# I Love the JJ Prise



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

Post here if you think that JJ Abrams has re-invented Star Trek and has given fresh life to a dying series of televison and film. Shinzon anyone?

I love the Nu Enterprise, it feels right, its got all the right shapes. Its got a Saucer, 2 Nacelles and a Secondary Hull. It looks more like an Enterprise than the one IN ENTERPRISE!

I can't wait for the sequel to come out in May so we can see Kirk and crew blast the bajesus out of KhanMitchellSybokJohnHarrimanHorta.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Looking forward to the next film myself, have been since I saw the first one in 2009. Loved the Enterprise, could use a bit more to fill out the secondary hull, but it looks great on the big screen. Something later letters in alphabet lacked if you know what I mean. It just looks BIG and a force to reckoned with, as it should!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Count me in. What's not to like? :thumbsup:


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

A friend of mine likes it because he says it has boobs (the domes on the engines). He said he had never seen a ship with boobs before so I showed him "Battle Beyond The Stars", he liked that ship as well.

http://georgespigot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/battle-beyond-the-stars-03.jpg


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kenlee said:


> A friend of mine likes it because he says it has boobs (the domes on the engines). He said he had never seen a ship with boobs before so I showed him "Battle Beyond The Stars", he liked that ship as well.
> 
> http://georgespigot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/battle-beyond-the-stars-03.jpg


Actually, it was designed to look like the female reproductive system, ovaries and all.

Now, back to the Enterprise. :thumbsup:


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

lol, wow I've never heard of the battle beyond the stars.That is an...........impressive ship.


----------



## LFancey (Jun 26, 2012)

Liked the movie and the ship. In fact like all the ST ships.

Wished we did more modeling on this modeling forum.


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

I have been converting my DVD enterprise case into a model of the nu enterprise for a while.........then I saw the announcement of the Revell one, 

Ah heck, I'll finish the DVD case. Its not like I don't have like 15 different scales of TOS Enterprise.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

LFancey said:


> Wished we did more modeling on this modeling forum.


Look around, son!:wave:


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I will say that while I am NOT a fan of this design; I will say that the way that they filmed in in the movie made it look as good as it could. They did a pretty good job of hiding all of the bad design elements and made it (for the most part) look decent on screen.

Sorry, that's the best I could do, lol.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I am divided. From some angles, it looks awesome, and from some, it looks bad. Mainly, the things that don't work for me are...

The pylons are too thin for such large engines (i'm ok with them being curved/bowed) Zero G aside, it visually looks odd.

The pylons connect too far forward on the nacelles

The deflector area is too far forward of the neck.

The bottom of the saucer has no windows or registry numbers. Too plain.

Secondary hull is too small/thin

For instance, this view of the ship hides almost all those problems, and I think it looks beautiful in this shot...

http://www.2d6.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Star-Trek.jpg


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

The JJ Prise is not the worst looking Enterprise design by a long shot. I am rather warming up to it to a small degree. No, the one truly hideous USS Enterprise design in my book is the Planet of the Titans prise http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/12/...ry-details-for-unproduced-1976-star-trek.html.

I would root for the Klingons or Romulans to blow that sucker up :thumbsup:.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Well, Ralph McQuarrie was riding high at the time; he did the concept work for SW, Battlestar Galactica... why not Trek?

But his changes to the Enterprise was too much.

Interesting premise.... just not Star Trek.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It will be interesting how our 'Moderator-In-Chief' handles these two threads, I'd suggest at least a case of Alka Seltzer to help you through this Jeff! Just for FYI,.......I had nothing to do with this, although it is brilliant !


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

Ductapeforever said:


> It will be interesting how our 'Moderator-In-Chief' handles these two threads


If these sort of threads come up alot, and its helping to keep the JJprise is coming thread on topic, i'd vote for a temporary sticky of both these 2.

Its not a bad idea, and personally i cant see anything wrong with having them. It reduces flame wars and keeps a primary thread on topic and about the model kit.

If they were to get locked down/deleted it would be fairly backwards.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

I think both threads (love & hate) are a good idea, if for anything to keep the Revell JJprise announcement thread "clean". But, it might be a good idea to combine both threads, i.e. "JJprise, love it or leave it?". Then again, that kind of thread might become very heated!


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

I'll go on the "love" side since guess I can say the design didn't offend me (much like the movie itself) and didn't cause me to spend years on a crusade of hate against it, so it has that going for it...

(and I think the idea of two threads is brilliant - let the love and hate blossom and vent respectively, and no one can complain a thread got hijacked unless someone picks a fight)


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> The deflector area is too far forward of the neck.


Actually, if you look at this comparison, the deflector doesn't stand any further forward on the JJ-prise than on the TOS Enterprise. In fact, the saucer sits too far back on the dorsal neck. I did a quick-and-dirty correction of that point, and it actually looks a lot better.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

I'm.... ok with the JJprise 

TMP refit is still the Queen, but I like the JJprise better than the Enterprise-C or B.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Y3a said:


> Don't hate it at all. Completely stupid and boring, and not worthy to put in my collection.


Woodsy Owl says: "Give a hoot — don't pollute... this tread!" You need to be in the other thread, since you don't 'love' it; this is the "Love" thread. Peace and Love! :dude:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carl_G said:


> I'm.... ok with the JJprise
> 
> TMP refit is still the Queen, but I like the JJprise better than the Enterprise-C or B.


Yeah, but I don't mind the B so much....

Here is my order of faves:

TOS
Refit/A
JJ


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Whilst the components of the ship look slightly out of place, the ship wasn't one of the 'stars of the show' in the 09 movie like all other versions of the ship and we weren't given much time to dwell on the design.

I neither like nor dislike the design but I am mindful that when i was quite young, I thought the tos version looked ridiculous after being weened on the refit!

when this kit comes out, I'm buying it for the bashing potential, after all it does look a bit like a refit variant, especially the saucer.

Steve


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Like I said previously, I've warmed up a bit to the JJ prise design and might consider buying a kit. When TNG debut back in '87 with Enterprise D, I wasn't sure which made me shake my head more during Season 1: The weirdly shaped Enterprise D or the squeaky clean Wesley Crusher (Wesley took that honor ultimately).

I still think the D is still a bit strange looking but think it is OK now just like the JJ prise.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Carl_G said:


> TMP refit is still the Queen.


Yes, she is!! My favorite, hands down! The TOS and 1701-E are second and third, for me.

But the JJ-prise isn't as horrible as some make her out to be. I actually don't mind the size and design of the nacelles, although I do agree they are a tad too close together, and that the secondary hull is undersized, compared with the rest of the ship. But overall, from several angles, she is very pretty. And I like that they came up with practical sources for the self-illumination from the refit, particularly the registry lighting on the top of the saucer.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> It will be interesting how our 'Moderator-In-Chief' handles these two threads, I'd suggest at least a case of Alka Seltzer to help you through this Jeff! Just for FYI,.......I had nothing to do with this, although it is brilliant !


I don't have a problem with these threads,_ so long as people are respectful of others opinions_ and don't attack dissenting viewpoints and/or don't feel the need to post their negative opinions over and over and over and over... I've said so before, but certain people just don't play well with others. 

I _am_, however, tired of Trolls.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

Bay7 said:


> Whilst the components of the ship look slightly out of place, the ship wasn't one of the 'stars of the show' in the 09 movie like all other versions of the ship and we weren't given much time to dwell on the design.
> 
> I neither like nor dislike the design but I am mindful that when i was quite young, I thought the tos version looked ridiculous after being weened on the refit!
> 
> ...


I think if the saucer were smaller and the nacelles not so fat I would be happy with it. I understand the drive to stylize it up and give it a new spin. I'll be content with it if that's what they're going to give us.
I think the best incarnation of the E is the refit. That ship just looks lovely. I think TOS E felt like an additional character of the show than any other ship design but that may be a skewed viewpoint from growing up with it, and it will always be the one I love the most.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Bobj812 said:


> I think TOS E felt like an additional character of the show than any other ship design but that may be a skewed viewpoint from growing up with it, and it will always be the one I love the most.


