JJ ABRAMS Enterprise

[dualedge]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I'd venture that what is more important than the design is how they use the ship in the movie. IMHO, the only movie to nail a starship battle 100% was Wrath of Kahn. It really felt like two BIG ships were duking it naval style versus all the usual more aerial dogfight style battles that work better as inspiration for Star Wars.

And I'd just like to say I'd like to see that Enterprise J in action... I always thought jumping farther into the future with a subsequent series would be cool but I guess nobody at Paramount agrees seeing as how they keep going back (i.e. Enterprise and this new TOS pseudo-reboot style flick.)

 

[franz bolo]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I read some of the comments online and they make me laugh! :lol I keep waiting for someone to post a better, original, design of the ship somewhere but only see tweaks of the current design.

It's a daunting task to come up with a new design. I doubt any of the armchair critics will step up to the plate. I can guarantee you that almost all of them will go see the movie!! :lol

FB

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

The more I look, the more I like. Sweeping lines, Big warp engines, (This is the first STAR-ship after all). Seems okay to me. I'm already trying to work out the lighting for the model!

 

[Solo4114]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I'd venture that what is more important than the design is how they use the ship in the movie. IMHO, the only movie to nail a starship battle 100% was Wrath of Kahn. It really felt like two BIG ships were duking it naval style versus all the usual more aerial dogfight style battles that work better as inspiration for Star Wars.

And I'd just like to say I'd like to see that Enterprise J in action... I always thought jumping farther into the future with a subsequent series would be cool but I guess nobody at Paramount agrees seeing as how they keep going back (i.e. Enterprise and this new TOS pseudo-reboot style flick.)

I'd agree with the first part of that. The ship design is important on a subtle level, but if the script/story rocks, and the battles seem plausible, the ship design stuff will be less of an issue.

 

[nickytea]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I'd agree with the first part of that. The ship design is important on a subtle level, but if the script/story rocks, and the battles seem plausible, the ship design stuff will be less of an issue.

Stop speaking logically, all of you! That's not what this thread is for!

 

[Solo4114]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Sorry!

Seriously, though, the design IS important. don't get me wrong. If you're watching the film and the whole time you're just totally taken out of it because the design doesn't work, then that's design that failed.

But ultimately, the designers have to identify what they're trying to do -- which may be the real problem.

Are they trying to make people simply respond with "Whoa cool! That looks awesome and really futuristic and stuff!" or are they trying to make people say "Wow!! Look how they changed the ship! Neat!" or are they trying to make people get lost in the movie and appreciate the film as a whole?

To my way of thinking, the whole purpose of the design of, well, everything OUGHT to be to immerse the viewer in the story. Unless, of course, your story sucks at which point the design takes on other purposes like generating controversy (and thus news coverage), or drawing enough attention that it effectively hides the otherwise crappy story.

It strikes me that a lot of films get caught up in the visual design of something and the "Whoa!! Cool!" aspect while failing to realize that that kind of reaction only lasts about 20 seconds after which you're left with the story/script. In the end, no movie, no matter how friggin' cool it looks, can avoid the underlying story elements. You can mask it with neat f/x and models and CGI and such, but if the story sucks, the story sucks.

 

[JBReplicas]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I like it, its not the TOS 1701 or the refit 1701-A but it shouldn't be. It has to appeal (or at least try) to fans of the originals who can immediately look at it and recognise it as The Enterprise as well as people who are new to the whole franchise

 

[nickytea]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

or are they trying to make people get lost in the movie and appreciate the film as a whole?

To my way of thinking, the whole purpose of the design of, well, everything OUGHT to be to immerse the viewer in the story.

In all seriousness, your are 100 percent correct. The way it is used in the film will be the importance. Once the whole film is out, then we can REALLY argue. Separate the men from the boys in the world of discourse. :lol

My last quip was sarcasm from how displeased I am with the immaturity of a lot of these responses.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Oh, I know. Although I don't see the posts here as immature really. Just expressions of dislike or support, basically. I mean, on its face, the design WILL have an impact. that's to be expected, especially with longtime fans. This or that minor detail will please or displease this or that fan. But I think ultimately, while we may have our initial reactions to this just as we would to "OMG is that Harold from Harold & Kumar as SULU???", the real question will be how well does the film as a whole do at making us forget our reactions and get sucked into the film.

If the film can do that, I won't care if I think the ship looks ugly. If the film CAN'T do that, though, and the ship design is purely to "look cool" and make me forget about the fact that the film sucks, I will be doubly pissed. First because the film won't be good, but second because I HATE when filmmakers treat audiences with such contempt.

 

[phase pistol]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

OK some folks seem to think those of us "diehard" fans, don't like the new ship simply because "it's not what we're used to", or "it's new so we hate it." :lol

Let me explain a bit of history.. Matt Jefferies designed the original Enterprise. He studied existing spacecraft designs, future projections and science fiction artwork. A lot of practical thinking went into "how would this actually work". Ideas were discussed such as "The engines are probably dangerous to be around, so let's hold them out away from the ship", "the primary hull has to be a pressure vessel, so let's make it a sphere". That sort of thing.

When the ship was redesigned in the late Seventies, some pretty wild desigs were tried, designers like Ken Adams and Ralph McQuarrie were called in to see what they could do with it.

