quote:I can see as much difference between those two ships as I can between the Constitution- and Ambassador-Classes.
Jeff, although I usually agree with most things you say, in this case I have to make an exception. Even Drexler says that it was a rip-off of the Akira (albeit in a nice way so he wouldn't get in Dutch with TPTB). That's not to say that I don't like the ship. After seeing Broken Bow, I most definitely like it much better than when it was previously shown in those pics.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
A ship can grow on people like moss can grow on trees. I may like the ship by the end of the series run if I'm not pissed of by any real breech in continuity.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, and you don't think they when people were designing the Enterprise-D, they didn't look at the design structure of the 1701 for clues as how to proceed?
Same thing with Enterprise and the Akira-Class. Yeeesh.
posted
Tom: Okay, that's my opinion then, based on what he said & how he said it.
Jeff: Yes, I'm sure they did. But besides having a saucer section, secondary hull, & two nacelles placed in basically the same areas, the two ships (Ent-nil & Ent-D) look nothing alike.
[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
They look as similar as Enterprise and the Akira-Class do. Enterprise has up-swept nacelles, Akira has a pregnant belly and crew space inside the catamarans.
But the inference you've been making is that the designer based Enterprise on the Akira-Class. And it's quite fucking obvious that the designer of the Excelsior-, Galaxy-, and Ambassador-Class all based the design on the Constitution-Class.
posted
No big deal at all. I'm just stating my opinions based on what I see, just as you are.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay. I'm just saying ... taking clues from previously designed ships is nothing new. Anyone who didn't think "It's the Miranda- of the Galaxy-Class" when they first saw the Nebula is smoking some crack.
posted
The original Enterprise and the Enterprise-C share the same configuration. The Ambassador-class follows in the lineage of the Constitution-class. The Essex and the Pasteur share the same configuration. The Olympic-class follows in the lineage of the Daedalus-class. The new Enterprise and the Thunderchild share the same configuration. The Akira-class follows in the lineage of the Enterprise-type.
Looking at the picture of the Thunderchild and the Enterprise sitting side-by-side, I'm amazed that there are so many differences between the two ships. Even not taking into account the size difference, there's a lot that's different enough to say that this was not simply taking the Akira class and changing stuff. It's more an issue of designing something from scratch with Akira-class elements in it. Other than a forward notch, the platform between the catamarans, and the position of the impulse engines, the saucer is completely difference in shape from the Akira. The catamarans are different in shape and have less emphasis than on the Akira. They also connect to the saucer, pod, and nacelle pylons at different places on both ships. This is not simply taking the Akira and swinging the nacelles up.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Consequently, if the FASA Loknar class had been a canon ship, this whole discussion would be moot. Has anyone ever seen this ship design? Except for the absence of the rear pod, this ship is a dead ringer for the NX-01.
On that same subject, I also agree with whoever said that the Enterprise "evolution" doesn't necessarily mean that each preceeding ship must look similar to the one before, and that it's more a question of mission specifics. The Ent-nil was a heavy cruiser, but the NX-01 could be classified as a light cruiser. I believe the Loknar was a frigate.
Seigfried: How dare you post before I've finished writing!
[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Its just that taking things backwards has us a little concerned.. taking details that were new at some point, became common, and then putting them on things that are supposed to exist before those things were new.
if they were designing ships from before the advent of the ambassador class and they added phaser strips 'because they looked cooler' i would be really pissed. There is a clear problem with that, because ships before the first half of the 24th century should not have phaser 'strips' because they werent invented. I'm sure you could argue they were prototypes, or that they just werent common, but what it boils down to is that you werent trying to create a continuous version of the Star Trek universe, and violating what has come before upsets people.
While theres not anything as clear cut as that in this case, it still is rubbing people the wrong way.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
I don't know if I'd even call Enterprise a light cruiser. I think of the ship as an engine testbed more than a cruiser, patrol ship, or explorer. The two reasons I think that are 1) the small size and shape of the ship and 2) the inference I'm getting from the information that says the ship was designed around Cochrane/Archer's engine system.
But, CaptainMike, from what you're saying it sounds like the major problem is that the new Enterprise features a catamaran hull design. But there is nothing to suggest that this wasn't a common hull configuration like the Constitution's configuration or the Miranda's configuration. Fandom has created ships with a catamaran design. The Loknar is a prime example of a TOS era ship with a catamaran design. Phaser strips are a matter of technological advancement, the catamarans are a matter of structural engineering.
[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
One thing to note is that this is before Starfleet had taken on its more naval aspects. While it uses naval ranks, the fact that Enterprise is referred to without the preceding pronoun 'the' makes it more similar to the space program. (thats the proper nomenclature for shuttles. you say 'Today, Discovery is launching', not 'Today the Discovery is launching' Its another aspect of the fact that man is blundering into interstellar space for the first time: they dont know what its for, they are just going out and seeing what happens.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, at this point, I don't think Starfleet is as interested in building light cruisers, or heavy cruisers, or destroyers or frigates or explorers or battleships or warships ...
...as much as they're intereasted in building a "starship" ...
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
exactly. Thats why i think they shouldnt have called it Starfleet yet..
Theres no 'fleet'!
And I wasnt talking about the catamaran design, just the curves of the ship in general. And im not really anti-Enterprise. I find it to be an odd design choice, but not abhorrent.
I was using the phaser strip as a concrete representation of what is more of an abstract problem for the people complaining about the design. It just doesnt look right to them.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
