Building on the original question from the Most Impressive Spaceship thread, how important is the context of, for instance, the three examples given? If we could place the awkward questions of fundamental differences (technology, setting, style) aside for the moment, how would the appeal of the Serenity or the Galactica or the Enterprise change if they could be transplanted into one of the other three "universes"? Would your perception of the spacecraft change? You may assume they would continue in their designed function in the alternative setting.
Would this change your answer to the first question and if so, how?
Thanks for your replies.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
It's hard to say, and I'm not 100% sure I understand your question, but I answered the previous question disregarding the universe in which it was set. For the most part I like those ships best in the universe for which they were intended. And so where Serenity was great in the 'Verse, the lack of armament would really set it back in Star Wars, Trek or Galactica. Likewise the others.
I mean are you asking whether we'd like a Gallactified Enterprise over a Fireflown Nostromo? Because the permutations are staggering and, well, not really so rewarding for me. I guess I do think context is important.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*hee hee* Those of you who have been playing RPGs for a long itme may remember something called "BAMF!"... It was named after a fairy-tale character in the Uncanny X-Men comics of the early-mid-'80s, and was a system for converting elements from any existing RPG system into any other. It was fun to play a Jedi Knight piloting a VF-1S Valkyrie against the combined forces of the Empire and the Shi'ar... Context is, indeed, everything.
I know I'd love to see the SDF-1 show up and vapourise a Borg cube. "Assimilate this", indeed.
About the closest I get is my casual conceit that most of the sci-fi universes I enjoy (live, animated, and print) would all fit decently as backstory for the Warhammer 40,000 game universe I play in. I have also translated both the Gunstar and the Galaxy Rangers' Interceptor into my Star Wars gaming universe. I also diddled out a short story where the Galactica finally reaches Earth -- during the Shadow War. And I've also been having a little fun with the idea that three Jedi escaped the Purge in hibernation, in an outward-bound ship, crashed in England centuries later, and formed the basis for the Arthur legend. .
Context does matter, though. The lamentably long-lived Enterprise v. Star Destroyer debate is mostly meaningless, as the two universes have drastically different technologies. In other cases, like inserting the Andromeda Ascendant into, say, the Star Trek universe, the technological disparity would just be stupid.
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(A lack of weapons rather set Serenity back in her own universe.)
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
(fair point)
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
Yes, a difficult question to phrase and I'm still debating the merit of it, but I thought I'd give it a go.
I suppose I'm really trying to get right down the nuts and bolts of this strange thing some of us have for artificial, self-propelled, space faring constructs. By removing the influence of the particular "universe" in which a particular ship features, I was trying to see how far peoples answers in the other thread were in fact based to a large extent on their appreciation of the "universe", with their chosen ship representing what they like about the story behind that "universe" rather than being a ship that they like for it's own merits. If you follow me.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Ah. Proportionality of some kind, grace of design, a sense of power contained (not flaunted), good colour palette, good sound/visual effects that bypass conscious appreciation and live-wire something primal. Like the way the Defiant's pulse phasers were done the first time, or the Yamato firing her wave-motion gun, or the Millennium Falcon juumping to hyperspace, or Unicron transforming, or the Galactica launching her Vipers (still have a crush on Rigel), or... But you get the idea.
Also, wise man figured out that shooting the model from below gives it more of a sense of largeness. And we are Guys. Bigger is always better.
--Jonah
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
Ah, yes. Proportionality. That's a good word, even if I do suspect that it's made up!
Indeed, we are Guys. We are MEN, or at the very least, we are male So how come there aren't more phallic looking 'atomic rocket' style rocket ships no more?
Speaking of phallic references, I always like the split tail look of the Enterprise... ahem No, really, it made it look as though it could glide graciously and anthropomorphically. The best examples are in ST:II in the nebula and around the planet. You can imagine unfilmed scenes were the Enterprise crests the horizon of the planet or glides along underneath. If her tail were all one piece, this might give her a more rigid, inflexible look and detract from her organic fluidity.
Organic fluidity?
Hmm... organic fluidity. I like! Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
You are a nasty, sick minded individual...
The reason that there aren't more "phallic looking atomic rocket" style ships anymore is because guys don't want to look at a spaceship that looks like a giant boner (Unless you're watching Austin Powers, then it's just funny).
Why aren't there more ships that look like a big pair of breasts? I'd call it the "Jug'rnaught".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, my sides.
