# Whoa! (Gabe Koerner's Enterprise)



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

*Whoa!*

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/trekreel002.mov


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Indeed! WOW! The warp engine lighting effects are spectacular. I don't like the navigational deflector, but the rest looks darned impressive (and that's coming from someone who absolutely hated the NX!).


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

That was cool!!!Alexander


----------



## Borz666 (May 17, 2004)

the more I see that design the more I like it! The only thing I would change is the Impulse drive section...

Chris


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, wow, seeing it in 3D makes it even uglier. Blech.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I LOVE the design!

....to each their own, John! 

Great clip, too! If anything, the last 5 seconds could've had content instead of it being extended black.

Now, I wonder just what this _Enterprise_ was firing at? I would sure be interested in seeing a similar remake of the Klingon cruiser!

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, REL!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I've loved that design since I first saw it in the calendar. Gabe has created a wonderful re-visioned conceptual Enterprise. IMHO of course


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Very cool clip! Not 100% in love with the design but the over all effect was way cool.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Kudoa! I LOVE the renderstyle, and the effects, all of them, were super!


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Nice Animation! Fugly ship.


----------



## qtan (May 29, 2001)

Nice animation...the ship, however, always looked like something the Borg would have done had they gotten hold of a Connie.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Ha! LOL I think that sums up what a _lot _ of people have been thinking. Still, those bussard caps looked way cool. . .


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Given the window placements, the scale of this thing is all wrong. Plus it looks clunky and over greeblied. More like something from Star Wars than anything Trek.

Plus, seeing it in 3D underlines how the deviations from MJ's original forms look ungraceful and ugly.

I sincerely hope that Paramount has something else in mind for the next movie.

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I don't know that Paramount has mentioned using Mr. Koerner's design at all. Personally, I'd rather that they stick to the TOS _Enterprise_ design pretty much as-is, tho have no heartache if they give her the subtle deflector lines and weathering that the Remastered TOS episodes show. 

As to this particular design itself, I like it. I agree that it's somewhat ungainly and perhaps a bit over-greeblied, but it shows a design lineage between ENT and TOS, IMNSHO. I'd rather not see the name & registry for our beloved TOS _Enterprise_ on her, but don't at all mind the design itself.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

The windows look like that because as I remember from an earlier commentary from (I believe) one of the SSM forums is that this ship IS upscaled, a whole lot! I think it's almost as large as a Galaxy-class ship, although I could be wrong on that. But the ship is much larger than the TOS Enterprise.

I still think it looks really cool! It's a blending of TOS and Movie Refit designs. And all the basic design elements that comprises the Enterprise are all there, with a few extra design modifications that I don't think detracts from the concept. It's sleek and powerful.

My opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

The black screen ending was reminiscent of the Sopranos finale :dude: ( only being humorous ) :lol:


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

When I first saw it, I thought it was a cross between the NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The black screen was wasted download time.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Griffworks said:


> I don't know that Paramount has mentioned using Mr. Koerner's design at all. ...


Paramount?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Paramount... Paraborg... NBC... your rich uncle....... 

Whoever it is that owns the rights to Star Trek these days. I forget at the moment. If you know better than I, please enlighten me.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

The-Nightsky said:


> Nice Animation! Fugly ship.


Amen, brother!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah I can't say that I like the design much either. It lacks something... and has too much of something else.

Definitely looks Borg-esque.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I actually like the design quite a lot. But, like some others, I don't care for it to represent the original _Enterprise_. I do vastly prefer it over the NX ship as well.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Griffworks said:


> Paramount... Paraborg... NBC... your rich uncle.......
> 
> Whoever it is that owns the rights to Star Trek these days. I forget at the moment. If you know better than I, please enlighten me.


Central Broadcasting Service(CBS)
Viacom/Paramount sold it off because they couldn't make any more money with it. So I assume CBS bought it for a song, thinking they could make money with it. Well, maybe 20 years from now they will make some money with it. 
Or in a time when Hollywood starts to write original material again.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

In 2006, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount Pictures, was split into two separate entities: CBS Corp. and the "new" Viacom Inc. The new division housing all of Paramount's television properties, including _Star Trek_, is called CBS Paramount Television. The initials CBS stand for Columbia Broadcasting System, going all the way back to radio in the 1920s.

I have no idea what the "Central Broadcasting Service" is!


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

You mean it's not the Commie Broadcasting Station? Oh, wait, I meant the Clinton Broadcasting Service. Sorry, couldn't resist!  LOL [Ducks for cover, runs full speed out the door ahead of angry mob. . .] :wave:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Impressive! 

And seeing her like that.. 

I think I could accept her to be the ST11 TOS Enterprise!

(but I’d change the deflector back to a bit more.. TOS style look)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I like the design as a sort of alternate universe version of the 1701.

The greeblied exterior and such would have Matt Jefferies turning over in his grave if it were used in a movie.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I've invited Mr. Koerner to the forum in hopes that he can speak a bit on his design. I know I would love to hear his design choices


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

We've commented before on HobbyTalk about his new design but I think it deserves more discussion due to the changes made and the view of it in action in the above clip. 

This is the first time we've really seen it finished AND in action--he does really excellent work. :thumbsup:

I'm especially curious about the engineering hull and the exposed sections underneath. I'd like to see some close-ups of that to see how it's supposed to work.


----------



## tobiasrichter (Jan 3, 2007)

Looks really great! I like the design and the animations - great lighting and motions.

I have to get back to do some space scenes again - it's been quite a while.

Tobias


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> We've commented before on HobbyTalk about his new design but I think it deserves more discussion due to the changes made and the view of it in action in the above clip.


My thoughts exactly Perfesser


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I like the design.

I while it would be nice, I don't expect the film to leave the TOS design untouched. And in all honesty wouldn't be too upset if whatever they do is along these lines.

The look he achieved reminds me of some of the early TMP Enterprise paintings where the windows gave me the impression of a much larger ship. And I like the natural metal finish look (which BTW the TMP enterprise had as well).

The bussard collectors look really cool, however all the rotating stuff in the warp coils looks a little to machine like for my tastes.

I do like the impluse deck and whatever the thing in front of it is called.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Actually there's a quite a few pictures in that same folder the video is on his website. 

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2007)

From my limited perspective, it looks like an extrapolation of the NX-01 design style expanded to make the TOS 'E' or something along the same lines.

By the way i have no problem with the NX-01, just wanted to add that 'fore the shooting starts 

It's an interesting design, have to say i like it and the fella is certainly talented judging by his work on the new BSG series and so on. Read his resume, he be a busy fella!
No way should it ever replace the beloved TOS Enterprise but have to admit, it's certainly different and for me, different in a good way.

I feel my scratchbuilding muscles twitching 

Go easy


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

In 1979 I hated the refit... until it left Spacedock. After that, it's always been my favorite _Enterprise_. This one is also... very nice. I just had to admire it in motion.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

If that........ thing........ ends up in ST-11, I'm going to turn in my membership card. *Shudder*


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I very much dislike the ship, but I like a few aspects of it.

I definitely approve of this lift tube orientation:


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

James T. Kirk said:


> " Come come, Mister Scott. Young minds... fresh ideas... "


And we all know how Scotty responded.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Cool renders. I like the shuttlecraft version too.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Hand Solo said:


> And we all know how Scotty responded.



I don't, refresh my memory.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> I don't, refresh my memory.


Ok....



Montgomery Scott said:


> _" Aye... and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon! "_


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

_*"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!" * _ 

 

Scotty did NOT care for the Excelsior much. Nor did many fans at the time, as I recall, but the ship did slowly gain acceptance. Excelsior's role in ST III certainly didn't endear itself to many fans (or her Captain!!) but I know that the more I studied Excelsior... the more I was impressed. Lunar Model's kit of the Excelsior helped that along! This, in spite of the kit's inaccuracies which came to light over time when more info became available.

However, I'm still surprised at how intensely some are responding to Gabe's redesign.

Remember the initial responses to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica ship itself??? As I see it, the comparitive differences between the TOS Enterprise and Gabe's ship are along the same lines. Even as an "alternate" design, there's no room for the appreciation of the work that went into it?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Why is everyone hating on this design so much? I think it's good.

Besides, you can't have a movie released in 2008 that uses the TOS Enterprise exactly as it was. It's too cheesy. The TOS enterprise is cheesy by today's design standards. Audiences wouldn't accept it. I definitely have a respect for the TOS Enterprise, but it's hokey looking by today's standards.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

I'm firmly in the camp that likes the design.... even if only just on its own merits.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

I think it looks awesome and like I said before, if someone doesn't make a kit of it I certainly will.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

PixelMagic said:


> Why is everyone hating on this design so much? I think it's good.
> 
> Besides, you can't have a movie released in 2008 that uses the TOS Enterprise exactly as it was. It's too cheesy. The TOS enterprise is cheesy by today's design standards. Audiences wouldn't accept it. I definitely have a respect for the TOS Enterprise, but it's hokey looking by today's standards.


With respect, I disagree! The "Mirror Universe" episodes of "Enterprise" proved just how solid the design still is!

The only thing that could be considered "cheesy" is that the Enterprise in the first TV pilots is that the effects could be considered "unrefined". When the series did go into production, the ship underwent extensive refit for lighting to make it much more believeable. The ship overall didn't get changed much. But many of the existing details were changed, in order to create a more believable ship. Reconciling the earlier pilot version Enterprise with what could come up in the movie will not be easy. I am sure that no matter what is done, you will still have some fans loudly decrying what is seen onscreen. And we simply don't know what's going to be done, let's not forget that!

If the Star Trek franchise ever undergoes the type of re-imagining that Battlestar Galactica went through - which is a totally separate discussion from the next movie - then Gabe's design (which I also firmly like!) becomes a much more viable possibility!


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

REL said:


> I think it looks awesome and like I said before, if someone doesn't make a kit of it I certainly will.


And I will certainly will make the effort to buy one, if/when you do, REL!


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Ummmmmm, where is the spotlight on the front of the saucer coming from? Or some of the other lights hilighting the other parts of the ship?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

_*There is nothing CHEESY about the original Enterprise, thank you very much.
*_ 

And while the renders of this "new/old" design show a great deal of modeling and rendering talent, the design sucks on many levels. It includes all the aspects of modern Trek ship design I hate and little of Mr. Jefferies' original design philosphy which made the original so beautiful.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^You are obviously not a "greeblie-man!"

:lol:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

It's an interesting design. I like it. It still has many of the features of the original. If they used something like this in the movie, however, they should dial it back a bit closer to the original. 
1. Lighten up the hull a bit. (Metallic is okay, but this looks like its iron plated.)
2. Simplify and streamline the deflector dish (looks like a borg eyepiece)
3. Smooth out the engineering section. (Like Matt Jefferies might say, leave the equipment on the inside, not the outside.)

Still, its a good design and excellent digital workman ship from the artist!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I guess I will put in my two cents worth. I have been a fan of the original series since I was born (which was in 1966 when the show premiered). In my opinion, TOS Enterprise has always been one of my favorites because it was what took me on the adventures everytime I sat down and watched the show. The ship is dear to me (too bad we didn't get a 1/350 scale version before PL was bought out), and I love the design.

Now ... there is one comlaint I always had about the ship ... it was too smooth with not enough greeblies on the surface to indicate how the ship functions. My biggest complaint is the huge antenna for a deflector dish. Granted, it was the 60's, but this just never sat well with me on realism when it came to a device that was supposed to deflect micrometeroites millions of kilometers ahead. This was one reason I fell in love with the refit because it appeared to be more realistic without taking away from the original design. The deflector I felt was more realistic and could be accepted as an alien design. There were thrusters visible to show how the ship could maneuver, there were docking ports, and noticible phaser turrets. Much more like a design that could exist versus TOS where all these components had to be imagined.

Now my opinion on this design ... I agree it is a little over the top, but I also like it very much. I think it does need to be toned down ... it looks more like a battleship then an exploration vehicle. My hope is that, when the new Enterprise is revealed, they do change TOS ship for the next movie but not overdo it. More subtle changes would be great to make the ship look more realistic, but not make such a radical change that it goes to the extreme in the opposite direction.

You may commence the tar and feathering ....


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

I think with a ship design that is supposed to be as advanced as the Enterprise is/was/will be you don't NEED the greeblies. Technology had advanced to the stage where Sensors, Antenna's and such are integral to the design of the vessel, and not stuck out everywhere.

I do agree with the comment on the maneuvering thrusters and such adding to the 'realistic' look of the ship. But I don't need her to look like hodge-podge, Transformer wannabe looking garbage scow.....

That's right... I said Garbage Scow...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

PixelMagic said:


> Besides, you can't have a movie released in 2008 that uses the TOS Enterprise exactly as it was. It's too cheesy. The TOS enterprise is cheesy by today's design standards. Audiences wouldn't accept it. I definitely have a respect for the TOS Enterprise, but it's hokey looking by today's standards.


In your opinion it's "hokey looking". In my opinion, as well as apparently a large number of other folks posting here, it's still a very valid design. With respects to your own opinion, you might want to remember that other folks don't automatically share your views and that their's is every bit as valid as yours.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I don't hate it to death, but I certianly hope that it or something looking like it does not make it to the movie. As for modeling it, I doubt it would sell beyond these boards. Not on my choice list to buy, for sure.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

John P said:


> It includes all the aspects of modern Trek ship design I hate and little of Mr. Jefferies' original design philosphy which made the original so beautiful.


Care to elaborate, John?

(No sarcasm, no nuthin'. I just like hearing people's opinions about design, and would like to hear your opinions, since you make design decisions in your kitbashing.)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

If nothing else, I like the idea of more doors and hatches on starships. I'm talking cargo sized for the loading and unloading of parts and shuttles and such.  Gabe's design looks like it may have a second level flight deck.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

The other day I came across a possible Enterprise Movie design that I loved. 

Someone posted a link to this image in a comment at the Trek Movie rumor mill site. I got excited because I first thought it was made by an artist working on the movie. This would be along the lines of what I feel should be done with the Enterprise for the movie. 

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2285/enterpriserendersdc0.jpg


(My apolgies to "Skippy 2k" if I have broken some internet rule of conduct by posting this link. He posts it in his comments about a spoof Enterprise design that was "leaked." http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/design-sketch-for-reimagined-enterprise-leaked/#more-596)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Whoa, talk about an "over worked" design. This thing is full of conflicting design elements, all competing with each other for attention. It certainly has no sense of being an "integrated design". No matter what you think of the other ship designs that followed TOS (most of which I don't care for myself), one thing that you can say about them is that they typically achieve an "integrated" looking style, with the various design elements working together.

This thing looks amateurish by comparison. That is of course, in my opinion.


----------



## edwhitefire (Jan 23, 2004)

What the HECK is that?!?!? Whose bright idea was this piece of schlock?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Don't mince words guys, tell us what you really think.  

For what it's worth, I agree whole-heartedly with X-15's "review." In this instance, the artist's skills as an animator are far superior to his skills as a designer.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Dang it to Heck! I can't see the pics 'cause the COMM Nazis block Imageshack. 

Oh, well. I'll check it out at the Cyber Cafe in the morning after work.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

-----never mind-----


----------



## jay_barnes (Apr 11, 2002)

move on, nothing to see here.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

I like the design and the artist obviously took a great deal of time to produce it. I think it is a cool re-imagined E. I am in awe of the details.

However.

I'm not sure it isn't just a bit much for us hardcore TOS E fans to stomach in a new movie. The words "cheesy" and "TOS E" should never be used in the same sentence.

My Master Replicas TOS E is smirking over in it's place of honor.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

I think it has more of a Star Wars feel to it, and since I like the Star Wars ships as much or more (oh no did he just say that??) as the Star Trek one's it's ok in my book.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

REL said:


> ..... and since I like the Star Wars ships as much or more .......


No soup for you!!!!!!:freak:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I think Star Wars ships are pretty timeless. Their designs are still pretty good.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

mikephys said:


> The other day I came across a possible Enterprise Movie design that I loved.
> 
> Someone posted a link to this image in a comment at the Trek Movie rumor mill site. I got excited because I first thought it was made by an artist working on the movie. This would be along the lines of what I feel should be done with the Enterprise for the movie.
> 
> http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2285/enterpriserendersdc0.jpg



FWIW, have no fear that this design has anything to do with the movie. The "Phoenix" was built a very long time ago by Dennis Bailey and is a rather interesting model. I played with it for a while myself. BTW, that is a very early version of my Enterprise bottom left. V2... I;m on V5 now. Every version gets better and better.

And sadly no, I'm not ready to show it just yet.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

PixelMagic said:


> I think Star Wars ships are pretty timeless. Their designs are still pretty good.


As is the original Enterprise. Probably why there are so many derivatives of it.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I love the original design, and believe it should not be messed with
for the new movie.

