Star Trek: A Fresh Look At The New USS Enterprise
Feb 24, 2009 by Vic HoltremanSee the new Enterprise from J.J. Abrams Star Trek – from a variety of previously unseen angles.
Star Trek fans have been VERY passionate in their opinions of the redesigned NCC-1701 (seen above). While a few people have stated they like the new design, the VAST majority disliked it (to put it mildly). When we posted the first image of the new USS Enterprise, that image received over 140 comments.
But today (thanks to TrekMovie.com) we have some images looking at the redesigned ship from some different angles which may change your mind to the positive.
When the first trailer was released and we had a couple of brief glimpses of it in motion, some people (myself included) started to come around on the new design. People started saying “Maybe in motion on the big screen the ship would look better.” After all the NCC-1701D from The Next Generation is pretty hideous from a couple of angles.
Now these aren’t official images of the Enterprise – they were created by professional CGI artist Tobias Richter, the owner of The Light Works graphic studio in Germany. He’s actually done Star Trek renders in the past for The Official Star Trek Magazine (which you can see over at his site).
Tobias didn’t have any official wireframes or dimensions to go off of in the creation of these pics, he eyeballed the design from images, TV clips and trailers. He filled in the blanks with his own ideas where there was no detail available, but in the final analysis he did a heck of a job.
A familiar angle on the new USS Enterprise
Another view of the NCC-1701 we’ve seen many times
A 3/4 rear view from above of the Enterprise
3/4 rear view of the ship
Finally, the new Enterprise approaches the USS Kelvin
The front part of the nacelles still look to big in proportion to everything else, and I still wish that they were spread a bit farther apart. But having said that, I must admit the ship is growing on me somewhat. I’m betting they’ve shot it from angles that highlight its best qualities in the upcoming Star Trek reboot.
For even more images and much higher res versions you can set as your computer desktop, head over to TrekMovie.com. To see more of Tobias Richter work head over to The Light Works.
So based on these new images, what do you think? Do you still hate the redesigned Enterprise or is it looking better to you?
Star Trek opens on May 8, 2009.
Around the web:
Loading ...
I hate the new enterprise.
I hate the new tricorder, communicator and phaser.
There is not enough connection with the original show for me.
I am sure it will be a “hit” BUT
Not going to ever the new movie.
Not my Star Trek.
Well what can you expect. An exact TOS enterprise would not make an impact on today’s screen. I see some beauty in the lines of the re-design but overall nacelles to big, looks like ship hulls, and bussard ramscoop is over pronounced. Nothing beats seeing Constitution refit leaving space dock in S.T. 2!
Oh, CGI company ‘The Light Works’ renditions are AWESOME! Maybe explore how next movie will refine it.
The very first Enterprise looked u-g-l-y, but seeing the others kinda made me change my mind, i loved the 2nd and 3rd photos, they seems to stand out, but i have one issue though, the nacelles are to large with a very thin shaft beam supporting it, even though gravity does not play a large picture in deep space to drag it down…
Light Works did an amazing job recreating this ship. However, to quote an old saying “you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear”.
This ship is ungainly and out of proportion. The nacelles are way to big and to close together, the pylons are very spindly, the deflector dish is to far forward and the secondary hull is very small against the saucer section.
Maybe in this movie the secondary hull will be destroyed and they’ll replace it with a proper one with new nacelles that are placed further apart.
Anyway, I do like the remade corridors. I also like the material of the new uniforms. Haven’t seen the phasers or tricorders. I am still hung up on this awesomely fugly ship.
I’ve wasted my life, I’ve wasted my life, I’VE WASTED MY LIFE!!!
Damn you, Gene Roddenbery, damn you to HELL!
Hahaha, just kidding!
JOHN
Seriously, I just thought of something…Remember the STNG episode ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’? When the present was invaded and CHANGED by an incursion of the doomed Enterprise-C, from the past?
