Are you joking around with us? Because this basically sounds like you're describing the 1701-D, so you hardly have to "wonder"!...I have always wondered what a version of the Enterprise would look like with 'pylons' that look more like 'wings'....attached along the full length of the nacelles and on a corresponding length of the hull. A hull that is longer and the back end of which ends even with the back end of the nacelles. And a neck that is medium height, but much more substantial and supportive around more of the perimeter of the back half of the saucer. But....I am not an artist.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
No, not like the D at all.
No. You're proposing a radically relativistic stance toward design aesthetics, and that's just not how it works. If @BillJ looks at the SR-71 Blackbird and thinks it looks "dated" to the 1980s, when it's actually from 20 years earlier, he's wrong. (Nothing personal, Bill!) If I show someone a Pierre table by George Sowden and that person says it looks "modern," that person is wrong — and I could counter with a Noguchi table, which actually is from the modern period. If I show someone a Proust chair by Allesandro Mendini and that person says it looks "dated" to the 1700s because of its Rococo form factor, again, that's wrong, by about 200 years.
It is, technically, accurate, to say that the TOS Enterprise dates to the 1960s, simply because that's when it was designed. I'm not disputing it; that would be silly. But, so what? To say it looks dated requires doing what @Groppler Zorn has been attempting and showing how it looks similar to other identifiable designs from the period — which it doesn't. it's not a purely subjective matter. Context is critical.
(There are aspects of the design that I think Jefferies borrowed from postwar futurism, the same movement that gave us, e.g., the architecture of LAX and the Space Needle. He used those aspects in new and different ways, however. And it's silly and pointless to say that those designs couldn't or wouldn't be revisited in 300 years and therefore don't still look "futuristic." Just as it's silly to say starship designs from any other show (or movie, or game) look more futuristic. It's the future. It's all imaginary until we get there.)
Well Fuller wanted to start in the 23rd century then jump around, CBS were the ones who made him stick to one time period.
While Weird Al is awesome, Queen is more so!Time for a bit of comic relief. Weird Al, to the tune of Queen's 'Another One Bites The Dust'.
Queen may be dated, but Weird Al never will be.
If you think that’s awesome check out “March of the Black Queen” from Queen II. It’s an epic smorgasbord of awesome weirdness from the mind of Freddie Mercury - the whole second album is great actually.
I’m sorry to have brought a Star Trek discussion to this point everybody.
I read on the board before the observation that the NCC-1701 design is in part a fusion of both the rocket ship and flying saucer, which is a rather interesting point, I think.
Individually, a lot of stock designs of sci-fi spacecraft of the 1950s and 1960s tended to be one or the other; I can't think of any other that's both (other derivative ST designs notwithstanding). Additionally, rockets were real in the 1960s, whereas flying saucers were understood not to be (the odd experimental prototype notwithstanding), something that's still true today. Fusing the two paradigms can be said to plant one foot in realism and the other in fantasy, on first glance immediately evoking reactions to both and thereby making the intent of the design clear: a spaceship of the future.
I think it's also not to be completely dismissed that there's an abstract similarity to the human form. The saucer is the head, the engineering hull is the torso, and the nacelles are the legs. No arms, though, obviously. They use force fields, tractor beams, and other rays for that! (The arrowhead insignia, a.k.a. the Starfleet delta [sic], is like a five-pointed star with the arms chopped off. Coincidence? Two nacelles and a saucer.
)
Individually, a lot of stock designs of sci-fi spacecraft of the 1950s and 1960s tended to be one or the other; I can't think of any other that's both (other derivative ST designs notwithstanding). Additionally, rockets were real in the 1960s, whereas flying saucers were understood not to be (the odd experimental prototype notwithstanding), something that's still true today. Fusing the two paradigms can be said to plant one foot in realism and the other in fantasy, on first glance immediately evoking reactions to both and thereby making the intent of the design clear: a spaceship of the future.
I think it's also not to be completely dismissed that there's an abstract similarity to the human form. The saucer is the head, the engineering hull is the torso, and the nacelles are the legs. No arms, though, obviously. They use force fields, tractor beams, and other rays for that! (The arrowhead insignia, a.k.a. the Starfleet delta [sic], is like a five-pointed star with the arms chopped off. Coincidence? Two nacelles and a saucer.