I also like this concept, except for the nacelle struts. They remind
me of the Sovereign-class Enterprise and don't fit.

The Deflector Dish looks like a Borg Interplexing Beacon.

I would like to have a kit for this ship!
We could make her the new Constellation, on the prowl for any
Doomsday Machines. "She's back, and this time she's out for revenge!"
:tongue:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

jay_barnes said:


> First I'd like to say that Gabe obviously is a brilliant animator, his stuff is some of the best I've seen. I believe it was _his_ 1701-D in the last episode of Enterprise, which looked nothing short of amazing. However, this alternate version of the Enterprise is just plain wrong for the Trek universe.
> 
> Why do so many feel the ship needs greeblies??? As a design element the "greeblies" are way over used, mostly to help lend a sense of scale to the model to help make it believable. To me that was the beauty of the Enterprise, it never relied on that sort of thing as a visual crutch to give it scale, _especially_ the refit version. I think most of the people who like Gabe's design like the fact that all the smooth lines have been broken up to give it a sense of scale. Yes, that's one way to do it, *but*, it does so at the cost of throwing out the look and feel of Star Trek. The same sense of scale can be had by adding paneling, markings, details like thrusters, phasers, hatches, etc. to help make the ship seem believable. Another key element is the way the ship moves, as well as the lighting. Those all work together to give the ship mass and scale. Gabe's design has some familiar shapes, but as Phil said it's trying way too hard to be one, coherent design. Why the need for the odd steps and shapes of the secondary hull and dorsal neck pylon? Why have Batman-esque plating on the rear of the nacelle pylons? And what's with the vertical "window" in the secondary hull for the warp core? The deflector dish is just weird, and looks like a re-arranged antenna/gun array that is on the front of the new Galactica, which the Stargate folks ripped off for their starships. There is just too much design for design's sake with this one. It's too dark and has more in common with the new Galactica universe than Star Trek.
> 
> ...


Please don't try to speak for me (us) as to why I (we) like something.

Astetic interpertation is subjective and I for one feel that it DOES have a place in the Star Trek universe. It does NOT remind me of Star Wars or BSG.

When compared to the TOS E, the TMP E was FULL of greeblie detail, yet the TMP has become just as popular as the TOS E.

What we have here is simply a case for inflexibility.

As for not relying on detail giving away scale (the TMP E was sited) what the heck do you think the windows, airlocks and aztec paint job do.

Also there is nothing in the ships movement that says anything about its size that we haven't seen the TOS or TMP E's do.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Well, I certainly hope I didn't offend with my remarks about the TOS Enterprise. I did not mean to belittle it by saying it was cheesy and hokey. I suppose a better choice of words would be that it looks retro.

And what I mean by that, is that it screams "I was made in the 1960s!", not that it was made in the 23rd century. It doesn't look modern or futuristic for that matter at all.

So what I'm saying is, if they put the TOS Enterprise in the new movie, completely unchanged, audiences won't accept it. Especially the interior sets.

Now, I still believe it should have all the same basic elements, such as warp nacelles, a secondary hull, and a saucer. But they should not look exactly like the TOS Enterprise. It's too outdated for 2007. Just as Scifi ships from the very old Flash Gordon serials would not work in today's scifi designs. They would be laughed at, and whether you want to beleive it or not, so too would the TOS Enterprise in a 2008 feature film.

They made new designs for the Transformers in the new film, for the same reason.

Now, as a major disclaimer before I get flamed, I love the TOS Enterprise, I really do. It is a beautiful ship, and very classic. Heck, I have 3 Polar Lights kits of it in 1:1000.

I hope I cleared up what I meant, because I didn't want anyone to think I hate the TOS design, as that is truly not the case.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hmm. Does "futuristic" mean "streamlined" to most of us?


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> When compared to the TOS E, the TMP E was FULL of greeblie detail, yet the TMP has become just as popular as the TOS E.
> 
> What we have here is simply a case for inflexibility.
> 
> ...


That's because it still looked like the Enterprise we all knew. Saucer, nacelles,secondary hull.. the same CLASSIC lines updated with newer technology.

This ship, while maintaining the shape, destroys those lines. It looks chunky and in my opinion looks smaller that the TOS E, especially the saucer. It reminds me of an armored tank rather than a sleek, graceful vessel. I agree with the BSG comment, it belongs there, not in Rodenberry's Universe.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

All this discussion had made me want to illustrate an updated design, while respecting the TOS design. I know I won't please everyone, but it's just a fun exercise nonetheless.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Just to add to the fun, take a look at the shuttlecraft that would inhabit this Enterprise.
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/shuttle2.jpg


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

BTW, all we are looking at is an alternate (or dare I say...reimagined) Enterprise. We all get emotional about people messing with the design we love and have grown accustomed to over the decades. I don't think anyone's work should be referred to as "schlock" on a public forum.

The reality is that in 2008 someone's version of the Enterprise will be on the big screen. Not everyone will be happy, period.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

mikephys said:


> . . .The reality is that in 2008 someone's version of the Enterprise will be on the big screen. .


Is it a reality? Will the big E even be in the movie?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Hmm. Does "futuristic" mean "streamlined" to most of us?


It did until _2001: A Space Odyssey_. That movie completely changed the way most of us thought about sci-fi space vehicles. For nearly 40 years, most movie and TV spacecraft have had the ultra-greeblied, weathered, techno-functional look. (How do those ships get so dirty in the vacuum of space, anyway?) Maybe another style change is due -- a look that's somewhere between TOS-_Enterprise_ smooth and _Alien_-esque industrial?


mikephys said:


> Just to add to the fun, take a look at the shuttlecraft that would inhabit this Enterprise.
> http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/shuttle2.jpg


Looks like someone forgot to close the hood! :tongue:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

mikephys said:


> Just to add to the fun, take a look at the shuttlecraft that would inhabit this Enterprise.
> http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/shuttle2.jpg



Well, its consistent with the big ship... kinda cool, and yet not at all Star Trek to me.

Is anyone else reminded of the Martian War Machine from the recent WOW movie when they look at those nacelles? There's a striking resemblance.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

PixelMagic said:


> And what I mean by that, is that it screams "I was made in the 1960s!", not that it was made in the 23rd century. It doesn't look modern or futuristic for that matter at all.


I don't agree with that. Sure the old footage looks 60s but not the design.



PixelMagic said:


> So what I'm saying is, if they put the TOS Enterprise in the new movie, completely unchanged, audiences won't accept it. Especially the interior sets.


I _completely_ disagree with you there. I think that is _exactly_ what audiences are hoping to see. :wave:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I _completely_ disagree with you there. I think that is _exactly_ what audiences are hoping to see. :wave:


I assume you're being ironic. The TOS _Enterprise_ interior sets, with their painted plywood bulkheads, sparse detail, and bright, flat lighting, would look TOTALLY fake on the big screen. That's why they had to change the Klingons for TMP, remember? The original striped-shirt bunch looked fine on a 21-inch television, but would have been ridiculous on the movie screen. The shiny bauble on their belt buckles was plastic bubble wrap!


----------



## digger1 (May 6, 2007)

Man, that kid's got talent!

Anyone else feel as though the close flyby at the end the ship was gonna bump the camera?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2007)

scotpens said:


> *snip* Looks like someone forgot to close the hood! :tongue:


Well let's face it, since Scotty left the engineering standards have just gone downhill 

Go easy


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SteveR said:


> Care to elaborate, John?
> 
> (No sarcasm, no nuthin'. I just like hearing people's opinions about design, and would like to hear your opinions, since you make design decisions in your kitbashing.)


 Over-greeblied, paneled all to heck and gone, dark metallic finish, too many unexplainable contours, cutouts and ridges, overly complex shapes .....


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

mikephys said:


> BTW, all we are looking at is an alternate (or dare I say...reimagined) Enterprise. We all get emotional about people messing with the design we love and have grown accustomed to over the decades. I don't think anyone's work should be referred to as "schlock" on a public forum.


I could not agree more. Having an opinion is just fine. Some of the choice words used in this thread is just a bit unsettling though.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

It appears that the artist is using the show "ENTERPRISE" as canon instead of TOS which I don't agree with. Second, as I understand, the new movie takes us with Spock and Kirk just after Starfleet Academy. Therefore, some of you may be getting in a snit over nothing since Kirk doesn't make it to the Enterprise for many years after he graduates. We also know that in STIII the Enterprise was 25 years old. So, the ship was new 5 years before the TOS 5 year mission. If they put Kirk and Spock in the Enterprise, then the 5 year mission starts again with a different cast ala James Bond. The thing about Bond is, there weren't any rabid fanatics as fans who see any changes or the like as sacrilage as Trekkers do. This movie could be the rebirth or death of ST. I say sit back and be surprised. At least B&B got their walking papers and won't screw up *this* movie.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I posted this over on the movie board, but I thought it fit here as well.

the reason this "reboot" is such a hot topic for trekkers is because this is the first time the characters of Kirk and spock are being officially recast.

lets face it, Batman has been drawn by so many different artists and played by so many different actors that the last reboot was , to me, "eh? so what?"

same with Doctor Who (although I'm loving Tennent..I do wish Eccleston had stayed a little longer) same with robin hood, sherlock Holmes and James Bond

there have been new captains, (Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer) and other actors to play Spock (4 in SFS alone...) but this is the first time in our precious franchise that the powers that be will say "see this actor? this is the new and rightful Kirk. With him we are most pleased..."

have any other characters lasted this long in the pop culture and only been represented by one actor?

and thats what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown 

I will disagree with you about Bond, tho...at the time there were HOWLS of protest when Connery was replaced


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I will disagree with you about Bond, tho...at the time there were HOWLS of protest when Connery was replaced


It wasn't that Connery was replaced people were howling about, it was who he was replaced with. George Lazenby? Ugh. Lazenby had a difficult task in filling those shoes, and nearly everything about his portrayal of Bond was controversial.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mikephys said:


> I don't think anyone's work should be referred to as "schlock" on a public forum.


I don't think he really meant it in a mean-spirited way. It's obvious that Gabe has heaps o' talent.

However, you're right that "schlock" is not the word if you merely disagree with the design ethos.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> We also know that in STIII the Enterprise was 25 years old. So, the ship was new 5 years before the TOS 5 year mission.


If the _Enterprise_ was new 5 years before Kirk took command, how could Captain Pike have previously commanded her for 11-years-plus? And Capt. Robert T. April before him, if you take TAS as canon? (I'm aware that most Trekkers don't consider the animated series to be canonical.)

Whether it's technology, chronology, or character backstories, Trek has so many inconsistencies and continuity gaps that I wouldn't object to a complete reboot a la Batman or James Bond.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Uh oh... first the length of the Enterprise was the big debate... now its going to be the _age!_  :tongue:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> It appears that the artist is using the show "ENTERPRISE" as canon instead of TOS which I don't agree with. Second, as I understand, the new movie takes us with Spock and Kirk just after Starfleet Academy. Therefore, some of you may be getting in a snit over nothing since Kirk doesn't make it to the Enterprise for many years after he graduates. We also know that in STIII the Enterprise was 25 years old. So, the ship was new 5 years before the TOS 5 year mission. If they put Kirk and Spock in the Enterprise, then the 5 year mission starts again with a different cast ala James Bond. The thing about Bond is, there weren't any rabid fanatics as fans who see any changes or the like as sacrilage as Trekkers do. This movie could be the rebirth or death of ST. I say sit back and be surprised. At least B&B got their walking papers and won't screw up *this* movie.


That 25 year comment was actually 20 and should not be considered cannon as that only backtracks to about the begining of the series and does not take into account Pike and presumably Aprils commands.

I can't remember exacly, but if we're talking trek cannon.....the ship was built in 2245. TOS takes place about 2263 or so and by ST:III were at 2283 (or so) making the ship more on the order of 40 years old.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Was April ever mentioned in TOS? I don't recall. I know he was in the animated series. But is April canon? How long ago did Spock say the events took place in "The Menagerie"? Anyway, we know Kirk didn't serve on the Enterprise until he took command. So if the Enterprise is 40 years old I guess it was around when Spock and Kirk got out of SFA. We may only see a passing shot of her then.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

scotpens said:


> If the _Enterprise_ was new 5 years before Kirk took command, how could Captain Pike have previously commanded her for 11-years-plus? And Capt. Robert T. April before him, if you take TAS as canon? (I'm aware that most Trekkers don't consider the animated series to be canonical.)
> 
> Whether it's technology, chronology, or character backstories, Trek has so many inconsistencies and continuity gaps that I wouldn't object to a complete reboot a la Batman or James Bond.


I stand corrected. I forgot completely about the 11 years. You're right, ST has had it share of screwed up continuity.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

tobiasrichter said:


> Looks really great! I like the design and the animations - great lighting and motions.
> 
> I have to get back to do some space scenes again - it's been quite a while.
> 
> Tobias


 Key Tobias, were you the guy who used to produce all those trek animations in the 80's for the old home computer Amiga?

Just wondering 

Mike


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> Please don't try to speak for me (us) as to why I (we) like something.
> 
> *>SNIP!<*


Relax. Jay wasn't speaking directly for _you_ with his comments, but was _generalizing_ by giving his _opinion_ as to why he thought other folks like the design. Several folks have even come out and said something very similar to what he wrote. 

Don't take umbrage where no offense was meant, nor given.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Was April ever mentioned in TOS? I don't recall. I know he was in the animated series. But is April canon?


Well, Mr. Roddenberry was pretty set on Robert April being the first captain of _Enterprise_. I don't recall ever seeing it anywhere but in TAS, but I believe that TAS was recently "canonized" per Paramount, CBS or whoever the heck it is that ultimately owns Star Trek these days. So, if you accept that TAS is now canon, then Robert April as the first commander of _Enterprise_ is therefore... er... canon. (I hate that word anymore....)


> How long ago did Spock say the events took place in "The Menagerie"? Anyway, we know Kirk didn't serve on the Enterprise until he took command. So if the Enterprise is 40 years old I guess it was around when Spock and Kirk got out of SFA. We may only see a passing shot of her then.


I don't have my DVD's here, but I think that the 11 years mentioned in "The Menagerie" is how long before hand that "The Cage" events took place.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

I understand that they have a casting call for the Chekov and Sulu characters. Big mistake unless they plan on recasting the crew as they were for TOS. Sulu and Chekov are too young to be with Kirk and Spock in their younger days. I sure would like to know how they plan on pulling this off. It may surprise even the hardcore aficionados. (For you folks in Rio Linda that means an occasionally overwhelming love of something. Such as Star Trek.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

well chekov maybe too young, but Sulu was there in "Where no man..." and was a department head, so it's possible that he could have been a contemporary of kirk's


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> well chekov maybe too young, but Sulu was there in "Where no man..." and was a department head, so it's possible that he could have been a contemporary of kirk's


Kirk-Starfleet Academy, 2250-2254
Spock-Starfleet Academy, 2249-53
Scotty-Starfleet Academy, 2240-44
Chekov-Starfleet Academy, 2263-67
Sulu-Starfleet Academy, 2255-59
Uhura-Starfleet Academy, 2257-61

This according to startrek.com


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

scotpens said:


> (How do those ships get so dirty in the vacuum of space, anyway?)


Space has a lot of dust. Space is also a vacuum. Ponder this and achieve zen, young grasshopper.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

/\/\ Well, those ships do not operate in space solely, we've often seen them dive into the upper atmosphere of a planet, not to mention gas clouds and other types of space environments. They have also gotten quite close to various suns, thus they would display scorching of the outer hull and fading of markings. Then there are the effects of various alien actions against these ships (weapons, etc).

Thus, weathering is perfectly "logical" (if one should dare to coin...).


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Heyyyyyy, there's gotta be air. How else do we hear them shish and shoosh, and beep and thrum when we're on the outside!! I mean....it's really space they're in...right?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Ether -

Pronunciation: 'E-th&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aether, from Greek aithEr, from aithein to ignite, blaze; akin to Old English Ad pyre -- more at EDIFY
1 a : the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space b : the upper regions of space : HEAVENS


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Steve Mavronis said:


> 1 a : the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space


Fortunately Michelson and Morley used their little interferometer to show that the ether does not exist clearing the way for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity... something that makes its way into Star Trek science once in awhile. 
But... the ships still make noise in space. Oh well.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Bah! Next thing you'll be saying there are no such things as phlogiston or the philosopher's stone!


El Gato said:


> Space has a lot of dust. Space is also a vacuum. Ponder this and achieve zen, young grasshopper.


So then, wise master, does nature abhor a lot of dust?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

scotpens said:


> So then, wise master, does nature abhor a lot of dust?