Maybe this movie is a similar scenario, where the people are all the same (new actors, but in an enhanced-technology altered timeline), but the Enterprise is different, and this Nero asshole (and Spock, the one we know, played by Nimoy) is repsonsible for all the changes, maybe just by BEING there, U know?
I saw (and saved) three pictures of an earlier version of the Enterprise, I assumed they were of a CGI study of the ship for the movie, sort of a working model, so to speak; it is EXACTLY proportionate, just gussied up, a little – literally. There are gussets, you might say, support lerxes on the feet of the warp nacelles and on the trailing edges up top where they connect to the pods, and although there are cowlings on the bussard collectors and lengthened scarfings on the tails, enhanced details on all three hulls (saucer, dorsal, and engineering sections) even the lower-mounted phototorp launcehers instead of in the upper superstructure where they belonged then, it is proportionately exact – same size saucer, even a 360 channel under it. Just what you would expect – and desire – for a movie version of the original Enterprise…I always thought those slender engine supports were just too flimsy!
In lieu of what can happen in the ST Universe (remember ‘Sela’? The half-Romulan blonde who was the daughter of he ‘dead’ Tasha Yar?), which is to say, ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE, I have the feeling we may all be getting a little too worked up over this…I have to admit, I like Chris Pine & Zoe Saldanna, though. Hell, I like all of ‘em!
Perpetually sunnily optimistic,
JOHN
BTW, Tysterious,
I got that last brainwave from you, just wanna say, Thank you! U got me thinking, maybe we are kindred spirits, and maybe we should both be working for JJ Abrams, or at least, maybe you should…are they gonna make another one? Duh! Wha6 am I saying???
Does anybody know how to put a pix or three on this site? I’d send U all the link, but they don’t have these on that site anymnore. They’ve been superseded by this, uh, abomination. lol!
I love to share!
JOHN
@Johnny O
SPOILER!
.
.
.
.
Your theory about why things are different in this film are exactly right.
Vic
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Vic,
I am glad you clarified that .
It has always been hard for me to understand why young Jim Kirk is considered the real deal only up to a key moment of divergence in Kirks history .
After that moment of divergence ,
many fans consider the films Young Jim Kirk “an Imposter ”
As if he was Born “the Real” Jim Kirk
but At that key moment of divergence he was transfomed into a COPY of the person he was a moment before!
LOL!
@ Vic, et al,
Well, I hope I didn’t ruin it for anyone, I still think it’s a movie worth checking out. Thanx for telling me, Vic – what did U think of those pics?
No matter what, though, for those of you who haven’t yet seen ‘Citizen Kane’, I’ll never divulge the identity of Rosebud, hahaha!
The important thing, I guess, is that fifteen minutes after the movie opens, AMT Ertl models of this monstrosity will hit the shelves, I guess, right? I’m gettin’ one!
I just wish I had that kind of luck guessing Lotto numbers, lol!
Thanx to you, too, Gary.
JOHN
@Johnny-O
I think the pics above really show off the ship, even if I think the proportions still look a little funky. Again, it may look a lot better in motion on the big screen.
And just for you:
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PL61931
Vic
@ Vic:
Thanx pal, I appreciate it.
Later, JOHN
I think the new(old) Enterprise looks great! a wonderful update and a great touchstone to the Refit Enterprise. (My personal all time favorite Spaceship design)
Hi all,
This is an announcement of a letter-writing campaign to Paramount Pictures regarding their constant resorting to timeline/time travels motifs.
For more info, check out the latest entries to the other screen rant (i.e First Look at JJ Abrams Enterprise. etc) – particularly the discussion between Johnny-O and myself. See what you think.
@ Everyone (& I mean EVERYone):
Yes, I would like to join with my ersatz co-conspirator, the mysterious and highly intelligent Purist (okay, I’m not above ass-kissing!) in inviting you all to to be a part of our 1960s-like letter writing campaign to disabuse, if possible, Paramount studios of making anymore timetravel-corrupted time-line movies about Star Trek(!). The richness of the original characters’ earlier lives (mainly young Jim Kirk, his dad George, and Captain Robert April, but no doubt there are others) is more than enough to provide entertaining material for a whole new franchise – or a much needed shot in the arm for the present one.
