Yes. Other than layout, nothing is shared. People seem to think the layout is design, but that is like saying two pick ups are the same design because they have the same body layout.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Yes. Other than layout, nothing is shared. People seem to think the layout is design, but that is like saying two pick ups are the same design because they have the same body layout.
On'tday entionmay ethay eflectorday. Easeplay.
Different version of the model under different lighting. Drexler likely copypasted then squished the dish of his own USS Enterprise CG model circa 2001, which showed up in the first couple of New Voyages fanfilm episodes.
No, because if they didn't have a lot of time, or were instructed to do something simple and cheap, etc. that's ok. The perspective might not be perfect but it's only on screen for a second or two. But it's clearly not the same ship as the 1701, first, and second sticking part of the ship on the hull and leaving it like that is pretty stupid; it means nobody checked.
This reminds me of the first trailer for the 2009 reboot and people were saying they heart "James Siberius Kirk", as if their perception meant that the screenwriters had changed the good captain's name.
No, it hasn't. Aside from homage episodes the design hasn't been used since 1969, and they updated it as soon as they got their hands on it. Furthermore, the new Enterprise doesn't look "modern". In fact a lot of people here are complaining about how 60s it looks.
Art deco was in during the 70s? Do you have examples?
I know Art Deco but I'm not an art student, so aside from buildings and cars from the 30s I can't necessarily spot it. And I suspect that most people don't, either, which is my point: to most of the audience it will _not_ look dated.
Again, you shouldn't expect that your expertise is shared, or should be shared, by all.
I don't agree. I think NX-01 looks more primitive, perhaps of an era just before the Kelvin, simply because the 1701 is so smooth and confident a design, it looks like it's built by people who've made starships for quite a while. I'll agree that NX-01 doesn't look primitive enough, though.
Here. It looks pretty damned close, now that I've seen the comparison. You'd have to be quite the nitpicker to refuse to see it.
You must've slept through it. I remember it vividly!!
I have an university level art degree and I see the Art Deco influences in TMP Enterprise, but I still find Mirror Mirror's and PixelMagic's stance utterly bizarre. This fixation that everything has to look like it was designed today seems completely crazy to me. Art and design are constantly influence by the past styles, and no style is inherently superior to another. This is like saying that Pop Art is automatically 'better' or 'more advanced' than Art Nouveau, because it came later.
Last edited:
I'd hope they'd be more than vaguely aware of it, it is literally the first thing they are told in every single Star Wars movie. The disclaimer that it isn't our future is so famous you can quote it out of context and people know immediately what you mean.
Star Trek on the other hand has consistently been the future of our world, even altering its own past to fit when advancing reality overwrites its speculation. It is the 'vision of the future', our future. And how we imagine our own future evolves with time, and artistic fashion, and the changing nature of technological progression. When the 1701 was originally designed, the future was all about jets and flying cars and moon colonies. Big advances were expected in the aerospace industry, but other things like communication, recording and recalling information and computing weren't in focus. You can see it in all kinds of futuristic settings from the period (check out Gerry Anderson's vision of the early 21st Century). By the 00's, the opposite was true. We had no flying cars, deep space sleeper ships or jetpacks. 99.99%+ of people still haven't left Earth. Instead we had pocket phones that connected us to all the world's data, and rapidly developing social connections heavy on user generated media. Our computers have overrun the capabilities of even the 24th Century ones. If Trek doesn't move with the times it just becomes a show about what the 60s thought the future would be like. I'm not saying you couldn't have a show like that, but it wouldn't be Star Trek.
Star Wars is an entirely different beast. It is a space fantasy set in some far flung galaxy where the physics isn't quite the same, there's a mysterious Force, and part of the aesthetic is retro, used and dirty from day one. You don't change the universe any more than you give Aragorn a bazooka.
Or the 80s-as-hell TNG designs. Sci-fi properties scream the era they are made to the heavens, just as much as the hairstyles and presence and/or style of jeans will tell you when a romcom was made. That's not a criticism, really, it is just a fact. And one that makes genre stuff so fascinating - often they tell you more about an era than the stuff that was deliberately set then. Films and TV either aim to be contemporary to the era they are made, or they are by default because they are made then. Check out Stranger Things - for all the effort put into recreating the 80s, it is so obviously made by the Tumblr generation, it's not even funny. It's not just true of filmed media, either. I'm reading The Mote in God's Eye at the moment and I guessed its publication year within 18 months without looking by all sorts of tells - the technology described, the particular brand of self-conscious sexism, the expectations of space travel and aliens, the design of an alien civilisation. Sci-fi has always been contemporary in its era.
This. Nobody was under any doubt at all that it was the Enterprise.
He wasn't in Future's End either - Trek happily rewrites its past to stay in our universe. Undoubtedly once we pass the 2060s without Vulcans, a future Trek series will retcon that.
This Lost in Space revival will give me a great chance to look at ourselves from the outside. I am what we refer to as the 'casual viewer' for Lost in Space. I saw a bit of it as a child, I'm vaguely familiar with it and the basic characters and concepts, but have no investment in it as a sacred canon. Similar to my situation with nuBSG, actually. I will watch nuLiS develop with interest as a parallel for the casual viewer of DSC.
