quote:One would have to be a complete idiot to think the ENT was a copy of the Akira. Hell, the nacelle pylons point up instead of down! I don't think I've ever heard anyone be stupid enough to claim that the ENT was identical to the Akira.
TSN, this quote was a writing of pure genius. Would you mind if I used it in my sig?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
If I might quote myself from an earlier thread...
quote:There's a world of difference between basing one design on another, and outright copying it. [Jeff's] 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 refit, Excelsior, Ambassador, & 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.
I've read what Drexler, Zimmerman, Braga, et. al have stated in interviews about the ship design, & I think they're all just full of it. It's like reading an interview with George Lucas in which he states how great a movie TPM was. I think the award for the dumbest interview line should go to Braga, when he stated that they had a preliminary design for the NX-01, but that it looked too much like Kirk's ship, so they decided to come up with a more original design (italics mine).
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
You know, if people say that the NX Class shouldn't look like the Akira class because of the huge gap in time between them, then explain to me the Daedalus and Olympic, hmmm?
The Olympic was designed as a tribute to the Daedalus. The NX and Akira are the same story, except we're going backwords.
posted
First, the Olympic reuses merely the ball-saucer of the Daedalus. The Enterprise reuses details that serve a different function on the Akira.
Second, the Olympic is a one-off ship whose canonicity is arguable at best, so it really doesn't break any lineage with the Daedalus, itself a background office model whose canonicity is arguable -- hence, either of the two can be rejected. The Enterprise is a *lead ship*, the Akira an onscreen ship seen in many episodes. If the Enterprise were a one-off ship of the week, I might've been a little upset, but ultimately I would've understood that someone would modify an existing design for an episode to save money. It's been done before.
However, you just don't rip off another ship to design a series lead ship. That's never been done, not to the extent of copying the little details and assigning them a different purpose. This is called kitbashing, and it used to be done when an episode was on a tight budget. I said "used to be done", because we've seen fewer and fewer such ships on Voyager. Now, suddenly we get this Enterprise. The producers probably want the Akira to quietly disappear instead, which would make the NX-01 the originator of all the tech, and the Akira a ripoff with flaws, kept in some storage dock until it was needed for FC precisely because *it* copied the NX-01 design elements without considering the technical implications.
You can make up explanations like this -- still, the unusually short and uncreative design process contributes to my dislike of Enterprise. It's not that I'm prejudiced -- it's that I have a tangible reason to say that the Enterprise was designed cheaply.
posted
Dukhat: Erm... I'm afraid that, out of context, what I said might sound like an arguement in favor of the ENT, which it isn't. It was just an arguement against the extreme position of "the ENT is just the Akira w/ a different name on it".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN: Actually, I figured you meant it to be a sarcastic comment, and that it was not, in fact, supposed to be an argument in favor of the design. That's why I liked it so much.
Phelps: I agree with you 100%. However, I think the NX-01 design problem was not a matter of laziness on the producer's part, as has been debated here recently. From what I've gathered, someone found the Akira CGI model, felt that it was just a background ship and was never used enough for the viewers to notice it, and decided to go with the same design (or just change it around a bit, IMHO). The producers probably never once thought that they'd be annoying a huge ST fanbase who have an interest in exactly these things, and who would recognize the Akira design immediately. If they did know, or cared, I'd like to think that they would have eventually made a more original design.
[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
This isn't an argument, it's just repetition. "The NX is based on the Akira." "No it isn't, and anyway the Galaxy and Excelsior were based on the Constitution." "I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying the NX class is obviously based on the Akira." "No it isn't, and anyway the Galaxy and Excelsior were based on the Constitution."
posted
Vogon: for the third time, a lead ship must not reuse details from other ships and assign them a different purpose like it was some Yeager, Cheyenne or a New Orleans. That's an argument, based in history.
Dukhat: I agree that the producers probably thought this. However, why did they spend so much time and money on building the Voyager? DS9? Enterprise-E? I believe they were on a tight budget in the early eps, which also explains the reused K't'inga.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: J -- you mean all the anger about the "Enterprise" design is about a few insignificant details that very few people notice?
