What's up with modern ship designs?

Obviously I'm using trek and wars as the motivation for this thread but it seems like the modern designs are all garbage. I think the only ship I've liked in the entire disney wars catalogue has been that bounty hunter ship from rebels (the frienemy of sabine) everything else they've has been derivative of mcquarrie, the OT or just simply lazy.

The same goes for jjtrek.

I think the last really cool ship I liked was the destiny from Stargate.


What's going on?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

My opinion as far as SW is that Lucas was keeping the look of the universe cohesive. He had a bunch of people designing, but he would go and okay designs or mix parts from different drawings. Now you have a bunch of people who want to make their own mark on SW and put forward their own designs, and you have the director or who knows picking the final designs. Maybe not, but that's the only way I could see such bad designs as the TFA shuttle, TIE Fighter, and landers being the designs that won out. All they had to do was go through any SW book and they'll find better EU TIE designs for an advanced TIE or assault shuttle.

For better or worse, McQuarrie's designs basically are the Star Wars aesthetic. So, aping him is, in my opinion, the right choice. Deviate from that too much, and it stops looking instinctively like Star Wars to the audience. Take, for example, the designs by Doug Chiang in TPM. Most of that work looks...well, actually, pretty damn cool. But to me, the bulk of it doesn't really say "Star Wars." The only ship I can recall that said "Star Wars" to me was the cruiser Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon arrive on. Everything else in the film looks like it's from some other movie series. You see less of that as the series progresses and design starts to conform closer to what was seen in the OT, but even that stuff looked...I dunno...kinda off. The ARC-170s, the Jedi starfighters (Eta and Delta class), the Republic Cruisers, they all just look a little...hmm...not quite right to me. Like, their design doesn't naturally dovetail into what you see in the OT, to me. Even with some intervening years.

They're perfectly interesting designs, in my opinion. They just don't all say "Star Wars." I mean, they do NOW, because you have them IN Star Wars, but I think ships like, say, the ones seen in the X-wing Alliance game look way more "Star Warsy" than what you see in the PT.



I liked the ships in Interstellar, but I might be a little biased there. I also liked the Milano but generally I would agree. I haven't seen anything recently that makes me want to build it as a miniature. I think all the designs in TFA and the new Trek have been terrible. OooOo look the Falcon has a rectangular dish...really?

The TFA stuff, I think, is meant to be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. It's meant to be visually, and INSTANTLY recognizable as "Star Wars." And not in ways like "I guess if you squint, you could kinda see how that sorta looks like an X-wing..." I'm talking, the ship shows up and you just say "Yup. That's Star Wars!"


There are other films that showcase ships, but I think a lot of them are...hmm...too busy in their design, or where the role of the ship in the film just isn't that critical. The emotional connection isn't there the way it was in the OT. In the OT, we cared about the people who were in the ships trying to accomplish something, whether that's escape an Imperial blockade, blow up the Death Star, or trip up an Imperial walker. We cared that Solo had been taken away by Boba Fett's weirdly shaped ship. We cared that the Emperor was arriving on a shuttle with fold-up wings.

By comparison, consider the ships in Jupiter Rising. Do you remember them? I sure don't. When I look them up, tehy just look...I dunno...like generic sci-fi ships. But that's because the film itself, while visually stunning, was kinda...meh. And, more importantly, the ships don't play a huge role in the film. Like, there's no set-piece battle featuring XYZ ships.

You can look at other stuff like, say, the Gundam series or the various Macross series. Ship and vehicle design tends to be pretty believable within the universe, and also visually distinct. But what matters more is that (a) you care about the story that's happening and the characters to whom it's happening, and (b) the equipment/ships/vehicles/robots all play a really prominent role in that story.

Kylo Ren's ship is visually stunning, and I remember it clearly because it exudes a sense of evil, and that promise is made good upon by Kylo Ren's actions. In that sense, his ship is memorable to me because I have an emotional connection/response to it. Without that? It's just a ship design.
 
Are you familiar with the Halo series at all? Curious what you think about the designs present there, ships like the Forward Unto Dawn and Pillar of Autumn are pretty interesting to me.

It's probably difficult for things not to seem derivative when a lot of the original starships are deeply influential to multiple generations of artists, as well as being beloved by legions of fans.

They're very much like the Alien ships where they're more realistic, they're built in orbit to stay in orbit so they don't have to be fancy which is how they'll be in a few hundred years assuming we make it that long. That said I never figured out how the dropships in alien or halo are meant to escape into orbit off a planet with high gravity.
 
Seen some well-thought-out and well-worded opinion sin here so far. Here's my take. And I know I tend toward the verbose, so I'll try to be (for me) succinct.

Jeffries and Probert and Sternbach came to Trek with a very grounded-in-reality approach. Jeffries reasoned that there wouldn't be a lot of greebling on the exterior, as that represented components that could be damaged or fail, and thus need to be serviced or replaced be crew in spacesuits, exposed to the harshest environment known. He designed a ship that should have such things accessible from the interior, thus protecting the crew. This was why the TOS Enterprise was so smooth. It wasn't for lack of thought or cheapness of effects.

All the way back to that time, the meta-data of Trek ships took such considerations into account. Jeffries figured the ship (or at least the engines and secondary hull) were built in space, because it would make more sense than having to boost all that mass up from the surface. Trek lore for decades was that the saucer was built in graving docks on the ground, boosted to orbit on the impulse engines, where it was joined up with the completed engineering section, never to land again except in cases of extreme emergency.

Trek canon has largely continued that, showing us orbital and station-based shipyards, and sleek, mostly-decently-thought-out ship designs (Drexler's rescaling of the Defiant, Alex Jaeger's Sabre and Steamrunner, and John Eaves'... everything... notwithstanding).

JJ gave us the dramatic visual of his NCC-1701 being built on the ground, and later submerged beneath an ocean on another planet. The level of robustness that Enterprise has to withstand such varying gravitational and shearing forces must be staggering. That ship is about th esize of the Prime Enterprise-D, and that ship would never have dared such a thing. The ludicrousness of it all kinda kicked me out of the experience (along with many other things in the two nuTrek films so far).

The whole premise of Trek ships, to oversimplify, is the future we were promised in the '50s and '60s, prior to the defunding of NASA, the Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty, and the general rise of social/fiscal conservatism. Read some of the documentation from the time outlining the rough projections of joint and solo NASA/US Air Force projects: Apollo program to run through Apollo XX in 1973, then resources shift to the first of five LaGrangian space stations online by or before 1980 (the space shuttle was to be the service vehicle to those -- Nixon vetoed the station, but approved the shuttle, as it was a great way to place spy satellites in precise orbits), that and its later siblings to be staging areas for the next phase -- the first permanently-manned moon-base by or before 1990, and the first manned missions to Mars and the outer planets by or before 2000. That's the future history Trek devolves from, not the one we got. Atomic-powered sleeper ships sent out to near stars for colonization, and a setting much like what we see in the middle act of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Space: 1999.

That kind of... retro-verisimilitude, I suppose, is essential to make Trek look and feel like Trek.It's more than an optimistic look at our possible future -- it's a bit of escapist fantasy into a world where we got all the exciting space stuff we had been sold on, and not had it taken away again before it could be fully realized.

Star [/i]Wars[/i], now... That's a whole different kettle of fish. Spaceflight has been so commonplace in the Star Wars galaxy for who knows how many millennia that spaceships are at least as ubiquitous and easily-acquirable there as cars are here. Everything from high-end government vehicles to fifth-owner junkers to lovingly-cared-for classics. And the coincident technology is so well-evolved and reliable as to not even be thought about. The prospect of being stranded in space having to do EVA to repair some exterior-situated component is highly unlikely (combat doesn't count). In most cases, if something fails, you can still set down somewhere and fix it in shirtsleeves. So the focus can move away from practicality and efficiency to aesthetics. Like how we moved away from hand-cranked, tiller-steered Model T's and their contemporaries to, say, a modest modern midsize sedan with self-parking, collision-avoidance, GPS navigation, OnStar assistance, push-button starting, automatic transmission, etc.

In both cases, I will invoke one of my favorite quotations, from Ferdinand Porsche: "Perfection is attained through neither form alone nor function alone, but through the aesthetic synthesis of the two."

