# Beyond NCC-1701-A (CG)



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Alexander Klemm has finished modeling his Enterprise 1701-A from Beyond. No textures yet, but I figured you might want to get a look at the details. This model is VERY accurate to the actual film CG model. This is what the 1701 should have looked like in 2009 in my opinion. I hope so badly that Moebius decides to do a kit of this beauty.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

It may be accurate, and a good CG job but...Ze googles, zey do nothing!


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

StarCruiser said:


> It may be accurate, and a good CG job but...Ze googles, zey do nothing!


Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Daniel_B said:


> Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.


I agree 100%. Looks fantasic!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Daniel_B said:


> Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.


And someday they'll be saying the same thing about this incarnation of the Enterprise. "Oh, look at those contours. They're _soooo_ 2016."


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

It'd be a lot easier for me to like this design if I didn't know the ship was just going to be destroyed in the next movie. :nerd:


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Captain Robert April said:


> I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.


Preach it brother! Amen...


----------



## Daniel Kaiser (Jan 22, 2015)

Captain Robert April said:


> I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.


And it lacks that balance the TOS Enterprise had.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Yep - you can have it "modern" and "swoopy" (old term, I know), so long as it is well balanced - aka proportional - it will work.

While I'm ragging on this one, this is still quite a bit better than the ST2009 on version...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I'll state for the record (not that it matters) that I like the 2009 (pre-ID refit) better than this version. I liked that it was kind of retro and out of proportion -- maybe because that's what I see when I look in the mirror. :grin2:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Hunk A Junk said:


> It'd be a lot easier for me to like this design if I didn't know the ship was just going to be destroyed in the next movie. :nerd:


I actually like it _better_ after hearing that it will be destroyed in the next movie... 
>


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

A new ship in each movie - why????? It totally belies the notion that the Enterprise is an audience touchstone to the crew, that it is a character of its own.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It is rather difficult to become emotionally invested in a character ship when you only see it intact for several minutes before it is destroyed.

When we lost the Refit in STIII it meant something


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

charonjr said:


> A new ship in each movie - why????? It totally belies the notion that the Enterprise is an audience touchstone to the crew, that it is a character of its own.


There is not a new ship each movie.

Refit - Destroyed in 3rd movie
JJPrise - Destroyed in 3rd movie


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

After having the living crap beaten out of it the previous two.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Captain Robert April said:


> After having the living crap beaten out of it the previous two.


Like in the Mutara Nebula battle with the Reliant?

The JJprise suffers almost no damage in Star Trek 2009.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

StarCruiser said:


> It may be accurate, and a good CG job but...Ze googles, zey do nothing!


IMHO, where this design fails is clashing styles. The saucer has one style while the nacelles, neck, and secondary hull have an entirely different style.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

This doesn't suck.


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

The sharp saucer bevel is appreciated.


----------



## FlyAndFight (Mar 25, 2012)

bigjimslade said:


> IMHO, where this design fails is clashing styles. The saucer has one style while the nacelles, neck, and secondary hull have an entirely different style.


The design has grown on me but I agree 100% with the above. I didn't have an issue with the secondary hull and the nacelles but it looked like they just plunked down a refit saucer to them and called it a day.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I think that in general, the larger an object is, the more straight lines it has. A small building can be quite curved while a skyscraper is pretty straight.

Same with vehicles. If an aircraft carrier didn't need to slide through the water, the hull would be a box.

The original Enterprise was very straight because it was large. These newer designs lose the 'perspective of size'. 

Now, some would say the original pylons would snap off with all the thrust. I can see that argument. In that way the newest design is better. It also has many nice details. And this is a nice model of it.

So the winner? The SW Star Destroyer.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Well, one fact is indisputable: you just can't please all of the people all of the time. Truth is you can't even please all of the people some of the time. Or even some of the people all of the time, for that matter... and sometimes you can't even please some people some of the time...


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

terryr said:


> Now, some would say the original pylons would snap off with all the thrust. I can see that argument.


And that argument misses the point that the warp nacelles are not rockets. Warp drive is a non-Newtonian system, i.e., no thrust, so no snapping of the struts.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

^ Plus, how strong are the materials used to build that old ship? We don't know what "Tritanium" (or was that Tritinatium?) can really handle...so..?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Not to mention, "inertial dampening" fields, "structural integrity" fields that might have been assumed for TOS, but were made explicit in TNG and onward. In TOS, the antenna was called a "main deflector" in Jeffries drawings. But, this had nothing to do with the shields. JJTrek has all the shields failing because they depend on the dish to function.

The TOS pylons might snap in a Newtonian system under impulse power If there is no inertial dampening field. People didn't think such thing might exist, so physicist said the pylons wouldn't work. With the control of mass and inertia and gravity, you only need to design for the system's least powered state.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

^ Actually - the dish was always referred to as the "Main Sensor" by Jefferies. Deflectors were never really called out on any of Matt's artwork.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

StarCruiser said:


> ^ Plus, how strong are the materials used to build that old ship? We don't know what "Tritanium" (or was that Tritinatium?) can really handle...so..?


Painted Transparent Aluminum.
Yep ?!
-JimG.G.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

For some reason I thought Main Deflector. But, you are right, Main Sensor.


----------

