Why the Enterprise is an Amazing Design
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2018
- The USS Enterprise is an incredibly enduring and effective design. But how did such a strange design leave such a huge impact?
------------------------------------------------------
The limited use of the copyrighted clips and music in this video for analysis and commentary are in line with fair use principles in US copyright law.
------------------------------------------------------
CREDITS:
Brought to you in part by patrons on Patreon! / echenry
9kos
Arran Essex
Ben Pfeifer
Brandon Highland
Chris Orris
Daniel Day
Dominick LaLicata
Drew Meltzer
GlassBoxTesting
Håkon Nilsen
Heinz Wiegand
James McKay
James Sledge
Joe White
Joseph Jonathan Marcus
Josh Nesmith
Mark Branson
Nonstop Pop!
Olaf van Waart
Oli Beutler
Patrick Kelley
Phil
PyBroBot
Ryan Olsen
Sam Williamson
Stephan Strasser
TK2 Films
Music: Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - Zábava
Why is the Enterprise beautiful after 50 years? Because Matt Jeffries knew what he was doing. Whatever magic the Enterprise holds was given to her by Jeffries and we have all just been lucky enough to be graced with the gift of his art.
Jeffries is a very good designer but to me the tos enterprise is just plain ugly bulky and boring compared to the regit and the other enterprises
shouldnt that be the case as the first enterprise to be seen on tv?
@@JacobVonRoker true plus it was the 60's and their teck wasn't great
@@nightlock-cf3br honestly if you change a couple very tiny details it looks really nice
@@nightlock-cf3br not to me, to me, it's gorgeous.
Matt Jeffries knew what he was doing, and the fact this still looks so much better at every angle than the 2009 only serves to illustrate it. The JJprise looks amazing from a few angles, but it falls apart in others. The original is perfect. It’s worth it to go see her at the Smithsonian.
I call the JARJARprise the Pelicanprise because it looks like a Pelican.
Yes, it was definitely worth a trip to the Air and Space museum just to see Her!
What's really weird is that his very first design is close to what an actual warp ship might look like.
"It's almost like this ship was specifically designed to be photographed."
Well, actually...
*cough* TV Series *cough* lol ;)
Interesting....
AKCSIEUALLIEEY!
John Dykstra hated it and wanted to junk it and come up with a completely different design.
The struts and pylons prevented him from moving the camera in close for a pass.
It is still a difficult design to get used to for those not familiar with Star Trek.
It's basically a flying saucer with tail pipes.
@@Lethgar_Smith
Apparently Roddenberry said that he didn't want any rocket ships, and flying saucers, or any airplanes. So Jeffries basically took three rocket ships, a flying saucer, and joined them together.
Heck, in a sense, it even has wings.
The first concept design used a sphere where the the saucer is. That change was radical. However, the most radical was that Matt Jefferies designed the ship upside-down with the nacelles on bottom (like the shuttle craft). It was a happy accident when Gene Roddenberry, not knowing it's intended orientation, picked it up and held it like we see it now. A star was born! 🖖🏼😎👍🏼
That's almost the exact story on how the Reliant design came about. Designed with the nacelles on top but the producer had the paper designs flipped and signed off with the nacelles on the bottom.
Similarly, the Liberator from Blakes 7 was intended to have the glowy sphere part facing forward. It was influenced by the Enterprise’s design since the show was meant to be a sort of “anti-trek”. It was mistakenly filmed facing the wrong way and they decided they liked it better that way anyway.
It's alien enough to look futuristic, but with has familiar mid-20th century technology to look realistic. The saucer section is an obvious callback to futuristic "alien" flying saucers, but the submarine-like engineering section, rocket nacelles, and overall nautical/airplane accents connect it to human craft. Instead of graceful wings or a large rocket thruster tacked-on, the two awkward nacelles appear to serve a serious, essential function -- like the dangling engines on a commercial airliner. Plus the subtle details like airplane running lights, registry number, and livery make it look real -- not a quickly drawn Flash Gordon or Lost In Space spaceship.
What's wrong with the Jupiter 2?
It's amazing how much just adding anti-collision and navigation lights can do towards making something look real. So yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head -- _Enterprise_ ISN'T beautiful, but we view her that way because she looks real, and functional.
She's actually a rather awkward design altogether, but she just works.
@@british-sama7007 what's right with the Jupiter 2 is what you should be asking ,for one its defiantly not to scale ,two no definition to the Hull looks like a pie pan with a row of christmas lights strong on the bottom!!
@@Cleptro nothing awkward about the design at all ,look again !!
@@robertwilson9805 I have, and she is awkward. I do still love her design, but that doesn't mean it's not awkward. For one, the saucer makes her look very top-heavy, and the nacelles don't point through the centre of mass, nor do the impulse engines. It's an awkward arrangement of shapes, that just work when they're put together in that specific way. She's still a super iconic design, and I love the look of her, but there's no denying that she looks fairly awkward
I fell in love with the Enterprise when I was a kid in the 60s and the show aired, and I think it's still a beautiful and wonderful design. It's one of the best-designed fictional ships I've ever seen. Even though it was encased in 60s budgeting and culture, It showed grace and strength and futuristic engineering. It felt plausible while still being stylish.
I agree ,it looks like something we could build !!
Another significant aspect is the negative space: between the nacelles, the engineering hull, and the saucer. That space is always visible, regardless of the angle you view the ship. You can't draw a silhouette of the ship without having a gap somewhere.
And negative space is extremely important in composition, giving greater emphasis to what is there and providing balance. I would not be surprised to find that, if you drew a box around any given image of her, approximately half the space in that box would be Enterprise, and half negative.
I knew a girl like that.
What is "negative space"? To me it means space that has something in because space is nothing and a negative of nothing is something. Or am I over thinking this?! lol
@@smartroadbiker it means if you traced the Enterprise and filled in the hull sections with black, and everything that wasn't hull with white, the white spots are negative space. For another example; the holes in a number 8 are negative space while the lines that make up the loopy shapes are positive space.
Matt Jefferies knew what he was doing.
The Constitution-class and its refit will always be the best.
Daniel Baghdoian I liked how it was called the Constitution class. There was a USS Constitution and the Enterprise was built in the form of that ship. It was essentially an unremarkable vessel copied from another, and yet, the journeys on which it took us are unforgettable.
Except V, The Final Frontier.
Star Trek V had its moments. The interactions between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were top-notch.
@@The_Gorn Aye I'd have loved if the movie stayed with a broken Enterprise getting fixed up, mixed with shoreleave hijinks, i really enjoyed that start ^^
I never understood why they changed the cylindrical shaped engines with evident power generation at the front to what I call a waffer-shaped flat design with no evident power generation similar to Klingon engines. To me, it implies their technology is superior to the Federations.
That’s a good name
I approve
Matt Jefferies was truly a genius. Thanks!
Matt Bell Yes he was! A true genius!
hehe amen to that :) THAT we as trek fans we can ALL agree on for sure to this very day from the 60s to today in 2018 and beyond. God rest Matt Jefferies's amazingly talented soul
As much as we owe Jefferies, we need to remember that his was a collaborative effort with model builder Richard Datin, along with Mel Keys, and Vern Sion that made what we know today possible.
Also thank Gene Roddenberry. Matt wanted the nacelles on the bottom, Gene flipped it over. Not a genius move, just one out of his desire to control everything.
@@StevenSmyth
Other way around.
"Well, this is a new ship. But she's got the right name. Now, you remember that, you hear?"
"Yes, sir."
"You treat her like a lady. And she'll always bring you home."
McCoy...
Scotty.
@@merafirewing6591 No it was McCoy to Data.
such a perfect corny old spaceman thingto say. We all fell for it ... and glady would again. thank you De and all the rest.
BECAUSE THE ENTERPRISE IS A BEAUTIFUL LADY AND WE LOVE HER!!!
literally what Kirk said!
Speaking of which here is another mechanistic "Beautiful Lady" :
czcams.com/video/nQQDrw_SwLc/video.html
(No it's not an Arcee Cheesecake pic)
If only certain Directors would realize that.
COUGH JJ COUGHING.
Did you jist assume the ship gender
Matt Jeffries doesn't get enough credit nowadays for his amazing work. Since all starfleet designs can be traced back to the original enterprise, he's just as important and Gene himself for creating the world of Star Trek.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by" - John Masefield. Quoted in Star Trek V.
And quoted before in "The Ultimate Computer" 🖖
I think that it unconsciously evokes a human, or at least humanoid, shape. It has a torso (the secondary hull), a neck (neck), and even limbs (the pylons and nacelles).
bingo. a graceful neck, tapered torso, pointed toes at the end of long tapered legs ....and a lovely pair of ... bulbous domes... with some oddly familiar proportions..
We won't talk about the clamshell doors.. and the baby shuttlecraft that emerge.. always to oddly tense music, like somebody is worried about complications.. ;)
...afrer all, she is a lady.
I think that in part is why Enterprise is almost treated as a character in and of itself by fans and in universe characters. When the Enterprise is damaged or even destroyed it is a seriously emotionally significant event. Take for example how Kirk regards the broken planet side saucer section of the ship in Beyond. “She still has some fight in her yet.” It’s remarkably easy to personify and anthropomorphize Enterprise more then any other fictional vessel.
j v “I’d like to get my hands on her ample nacelles if you’ll pardon the engineering parlance.”
Your analysis is exactly on track, in my view. If you go back to some of the earlier sketches by Matt Jefferies, she has a spherical head instead of a saucer. (The Daedalus Class ships are based on this early concept.) As the others here have already said, the ship clearly emulates a human form, albeit in a very stylized fashion.
The only thing almost as sad as Spocks death was the destruction of the enterprise in st 3.
Yeah, it was really sad, I didn't cry though, it's not like the ship is real or something
Corrrect! We never thought we'd see it.
Agreed watching it the first time was awful and I was very near to tears.
I love the ship visuals from TOS and have no patience for the haters who claim it's "not the future anymore"
Netflix, Hulu, and BBC America have TOS with updated CGI visual effects - looks decently futuristic to me (can't do much for the sets though).
HuntingTarg The sets are fine. In fact, the Enterprise interiors from TOS have worn better than the interiors of TNG. And don't even get me started on the raucous sets of JJ Abram's cavernous interiors with lights glaring into your eyes at every turn and a sense of pandemonium everywhere. Really like the interiors from 'Star Trek Enterprise', though. I just wish they had kept the original bridge set from 'The Cage' instead of that cheapified version that Kirk ended up commanding from; much slicker looking with the black behind the multiple screens and the constantly changing images, plus the Jetsons looking viewer thingamajigs on the consoles (also, the women having the same uniforms as the men gave more of a sense of coherence).
@kyleplier Correct
Yes, visually it is pleasing.
But do the math for the forces that the saucer and nacels would be subjected to in just leaving a planet’s orbit, and then accelerating to just .1c over a period of even 5minutes.
The forces are enough to tear the ship to pieces.
And, even though you can claim that they have "Structural Integrity Fields" that hold it together, you are still having to generate petawatts of power that you wouldn’t otherwise have to generate just to keep the ship intact. And no possible purely physical construction could negate the need for that power (even making the nacels out of a single carbon molecule, like a gigantic diamond, would not be enough. The forces are so large that even the Strong Nuclear Force isn’t enough. You would just be creating Atomic Bombs where the forces of torsion and lateral thrust due to acceleration overcame the Strong Nuclear Force, resulting in a Fission Reaction).
