Thats the one I voted for. It really looks the most true to a Roddenberry-esk design, doesn't have one of those annoying arrowhead saucers, and just looks like an Enterprise.
I've gotta be honest. I'm surprised but I guess I shouldn't be at the lack of interest in things that are different. This is why games and movies are flooded with sequels and remakes. You guys crave samenesss.
This picture to me while surely good art and good looking is nothing but a sleeker Constitution. There's nothing creative about it or unique about it. It's just... a sleek constitution.
I don't mean to be mean. I just don't see it. Well, I do but I find sameness overrated.
I mean... THAT SHIP IS A FREAKIN' CONSTITUTION CLASS MADE SOMEWHAT SLEEKER!
It's officially the first that didn't make me wonder if I was going to have to finish turning my back on this came to avoid seeing the USS Crayolaprize
This picture right here IS a connie. It's just sleeker. You could slap those pieces on as alternate ship parts for the connie.
I do see the resemblance; I also see a slight resemblance to the Enterprise-J; which I'm sure was the artist's other intention: develop a ship that was a predecessor to that ship.
And let's face it: we can vote all we want, but in the end, Cryptic/Atari/CBS will chose the finalists based on how closely they resemble the past NCC-1701s - and how close it looks to a design precedent to the future J (maybe).
While I agree with the OP that the ship in question is beautiful, it does have a TON of similarities to the Constitution as Parallax pointed out. Now that's not a bad thing, but for the contest it might very well be. There is no question that the artist has talent, however.
I still like it very much though and it deserves to hold its place at the top.
When I first saw this one, I though the same thing Paralax did. Looks a lot like a Constitution/Sovereign-mix to me. I like the design of 'er, just resmebles Connie-Sovvie to me.
agreed. You could argue that C and D are similar, but there's a pretty interesting backstory as to why.
I love that backstory too. Ya can probably take it as far and say Ent-C is part Excelsior too. Her engineering hull and pylons kinda look like the Excelsiors. imo
Each Enterprise was unique (aside from 1701 and 1701-A which were the same class anyways). B, C, D and E all had their uniqueness.
I think by uniqueness you mean "they just got bigger". They all have the same inherent design; a round saucer, two warp nacelles, impulse engines are pretty much in the exact same places. The only things that really change about them are their scale and "sleekness". The Enterprise C and D are pretty much the same ship just made bigger. Heck the Ambassador class itself is pretty much just referred to as the forerunner to the Galaxy class. Honestly I'd argue that the Enterprise-E is the most different of the Enterprise designs as it adopts more of the "arrowhead" design that other ships like Voyager and such follow.
I like this design the OP is talking about, it follows the proper Roddenberry designs of Enterprise's past. It somewhat reminds me of the Enterprise-J design too, though I'm not sure I consider the J proper canon honestly and I throw it in with the "alternate future" Enterprises we see in other episodes. But I like the new design because it looks like a TNG version of the JJEnterprise.
tl;dr - I'd rather see a ship that's reminiscent of the classic Enterprises rather than some of these 4 nacelled super pointed arrowhead ships I've seen suggested. Roddenberry era ships > Berman era ships.
I've gotta be honest. I'm surprised but I guess I shouldn't be at the lack of interest in things that are different. This is why games and movies are flooded with sequels and remakes. You guys crave samenesss.
This picture to me while surely good art and good looking is nothing but a sleeker Constitution. There's nothing creative about it or unique about it. It's just... a sleek constitution.
I don't mean to be mean. I just don't see it. Well, I do but I find sameness overrated.
I mean... THAT SHIP IS A FREAKIN' CONSTITUTION CLASS MADE SOMEWHAT SLEEKER!
:rolleyes:
I don't mean this as an insult to you in any way, but you're claiming people like "sameness" and show a "lack of interest in things that are different"... yet your own design submission is essentially a cross between the Miranda and Nebula classes. What exactly is "different" about your design? To provide you an honest opinion, it doesn't strike me as anything new.
Heck the Ambassador class itself is pretty much just referred to as the forerunner to the Galaxy class.
Pretty much the intent: The Ent-C was supposed to be an intermediate between the Excelsior-class B and the Galaxy-class D; although the design Probert came up with differs from the final version.
Honestly I'd argue that the Enterprise-E is the most different of the Enterprise designs as it adopts more of the "arrowhead" design that other ships like Voyager and such follow.
Always struck me more as an oval more than an arrowhead. The E also has no "neck" part: probably a response to the fact that's how the D's sister, the Odyssey, was destroyed in "The Jem'Hadar."
I mean... THAT SHIP IS A FREAKIN' CONSTITUTION CLASS MADE SOMEWHAT SLEEKER!
I'm with you, I'd rather see something different. Granted, it's drawn *very* well. I wouldn't mind a poster of it in my room, but the overall design is like someone just took a connie and pushed the "smooth" button a dozen times.
We have many ships to go through to get to J, there's no need to jump straight to it.
Ok, at first i wanted the Enterprise F to be something different myself. But i LIKE this design. I mean look how the neck blends the suacer in with the hull/engineering section. And the nacelles are different but not to over the top. I do see some of the J in there which i think is clever if intentional. And there is definetly some connie features to. But the edges are smooth and the geometry blends togather very well. Its a classy looking ship imho First entry i actually really liked.
At this point in the Trek timeline the name "Enterprise" itself has obviously elevated well beyond being just a ship and is a symbol to the Federation and is a symbol to pretty much the rest of the galaxy. I would imagine the Federation would want to keep an eye of familiarity in their symbolic name, so that when the Enterprise-F goes into action foes instantly recognize it and go "OH TRIBBLE IT'S THE ENTERPRISE" and at the same time Federation ships would get the whole morale boost factor to the Enterprise showing up.
Here's my question. Who's going to captain the damn thing?
Each Enterprise was unique (aside from 1701 and 1701-A which were the same class anyways). B, C, D and E all had their uniqueness.
This picture right here IS a connie. It's just sleeker. You could slap those pieces on as alternate ship parts for the connie.
What you talking bout Lewis? The Ambassador class and the Galaxy class are quite similar, The Enterprise should always be something that is familiar but with it's own flavor. Something you instantly recognize as an Enterprise. A lot of folks like to make "Unique" or "New" looks but only end up making an atrocity on the scale of Darfur.
I always kinda thought Riker deserved it considering he waited so long for it. But I dont even know what he's doing in the Trek universe at this point in time >_<
Although I didn't do it with my design (I was tempted to), I would like to see a return to the classic style. I understand and agree a little with those who object to it, but like in real life sometimes things come back in style so a connie-esque design does not nessesarily break lineage. Besides there is a long time still till the J so there is room for the designs to meander a bit. If this wins I will not complain, it is a nice design and certainly says "Enterprise" all over it.
Thie biggest hurdle for it will be that it might be too much like the JJ-prise and may get blocked by CBS because of that, unless they can get permission from Paramount.
I think by uniqueness you mean "they just got bigger".
Yes, and Minivans (1701-C,1701-D) are indistinguishable from Maseratis (1701-A, 1701-E). They're just bigger...
That there was a design lineage from Constitution to Excelsior, and then a completely separate lineage from Ambassador to Galaxy shows the distinctiveness between the series of ships. Does the Sovereign really look anything like the other Enterprise ships other than having a hull, two nacelles, and a saucer? Does a minivan look anything like a Maserati other than having four wheels, front and rear bumpers, and a steering wheel?
Pretty much the intent: The Ent-C was supposed to be an intermediate between the Excelsior-class B and the Galaxy-class D; although the design Probert came up with differs from the final version.
Indeed. I wonder if there would be a Galaxy Class Enterprise had the C not been destroyed. The Ambassador could have been up-fit and refit for quite some time.
Always struck me more as an oval more than an arrowhead. The E also has no "neck" part: probably a response to the fact that's how the D's sister, the Odyssey, was destroyed in "The Jem'Hadar."
Definitely an oval, and I don't know about that. I always thought that the Galaxy's warp core was an antiquated design by the third season of TNG. Geordi had to keep taping it together and making modifications, it was large and cumbersome, and took up a huge part of the ship.
The Defiant, on the other hand, had a small and extremely powerful warp reactor, signaling to me that warp engine design was accelerating by the time the Galaxy was pushed into service. Due to the increased ratio between warp core size and power output and the decision to turn away from saucer separation on the Sovereign, the "neck" was no longer needed.
It should also be noted that the deflector dish on the Sovereign is miniscule compared to the Galaxy's. Where the Galaxy was obviously a ship with myriad functions, the Sovereign, with its reduced crew capacity, probably has a limited exploration function when also taking into account the fielding of long-range science vessels such as the Intrepid and Nova classes.
wow, sorry about that. got a bit carried away.......
Comments
That is one impressive artist, he/she really deserves some kind of award for that, or at the very least an honourable mention if it doesn't win
people who have great pencil and paper designs are being outshined by those with cg modeling skills.
yes, that is a great looking ship and the image is superb, but i've seen better designs that follow the lineage of the Enterprise from E to J
This picture to me while surely good art and good looking is nothing but a sleeker Constitution. There's nothing creative about it or unique about it. It's just... a sleek constitution.
I don't mean to be mean. I just don't see it. Well, I do but I find sameness overrated.
I mean... THAT SHIP IS A FREAKIN' CONSTITUTION CLASS MADE SOMEWHAT SLEEKER!
:rolleyes:
Isn't that what all the Enterprises have been? (Aside from the NX, of course)
Each Enterprise was unique (aside from 1701 and 1701-A which were the same class anyways). B, C, D and E all had their uniqueness.
This picture right here IS a connie. It's just sleeker. You could slap those pieces on as alternate ship parts for the connie.
I do see the resemblance; I also see a slight resemblance to the Enterprise-J; which I'm sure was the artist's other intention: develop a ship that was a predecessor to that ship.
And let's face it: we can vote all we want, but in the end, Cryptic/Atari/CBS will chose the finalists based on how closely they resemble the past NCC-1701s - and how close it looks to a design precedent to the future J (maybe).
I still like it very much though and it deserves to hold its place at the top.
agreed. You could argue that C and D are similar, but there's a pretty interesting backstory as to why.
I love that backstory too. Ya can probably take it as far and say Ent-C is part Excelsior too. Her engineering hull and pylons kinda look like the Excelsiors. imo
I think by uniqueness you mean "they just got bigger". They all have the same inherent design; a round saucer, two warp nacelles, impulse engines are pretty much in the exact same places. The only things that really change about them are their scale and "sleekness". The Enterprise C and D are pretty much the same ship just made bigger. Heck the Ambassador class itself is pretty much just referred to as the forerunner to the Galaxy class. Honestly I'd argue that the Enterprise-E is the most different of the Enterprise designs as it adopts more of the "arrowhead" design that other ships like Voyager and such follow.
I like this design the OP is talking about, it follows the proper Roddenberry designs of Enterprise's past. It somewhat reminds me of the Enterprise-J design too, though I'm not sure I consider the J proper canon honestly and I throw it in with the "alternate future" Enterprises we see in other episodes. But I like the new design because it looks like a TNG version of the JJEnterprise.
tl;dr - I'd rather see a ship that's reminiscent of the classic Enterprises rather than some of these 4 nacelled super pointed arrowhead ships I've seen suggested. Roddenberry era ships > Berman era ships.
And did not vote...because honestly I did not like any of them as a successor tot he Enterprise line.
Some were too much like the Sovvie, or other existing classes...and there are a few that are SO not Trek....
Also personally...the one I disliked the most was the one that looked nothing more then a Sovvie with 2 extra nacelles stuck on the bottom.
I don't mean this as an insult to you in any way, but you're claiming people like "sameness" and show a "lack of interest in things that are different"... yet your own design submission is essentially a cross between the Miranda and Nebula classes. What exactly is "different" about your design? To provide you an honest opinion, it doesn't strike me as anything new.
Pretty much the intent: The Ent-C was supposed to be an intermediate between the Excelsior-class B and the Galaxy-class D; although the design Probert came up with differs from the final version.
Always struck me more as an oval more than an arrowhead. The E also has no "neck" part: probably a response to the fact that's how the D's sister, the Odyssey, was destroyed in "The Jem'Hadar."
Awwww you have to vote for the 10fer's submissions.
Zero had all those cool bottles, and I put in little shark fins on mine.
I'm with you, I'd rather see something different. Granted, it's drawn *very* well. I wouldn't mind a poster of it in my room, but the overall design is like someone just took a connie and pushed the "smooth" button a dozen times.
We have many ships to go through to get to J, there's no need to jump straight to it.
Actually there is more J in there than A. It is a very beautiful peace but I think it is more likely to be a H or I.
At this point in the Trek timeline the name "Enterprise" itself has obviously elevated well beyond being just a ship and is a symbol to the Federation and is a symbol to pretty much the rest of the galaxy. I would imagine the Federation would want to keep an eye of familiarity in their symbolic name, so that when the Enterprise-F goes into action foes instantly recognize it and go "OH TRIBBLE IT'S THE ENTERPRISE" and at the same time Federation ships would get the whole morale boost factor to the Enterprise showing up.
Here's my question. Who's going to captain the damn thing?
It better be Data. >_<
What you talking bout Lewis? The Ambassador class and the Galaxy class are quite similar, The Enterprise should always be something that is familiar but with it's own flavor. Something you instantly recognize as an Enterprise. A lot of folks like to make "Unique" or "New" looks but only end up making an atrocity on the scale of Darfur.
I always kinda thought Riker deserved it considering he waited so long for it. But I dont even know what he's doing in the Trek universe at this point in time >_<
Thie biggest hurdle for it will be that it might be too much like the JJ-prise and may get blocked by CBS because of that, unless they can get permission from Paramount.
Yes, and Minivans (1701-C,1701-D) are indistinguishable from Maseratis (1701-A, 1701-E). They're just bigger...
That there was a design lineage from Constitution to Excelsior, and then a completely separate lineage from Ambassador to Galaxy shows the distinctiveness between the series of ships. Does the Sovereign really look anything like the other Enterprise ships other than having a hull, two nacelles, and a saucer? Does a minivan look anything like a Maserati other than having four wheels, front and rear bumpers, and a steering wheel?
Indeed. I wonder if there would be a Galaxy Class Enterprise had the C not been destroyed. The Ambassador could have been up-fit and refit for quite some time.
Definitely an oval, and I don't know about that. I always thought that the Galaxy's warp core was an antiquated design by the third season of TNG. Geordi had to keep taping it together and making modifications, it was large and cumbersome, and took up a huge part of the ship.
The Defiant, on the other hand, had a small and extremely powerful warp reactor, signaling to me that warp engine design was accelerating by the time the Galaxy was pushed into service. Due to the increased ratio between warp core size and power output and the decision to turn away from saucer separation on the Sovereign, the "neck" was no longer needed.
It should also be noted that the deflector dish on the Sovereign is miniscule compared to the Galaxy's. Where the Galaxy was obviously a ship with myriad functions, the Sovereign, with its reduced crew capacity, probably has a limited exploration function when also taking into account the fielding of long-range science vessels such as the Intrepid and Nova classes.
wow, sorry about that. got a bit carried away.......