Eventually thogh, it was decided to stick with a design pretty close to what they had originally. Matt Jefferies contributed some ideas too, such as the swept-back warp engine struts. Again, decisions were made with engineering practicality in mind... does this LOOK as though it might actually work.

Anyway my point being... now we have the Abrams design. Now eventually we may hear from the designers of this thing, what actually went into it, what was considered and rejected, and other insights into the thinking involved. But at first glance, to my mind, it seems more like style over substance, form over function. Angles and curves changed for purely arbitrary reasons.

Those nacelle struts are a case in point. WHY are they shaped like that? It's not a swept back wedge for strength. It's not a straight ilne like you'd expect on a SPACE craft. It's just... like that for no apparent reason.

Now then, having said that, I did find some hints of the Abrams Enterprise in some of Matt Jefferies' rejected design sketches.

And it has been stated (by somebody, I forget :lol) that the USS Kelvin is based on another rejected early Matt Jefferies design.

If that turns out to be what they were doing - picking among early Jefferies designs, hoping to lend some "legitimacy" to their new ship - well I would hasten to remind everybody that these early designs could have been rejected for reasons. :unsure

"Looks like a duck", indeed.

- k

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I like it.

While I'm not a super hard-core fan, I did grow up with Trek... and have watched everything except Voyager. To me, they have been faithful to the original. The 60's design influences are evident.

I think the film is going to be great.

 

[dualedge]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Those nacelle struts are a case in point. WHY are they shaped like that? It's not a swept back wedge for strength. It's not a straight ilne like you'd expect on a SPACE craft. It's just... like that for no apparent reason.

I don't mean to argue... granted we're all entitled to our opinions... this statement though strikes me as odd. I understand all of the thinking that went into the designs that you explained - and thanks for all the visual reference too - but if you were to base everything on purely utilitarian interests alone, we'd all be driving cars with no aesthetic differences. They'd all have the utilitarian slanted surfaces, wheels and no unique design elements.

The Enterprise doesn't have to have perfect cylinders for the nacelles and the engineering section, a perfect disk for the saucer section and straight, plain jane struts to hold it together for the design to be faithful does it?

There's always going to be some element of design aesthetic or when two designs offer the same structural integrity, a debate over which is preferable.

I don't mind if folks don't like the new design at all... I'm more interested in what they do with it in the movie myself.

Personally, I've always thought the design of the Enterprise was... kind of weird and completely impractical but that's based more on my sense of aesthetics than on anything logical.

 

[konar]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

It's really growing on me. I can't wait to see more detail.

 

[MattMunson]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I think I like this thread slightly more than the one where everyone was photo-chopping pics of the Routh Superman suit. yikes.

 

[phase pistol]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I hear you dualedge, but design is a combination of form AND fuction... purpose AND ornament. It is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man... :lol

To be sure, space craft from science fiction films can look ilke ANYTHING. Real spacecraft either have to return to Earth, and thus have aerodynamic considerations...

...or else they are built to fly entirely in the vacuum of space. These latter spacecraft can have purely practical designs, although some still retain a sense of style and eerie elegance.

Personally, as a designer myself and a "fan" of space technology, the spaceship designs I respond to, are the ones that seem to have a whiff of practicality. They might not actually fly if you built them, but they try to look as though they could.

In the case of the classic Starship Enterprise, we have several practical considerations... the saucer section, where the crew is housed, has the capacity to enter an atmosphere. The Enterprise saucer is a lenticular design, which could plausibly operate in an atmosphere, but it also evolvd from classic saucer spaceships seen in pulp sci fi magazines.

Another tradition in SF is cigar-shaped spacecraft.

The Enterprise is revolutionary because it merged saucer and cigar designs. The ship never lands intact on a planet, so she is a creature of free space... the saucer and nacelles are held majestically up, and the ship appears to soar even in still images.

Anyway... what I'm saying is, I like a ship where it seems like the production designers have spent at least an afternoon thinking about this stuff. :lol

In case you're interested in the realities of space travel (sorry, no FTL), a great site is

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html/

The site is probably TOO harsh on the more imaginative spaceship designs... but there's a lot of good info there on the present understanding of what would be invovled in "real" space travel.

- k

 

[Mechamaniac]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

For the love of Pete will someone fix the title of this thread? The spelling around this place is atrocious. :sick

 

[Onigiri]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Its not spelled wrong...in the new reimagined universe thats how it is SUPPOSED to look.

For the love of Pete will someone fix the title of this thread? The spelling around this place is atrocious. :sick

 

[phase pistol]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I just thought it was hilarious that we'd go on for 24 pages arguing the tiniest details of the ship, but nobody cares how the director's name is spelled. :lol

 

[Carson Dyle]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

The Enterprise is revolutionary because it merged saucer and cigar designs.

It's perhaps worth a mention that pulp magazine illustrators were merging saucers and cigars in Enterprise-esque configurations twenty years before the notion struck Matt Jefferies. Not trying to diminish the man's accomplishment, I'm just sayin.

 

[Serafino]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Well yeah, what goes around comes around.

I just thought it was hilarious that we'd go on for 24 pages arguing the tiniest details of the ship, but nobody cares how the director's name is spelled.