Anyone who designed a ship that didn’t waste that kind of power just keeping itself held together is thus going to be able to devote that same power to other systems, making them as much as 5x more powerful than otherwise would be possible on a Jefferies Constitution-class design.
Which would mean that species who didn’t design such wasteful ships could overwhelm the Federation, while being much smaller in size and much less advanced, technologically. They would still be able to direct overwhelming amounts of power that they weren’t wasting holding their ships together at an opponent, while still consuming much less power, overall.
And such ships would be able to make maneuvers that the Jefferies Designed Ships could not, because the Jefferies Designs would simply be unable to generate the power needed to hold the ships together. Things like making a 90° turn at .5c ("half-impulse").
My guess is that if anyone writing for Star Trek ever sat down and did the numbers on the forces generated that they would have been told to shut-up by the producers so that they would not have to deal with it. But people are starting to take notice of what happens when you shift a few million kilograms from stopped to 300,000,000m/s, and what would happen in that few million kgs were arranged so that ¼ of it was two oblong objects sitting at the end of spindly pylons...
@@varanid9 lol the TOS sets look like a preschool or the play-section at McDonalds
Yes the original Enterprise was excellent, but it was the Refit Enterprise from the movie that really took it and perfected that design. The original looks great from almost all angles, but the Refit looks amazing from all angles. In fact I'd say the Refit Enterprise is the best science-fiction spaceship design ever.
It was magnetic to look at. I especially like the lighting aspect of the ship's signage. The TMP model had this iridescent effect in the paint/finish and 'Aztecing' but it was a nightmare to light and film - esp with a Blue Screen.
Other favorite details of mine are: Angling the rim of the saucer , the officer's lounge windows and arboretum windows on the bottom of the secondary hull, and the gold to blue lighting shift for the main deflector.
The flyby as they arrived at Khitomer, and the shot as Chang's bird of prey flew around it. Two prime examples.
I think the Motion Picture refit is gorgeous, but nothing compares to the original for me. What disappoints me is how the changed her for Discovery.
I totally agree with you.
DeusExAstra Agreed!
The Enterprise evokes more so than any other design the notion of "Fuck you, I'm a spaceship." The conceit of its design is to be utilitarian in its own sci-fi way. The seemingly flimsy nature, the incongruent shapes and the method with which they're attached is so unique that you have to respect it. You don't imagine this thing doing barrel roles or engaging in any degree of ship to ship combat. It's like a floating society. It isn't a warship. You see only the optimistically altruistic pursuit of knowledge and discovery that Gene Roddenberry intended. It implies an evolution beyond the need of compact design and the reliance upon exaggerated thrusting capacity. It's a fucking spaceship and you can't do anything about it.
By the way, I've never watched an episode of Star Trek so please contest to anything I just said.
You're absolutely right though. I mean, in cannon she was an exploration vessel designed to function as a warship where necessary, but she's not some x-wing zipping around the screen.
Of course, in Star Trek Online (the game: F2P: good fun), she's a full blown battleship with all of the guns, can pretty much turn on a dime and she can do a barrel roll (while unloading a PPD and Phaser FAW for cinematic-shoot_everyone-flypast effect) if you buy up the Pilot specialisation. This is, if you're one of the lucky ones can get hold of her, and not just dream about her... damn you loot rolls!
For someone who hast watched the show you certainly hit the nail on the head.
"Fuck you, I'm a spaceship."
"Fuck you, I'm a spaceship." is what Roddenberry *actually* said to Jeffries. In the books they cleaned it up for the kids...
Caleb you're already a Trekker at heart.
PS Whats so great about barrel rolls? (other than for the pilot I mean. You know Sulu did a few on the graveyard shift when the captain was asleep ;) Would a submarine or an aircraft carrier (or the SS Beagle) need to do one? So why would a starship?
@@berthulf Speaking of the X Wing, would any of the ships from Star Wars fit neatly into the rule of thirds or phi rule as the Enterprise does?
First of all, thanks for using my model :D
Also, the TOS Enterprise was designed by an aircraft engineer, a person who knew his mechanics and stuff. All other Enterprises were designed by artitst, who wanted to design something cool and pretty. The two do not correlate in most scenarios.
Similar to my thinking: the ship looks good because it looks like something simple that works. Form from function.
Even though, of course, the fictional vehicle's "function" was to carry stories, and its "engineering" was based on fantastic/speculative/impossible pseudoscience.
I'd love to see that analysis applied to the refit Enterprise. While I love the classic Enterprise, I have a special fondness in my heart for the refit. Years and years ago I read Diane Carey's book Final Frontier. It was about the Enterprise's very first mission with Jim Kirk's father onboard. Kirk's father called Enterprise (which in the story hadn't been named yet) The Empress. I clearly remember rewatching TMP and realizing just how perfect that was to describe her. The Empress.
Yes, I also prefer the Enterprise Refit/Enterprise A over the classic.
From the side it looks like an Eagle about to take flight. Something that works in its favor was its LACK of surface detail. The smooth surfaces and length give it a streamline appearance despite being a large wessel.
60's tv definition hides the saucer shield grid. But it's there. Not smooth. It has broader panels on the side of the main hull on the filming side. It's smooth and white with a big black wire on the other side of the main hull. I like the lines..but I get why people like the smooth look tv led us all to think we saw
The tall elegancecof the Enterprise..she reminds me of an old sailing ship at sea..a majestic godess sailing the dark void of space to boldly go no no man has gone before ! 🌹🌹😁😁😁😁🌹🌹
Yes. While it reminds you of an old tall proud sailing ship, it also looks like a modern navel vessle. While it is an individual it would look right at home moored with other ships of the same class as just another Consitution class ship. The components making up the ship (hulls, and nacelles) can be replaced easily. I never liked the look of the TNG Enterprise. It just looked like someone took the basic layout of the Constitution and crushed it length wise. Its proportions where just horrible. The original Enterprise model may have lacked detail because of the model makers budget and the low resolution of 60's television, but I think in the long run it worked out better for the ship. It is a true classic.
Joseph Nichols I liked the manta ray saucer section, but the TNG Enterprise reminded me of some expressionistic art version of the original, as if they told Salvador Dali to paint the Enterprise as surreal as he saw it.
TOS Enterprise is what a Saturn 5 would like like if it was designed by the guys who designed the first gen Corvette...with Dali bringing them coffee..
All I can say is talk about a beautiful design the Enterprise dry dock fly by in STMP. Only physical model could be that wonderful and it shows.
Good Ships never die, they simply go to hell to make repairs
Hell has nothing on a Deadly Radioactive Nebula.
Or to my model shelf after I spent way too much $$ on Eaglemoss or Diamond Select models! But I love them! Ships are awesome! Especially fictional ones!
And when the repairs are done they return in the nick of time to save the day.
EC... masterfully explained. Even as a child in the early 70s there was something about the Enterprise that just kept me in awe, even though I was too young to even understand what I was feeling. I was 9 when Star Wars hit the Big Screen and I loved it, but for a totally different reason - the FEEL of it was different. With the USS Enterprise, all you had to do was LOOK at it for your mind to start firing off explosions of Imagination. All other outer space sci-fi ships before it was like looking through blurry binoculars or at a jumble of puzzle pieces with only the outer frame of the image put together, but the USS Enterprise was the crystal clear binocular view and the full completed puzzle. All that you thought spaceships and UFOs and space travel should be, the Enterprise comes on the screen and your think YES!! THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE ANSWER! And you just can't wait until a real one is built. Until they inflicted on us the "D" Galaxy Class that looks like a squatting flightless chicken taking a dump!
I would love to see a breakdown like this of the refit enterprise
Charles Williamson Me too
I LOVE the refit design almost as much!
It's just so smooooth
I am reminded of StarGate SG1, where Colonel O'neill (YES, 2 L's!!) keeps trying to name ships, Enterprise. Seriously though, if we ever build an interplanetary ship, it better be named Enterprise!!
Sight Beyond Sight The first orbiter (Space Shuttle) was built in 1976 and was named ‘Enterprise’. It was only used in trials to test the design.
It was because there was already a Enterprise at the time.
I don't think the shuttle test orbiter being named Enterprise and then if it possibly became another shuttle to be used in the shuttle fleet and the carrier USS Enterprise would have been a problem, the orbiter was named after a fictional ship specifically, yet the fictional ship was named for the WW2 carrier! Whoa..
The Man From Krypton and the carriers were named after 18th century frigates
Alistair Shaw very true. And that is why I love the Constitution class design. It reminds me of a sailing vessel. The way it turns. So graceful! The universe as an endless ocean and the Enterprise as a ship to sail across it.
Interesting video. I’ve loved the ship since I first saw it despite not being a constant viewer of Star Trek. It’s an interesting thing to hear something that’s been puzzling you for years. Overall, I love the video. Keep up the great work!😁
I'd absolutely love to see more in this series. Actually I'd love for there to be an even more in depth version that goes over the real world and in-universe benefits of the designs since form must have function as well.
I'd recommend two books 'Mr. Spock's Guide to the Enterprise' by Shane Johnson and 'Haynes USS Enterprise Owner's Workshop Manual' by Ben Robinson & Marcus Riley
You are having so much fun doing this channel, it shows and it's contagious. Cheers mate.
I think the A model was the best looking. The original nacelle pylons were to vertical compared to the neck.
Agreed. A is a true beauty.
The refit was definitely the best one, topping the original design in several ways.
Couldn't agree more, the TMP version is the most beautiful and the pearlescent paint job was genius.
Yeah, pretty much everything about the Refit was genius, from the way they updated the geometry to the colors. It's a ship that looks like it's going at warp speed even standing still. So sleek, graceful, and beautiful.
yeah, but the A had the blue highlights that were lacking in the original refit. TMP was just too... white.
There's nothing about the design suggesting that it's afraid of anything.
Except for losing engines :D
If you check, the secondary hull is very close to masted sailing ship hulls. When shot below the suacer, the COG is in the secondary hull, she rolls there. From below, the pylons basically become masts, and the nacelles and saucers sails. Visually they're vertical and horizontal lines. You even have a prow with the giant copper wok on the front. From below the saucer line she looks like a sailing ship at sea. Shooting from above the saucer line, the COG is in the saucer, with the secondary hull usually mostly hidden. In this angle she's a classic saucer, and it'd somewhat tricky to screw them up.
Not saying you're wrong on the proportions, just another aspect of how the OG Enterprise is quite so stunning.
It's just graceful, and built for slipping through space with a fluidity of motion that no other ship can match.
She's a beautiful ship.
and she stand proud, for a over 50 year old lady XD
please do a video showing your idea of what the jjprise, enterprise refit or enterprise d should look in you opinion keep up the fantastic work and please put more models of you gorgeous models on sketchfab
Making the USS Enterprise in CAD led me to truly appreciate how gorgeous it really is
Fantastic EC Henry. I love this video. I dabble in photography too and I've noticed this ratio in pictures of Enterprise. It's a beautiful and comprehensive way to explain why the design endures in elegance.
What about other space ship designs - could you similarly scrutinise them, please?
examples being the Millenium Falcon, Star destroyers, Deep space nine. Heck, any sci fi ship/structe would be interesting for you to similarly analyse
Sable. Some of those designs seem to be purposefully discordant imo. While beautifully symmetrical designs can evoke certain feelings designs meant to be slightly "off" can evoke equally strong feelings useful to the designer.