 No. Nature abhors a bear taking a dump in the woods and no one being around to hear it.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

That's "the "POPE" Taking a dump and nobody being around to hear it". If yer gonna mix metasmores (Made with Graham Crackers that go faster than the speed of Chew) Use the puree setting.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Is this the thread about the cool CG Enterprise? I like the phaser effect.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Kirk-Starfleet Academy, 2250-2254
> Spock-Starfleet Academy, 2249-53
> Scotty-Starfleet Academy, 2240-44
> Chekov-Starfleet Academy, 2263-67
> ...



Adm,
I said contemporary, not room-mate  
6 years is not a wide enough gap to disqualify Sulu as a contemporary. I have plenty of co-workers with more of an age gap.

With respect to the "official" website I have to disagree with this listing.
Spock was out in the universe for years with Pike while Kirk still head his head buried in a stack of books


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> With respect to the "official" website I have to disagree with this listing.
> Spock was out in the universe for years with Pike while Kirk still head his head buried in a stack of books


Here we go. Roddenberry is *dead*. He left behind no structure or mechanism for resolving issues of canon. So he had help while he was alive. He's still dead and none of his helpers have the authority to fix the problem. Alas poor Canon, we knew it well.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm not trying to open old wounds and I'm glad in a way that there is going to be a reboot so that a new continuity can be established to sidestep these exact types of problems in the future in what I'm calling "new testament trek"

I got my issues of what I call canon vs. what paramount
has officially sanctioned. ( the animated series is definately canon, for example) But I got one clean and simple rule (call me a fundementalist if you must) when it comes to classic or "old testament" trek...

What is shown or said on screen is the WORD until it is contradicted by something else said or shown on screen. 

Don't care about the books (the lone exception would be something in Roddenberry, Fontana, **** or Justman's own hand), don't care about the website. 

Spock served for many years on Pike's Enterprise before Jim Kirk was captain.

It is highly unlikely that they were at the academy together.

Now, if you are writing a "_new_ Testament" that states Spock met Kirk at the Academy and is the same approximate age..that's all well and good. and if you want to say Spock ran off and served on the Enterprise with Pike while Kirk went to the Farragut, that's cool too.

but admit to the age decrepency in the original and then move on.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Everyone will not be pleased. I remember in 1979 standing in line for STTMP for hours. Then after the Enterprise left spacedock the film fell apart. I thought it was crap as did others, but then some said it was great. Not everyone will agree. Anyway, all remakes aren't exactly the same and why should ST be different? If they want a clean start, or rebootand some say, then do it and don't look back. But, be prepaired to suffer as did the LIS movie which IMHO was unadulterated garbage. LIS had too many changes to sastisfy the fan base and it left non fans scratching their heads saying, what was that? I just want to see the old Star Trek still in the reboot.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Okay. So what has Hollywood done _right_ in this context?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

and you're right. 
a new viewer will not notice, the casual fan will not care, the hardcore fan will never be satisfied.

I'm right there with you on LIS. It was wrong on just so many levels

when the best part of your movie is Matt Leblanc...just hang it up.

the only good line in the entire film?

"...and the monkey pushes the button"

(kinda describes what the screenwriting process musta been on that film)


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Eric K said:


> Heyyyyyy, there's gotta be air. How else do we hear them shish and shoosh, and beep and thrum when we're on the outside!! I mean....it's really space they're in...right?



[From the Simpsons]

--Homer, there's no air in space!

--But, there's an Air in Space Museum!

:wave:


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Remember, no one can hear you scream......in space. The best illustration was "2001" when Bowman went from the pod back to the airlock. No sound what so ever. Perfect, but no one could understand the silence except the hardcore sci-fi lovers who knew what the deal was.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

SteveR said:


> Okay. So what has Hollywood done _right_ in this context?


Battlestar Gallactica was done pretty well in the remake except Starbuck being a women.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> except Starbuck being a women.


And thats subjective as well.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Eric K said:


> That's "the "POPE" Taking a dump and nobody being around to hear it". If yer gonna mix metasmores (Made with Graham Crackers that go faster than the speed of Chew) Use the puree setting.


Uh-oh, we're not bringing RELIGION into this, are we?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

REL said:


> Is this the thread about the cool CG Enterprise?


At some point in the past....



> I like the phaser effect.


Yep.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

REL said:


> Is this the thread about the cool CG Enterprise? I like the phaser effect.



I think the phaser effects look too much (and sound too much) like Old babylon 5 stuff.

This is old too (v3) but this is how the Enterprise fires phasers... IMNSHO. :wave: 

Fire!


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

:freak:


scotpens said:


> Uh-oh, we're not bringing RELIGION into this, are we?


Mmmm. ...I don't think so. I think you have to "ligion" before you can "REligion". Haven't seen any ligions yet, so.......


----------



## Trekfreak (Mar 26, 2005)

*Gabe Koerner's Enterprise*

I love the overall look of the ship and in my opinion if Paramount is to ever bring life back to the Star Trek franchise by putting together a reimagined Star Trek show, then this ship is definitely the new Enterprise. 
So why haven't we heard anything about a model yet? :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Some people love this ship :wave: , others hate it.  

As far as a model goes, it is possible! There's at least one person who'd indicated a willingness to tackle this as a possible kit but it depends on his scheduling plus some better views of sections of the ship which is unclear at this time.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

WarpCore Breach said:


> Some people love this ship :wave: , others hate it.
> 
> As far as a model goes, it is possible! There's at least one person who'd indicated a willingness to tackle this as a possible kit but it depends on his scheduling plus some better views of sections of the ship which is unclear at this time.


I have orthos of the ship if anyone needs them.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

PixelMagic wrote:


> I have orthos of the ship if anyone needs them.


I need them! I need them!! :roll: 

O.K. I don't really _need_ them. I just want them!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

We still don't know if there will be any Enterprise on screen. This may just be the first of several movies, so there may be only Kirk's original ship or if they just go 5 year mission with new cast then there you have it. I just hope there are real models used and not any of that CGI crap.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Geez, I dunno.... I watched both Star Trek and Lost in Space when I was a kid, and I hated LIS by half-way through year 2, but kept watching for the SPFX of the Jupiter 2, and I loved Star trek all 3 years but got tired of the Enterprise.... I'm still unimpressed with the Trek universe ships.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Admiral Nelson said:


> I just hope there are real models used and not any of that CGI crap.



I highly doubt it. Industrial Light and Magic has won the contract to do the visual effects. They are a fully digital (CGI) house now. They sold their model department months ago. I imagine the new ships will be CGI.

As a matter of fact, I'm a CGI artist. I'm actually applying at Industrial Light and Magic in a couple of months, because I want to work on Star Trek. I probably won't be hired, but it doesn't hurt to apply.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Y3a said:


> I'm still unimpressed with the Trek universe ships.


Even the DS9 Defiant? That's like the coolest sci fi ship out there.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

CGI has a long way to go to impress me. Although the remastered ST has come along way, I still like models for movies. It's like MP3 players. Listen to a song on MP3 and then listen to one on a real vinyl record. It's like night and day. It seems that our senses are being dumbed down to accept below par standards for video and audio.


----------



## m5multitronic (May 27, 2005)

Personally (and of course it's only one person's opinion), I strongly dislike this "reimagined" Enterprise. I would be disappointed to see any alteration to the original design, which in my opinion is perfect just the way it is.

And, as far as the original design not standing up to the scrutiny of contemporary audiences, I believe that the Defiant (NCC-1764) from Star Trek: Enterprise kinda disputes that notion. Inside and out, that baby looked fantastic, and very modern.

Again, just my opinion.....


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

They did make some subtle changes to the Defiant 1764 by adding aztec patterns to the hull and a glow to the impulse engines. (Still, I don't remember anyone getting upset about that.)


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

> And, as far as the original design not standing up to the scrutiny of contemporary audiences, I believe that the Defiant (NCC-1764) from Star Trek: Enterprise kinda disputes that notion. Inside and out, that baby looked fantastic, and very modern.
> 
> Again, just my opinion.....


Right on.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

mikephys said:


> They did make some subtle changes to the Defiant 1764 by adding aztec patterns to the hull and a glow to the impulse engines. (Still, I don't remember anyone getting upset about that.)


The TOS Remastered Enterprise also has a subtle aztec pattern & deflector grid. I'm pretty sure that the impulse engines even have the glow, as does the navigational deflector behind the sensor dish with an ever-so-slight blue glow to it.


