posted
Exactly, Siggy. However, the look of the ship *does* play a role. I love starship designs, as you can tell from my site. However, we have to admit, there really is no consistency to Starship design on Star Trek anyway. Look at the nacelles. Every ship goes about the same speed, according to both on-air dialogue and the TMs. All Fed ships travel about at Warp 6-8, and higher when necessary. However, there is no logical consistency in the nacelles. Some ships have huge, round nacelles. Some ships have long, skinny ones. Some ships have tiny, little blunted ones (Voyager). Some have two, some have four. But, they still all go the same speed. Hull, shape, too, is inconsistent. Saucers, spoons, arrows, blocks, circles, etc...we see hull shapes in every conceivable configuration. Why? 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. Why have a massive 16 deck saucer connected to a small, curvy secondary hull with massive, curvy nacelles sweeping up and away like on the Galaxy? Why not a big long rectangular ship? The borg are evidence enough, and the klingons to some degree, that hull shape doesn't mean a damn, its the warp field that determines the speed of the vessel.
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.
posted
Ya know, they probably MADE the thing look like an Akira because of all the fanboys out there (you know who you are) who kept saying that the "Akiruh has teh kewlest dezzine ever!"
So the fans DID make the show.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
I doubt it. Most likely they made it because the Akira simply kicks ass, but they were too lazy, for some stupid odd reason, to make up an original design.
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.
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 ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Your argument is based on the notion that looks determine age or technology level. This is entirely incorrect, being a subjective basis.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I know, but what I am saying is just based on the feeling I get from looking at the Pre-E. Looking at it, it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't present itself as a 22nd century ship.
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.
posted
"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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
For me, the design really doesn't bother me anymore, it's the surface details that do. But since the pic in TV Guide is not a screencap, I'll have to wait and see how it looks on screen. Other than that, I'm praying to God that this series doesn't repeat the problems of Voyager and actually capture the old TOS feeling. So I hope Scott Backula started to work out before filming cuz I don't like seeing flabby men with their shirts off.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Where is it stated that grilles were only post-tos?
quote: and put deatails on the saucer that make it look excelsior-ish.
Where is it stated that this design is post-tos only?
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.
the Olympic looks more, yes, futuristic, yet again, where does it say that this type of design existed only post-tos? I see no parellels between design elements in the Olympic and Ent.
quote: You just can't make a ship supposed to be from 100 years before TOS, and make it look like something more advanced.
Pure opinion, really. Today we see a lot of things 'retro' in design. they look old yet new.
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.
Why? Who says that there wasnt a change in design between ENT and TOS? Mabye wars made it more cost-effective in the TOS era to leave out things like exterior windows.
quote: Why didn't they do an exterior similar to the Phoenix?
The surface texture and color is consistant with the modern sections of the Phoenix. (photoshop proves this) the nacell design also, IMO.
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?
YOU accept that they were white. The creators of the show, however, did not. The Phoenix wasnt white.
quote: They've got this thing looking like movie-era ship, or even later.
Also opinion.
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]
posted
Even though I think they should shange the design of the new Pre-Enterprise I will defend it.
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.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
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.
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 ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey, Wes, you'll probably want to go back and edit the "m"s out of your last post. We got this funky horizontal slide going on in here.
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.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic