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.
That still doesn't make it a continuity error.
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?
Although I think they put the wrong movie, the ship still looks like one I've seen before Enterprise came out.
I can see as much difference between those two ships as I can between the Constitution- and Ambassador-Classes.
And the only real difference in them that I see is the nacelles are flipped over.
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 ]
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.
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 ]
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.
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.
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.
Same thing with Enterprise and the Akira-Class. Yeeesh.
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 ]
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?
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.
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 ]
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.
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 ]
...as much as they're intereasted in building a "starship" ...
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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 ]
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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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 ]