----------



## bragstone (Apr 14, 2007)

I personally like this Enterprise, and I have been a fan of star trek for over 40 years. For all you Star Trek canon fanatics, don't forget about the alternate reality's like the Mirror universe it's not the only one!, maybe this design came from a really cool universe where everyone respects other people opinions.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Since the time and exspense to make the remastered TOS has taken place, I doubt the powers that be would change the Enterprise much for the movie. If she is even in the movie.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Admiral Nelson said:


> CGI has a long way to go to impress me. Although the remastered ST has come along way, I still like models for movies. It's like MP3 players. Listen to a song on MP3 and then listen to one on a real vinyl record. It's like night and day. It seems that our senses are being dumbed down to accept below par standards for video and audio.


Try using a record player in a car. There is a company (which still exists) which tried for years, failing miserably. You might recognize the name - Motorola. 
:freak: 

Personally, I can hear the difference between an MP3 and vinyl, but it doesn't bother me. For the great majority of what matters, the music is the same - and I'd rather be able to haul my music library around easily and have it, even if it isn't perfect, than to not have it at all. Same thing goes with CGI - I'd rather have CGI effects with more realistic motion than a slightly more realistic-looking model that doesn't seem to move very well.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Since the time and exspense to make the remastered TOS has taken place, I doubt the powers that be would change the Enterprise much for the movie. If she is even in the movie.


That's an interesting point. I hope it's true.


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

I dunno,

the TOS Enterprise just does not in any way look modern to me.....it doesn't matter how they sex it up with subtle glows/grids/aztecing etc......it's still the same old 1960's vision of a starship.....
....i imagine that's why the Enterprise was radically "refitted" for STTMP....you need something that looks big, impressive and realistic ...(sort of) The TOS ship would have looked kind of silly in the cinema....

Star Trek has been lampooned and parodied for decades now.....Star Trek shouldn't fall into the trap of making itself look silly....and leaving itself wide open for all to laugh at....

Gabe's Enterprise goes a long way towards impressing me with those criteria in mind.....

Rich


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

[\QUOTE] Same thing goes with CGI - I'd rather have CGI effects with more realistic motion than a slightly more realistic-looking model that doesn't seem to move very well.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the more common CGI that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well

Jim


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

portland182 said:


> [\QUOTE] Same thing goes with CGI - I'd rather have CGI effects with more realistic motion than a slightly more realistic-looking model that doesn't seem to move very well.


You're missing the more common CGI that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well

Jim [/QUOTE]


Like any of the movies produced for sci-fi channel.......

There is a HUGE difference between the obvious CGI stuff you see there, and the really good stuff you see on the big screen. I have no problems with the CGI that has excellent quality, like King Kong, 300 and the like.

I have no problem with a fleshed-out Original Enterprise either, I just don't like this particular vision of her.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

lizzybus said:


> Star Trek has been lampooned and parodied for decades now.....Star Trek shouldn't fall into the trap of making itself look silly....and leaving itself wide open for all to laugh at....
> 
> Rich


 
"The cynics are right nine times out of ten." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

lizzybus said:


> I dunno,
> 
> the TOS Enterprise just does not in any way look modern to me.....it doesn't matter how they sex it up with subtle glows/grids/aztecing etc......it's still the same old 1960's vision of a starship.....
> ....i imagine that's why the Enterprise was radically "refitted" for STTMP....you need something that looks big, impressive and realistic ...(sort of) The TOS ship would have looked kind of silly in the cinema....
> ...


Yay, you get what I've been saying.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

portland182 said:


> You're missing the more common CGI that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well
> 
> Jim


Then there is the common motion-control or wire-control F/X that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well...go back and watch the original version of "The Doomsday Machine" :freak:

(edit: Yes, I know motion-control F/X didn't exist when DM was filmed, and I didn't say that the DM effects were done with such methods. If y'all want an example of a motion-control effect that I think looks horrible, check out the trio of TIE fighters moving in formation in the first Star Wars movie...and those matte boxes... :drunk: )


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Then there is the common motion-control or wire-control *CGI* that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well...go back and watch the original version of "The Doomsday Machine" :freak:


 How is that CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) in any way?


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

lizzybus said:


> I dunno,
> 
> the TOS Enterprise just does not in any way look modern to me.....it doesn't matter how they sex it up with subtle glows/grids/aztecing etc......it's still the same old 1960's vision of a starship.....
> ....i imagine that's why the Enterprise was radically "refitted" for STTMP....you need something that looks big, impressive and realistic ...(sort of) The TOS ship would have looked kind of silly in the cinema....
> ...


I agree with this 100%. I don't think there's enough fans to keep the franchise afloat anymore so they're going to have to appeal to a new audience. And that means a new..er..old, fantastic ship. 

And personally I take the V'Ger approach to the Star Trek movies, I go to see the ships and technology and think the crew is just parasites infesting the Enterprise, I don't care who plays Kirk, I want to see the ship LOL.

But on another note, if they don't change the ship radically, at least let it do barrel rolls and maneuvers like the Ent E did in Nemesis.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

REL said:


> And personally I take the V'Ger approach to the Star Trek movies, I go to see the ships and technology and think the crew is just parasites infesting the Enterprise, I don't care who plays Kirk, I want to see the ship LOL.


You pesky carbon-based units!


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

I'm amazed how long threads about this design grow. I've had a sort of an epiphany this morning at seeing this thread still active. Roddenberry's vision of his universe was one where warp propulsion had been perfected. All one needs is a pair of nacelles and some impulse engines and one could get from here to there. Since the mechanics were no longer an issue, ship designers were at liberty to use artistic freedom and aesthetics in their designs - make em purdy to look at. Ent D was an attempt at a more graceful ship and it's success or failure as a design is a personal choice - like all art. Klaatu's flying saucer didn't have panel lines all over it, but the door opened anyway. Koerner's amalgam of TOS and Millenium Falcon, like the Akiraprise, in no way reflects that vision. And now TOS has been defaced to erase that vision as well.
I do CGI and visit a variety of graphics fora daily to watch other's work progress and pick up a tip here-and-there. With almost no exception, artists are stuck in the ILM greebled mindset for original ship designs. In fact, artists are needled and prodded _for_ greeble inclusion. Exposed machinery - whether a sensor pallete or a waste pipe - is a _vulnerability_ in that it can be a target.
Don't know where I'm going with this, except to posit that perhaps it's time we, as a society, take the next step beyond the garage-mechanic mindset. CG is an art form where people are criticised if their renders aren't sufficiently artistic. Why can't that aesthetic also apply to their ship designs ?

PS Before I get attacked - I'm not saying anyone else should like it or not. That's your preference. Not saying that I dislike it either. I certainly appreciate the talent and time that went into the work. And I do like it it. I lament the greebled box that designers trap themselves in. That's all I was saying.


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

Be mindfull that what we're talking about is basically Science FICTION/Fantasy......

You have to take into consideration the vast fact that most of us want to see something on screen that wows us.....i personally don't give a crap about technical considerations of whether a greeblie is actually a weak spot in a ships design .....i like to feel the same way i did when i saw STTMP on the big screen in 1979.......or the way i felt when i saw the Empire Strikes Back's Executor at the cinema in 1980....(i mean, realistically...if you're at the bow of that thing and you're asked to take a note to someone on the bridge...that's a journey you have to pack for...),
......BUT i don't care.....

.....if the vessels in any film, be they CGI or Practical (sic) Models, impress me and make me say "Whoa!!!" Then the designers have done their job well....

Rich


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

For those greeblie-minded individuals who dislike the original
Enterprise design as being too smooth, what do you think of the 
real-world NASA Space Shuttles? They're mainly smooth. 
Just some engine bells at the rear.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

RonH said:


> *>SNIP!<*
> 
> CG is an art form where people are criticised if their renders aren't sufficiently artistic.


Like you're doing here...? 


> Why can't that aesthetic also apply to their ship designs ?


As mentioned previously, it's all a matter of personal taste. I like it, you don't. 

And there's no need to be insulting to Gabriel Koerner. If you don't like the design, that's all find and dandy, but there's no need to refer to him and his CGI model as "this fan-boy's wet-dream" 


> PS Before I get attacked - I'm not saying anyone else should like it or not. That's your preference.


Obviously....


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Then there is the common motion-control or wire-control CGI that looks unrealistic and doesn't move very well...go back and watch the original version of "The Doomsday Machine" :freak:


I don't quite get what you mean either. If you're referring to motion-control cameras shooting physical models with multiple passes, that technology didn't exist until _Star Wars_. And it was a dramatic IMPROVEMENT in making model spacecraft move believably -- even if it's physically impossible for vehicles to do all those aerobatic maneuvers in space!


