test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The NEXT Enterprise

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Okay...

So the 1701-E is out there, theoretically, but probably showing her age even with the refit or two we know about.

So, assuming we did see a new Enterprise in STO, what would you want to see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXa0cfaTlfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vnP_x63pY

I'd like to see them tap Gabriel C.Koerner's redesign for the 1701. It looks like something post-Sovereign class to me while going back to the classic Constitution-style proportion and design.

He worked on the last season of Enterprise and Superman Returns as a digital artist. He's appeared in fan films and been featured in both Trekkies documentaries. I think he'd be an asset to the team, either as a designer or as someone they could get some freelance concept art out of.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    As long as it isn't that gods awful Enterprise J.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    looks more like a re-do of the TOS era Ent not a post Sovy. All the dimesions and scales(especially the shuttlebay) implies TOS re-invisioned
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Okay...

    So the 1701-E is out there, theoretically, but probably showing her age even with the refit or two we know about.

    So, assuming we did see a new Enterprise in STO, what would you want to see?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXa0cfaTlfk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vnP_x63pY

    I'd like to see them tap Gabriel C.Koerner's redesign for the 1701. It looks like something post-Sovereign class to me while going back to the classic Constitution-style proportion and design.

    He worked on the last season of Enterprise and Superman Returns as a digital artist. He's appeared in fan films and been featured in both Trekkies documentaries. I think he'd be an asset to the team, either as a designer or as someone they could get some freelance concept art out of.

    well, first they would have to put in a storyline in game for the 1701-E to be decomissioned / destroyed.. however the design of the ship was to be able to last 100 years or more and to be completely upgradable (see Enterprise Class refit, Excelcior, Miranda, Galaxy class, Ambassador Class, etc...)

    As long as the Enterprise E exists.. there is no reason for an Enterprise F to appear.

    also anything resembling the Enterprise from JJ Abrams needs to be run through the molten nuclear core of the sun with the shields down before it sees service in this game.. including Gabriel C.Koerner's design.. it was a possibility for the JJ Abrams movie as well.. and many of its characteristics made the ST XI movie.. however it too needed to take a Nuclear bath with shields down in the sun as well.

    I do agree that the Cruisers need to go back to a more traditional shape (TOS - TNG) but not those fugly monstrosities previously mentioned.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    well, first they would have to put in a storyline in game for the 1701-E to be decomissioned / destroyed.. however the design of the ship was to be able to last 100 years or more and to be completely upgradable (see Constitution class refit, Excelcior, Miranda, Galaxy class, etc...)

    I think the hold-up on the 1701-E is Brent Spiner's likeness/publicity rights. I don't think they want to give up on that after the pains they took to follow the storyline of Data's resurrection.

    That said, I think this game needs an Enterprise and it needs a dramatic entrance.

    I have a very specific idea on how to accomplish that in a way that allows for the return of the Enterprise-E with Data in command, pending Brent Spiner's publicity rights being workable (they may be looking at using a boxed expansion budget for that), but which allows for something else in the meantime. I have a very specific idea for who the captain of the Enterprise is and why and how we can have another Enterprise without retiring Data or the Enterprise-E.

    And as much as feedback on these forums IS encouraged, I ruin the surprise if I spill it. But if I don't spill it, it can't even be considered. You see my dilemma? :-)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    looks more like a re-do of the TOS era Ent not a post Sovy. All the dimesions and scales(especially the shuttlebay) implies TOS re-invisioned

    I think that's what it is. A prototype for the new Enterprise that didn't get chosen for the Abrams film?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    And as much as feedback on these forums IS encouraged, I ruin the surprise if I spill it. But if I don't spill it, it can't even be considered. You see my dilemma? :-)

    as a comic book creator and professional illustrator I'm always of the mind that spilling the idea gets the ball rolling. If you don't let people know, then it won't ever get done.

    However, the internet being the internet maybe this isn't the best environment to reveal such an idea.

    ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Nice videos and interesting design but again, look to much like the movie version. Actually, that should have been the movie version.


    Now, I wish we had those phaser sounds. That sounded awesome imho.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    I think that's what it is. A prototype for the new Enterprise that didn't get chosen for the Abrams film?

    I believe that design was for Berman's "Robert April" Enterprise film set in the prime timeline, pre-Pike.

    But like the NX-01, it looks post-Sovereign to me.

    I like the idea of a post-Sovereign class ship that takes the design back to TOS and I think it fits this game, which seems intent on making the post-TNG era feel more like TOS. A violent version in many respects. But the designs in this game all seem like a callback to TOS from the inclusion of K-7 to Starbase 1 reverting to its basic TOS configuration with extra details thrown in to many of the uniforms, which look like a leathery extreme sports version of TOS uniforms, to security/tactical being back in red shirts.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    as a comic book creator and professional illustrator I'm always of the mind that spilling the idea gets the ball rolling. If you don't let people know, then it won't ever get done.

    However, the internet being the internet maybe this isn't the best environment to reveal such an idea.

    ;)

    Comic book creator? Writing, art, what?

    And I'll spill... Just take a bit to write up what's been playing through my head non-stop the last few times I've played the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    If they go back to Constitution I 'd love to see the new Constitution from the newest movie, say what you will, hate all you will that design was futuristic, sleek and actually looked dangerous.

    Personally I'd like to see the Enterprise stay Sovereign, perhaps just upgrade to the Nobel design, kind of weird if it went back through it's evolution. But as I noticed someone else saying, not the J design. That thing was hideous.

    A little off topic I'd also like to see Voyager B debut as either a Luna class or a Yeager class, which of course need to be added <.<
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Comic book creator? Writing, art, what?

    Mostly just the artist. Mostly stuff no one's heard of. I have written and drawn a strip off and on since 1997.

    The Adventures of Superchum and the Mighty Befrienders.

    (Can best be desribed as Tick in the suburbs).

    Hence my forum name.

    :)

    I think I've gotten more paying work the past two years doing art for bands I met through MySpace and doing flyers and promotional items for women's flat track roller derby teams. But I still technically fit the bill as an illustrator. Heh.
    And I'll spill... Just take a bit to write up what's been playing through my head non-stop the last few times I've played the game.

    In my experience it's usually the best way to get things moving on stuff. You just really need to have the right opportunity is all. I have a colleague who is also a good friend. And I think he's way too overprotective of some of his ideas. To the point where he misses some chances to get them heard or out there.

    There's always going to be risk with creative properties.

    But sometimes you just gotta put all your faith in your craft and let it soar.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010

    also anything resembling the Enterprise from JJ Abrams needs to be run through the molten nuclear core of the sun with the shields down before it sees service in this game.. including Gabriel C.Koerner's design.. it was a possibility for the JJ Abrams movie as well.. and many of its characteristics made the ST XI movie.. however it too needed to take a Nuclear bath with shields down in the sun as well.

    I do agree that the Cruisers need to go back to a more traditional shape (TOS - TNG) but not those fugly monstrosities previously mentioned.

    I don't understand the hate on the ship itself. The JJ 1701 is a beautiful ship, it looks close enough to the original Enterprise while still having that potential future feel to it instead of that, "what we thought the future would be like in 1962" feel. I swear people like you would only be happy with it if they just used the exact model they used to film the Original Series. The JJ ship is awesome, get over it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    The Abrams film brought Trek back for me. Kirk. Spock. The classic Enterprise. CAPTAIN PIKE! It pushed all the right buttons in me.

    I don't worry about the details or understand any of the anti-Abrams stuff. It all takes place in an alternate reality. It's cozy in that reality. And it lets us have the Kirk-Spock-Bones dynamic back. Which we can't have with Bones having passed away.

    I look forward to a second film. And I keep watching that first one over and over again. Just for the sheer fun of it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    If they go back to Constitution I 'd love to see the new Constitution from the newest movie, say what you will, hate all you will that design was futuristic, sleek and actually looked dangerous.

    The only thing that bugs me about the JJPrise (aside from the size bloating), is that the nacelles are too close together. They need to be spread out a little bit further. It just lacks a certain geometry that makes is look right when it has its nacelles held that close together, especially if they're going to be that big. Every time I see it I want to bend the nacelle struts outward just a little.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Superchum, Spacefork you have both both perfectly expressed what I have thought and felt since seeing the movie, might i add seeing it in I-max (blew me away) Basically I see no problem in redesigning a ship originally based in the 1960's when computers still used punch cards and tubes and filled whole rooms. The new one looks absolutely like something we will one day hopefully soon have the technologically capability to produce, as opposed to a ship that would roll us back to using the dreaded micro-tapes featured in the series.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I would rather see a complete rework of the design than going back to the retro-sixties style Enterprise.

    There was a reason they abandoned the long thin neck and pylons, they were weak points in design....


    It just makes it easier to disable the ship by exposing the warp drive nacelles by having them extended to a height above the saucer section.

    I know I read this information somewhere, it is canon....


    The next Enterprise needs to keep expanding on the smooth flowing shape that we see from 1701-D on...

    No need to go backwards in design, sure it works for the big 3 automakers, but they just do that retro look because that look was in style the last time their cars were worth a damn. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    And to stay on topic, I hope the E serves a hundred years and then some, heck, the enterprise B is the only ship of its name to actually last as long as its design intended, A was decommissioned rather soon for a new ship but it was of elder design.

