LOL No problem, and you're welcome! I was pretty stunned too! It's just that not many people around me ever knows much about Trek anymore...My peers are all about the Wars and I'm sitting there reading Trek stuff. Still haven't made much sense out of the Enterprise Tech manual though. Either way, seeing more Trek stuff makes me happy, knowing that it's popularity isn't dead yet if it can make it to the front page!
yeah...probably. But relating to your current journal entry about the influences of those under 35, I think this is coming from your viewing experiences which are different from mine. You grew up for instance with the original Star Trek show, where everything wasn't that detailed and rather "simple" in design. I did rather see "New Generation" (and I loved Jean-Luc! ), where the new available technology also manifested in the appearance of everything... Maybe I'll find something useful to add to the discussion in your blog...even though I'm not too much into SF art
TOS, TNG, or whatever... I'd definitely love to take a ride around the galaxy in *that*! And with all due respect to Drell-7, but has it occurred to you that maybe *this* "silly" ship was designed to enter an atmosphere and perhaps to even *land*?
But then you were never keen on Voyager's design, either.
Doesn't it stand to reason that as materials and drive technology becomes refined and advanced that engineers and designers might then have the option to introduce more aesthetic design into starships? Look at the Model-T versus a Lamborghini.... or the U.S.S. Monitor vs. an Arleigh Burke class destroyer?
In hostile environments, function is the driving force behind design. On that I'm sure we both agree. But once function is mastered, isn't it time for a bit of beauty (as judged by humanity) to start to work its way into the design of our "chariots"? Above all Roddenberry's vision of Trek was about the human spirit. I think it can be argued that "future Trek's" sleeker designs are in keeping with Roddenberry's vision. It's not enough just to go to the stars in a sterile machine if it's within our capabilities to make function and beauty go hand in hand as we expand outward.
Interestingly, when comparing a Model T to a Lamborghini, one also might consider that as materials and construction technology have 'improved,' design has arguably become a victim of mass production. Many of the most beautiful cars are from the 1930s, when bodies were hand-built using primitive techniques such as banging metal against a wooden form that had been painstakingly carved into elegant shapes, and when a complex shape was unachievable in a single panel, it was standard practice to weld 2 less-complicated pieces together to create it. A 1937 Talbot Lago bodied by Figoni et Falaschi ([link]) is infinitely more beautiful and complex than, say, a 2011 Bugatti (I would argue that a 1980 Chevy Citation is more beautiful than the Bug, as well, but then I think the Bug is one of the most horrendously-designed cars ever built - even worse than the Pontiac Aztek! Give me a Lamborghini Miura, chums! ). The same can be said for architecture - the Chrysler building is arguably more beautiful and complex than the Disney Concert Wrapper (or anything, IMHO, designed by architect Frank Gehry ), and we will never see anything to compare to Angkor Wat built using modern materials and techniques.
Personally, I don't have any problem with the Century-class as I've seen it in recent images here - it'll do until Jason Lee ("Vektor") completes U.S.S. Grandeur (([link]) which may, sadly, never be released into the wild ).