So here's the "new" version of the old school U.S.S. Enterprise as seen in the upcoming STAR TREK movie, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Most of it looks okay, but is it just me or do parts of it have the look of some sort of stoner blown-glass sculpture? The lines of its body look like an odd and uncomfortable blend of the engineered and the organic, and it feels kind of haphazard in my opinion. Your thoughts?
The classic 1960's Original Series version.
The sleek Enterprise NCC-1701-A, as seen in the movies starting with 1979's STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.
So here's the "new" version of the old school U.S.S. Enterprise as seen in the upcoming STAR TREK movie, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Most of it looks okay, but is it just me or do parts of it have the look of some sort of stoner blown-glass sculpture? The lines of its body look like an odd and uncomfortable blend of the engineered and the organic, and it feels kind of haphazard in my opinion. Your thoughts?
The classic 1960's Original Series version.
The sleek Enterprise NCC-1701-A, as seen in the movies starting with 1979's STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.
I was never that much of a fan of the original Enterprise even at the tender age of 13. When I later learned that it was originally designed to be upside-down to the way it eventually was presented, I was double certain I hated the oddity of it.
ReplyDeleteI also have to question the twin-boom design as though it would be "inherent" in the warp propagation crappy-poo-poo somehow. And now the entire design staff is ham-strung by the "need" for a saucer on top of a central thingie plus two extended thingies FOREVER.
"Stoner bong" is as good a crit as I've seen. My observation is that there's too much freedom and lack of plausible engineering design involved. Just because you can have looping whorls of exterior design is not justification for having it there-- there should be a real reason, no matter how absurd. It is supposed to be a military vessle-- even if "quasi."
As usual, this is change for change's sake and I loathe it for that. Just *when* is this movie supposed to take place? Was there something out of whack with the time stream and TOS didn't happen? So the original design had this one somewhere? It sure looks "after" the Enterprise TOS and "after" the 1701-A Refit Enterprise as well. So when, again?
Also as usual, it seems this is just for the funsies and bragging rights of the design department. Maybe I would feel better about being involved in such a travesty if I was a paid staffer doing it. But it sure wouldn't look like that.
Look at that pinched-off rear end of the engineering hull-- where's the shuttle bay again? And that frozen sneeze on the warp nacelles. Gee, why can't designers find their spines? I have proposed an in-between idea for an Enterprise between the TOS and the Re-fit version-- as I like the "self-lighting" bit of the Re-fit. But something to fit between the NX-01 and Enterprise TOS is not that thing.
Am I hallucinating or is that new Enterprise movie supposed to be Kirk and Spock before they got on the Enterprise or very near to it?
Ugh.
-Professor Brown
Meh. It's better than the Enterprise from "Enterprise" (I hated that series), but not as cool as the 1701E from First Contact. That ship was bad!
ReplyDeleteI think it looks sexy!
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with you more, Buncho. This new ship lacks all the grace, beauty, and sheer PRESENCE of the one from the original show--and especially the one from the first six movies.
ReplyDeleteWell, i was raised on TNG so the original Enterprise always looked lame to me. As i got older though, i did learn to appreciate it, especially the 'A.'
ReplyDeleteI also agree with John, the Enterprise 'E' was badass. To be fair though, a lot of the federation ships being designed around then were straying further and further from the saucer-and-nacelles type.
If they're going with a back-to-basics approach, then i totally understand why they're going with this design. Hell, it's practically the 'A' without using the same model again. I don't see what all the bother is really.