Beyond NCC-1701-A (CG) - HobbyTalk
 12Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-25-2017, 01:52 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Daniel_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 224
Beyond NCC-1701-A (CG)

Alexander Klemm has finished modeling his Enterprise 1701-A from Beyond. No textures yet, but I figured you might want to get a look at the details. This model is VERY accurate to the actual film CG model. This is what the 1701 should have looked like in 2009 in my opinion. I hope so badly that Moebius decides to do a kit of this beauty.







terryr, lunadude and Proper2 like this.
Daniel_B is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-25-2017, 11:55 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 354
It may be accurate, and a good CG job but...Ze googles, zey do nothing!
StarCruiser is offline  
post #3 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-25-2017, 12:54 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Daniel_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarCruiser View Post
It may be accurate, and a good CG job but...Ze googles, zey do nothing!
Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.
Proper2 likes this.
Daniel_B is offline  
 
post #4 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-25-2017, 02:47 PM
Elder Statesman
 
Proper2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_B View Post
Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.
I agree 100%. Looks fantasic!
Proper2 is offline  
post #5 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-26-2017, 12:36 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Zombie_61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 6,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_B View Post
Some people just don't like change. I feel this is as close to the TOS Enterprise as you can be while still modernizing it. I love TOS, but that Enterprise is quite dated looking for 2017.
And someday they'll be saying the same thing about this incarnation of the Enterprise. "Oh, look at those contours. They're soooo 2016."
StarCruiser likes this.
Zombie_61 is offline  
post #6 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-26-2017, 05:00 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 243
I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.
StarCruiser and Zombie_61 like this.
Captain Robert April is offline  
post #7 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-26-2017, 08:31 AM
Elder Statesman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stillwater, MN
Posts: 506
It'd be a lot easier for me to like this design if I didn't know the ship was just going to be destroyed in the next movie.
StarCruiser likes this.
Hunk A Junk is offline  
post #8 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-26-2017, 10:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Robert April View Post
I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.
Preach it brother! Amen...
StarCruiser is offline  
post #9 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-29-2017, 08:52 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Riverside
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Robert April View Post
I say again, the only thing that "screams 1960's" is the light effects in the nacelles. Otherwise, the original design is as utilitarian as an Iowa class battleship.
And it lacks that balance the TOS Enterprise had.
Daniel Kaiser is offline  
post #10 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-29-2017, 11:27 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 354
Yep - you can have it "modern" and "swoopy" (old term, I know), so long as it is well balanced - aka proportional - it will work.

While I'm ragging on this one, this is still quite a bit better than the ST2009 on version...
StarCruiser is offline  
post #11 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-29-2017, 01:58 PM
Elder Statesman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stillwater, MN
Posts: 506
I'll state for the record (not that it matters) that I like the 2009 (pre-ID refit) better than this version. I liked that it was kind of retro and out of proportion -- maybe because that's what I see when I look in the mirror.
Hunk A Junk is offline  
post #12 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-30-2017, 10:23 PM
Elder Statesman
 
MGagen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Crucis Court, Trans-Coal Sack Sector
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunk A Junk View Post
It'd be a lot easier for me to like this design if I didn't know the ship was just going to be destroyed in the next movie.
I actually like it better after hearing that it will be destroyed in the next movie...
MGagen is offline  
post #13 of 29 (permalink) Old 05-01-2017, 02:16 PM
Elder Statesman
 
charonjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ. U.S.A.
Posts: 1,715
A new ship in each movie - why????? It totally belies the notion that the Enterprise is an audience touchstone to the crew, that it is a character of its own.
charonjr is offline  
post #14 of 29 (permalink) Old 05-01-2017, 02:32 PM
HobbyTalk Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Warrior, Alabama
Posts: 4,160
It is rather difficult to become emotionally invested in a character ship when you only see it intact for several minutes before it is destroyed.

When we lost the Refit in STIII it meant something
JGG1701 likes this.
Richard Baker is offline  
post #15 of 29 (permalink) Old 05-01-2017, 02:39 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Daniel_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by charonjr View Post
A new ship in each movie - why????? It totally belies the notion that the Enterprise is an audience touchstone to the crew, that it is a character of its own.
There is not a new ship each movie.

Refit - Destroyed in 3rd movie
JJPrise - Destroyed in 3rd movie
Proper2 likes this.
Daniel_B is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the HobbyTalk forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome