posted
"I was hoping that the ship itself look dull to make it more consistent with the Trek Universe."
Hnnng. See, this is what's annoying people. You are saying that, regardless of what the Enterprise actually looks like, you'd rather look at a dull ship for 7 years if it fits in better with what you think 22nd century ships should look like?
-------------------- 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.
Its a TV SHOW , FICTION , ITS A BUSINESS , they have to sell it like any other , todays Fans are fickle they want fast looking ships , cool lights , big explosions good special effects. Of course those things alone wont make the show , but i think they can balance Story and Eye Candy and make this show a success.
A show with Bad Set Design , props and production values is doomed to fail.
The producers have to find a way to balance Eye Candy and Story Telling. I guess whether they have achived this Balance is a matter of personal opinion but since we have yet to see this show I dont see how people can start bashing the show , with anything else then personal opinion.
-------------------- My Mother never found the irony in calling me a son of a bitch
posted
Ever since Paramount announced the concept of the next series...I was mortified. Being a hardcore Trekkie, I believed that Trek was going down the drain. After reading everyone's posts here for the last few weeks, I have decided to put my revised two cents after seeing what the ship will look like.
First off, Enterprise is a TV show. There are budgets and time constraints. No matter what I want or what everyone wants cannot be accomplished by the studio (unless I buy Trek from Viacom...hehe). Second, after seeing the ship and the Entertainment Tonight clip on the show, it makes me thing that at least TPTB are trying to make continuity with TOS.
So in short, at least they are trying their best to accomodate the fans and the studio. I'm just glad the ship really doesn't look like it came from First Contact.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
The Primary Hull looks like it has been kitbashed from a ship in the TNG Era.
If it had a Constitution-Style hull, then it would be more believable.
If we're going to have that ship, we just be as best if it was held in the early 2300s.
Please, something more befitting of its era it's supposed to come from????
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
quote:Please, something more befitting of its era it's supposed to come from????
Except we don't have a clue what the look of that era was except people's personal opinions or highly-oversimplified ideas that ships must follow some sort of tight and monodirectional design continuum.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
I seem to be among the few with the imagination or the intellect to know that you can have an absolutely blow your socks off cool starship design. One that looks like it could kick-butt and take names anywhere anytime, but still be relevant to the period it is set in, 2150's.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
J, you're not the only one who hoped for that. I think those of you who are willing to accept Akiraprise believe that any ship consistent with 2150 MUST be boring or primitive-looking. With enough time and effort, a great ship that looked liked it belonged in 2150 could have been designed, at least I had hoped. After all, do you think vehicles from 2001, Blade Runner, and the Aliens movies (just to name a few) are boring and primitive? Their levels of technology are far below that of Star Trek in 2150. Even supposedly Victorian technology, like "The Time Machine" and "Nautilus," can look cool when well designed. And I guess you think that all technology produced today looks like a bucket of bolts. The choice between a 2150-consistent ship and a boring ship is a false choice.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: J, you're not the only one who hoped for that. I think those of you who are willing to accept Akiraprise believe that any ship consistent with 2150 MUST be boring or primitive-looking. With enough time and effort, a great ship that looked liked it belonged in 2150 could have been designed, at least I had hoped. After all, do you think vehicles from 2001, Blade Runner, and the Aliens movies (just to name a few) are boring and primitive? Their levels of technology are far below that of Star Trek in 2150. Even supposedly Victorian technology, like "The Time Machine" and "Nautilus," can look cool when well designed. And I guess you think that all technology produced today looks like a bucket of bolts. The choice between a 2150-consistent ship and a boring ship is a false choice.
Indeed... but the very idea of what constitutes a 2150-consistent ship is entirely subjective. I, for one, think that the Enterprise is such a ship as is, for reasons I feel are probably abundantly clear by now.
However, I don't think that a more, shall we say, "predictably-styled" ship would be boring. Your own work at the Starfleet Museum proves that without a doubt. Any of your designs fit the period very well based on prior information, and John Eaves couldn't have gone wrong going in that direction. Indeed, I was expecting something very similar to your own Moskva class, to tell you the truth.
