way they join with the secondary hull are meant to show a common design lineage through to the TNG era ships.
I guess I don't. I just think we all know that they introduced Checkov and the way he looked to appeal to younger audiences in the 60's, and coming up with some explanation for why in the 23rd century he looked like he came straight out of the Monkees is a bit ridiculous. Not to open up a can of worms about how Star Trek's not real anyway or anything. I just think there's certain things it's best to acknowledge are results of limitations at the time the show was produced and focus on the actual events. That's how I choose to look at it anyway, feel free to disagree.
Thanx carlmarx 
And the entirety of Trek XI was made to appeal to younger audiences now.
number6
Vice Admiral
Chekov with a Beatle haircut is totally plausible. No doubt EMI will reissue the Beatles catalogue again for the band's 300th anniversary and there will be all kinds of promotional products to celebrate it's release.. Including free Beatle Haircuts for all StarFleet Graduates..
Hence the Hot-Rod 1701. Avant-retro. Again.
I still can't see what's so hot rod about the design. Can anybody point that out to me?
Clearly, you have never puddled over an American 60's - early 70's muscle car.
Google 69 Charger or 71 Mach-1 to see some design inspiration.
I can't say that I see the hot rod design either, but I think the nacelles (with the cupped bussard collectors) as well as the curves of the nacelles and the pylons are supposed to evoke a retro 1950s feel to them.
On a side note, I've always seen the Excelsior as something like a Cadillac and the Sovereign as a ferrari
Headlight-wise, yeah, I see it.
I don't see that, personally, but hey, to each their own.
I do think that Chekov's haircut was most likely a product of its time, simply because there are so many aspects of TOS that were products of their time (the theme song, the over-dramatic presentation, the retro look of the ship, the bass-ackwards way that women were treated, etc.). And... I personally happen to think that haircut is kind of silly looking. But that's me.
I pretty much like the ST09 Enterprise design, and have from the beginning. Certainly, it's a huge improvement over the supremely ugly original original 1701 as seen in TOS itself. There are a couple of aspects of it that bug me, such as the bulbous looking nacelles (if they were just a LITTLE more slim, they'd be fine) and the odd positioning of the neck on the engineering hull (and I'm not a big fan of the interiors, actually). On the whole, talking about the exterior design, I'd say it's about even with, or maybe a tad better than, the TMP re-design. Neither of those can compete with several of Starfleet's late 24th century designs when it comes to my favorite Trek ships, though.
Clearly, you have never puddled over an American 60's - early 70's muscle car.
Google 69 Charger or 71 Mach-1 to see some design inspiration.
So it's taking a beautiful car design and destroying it by making ugly additions?
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_imagearticle2743.jpg
http://www.sportbilen.se/bilder/bilder/69charger20468.jpg
Actually I thinking more of the headlight cowling on a '57 chev when I said that, but there are other design elements present from 50's cars.
The Edselprise sucks!
The exterior, I like.
Still have reservations about some of the interior sets. The bridge and the transporter room are OK. Engineering does indeed suck.
Still have reservations about some of the interior sets. The bridge and the transporter room are OK. Engineering does indeed suck.
- Status
Similar threads
