ST XI Enterprise conjecture

[Warped9]

And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship.

Yes. One exists, the other doesn't. And people complaining that a fake bolt on a fake ship shouldn't be there because it serves no purpose are kidding themselves because the whole thing is fake.

"The intercoolers serve a purpose"

No they don't.

Fiction is better when it has a sense of credibility. It's more fun.

 

[dougkeenan]

Do pointed ears serve a purpose on a Vulcan?

 

[Tom Servo]

And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship.

Yes. One exists, the other doesn't. And people complaining that a fake bolt on a fake ship shouldn't be there because it serves no purpose are kidding themselves because the whole thing is fake.

"The intercoolers serve a purpose"

No they don't.

Fiction is better when it has a sense of credibility. It's more fun.

Well only we would notice the design of the intercoolers on the ends of the nacelles. To the other 99% of the moviegoing audience, they are just tube things.

 

[Warped9]

Do pointed ears serve a purpose on a Vulcan?

They might beyond visually distinguishing Vulcans from humans. There have been humans born with ears shaped awfully close to pointed. What if that trait had become predominat for some reason?

 

[Warped9]

Yes. One exists, the other doesn't. And people complaining that a fake bolt on a fake ship shouldn't be there because it serves no purpose are kidding themselves because the whole thing is fake.

"The intercoolers serve a purpose"

No they don't.

Fiction is better when it has a sense of credibility. It's more fun.

Well only we would notice the design of the intercoolers on the ends of the nacelles. To the other 99% of the moviegoing audience, they are just tube things.

What all the posts of many here tell me is that you're inclined to be thick and will grasp any little excuse to support your hollow arguments.

I didn't say one thing about hte fucking intercoolers. I'm basically backing Cary Brown's take that the Trek XI design appears to lack a rationale to it.

 

[Jimmy_C]

The same goes for naval vessels. Here's concept art of a new US Navy vessel currently being created. Far from having "more exposed detail," it has a lot less. And that makes it seem MORE advanced, doesn't it?

Isn't that smooth because of mission requirements? I mean, it gives the ship a smaller radar cross section, and protects the ship from corrosive sea water. If they had different requirements, it would look different. I don't think either smooth or rough edges make it look more or less advanced. I don't think it matters one way or the other. I tried to tell you that before, but you decided to jump down my throat.

 

[largo]

And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship. You just slide a liner into the water. You don't have to lift the thing up into orbit. The Enterprise was not designed to enter an atmosphere so why the hell would you build it whole on the ground? No, you can build parts on the ground and lift them to orbit for final assembly.

precisely the same reason why aircraft are built in the sky. i mean, its ludicrous to build the whole thing on the ground then lift it all into the air.


i have to admit, i hadn't noticed the dent before, but with that red circle around it? yeah, its a bit awkward.

 

[Tom Servo]

Fiction is better when it has a sense of credibility. It's more fun.

Well only we would notice the design of the intercoolers on the ends of the nacelles. To the other 99% of the moviegoing audience, they are just tube things.

What all the posts of many here tell me is that you're inclined to be thick and will grasp any little excuse to support your hollow arguments.

I didn't say one thing about hte fucking intercoolers. I'm basically backing Cary Brown's take that the Trek XI design appears to lack a rationale to it.

It was a joke man....

What I am saying though is ITS A MOVIE. The ship would not really work in real life, it couldnt be built in reality, its fictional. Yes its fun to make the ship seem plausible, but thats the key statement, seem plausible, cause it really isn't, in any sense. There is a point that the realism factor needs to end, and a bit of a designers artistic expression needs to come through. In all honestly, a completely realistic version of the Enterprise would not look like this ship, or the TOS ship.

 

[Jimmy_C]

Fiction is better when it has a sense of credibility. It's more fun.

Well only we would notice the design of the intercoolers on the ends of the nacelles. To the other 99% of the moviegoing audience, they are just tube things.

What all the posts of many here tell me is that you're inclined to be thick and will grasp any little excuse to support your hollow arguments.

