posted
It doesn't make sense to alienate any part of the audience, especially not the part buying all the books and reading the behind-the-scenes articles in the Magazine. Not all hardcore fans would watch Enterprise because they're hardcore fans -- for example, because of the way it is done, I don't watch Enterprise at all ("Broken Bow" is the only full episode I saw). They've managed to alienate me completely, not only with the ship design, but with all the other areas in which they've deteriorated over time (technical accuracy, consistency, stories).
This is a major show intended to run for seven years, and they couldn't spend more time coming up with a new design. Rick Sternbach indicated that the approval process was unusually tough -- they probably ran out of time. The Akira design couldn't have been so good to warrant a complete change in historical practices, which are to spend weeks and weeks creating a new design from scratch. Don't you want to surprise all the fans, instead of just the average fans?
posted
Well poor you, Phelpsy. And poor Paramount. They've lost a viewer. But by not making the ship look like a tin can and freshening up the Trek universe, ratings are at a 5 year high.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You're trying to offend me so I'd get distracted from the actual question, but it won't work. I can give myself as an example if I want to because I'm a member of that audience.
Was it so important that the ship look like this, or was there an unusual flaw in the design process? Was it impossible to design a ship that won't create a negative reaction in our part of the audience? Even if the answer is yes, that people like us will always find flaws, they could've at least known how we'd respond to an obvious kitbash-style ship that contradicts the drawn-out design processes of Voyager, DS9, and Sovereign.
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: Was it so important that the ship look like this[...]?
I think the real question is "Was it so important that the ship not look like this?" Believe it or not, I don't watch Star Trek for the starship designs. I watch it because it's fun, bottom line. Voyager was never fun to me, even if it had an original-looking starship, great visual effects, and a billion new guest aliens... and so I stopped watching it years ago. That's why I don't tend to bash Voyager; I have no idea if it was any good for the last few seasons or not. Enterprise, on the other hand, I enjoy even if the ship looks roughly like an Akira from above. And frankly, it astounds me that people are still up in arms over the ship design after knowing about it for three months. It's too late now; either you like it or you don't. The ship's not changing, and I'm moving on.
posted
I said I don't watch Enterprise for a number of reasons, not just the ship design.
It's important historically that we learn the how's and why's of this design, because it really is an aberration from the usual design process. It's also important that the results of this research be made as public as possible, so that people know as much about the NX-01 design process as they do about that of the Enterprise-E. This way, maybe the producers won't repeat the mistake of picking a background ship, modifying it and using it as a lead ship.
posted
I'm talking about the real-world lead ship design process, in which you'd never copy the details from another canon starship and assign them a different purpose. That's only done for ships-of-the-week on a tight-budget show.
posted
Uhhh ... if we're talking "real world" (as in, 'Star Trek' history is a natural extension of real life history) here, then the Akira copies elements from the NX-, NOT the other way around. D'oh!
If you're talking about it in the other sense, then I think its really sad someone doesn't watch a show because of a few details. Hey, its your business.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
No, I meant the real world Star Trek Art Department design process, and I'm saying for the third time that this is not why I'm not watching the show, but that it is a reason to consider it cheaper.
The process for the most important ships goes like this: they start with *rough* shapes and *rough* sketches which can be based on existing ships, but then again maybe not. You get three or four different directions that are explored and ultimately abandoned, leaving us with only one.
The designer then finalizes the sketches, scales them, and gives them to the Scenic Art Department to start drawing any Okudagrams that might be needed. In the meantime, Rick Sternbach or Tim Earls do the detailed blueprints of the ship that refine its details so that everything has a certain function and purpose, and is consistent with the previously established technology. They also make up a writers' technical guide to go along with the ship.
The blueprints then go to the modelmaker, say Tony Meininger or Greg Jein, or Foundation Imaging/Eden FX which then build the model. In the meantime, the Scenic Art Department has already drawn up a mostly correct cutaway based on the final sketches. Done and over with.
Now, we know that the NX-01 design process started with Doug Drexler modelling the ship in LightWave, and ended with a refinement of his original CG model by Rob Bonchune and Pierre Drolet. He should've deleted all the details from the Akira, and added the correct ones once the final shape was complete. Instead, some were copied, even though Drexler's boss probably wouldn't have cared if such details were copied or not. Maybe he was confused on how much he should follow the Akira. I'll bet you there are a lot of such details that don't have any purpose at all, just like on the Defiant.
posted
As you seem to be implying, I don't think the Defiant went through that rigerous a design process, considering that people can't agree about how long the ship is or even how many decks it has.
And, whaddya know? It's an extrememly popular design that everyone loves! Crazy.
-------------------- 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
But, size & decks aside, it's also an extremely original design. Unlike the Enterprise.
-------------------- "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
Yes, and the Defiant wasn't the DS9 lead ship -- the DS9 station was.
Also, I would think that since Braga's show, the most important UPN show, always managed to show us original and consistent ships of the week like the Equinox and the Prometheus, it should've been able to do better for the lead ship. I would compare the Enterprise to these ships, not to DS9, which never had consistent ship designs.
Then again, maybe the Enterprise is what happens when you get the DS9 team of John Eaves and Doug Drexler working on it, instead of Rick Sternbach. I have no problem with them designing the basic shape, but Rick Sternbach should always at least blueprint the ship and fix its details because he knows best what goes into a starship. He did that for the Enterprise-E and the DS9 station although other designers worked on their basic shapes as well.
posted
Deep Space Nine was the lead ship on DS9? Space Station ... starship ... space station ... starship ... two different things completely.
Phelps, you're contradicting yourself. The Defiant had a prominent role in DS9, and thus, should be under as much scruity by you as Enterprise or any Voyager ship.
posted
Nope, nope. The DS9 show is about a station with support vehicles, initially runabouts, then replaced by the Defiant because you couldn't do action scenes in them, and because they needed the ship to fight the Dominion.
Even if the Defiant were as important as the DS9 station, I'll compare it to Enterprise only if you can show me that Braga's budget sank to the DS9 level. DS9 was the forgotten child -- Voyager was always the major show that was more important to the network. If it could have well-designed, original *ships of the week*, the new Braga show shouldn't have sunk to the level of modifying the Akira for its lead ship.
The Defiant ended up the way it did because Rick Sternbach was busy designing Voyager. That's almost certain -- he's one of the very few people who can draw blueprints, and the only person who knows exactly what goes into a starship. Had he but a little time to take Jim Martin's sketches, refine the details and draw the blueprints, we would've never argued about its size and layout. I assume he would've fixed up the Enterprise as well if he were working there, but maybe the producers spent too much money on new sets and uniforms and couldn't afford a good ship design.
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: I assume he would've fixed up the Enterprise as well if he were working there, but maybe the producers spent too much money on new sets and uniforms and couldn't afford a good ship design.
Or maybe, as they always say in interviews, they think Enterprise is, in fact, a good ship design, and so there was no need to bring in anyone else. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," as they say. I'm not saying Enterprise is or isn't a good design in my opinion; the only thing that matters is what they think... and I haven't heard anyone who actually works on the new series indicate that they don't like the design, so why would they see a need to change it? It's like saying Michaelangelo should have brought in someone else to fix the Sistine Chapel because you think Adam's dick is too small.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
