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

[roguephoenix]

i like it but the nacels are super close to the saucer section.

 

[Sector 7]

You know, I think it's around here guys like you and guys like me ... split.

The split is between those who want to see a more military progression of ships as opposed to those of us who see it as simply a part of the design of a production.

Your view might be (don't mean to put words in) - that starships would follow a rather similar design path as one would see in actual navy or air force machines. This comes from a terrific sense of history and knowledge of functionality. My view (and certainly the design of the new enterprise) is definately in the world of contemporary design. The new enterprise shares a lot of design elements with cars we see today, which have a 'new' retro feel, as well as other design elements familiar today.

Now, I think it's great to go and create something contemporary... but as a bit of a military geek (damn History channel!) I certainly appreciate a more engineering and historical view of what a starship is. And I think TOS lent itelf to this feeling. If only because all the lads making that show were happy to survive WWII in the Pacific!

One of the things that delighted me about Star Trek as I grew up was how many times things from the show matched reality. The connection between the real U.S. Navy and Starfleet fascinated me as I learned more and saw the parallels. It adds an element of verisimilitude to the production that makes it a more comfortable place to visit and relax in. When the ground rules keep changing in a show, or the production design changes for no reason other than to make it look cool, it sort of weakens the whole experience for me.

I actually loved the refit Enterprise when it came along. The only thing I hated was the lack of a spire at the focal point of the navigational deflector ... I couldn't figure out why you'd build a parabola and not have something at the focal point to gather (or emit) radiation (I eventually came to terms with this by reasoning that the glowing front we see on the refit and similar vessels is really just a radome, and the actual dish is still there, but behind it). But why were the Klingons different? And why was the transporter effect so different ... and ugly? Those really bugged me, because the rules changed and that kind of inconsistency bugged me.

I'm willing to accept a fresh look at the franchise, but please, please, please put function behind the forms. Make the effort to establish an internally consistent, even plausible reality. Those who don't care one way or another won't notice that there's thought behind the designs and writing. But those of us who do will appreciate the production even more.

A good tool ... a guideline for this kind of consistency is to look at how things are done in the modern world and extrapolate from there. I'm convinced that's part of why the original show was as successful as it was. Because it was crewed by former military men who knew how a military organization looked and felt and they used that to guide their designs.

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.

Psion & Plum, I know we have disagreed on the look of the new Enterprise, but I have to say how much I enjoyed this response! I think I finally understand WHY you have problems with the new designs. We may never agree on nuTrek, but now I understand you. Thank you for sharing this!

 

[Plum]

^^^
no worries. Great stuff Psion.

 

[Psion]

Psion, I know we have disagreed on the look of the new Enterprise, but I have to say how much I enjoyed this response! I think I finally understand WHY you have problems with the new designs. We may never agree on nuTrek, but now I understand you. Thank you for sharing this!

Awesome! My pleasure, Sector 7. And I'm not completely against the new look yet ... just that one bad picture. It looked good in the trailer, but everything whizzed by so fast that I'm still not sure what I saw. If only a certain chipmunk would stop stealing all the photographic nuts people have been posting from the trailer recently ...

 

[Sector 7]

That poor chipmunk is worn out from trying to keep this tree from being cut down.
Legally, they have to keep them off the board.

 

[Enterpriserules]

You know, I think it's around here guys like you and guys like me ... split.

The split is between those who want to see a more military progression of ships as opposed to those of us who see it as simply a part of the design of a production.

Your view might be (don't mean to put words in) - that starships would follow a rather similar design path as one would see in actual navy or air force machines. This comes from a terrific sense of history and knowledge of functionality. My view (and certainly the design of the new enterprise) is definately in the world of contemporary design. The new enterprise shares a lot of design elements with cars we see today, which have a 'new' retro feel, as well as other design elements familiar today.

Now, I think it's great to go and create something contemporary... but as a bit of a military geek (damn History channel!) I certainly appreciate a more engineering and historical view of what a starship is. And I think TOS lent itelf to this feeling. If only because all the lads making that show were happy to survive WWII in the Pacific!

