new enterprise
- Thread starter moonman
- Start date
^ Really? I always thought the -c design was one of Star trek's worst, it looks so blocky, not at all elegant. I'm very glad we got the -d as we did, if the -c was the alternative. True the D has some flaws, and some angles which make its engineering hull seem comically minuscule, but I've always liked the design, It seems very elegant. In the 'photoshop Trek' thread in GTD there's some pics from a fictional ST:FC with the -d, the ship looks really nice in those.
True, but isn't that the case with the TMP Enterprise as well? Or the Matt Jeffries Enterprise, for that matter.
I've seen most of the intermediary sketches Probert did, including the painting that he hadn't consiered for a design but which Roddenberry saw and told him to use. I like them, but I love the finished product. The smaller nacelles IIRC made sense in the ficituous tech of Star Trek, if memory serves, because they'd advanced to the point they could make their engines that small. Bigger isn't always better.
^ In fact I always thought design would go the way of the Defiant, making the nacelles smaller and smaller and less pronounced in the overall silhouette, until they were integrated right into the hull and no longer needed to be held out at a great distance from the ship or be really long. the E-D, the Defiant and Voyager sort of followed that trend but then they decided to have a fetish for big nacelles again with Prometheus and the E-E.
I get soooo tired of people who don't understand technology making comments like this.
"Big Buttons" are what you typed this posting on. Try typing on a touchpad. Seriously, try it sometime.
The reason that your microwave or your washing machine has a "touch pad" is not because it's "more advanced." It's because it's CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.
The fact that people seem to get "cheaper" confused with "more advanced" is just disgusting to me.
You say that the dish "must be changed" as do the nacelles. Why? It's not because parabolic reflectors are "old science." It's because you've been brainwashed by 1980s special effects into thinking "primary color glow" is somehow more advanced than REAL SCIENCE.
I don't mean to specifically target YOU here, but I've heard soooo many people make those same comments in these discussions, and each time it's obvious that the person saying it has ZERO understanding of the underlying science concepts.
If you're talking ART, sure, personal opinion is all equal. But if you're going to say something stupid like "today's technology is better," you really ought to make an effort to know what you're talking about.
Every time I see an uninformed posting like this it makes my blood boil. Don't take it personally... you're in good company, it seems... 1980s/1990s "primary color LEDs for special effects" technology seems to have brainwashed an entire generation of audiences.
SLIGHTLY being the correct, operative term (having flashbacks to getting ripped into for saying it was a "neutral grey" some months back)
Eaves is doing some starship work, but his work is associated with the period he's known for. Which makes me perfectly happy.
I'm probably a bit less critical of Eaves and his work than some folks are, because while his "Enterprise E" is waaay too much of a "graphic art" job and not nearly enough of an "engineering mindset" job (that's why I always liked Probert's work... he'd think about "how does it work" at least as much as "how will it look" and that's what someone doing this SHOULD do... and what far too few folks in this line ACTUALLY do).
Eaves' Enterprise, to my eyes, LOOKS great. The stuff about it that rubs me the wrong way are largely things that, when viewed from my (engineer's) perspective seem nonsensical. Things like the impulse engine design, or the "nernied" underside of the primary hull, or the funky angle of the main deflector, or the silly, overemphasized color variation (as opposed to Proberts far more subtle variations). The less subtle the variation, the worse the visual sense of "scale" is.
Still, overall, I LIKE the shape and configuration of the 1701-E. If you don't think about it too hard, it's "pretty" and "powerful-looking" and gives a sense of speed and, well, dangerousness. ARTISTICALLY, it works pretty well. And my single biggest issue with the 1701-E wasn't his choice, it was foisted on him by the Beebs (swapping out the central-located impulse deck and two outlying hangar bays so we have two outlying impulse decks and one central hangar).
So I'm perfectly fine with what John Eaves is doing on this film. As for who's doing the 1701, well... don't be too surprised to see the 1701 in multiple timeframes and/or "alternative timeframes" for that matter. It may look different in each.
Not entirely untrue... the C on-screen was, as described by Sternbach, a bit of a rush job.
You really should check out this thread for extensive discussion:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....0&fpart=all
And check this out to see the "Probert-concept" Ambassador:
http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_STORE/Folder_CONCEPT-KITS/Ambassador_Kit.html
I think this boils down to aesthetics, not science. The TOS Enterprise looks like a product of the sixties, and the interior colour scheme in particular. Why's it got the registration NCC-1701, for example? The answer: It's easy to read at a distance on those TV screens.
Aesthetically, the new design will have a 2000s feel to it. I'm not sure what that means, granted, but that's probably the main idea.
Absolutely Right(TM).
The design is as much stuck in the 60s as classical architecture is stuck in ancient Rome. They both have transcended their times to become something timeless. Copied and reinterpreted by each new generation trying to understand their appeal.
The question is not whether the design looks dated, only whether these artists want to copy it or reinterpret it.
The question is not whether the design looks dated, only whether these artists want to copy it or reinterpret it.
The ancient Romans were shameless plagarists. Most of their architecture has Greek roots, with the odd Etruscan flair for variety. Their main innovation is considered to be the Triumphal Arch, which looks cool but does nothing.
I love Graeco-Roman architecture. But I also love neo-classical architecture, which took that sensibility and updated it for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. If one can do that with architecture, how much more so with ficituous starship designs?
That was, of course, my point.
Jefferson employed the stylings of the contemporary French neoclassicist Claude-Nicolas Ledoux in his design for one of the pavilions on the lawn of the University of Virginia. He also directly copied the second century Pantheon for his Rotunda. Like I said, "the question is not whether the design looks dated, only whether these artists want to copy it or reinterpret it. "
Ledoux, Latrobe, Jefferson and others created original works of art, worthy of study in their own right, based upon classical precepts. They also directly copied original works. Have you ever seen the Virginia State Capitol? In its original form it was a near copy of the Maison Carrée at Nîmes --
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Maison_carree_side.jpg
http://www.richmondhistorycenter.com/quiz/images/image022.jpg
I deliberately used the allusion to classical architecture because in its Greek and Roman forms it, like the Enterprise, was a physical manifestation of myth. I have long argued that Star Trek has transcended the bounds of commercial property to become interwoven with America's national mythology, with the Enterprise enshrined in the National Air and Space Museum as recognition of the fact.
So architects and artists can copy timeless designs, adapting them intact to new purposes, or they can interpret those designs into new forms. Probert did this successfully -- twice -- with the original Jefferies design of the Enterprise.
But just as it is possible to make worthwhile innovations on a classical theme, it is more common to make tasteless, forgettable trash. There is nothing wrong with copying a classic. After all, it is by definition timeless. And it is preferable to making trash. But if you are going to interpret it, you'd better make sure you have the stones to build a fine arch, or the consequences for failure will come crashing down on your head.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Kegek Kringle said:
True, but isn't that the case with the TMP Enterprise as well? Or the Matt Jeffries Enterprise, for that matter.
I've seen most of the intermediary sketches Probert did, including the painting that he hadn't consiered for a design but which Roddenberry saw and told him to use. I like them, but I love the finished product. The smaller nacelles IIRC made sense in the ficituous tech of Star Trek, if memory serves, because they'd advanced to the point they could make their engines that small. Bigger isn't always better.
To me the longer nacelle is an aesthetic thing, you either need them long or you need them cowled/in against the hull.
I don't think GR had a lot of input on the refit at all, it was principally Richard Taylor altering Jeffries, though I imagine with Wise's input. The film's production designer influenced a lot as well (unfortunately for the most part.)
Have you seen Probert's stuff for STARWOLF? I have loved that stuff ever since seeing it in an old FUTURE magazine.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
gastrof said:
My new "THIS is..." avatar says it all.
DAMN straight. I wouldn't be opposed to more surface details on her hull, but changing her altogether? Screw that.
We may find out some details when Cloverfield premieres next month.
Similar threads
