Oh no! The crew of Voyager must been in big trouble too!Jeyl said:
Kevin
Oh no! The crew of Voyager must been in big trouble too!Jeyl said:
Kevin
Ugh, the more I look at it, the more I hate it. I take back my previous comment...it's hideous!
Honestly still pics really do make it look wonky, however in the film (and constantly moving) it doesn't look so bad (to me at least). There are only a couple of shots in the movie that are from a bad angle.
Kevin
I still think it's as crap as ever. I can't stand the proportions: the reduced-size secondary hull and the way the neck tries to reach the butt end of that hull. It reminds me of all that bugs me in contemp. car design; headlight assemblies trying to sweep back to the wing mirror and all that rubbish.
Plus it's over-streamlined, thus making the original one look the more believable spaceship, as someone else pointed out.
Oh, I had the same issue with Voyager as well. What's the point of having the nacelles tilt? What are the benefits of the nacelles being down that warrants moving parts? What if the mechanics of moving them break?SSgt Burton said:
Oh no! The crew of Voyager must been in big trouble too!
Kevin
I stand by my fundamental design philosophy that anything that moves, will break. That's why I liked the original design so much was because the exterior is very well organized with a lot of the important stuff being "internal".
ive never liked the moving parts on the voyager ship, i once asked someone 'who knows these things' why they move and i was told its to create a different shape warp bubble around the ship so it was able to reach the speeds of larger ships......
or so i was told
.
Liked the design, loved the movie. Tired of the bitchin'
From hell's heart I stab at thee!!! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!
Hated the design, hated the movie. Tired of people liking itHotshot said:
I enjoyed the movie, props and uniforms I can deal with, im just not happy about the big E design, inside and out.
Ill always have the refit though, my love
To me, every Trek ship has elements I like and dislike. Part of that is down to the filming angles. All the Enterprises have really looked their best from maybe two angles at most as at other times they just look kind of weird.
As for the JJ design, I admit I was curious but didn't quite fully warm up to the design until I got the Hot Wheels diecast (I already had the Playmates toy). The Playmates ship just looked weird to me and I didn't fully realize it until I got the Hot Wheels ship and noticed that the Playmates ship is scrunched up front to back. The HW version being a little more stretched out looks better to me, kind of with an element of "Excelsior" thrown in but without looking like an NBA basketball player in the process (like the Excelsior does on some angles).
There are some minor things on it I still don't like, but it is a nice update to the design IMHO and still looks like the Enterprise. The interior silliness is what I had more of a problem with than the external look of the ship itself (please get rid of the brewery engine room and the lens flares for the next film!).
I was gonna comment, but darthgordon said everything I wanted to.
I personally love the original and refit, thought the more I see awesome builds of the original the more that one edges forward in my favourites.
But what do I know? I'm one of those weirdos that thinks the Ambassador class is beautiful.
The JJ-prise is an exaggerated grotesque characature.
Bloated nacelles mounted well out of balance.
Structural beams blocking the hanger bay! watch out on final approach.
The bridge is a mall boutique.
Engineering is beyond words to describe how un-starship like it is.
Matt Jeffries and Roddenberry were both pilots and military men.
They knew instinctively what real vessels of service look.
The people that designed the JJ-Prise were clearly not cut of such cloth and
it's painfully obvious.
The TOS E looks lke something out of Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works.
The JJ-Prise looks like something drawn by a street artist who draws your kids with big cartoon heads.
Well said!!!CessnaDriver said:
I liked the Enterprise C.Angelus Lupus said:
I'm one of those weirdos that thinks the Ambassador class is beautiful.
Kevin
I like the JJ Prise......i feel sometimes that there's too much rigidity in Trek design, too much, "oh....no,no,no....that won't do at all...."
I liked that the Nu was....different....daring.....unusual, but retained that essential Star Trek-ness....like the Excelsior. I feel a lot of "accepted" Trek ship designs miss the mark far more than the JJ does....like Voyager, Defiant, Ambassador Class......
But, it's just an opinion and it's all about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
Rich
Yea, I totally get that! Once the Defiant came on the scene, I gave up and just started accepting the designs for what they were. I do like the fact that most designs do fit into the world, but there are those oddballs like the Defiant.
The first time I saw the Ent-E on screen, my jaw dropped. It was so new, but had all those great elements, like the pylons. I'm a sucker for any Federation ship with long legs.
But, to each there own. I could go on for days over the design of the newer looking ships in the SW prequels, but that's another thread.
I WOULD like to see reddish orange bussard collectors and a slight shrinking of the nacelles overall. The brewery was a neat idea, but poorly exectued. I get the boiler room idea, but come on, feed bin warp cores? Yuck . . .
Actually, the official-"unofficial" explanation for why Voyager's nacelles moved was to avoid the "Warp Speed Destruction" effects seen in the TNG episode where they find that Warp Speed is destroying the fabric of space. Later ships don't have bending nacelles because they found another way to fix the problem.J Scorn said:
Mmmm-hey!
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis of the JJ-prise, but Jeffries and Roddenberry designed the Enterprise before NASA designed the first Space Shuttle - hence the JJ-prise looks more Space Shuttle than Aircraft Carrier.CessnaDriver said:
In terms of Military-designed gear, the Navy's ships have always been ugly and utilitarian - even today. Now the Airforce, on the other hand, has some nice kit.
Haha! It is a great sig :P!!! I didnt see that until now though. I was emailed this in response to a christmas email describing what was going on in my life over the last year...Flagg said:
Ive been using that as my sig line on here for years now.
Cheers mate!
Gogatos
I agree.TheDoctor said:
I can appreciate the sentiment that the original Enterprise had a real-world ship style, but then again that was based on the real-world concept of space crafts during the mid to late 60's.
Any new technology's first incarnation is going to be more practicality than style....As technology improves, more design aspects will be added.
Look at what jets looked like when they were first invented, and look at what they look like now.
Is one more real-world than the other?
I liked the new Enterprise just fine. It looked awesome on the big screen. The original and the Refit are still tops, though.
Exactly. Perfectly explainedDARTH SABER said:
I agree.
I can appreciate the sentiment that the original Enterprise had a real-world ship style, but then again that was based on the real-world concept of space crafts during the mid to late 60's.
Any new technology's first incarnation is going to be more practicality than style....As technology improves, more design aspects will be added.
Look at what jets looked like when they were first invented, and look at what they look like now.
Is one more real-world than the other?
More like this...
And yes that is an actual flying aicraft.
I think it flys by repelling the earth through pure ugly.
Reply with Quote
