I am 18 going into college in the fall, and I totally agree with you, age does play a critical factor. Like i said before, I was raised on sharp and advanced looking imagery. CGI affects made everything look so real (except everything terrible they did to Star Wars by adding CGi....)! The glitzy look of CGI does relate with me much more than the older connie, but even the most dedicated Trekkie has to admit that the 2009 Enterprise looks more 2255 than the 1966 Enterprise.
I hope you don't mind that I asked how old you were, I know some people don't like to say on forums and such, but I'm glad you could see the relevance in asking. So I'm guessing you probably started off with reruns of Voyager and then on to Enterprise, both of which had the more organic design fundamentals to them.
The only thing I think JJ got wrong was the interior of the ship is too glaring bright white. There is merit in having vivid colors to help prevent claustrophobia and other space illnesses, the completely sterile overpowering white could also cause issues. Not to mention it's be easier on the viewers eyes if there was more color contrast. I know this sounds stupid considering it's a movie, but it also plays a part in the attachment and perception of the ship.
If you asked anyone that grew up on TOS or someone that's just a huge TOs fan what color the doors on the Original Enterprise are they could answer in less than a second. Same goes with different details in Kirk's quarters and other various parts throughout the ship. In much the same way the design of the exterior of the original Enterprise has the same effect on the TOS fans, not to mention all the childhood memories that classic design brings back.
----
For most people it's not definitively what looks more futuristic, but what they have the most attachment to.
Back in the 50's and 60's era of sci-fi the mindset of what made something look futuristic was completely different, than what does today.
I hope you don't mind that I asked how old you were, I know some people don't like to say on forums and such, but I'm glad you could see the relevance in asking. So I'm guessing you probably started off with reruns of Voyager and then on to Enterprise, both of which had the more organic design fundamentals to them.
The only thing I think JJ got wrong was the interior of the ship is too glaring bright white. There is merit in having vivid colors to help prevent claustrophobia and other space illnesses, the completely sterile overpowering white could also cause issues. Not to mention it's be easier on the viewers eyes if there was more color contrast. I know this sounds stupid considering it's a movie, but it also plays a part in the attachment and perception of the ship.
If you asked anyone that grew up on TOS or someone that's just a huge TOs fan what color the doors on the Original Enterprise are they could answer in less than a second. Same goes with different details in Kirk's quarters and other various parts throughout the ship. In much the same way the design of the exterior of the original Enterprise has the same effect on the TOS fans, not to mention all the childhood memories that classic design brings back.
----
For most people it's not definitively what looks more futuristic, but what they have the most attachment to.
Back in the 50's and 60's era of sci-fi the mindset of what made something look futuristic was completely different, than what does today.
Yeah, go watch the 40s era Buck Rogers. O_O! To us it seems bizzarre and anachronistic..... But back then it felt futuristic.
Not everything in RL has a nice tidy evolution to it sometimes there are big leaps that seem ahead of their time. Take aircraft in the 1930's they went from zeppelins to jet planes in less than a decade.
Oh yes. Modern aeronautics are becoming stale. Most new designs are refinements of old ones not actual NEW designs in their own rights. And this is what makes the Constitution look different from the NX. They're actually completely different designs. They use a few elements that are similar, but only a few.
Don't get me started on the Old Republic and KOTOR series they have the same ship classes in the SW universe thousands of years in the past just to placate the fans since fans hate changes. It all just looks like it is set maybe a generation before the movies not millennia.
I like that STO has advanced the technology, we have holographic displays , holographic bridge officers etc(I would love to have androids or robots since I am a real nerd for robots). I think the Oddyssey class feels out of place for the setting since the Federation is supposed to be struggling with war on multiple fronts yet they are cranking out these massive cruisers, loaded to the brim with luxuries. During the Dominion war they made the small but mighty Defiant and that seems more practical.
A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
It depends on the war. If the UFP built the Odyssey as a dreadnought to rule them all, then yeah it should be built. But in STO lore, the war is pretty much ignored even though it is the setting of STO and the Odyssey is meant to be an explorer. It really doesn't make much sense.
I kept hoping a torpedo would hit the bridge and blow out all that cluster %#$@ glass panels and TRIBBLE JJ had all over. Even 24th and 29th century (USS Relativity) ships didnt have such clutter on their bridges. JJ could have at least kept it clean, streamlined and Trek. Sure you expect things to appear and subtle changes that you would have never seen originally as this is a movie made 50 years down the road. But he just butchered the Enterprise bridge. Freaking hated it.
I am going to both agree and disagree with the original post.
For the record, I'm 44 years old and have been a ST fan since I was a child in the '70s.
First, I'm determined to leave the issue of scale alone. Because 1) Looking through the bridge window from the outside, the JJprise doesn't seem as big as the JJ crew claim it is. And, 2) Looking at the size comparison pics lurking on the net, the over-scaled JJprise just doesn't make any visual sense to me. For my own sanity I'm just going to assume that the folks at ILM don't really know what 725 meters really looks like, and that the ship is probably size variable depending on the story.
Second, I don't have any problem with upgrading the Enterprise's look in theory, the Motion Picture Enterprise and her sister the Enterprise-A were beautiful. What those ships have that JJ's does not is clean lines. I just think that the JJprise is aesthetically unpleasing. It's over-stylized, lumpy in all the wrong places, and the curved nacelle pylons are attrocious. (all just my opinion, of course) I've seen much better looking upgraded connies flying around this little game here, including my own.
And what of the ship taking off and landing on planetary surfaces? I know that the new movies are more space adventure than science fiction, but they really need to explain how a thing that big takes off from the surface of a planet and achieves escape velocity without leaving a swath of blown-over trees and natural destruction in it's wake. Doesn't Starfleet have an environmental protection department?
I do like the interior to a point. The white walls and bright lighting are futuristic looking from today's perspective, although, yes, it really could use some colored pipes running along the ceiling, and visible bulkheads every ten meters or so, and red turbolift doors. The Apple store bridge is attractive and modern, and, the upright plexiglass displays give it sort of a "C.I.C." feel. But there is too much of a good thing happening here. The layout gets confusing. They kind of overdid it a little bit with all of the steps and floor lights and scattered panels. The thing with the Enterprise bridge is, it's supposed to be as familiar to the audience as it is to the characters. I'ts like the family living room, you know where everybody sits, even if you buy a new couch occasionally.
Isn't the uncanny valley specific to robots that look more and more human become more and more unnerving? The starship isn't a robot?
The term is also used in reference to other things that look (act, move, sound, etc) enough like humans to be disturbing in the subtle ways that they aren't - computer-animated figures (including those that are this in-universe, like an artificial intelligence projecting a human image), supernatural beings, aliens taking human form, animated corpses or mannequins, etc etc.
Similarly, the JJ-prise looks enough like the movie-refit Constitution-class to be off-putting to me because of all the ways that it is not. The saucer is the same, if badly scaled (this by itself is not a deal-breaker; Trek has always had scale issues, look at the Bird of Prey), but the dorsal is the wrong shape and is mounted too far back on the secondary hull, almost amidships. The secondary hull isn't bad by itself, though they stretched out the fantail almost as bad as the Excelsior, but then the nacelle pylons, ugh... get the idea?
You have an image in your signature of the Exeter refit from this game. To me, that represents a good blending of the old and new aesthetics. It isn't some hideously misproportioned mutant hellbeast, and it doesn't look like someone simply photocopied the TMP saucer (without checking the scale of the original art) and then started doodling freehand underneath it. I don't think I'd have the same issues if the new E looked more like that, even if the styling of the nacelles was the same (as long as their size, length, and mounting were per the Exeter).
... yes, I am terribly fussy, which is probably why they decided it wasn't worth catering to the likes of me and went for the "every ten minutes, SOMETHING EXPLOOOODES!" crowd.
I happen to like that ship. It looks far more 'plausible' than the 1960's version. You can't sit here and say that the original is far superior. Look at the mock of the warp core in JJ's movie as of late. That thing looks like it could actually function!
I know the old guard nay sayers are in here vehemently denying JJ's boat. That's their opinion and none of us who do like the film can change their minds. I'm sure people flipped out about TNG and then they bashed DS9 and then VOY got bashed and the Enterprise got bashed.
You just can't expect the 1960's film to capture what a ship like that would be like in the year 2287. I'm sure in 30-40 years when Star Trek is re-booted all of us will hate that film too. I probably will not since I am open to change and the fact that we cannot predict the future of technology. What we thin is 23rd century tech now will most likely be real in just 30- 50 years (Not including warp drive, stable I might add).
I would love to see any of the bashers make a better film or just a 15min episode that just wows the pants off Dr. Crusher!
I hope you don't mind that I asked how old you were, I know some people don't like to say on forums and such, but I'm glad you could see the relevance in asking. So I'm guessing you probably started off with reruns of Voyager and then on to Enterprise, both of which had the more organic design fundamentals to them.
The only thing I think JJ got wrong was the interior of the ship is too glaring bright white. There is merit in having vivid colors to help prevent claustrophobia and other space illnesses, the completely sterile overpowering white could also cause issues. Not to mention it's be easier on the viewers eyes if there was more color contrast. I know this sounds stupid considering it's a movie, but it also plays a part in the attachment and perception of the ship.
If you asked anyone that grew up on TOS or someone that's just a huge TOs fan what color the doors on the Original Enterprise are they could answer in less than a second. Same goes with different details in Kirk's quarters and other various parts throughout the ship. In much the same way the design of the exterior of the original Enterprise has the same effect on the TOS fans, not to mention all the childhood memories that classic design brings back.
----
For most people it's not definitively what looks more futuristic, but what they have the most attachment to.
Back in the 50's and 60's era of sci-fi the mindset of what made something look futuristic was completely different, than what does today.
Its not a problem! Its an important part of the argument, i.e. the Trek we grew up watching. I actually started with TNG reruns! :P
Vice Admiral Onyx Corvoe
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
There are always going to be people who like and people who dislike the same thing (e.g. J J Abram's Star Trek).
So, in the end, why can't everybody just agree on this point and move on?
NO don't move on! I am enjoying being the father of a thread that has more than 2 responses! Continue arguing everyone! Fight until you win!
Vice Admiral Onyx Corvoe
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
The term is also used in reference to other things that look (act, move, sound, etc) enough like humans to be disturbing in the subtle ways that they aren't
I've never heard it used outside of the context of robots. And it comes up a lot in my science fiction book club.
If it was designed today, that is what I would imagine it to look like. When the "original" was designed, although I wasn't born then, in my opinion and my views, that is what I would of imaged it to look like.
Either way, it's the Enterprise, Kirk's ship, like it or not :P
The new pays tribute to the old, and you still see aspects of it still, new fan or not. Nothing has been replaced or lost, it's just been modernized for a new audience of trekkies and trekkers, I'm just glad a new generation has the chance to become a fan, you never know, some might even go and revisit the older series.
Comments on Youtube now begin to say "Star Trek Into Darkness brought me here!" - be happy for that! :P
The justification for the design in my opinion is solid.
I don't understand why people complain about the engines thing... I can't remember the name XD - some STO ships have a similar design e.g. One of the Mirror Universe ships (mainly the Emissary). http://sto.gamepedia.com/Mirror_Universe_Assault_Cruiser
So, during the maintenance today, I got bored and I took the liability of "JJ-prising" the Enterprise D. I've tried to stay true to the "original designs" while also making it fit into a possible JJ-themed trek story for a new, modern audience.
If it was designed today, that is what I would imagine it to look like. When the "original" was designed, although I wasn't born then, in my opinion and my views, that is what I would of imaged it to look like.
Either way, it's the Enterprise, Kirk's ship, like it or not :P
The new pays tribute to the old, and you still see aspects of it still, new fan or not. Nothing has been replaced or lost, it's just been modernized for a new audience of trekkies and trekkers, I'm just glad a new generation has the chance to become a fan, you never know, some might even go and revisit the older series.
Comments on Youtube now begin to say "Star Trek Into Darkness brought me here!" - be happy for that! :P
The justification for the design in my opinion is solid.
I don't understand why people complain about the engines thing... I can't remember the name XD - some STO ships have a similar design e.g. One of the Mirror Universe ships (mainly the Emissary). http://sto.gamepedia.com/Mirror_Universe_Assault_Cruiser
So, during the maintenance today, I got bored and I took the liability of "JJ-prising" the Enterprise D. I've tried to stay true to the "original designs" while also making it fit into a possible JJ-themed trek story for a new, modern audience.
