Ask and ye shall recieve. (Click on Image) =]
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: The Vorlon ]
Mark
But to the overall concept of "Enterprise", bleah. If the ship they use looks similar to this, they will have a hard time explaining to the fans how this ship is supposed to be less advanced than the original Enterprise.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
Originally posted by Tahna Los:
Nice drawing, Adam. Seriously.But to the overall concept of "Enterprise", bleah. If the ship they use looks similar to this, they will have a hard time explaining to the fans how this ship is supposed to be less advanced than the original Enterprise.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Uh It is the enterprise
Its been confirmed here in the US in Tv guide.
Do you have the original of this? I'm still looking for a big picture of the official ship without any magazine text or other lines.
Akira-ish design.
Sleek looking hull and engines.
What looks like a TNG deflector on the front.
I was hoping that the ship itself look dull to make it more consistent with the Trek Universe.
The TOS-era appears not to have paid any attention to physical looks and asthetics. But yet we see asthetics here, only to drop off once TOS takes root, then we begin to have asthetics in ships again.
So tell me what is going on here?
The more I look at the the ship the more I think the deflector will not be circular, but eliptical.
Hnnng. See, this is what's annoying people. You are saying that, regardless of what the Enterprise actually looks like, you'd rather look at a dull ship for 7 years if it fits in better with what you think 22nd century ships should look like?
Its a TV SHOW , FICTION , ITS A BUSINESS , they have to sell it like any other , todays Fans are fickle they want fast looking ships , cool lights , big explosions good special effects. Of course those things alone wont make the show , but i think they can balance Story and Eye Candy and make this show a success.
A show with Bad Set Design , props and production values is doomed to fail.
The producers have to find a way to balance Eye Candy and Story Telling. I guess whether they have achived this Balance is a matter of personal opinion but since we have yet to see this show I dont see how people can start bashing the show , with anything else then personal opinion.
First off, Enterprise is a TV show. There are budgets and time constraints. No matter what I want or what everyone wants cannot be accomplished by the studio (unless I buy Trek from Viacom...hehe). Second, after seeing the ship and the Entertainment Tonight clip on the show, it makes me thing that at least TPTB are trying to make continuity with TOS.
So in short, at least they are trying their best to accomodate the fans and the studio. I'm just glad the ship really doesn't look like it came from First Contact.
If it had a Constitution-Style hull, then it would be more believable.
If we're going to have that ship, we just be as best if it was held in the early 2300s.
Please, something more befitting of its era it's supposed to come from????
quote:
Please, something more befitting of its era it's supposed to come from????
Except we don't have a clue what the look of that era was except people's personal opinions or highly-oversimplified ideas that ships must follow some sort of tight and monodirectional design continuum.
quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
J, you're not the only one who hoped for that. I think those of you who are willing to accept Akiraprise believe that any ship consistent with 2150 MUST be boring or primitive-looking. With enough time and effort, a great ship that looked liked it belonged in 2150 could have been designed, at least I had hoped. After all, do you think vehicles from 2001, Blade Runner, and the Aliens movies (just to name a few) are boring and primitive? Their levels of technology are far below that of Star Trek in 2150. Even supposedly Victorian technology, like "The Time Machine" and "Nautilus," can look cool when well designed. And I guess you think that all technology produced today looks like a bucket of bolts. The choice between a 2150-consistent ship and a boring ship is a false choice.
Indeed... but the very idea of what constitutes a 2150-consistent ship is entirely subjective. I, for one, think that the Enterprise is such a ship as is, for reasons I feel are probably abundantly clear by now.
However, I don't think that a more, shall we say, "predictably-styled" ship would be boring. Your own work at the Starfleet Museum proves that without a doubt. Any of your designs fit the period very well based on prior information, and John Eaves couldn't have gone wrong going in that direction. Indeed, I was expecting something very similar to your own Moskva class, to tell you the truth.
Nevertheless, I think that the real division among us tech fans is one of expectation and payoff... not a division over what we think the ship looks like. Myself, Siegfried, and others to a lesser extent don't mind that the Enterprise shatters our preconceptions. Everyone else around here does. As I've said before, I would bet that any design to come out of the studio at this point would get almost the same reaction unless it was what we expected.
