# Beyond 1701-A - Our first good look.



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

In Beyond, you can't see the ship very well because of the darkness and also seeing one angle. Here is the ship as it is fully lit and from all angles. This is built by Alexander Klemm (nightfever) and he was gracious enough to allow me to post my renders of his model.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

???? Can't see the renders. Looks like the links are broken.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

They appear fine on my Browser - Chrome on a Win XP desktop


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I see 'em! Totally dig this design; my favorite Enterprise since the refit.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Looks better than the last two, better balance of shapes but still wonky.
Doesn't anybody remember that the aft Hangar Bay is a functional part of the ship instead of this tiny little anal thing? IIRC that was one of the reasons the original ship mesh was upscaled so drastically- they needed an impressive Hangar Deck and the design was only big enougn for a small shuttlepod to squeeze through.

How 'official' are these renders- I am unfamiliar with Alexander Klemm


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Richard Baker said:


> Looks better than the last two, better balance of shapes but still wonky.
> 
> How 'official' are these renders- I am unfamiliar with Alexander Klemm


It is a fan made model, but it's based on references of the studio model. Having seen both, it's 95% accurate I'd say. About as close to official as we're probably going to get until the next film.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I actually like this. It's a shame this wasn't they created and used for the first JJPrise...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

It's not bad, but curse me for a fool if I don't feel it looks like it belongs in the 'Galaxy Quest' universe.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Based on the official model? That is a CGI, did Alexander Klemm get access to the actual CGI? Did he collaborate with the designer? There are details there that weren't visible on the film. Even the designer (sorry forgot his name), interviewed on Trekyards, said that the shuttle bay area was unfinished. He also said it could have been finished after he turned it over to the film animators, but knew it would be completed before the next film (IIRC). 

It is, however, designed at 2500 feet, about the same size as the two earlier incarnations of the ship.

I like the renders, Klemm did a very nice job on them based on what I remember. I would have to compare it to the film CGI to verify bits.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

charonjr said:


> Based on the official model? That is a CGI, did Alexander Klemm get access to the actual CGI? Did he collaborate with the designer? There are details there that weren't visible on the film. Even the designer (sorry forgot his name), interviewed on Trekyards, said that the shuttle bay area was unfinished. He also said it could have been finished after he turned it over to the film animators, but knew it would be completed before the next film (IIRC).



I don't want to overstep my bounds by saying too much, but all I can tell you is that this fan creation by Alexander is highly accurate to the film version. Down to the smallest detail.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> I actually like this. It's a shame this wasn't they created and used for the first JJPrise...


I agree. If they had used this design/configuration in the 2009 movie I think the opinions of the "new" ship would have been at least a little more positive.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Daniel_B said:


> I don't want to overstep my bounds by saying too much, but all I can tell you is that this fan creation by Alexander is highly accurate to the film version. Down to the smallest detail.


Interesting.


----------



## Ducks and Witches (Dec 19, 2014)

If Batman ever had a Starship I guess this would be it. :wink2: Still looks wonky, off balanced and unappealing to me. TOS and Refit are the only designs I've ever really loved.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Richard Baker said:


> Looks better than the last two, better balance of shapes but still wonky.


I agree. It's much better proportioned, but the massive wing-like nacelle struts are too heavy and too far back on the engineering hull. The cove on the underside is still way too long, and the saucer still looks mismatched to the rest of the ship.

I'll pass on this one.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Looks like the nacelle position relative the saucer is very close to the original ship.
It looks similar then from one or two perspectives. Interesting!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Ok, see them fine now. I much prefer this design over the original JJprise. Would love to see this as a kit!


----------



## daytime dave (Jan 14, 2017)

Very nice work. Thank you for posting this nice piece. It's not a bad ship. Good photography.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

IIRC, on the Trekyards episode where they interviewed the 1701A designer (still can't remember his name!), he said that the thick pylons were to reflect Starfleet's not wanting the pylons to be a weak point like the Refit's were in Beyond. He also wanted the rear sweep of the pylons to reflect the rear sweep of the neck for a consistent look.

The only thing that I wonder about is, if the swarm attacked the pylons, and the thickness/width is a factor in determining where they would breach the pylons, that really thin, similar to the Refit's pylons, area near the engines is still such a weak point!

Curious.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It still looks like a MAD magazine rendering of the original TV ship.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> It still looks like a MAD magazine rendering of the original TV ship.