    TBH I don't ever see us ever seeing an enterprise F, G, H, or an I. and not just because we would have to then consider having to look at the awful J, I think Star Trek itself may be nearing its own end, its always supposed to have been about pushing society to be better by challenging norms. In TOS it was widespread racism and intolerance, in TNG it was humanity's own code of ethics, in DS9 it was homosexual rights and intolerance and society's blind eye to cloak and dagger afairs done in our name, Hell in voyager they had to invent a whole new demographic for us to be intolerant of so they could push that envelope. One of the reasons Enterprise sucked so bad is that it tackled no real issues. When we run out of social injustices to put into Star Trek we will have achieved Roddenberry's vision for society. We aren't there yet but we are closer then we have ever been.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Soupgoblin wrote: »
    I would rather see a complete rework of the design than going back to the retro-sixties style Enterprise.

    There was a reason they abandoned the long thin neck and pylons, they were weak points in design....


    It just makes it easier to disable the ship by exposing the warp drive nacelles by having them extended to a height above the saucer section.

    I know I read this information somewhere, it is canon....


    The next Enterprise needs to keep expanding on the smooth flowing shape that we see from 1701-D on...

    No need to go backwards in design, sure it works for the big 3 automakers, but they just do that retro look because that look was in style the last time their cars were worth a damn. :)

    LOL, TNG and later Starfleet designs still took up the same basic style as TOS/TMP era ships did! The Galaxy class is a shining example. Lots of Starfleet ship designs have critical objects sticking out on thin little pylons. Even the Akira and Nebula classes have such designs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    The new one looks absolutely like something we will one day hopefully soon have the technologically capability to produce, as opposed to a ship that would roll us back to using the dreaded micro-tapes featured in the series.

    What I find funny of this, is that even when first contact came out, we saw Zephram Cochrane use a Mini-CD-like device to play his music in first contact, when we these days are starting to look at CD based recording as increasingly out of date. Our USB speed sticks are looking more and more like the Isometric Chips fron TNG on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I can see that ship as being the Pre-Pike Enterprise, His ship http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Robert_April
    In STO I would like to see it as such a time travel event is so easy,

    As for the Enterprise-F I would think it would be made as one of the new Emissary-class Star Cruisers, or some newer class we have not seen yet, as the Federation Flagship it has to scream Power and Achievement, with just turning up the ship says this is what the Federation is capable of, So come on if you think you are hard enough,
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Warmaker01 wrote: »
    LOL, TNG and later Starfleet designs still took up the same basic style as TOS/TMP era ships did! The Galaxy class is a shining example. Lots of Starfleet ship designs have critical objects sticking out on thin little pylons. Even the Akira and Nebula classes have such designs.

    take a look at the pictures of those ships you pointed out...


    None of them have the long dainty neck or pylons of the original 1701, yes the have pylons but they are closer to the main hull and have a lot of mass to them, not the weeny on a toothpick look...:)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    SpaceFork wrote:
    I don't understand the hate on the ship itself. The JJ 1701 is a beautiful ship, it looks close enough to the original Enterprise while still having that potential future feel to it instead of that, "what we thought the future would be like in 1962" feel. I swear people like you would only be happy with it if they just used the exact model they used to film the Original Series. The JJ ship is awesome, get over it.

    If you are going to reboot a series with the original crew, you may as well use the original ship.. granted not using the 1967-1969 versions, but the CGI enhanced versions of 2008 from the Remastered TOS series would have been fantastic and canon.

    There is a reason Abrams went with an Alternate Universe and not the prime universe (which is assumed to be our own).. the ships is a big part of it along with all the blaring changes in canon (mainly when the Crew came aboard the Enterprise and Kirk not taking a tour on the USS Republic and the USS Farragut to gain his experience not to mention his time as an instructor at Starfleet Academy between his assignments on the Republic and Farragut which is where the depth of the Kirk character came from).

    ST XI was designed and made as a Si-Fi action flick with the Star Trek name tacked on.. Granted I liked the movie, and the only saving grace for it being Star Trek is an Alternate Universe.. Abrams knew that as did CBS / Paramount and the only reason why the movie was allowed to be made..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Soupgoblin wrote: »
    I would rather see a complete rework of the design than going back to the retro-sixties style Enterprise.

    There was a reason they abandoned the long thin neck and pylons, they were weak points in design....


    It just makes it easier to disable the ship by exposing the warp drive nacelles by having them extended to a height above the saucer section.

    I know I read this information somewhere, it is canon....


