# "Star Trek" teaser



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Just a heads up: a certain-to-be-controversial teaser for the new _Star Trek_ feature hits theaters with _Cloverfield _on Friday 1/18. The online version goes up the following Monday.

Those with a vested interest in a certain starship design will want to pay very close attention (is that a spinning nacelle cap I see)?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Aw man what a tease!!! I wanna see both movies!


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

I swore I would stay disinterested in this upcoming movie ... why can't I stay true to that? LOL!

Thanks for the tidbit of information!


----------



## PetarB (Feb 5, 2007)

Most of the interior of the Enterprise will be CGI. The interiors were mostly shot in front of a green screen. The art director for the sets was very disappointed by the decision not to build a physical bridge of the Enterprise. I just hope we won't be.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I hate you, Rob....


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Funny you should mention that. I made a Star Trek fan trailer using CGI. My friend then got on my computer, and released it as the "real" teaser "leaked" on YouTube.

I woke up this morning, to an insanity frenzy on all the trek fan sites asking if the trailer was real. You can view my trailer at Youtube here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnOBCNqf-AM

Or a much higher quality one here...

(Quicktime 39 MB 720x405) (Right Click>Save As...please)

http://www.danielbroadway.michaelfrisk.com/TRAILER/st_fan_trailer_dbroadway.mov

To read the hilarity of my trailer being mistaken for the real thing, see the article here...

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/10/when-will-pirated-star-trek-trailers-show-up-online/#more-1437


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

LOL, small world.

Nice work, btw.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

I saw that and read the comments on SSM it is NICE work btw


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Saw it, nice work, but knew instantly it’s a fan made trailer, because I recognized Spock’s Voice Over from then end of “Wrath of Kahn” and just do not think they’d use the GENERATIONS Them and Ent B revealed soundtrack for the new movies teaser Trailer.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Excellent! Hope the real thing is that good! LightWave?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I hate you too, Rob.... 

Luckily I'm set to see Cloverfield late on the 19th. I figured this is a movie people will either hate or enjoy thoroughly. I want to see it before I start hearing too many opinions on it. Besides, I think word will spread on the look of the monster by the 21st.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Haha, nicely done. I can see how rabid people are for anything leaked about this movie. Nothing generates more excitement and controversy than The Original Series.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I kinda hope they don't reveal too much - including the design of the ship. I hate having all the fun of a movie spoiled by overly revealing advertising and the like.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The shots are framed in such a way as to hint at rather than linger over the, ah, structures being shown.

Sorry to be so annoyingly vague, but I'm NDA'd up to my eyeballs on this project, and you never know who might be watching.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

"Structures"?


Gee - I didn't know that Pamela Anderson is in it! :jest: 

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

What a card you are Huzz.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Well, Rob _did_ say the words "nacelle caps," which are technically domes.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Really talented engineers can get them spinning in opposite directions. Or am I thinking of tassles???


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Lol!!!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson, are you involved with the real Star Trek movie or trailer? If so, that's cool.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Carson, are you involved with the real Star Trek movie or trailer?


Yeah, the latter, and when I heard the teaser had been leaked I almost had a frackin' heart attack. Thank God it wasn't the real one.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

The Enterprise Sets will not be CGI.....


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

newbie dooby said:


> The Enterprise Sets will not be CGI.....



I'm with you... that sux


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Star Trek Teaser Trailer Description*

Paramount logo. Bad Robot logo. Black, suddenly some sparks (very saturated, Michael Bay looking cinematography) We hear an old NASA radio countdown: “30 sec and counting.” Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around. He lifts his googles — slightly futuristic head covering. It’s not a space suit, btw. The dude leans down and wields some more — he’s standing on big metal. “FROM DIRECTOR J.J. ABRAMS” (blue font with a nice lens flare) 

Some Kennedy speech about space flight: “The eyes of the world now look to space.” People walking around the saucer section. The wielders are everywhere, showing size. We hear, “The Eagle has landed.” Huge overhead shot pans across, suddenly showing what looks like miles of scaffolding underneath. Title: “THE FUTURE BEGINS” Really impressive shot from by the nacelle(?) of people all over the ship, and you can see a huge industrialize city or shipyard in the background. It’s being built on Earth, not in space. Neil Armstrong: “One small step for man…” Camera slowly cranes up over the whole saucer section. 

Then we hear then Leonard Nimoy’s line: “Space, the final frontier,” and the familiar “Star Trek” theme horns. The shot continues, revealing the writing on the top of the saucer — “U.S.S. Enterprise,” and these huge aircraft-like warp engines in the background. Technically, the first reveal of what we’re seeing. Just the Starfleet log (no title). 

Title card: “UNDER CONSTRUCTION” “CHRISTMAS 2008” 

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/15/star-trek-teaser-trailer-description/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Leaves out the slowly spinning, darkened nacelle cap (upper left-hand corner; blink and you miss it), but that's the teaser in a nutshell.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

_Cloverfield_ started today - 17th January - here in NZ.

Yes, the _Star Trek_ teaser trailer is on before the film, just as described by hell_fighter_8.

Can't really tell what the *Enterprise* looks like as the trailer is pretty short, and not done in one long sequence.

There are some 'bumps' along what might be the secondary hull, possibly where the nacelle struts attach.

The (incomplete) bridge dome and 'B' deck look about right.

And excuse me for this but [fan-boy] the font they used for the ship's name is not the TOS font [/fan-boy].

Oh yeah, _Cloverfield_ was pretty good. Short - the session started @ 7pm and we were out by 8:40 - and a little slow to get started ie. before the monster showed up and ripped hell outta Manhattan (hey, it's not like I'm spoiling anything - by now we've all seen the poster and the trailers). But it was good.

Cheers!

Jim.


_*This is tomorrow calling, wishing you were here...*_


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

Thanks Jim, I am looking foward to Cloverfield this weekend. 
(this message brought to you by the past.) :dude:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hell_fighter_8 said:


> . . . The wielders are everywhere, showing size.


What are they wielding? 

Swords? Torches? Pitchforks?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Funny you should mention that. I made a Star Trek fan trailer using CGI. My friend then got on my computer, and released it as the "real" teaser "leaked" on YouTube.
> 
> I woke up this morning, to an insanity frenzy on all the trek fan sites asking if the trailer was real. You can view my trailer at Youtube here...
> 
> ...


Great work!

They have used old theme music and effects from previous movies in the past for _Star Trek _trailers so it is perfectly plausible. :thumbsup:


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

The original Enterprise didn't have spinning nacelles. It was also put together in space. This sounds like trouble for the hardcore canon obsessed ST fans. Some may slash their wrists after the trailer is shown. Red alert.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> The original Enterprise didn't have spinning nacelles. It was also put together in space. This sounds like trouble for the hardcore canon obsessed ST fans. Some may slash their wrists after the trailer is shown. Red alert.


We never saw the nacelles powered up since they were never lit in the early footage of the _1701_. 

Retro-technically speaking, it's possible that they would have lit up in the familiar spinning fan effect if powered up.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

BASHMAN: Snobbin, there's trouble! The film commissioner says a _Star Trek_ movie is in production!

SNOBBIN: Holy Instant Suckage, Bashman! Is it a fan production to which we can more or less give a pass?

BASHMAN: No, Snobbin, I'm afraid it's a Hollywood film with a large budget. I've already heard a rumor that the uniform insignia are attached with the wrong number of stitches, that the ship's doors open one-tenth of a second faster than they should -- and the volume on the red alert is too loud. But the most diabolical rumor says that the actor playing Kirk has his _own hair!_

SNOBBIN: What a travesty! They're raping my childhood! Quick Bashman -- to the Bashmobile!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

There will be wearing of sackcloth, knashing of teeth and wailing of fans because the font isn't right and a piece of non-canon background shows _Enterprise_ as being built _on the ground_!  

Oh, whatta world! Whatta world!


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Oh the humanity?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^Oh the HUMAN-ity? even the term is racist...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

So, we're all agreed, then -- no Romulan Ale is to be consumed until _after_ we see the trailer?

Edit: Wow, my 4000th post! Woo hoo!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I heard that the workmen are shown using *metric * tools!!!

and flat screwdrivers when we all know the enterprise has only phillips head screws!

Screw you guys, I'm going home!

Boycott, BOYCOTT!!!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

They should have called all these movies "Change Trek".

"Schlock, the summit of our ability
These are the projects of the studio, Paramount
It's life long passion
To cut budgets and make fast bucks
To seek out new life in old situations
To boldly change all that has gone before..."

(Music swells)


"Change" does not equal "better".

Oh, and by the way, most of the fans have been complaining about the changes to the most obvious of details, not the microscopic ones.

Does the "Millenium Falcon" get "re-imagined" in each new Star Wars movie? No, it does not. So why then must the "Enterprise"? Personally, I resent the implication that the folks at the studio somehow "know best" what I should like, that the original is somehow "not good enough" and that I should "know better". Of course, I have not seen this new film so I am refering to the attitude of Paramount so far, perhaps that attitude has changed.

Or perhaps not.

After all, does it make sense to ignore the "Baby Boomer" market, which constitutes the bulk of TOS fans, and search for ways to bring in the "Generation Slacker" audience, which is much smaller in terms of total numbers? From a basic marketing POV, isn't it smarter to go after the larger audience? Paramount should try it, just once. They might be shocked at the result (and the $).


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Well, I was trying to go for the "all in good fun" angle, Phil. I'm of the "don't change just 'cause ya can!" mindset, but at the same time don't have a problem minor changes here and there to some things - such as control surface for the work stations, some graphics being more like our modern (but a touch more futuristic), gridlines on the hull of _Enterprise_ to give slightly better surface detailing and even the interior nacelle grills glowing a slight blue. I think of those more like updates, than anything. The exterior design and most of the interior sets of _Enterprise_, tho... those've _gotta_ stay the same or it'll be WRONG.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

X15-A2 said:


> "Change" does not equal "better".


"Change" does not _necessarily_ equal "better" -- nor are they automatically mutually exclusive.


X15-A2 said:


> most of the fans have been complaining about the changes to the most obvious of details


And which of these changes have actually been confirmed? 


X15-A2 said:


> Does the "Millenium Falcon" get "re-imagined" in each new Star Wars movie?


Re-imagined? No. Changed? Yes.


X15-A2 said:


> So why then must the "Enterprise"?


Other than the fact that both are space vehicles and both are iconic designs, they are otherwise quite different. One was made in the mid-'60s and was designed to look futuristic -- far advanced from what we have today. The other was designed in the mid-'70s and was meant to look like a piece of junk, more or less. It had a look inspired, in part, by actual spacecraft that had come into existence within the previous 10 years.

Seen today, one still looks like a piece of junk, however fast it might be. The other looks like a beautiful piece of mid-'60s design, but it doesn't look futuristic anymore, any more than Tomorrowland of the 1950s would still look like _Tomorrow_land today, no matter how much affection we may feel for it. 

Personally, I hope they make only relatively minor changes to the design, incorporating any much of the original design as feasible -- but whether the movie is good or not will not be dependant on how sharply the design of the starship deviates from that of the original, so long as they don't change it to the point that it requires massive changes to the universe itself (in other words, if they establish that the ship is made of wood and was grown from a seed, that would bother me). 

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I believe that _not_ making _some_ changes to the design of the ship -- especially the interior, but the exterior as well -- would be jarring, considering we're going to see new actors in classic roles.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> ^^Oh the HUMAN-ity? even the term is racist...


Actually, it's species-ist...



Lou Dalmaso said:


> I heard that the workmen are shown using *metric *tools!!!


Work-MEN? Look whose sexist now. Don't you know that there are good, capable fe-workmen out there? They can be just as handy with a tool. Heck, some are downright maniacal with them. Haven't you seen _Flashdance_? 

_She's just a steeltown girl on a Saturday night..._

_:tongue:_


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Actually, it's species-ist...


Ha! :lol:

That line has always bugged me, too!

"Speciest" would be an accurate term. (Unfortunately, that'd make Spock's mother guilty of bestiality.)


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

:wave: I just _had_ to.


I think I really need to see this trailer.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

sbaxter,

You missed my point about having not seen the new film and my comments being directed at what has been done so far.

As a designer, the only feature of TOS E exterior that I would point to as being in anyway dated or looking out of place is the treatment of the Warp nacelle end caps (rear). Other than that, it is still superior to anything that has come since in its ability to project the appearance of a "puposeful" design. The surface details are modest which imply necessity rather than decorative texturing, unlike later designs which increasingly began to look like they belonged in the Star Wars universe instead. Considering the trend towards making the new designs look more "aerodynamic", I'm surprised they haven't started sprouting fins and wings. However, some of the later designs were actually better at convincing us of their large size but this is a question of surface texture rather than one of general configuration and TOS E could easily have an updated surface treatment which would accomplish the same thing. Furthermore, TOS E looks like the kind of vehicle that would be built by a governemt agency, functional but not flashy. Later designs looked more like space "Love Boats" to me.

BTW, how is it "better" to show the ship being built on the ground rather than in space, the way it was originally described? You would view this as a necessary change, not frivolous in any way?

Frivolous change is what I'm against. The above is just my opinion of course and I don't expect everyone to agree or change their minds.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

well technically, we are members of the human RACE as well, as the Human SPECIES...so what I said was true, from a certain point of view.

Oh, and since the teaser description mentioned that the welder was male, then workMAN was correct.

I love my grammer...but my gandpa was a SOB


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I didn't think that the teaser showed enough of the ship to cause such panic.

And besides, if you had a choice of a beautiful Enterprise in a crappy film, or a fugly Enterprise in a great film..........

Huzz


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

X15-A2 said:


> As a designer, the only feature of TOS E exterior that I would point to as being in anyway dated or looking out of place is the treatment of the Warp nacelle end caps (rear).


Ever since I can remember, I thought the deflector dish looked too "now" to be on a starship of the future.


X15-A2 said:


> TOS E could easily have an updated surface treatment which would accomplish the same thing.


Agreed.


X15-A2 said:


> how is it "better" to show the ship being built on the ground rather than in space, the way it was originally described? You would view this as a necessary change, not frivolous in any way?


Right now, I look at it as a component of the teaser trailer. Possibly it was done this way to catch the viewer off-guard. Who knows whether the movie itself will include this detail, or even address it at all. And perhaps the components were built on earth and the final assembly was done in space, which might be sufficient for many to say it was built in space.

And is it better? I don't know; I'll have to see the movie first. Doesn't seem _worse_ to me, and maybe there's a dramatic reason for it, however large or small it might be -- which would make it not-frivolous.

Again, though -- the design of the ship and the mechanics of how it might have been built are much less important to me than the quality of the story and how well it is told.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Dave Hussey said:


> if you had a choice of a beautiful Enterprise in a crappy film, or a fugly Enterprise in a great film


Absolutely -- and of course, I hope we get both. While I hope everyone likes both (while knowing they won't -- and I wonder if I'll be correct as to my guesses about which members here will hate it no matter what), when it comes down to it, if _I_ like it, that's the most important thing to me.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Nova Designs said:


> :wave: I just _had_ to.
> 
> 
> I think I really need to see this trailer.


:lol: Classic! I love the Onion's take on it too: "Oh, the LUMINOSITY!"


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Do me a favor, say "moose and squirrel".


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> . . . Who knows whether the movie itself will include this detail, or even address it at all. And perhaps the components were built on earth and the final assembly was done in space, which might be sufficient for many to say it was built in space.


Good point! :thumbsup: Retro-technically speaking again, IIRC, the "fact" of the ship being assembled in space was never onscreen. It _was_ in the show's bible (and a perfectly logical assumption, to boot).

I hope we get to see a great film. For that to occur, naturally, there must be proper respect paid to canonicity so as the events and looks of the movie to be convincingly part of Star Trek as we have come to know it. Otherwise, my suspension of disbelief will be jarred beyond recovery.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Let's just hope its not built in China, in which case it will either be recalled or blow to smithereeens when they engage the warp drive.

Huzz


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

this reminds me of a story...
A long time ago, I had the opportunity to ask someone why the egg on the poster for the original ALIEN movie did not look anything like the eggs in the movie...

the responce?

"The poster was meant to convey a sense of the _tone_ of the movie, not the _literal reality_". 

Now this was long ago, kiddies, before the internet. Back when movie posters meant something. You had two main marketing tools, posters and trailers.

What if, this is the same idea here? the teasers (both poster and trailer) are supposed to generate buzz and so far "Mission Accomplished"

But do we know for sure that these are scenes from the film, or something shot just for this purpose?

just sayin'


PS Of course the ship was built on the ground and assembled in space...why muck around with bulky gloves and no gravity and/or air to breathe when you could much easier do that stuff on the ground and then boost it into orbit to finish? That's just crazy talk.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Actually, it would make more sense to build the components on the Moon. Lower gravity well, no pesky atmosphere, and presumely a plentiful supply of raw materials without having to worry about the environmental impact.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Admiral Nelson said:


> It was also put together in space.





X15-A2 said:


> BTW, how is it "better" to show the ship being built on the ground rather than in space, the way it was originally described? You would view this as a necessary change, not frivolous in any way?


Please, please point me to a canon reference to the Big E being constructed in space.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

sbaxter,

True, story comes first for me as well. I am against change just for the sake of change however. If they can come up with compelling reasons for change, then that is fine.

What you call the "deflector dish" was actually an antenna. Calling it the "deflector dish" was another later revision.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Hey guys, at the risk of being thoroughly lynched. It's just a movie...
And the trailer's just a teaser. Doesn't mean that's the final look of the grand lady.
Or even the final font. Hear? (oh, bad word play).

_*This is tomorrow calling, wishing you were here...*_


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

X15-A2 said:


> What you call the "deflector dish" was actually an antenna. Calling it the "deflector dish" was another later revision.


I seem to remember reading a reference to it being originally intended as an antenna years ago -- but whatever its purpose, it still struck me as dated, even when I was a kid watching it in the early '70s.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I thought it was a satellite TV dish.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

First official shot of the new Enterprise...

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/17/first-official-picture-of-the-uss-enterprise/

Larger image here...

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolmovies/star-trek-uss-enterprise-full


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I'm going to the midnight showing of Cloverfield tonight!

...but more to see this trailer, than to see the movie... although I hold out hope that the movie will be cool!

I LIKE that Enterprise image!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

A look into the shadows (apologies to those behind firewalls who can't view Photobucket images):


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Looks like a major re-design to me. Disappointing.

Well _they_ know best don't they?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

No wrist slashing from me, I just won't be watching it.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Those warp nacelles look waaaaaayyyyyyyy too big!


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Now now don't judge a book by it's cover...that is after all ONE view of the 
lady.myself i dont want EVERYTHING to put out before the movie is even out
that would be no fun,then why would people go see it?if people do not go see it then it's a flop and i dont want that.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

I think it's awful

Steve


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Didn't realize that the nacelles needed big, industrial fans. Maybe it's to keep them cool?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah, that looks like they tried to go way too far toward the refit design... I'm very disappointed. I mean its a cool pic, but those engines look bizarre at best. BTW, like the typeface used is the same one as the refit but without the border.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> I think it's awful
> 
> Steve


Of *course* you do.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I think it looks awesome. I'm not stuck to the old school.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Nova Designs said:


> BTW, like the typeface used is the same one as the refit but without the border.


Very much like the font used in _Ships of the Star Fleet_ for some of the original Connies, IIRC.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I truly hope,those aren't the final nacelle designs,they will ruin the ship for me.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Like you almost ruin the plot for me!Next time put SPOILER! in your post if you want to spill something from a movie!!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Does anyone remember THIS teaser poster? Did it look just like this? Nope. So chill out and wait.

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:STTMP_magazine_advertisement.jpg


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

The warp engines look Koernerized.... that will suck BIG time.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

It looks like Gabe's design. 

I've always liked it


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> I think it's awful
> 
> Steve


I'm with you!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I'm with you!


 
God meant you to find each other.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

It sounds like Nellie likes it. Dude, from what I see, it sucks. That's not the Enterprise. Maybe they have a good reason for it looking like that, but they'll have to do a lot of 'xplainin' before I'll buy it. 

Steve


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

A little guesswork and spit and baling wire for a hasty and _rough_ idea of what we may be looking at:











Bigger:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/1701x.jpg


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

ooohhh I like it a lot! And I really like the idea of it being built on the ground, kind of like in Star Wars with huge capital ships docked on the planet and taking off from the ground. This could be very interesting.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Is the ship done in this film using CG or physical model? I'm assuming CG based on these couple front shots. Looks interesting but seems a blend of the TOS and 1701-A versions. 

EDIT:

I thought this movie's timeline is supposed to be pre-TOS? It looks a little more modern but I'll reserve final judgement until I see the rest of the new ship. That being said, I think most of us were just hoping for a TOS Enterpise with added surface detail. 

I think the new ship will probably look fantastic on the screen but it seems to be a step forward instead of backwards from the good 'ol TOS days. I guess the movie makers were looking for something slightly pre-1701 refit instead?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Is the ship done in this film using CG or physical model? I'm assuming CG based on these couple front shots. Looks interesting but seems a blend of the TOS and 1701-A versions.


That has to be a CG pic due to the engines being exact mirrored images of each other.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> The warp engines look Koernerized.... that will suck BIG time.


I believe this is a distorted view due to the closeup shot of the saucer. Personally I like what I see so far, and have high hopes. Let's be realistic ... it will not look like it did in the TOS. That was the 1960's. To keep Trek alive you need to appeal to today's audience. If you can't keep an open mind, you will never accept this film. I grew up on TOS and loved Trek since long before TNG was a concept and am willing to wait and see as well as give it a chance. I remember when "true fans" originally bashed TNG. I was willing to give it a chance and ended up being one of the best shows on TV. Same with Battlestar Galactica ... The thought of a re-imagined series horrified fans. I grew up watching the original show and loving it. I watched the new mini series and now love the show much as the original. So basically give it a chance. The style ship as well as the movie itself may grow on you.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> A little guesswork and spit and baling wire for a hasty and _rough_ idea of what we may be looking at:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ekk - almost looks like a frontal of the NX-01...


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> I believe this is a distorted view due to the closeup shot of the saucer. Personally I like what I see so far, and have high hopes. Let's be realistic ... it will not look like it did in the TOS. That was the 1960's. To keep Trek alive you need to appeal to today's audience. If you can't keep an open mind, you will never accept this film. I grew up on TOS and loved Trek since long before TNG was a concept and am willing to wait and see as well as give it a chance. I remember when "true fans" originally bashed TNG. I was willing to give it a chance and ended up being one of the best shows on TV. Same with Battlestar Galactica ... The thought of a re-imagined series horrified fans. I grew up watching the original show and loving it. I watched the new mini series and now love the show much as the original. So basically give it a chance. The style ship as well as the movie itself may grow on you.


 I have no problem with them updating or refining the design with modern technology. I loved the refit from the moment I first saw her in space dock in TMP. She was still Enterprise, but sleeker and more advanced as one would expect.

If they go with this... I can only say abomination.. I will be disappointed. This is different because they are taking an already established design in an established time period and making MAJOR alterations from what was. 

I want my TOS Enterprise refined, more detailed and believeable. What I am seeing now gives me hope and pain at the same time. 

I like the saucer section, it is as I would have expected, but the warp engines are just plain wrong. The things look like they have shoulder pads on the front ends, they are WAY oversized and the entire mechanical egg-beaters in the bussards to me are just unfathomable. 

This ship is supposed to be a marvel of technology, not a bastard hybrid of Transformers and Erector Set leftovers and that is what the engines look like to me (and the entire Koerner concept for that matter).

I'll not argue that change is good. Without change we'd stagnate, but there are certainly times when change is not needed. This is one of them.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Ekk - almost looks like a frontal of the NX-01...


EXACTLY what I was thinking!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> It sounds like Nellie likes it. Dude, from what I see, it sucks. That's not the Enterprise. Maybe they have a good reason for it looking like that, but they'll have to do a lot of 'xplainin' before I'll buy it.
> 
> Steve


But you can bet if it comes out in a kit, you'll *sell* it.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

It doesn't suck!

It could have been Enterprise bad. I think once the nacelles power up, we'll see the familiar lighting effects. The intercoolers look more streamlined than expected, but I'll live with it. The font seems to match the Franz Joseph tech manual. Maybe that will change. I'm of the opinion that this teaser is independent footage that will NOT be incorporated in the final film. The whole built on earth thing adds to the reveal. If you saw guys in spacesuits welding (not wielding), you'd immediately know they were building a spaceship. By seeing guys on land, they can slowly reveal the ship. More teasing.

Personally, I think the design combines TOS, Trek Phase 2 and TMP Enterprises and I don't hate it. I also think that it's a year before we see this and the design may not yet be final.

I'm frankly more concerned about story rumors that are leaking out. Kirk not portrayed in a positive light. But, I trust J.J. I'm a huge fan of Lost and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I know he's a huge Trek fan too and he doesn't want to see the franchise fail. Of course the same was said about the screenwriter of Trek 10. :freak:


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> EXACTLY what I was thinking!


Hey, look at it this way - they release an image at the beginning of the year, knowing we'll be all over it like a cheap suit.
They hear what we think, and hopefully make alterations (or better yet, make a trip to CBS's VFX dept and borrow their _Enterprise_ mesh).


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Admiral Nelson said:


> But you can bet if it comes out in a kit, you'll *sell* it.


 And that's a bad thing?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I just got home from midnight showing of Cloverfield...

Star Trek Preview... kind of cool... WAY TOO LITTLE to form a real opinion... the picture we saw earlier today... that's basically it.

Cloverfield... Hated it. I'll enjoy watching others chime in on it. I'll skip the spoilers... but recommend you wait to see it as a rental... IMHO


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Hey, look at it this way - they release an image at the beginning of the year, knowing we'll be all over it like a cheap suit.
> They hear what we think, and hopefully make alterations (or better yet, make a trip to CBS's VFX dept and borrow their _Enterprise_ mesh).


Let us pray


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Lets say it this way: if the nacelles only appear oversized and are in fact not that…. blown up… then it still can be good. 

Upon second view I like the little design hints that lean more towards the Refit (the entire bridge module looks like a pre TMP version of the Pearl Ladies Bridge dome). 

BUT…. The overall shapes should not be altered too much! 

After all Paramoneyborg still wants to sell their newly remastered TOS DVD Boxes! And when this new movie literarily says “the TOS you know is not the TOS we go to now” then it will bomb. 

I don’t mind fi the 1701 interior looks more modern then in TOS its just a fact that you can not throw 60s design at a 2008 movie going audience although WE would love to see it. It has got to look like the designs belong to a time 250-260 years from now! You just can’t have flip switches and what not in a today’s movie but the “look” of it should match the original design. Like get the original bridge console layout and make the jewel buttons and flip switches touch panels for example. Same with the uniforms, you can’t have them run around in pants that will only reach about a bit lower then your knee cap and shoes that look like woman’s shoes topped of with a body tight, flannel gold shirt!! 

So its pretty clear they got to update about everything. And I am ok with that, as long as it feels like it’s the original TOS design! Like that I can say :“Ok, if they would have had the technology back then in the 60s, TOS probably would have looked a lot like that” 

But if those behemoth warp nacelles are any indication of the 1701 up dates design then she will look awful imbalanced! Like a skinny sleek saucer (it looks flatter then the TOS conies saucer top), probably more “aerodynamic” secondary hull with way oversized warp nacelles on top. A look that, after looking at the TOS Connie, you’ll just have to say “that’s NEVER the same ship!” 

And THAT’S the problem I have with these “re imaginations!” 

New BSG showed it can work, but from day one they made it completely clear that this was a “re imagination” of the TOS BSG! 

With this 11th Star Trek movie we don’t really know what its purpose is!

- The start of a new movie series with same cast? (likely if well received) 

- A reboot of Star Trek as a whole not acknowledging what went before to be fresh and have new possibilities? (canon for that show would not matter)

- The launch pat for a new TOS show with the updated design and crew? (also like since most actors come from TV shows)


If now they say, this is an entirely NEW Star Trek and we are NOT sticking to what went before, we are just using the Star Trek concept and characters (spaceships basic design included) liek they did with New BSG . Well then I could accept that and give it a fresh start to see what they come up with. 

But if they keep on telling us they will respect the old shows, while simultaneously changing about everything, then I will be pissed! 

Either it’s new and we forget about the past

Or

It respects its predecessors and shows it all the way!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I said it before and I'll say it again; the film makers are never going to please all the fans of Star Trek-unless they leave it alone and don't even try. From what I've seen, I like it. What you are seeing with ends of the nacelle caps removed is exactly about what I'd expect. Some type of mechanical impellers or something. Obviously the flashing pattern is some type of particle collision reactions that occur behind these blades or something. What do people think would account for the spinning effect? Some phantom 'energy' pattern. Geez, give these guys a chance.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

In reading this thread, I'm sooooooo reminded of Dana Carvey's _Grumpy Old Man_ character. Nothing new was ever good for that guy. Sound familiar?

I don't think the Enterprise looks bad at all. Thank of what Ford did with its recent new Mustang which harkens back to the styling of the classic 1960's Mustang. Ford has tried to be faithful to the original style and spirit of the car while incorporating modern technology. The sales numbers for the car show that its a success - heck, I'd love to have one and I've even suggested it to da wife. 

Similarly, this ship looks like a modern day version of the original Enterprise. From what I see, it appears to honor the styling and spirit of the classic 1960s ship. I expect it will look beautiful when we see all of her. 
And what Opus Penguin said!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

At the startrek.com boards I read that Paramount bought Gabriel Koerners “re imagined TOS” design and altered it to what we will seen in ST XI. 

Anyone got information if this is true? Did Gabe sell his design to Pramount? (the “re imagined” can’t be found on his official site anymore!. Which is odd since he used to show it off there) 

Might he even haven been working for Paramount designing a new TOS Connie and showed it off at Trek Boards to see if the new design would find more “yeahs” then ”neahs” before Paramount took it as the design basis for the new movie? 

Could STXIs 1701 have more of Gabes design then we thought, even be a refind version of what we know as the "re imagined" version from Gabe??

Would really appreciate if anyone could add some light to this. 

Disclaimer: I do like Gabes version! A bit to many greeblies and Borg like in my taste but I do like the approach. Although of course I would view the “new” TOS aka STXI as an entirely new Star Trek! Because the Gabe TOS is and can most obviously NOT be converted into the grey lady.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

This also reminds me of the controversy surrounding Darth Vader as he appeared in _Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith_. 

I, and most other folks whow went to the film watched the scene where Vader is rebuilt on the table and then he is raised up and you see him. Most movie goers said - Wow - that's Darth Vader!

But many of the Original Trilogy fans thought that Vader looked terrible because he didn't look like he did in _A New Hope_.

Ah well. Perhaps there's no hope.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> And that's a bad thing?


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

It's going to be a long year.:drunk:


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> No wrist slashing from me, I just won't be watching it.


 
*Suuuuure* you won't.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> At the startrek.com boards I read that Paramount bought Gabriel Koerners “re imagined TOS” design and altered it to what we will seen in ST XI.


Last time I saw a post from Mr. Koerner at Trekweb (a month or so ago), he categorically denied that his version of the Big E has anything to do with the movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> At the startrek.com boards I read that Paramount bought Gabriel Koerners “re imagined TOS” design and altered it to what we will seen in ST XI.
> 
> Anyone got information if this is true? Did Gabe sell his design to Pramount? (the “re imagined” can’t be found on his official site anymore!. Which is odd since he used to show it off there)
> 
> ...


Yep! It's Koerner's version of the 1701. It's probably been tweaked some but it's the same critter:

http://www.cstse.es/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ent_123106_01.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/kroenerprise1.jpg

http://www.startrekreborn.net/images/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I can dig it.

And I do note that this movie ship is much closer to the TV ship than what fans of Lost in Space saw when that film debuted ten years ago.

Let's give it a chance.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yep! It's Koerner's version of the 1701. It's probably been tweaked some but it's the same critter:


If that is what it is, then I resign my Starfleet commission....


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Sounds like a Shatner quote from a certain Saturday Night Live skit may soon be needed!!!:wave: 

Huzz


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Here is what this bridge design looks like in 3D when grafted onto the TOS Primary Hull. The new bridge here has been matched for overal height and basic width to the TOS version. The upward bulge contour of the saucer is an estimate based on what we see in the publicity picture. Obviously the aft bridge area is a guess on my part but it looks like they are going for maximum continuity with the refit so it will most likely be either, a curved surface with lounge windows or a flat truncated surface with a docking port as in my version. Once again, my apologies to those of you who are Photobucket challenged.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> If that is what it is, then I resign my Starfleet commission....



I'm with you. Koerner's design is HIS take on things... but its not the Enterprise. no way no how.  

This is all just my opinion, so I'm not entering a debate...

I'm sick of hearing what Moore did with BSG used as a justification for a reboot of TOS. Star Trek and BSG are just not comparable. BSG was barely ONE SEASON of a not very popular, campy and rather weakly produced series. Star Trek is a whole other beast... MUCH more prolific, iconic and fantastically successful. Consider that they are still broadcasting and _selling_ the original series to this day. A 40-year-old TV show still raking in the bucks nearly untouched in all that time. Only now with all this CG technology have they started messing with it. And fan reaction is pretty uniform about that as well.

BSG was a great concept that _never_ rose to its potential, the "remake" was well after the original was gone from the public consciouness... hell, when was the last time it was even on TV? 15 years ago? 20?

Star Trek is now, and has been, playing over and over and spinning off and spinning off for 40 years straight. Its a fixture in our society, its literally everywhere... right down to your freaking flip phones! Its origins are so iconic and so well known that its undeniably risky to be messing with it. Changing it will be its undoing. It cannot stand up, no matter how glitzy, to the original. Hollywood simply doesn't have the right mix of talent and RESPECT for the original to pull it off. All the claims of respect are just lip service to keep the dogs off. They are trying to reinvent the wheel as a square... again.

To most fans this movie is already well down the wrong road. Even if the story is good (which I'm not counting on) you're trying to sell 40 year fans with very extensive knowledge brand new "WB-styled" faces, and redesigned high-tech Enterprise and I will bet money right now that they try to rewrite the history too, change something really important. make it more disfuntional and angsty.

Its got the name on it, so I'll go see it, out of curiosity. I watched Enterprise for the same reasons. Hell I even enjoyed Enterprise now and then. But I never confused it for Star Trek... it was _something else_ only peripherally related... and so is this movie.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If the new ship looks like Koerner's, but it's meant to be the ship *between* _Enterprise_ and _TOS-Cage_ in the series continuity, then I'm okay with it. <shrug>


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

This Enterprise design does seem to draw elements from the Kroener version so I would not be at all surprised to find out that Paramount bought his design, if only to prevent legal hassles. But it does not appear to be his literal design, it is only similar.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

I'm a big a ST geek as the rest here, but I'm not going to have a cow over a teaser 4 seconds long. There was as much griping about the refit and people grew to love that one.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I already really like it. And I like the original. 