I personally like the new Enterprise's exterior design. It has nice flowing curves. However, I really don't like the back end of the nacelles. Why the hell JJ thought the Nacelles produced thrust is anyone's guess.
The interior design I'm kinda halfway on. The Bridge looks great and really futuristic, as do the corridors, but there are aspects to it that just seem impractical. I refer to the piping in Engineering. Why would you need those inspection hatches in the piping which is supposed to carry coolant (for that matter, why are they carrying water? If it were for the fusion reactors, okay that makes sense, but for the Warp Core?) and not something you're particularly worried about being contaminated, like the waste recycling system? Why the hell would you put hatches there? Granted, they proved useful in the film, but I doubt the designers were thinking "wait! What if an intruder accidentally beams himself into the pipe?" when they thought of that.
Also, the shuttlebays... errr... why so big? I know, hilarious coming from a fan of the series that had a 3-storey Shuttlebay about the size of a house, but c'mon... really? If you're in an emergency that seriously requires that many shuttles, you're likely abandoning ship, in which case you'll be heading for the nearest escape route which, for half the ship, will be the escape pods. The size is just exaggerated and unnecessary. Actually, that could probably be said for half the ship.
Do we get to throw around age as a qualifier? Because I'm 49. I grew up watching the originb) they didn't explain in the movie why there were these huge water pipes running around - I had to explain that one myself (secondary coolant for the warp reactor, which is good, because the design in TNG was always spraying warp coolant all over Engineering). Why is there all this piping anyway? Well, who's to say it wasn't there in the original? That engineering hull was huge, and all we ever saw of it were the shuttle bay and the control room for the warp drive. For all we know, all the rest of it looked like a steampunk fan's wet dream.
Apparently Trekkies haven't heard of plumbing nor bathrooms (yes, I would agree that the plumbing is a bit excessive, but as you said backup cooling etc. If you look at the ISS, they have to recycle all waste, water, etc. (everything). That's a lot of plumbing for the 6+ people that are on the ISS. Now multiply that for 400+ people... That's quite a bit of plumbing. I'm not sure whether the plumbing was a snarky reference to the toilets/showering issues of Star Trek, or just a "let's make Engineering look like this" moment, but point still there.
Well I recently watched the latest movie and it doesn't take too much imagination to think that Abrams may be poking fun at the fanbase, especially with the reversal of roles in the "touching" engineering scene in his alt universe remake of the Wrath Of Khan.
I never really had a problem with the new ships design, I've always held the belief that the TOS Conny was absurdly fragile looking and the Abrams ship just seems a souped up hod rod almost caricaturized version of the old design.
My beef is with this new ship's capabilities. In the older shows and movies it was long established that atmospheric maneuvering was beyond the scope of the ships design, it needed shuttles and transporters because it was simply too big to land, it lent plausibility to the science of the show, that even in the 23rd century the laws of physics can't be completely circumvented.
Now we have a ship that can not only launch itself from a ground based shipyard, it can defy gravity, maneuver in atmosphere and is even able to submerge, an ability that itself throws plausibility out the window.
It's supposed to be Star Trek, not a Japanese monster movie, when you make things too incredible they start to become corny and laughable.
If this is how it's to be, then I will be one of many who will enjoy the new mindless popcorn fest while remembering times of a different Star Trek now gone.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
It's supposed to be Star Trek, not a Japanese monster movie, when you make things too incredible they start to become corny and laughable.
This, I actually agree with. I do love the new films but....that big red creature in the first one just made me say WTF?
If I had all that cash to buy a Star Trek license I would definitely re-design everything but I would make it more plausible. I also would have included the Grey aliens as sort of a mysterious super race that we see once in a while like the 'Q'.
......................[SLIGHT SPOILER DO NOT READ PAST HERE]...........................
"
Now that first 15 min of the film with that place they were at and the locals, THAT SEEMED highly realistic and made me actually excited!!!! THAT'S WHAT TREK IS TO ME!
Abrams' Enterprise was based on the profile of the original starship from Roddenberry's TV series. The design of that ship was iconic enough that you almost can't f*k with it.
Abram's didn't. What he did do was take those iconic elements and transport them into the 23rd century.
The OP was spot on the money; 1966 saw 2266 the same way 2013 sees 1966. Blocky, bulky, switch-and-dial-controlled computers that had a tendency to grind like a woodchipper when trying to call up Harry Mudd's criminal record, voiced by a woman who didn't yet realize that a computer's voice did not have to sound like she was being electrocuted during each line of dialogue.
You put the 1966 Enterprise against designs we're PRESENTLY coming up with for space flight and the poor icon of Star Trek looks like a joke entry. You just can't put that in a big-budget film.
Hell, in 1979, they had to change it, because the film's producers thought that it looked silly. And that was only ten years after the show went off the air. JJ's Enterprise honestly looks more like the Robert Wise/Harve Bennett Enterprise with a more polished, sleeker body.
And unlike the past starships in Trek - this ship convinces me that it very well could work. Apart from the whole "ZWEEEEEEEEEEEEFOOMP" warp drive, which - it's Star Trek - I can believe in the Enterprise.
Well I recently watched the latest movie and it doesn't take too much imagination to think that Abrams may be poking fun at the fanbase, especially with the reversal of roles in the "touching" engineering scene in his alt .
If thats the case he is not the first. The TNG writersdid it and even the actors to some extent.
A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
I have to say, the whole big E coming out of the water on Nibiru seemed ridiculously implausible - but it was so awesome to watch that I forgave it. Seeing the Enterprise swing into action, and after we see the natives drawing it's profile in the soil and it fades into the Enterprise in space, I was ready to cheer in the theater. At that point, it felt to me like we actually had Star Trek back, the right crew in the right starship, and the design quirks that bothered me about the new Enterprise in 2009 melted away.
I guess it's just me acclimating to the JJverse. But it does grow on you!
If this is how it's to be, then I will be one of many who will enjoy the new mindless popcorn fest while remembering times of a different Star Trek now gone.
Remembering old star trek... me too buddy, but its been nearly 20 years since TNG finished, and i still remember that EVERY star trek series had MANY "wtf is this?" episodes which were stupid or implausible, often relying on macguffins and fakesciencespeak to resolve the plotlines.
The movies were both good. While not perfect, IMO Into Darkness was better written, directed, and performed than the first.
We're going through the same thing right now in this game with the new expansion, that it's different, bugs etc. go with games in general they'll get fixed at some point, but because it's so much different from the way the game has been people are having a hard time accepting it.
The new Trek is different, it has many factors that are unfamiliar, which are making it hard for many to accept. That said it has a younger group of people that are much more convincing in the action roles of the story than a bunch of overweight, late middle aged basket cases trying to act like action heroes. The old guard of the series are either dead, retired or gone to seed and the franchise desperately needed new blood.
I like the new Enterprise, I like the design much more than the TOS version which always looked somewhat cobbled together to me, my favorite ship from TOS was the Klingon battle cruiser, which to me was a better thought out design. One of the things about the Enterprise-D that I appreciated was the completeness of that design, a shape with flowing lines that fit everything together.
The new Enterprise has that complete look, that every part belongs where it is, not something borrowed from somewhere else, at least on the outside that is, I still hate the location shooting used for parts of the interior. Now if they just avoid having it do silly things like submerging or flying around like a helicopter I could be content with it.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
The OP was spot on the money; 1966 saw 2266 the same way 2013 sees 1966. Blocky, bulky, switch-and-dial-controlled computers that had a tendency to grind like a woodchipper when trying to call up Harry Mudd's criminal record, voiced by a woman who didn't yet realize that a computer's voice did not have to sound like she was being electrocuted during each line of dialogue.
This is an interesting point of discussion. The enterprise computer voice was imitating the really old systems for automated voices. Basically, the system would have a really long list of words and a pre-recorded audio clip of someone saying that word. To "say" things, the computer would string the words together and play the audio files associated with the words in the sentence. The result is comprehensible, but despite using an actual human voice, sounds nothing like a person actually talking.
Okay.... it does somewhat resemble Shatner's habit of pausing mid-sentence..... :P
Comments
I hope you don't mind that I asked how old you were, I know some people don't like to say on forums and such, but I'm glad you could see the relevance in asking. So I'm guessing you probably started off with reruns of Voyager and then on to Enterprise, both of which had the more organic design fundamentals to them.
The only thing I think JJ got wrong was the interior of the ship is too glaring bright white. There is merit in having vivid colors to help prevent claustrophobia and other space illnesses, the completely sterile overpowering white could also cause issues. Not to mention it's be easier on the viewers eyes if there was more color contrast. I know this sounds stupid considering it's a movie, but it also plays a part in the attachment and perception of the ship.
If you asked anyone that grew up on TOS or someone that's just a huge TOs fan what color the doors on the Original Enterprise are they could answer in less than a second. Same goes with different details in Kirk's quarters and other various parts throughout the ship. In much the same way the design of the exterior of the original Enterprise has the same effect on the TOS fans, not to mention all the childhood memories that classic design brings back.
----
For most people it's not definitively what looks more futuristic, but what they have the most attachment to.
Back in the 50's and 60's era of sci-fi the mindset of what made something look futuristic was completely different, than what does today.
Isn't the uncanny valley specific to robots that look more and more human become more and more unnerving? The starship isn't a robot?
The bridge doesn't look anything like this. Or this.
What kind of apple stores are you people shopping at?
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
I like that STO has advanced the technology, we have holographic displays , holographic bridge officers etc(I would love to have androids or robots since I am a real nerd for robots). I think the Oddyssey class feels out of place for the setting since the Federation is supposed to be struggling with war on multiple fronts yet they are cranking out these massive cruisers, loaded to the brim with luxuries. During the Dominion war they made the small but mighty Defiant and that seems more practical.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
For the record, I'm 44 years old and have been a ST fan since I was a child in the '70s.
First, I'm determined to leave the issue of scale alone. Because 1) Looking through the bridge window from the outside, the JJprise doesn't seem as big as the JJ crew claim it is. And, 2) Looking at the size comparison pics lurking on the net, the over-scaled JJprise just doesn't make any visual sense to me. For my own sanity I'm just going to assume that the folks at ILM don't really know what 725 meters really looks like, and that the ship is probably size variable depending on the story.
Second, I don't have any problem with upgrading the Enterprise's look in theory, the Motion Picture Enterprise and her sister the Enterprise-A were beautiful. What those ships have that JJ's does not is clean lines. I just think that the JJprise is aesthetically unpleasing. It's over-stylized, lumpy in all the wrong places, and the curved nacelle pylons are attrocious. (all just my opinion, of course) I've seen much better looking upgraded connies flying around this little game here, including my own.
And what of the ship taking off and landing on planetary surfaces? I know that the new movies are more space adventure than science fiction, but they really need to explain how a thing that big takes off from the surface of a planet and achieves escape velocity without leaving a swath of blown-over trees and natural destruction in it's wake. Doesn't Starfleet have an environmental protection department?
I do like the interior to a point. The white walls and bright lighting are futuristic looking from today's perspective, although, yes, it really could use some colored pipes running along the ceiling, and visible bulkheads every ten meters or so, and red turbolift doors. The Apple store bridge is attractive and modern, and, the upright plexiglass displays give it sort of a "C.I.C." feel. But there is too much of a good thing happening here. The layout gets confusing. They kind of overdid it a little bit with all of the steps and floor lights and scattered panels. The thing with the Enterprise bridge is, it's supposed to be as familiar to the audience as it is to the characters. I'ts like the family living room, you know where everybody sits, even if you buy a new couch occasionally.
The term is also used in reference to other things that look (act, move, sound, etc) enough like humans to be disturbing in the subtle ways that they aren't - computer-animated figures (including those that are this in-universe, like an artificial intelligence projecting a human image), supernatural beings, aliens taking human form, animated corpses or mannequins, etc etc.
Similarly, the JJ-prise looks enough like the movie-refit Constitution-class to be off-putting to me because of all the ways that it is not. The saucer is the same, if badly scaled (this by itself is not a deal-breaker; Trek has always had scale issues, look at the Bird of Prey), but the dorsal is the wrong shape and is mounted too far back on the secondary hull, almost amidships. The secondary hull isn't bad by itself, though they stretched out the fantail almost as bad as the Excelsior, but then the nacelle pylons, ugh... get the idea?