Remember that it was just ordinary, everyday people who inundated Desilu Studios at NBC with pleas and supplications to extend TOS’s second season to a critical third one, at which point syndication (and those lovely residual checks), would kick in; the campaign I believe started even before that, almost from NBC’s reluctant, foot-dragging decision to put the show on the air in the first place; remember Desilu had to make TWO pilots, ‘The Cage’, starring Jeffery Hunter as Captain Christopher Pike, and a more action/adventure pilot called ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ (hereafter called ’2nd pilot’, it’s easier to type…), with all our established beloved regulars. NBC, in their wisdom (I believe the head genius’s name was Herb Solow, but I may be wrong about that) deemed ‘The Cage’ (later integrated into a 2-parter we all remember named ‘Menagerie’) “too cerebral”, a polite way of saying that the American TV audience were such bubble gum-headed morons that they shouldn’t have to THINK about the TV shows they were drawn to the idiot box to be entertained by, while we were all being exposed to all those expensive commercials, which was after all why they deigned to show us anything at all…Pardon me, my socialism is showing, lol!
Anyway, my point is, that is likely what Paramount’s position is now – “Star Trek? You mean, like all those movies we made from those TV shows? Well, what about time travel? That’s worked before, right? My God, man, they’re even making a new Terminator movie! People love time travel stories, that’ll put the butts in the seats! We can worry about sequels later…” And so on, and so on. You all get this.
The people who wrote in to save TOS, with all its faults (and it had more than a few, I’m sure you’ll agree), represented the full range of American TV-viewing society – from stubble-faced factory workers who punched a clock every day, to erudite college physics professors, some of whom actually made TOS assigned viewing – can you imagine such a thing? – and every type or strata in between, including insecure, worried-about-the-future, pimply-faced teenagers like me, and they didn’t change the world, exactly…but they did make history, at least television history. The 3rd season went ahead, and, yes, some of the episodes were just phoned in, but some of them were excellent; NBC got it’s wish and quashed TOS, but then Roddenberry & Company got together and started working on a ‘syndidicated first-run’ series, something they would return to address, successfully, with STTNG.
Then, a funny thing happened – STAR WARS happened! Everyone could see that the public really liked splendiferous, big-set, big-budget Sci-Fi movies with lots of eye candy, and the newly redesigned Enterprise was redesigned once again (my favorite! And many others’), the sets were all torn down & redesiged bigger & better, and the resurrection was off & running.
What I am trying to say, in my verbose, roundabout way, is that the original fans who saved TOS did not just guarantee a third season – they launched a whole new era, which was certified by all the money STTMP made in its FIRST WEEK. And, it’s still going on, hence the need for this and related sections of Screen Rant, the controversy over JJ Abram’s Enterprise, and, dare I say it, the old horse, long since beaten to DEATH, of the Timetravel-corrupted Timeline Plot, please, for the Love of God, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
Purist is absolutely right – all I would suggest, as we write our letters and send our emails (always respectful, now, please, no name calling), is that perhaps it may be best to wait until after the May 8th premier, as this will no doubt provide the most information, instead of all this assumption & speculation, something of which I have indulged in to the fullest.
So send your emails, write your letters, and don’t let up until Paramount cries Uncle!
Okay, that’s a tad strong, but you get the idea. We can make a difference – love them or hate them, 5 TV series, 10 movies, plus a cartoon series & comic book, and about a billion dollars’ worth of merchandising (“May the Swartz be with you – oooh, he’s so CUTE” – Mel Brooks, do I have to tell ya?) prove this, and we, the fans, should be part of this, we MUST be part of it.
That’s my rant. Don’t give up the ship. Literally.
JOHN
Hey guys,
I just watched Star Trek IV for the first time in quite a while – and at the end the bridge of the NCC-1701-A was basically white!
