ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

2009 USS Enterprise

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 2:54 pm

Was it just me or did the new Enterprise seem alittle lacking?
Dont get me wrong... The new USS Enterprise was a beautiful Ship, But it was just, a little to sleek. Almost to the point of whimpy.  To Cartoon looking for me. So I redesigned it and this is what I came up with. Now Theres still a few things I'd like to do like untapper the nacelles some and add Phaser and Photon Torpedo ports on the rear and some more windows on the secondary hull. They will be on the finisheed version that I'm wroking on now. This is what I think it should have looked like, Keeping wioth the same styling and all.  Not to late fo the next movie!


Im 4th from the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out by clicking the "link" after the smiley and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top  


 http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713


Thanks so much for viewing my board


 


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

rbren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 5:25 pm

The JJ Abrams 1701 is lacking and wimpy. The movie was fun and did bring back the missing feeling of a great adventure but I was not happy with the art direction. Not to mention the Enterprise was built in San Fransisco as stated on the bridge plague not Iowa. The original concept by Gene R. was that it was assembled in space since it was never designed to fly in air or from the ground into space. How it got there was never explained in the movie and again another missed oportunity because the Enterprise is as much a character as Spock and Kirk something JJ clearly disregarded.


The lens flares helped cover up the lack of design and color of the sets as well as the ships.


The Original design became iconic because it was arraigned with familiar shapes and minimal lines. It wasn't a saucer or a rocket shape it was both with a shuttle bay and deflector dish. The recent "restoration" paint job on the original 11 ft model is an abomination. The original had no visable lines on the egineering hull, the engines or gridlines on the bottom of the saucer. There were only lightly penciled grid lines on the top of the saucer and some startegically placed weathering. The much debated and often wrong color scheme was NOT grey! It was a light blue/green tint. Some area's had darker green shading paint to help the illusion of scale. The TV models of the '60s could not work with today's HI-Def tech but failing to learn from them is a loss.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 5:28 pm

I think the new E is a travesty which only superficially resembles its namesake. Blue bussard collectors? It is fat and slim in the wrong places and lacks the simplistic elegance the original should have.

Fatten the secondary hull. Straighten the pylons. Make the neck NOT slope into the secondary hull. Redden the collectors. Then I'd like it. Modernize, but don't overhaul a cultural icon.

Rear Admiral Archer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 5:36 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Sep. 07 2011, 5:28 pm

>I think the new E is a travesty which only superficially resembles its namesake. Blue bussard collectors? It is fat and slim in the wrong places and lacks the simplistic elegance the original should have. Fatten the secondary hull. Straighten the pylons. Make the neck NOT slope into the secondary hull. Redden the collectors. Then I'd like it. Modernize, but don't overhaul a cultural icon.


 


Ding Ding Ding! Give that persona  cigar. That ship was an abomination. The nacelles were WAY wrong. Too fat in the front. Ok I can understand trying to "update" BUT keep it true to the original ship design. But then again what were we to expect from Jar Jar Abrams?? Iowa? Seriously? At what point in TOS did it say that she was built ON Earth? So many things wrong with ST:INO (In Name Only) that I wll not go into it. I just hope that 1. they fix it and 2. they get rid of Jar Jar. And give us back OUR Enterprise....Not something that sorta looks like it....

rbren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 6:14 pm

The JJ 1701 fits only his Apple Mac concept of Star Trek design. The bridge looked like an Apple store exploded. I was happy to see he did keep some of the RED from the original but the overall palatte scheme lacked color and the set designs were mostly visually vague.

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 7:14 pm

@ rbren  I saw a photo somewhere suggesting The 2009 Enterprise was lifted into space piece by piece with tractor beams from other smaller ships, which I guess is what they were designed for.


It should have been built in san fran shipyards... the new movie, although I liked it alot, just made to many mistakes like that one. They just can't be contributed to what caused the alternate timeline. They strayed to far from the heart of Star Trek and should have payed more attention to the smaller details. We do! I guess they were trying to set this Star Trek apart from TOS so they could call it there own and do as they wish. What they really did was gain some new fans and Upset a majority of the Fans that made Star Trek what it is today. Makes me feel like they were just making a movie and not making a Star Trek movie.


They were inadequate in bringing the Enterprises character to the movie.


The inside of the ship was a bigger disaster then the outside. The bridge, Its has potential but come on. Theres way to much crap everywhere and that hurts them as well, making it harder to film around all that stuff. At least remove the two standing stations from the rear of the bridge and make the view screen less opaque during ship to ship communications. Sick bay... to cluttered once again. you'd think in a couple hundred years we'd learn to steamline.  Guess thats only for the outside. Now we know there are refinery looking places on the ship but do we really need to see that much. Well, I don't recall them mentioning a main Engineering so maybe they can fix that easy enough. Dont mind seeing folks running on catwalks and al,l in short clips here and there, but there needs to be and descent main engineering when you plan on ejecting warp cores. Hell the only room I Thought was ok was the trans porter room


Dont get me wrong, I think Abrams and the rest did and amazing job in general, But I'm having to "overlook" alot and keep and very opened mind to keep that opinion


I agree with you on the original at the Smithsonian, it's a shame what they did to her! The light lines were only on the top of the Saucer and here the are trying to aztec her . Shame really, not to mention, the gift shop?! thats where they are hiding her?! 


