I actually like the new ship! So there! I grant you all that yes, the ship is very unoriginal. However, I think many fans are forgetting how very dated TOS is. Even our space shuttle, which is itself older than me, looks more advanced than the 1701. TOS, to me, is laughable (though enjoyable), and I wouldn't want to see a hokey flying space-can, either. The new ship is unoriginal, yes. It's a blatant rip-off of the Akira. And perhaps it isn't really even very fitting for the time period. But, rather than continue to kick sh*t about for the next seven years, I'm just gonna do what is expected of any fan of fiction...swollow the pill of Temporary Suspension of Disbelief. This is, afterall, a fantasy show, guys. I enjoy the new spinoffs for their Star Trek theme, the characters, the sci-fi quality, the visuals, and the drama. Consistency is important, true. But, as far as I can tell, the show *is* consistent with TNG, DS9, and VOY. It is *not* consistent with TOS. However, not even common sense is consistent with TOS! Computers that talk like they are mentally handicapped (no offense intended to those who are), that print out on what looks like adding-machince tape messages to the crew, rather than displaying the message on one of the many overhead computer screens on the bridge! Hokey "laser" guns, that silly phaser rifle, the bulky 1960's VW van-ish shuttlecraft, girls in mini-skirts, and planet after planet of styrofoam rocks?! So, if the new series takes some poetic license in an attempt to keep the new "old" series up to date, then so be it.
-Lance
The Trekker's Officer's Bible:
http://thetrekker.homestead.com
quote:
It is *not* consistent with TOS.
Yes, let's place Enterprise in an alternative timeline and we all will sleep better.
I agree with you that the Enterprise design is not all that original. It may possibly not be a design fitting for the 22nd century, but that an arguable point because the only ship design we know about for that period is the Daedalus class. One starship design of the many possible isn't all that good a representative sample.
But I must disagree that the new series is going to be inconsistent with TOS and that TOS looks hokey. The Original Series is 35 years old. It reflects the quality of set and prop design for that era. In another 20 years, we're going to start saying the same thing about The Next Generation. That what the realist part of says in regards to TOS. The part of me that suspends disbelief says that TOS shows a logical step in the advancement of technology. I mean, look at how so much of the ship was controlled by consoles with so few buttons. The computer voice and paper printers do not bug me at all. This is supposed to be the age of the paperless office and it isn't. I don't see a problem with Spock pulling off a hard copy of something from his scanner.
But no matter how much we argue the point, we must all accept that we will not be able to adequately judge Enterprise until it airs. The people who like it will continue to hold discussions on the vary aspects of each episode in the forums. The people who don't like it will either not watch it or watch it for the sole purpose of berating it.
But the main thing that we should remember is that Star Trek has been about people. People working together, living together, and growing together. That facet of the Trek universe has been evident to some extent in all of the series, and I believe that Enterprise will continue the tradition as well.
That said, I like Spikey's idea.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
quote:
**THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR THE AKIRAPRISE**That said, I like Spikey's idea.
Broken record syndrome.
I already have set the TOS days into another reality since i almost never watched TOS
This show is for the new generation
old timers are being swept away along with Gene R.
There isn't really much of a defense.
We all know they chose the design cause Berman reportedly said he loved the akira look....so there we go....if he kills the show, then he kills it.....
A show serves the fan---not the other way around.
Sorry for the caps, but that point is starting to piss me off. It's not that the bridge doesn't look like heresy.
The bridge we cool wit yo. We be down with the switches and buttons and screens. But that outside shit ain't cool yo. It be the outside that get our shiznitz all up in the house.
quote:
A show serves the fan---not the other way around.
Oooh, grassroots democracy to determine how a show should look.
Ooooh, stupidity.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
quote:
The bridge we cool wit yo. We be down with the switches and buttons and screens. But that outside shit ain't cool yo. It be the outside that get our shiznitz all up in the house.
Exactly, Stingray. The main sticking point about Enterprise is the overall design of the ship. Some people hate it; other people like it. In the dozens of threads on the subject, both sides have made logical arguments for and against the design of the ship. I happen to be a part of the group that doesn't find a problem with it. Based on your post, you appear to be a part of the group that does find a problem with it (yes, no, maybe?)
The thing is, Enterprise is much more than just the ship. I personally enjoyed Star Trek: Voyager. But I dislike the Intrepid-class starship. The entire design I almost completely abhor. But that was only one aspect of the show; that one aspect was not enough to turn me off of Voyager. [Note: please no debates on Voyager. Let's keep this Enterprise thread on topic ]
Enterprise is going to be about much more than just the ship. It's going to be about the people on that ship; humanity's first real trip into the great unknown. It's going to be about the adventure and the growth and change that these people will experience because of those adventures.
And, before I get prompted, I am choosing to be completely optimistic about Enterprise until at least the end of the first season. At that time will I be able to adequately reflect on what I've seen and decide whether the series deserves my support or not. In the meantime, I'm saying that it does.
So, for those arguing that the hull is inconsistent with Star Trek lore, they really are turning a blind eye to Trek's numerous other glaring inconsistencies and confusing points.
But, in essence, it is still Star Trek. The integrity and quality of the characters still ring true, and the writing, though at times banal and repetitive (Voyager?), still has many, many chances to pull at my heart strings, to excite my scientific and moral sensativities, and to keep me hooked in a series that can, often enough, be inconsistent.
So, unless they do a cross-over with the crew from Gene Roddenberry's ANDROMEDA, I thing that, for now, the show is looking really good!
Thanks for the comments, Sig, I appreciate another Trekker who doesn't have his nose to far burried in his Chronology and Technical Manuals to still see the point of Trek.
-lance
The Trekker's Officer's Bible:
http://thetrekker.homestead.com
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Yakaspat The Trekker ]
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Yakaspat The Trekker ]
So the fans DID make the show. 
However, keep this in mind:
The Olympic Class Pasteur looks quite like the Daedalus. Most two-hulled vessels like the Galaxy and Excelsior are similar in design to the 1701. The new Enterprise may not be that original, but Starfleet has been repeating designs trends for a hundred years. So, I don't think the new ship is particularily invalidated.
Lance
TheTrekker's Officer's Bible
http://thetrekker.homestead.com
What I have a problem with is NOT the fact that the hull shape resembles an Akira. I agree that it's perfectly concievable to have a catamaran-style hull in the 2160's.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that the thing just doesn't LOOK old. The surface detailing is wrong. It looks like a modern ship. Sure, they stuck a dish on the front, and that looks right, but they put grilles in the nacelles, and put deatails on the saucer that make it look excelsior-ish.
The thing about the Olympic is that even though it had avery similar hull shape to the Daedalus, the details (surface texture, color, nacelle design) made it look more futuristic.
You just can't make a ship supposed to be from 100 years before TOS, and make it look like something more advanced. Sure, the interiors should not be like those on TOS. They should have a believable level of technology. But the exteriors should look at least similar to the TOS ships.
Why didn't they do an exterior similar to the Phoenix? That, in my mind, looked just right to be a ship before TOS. Why didn't they use the TOS nacelles, the same ones that were also on the Phoenix? Why don't they use a bridge dome that has a simple shape, like the E-nil? Why didn't they color it white, as it has come to be accepted that all early Starfleet ships were?
They've got this thing looking like movie-era ship, or even later.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Many folks may think that's all hogwash, but it's true, at least for me. The wrapping on the package IS important. A book may not always be judged by it's cover, but it often has an effect.
Haven't you ever noticed that even if your car is old, by giving it a new paint job you can make it look newer? The same applies here. There is nothing essentially wrong with the product. It's the presentation that is lacking. There is nothing essentially wrong with the Akiraprise. It just doesn't look/feel quite right.
Here's a thread that contains a link to a sketch (from the Trek BBS' Vektor) which I absolutely love, and which I think illustrates the point quite well.
http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001300
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Oh yes. And the Centauri ships looked blocky and "functional", didn't they? And the Minbari. And Narn. And, for that matter, every ship apart from the EA capital cruisers.
You really want the Enterprise to look like the Nostromo?
Not that I wouldn't settle for our good 'ol Akiraprise, redressed to look a bit more appropos.
[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mr. Christopher ]
quote:
but they put grilles in the nacelles,
quote:
and put deatails on the saucer that make it look excelsior-ish.
quote:
The thing about the Olympic is that even though it had avery similar hull shape to the Daedalus, the details (surface texture, color, nacelle design) made it look more futuristic.
quote:
You just can't make a ship supposed to be from 100 years before TOS, and make it look like something more advanced.
quote:
Sure, the interiors should not be like those on TOS. They should have a believable level of technology. But the exteriors should look at least similar to the TOS ships.
quote:
Why didn't they do an exterior similar to the Phoenix?
quote:
That, in my mind, looked just right to be a ship before TOS. Why didn't they use the TOS nacelles, the same ones that were also on the Phoenix? Why don't they use a bridge dome that has a simple shape, like the E-nil? Why didn't they color it white, as it has come to be accepted that all early Starfleet ships were?
quote:
They've got this thing looking like movie-era ship, or even later.
Ok its 4:40am. Sorry if im dragging out the longest boringest debate over opinions ever but i had nothing else to do while i fall aslee pon my keyboard....emmmmmmm[edit]
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Wes1701E ]
Ok where does it say that the Deadalus wasn't the only ship in the 22nd century that stayed with the lines of the 'second' Enterprise? The enclopedia states its one of the first but wasn't the first and every ship thereafter is the saem basic design. The E-nil design in Trek universe maybe a million times more powerful than anything we have now, why it looks like something I built when I was 4 years old is just the style back then the 2260's that's all.
