USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[XCV330]

I hear it once scored four direct hits on a Klingon ship in one battle.

and it was cool in the 80s. has pictures to prove it.

 

[Fandango831]

Thraxllisylia on deviantart did a great render of the Mirror modified Defiant based on the retconned Connie. Looks great!

 

[cooleddie74]

Love that registry font! That what the DSC Enterprise's should look like.

 

[Tuskin38]

There is a period missing after the second 'S'

Tisk tisk.
(I love it)

Love that registry font! That what the DSC Enterprise's should look like.

Really? it seems kind of generic.

It is neither microgramma or whatever front was used in TOS and ENT.

 

[dahj]

I hear it once scored four direct hits on a Klingon ship in one battle.

 

[cooleddie74]

#FatBolianBeamedIntoTheShoestoreToday

 

[cooleddie74]

Really? it seems kind of generic.

It is neither microgramma or whatever front was used in TOS and ENT.

True, but it's a LOT closer than what the creators actually gave us and looks much nicer. It would be a good compromise.

 

[Jadeb]

True, but it's a LOT closer than what the creators actually gave us and looks much nicer. It would be a good compromise.

Agree. If they're going to blow it up huge -- and we know Discovery is going to blow it up huge -- this version works better than the original.

 

[Tuskin38]

It's a LOT closer than what the creators actually gave us

Not really.

That artist does some great work

https://www.deviantart.com/thraxllisylia/art/1764-751746461

 

[TrickyDickie]

Thraxllisylia on deviantart did a great render of the Mirror modified Defiant based on the retconned Connie. Looks great!

Here's another view:

Navigational deflector and surrounding area could use a bit more work, in my opinion.

 

[Belz...]

Phase II has motion in the glowing bussards, though it's more difficult to see (at least in this footage). I'm not sure why they have the bussards dark in some of the footage.

I am not a fan of the shorter nacelles or the dogleg at the upper part of the pylons:

Thing is, this isn't the actual Phase II Enterprise that Jefferies had planned. It's a lot closer to the original TOS ship than that. In addition, for some reason many Phase II fan models use those ridiculous binoculars-like photorp launchers, while the Phase II plans only had a single one. The Eaglemoss version is the closest I've seen to that, although it's not supposed to have a dish at all.

Here's another view:

Yuck.

 

[Jadeb]

I really don't get the weird divots in the saucer, much as I don't get why anyone would design the Enterprise's weird window/light things to cut into the saucer they way they do.

(This is a complaint about the designs, not these illustrators' work.)

 

[BillJ]

That artist does some great work

https://www.deviantart.com/thraxllisylia/art/1764-751746461

He does good work. Unfortunately, a turd is still going to look like a turd. No matter how talented the artist.

 

[Tuskin38]

He does good work. Unfortunately, a turd is still going to look like a turd. No matter how talented the artist.

Good thing it isn't a turd then.

 

[BillJ]

Good thing it isn't a turd then.

Falls under "your mileage may vary". For me, it is a turd.

 

[lawman]

Unless the sensors get knocked out.

Nope, the window would be useless even then. First of all, you won't be able to see out of it, since the bridge is lighted and space isn't. Ever try looking out of a window a night? You see nothing but your own reflection. Second, even if you could see out, you've got an angle of view from the bridge that only covers maybe one-eighth of the space around the ship; anything aft, ventral, or too far to the sides is right out. Third, even if you had unobstructed views, everything is kilometers in the distance, or even tens, hundreds, or thousands of kilometers — much too far away for the naked eye to make out, without a viewscreen to magnify it.

If there is zero added value why not add it?

Umm, I don't follow your reasoning here. Starfleet engineers: "Putting a window on the bridge instead of a viewscreen would do absolutely nothing to help the crew. What the heck, why not do it anyway?"

In fact, it could arguably subtract value. With a viewscreen, the bridge module is genuinely modular; a ship's captain can customize its orientation to fit whatever suits him (e.g., the infamous 36-degree offset of the TOS bridge). With a window, everything is stuck in a fixed position.

I don't care for the excessive diagonal lines along the back of the secondary hull and nacelles.

I'm not quite sure what diagonal lines you're looking at. However, I do notice that the bird's-eye view of the DSC Enterprise posted upthread shows what amounts to a darker gray "spine" running along the top of the engineering section... which IMHO is just another extraneous detail that only detracts from the ship's appearance.