In an interview with one of the original designers, they said the ship was originally Ford Grey.


 


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 7:31 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Sep. 07 2011, 5:28 pm

>I think the new E is a travesty which only superficially resembles its namesake. Blue bussard collectors? It is fat and slim in the wrong places and lacks the simplistic elegance the original should have. Fatten the secondary hull. Straighten the pylons. Make the neck NOT slope into the secondary hull. Redden the collectors. Then I'd like it. Modernize, but don't overhaul a cultural icon.


 


Did you see the redesign I did? I tried to fix all that. lol


If you saw it and still didnt like it... Stay tuned because I'm working on one now that think you will! It's what I think the redesign should have really looked like. Those War of the Worlds eyeball nacelles will be gone !


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 7:34 pm

Quote: Rear Admiral Archer @ Sep. 07 2011, 5:36 pm

>Ding Ding Ding! Give that persona  cigar. That ship was an abomination. The nacelles were WAY wrong. Too fat in the front. Ok I can understand trying to "update" BUT keep it true to the original ship design. But then again what were we to expect from Jar Jar Abrams?? Iowa? Seriously? At what point in TOS did it say that she was built ON Earth? So many things wrong with ST:INO (In Name Only) that I wll not go into it. I just hope that 1. they fix it and 2. they get rid of Jar Jar. And give us back OUR Enterprise....Not something that sorta looks like it....

>


TOS did refer to The Enterprise being built in the San Fransico Ship Yards. I like many others for decades just assumed those shipyards were in orbit above San Fransico... lol


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

rbren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 8:08 pm

Quote: Captain Sam @ Sep. 07 2011, 7:14 pm

>Original 1701 restortatiion links below

>
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2009/06/04/starship_restoration/


http://blog.nasm.si.edu/author/thornwaldt/


http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 07 2011, 8:40 pm

@ Rbren


Im am familiar with those site already... if you look on the first link you provided, the second to last blog is me


 


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 7:13 am

I actually liked the new E's nacelles, just not the blue collectors. I just don't get that color choice. It confuses new viewers that the nacelles and deflector are separate things. Plus, only one class had blue collectors.

But why fatten the nacelles while you slim the secondary hull? It looks puny now.

Also, if they wanted to change its size and launch date, why make a primary universe crossover? Just start from scratch and I would accept it more.

The bridge looks like the apple store. Hilarious. Hadn't heard that one, but very true. Maybe they should change the name plate to USS iPrise NCC-(apple logo).

rbren

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 7:42 am

In one regard the "IPRISE" Steve Jobs art direction does correlate to a contemporary view of future tech as did Matt Jefferies designs in the mid-sixties. I'm just parial to the Mod look and I feel that if you are going back there you can modernise without tossing out what still works visually.


  It's accepted that we are talking about fiction here and artists should be free to create their own vision but Star Trek is an icon for reasons that extend beyond the basic premise.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 7:57 am

Look at the new galactica. Modern, but still very true to the original.

I believe in not stifling creativity but I also believe in preserving cultural icons. This is why I hate Andy Warhol. Making Marylin Monroe look like the Joker is not art, does not complement the original icon, and takes something already beautiful and defaces it.

The "artists" did not understand the original and defaced it. Such is unforgivable and artistic apostacy.

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 8:48 am

The taper of the nacelles and the secondary hull were my second biggest pet peeve right behind the nacelles being way to close to each other. Blue may be my favorite color but i agree with you, not on the collectors. Theres been alot of debate as to the size... well mine is aprox the same size as the Original. I liked the new Battlestar as much as the old. That was a job well done. Some folks just dont get it. You can show something from your prospective.. just don't rip it's heart out.


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

Captain Sam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 151

Report this Sep. 08 2011, 10:02 am

They never mentioned a main engineering so maybe they will give us an apropiate one in the next and not a old steam plant. lol


As far as the refit, minus the nacelles it was basically the same with minor upgrades thoughout. The only major change was the nacelles which if I remember correctly caused quiet a stir. But because the basic design was so close and we were starving for more trek it was accepted as Trek. And now highly prised by most. I dont think that will happen with the new E. Back then they didnt try and toss a hot rod at us and convince us it was our Enterprise in disguise like there doing now. It was legacy not impressionism.


 


Im close the top in StarTrek.com's Artful Explorations Most popular gallery. Go check it out and hit the little like button for me on StarTrek.com so the Enterprise can soar to the top ;) http://startrek.com/gallery_slide/artful-explorations?image_id=2713

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum