Author Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness - Images, Videos, Discussion, etc (Read 101918 times)

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #800 on:** June 05, 2013, 06:21:33 AM »

Quote from: Nighthawk on June 03, 2013, 12:16:08 AM

is that an Akyazi down there? :eek

What you're seeing is the 'Newton Type'

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm

It was in XI as well.

Nighthawk · « **Reply #801 on:** June 05, 2013, 08:45:11 AM »

Quote from: Kori Barnes on June 05, 2013, 06:21:33 AM

What you're seeing is the 'Newton Type'
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
It was in XI as well.

hmmm... haven't visited EAS in a very long time... didn't know these guys had that much info already

there it says about the Vengeance, that it was "designed, built and launched in just one year, by an organization that is known for covert operations and not for shipbuilding, in a secret installation that likely didn't previously exist, and in the Sol system with its heavy space traffic that would make keeping the secret extremely hard"

with all the tech available even today, they never thought about modular construction.... which would have made the cover-up much more plausible, with different crews working on different pieces without them knowing the complete picture.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #802 on:** June 05, 2013, 07:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Nighthawk on June 05, 2013, 08:45:11 AM

hmmm... haven't visited EAS in a very long time... didn't know these guys had that much info already

there it says about the Vengeance, that it was "designed, built and launched in just one year, by an organization that is known for covert operations and not for shipbuilding, in a secret installation that likely didn't previously exist, and in the Sol system with its heavy space traffic that would make keeping the secret extremely hard"

with all the tech available even today, they never thought about modular construction.... which would have made the cover-up much more plausible, with different crews working on different pieces without them knowing the complete picture.

Not to mention that the Vengeance was probably designed originally to combat the Klingon Empire. And modular construction makes sense considering the blocky nature of the ship.

Trim · « **Reply #803 on:** June 05, 2013, 09:17:12 PM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on June 02, 2013, 11:52:30 PM

Found this great shot of the Enterprise from an upcoming issue of Cinefex. If the past pattern proves true, we should get a huge, hi-res version of the render used for the cover, as that was done for the Star Trek 2009 cover(Enterprise in front of Saturn, seriously the render was 6412x6347). Let's hope, cause this is a great shot.

I have to admit, I love the way that ship looks. It's a close second right behind the connie refit.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #804 on:** June 06, 2013, 12:29:21 AM »

Quote from: Trim on June 05, 2013, 09:17:12 PM

I have to admit, I love the way that ship looks. It's a close second right behind the connie refit.

She does grow on ya. Definitely grew on me faster than the Enterprise-D. Still think that ship looks unbalanced.

captain_obvious · « **Reply #805 on:** June 06, 2013, 12:55:30 PM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on June 06, 2013, 12:29:21 AM

She does grow on ya. Definitely grew on me faster than the Enterprise-D. Still think that ship looks unbalanced.

She does look unbalanced, but she pulls it off anyway. Unlike the jjprise which is just plain old ugly. Front view, not so bad. Any other view? :vomit:

Saquist · « **Reply #806 on:** June 06, 2013, 01:04:25 PM »

I think Ryan Church Designed all of these but I really do believe the JJ Prise had JJ's hand in it. None of the other designs have that level of awkwardness and ungainly gait. Even the Vengeance is a sight for sore eyes looking at the Enterprise for too long.

Bones · « **Reply #807 on:** June 06, 2013, 07:14:49 PM »

Call me crazy guys

but I do like JJprise after all these years staring at it

you can always say my mind was assimilated by jjprise

ShaunKL · « **Reply #808 on:** June 07, 2013, 12:15:59 AM »

I've come to grips with everything except the heft of her nacelles. If they went on a diet she'd be just right.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #809 on:** June 07, 2013, 01:23:32 AM »

Quote from: ShaunKL on June 07, 2013, 12:15:59 AM

I've come to grips with everything except the heft of her nacelles. If they went on a diet she'd be just right.

Hey, I like her ample nacelles. :p

BTW, I did notice that the bussards of the Enterprise in Into Darkness seemed to have a more pronounced blue glow than the last film.

captain_obvious · « **Reply #810 on:** June 07, 2013, 10:16:41 AM »

The saucer is about the only part of that thing that I think is pretty decent. The rest of it, the nacelles, the secondary hull, the pylons, the neck....they just don't look right.

Nighthawk · « **Reply #811 on:** June 07, 2013, 04:43:40 PM »

Quote from: captain_obvious on June 07, 2013, 10:16:41 AM

The saucer is about the only part of that thing that I think is pretty decent. The rest of it, the nacelles, the secondary hull, the pylons, the neck....they just don't look right.

the neck is just too short.... I guess it's only a matter of stretching it up just a notch.

I've always been kinda picky about how un-sleek the original TOS connie looked when compared to the TMP connie... and now this one just looks way too sleek for its own good lol

still... I think a lost-era version of the Ent-C made to this design lineage, would make the Galaxy look like a flying chunk.

(I believe what they did was take the TOS connie, project it to widescreen ratio and FOV, and use that projection as a starting point... you can get a similar proportion of parts if you look at the TOS connie from the front, at just the right distance and with the right FOV angle... it's like an optic illusion)

086gf · « **Reply #812 on:** June 07, 2013, 05:24:10 PM »

The only thing that really bugs me is having the only underside registry being on the belly. What i'd like to see is keep the original under saucer positions but rotate them 90 and curve them to fit the hull lines. Also, add the ENTERPRISE and relocate it to the front side. The underside of the saucer is just too plain and doing this would be an improvement hands down.

ShaunKL · « **Reply #813 on:** June 07, 2013, 07:37:22 PM »

That would look nice.

WileyCoyote · « **Reply #814 on:** June 07, 2013, 07:45:37 PM »

Quote

The only thing that really bugs me is having the only underside registry being on the belly. What i'd like to see is keep the original under saucer positions but rotate them 90 and curve them to fit the hull lines. Also, add the ENTERPRISE and relocate it to the front side. The underside of the saucer is just too plain and doing this would be an improvement hands down.

Don't give me ideas.