StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2010-11-30 04:38pm**

Skylon wrote:In the interests of partially retracting an earlier statement. I don't think it should have looked exactly like the Daedalus. Anything other than a lazy Akira-knock off would have worked better frankly. If the Daedalus did appear on screen, it'd have been cool if it was in the final episode, as the replacement for the NX-class.

The sad thing is that according to one of the guys in the art department at the time, it was a big fight just to be able to change the model as much as they did. The producers allegedly "were of the mind to just use the Akira, lock stock and barrel."

Posted: **2010-11-30 09:31pm**

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:
Vympel wrote:What's especially baffling about it is the fan obsession with this space turd - its a single obscure model in the background of a handful episodes, for chrissakes. Honestly, why the fixation? It'd be like the fandom stroking themselves to a future Federation where the next generation ship is Crusher's medical starship from All Good Things.
Probably because pretty much every early-Federation (i.e. latter half of the 22nd century) ship mentioned in TOS or TNG was either canonically or apocryphally a Daedalus. It's the class that's widely regarded, not the design per se.

As for the NX, they should have gone with the season 5 design that's been floating round for the last year or so and, of course, called it something than Enterprise.
I'll agree to that. I really don't have that much fondness for the over all design, only that all pre TOS and post TOS "lore" says "Oh yes! The Daedalus! That was the real work horse of the Federation before the Connies came out!"

Its more the fact that there is a lot that establishes the class as being important and significant. If they came out with a good pre TOS design and called it a Daedalus, I might like that more.

As it is, I still say one of the main things that doomed Enterprise from the start, was that they named it ENTERPRISE. For FSM's sake, there has NEVER been any mention of an Enterprise before TOS. Trying to steal name cred by making a prequel ship named for a ship that comes after you just turned my guts from day one. Again if you do a show that takes place before TOS, have it's hero ship named anything other then 'Enterprise'.

I assume Ent apologists will say that since this is pre-Starfleet, you could (theoretically) make room for a pre-TOS Enterprise. Which reminds me of another beef: did they ever explicitly mention the name of the organization that Archer's ship was a part of? I'd have loved to have them explicitly stated as being part of the UESPA.

Posted: **2010-11-30 10:02pm**

I don't mind the Daedalus. It isn't particularly sexy though, I agree, but that's something of a good thing if you consider it to be a workhorse ship that wasn't really a glory ship. A lot of starfleet ships that were destroyed or went MIA can be conjectured to be Daedalus class ships. EDIT: TOS and pre-TOS era ships I mean.

Posted: **2010-11-30 10:09pm**

Crossroads Inc. wrote:As it is, I still say one of the main things that doomed Enterprise from the start, was that they named it ENTERPRISE. For FSM's sake, there has NEVER been any mention of an Enterprise before TOS.

I kind of doubt stuff like that is what "doomed" the show - it strikes me as something only a relative handful of nerds would care about.

Posted: **2010-12-01 12:48am**

Junghalli wrote:
Crossroads Inc. wrote:As it is, I still say one of the main things that doomed Enterprise from the start, was that they named it ENTERPRISE. For FSM's sake, there has NEVER been any mention of an Enterprise before TOS.
I kind of doubt stuff like that is what "doomed" the show - it strikes me as something only a relative handful of nerds would care about.

Well, no, but I think it was symptomatic of a severe lack of originality and creativity among the creative staff.

Posted: **2010-12-01 10:17pm**

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm pretty sure "Daedalus class" is purely a post-TOS invention. I don't even think it showed up in TAS. However ugly it may be, that design came out of the TNG/DS9-era art department, and even then the connection between "Daedalus" and that particular design is never made on screen.

The first appearance chronologically was as a model of the USS Horizon on Sisko's desk, based on one of Jeffries' original designs for TOS. The original drawing had the nacelles under the main hull.

Posted: **2010-12-01 11:52pm**

Ok, going back to OT and being a bit egotistical, I think the NX-(whatever) ENT should have been something like this:

I did call it a Daedalus class though it didn't look like the 'model'.

Posted: **2010-12-02 07:17am**

That just sorta looks like a Connie with a comically shruken secondary hull.

Posted: **2010-12-02 08:39am**

Srelex wrote:That just sorta looks like a Connie with a comically shruken secondary hull.

That's because it is. Oh. And the nacelles are slightly different. Looks like a cheap Chinese knock-off Connie.