    The next Enterprise needs to keep expanding on the smooth flowing shape that we see from 1701-D on...

    No need to go backwards in design, sure it works for the big 3 automakers, but they just do that retro look because that look was in style the last time their cars were worth a damn. :)

    Don't forget, if it isn't on a TV episode or in a Movie, it isn't canon.. books, magazines, comics, games, writers notes or interviews does not make things canon.. only what is seen onscreen is canon.. as stated by Gene Roddenberry in 1981.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Warmaker01 wrote: »
    LOL, TNG and later Starfleet designs still took up the same basic style as TOS/TMP era ships did! The Galaxy class is a shining example. Lots of Starfleet ship designs have critical objects sticking out on thin little pylons. Even the Akira and Nebula classes have such designs.

    If i can turn on my super geek mode for a moment.

    The reason Nacelles on federation ships are so far out is for the protection of the people inside the hull. See, the warp coils build up a type of radiation and the two best ways to deal with that radiation are to either have your nacelles away from the hull so they can not harm crew, or to extensively shield your ship from its own warp nacelles, Starfleet chooses the first option.

    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nacelle

    as for the long "neck" that separates the Primary Hull or "Saucer Section" from the Secondary Hull well...
    The Secondary Hull usually has all the engineering components as well as most of the weapons like torpedo bays, while the Saucer Section has all the living quarters, crew amenities, medical bays, science labs, basically everything else you need for every day life. In this way, all the things that can go boom are in one part of the ship, while all the needs of the personnel are in the other. So if you have something like antimatter containment loss or a coolant leak that floods the secondary hull, there is a small and definite separation from the life supporting area of the ship. in the case of the Constitution if there were a life threatening problem in engineering that were to spread the saucer can be sealed at the neck and can server as a lifeboat for the entire crew until rescue. In the case of the Galaxy class, the saucer can separate and carry its crew to safety.

    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Primary_hull
    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Secondary_hull

    Funny isn't it? Most Federation ship designers are more focused on protecting the crew of the ship from their ship itself rather then the other guy's ship. But what does it matter what is structurally vulnerable? When your shields go down, it isn't really going to matter where they hit you, it's going to hurt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Admiral Quinn summons a group of admirals to a special briefing room at a secret base. It is a non-combat fleet action which, once every 5 minutes, we are allowed to move from the waiting room into a chamber where Quinn is waiting for us at a podium.

    Quinn:
    The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth.

    For the past year, I have been the keeper of a terrible lie.

    On second thought? Not a lie. An omission.

    Still, our duty is to the whole truth in its entirety. I am both ashamed and relieved to say that it took a journalist, similarly sworn to the truth, to remind me of that duty.

    I was prepared to keep this secret indefinitely; Jake Sisko has acted as my conscience on that matter and it is for that reason that I have invited you to this briefing session. He agreed to remain silent on this story for the past year while my personal team prepared what I stand before you today to reveal with equal parts pride and regret.

    Thirteen months ago, the USS Enterprise 1701-E was dispatched to investigate the disappearance of Starbase 236. Some of you may know her commander, Captain Data. Some of you may also know that the mission of the Enterprise and her crew has remained classified since that time. You may have wondered about the whereabouts of our flagship and her crew.

    I stand before you today to reveal the answer:

    We do not know.

    Our technicians have analyzed the area in which the disappearance took place. There is no sign of struggle. No evidence of debris. No trace of either Borg or Undine activity. Our scanners only indicated the faintest trace of what we now believe to be folded space transportation on what seems to have been a massive scale.

    We do not know where -- or when -- the Enterprise is. She could return tomorrow. She could have already returned a thousand years ago. She could be in the farthest reaches of the Delta Quadrant or beyond the galactic rim. I would not encourage any of you to harbor false hope. The situation is grim and the odds are stacked against her.

    I guarded this information because I did not want any of you to lose hope, perhaps the most vital weapon of all in the wars we find ourselves embroiled in. The very name "Enterprise" inspires confidence. For hundreds of years, it has been the name on the hull of every one of our flagships. While the fate of the Enterprise 1701-E remains unknown, I believe we are now prepared to offer you a new hope. A new boldness as we go forward.

    At the same time, it seems ill-suited to honoring the memory of those lost at Starbase 236 to simply move forward before we can determine their fate. That is why the ship I am about to unveil before you today is NOT the Enterprise-F.

    ** A light kicks on to reveal the ship behind Quinn **

    I present you with the Flagship of the Federation.

    The Enterprise.

    Registry NX-1701.