One of the things that delighted me about Star Trek as I grew up was how many times things from the show matched reality. The connection between the real U.S. Navy and Starfleet fascinated me as I learned more and saw the parallels. It adds an element of verisimilitude to the production that makes it a more comfortable place to visit and relax in. When the ground rules keep changing in a show, or the production design changes for no reason other than to make it look cool, it sort of weakens the whole experience for me.

I actually loved the refit Enterprise when it came along. The only thing I hated was the lack of a spire at the focal point of the navigational deflector ... I couldn't figure out why you'd build a parabola and not have something at the focal point to gather (or emit) radiation (I eventually came to terms with this by reasoning that the glowing front we see on the refit and similar vessels is really just a radome, and the actual dish is still there, but behind it). But why were the Klingons different? And why was the transporter effect so different ... and ugly? Those really bugged me, because the rules changed and that kind of inconsistency bugged me.

I'm willing to accept a fresh look at the franchise, but please, please, please put function behind the forms. Make the effort to establish an internally consistent, even plausible reality. Those who don't care one way or another won't notice that there's thought behind the designs and writing. But those of us who do will appreciate the production even more.

A good tool ... a guideline for this kind of consistency is to look at how things are done in the modern world and extrapolate from there. I'm convinced that's part of why the original show was as successful as it was. Because it was crewed by former military men who knew how a military organization looked and felt and they used that to guide their designs.

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.

Psion & Plum, I know we have disagreed on the look of the new Enterprise, but I have to say how much I enjoyed this response! I think I finally understand WHY you have problems with the new designs. We may never agree on nuTrek, but now I understand you. Thank you for sharing this!

I loved the function and consistency too. I was really glad that, for the most part, Trek tried to be constant. That lack of caring, or seemingly lack of caring in the new trailer and E is what sucks for me.

 

[Qonos]

You know, I think it's around here guys like you and guys like me ... split.

The split is between those who want to see a more military progression of ships as opposed to those of us who see it as simply a part of the design of a production.

Your view might be (don't mean to put words in) - that starships would follow a rather similar design path as one would see in actual navy or air force machines. This comes from a terrific sense of history and knowledge of functionality. My view (and certainly the design of the new enterprise) is definately in the world of contemporary design. The new enterprise shares a lot of design elements with cars we see today, which have a 'new' retro feel, as well as other design elements familiar today.

Now, I think it's great to go and create something contemporary... but as a bit of a military geek (damn History channel!) I certainly appreciate a more engineering and historical view of what a starship is. And I think TOS lent itelf to this feeling. If only because all the lads making that show were happy to survive WWII in the Pacific!

One of the things that delighted me about Star Trek as I grew up was how many times things from the show matched reality. The connection between the real U.S. Navy and Starfleet fascinated me as I learned more and saw the parallels. It adds an element of verisimilitude to the production that makes it a more comfortable place to visit and relax in. When the ground rules keep changing in a show, or the production design changes for no reason other than to make it look cool, it sort of weakens the whole experience for me.

I actually loved the refit Enterprise when it came along. The only thing I hated was the lack of a spire at the focal point of the navigational deflector ... I couldn't figure out why you'd build a parabola and not have something at the focal point to gather (or emit) radiation (I eventually came to terms with this by reasoning that the glowing front we see on the refit and similar vessels is really just a radome, and the actual dish is still there, but behind it). But why were the Klingons different? And why was the transporter effect so different ... and ugly? Those really bugged me, because the rules changed and that kind of inconsistency bugged me.

I'm willing to accept a fresh look at the franchise, but please, please, please put function behind the forms. Make the effort to establish an internally consistent, even plausible reality. Those who don't care one way or another won't notice that there's thought behind the designs and writing. But those of us who do will appreciate the production even more.