The best Trek ships are the ones that follow the rules and strictures first laid down in the '60s: spaceflight is less than a thousand years established, knowledge and manipulation of various forces and technologies is still evolving and even with backups and "failsafes", nothing is considered to be so reliable as to be taken for granted, space is a dangerous place, excepting possibly the best-known and most heavily traveled routes, and maybe a quarter of our galaxy has been charted, assuming pooling of knowledge of all known non-hostile races. So, depending on particular era or a given parallel universe, that tends to drive the requirements of ship design such that it won't look "wrong" or "off". Dedicated nerds such as I could (and have) write essays on what those requirements are for various well-known races, why, what the exceptions are, what variation exists within those strictures, and, generally, come up with a "how-to" to create a realistic scaffold on which to hang stories so that they work (no supernovae that will destroy the galaxy or other atrociously bad science, for instance).

Over in Star Wars, the reliability of the various bits is so considered to be a given by the point the films take place that otherwise-potentially-questionable elements such as rotating wing actuators, or things requiring fine manipulation of gravity or force fields, or 110% guaranteed no-fail power sources are presumed so reliable, designs take them for granted. Luke's junker landspeeder has no landing gear, for instance. The manufacturers apparently presume it's antigrav field will never fail, even with engines and main power off -- something like the battery on your computer's motherboard that keeps the unseen essentials going even without the main battery. When the tech to make the wings of a Lambda shuttle or a V-19 Torrent starfighter so reliable that they're expected to still function in any eventuality that doesn't require bailing out, designers can really start playing with the looks, and we can end up with seriously impractical but cool-looking exercises in form.

That said, I would have been happier with TFA if Kylo's shuttle had had the wings fold out to at least horizontal, rather than the so-narrow-why-bother arc they do describe. I don't have any problem with the cockpit of it, though -- it reminds me almost directly of the viewport of an Original Trilogy AT-AT. Similarly, I wish the landing craft had followed a little more closely the cues of the canon and/or some of the better EU designs. We would have lost nothign of the impact of their landing and the troops' deployment. The overall aesthetic -- exit ramps that drop, steerable spotlights, etc. -- could easily have been kept, and the result would have looked a bit more like the sort of thing we're used to seeing from the Empire.

--Jonah
 
Let's just accept that the people designing these things for movies are doing it to make people look, not bothering to be realistic. They're all about the shiny graphics that cgi can do and not what would really work or be practical. The Discovery from 2001 would now be some chrome plated turd with 3000 greebles on it instead of one realistic antenna. It also helped that a lot of the folks who used to design this stuff had experience as commercial designers for real world products. Kids these days just get out of college and don't have that background but get hired.
 
atomhawk_01.jpg


I was happy with these.

Ranger_1.jpg
 
I have always attributed the change happened as they drifted away from using actual Industrial Designers working on the renderings and just using artists to come up with the ideas. Sure artists can come up with some visually pleasing designs in a painting, but often it doesn't translate well in dimension. The use of Industrial Designers like they did back in the early Star Wars films made these ships feel real and as if they could actually function in the real world. These designers knew how to think about all aspects of the machine, how it would work and how it would actually get constructed. It wasn't just a pretty flat picture to them.
 
I agree. Many of designs from McQuarrie were based on real world planes/jets etc... and other sci-fi "standards" from the 60s and early 70's. They felt more "functional" despite not being really practical from an actual physics standpoint. A space fighter would not need jet intakes for instance, but at the same time, it was familiar to us and we could potentially see how it might work. It felt like a functioning ship

Designs nowadays seem to be more "outlandish" and free-form, mostly because of CGI. They deviate even further from reality simply because they can build anything they want and have it operate in any way they want without the same constraints as having to physically build the model in the real world. This leads to something that just looks like it could not exist in the real world.

I thought the RDM Battlestar designs were a good bridge between classic design and functional designs, but even those are a decade old now.

Most "modern" things just seem to over the top for my tastes
 
I agree. Many of designs from McQuarrie were based on real world planes/jets etc... and other sci-fi "standards" from the 60s and early 70's. They felt more "functional" despite not being really practical from an actual physics standpoint. A space fighter would not need jet intakes for instance, but at the same time, it was familiar to us and we could potentially see how it might work. It felt like a functioning ship.
For that matter, any pure space craft shouldn't need wings, streamlining or possibly directionality (i.e. front and back). A show that really honors this principle is Firefly where the Tohoku-Class cruiser just looks like a large building. On the other hand ships, like Serenity, that enter the atmosphere have a reason to seem aerodynamic.
 