)
I’m sure I read somewhere (may have been the “art of Star Trek” book) that Jeffries was directed to make the Enterprise neither rocket nor flying saucer. Like a genius he essentially combined both - but was canny enough to make the nacelles a futuristic space warp engine (that may have been Roddenberry in reality) but the fact that flames don’t spurt out of the back of the engine pods does a lot to keep the Enterprise from being dated when compared to similar designs in the same context.
This is such a cool idea. They sort of touched on this in TNG iirc when they were being sucked into that swirly thing and the future Picard came back 6 hours - he eventually says the swirly thing (I’m getting red dwarf flashbacks here) had identified the Enterprise as a life form with Picard as its brain - which makes sense since Picard worked at the top of the “head” of the ship - the bridge... I’ve anthropomorphised the Enterprise again (“now I know... why they call it... she...”)
Hmmm... interesting perceptions. In context of its time it's hard to imagine if the original Enterprise was anything other than cutting edge. I cannot speak for that. The eye for comparison some (many here) fans have is pretty darn impressive. I hear the familiar bit of music and see the basic shape of the Enterprise and it does the job. Of course Discovery as a star ship is just way too sophisticated for either version of Enterprise but that's another topic.
Agreed, I feel the same way. If it had looked like that unreleased QMX model, I'd have been very happy.
I agree. That is ahead of its time.
Cool as the artwork is, the artist who painted the cover of Star Trek by James Blish, more recently published as Star Trek 1, just couldn't keep themselves, for whatever reason, from "fixing" this "problem." (Apologies, I cannot find the name of the artist.) They even misinterpret the engineering hull as the "main engine."
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20090325012319&path-prefix=en
Memory Beta claims without citation:
The cover art for this book is taken from the publicity artwork used by NBC to promote the first season in the fall of 1966 (several other NBC series were featured in similar artwork). The painting depicts the characters as they appear in the second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", although that episode is not adapted in this volume.
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_1
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_1
I'm only paying $42 with tax, for mine.
Ouch.
Definitely agree. Obviously any cg model would have had to include some updates for texture etc. because they weren’t about to lovingly recreate the model like in DS9 to sit alongside the DSC designs - but that’s where I think the whole DSC aesthetic is flawed - they had to change the Enterprise so it didn’t stick out like a sore thumb next to the disco. Which is a shame because the prime Enterprise design is beautiful.
Haha yes I’ve seen that kind of mistake before. My mum has a Star Trek annual from 1972 or something with comic strips in it including flames shooting out the back of the engines and the shuttle bay iirc
The influence of the wider sci-fi context of the time is keenly observed in these kinds of mistakes. The lack of rocket boosters and fins and (to a lesser extent) a window up front are some of the main reasons why the Enterprise hasn’t dated. It’s not “of its time” when compared with other sci-fi spaceship designs.
I'm not saying we shouldn't look at other sci-fi ships from the era. I'm saying that there aren't that many that we can compare it to because, as stated earlier, the Enterprise changed the way starships are designed.
Shouldn't we stick to music from the 60s if we're to compare 60s music?
What do you think we mean when we say "dated"? It means that it looks old, out-of-fashion or obsolete. It doesn't mean that you can slap a best before sticker on it. Saying something looks old is a personal opinion/taste. I'd like to see a formula that allows me to determine if something's tacky.
The saucer was also supposed to be a sphere earlier on, but was changed because it was "too bulky". I suspect a sphere wouldn't look quite as nice in motion, too.
I think we _all_ love the original.
Aside from the aforementioned pylons, it would've looked fine with updated details and textures in '79, and from then on could have remained fine right up until now. It's fate that gave us the TMP Enterprise as it is, which is of course my favourite design, but it could've been just slightly different from the TOS model, proportionally and component... compo... componentionally, and I'd still love it.
I don't think that's the only reason. They could've made it a lot closer to the original and make it work. They went quite a bit further presumably because they wanted to make it their own.
I agree. And, if I had my preferences, then there would be a fleet of Franz Josephs' designs running around rather than the Miranda, the Oberth, and the like. But, that's the thing-different designers create different things. And, if we look at Star Trek as being a post scarcity future (or darn close to it-save for TOS) then why wouldn't there be multiple designs?
Seems to me YOU are pretty much the only one around, making the "dated" statement.
And doing it in such a way that comes across as a fact rather than your own guess, while at the same time dismissing anybody who disagrees, again with some supposed 'authority' only you possess.
It's rather grating and boarders on being quite rude.
We get it, you don't care for the TOS version at this point in time.
You can come down off that high-horse of yours anytime now.
Great point.
Similar threads