I hadn’t noticed that before, but it makes me feel a bit better about the new bridge.
Vic
Me again,
I’m with Johnny-O. Let’s wait until after the release to unleash our mail to Paramount. By the way, does anyone out there have an email address to Paramount? Much Thanks if you could post it.
As for the new design (I”ve digressed enough for awhile), it seems to me the basic problem with the design isn’t so much that the engines are too big (although the additions
to the top-fronts of the nacelles is a bit too much). No, I believe the problem lies in their positioning. If you look at the ship from the front, the engine nacelles are horrendously too close to one another. This is the result (perhaps intentionally or not) of curving the engine struts – like they are on latter Enterprises with pretty much the same effect. When I first saw the Enterprise D, my first impression was that the saucer was far to big for the rest of the ship (or the rest of the ship was too small for the saucer – you pick which one).
Another issue is a misalignment illusion. Wow, that’s a mouthful! Let me explain. Because the engines now have the extra structure on the top-front of the nacelles, they appear to be sloping down from front to back (much like the old Cadillacs looked when they eventually lost support in their rear suspension). Of course, the original Enterprise had nacelles whose centrelines was perfectly parallel to the centreline of the secondary hull and the the horizontal plane of the saucer section. Now, as a result of the extra “stuff” on the engines, it gives the illusion that the engines are about to fall off.
Hopefully, if they make another movie, they’ll use the version that they’re using in the newly released ST:TOS where things have received a CGI upgrade.
Oh well, if the plot is a timeline/alternate future blah, blah, blah, it all probably won’t matter since the entire movie might all be just a dream sequence that the characters won’t remember because, in the end, it didn’t happen. Oops, there I go again, ranting about the the time travel stuff.
Anyway, that’s my opinion
@ Vic:
Yeah, I forgot that, too. I always liked the fact that the sectional ribs, dividing the modules, were bare, shiny, polished metal in this one and only scene at the end of STIV (“Let’s see what she’s got!”), whereas in the next movie, these has been dazzled as with fluorescent-like lights, as if they were supposed to be plasma conduits or something…don’t get me start on STV, even Roddenberry considered it ‘apochryphal’ – U know, like the Book of Judith, or I & II Maccabees in the Bible. I can just hear that conversation – “Bill, Bill, what are ya doing to me???”
By the way, since you brought that up, does anybody know, according to the official canon or other franchise sources, which ship that was supposed to have orignally been? I have heard everything from a replacement USS Yorktown (which would be sorta sad, since that fine old ship, in WWII, had every bit as heroic a history as Enterprise, and was eventually lost after being heroically saved by well-trained damage control crews at the Battle of Midway) to a new Connie II class ship named Atlantis, an excellent choice for a starship name since that is one of our space shuttles.
Anybody know? I realize it’s ‘only science fiction’, but there must’ve been an official back-story somewhere, even if it was used in only a couple of episo – I, I mean, uh, movies… I believe they restored the bridge, by the time of the excellent ST VI (Undiscovered Country) to about the same look as that in that scene in STIV, I will have to look at it again.
They shoulda stopped all the time-travel nonsense, in both the movies AND the various series, right there in Star Trek IV – it was a good story, and it explains the origin of transparent aluminum (whistling cluelessly, lol).
Btw, the thing that most grates on my nerves about the redesign (besides the hair dryer-shaped warp nacelles, and the fact that this ship has NO ASS!) is the impulse unit – it looks like they simply ripped off the engines from the refit, almost without any change at all. maybe that’s intgral to the time travel plot, technology they were able to update as a result of the reverse-engineered goodies from Nero’s Nerada, I dunno, but you would think they would’ve been more imaginative.
Just my personal musings,
JOHN
@ Purist:
“Oh well, if the plot is a timeline/alternate future blah, blah, blah, it all probably won’t matter since the entire movie might all be just a dream sequence that the characters won’t remember because, in the end, it didn’t happen. Oops, there I go again, ranting about the the time travel stuff.
Anyway, that’s my opinion”
You crack me up! Could not have said it better myself…
JOHN
@ Purist:
Okaa-aaay! This was easier than I thought it would be:
[info@paramountstudios.com:
PARAMOUNT STUDIOS 5555 Melrose Avenue Hollywood, CA 90038
http://www.paramountstudios.com
Contact: Brenna Girard 323.956.5783
brenna.girard@paramount.com - related to props]
I haven’t tried this yet, I’m sure it can’t be that simple, I’m not that lucky! Lol!
Maybe Brenna Girard is the one to talk to?
Anyway, for what it’s worth…
JOHN
Thanks John,
We’ll check out the movie, then give those emails a whirl.
@ Purist:
Hee-eey! Somebody with some manners, for a change!
Anytime, pal, U are welcome. I feel really good about this, and if you hadn’t put the burr under my saddle, I probably woundn’t have got so ginned up about it.
So I owe YOU one.
Like I said, it worked before, right?
Btw, I became aware of two new reviews on the new JJ Abrams ST movie, one on MSNBC, one in Time magazine; both were VERY positive, and one (on MSNBC) declared it “may be the most anticipated movie so far of the year” – of course, the year ain’t over yet! My point being, so far, it’s made quite a ruckus. I don’t think an ST movie has done that for 15 years (STII).
Correct me if I’m wrong, anyone…
JOHN
Whoops! I can’t add, and I’m gettin’ old!
Star Trek II, ‘The Wrath of Khan’ premeired 25 years ago, not 15.
Couldn’t leave you all scratching your heads about me!
JOHN
@ Purist:
I know I am abusing a priveledge here, hogging this thread, but I had to share something vis a vis a comment of yours:
“When I first saw the Enterprise D, my first impression was that the saucer was far to big for the rest of the ship (or the rest of the ship was too small for the saucer – you pick which one).”
Don’t get me wrong, here, I thought the Ent D (Galaxy class) was, at the risk of sounding gay, simply fabulous – the size & volume was twice as long as the TOS original (or the refit, take your pick) and EIGHT TIMES the TOS/Ent-A’s internal area; I liked the compactnes of something so massive, since if they had stretched the warp macelle pylons out & aft by sweeping them back, like they did on the following Ent E (Soverign class), my God, she would’ve been a full kilometer long, at least! I liked the way the warp nacelles, which were just the right size (unlike the TOS Enterprise, in one direction, or the Intrepid class Voyager, in the other) lined up vertically with the saucer’s auxilliary impulse engines, there just seemed to be a LOT of thought put into it. I also liked the auto-separation feature. rare as it was used though it may’ve been. And yes, I would be the first to agree that the Galazy class looked, from certain angles, as massive, hulking & frumpy as W B Yeats “Rough Beast” in his poem ‘The Second Coming’, lurching it’s way through space, despite that it appeared very elegant from others; but your comment made me remember my own reflections the first time I saw the opening of STTNG:
Did U ever notice, as the Enterprise D came swooping at you, that she looked just like Mighty Mouse? Seriously, the fist-like warp engines on their arm-like pylons, the oversized saucer looking just like Mighty Mouse’s giant head – “Heeere I come, to save the day, the Starship Ent-ter-prise is on its waaaayy…”
Lol, whaddya think, do I need to get out more? Seriously, next time you watch an old TNG episode, think on this, U’ll see what I mean! Kinda like seeing Dr Ruth Westheimer after hearing Sam Kinnison (may he rest in peace) do his stand-up, and not bursting out laughing from thinking of a grilled cheese sandwich…very inside joke, forgive me!
JOHN
Hi John,
I going to stay strictly with ship design this time.
You mentioned that you liked the auto-separation feature of the Enterprise D. I feel compelled to point out that according to Star Trek lore, The original Enterprise was able to separate the Saucer from the rest of the ship as well.