That's not to say we don't have our quibbles with the ship itself. If I were in charge, I wouldn't have had an Enterprise remotely like this one. My own design would probably be similar to most of ours around here. Spheroid/ellipsoid primary hull, cylindrical secondary hull, perpendicular nacelle pylons, and so on. (I'm also fond of slapping some nacelles onto the Sulaco and painting it white. ) But the Enterprise that will be is no less valid in my book, and I see nothing about it that goes against established continuity. I can see the basis for the argument that the Enterprise is a copied Akira class, but I have yet to see any support given for the anti-timeframe commentary save, "We all thought it would look like ___."
Christ, I don't post here for two years and all of a sudden I'm writing a doctoral thesis every time I respond.
It's called logorrhea. I find cutting back on coffee helps.
I think that the producers could have taken several valid approaches to developing a ship that more of us could accept as coming from the mid 22nd century. After all, I'm sure that the first time most of us saw Daedalus we immediately could tell that it's much more technologically primitive (and ugly) than the TOS Enterprise. In the same vein, my early Fed ships in the Starfleet Museum are farily obvious morphs from Daedalus to TOS Enterprise, and other people have come up with similar designs. So, maybe something like my ships might have been expected but were perhaps too predictable and were not the best choice either.
But what are other ways to suggest less developed technology without known design quotations or cues from earlier ships? One way is that they could have made the nacelles and other elements of the propulsion system noticeably larger in proportion to the rest of the ship. For my Romulan War ships, for example, I use non-antimatter drives (fusion), with large deuterium tanks, heavy nacelles for this purpose. However, the proportions of the parts of NX-01 are fairly close to those of Akira. Now, I know that one can rationalize these proportions by saying the drive system is less efficient but of the same size; however, I think they should have found a way to express this less-efficient technology visually rather than by simply putting red caps on the nacelles.
Another way they could have expressed older technology was to have a very unusual layout, another strategy I've used. Any time a new technology gets introduced there is a period of experimentation when new solutions are tried out and compete for dominance. Eventually one pattern is found to be superior and becomes the standard. This happened in the early days of propeller aviation and again when jets were introduced. We can also see it in the Burgess shale, where animals with body plans unlike those of any living creature flourished for a time. So rather than mirroring a presumably successful modern layout, the producers might have chosen a more radical layout that was found to be flawed and never seen again. I use enormous midline nacelles in my Romulan war ships, something I'll never use on later ships. They're recognizably Earth ships, but of a radically different, less-developed technology.
So, while we can probably rationalize NX-01's layout, I think the producers should have made other choices.
quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
It's called logorrhea. I find cutting back on coffee helps.
Not my coffee!
quote:
So, while we can probably rationalize NX-01's layout, I think the producers should have made other choices.
I'd prefer to say that the producers could have made other choices, possibly "better" choices, but I don't fault them for the chocies they did make.
[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
Now this, which looks three times as advanced as the Original Enterprise.
Like I said, it would be believable if they used a Constitution Style Hull.
Or perhaps a Daedalus class ship would be a better bet, since they existed just after the Federation was founded.
(He does have a point actually. How hard would it have been so say "image processed by Wes"? Removing watermarks is also dirty work).
As an aside, you'd have preferred the Daedalus class? I'm not arguing that the Daedalus class does a nice job of looking more primitive that the NCC-1701. I would argue that it's one ugly mother, and not something that's I'd want to see for 7 years.
Doesn't seem to be much point it changing it now, everyone knows who made it. I just wanted you to know it wasn't my intention to claim it as my own.
Sorry again, Wes.
Nice work replacing the text btw.
Between Masao's designs and those created for a game called "Jovian Chronicles" ( http://www.dp9.com/tour/Jc_page4a.htm -- scroll down past the mecha), I think that is the direction they should have gone. But unlike Ryan, I do fault the producers...
--Jonah
Also, thanks for the cool link. I haven't had much interest in big-foot mecha, but those ships are neat.
quote:
As Matt Jeffries indicated in his discussions of the design of the TOS Enterprise, lack of surface detail was intentional. He wanted smooth hullplates. He wanted everything to be able to be serviced from inside the ship, so there would be no hazerdous EVA work to replace a burnt out component.
And of course, this leads me to think of a possible explanation for the problem of the SS Enterprise having a rough surface and the USS Enterprise having a smooth surface. Perhaps sometime between the two time periods, the folks at the ASDB decided to try this revolutionary approach to starship design whereby the crews do not have to face the dangers of EVA. Hence, they designed new lines of starships that used this idea of crew-friendliness. Thus, the ships got smooth, the components became assessible from the inside, the controls became simpler, etc.