The New Enterprise Reveald
- Thread starter Jefferies
- Start date
Where to start? I really dislike this ship's crazy proportions. The saucer is huge now. The lower hull extends too far forward in front, and tapers too sharply in back. It makes the original and TMP hull look far more usable, and makes the attachment of the pylons to the hull look even less practical. The nacelles look overly stylized, but cool.
What's funny to me is that Abrams was paranoid about the fact that Galaxy Quest essentially has already parodied his film, yet he made the Enterprise look more like the Galaxy Quest ship than it ever did.
It's as if the 1701-D raped the 1701 from TMP and this was their child. Just odd looking. Matt Jeffries is probably rolling in his grave.
Change for the sake of change (like Obama
). Pointless.
What's funny to me is that Abrams was paranoid about the fact that Galaxy Quest essentially has already parodied his film, yet he made the Enterprise look more like the Galaxy Quest ship than it ever did.
It's as if the 1701-D raped the 1701 from TMP and this was their child. Just odd looking. Matt Jeffries is probably rolling in his grave.
Change for the sake of change (like Obama
). Pointless.
Because aesthetic changes do not dictate whether the story continuity has changed.
I think people are way too hung up on the term "reboot."
So, just how far from continuity do you have to go before it is? Out of curiosity. Since they've obviously already deviated from canon on story, as well as aesthetics.
I don't particularly care if it's a reboot or not; I don't plan on seeing it anyway. I just wish they'd suck it up and admit it.
Well, nobody has seen the movie yet, so we can't really judge how far they've deviated from established canon (god, I hate that word).
But to be fair, every Trek incarnation has deviated from canon in some way from time to time. I am going to wait until the movie actually comes out before I make a decision. I'm just annoyed with fans jumping to conclusions about the movie and JJ's intentions for it with so little information available so far.
But to be fair, every Trek incarnation has deviated from canon in some way from time to time. I am going to wait until the movie actually comes out before I make a decision. I'm just annoyed with fans jumping to conclusions about the movie and JJ's intentions for it with so little information available so far.
It was nice knowing you Star Trek... we grew up together. However, it's time we parted ways now. Goodbye.
Like:
* The Saucer
* The Funky Warp Nacelles
* Color/texture/shine
Dislike:
* The Cannon sticking out of the Enterprise's "Chest"
* The Saucer
* The Funky Warp Nacelles
* Color/texture/shine
Dislike:
* The Cannon sticking out of the Enterprise's "Chest"
I don't even know where to start with this.
It looks like a parody of the TMP design more than anything else. The nacelles are massive and ugly as sin. The engineering hull seems far too small in proportion to the saucer and nacelles. The deflector cowling juts out too far from the ship.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
It looks like a parody of the TMP design more than anything else. The nacelles are massive and ugly as sin. The engineering hull seems far too small in proportion to the saucer and nacelles. The deflector cowling juts out too far from the ship.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
The only thing I don't hate is the primary hull - which looks fine.
Oh well... here's hoping for an emergency saucer separation, an exploding secondary hull, and a replacement that looks better!
(Oh, what I'd give to see Icy's take on the Vincennes used instead of this, if it had to be different than either the TOS or TMP NCC-1701.)
Oh well... here's hoping for an emergency saucer separation, an exploding secondary hull, and a replacement that looks better!
(Oh, what I'd give to see Icy's take on the Vincennes used instead of this, if it had to be different than either the TOS or TMP NCC-1701.)
From what we've seen so far, it does seem like they're taking a more cartoony route than I would have thought. I don't know if I dislike it or not, but it's certainly unexpected.
Well, granted this is just one angle. While I'm squinting at it and looking for something grandiose to pop out of it, let's admit a few things right up front. First, it's probable that too many regular viewers out there may have been disappointed if the final design chosen was too much like the 1960s era 1701.
And part of the whole idea of building some new stories on top of the existing Trek platform is to be able to play with it to some degree. Not even the folks who re-create Trek on their own time and their own dime completely avoid the temptation to play with the concept and the story...and maybe here or there, even the visuals. There needs to be some lee way somewhere.