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Griffworks said:


> Like you're doing here...?
> 
> And there's no need to be insulting to Gabriel Koerner. If you don't like the design, that's all find and dandy, but there's no need to refer to him and his CGI model as "this fan-boy's wet-dream"
> 
> Obviously....


Look, I never mentioned Koerner in that reference. You did. That comment had nothing to do with him personally and was never intended to. That is all in _your_ mind. And if you knew anything about the cgi world, you would know that overblown designs are referred to as 'fanboy' creations. Stop looking for negative intentions where none are intended.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

lizzybus said:


> .....if the vessels in any film, be they CGI or Practical (sic) Models, impress me and make me say "Whoa!!!" Then the designers have done their job well....


Why the "(sic)"? That's the correct term, and it's spelled right.


CaptFrank said:


> For those greeblie-minded individuals who dislike the original Enterprise design as being too smooth, what do you think of the real-world NASA Space Shuttles? They're mainly smooth. Just some engine bells at the rear.


Ah, but the Space Shuttle has to be aerodynamic. The _Enterprise_ is a deep-space vessel that normally never enters a planet's atmosphere. The smooth surfaces of the TOS-E are characteristic of nearly all fictional movie and TV spacecraft before _2001_. Matt Jeffries' _Enterprise_ was designed to look both aesthetic and functional, not to actually _be_ functional. A saucer, a fat cigar shape and two engine pods held together by skinny pylons? From a strictly practical point of view, it's a silly design. But it's timeless because it _looks_ right.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

CaptFrank said:


> For those greeblie-minded individuals who dislike the original
> Enterprise design as being too smooth, what do you think of the
> real-world NASA Space Shuttles? They're mainly smooth.
> Just some engine bells at the rear.



True, but the shuttle is wonderfully weathered. In places worse than an X Wing.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

RonH said:


> Look, I never mentioned Koerner in that reference. You did.


What you said was: 


> I'm amazed how long threads about this fan-boy's wet-dream grow.


The context is with regards to Gabriel Koerners Enterprise design, is it not? "this fan-boy's" generally means you're talking about the subject, which was created by Gabriel Koerner. 


> That comment had nothing to do with him personally and was never intended to. That is all in _your_ mind. And if you knew anything about the cgi world, you would know that overblown designs are referred to as 'fanboy' creations. Stop looking for negative intentions where none are intended.


I'm reading it straight from the screen. Regardless of the niche's term for "fanboy", the term "wet-dream" is in itself a negative connotation. Pretend I don't know about the CGI Worlds use of the term "fanboy" - which would be true - and put yourself in my shoes, or even the shoes of a lot of other folks who equally don't know that the term "fanboy" has a contextual meaning outside of the standard English language slang usage. 

Regardless, whether you intended it to be negative or not - or whether it's just in _my mind_ - , it comes across as such. Please keep that in mind.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

REL said:


> True, but the shuttle is wonderfully weathered. In places worse than an X Wing.


Oooh! Nice view of the shuttle, *REL*! Where'd you find that?


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

I read the other day that the Germans broke the speed of light. I saw no mention of it in any of the groups. Weird.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> Ah, but the Space Shuttle has to be aerodynamic. The Enterprise is a deep-space vessel that normally never enters a planet's atmosphere. The smooth surfaces of the TOS-E are characteristic of nearly all fictional movie and TV spacecraft before 2001. Matt Jeffries' Enterprise was designed to look both aesthetic and functional, not to actually be functional. A saucer, a fat cigar shape and two engine pods held together by skinny pylons? From a strictly practical point of view, it's a silly design. But it's timeless because it looks right.


The design may be characteristic of pre- "2001" ships, but I think it 
is not silly. It is clean, and elegant.
It is a functional design, too. 
The crew live in the saucer.
Propulsion is in the secondary hull.
The engines are positioned away from the ship in case of emergency.
They can be jettisoned to protect the ship, and crew.

I believe the design would work for exploration of our solar system.
Let's ignore Star Trek's "Warp" technology and focus on the design.
If NASA built a ship in orbit following the design of the original
Enterprise, we could send crews on longer missions to the moon,
or Mars.

There are chemicals that, when combined, ignite- even in space.
This could be fuel for the ship. If each chemical was stored separately
(one in the port nacelle, one in the starboard nacelle), it could be 
channeled through the engineering hull to combine in the "Impulse
engine". Thrust. And, they could carry more fuel to get around the solar system.
If there were to be a problem like Apollo 13 experienced, (explosion of
fuel), the ship would survive because the nacelles are away from the ship.


The crew could live in the saucer section. Extra food, oxygen, and water
could be stored there. An area for Hydroponics could grow small amounts
of food, and provide a little fresh air.
The secondary hull could hold probes, and L.E.M.'s. Those Mars probes,
Opportunity, Spirit, Pathfinder, could be launched from the ship in orbit.

If the Space Shuttle carried the components into orbit, the ISS guys 
could assemble the ship.

That was the point to the Space Shuttle program, by the way.

I think the Constitution - class is a space - worthy design.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Trying to change the subject...? 

I saw something on it at Starship Modeler. If true the implications are quite interesting. And, of course, theories are meant to be proven or disproven. To be fair to Prof. Einstein, tho, I don't think he was aware of a lot of the science that we've discovered since he wrote his proof. 

Right now, the only real application I can see is much faster communications.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I forgot to mention the Germans:



> 'We have broken speed of light'
> By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
> Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007
> 
> ...


I think the speed of light is just a barrier to overcome, like the sound
barrier. We'll do it. Eventually.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Sounds to me like they're talking about quantum entaglement, which has been done many times now and up to 143 miles apart (I think. I will check that. I just read the article).


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Eric K said:


> Sounds to me like they're talking about quantum entaglement, which has been done many times now and up to 143 miles apart (I think. I will check that. I just read the article).


Quantum tunnelling.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> How is that CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) in any way?


I meant F/X. I think I'm headed for the loony bin... :tongue:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

scotpens said:


> I don't quite get what you mean either. If you're referring to motion-control cameras shooting physical models with multiple passes, that technology didn't exist until _Star Wars_. And it was a dramatic IMPROVEMENT in making model spacecraft move believably -- even if it's physically impossible for vehicles to do all those aerobatic maneuvers in space!


I'm well aware that motion-control F/X were a huge improvement, but some of the motions still look obviously fake to my eye. Much better than the earlier methods, but still imperfect, and still having limits to the range of possible motions.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Quantum tunnelling.


Nope...Quantum Entaglement. Scientifc American, August 2007. Pg. 94 begins the article on Anton Zeilinger and his entanglement experiments. Not sure where I got the distance from, but, I will read further to find out where I got it from. Not sure if quantum tunneling is another name for the same phenomenon though.

Ain't quantum mechanics fun though :freak:

Ok. did some checking:

Quantum Entaglement is the instantaneous transfer of a quantum state regardless of distance between two entagled pair of quanta. Quantum tunneling is the apparent transfer of a quanta from one location to another. This can include the quanta moving through energy wave states and physical matter as well. Since they are talking about transfer of light information from one prism to another, I was thinking Quantum Entaglement.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

> Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.
> 
> For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.


It'd be nice, if communications were fast enough, to know that you'll arrive safely at your destination before leaving.


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

Atemylunch said:


> Central Broadcasting Service(CBS)
> Viacom/Paramount sold it off because they couldn't make any more money with it. So I assume CBS bought it for a song, thinking they could make money with it. Well, maybe 20 years from now they will make some money with it.
> Or in a time when Hollywood starts to write original material again.


CBS actually stands for Columbia Broadcasting System.

And as regards the design, Gabe has put in a lot of hard work and, even though it's not the 1701 we all know and love, it is a nicely realized conjectural design based on one man's imagination and talent. It may not be my cup of tea, but I'm not going to bash it on those grounds. The warp nacelle effects, especially, are very nicely done.


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

scotpens said:


> If the _Enterprise_ was new 5 years before Kirk took command, how could Captain Pike have previously commanded her for 11-years-plus? And Capt. Robert T. April before him, if you take TAS as canon? (I'm aware that most Trekkers don't consider the animated series to be canonical.)
> 
> Whether it's technology, chronology, or character backstories, Trek has so many inconsistencies and continuity gaps that I wouldn't object to a complete reboot a la Batman or James Bond.


Roddenberry initially wanted the _Enterprise_ to be a ship with "some history." The _Star Trek Chronology_ (printed after STIII was released) showed the Big E being launched in 2245. Kirk supposedly took command in 2265. So that would have made her 20 years old by the time Kirk assumed command. Fast forward to Spock's death, which was 15 years after "Space Seed," and the old girl is already 35 years old or so. The Admiral's comment in TWOK that the _Enterprise_ was "20 years old" probably only took into account the fact that the movie was filmed about 20 years after TOS premiered.

