quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: That's supposed to be reflection-
That was always my interpretation, as well. However, depending on the origin of that blue painting, that idea might not be accurate. After all, the line doesn't show up on the warp nacelle underside at all as one would expect it to, and the idea of it as a reflection showing up on the saucer is uncertain at best.
As for the painting itself (which, just for clarification regarding your earlier post, I never thought to be a model) . . . basically, without knowing the source of this artwork, it could very well be a mid-stage Jefferies design.
Believe me, those were the good ones! I heard there was some dispute over the rights o use the Enterprise or something due to it being liscenced elsewhere at the time and so they hired an artist that, I suppose, had never heard of Star Trek to do the covers. Possibly he had a bad cold and a broken hand as well. And bad vision. And no references.
Yes, they're horrible- the perspective of the secondary hull does not even line up with the blob-like saucer section.
Your comment is spot-on: Star Wars mania influenced the thinking of many an art director in that period.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Yeah, they had an overdeveloped sense of copyright infringement avoidance. When I was young I used to think those were crappy but now I see them as a bit of sneaky-cloning mixed with creative avoidance thereof.
They can make an interesting what-if, anyway, though I daresay people wouldn't ever have been so interested in Trek if the ships were so anti-iconic.