Topic: USS Defiant - Constitution Class

[Alidar Jarok]

Spoilers for Enterprise's In a Mirror, Darkly




This was in the promo for next week's episode, if you want to see what they did with the ship.

[Captain Pierce]

Well, doesn't look like they screwed it up too badly...  the real test will be how many glowies they load it up with when powered up...

[Rat Boy]

The saucer looks too fat.

Edit: In fact, it looks terrible; the FX people really blew this one.  Lord Schtupp did a much better rendition of that ship a long time ago.

[Alidar Jarok]

Obviously the real test is when it is in space under "space lighting".

It doesn't really look too bad to me, but I'm not a picky person.

[Chris Johnson]

I try to ignore the picky people most of the time, although at times it proves to be difficult.  I don't think it looks bad at all, how I think of it.  One must note though that not everyone will have as open a mind in taste.

[Rat Boy]

Chris, it's hard not to be picky when this is the most famous vessel in the history of science fiction.  It's also hard to fathom how they could have made the simple mistakes that they have with this ship when there's nearly forty years worth of reference drawings and diagrams to draw upon.

[Chris Johnson]

I don't believe it's hard not to be picky if you have an open-enough imagination and taste, regardless of the class of Starship or Starship in specific.  Of course it's the most famous Starship design in Science Fiction history.  That's precisely why I doubt the general audience will boo the Defiant for the inaccuracies of the Constitution-class here and there.  Not everyone's going to get it accurate, and not everyone's going to spend a lot of time browsing material on this particular starship design.
Why complain over the little details as if it was a crime against humanity?  Maybe I overexaggerated that, but my point is that, while it can be nice to nitpick here and there, don't be overly negative about it.  Have an open-enough imagination, let it go.  To quote Wicked Zombie in his forums: "Getting riled over a bunch of polygons and pixels isn't good for anyone's health."  The CGI Defiant's close enough to resemble a Constitution-class Starship at the very least, so I think it's good enough.
Besides, it's mostly the storyline that counts, right?  "In a Mirror, Darkly" might prove to be an interesting Enterprise episode I might tune in on UPN to watch for a change.  A closed mind is instantly prepared to say it will suck, and upon watching, will say it does regardless if it actually does or not.  I'll be open for a change this time around and tune into UPN when this episode airs.

[Wicked Zombie]

Lord Schtupp's may be more accurate, but he had weeks/months to work on it, plus the experience of making several previous versions. The FX guys only had a limited amount of time to work with (plus other things to concentrate on) so errors are unavoidable.

The fact that the Constitution is such a well known ship is what makes people be so critical about it. The reality is, it isn't as easy to make as most people think. It has deceptive lines and unique curves for such a simplistic design. Getting it accurate is no small task. Considering all of this, I'd say they did a pretty good job with the limitations they had.

Besides, it actually makes more sense if the Defiant has some differences compared to the Enterprise - ships of the same class don't have to be exactly alike.

[Rat Boy]

Point of order:


There already was a CG Connie sitting in the FX people's harddrives for at least the last four years for one of the few reference books that Pocket made over the past decade.  That model was far superior to this one.

[Chris Johnson]

I still don't believe getting riled up over the set of complex polygons and pixels of textures fitted onto said model is healthy.  Do you have any sources, any evidence on where this "better-looking" CGI model is, anyhow?  Do you know it's actually still there?  Are you sure "In a Mirror, Darkly" will not even be remotely interesting due to inaccuracies?  As I said, a closed mind is instantly prepared to say it will suck, and after watching it, will say it's bad regardless if it actually is bad or not.

[Rat Boy]

Do you have any sources, any evidence on where this "better-looking" CGI model is, anyhow?  Do you know it's actually still there?

As I said, it was made for a reference book titled Starship Spotter, which included the CGI models of every Trek ship ever made for the shows, including the CGI refit Connie used in the Director's Edition of TMP.  Since those vessels, such as the Prometheus, the K'Tinga, and presumably the Galaxy have or will turn up on ENT, it stands to reason that they would still exist somewhere on their computers.

Are you sure "In a Mirror, Darkly" will not even be remotely interesting due to inaccuracies?  As I said, a closed mind is instantly prepared to say it will suck, and after watching it, will say it's bad regardless if it actually is bad or not.

This was not a judgement on the show, nor is this thread about the episode iteself, only about that one image of the ship.  You seem to be the one who is quickest to anger and quickest to insult here for no reason.  Calm down.

[Tus-XC]

first point, you can't tell a whole hell of alot by that picture.  reason being is its not a straight on shot, its perspective probably with some adjusted focal points.  This will definatly  give the ship a bloated feel and is usually used for beauty shots as you can see more the ships lines and stuff (and it fill up more space).  The only way you will be able to determine its accuracy is by physically having the othrographic shots (top bottom left right front aft) and comparing it the original model. So right now i am far more content with waiting to see more of the ship to prove such inaccuracurcies exist versus making my basis off of one picture

Robert

[Rat Boy]

It isn't just that, though.  The registry looks like it is sliding off the hull and the bridge module looks squished.  I saw it on the big screen HDTV last night, so I got it in the full, in partial motion perspective, and with a DVR, I can pause and rewind it until I'm blue in the face.  It looks more like somebody's interpretation of the Constitution by hand and by eye rather than basing it off of any actual blueprints.

[Tus-XC]

motion right... well then add a blur to that then and you will get your squish.  Like  i said, there is very little you can do to dertimine its accuracy on screen unless for some reason they use the model to give an othographic schmeatic.  Until then that perspective is pretty much a beauty shot and out of context (ie  since this was the promo, though i will never get to see it) its like quoting someone and using the parts of the quote to fit your view when in reality the full quote says entirely different.  Until you see the rest, you are really not going to be able to determine anything, just make assumptions based on how it appears to you.

[Tus-XC]

looks good and stuck to the hull to me....

[Captain Spadaro]

From what I've seen, The Defiant looks pretty damn accurate.  Then again, I've never really been a fan of the TOS Constitution-class.

[Rat Boy]

looks good and stuck to the hull to me....

That wasn't what I meant.  It just looks like the registry text half on the curve of the saucer and half on the flat portion, which isn't something that should be happening.  As I said, it looks like a mere freehand interpretation than something that was built from the actual design schematics and/or blueprints.  I could understand if they were pressed for time (and rant for hours on how disappointing their choice in selecting the Romulan drone ship was), but for something that is clearly important, I would have preferred it if they did their research a bit better.  Or hell, while they're at it, why not just grab the model Greg Jein built for "Trials and Tribble-ations" and scan that into the computer?  Or even an AMT model.  I look forward to Bernd Schneider's dissection of this; he really can spot these things better than anyone else out there.

[Tus-XC]

I figured thats what you meant, but just had to say it anyway, couldn't let that one by .  anyways watch the preview online, found a few pics and the registry is not wrong.  If you check out the pic attached below (just snatched of the star trek site, wasn't hard to find) you will notice the same curving in the letters on the right.  So what you are seing on the defiant is right, just your getting it at a real bad angle

[Rat Boy]

Actually, that angle lines up almost perfectly to the one in the trailer (probably intentional), and reinforces my belief that the center of the saucer is thicker than it should be and the bridge module is wrong.

[Chris Johnson]

Actually, that angle lines up almost perfectly to the one in the trailer (probably intentional), and reinforces my belief that the center of the saucer is thicker than it should be and the bridge module is wrong.

Lord Schtupp's may be more accurate, but he had weeks/months to work on it, plus the experience of making several previous versions. The FX guys only had a limited amount of time to work with (plus other things to concentrate on) so errors are unavoidable.

The fact that the Constitution is such a well known ship is what makes people be so critical about it. The reality is, it isn't as easy to make as most people think. It has deceptive lines and unique curves for such a simplistic design. Getting it accurate is no small task. Considering all of this, I'd say they did a pretty good job with the limitations they had.

Besides, it actually makes more sense if the Defiant has some differences compared to the Enterprise - ships of the same class don't have to be exactly alike.

I hope you get the point when I quoted him (and emphasized and underlined parts), Rat Boy.

[Captain Spadaro]

Chris, when you say ships of the same class don't have to be exactly alike, are we talking internally, externally, or both?

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

I would think both. They would not all have gone into service at the exact same time so there should be at least some internal and external differences as there should be at least some slight technical changes over the course of a few years.

[Sirgod]

Wow, Closed Minded... Rat Boy? I would have never thought I'd hear those two words in responce to him. Heck Just look at his Creative process in his Fan fic.  Now mind you, I have to wonder where the Original Model for the Defiant was, and why they couldn't have pulled It out of moth balls.

Chris, C'mon man, I've known you a while, and I know you can phrase your arguements better then going ad Homen. Disagree with anyone you want, But do It in a good respectfull way man. I've seen you do It.

Anyway, as to the episode, I'm looking forward to It a great deal. But shoot, If It's going to get everyone in a Piss poor mood, I'm beggining to think, It's not even worth the time or trouble to watch.

It must be the Spring guys, Heck my bulls are fighting all over the place, I've got Fight after fight Breaking out here.

in other words everyone , Please calm down. Disagree with each other, But do It nicely. This could be a very good discussion, But let's keep It civilized everyone. On both sides of the Debate.

Stephen

[Chris Johnson]

Chris, when you say ships of the same class don't have to be exactly alike, are we talking internally, externally, or both?

I believe both.  Let me list some examples:

Check out the bridge of the Odyssey, the doomed Galaxy-class Starship in "The Jem'Hedar" [DS9].  Don't you see how different its bridge looks?  It's more tech-like than the comfortable Enterprise-D bridge.  Then there's the more-subtle changes like a different color scheme and probably some additional stuff here and there of the Yamato (from what little we saw of her in "Contagion" [TNG]), all these support that there are some differences between sister ships.  They can be subtle or they can be significant.  We only once had a look at the Venture, and it supported Phaser strips on the warp nacelles.  This was due to an error of course, but an error made to be canonical.  These starships can have some changes both in and out.  Also, some Galaxy-class Starships during the Dominion War had some subtle differences, like some changes to the hull (around the neck, possibly), lit-up names, or even Deflector Dish color changes that indicate a possible upgrade of the Deflector Dish.

The Nebula-class Starships had some differences here and there.  Most notably is the differences between the "Proto-Nebula" U.S.S. Melbourne seen in "The Best of Both Worlds" [TNG] at Wolf 359 was built to have two miniature nacelles, no pod.  Then there's the U.S.S. Phoenix ("The Wounded" [DS9]) with it's round pod supported by two pylons and the Shuttlebay had clear access.  In "Redemption, Part II" [TNG], we saw the U.S.S. Sutherland, the most notable difference being what we know as a "standardized" Nebula-class, the single pylon-supported triangle pod being common.  Also, we know it not to be an upgrade due to what action we saw in Wolf 359 at the beginning of "The Emissary" [DS9] when we saw a standardized Nebula-class and an Ambassador-class making a sharp turn and engaging the Borg Cube after the Saratoga was caught in a tractor beam.

Speaking of the Saratoga, let's look at Miranda-class Starships too.  Check the different bridges of the 2280s-era Miranda-class Starships: Ever noticed some differences between the Reliant ("Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan") and Saratoga ("Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)?  Assuming neither had some refit that makes either sister ship more updated, you'll notice some difference in stations.  The same with Miranda-class Starships in the 2360s, if you pay attention to some TNG episodes (The Brittain in "Night Terrors" [TNG] for example) and the DS9 pilot (the Saratoga from "Emissary" [DS9]).  Also, note how the Lantree (in "Unnatural Selection" [TNG]) had no roll bar sporting weapons whilst the Brittain ("Night Terrors" [TNG]) did, whilst the Saratoga at Wolf 359 ("Emissary" [DS9]) sported two strange devices or weapons on each side of the ship.  I won't include the U.S.S. Bozeman ("Cause and Effect" [TNG]) as this Miranda variant is actually a different class of Starship, strangely enough.  The different class in question known as a Soyuz-class.

How about the Constellation-class?  The U.S.S. Stargazer ("The Battle" [TNG]) and the U.S.S. Hathaway ("Peak Performance" [TNG]) had some differences in the interior areas at least.  It's evident due to the main bridge configurations, if you had a good look.

Constitution-class Starships aren't all alike either.  The U.S.S. Constellation, NCC-1017 (or NCC-1710 in the Starfleet Museum as I prefer), had some different details and hull dimensions here and there.  The real life reason of course is due to the usage of an AMT model for budgetary reasons when making the episode "The Doomsday Machine" [TOS].  But since it's on-screen, I'd say it's canon.

So I believe the Defiant can be accurate just by being as it is.

(Edit: Okay, I give up.  I really give up in this personal issue, to which I'm cutting out of this message.  Rat Boy, I apologize for being rude when I felt one of your posts was insulting.  I won't do it again, I'll shut my big mouth and try keeping it shut.  I'm sorry.  I hope this settles the personal situation we've had for the past two days.)

[Don Karnage]

so is there new episode of enterprise yet and new episode of sg-1?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

<shrug>  The lighting and shading is a bit different, but it looks pretty good to me.  (And yes, I am anal retentive.)

You want to get upset about something, get upset about the models used in "Trials and Tribulations".  Those weren't supposed to be sister ships; those were supposed to be the same physical ships we saw in 1967

-S'Cipio

[Alidar Jarok]

so is there new episode of enterprise yet and new episode of sg-1?

Yes.  There was a new episode of Enterprise last week and this week (Friday, Apr. 22).

S'Cipio, I think that picture of the Enterprise is bluer than most.  Here's one from Balance of Terror

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/images/09/09obr40.jpg

Also, a picture of the Defiant in the interphase thingie

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/images/65/65obr02.jpg

[Alidar Jarok]

Bigger pic of the Defiant

http://fleetyard.net/temp/trek/ent_inamirrordarkly_trailer_001.jpg

From this site

[Rat Boy]

That warp nacelle better not glow blue when it turns on.

[Captain Pierce]

I'll just about bet it will...   

[Chris Johnson]

I wouldn't find any problems if some of the warp nacelle grilles of Constitution-class Starships in TOS get some reimagining (like the Enterprise had with its hull grid patterns in "Trials and Tribble-ations" [DS9] or how the BSG universe was reimagined into realistic standards).  I don't believe it'll be the end of the world if they light up even a tiny bit.  I mean, ever since First Contact, Pre-TOS vessels showed warp grille lighting.  In TMP and beyond, they showed warp grille lighting.  There's several real-life reasons to explain the inconsistancies between warp engine design and how most every class has warp grilles lighting up (and not the Constitution-class), but I'd ponder of their lack of lighting up in the Trek universe. 
In any case, I don't care about it beyond this being food for thought just to kill time.  If they do light up a bit, that's fine with me, but as long as it's not too much out of place with the rest of the ship design (interior and exterior).  We should count our blessings; it isn't a total redesign of the Constitution-class Starship to look as if it was an NX-01-inspired design or something like that.  It's pretty much accurate for the most part, along with some unique attributes, much like how there are between sister ships of many classes of Starships.

[Don Karnage]

i was surprise to see aft phaser and aft torpedo, it was cool to see the phaser fire from the back near the shuttlebay

[Commander La'ra]

She looked pretty grand.