Enterprise Vs. Cannon

[Capt. Anderson]

Could it be?

I was reading some Enterprise Trivia on the IMDB and one of the points that was made about the show was that the events in First Contact affected the timeline. That's why we see the advanced Starship design of the NX and early first contact with Klingons


Does anyone have more on this?

[UDT/Frogman]

NO BUT THATS A GOOD EXPLANATION

[Capt. Anderson]

I have to agree. It does explain a lot. Now it feels like a long TNG episode.

[strict31]

Okay, that's fine. I can, to a large degree, accept that. But does it explain why it looks so much like an Akira? Sure, the retcon explanation is that the Akira looks like the NX-01, not the other way around, but if Cochrane was influenced by the only Starfleet vessel he saw, why wouldn't it look closer to the Sovereign class design?

In any event, it does lend creedence to the idea that Archer's timeline is an alternate one.


Strictly Speaking

[Antonsb214]

Cochrane didn't get that close a look or maybe he wanted one more like it but they didn't have the budget, the brass is usually like "we don't want the best.... we want the best we can afford".
As far as canon goes. They always refered to the Federation's first contact with the Klingons, not Earth's, you can take it to mean the whole Broken Bow and subsequent events didn't help, when the Federation ship, representing multiple adversaries, made diplomatic overtures and all they can remember is the criminal Archer... Klingons live longer and hold grudges forever you know....

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by strict31
Okay, that's fine. I can, to a large degree, accept that. But does it explain why it looks so much like an Akira? Sure, the retcon explanation is that the Akira looks like the NX-01, not the other way around, but if Cochrane was influenced by the only Starfleet vessel he saw, why wouldn't it look closer to the Sovereign class design?

Simple. Cochrane didn't design the NX-01.

[C5]

Hey, if we consider that Cochrane didn't get a better look at the Enterprise than the rapid glance he made through his telescope in the movie, then it's likely he couldn't remember much from it, apart that it had warp nacelles and a saucer section. And that's exactly what the NX 01 looks like after all.
As for the likeness with Akira class... either it's just a coincidence (sometimes things like that happens), or Lily Sloane had some time on the Enterprise to note some details about the models she saw. On a greater extent, we could even imagine that Cochrane, deciding that Space was much more dangerous than he had thought according to Picard's visit, altered his design to fit with anything he imagined to be more able to witstand battle (inspired or not by observations of Lily from the models she saw on the Ent-E).

[strict31]

The only rerason I bring this up is because someone posted a thread on the subject. And the only reason it sticks in my mind is because I sorta feel that it represents an IRL diss to the guy that slaved over the design of the Akira, creating a very popular design that looks 85% ripped off by the guy that designed the NX-01. This probably doesn't matter to anyone else, and it's not terribly important anyway, just something in the back of my mind. Hell, I've got an Art Asylum NX-01 sitting on display in my house. if it was that big a deal, I wouldn't have bought the sucker on G.P.


Strictly Speaking

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by strict31
And the only reason it sticks in my mind is because I sorta feel that it represents an IRL diss to the guy that slaved over the design of the Akira, creating a very popular design that looks 85% ripped off by the guy that designed the NX-01.

The "Akira" class was designed by Walter M. ("Matt") Jeffries, the man who designed the original Enterprise for ST: TOS. The "Akira class" was a rejected design intended to be the original Enterprise. The same can be said for the "Daedalus class."

You can find some of Jeffries's sketches in "The Art of Star Trek," "The Making Of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry and (possibly) the extras on the Collector's Edition DVD of Star Trek VI.

And now, a mild rant:

The common misperception about the art and design world is that artists are lazy. They sit around all day and make pretty pictures. Art, like psychology, business administration, or medicine, is an academic pursuit. As such, it is built on what preceded it and the practitioner must decide to accept or reject what the past and present have established as norms. The first step to understanding the languages or systems of the past and present is research.

Sometimes, research will reveal a solution, or the beginnings of a solution, which can be adapted to the current problem or situation. Not all new art must be "cut from whole cloth." In fact, some of the most powerful contemporary art, religious art, uses concepts, symbols, and iconography that are thousands of years old and, by that virtue, are understood by a wider audience.

In the case of the NX-01, the designer did what was logical, proper, and expected of him: He researched the visual language of Star Trek's past ships and applied it to a relatively unseen design presented by that research to arrive at a contemporary solution.

Therefore, the NX-01 design isn't "ripped off from X" but rather "inspired by X" The NX-01 design doesn't look exactly like Matt Jeffries original sketch nor exactly like the Akira design. (The telling differences are the side, rear, and front views of all three ship designs. Only the top views are similar.)

In short, the design of the NX-01 isn't the product of laziness as many would believe but is rather a solid result of a typical design process.

Ezri's Toy
Graphic Designer, Photographer, Artist

[Capt. Anderson]

At first I was skeptical about the NX-01 but after awhile the design made sense for progress of Starships to come. All the basic elemets are there for the creation for the orginal 1701.