I didn't say one thing about hte fucking intercoolers. I'm basically backing Cary Brown's take that the Trek XI design appears to lack a rationale to it.

Ya, because poor lighting on an unfinished ship definitely shows a lack of rational.

 

[Ptrope]

What all the posts of many here tell me is that you're inclined to be thick and will grasp any little excuse to support your hollow arguments.

I didn't say one thing about hte fucking intercoolers. I'm basically backing Cary Brown's take that the Trek XI design appears to lack a rationale to it.

Okay, let's tone down the personal attacks, and the general confrontation and condescension here. A few of you are and have wandered pretty close to warnings for your behavior; I'd prefer to think you can rein yourselves in.

And let's please drop the "because it's fiction" as an all-encompassing response to quell questions regarding technical details. It's Star Trek - we know it's fiction - that sort of response is pointless to the discussion, and will get a trolling warning if it continues. It's not inappropriate for the audience to expect verisimilitude in fiction - that's what separates good fiction from bad. One doesn't discredit this expectation simply by repeating "it's fiction" - that's condescending, and it won't be tolerated here.

Let's chill out, and discuss this topic - judexavier's art - like adults. Constructive criticism is expected - personal criticism is most emphatically not.

 

[Jimmy_C]

This is my attempt to recconcile the trailer images, and a few text descriptions of those who have seen the actual thing, or pre-production toys atleast.
It is a WIP, so be kind.
Love to see other conjectural art work, sketches and descriptions, 3D would be awsome. Might be a fun thread if we get into rebooted Kliingon ships, the mysterious octopus ship, etc...
Using the 6' tall guy on the saucer, this seems to scale out to about 1012' long, so not too far off (?)...


http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXINCC-17013View.jpg

Looks good. IDK what people are talking about saying it is too complicated. Aside from the color and hull markings, there's very little which is complicated about this design. The engines seem a little big, but I can get used to it. I'm not too confident about your engine details, but we have no evidence for or against it. There is a lot of TMP Enterprise influence in your design. There might be a few lights to the bottom "bulge" of the saucer facing front. Otherwise, nice interpretation!!! Keep up the good work. Anyone who says it is derivative dreck has no sense of style.

 

[Captain Robert April]

As a teaser trailer it should elicit interest to see more. The original teaser for the forthcoming Wall-E is an excellent example. But that is bolstered by Pixar's overall excellent track record for delivering quality entertainment.

The Trek XI teaser turns me off. It doesn't resonate one bit with what I associate with the most successful and most recognized Star Trek series. It evokes the sensibility of the most failed series: ENT.

In my book that's a poor promotional teaser. Instead of generating overwhelming excitement and interest it's generating dissent and rancor.

BRA-FREAKIN'-VO!!

 

[Captain Robert April]

Do pointed ears serve a purpose on a Vulcan?

The larger shape betters captures soundwaves in Vulcan's thinner atmosphere.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship. You just slide a liner into the water. You don't have to lift the thing up into orbit. The Enterprise was not designed to enter an atmosphere so why the hell would you build it whole on the ground? No, you can build parts on the ground and lift them to orbit for final assembly.

precisely the same reason why aircraft are built in the sky. i mean, its ludicrous to build the whole thing on the ground then lift it all into the air.


i have to admit, i hadn't noticed the dent before, but with that red circle around it? yeah, its a bit awkward.

You mean aircraft aren't designed to take off and land over and over again!?!

Besides, show me a conventional aircraft the size of an aircraft carrier.

 

[Tom Servo]

As a teaser trailer it should elicit interest to see more. The original teaser for the forthcoming Wall-E is an excellent example. But that is bolstered by Pixar's overall excellent track record for delivering quality entertainment.

The Trek XI teaser turns me off. It doesn't resonate one bit with what I associate with the most successful and most recognized Star Trek series. It evokes the sensibility of the most failed series: ENT.

In my book that's a poor promotional teaser. Instead of generating overwhelming excitement and interest it's generating dissent and rancor.

BRA-FREAKIN'-VO!!