Possible reason why the Enterprise NX-01 looks liike the Akira class is why the Dadealus looks like the Olympic class, the starship was going for a retro look that's all.
Besides even though it's not original, it still looks like it will kick ass anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
"That is one reason why I always like B5 EarthForce ships...in my mind's eye, I would rather see fleets of blocky cruisers than needlessly curvy and expensively elegant ships...they just don't look functional."Oh yes. And the Centauri ships looked blocky and "functional", didn't they? And the Minbari. And Narn. And, for that matter, every ship apart from the EA capital cruisers.
You really want the Enterprise to look like the Nostromo?
First, Did I say anything about the Centauri ships? Or any other B5 race? No, I said the Earthforce ships, or EA Capital Cruisers as you so eloquently put it.
Second, did I say the Enterprise *should* look like a ship from B5, or the Nostromo? I simply said that it is "one reason why I always like B5 EarthForce ships...because they are functional".
Please read my posts more carefully before you attempt to counter my points.
Thanks,
Lance
TheTrekker's Officer's Bible:
http://thetrekker.homestead.com
I KNOW that it has not been established that this stuff was only post-TOS. What I'm saying is not based on what has been concretely established, it's based on how things look and feel. To say "It hasn't been established that all of this was post-TOS" is merely an excuse to use design elements from modern ships. No, it hasn't been established, but it makes sense. The original Constitution is the quintessential 'old' starship. Whenever you see it, you think TOS, you think of the 'older' days of Trek.
That's what the ship from a prequel series should do. It should make you think 'this is an old ship.' It shouldn't make you think 'this is a ship that could be from any time period.' It should have design elements which show it to be PRIMITIVE. Which show it to be SOMETHING THAT IS OLD.
While it is true that warp grilles may have existed prior to TOS, while it is true that ships may have had detailed surface plating prior to TOS, those are design elements that are typically found in MODERN designs. They are elements that, when you see them, make you think 'This is a modern-looking ship.'
Oh, and the bit about white paint is actually valid. It comes from Paramount backstory from TMP, and was published in "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" by Shane Johnson. (Which I know is non-canon, but much of the info in it comes from Paramount backstory that Johnson researched.) The reason why the refitted Enterprise was silver rather than its original white is because prior to TMP, Starfleet painted all it's ships with Grey-White Thermocoat paint, and the refitted Connie was the first design NOT to employ this. The 'bare-metal' hull look was met with popular response, and was subsequently adopted for the rest of the Fleet.
Anyway, you are right that the Pre-E doesn't technically break any 'rules.' But that doesn't change the fact that it looks like it belongs somewhere much later in the scheme of things than the 22nd century.
[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
As for the whole argument about whether or not the Enterprise is a ship for the 22nd century, it has finally reached the stage where it all comes down to opinions and people's personal tastes.
I for one feel that the ship is more primitive than TOS's Enterprise in almost all regards. The rough texture on her hull is more exaggerated than on the "modern" Trek ships. I like the design is certainly plausible and possible for the mid 22nd century. I think the dark tan color adds to the sensation that it of a different era from the gray and white and blue-green tones of the Federation starships to come.
However, everyone is going to have differing opinions on the new ship. It has been shown several times in several threads that this ship is technically feasible for the mid-22nd century. But everyone has their own idea about this era of Star Trek universe. It's never been explored until now, and many people have had 35 years to create what they think is right for the period. We're all entitled to our opinions; some of us will love the ship; some of us will loathe the ship; some of us have no real reaction one way or the other towards the new ship.
Or does the same book that states that the Enterprise-A has transwarp have the painting details on 23rd contury starships correct?
Sorry to bust my spleen but these "its not retro enough" arguments are wearing on my sanity
On a side note:
What happened with MSGTE is something that should never happen, which is why I get so worried about TPTB ignoring the encyclopedia. I don't want to se the proud Encyc suffer the same sort of invalidation as Shane Johnson's book, or the earlier work of Franz Joseph.
On my second point, I highly doubt that the Encyclopedia, Chronology, Technical Manual, etc. are going to suffer the same fate as the Joseph and Johnson works. For one thing, they were both done by people outside of the actual production of Star Trek. In the case of Franz Joseph, he only saw about a handful of the episodes. Mike Okuda, who will probably be the scenic art supervisor for the rest of eternity, is a valued staff member who helped bring a lot of Star Trek to life. And, as I pointed out before, the producers and writers have read the encyclopedia, et al. and they do appreciate the work he has done. And, for the most part, the modern Trek series have adhered to them.
I HATED THAT CLASS