www.ditl.org

I like how it's reminiscent of the refit Constitution (the saucer, the phaser banks, the deflector dish), while maintaining a distinct look with some pre-refit influence. I can't wait to see an MSD or cutaway.

Initially I felt a bit ambivalent about the placement of the neck, but in reality it would probably make sense to position it a bit further back so that the warp core and turbolift shafts aren't bunched up so tightly with the deflector.

stitch626 wrote:I am only really bothered by the nacelles. The jet engine intake looks weird.

But that would make sense for Bussard ramscoops.

The problem with that entire analysis is that this ship isn't meant to have a "distinct look". It's not meant to be a new class of ship, or a refit, or an alien impression of one. It's meant to be the old Enterprise. NCC 1701. No bloody A, B, C or D (or any other letter for that matter).

This:


Bears fuck-all resemblance to this:

Captain Seafort wrote:The problem with that entire analysis is that this ship isn't meant to have a "distinct look". It's not meant to be a new class of ship, or a refit, or an alien impression of one. It's meant to be the old Enterprise. NCC 1701. No bloody A, B, C or D (or any other letter for that matter).

It's meant to have a distinct look because the 1960s look is distinctly dated, and it has to differentiate itself from the familiar Con-refit of the movies. This is the new old Enterprise.

Captain Seafort wrote:The problem with that entire analysis is that this ship isn't meant to have a "distinct look". It's not meant to be a new class of ship, or a refit, or an alien impression of one. It's meant to be the old Enterprise. NCC 1701. No bloody A, B, C or D (or any other letter for that matter).

This:


Bears f**k-all resemblance to this:

Which in turn bears virtually no resemblance to this :



Yet it doesn't seem to bother most people much.

Lazar wrote:It's meant to have a distinct look because the 1960s look is distinctly dated, and it has to differentiate itself from the familiar Con-refit of the movies. This is the new old Enterprise.

Then why bother making a TOS-era film at all? It's like remaking "Battle of Midway" with CVN-65, or The Italian Job with the new BMW-things. If you want to make a film that is intended to cover the same period as already-filmed material, then you'd better make sure it looks right, or there's no point in doing it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip refit-Connie pic*

"Admiral, this is almost a completely new Enterprise."

The refit certainly stretched SoD, but it was always depicted as a massive refit. No one ever tried to pretend that it looked the same as it always had. If the new film is set well before the five-year mission, allowing for a refit between XI and TOS, or if even Nimoy's Spock takes one look at the thing and asks what the hell it's meant to be, then fair enough - we can simply chalk it up to a refit or changes in the timeline thanks to Nero. If they try and blag it off as what the E-nil always looked like then tough - it isn't, and never will be.

Captain Seafort wrote:Then why bother making a TOS-era film at all? It's like remaking "Battle of Midway" with CVN-65, or The Italian Job with the new BMW-things. If you want to make a film that is intended to cover the same period as already-filmed material, then you'd better make sure it looks right, or there's no point in doing it.

Because the important thing is the characters and the story, not tacky 1960s esthetics. It's already pretty well established that this is a re-imagining (if not a reboot), and it needs to compete with contemporary science fiction.

Captain Seafort wrote:allowing for a refit between XI and TOS,

You mean a regressive refit that makes everything look less sophisticated and eliminates any post-1960s computer interfaces? That's absurd.

or if even Nimoy's Spock takes one look at the thing and asks what the hell it's meant to be, then fair enough - we can simply chalk it up to a refit or changes in the timeline thanks to Nero. If they try and blag it off as what the E-nil always looked like then tough - it isn't, and never will be.

Maybe not to you. The problem is, I think we're looking at this movie in fundamentally different ways: you're trying to treat the movie as if it adheres strictly to canon, and I really don't think that's Abrams' intent.

To take an example, look at the way that in "The Menagerie", Christopher Pike could only communicate using two buttons. That's absurd! Even with today's technology he'd have a fuller range of expressive capability, let alone 260 years from now. You'd have to have either have some notion of flexible canon or evolving continuity, or drive yourself insane trying to explain stuff away. I don't think our vision of Star Trek should be shackled by the way the future was envisioned in the 1960s.

Lazar wrote:Because the important thing is the characters and the story

It's also about the ship - the E-nil was aways as big a part of Trek as Kirk and the others. Abrams himself said that she was a huge part of the mythos, one that had to be got right. A pity he failed to follow through on that statement.

not tacky 1960s esthetics.

Those "tacky 1960 aesthetics" were apparently considerably better than 2008 aethetics if that thing's anything to go by. Matt Jefferies original design was far better balanced than the new one.

It's already pretty well established that this is a re-imagining (if not a reboot), and it needs to compete with contemporary science fiction.

If they're going to rewrite Trek like that then what's the point of going back to TOS? What's the point of even calling it Star Trek? If they want a flashy new contemporary sci-fi film, then they can either jump further ahead to the 25th or 26th centuries, or they can call it something else.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:*snip refit-Connie pic*

"Admiral, this is almost a completely new Enterprise."

The refit certainly stretched SoD, but it was always depicted as a massive refit. No one ever tried to pretend that it looked the same as it always had. If the new film is set well before the five-year mission, allowing for a refit between XI and TOS, or if even Nimoy's Spock takes one look at the thing and asks what the hell it's meant to be, then fair enough - we can simply chalk it up to a refit or changes in the timeline thanks to Nero. If they try and blag it off as what the E-nil always looked like then tough - it isn't, and never will be.

Well Kirk was born in 2233. If we assume he is 18 in ST XI, then it's set in 2251. We saw the Enterprise in a roughly TOS-like state in 2254 in "The Menagerie".

So we pretty much have to assume that the ship was built, then almost completely rebuilt within two or three years. Technically possible, but... doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Here's a thought. How about a TOS RE-remastered, with this ship inserted instead of the original? *braces for impact*

Lazar wrote:Maybe not to you. The problem is, I think we're looking at this movie in fundamentally different ways: you're trying to treat the movie as if it adheres strictly to canon, and I really don't think that's Abrams' intent.

I'm treating this film as if it's meant to be Star Trek. Abrams, by all appearences, isn't.

To take an example, look at the way that in "The Menagerie", Christopher Pike could only communicate using two buttons. That's absurd! Even with today's technology he'd have a full range of expressive capability, let alone 260 years from now.

The man had suffered massive radiation burns and was completely paralysed, limited to using translated brainwaves to communicate. Today he'd be dead. While I can certainly see him having a brainwave-activated version of the gismo Stephen Hawking uses, that's hardly the "full range of expressive capability".

You'd have to have either have some notion of flexible canon or evolving continuity, or drive yourself insane trying to explain stuff away. I don't think our vision of Star Trek should be shackled by the way the future was envisioned in the 1960s.

The answer to that is to set any future Trek after the existing series, not to try and rewrite TOS to what JJ Abrams (or anyone else) thinks it should be.

Captain Seafort wrote:It's also about the ship - the E-nil was aways as big a part of Trek as Kirk and the others.

Yeah, and he also recast Kirk using an actor who is not a clone of William Shatner. But of course, at some point between STXI and TOS, Chris Pine's Kirk will have plastic surgery and have his voice modified so he becomes exactly identical to him.

Abrams himself said that she was a huge part of the mythos, one that had to be got right. A pity he failed to follow through on that statement.

I'm just not feeling that resentment at all. As I noted above, he followed through on that statement by reimagining TOS for the 21st century.

Those "tacky 1960 aesthetics" were apparently considerably better than 2008 aethetics if that thing's anything to go by. Matt Jefferies original design was far better balanced than the new one.

The 23rd century is not going to look like how it was envisioned in the 1960s. The TOS Enterprise provided a good foundation for future ships, but it strikes me as rather simplistic and dated compared to the ships that we've come to expect in modern science fiction. There's a reason why they changed the design radically between TOS and TMP.

If they're going to rewrite Trek like that then what's the point of going back to TOS? What's the point of even calling it Star Trek? If they want a flashy new contemporary sci-fi film, then they can either jump further ahead to the 25th or 26th centuries, or they can call it something else.

That's the thing - you want slavish adherence to canon, and I want a flashy new contemporary sci-fi film! Why did they use TOS? Because it's a classic premise that everyone is familiar with. If they had made a movie that was "Oh, let's introduce you to a fifth brand new crew in our convoluted continuity", it probably wouldn't have had the same appeal.

Lazar wrote:...If they had made a movie that was "Oh, let's introduce you to a fifth brand new crew in our convoluted continuity", it probably would bomb horribly at the box office.

Fixed it for you.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Well Kirk was born in 2233. If we assume he is 18 in ST XI, then it's set in 2251. We saw the Enterprise in a roughly TOS-like state in 2254 in "The Menagerie".

So we pretty much have to assume that the ship was built, then almost completely rebuilt within two or three years. Technically possible, but... doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In which case we go to the lesser solution: Spock goes back in time, looks at the thing, and nearly vomits.

Here's a thought. How about a TOS RE-remastered, with this ship inserted instead of the original? *braces for impact*

Captain Seafort wrote:The man had suffered massive radiation burns and was completely paralysed, limited to using translated brainwaves to communicate. Today he'd be dead. While I can certainly see him having a brainwave-activated version of the gismo Stephen Hawking uses, that's hardly the "full range of expressive capability".

Fine, I haven't seen it in a few years. But there's no way that 200+ years from now, the most advanced means of technology for paralyzed persons will be "ONE FOR YES TWO FOR NO".

The answer to that is to set any future Trek after the existing series, not to try and rewrite TOS to what JJ Abrams (or anyone else) thinks it should be.

We're just fundamentally in disagreement then.