Nevertheless, I think that the real division among us tech fans is one of expectation and payoff... not a division over what we think the ship looks like. Myself, Siegfried, and others to a lesser extent don't mind that the Enterprise shatters our preconceptions. Everyone else around here does. As I've said before, I would bet that any design to come out of the studio at this point would get almost the same reaction unless it was what we expected.
That's not to say we don't have our quibbles with the ship itself. If I were in charge, I wouldn't have had an Enterprise remotely like this one. My own design would probably be similar to most of ours around here. Spheroid/ellipsoid primary hull, cylindrical secondary hull, perpendicular nacelle pylons, and so on. (I'm also fond of slapping some nacelles onto the Sulaco and painting it white. ) But the Enterprise that will be is no less valid in my book, and I see nothing about it that goes against established continuity. I can see the basis for the argument that the Enterprise is a copied Akira class, but I have yet to see any support given for the anti-timeframe commentary save, "We all thought it would look like ___."
Christ, I don't post here for two years and all of a sudden I'm writing a doctoral thesis every time I respond.
posted
THANKS FOR USING MY IMAGE, WHICH I TOOK THE TIME TO CORRECT AND CLEAN UP FROM THE MAGAZINE. AND NOT FUCKING GIVING ME CREDIT FOR IT. BITCH
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Christ, I don't post here for two years and all of a sudden I'm writing a doctoral thesis every time I respond. "
It's called logorrhea. I find cutting back on coffee helps.
I think that the producers could have taken several valid approaches to developing a ship that more of us could accept as coming from the mid 22nd century. After all, I'm sure that the first time most of us saw Daedalus we immediately could tell that it's much more technologically primitive (and ugly) than the TOS Enterprise. In the same vein, my early Fed ships in the Starfleet Museum are farily obvious morphs from Daedalus to TOS Enterprise, and other people have come up with similar designs. So, maybe something like my ships might have been expected but were perhaps too predictable and were not the best choice either.
But what are other ways to suggest less developed technology without known design quotations or cues from earlier ships? One way is that they could have made the nacelles and other elements of the propulsion system noticeably larger in proportion to the rest of the ship. For my Romulan War ships, for example, I use non-antimatter drives (fusion), with large deuterium tanks, heavy nacelles for this purpose. However, the proportions of the parts of NX-01 are fairly close to those of Akira. Now, I know that one can rationalize these proportions by saying the drive system is less efficient but of the same size; however, I think they should have found a way to express this less-efficient technology visually rather than by simply putting red caps on the nacelles.
Another way they could have expressed older technology was to have a very unusual layout, another strategy I've used. Any time a new technology gets introduced there is a period of experimentation when new solutions are tried out and compete for dominance. Eventually one pattern is found to be superior and becomes the standard. This happened in the early days of propeller aviation and again when jets were introduced. We can also see it in the Burgess shale, where animals with body plans unlike those of any living creature flourished for a time. So rather than mirroring a presumably successful modern layout, the producers might have chosen a more radical layout that was found to be flawed and never seen again. I use enormous midline nacelles in my Romulan war ships, something I'll never use on later ships. They're recognizably Earth ships, but of a radically different, less-developed technology.
So, while we can probably rationalize NX-01's layout, I think the producers should have made other choices.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --Phillip K. Dick
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Just look at the original Enterprise. Advanced for that era of Space Travel.
Now this, which looks three times as advanced as the Original Enterprise.
Like I said, it would be believable if they used a Constitution Style Hull.
Or perhaps a Daedalus class ship would be a better bet, since they existed just after the Federation was founded.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
) But the Enterprise that will be is no less valid in my book, and I see nothing about it that goes against established continuity. I can see the basis for the argument that the Enterprise is a copied Akira class, but I have yet to see any support given for the anti-timeframe commentary save, "We all thought it would look like ___."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