You see, Gene Roddenbery wanted the Star Trek universe to be based on everything being modular (you’ve probably noticed that the type 1 phaser is a component of the type 2 which, in turn was supposed to be a component of the phaser rifle). Therefore, he wanted the saucer to be able to separate from the rest of the ship. Unfortunately, due to limitations in special effects (this was the 60′s after all) the separation could never happen. I can only assume that every Enterprise since had the same feature built in (though I’ve been wrong in my assumption before).
I’m with you though, the Sovereign looks way cool and since I wasn’t a great fan of the Ent-D, that shouldn’t come as a great shock to anyone.
Back to the newest version of the old Enterprise. I have notice from the above shots, that is seems pretty bland in terms of exterior markings. It has only the registration number and name. That’s it. The original Enterprise had markings on both the underside of the saucer and on the sides of the secondary hull AND on the nacelles as well.
I thinks some more markings are in order.
Yeah, Purist,
I sure do remember that very well; the hand-phaser (Phaser One) clipped into a little cradle of the pistol (Phaser Two), which also had a socket for the handle, a replaceable powerpack ‘magazine’, which also extended its range; the phaser rifle (Phaser Three) had provisions for both, with a screw-on barrel to extend the range even further, plus a snap-on stock, which added even more power. I do know Roddenberry’s idea of either (pistol or rifle) was to appear conspicuously armed, when you wanted to, as Picard might have put it, ‘raise the Federation’s voice a little…”
As to the saucer-dorsal connection, I recall vividly even the schematics showing a bracket/clavis connection, fore & aft inside the dorsal, armed with explosive bolts. As I understand it, the Connie class Enterprise, as well as the later ships of the name (and I’m like you, why else would they have designed other heavy cruisers as they did, otherwise?) had this same emergency feature; probably because, if your warp core was about to breach, and you couldn’t eject the core itself (“Oh, God, we are SO totally F***ED!”), you could evacuate as many of your secondary-hull personnel as posssible (talk about having a bad day…), thereby blowing those bolts and using your impulse drive (thrusters, paddles, prayer, whatever) to get as far-the-hell-away from the antimatter breach and accompaning incredibly massive, supernovaian explosion as you possibly can; the saucer would then become your space lifeboat, not a bad way to survive unless there was no way to contact another starship for assistance at mere impulse. The engineering hull could also be used as a space lifeboat, my literature pointed out, although “in less than ideally comfortable conditions” (very funny, I recall thinking), and of course, provided your warp core was up & running, and your nacelles were functioning, the inconvenience would be minimal at warp speed. Ideally. This was probably the inspiration for, HELLLOOOO, escape pods, something I, uh (lemme look, nope, not there!), NEVER SAW on my original vintage ST/TOS Enterprise blueprints, and which to me seems like a natural if you are gonna invest any time, thought, or in the ST universe, resources for safety in a separation procedure. Didn’t these people ever hear of the Titanic???
The same plans also poited out, quite emphatically, that all this fateful, somewhat messy (hull plates ripping apart, volatiles spraying out & freezing everywhere, etc) business would, in the event that the two hulls were intended to be reunited, could only be so re-conjoined “with the equipment of a starbase or other similar such facility” which clearly was no longer the case somewhere along the line on the way to the, I’ll say it again, FABULOUS Galaxy class. I know, it was fat as hell, but it had room for families! What could be better for a kid than having the golden opportunity of a childhood aboard such a magnificent ship, right? Admit it, pal, it had it charms! Plus, the alternate timeline 3-engined version with the Uber-phaser cannon kicked ASS! Okay, too much coffee…did I mention I am currently quitting smoking? Pant, pant, pant! God, I want a cigarette!
Anyway, I see you must’ve read my post in the other thread, glad we’re both on the same page concerning that Greyhound of Space, the Sovereign class Enterprise/E. As I said in the other Screen Rant, it looks like a product of the Pininfarina branch of Starfleet’s design bureau, lol, but hey, that’s just fine with me. Who wouldn’t wanna travel at Warpfactor 9.975 first class, right?