You have an image in your signature of the Exeter refit from this game. To me, that represents a good blending of the old and new aesthetics. It isn't some hideously misproportioned mutant hellbeast, and it doesn't look like someone simply photocopied the TMP saucer (without checking the scale of the original art) and then started doodling freehand underneath it. I don't think I'd have the same issues if the new E looked more like that, even if the styling of the nacelles was the same (as long as their size, length, and mounting were per the Exeter).
... yes, I am terribly fussy, which is probably why they decided it wasn't worth catering to the likes of me and went for the "every ten minutes, SOMETHING EXPLOOOODES!" crowd.
I know the old guard nay sayers are in here vehemently denying JJ's boat. That's their opinion and none of us who do like the film can change their minds. I'm sure people flipped out about TNG and then they bashed DS9 and then VOY got bashed and the Enterprise got bashed.
You just can't expect the 1960's film to capture what a ship like that would be like in the year 2287. I'm sure in 30-40 years when Star Trek is re-booted all of us will hate that film too. I probably will not since I am open to change and the fact that we cannot predict the future of technology. What we thin is 23rd century tech now will most likely be real in just 30- 50 years (Not including warp drive, stable I might add).
I would love to see any of the bashers make a better film or just a 15min episode that just wows the pants off Dr. Crusher!
So, in the end, why can't everybody just agree on this point and move on?
Its not a problem!
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
NO don't move on! I am enjoying being the father of a thread that has more than 2 responses! Continue arguing everyone! Fight until you win!
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
I've never heard it used outside of the context of robots. And it comes up a lot in my science fiction book club.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
If it was designed today, that is what I would imagine it to look like. When the "original" was designed, although I wasn't born then, in my opinion and my views, that is what I would of imaged it to look like.
Either way, it's the Enterprise, Kirk's ship, like it or not :P
The new pays tribute to the old, and you still see aspects of it still, new fan or not. Nothing has been replaced or lost, it's just been modernized for a new audience of trekkies and trekkers, I'm just glad a new generation has the chance to become a fan, you never know, some might even go and revisit the older series.
Comments on Youtube now begin to say "Star Trek Into Darkness brought me here!" - be happy for that! :P
The justification for the design in my opinion is solid.
I don't understand why people complain about the engines thing... I can't remember the name XD - some STO ships have a similar design e.g. One of the Mirror Universe ships (mainly the Emissary). http://sto.gamepedia.com/Mirror_Universe_Assault_Cruiser
So, during the maintenance today, I got bored and I took the liability of "JJ-prising" the Enterprise D. I've tried to stay true to the "original designs" while also making it fit into a possible JJ-themed trek story for a new, modern audience.
http://assets.enjin.com.s3.amazonaws.com/users/5680121/pics/full/1760404.jpg
I hope people like it as much as I.
It's very... 2-Dimensional. :P
Seriously, looks good so far. Obviously this was something you did because you were bored, but I'd love to see it get more detail if you get time.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I personally like the new Enterprise's exterior design. It has nice flowing curves. However, I really don't like the back end of the nacelles. Why the hell JJ thought the Nacelles produced thrust is anyone's guess.
The interior design I'm kinda halfway on. The Bridge looks great and really futuristic, as do the corridors, but there are aspects to it that just seem impractical. I refer to the piping in Engineering. Why would you need those inspection hatches in the piping which is supposed to carry coolant (for that matter, why are they carrying water? If it were for the fusion reactors, okay that makes sense, but for the Warp Core?) and not something you're particularly worried about being contaminated, like the waste recycling system? Why the hell would you put hatches there? Granted, they proved useful in the film, but I doubt the designers were thinking "wait! What if an intruder accidentally beams himself into the pipe?" when they thought of that.
Also, the shuttlebays... errr... why so big? I know, hilarious coming from a fan of the series that had a 3-storey Shuttlebay about the size of a house, but c'mon... really? If you're in an emergency that seriously requires that many shuttles, you're likely abandoning ship, in which case you'll be heading for the nearest escape route which, for half the ship, will be the escape pods. The size is just exaggerated and unnecessary. Actually, that could probably be said for half the ship.
Aside from that, I do like the design.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Well, thank you very much!