What I don't care for is the name of the ship.

[Space_Cadet]

The name "Enterprise" is a common name for ships.

[First of Two]

Enterprise vs. Cannon

Cannon fires.
Cannonball bounces off Enterprise's polarized hull.
Enterprise fires phase cannons.
Phase cannons strike Cannon.
Cannon destroyed.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by Space_Cadet
The name "Enterprise" is a common name for ships.

The U.S. has had two sloops, two schooners, a motor boat, an America's Cup winner, a later America's cup competitor, three airships/blimps, a space shuttle, and two very famous aircraft carriers named Enterprise. Given the proximity of the commissioning of the world's first nuclear aircraft carrier (most certainly the most powerful warship in the world at the time) to the beginning of TOS (1961, 1966), it's quite likely that the "Big E" was at least, in part, the inspiration of the name.

Check this site out for various American and British ships named Enterprise. Of course, it includes the future history of Star Trek, but the historical data is in depth.

[strict31]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
The "Akira" class was designed by Walter M. ("Matt") Jeffries, the man who designed the original Enterprise for ST: TOS. The "Akira class" was a rejected design intended to be the original Enterprise. The same can be said for the "Daedalus class."

You can find some of Jeffries's sketches in "The Art of Star Trek," "The Making Of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry and (possibly) the extras on the Collector's Edition DVD of Star Trek VI.

I thought it was a cat named Alex Jaeger. Read a whole article about it when ST: the magazine was still being put out. Bernd Schneider's site hosts the link from the issue in which Jaeger is interviewed and talks about his design. The Trek Encyclopedia also lists the Akira as being designed by Alex Jaeger.

I don't know which is the truth, but I can only assume that either the printed article and encyclopedia are valid unless Jaeger is, himself lying. Maybe both sources are simply incomplete? As i have not seen "The Art of Star Trek", I cannot say. If so, Jeffries has been done a disservice by the Encyclopedia, ST: the Magazine and, to a degree, Alex jaeger for not mentioning the inspiration. Same way Doug Drexler did not mention any inspiration from the Akira design (and designer, whoever the hell it is).

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
And now, a mild rant:

The common misperception about the art and design world is that artists are lazy. They sit around all day and make pretty pictures. Art, like psychology, business administration, or medicine, is an academic pursuit. As such, it is built on what preceded it and the practitioner must decide to accept or reject what the past and present have established as norms. The first step to understanding the languages or systems of the past and present is research.

Sometimes, research will reveal a solution, or the beginnings of a solution, which can be adapted to the current problem or situation. Not all new art must be "cut from whole cloth." In fact, some of the most powerful contemporary art, religious art, uses concepts, symbols, and iconography that are thousands of years old and, by that virtue, are understood by a wider audience.

In the case of the NX-01, the designer did what was logical, proper, and expected of him: He researched the visual language of Star Trek's past ships and applied it to a relatively unseen design presented by that research to arrive at a contemporary solution.

Therefore, the NX-01 design isn't "ripped off from X" but rather "inspired by X" The NX-01 design doesn't look exactly like Matt Jeffries original sketch nor exactly like the Akira design. (The telling differences are the side, rear, and front views of all three ship designs. Only the top views are similar.)

In short, the design of the NX-01 isn't the product of laziness as many would believe but is rather a solid result of a typical design process.

Ezri's Toy
Graphic Designer, Photographer, Artist

I'm familiar with the process. And familiar with the explanation. But it's really rather like paraphrasing a person's quote in an essay or a book. If you don't properly cite it, it's plagiarism. Standards might be somewhat different in the world of professional design, of course... And since all these vessels and designs really belong to Paramount technically, it's not a matter of ownership or "ripping". That doesn't change the fact that it was jaeger's (or jeffries') time, imagination and energy that went into the design or that a few cosmetic changes (in other words, those "telling differences") were made to the design to come up with a "new" vessel.

But you know, maybe I'm overreacting. It's not like this issue will keep me up at nights, thinking, "That consarned Doug Drexler! He stole Jaeger's design, and only I stand against the hordes of those who don't care! I will champion him and fight with my last breath!!"

Nor is it much of a concern to convince you of my opinion. You apparently have your own. Since i have some experience with your opinion as presented (the whole artist's process) I feel sufficiently confident that I've already considered it. I reckon I see the point you're making. I also reckon it doesn't change my opinion.




Strictly Speaking

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by strict31
But it's really rather like paraphrasing a person's quote in an essay or a book. If you don't properly cite it, it's plagiarism.

No. Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as one's own. Generating new work based on a previous concept is not.

For example, if I take the time and effort to draw Batman, the work is certainly my own because no one else drew the work. I get credit as the artist and even own copyright in the work I created. I don't, however, have
trademark rights in the character, so I couldn't make money from it. DC Comics, however, couldn't use my Batman artwork without paying me for it because I own copyright in that particular piece. In short, I generated new work based on a previous concept. That's not plagiarism.

No one owns concepts or ideas; One owns only the execution of a concept or idea.