quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: ...it's even got the two just distal of mid-line rectangles that emerged either side of the old Klingon BoP red impulse/engine thing.
Looks more like the ones on the (Romulan) D7 cruiser IMHO.
quote:I find it quite amusing that this is a complaint for you, considering that the "Klingon" Bird-of-Prey was designed to be a ROMULAN vessel...
Yes, and as we know that the BoP from ST:III was never mentioned to be Romulan, it was never a fact made 'canon'.
Although the BoP with it's wings UP looks nicely like the Rommie BoP from "BoT" [TOS].
BUT it eventually and now is a quintissential klingon design, so it made no sense to go back to it for a Romulan look.
And I had a squizz at the Reman ship... Whay is it with Eaves and pointy bits stuck all over a ship!?! From what we saw on all the TV Treks... this isn't something that is used with ANY race.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
thought the romulans and the klingies traded technolgy (warp to the Romies for cloke to the klingies) so they could have traded ships and the klingies just use the romulan design and thats why it has a bird in it
just a theory
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We're not quite sure if the two actually "traded" technology. Perhaps they only shared it by stealing from each other? But the ship designs of the two races certainly share similarities throughout the history.
This new warbird design is basically the Klingon Raptor with a D'eridex beak. There might have been some sharing going on in the 22nd century already, since the Klingons have this very birdlike, feathered Raptor yet it's the Romulans of that era who get to be known for their bird-painted ships.
Since the Klingons have built-in feather patterns there, but the Romulans only have paintwork on a smooth hull in TOS era (and presumably in the 22nd century as well), one could say the Klingons originated the bird motif and the Romulans just imitated them, first simply by repainting their ships, later by building Klingonlike vessels... And finally by out-Klingoning the Klingons in birdiness!
quote:Originally posted by Dax: I'm starting to get the impression you don't like Eaves much, AndrewR. Am I right?
I didn't say I don't like him.
I don't know him.
I just don't like a few of his designs... they just haven't gelled nicely with what we've seen before. I'm about the same as others on here with their observations about 'eavesesque' design features... like those type of nacelles etc.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I didn't mean to imply you disliked Eaves as a person. As you said, I was refering to his designs. I quite like his work so I suppose I was getting overly defensive. Sorry.
I don't necessarily think it's bad that you can spot his designs by the features they have. All of the individual illustrators work tend to be similar in style. As a generalisation Probert's work is organic, Sternbach's is boxy, and Eaves' is sharp.
posted
I guess I like boxy and organic as it is a nice train of thought from the designs of Matt Jefferies and later Nilo Rodis from TOS and the movies.
I don't like all this using pointy bits everywhere - it makes the ships look fake cause... well it's obviously easy to make in the 'puter and hard realistically to pull off - so looks like a computer generated model.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I fully understand your standpoint but I don't agree with it. I think I like Eaves' work for the reasons you have a problem with it -- it's radically different from what came before. I pretty much like all of Probert's designs but I have to admit that I find most of Sternbach's to be incredibly dull. With Eaves it is good to see some designs that are both exciting and well thought out (IMHO).
As for the computer generated thing, remember that both the Ent-E and the Jemmy battle cruiser were originally built as physical miniatures, yet they are still distinctive Eaves designs. BTW, if anyone has any photos of the Jemmy BC model I would love to see them.
posted
I must agree with you about Sternbach being dull. For the most part. But Sternbach is also functional and utilitarian, which the original Jeffries and Chang and Probert and Minor were, and which Eaves isn't.
After having been spoiled by generations of economy-sized props and ships that have accepted functions for the various components - accepted since the later TOS movies and early TNG, that is - I can't help but criticize things like the dysfunctionally placed impulse engines and the wasted space on Eaves designs. (Actually, there are so few Eaves ships around that my main beef is with all those shuttles that are very large from the outside but have nothing to show for their size. They remind me of Worf's peashooter bazooka in "Insurrection"...)
posted
Dax Said: "As for the computer generated thing, remember that both the Ent-E and the Jemmy battle cruiser were originally built as physical miniatures, yet they are still distinctive Eaves designs. BTW, if anyone has any photos of the Jemmy BC model I would love to see them."
Yes, well maybe that is the problem. Those two ships don't look HALF bad (Not Fantasmagorical but not bad) Maybe they should be designed with "If it can't be built as a physical model, then it shouldn't be a design" I.e. All those pointy things that have no real need to be on there (on the Reman ship)... Like WTF? Same with some of those things on the new Romulan ships - like the pods near the nacelles - things are put there cause they might look 'cool' but they make it hard to picture the ship being really believable - i.e. existing physically.
Timo said: "But Sternbach is also functional and utilitarian, which the original Jeffries and Chang and Probert and Minor were, and which Eaves isn't."
Well that's what I like about their designs (I don't believe they are BORING) They are more REALISTIC. As I said earlier I could picture being in a work bee outside a nacelle of a Galaxy Class ship but, I really could see myself approaching that new Romulan ship's nacelles... they whole thing looks... fake.
Functional - yes. Things on most of the Trek ships have reasons, they haven't had things stuck on them just to make the ship look 'cool' or 'streamlined' etc.
And again, I think it has something to do with the whole CGI thing, cause it's easier to do a curvy ship than it is to make one more... rigid and thus more realistic.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Dax Said: "As for the computer generated thing, remember that both the Ent-E and the Jemmy battle cruiser were originally built as physical miniatures, yet they are still distinctive Eaves designs."
Yes, well maybe that is the problem. Those two ships don't look HALF bad (Not Fantasmagorical but not bad) Maybe they should be designed with "If it can't be built as a physical model, then it shouldn't be a design" I.e. All those pointy things that have no real need to be on there (on the Reman ship)... Like WTF? Same with some of those things on the new Romulan ships - like the pods near the nacelles - things are put there cause they might look 'cool' but they make it hard to picture the ship being really believable - i.e. existing physically.
I see merit in the "if it can't be built physically then it shouldn't be a design" philosophy but it has limits. For instance, just because the Valdore possibly couldn't be built as a 4' miniature it doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be built as a 4000' real ship (in the 24th century anyway). And we can't talk about the functionality of the Valdore nacelles/pods when we haven't seen the ship in action. I can't comment on the Reman ship at all as I haven't seen a good picture of it.
quote:Timo said: "But Sternbach is also functional and utilitarian, which the original Jeffries and Chang and Probert and Minor were, and which Eaves isn't."
Well that's what I like about their designs (I don't believe they are BORING) They are more REALISTIC. As I said earlier I could picture being in a work bee outside a nacelle of a Galaxy Class ship but, I really could see myself approaching that new Romulan ship's nacelles... they whole thing looks... fake.
For one thing, I only said I found Sternbach's designs boring, not Probert and the others. I don't have any problem with the Galaxy or D'deridex-class (in fact they're a couple of my all time favourites).
Secondly, the Valdore looks fake because it is. Same as how the CGI Galaxy, D'deridex, Sovereign, and all other CGI models look fake.
quote:Functional - yes. Things on most of the Trek ships have reasons, they haven't had things stuck on them just to make the ship look 'cool' or 'streamlined' etc.
I can agree that Eaves' designs can be lacking, but not devoid, of functionality. But I'd personally much rather have that than ship designs that are so uninspiring that seeing them makes me feel like taking a nap.
posted
Something like the Galor though is very interesting. It's a striking ship that looked like nothing before it. It basically set the tone of what the Cardassians became. It's quite an intruiging ship.
(yes it's unfortunate that the K'Vort and it look similar.)
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
> Secondly, the Valdore looks fake because it is. Same as how the CGI Galaxy, D'deridex, Sovereign, and all other CGI models look fake.
I agree. Have you seen the difference between the Dominion Cruiser physical model and CGI model?
Just look for yourself in the episodes where the Dominion Cruiser is docked with DS9. Especially the stock footage of the top view. That's the physical model, and it looks fabulous! Very high details.
Now check out the Dominion Cruiser in battles, like in 'Sacrifice of Angels'. Very low detail, and utter crap!
When a friend of mine saw the Nemesis teaser the first thing he said: "The Enterprise CGI model looks awful! I don't understand why they don't still use the physical model."
-------------------- "And they had other stuff (...) like pictures of the Vulcan woman on Enterprise." "OOOOhhh! Uhm, I mean: Nerds!"
- Willow and Xander, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"It's a striking ship that looked like nothing before it". Other than a back-to-front Vor'cha (not K'vort).
Anyway, don't get me wrong, AndrewR. I don't hate Sternbach's designs, I just think they're generally inferior to Probert's and Eaves' work. They're all great artists and have contributed so much to the franchise.
Speaking of the Nemesis trailer, who's doing the VFX this time around? I'm guessing it's not ILM.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
