Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

[GodThingFormerly]

Nope, just pointing out that there was nothing objectionable about the idea to Gene et al, other than cost.

Okay, so why didn't GR have the E-D land in ST:TNG? Those comparatively primitive digital post-production tools from the mid-1980s would have permitted the relatively inexpensive compositing of planetary landscapes against a starship miniature with its landing gear deployed.

TGT

 

[Kpnuts]

Voyager landed

Even the NX01 descended to building level

The 1701 was built on Earth, get over it

 

[Enterprise101]

Don't like it. It's a mess.

The undercut is too severe, the secondary hull too short, the neck goes back too far, the engine pylons connect with the hull to far back and the nacelles' line of sight is blocked by the primary hull. The primary hull itself is fine, but overall?

Blech.

Agree totally Nice to know that there are others out there who appreciate and know the lines of Enterprise asthetics.

So anyone who disagrees with you is tasteless and ignorant, right?

We are all free to think what we like. I guess it just all depends on what you like, right?

 

[ancient]

Nope, just pointing out that there was nothing objectionable about the idea to Gene et al, other than cost.

Okay, so why didn't GR have the E-D land in ST:TNG? Those comparatively primitive digital post-production tools from the mid-1980s would have permitted the relatively inexpensive compositing of planetary landscapes against a starship miniature with its landing gear deployed.

TGT

It would have been an unnessessay expense, even on TNG. And it wouldn't be needed considering transporters were pretty well established by that point.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

It would have been an unnessessay expense, even on TNG.

Landing legs would have been no more of an expense than that saucer-sep idiocy they quickly abandoned.

And it wouldn't be needed considering transporters were pretty well established by that point.

...just as they were in TOS.

TGT

 

[Kpnuts]

Yes, because just adding landing legs is ALL they would have had to do to create a landing effect on TNG

 

[ancient]

It would have been an unnessessay expense, even on TNG.

Landing legs would have been no more of an expense than that saucer-sep idiocy they quickly abandoned.

Yeah. Quickly abandoned.

And it wouldn't be needed considering transporters were pretty well established by that point.

...just as they were in TOS.

TGT

Exactly. Transporters were a cheaper - not technically more logical - approach. As I said, GR's only aversion to landing the ship was budget related.

 

[Jackson Roykirk]

Long time listener, first time caller here....

As I've looked at the photos and read the comments here, I've drawn a few conclusions:

Like many, my first reaction to the new E was disappointment. I was one of those hoping to see an Enterprise that looked more or less exactly like the ship we saw on TOS. As time goes by though, the new design is growing on me.

Further, the new design helps alleviate something that has bugged me for almost 30 years: The Enterprise refit in ST:TMP. I always found it ridiculous that the TMP Enterprise is called a "refit" since every single square inch of the ship seems to be completely new. There's nothing, and I mean nothing, anywhere on that ship that resembles the TOS Enterprise. I don't mean just the exterior-- the TMP engine room, for example, is radically different. There's no amount of "refitting" that could make the TOS Engine room look like the one in TMP. This isn't a refit, it's obviously a completely new ship that happens to be shaped somewhat like the TOS Enterprise.

With the new design, though, I can see a progression leading to the TMP Enterprise. As many have commented, the primary hull is nearly identical to the refit. Other details, like the docking ports and the deflector dish, are also in line with the refit. I propose that this Abrams Enterprise IS the TOS Enterprise, in the same vein as the bumpy-headed Klingons are what Klingons always looked like. It's different enough from the refit to justify Decker's comment that "This is almost a totally new Enterprise" but it's still similar enough to justify Kirk's emotional reaction to seeing her again in Space Dock.

Further, I appreciated the poster who provided us with the collage of all the Enterprise incarnations. Looking at that, which Enterprise seems out of place? It's the TOS ship. The Abrams Enterprise fits much better with the design philosophy that Star Trek eventually adopted.

So, as much as I love the original Enterprise design, I think this new ship is in many ways more realistic and it nicely explains the problems I always had with the "refit."

On the other hand, if I go to the cinema and the new Enterprise looks like total crap, please disregard this entire post.

 

[Koinek]

Meh....I don't buy the nacelles. They look even more clunky and made up than the originals. Liked the NX-01's more. Otherwise I like the throwback hull. Reminds me of the models from the other movies.

 

[JoeZhang]

It would have been an unnessessay expense, even on TNG.

Landing legs would have been no more of an expense than that saucer-sep idiocy they quickly abandoned.

Didn't they abandon that because of... cost?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It would have been an unnessessay expense, even on TNG.

Landing legs would have been no more of an expense than that saucer-sep idiocy they quickly abandoned.

Didn't they abandon that because of... cost?

Which must've really rankled Roddenberry... what with his "utopian socialist" slant he adopted later in his life, the idea of being forced to face financial realities must've stung a bit. Of course, by the time it was abandoned, he wasn't really involved anymore, but still...

The "routine separation" thing was abandoned so completely that the 4' model (which almost entirely replaced the 6' one which was crated 'til Generations) was one-piece. I think that the last time the 6' was used in-series was in "Best of Both Worlds," wasn't it?

 

[Keldor]

What an ugly

 

[AmbassadorKosh]

Long time listener, first time caller here....

As I've looked at the photos and read the comments here, I've drawn a few conclusions:

Like many, my first reaction to the new E was disappointment. I was one of those hoping to see an Enterprise that looked more or less exactly like the ship we saw on TOS. As time goes by though, the new design is growing on me.

Further, the new design helps alleviate something that has bugged me for almost 30 years: The Enterprise refit in ST:TMP. I always found it ridiculous that the TMP Enterprise is called a "refit" since every single square inch of the ship seems to be completely new. There's nothing, and I mean nothing, anywhere on that ship that resembles the TOS Enterprise. I don't mean just the exterior-- the TMP engine room, for example, is radically different. There's no amount of "refitting" that could make the TOS Engine room look like the one in TMP. This isn't a refit, it's obviously a completely new ship that happens to be shaped somewhat like the TOS Enterprise.

With the new design, though, I can see a progression leading to the TMP Enterprise. As many have commented, the primary hull is nearly identical to the refit. Other details, like the docking ports and the deflector dish, are also in line with the refit. I propose that this Abrams Enterprise IS the TOS Enterprise, in the same vein as the bumpy-headed Klingons are what Klingons always looked like. It's different enough from the refit to justify Decker's comment that "This is almost a totally new Enterprise" but it's still similar enough to justify Kirk's emotional reaction to seeing her again in Space Dock.

Further, I appreciated the poster who provided us with the collage of all the Enterprise incarnations. Looking at that, which Enterprise seems out of place? It's the TOS ship. The Abrams Enterprise fits much better with the design philosophy that Star Trek eventually adopted.

So, as much as I love the original Enterprise design, I think this new ship is in many ways more realistic and it nicely explains the problems I always had with the "refit."

On the other hand, if I go to the cinema and the new Enterprise looks like total crap, please disregard this entire post.

I could see the refit being the TOS Enterprise because of one simple historical fact; have you ever seen the refit battleships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack? The Maryland, Tennessee, West Virginia, et.al. finished the war with a completely different appearance than original constructed. In fact the only thing that looked externally the same was the hull, just as in the case of the refit Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise. I'm not going to bash the new design for the Enterprise, it just doesn't fit the accepted canon of the appearance of the Big E. It fits the design evolution that started with E-C and E-D, and to me, saying that this new design is the way the Enterprise looked during Kirks early years in Starfleet destroys the hard work of GR and MJ and the memories of thousands of trekkies that grew up with the original show and original ship.

 

[xan82]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=688TC5z6n5Q

what you think?

 

[SalvorHardin]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=688TC5z6n5Q

what you think?

I think you've posted this too many times already...
What is it ? The 4th or 5th time so far ?

 

[xan82]

Actually, thats a different link. I deleted the first video, re-edited the pic and made a new one.

Perhapps you are thinking of the pictures you saw instead...

Either way not everyone sits here watching the forum all day long... first time Only other time I posted it was about 25 pages ago!

 

[USS Excelsior]

Another thing about the nacelles is I don't think they even look the same as the nacelles on the ship featured in the teaser trailer for this movie.

 

[JoeZhang]

Another thing about the nacelles is I don't think they even look the same as the nacelles on the ship featured in the teaser trailer for this movie.

Because they are under construction and don't have the "caps" on them.

 

[Jackson Roykirk]

I could see the refit being the TOS Enterprise because of one simple historical fact; have you ever seen the refit battleships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack? The Maryland, Tennessee, West Virginia, et.al. finished the war with a completely different appearance than original constructed. In fact the only thing that looked externally the same was the hull, just as in the case of the refit Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

I haven't seen the battleship refits you mention, but I'd certainly be interested in any before/after pictures that may be out there. You make a good point though.

But, even the hull of the refit Enterprise looks totally different from the TOS ship. The only similarity between the two starships is the basic shape, and even that isn't the same. I'm no expert in this stuff, but it seems that the TOS primary hull is much smaller than the refit, for example.

 

[milo bloom]

I like to think the "routine saucer separation" was abandoned because the idea of leaving the families in a ship without warp drive in a battle was kinda ridiculous


As for this new model, it's not really the detail aesthetics that bother me as much as the proportions. The ships of this time have certain proportions, and these look "off" with the neck too far back and the overall look of the pylons. The Photoshop tweaks that have been posted to that effect totally win me over, so I have to say Abrams, et al, were definitely on the right track, it just needed a little bit more attention.