Like my classic 1960's vs new Mustang anology - the original is lovely - and the new one retains a lot of the original style cues and incorporates some updates for today's audience.

I think they've done a great job. Its much closer to TOS than the refit, and certainly nowhere near what they did with the NX-01 in _Enterprise_. Some folks are still having nightmares over that.

It coulda been a lot worse. Remember the 1998 movie Jupiter II anyone?
Huzz


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

When they made TMP, they were very smart and made the Enterprise a NEW ship... a refit. Plus there was no precedent. Paramount didn't yet have its long and terrible history of screwing Trek up trying to reinvent it.

This time they are changing things and selling it to us as the same ship. Sorry, its not.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> There was as much griping about the refit and people grew to love that one.


Not me


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Nova Designs said:


> This time they are changing things and selling it to us as the same ship. Sorry, its not.


I recall having much the same argument about Sherlock Holmes actually. I was initially familiar with the BBC Jeremy Brett shows. The guy was an awesome Holmes. Others pointed out that Basil Rathbone back in the 1940's was the definitive Holmes. So - I watched some of his shows. And I now enjoy both versions enthusiastically.

Can't folks take the same initial view here?  The 1960's shows and ship were and always will be wonderful. but can't we give the new movie and its ship, which is not so bad IMHO, a chance as well?

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

_"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."_

Ralph Waldo Emerson


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> When they made TMP, they were very smart and made the Enterprise a NEW ship... a refit. Plus there was no precedent. Paramount didn't yet have its long and terrible history of screwing Trek up trying to reinvent it.
> 
> This time they are changing things and selling it to us as the same ship. Sorry, its not.


IT'S A REBOOT!!! 

Reboot:Comparison to remakes and prequels
A reboot differs from a remake or a prequel, in that the latter two are generally consistent with the canon (previously-established continuity) of the series; with a reboot, the older continuity is largely discarded while the new continuity is declared the official canon.

Additionally, prequels are often developed by the same creator as the original series it leads up to, while a remake is often produced by a different author than the original series, and can be seen as retelling of the same story and essentially sticking to the same canon. The term _remake_ often applies to films or film adaptions of TV shows, like The Fugitive, whereas the term _reboot_ is ascribed to franchises such as Batman Begins or the 2006 James Bond film Casino Royale.

Rationale
This term is often applied to comic books, where the prevailing continuity can be very important to the progress of future installments, acting (depending on circumstances and one's point of view) either as a rich foundation from which to develop characters and storylines, a box limiting the story options available to tell, or even an irreconcilable mess of contradictory history. Such large continuities also become a barrier to introducing newcomers to the fandom, as the complex histories are difficult to learn, and make understanding the story very difficult. A reboot gives the chance for new fans to experience the core story by reintroducing it in smaller and easier-to-understand installments and/or by refocusing the story on its most important elements and abandoning many subplots and an overgrowth of minor details. Reboots may also serve changing audience expectations as to storytelling style, genre evolution, and sophistication of material.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> _"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."_
> 
> Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please". 
Mark Twain


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> I recall having much the same argument about Sherlock Holmes actually. I was initially familiar with the BBC Jeremy Brett shows. The guy was an awesome Holmes. Others pointed out that Basil Rathbone back in the 1940's was the definitive Holmes. So - I watched some of his shows. And I now enjoy both versions enthusiastically.


I don't know how you put up with the Basil Rathbone version. He never got me hooked onto the character but after reading the entire series, I was hooked on Jeremy Brett who was spot on in the role.

No real point to make except that Brett was far superior. :thumbsup:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I don't know how you put up with the Basil Rathbone version. He never got me hooked onto the character but after reading the entire series, I was hooked on Jeremy Brett who was spot on in the role.
> 
> No real point to make except that Brett was far superior. :thumbsup:


Not to take this discussion too far afield, but Rathbone comes much closer to the Holmes I picture while reading the Conan Doyle stories. He is charming, energetic, and has a sly sense of humor. All traits of the Conan Doyle Holmes but not the Brett interpetation.

And would anyone else like to see Christian Bale cast as Holmes? He certainly has the look (tall, thin, aquiline nose), he has the intensity, and unlike most movie Holmeses he's about the right age.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> If that is what it is, then I resign my Starfleet commission....


Do you wear your uniform to the store and such?:lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Not to take this discussion too far afield, but Rathbone comes much closer to the Holmes I picture while reading the Conan Doyle stories. He is charming, energetic, and has a sly sense of humor. All traits of the Conan Doyle Holmes but not the Brett interpetation.
> 
> And would anyone else like to see Christian Bale cast as Holmes? He certainly has the look (tall, thin, aquiline nose), he has the intensity, and unlike most movie Holmeses he's about the right age.


Rathbone isn't ugly enough.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

This is the official trailer? Hard to make out its so dark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Admiral Nelson said:


> IT'S A REBOOT!!!
> 
> Reboot:Comparison to remakes and prequels
> A reboot differs from a remake or a prequel, in that the latter two are generally consistent with the canon (previously-established continuity) of the series; with a reboot, the older continuity is largely discarded while the new continuity is declared the official canon.



Whatever. "reboot" is a made up term to justify drastically changing something.
Star Trek does not need a reboot.

I'm not buying no matter what its called.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve Mavronis said:


> This is the official trailer? Hard to make out its so dark:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8


It appears someone brought in a camera to the theater and recorded it. Very stupid these days as you get caught you could be arrested. The poster could also be sued for loss of revenue because many will now not go see Cloverfield.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> Whatever. "reboot" is a made up term to justify drastically changing something.
> Star Trek does not need a reboot.
> 
> I'm not buying no matter what its called.


Well, we could have the 60's costumes, props, special effects, ships and *then* would you be happy? Probably not.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

One thing no one has mentioned is that bonfire on the primary hull in that pic (just above the "T") - looks like some of workers got bored and started a nice big fire to roast some marsh melons...


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

OFFICAL ST XI TRAILER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Coklq_pA0&feature=related


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've always wanted them to redo Star Trek with Nomad as a member of the crew.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Well, we could have the 60's costumes, props, special effects, ships and *then* would you be happy? Probably not.



What's your point? I don't like what they're doing. That's wrong? Beating me over the head with equivocating terminology and sarcasm isn't going to change my mind. I have as much right to express my opinion of this as you do. Keep your opinions focused on what you think of the _movie_, and not what you _think_ I want. 

If you like what you see, great. I don't. 

Move along.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> What's your point? I don't like what they're doing. That's wrong? Beating me over the head with equivocating terminology and sarcasm isn't going to change my mind. I have as much right to express my opinion of this as you do. Keep your opinions focused on what you think of the _movie_, and not what you _think_ I want.
> 
> If you like what you see, great. I don't.
> 
> Move along.


Have you got a problem with the Lubliner Seaview?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Huh? What are you talking about?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Huh? What are you talking about?


I'm not sure what causes it but whenever I bring up the Lubliner Seaview, it seems to calm Admiral Nelson down. :freak: 



:jest:


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

nadda


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> If you say Lubliner three times, Adm. Nelson will magically appear and be unhappy.



Don't you have to stare into your computer monitor when you do that?

:roll:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Putting in my two cents on the Lubliner 8 foot Seaview: paid him $1000 for it back in 1993 for one. Never happened. Called him often, many excuses. 5 years ago asked for money back and he said the time limit for small claims had passed years before. 

I paid him $200 for the resin 2 footer, still waiting in my closet. I just want to do it justice! 

He's a nice guy, even recognized my diabetes symptoms so that I could get treated. And he's a genius where the Seaview is concerned, hands down. I just won't have anything further to do him.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Lubliner,Lubliner,Lubliner!







, I'm ready for the Admiral!

If they had made the ship 1701-F or beyond, and had an all Tribble crew, I would watch the movie. But, a reinvented TOS....







!


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Considering that we don't really know anything about the movie except for who's in it (and who's not - sorry, Mr. W. "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. Abrams" Shatner (all right, I'm being REALLY facetious here!!)) and a just-released trailer which is just as likely to be total misinformation as not, there's a lot of people who seems to have already made up their minds that the movie is total and utter crap!  

I'm going to wait and see. Can't we at least hold our "I told you so!!!" comments till later??


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

STAR TREK does not need a reboot.
The stories should just continue forward. None of this
"historical" stuff.

This "first meeting" garbage is a 15-year-old idea that was trashed
so many times. Yet, now that Paramount is out of ideas, they
dredged up this muck.

Move forward! Let's see the 25th century!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Please, continue with teh hatez. It amuses me.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> What's your point? I don't like what they're doing. That's wrong? Beating me over the head with equivocating terminology and sarcasm isn't going to change my mind. I have as much right to express my opinion of this as you do. Keep your opinions focused on what you think of the _movie_, and not what you _think_ I want.
> 
> If you like what you see, great. I don't.
> 
> Move along.


Come, come, Nova. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> If you say Lubliner three times, Adm. Nelson will magically appear and be unhappy.


 
Steve's just upset because he can't take over and close the thread.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm not sure what causes it but whenever I bring up the Lubliner Seaview, it seems to calm Admiral Nelson down. :freak:
> 
> 
> 
> :jest:


Everytime someone brought up a Seaview model, *ANY* Seaview model, the Perfesser would ask if they were talking about the Lubliner Seaview. It kind of became a joke.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

spe130 said:


> Please, continue with teh hatez. It amuses me.


LOL! :roll:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Everytime someone brought up a Seaview model, *ANY* Seaview model, the Perfesser would ask if they were talking about the Lubliner Seaview. It kind of became a joke.


Yes it did--but not much of one


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Well, none of us are beyond bad jokes at the expense of others. And I would say we are all guilty of running bad jokes into the ground and pounding the life out of them. We strive to amuse ourselves.

Cult


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Well, none of us are beyond bad jokes at the expense of others. And I would say we are all guilty of running bad jokes into the ground and pounding the life out of them. We strive to amuse ourselves.
> 
> Cult


You amuse me daily. I'm laughing at the "superior intellect." :jest:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Well, none of us are beyond bad jokes at the expense of others. And I would say we are all guilty of running bad jokes into the ground and pounding the life out of them.


As long as we understand (or at least give the benefit of a doubt) that the jokes are all in good fun. 



> We strive to amuse ourselves.


An astute observation, sir :thumbsup:


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Joking in fun and being considerate towards others.Should be the Prime Directive of Hobbytalk.as well as beneficial information shared on Sci fi Plastic modeling.to help others.Guy S.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Here here.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

There, there.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Admiral Nelson said:


> There, there.


Always the contrarian!


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Were wolf!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

_There_ wolf!

And it's "hear, hear," as in "what you said deserves to be heard." Unless you're calling a pet.


Dr. Brad said:


> One thing no one has mentioned is that bonfire on the primary hull in that pic (just above the "T") - looks like some of workers got bored and started a nice big fire to roast some marsh melons...


Are those a cross between marshmallows and mushmelons?

Okay, that's today's nitpicking off my chest. Now back to nitpicking the new _Enterprise_.


----------



## Pidg (Jan 15, 2005)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Well, we could have the 60's costumes, props, special effects, ships and *then* would you be happy? Probably not.


I doubt it. That's why they want to appeal to new generation of fans, not the --------'s here.
Good Lord. You guys frustrate me.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

You're entitled to your frustration Pidg, but please remember this is a family forum.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Roguepink said:


> Were wolf!


Why are you talking that way?

I thought you wanted to. 

No, I don't want to.

Suit yourself. I'm easy.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am a DIEHARD TOS fan. I was not in favor of the remastered FX DVDs, but after seeing the photos over time, I saw they were trying to do right for us. 

But this movie is all wrong! Create a new Enterprise, and new crew, I would have given them a view. But recasting new actors, to play the original crew, stupid.
I can except ST: New Voyages, because it is a fan film, and they do it out of love for TOS. This new movie is just trying to reinvent ST, to keep the money coming in. 
I might watch it, if it is free.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Where do they put the Hemis? Plus I think it needs some triantiwontigondolopes!!!(don't worry, I'm waiting for my lithium to start working).


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You can come over to my house when the DVD comes out, Lloyd. I'll even offer up your favorite libation and popcorn to go along with it!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> You're entitled to your frustration Pidg, but please remember this is a family forum.




Well, I, for one, think that he described me perfectly!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Hey, I wonder if the Klingons will be in this one? They were either mentioned or seen in all the other feature films!  :thumbsup:


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

Well, I went to see the new teaser along with Cloverfield. The teaser was of course...Awesome..., but I had seen the bootleg beforehand, so I knew what to expect. Saying that, I am going to vent here a sec. If the new movie is going to be anything like Cloverfield, I will be thoroughly disappointed because Cloverfield was the worst movie I have seen in a long time. SPOILERS ALERT - Do not read further if you do not want to have the movie ruined for you - First off, it's barely an hour and 10 minutes long. Second, the entire movie is shot with someone's Sony Handycam from the ground level and you spend the whole movie trying to follow someone's shaky video taking skills. I knew it was being shot from the point of view of the people on the street, but not in this crappy way. Lastly, the darn movie just ends and NONE of the questions you have in your head get answered. It was just a total let down and does NOT live up to the hype. Thanks for letting me vent a little.


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

JGG1701 said:


> Hey, I wonder if the Klingons will be in this one? They were either mentioned or seen in all the other feature films!  :thumbsup:


Good point. And one has to wonder if they will have cranial ridges or will they have been effected by the human/klingon augment fiasco that created the "Human" like Klingons in TOS.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

zenomorp said:


> . . . Cloverfield was the worst movie I have seen in a long time.


Thanks for the advice! :thumbsup: I'll stay far away from that one.

Shaky video makes me nauseous.


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

If this indeed the Enterprise we will see in the movie I'm cool with it.
From the teaser, it definately takes some design cues from the Refit, right down to the lower sensor array. However, the extremely small snippets of the ship, that flash incredibly fast on and off the screen, it is way to early to get my panties in a bunch. 

It's gonna be a long year.


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

jsnmech18 said:


> It's gonna be a long year.


Understatement of the decade. I also am not going to set my hopes too high as I do not want to become the perverbial Icarus.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

While I like the new design, and if they were calling this a 'reboot' then they could do anything they want. Look how well it worked for Battlestar Galactcia.

However, if Nimoy is in this as 'Spock', then I do believe that they owe something to the 'canon' of Trek. But the problem with that is that eveyone has different ideas as to what can be changed and what shouldn't be changed.
A friend says 3 things shouldn't be changed. 1.) Design of the Enterprise, 2.) Look of the uniforms. 3.) Time period of the uniforms.

Some people feel that EVERYTHING has to be the same.....ship, costumes, sets, props, lighting etc. Those people simply live in a fantasy world as all that simply wouldn't be taken seriously with todays expectations to production values. If one is that inflexible, then they should only stick to the fan films. 

And just because thats how it was made back in the 60's, no one knows what Matt Jeffries and Roddenberry would have done if they had more money.
Remember, some things like the Transporter were invented BECAUSE they DIDN'T have money to land the ship every week. Had they huge dollars, then the TOS Trek may have looked FAR different than what made it to the screen. But the stories probably would been the very similiar.

For me, I would prefer only the design of the Enterprise be the same. But again, the problem with that is that I don't care for the 'pilot' and '2nd pilot' versions of the Enterprise as I feel they look hokey.

So really, NO ONE can be happy with whatever they do, as Trek is so personal to each individual that it has almost reached the status of a 'religeon'.
The interesting that now, is that Trek was supposed to be a social comentary of the issues of the times. Whats interesting to me is that it is still a comentary of the times, in this case how all the worlds religeons profess peace, yet they all result in various amounts of discourse because again people are so personally involved with their own beliefs, they can't see the bigger picture.

1.) Its just a movie/religeon
2.) Its just a personal belief system and in no way is proven or should be confused with actual 'truth'.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I couldn't agree more!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Is it just a television series or is it a work of art?

While not registering as a religion on any sane person's scale of reality, I see no harm in people being passionate enough about what they consider to be an art that they are supporters of.

If the original series were in a museum next to paintings and sculptures by the masters, there might be more concern for the integrity and history of the series as well as an understanding of those who love it and don't want to see it lose the respect that they feel it deserves.

And, just because it is not in a museum--mostly because it's a difficult medium to put there in many respects--does that make the passion and interest of its supporters less valid?

Sure, you can take the attitude that each series is an entity in and of itself. However, to most who love the original show, anything that is added or attempts to change (directly or by reflection in a later series) the original series, the core of _Trek_, leaves them feeling betrayed. That's because, for many fans, _Star Trek_ is, in reality, an ongoing cooperative effort of art. Fundamental revisions are considered vandalism and to some are even the equivalent to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think whats happening with the "new" TOS movie Enterprise is they have re-imagined what the old TV era ship would look like based on the 1701-A style movie ship as a starting point, instead of the other way around. It's sort of a reverse engineering job if you look at it that way. It should still look impressive on the big screen. 

I'm sure they will sell a lot of model kits no matter what. I just wonder when the kit comes out, will it be in scale with the old AMT movie Enterprise kit or 1:350 scale. Most likely the former if they use AMT to do it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's also going to be interesting to see what the other equipment will be like. When you consider that we have touch screen ipods with internet capabilities now, how do you project what will be around in 200 years? I doubt they'll have a huge tricorder slung over the shoulder.

It seems that what some folks don't (or won't) understand is that the 60's WERE the 60's. To give a futuristic story any credence at all you simply cannot design everything and have it look the way it did. I've actually heard people complain that 'Enterprise' looked more futuristic than TOS! It should! They had a bigger budget and ideas of upcoming technology has changed drastically from what was around in the era of TOS. And above all else, you're talking about a series set a few hundred years FROM NOW! How could it possibly look older than TOS? Do we expect them to use sets with reel to reel computers?


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

40 years from now the movie Enterprise will look like an old design as well as the uniforms and equipment. Look at the old news of the future from the 50's. The cars were suppose to be futuristic but look 50ish today. Sorry folks, we can never see what the future holds in store.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The problem is that TOS is a fictional view of the future. To try to make the new movie reflect what the future might be like, from today, destroys what has been done. TOS was about the hopes of how the future should be like, not how it will be.

Since TOS started the ST history, it should be treated as how it was then, in the Federation. Any show, like ENTERPRISE, should have gone more primative, not reflect today's tech. The movie should reflect the future as seen in TOS, not ENTERPRISE and TMP. 

ENTERPRISE failed to go 7 seasons like the other series, because they went backwards in ST history, but NG view of ST history, because they had more money.
More money does not mean better, just more expensive.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

JeffG said:


> It's also going to be interesting to see what the other equipment will be like. When you consider that we have touch screen ipods with internet capabilities now, how do you project what will be around in 200 years? I doubt they'll have a huge tricorder slung over the shoulder.


I always love this argument. People compare cool new phone tech to the communicators and such. Cool phones cannot transmit more than about 6 - 10 miles, not hundreds of miles. Once you get to something that has satelite link up, it's huge and has tremendous power requirements. Griffy might know more about that type of communications device since he was (is?) in the military and may have seen such a contraption. So, a large tricorder doing God knows what over who knows how far a distance just might still have to be that size.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

If they've got the smarts to figure out faster than light drives and transporters, I doubt that a small transmitting device is out of the question.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good point,Eric. You brought up something I never thought of, and it makes sense.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> While I like the new design, and if they were calling this a 'reboot' then they could do anything they want. Look how well it worked for Battlestar Galactcia.
> 
> However, if Nimoy is in this as 'Spock', then I do believe that they owe something to the 'canon' of Trek. But the problem with that is that eveyone has different ideas as to what can be changed and what shouldn't be changed.
> A friend says 3 things shouldn't be changed. 1.) Design of the Enterprise, 2.) Look of the uniforms. 3.) Time period of the uniforms.


I agree with you. I think casting Nimoy was the wrong move. If they're rebooting Trek (which I won't have an opinion on until I see the movie), then they should make a clean break. Casting Nimoy as Spock is not so much a homage but a tacit agreement that this new Trek is somehow related to the old one.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

El Gato said:


> Casting Nimoy as Spock is not so much a homage but a tacit agreement that this new Trek is somehow related to the old one.


I seem to recall making the same argument about casting Judi Dench in _Casino Royale_. Nobody else seemed to think it was a big deal. And _Casino Royale_ turned out to be such a good film that I've abandoned my objections, even though I don't think the points I raised were invalid. I decided to make up my mind _after_ I saw the movie, and I'm glad I did.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Continuity in the Bond series has always been a bit of a stretch...


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Yeah, Bond has a reboot every time they cast a new Bond. Star Trek, on the other hand, has never gone through a reboot. There's been only one actor associated with each of those characters, and there has been no one else cast in those roles for that show.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

JeffG said:


> If they've got the smarts to figure out faster than light drives and transporters, I doubt that a small transmitting device is out of the question.


Something the size of a communicator reaching that far into space would be a *very* small communicating device. Especially as clear as it sounded. No "Can you hear me now?"


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Yeah, Bond has a reboot every time they cast a new Bond. Star Trek, on the other hand, has never gone through a reboot. There's been only one actor associated with each of those characters, and there has been no one else cast in those roles for that show.


The difference with the Bond films is that, so far at least, every Bond movie has been set in the "present" -- that is, the time when the movie was made. Each time a new actor is cast as Agent 007, it pretty much _has_ to be a reboot -- otherwise Bond would be, what, about 80 by now?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

El Gato said:


> Yeah, Bond has a reboot every time they cast a new Bond. Star Trek, on the other hand, has never gone through a reboot. There's been only one actor associated with each of those characters, and there has been no one else cast in those roles for that show.


Except for poor Lt. Saavik...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> A little guesswork and spit and baling wire for a hasty and _rough_ idea of what we may be looking at:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this a computer rendering you made to illustrate what it might look like or an ST11 actual movie still? I haven't seen this image posted anywhere else besides this forum. I think it looks cool either way. I would love to have something like this in 1680x1050 widescreen as my Windows desktop background


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Is this a computer rendering you made to illustrate what it might look like or an ST11 actual movie still? I haven't seen this image posted anywhere else besides this forum. I think it looks cool either way. I would love to have something like this in 1680x1050 widescreen as my Windows desktop background


Thanks!

It's just the still from the shipyard that's been roughly modified. I mostly just patched it up using Paint Shop, copying complete parts of the ship, mirror-imaging them and then pasting them over the same spots on the opposite side. 

I added the lights where I figured they were going to go if the structure under the bridge is equivalent to that on the motion picture version of the ship.

Unfortunately, there's not enough structure as yet available to fill in the bottom to do even a standard wide screen format of the picture.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

spe130 said:


> Except for poor Lt. Saavik...


Annnnnnd Cochran!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Zefram Cochrane was a peripheral character. It's like Felix Leiter being played by God knows how many different actors in the Bond films.

Veering a bit off topic, personally, I never cared much for either portrayal of Cochrane. As played by Glenn Corbett in the TOS ep "Metamorphosis," he was unconvincing as a scientist, not to mention rather wimpy. The way Cochrane's character was written in _First Contact_ and portrayed by James Cromwell, he was an aging, eccentric hippie. Neither seemed a credible version of a man who's supposed to have developed warp drive, an achievement equal to the invention of the wheel.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I agree. Though I like Cromwell as an actor, the portrayal made the character very hard to believe. In fact, it almost seemed they made him that way just for laughs and cheap comic relief.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> I agree. Though I like Cromwell as an actor, the portrayal made the character very hard to believe. In fact, it almost seemed they made him that way just for laughs and cheap comic relief.


I concur with your concise and precise statements, sir! :thumbsup:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

scotpens said:


> Veering a bit off topic, personally, I never cared much for either portrayal of Cochrane. As played by Glenn Corbett in the TOS ep "Metamorphosis," he was unconvincing as a scientist, not to mention rather wimpy. The way Cochrane's character was written in _First Contact_ and portrayed by James Cromwell, he was an aging, eccentric hippie. Neither seemed a credible version of a man who's supposed to have developed warp drive, an achievement equal to the invention of the wheel.


Dog knows there aren't any eccentric scientists who ever invented anything of note... *looks at Tesla, runs away*


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Nice clear and HD version of the trailer now online at Paramount!

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/?...CFQS0HgodKjiIAw


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

scotpens said:


> The way Cochrane's character was written in _First Contact_ and portrayed by James Cromwell, he was an aging, eccentric hippie. Neither seemed a credible version of a man who's supposed to have developed warp drive, an achievement equal to the invention of the wheel.


Uhhhhh, thats a pretty steriotyped view of what a scientist is supposed to be.

Why can't he be a hippie?
The old white shirt and pocket protector days are way over.
Look at NASA's mission contol in the early days.....sure it was the white shirt thing, but even in the early 70's, longer hair and more facial hair abounded.

Today the analogy could be used that your looking for a 'IBM' type of guy while Cromwell's Cochrane was a 'mac' guy.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> JeffG said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Though I like Cromwell as an actor, the portrayal made the character very hard to believe. In fact, it almost seemed they made him that way just for laughs and cheap comic relief.
> ...


And I agree w/your concurrence. 

I had no problems w/him being a bit eccentric, even an alcoholic wasn't too bad. However, they went over the top w/the character in the movie. If he was really that bad, how the frell did he get as far as he did on building _Phoenix_, let alone his theories on warp dynamics? The book tried to explain this away by saying that Cochrane was bi-polar (or was it manic-depressive) and what we see in the movie was him on the bad end of a trip thru the mood-swings. Even that didn't seem to be believable for me. 

Still, it was the only thing about that movie I really didn't like. Everything else worked out well, IMNSHO.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

spe130 said:


> Except for poor Lt. Saavik...


I said "show." SHOW, Sam, _show. _I wasn't talkin' 'bout no movies... :jest:


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*A few more shots...*

Grabed a few more shots off the preview


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is interesting:










LARGER:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/ENGINEROOM.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW6.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW5.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW4.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW3.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW2.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW1.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

It seems a modeler was responsible for inspiring this teaser:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/20/fan-made-image-inspired-teaser-trailer/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Anyone see this secret image on the movie web site?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

How did you get to it from the movie website? Do you mean here?

http://www.ncc-1701.com/

Never mind. I figured out the little red dot is a link to it from the official Star Trek movie site.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Well that took a while to load but it looked awsome,I wonder if my PC will play HD dvd's?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Continuity in the Bond series has always been a bit of a stretch...


So it has -- which is precisely why I believed that keeping said continuity was arguably more important than keeping the exact (or nearly so) same exterior of the _Enterprise_ is to _Star Trek_. The one major bit of character continuity the Bond films had kept alive was Bond's loss of Tracy in _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_. This gave me something that helped me identify with Bond as a man -- I certainly will never be able to do most of the things that Bond can do, given as how I'm a real person and he isn't -- but the tragic loss of someone he loved was something with which I could identify, even if the circumstances of his loss were radically different from my own. However, even though _Casino Royale_ erased that bit of continuity (so far), it gave me something roughly similar in a different way in its depiction of Vesper. This went a long way toward easing any fears I had that Bond would simply become a human Terminator -- and human in name only. And the inclusion of Judi Dench, I thought, would only serve to blur and confuse the line between rebooting the series and the previously-typical changes made when the actor playing Bond changes, or even the changes in tone made from one film to the next.

If I can get past all that, I can certainly get past the fact that modern Trek has made _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ the _de facto_ visual baseline for the franchise. I always felt there was too great a leap between the look and design of TOS and the first film. However, I think everything (including _Star Trek: Enterprise_) works just fine visually if you take ST:TMP as the baseline, rather than TOS. I realize that many of us aren't willing to do that, and I understand why -- but you've got to admit that if you (where applicable) were willing to do that, it would go a long way toward making it all work. If the ship seen in the teaser is, in fact, the ship we get in the film, it certainly looks to me as if it might be engineered backward from the refit, at least in several of the visible details.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sorry, I'm not willing to ignore the very show that started the ball rolling, the ship I fell in love with when I was 9, and the only ship that symbolized the whole phenomenon for the first 13 years of its existance. And I can't help but take it personally if someone wants to erase her from continuity just because they think "modern audiences" won't accept a classic design.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> Sorry, I'm not willing to ignore the very show that started the ball rolling, the ship I fell in love with when I was 9, and the only ship that symbolized the whole phenomenon for the first 13 years of its existance. And I can't help but take it personally if someone wants to erase her from continuity just because they think "modern audiences" won't accept a classic design.


As I say, I understand why many hardcore fans, if obviously not all, won't be willing to do that. Remember, it's the same ship and the same show I fell in love with when I was _five._ Considering the myriad continuity hiccoughs the series has had since the beginning (a side effect from having all that continuity in the first place), I'm just telling you what works for me, more or less. I still have to work what happened in the original series into my mind -- I just presume it all _looked_ a bit a different in reality.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sgrille (Nov 6, 2007)

*more Refits*

I dont get it why anyone who in 1979 accepted the new look of Star Trek
cannot make the same step now. myriads of explanations where invented during 
Star Trek to make continuity work. So obviously, there was a Refit before TOS.
Certainly, there where different uniforms and so on...When so much changed during the Kirk era in TOS and the movies ( 2 enterprises which looked so different but presumably being the same ship and 3 uniform styles) then certainly before TOS we can accept more changes cant we?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^Sgrille,
Welcome and thanks for the sanity.
The sounds you hear are the cries of growing pains. You see this is the first time "we've (trek fandom)" have had to live thru what many, many franchises have already gone thru. Namely the recasting/recreating of our "precious".

Hey, that Michael Keeton? he's no Adam West! And I can't believe what they did to the batcave! thats not canon! where is the bat-reactor?

That Ron Ely? he's no Jonny Weismuller...thats not the Tarzan I'm entitled to...

I'm sure it goes back to the cave... That Oogla? ...he no Kronk..Kronk tell story better...Oogla raped childhood...


if you just can't accept a new version of trek, stay home, watch your DVDs and save the seat in the theatre for the new fans.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Some of you good folks take this stuff way to serious 

And I'm super serial about that.


----------



## Bradleyfett (Jan 22, 2003)

I really think just about everyone here is arguing about different things- each not understanding what the other is complaining about.

I think the first priority in just about everyone's mind is that WHATEVER the Enterprise (and uniforms, other details, etc.) looks like in the movie, it needs to fit into continuity of TOS. All the official statements have stated that it will, so all these fears of a 're-imagining' are so far unfounded.

The second priority is that the filmmakers' ideas of 'fitting into the continuity' aren't completely out of whack (ala ST: Enterprise). It will be almost impossible to please everyone in this area. For some, ANY changes from TOS designs aren't acceptable. To others, just about anything goes. I think most of us are in the middle. I'm pretty open-minded in this area myself; very little in the ST:Enterprise series bothered me, but I just couldn't get past the design of the ship exterior. Hopefully the movie won't make the same mistake.

Mark


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso, you rock! Well said. I too love the old 'Trek'-but for what it was, not what it has to be today in a current re-imagining.

If they made a Gilligan's Island movie today, do you honestly think the Minnow would look like the same, tiny and cheesy prop that it was in the 60's or would it be a larger and more elaborate yacht? Does that mean you can't still cherish the show as it was? Of course not.

So long as they leave the spirit of Star Trek intact, I'm not so bothered by what they'll do with the 'tech'. In my opinion, shows like Next Gen often wandered farther from TOS with boring, wooden characters and pages upon pages of useless tecno babble. TOS was never like that. I think we're getting too tied up in what a ship or a hallway or a uniform is going to look like rather than what will ultimately be most important.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I can see why the teeth gnashing is happening regarding the Enterprise..Honestly I DO care about what is being done. 

As much as the people aboard her, she is an important character. but all of the characters need to grow and change.

Here's what I care about seeing in the new Star Trek picture:

1) A future that shows that if we humans can get past out petty differences, there is brighter tomorrow.

2) A crew that best represents the best and brightest, led by a captain who demonstrates that honor and integrity are traits to be admired. (I'm not wild about the whole "cheated on the test" aspect of his character, I'd rather it had been more clever than that. I tend to chalk that up to an invention of Nick Meyer, than to TOS)

3) a Federation of Planets that lives in peace but recognizes that (to quote the Sisko) "it's easy to be an angel in heaven.." Basically that it speaks softly but carries a big stick.

4) A ship named Enterprise that serves as the standard bearer for the first three 

That's it. the rest is window dressing


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

When they first released the image of the new Enterprise I was a little disturbed that it looks more like TMP ship than the 1960's TOS days. That was the purist in me coming out wanting to see the old E again with just surface detailing added. But now I'm coming around and will accept a TOS Enterprise done in TMP style so it looks like an evolvution/conversion to and from each other. I think that will end up looking good and keep the ongoing Star Trek theme in ship design alive. Who knows, maybe after Star Trek XI it might inspire a new Star Trek TV series?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Hey, that Michael Keeton? he's no Adam West! And I can't believe what they did to the batcave! thats not canon! where is the bat-reactor?
> 
> That Ron Ely? he's no Jonny Weismuller...thats not the Tarzan I'm entitled to...
> 
> I'm sure it goes back to the cave... That Oogla? ...he no Kronk..Kronk tell story better...Oogla raped childhood...


And who's this Dick Sargent? Everyone knows Dick York is the only REAL Darrin Stephens!

Or Darrell, or Duncan, or Durwood, or whoever. . .


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

scotpens said:


> And who's this Dick Sargent? Everyone knows Dick York is the only REAL Darrin Stephens!


Sort of agree -- but they were both idiots (the character, I mean). 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

scotpens said:


> And who's this Dick Sargent? Everyone knows Dick York is the only REAL Darrin Stephens!
> 
> Or Darrell, or Duncan, or Durwood, or whoever. . .


But aren't you glad they never replaced Elizabeth Montgomery with Twiggy?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, but Dick Sargent simply wasn't as funny as Dick York. Kind of like how Joe was pathetic compared to Curly or Shemp.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Hectic off-topic thread! I guess the next question is who is getting a licence to make the model kit (no doubt inaccurately?)

Haven't posted for ages on here. My refit model is making slow progress, at least it is all buttoned up, just the aztec and the battle damage, ouch that is going to be painful....

This new Star Trek interests me. Now I am a bit older I hope they do a more cerebral tale. I've had enough of starship combat as it has never been done very well since ST2.
The best ST of course involved good character work, thought provoking stories with twists and turns, puzzles and clever writing. I am also pleased STTMP exists, it would be hard to make such a pic now. The uncut TV version has some brilliant discussion and moments on the bridge in my opinion, even some moments where the crew are allowed to chip in and show the ship working with comments about helm, etc. etc. If they overdo the techno-babble on the other hand it will be destined to be a "for-fans-only" effort. The best sci-fi uses technology that is taken for granted (thinking 'original' Star Wars films, Alien) - and not Geordi La Forge jibberish about phase convertors - the all singing, all dancing problem solvers of the universe.

I see some comments from Lou about Kirk and Kobayashi Maru. The trick from Nick Meyer was to show that Kirk was never held back by normal boundaries; he was beyond the capabilities that Star fleet had ever seen, and sometimes he had to beat the system, because that was the only way to get things done. I rather like that side to Kirk, but agree it must not be overplayed, and be done for clear reasons (he was desperate to get a command and get out to do real good) rather than out of disregrard for authority.

I hope this reboot (because that is what we _will_ get) will be done in the spirit of the original, even if everything canon is completely turned on its head. The Enterprise looks promising to me. A 60's version on the big screen with original blue/yellow/red uniforms abounding would be self parody on a large scale, and surely get ripped apart by the critics? Or am I completely wrong??


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Hear Hear!
I want a "v'ger/probe/god/ or problem to be solved rather than a Khan/Soran/Kruge type personal nemesis for this film.

Dick Sargent. funny
Dick York. funny

Sargent York? Hilarious!

Flux , I hear what you say about Kirk and the KM test. I just would have rather that he'd beaten the test by trying something in the test that was new, not by "changing the conditions' of the test itself.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

sbaxter said:


> Sort of agree -- but they were both idiots (the character, I mean).
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Regardless, they both got to work with Elizabeth Montgomery. :devil:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Regardless, they both got to work with Elizabeth Montgomery. :devil:


Oh, yeah! I can't get enough of looking at her on the show! Her hips could give a fellow a concussion. In my case, I'd die a very happy man! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I could nver figure who was luckier...Darren Stephens or Maj. Nelson.

Darren could take Samantha out in public, but Jeannie always ran around in _that _ outfit



i'll be in my bunk...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I could nver figure who was luckier...Darren Stephens or Maj. Nelson.
> 
> Darren could take Samantha out in public, but Jeannie always ran around in _that _ outfit


As high on the list as Samantha was, in comparison to Barbara Eden ... there's no comparison. 

Just yesterday morning, I saw an episode of _The Andy Griffith Show_ in which Eden shows up in Mayberry, looking for a "friendly town" in which she can spend some time and offer her services as a manicurist.

I never get tired of looking at her face. She was just so darned cute!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Older Trek fans often talk about getting back to the spirit of TOS, and injecting an element of DANGER back into the proceedings would be a quantum leap in the right direction.

The makers of TOS had genuine curiosity about the human condition and our place in the universe, but they also had a rebellious streak, i.e. a willingness to shock our sensibilities and challenge established conventions. It's easy to forget now, but in its day Trek was considered radical programming, and with good reason. Subsequent Trek films and TV series have been anything but radical, and IMO it's time to shake things up a bit. 

At this point I'd rather see a Star Trek film that pisses me off by taking chances than one which plays it safe and bores me to death in the process.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> At this point I'd rather see a Star Trek film that pisses me off by taking chances than one which plays it safe and bores me to death in the process.


Statistically speaking, you'll get a movie with really super-cool updated ships and special effects but a really lame story.  

Though a model kit assembler, I'd rather it be the other way around.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Both were very pretty women, but Jeanie was a bit of an air head compared to Samantha-albeit a cute air head!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Older Trek fans often talk about getting back to the spirit of TOS, and injecting an element of DANGER back into the proceedings would be a quantum leap in the right direction.
> 
> The makers of TOS had genuine curiosity about the human condition and our place in the universe, but they also had a rebellious streak, i.e. a willingness to shock our sensibilities and challenge established conventions. It's easy to forget now, but in its day Trek was considered radical programming, and with good reason. Subsequent Trek films and TV series have been anything but radical, and IMO it's time to shake things up a bit.
> 
> At this point I'd rather see a Star Trek film that pisses me off by taking chances than one which plays it safe and bores me to death in the process.


Carson,
I recently watched the remastered Apollo story. Boy howdy was it sexist!
try getting away with that kind of dialog today. especially the conversation between Kirk and McCoy regarding Lt. Palamas "oh she's a fine officer, but soon she'll find a nice man and leave the service and settle down..."

I'm with you, tho. I want a prime directive story where kirk has to let the fluffy bunny die because it's none of our darn business.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

All this worry about the looks ends not not being worth it if the story is lame. Let's hope its not another V'ger type episode! If only they'd done Wrath of Khan as the first ST movie...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Maybe a bad choice of terms. I'd rather see a "sense of wonder/ cosmic problem/ human condition" movie than a "evil genius/bond villian" type of movie


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Speaking for myself only, but these pictures look pretty darn good.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

What're those renders from?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I have full size high def 1080p screen caps that I could post links to (tonight when I get home) if anyone wants them. I redid them using the free VLC Media Player (for Quicktime clips) which has a nice screenshot to png or jpg feature. It plays a lot better than Quicktime does too.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Yep, it's a modified version of Koerner's all right.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

I like that design, Raist. Very respectful to the original Enterprise. The only changes I would make:

1. Remove the shrouds over the tops of the Bussard collecters

2. The mounting points of the nacelle struts on the secondary hull should be higher up on the hull.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Ignatz said:


> What're those renders from?


They are Gabe Koerner's


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I noticed the official first pic of the new E released shows a bit more of the warp engine top detail than the teaser clip does. I hope they start putting out more pics soon...

Do you think that dome structure on (I guess its) the back of the new E, supposed to be the shuttle bay dome?

If they are going for a retro-fit from TMP to TOS then I wonder if the original Enterprise will now fit within the 1701-A TMP version?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> They are Gabe Koerner's


I figured he started floating those renders around the internet for a reason.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I figured he started floating those renders around the internet for a reason.


LOL...I've loved his designs since the day I saw them. I'm quite happy they chose his design work.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> LOL...I've loved his designs since the day I saw them. I'm quite happy they chose his design work.


I must admit that I'm glad he toned it down quite a bit, that is, made the design less of a radical departure.

If they would just lighten up the color some from that depressing dark mottled/paneled look like the NX-01 had, I might go for this design.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I must admit that I'm glad he toned it down quite a bit, that is, made the design less of a radical departure.


I can certainly agree with this. No reason the renders above can not be the TOS Enterprise.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> LOL...I've loved his designs since the day I saw them. I'm quite happy they chose his design work.


Last I heard, Gabe was categorically denying that he or his version of the Big E were involved.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Last I heard, Gabe was categorically denying that he or his version of the Big E were involved.


I have it on a good source that they indeed chose Gabe's design. But don't quote me on that


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm not crazy about the hovering numbers.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> I'm not crazy about the hovering numbers.


LOL....I was wondering who would be the first to point that out


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Raist3001 said:


> I have it on a good source that they indeed chose Gabe's design. But don't quote me on that


Good for him if that is true. But it would have been cooler if they had held a ST fan contest for the best design to base the new E on. Sometimes the best can be from a combination of elements or a fresh approach. It would have been humorous if the majority of the entries were the original look and proportions! heh


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Are they being pulled off the hull by a tractor beam to be replaced with Microgamma/Micro Technic/Eurostile/Whatever you wanna call it?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Older Trek fans often talk about getting back to the spirit of TOS, and injecting an element of DANGER back into the proceedings would be a quantum leap in the right direction.
> 
> The makers of TOS had genuine curiosity about the human condition and our place in the universe, but they also had a rebellious streak, i.e. a willingness to shock our sensibilities and challenge established conventions. It's easy to forget now, but in its day Trek was considered radical programming, and with good reason. Subsequent Trek films and TV series have been anything but radical, and IMO it's time to shake things up a bit.
> 
> At this point I'd rather see a Star Trek film that pisses me off by taking chances than one which plays it safe and bores me to death in the process.


No kidding. I often roll my eyes when I hear people complain about modern Trek being so "PC." TOS was very radical in that it adopted (or if a Kirk Speech was involved, emphatically espoused) a lot of ideas that had they not been widely adopted today would be derided as "PC:"

- Doomsday Machine - After the blow up the DDM with the Constellation, Kirk notes that they used a doomsday machine to kill another doomsday machine, in effect making it the first time such a device was used for "beneficial purposes"

- Mission of Mercy & A Private Little War - Political powers have no right to use lesser powers as their pawns

- Let That Be Your Last Battlefield - Well, if you didn't get the message by the end of the episode, you weren't paying attention

- Balance of Terror - Don't judge who your enemies are by looks alone

- The Trouble With Tribbles - It's subtle, but there's a hidden message about the havoc that's created by invasive species (that is, species introduced to environments that are not their own)

I could go on if you give me five more minutes...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

/\/\ You confuse morality with political correctness, they are not the same thing. Yes, TOS very often consisted of morality plays but they were never political correctness plays (unlike what would follow in later years.)


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Give me an episode of any of the four series (I don't count ENT) where it was all PC and no morality play.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

spe130 said:


> Last I heard, Gabe was categorically denying that he or his version of the Big E were involved.


The essentials of the designs are too similar to have come from two different people. If he did one, he did the other (or at least helped out greatly).

He probably had to deny it all as a condition of showing off the design for feedback and other fan reaction (unless he made the design up first in order to get the attention of the producers). In either case, they didn't want to release official details of the design until it was finalized.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

John P said:


> I'm not crazy about the hovering numbers.


What do you mean?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

My biggest issue with the assertion that Gabe modeled this is that he works at Sony on Speed Racer (last I heard) and ILM is doing the effects work for this movie.

Similar? Very, but he wouldn't have to outright deny involvment if he was involved, he could just say little or nothing. I know if I were involved I wouldn't deny it.

Hehehe, maybe he's afraid for his life!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Must be rough being the next Matt Jefferies


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

There will never be another Matt Jefferies.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> maybe he's afraid for his life!


You wouldn't want to end up on an island somewhere, being chased by a smoke monster!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> I'm not crazy about the hovering numbers.


It's the directions for applying the decals. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> My biggest issue with the assertion that Gabe modeled this is that he works at Sony on Speed Racer (last I heard) and ILM is doing the effects work for this movie.
> 
> Similar? Very, but he wouldn't have to outright deny involvment if he was involved, he could just say little or nothing. I know if I were involved I wouldn't deny it.
> 
> Hehehe, maybe he's afraid for his life!


I suspect that Gabe would do just about anything to have the chance to work on the new/old _1701_. I can't say that I blame him much :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Man, you _really_ want it to be his model don't you?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Photoshop enhanced secret corridor image here on Trek BBS:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/21/star-trek-teaser-trailer-online-now/#more-1472


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Man, you _really_ want it to be his model don't you?




I'm surprised that it isn't perfectly obvious to everyone from the evidence presented so far. IMHO, there are too many points of coincidence to be a coincidence.

But then, we'll see, won't we? If Gabe had a hand in it, he'll eventually take credit for it.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> But then, we'll see, won't we? If Gabe had a hand in it, he'll eventually take credit for it.


Absolutely. Gabe is real good guy and I couldn't be happier for him.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Absolutely. Gabe is real good guy and I couldn't be happier for him.


Amen! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Forgive me if this has been pointed this out already, but this "special shoot" teaser was created specifically for advertising purposes. Whether or not any of the images make it into the finished film remains to be seen.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Forgive me if this has been pointed this out already, but this "special shoot" teaser was created specifically for advertising purposes. Whether or not any of the images make it into the finished film remains to be seen.


True.

It seems unlikely, however, that these images are unrelated to the final product. The ship design itself may be tweaked further and colors changed for the finished ship, but the basic shapes presented must have met some level of approval by the powers that be.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Agree, 

This isn't 1979 any more, they're not waiting for a load of models to be made and effects film to turn up at the 11th hour. The CGI exists of this ship, that is _the_ ship, _that_ is what we are going to get. See no reason why they have anything to tweak colour wise either really. The 'aztec' or what ever it is looks fully rendered.

Loads of people in denial on here. I sympathise, I have no idea what it means to some of you guys who grew up with the original....