That said...
If you're hired to redesign the Ford Mustang, the design that comes from your studio needs to be a Mustang. The late '70s version was certainly a nice car, but in retrospect, was it really a Mustang? I've owned two Datsun/Nissan Zs in my life, so there's aesthetics that, to me, are implied in Z design that weren't carried forth in the 1990s-era 300 ZX. If you look at the latest version of the 350 (the one that's coming around the pike), you'll see that it picked up more of the concepts from the original 240 Z design, and I love that. Still, it leaves some lee way to play with new ideas.
So if we decide that the basis of a "starship" is a disc-shaped saucer, a fuselage-shaped secondary hull, and some tube-shaped nacelles on struts...then just any combination we put together with those shapes may be recognized by a five-year-old as the "Enterprise!" But to someone who appreciates the aesthetic that Trek artists have created over the years, not just any assembly absolutely carries the same message that Matt Jefferies' Enterprise presented, and that the TMP version of 1701 carried forward. For me, 1701-D never was the same vessel -- I couldn't accept it as an evolved Enterprise. But although technically, 1701-E was less like the original than any of them (where did your neck go?), there were design principles that the Trek movie artists truly did carry forward.
What does this new design carry forward? The primary hull is obviously intentionally designed to be compatible with the TMP 1701 design, and I appreciate that. The reversed sweep of the neck and the taper that goes all the way to the tail, is an elegant sweep that also has some sensibility to it. I can see good engineering reasons why you'd want to extend your strut support all the way to the back, and I can get into that.
There are two elements that stick out for me and that I'm not quite comfortable with yet. I'm also a portrait artist, so I'm used to drawing a face, taking a break, coming back after a half-hour, and noticing how far out of joint I've drawn a nose or an ear. I absolutely agree with other contributors here that this new 1701 needs a nose job. It juts out too far, and I'm not used to that yet. From this angle, I can't help but think of the secondary hull as a candy bar wrapper that's been pinched from the back, and the candy has broken through from the front. I want to go over to it and zip up the wrapper (which brings up an alternate metaphor that I avoided mentioning).
Also, the "sag" beneath the nacelle caps looks almost contrived, like "goth" makeup on the bags under someone's eyes. I see some inspiration from the Koerner design in this part, and I don't particularly see the point of it. Everything else on the Enterprise has a practical purpose; I can't conceive a practical answer to the question, "Hey, what do those bags under the nacelles do?"
(By the way, those nacelle caps appear to be very reflective in this shot, and my guess is that they're supposed to be transparent, with glowing rotational lights inside reminiscent of the Jefferies model...and also seen in the Trek XI trailer.)
Now, we're already pretty much settled on the fact that our main characters won't look 100%, or maybe even 50%, like the ones we grew up with (Simon Pegg != James Doohan), but we have an expectation that these actors will be effective and respectful caretakers of the souls of these characters. Will this new Enterprise, which looks 75% like the original, be capable of carrying the soul of the original? I can still see it happening. Nothing I see here disqualifies it from that possibility.
So yes, this still carries the Enterprise forward, at least so far.
-DF "Lends Whole New Credence to the Notion of a Vessel Traveling the Milky Way" Scott
And part of the whole idea of building some new stories on top of the existing Trek platform is to be able to play with it to some degree. Not even the folks who re-create Trek on their own time and their own dime completely avoid the temptation to play with the concept and the story...and maybe here or there, even the visuals. There needs to be some lee way somewhere.
That said...
If you're hired to redesign the Ford Mustang, the design that comes from your studio needs to be a Mustang. The late '70s version was certainly a nice car, but in retrospect, was it really a Mustang? I've owned two Datsun/Nissan Zs in my life, so there's aesthetics that, to me, are implied in Z design that weren't carried forth in the 1990s-era 300 ZX. If you look at the latest version of the 350 (the one that's coming around the pike), you'll see that it picked up more of the concepts from the original 240 Z design, and I love that. Still, it leaves some lee way to play with new ideas.