THAT'S IT! :-D

(But I still like it better than the original JJprise with the nacelles way, way too close together.)


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

A better proportioned JJprise.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

Does anyone know if this model is now available for sale? Thanks...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

tab1962 said:


> Does anyone know if this model is now available for sale? Thanks...


I don't think the Abrams 1701-A was ever in a model kit, but one might be able to turn the Revell Enterprise into the A.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

thanks. I will ask a few builders I know in the area...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The secondary hull in combination with the nacelles and struts still look like a woman on her back with her legs spread--from certain angles. I think this was intentional. It is way too "artsy" for my taste and not nearly utilitarian looking. Even the 1701-D looks more utilitarian than this one.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

seems like the refit NCC 1701 and A from the Motion picture are the most popular ships plus the TOS. I have the NCC 1701A in 1/350 size with the cool base - nothing but super complaints thus might pass on the new 2020 ship.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Still a hideous, disproportionate and sloppy reworking of a carefully and artfully designed original. Like a cartoon ship drawn by someone who doesn't know how to draw cartoons. Almost like someone was intentionally _trying _to make it look as stupid as possible.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

The oversize nuciles have been criticize often. I will have the 'E' built for me instead...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> ...Almost like someone was intentionally _trying _to make it look as stupid as possible.


I agree. It was intentional. I'm sure they phrased it in terms like, "deconstruction," "subverting expectations," and the like but it all amounts to a glittery makeover with lipstick, implants, high heels, and a short skirt.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I agree. It was intentional. I'm sure they phrased it in terms like, "deconstruction," "subverting expectations," and the like but it all amounts to a glittery makeover with lipstick, implants, high heels, and a short skirt.


.... on a cross-dressing man!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> .... on a cross-dressing man!


Ha!  I think you have successfully completed the metaphor for me. Thank you, sir!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

One of the things that I find interesting about the design is that the edge of the saucer is 5 decks thick. I know plenty of people will argue that it's only 2 decks. But, observe the dorsal pylon that connects the saucer to the engineering hull: the windows are spaced vertically much closer to each other than the edge of the saucer. Easily, 5 of the dorsal pylon decks would fit into the saucer's edge.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

but maybe the decks on the saucer have 15 foot ceilings and the pylon decks have only 8 foot ceilings!
perspiring minds want to know


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

There should be, like, at least 4 rows of windows on the saucer.


----------



## aussiemuscle308 (Dec 2, 2014)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The secondary hull in combination with the nacelles and struts still look like a woman on her back with her legs spread--from certain angles. I think this was intentional.


you're description reminds me of Battle Beyond the Stars...


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

It's a beautiful render, very realistic and complete. Alas, it's still not "THE" Enterprise. Despite it's creators' protestations, it's still a pig with lipstick. There is nothing graceful about any of the "JJ'Prizes". Also, they need to avoid using breweries when filming interior scenes...

Larry


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

aussiemuscle308 said:


> you're description reminds me of Battle Beyond the Stars...


Yeah, it's definitely following an artsy-fartsy tradition, such as it is, that's been in Hollyweird for a very long time, unfortunately.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Yeah...

Larry


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Whether or not the design is to someones liking really doesn't matter in this case since a) it's questionable there will even be a fourth JJTrek movie and b) even if there is, they will more then likely tinker with the design, making this design obsolete.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

Pro's -- space of struts, size (725 meters), shuttle bay, color (pattern), lights, functionality of the Nacelles
Con's -- body is to damn small, engine covers (Nacelle) too big for the current body


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

spock62 said:


> Whether or not the design is to someones liking really doesn't matter in this case since a) it's questionable there will even be a fourth JJTrek movie and b) even if there is, they will more then likely tinker with the design, making this design obsolete.


yeah, I was really hoping for a 4th movie. Who knows what they will do with the ship.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

but I know this particular model rocks especially with scotch!


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

02-05-2021 Still waiting for Star Trek 4 movie


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

If we're talking about redesigns of the NCC-1701, I still like the Discovery version more than this one.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yup nothing beats the original 1966 TOS Enterprise, but the Disco-prise is not bad.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

actually the movie- I've read they are going ahead and than they say they stopped. I've heard no more Star Trek motion movies but TV series instead.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

USS Discovery NCC 1031 is much better than this ship --- looks similar to 1701 E which was a wicked ship!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

tab1962 said:


> actually the movie- I've read they are going ahead and than they say they stopped. I've heard no more Star Trek motion movies but TV series instead.


