Star Trek related - I may get slammed for this..


Master Member
When the new Trek film first came out I thought the design of the Enterprise was decent, but was never crazy about it.

Anyhow, this week I started on a concept design project for, of all clients, Paramount -Star Trek II promo, and in the middle of the project I took a break and looked at all of my Enterprise models on my display shelf.
Small TOS Enterprise model along with the larger Diamond Select.
Small hotwheels Enterprise Refit with the larger Diamond select refit.
And the new Playmates Enterprise along with the smaller BluRay giveaway Enterprise (which is surprisingly detailed for a BluRay giveaway) .
The angle of the newest Enterprise happened to be a perfect profile shot with the light shining behind it giving off a perfect silhouette. All of a sudden I realized, that's actually an awesome design.
Awhile back I always though the front of the nacelles were too thick, but after seeing the profile shot I think it works well.
I also remember the longest time I couldn't stand the thin fragile looking rectangular nacelles on the TMP refit...but eventually the design grew on me and it became my favorite.
My only small gripe about the new enterprise would be that the nacelles arent spaced enough apart.

The new Enterprise along with the refit are now my two favorite enterprise designs.
I think Ryan Church did a great job on this design and I dont think he got enough credit for his efforts.


Sr Member
My only real gripes with the new design are, as you stated, the nacelles are too close together. Looks fine in side view, but when you see above it doesn't look right to me. It makes it look sort of "top heavy"? Doesn't have a nice front/back symmetry.
My other problem is that the secondary hull is too swept forward. It comes too far forward from the neck, and the angled sweep along the bottom goes too far forward too.

These didn't bother me one bit when watching the movie though. It has to be at the right angle for me to notice it. I like a lot of the other design changes, like those chunky nacelles, and the saucer section looks just fine.

You're never going to please everyone. Some fans are going to complain if you make any change at all, and some people probably would have complained if they'd stuck too religiously to the original design too.


Sr Member
It's a beautiful ship.
Hope you can share your involvement at some point down the line.

SSgt Burton

Sr Member
When I first saw pics of the ship leaked online, words like "abomination" immediately sprung to mind.

Took me two and a half years to get over it. :lol

I don't mind it all now really. I just wish they hadn't gone with the "souped up hotrod" look for the nacelles. If they had just put on the same nacelles as the other ships had it would have been perfect.

And I understand that this was supposed to be "bigger/better/badder" blah blah blah...

There comes a point where the exaggeration of size=strength goes too far and it becomes more of a caricature. Like drawing impossibly oversized wheels on a drag racer in which the car itself points downward at a 60 degree angle.

The rear section (just before the shuttle bay) could be a wee bit longer for my taste, but this is no big deal at all.

Otherwise I actually like the design of the ship.



Well-Known Member
When Roddenberry originally requested a design for a starship, he emphasised that it be believable. Designers today seem to try to go for the WOW factor more than what would be believeable.

When I see this-

I think of this-

The designs are simple, sleek, and are what they are meant to do.

Now, when I first saw this-

With it's swept back support pylons, I immediately thought of this-

These designs both still have that feeling of movement without going anywhere, but the starship had lost edgeiness.

Now we have this-

Which simply goes for the WOW factor like this-

I'd like to see something more believeable again.
Last edited:


Master Member
I too am a fan of the new design. I only with that the nacells were sitting higher, with the bottom of the warp engins abouve the saucer section.


Sr Member
i didnt care for the design so much, then the whole "scale" issue came up in the movie and i liked it even less.

Michael Bergeron

Legendary Member
I'm with BAK55 except my favourite version is the TMP. I think the thing that bothers me the most about the nu-trek version is the chrome on the front of the nacells. Who the hell puts that much chrome on a utilitarian vehicle like that?

I do think they're too big though.

Vermithrax 4

Well-Known Member
I can't stand the Abrams Enterprise. What's with the saucer support pylon sweeping alllllll the way to the back of the secondary hull? It just doesn't have any grace about it at all, which is the main reason I've always hated the Next Gen Enterprise, it's nacelles are so...stubby. They should have been at least a third longer.

Now, TMP Enterprise...there's a ship with beauty and grace. Her swept back nacelle supports, the large saucer, the torpedo bay, the smooth dish....her lines just scream speed, power and grace.


Sr Member
Lines that scream speed? I guess if you think physical shape in the vacuum of space matters, sure.
No. Thanks for condescension, by the way. Makes everyone think you're really smart.

A visual representation of speed and size in a narrative that is based in a visual medium need no explanation for its effectiveness, regardless of any literal considerations that might be unnecessarily placed on the design.

Star Trek is not a documentary about the far reaches of space. It's a metaphor. The further they travel to "strange new words," the deeper is their inward exploration of the human spirit.

Sorry all you can think about is that an equally unrealistically-shaped model from the sixties looks more "REAL."


Master Member
I think the thing that bothers me the most about the nu-trek version is the chrome on the front of the nacells. Who the hell puts that much chrome on a utilitarian vehicle like that?
I could be mistaken but I dont see any chrome on the front of the nacelles.
Maybe you're thinking of the tinted transparent domes that look a bit like chrome when the nacelles are off?

On a side note, the only enterprises that really grab my interest are TOS, TMP and the new enterprise. I think all other incarnations of the Enterprise are horrible.
Especially TNG, with it's over sized oblong saucer, tiny flipper like nacelles, stubby body, the tiny pilons which jut out horizontally and then gradually curve up to a 90, and the overboard amount of windows (which appear to be about 20 feet long each)
The TNG enterprise reminds me of Stewy from family guy...Giant head, tiny body.


Well-Known Member
I like the details of the new ship but not the proportions. They just seem way off. A while back I took a side view and modified it to proportions that I thought were more ballanced.

What I did was enlarge the saucer. Slide the saucer and neck forward on the secondary hull. Enlarged the height of the secondary hull, but not the length. And finally, shortened and narrowed the nacelles.

To me this seems a lot more ballanced.


Kerr Avon

Master Member
A visual representation of speed and size in a narrative that is based in a visual medium need no explanation for its effectiveness, regardless of any literal considerations that might be unnecessarily placed on the design.
Right, Star Trek is about the people and the things they do. So why all the complaints about the aesthetic when it is wholly irrelevant to the movie? I liked the Borg because they really cut things down to the truth of space travel, shape is irrelevant. Also, the lens flares were limited in the Borg ship or they offer to implant sunglasses for free.

Me I like the Agememnon from "Babylon 5" or the Liberator from "Blakes 7" Ships that scream shape doesn't matter in the vacuum of space. Just because you put racing stripes on a ship doesn't mean it goes any faster in space. It's purely about the mass of the ship and the output of the engines, shape is pointless.

Vermithrax 4

Well-Known Member
Shape is never pointless, whether in fiction or reality...because we're humans and as humans we aspire and are attracted to things of grace and beauty, in short things that we feel represent the qualities we want our ships to project. We want to be proud of the vessels we design both from a functional AND an aesthetic standpoint, which is why mankind builds seagoing vessels that are not only hydrodynamic but are also beautiful to behold, even though that beauty has nothing to do with the functional nature of the ship. People live and work on vessels and are intricately and emotionally linked to them, thus they want to be proud of how their ships look. It has always been that way and always will. The day we lose it is the day we become as heartless and lacking in artistry as the Borg. So yeah...aesthetics matter quite a bit.

Vermithrax 4

Well-Known Member
Oh, and incidentally, DBHS....your modified Enterprise is FAR superior to the original. Take a bow, it looks great. :thumbsup