So if we decide that the basis of a "starship" is a disc-shaped saucer, a fuselage-shaped secondary hull, and some tube-shaped nacelles on struts...then just any combination we put together with those shapes may be recognized by a five-year-old as the "Enterprise!" But to someone who appreciates the aesthetic that Trek artists have created over the years, not just any assembly absolutely carries the same message that Matt Jefferies' Enterprise presented, and that the TMP version of 1701 carried forward. For me, 1701-D never was the same vessel -- I couldn't accept it as an evolved Enterprise. But although technically, 1701-E was less like the original than any of them (where did your neck go?), there were design principles that the Trek movie artists truly did carry forward.
What does this new design carry forward? The primary hull is obviously intentionally designed to be compatible with the TMP 1701 design, and I appreciate that. The reversed sweep of the neck and the taper that goes all the way to the tail, is an elegant sweep that also has some sensibility to it. I can see good engineering reasons why you'd want to extend your strut support all the way to the back, and I can get into that.
There are two elements that stick out for me and that I'm not quite comfortable with yet. I'm also a portrait artist, so I'm used to drawing a face, taking a break, coming back after a half-hour, and noticing how far out of joint I've drawn a nose or an ear. I absolutely agree with other contributors here that this new 1701 needs a nose job. It juts out too far, and I'm not used to that yet. From this angle, I can't help but think of the secondary hull as a candy bar wrapper that's been pinched from the back, and the candy has broken through from the front. I want to go over to it and zip up the wrapper (which brings up an alternate metaphor that I avoided mentioning).
Also, the "sag" beneath the nacelle caps looks almost contrived, like "goth" makeup on the bags under someone's eyes. I see some inspiration from the Koerner design in this part, and I don't particularly see the point of it. Everything else on the Enterprise has a practical purpose; I can't conceive a practical answer to the question, "Hey, what do those bags under the nacelles do?"
(By the way, those nacelle caps appear to be very reflective in this shot, and my guess is that they're supposed to be transparent, with glowing rotational lights inside reminiscent of the Jefferies model...and also seen in the Trek XI trailer.)
Now, we're already pretty much settled on the fact that our main characters won't look 100%, or maybe even 50%, like the ones we grew up with (Simon Pegg != James Doohan), but we have an expectation that these actors will be effective and respectful caretakers of the souls of these characters. Will this new Enterprise, which looks 75% like the original, be capable of carrying the soul of the original? I can still see it happening. Nothing I see here disqualifies it from that possibility.
So yes, this still carries the Enterprise forward, at least so far.
-DF "Lends Whole New Credence to the Notion of a Vessel Traveling the Milky Way" Scott
I can see the TMP influence and I love the refit Enterprise but this version of the Enterprise right now looks gross!
Did you happen to notice that the registry is now on the bottom of the engineering hull?
I definitely agree that it's not as dire as some people are making it out to be.
I just think some of the proportions are a little goofy.
OK, as has been sort of tipped on other threads. What if what we are seeing is the Enterprise just launched into orbit? The cowels over and under the nacelles could be aerodynamcs/scramjets that get jettisoned. This would help explain why the bussards are dark in this image and after jettisoning, leaving the nacelles much more reminiscent of TOS.
Absolutely reprehensible. The designer should have his drawing hand smacked with a steel ruler about fifty times for this abomination.
First off, I think the angle is probably giving us a bit of a goofy image.
Secondly, and I know this is a long shot, but what if the pokey secondary hull is like that because they tried to match the dimensions to an actual set?
Either way, I think I could really like this version of the E... As someone with an untrained eye to starship design, it feels like a fast and stately ship. And I think that the general public will find this E much more appealing that MJ's original, no matter what attachments I may have to it.
Secondly, and I know this is a long shot, but what if the pokey secondary hull is like that because they tried to match the dimensions to an actual set?
Either way, I think I could really like this version of the E... As someone with an untrained eye to starship design, it feels like a fast and stately ship. And I think that the general public will find this E much more appealing that MJ's original, no matter what attachments I may have to it.
Says the man who insists that the the Big E has a "warp core", when everyone knows that the warp drives were self contained in the Nacelles during TOS...
Similar threads
