This would have been acceptable. But this is a fan design by Gabriel C. Koerner and not the real deal.
No, friends, the new Enterprise is here: Click at your own risk.
As someone on Flare put it, this is what the ship from Galaxy Quest would've looked like if they'd been legally able to make it look like the Enterprise.
5 comments:
Yeah, I'm not impressed with it, either... I've been told it's a rather unflattering shot of the ship, though, and that it looks a lot better in live action/from other angles. Apparently Rick Sternbach got a sneak peak at it in motion, and says it's much better than what it looks like in that shot (though why they would pick such an unflattering shot for a release photo is beyond me...). That info is unsubstantiated rumor, though, because my source didn't say where he got his information.
I'll reiterate what I said about this design previously...
People compare detractors of the new design to detractors of other Star Trek designs, but the difference between the Connie-refit, Excelsior, Galaxy, Ambassador and Sovereign designs and the Star Trek XI design is that the former ships were each new designs, for different ships, even the Connie-refit which was described in TMP as an "almost totally new Enterprise"...
The problem HERE though, is that the Trek XI design is trying to be the SAME ship as the original Enterprise and it quite simply can't do that if it has the saucer of the TMP design and a completely different secondary hull, which Bernd Schneider descried as looking like an, "Alien CGI ship of the week"... He also described the new design as having, "Less than 5% in common with the TOS ship."
All this comes after J.J. Abrams explicitly stated...
"If you’re going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you’re going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?"
...which leads me to conclude that Abrams is incompetent, not in control of his own project, a flaming hypocrite, or some combination of the three...
Now, after getting over the, "initial shock" that Schneider described, like him, I too concede that the new design doesn't look THAT bad (though I reserve my right to DETEST the nacelles), it's just that it is NOT the Enterprise... You can argue semantics all you like, but BELIEVE YOUR EYES for Christ's sake... It doesn't look like the Enterprise, therefore it isn't the Enterprise, it's that simple... I mean, it doesn't match the basic shape of the original... Now, I'm not a big fan of Gabriel C.Koerner's "chunky" reimagined Enterprise, for example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXa0cfaTlfk&eurl=http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/
...but at least it retain's the original's shape and basic look, something the Star Trek XI design fails to accomplish... It just doesn't look like the Enterprise...
To put it another way, have a look at this picture...
http://www.h4x3d.com/feat/themes/orange.jpg
...that is (obviously) an orange... If you were told it was anything else, you wouldn't believe it, would you? This is called visual identification, based on experience... In the same way, when you see this picture...
http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/Enterprise_5_hr.jpg
...you think "That's the Enterprise from Star Trek" and if you were told it was, say, a beagle, you wouldn't believe that, would you?
And what we have here with this new design is essentially the above scenario in reverse, we're given a picture of a ship that clearly cannot possibly be the same ship as the one in the image above, so the only question remains, are you going to trust what you can see (I.E. "OK, that's NOT the Enterprise"), or are you going to believe what you are told and attempt weakly to rationalize it? I personally am going to stick with the former, thanks... :)
For anyone who's interested, here's the Ex Astris Scientia commentary on the matter that I've been referring to...
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm
It would be a "fine" design for a new ship class (except for the nacelles; which are radically different from anything we've seen) but there is no way it can be the "USS Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C, or D", (or E).
In fact, the nacelles wouldn't be a problem - at least continuitywise - if they were on a post Voyager ship.
It doesn't make since as the as the Enterprise from TOS and it doesn't even make since as a transition design to link ENT to TOS.
It's tempting for me to say that it could work as a prototype design for the Enterprise Refit, but that's just because the film makes clearly started their designs there.
(Why blue highlights rather then red?)
I gotta think that your average trek fan would have been happier if they used modified footage from TOS for the shots of the ship.
I guess the real problem is that they went out of their way to get it wrong; given that there are computer models from ENT and TOR.
"I guess the real problem is that they went out of their way to get it wrong; given that there are computer models from ENT and TOR."
As well as various fan reimaginings... Even the famous "chunky" Enterprise G2K linked to a YouTube video of would have worked fine, so why change the design so radically that only the vauge shape is recognisable (and even that's questionable, because of the placement of the connecting dorsal etc.)...
If only I could have a better Enterprise for Christmas.
Post a Comment