|
That refit is ugly as gently caress.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
Christ, that thing looks ugly with that extra, superfluous hull.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Oh god, Endgame, you're terrible with old man makeup! At least there's not a Narn this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Oh god, Endgame, you're terrible with old man makeup! At least there's not a Narn this time. Has there ever been old-person makeup that was generally well-regarded? I'm struggling to think of any production, Trek or otherwise, where someone didn't poo poo on makeup meant to make someone look older.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
The high mark of Trek old-age makeup:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Defiant, baby. I love the Defiant. I love the Defiant. It looks tough and functional, like a no-frills rear end-kicker. I also like the Alternate Universe Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
The Enterprise-D never looked like a ship where over a thousand people would live to me, either from an exterior or interior view, but I just accepted it unless I was forced to think about it too much. The design was cool enough not to make me go "Boy, that's ugly and stupid!" which is pretty hard to do. Maybe they should have just made all the spaceships look like big boats and called them spaceboats. Geordi could tell the Captain when the spacesail was torn and Data could let them know when the spacewind was blowing the wrong way. Worf could fire the spacecannons and Wesley could walk the spaceplank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The Enterprise-D never looked like a ship where over a thousand people would live to me, either from an exterior or interior view, but I just accepted it unless I was forced to think about it too much. The design was cool enough not to make me go "Boy, that's ugly and stupid!" which is pretty hard to do. Looks can be deceiving though. Looking at an aircraft carrier it doesn't immediately seem like it holds over 5,500 people in there. And the Enterprise-D has several times the interior volume (yes, not counting the nacelles) of an aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Has there ever been old-person makeup that was generally well-regarded? I'm struggling to think of any production, Trek or otherwise, where someone didn't poo poo on makeup meant to make someone look older. Well there is Max Von Sydow in the Exorcist. Looks pretty drat good(old) to me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Looks can be deceiving though. Looking at an aircraft carrier it doesn't immediately seem like it holds over 5,500 people in there. And the Enterprise-D has several times the interior volume (yes, not counting the nacelles) of an aircraft carrier. A lot of it is taken up by plasma conduits and spare consoles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
My two favorite Star Trek ships have always been the Defiant and NX01. I understand not needing a ship to be aerodynamic, and it can be really challenging to come up with something that looks cool without being aerodynamic, but I've never been a fan of the 'general' Enterprise design, with two hulls and nacelles that stuck out on little spindly pillars. There are plenty of problems with this design that are dumber than being aerodynamic in space. Why are there two hulls? It makes no sense. I'd say it was for Roddenberry's weird insistence that the Ent-D can separate, but it's the same shape on the original. I know they move around in turbolifts (At least in the D), but getting around on ships that shape must be a bitch. And there are so many blatant structural weak points. Considering how many times the ships end up in extreme structural stress, or even take damage in battle, they'd be concerned about someone blowing off a nacelle, or focusing fire on the slender 'neck' of the ship and breaking it in half. Edit: I forgot the original thing I came to post about. I watched The First Duty today, and was completely distracted by the fact that Wesley's dorm room door has a loving doorknob. And people knock on it. And he walks over and holds the door open for people when he wants them to leave. And no one thinks this is weird. Why does Wesley have literally the only remaining doorknob in the universe? I guess Sisko's Restaurant has an old timey door too, but that seems to fit into the old timey theme of the place. Federation colonists living on the barest of essentials in the loving DMZ have sliding future doors, but Star Fleet academy hasn't had a chance to update their building since before WW3? counterfeitsaint fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:My two favorite Star Trek ships have always been the Defiant and NX01. Obviously the only logical way to construct a ship of that size would be to have several redundant systems, with the most vital components stored in the center of the ship itself. To facilitate this, perhaps some sort of cubic or spherical shape would work best, as it would give equal amount of protection from all possible angles of attack. Pleasing aesthetics are irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:The high mark of Trek old-age makeup: Star Trek, where growing old turns you into a Narn. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
The -D was built to impose the Federation's will on anyone close enough to care about. It's a space luxury liner. So it needs to look like it and it does with all those curvy shapes. If you're going to be carrying around the Daughter of the 5th House and blah blah blah you need to do it in style. The -E looks like they smashed together the old sticky-out-nacell design of the TOS with the blue/dark gray color scheme of Voyager. Then smoothed it out with sand paper. It's still a sweet ship, though. Though my favorite one of all time is the -D with the extra nacell. Now that's a space ship. Then there's the stupid bending nacell action on the Voyager. I hated that so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:Obviously the only logical way to construct a ship of that size would be to have several redundant systems, with the most vital components stored in the center of the ship itself. To facilitate this, perhaps some sort of cubic or spherical shape would work best, as it would give equal amount of protection from all possible angles of attack. Surely there can be some kind of happy medium between the two? Like, maybe, the Defiant? Are you saying a secondary hull exists only for a pleasing aesthetic? I realize it's subjective, but I haven't seen anyone post that they immediately loved it when first seeing it. Most of the praise for Trek ships in the last page or two seems entirely nostalgic to me, i.e. 'I hated it at first, but now it's cool/at least ok'
