Umm, this new underside view (1st image) does not match the E-J shown on ENT very well (2nd image)...
[ August 18, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: The Vorlon ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It seems so, I dno't know, distorted.
Posted by Chris (Member # 71) on :
Hmm. Maybe that's supposed to be a different ship? At least, I would think so.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, where is it even from?
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Where is the nose deflector and the rest of the nose on the new image? It can't be the E-J, too ugly.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Judging by the bits of other ships next to it, I'm guessing the image is from that new book or whatever it was? Someone posted an image a while back, anyway. It had all the Enterprises on it, or something.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe it's the Enterprise-I.
Let's just hope the rest of the book doesn't have similar sloppy work.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yes, it's from a poster in the New Star Trek Magazine, which is the same as the cover for the Ships of the Line. I actually bought a copy today in order to scan the image for all you nutters. But I guess The Vorlon beat me to it. Too bad, because it was ten dollars, way too much to pay for a magazine.
So, obviously someone changed the ship around since it's debut in the SOTL Calendar. But why? The nose/deflector that makes the ship so futuristic-looking (IMHO) just isn't there anymore, yet it showed prominently in the diagram of the ship in the room Archer & Daniels were in. And the "new" underside looks nothing like the underside seen out of the window in "Azati Prime."
(Maybe this is what the ship is supposed to look like once the timeline changed back to normal after the Spheres were destroyed...?)
I'd be interested in seeing what the top and side views will look like in the SOTL book, if they've changed the ship this radically.
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
I had the same thought, that in the Xindi War timeline future the E-J was a decendant of the NX-01, but in the real future, the E-J looked more like a decendant of the 1701 (new underside view).
But that would be VERY confusing to the casual viewer, wouldn't it?
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
Dukhat, please don't let me stop you from posting the full poster scan (or a bigger scan of the E-J)! I'd like to see it.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Wow I'm shocked. Such inconsistency for such an obscure ship. Why make a new model for a ship which didn't even have an exterior shot on TV?
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Wow, that is ugly either way...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Larger view of the pic please?
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
Or try this:
The top image is the ship destined to exist before the events in First Contact transpired. The second image (as seen on TV) was the ship as it actually turned out when, thanks to the timeline contamination caused by the incidents in First Contact, the pre-Federation Starfleet was significantly altered from that which Kirk et al would recognise from their history texts. Among these differences are design philosophies and operating doctrines which favour deflectors integrated into the saucer and discourage secondary hulls.
Yes, I'm afraid I am a proponent of the un-announced and officially un-acknowledged "reboot based on First Contact" theory. It's really the only way to make sense of alot of the prequel series in relation to TOS.
In summary: we're looking at two different timeline designs.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really shoddy work there- in NO WAY does that match the "J". The angle of the nacelle pylons, their shape and the saucer are all crap. Worse still, the deflector area looks like Enterprise B.
Doug Drexler must be spinning in his grave.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The newer one looks like a drawing.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
That's very odd. I suppose they could've lost the original mesh, only the textures look the same. And you'd expect them to have recreated the front section of the saucer, since it's one of the most distinctive design elements.
I'm guessing people will just say it's a refit. Simplest explanation for a rather obscure ship.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lurker Emeritus: Or try this:
The top image is the ship destined to exist before the events in First Contact transpired. The second image (as seen on TV) was the ship as it actually turned out when, thanks to the timeline contamination caused by the incidents in First Contact, the pre-Federation Starfleet was significantly altered from that which Kirk et al would recognise from their history texts. Among these differences are design philosophies and operating doctrines which favour deflectors integrated into the saucer and discourage secondary hulls.
Yes, I'm afraid I am a proponent of the un-announced and officially un-acknowledged "reboot based on First Contact" theory. It's really the only way to make sense of alot of the prequel series in relation to TOS.
In summary: we're looking at two different timeline designs.
Oh Lurker don't try to rationalize it, they just phucked up big time.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The revised E-J is entertainingly reminiscent of the pre-TMP McQuarrie Enterprise designs.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Either of them looks like it could make a nice design, but the texturing looks like I did it.
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
quote:Originally posted by Lurker Emeritus: Or try this:
Oh Lurker don't try to rationalize it, they just phucked up big time.
Er... I thought that's what we do here?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but we have a list of things that defy rationalisation - or rather, reasonable rationalisation. The registry of the Yamato, the length of the D- (oops, managed to stop myself in time there), you know, all that SWDAO stuff. This should probably be there.
In fact, it's a non-issue. A non-canon-however-well-associated-the-people-behind-a-calendar-might-be-with-Paramount view of a ship doesn't match a canon-seen-onscreen one. Big deal.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I don't see a single canon on it.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*smack*
--Jonah
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
They tend to propel the ship in an odd manner, if fired unevenly you get a good spin going though.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Looks like they didn't even attempt to make the new (reconstructed?) bottom view match the top view. Otherwise the ship would have the deflector dish at the forward rim of the saucer visible from below, and the nacelle pylons would form a "V" and not be horizontal. At least that much is just too obvious.
Both versions are unbalanced and ugly anyway. They look like they were built using CDs and pencils.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
When you think about it, they were built using pencils and CDs.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Ahh, but remember that the E-J we saw was from one potential future. The Battle of Whatever Five may not happen now that the sphere builders and their machines were destroyed. So, it's possible that this newer E-J could be the "real" one from the main timeline.
Mark
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Or maybe the E-J will go Retro like the Mustang and PT Cruiser....yeah...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Ahh, but remember that the E-J we saw was from one potential future. The Battle of Whatever Five may not happen now that the sphere builders and their machines were destroyed. So, it's possible that this newer E-J could be the "real" one from the main timeline.
Mark
It was the Battle of Procyon V and it featured the Ent-J, a Nova class, a Prometheus, the "Dauntless", a Vorcha, and the sphere builders' giant space dildo. At Memory Alpha it's stated that the battle was part of an alternate timeline, but I thought it was part of the main timeline. Wasn't it because of their defeat by the Federation at that battle that the Sphere Builders tried to destroy Earth in the 22nd Century?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I thought in the Battle of Procyon, the Expanse was by now huge and still growing, but it's at this point that Federation + Allies intervene, defeating them. Hence the Sphere Builders meddling in the 22nd century, which in fact leads to their ultimate defeat and the destruction of them and their sphere network, meaning the Expanse becomes Just More Space, meaning there's no more enemy or threat to fight at Procyon?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That was my understanding as well. (Though I guess the builders could always start trouble in some other manner. I don't remember the details of how that issue was resolved.)
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Coto: "This is crap! Moving on..."
Resolved!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Myth busted!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I thought in the Battle of Procyon, the Expanse was by now huge and still growing, but it's at this point that Federation + Allies intervene, defeating them. Hence the Sphere Builders meddling in the 22nd century, which in fact leads to their ultimate defeat and the destruction of them and their sphere network, meaning the Expanse becomes Just More Space, meaning there's no more enemy or threat to fight at Procyon?
Yeah okay, that makes more sense. I was also wondering if the discrepency between the models could be explained by the Ent-J being able to transform into two modes with "normal mode" being that new model and "battle mode" being the model we're familiar with. (Sorry Lurker, I should practice what I preach )
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
[transformers zinger] DAAAAH nah NAH nah NAAAAAAAAAHHH!!! [/transformers zinger]
Transforming starship, eh? Not outside the realm of possibility, but a LOT of the internal space of the secondary hull would have to be reconfigured to make those pics match.
Mark
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It phases into & out of subspace pockets.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Silly geese! I've just realized - we've been looking at the underside of the Enterprise-K all this time! It was built and launched less than two decades after the launch of the E-J, after all, so the similarities in certain design aspects are easily mistakable.
Man, don't WE all feel dumb right now?
Mark
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Ha! Dumbass me! Well you're right Mark, it is the Ent-K, but just for the hell of it, do you mind telling what proof have of your claim? Just for old time's sake! Old Chap! Old Pal of Mine!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Ha! Dumbass me! Well you're right Mark, it is the Ent-K, but just for the hell of it, do you mind telling what proof have of your claim?
Absolutely!
Mark
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You can not get much more solid than that.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Absolutely!
Incontrovertible proof if ever I've read it.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I think by the 29th century we can explain it all as either A) Braxton's Meddling, or B) Its So Far Advanced that its Magic. Therefore any and all discrepancies disappear via the Bajoran Orb of Sweeping it Under the Rug.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
How about this - the secondary hull is a swappable / swapped element. The saucer section and nacelles are clearly the same (or close enough) to the established elements from the calendar. This could be the E-J from a different time in its lifespan, after (or before) a significant refit.
Or, like I said, the E-K.
Mark
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The words coming to mind are, at, straws, and grasping.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
There's only one thing to do in a situation like this.
Enterprise-J...
You're On Notice!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Woot!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The kicker is, that Colbert himself is geek enough that he might actually GET that...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