Anyway, the reason fictional spaceships don't look like rockets is the same reason no one is making movies about really impressive steam locomotives.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
But, Sol... Have you ever seen an Allegheny locomotive? Heaviest and most powerful steam locomotive ever built. Two stories tall, weighing in at some 770,000 pounds, almost 130 feet long, with a tender that carries 25,000 gallons of water and 25 tons of coal. Bastards like this are why we have things like Galaxy Express 999.
I'd equate the spaceship thing to being more like out love for muscle cars. It's not about the penis-extension factor so much. It's more about being a slightly more subtle symbol of power/virility, freedom, and essentially having the Incredible Hulk under the hood and under your control (be it directly, in the case of a car, or indirectly, in the case of projecting oneself into a sci-fi universe through imagination).
I mean, notice no one here has mentioned the little triangle ship from Asteroids as their most impressive spaceship...
--Jonah
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I used to pretend that triangle ship was a Star Destroyer...
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
The universe setting directly impacts the design and appearnce of the ships also.
Lucas, for example, wanted all the ships in Star Wars to look used, as if they had a long life of use. Ships were scratched, dented, paint chipping and flaking. The inside of the Falcon appeared cluttered and stained. Nothing was really pristine, white and clean except for the Imperials.
Contrast that with the Star Trek universe, especially since TNG. Everything is clean and neat. Nothing looks soiled. Even the "dirty" ships really aren't that dirty. Nothing is peeling, flaking or scarred.
Heck, there's not that much difference from species to species when it comes to internal designs. Most have a standard bridge with centralized command location. All the display panels seem to operate the same way. The only differences are in the icons, screen shapes, etc...
Firefly looks like it could almost fit in the nuBSG universe. Of coruse, coming from the same FX company explains that.
Even the way things work in said universe affects the design. Trek has warp propulsion for FTL whereas Star Wars uses hyperdrive. Warp nacelles are nearly ubuiquitous in Trek and it's rare a ship doesn't have them. On the other hand, the Falcon would look odd with nacelles. (of course, the Bird of Prey lacks nacelles. Maybe the Falcon could fit in that category).
In most SciFi ships are symmetrical. Star Wars tended to stand that concept on it's ear with the Falcon cockpit being on the far right, B-Wings aren't symmetical in landing mode, etc...
Since TNG all phaser fire seems mainly to be one long stream of energy from weapon to soruce. None of the rapid pulses like the Falcon or X-wings (Defiant/BOP being notable exceptions).
Tweaking would definitely have to be done to adjust a ship from one universe to the other, or else it'd just stick out like a sore thumb.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
If ever there will be large scale visible-energy weapons, they will most likely have a steady beam rather than a traveling pulse/ball.
That thing they have on planes now to take out satellites and ICBMs, they fire invisible laser light, right?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Ya, it's like a 20,000 watt carbon dioxide laser or something.
I think Lucas had the right idea when he decided on the aged look for ships in SW, it made them seem more "real". Much the same way Star Wars seems more real to me because of that used, gritty look that's pervasive in nearly everything in the SW universe.
Star Trek looked fake for that reason, even Voyager which has been away from a spacedock or other form of support for god knows how long, it still manages to look like it just came out of an intergalactic carwash (except for the Year of Hell episodes.) Unless half the crew is on the janitorial staff, I doubt a starship could even function that long, let alone look good.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, externally, the navigational shields and deflectors keep space dust from scoring the finish, and internally the ship "cleans itself" according to Riker. So about all the crew would have to worry about would be weapons damage.
--Jonah
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Even if that's the case, don't you think Voyager would have a little trouble keeping that fresh out of spacedock look about it during it's trip home?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's why Harry never got promoted for 7 years: Janeway was unimpressed with his shoddy paintwork on the hull. Plus he used the wrong kind of wax.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*mental image of Kim painting the hull a la Lister painting the Red Dwarf...*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So how come there aren't more phallic looking 'atomic rocket' style rocket ships no more?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No, really, it made it look as though it could glide graciously and anthropomorphically. The best examples are in ST:II in the nebula and around the planet. You can imagine unfilmed scenes were the Enterprise crests the horizon of the planet or glides along underneath. If her tail were all one piece, this might give her a more rigid, inflexible look and detract from her organic fluidity.![[Confused]](confused.gif)