What issue?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I don't agree.
I can see the rationale behind it.You know whats interesting?
Jefferies had actually designed the slanted pylons and phase 2 nacelles back in 1964 as a back up design.
From everything I have seen so far, I like Madkoifish's design best for a Discoprise. I would like a version where the bussards and impulse engines are blue, just as a change from red. That would tie in with the blue on the nacelles. Make the overall ship a bit darker in color and it would be a good match for the Discovery series aesthetic, in my opinion.
It's a neat design that combines elements of TOS, TMP, and the Abramsprise. Interesting and fresh approach for location of the torpedo tubes, too:
It's a neat design that combines elements of TOS, TMP, and the Abramsprise. Interesting and fresh approach for location of the torpedo tubes, too:
Good for you. I don't know why you felt the need to say that a second time.
Should've picked that right off the bat. Would've made it easy to update in 1979.
As a standalone design, MKF's 1701 is pretty damned amazing. A but too busy on pylons, though. I wish he'd clean that up. Otherwise yeah, great... but if you're going to use his design, why not avoid having to pay him and just use the TMP one, given how similar they are?
Well Gene wanted what we got. So that is what we got.
Sounds like Gene wasn't always so hot.
As for the colouring, he's done another one that may appeal to you better.
http://www.desktopwallpaperhd.net/w...p-gallery-projects-trekxient-clicky-51181.jpg
http://www.vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/Desktop02.jpg
http://www.vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/Desktop01.jpg
Yes, that is a better color.
As a follow up to my earlier question about the Phase II Enterprise being used on Discovery; how would you folks have reacted if somehow they had used Vektor's 2007/2009 design for 1701 instead:
https://imgur.com/a/1mAghnU
It's pretty damned close to the original, while being detailed and cinematic enough for all periods, and seem to me to avoid looking too 60s. A bit of a perfect showing by Jason Lee there.
I like that a lot.
Also, the pylons look rather straight from many angles. It just helps give the ship a better profile, and they look better from the back.
I think the nacelles and pylons are different enough from TMP to stand on their own. Kind of half-way between TMP and Abramsprise. Agreed on a bit of pylon adjustment needed, though not a lot. I'm kind of split on the spinning bussards.
Now that I really like!
You know whats interesting?
Jefferies had actually designed the slanted pylons and phase 2 nacelles back in 1964 as a back up design.
Not to mention it looks like it has the refit torpedo launcher and refit secondary hull (it's more curved than the design we got in TOS) minus the refit deflector of course.
Really? The design he picked ended up being iconic. So I tend to think he made the right call.
If he had chosen the other one it would probably have become just as Iconic.
I have strong opinions about ST09.
It was visually impressive and had some decent acting, but that's pretty much the full list of its virtues. It's a terrible film by any standards of storytelling, and the strong impression that it's not "real Star Trek" barely scratches the surface of the reasons why. This isn't the thread to rehash it all, so suffice it to say that there was hardly a minute of that film that didn't leave me thinking "Hold on, wait, this thing that just happened, that thing he just said, that doesn't make any sense! How can you expect me to buy that?" My favorite detailed critical exegesis of the film (I've linked it before) is the one that starts here.Okay, I take your point there. Insofar as the "franchise" was in need of a jump-start, ST09 gave it one. I'd say it got it "moving again" in the wrong direction, however.
...and apparently you anticipated that.
On that philosophical question, though, I'm genuinely on the fence. I love the characters and concepts, of course, but if they're not being done justice by new material, if in fact they're just being hollowed out, squeezed dry for the sake of more corporate profit, then is the new material really worth having?It could get better, maybe even recapture the magic of the original. Hope springs eternal. But the trends of recent years are not encouraging. The IP owners keep opting for style over substance... and it's not even particularly good style.
Success in the market? Hardly. By that standard, McDonalds makes "good" food. Matters of taste are subjective, yes, but they're not wholly and irreducibly subjective to the point of complete relativism. Aesthetic standards exist. Were that not so, comparisons between different entertainments would be impossible, and the entire vocation of criticism would collapse. (And it's not a bad avocation, either. What's the main thing we spend our time doing on these forums, after all? If everything collapsed down to just "I liked it, you didn't, game over" that'd be deadly boring.)
No, it's not. See, after a movie, what a lot of people enjoy doing is dissecting it in conversation, revisiting the experience, sharing opinions both favorable and unfavorable. It's called "socializing." It's (again) a lot like what we do in these forums, except it involves having other people in the room. The whole process doesn't diminish anyone's experience, it enriches it.
(And what exactly do you mean by "down to my level," BTW?...)
Nice work! Angled struts, slightly tapered nacelles, and some aztecing, but otherwise it's pretty much exactly like the original. Same elegant "tall ship" profile. Now that is something I could've really gotten behind, that's my reaction. (And his alternate version you shared, with coloring closer to the original, is even better.)
(And the more the rest of the show mirrored the same design themes, the better that would've been, as well.)
No way anyone will ever know.
I cannot take that critique seriously, and if "not real Star Trek" barely scratches the surface I have serious reservations regarding that criticism.I have strong opinions about ST09.
So, in short, I will respectfully disagree for many reasons, including those held by others in Hollywood, as well as my wife who is an author herself.
Similar threads