Yes, the TOS Enterprise for me too, since I was a kid, is burned into my psyche on so many levels that I could never look at the design of it from an unbiased viewpoint. It was and is my first love. Somewhere I heard: how could a boy not loved to have watched TOS—it had beautiful chicks and awesome spaceships!


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, but I don't mind the B so much....
> 
> Here is my order of faves:
> 
> ...


It's just cause of the bulge-y bits on the secondary hull. I like the un-modified Excelsior style better. Same deal with the All Good Things D.

*1701ALover* LOL, I never would have guessed!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Again, you have to remember that the timeline in the 2009 film chaged Starfleet. They were building ships bigger to be able to go up against the unknown threat that destroyed the Kelvin years earlier. There is no reason the ship should look like the TOS Enterprise. It is her own thing........and I like it that way myself!


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I didn't like it initially, but it has grown on me. I will definitely buy the kit.


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

Carl_G said:


> I'm.... ok with the JJprise
> 
> TMP refit is still the Queen, but I like the JJprise better than the Enterprise-C or B.


Now I love the Excelsior but not the "pregnant" B but I have never been able to convince my self that the "C" is a decent design. The colors/patterns, thick painted grid lines and cartoonish engines just... no.


----------



## aurora fan (Jan 18, 1999)

I always thought Voyager was the best looking Starship and the new one from the movie is second best looking I think. I admit I'm a fan of the concept, the show,the characters, the movies, more than what the ship is all about so I must say I don't understand what all the comotion is about. I'd simply say...

Whats the need for the warp engines to be up on pylons. Whats the point? They look better on the Voyager and more aggresive in design down lower and behind. Why have warp engines set up like trophys for enemys to take aim on?

How can the warp engines be too close together, or too far apart? What diff does it make if they're side by side or end to end. It's make believe. Although the pylons are the weakest design element on the Nu Prise, the big warp engines on the Nu Prise look like serious buisness, instead of tampon tubes on popsicle sticks.

The dish no longer looks like a radar antenna from the 60's but instead has a modern and functional look. I don't know how the original design gets away with the radar dish while TOS fans constanly bash the new design. Again, this new look makes sence.

The lower hull on either design looks fine, I can't decide why I would like one over the other, but if we discover later that the saucer section detaches I'll have to reserve judgement. Why wouldn't the Enterprise be designed with a seperable saucer section. It only makes sence.

Overall, this Enterprise looks fantastic and I am very happy and even though I will always be a fan of TOS, I'll never forget the Enterprise looked like a toy held up by strings and with only slightly better FX than Lost in Space which we considered to be a little kid show.

It was the show, the characters we loved. Not the ship. The ship was foreign looking. A saucer with rocket motors up on sticks. What the heck? Nobody liked it at first. It just grew on us after time. Thats my honest opinion.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

1701ALover said:


> Actually, if you look at this comparison, the deflector doesn't stand any further forward on the JJ-prise than on the TOS Enterprise. In fact, the saucer sits too far back on the dorsal neck. I did a quick-and-dirty correction of that point, and it actually looks a lot better.


Interesting that such a relatively minor modification could improve the overall appearance so much.



aurora fan said:


> Whats the need for the warp engines to be up on pylons. Whats the point? They look better on the Voyager and more aggresive in design down lower and behind. Why have warp engines set up like trophys for enemys to take aim on?


I read somewhere years ago that the warp engines were set far from the bulk of the ship to protect the crew from radiation and/or other harmful emissions present while the engines were in operation. Considering the engines were located closer to the main hull with almost every subsequent design, it's concievable either warp or shielding technology had improved to the point where radiation was not such a concern (within the context of the Star Trek universe, that is).



aurora fan said:


> How can the warp engines be too close together, or too far apart? What diff does it make if they're side by side or end to end. It's make believe. Although the pylons are the weakest design element on the Nu Prise, the big warp engines on the Nu Prise look like serious buisness, instead of tampon tubes on popsicle sticks.