The Enterprise D its self seems to do this, its grossly lopsided design is rooted in a couple things, from better filling 80s TV aspect ratios to making it very clear that its a larger ship than the old one in a way simply scaling up the proportions of the original couldnt do.
There are many ways I'd describe the _Enterprise_ D, "grossly lopsided" is not one of them.
The only asymmetry in the design along the keel is a relatively minor detail (the shuttle bays).
Although if you mean the profile view, I wouldn't call that lopsided either. Not her best angle, but not lopsided. The lines flow too well for her to be lopsided.
RedShirt047. She was designed purposely to be visually unbalanced. The secondary hull and engines were proportionally smaller according to Gene because he wanted to emphasize the D being that much more advanced that it could perform with relatively compact mechanicals. Its not just the profile view either, the top and bottom views make it painfully clear that the saucer far out matches the engineering section in size and especially volume. The width of the saucer is most apparent in those views. This is not an ideal aesthetic choice when taking the ship as a whole but it does effectively communicate the purpose of the ship in the show. Its a people mover with any number of interesting things in that voluminous saucer.
This isnt my own theory, its what the creators of the show have been saying for years. And dont take "grossly" as something negative, I only mean that they specifically styled the ship in an exaggerated fashion for a couple particular reasons.
I'd like to see your sources.
RedShirt047. Why? I spent a big chunk of my life as a fan, I read countless books magazines amd articles. And now I have to go dig them up for you? Because you either didnt get as deep into the franchise as I did or you are to lazy to google it your self?
Im not making any extraordinary claims here, nothing that doesnt make sense.
But just for a starting point try the "designing the enterprise D" article on trekships . Org
I may have mis credited Gene for the short nacelles, it was Proberts concept that he had to argue for.
When trek works well, it is due to the teamwork of the crew. Flawed individuals achieving more than the sum of their parts. The ship is a symbol of that beautiful teamwork. Now I know why it is beautiful, thank you.
Fascinating fact # 27 - NCC 1701 would be about 100 feet shorter than CVA 65 (USS Enterprise of 1961)
This answers the question in a way, the way, I had been looking for but hadn't yet put together.
Okay, that is, hands down, one of the most fascinating videos I've seen in quite some time. Wonderful job!
This is likely why the JJ Enterprise was so visually jarring for many people.
Jar Jar Abrams has the Midas Touch from the Upside Down, everything he touches turns to crap.
The JJ-Prise is a horrendous iteration of this ship- it looks like they used a 7-year old's interpretation of the original as the basis for the final design...the Refit from the 1st movie was a much better way forward from the original 60s design...
WHERE DID YOU BUY THAT MODEL?! I MUST HAVE ONE!
It's a 1/1000 Polar Lights model kit (Round2 Models), that can be found on Amazon and various hobby sites.
It was part of the 1976 AMT "Star Trek Space Ship Set" Model Kit #S953 along with a Klingon and Romulan ships, which you can still find on eBay and other places. :-J
Great video and commentary! I love the design of the USS enterprise from Star Trek. It is so iconic. I think it will be recognized for generations and generations, and I’m not talking about TV series.
I think that one of the reasons why the Enterprise is so appealing from every angle is the perfect placement and balance between saucer, nacelles and secondary hull. None of these elements prevails on the others. All so beautifully balanced, correctly separated (you should note that, in the JJ-prise, the nacelle pylons attached so forward, the saucer pylon conversely attached so backward and the nacelles placed so close together are all elements that appears simply wrong). Another example: the Ent-D is not so appealing from every angle, because the enormous saucer prevails on the other elements and distract the eye too heavily.
still didn't stop CBS from changing it for Discovery, not that i dislike the new look, i think it's pretty niffty but it didn't need changing
DWH Gaming. Its one of those designs thats very difficult to improve significantly. The refit is great and my personal favorite but obviously lacks the simple elegance of this version. Its also notable that we are all talking about the main series version, the pilot version just doesnt do it and shows how much a few minor changes in proportion can matter.
I like the DSC version quite a lot personally, but one tiny detail that hit me right away as being "wrong" was the flatter bridge structure. The proportions of the tos ships bridge from top most dome on down to the flared primary hull is good, this... is less good.
DWH Gaming I wish they kept it like in the cage, but updated to keep it in the same aesthetics as discovery
Kim Jong-un. I was honestly shocked the dish wasnt lit. If I was responsible for it O probably would have put some lighting in the concentric rings behind the dish or some elements in the recesses of the dish its self.... because dishes glow after all! And its the kind of thing that doesnt exactly break continuity. Like aztecing coloring or fine hull details it can be considered a minor thing since TOS fx shots were so grainy the actual details of the model are debatable.
It would have been impressive if they kept straight pylons aswell, ever since TMP designers seem alergic to straight pylons and unlit deflectors.
DrewLSsix exactly that would've looks really good without breaking anything within it's own established universe, just some aesthetic changes.
I love the new look. It was an excellent update.
ive always liked the original connie - its very graceful and sleek, almost swanlike with its long neck - but i find the TMP and even the DSC version a bit more to my liking - they are more stout and rugged, and more eagle like with their shorter, beefier necks - i wonder how those 2 designs hold up to the criteria youve shown on the orginal
Discoverse Enterprise is a bit like the "redesigned" VW Beetle - (not the older one or the original) the newer one cuts the roof line down and in the process looses something important from the proportions - just as The 2017 version end up looking a bit Enterprise E like when the neck is chopped down like that.
if it was one of the Constitution derivatives with mostly horizontal struts the shorter neck would be a huge improvement - but with the long nacelle struts still mostly in play it makes it look hunkered down - and even warship or hotrod like.
I love the DSC redesign more, but I loathe the TMP version.
Étoile Zalos
wow...im not a huge fan of the nacelles of the TMP connie, but the rest of it, in my eyes, is stunning and better than the original - the DSC connie takes the best of both the TOS and TMP versions and blends them together beautifully! i havent seen enough of the DSC version to say it beats out the TMP version, but they are a very close in being 1 & 2 over the TOS connie
S C the DIS Constitution is just wrong on every level.
Like the suits at DIS said "the fans hate this, let's show 'em the Enterprise, just not the one they love, even though it's not the one everyone is aware of and loves. Just jazz the original up with unnecessary changes until it's the TOS Enterprise in name only."
+The Man From Krypton
*necessary changes*
This aint the 60's mate - the old bird wouldn't fly on modern TV
Credit to Matt Jeffries. Not a stupid man, not a weird designer. The design is effective, not "weird." That said, good subject for discussing the golden ratio and charm of three.
It's always been beautiful, but your random thoughts really put things into perspective. Great video. Sharing this with my dad who's a massive Trek fan and of course made me the Trek fan I am today. Well done, sir.
Everything looks good, I agree, but I'd add an exception: THE NECK
Why is is thicker on top ?
That's always bugged me about it
I'd have made it thicker on the bottom
I still think the Enterprise-A looks best out of all of them
Mihai Lazar thicker at the top suggest it's the engineering hull hanging from the saucer, not saucer being supported by the secondary hull.
One of the design principles on the original Enterprise was to go against gravity. Everything was supposed to look natural only in a zero-g environment. I think it accomplished that beautifully.
I agree with you on the refit, too. But if you look closely, you'll still see the same tapering of the neck. It's just disguised by extra depth and the photon torpedo launchers.
The thicker portion clearly has to make room for the various interconnects and service terminuses/termini for when the saucer section detaches.
It was originally hinted that the constitution class could separate the engineering hull and saucer section and even land the entire ship on a planet or moon. Budget constraints for the SFX needed led to the transporter and eventually the shuttlecraft.
I think it's better that ST starships generally can't land. It parallels the large ships of our time that can't simply roll up on the beach and drop a ramp to let people out. They need special docking facilities or they use landing craft/helicopters. This also means when an oddity like Voyager comes along that IS designed to land, it becomes a unique design feature they can build the story around.
Lol how strong is the enterprise neck its so thin
Matt Jeffries was a genius.
When I first saw the Enterprise when I was younger, I didn't understand where the people sat. Eventually I found out the bridge is on top. But what really got me into it was seeing Wrath of Khan. It was such a well done movie, especially in the moments leading up to the Enterprise getting attacked by the Reliant. Eventually I just started to see the ship as an elegant expression of purpose and structure. Maybe someone applied the rules in this video to its design, or they just made something that in their eyes looked balanced and good, and that just happens to follow those rules.
Terrific video, really great analysis!
TOS Enterprise is beautiful in its simplicity, but the most beautiful IMO is the Enterprise D. The curves and lines on that Enterprise are perfect... again, IMO.
Seriously! Yuck! I absolutely hate the Galaxy class ships, when I watch old episodes of TNG I have to look away. It's the worst looking enterprise as far as I'm concerned.
Pip Boy whats the best looking in your opinion?
I heard that the golden ratio is disproven already but I have to research that again.
Last I checked, there’s a lot of back and forth on the topic. But aesthetics are so subjective that it’s hard to scientifically demonstrate them.
I’d be interested to read studies either way, though.
Anthony ofWindsor happens an awful lot for it to be coincidence
The figures might not be exact but to the eyes, it is close enough, I guess. Many things in nature are proportioned to the Golden ratio. Buildings built with it are more resilient to time and weather/seismic shenanigans as well (provided their materials are strong enough)
They definitely got a design that looks good from any angle. You can see how they didn’t pull that off with the Enterprise D. That’s a weird looking thing that really only looks good from very specific angles. There are many angles it’s never filmed about because it just likely odd if you do it.
Matt Jeffries was a genius! The first time I saw it on the screen I couldn't believe the
unique and revolutionary design. It was so sophisticated and majestic from any angle.
Roddenberry told Matt he better come up with something new and not another rocket.
It truly looked like something of the 23rd century! No one today could have designed anything like that--it took a special mind set for a new and revolutionary design. It was majestic as it flew toward you and in the other direction at different speeds.
What really drew my attention was how the upper detail of the saucer section were different than the bottom. The interconnectiong dorsal, secondary hull, 45 degree pylons and warp nacelles made it into a legendary work of art. It looked like it was the product of several centuries of ship design before it came to the pinnacle in the NCC-1701. Yet it did not! This is the mark of Genius on the part of Matt Jeffries. It was and still is a stunning design that mesmerizes you when you see it sitting there all lit up.
Not to mention the further design feature of the Shuttlecraft Galileo in the back of the
secondary hull.
The placement of lights, decals and beautiful structural design will not be equaled alone rivaled by anyone. You can be sure of that!
Ironically the Enterprise-D was designed specifically with the golden ratio in mind to much... less favourable results
Says you. I love the _Galaxy_ class's look... except the version from _All Good Things_
That version I'd redesign so she doesn't wreck the profile.
I wonder if they chose to go with that design inspiration after noting the connection with the original and the golden ratio.
Too top heavy
Actually I think it's the greatest ships design ever made. It has perfect curves but doesn't look too aggressive. It's just beautiful art
I really love the Galaxy class as well - though probably fair to say she doesn't has as many favourable angles as the Constitution class. Also the 4 foot model they started to use in the 3rd season was a total abomination.
Hey can you please scrutinize the designs of Gundam and Macross ships please.