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:Surely there can be some kind of happy medium between the two? Like, maybe, the Defiant? Are you saying a secondary hull exists only for a pleasing aesthetic? I realize it's subjective, but I haven't seen anyone post that they immediately loved it when first seeing it. Most of the praise for Trek ships in the last page or two seems entirely nostalgic to me, i.e. 'I hated it at first, but now it's cool/at least ok' I loved the Enterprise-D on first sight goddamnit counterfeitsaint posted:Edit: I forgot the original thing I came to post about. I watched The First Duty today, and was completely distracted by the fact that Wesley's dorm room door has a loving doorknob. And people knock on it. And he walks over and holds the door open for people when he wants them to leave. And no one thinks this is weird. Why does Wesley have literally the only remaining doorknob in the universe? I guess Sisko's Restaurant has an old timey door too, but that seems to fit into the old timey theme of the place. Federation colonists living on the barest of essentials in the loving DMZ have sliding future doors, but Star Fleet academy hasn't had a chance to update their building since before WW3? Maybe doorknobs are prestigious?* He is part of NOVA SQUADRON after all. *Yes I know this makes no sense
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:Pleasing aesthetics are irrelevant. That's always been part of the Roddenberry post-scarcity thing, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
MrMo posted:Well there is Max Von Sydow in the Exorcist. Looks pretty drat good(old) to me Max von Sydow was 43 during filming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:So what do people actually like about the Enterprise D? TNG and Generations were good, but that is one ugly-rear end ship. I would choose the B/Excelsior over that thing any day. It looks incomprehensibly advanced and almost alien. A lot of the perception of it is hobbled by the Season 3+ model of it which took all the delicate fragile curves and thin sections and blew them out into an ugly beefy crude version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Defiant, baby. I love the Defiant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Stop using the word "aerodynamic" when you mean "streamlined."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:Surely there can be some kind of happy medium between the two? Like, maybe, the Defiant? Are you saying a secondary hull exists only for a pleasing aesthetic? I realize it's subjective, but I haven't seen anyone post that they immediately loved it when first seeing it. Most of the praise for Trek ships in the last page or two seems entirely nostalgic to me, i.e. 'I hated it at first, but now it's cool/at least ok' My point was that if you're building something in orbit that will never enter an atmosphere, then who cares about the shape? It's completely irrelevant, and I seriously doubt the appearance of any ship expected to enter combat would be considered a bigger factor than the function. For one, the bridge would never under any circumstances be placed on top of the ship like you see in pretty much every non-Borg ship in Star Trek. It would be put as far into the center as you could manage it. Nacelles would likely be done away with, and they certainly wouldn't be stuck way the gently caress out to the sides of the ship and lit up like a big loving "shoot right here" beacon. Engines would probably be placed inline with the main hull, like you see in modern fighter jets. As far as a cool looking ship that isn't pointlessly streamlined? I always thought the Shivan ships from Freespace/Freespace 2 looked pretty drat slick. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:My point was that if you're building something in orbit that will never enter an atmosphere You mean like this: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Thank you for bringing this fresh perspective to the discussion, we've certainly never considered the impracticality of a control center located on the outer hull or propulsion units set out on narrow pylons before. Since Star Trek is clearly an attempt at predicting the near-future of local space travel crafted under the "hard scifi" subgenre of speculative fiction, there certainly seems to be a lot of fantastical whimsy at work! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:propulsion units set out on narrow pylons Those were supposed to look terribly fragile, because future
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Thank you for bringing this fresh perspective to the discussion, we've certainly never considered the impracticality of a control center located on the outer hull or propulsion units set out on narrow pylons before. Since Star Trek is clearly an attempt at predicting the near-future of local space travel crafted under the "hard scifi" subgenre of speculative fiction, there certainly seems to be a lot of fantastical whimsy at work! Oh gently caress off with that reduction, I was explaining why I think Borg ships are the ship style we're more likely to construct if we ever get to that stage. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:My point was that if you're building something in orbit that will never enter an atmosphere, then who cares about the shape? It's completely irrelevant, and I seriously doubt the appearance of any ship expected to enter combat would be considered a bigger factor than the function. For one, the bridge would never under any circumstances be placed on top of the ship like you see in pretty much every non-Borg ship in Star Trek. It would be put as far into the center as you could manage it. Nacelles would likely be done away with, and they certainly wouldn't be stuck way the gently caress out to the sides of the ship and lit up like a big loving "shoot right here" beacon. Engines would probably be placed inline with the main hull, like you see in modern fighter jets. Nothing in Star Trek has ever indicated that the ships weren't meant to be able to enter atmospheres. Quite the opposite, in fact. Did any series NOT show the ship entering the atmosphere of some planet? TNG is only one I can remote think of but the saucer was designed to land in an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Nothing in Star Trek has ever indicated that the ships weren't meant to be able to enter atmospheres. Quite the opposite, in fact. Did any series NOT show the ship entering the atmosphere of some planet? TNG is only one I can remote think of but the saucer was designed to land in an emergency. TNG's ship sure as hell went into an atmosphere.  (that's directed towards Troi)Yeah makes sense in case of an emergency you can land a ship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^ Great_Gerbil posted:Nothing in Star Trek has ever indicated that the ships weren't meant to be able to enter atmospheres. Quite the opposite, in fact. Did any series NOT show the ship entering the atmosphere of some planet? TNG is only one I can remote think of but the saucer was designed to land in an emergency. Voyager landed on planets on at least two occasions that I can remember, but Intrepid class ships are, well, streamlined. Not to mention considerably smaller than Galaxy class ships. I don't recall any landfalls in DS9 that weren't done in shuttles, and I don't think I have to point out what happened when they tried to land the saucer section of the -D. Frank Horrigan fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Nothing in Star Trek has ever indicated that the ships weren't meant to be able to enter atmospheres. Quite the opposite, in fact. Did any series NOT show the ship entering the atmosphere of some planet? TNG is only one I can remote think of but the saucer was designed to land in an emergency. I always got the impression that the NX was designed to land on a planet (flat-bottomed hull, raised warp nacelles), and was a little disappointed that it never did. According to several non-canon sources, the refit Enterprise's primary hull was designed to separate in a catastrophic emergency and serve as a life boat, including the ability to soft land on a planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Wasn't the Enterprise in TOS always supposed to be able to land on planets but the effects shots would have cost too much money and so that's why the writers came up with the transporter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:EDIT: ^^^ Defiant landed in Children of Time. Do keep in mind the D came down without engines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Wasn't the Enterprise in TOS always supposed to be able to land on planets but the effects shots would have cost too much money and so that's why the writers came up with the transporter? The transporter was invented because it was too costly to show a shuttlecraft taking off and landing all the time. Also, there was one TOS episode where Kirk told Scotty to separate the ship in the event of an emergency ("The Apple"). Mister Kingdom fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Gau posted:I always got the impression that the NX was designed to land on a planet (flat-bottomed hull, raised warp nacelles) That's what I was getting at. NX-01 aside, the various Enterprise ships have always been designed with the secondary hull and primary saucer. Look at the -A, for example. It weighs in the neighborhood of 600 kilotons, and is large enough volume-wise to comfortably hold some 500 people for extended periods of time. Looking at the shape of it, can you seriously say that it wouldn't fall right the gently caress apart as soon as it tried to land?  poo poo man, they use a spacedock for a reason. Kai Tave posted:Wasn't the Enterprise in TOS always supposed to be able to land on planets but the effects shots would have cost too much money and so that's why the writers came up with the transporter? Nope, you're thinking of the shuttles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
The Defiant is the only ship that looks like it could land properly. All the other have such awkward weight distribution they look like they'd collapse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:Nope, you're thinking of the shuttles. The TOS saucer was meant to land. You can see the stripes that are the landing gear on the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
I still am convinced there is some kind of antigrav on Voyager's saucer for when it lands. Otherwise a stiff wind could knock it over. The saucer makes for one hell of a lever arm. :edit: Look what I found. http://fsd.trekships.org/art/voyager1.html Voyager could've had big fuckoff tail fins. Brute Squad fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
kelvron posted:And I agree with you Gau, the Akiraprise definitely had classic lines. I'm glad they never got to do the 'refit' on it. Would've ruined everything in my opinion. The NX always looked way too flat and weak looking, I like the refit because the secondary hull adds much needed beef to the design, and covers up some of the glowing blue stuff in the nacelles. I just wish they had ditched that stupid flattened deflector on the bow, it's nonsensical and ugly and you can't even tell what it's supposed to be until you get up close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
kelvron posted:I still am convinced there is some kind of antigrav on Voyager's saucer for when it lands. Otherwise a stiff wind could knock it over. The saucer makes for one hell of a lever arm. Or the Warp Coils are incredibly dense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
^^^^^ Still doesn't fix the whole saucer-lever arm issue. Tighclops posted:The NX always looked way too flat and weak looking, I like the refit because the secondary hull adds much needed beef to the design, and covers up some of the glowing blue stuff in the nacelles. I just wish they had ditched that stupid flattened deflector on the bow, it's nonsensical and ugly and you can't even tell what it's supposed to be until you get up close. I think the lack of secondary hull is due to the NX being a much earlier design. It's a point along the line of ship development between the Phoenix and the Constitution class. Sure it looks weak, but it was a weak vessel compared to the later Enterprises. It's not a Starfleet vessel with an experienced crew backed by the Federation, it's a bunch of stupid humans loving around in their new neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:19
|
|