How often do aircraft crews crawl inside a jet nacelle in flight? That's right - never. As to weak points - with the yield of weapons in the Star Trek universe one hit on an unshielded ship is likely to cripple or destroy it no matter where it hits.
Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing
- Thread starter Saratoga NX-3842
- Start date
Because trek always comes down to battles.
Cary L. Brown-
Your right i dont have a lot of experience and scientific knowledge in fictional ship design that doesn't change the fact that in my opinion the E didn't get attractive until the B version and on (although i would say the D doesnt look that nice)
iconic yes, aged well no.
Iam not arguing for replacement, just for a lot of tweaks to make the ToS version redesigned for a modern audiance.
this-
http://www.citlink.net/~lzdaily/TOS_Enterprise_planet.jpg
simply will not work any more.
Cary L. Brown-
Your right i dont have a lot of experience and scientific knowledge in fictional ship design that doesn't change the fact that in my opinion the E didn't get attractive until the B version and on (although i would say the D doesnt look that nice)
iconic yes, aged well no.
Iam not arguing for replacement, just for a lot of tweaks to make the ToS version redesigned for a modern audiance.
this-
http://www.citlink.net/~lzdaily/TOS_Enterprise_planet.jpg
simply will not work any more.
THAT... (your link) is NOT the ship as seen on-screen.
So your argument, based upon what appears to be a picture of a TOY, isn't valid. You need to refer to the actual design.
Since you posted an image of a ship never seen on-screen (and inaccurate to the actual on-screen model), I'll post another model which, while a "private model" and not seen on screen either, is an almost perfect replica of the on-screen model (but "polished" a bit).
http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=drdnewent1cn9.jpg
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6066/drdnewent1cn9.jpg
Let's look at that... or at any images of the actual 11' miniature seen on-screen... or any image of the new CGI version from the "remastered" episodes... NOT AT A CHEAP TOY... as the reference, shall we?
[Converting oversized image to link. Please keep inline images to pixel dimensions of no more than 640x480. - M']
Last edited by a moderator:
Cary L. said:
HAHAHA You OWN the OP! That is THE PERFECT Batman and Sandy Collora genius in making it happen!
Now, on to that post about Yoda. The muppet in TPM is done with similar techniques but was designed to look younger and everyone thought it looked bizarre and wrong. It did!
Sorry but the muppet in Empire is still the gold standard for Yoda. Like the rest of those films the painfully CG cartoon Yodas in Ep 2 & 3 are *not* convincing and lack the warmth of the original.
I hated the Tumbler before Batman Begins but it worked *in context.* There's nothing wrong with the Adam West Batman or Batmobile because it was appropriate for the tone and tenor of the show. Of the films autos, I generally prefer that 1989 Burton Batmobile version.
Actually, what we know is that they used the font used in the Franz Joseph stuff on the hull.
Which MIGHT have been done for a reason... other than "we want to make random changes."
Is that the same font they used in the movies? It looks different compared to what I remember. Reminds me of Helvetica
Actually, FJ used "Microgramma," "Microgramma Extended" and "Microgramma Bold Extended" for virtually everything in his TM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgrammahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgramma_(typeface
When TMP came along, they came up with a modified version of Microgramma Bold Extended (which is informally called "Starfleet Bold Extended." They used Microgramma quite a bit as well, but the hull markings were modified versions of Microgramma Bold Extended with a red outline.
You may very well have the Microgramma fonts on your computer today. If not, they're easy to find.
"Starfleet Bold Extended" exists in a series of fonts you can find online... most of which are simply modifications of the Microgramma Bold Extended font (as you'd expect).
The original series markings were a machine block font which was used on virtually all Air Force and NASA vessels at the time. It's a little harder to find that font (I ended up buying a version of it... first and only time I'll ever pay for a font, too... but I wanted the EXACT font, not just something "close enough.")
I like the original markings... they're easier to read from a distance than the later font was. Which, you'd think, would be the MAIN CONCERN with hull markings, wouldn't you?
Last edited:
Thanks for the font info. I'm not really too concerned with what fonts they use on the Enterprise.