A good tool ... a guideline for this kind of consistency is to look at how things are done in the modern world and extrapolate from there. I'm convinced that's part of why the original show was as successful as it was. Because it was crewed by former military men who knew how a military organization looked and felt and they used that to guide their designs.

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.

I agree with your sentiments. I also think they shouldn't swimg the pendulum too far in the function department though. There has to be a cool factor, there has to be SOME sizzle to the steak.

 

[Qonos]

One of the things that delighted me about Star Trek as I grew up was how many times things from the show matched reality. The connection between the real U.S. Navy and Starfleet fascinated me as I learned more and saw the parallels. It adds an element of verisimilitude to the production that makes it a more comfortable place to visit and relax in. When the ground rules keep changing in a show, or the production design changes for no reason other than to make it look cool, it sort of weakens the whole experience for me.

I actually loved the refit Enterprise when it came along. The only thing I hated was the lack of a spire at the focal point of the navigational deflector ... I couldn't figure out why you'd build a parabola and not have something at the focal point to gather (or emit) radiation (I eventually came to terms with this by reasoning that the glowing front we see on the refit and similar vessels is really just a radome, and the actual dish is still there, but behind it). But why were the Klingons different? And why was the transporter effect so different ... and ugly? Those really bugged me, because the rules changed and that kind of inconsistency bugged me.

I'm willing to accept a fresh look at the franchise, but please, please, please put function behind the forms. Make the effort to establish an internally consistent, even plausible reality. Those who don't care one way or another won't notice that there's thought behind the designs and writing. But those of us who do will appreciate the production even more.

A good tool ... a guideline for this kind of consistency is to look at how things are done in the modern world and extrapolate from there. I'm convinced that's part of why the original show was as successful as it was. Because it was crewed by former military men who knew how a military organization looked and felt and they used that to guide their designs.

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.

Psion & Plum, I know we have disagreed on the look of the new Enterprise, but I have to say how much I enjoyed this response! I think I finally understand WHY you have problems with the new designs. We may never agree on nuTrek, but now I understand you. Thank you for sharing this!

I loved the function and consistency too. I was really glad that, for the most part, Trek tried to be constant. That lack of caring, or seemingly lack of caring in the new trailer and E is what sucks for me.

Once again I point out that you like the show that has the much more advanced looking starship and is a prequel.. You want function and consistency? Now we have that becasue the New Enterprise looks like something that was spawned after the NX-01. The TOS enterprise looks like it came from a totally different Federation.

 

[Psion]

That poor chipmunk is worn out from trying to keep this tree from being cut down.

Excellent! Then the time for us to strike is now. Soon the boards will be ours!

Legally, they have to keep them off the board.

That right there would be a really interesting point to argue. Not just the accuracy of the statement itself (Paramount owns the copyright and therefore can direct how the IP is used, but where does fair-use enter into this? If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, why can't people discuss single frames posted from a video?), but the effects of such regulations.

 

[nil_jones]

(Paramount owns the copyright and therefore can direct how the IP is used, but where does fair-use enter into this? If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, why can't people discuss single frames posted from a video?)

(Out of complete ignorance) isn't fair-use out of the picture if the element being 'used fairly' was from an illegally obtained reproduction?

 

[Psion]

I agree with your sentiments. I also think they shouldn't swimg the pendulum too far in the function department though. There has to be a cool factor, there has to be SOME sizzle to the steak.

Yes! You're absolutely right! Phasers, for example, should probably be invisible in space until they hit a target. We should hear no sound in a vacuum. And the pride of the United Federation of Planet's proudest ship in the Star Fleet ought to have a little sports car flare in the bodywork. I'm not a fundamentalist in the function over form argument, just a proponent of balance.

ADDED AFTER POSTING:

(Paramount owns the copyright and therefore can direct how the IP is used, but where does fair-use enter into this? If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, why can't people discuss single frames posted from a video?)

(Out of complete ignorance) isn't fair-use out of the picture if the element being 'used fairly' was from an illegally obtained reproduction?