However, there are so many inconsistencies in the _Star Trek_ universe that any attempt to reconcile them would result in madness (and a lot of folks already think Trek fans are crazy, so be careful.....).


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> and you're right.
> a new viewer will not notice, the casual fan will not care, the hardcore fan will never be satisfied.
> 
> I'm right there with you on LIS. It was wrong on just so many levels
> ...


I thought Heather Graham was the best part of that movie......


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> The TOS Remastered Enterprise also has a subtle aztec pattern & deflector grid. I'm pretty sure that the impulse engines even have the glow, as does the navigational deflector behind the sensor dish with an ever-so-slight blue glow to it.


IIRC, the impulse engines do have the red glow. The nav deflector, on the other hand, is dark. At least, I've never seen a blue glow. Neither have I seen a blue glow on the warp nacelles.

I remember seeing an animation NovaDesigns did years ago when Matt Jeffries died, which was a dedication to him - and the way he had the _Enterprise_ go into warp was absolutely breathtaking. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see in the remastered _Star Trek_ - the big E leaping forward when Kirk says "Ahead warp factor one." Now _that_ would be very cool!


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

RonH said:


> I'm amazed how long threads about this design grow. I've had a sort of an epiphany this morning at seeing this thread still active. Roddenberry's vision of his universe was one where warp propulsion had been perfected. All one needs is a pair of nacelles and some impulse engines and one could get from here to there. Since the mechanics were no longer an issue, ship designers were at liberty to use artistic freedom and aesthetics in their designs - make em purdy to look at. Ent D was an attempt at a more graceful ship and it's success or failure as a design is a personal choice - like all art. Klaatu's flying saucer didn't have panel lines all over it, but the door opened anyway. Koerner's amalgam of TOS and Millenium Falcon, like the Akiraprise, in no way reflects that vision. And now TOS has been defaced to erase that vision as well.
> I do CGI and visit a variety of graphics fora daily to watch other's work progress and pick up a tip here-and-there. With almost no exception, artists are stuck in the ILM greebled mindset for original ship designs. In fact, artists are needled and prodded _for_ greeble inclusion. Exposed machinery - whether a sensor pallete or a waste pipe - is a _vulnerability_ in that it can be a target.
> Don't know where I'm going with this, except to posit that perhaps it's time we, as a society, take the next step beyond the garage-mechanic mindset. CG is an art form where people are criticised if their renders aren't sufficiently artistic. Why can't that aesthetic also apply to their ship designs ?
> 
> PS Before I get attacked - I'm not saying anyone else should like it or not. That's your preference. Not saying that I dislike it either. I certainly appreciate the talent and time that went into the work. And I do like it it. I lament the greebled box that designers trap themselves in. That's all I was saying.


So...I'm confused. Are you saying that you like the original design of the _Enterprise?_

I've been playing with CGI for a while (don't do it professionally, but I work with folks who do), and I've had the chance to "model" the _Enterprise_. It's still a work in progress (it always is), but I gotta tell you, it's much nicer to see a sleek ship than some greebled-up creation (which implies lack of maintenance or care).

As a real-world example: fighter jets are almost always smooth on the outside. Aerodynamics obviously plays a big part in that, but who wants to have their jet's guts hanging all over the outside? Also, newer jets like the F-22 Raptor have stealthy characteristics. Those would be completely destroyed by open panels or machinery on the outside. And who's to say the _Enterprise_ didn't have some minor signature-reducing components in her hull? Wouldn't you want to look like a shuttlecraft instead of a starship if you're planning on sneaking up on the Klingons? I'm just sayin'.....

And I have no problem with deflector grids or aztec paneling on the TOS _Enterprise_ - as long as they don't start sticking transporter emitters or phaser tubes all over her hull.


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

I wasn't all that impressed with this design when I first saw it. I will say that the more I see it the more I like it. I have a few minor nits like everyone.
The counter ratation of the nacelles, the cut out on the secondary and most importantly, the scale.

As a Federation Starship, of it's own class, I like it. As the Enterprise from Kirk's era, not so much. 
Still, his hard work and talent come through imo.

j


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

loneranger said:


> I thought Heather Graham was the best part of that movie......


that was the biggest crime...they took such a beautiful and talented comedic actress and turned her into a whiney ice-queen. 

there was no need to make her a doctor. the original "Judy Robinson" was an actress on the musical stage. Here she was just another unsympathetic overacheiver from a family of unsympathetic overacheivers.

they could done so much better...(sigh..the wouldn't even leave Dick Tufeld's voice alone.. the had to ruin that, too)


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

loneranger said:


> . . . there are so many inconsistencies in the _Star Trek_ universe that any attempt to reconcile them would result in madness (and a lot of folks already think Trek fans are crazy, so be careful.....).


What??

Who would think such a thing? :freak:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

There are other reasons besides aerodynamics to put working components behind ths skin of a ship. Protection from thermal changes and the vacuum of space (that would alternately freeze and boil any liquids used), micrometorite and radiation damage protection from weapons fire that got through shields, etc.... And Jefferies own contention that the components were all internally accessible because it would be less dangerous and time consuming that spacewalking.

To me, that is a futuristic concept, not a 1960s one.


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

Agreed ND!

j


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

loneranger said:


> IIRC, the impulse engines do have the red glow. The nav deflector, on the other hand, is dark. At least, I've never seen a blue glow.


In the Remastered "The Immunity Syndrome", I think it was, we get a shot of Enterprise inside the Space Amoeba. One of the shots shows what looks an awful lot like a pale blue-ish glow behind the sensor dish. 


> Neither have I seen a blue glow on the warp nacelles.


Nor have I, but I think it'd be kewel if they did.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> *>SNIPPAGE!<*
> 
> To me, that is a futuristic concept, not a 1960s one.


So Say We All!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> So Say We All!


Hahaha... wrong series!


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

I dunno, 

...3 smooth tubes and a smooth saucer......it's just so.....60's

A bit of detail never hurt anyone....look at the Falcon..COVERED in greeblies.....designed in the 70's, looks just as yummy today. Some designs are timeless....others......aren't, no matter how nostalgic we feel.

Redesigns are a good thing, especially for modelers!

Rich


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I guess it depends where you're coming from....

I have the opposite reaction when I see the Falcon. to me it's OK that its overly chunked up because its "supposed" to look like "a piece of junk".

Even Han said "it may not look like much"...


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

I like both looks, for different reasons. The Falcon fits perfectly in the verse it is intended for. As mentioned above, it was supposed to look like it had been modified, repaired, beat up ...junk. But it was the best ship for the job and performed perfectly.

Trek never had that look. I wouldn't think a smooth Star Destroyer or Falcon would look right. Lucas didn't go back and re-imagine the Falcon to be a smooth skinned sleek ship. I don't think (imo) that Trek ships should go the other direction and route conduits and machinery on the outside either.

It doesn't "fit" the verse as it were.

fwiw


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

it's also a matter of scale. One man fighters are going to show more surface detail because you are right up on them. even ships of the Falcon's scale or a real space shuttle are going to show more surface detail.

there are no reasons to put warning stickers on the hull of huge starships. 
for one, if you are smart enough to serve on a Galaxy class ship, you should know not to stand next to the thruster.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> . . . there are no reasons to put warning stickers on the hull of huge starships.
> for one, if you are smart enough to serve on a Galaxy class ship, you should know not to stand next to the thruster.


On the other hand, commercial space vessels of the future will be full of warnings about the most obvious hazards.
[IMG-LEFT]http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/images/ACCwstanintube.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]

Hey, don't blame us! Our lawyers made us put this sign here!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I concur on the signage on the _inside_ of the ship. Lord knows even the 1701-A had plenty of warning signs on almost every piece of equipment and deck plate.

but the outside? The only thing that belongs there are registry numbers and the name. (oh, and a big ole sign that says "you must be _this _ awesome to board this ship" with a picture of Jim Kirk )


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

GNDN. 

In reality, miltary vehicles have instructions and warnings stencilled all over them. Certainly the airplanes do. I've spent DAYS putting the stencilling decals on an F-15 model.

The service mechanics have to know which panel to open to refuel the deuterium tanks, after all. And god forbid some newbie on his first day uses the NON-magnetic spanner on an antimatter bottle access panel!

Heck, even my CAR has a sticker on the window over the gas cap explaining what octane to use.


----------