Fine, don't see the new movie. It does not matter to me, all I'm saying is I think its insane to think that the ship should, or would be the exact same design as the original. And at this point this design is conjecture. The movie Enterprise could be the exact same ship, seeing as how Abrams is the master of misinformation. Or it could be even more similar to the original design then this conjecture is, but to completely rip a movie and the production staff before it is even out is over the top.

 

[Tom Servo]

And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship. You just slide a liner into the water. You don't have to lift the thing up into orbit. The Enterprise was not designed to enter an atmosphere so why the hell would you build it whole on the ground? No, you can build parts on the ground and lift them to orbit for final assembly.

precisely the same reason why aircraft are built in the sky. i mean, its ludicrous to build the whole thing on the ground then lift it all into the air.


i have to admit, i hadn't noticed the dent before, but with that red circle around it? yeah, its a bit awkward.

You mean aircraft aren't designed to take off and land over and over again!?!

Besides, show me a conventional aircraft the size of an aircraft carrier.

While I don't agree with the aircraft analogy, if you want to go that route, show me a 900 ft long FTL starship, because everyone seems to think that they know exactly how it will be built.

 

[Sector 7]

A typical 60's spaceship design was the Jupiter II.

The Enterprise is downright utilitarian, both inside and out, and as such, isn't the least bit dated.

In your opinion.

Really, the point is moot. The ship is gonna be redesigned, the question is by how much, and will it be accepted.

Am I the only one who remembers a theater full of people watching the TMP Enterprise going.... "Oooooo... aaaaahhh.... kool... etc."?
Now all I am reading is how bad it was. Maybe Abrams re-working that we are all SPECULATING upon will make people go... "Oooooo... aaaaahhh.... kool... etc." as well. Then ST will live on with lots of ticket sales.
I happen to like the OP's work-up. I'm convinced that the TOS Enterprise in the CAGE and Where No Man Has Gone Before had probably seen a refit at least once... perhaps even from the model the OP made.

 

[Captain X]

Why yes, they built it as seen in the trailer, then they tore it down to the frame, and rebuilt it to look like we saw in The Cage. Then they tore it down to the frame and rebuilt it again, to look like its original configuration. Then they tore it down and rebuilt it a third time to make it resemble what it did during its first refit, with some minor changes. Which means that the TMP refit was actually the fourth time that the ship was torn completely down to make essentially a brand new ship. Yeah, that totally makes sense.

 

[Sector 7]

Why yes, they built it as seen in the trailer, then they tore it down to the frame, and rebuilt it to look like we saw in The Cage. Then they tore it down to the frame and rebuilt it again, to look like its original configuration. Then they tore it down and rebuilt it a third time to make it resemble what it did during its first refit, with some minor changes. Which means that the TMP refit was actually the fourth time that the ship was torn completely down to make essentially a brand new ship. Yeah, that totally makes sense.

... as much sense as the scenario just presented. I can't say "Drop dead" because that would be rude. Too much of that on here already.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Fine, don't see the new movie. It does not matter to me, all I'm saying is I think its insane to think that the ship should, or would be the exact same design as the original.

Only the fact that it's set during the time of the original series, with the original characters running around, yeah, how foolish that in the same freaking period of time the ship would look the same!!

And at this point this design is conjecture. The movie Enterprise could be the exact same ship, seeing as how Abrams is the master of misinformation.

If that turns out to be the Battlestar Enterprise that's been hinted at, and if at the end of the day, we get our Enterprise back, then I won't care if that bloated monstrosity comes complete with a hydralic kit, dingo balls along the upper rim of the bridge, shag carpeting along the edge of the helm, and one of them chihuahua dog figurines on Uhura's console (y'know, the ones where the head bounces up and down as you drive down the street). But if they try to push that thing as the original Enterprise from here on out, then they've got a fight on their hands.

Or it could be even more similar to the original design then this conjecture is, but to completely rip a movie and the production staff before it is even out is over the top.

Little things tell you a lot.

If they can't even get something as simple as the look of the ship right, then what else have they screwed up on?