It might well be, but I'm just as ignorant on this point as you are. I suppose it depends on the quality of the argument of the plaintiff's and accused's attorneys and whether the judge can be bribed.

 

[Michael]

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

 

[nil_jones]

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

As an independent musician that never sells his music (providing it online, for free), I'd be pretty miffed (potentially to the point of taking action, depending on the severity of the sampling) if MY music was sampled without AT LEAST my explicit permission, barring royalties (unless they're selling their co-opted version of my provided-for-free work).

 

[Devon]

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.

Personally, and in all reality, if such a thing happened I think we may not end up with anything even remotely like the Enterprise if this happened. Structurally, what would be the point of having three main parts (saucer/neck/engineering section) to the ship when they can combine into one, much like a Space Shuttle, or a very large version of "The Phoenix" from First Contact, etc? I think this would even apply to Matt Jefferies' design in all honesty, which itself has some rather weird design flaws. One being the neck and the thin pylons. As I think Roberto Orci even said, he was afraid someone would hit the Neck with a torpedo the right way and it would tear the ship right in half. Also having the bridge one of the easiest targets for an enemy vessel isn't too smart (but then apparently neither are any of the enemies Star Trek has faced until Generations!) And where were the escape pods? And whomever designed the bridge, well, I'd hate for a fire or something to block the way of the ONE turbolift exit. Let's face it, the Enterprise was a death trap! And I don't mean to say this to pander to Rick, but I think for practical purposes this is Rick went on the right path for the things I mentioned ship wise. But he had even conceded

The whole thing is, even with "real life justifications" for why some things are the way they are on a ship, it won't change the fact that these ships aren't real and they aren't going to actually fly through Space. So there will be wiggle room to give something that is visually pleasing and then work around that for all of those technical things. So in this case, sometimes style will have to take over substance for a ship design because you have to choose between pleasing an audience or someone who tries figuring out why things do what and if they can work or not. Who do you think the overwhelming majority will be?

In all reality, the new ship is primarily different on the surface cosmeticly from Matt's ship. The parts and where they are in relation to each other (Saucer, Dorsal at an angle coming from the bottom back end.. leads to the Engineering section below with two pylons angled and nacelles at the top) and those things are basically the same with the exception of the weird placement of the Neck and Engineering section. If those were more proportional to where they give the ship a "balanced" look, then it would look A LOT better I think.

 

[Qonos]

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

As long as the sample isn't larger than a certain percentage you're good.

 

[Michael]

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

As an independent musician that never sells his music (providing it online, for free), I'd be pretty miffed (potentially to the point of taking action, depending on the severity of the sampling) if MY music was sampled without AT LEAST my explicit permission, barring royalties (unless they're selling their co-opted version of my provided-for-free work).

Yeah, I'd be pretty miffed as well. (I'm making music myself.)

 

[Psion]

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

If music sampling is used to create other songs without issues, ...

What do you mean, without issues? You can't just use parts of a song and sample them into your own music without paying royalties. Or am I totally off on this?

As an independent musician that never sells his music (providing it online, for free), I'd be pretty miffed (potentially to the point of taking action, depending on the severity of the sampling) if MY music was sampled without AT LEAST my explicit permission, barring royalties (unless they're selling their co-opted version of my provided-for-free work).

Yep, it looks like it's a bit of gray issue. Dark gray. I was surprised it's been going on as long as it has. But it looks like it isn't quite the "fair use" issue as I thought it was! Alas, Qonos, we're both wrong on this point.

 

[JoeRalat]

Not sure, but here are some more photos from the trailer. Found them on the net

Taken the photos down...do to the people of this forum...Its there fault.

 

[M'Sharak]

And he has seen the light. Huzzah!

 

[THE CHEBB]

Here you go M'Sharak:

Madkoifish's designs:

Also for your viewing pleasure, Vektor's designs (subtle changes yet very detailed)

Ohh!...sniff...what could have been.

Those or Gabe's version would've been just amazing....