I'm not overly keen on the secondary hull, but it's not going to stop me seeing the film.
The New Enterprise Reveald
- Thread starter Jefferies
- Start date
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...
Maybe you're being facetious.
Right?
I think it looks a bit better this way ...
That makes a HUGE difference. I honestly cannot believe how much of a difference that makes. The proportion problems become almost palatable.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
yes, almost as if it were often referred to as the 'engineering hull'.
yes, almost as if it were often referred to as the 'engineering hull'.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
I wouldn't call it the best ship design I've seen, by any stretch of the imagination...but then again, I've always had trouble getting into TOS because of how dated it looks--much easier to read the books and refit everything in my head. I'm sure that statement will fly all over the more "long-time" fans, but that's the honest truth.
I can at least see how this could be a link between the NX-01 and the rest of the Trek ships we've seen--it does have a retro aesthetic, but in a much more "realistic" way than the designs were back then.
I definitely think the modification on the secondary hull would be nice, if they were to do that--though I suspect by now it's too late. But it at least has somewhat of an element of plausibility that will make it easier to watch than TOS is for me.
I wouldn't call it the best ship design I've seen, by any stretch of the imagination...but then again, I've always had trouble getting into TOS because of how dated it looks--much easier to read the books and refit everything in my head. I'm sure that statement will fly all over the more "long-time" fans, but that's the honest truth.
I can at least see how this could be a link between the NX-01 and the rest of the Trek ships we've seen--it does have a retro aesthetic, but in a much more "realistic" way than the designs were back then.
I definitely think the modification on the secondary hull would be nice, if they were to do that--though I suspect by now it's too late. But it at least has somewhat of an element of plausibility that will make it easier to watch than TOS is for me.
Indeed. I posted exactly the poll with the same question and possible responses on my homeowner's association intranet to get the "common man in the street" take. Not only is the voting overwhelmingly for the "She's a bonny lass!" category (by a margin of 8-to-1), every single person who responded couldn't wait for the new movie to come out next May. And trust me, these are NOT closet Trekkies... before I changed my avatar from my own Enterprise model I used to get teased constantly for being a huge Trek geek. (Now I get teased for being my neighborhood's token fagela.
) Reaction to the new design at ew.com also seems to be overwhelmingly positive.So, I suppose in one way the sneak peek of J.J.'s design is having the intended effect... it's stirring up a great deal of interest in Star Trek. And that can't be TOO bad of a thing, can it?
I'll just have to hide my eyes in the theater whenever that monstrosity lumbers across the screen.
huh.
There really isn't anything in SF that looks quite like the Enterprise. Jeffrie's original design was quite unique, a flying saucer somehow married to rocket engines. Now everytime someone does a variation on this design we always end up comparing it to the original- there isn't much else to go by. First thing I noticed that bothered me is the way that the secondary hull projects forward. It looks wrong, but then I think it's just a matter of what I'm used to. The swoop of the neck is connecting the saucer to engineering almost all the way to the back now, so letting the front poke out isn't such a bad thing.
Modifications or 'corrections' to the design are starting too pop up, so I thought I'd be fool enough to offer one of my own. I like the organic, curvilinear styling, and I was puzzling over that projecting engineering hull. I decided a huge round, glassy front would have made me happier. The saucer still looks a little conservative though I don't know what I'd suggest to change.
I don't envy any designer this job. Gabes fan designs seem to have influenced the real thing some! I'm relieved it doesn't have the BSG2K look to it though.
There really isn't anything in SF that looks quite like the Enterprise. Jeffrie's original design was quite unique, a flying saucer somehow married to rocket engines. Now everytime someone does a variation on this design we always end up comparing it to the original- there isn't much else to go by. First thing I noticed that bothered me is the way that the secondary hull projects forward. It looks wrong, but then I think it's just a matter of what I'm used to. The swoop of the neck is connecting the saucer to engineering almost all the way to the back now, so letting the front poke out isn't such a bad thing.
Modifications or 'corrections' to the design are starting too pop up, so I thought I'd be fool enough to offer one of my own. I like the organic, curvilinear styling, and I was puzzling over that projecting engineering hull. I decided a huge round, glassy front would have made me happier. The saucer still looks a little conservative though I don't know what I'd suggest to change.
I don't envy any designer this job. Gabes fan designs seem to have influenced the real thing some! I'm relieved it doesn't have the BSG2K look to it though.
Shades of Tom Swift and His Jetmarine
(I always dug the old Tom Swift novels!) Yeah, if the rest of the ship is going to be 'swoopy,' that oversized dish on the front wasn't making much stylistic sense, whether it was practical or not. Hey, if the "bussard collectors" can give the appearance of solid hemispheres, and we can put radomes on planes now (and have for decades!), there's not necessarily a reason why a deflector has to be all exposed, right?The ship does seem to be a hybrid, though - the saucer looks like it was done by a different designer than the rest of the ship, and just bolted to it. It might 'play' okay on screen - the static shot they've released doesn't appeal to me. I'd almost rather they got radical with it than to just 'improve' the classic layout. I don't buy the argument "the ship is iconic, so we kept the general layout and screwed around with it"; if it's iconic, then there must surely be a good reason for that
.
huh.
There really isn't anything in SF that looks quite like the Enterprise. Jeffrie's original design was quite unique, a flying saucer somehow married to rocket engines. Now everytime someone does a variation on this design we always end up comparing it to the original- there isn't much else to go by. First thing I noticed that bothered me is the way that the secondary hull projects forward. It looks wrong, but then I think it's just a matter of what I'm used to. The swoop of the neck is connecting the saucer to engineering almost all the way to the back now, so letting the front poke out isn't such a bad thing.
Modifications or 'corrections' to the design are starting too pop up, so I thought I'd be fool enough to offer one of my own. I like the organic, curvilinear styling, and I was puzzling over that projecting engineering hull. I decided a huge round, glassy front would have made me happier. The saucer still looks a little conservative though I don't know what I'd suggest to change.
I don't envy any designer this job. Gabes fan designs seem to have influenced the real thing some! I'm relieved it doesn't have the BSG2K look to it though.
Looks like a flashlight.
I'm only surprised that our local artist community hasn't already extrapolated a full CG model of the new E and given us some orthos and alternate angles that make it look less like a jumping dog. 
Mark
Mark
Moved the whole secondary hull back and that's about it. This feels more balanced to me.
I honestly think this is closer to the actual look of the ship then the first released photo suggests. Someone on hobby talk posted a side view sillhouete that looks very close to that. I think there is some weird lens distortion going on with the first shot.
Similar threads
