Spoilers The Strange New Worlds Starship Thread™
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
As much as I love TOS (and I do love it), I fully recognize that a lot of choices they made - from the detail of the models to the costumes to certain choices for the sets - were compromises due to budgets, available technology, etc., etc.
I appreciate those who faithfully recreate the look and feel of TOS (e.g. the Star Trek New Voyages folks). But I think that only works in the modern age for a small segment of the fan base (and not at all for those outside it). Even as a pretty serious and lifelong fan, I have to suspend my disbelief near the breaking point to watch that sort of stuff, and I rarely enjoy it outside of the "nice work for non-professionals" kind of way.
Even the gorgeous TOS Enterprise presented in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" looked like a beautifully-rendered toy than a believable (by modern standards) starship. I absolutely loved it, but I would never expect anyone without the same lifelong investment in Trek to respond the same way.
I think SNW has done a mostly fantastic job of striking the right balance between referencing and honoring TOS while making it look interesting and believable to modern audiences. It's not perfect, but I think each of us has a different idea of what "perfect" would look like.
All that said, if anyone ever touches a single curve or plate on my beloved TMP Enterprise, I'll gut them from stem to stern!!!
I appreciate those who faithfully recreate the look and feel of TOS (e.g. the Star Trek New Voyages folks). But I think that only works in the modern age for a small segment of the fan base (and not at all for those outside it). Even as a pretty serious and lifelong fan, I have to suspend my disbelief near the breaking point to watch that sort of stuff, and I rarely enjoy it outside of the "nice work for non-professionals" kind of way.
Even the gorgeous TOS Enterprise presented in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" looked like a beautifully-rendered toy than a believable (by modern standards) starship. I absolutely loved it, but I would never expect anyone without the same lifelong investment in Trek to respond the same way.
I think SNW has done a mostly fantastic job of striking the right balance between referencing and honoring TOS while making it look interesting and believable to modern audiences. It's not perfect, but I think each of us has a different idea of what "perfect" would look like.
All that said, if anyone ever touches a single curve or plate on my beloved TMP Enterprise, I'll gut them from stem to stern!!!
And to those comparing this to Star Wars: it's not the same. Star Wars was designed from the beginning to be believable on big, 70mm movie screens to audiences who'd already been exposed to modern special effects as introduced by Kubrick's 2001. I've no doubt SW would be dealing with the same issues if the Millennium Falcon, R2-D2 and C3PO had been designed to be shown on 1960's 13" television sets and with Desilu's budget.
Thanks to HD (and following Jӧrg on Twitter), I'm only now realising how different the three TNG Enterprise models were. I knew about the proportions changing for the 4-foot model, but I did not realise the window placements varied wildly between the 6-foot, 4-foot and 2-foot Enterprise models. Now I look back at all the decks plans and blueprints and I'm like... which version of the ship are these for?... or you could just remind yourself that visual continuity in Star Trek hasn't held completely true for a very long time and just enjoy the show as it is.
They even changed the look of the Enterprise several times during its original run.
(Hell, there are times where the ship changed in the same episode.)
Things like the TOS Enterprise nacelles changing, the TNG Enterprise alternating between the 6 footer and the 4 footer, the Defiant getting a series of obviously inaccurate 3D models and Voyager's 3D model having distorted lines at the back of the saucer don't even bother me at all. Well not in the same way! Television is imperfect, they screwed up, it happens.
But if I call the SNW Enterprise a production mistake everyone gets annoyed!
Oh, it definitely is. It's a happy little production mistake.But if I call the SNW Enterprise a production mistake everyone gets annoyed!
V
Vale
Guest
The official deck plans of the Enterprise-D state that they're an "idealised composite" of the ship over time. Which is a handy excuse for why it seems to be missing several key things mentioned either in the show or the TNG Technical Manual
^^^As much as I love TOS (and I do love it), I fully recognize that a lot of choices they made - from the detail of the models to the costumes to certain choices for the sets - were compromises due to budgets, available technology, etc., etc.
I appreciate those who faithfully recreate the look and feel of TOS (e.g. the Star Trek New Voyages folks). But I think that only works in the modern age for a small segment of the fan base (and not at all for those outside it). Even as a pretty serious and lifelong fan, I have to suspend my disbelief near the breaking point to watch that sort of stuff, and I rarely enjoy it outside of the "nice work for non-professionals" kind of way.
Even the gorgeous TOS Enterprise presented in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" looked like a beautifully-rendered toy than a believable (by modern standards) starship. I absolutely loved it, but I would never expect anyone without the same lifelong investment in Trek to respond the same way.
I think SNW has done a mostly fantastic job of striking the right balance between referencing and honoring TOS while making it look interesting and believable to modern audiences. It's not perfect, but I think each of us has a different idea of what "perfect" would look like.
All that said, if anyone ever touches a single curve or plate on my beloved TMP Enterprise, I'll gut them from stem to stern!!!
I concur with the above EXCEPT the part I crossed out.
(Sorry, NOT a fan of the TMP era 1701/1701-A refit at all.)
(Sorry, NOT a fan of the TMP era 1701/1701-A refit at all.)
To the last, I grapple with thee. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
All that said, if anyone ever touches a single curve or plate on my beloved TMP Enterprise, I'll gut them from stem to stern!!!
they tweaked the monster maroons and increased the size of the Discoprise compared to the Enterprise, So I’m sure the refit looks at least somewhat different.
As long as they never have the gall to actually show it changed, my extreme, unreasonable anger will be held in check.
Retcons are all fun and games until they cross a line that bothers you personally.
Its even uglier than I remember and it's Warp Nacelles look like they took them from a Klingon D-7...
To the last, I grapple with thee. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
Perhaps the Klingons were on to something the Federation WARP Engineers decided to covet.Its even uglier than I remember and it's Warp Nacelles look like they took them from a Klingon D-7...
ain’t it the truth
The CG TOS ship costs about the same to model render and insert into frames as the Disco or SNWprise.
I'll never forgive TMP...
I like the design of the new Enterprise. She's a thing of beauty.
I do have a question. In the background dialog, there is a mention to a shuttlebay 2. Where would this shuttlebay be located?
In SNW, starships have two dedication plaques on the bridge. I would love to see the dedication plaques for the Peregrine and the Farragut.
I do have a question. In the background dialog, there is a mention to a shuttlebay 2. Where would this shuttlebay be located?
In SNW, starships have two dedication plaques on the bridge. I would love to see the dedication plaques for the Peregrine and the Farragut.
Similar threads