Agreed. Videos on White Base and SDF-1 would rock.
I had never heard of you until today (Oct 27, 2022), but this video convinced me to subscribe. I have ALWAYS wanted to do such an analysis of the Enterprise et al from Star Trek from a visual art perspective. You beat me to it (by a few years), but when I do my own in days to come, I shall refer to you, even as you referenced the article.
Oh yeah, btw, I am also subscribing today.
I must admit that, while the TOS and TMP versions are BOTH beautiful, I still have a strong preference for the movie version.
Not only is the design of the Enterprise timeless, but the creators of the various incarnations of the show were remarkably well informed about our knowledge of theoretical physics at the time and invented (hopefully predicted) a practical faster-than-light propulsion system that one day might work.
The proportions of this ship just feel right, and you've explained why that is, but in my opinion this really, really good design was made great when the first movie came out and we saw the refit Enterprise. Some of the proportions were ever so slightly tweaked, and it all worked brilliantly. The saucer had a wider diameter, and the secondary hull was more barrel-shaped, which for some reason, just seemed to work.
Then JJ fucked it up.
The JJ Enterprise looked more like a gigantic hot rod.
Rising Horizon Gaming just 4 times the size
Rising Horizon Gaming you what now? Really? 288.646m for the 60s connie and 725m for the JJprise. I might have been exaggerating slightly but its still double its length not go into beam etc. Sorry.
Rising Horizon Gaming www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size
If you read it it comes from the horses mouth.
czcams.com/video/ExSH6xZmDE4/video.html
These guys are worth watching for scaling. They oft have the original CGI models to work with.
Rising Horizon Gaming you are correct it has absolutely no reason to be 725 metres but it is. So again sorry.
Enterprise D was the prettiest ship
No! Everytime I see it on screen I just want to kill it with fire.
Pip Boy it was the best looking from inside for sure
Yeah it fits a utopian vision of the future the best.
The Enterprise-D is not bad, but it's an unbalanced design. The saucer section is too big and too wide. You can even see how they tried to fix these issues with the Enterprise-E... and not totally succeeding.
Enterprise E is the best designed
I think the spindly orthogonal nacelle struts instantly tell the viewer that this is a vessel designed to operate in zero gravity, and that the engines do not work by pushing the vessel. It is not a rocket. And while people have criticized the struts and the connection between the two hulls as being too fragile, I think it emphasizes the fact that the Enterprise is not a battleship. It is a ship of exploration. 10/10. My favorite sci-fi vessel, ever.
Thank you for this video. I was having a hard time trying to get to sleep. This put me out in a minute. You’re the best. 😑
First
I keep hearing (Experts) that the Enterprise is horribly designed. Their biggest argument is the engine nacelles, more specifically their placement. These "experts" go on and on about how the engine placements are not in a proper relationship with the rest of the ship. They go on an about the line of thrust of each engine and how the Enterprise would go around and around in loops. It is funny watching their stupid faces when they are informed that the engines do not produce thrust. The theoretical engines on Roddenberry's Enterprise creates a warp bubble in front that the ship "falls" into. As long as the engines produce a warp bubble the ship will continuously fall into or move from one part of space to another. So placing the engines along the center line of the ship is unnecessary as they produce no thrust to make the ship go around in loops. I believe that I read once that the engines were placed on pylons away from the two hulls because of the inherent radiation that would be difficult to shield from the rest of the ship if the engines were attached to either of the hulls. These "experts" are still thinking in archaic terms of how things propel themselves. The engines on the Enterprise are not rocket motors like those attached to the retired space shuttles. One could make the argument though that at least one space shuttle would have benefitted greatly if the two solid rocket boosters were attached to the orbiter by pylons rather than mounted directly against the hull.
They have impulse drives.
Matt Jefferies really made a legend with the TOS 1701 design. The other ships, especially the D have some beautiful angles, but some angles that make it look like a bird with misshapen wings - the beginning flyby in the main show open for one. But 1701 just nailed the design. Great video! EDIT: I also really wish a production would one day use the TOS design with modern efx and sets but keep the colors and direction like TOS. I get why modern productions look like Apple stores (Abrams) or dark, futuristic laboratories (Disc). But I think if you put modern blinking lights and screens in a black and red console design, you could make the production look retro and modern / futuristic at the same time.
This channel is super neat! Subbed :)
The Enterprise D only looks good from the side. From the front it's ugly as and goofy looking.
I like it from the low, 3/4 front angle. It just looks so massive and imposing in a way the other ships don't because of their design's sleekness.
A fine analysis. Thank you.
A very fascinating, interesting, and logical analysis! Makes sense to me.
Good video. Very professional.
Awesome from the first time I watched the show in the sixties. Great video. New sub.
I remember when I was taking Architectural Design classes. The models we were assigned to make had to look great from every angle.
When I look at it, it does look timeless. Artful. Beautiful. Above all, Graceful. Thanks for putting into words, why.
The top line of the ship evokes sports car feelings. A low long front section which sweeps upward till a sharp upturn (where the engines meet the back of the saucer) which is straight and stern. A very automotive feel in that sense.
I think the one thing about the Enterprise was that it was one of the few Sc-fi ships that was actually engineered rather than just designed. They wanted it to look like it would work, and took a lot of things into account first. Today everything is about sleak looks and unibody designed, but at that time, that didn't mean much.
One thing you shouldn't forget: Back in the sixties Spaceships in fiction always looked like rockets or dishes. The Enterprise combined both and became an outstanding design in those days. So outstanding that our german TV-directory for the show put the photo for the spaceship upside down in their TV announcement.... haha.. nobody knew in those days (1972 in Germany)
Cool analysis.
The 1701-A is my favorite. It manages to look elegant and graceful.