ILM is in the middle of a design/art contest on Artstation looking for contestants to design with the Episode IV-VI aesthetic. It's kind of pathetic that they have to look outside of ILM to get inspiration. Hopefully they'll get some great designs out of the contest! They really need it!!

I agree that ship designs have been extremely lame recently...
 
The thing is, as time changes so do the aesthetics, compare the designs that preceded some of the classics that you're lamenting about and I'd bet that a lot of the people our age then were complaining about the contemporary designs; they probably complained about how they were so drab and plain, no fins, no chrome, no soul. I also have to point out that not every design from the '70s and '80s were classics, there were plenty of turds back then, it's just that because they were turds we've forgotten about them and only remember the good ones. The same goes for today, in another 10 - 20 years we'll look back at the winners, the ones that stand the test of time and forget about the turds of today.

As far as all the ships coming out today looking the same or being all shiny with all sorts of greeblies, have you looked at the ships from Killjoys and Dark Matter? Neither of them are particularly shiny and both are fairly smooth and they also both clearly come a different design aesthetic from each other. One is sleek and sort of graceful while the other is massive, blocky, and rather utilitarian in appearance. I'd also argue that there are still plenty of good designs coming out of Japan, there were some pretty good ship designs in Gundam Blood Iron Orphans, the mobile suits not so much but the ships were very good.
 
The ship design I hate the most is the Firefly "Serenity".
It looks like a stupid robot chicken, and I've often wondered if that wasn't where Seth Green got his title from.
I mean I really, really, REALLY, hate the look of that ship.
 
The ship design I hate the most is the Firefly "Serenity".
It looks like a stupid robot chicken, and I've often wondered if that wasn't where Seth Green got his title from.
I mean I really, really, REALLY, hate the look of that ship.

Me too,...I don't see where the love of that design comes from

J
 
I like components of it but overall, It doesn't work for me. I have the bird-like aspect

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
 
ILM is in the middle of a design/art contest on Artstation looking for contestants to design with the Episode IV-VI aesthetic. It's kind of pathetic that they have to look outside of ILM to get inspiration. Hopefully they'll get some great designs out of the contest! They really need it!!

I agree that ship designs have been extremely lame recently...

After the crap designs they came up with for TFA (except X-Wing and Star Destroyer) they can only do better by hiring some fans! The X-Wing shouldn't even count either since most of it was a McQuarrie design.
 
The ship design I hate the most is the Firefly "Serenity".
It looks like a stupid robot chicken, and I've often wondered if that wasn't where Seth Green got his title from.
I mean I really, really, REALLY, hate the look of that ship.

See, I liked Serenity because it felt "real."

Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that it WAS "real." They built the entire gorram ship as a set to make sure that everything fit together and to keep visual continuity throughout the show.

That's how I design ships. So many people say "Oh, just make it look sleek, sexy, and badass" with no inkling of what kind of internal space might be needed to hold the various parts of the ship.

I think that might be why so many early designers went HUGE on their designs. It's easier to explain how an Olympic sized swimming pool, a bowling alley, a firing range, and an amphitheater can fit on a ship the size of a Star Destroyer than it would be to explain how it fits on a ship the size of a Constitution-class starship.
 
See, I liked Serenity because it felt "real."

Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that it WAS "real." They built the entire gorram ship as a set to make sure that everything fit together and to keep visual continuity throughout the show.

That's how I design ships. So many people say "Oh, just make it look sleek, sexy, and badass" with no inkling of what kind of internal space might be needed to hold the various parts of the ship.

I think that might be why so many early designers went HUGE on their designs. It's easier to explain how an Olympic sized swimming pool, a bowling alley, a firing range, and an amphitheater can fit on a ship the size of a Star Destroyer than it would be to explain how it fits on a ship the size of a Constitution-class starship.
I like the realism of the serenity. What I don't like about it is the awkwardly feminine shape. For a freighter, it's strangely swan-like.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top