With regard to the reboot, I was just thinking back to Bond as they are doing the press announcements for Bond 22 Quantum of Solace- a few years back everyone was going crazy - 'CraignotBond' was in the headlines, people threatening World War 3 with Micheal Wilson and Broccoli. Well, after the highest grossing 007 film ever, 300 million or whatever it is, I find 'Craignotbond' seems to have gone quietly offline... I really hope this Trek grabs the imagination and some new fans in a similar way. My view as a 007 fan has always been that Bond is just a pseudonym and that through the years there have been many different Bonds - explains things nicely. To keep the cover, Roger Moore visited Tracey's grave, etc. etc. Sadly they cannot really do that here...

I propose a new site www.GabenotTrek, but then he wasn't involved ,was he!?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Flux,
I think the opposite is also true. Because there is no physical model to be anchored to, there can be changes later in the production cycle. 

The most recent example of this was Megatron from the Transformer movie. There was a change to his head design from the initial "public' release to the way he looked in the movie. Mostly because of negative reaction to the way his mouth looked by folks online.

This is not to say that they'll add a third nacelle between now and then, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that JJ and Co. aren't measuring fan reactions.

the only true deadline they face is the one with thier merchandisers Remember what happened with "Generations"? Playmates ended up releasing a set of action figures with the wrong uniforms because they were changed after the license was given to playmates.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> . . . Remember what happened with "Generations"? Playmates ended up releasing a set of action figures with the wrong uniforms because they were changed after the license was given to playmates.


Ha!  That was a good one! And it was too bad they didn't use those uniforms--I really liked them and actually predicted they'd use something very similar to those in the movie about the time they announced the movie.

What really sucked, though, was Playmates getting the 1701E wrong. :freak:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

ah yes, the needle nacelles YEEEESH!
I think they tried to recoup their loss by using those uniforms in the "All Good Things" future ships (E and Pasteur)since it was filming at the time preproduction was being done on Generations.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ha!  That was a good one! And it was too bad they didn't use those uniforms--I really liked them and actually predicted they'd use something very similar to those in the movie about the time they announced the movie.
> 
> What really sucked, though, was Playmates getting the 1701E wrong. :freak:


I have never seen these uniforms. Are there pictures somewhere? I am curious as to what could have been.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Opus,
Here's what the figs looked like. 
not all that radical a difference. Note the rank braids on the cuffs and the high middrifs on the ladies


On the plus side, this was the set that gave us, Kirk, Scotty and Chekov in the burgundy TWOK uniforms. And the also ( cut out of the movie ) Orbital Sky-dive Kirk


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

There is a new video interview on TrekMovie.com with James Cawley (who produces Star Trek: New Voyages and plays Capt. Kirk) about his visit to the set of the new Star Trek movie. He talks about the bridge set in the JJ Abrams film:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Opus,
> Here's what the figs looked like.
> not all that radical a difference. Note the rank braids on the cuffs and the high middrifs on the ladies
> 
> ...


Hmm ... I liked those designs. Too bad they didn't use them.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> There is a new video interview on TrekMovie.com with James Cawley (who produces Star Trek: New Voyages and plays Capt. Kirk) about his visit to the set of the new Star Trek movie. He talks about the bridge set in the JJ Abrams film:
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/


Personally I think he sold out. A month ago he was slamming the movie and claiming he saw the Enterprise and did not like it at all. Now he is offered a part and thinks it is the greatest film since sliced bread. I have lost a little respect for this guy. If you're going to slam something, don't turn around and say you like it just because you're offered a small role in the film.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> Personally I think he sold out. A month ago he was slamming the movie and claiming he saw the Enterprise and did not like it at all. Now he is offered a part and thinks it is the greatest film since sliced bread. I have lost a little respect for this guy. If you're going to slam something, don't turn around and say you like it just because you're offered a small role in the film.


Wow! Sounds just like a politician


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> This is not to say that they'll add a third nacelle between now and then, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that JJ and Co. aren't measuring fan reactions.


It's a nubbin......


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> There is a new video interview on TrekMovie.com with James Cawley (who produces Star Trek: New Voyages and plays Capt. Kirk) about his visit to the set of the new Star Trek movie. He talks about the bridge set in the JJ Abrams film:
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/



I enjoyed the interview. Seemed to me that Mr. Cawley was genuine in his responses and as a 'purist', had many of his concerns stripped away when he saw the set. Nothing wrong with changing his mind.

After all, any one here who admits to liking the film once viewed after having spent so long bashing it will have had the same eye opener as Mr. Cawley did


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I wouldn't go so far as to say Cawley has "sold out", but I think he has been sucked in a bit.

The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then this masterful story should be strong enough to overcome any percieved "cheesiness" in the original designs, whereas if they feel that those original designs just HAVE to be radically altered, then maybe their story isn't as strong as advertised.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then this masterful story should be strong enough to overcome any percieved "cheesiness" in the original designs, whereas if they feel that those original designs just HAVE to be radically altered, then maybe their story isn't as strong as advertised.


The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then this masterful story should be strong enough to overcome any need to prop itself up on slavish dependence on the original production design. 

See, you can wrestle anything around to fit your viewpoint if you but try hard enough.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

sbaxter said:


> Captain April said:
> 
> 
> > The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then this masterful story should be strong enough to overcome any percieved "cheesiness" in the original designs, whereas if they feel that those original designs just HAVE to be radically altered, then maybe their story isn't as strong as advertised.
> ...


The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then his story will include mysterious gaseous monsters that destroy ships if their captains show fear, will feature a race of "Others" kidnapping Federation personnel, subspace hatches that require the input of a strange sequence of numbers into an M-5 multitronic computer (or else NOMAD will cause the universe to implode) and mysterious goings-on in a previously unchartered planet, inhabited by a spunky curly-haired woman-girl trying to find herself as she enters college.

Oh, and a baby monster destroying the Federation Headquarters in San Francisco.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

El Gato said:


> The way I see it, if Abrams has as good a hold on the gist of Star Trek as we're being led to believe, then his story will include mysterious gaseous monsters that destroy ships if their captains show fear, will feature a race of "Others" kidnapping Federation personnel, subspace hatches that require the input of a strange sequence of numbers into an M-5 multitronic computer (or else NOMAD will cause the universe to implode) and mysterious goings-on in a previously unchartered planet, inhabited by a spunky curly-haired woman-girl trying to find herself as she enters college.
> 
> Oh, and a baby monster destroying the Federation Headquarters in San Francisco.


You forgot to mention the sexy-but-lethal young woman who at first believes she works for a covert branch of Starfleet Intelligence, only to find that Section 31 is really an organization of the very people she thought she was fighting against, causing her to become a double-agent -- all the while trying to balance her personal life with finding herself caught up in (and possibly at the very center of) a mysterious set of prophecies set forth by an ancient Vulcan philosopher.

Man! That is going to be one action-packed movie! Sounds like the makings of several different TV series to me! 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

^ Darn it! I knew I forgot a couple! D'OH!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

El Gato said:


> ^ Darn it! I knew I forgot a couple! D'OH!


Well heck, _I_ forgot that as a part of her spy work, the young woman would be constantly in disguise. Now, in order for it to be _Star Trek_, one of the characters must be half one race and half another. So the young woman would be half-Changeling and half-human -- which means she can change her hair and makeup week to week! 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

DS9/VOY/TNG/ENT plotlines make me wanna puke on my zip-up boots!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Mammoth--thread must--be--revived!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Mammoth--thread must--be--revived!



Good. Gabe's design is a masterpiece of awesomeness. Worthy of the name Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I hope they cut Gabe a really big check.

Otherwise, they'll _have_ to cut Gabe a really _really_ big check.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

Young minds, fresh ideas......................................


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

If they tone down the „borgified“ deflector dish and remove that wrap around thingy at the front of the secondary hull so its goes a bit back to its original smooth surface … I’ll be really happy with this new approach! 

And, taking the direct comparison shots, I too would say this IS Gabes Ship!
If you look at his website’s original pictures and follow the evolution of this new 1701 fom 2006 onward, the version seen in the teaser trailer seems to be… pardon the phrase… logical … conclusion! Initially he had Ent-D/VOY style cut back view ports right in front of the teardrop and later he removes it. The bride section went through considerable changes from very big and prominent to a more Refit style shape. 

What NEVER changed was the design of the warp nacelles! In every version they feature the NHL style shoulder armour at the front of the warp nacelle…which obviously IS present at the teaser trailers 1701! This evolutionary legacy, carried through the entire evolution of Gabes design tells me the new 1701 seen in the 2008 movie WAS designed by Gabe Koerner! 

And since he did NOT make any official statement of not being involved in the movies new Enterprise design ever after the teaser was released (at least I could find non) tells me more then if he was flying through message boards denying his involvement. Silence can tell more then a thousand words! 


As far as the new design goes… I was opposed to it when it first showed up over at SM, but over time the design grew on me to a point where I'd say... yeah, this could be the looks Gene might have chosen if the original was produced nowadays. 

Besides, as was quoted above 

*„Young minds, fresh ideas... be tolerant!“ Capt. James T. Kirk; ST 3: TSFS *


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> . . . And since he did NOT make any official statement of not being involved in the movies new Enterprise design ever after the teaser was released (at least I could find non) tells me more then if he was flying through message boards denying his involvement. Silence can tell more then a thousand words!


He has made one statement, apparently, in regards to the posting of his initial work-in-progress as the new old 1701 from the movie (this may be from back in November):



Gabe Koerner said:


> "My speculative designs and artwork have been mistaken for _official_* production art because they share in concept the design assignments to the art department of this film."


[*emphasis mine]

I've not said that his renderings were "official production art" from the movie. I don't think anyone is saying that since it's obvious quite a few aspects of the ship were tweaked (hopefully to bring it closer to its _ST:TOS_ look).



Gabe Koerner said:


> "However, they [his various renderings unchanged] are not , nor planned to be, nor ever planned to be, used by the production as _official_* redesigned interpretations of Star Trek spacecraft, and there are not plans for this to change."


[*emphasis mine]

They bought his existing design, the production's art department tweaked it in some regards, and nothing he stated is untrue. It sounds like a lawyer wrote his statement for him.

So, he's made a "statement" that could easily be parsed into meaningless in regards to the origin of the design. And, as you've pointed out, he's not been very energetic in denying the fact on the boards here and elsewhere.

We'll know for sure soon--probably when the next trailer is released this spring or summer.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> They bought his existing design, the production's art department tweaked it in some regards, and nothing he stated is untrue.


I have heard this numerous times but NEVER found any proof! 
Is there ANY confirmation that JJ bought his design?




> It sounds like a lawyer wrote his statement for him.


Am pretty damn sure that he had to sign some sort of NDA!
Also the fact, that he all of a sudden stopped tweaking his design, which he was doing all the time, indicates something happened. But as I said, I have not found any legal and official proof (from Gabe or others) that JJ bought his design.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Garbaron said:


> Also the fact, that he all of a sudden stopped tweaking his design, which he was doing all the time, indicates something happened. But as I said, I have not found any legal and official proof (from Gabe or others) that JJ bought his design.


Last update I've seen of Gabe's was from the middle of January, just a minor clean-up loosing some of the 'Borgified' look.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> I have heard this numerous times but NEVER found any proof!
> Is there ANY confirmation that JJ bought his design?
> 
> 
> ...


No positive proof yet--but it's all that really makes sense considering the similarities involved.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Are those four phaser turrets on the bow of the ship?

Warship _Enterprise_?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Guesses, suppositions, feverish rantings... well, it certainly got our attention!


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Are those four phaser turrets on the bow of the ship?
> 
> Warship _Enterprise_?


Well, you know what Brahms would say ... 


Flint said:


> You would tell me that it is no longer cruel, but it is, Captain.
> 
> Look at your starship, bristling with weapons ... its mission to colonize, exploit,
> destroy (if necessary) to advance Federation causes.


----------