I think the last ship to have an actual neck was the Pasteur - otherwise we’re talking about the Enterprise C. Were they both Sternbach designs?

Dunno about the Pasteur, but the Ent-C was definitely Sternbach, albeit modified from an original concept design by Probert. And IMHO, the Ent-C was an absolutely beautiful ship. Evocative of the original, yet with a sense of greater size and power, and subtle modernizations that show the progression toward the Ent-D. I'd love to see more of her.

You're still wrong. It's like saying Bruce Dickinson doesn't "get" the essence of Iron Maiden when he's been their singer for decades, just because he wasn't there at the beginning.

If we're going to use musical analogies, I think a more appropriate one would be the Grateful Dead: everyone involved realizes that it hasn't really been the same band since Jerry Garcia died in 1995. The surviving members still play, but not under the original name.

Arguably the Star Trek aesthetic before then had been very unadorned and utilitarian, with minimal "coolness"-only surface-features...
...
Star Trek's sailing vessel aesthetic...was a unique feature and selling point of difference with other franchises.
...
Some of the newer post-TNG stuff sometimes looks a big video-gamey, with ridges for ridges sake...

Yes, this. Exactly! "Coolness" is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO Jefferies' Enterprise (and the refit version) had enough detailed surface features to give the ship a sense of realism and scale, but those features weren't arbitrary... most of them related to plausible functional aspects of the ship. The refit had a bit more of an art-deco vibe to it, but still it wasn't gratuitous or overdone. More recent ship designs, OTOH, have surface features that look like they serve all the purpose of tailfins on a '50s roadster. Things like that date more quickly, not less, and any supposed "coolness" is IMHO lost in the visual clutter.

yes, the spinning things added movement, though they do look a bit silly and dated.

Not so. They convey the sense of something powerful and complex (and at the same time fascinating and beautiful) going on inside those hemispheres.

John Eaves didn’t like that change in shape either, he has said that his final submitted design had them straight like TOS. It was the show’s SFX team that made them TMP shaped.

Just another sign of the too-many-cooks problem behind the scenes on this show, and all the buck-passing it generates...

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I'm not quite sure what diagonal lines you're looking at. However, I do notice that the bird's-eye view of the DSC Enterprise posted upthread shows what amounts to a darker gray "spine" running along the top of the engineering section... which IMHO is just another extraneous detail that only detracts from the ship's appearance.

Indeed that was what I was referring to. The "spine" It's unnecessary and ugly. I also don't like the thin darker gray rings on the top of the saucer. Sadly the more I see of it, the less I start to like it. But that's not the official "Discovery" version so I'm sure there are differences but that game model leaves much to be desired.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Thing is, this isn't the actual Phase II Enterprise that Jefferies had planned. It's a lot closer to the original TOS ship than that. In addition, for some reason many Phase II fan models use those ridiculous binoculars-like photorp launchers, while the Phase II plans only had a single one.

Yeah, I know. They seem to take more of their cues from Mike Minor's art than Jefferies:

Minor:

Jefferies:

Aside: Just came across this design. Said artist unknown:

 

[Belz...]

If we're going to use musical analogies, I think a more appropriate one would be the Grateful Dead: everyone involved realizes that it hasn't really been the same band since Jerry Garcia died in 1995. The surviving members still play, but not under the original name.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change what I said: since the band is now different, its essence is what it is now, and thus its artists "get" its essence. Eaves "gets" Star Trek because he's now one of its key contributors. It's really that simple.

Not so. They convey the sense of something powerful and complex (and at the same time fascinating and beautiful) going on inside those hemispheres.

Christmas lights aren't powerful or complex. At least the 2009 and 2016 versions look more modern. The 1966 version just screamed "hey look how FUNKY this ship is, man!"

Aside: Just came across this design. Said artist unknown:

I know Judexavier did the CGI version of this but I'm not sure if this original drawing is his. I think it is.

Note: if that stuff in the corner is a Jefferies original from the 60s, those swept back pylons are even closer to what he eventually proposed for Phase II. Though they might be from the 70s instead.

 

[DaveyNY]

Yeah, I know. They seem to take more of their cues from Mike Minor's art than Jefferies:

Minor:

Jefferies:

Aside: Just came across this design. Said artist unknown:

I thought I remember seeing that last design in an old STARLOG magazine.

Turns out I didn't.