Redesign RANT!!!! (Plus, an op to post my model pic again)

[Chrisisall]

I can only think of one angle that looks odd with the original design.

Pray tell what angle would that be, sir? I don't think I've seen it...

 

[Warped9]

I can only think of one angle that looks odd with the original design.

Pray tell what angle would that be, sir? I don't think I've seen it...

In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" we first see the Enterprise high above in Earth's sky. We're seeing the ship from an angle way below. I think it looks a little odd particularly in how the saucer is connected to the dorsal. I just find it odd.

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_013.JPG

 

[Chrisisall]

I just find it odd.

Odd? Possibly. It's a matter of personal perspective, I guess. I can't find an angle on her I don't love.
OTOH, In Wrath Of Khan, in the Mutara Nebula, that shot looking straight down at Refit Enterprise looks bad to me; the nacelles seem so thin that way.

 

[Warped9]

^^ True. They do in drawings as well. I think they should have given the nacelles a bit more heft in width.

 

[Chrisisall]

I think they should have given the nacelles a bit more heft in width.

At least. Or, left them cylindrical.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I can only think of one angle that looks odd with the original design.

Pray tell what angle would that be, sir? I don't think I've seen it...

In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" we first see the Enterprise high above in Earth's sky. We're seeing the ship from an angle way below. I think it looks a little odd particularly in how the saucer is connected to the dorsal. I just find it odd.

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_013.JPG

Might have to do with the fact that they're using the three-footer for that shot.

 

[Chrisisall]

Might have to do with the fact that they're using the three-footer for that shot.

In that shot, it appears to my Enterprise-obsessed eyes to be the eleven-footer.
Are you sure, Captain?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

designs evolve.

deal with it.

You deal with it. I'll bitch and complain if I damn well please. Thank you very much.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Folks who saw the TOS-R version of "The Menagerie" screened in theatres couldn't keep from gushing about how magnificent the Enterprise looked up on the big screen.

The original ship would've worked just fine in a movie.

I so wish I could have seen that. It never came to my area. The best I can do is watch it on my 42" HD plasma. But that won't compare to the big screen.

But yeah. The TOS E would have worked just fine on the big screen.

I loathe the Fuglyprise!!!!!

Long live the original!!!!!

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The original ship would've worked just fine in a movie.

And In A Mirror Darkly proved that the old sets and costumes (with minor tweaking) could hold up in HD.

I must agree. However, the TOS sets would have to be slightly, ever so slightly updated to look good in a modern movie. Abrams went to damn far with his "update" though.

 

[JarodRussell]

The original ship would've worked just fine in a movie.

And In A Mirror Darkly proved that the old sets and costumes (with minor tweaking) could hold up in HD.

I must agree. However, the TOS sets would have to be slightly, ever so slightly updated to look good in a modern movie. Abrams went to damn far with his "update" though.

They might hold up to HD, but they are in no way realistic. Even in ENT the Bridge looked like it was made out of cardboard and plastic. It doesn't look good at all, imo. And the colors... the whole TOS style is cartoony. Too cartoony for my tastes.


In Abramstrek they went way too far. But wouldn't you say that the bridges in TMP, TWOK and TUC look great? Star Trek 2009 is not the first time they updated the bridge for the big screen. They did it before, in a much better way, not long ago.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Anyway. Oh how I love bashing the heck out of that absolutely fugly lookin' ship in that new Star Trek movie. It looks like a bastardized kitbash of the TMP saucer with various "alien ship of the week" parts slapped on for no apparent reason. The saucer is too big compared to the rest of the ship. The nacelles are gi-friggin-gantic, too close together, and way out of proportion to the rest of the ship. The ever-so-slight taper present in the original nacelles is exaggerated to the point of caracature in Church's design. The secondary hull is too thick in the front, too thin in the back, too flat, and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste. The connecting dorsal is upside down, and placed too far back on the secondary hull. One of the strangest things is that the hull plating on the saucer doesn't match the secondary hull. Like someone said before, it looks like each part was designed by a different person and then some other guy slapped it all together...badly. I absolutely hate that ship. It's ugly and it doesn't deserve to bear the illustrious name "Enterprise". That's why I call it either the "Fuglyprise" or the "JJPrise" or the "Abramsprise". To me, it will never be the Enterprise. Ever. "My" Enterprise will always be the original, TOS version by Matt Jeffries. That design is literally timeless and will always be as ahead of its time as it was in 1964.

 

[Chrisisall]

And the colors... the whole TOS style is cartoony. Too cartoony for my tastes.

The future is a very colourful place.
Deal with it.

In Abramstrek they went way too far. But wouldn't you say that the bridges in TMP, TWOK and TUC look great?

The bridges from TFF & TUC are really nice looking IMO.
But on the Abrams bridge, you can pilot Enterprise AND purchase a new Apple computer!!!

Kidding, it's not SO bad.

 

[Chrisisall]

The secondary hull is too thick in the front, too thin in the back, too flat, and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste.

OMG.

Damn you. I'll never get that visual outta my head now.

You just made me HATE that design. And I was almost liking it as much as TMP Refit.

I'm billing you for the price of my JJmovie DVD, which I can never watch again seriously now!!!

 

[Captain Robert April]

Might have to do with the fact that they're using the three-footer for that shot.

In that shot, it appears to my Enterprise-obsessed eyes to be the eleven-footer.
Are you sure, Captain?

Take a look at the underside of the primary hull. Notice how flat it is? That's the dead giveaway that it's the three-footer.

The eleven-footer was too big, and the shooting stage too small, to get that kind of a distance shot. The three-footer had to be used, as well as the shot from Capt. Christopher's POV in his F-104.

 

[Chrisisall]

The eleven-footer was too big, and the shooting stage too small, to get that kind of a distance shot.

I had assumed they'd taken a photo at a certain angle and animated it- that could be done from any distance...

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The secondary hull is too thick in the front, too thin in the back, too flat, and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste.

OMG.

Damn you. I'll never get that visual outta my head now.

You just made me HATE that design. And I was almost liking it as much as TMP Refit.

I'm billing you for the price of my JJmovie DVD, which I can never watch again seriously now!!!

Hehehe.

Sorry 'bout that dude. I just call it the way I see it.

 

[Chrisisall]

Hehehe.

Sorry 'bout that dude. I just call it the way I see it.

I am, this second, glancing over at my Playmates E.
And all I can see is a f***ing partially squeezed toothpaste tube.

It must go into the closet.

 

[Shaw]

Might have to do with the fact that they're using the three-footer for that shot.

In that shot, it appears to my Enterprise-obsessed eyes to be the eleven-footer.
Are you sure, Captain?

So you can't tell the difference between the two models? This is why I don't think most people even understand why my models are different than other people's models of the Enterprise.

Here is a comparison between the 33 inch model in that shot and my first attempt shot at a similar angle.

More importantly, in order to get that shot I had to set my model on it's side and lift the secondary hull... I can't imagine them attempting that with the 11 foot model.

 

[Chrisisall]

Here is a comparison between the 33 inch model in that shot and my first attempt shot at a similar angle.

More importantly, in order to get that shot I had to set my model on it's side and lift the secondary hull... I can't imagine them attempting that with the 11 foot model.

I Am Convinced!