posted
One of the key differences between the models is that the 4' model incorporated the Ten Forward set's windows in their proper place and orientation.
posted
is it just me, or does the shape of the 4 foot model's deflector dish kind of look like the original nebula class's dish (it's rounder than the 6 foot model's deflector dish)?
posted
I don't agree that the 4-foot Galaxy Enterprise-D model has better proportions than the 6-footer. I like the 6-footer better. I don't believe that to make an object look large it has to be thick and chunky.
As to the debate over the surface detailing on the two models, I'll grant that the 4-foot model, with all its raised surface detailing, was no doubt easier to light and get detail on. I think the 6-footer would have looked spectacular if lit correctly (as it did in a few rare shots), but given the time constraints of grinding out the effects out for the show, this wasn't done.
One other thing, I've read and heard that the ILM guys didn't like the Galaxy Class model, and I suspect when they shot a lot of what became the early stock library for the show for the pilot they didn't lavish much attention on good lighting (lord knows the lighting SUCKED on a lot of those shots).
Now I'm curious about the proportions of the 22" D that ILM built for the pilot.
Hmmm...
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Personally, I like the 6 footer myself. The 4' model looks like it just put on some weight. Kinda short and stubby.
Of course, I'm not a huge fan of the Galaxy Class ship at all! I think it only looks good from a select few angles and simply lacks the gracefullness of the Ent-A, which, IMHO, is the best of all the Enterprises.
I think most of the post-A vessels suffer from over-designing - each successive model tries harder and harder to be different and more complex than the previous - a serious problem when the design you're trying to improve on was pretty damn good to begin with!
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: Personally, I like the 6 footer myself. The 4' model looks like it just put on some weight. Kinda short and stubby.
Of course, I'm not a huge fan of the Galaxy Class ship at all! I think it only looks good from a select few angles and simply lacks the gracefullness of the Ent-A, which, IMHO, is the best of all the Enterprises.
I think most of the post-A vessels suffer from over-designing - each successive model tries harder and harder to be different and more complex than the previous - a serious problem when the design you're trying to improve on was pretty damn good to begin with!
Mojo
I like the short and stubby look
I agree that the Galaxy only looks good from certain angles, but like you said, that's true of most ships since the Conni-refit, as you said. Personally I think the worst case of an over designed and ugly ship is Voyager, although like most other 3-d objects in the universe, it does have its better angles but when you start to go into aft and dorsal views you can see just how disproportionate the ship is. If only Rick had given her longer nacelles....
posted
Hey, I *like* Yoyager! I believe it's one of Sternbach's best. Like essentially all starships after the Connie, it looks good only from some angles, but those some angles arepretty dang smooth. Plus, it's a better sort of sleekness than the sharper angles of Yeager's or Martin's or Eaves' designs. Spoon section rocks on!
Mark
[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
posted
Hey don't get me wrong, Voyager was one of the most thoughtfully designed ships in trek, ever! (for all the good THAT did) but it obviously suffers from PCS also known as "Plucked Chicken Syndrome".
posted
The D is one of those love-hate things with most people. Personally, I like the D, but like Mojo I like the 1701 refit best (not the A...they mucked up the paintjob).
I think the one main thing the 1701 and refit both have over all the other designs is a general sense of balance between the components. Nothing seems out of proportion with anything else. When the ship is coming towards you, the saucer looks huge, when seen from behind, the nacelles look huge and the saucer smaller. Which is a case of the right size of elements being balanced. There's not a single angle (unless you park the lens right against one part of it) where the rest of the ship can be entirely obscured by any other part. This is not the case with most of the other ship designs including the D, Voyager, Reliant, etc, where the damned saucer can hide most of the rest of the ship if not all of it.
The Excleior is the classic case of a ship that has a few great angles and a lot of bad ones. It looks sleek and fast in a few angles, but turn it wrong and it looks like a big fat lump. Voyager's puny engines and huge inverted-spoon saucer are one of the best examples of bad proportions.
I think the fusing of saucers into engineering hulls results in a lot of similar design problems. What you get are ships that look fast and sleek from the side or above and below, but get around the front and it's Fatty Starbuckle.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The Galaxy-class is one of my all time favourite starship designs. I don't really have any great preference between the 6 and 4 foot models. I do think the 6 footer has better proportions but it's rarely been photographed well. The added surface detail on the 4 footer is nice even if overdone. I believe the 4' has a better paint job too. The 6' always looks too blue in the photos I've seen of the miniature.
As for Voyager - I consider it to be the ugliest of all the lead ships. The ship just has the most shocking proportions. It's also a bit bland looking, IMO. I may be crucified for saying this, but I just don't think Sternbach is good at designing ships. All his designs are just blah. Admittedly he is the best when it comes to the technology or blueprinting, but he's not up there with Probert or Eaves as an artist. All IMO of course.
posted
i don't think the excelsior has ANY bad angles. that ship is beyond gorgeous *rrrraaarrrwwwwlll*. man, if the excelsior was a woman i'd.....er...i like the ship.
quote: As for Voyager - I consider it to be the ugliest of all the lead ships. The ship just has the most shocking proportions. It's also a bit bland looking, IMO. I may be crucified for saying this, but I just don't think Sternbach is good at designing ships. All his designs are just blah. Admittedly he is the best when it comes to the technology or blueprinting, but he's not up there with Probert or Eaves as an artist. All IMO of course.
Well thats just it, he's not an artist by trade and Probert isn't an engineer. Its when people like this work together that they produce a well rounded and tecnically correct ship. Sadly this is a rarity.
One of my personal favourate would be the Nova, I just have a soft spot for nippy little vessles
Oh and the worst angle on the excelsior is from directly above or directly below....it just looks like a lolly pop! But i think the E-B corrected that.
quote:Well thats just it, he's not an artist by trade
So, wait, illustrators aren't artists? And don't work in art departments?
Next thing you'll tell me that the special effects guys aren't particularly special.
-------------------- "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
quote:A big problem with the 6-foot miniture was that in the first few seasons of the shows the effects people never lit it very well, so it rarely looked very good. I do recall a few shots where they got some interesting lighting that caused all the aztec paneling to pop out as the saucer slid by the camera, and I always felt THAT look made the ship look bigger than the raised detailing even did. Sadly, I only recall a few shots where they lit it like this.
I have to agree here, but I don't think that the aztec pattern really stood out until Generations. The scenes as the camera swoops around the back of the E-D as it is being pummlled by disruptor fire is really awesome - you get to finally realise the enormity of the ship - especially the view from between the nacelle and the neck.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Connie Refit, followed by the Galaxy Class, followed by the Ambassador class, then the Defiant and then the Danube class - cause I'd LOVE to have one of those babies in my garage!
Re: Sternback designs - I love the Vor'cha and the Galor ships.
And Re: the Excelsior and her angles - I just LOVE her in "Paradise Lost" and listing in "Blaze of Glory"
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic