www.ditl.org

Teaos wrote:I'm guessing they had several designs before settling on one. I'd like to see the others.

Well there was that crazy April Fool's design...

Man, I don't even want to imagine the bitching we'd be doing if that had been the real design.

Rochey wrote:Man, I don't even want to imagine the bitching we'd be doing if that had been the real design.

Really? For canon I think it looks a lot better than the current design.


Sheesh, trekkies are so picky!

LaughingCheese wrote:...Sheesh, trekkies are so picky!

...Thus why Abrams and co have decided to make a "movie for fans of movies" instead of a movie for Trek fans (that's exactly what he's said). Can't say I blame 'em.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

LaughingCheese wrote:...Sheesh, trekkies are so picky!

...Thus why Abrams and co have decided to make a "movie for fans of movies" instead of a movie for Trek fans (that's exactly what he's said). Can't say I blame 'em.

Me neither!

To clarify, I don't blame him and the people who are making this film for taking that stance. I am blaming the truly obsessive fans for forcing them down that route.

You can't make everyone happy all the time.

Really? For canon I think it looks a lot better than the current design.

I think it looks ridiculous. If you're making a movie about TOS, then logic suggests that you'd keep the star of the show, the E-Nill, consistant with its previous incarnation, not make up some bizzare looking new design that doesn't look remotely like it.
Hell, even the new Galactica looks more like its predecesor than that concept art did.

Rochey wrote:

Really? For canon I think it looks a lot better than the current design.

I think it looks ridiculous. If you're making a movie about TOS, then logic suggests that you'd keep the star of the show, the E-Nill, consistant with its previous incarnation, not make up some bizzare looking new design that doesn't look remotely like it.
Hell, even the new Galactica looks more like its predecesor than that concept art did.

If by 'radically different' you mean more advanced looking, it does look more advanced looking, your right. But it does have the same basic components.

So I don't quite know what you mean when you say it doesn't look remotely like it, cause it does: Saucer section, engineering hull, nacelle pylons, nacelles. Just updated.

LaughingCheese wrote:If by 'radically different' you mean more advanced looking, it does look more advanced looking, your right.

It's not meant to be more advanced - it's meant to be the same ship.

But it does have the same basic components.

You could say the same about almost every Fed ship we've ever seen.

Saucer section,

Has holes in it, turreted phaser cannon, and cutouts for the RCS thrusters. None of which were even remotely visible on the original.

engineering hull

Can't really see enough of it but it looks too conical (which might just be perspective), and has those cannons.

nacelle pylons

Not too bad, although they look too thick and too far forward. Again, might just be perspective.

nacelles.

Mostly alright, other than the field gril that the original E-nil didn't have.

Just updated.

Which is the whole problem. This film is meant to be set during TOS. The ship is meant to be the original Enterprise. Would you remake "Midway" or "Tora, Tora, Tora" with Nimitz-class carriers?

If by 'radically different' you mean more advanced looking, it does look more advanced looking, your right.

Hence our problem. The ship is not supposed to look more advanced than the ship it's standing in for. It's meant to look like that ship. One of the most common complaints about the NX was that it looked too advanced to be a predecesor of the TOS and even some TNG era ships. I'd rather they not make the same mistake here.

But it does have the same basic components.

The E-D also has all those same basic components. Does that mean it could stand in for a Connie? Nope.

Saucer section,

Which looks nothing like the original.

engineering hull

Which looks only vaguely like the original.

nacelle pylons

Probably the one feature of the ship that resembles the E-Nill.

nacelles.

Too many hints of TNG for my liking.

Just updated.

That ship isn't updated, it's a completely new design. It bears about as much resemblance to the original ship as the E-E does.

I like how the ship shares design elements with the Con-refit (e.g. the saucer exterior, the deflector dish).

Captain Seafort wrote:Would you remake "Midway" or "Tora, Tora, Tora" with Nimitz-class carriers?

No, because World War 2 actually happened in real life, and all the details are set in stone. Star Trek is not real, and it's dependent on our ability to imagine the future. The image of the future that we had in the 1960s looks outdated in the 2000s.

Lazar wrote:I like how the ship shares design elements with the Con-refit (e.g. the saucer exterior, the deflector dish).

Quite apart from the fact that this is meant to be the original, not the refit, how does the fact that the saucer looks good excuse the rest of the thing?

No, because World War 2 actually happened in real life, and all the details are set in stone. Star Trek is not real

True. The details of what was depicted on screen in the 60s are also set in stone. This film is being marketed as depicting events at the same time as those.

and it's dependent on our ability to imagine the future. The image of the future that we had in the 1960s looks outdated in the 2000s.

Again, irrelevent. They've depicted original configuration Connies, several times in recent Trek - "Trials and Tribble-ations", "In A Mirror Darkly", and TOS-R. Every one of those examples depicted the E-nil as she appeared in TOS. Trek XI makes no effort whatsover at doing so.