So if they'd done a dual-hull design and copied those features, you'd be just as bad?
C'mon, clearly the anger is at the catamaran style that Enterprise borrowed from the Akira-Class (even though, if you look at the two, you can see they're just "features" the two have in common -- much the way the Const/Amb/Exc/Gal all have similar features).
I seriously doubt that "few people notice." This isn't something like being able to tell that the outside of a Borg cube has pieces from left over model kits [IE using the left over plastic], oh and not to mention the TMP Spacedock. You can see the exactness of the Turbocharges. Even if it's pointed out to you, the Borg hull isn't easy to see.
Had they done the same yes, I would be miffed about a double-hull with exact details. It's the difference between reuse of structure and reuse of detail.
And I disagree... I'm in love with the Loknar, and it is catamaran. --- http://frankg.dgne.com/~ragnarok/fss/frigates/frigate_loknar.jpg --- http://frankg.dgne.com/~ragnarok/fss/frigates/frigate_loknar_upgrade.jpg --- Infact I'd be more willing to accept a design EXACTLY like the TOS Loknar as the Pre-E, so take your assumption and shove it. Of course, there are two reasons why I'd accept the Loknar over the Akira--- 1) Loknar is more appropriate to time period 2) Loknar is fandom and wasn't on screen so there technically isn't any issues there for me within the ST Universe [I'd simply not accept references to it from the mid 23rd century]. I would be slightly upset that they copied the design without modifying it, but not so much as I am upset with the Pre-E/AKR connection.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
No, MY cock is by far longer, fatter, heftier, harder, tastier, & able to shoot more semen farther & with a fuller sperm load than anyone else here.
Move along.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
You seem to be taking this arguement a bit personal. I'm refering to your "shove it" line. Methinks you should meet Senor Crobato, who I believed liked telling everyone he liked that they should bend over and take it up the ass. You'll notice he's no longer here.
(someone want to link to that comparrison Bernd posted? I want to look at those details).
posted
Ahhh ... found it. Let's look at the stuff.
Okay, first up we've got the thing between the catamarans (at the rear). The two don't look remotely alike, even though Bernd has them circled as being the same.
Really, the only things that anyone has a reason to bitch about are the indent at the front of the saucer, and then the other just above on the saucer.
posted
The thing is, most of the viewers don't think it looks like an Akira, because they have no idea what an Akira is.
How often has an Akira featured as "guest ship of the week" (as the Intrepid model was in that DS9 ep whose name escapes me)? I've asked a few friends who are big enough Star Trek fans to be able to identify a Nebula-class ship, and they hadn't noticed until it was pointed out to them.
The fact is, the vast majority of Enterprise watchers don't spend all their time on the internet looking at ship designs. While they'd probably be able to pull the Defiant out in a line-up, they'd stumble at how the Ent-B looks different from the Excelsior. And they'll have no idea about background CGI ships that have never been featured in an episode.
You can argue if it's the same or different (I think it's an obvious "homage", to avoid using argumentative words), but the truth is, less than 10% of the viewers have any idea that it looks like a 24th century ship.
"You can't tell me that it's a coincidence we haven't seen all these other ship classes you talk about. If there were Akira-style ships in the movie era, we should've seen them in TNG, as we did the Mirandas and the Excelsiors."
Oh, yes. In the same way that DS9 was FILLED with Ambassador class ships.
We saw Mirandas and Excelsior's in TNG because the powers that be had 6 Starfleet models available to them for the first 4 years, and only one additional one after that.. One was the Enterprise-D, and so could only be used for sister ships. And one was the Enterprise-A, which couldn't be used because it was "movie property". That leaves us with the Ambassador, which wasn't available until season 3, and the Excelsior and Miranda. So obviously they are going to use them. You don't throw away nice ship design.
And the reason they've never made much of an attempt with the Ambassador is (I guess) that visually, it's a bit too similar to other designs. The Excelsior and Galaxy are a fair bit different visually, but the Ambassador is close to both of them. The Miranda looks very different.
-------------------- 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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
