I'm speaking from a purely aesthetic viewpoint. As far as functionality is concerned, to me that only matters if its a real ship and I'm aboard it.
Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
- Status
Yea, I agree that this design does, indeed, share some design elements as seen from Gabe Koerner (gabekoerner.com seems to be down right now).
Note how the neck is thick and sectioned in both designs. There's a shell effect over the front behind the deflector dish in both. The nacelles share a hood on the front. The saucer has strips on it's rim and is less curved underneath than the TOS or TMP era ships. There's also that torpedo launcher on the neck as with every other ship after the TOS original. It's interesting both designers kept this feature for a rebooting of the original design.
I used to call Gabe's big E the 'animae-enterprise', as it's design seems to stem from that design world more than anything. The new E for the film seems to have some of this going on as well but combined with a larger sense of what's going on in design outside genre influences. Thank goodness. As terrific as Gabe's ship design is, it's still from the mind of someone into genre more than design itself. Not that that's a terrible thing.
Anything I missed?
Note how the neck is thick and sectioned in both designs. There's a shell effect over the front behind the deflector dish in both. The nacelles share a hood on the front. The saucer has strips on it's rim and is less curved underneath than the TOS or TMP era ships. There's also that torpedo launcher on the neck as with every other ship after the TOS original. It's interesting both designers kept this feature for a rebooting of the original design.
I used to call Gabe's big E the 'animae-enterprise', as it's design seems to stem from that design world more than anything. The new E for the film seems to have some of this going on as well but combined with a larger sense of what's going on in design outside genre influences. Thank goodness. As terrific as Gabe's ship design is, it's still from the mind of someone into genre more than design itself. Not that that's a terrible thing.
Anything I missed?
I hope you are right, but it would have been better for him to show both versions of the ship or say something like "That is not the only version of the Enterprise we will see".
For him like it or not, fan will be a big factor in how well this movie will do, if you push them away...who will go see it. The studio want to make it $150 Million back.
For him like it or not, fan will be a big factor in how well this movie will do, if you push them away...who will go see it. The studio want to make it $150 Million back.
number6
Vice Admiral
What suddenly hits me about this ship is the potentially weird and bizarre and crazy left-field thought that because of some timeline manipulation in the film, this is the Enterprise for a good portion of the story, and when everything is set straight, the crew is back on the good old light/medium gray TOS Enterprise, on the good old familiar black/gray/red bridge, and JJ will have toyed with us the whole time. Would make for a nice surprise, no?
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
Shhhhhh.. Don't tell them that. You'll ruin everything!!
While the engine hull is more complicated - maybe overworked, the saucer is PLAIN. Man, the TOS ship had more detail. No registry or name. No undercut. No windows. No landing-gear triangles. No little ring cuts. Just a big flat grey mass.
I think the biggest problem for me is - this ship doesn't really look badass, it looks like a cruise ship. I was expecting something more mechanical, not something that looks like abstract art, like the ENT-D.
Meh.
ETA The color is not all dark though, that's nice.
I think the biggest problem for me is - this ship doesn't really look badass, it looks like a cruise ship. I was expecting something more mechanical, not something that looks like abstract art, like the ENT-D.
Meh.
ETA The color is not all dark though, that's nice.
I HATE the secondary hull. They should have just used Matt Jefferies original design. I daresay Star Trek remastered and "In A Mirror, Darkly" have shown that the design still looks viable and futuristic even today. There was no need to butcher it like this. Same goes for the bridge.
The only things about this film so far I like are the updated uniforms, Quinto as young-Spock, Karl Urban as McCoy, Jennifer Morrison as Kirk's mother, Nimoy as old-Spock, and the new deflector dish.
This ship, the redone bridge, and little details like the 0 on the Kelvin show me that the creative team behind this team don't care to get the "little" details right.
It's a shame really.
That said I likely will watch the film in theaters at least once to give it a fair chance. Unless I am hugely mistaken, this IS a reimagining either in-universe or not. Even if I like the film I suspect I will place it in a different continuity from the Star Trek (1964-2008) if only because of all the differences I've seen so far that can't be explained away.
The only things about this film so far I like are the updated uniforms, Quinto as young-Spock, Karl Urban as McCoy, Jennifer Morrison as Kirk's mother, Nimoy as old-Spock, and the new deflector dish.
This ship, the redone bridge, and little details like the 0 on the Kelvin show me that the creative team behind this team don't care to get the "little" details right.
It's a shame really.That said I likely will watch the film in theaters at least once to give it a fair chance. Unless I am hugely mistaken, this IS a reimagining either in-universe or not. Even if I like the film I suspect I will place it in a different continuity from the Star Trek (1964-2008) if only because of all the differences I've seen so far that can't be explained away.
I'm guessing that the "chrome" front ends of the nacelles are actually a glass-like surface reflecting space in this image - and that when the ship gets revved up there is a spinning light-effect inside. I'm guessing "spinning" because of the blades we see inside the nacelle fronts in the teaser trailer.
I think the secondary hull is about the same volume, relative to the saucer, as on the TOS ship. It looks smaller because of the way it tapers and flattens toward the back. The TOS secondary hull was a little small, too, in terms of the design balance - Jefferies and Probert fattened that secondary hull up in the Phase II and TMP refit version.
It looks like the saucer lacks the concavity of earlier versions of the NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A. The saucer bottom is just flat, with the lower convex area simply emerging from that plane. That, along with the way the pylons and neck sweep into the secondary hull rather than appearing to simply butt against it, is probably why some people see resemblances to Picard's Enterprise and other later ships.
I'll take this over the Enterprise E any day of the week.
But stepping back, the most remarkable aspect of this is that a whole new design team coming in to do their own take on the aesthetic of a four-decade-old TV show chose to produce yet another Enterprise that no one could mistake for anything other than "Star Trek's" signature ship. Don't look like "Star Wars," don't look like "Battlestar Galactica." Looks like the Enterprise.
That in itself speaks to the strengths - and, okay, "timelessness" - of the original design by Matt Jefferies, regardless of the exact lines or details of the model.
I think the secondary hull is about the same volume, relative to the saucer, as on the TOS ship. It looks smaller because of the way it tapers and flattens toward the back. The TOS secondary hull was a little small, too, in terms of the design balance - Jefferies and Probert fattened that secondary hull up in the Phase II and TMP refit version.
It looks like the saucer lacks the concavity of earlier versions of the NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A. The saucer bottom is just flat, with the lower convex area simply emerging from that plane. That, along with the way the pylons and neck sweep into the secondary hull rather than appearing to simply butt against it, is probably why some people see resemblances to Picard's Enterprise and other later ships.
I'll take this over the Enterprise E any day of the week.
But stepping back, the most remarkable aspect of this is that a whole new design team coming in to do their own take on the aesthetic of a four-decade-old TV show chose to produce yet another Enterprise that no one could mistake for anything other than "Star Trek's" signature ship. Don't look like "Star Wars," don't look like "Battlestar Galactica." Looks like the Enterprise.
That in itself speaks to the strengths - and, okay, "timelessness" - of the original design by Matt Jefferies, regardless of the exact lines or details of the model.
I'm not very pleased, so I can empathize.You know when I first saw this I must have felt like MattJC, wondering what the hell they did to the Enterprise and Star Trek.
This new design, very meh...
Has MattJC responded yet?
He will not be very pleased.
I need to change my title to Naysayer.
OK, several points...
1) I like it.
2) Where are the red Federation stripes??
3) Remember the pivoting nacelle issue - do you think when they go to warp, the nacelles rotate so that the gap that is seen below the nacelle in the pic rotates around so that it is on top.
4) I'm sorry, but the nacelles sort of look, well...um...uncircumsized.
5) I think the deflector dish is a nice blend between NX-01, TOS E and TMP E - definitely fits somewhere in that lineage.
6) Not enough under-saucer detail.
1) I like it.
2) Where are the red Federation stripes??
3) Remember the pivoting nacelle issue - do you think when they go to warp, the nacelles rotate so that the gap that is seen below the nacelle in the pic rotates around so that it is on top.
4) I'm sorry, but the nacelles sort of look, well...um...uncircumsized.
5) I think the deflector dish is a nice blend between NX-01, TOS E and TMP E - definitely fits somewhere in that lineage.
6) Not enough under-saucer detail.
Agreed. The leverage forces on nacelles like that would be catastrophic. How hard would it have been to angle them? For Christ's sake, they should have hired at least one real engineer to consult.
~String
Oh, I'd still hit it.This is what I'm thinking about when I see most the comments in here:
Except Rick. He gets a free pass for some reason.
Just needs a paper bag over the rear end, I'm sure she still gives good head.
Movie-era saucer, Gabe Koerner nacelles... It's a Heinz Enterprise - 57 Varieties...
not mad about the secondary hull but I think it'll grow on me.
not mad about the secondary hull but I think it'll grow on me.
I think some people will change their minds once they see Enterprise in motion in the new trailer. The angle of this shot makes the saucer look too big and the nacelles to small, a flyby will put a few minds at rest.
I think some people will change their minds once they see Enterprise in motion in the new trailer. The angle of this shot makes the saucer look too big and the nacelles to small, a flyby will put a few minds at rest.
Like I've been saying, it's not an angle that's particularly flattering. Every Enterprise has had a side that doesn't look too good.
I don't like it -- they're gonna have to change it.
- Status
