This is topic Enterprise Design... in forum Other Television Shows at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/191.html

Posted by Soundwave (Member # 138) on :
 
I've read a lot comments by fans saying John Eaves ripped off the Akira. But Eaves didn't design the ship, Doug Drexler did. After reading this I wrote to him asking him about the design, and here's his response...

quote:
Hi Hobbes!

It was a conscious decision on the part of the producers (You did not hear it from me). They were aware that the fans really liked the Akira. They did not want a secondary hull and liked the P-38 Lightning approach of a "forked tail". I recoiled at first but ended up liking it very much. It's significantly it's own ship. Seriously, every ship except the Defiant has been a direct variation of the original Enterprise. What I really love about NX1 is that from many angles it looks very much like the original. That's what was most important to me.

However, what do I know? I happen to like the title sequence and the music. Shows you how stupid I am, eh? Whew! Many fans are mean spirited!

Doug


Just thought I'd share that.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I think everyone pretty much new they designed the ship because everyone liked the Akira-Class so much.

That still doesn't make it a continuity error.
 


Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Good to hear from Drexler. It's always great when we can get stuff from the horse's mouth. One wonders what exactly Mr. Eaves has been up to, though... he wasn't listed in the Broken Bow credits, interestingly enough.

One little quibble, Soundwave.. when Doug says "you didn't hear this from me," isn't that usually a sign that it isn't to be stuck up for all to read?
 


Posted by Soundwave (Member # 138) on :
 
LOL. Guess I'll find out the next time I ask him a question and he answers it or not.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
You should tell him we all said thank you, at any rate.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Oh, and Hobbes...next time you talk to Drexler, could you PLEASE ask him about those DS9 tech manual kitbashes? Specifically, if he made them up himself, or if he actually based all of them on unseen models that the VFX people bashed together (as Okuda hinted at).
 
Posted by TLE (Member # 280) on :
 
Someone posted this at another board:

Although I think they put the wrong movie, the ship still looks like one I've seen before Enterprise came out.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
The wrong movie ... ? What, you think it was in Generations?

I can see as much difference between those two ships as I can between the Constitution- and Ambassador-Classes.
 


Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
I think they look eerily alike. Too much so.
 
Posted by TLE (Member # 280) on :
 
No but there are 8 other movies.

And the only real difference in them that I see is the nacelles are flipped over.
 


Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
 
If I had to design the ship and had to go for an soft akira look,

Heres two changes off the top of my head i would do.

First make the support pylons connecting the enteprise's nacelles look like the ones on the constitution.
[not really my idea from the start]

Then, instead of that weird indent in the front of the suacer where they stuck that odd oval shaped deflector, i would make the suacer all round[all complete that is], then
i would make the gold deflector all roundish, [like the original constitution]
and hang it off the bottom of the suacer from an attactment like an radar dish, only upside down.

How does that sound to everyone?

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: TheF0rce ]


 
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
 
sounds ugly. hehe... anyway. I love the akira and i love enterprise. nyah
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheF0rce:
First make the support pylons connecting the enteprise's nacelles look like the ones on the constitution.

That's not a bad idea, but I don't think having swept nacelles is all that much of a heresy.

quote:
Originally posted by TheF0rce:
Then, instead of that weird indent in the front of the suacer where they stuck that odd oval shaped deflector, i would make the suacer all round[all complete that is], then
i would make the gold deflector all roundish, [like the original constitution]
and hang it off the bottom of the suacer from an attactment like an radar dish, only upside down.

While that's a possibility, I think it would make the ship look sort of out of balance... "front-heavy." As it is, she seems to be on the border, not having a secondary hull. Another possibility would be to have the deflector built into the bottom of the saucer. Take the Intrepid auxiliary deflector, flip it to the underside, and add a gold dish.
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
I don't think Enterprise is that bad. I actually like it. The Akira must of had some kind of design lineage somewhere.

quote:
Seriously, every ship except the Defiant has been a direct variation of the original Enterprise.

Apparently he forgot all about ships like the Steamrunner, Norway, Centaur and even the Oberth. All four I might add look nothing like the original Enterprise. Oh well. It doesn't matter.

[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]


 
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:

While that's a possibility, I think it would make the ship look sort of out of balance... "front-heavy." As it is, she seems to be on the border, not having a secondary hull. Another possibility would be to have the deflector built into the bottom of the saucer. Take the Intrepid auxiliary deflector, flip it to the underside, and add a gold dish.


Actualy i intended to hang the deflector dish off the center of the bottom side of the suacer....
I think one of those non canon designs the "hermes" or something have this design.

It also would kinda make the enterprise look like todays futuristic NASA stuff where probes and space stations have radars and solar grids hanging off in every which direction instead of everything being built neatly into the contours of the hull and fits just right concept...hehehehehe.
 


Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
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.
 


Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
quote:
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 an extrapolation. You're putting words in his mouth.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
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 by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
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 ]


 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
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.

So whats the big deal?
 


Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
No big deal at all. I'm just stating my opinions based on what I see, just as you are.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
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 by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
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.
 


Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I'd agree with that.

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 ]


 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
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.
 


Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
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 ]


 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
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" ...
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
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.
 


Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Curves aren't a technological advancement. If we had the capability of building a 1000ft-long tritanium starship today, I see no reason why it couldn't look like Voyager.

Interestingly, the addition of "The" to a ship's name is hardly a naval phenomena, in fact, I'd say the opposite is true. From what I understand, ships, especially big ones, are considered places rather than things. One crossed the Atlantic "on Queen Mary" or "on HMS Suffolk" rather than "on the Queen Mary." Bennett navalified the ship in the movies by referring to it as "Enterprise" (no the) and seaQuest likewise went "the"-less.
 


Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
 
The enterprise is an softly based akira design...

Theres no denying that...its as true as the fact that technically its not breaking any continuity.


but i feel with a little more "additions" added on here and there, it could be a better design than it is now....
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
but would it be feasible to make it curved? or would we rather have a flying box at first

I admit that NX-01 shouldnt be extremely similar to NCC-1701 because NX-01 is a hot rod.. designed for speed, while NCC-1701 is a military cruiser, beautiful in its simplicity but simple out of necessity.
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
Not to mention the hundred years between them.

Maybe, through the wacky subspace physics we don't understand, the Constitution is simply more astrodynamic than Enterprise, so things headed in that direction for a while, an then they figured more stuff out, reconfigured some warp fields, and we evolve into the Galaxy/Sovereign era. Maybe engineers in the twenty-fourth century joke about how the backwards Earth Starfleet was on to something 300 years ago.

Aside from detailing, the only think that looks more "advanced" about Enterprise, to me, is the back-swept nacelles... but it's not too much of a stretch to think that somebody came up with that idea before 2271.
 


Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
quote:
But the inference you've been making is that the designer based Enterprise on the Akira-Class.

No, I wasn't. Jeff: After rereading our posts in this thread, I think you misunderstood the point I was making. There's a world of difference between basing one design on another, and outright copying it. Your post about the Miranda & Nebula class is a good example. TBTB didn't just take the Miranda design and modify it a bit, calling it the Nebula class. No, they made an entirely new ship, but with a similar configuration. It was "based" on the Miranda class, although it was an original design. The same holds true for the Constitution & Galaxy classes. Although the two ships are quite different, you are correct in stating that the configuration of the Ent-D was based on the Ent-nil.

However, my point was that the NX-01 was not based on the Akira; it was in fact copied from it, & that it really wasn't an original design.

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]


 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
C\MESHES\:rename akira.3ds nx-01.3ds
File renamed
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
However, my point was that the NX-01 was not based on the Akira; it was in fact copied from it, & that it really wasn't an original design.

The problem is that, aside from the general hull configuration -- and only when seen from above -- Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features. I know I'm repeating myself here, but let's take a look.

And so on. The differences range from minescule to significant, but if you overlap the two ships (ignoring scale) and compare, not a single feature lines up, even in the top view. In the side view, it is nearly impossible to see any connection at all. Not to mention that, even if they did match in overall comparison, the individual features don't resemble each other.

It is not accurate to say that the ship was copied when no two features are the same, unless we've redefine "copied" to mean "looks similar after a cursory glance despite absolutely no actual duplication aside from two small greeblies on the catamarans."

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]


 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
There are also the notches in the sides of the saucer. Even though they're higher up on the Akiraprise, they're still rather similar. Not to mention that they don't even seem to have a purpose, aside from a place to put a couple of lights that don't shine on anything.

And both sets of impulse engines are in the same locations on both ships.

If you're going to try to make a rational point, don't exaggerate. You can't say that there are no similarities aside from the "superchargers". If you want to claim that the similarities are insignificant, fine. But claiming they don't exist at all makes your arguement rather invalid.
 


Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
But Ryan's not saying that there are no similarities. He's saying that the new Enterprise is not a direct copy of the Akira-class with only a few minor modifications. As I said earlier in this thread, the new Enterprise would appear to be a from-scratch design where the designer(s) were told to produce something like an Akira-class.

Yeah, the saucer impulse engines are in a similar place on the new Enterprise and the Akira-class, but the Enterprise's engines are a completely different shape than the Akira. In addition, she also has two added impulse engine assemblies at the ends of the catamarans.

The notches in the sides of the saucer are irrelevant, actually. The mini-torpedo tubes or what-have-you protrude from the sides of the saucers. They aren't notches. We don't know what these notches are for on the Enterprise, but they look to be docking areas or airlocks because they do have yellow markings.
 


Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
That's what I was thinking, a shuttlepod or something to land on. Which lowers into the ship like those on DS9 were the runabouts launched from.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
You can't say that there are no similarities aside from the "superchargers". If you want to claim that the similarities are insignificant, fine. But claiming they don't exist at all makes your arguement rather invalid.

I never said anything like that. I said there was no duplication, not that there were no similarities. Since there isn't any duplication, my argument is perfectly valid.

I'm assuming you just misread me, no big deal. But, you're right. Had I actually claimed that there were no similarities, I would not only be invalid, I would be blind. Of course there are similarities, I freely acknowledged that in my post.
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I was referring specifically to the fact that you said "...Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features...". Unless you're defining "common" to mean "identical down the subatomic level". Otherwise, they could have made an exact copy, but colored it differently, and they could claim the parts weren't "common"...
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
I was referring specifically to the fact that you said "...Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features...". Unless you're defining "common" to mean "identical down the subatomic level". Otherwise, they could have made an exact copy, but colored it differently, and they could claim the parts weren't "common"...

You didn't quote the part in which I said, "Aside from the general configuration." I granted that they both have saucers, nacelles, catamaran hulls, weapons pods, bridges, and pylons all in the same place.

Here's my line of thought: There is no Akira component or feature that is copied on Enterprise without modification, except for the "supercharges." As such, the two designs don't share any common components and features, save said superchargers. Therefore, Enterprise is not a copy of Akira, even if it is heavily based on it.

Do F-14s and Su-27s share common jet engines? No, though they both have similar engines in the same location. Take an Akira warp nacelle and an Enterprise warp nacelle. Set them side by side. Are they identical? No. Are they similar? Only in the same ways that all nacelles are similar. They are not "common" between the ships.

[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]


 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3