    So long as the Enterprise-E and her crew remain missing, this ship -- one of the first in a new class designed to excel equally in diplomacy, science, warfare and conventional engineering -- shall bear the proud name Enterprise. However, until we determine the fate of Captain Data and his crew, this new vessel shall also retain its experimental registry. We move forward today, without closing the chapter of history that the last generation may still be writing, far beyond the farthest star. May the Great Bird of the Galaxy guide her home.

    Today is no solemn affair but a cause for celebration.

    I encourage you to beam aboard the Enterprise for an inspection prior to her shakedown cruise. There, you can learn more about her and her bridge crew. I believe you'll recognize most of them. Some of them, you already know personally. Her Captain is a bit more guarded but I believe you'll know him by reputation.

    I've never been a great one for introductions so don't let an old fool like me spoil them. Beam aboard. Explore. Discover. Celebrate.

    Thank you, all.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Don't forget, if it isn't on a TV episode or in a Movie, it isn't canon.. books, magazines, comics, games, writers notes or interviews does not make things canon.. only what is seen onscreen is canon.. as stated by Gene Roddenberry in 1981.

    But Roddenberry did not want TAS to be canon even though it did appear on-screen
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Soupgoblin wrote: »
    But Roddenberry did not want TAS to be canon even though it did appear on-screen

    Wrong.. Gene stated TAS was canon.. he wrote most of the episode ideas.. CBS claimed that they were not canon.. and finally a year or so ago, CBS relented and stated that they are indeed canon, as per Gene Roddenberry's wishes.. most probably as a tribute to Majal Barrett-Roddenberry who soon afterward passed away.

    If you watch TWOK to Generations and look at Kirk's years of service on his sleeve.. it takes in account of years served in TAS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    If you are going to reboot a series with the original crew, you may as well use the original ship.. granted not using the 1967-1969 versions, but the CGI enhanced versions of 2008 from the Remastered TOS series would have been fantastic and canon.

    And I suppose all the computers should have had push buttons and whirling reels and lots of light boxes. Because if the ship has to look exactly the same so should everything else right? Its canon is it not? Face it, the Original enterprise looked cool and new and futuristic... in the 60's. But its 2010 bucko, you have to update the future once you actually start moving into it.
    There is a reason Abrams went with an Alternate Universe and not the prime universe (which is assumed to be our own).. the ships is a big part of it along with all the blaring changes in canon (mainly when the Crew came aboard the Enterprise and Kirk not taking a tour on the USS Republic and the USS Farragut to gain his experience not to mention his time as an instructor at Starfleet Academy between his assignments on the Republic and Farragut which is where the depth of the Kirk character came from).

    ST XI was designed and made as a Si-Fi action flick with the Star Trek name tacked on.. Granted I liked the movie, and the only saving grace for it being Star Trek is an Alternate Universe.. Abrams knew that as did CBS / Paramount and the only reason why the movie was allowed to be made..

    The alternate universe is very convenient, it allow us to explore new possibilities with out rewriting the old or tossing it away. Star Trek needed to be revitalized in a new way, don't you JJ haters understand that in our dark world we need a shining light like Star Trek now more then ever? The new story begins with tragedy as our own world is filled with tragedy. If you don't make the story relevant you can not hope to grab an audience. The TOS era itself must be revisited as it holds so much wonder and excitement, a reflection of what we can have if we can get past our own troubles, if we can overcome our own struggle we have a wondrous world of possibilities ahead of us. It troubles me that the only thing the JJ haters see is what has changed about Trek instead of what stays the same. Hope for humanity.

    And don't say that the Prime universe is assumed to be our own, For one thing the SS Botany Bay didn't leave earth in 1991 carrying our former Tyrant Lord, Khan Noonien Singh. So our world can not possibly exist in either universe, we are not canon =P. our 90s were much more cheerful then human enslavement at the hands of genetic super soldiers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    The Enterprise.

    Registry NX-1701.

    I like it.

    An Enterprise Class of ship. Considering how many of the original Constitutions from TOS became ship classes, it definitely fits.

    The registry number might need some tweaking since Cryptic puts those extra numbers and the "9" in front of everything.

    But definitely an interesting idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    SpaceFork wrote:
    The alternate universe is very convenient, it allow us to explore new possibilities with out rewriting the old or tossing it away

    That's the best part about it. Definitely. The fact that we can have the Pine-Quinto duo and can have this fun, adventurous new Trek. But still maintain the old, wonderful history of Trek without some of the crazy forced retcons that would have been needed without the alternate timeline device.

    It's pretty smooth.

    It pays homage and attention to the past, but gives the flexibility to move forward. To boldly go, one might say.

    And it doesn't invalidate a single bit of the old Trek that we all love.
Sign In or Register to comment.