I might do, I'm unsure at the moment. I dunno if I have the skill for the other sides XD
Anyways, that would be my concept of a JJ Galaxy class ship, I'm glad you liked it!
edit: here's a (not very good) finished version.
http://i.imgur.com/OpUhWST.jpg
Apparently Trekkies haven't heard of plumbing nor bathrooms
I never really had a problem with the new ships design, I've always held the belief that the TOS Conny was absurdly fragile looking and the Abrams ship just seems a souped up hod rod almost caricaturized version of the old design.
My beef is with this new ship's capabilities. In the older shows and movies it was long established that atmospheric maneuvering was beyond the scope of the ships design, it needed shuttles and transporters because it was simply too big to land, it lent plausibility to the science of the show, that even in the 23rd century the laws of physics can't be completely circumvented.
Now we have a ship that can not only launch itself from a ground based shipyard, it can defy gravity, maneuver in atmosphere and is even able to submerge, an ability that itself throws plausibility out the window.
It's supposed to be Star Trek, not a Japanese monster movie, when you make things too incredible they start to become corny and laughable.
If this is how it's to be, then I will be one of many who will enjoy the new mindless popcorn fest while remembering times of a different Star Trek now gone.
This, I actually agree with. I do love the new films but....that big red creature in the first one just made me say WTF?
If I had all that cash to buy a Star Trek license I would definitely re-design everything but I would make it more plausible. I also would have included the Grey aliens as sort of a mysterious super race that we see once in a while like the 'Q'.
......................[SLIGHT SPOILER DO NOT READ PAST HERE]...........................
"
Now that first 15 min of the film with that place they were at and the locals, THAT SEEMED highly realistic and made me actually excited!!!! THAT'S WHAT TREK IS TO ME!
"To boldly go, where no one has gone before".
Abram's didn't. What he did do was take those iconic elements and transport them into the 23rd century.
The OP was spot on the money; 1966 saw 2266 the same way 2013 sees 1966. Blocky, bulky, switch-and-dial-controlled computers that had a tendency to grind like a woodchipper when trying to call up Harry Mudd's criminal record, voiced by a woman who didn't yet realize that a computer's voice did not have to sound like she was being electrocuted during each line of dialogue.
You put the 1966 Enterprise against designs we're PRESENTLY coming up with for space flight and the poor icon of Star Trek looks like a joke entry. You just can't put that in a big-budget film.
Hell, in 1979, they had to change it, because the film's producers thought that it looked silly. And that was only ten years after the show went off the air. JJ's Enterprise honestly looks more like the Robert Wise/Harve Bennett Enterprise with a more polished, sleeker body.
And unlike the past starships in Trek - this ship convinces me that it very well could work. Apart from the whole "ZWEEEEEEEEEEEEFOOMP" warp drive, which - it's Star Trek - I can believe in the Enterprise.
If thats the case he is not the first. The TNG writersdid it and even the actors to some extent.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
I guess it's just me acclimating to the JJverse. But it does grow on you!
Remembering old star trek... me too buddy, but its been nearly 20 years since TNG finished, and i still remember that EVERY star trek series had MANY "wtf is this?" episodes which were stupid or implausible, often relying on macguffins and fakesciencespeak to resolve the plotlines.
The movies were both good. While not perfect, IMO Into Darkness was better written, directed, and performed than the first.
The new Trek is different, it has many factors that are unfamiliar, which are making it hard for many to accept. That said it has a younger group of people that are much more convincing in the action roles of the story than a bunch of overweight, late middle aged basket cases trying to act like action heroes. The old guard of the series are either dead, retired or gone to seed and the franchise desperately needed new blood.
I like the new Enterprise, I like the design much more than the TOS version which always looked somewhat cobbled together to me, my favorite ship from TOS was the Klingon battle cruiser, which to me was a better thought out design. One of the things about the Enterprise-D that I appreciated was the completeness of that design, a shape with flowing lines that fit everything together.
The new Enterprise has that complete look, that every part belongs where it is, not something borrowed from somewhere else, at least on the outside that is, I still hate the location shooting used for parts of the interior. Now if they just avoid having it do silly things like submerging or flying around like a helicopter I could be content with it.
Okay.... it does somewhat resemble Shatner's habit of pausing mid-sentence..... :P
My character Tsin'xing