Yeah, they're doing the equivalent of floating trial balloons, I think, fishing around for money to produce it. I'd rather it stay buried and leave it for a while until something better and more authentic can be done with the franchise.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

Like Jonathan Frankes direct the new one. He did a great job with first contact which I consider one of the best Star Trek movies...


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

I never met an Enterprise I didn't like.

OK, maybe the "C".


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

Star Trek: Every Version of The Enterprise, Ranked


Star Trek's Enterprise has been through several iterations, but which version is the very best?




www.cbr.com


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

tab1962 said:


> Star Trek: Every Version of The Enterprise, Ranked
> 
> 
> Star Trek's Enterprise has been through several iterations, but which version is the very best?
> ...


Sorry, but NOPE!

NCC-1701. No bloody A,B,C,D,E or refit.

1. TOS
2. Discovery
3. Refit
4. C
5 NX-01
Then all the rest

YMMV


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

mach7 said:


> Sorry, but NOPE!
> 
> NCC-1701. No bloody A,B,C,D,E or refit.
> 
> ...


what about this ranking?









All 11 Versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise, Ranked


The Enterprise isn’t just quintessential to the long history of Star Trek, it’s also one of the most iconic starships of all time. It was the star of the classic series, but later and earlier versions of it also sat at the heart of The Next Generation and Enterprise, and beyond that in film. Now...




io9.gizmodo.com


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I like that one better!


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

Seems fairer to me. The TOS deserves to be number one. I feel the 1979 refit deserves a high spot as well thus dead on! Nice to get more posts on this topic! Was it just me or did the new tv series Discovery kind of suck? I lost interest after the 2nd episode.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

No, it's not just you.
The 1st 2 episodes did suck....
Then it started to get good, at times, very good.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

I watched the TOS as a kid and even the next generation seem below the TOS. The new motion pictures with Chris Pine seem like a young cowboy slinging thru space lol! Soon most of the actors on TOS will be gone.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yup, sad. Time takes all.

For me nothing beats TOS. Almost all episodes are above par for TV, and many are really excellent, ground breaking.
Lots of synergies came together there. Sure there are some real stinkers, only 2 or 3. A very good ratio.

TAS was fun, silly, and had some interesting concepts.

TNG was almost unwatchable the 1st season, 2nd season was a bit better.
Seasons 3-5 are not bad and have some excellent episodes. Seasons 6 and 7 are mostly crap.

DS9 has some very good episodes sprinkled through it. Otherwise it's a sea of mediocrity and forgetfulness.

I gave up on Voyager after 1 and 1/4 seasons. Just drivel.

Enterprise started weak, and continued that way. Season 3 and 4 started to improve, a lot. The finale was a huge letdown.

Discovery's 1st 2 episodes were VERY bad. I came back to it much later, after that it has it's ups and downs, but mostly positive with some excellent episodes. I'm not thrilled with some of the story lines but the "feel" is good. I'm 1/2
way through season 3. They keep moving the ball here, for good and bad.

Picard, well I made it through season 1. Interesting, very pretty, but I somehow feel it was a lost opportunity. Not bad,
and very comfortable seeing familiar characters, but I feel it could have been more. 

That's my view on TV Trek anyway.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

great views! I tried watching stargate but quite after a few episodes- not my cup of tea. I've moved to drama shows like Ozark. Seems like a good director can make or break the show or movie. JJ was good for Star Trek but used way too many over exposure lighting affects...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

tab1962 said:


> great views! I tried watching stargate but quite after a few episodes- not my cup of tea. I've moved to drama shows like Ozark. Seems like a good director can make or break the show or movie. . . .


It took me a few tries to get into Stargate but once I kind of got a good feel for the characters and watched a half dozen episodes or so, I was hooked.


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

I have to give it another try. I love science fiction thus game...


----------



## tab1962 (Jul 13, 2020)

UPDATE folks

The next *Star Trek* film has an official *release date*: June 9, 2023. The announcement *came from* Paramount Studios over the weekend, and was posted to *StarTrek*.com. This will be the first feature film *for* the franchise since the 2016 film *Star Trek* Beyond, directed by Justin Lin


----------