Captain Seafort wrote:Quite apart from the fact that this is meant to be the original, not the refit, how does the fact that the saucer looks good excuse the rest of the thing?

Just an observation; I've always liked the idea of having more esthetic continuity between the TOS era and the movie era.

True. The details of what was depicted on screen in the 60s are also set in stone. This film is being marketed as depicting events at the same time as those.

It's also been described as a reimagining, and they've acknowledged that it's set in an alternate continuity. (And even if that weren't the case, it could still be explained pretty simply as retcon. Nothing's set in stone in ST [in]continuity!) For better or worse, this film was not intended to be some canontastic devotional documentary with slavish adherence to TOS esthetics; it was intended to be an exciting, contemporary scifi film that would help revive a dead franchise.

They've depicted original configuration Connies, several times in recent Trek - "Trials and Tribble-ations", "In A Mirror Darkly", and TOS-R. Every one of those examples depicted the E-nil as she appeared in TOS.

And when they did that, the technology looked glaringly retro. My impression was that those instances were basically campy tributes to TOS. The fact is that the NX-01 bridge, for example, looks far technologically superior to the TOS Enterprise bridge, and it's just absurd to think that technology would devolve to a 1960s level by the mid 23rd century. The TOS Connie was a great design for its time; but by today's standards it looks a bit simplistic, with its rather unadorned monochrome hull, its plain rectangle-plus-cylinder nacelle construction, etc. (Personally, I was disappointed that we never got to see a Con-refit in later Trek - in my opinion, that's the most beautiful ship in all of Trek.)

Lazar wrote:It's also been described as a reimagining, and they've acknowledged that it's set in an alternate continuity.

That would have been blatantly obvious even if they'd tried to pretend the ships were identical.

(And even if that weren't the case, it could still be explained pretty simply as retcon. Nothing's set in stone in ST [in]continuity!)

Occassional VFX bogups or offhand dialogue can be ignored. Pretending that a ship seen for dozens of hours of TV was actually completely different is another matter.

For better or worse, this film was not intended to be some canontastic devotional documentary with slavish adherence to TOS esthetics; it was intended to be an exciting, contemporary scifi film that would help revive a dead franchise.

If they want a brand-new design then why didn't they set the film after Nemesis? Centuries after if they so wished. Then they could have done wahtever they liked without the complaints about the design of the ship.

And when they did that, the technology looked glaringly retro. My impression was that those instances were basically campy tributes to TOS.

Or they took the matter seriously, and realised that if they wanted to depict the old Enterprise, there was no point in doing it unless they did it right. In addition to this, while "Trials and Tribble-ations" could fall into the "campy tribute" category, that cannot be said of IAMD or TOS-R.

The fact is that the NX-01 bridge, for example, looks far technologically superior to the TOS Enterprise bridge, and it's just absurd to think that technology would devolve to a 1960s level by the mid 23rd century.

Why? In many respect the NX-01's bridge is inferior to that of the E-nil. It's more cramped, the major console positions are less accessable, and it's got a briefing room tagged on at the back.

The TOS Connie was a great design for its time; but by today's standards it looks a bit simplistic, with its rather unadorned monochrome hull, its plain rectangle-plus-cylinder nacelle construction, etc.

So? By and large, the simpler a design is, the better. The Connie is far from the best design in Trek (the Miranda, the Defiant and the Sabre are all better from an engineering point of view), but the arrangement of simple geometric shapes give her a clarity of form that even the refit can't beat. As for the hull, she's the best part of three hundred metres long. What sort of detail do you expect to see?

Personally, I was disappointed that we never got to see a Con-refit in later Trek - in my opinion, that's the most beautiful ship in all of Trek.)

Not so sure about seeing one turn up later, but on the last point we are in complete agreement.

Captain Seafort wrote:...If they want a brand-new design then why didn't they set the film after Nemesis? Centuries after if they so wished. Then they could have done wahtever they liked without the complaints about the design of the ship...

Here's where I start shaking my head. If they set the movie after NEM, they couldn't use the original cast, which they're using because even non Trek fans know the original cast. They're trying to make a movie that makes money, not a film for canon nazis. If they made a film with an all-new cast, they'd have all fifteen remaining Trek fans go see it, and it would be a disaster for the producers. I think we should be glad they're even taking the trouble to acknowledge canon at all with the time-travel plot, instead of just re-booting the whole thing.

The only thing previously established about Trek is that the fans lost interest; the last movie bombed, and the last show was canceled. Therefore, who cares about previous Trek? They aren't putting up $150 million dollars to make some 25th century fanfic; they're making a movie with established characters that (with the considerable hype) should make them a lot of money in return.