Star Trek
- Home
- Board: /tv/ - Television & Film
- Reading: Star Trek
Do you think they made the right choice?
It's not like the one they went with was necessary "bad" anyway.
>>70338416
I like the rejected one better but the aztec one seems to fit more closely with an industralized mishmash that could be conceviably be produced. The rejected is already 'too' futuristic.
>>70338468
>>70338416
The issue with the one they used is that it looks too similar to the post-TOS movie ships and not enough of a precursor to the original Enterprise.
Problem with the NX is it's hull shape, clearly a post-TNG era hull design, fits more in with something like DS9 or Voyager era.
First one fits in more with pre-TOS but I think it also looks a little to clean
I think the Daedalus with a TOS era Dish would have been a good choice.
>>70338949
Yeah, Berman just liked the design on the Akira class and said "make it look older."
>>70338949
The first deep space ship should have been more closely related to near future plausible tech like the Avatar ship or the Silent Running ship. Pic related.
>>70339052
Forgot pic
>>70339076
Before Enterprise and the NX, this was the first Enterprise. (and is seen in several models throughout the franchise)
>>70338416
Absolutely not but the deflector dish on the top having a refit could change my opinion.
Spinning apparatuses on the end of the nacelles also add to an older look that would make any viewer who isn't a fan of Trek would be turned away to something set in the future but reminds them of something from their past.
As a Trek fan, I still like the bottom design.
>>70339025
This this is what annoys me the most about the NX-01 design, it ditches the entire 'shaft' body the TOS Enterprises had. That's all well and good for VOY era ship, but a pre-TOS Enterprise should be bulkier than the "No bloody A, B, C, or D" Enterprise.
Also that tiny strip of a deflector array.
>>70339318
Not to step on anyone's toes, but I wonder what Vorta genitals are like. Their ladies are obviously stacked.
>>70339318
Fuck you.
>>70339414
Neat trick.
Are you going to respond with the video of someone editing in (You)s or erasing them?
>>70339140
I feel dumb that I forgot about this one. This design seems like it was lifted straight from 2001 though and not really an original Trek design.
>>70339619
2001 didn't invent the concept, it just popularized it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_wheel_space_station
>>70339712
The memory alpha entry suggests that the design was repurposed and used for the Vulcan Suurok class. Neat.
>>70339712
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_wheel_space_station
So is this Enterprise going on posssibly months long warp 2 maximum voyages without artificial gravity (I assume so since why else would you rotate the ship)? That means there was an era of starfleet history where all ship operations were conducted in microgravity since the bridge is clearly too close to the center of rotation for any gravitation effects to be felt.
>>70339798
I love the Vulcan Sexual Organ Ships in ENT
>>70339935
Right looks a bit like this Tarellian cruiser. Both are awesome designs though. Any canon reason for the ring design? Perhaps something to do with warp field generation?
>>70340045
Symmetrical warp field
>>70338949
Looks cool, and I'm not even a trekie.
>>70340414
>and I'm not even a trekie.
No, you're Trekkie (two Ks) even if you're unaware of it.
Being a fan of Star Trek is like an evolutionary line that has many branches but they all lead to one highly patrician choice. You're being naturally selected by finding these designs "cool".