Brilliant analysis. I always thought that I found it beautiful because of what it represented, but people who have never seen the show also find it beautiful.
It's funny ... talking to the SPFX shooters from the original series, they largely reported disliking the Great White Lady. "You couldn't get a good camera angle on it," they'd say. "It was usually just a static shot or a long dolly truck or track, panning exposed the scale and you couldn't get far enough away on the stage to preserve it." But yeah, BEAUTIFUL!
Matt Jeffries, took the best parts of jets,and Cessna's and Navy boats into a space ship. It's simplistic, functional and graceful. Nothing in sci-fi was like it before or during the 60's. It combined saucer ships, and rocket ships(if you imagine the warp engines,as rockets attached to the main hull). It also has a sailing ship vibe. With a proud front hull and a tall mast(the neck). All of this makes for one hell of a ship. One the strikes deep in the human core.
This video deserves more views and likes.
I also think it is partly because this ship really looks funktional. Where other space ship designs tend to be cluttered with bits and things, the Enterprise is clean with few odds end ends that break up the sleek design and evoke the feeling that everything has specific functions. Just like contemporary aircraft.
Star Trek ships have been around for 50 years and every one is used to them by now. But when the Enterprise first appeared on screen, there was nothing like it before. It wasn't a rocketship or flying saucer, it was this huge starship with a totally original design that looked like it couldn't possibly fly, but went incredibly fast. When growing up watching Star Trek, I couldn't get enough of those exterior shots of the Enterprise.
Another more grounded composition rule is that of odd number grouping. Basically even sets of things tend to look wierd or strangly related. The ship is almost entirely sets of 1 or 3. 1 saucer, 3 cylinders, 3 circular shapes, 3 straight connecting joints, etc.
This is fascinating. Wonderful.
VERY interesting. I've never overlaid the rule of thirds over the Enterprise, but for years, I've appreciated that Matt Jeffries' final design has a symmetry that was amazing to film. From most any angle, it's distinctive and recognizable. I suspect that one practical issue that he addressed in the final first season version (besides it not having to many spindly details that would cause issues in blue screen photography) is that from many different angles, you recognized this ship, and which way it was going. There's nothing like building the AMT kit, appreciating the parts and their relationship to each other, and then holding it up and "reenacting" VFX shots from the series in front of your face. All that remarkable, photogenic beauty of the design comes alive. All you need to do is put some Alexander Courage and Fred Steiner theme music on the hi-fi.
BTW, it was never lost on me, even as a teen seeing TOS in reruns/syndication, that the final design is a giant "V." Y'know, "V for Victory?" (I also used to think that while the engines and secondary hull were rocket-shaped, to propel and infer power & movement & direction, the main saucer-shaped hull was a circle, inferring unity, community. The combination of the two was a bizarre spaceship design that works conceptually -- as symbols -- and through the ship design, also looks cool moving through space.)
Another thought ... is the front of the secondary hull (sometimes used to be called "the engineering hull) roughly 1.61:1 (Golden Ratio) to the engine nacelles? ;)
I don't know how detailed his final designs for the model were, I've only seen the sketches. It would be interesting to find out how much of these ratios and details were from Jeffries, and how much were improvised by the model makers. (Note: the 33" model that Roddenberry approved, and was photographed showing to Jeffrey Hunter on location, was pretty damn close to the final 11' model.)
My thought is that the Enterprise is almost unique in popular sci-fi starships in that it features: 1) complex combinations of 2) simple geometric shapes. Starships like Battlestar Galactica are sort of these amorphous bags of metal; it has plenty of complex combinations of shapes, but lack simple, clean, crisp geometric shapes. Starships like an Imperial Star Destroyer have simple geometric shapes, but no complex combinations of simple geometries. The Enterprise is very clean and recognizable, yet can't easily be reduced to something like "circle" or "triangle," because it's a giant network of differently-shaped cylinders. The movie Enterprise, which is widely considered more beautiful than the original one, sacrifices some of these cylinders for rectangular prisms, and I think might actually have been more beautiful had it not done so, but more than made up for this by the introduction of swept nacelle pylons and pronounced flaring on the stardrive hull, increasing its curvature without actually changing the prominence of its complex combinations of simple geometric shapes. Additionally, it's long where we want it to be long (on the nacelles; the Enterprise D suffers in this regard with stubby nacelles that don't photograph well from some angles). Perhaps even more importantly, as seen from directly overhead or directly below, it resembles a childlike depiction of a human being, with the saucer becoming the overly prominent head and the nacelles serving as the legs. A stick figure, in other words. Because of this relationship between the ship's various components, we can probably see something of the human form no matter what angle we're looking from. And it doesn't hurt that the "head" of this stick figure is where the center of the face would be, and also happens to be the location of the bridge, or that the "legs" happen to be the warp nacelles. (Or, in other words, the Enterprise wouldn't be nearly as relatable and thus beautiful if "forward" were reversed and the nacelles were the front of the ship.)
Great video.
Not just the design, but the paint and text are meant to evoke memories of naval vessels, which Gene Roddenberry served on during the Second World War. Everything about this design was created with photographing it in mind. That's why it is so graceful and memorable from a visual standpoint.
So, what your saying is Mr. Matt Jefferies actually knew his job well, and gave to us a prime example of the equation!🚀 His talent not only left a legacy, but shows what and “ Art Director “ can contribute to a Production! Cheers to you Matt! And to that fine Lady you created call the Enterprise!
Always loved the design of that vessel...
Another factor to consider as well, is the bow. Since the days of the first wooden vessels, the bow was an image icon. On Enterprise, with the saucer shaped primary hull, no matter what angle one views it from, one gets ti see the bow. In my humble opinion.
I'd love to hear you review/compare each Enterprise (including Kelvin Timeline) pls :D