I'm not sure if you're concerned with the movie preserving the current Star Trek cannon or not but as far as I'm concerned the current Star Trek cannon is ruined and I'm hoping Abrams' Star Trek is a reboot of the franchise just as long as they maintain basic designs established by TOS. I do want to see an updated appearance but not a complete redesign. I would prefer that they take the simplistic retro design and build upon and update it to make it more realistic.
Last edited:
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Oh, wow, now we're going to equate the "re-design" of a car built for campy parody into an actual functional, realistic car for a realistic movie to the redesign of one of the greatest and more magnificently designed starships in the history of SF and mankind, and a new movie that is NOT a reboot, as the show was never a parody.
Seriously, see if you can find any other SF ship model in the ffing Smithsonian or any other science museum.
Sjees.
I find the concept of a redesign of a starship that the greatest scientific minds of the world find good enough to hang in a museum of science monumentally arrogant.
A show doesn't have to be a parody in order for a future movie/show to be a reboot of it. Besides, how could Star Trek XI not be a reboot? We have different actors, noticeable design changes on the Enterprise from what we've seen in teaser trailer, Romulans looking different etc. Besides, with all the bad things done to the cannon with TNG, TNG movies, DS9, VOY, and ENT I see no alternative than to do a reboot of Star Trek to keep it alive.
That's not at all the reason the Enterprise is at NASM. The "greatest scientific minds of the world" didn't get a vote or offer any opinions.
Last edited:
Having worked in a science museum I can tell you that there definitely is a disconnect between "great scientific minds" and museum administrative personnel. People who run museums (and sadly this is increasingly the case), care primarily about admission sales and science second. Besides, it's not like the 1701 actually flew through space. The science behind it was designed to be plausible not factual. It was designed to be an inspiration of what could be accomplished with international scientific cooperation. It's a symbol, nothing more. To that end the model of the Enterprise is entirely appropriate. Whatever the new Enterprise looks like that's all it will be too. To get the point across to a new generation, changes may need to be made.
And that definitely applies to NASM and the Enterprise.
The curatorial folks who got "stuck" putting together the 25th Anniversary "Star Trek" exhibition didn't feel they got a plum assignment, believe me. It was basically the job no one wanted - until they got a whiff of the public interest. And when everyone saw the crowds and the number of visitors it generated, week after week and month after month...well, the influence and importance of the folks who had managed it grew into quite the fiefdom.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
No, they don't. All you need to do is look at the picture of the Doctherman model above to understand that one. If you're incapable of grasping just how magnificent a model the original Enterprise is, maybe you should look for a different genre of storytelling.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
You may like it. I may like it.
But that is because we are already fans.
Todays audiences want something that looks modern. And despite how much you and I like the original design of the Enterprise, it just doesn't look like something that would be designed for a film in 2008 or 2009.
It does look dated.
The movie-era Enterprise on the other hand...
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Anyone who thinks it doesn't look modern is a fool. We couldn't even come close to constructing something that elegant and functional, even if we wanted to.
This is a fascinating argument... I keep hearing it, over and over and over. And the arguments NEVER CHANGE... never EVOLVE... it's just the same argument made over and over.
The two sides are, essentially, this:
1) "The original ship is old-fashioned." Sometimes the person making the argument tries to support their point with a further argument, but none of these have ever actually been demonstrated with facts or even significant logic, as far as I'm concerned.
"We know what real ships in the future will look like and this isn't it." Of course, that's nonsense. The people who are saying that are simply comparing a different FILMMAKING DESIGN STYLE (specifically, that of latter-day Trek) to the original design style, noting that they're different, and thus ERRONEOUSLY concluding that one is "more cool" or "more modern" instead of simply being DIFFERENT.
Key elements to this argument are things like "blue glow on the engines" or "solid red nacelle caps" "glowy deflector" or "blobby-curvy hull shapes" or "exposed greeblies" or even "hull marking font."
But these aren't "improvements." They're simply DIFFERENT ARTISTIC STYLE. They don't reflect more advanced filmmaking, or more advanced design.
When people say this, what they're really saying is "I want the old show design style to be changed so it matches the new show design style."
or ...
"The original design was cheesy and designed for stupid kids. Today, we're more sophisticated." That, of course, is total and complete nonsense. It's an argument which is never made by anyone who is above a certain age... anyone who's lived long enough to realize that people haven't fundamentally changed in any way... and that we're not REALLY any more sophisticated today than we were 40 years ago, as a species. We haven't somehow "evolved into a higher form" over a few decades, and our species-wide intelligence hasn't suddenly spiked just by virtue of a new generation or two having been born!
This argument is most popular with the same folks who think that the current generation invented sex... or that prior generations didn't know how to enjoy it. Or drugs, or "free thinking" or whatever else kids assume that they've come up with for the first time in human history. It's a combination of incredible naivety and incredible arrogance... and it's very common with kids, of EVERY generation, between the ages of 17 and 22 or so. Eventually, we figure out that the changes are mostly on the surface, and that reality is a lot more stable and consistent than we would have liked to have believed when we were young and stupid.
The people watching TV in 1966 were every bit as intelligent and socially sophisticated as the people going to the movies today. And what information we've learned, what changes we've seen, tell us NOTHING WHATSOEVER about what we should expect to see in a 23rd-century starship design, beyond what we knew in 1966.
The original design was created to appeal to intelligent, technically-savvy audiences who knew pretty much the same amount about spacecraft design as we know today. The only area where things have changed in a significant way has been in terms of computer technology. And I don't think ANYONE is suggesting, seriously, that the 1701 computer should speak with Majel Barrett's monotone voice with relay-clacking playing in the background, are they?
NOW... there are two different argument which are sometimes confused. One is whether the DESIGN is a good one or not, and the other is whether the PRESENTATION OF THE DESIGN is a good one or not. These are TOTALLY SEPARATE POINTS.
For instance, the image I showed (Darren's model) is of the same design, really, as the TOY IMAGE which was posted to argue against the design. This was a dishonest way to address the DESIGN, and I think that Darren's work is a great way to discredit that. The point of reposting that image is to drive home the point that the PRESENTATION can be good or bad, with the same design.
There's a "third way" argument which can be made as well... and in the Trek Art forum you can find a couple of folks right now who've been working on their own "high-resolution" versions of the 1701... faithful to the original design but with an additional level of "polish." The ship is the same ship, but we see detail which wouldn't have been visible on a 1966 TV screen, in other words. Other folks have done similar approaches, with different levels of faithfulness to the original design, but it's a true statement that the more faithful to the original it is, the more we seem to like it. I've currently got one of Vektor's renderings set up as my wallpaper at work, and people who are not Trek fans at all absolutely LOVE it.
Nobody has ever argued that the 11' model should be taken down from its display in the Smithsonian (as far as I know, it's still there... isn't it?) and used in this film. Much less the 3' model... and DEFINITELY nobody has ever suggested using a TOY (available at better WalMarts everywhere)!
The only legitimate argument is "is the original DESIGN the one which should be used?" And "original design" doesn't preclude some additional "polish" being added... but it DOES preclude changes to proportion, shape, or functional design... and to a lesser extent, to coloration and markings.
Those issues are the ones to discuss. And in those areas, there's no TECHNOLOGICAL rationale for changing ANYTHING. Nor is there any evidence I've ever been presented with to support the claim that "audiences expect something different," though I've heard many people make that claim (without backing it up in any way) repeatedly.
Ultimately, the argument seems to come down to "this is what I'm used to seeing on the screen and that other thing isn't... and I want what I'm most comfortable with" on the one hand, versus "this is what this particular ship has always looked like, and I don't want to see what I'm used to tossed aside and 'replaced' with something based upon someone else's stylistic sensibilities."
Well now, there's an irrefutably tight, logical argument.
You're arguing about personal likes and dislikes, and that's all. You can't be right, and you can't be wrong. Ditto for ST-One and everyone else.
I don't actually care what the Enterprise looks like in this movie as long as it looks good and the design is intriguing. It's going to have a saucer and an engineering hull and two warp nacelles, which makes it a "Star Trek" ship as opposed to just about anything else.
Similar threads