Last edited:
There's no real futurism in Trek and hasn't been for decades. They spiff up the look a bit from time to time - holograms! - but it's a ridiculously staid and parochial image of humanity and human culture.
For all the debate about retro versus modern, the ship designs on STD are not particularly modern or contemporary...least of all Discovery herself, a forty year-old basic design. Having the fidget-spinner saucer is a cute gimmick made practical by CG, but it's a bit retro itself - the suggestion of mechanical motion signifying the workings of advanced technologies. Other than that, on Shenzhou one sees mainly the usual collection of angles, rectangles and circles that always made up these ships, with a few addtional curves. The stylistic differences are mainly that the main shapes are tied-in together more neatly - again, something Probert did with Enterprise in the late 1970s - and Eaves' signature and all-too-familiar-now odd cut-outs.
For all the debate about retro versus modern, the ship designs on STD are not particularly modern or contemporary...least of all Discovery herself, a forty year-old basic design. Having the fidget-spinner saucer is a cute gimmick made practical by CG, but it's a bit retro itself - the suggestion of mechanical motion signifying the workings of advanced technologies. Other than that, on Shenzhou one sees mainly the usual collection of angles, rectangles and circles that always made up these ships, with a few addtional curves. The stylistic differences are mainly that the main shapes are tied-in together more neatly - again, something Probert did with Enterprise in the late 1970s - and Eaves' signature and all-too-familiar-now odd cut-outs.
Last edited:
There's nothing to be "familiar with" because there is no such thing as a "23rd century aesthetic." There is a Matt Jeffries style, an Andrew Probert style, a Josef Jennings style, a Bill George style, a Greg Jein and Mike Okuda style. All of these different designers contributed to what we now think of as 23rd century designs, which UNTIL NOW consisted only of endless variations of the Reliant, Excelsior and Constellation class models. We don't actually know what those ships looked like BEFORE those vessels entered service.
On the other hand, this is not the first time John Eaves has had to develop starship designs for the 23rd century, seeing how he was already involved with the modifications to the Enterprise-B. So again, we've entered the era of the John Eaves style of starship design. You could say you don't like John Eaves' style -- which is fine, lots of people don't -- but don't pretend like you actually know how 23rd century starships SHOULD look.
Star Wars had a much BROADER effect culturally and artistically, but not a LARGER effect in the same context. Much like Star Trek, it didn't do anything particularly revolutionary or unusual, it just did it in a novel way and did a lot more OF it.
As it happens, so did Star Trek when TMP came out. That first film wasn't a huge departure from Star Trek's own thematic DNA, they just did it on a vastly different budget and making very different production decisions than they had in the past. Influences from ASO are quite prevalent here as well; note the computer voice narrating everything that happens on the ship, the airlock designs, the octagonal corridors, lighting design, etc. Even Kirk's space suit in the Memory Wall sequence is almost a dead ringer for the suit used by Bowman on Discovery; it is, if nothing else, a clear stylistic influence.
Yes. Details matter.
Yes. And I'm saying the reason this is obvious for the Discovery Enterprise is because the original design is a pre-ASO design where the normal definitions of what made a detailed, realistic spacecraft design were tremendously different (and that's not even accounting for the three-legged half-dead piggybank that was Desilu's effects budget). They updated the design for Discovery for exactly the same reason they updated it for Phase-II/TMP.
This new design hasn't changed NEARLY as much as the TMP version changed from the original. As you said, they updated surface textures and a few visible details. But as i pointed out earlier and as you are clearly demonstrating, DETAILS MATTER.
Put another way: you evidently don't know enough about the design of a Star Destroyer to notice all the things they changed in "Rogue One" and just assumed it was identical to the original version. In fact, you don't seem to know enough about Star Wars lore to recognize when the hero ship from one of its TV properties shows up in a cameo with a completely redone surface mesh. So, odds are pretty good that you would be equally agnostic about the new Enterprise design if you weren't deeply enamored with the TOS design.
I also notice they appear to have recast Major West as a cute black chick. Obvious canon violation! I am outraged! So outraged that I will definitely watch the hell out of this show just to make sure I am sufficiently well informed to complain about how cute Nu West is!To throw some more fuel on the fire, they also redesigned the Jupiter 2 for the upcoming Lost in Space Netflix series. Here it is. Why did they not just leave the original design?!?!?!?
I blame Thunderbirds, Star Wars, and motion control personally.
According to the article I just read here, https://www.space.com/39775-lost-in-space-netflix-reboot-teaser-video.html the girl you might be referring to will be Judy. Major West is a man.
^ works for me.
I wonder if somewhere on the internet there's a Lost in Space fan message board where a bunch of people are angrily howling about the redesign of the Jupiter II and claiming that this show is going to suck because the producers have no respect for What Has Gone Before?
I wonder if somewhere on the internet there's a Lost in Space fan message board where a bunch of people are angrily howling about the redesign of the Jupiter II and claiming that this show is going to suck because the producers have no respect for What Has Gone Before?
Probably. Though in this case the producers are probably not going to claim that it is not a reboot.
Still going to watch the hell out of it
Star trek diverged from our timeline, at least as far back as "little green men" . Still see no reason to change the 1701 from whate we have seen in the past. If they wanted it to stand apart, it should have been left alone.
Still futilely hoping for changes back to the 2266 version when DSC get to it...
Similar threads