As for Abram’s Ent/1701, I noticed the paucity of the markings, too…Hmmm, maybe you already came up to the answer to that one in your precis of that ‘Enterprise – The First Mission’ novel, I quote:
“Essentially, the movie is more about Kirk’s father than Captain April. The Enterprise is not fully completed but is spaceworthy. No markings yet and sections of the inside are not yet built (mostly crew quarters)…”
Why couldn’t the same situation be true in the Abrams movie? Think about it, if this Romulan Nero dillhole (sorry, too much ’70s Show’, lol) creates a pressing enough emergency, Starfleet ain’t gonna spraypaint a fancy-ass red & orange pennant on there, are they? They won’t take the time, and in fact that makes sense to me. As far as blandness, U DAMN RIGHT! There are not nearly enough windows, phaser banks, and RCS thrusters that I can see, although I may be wrong about that.
The one thing you would think a sharp guy like Abrams would kno, instinctively, is that if you want to make a vessel the size of a supercarrier look more real & less like a prop (or, nowadays, a weak CGI effort), the answer is: DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL! I notice a profound LACK of detail on this ship, especially around the sides if the lower hull, and that just takes away from it’s realism, if you ask me – Jeez, in that sense, it even makes the TV Enterprise look good, as a strict matter of comparison! See all those windows down the sides if the Engineering Section? I never really appreciated them before, just took ‘em for granted…oh, well, if it was a perfect universe, there wouldn’t be anything to bitch about, and then where would I be? Right? Somebody has to nitpick!
JOHN
Windows! I totally forgot about the windows. You are so-o-o-o-o right. And OK, I’ll buy the argument for the lack of markings.
Another thing though. Look at the underside of the saucer section. This is where things tend to go off the rails a bit.
The original Enterprise’s saucer had a circular indentation on its underside (I couldn’t think of a better description). If one took a cross-section of the old saucer, the bottom hull would (from the outside edge to the center) be level than angle up slightly, curve back back down toward the center (what was that thing in the underside center anyway-Captain’s yacht perhaps? That’s what it was on the Enterprise D). This new Enterprise has no hull angling up in it saucer section.
My question is why? After all, the only supposed modificaitons were to the higher tech engine nacelles. Why this change to the saucer? BTW. did the movie Enterprise-A have an flattened saucer underside as well? (I know towards the center it went down, but did it go up?)
On an aesthetic note, remember the ribbings on the top part of the saucer of the TOS Enterprise. Just curious, (this is for everyone), do you like it better with or without the ribbing? Me, I kinda liked to ribbing. This is purely an aesthetic choice. I can’t give a reason, I just do. It’s sort of trying to explain why you like the Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa despite the messed up background.
I also have another question for anyone reading this. In ST: The Motion Picture, the Enterprise supposedly had just gotten a brand spankin’ new refit (I remember the trailers saying it wasn’t even quite finished). Then, two movies or one long movie later (since one was essentially a continuation of the other), Starfleet says the Enterprise is “too old” to be repaired. Huh? What up with that?
One last thing. In the episode, “All Good Things”, I thought the Ent-D with the extra center nacelle did look good. It was a considerable improvement over the former “D” (Although it would have changed its class from Heavy Cruiser – an odd designation for the flagship of Starfleet – to Dreadnought — according to the original Starflett tech manual) since it bulked up of the rear of the ship which was why I was not too favourable of the Twin engine “D”. Again, pure aesthetics.
Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what is all boils down to – aesthetics, isn’t it?
Oops. Big oops. Tie me to a hog and drag me through the mud oops.
I made two major errors in the above commentary.
First, the “Ribbing”. The only places ribbing on the saucer appears is on the technical drawings and on the plastic models. Take a close look (especially both pilot episodes)at the saucer section. No ribbing!
Second, (not so much an error as ignorance on my part)the Enterprise-A DOES have a concave underside of the saucer. Therefore, again, why doesn’t the new old Enterprise have it?