Posted: **2010-12-02 01:17pm**

Crossroads Inc. wrote:As it is, I still say one of the main things that doomed Enterprise from the start, was that they named it ENTERPRISE. For FSM's sake, there has NEVER been any mention of an Enterprise before TOS. Trying to steal name cred by making a prequel ship named for a ship that comes after you just turned my guts from day one. Again if you do a show that takes place before TOS, have it's hero ship named anything other then 'Enterprise'.

Are you quite sure about that?
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CV-6%29
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterp ... 8CVN-65%29
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterp ... XCV_330%29
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Enterprise_%28OV-101%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise

Looks like even as far back as TMP, they had some reference to a spacecraft prior to the TOS craft named the Enterprise - look at XCV_330 there. Design doesn't look much like the ENT ship, but still.

Posted: **2010-12-02 04:58pm**

Molyneux wrote: Looks like even as far back as TMP, they had some reference to a spacecraft prior to the TOS craft named the Enterprise - look at XCV_330 there. Design doesn't look much like the ENT ship, but still.

XCV-330 remains canon. A picture of it appeared in a bar on ENT, indicating it was a vessel that predated the NX.

To suggest there could not have been a Starship Enterprise prior to NCC-1701 is a bit out there. The displays of earlier "Enterprises" in TOS and TNG omit many of the actual ships named Enterprise (usually only one aircraft carrier is displayed, when there have been two).

"Trials and Tribulations" is the only bit of canon that suggests NCC-1701 was the first Starship Enterprise, when Sisko refers to it as such.

Posted: **2011-02-08 04:23pm**

Skylon wrote:
Molyneux wrote: Looks like even as far back as TMP, they had some reference to a spacecraft prior to the TOS craft named the Enterprise - look at XCV_330 there. Design doesn't look much like the ENT ship, but still.
XCV-330 remains canon. A picture of it appeared in a bar on ENT, indicating it was a vessel that predated the NX.

To suggest there could not have been a Starship Enterprise prior to NCC-1701 is a bit out there. The displays of earlier "Enterprises" in TOS and TNG omit many of the actual ships named Enterprise (usually only one aircraft carrier is displayed, when there have been two).

"Trials and Tribulations" is the only bit of canon that suggests NCC-1701 was the first Starship Enterprise, when Sisko refers to it as such.

Having watched trials and tribble-ations after several Enterprise episodes (all of which were abysmal), I rolled my eyes when Sisko referred to it as the first Enterprise, as I then knew the NX-01 was a pretty pathetic attempt at installing another ship of that name into the timeline.

As for me, I was disappointed by the blatant Akira clone, I would have preferred something much bulkier and ungainly, but they tried to make it too sleek. Humanity had been exploring deep space for less than a century, so it was silly to suggest the NX-01 was that slick and shiny.

Posted: **2011-02-17 12:21am**

Captain Seafort wrote:As for the NX, they should have gone with the season 5 design that's been floating round for the last year or so.

it was designed by trek designer Doug Drexler and would have been a good update to the enterprise lineage.
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... t-diagram/

Posted: **2011-02-19 04:56pm**

aussiemuscle308 wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:As for the NX, they should have gone with the season 5 design that's been floating round for the last year or so.
it was designed by trek designer Doug Drexler and would have been a good update to the enterprise lineage.
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... t-diagram/

Now THAT is a bit more like it

I love the way it`s a stepping stone between the NX and the Constitution... Got any actual renders of it?

Posted: **2011-02-19 05:21pm**

Oddly Voyager had the name of 'Dauntless' being attached to the NX-01 Registry. Which I think would have been a fitting title and theme for a series about Earth's first real explorer going out there and would have avoided the whole 'continuity' issue altogether.

Really the 'Earth ship not Federation Starfleet' excuse for the Enterprise is a similarly thin pretext to having the Ferengi and Borg and just not mentioning their names as far as continuity goes.

And I still think that season 5 'refit' is ridiculous. Though it would have been less so if it had been that design from the start,

Posted: **2011-02-20 09:31am**

I'm probably in the minority here but I never had problems with the NX-01 design per say, rather my problems with it were for how lazily it was done.

Posted: **2011-02-20 12:21pm**

Cecelia5578 wrote:
Junghalli wrote:
Crossroads Inc. wrote:As it is, I still say one of the main things that doomed Enterprise from the start, was that they named it ENTERPRISE. For FSM's sake, there has NEVER been any mention of an Enterprise before TOS.
I kind of doubt stuff like that is what "doomed" the show - it strikes me as something only a relative handful of nerds would care about.
Well, no, but I think it was symptomatic of a severe lack of originality and creativity among the creative staff.

Well then, isn't that what doomed the show- lack of creativity?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?

Re: How should the NX-1 have looked like?