For me it's simply a matter of aesthetics--in my opinion the ship looks more balanced visually with the engines further apart.



aurora fan said:


> It was the show, the characters we loved. Not the ship. The ship was foreign looking. A saucer with rocket motors up on sticks. What the heck? Nobody liked it at first. It just grew on us after time. Thats my honest opinion.


With all due respect, I disagree. I, and several of my friends who watched Star Trek in the 60s, loved the ship from day one.

To be clear, I neither love nor hate the "JJprise". I don't find it to be nearly as "offensive" as some Trek fans do, but there are a few design changes I would make if I were in a position to do so. Maybe I've mellowed with age, but these days I just don't have the desire to get all worked up over issues like the design of a fictional spaceship.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

It's my oppinion that the love/hate comes down to your generation,

I love the voyager ship but hate the TOS ship. It's to plain for me, I like to see human elements in things. None of the lines on the jjprise are perfectly straight showing that humans built it.

It's a massive ship so the chances of getting perfect lines are very low.

The JJprise has been designed for the newer generations, many people I've spoken to who previously hated star trek are getting into it more with the latest movies.

It's been made to bring new blood into the fan base in a newer generation.

And its working. More fans = more good things.

So hate it or love it, its doing its job, theres loads of potential and as i previously said, its another large scale model to add to the collection.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

secretreeve said:


> It's my oppinion that the love/hate comes down to your generation,
> 
> I love the voyager ship but hate the TOS ship. It's to plain for me, I like to see human elements in things. None of the lines on the jjprise are perfectly straight showing that humans built it.


I think that's why I liked the "under construction" teaser for the first movie; it was so cool to see actual people working on this massive ship.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

MLCrisis32 said:


> Now I love the Excelsior but not the "pregnant" B but I have never been able to convince my self that the "C" is a decent design. The colors/patterns, thick painted grid lines and cartoonish engines just... no.


Funnily enough though, the C is a very fun model to _build_... I'm just not fond of the end result... go figure.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carl_G said:


> Funnily enough though, the C is a very fun model to _build_... I'm just not fond of the end result... go figure.


I like the B, I like the C, I like, to a lesser extent the D and E. A lot of it has to do with what makes sense and what appeals to the individual, I suppose.

The 1701C appeals to me in that it is one of the most functional looking of the ships. Nothing spectacularly stylized about it but it all comes together in a very satisfying practical package: very believable for the ST universe. It has all the parts and they're done slightly different from previous models but all seems very solid and reasonable about it.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

at least the C pylons for the nacelles dont look like they'd snap the second the ship entered a gravity zone.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

secretreeve said:


> at least the C pylons for the nacelles dont look like they'd snap the second the ship entered a gravity zone.


Exactly! Like the Excelsior class, they look plenty strong in that regard.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

^Actually, the way the JJprise pylons flare out at the bottom and join up with the bottom edge of the shuttlebay doors make it look quite sturdy fomr that end. Much less so at the other end, where they taper down and attach to those big honkin' nacelles.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I really didn't like the refit when it came out. Rectangular nacelles? Tapered pylons? Where's the dish? Now, it's my favourite, and a nice extension to the "brand."


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

I like that the deflector is a nice hybrid of TOS and TMP, and in the film you actually see that it moves or does something other than glow lol. I like to see on the ship that parts actually move when going to warp. It makes sense that at full power there would be more thrust or something required.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Carl_G said:


> *1701ALover* LOL, I never would have guessed!


Haha!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Heero Kasshu said:


> It makes sense that at full power there would be more thrust or something required.


No, it doesn't make any sense when you understand how a space warp field is supposed to work. There isn't any actual thrust involved like there is with a reaction thrust motor.


----------



## roadskare63 (Apr 14, 2010)

i can't say the jj-prise is my favorite enterprise design, but i do so dig it!!! 
i will be spending for the new revell model as soon as i can too!


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

ugh.........it seems like there is always one person who has to come in an ruin it, i'm sure I don't need to name a name, but you have a thread just for you, custom made by yours truly! Please go there and not here. We've heard all the arguments of why you hate it, great, but please keep your negative opinions of the ship in its proper thread.

and besides, its a fictional ship, how can you tell me the physics of something made up?

Thank you


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

How many Enterprise versions have there been? The JJ version is not the best one in my opinion, but has grown on me over the years. I would definitely like a model of it so that I could get to know it better. If I could consult with the designers of the new movie, I would strenuously advise them to make the bussard domes red/amber not blue! (I might even do that when I build the model...)

I do like the idea of movement on the ship. The deflector dish and parts of the warp nacelles have moving parts. Oh the things we can do in a CGI world!

So, I think I belong on the positive thread. Thanks Heero!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

mikephys said:


> How many Enterprise versions have there been?


Counting those seen only in the various television series' and movies, and excluding "alternate universe" versions like the I.S.S. Enterprise from the TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" and the NCC-1701-D from the TNG episode "All Good Things":

NX-01
NCC-1701
NCC-1701/1701-A "Refit"
NCC-1701-B
NCC-1701-C
NCC-1701-D
NCC-1701-E
NCC-1701 (a.k.a. the "JJprise")


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

Also worth mentioning though not seen on TV the NX-01 "version 1.5" was in the planning stage for the next season of Enterprise when the show wasn't renewed. It was to fill the gap of the missing link between the NX-01 design and it's evolution into the NCC-1701 design.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

wjplenge said:


> Also worth mentioning though not seen on TV the NX-01 "version 1.5" was in the planning stage for the next season of Enterprise when the show wasn't renewed. It was to fill the gap of the missing link between the NX-01 design and it's evolution into the NCC-1701 design.


IIRC the 1:1000 scale NX-01 kit is going to be re-issued by Round 2 in the "refit" configuration that adds the secondary hull.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

*I'm only going to say this one last time: 

This thread is for those who LIKE the "J.J. Prise". I don't want to see any more disparaging comments about the design, the movies or anything at all along those lines. I'll start making Ban's permanent for The Usual Suspects, all others will get a 10 Day Ban for the 1st Offense, 2ns will get you an as-yet-to-be-determined Time Out - possibly permanent. 

Those of you who hate the design - you have your own thread to post in. STAY OUT OF THIS ONE. 

All others, please keep the discussion to the "J.J. Prise" instead of going off on tangents about ships, unless it pertains to a comparison of design aesthetics/ethics. 

Clear enough? *

Carry on....


----------



## [EAGLE] (Sep 8, 2012)

secretreeve said:


> It's my oppinion that the love/hate comes down to your generation,
> 
> I love the voyager ship but hate the TOS ship. It's to plain for me, I like to see human elements in things. None of the lines on the jjprise are perfectly straight showing that humans built it.
> 
> ...





Zombie_61 said:


> Interesting that such a relatively minor modification could improve the overall appearance so much.
> 
> I read somewhere years ago that the warp engines were set far from the bulk of the ship to protect the crew from radiation and/or other harmful emissions present while the engines were in operation. Considering the engines were located closer to the main hull with almost every subsequent design, it's concievable either warp or shielding technology had improved to the point where radiation was not such a concern (within the context of the Star Trek universe, that is).
> 
> ...


 Everyone loved the Enterprise from the start...along with Phasers, communicators, tricorders , the transporter, the shuttlecraft....the list goes on and on. Arourafan is way off the mark. "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise".....not of Kirk and Spock.

The JJ ship is weird.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

mikephys said:


> If I could consult with the designers of the new movie, I would strenuously advise them to make the bussard domes red/amber not blue! (I might even do that when I build the model...)


YES. 

A dash of not-blue would also help distance it from the "iEverything" aesthetic, too.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Ok, but look where the mix of red and blue lighted elements have got us with the TNG Enterprises - they look like toys. Keeping it down to one accent color was a wise design decision.


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

I'm probably an odd-man out, but I loved everything about this movie and the ship! The wonderful sets and location shots of the inner workings of the ship, as well as the outward design were killer I think! 

I like all of the other ships as well, but, we need to "look forward to the future" right!? Looking forward to the new movie, hope they keep the same basic cast, all good characters!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I liked the JJPrise enough to get the Playmates toy & paint it up a bit, so I guess that means I like it to a point... but I don't need a model. BUT, from the trailer it seems like maybe they improved bits of it, in which case I will definitely want a model!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Tim Nolan said:


> I'm probably an odd-man out, but I loved everything about this movie and the ship! The wonderful sets and location shots of the inner workings of the ship, as well as the outward design were killer I think!


That makes at least two of us. :thumbsup:


----------



## jonboc (Nov 25, 2007)

*Love it, more please!*

I was sick to death of TNG and it's spinoffs and couldn't have been happier to have a new Enterprise that owed most of its aesthetics to TOS and TMP. Alertnate universe. Alternate Kirk. Alternate Spock. Alternate Enterprise. New but familiar design. I couldn't be more thrilled! Can't wait for May! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I too enjoyed the new interpretaion of the characters and the "Star Trek" universe. That does not mean I don't like the original, it *IS* possible to like them both. Not sure why so many feel the need to choose one over the other. 

One thing that the new film did was to bring a new and younger audiance to the theater, unlike some of the later films. I don't think this new group of fans will become consumed with the Trek universe and dress up and go to conventions like in the days of yore, I don't think those days could ever be duplicated again.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> ... it *IS* possible to like them both. Not sure why so many feel the need to choose one over the other.


Yes, my distinct impression is that many "haters" misconstrue the liking of the the JJ Enterprise with an automatic insult to the original. Wrong!



RSN said:


> I don't think this new group of fans will become consumed with the Trek universe and dress up and go to conventions like in the days of yore, I don't think those days could ever be duplicated again.


Probably not, but look what happened with Star Wars. There's a whole young generation of SW nuts. SW is much more popular than ST with the 18-49 top-spending consumer group. Just compare the volume of SW merchandise vs. ST merchandise. It will be difficult, but JJ Abrams has a chance to make it less lopsided.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

An interesting historical note...

If you look at the promotional materials that Burger King had from the first film (for their collector glasses) the Bussard collectors were, in fact, orange!

Either they changed the CG model after they gave the images to their licensees, or some old school trekker was on the art staff at BK's ad agency


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Um, not sure if I should post in this thread, since I also posted in the other thread, BUT, one of the things I actually like about the 2009 Enterprise is the saucer section. It's obviously influenced by the TMP refit, but I like it. One of the little details I like on the saucer is the phaser turrets that you see when Kirk and company do their first fly by in the shuttle....


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

^It's all good, we won't tell the other thread.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Dr. Brad said:


> Um, not sure if I should post in this thread, since I also posted in the other thread, BUT, one of the things I actually like about the 2009 Enterprise is the saucer section. It's obviously influenced by the TMP refit, but I like it. One of the little details I like on the saucer is the phaser turrets that you see when Kirk and company do their first fly by in the shuttle....


Your secret is out. :wave:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Proper2 said:


> Yes, my distinct impression is that many "haters" misconstrue the liking of the the JJ Enterprise with an automatic insult to the original. Wrong!


I think it's clear in the movie that this ship's design was influenced by the destructive activities of Nero at the time of Kirk's birth. Starfleet made bigger and meaner ships in response. The new ship is not an affront to the original design because it is not meant to be the TOS ship we know and love. It has to be seen and enjoyed on its own merits. That's the realization that brought me over to the positive side of the debate.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

mikephys said:


> I think it's clear in the movie that this ship's design was influenced by the destructive activities of Nero at the time of Kirk's birth. Starfleet made bigger and meaner ships in response. The new ship is not an affront to the original design because it is not meant to be the TOS ship we know and love. It has to be seen and enjoyed on its own merits. That's the realization that brought me over to the positive side of the debate.


That has been my exact point about the design of the new Enterprise. Just like all the characters, who's lives have been changed by the new timeline, so has the Enterprise herself. As Spock surmised in "City on the Edge of Forever", there are eddies in time that still carried them together, even though their timelines have changed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Uh...yeah. It's clear right from the beginning before nuKirk is even born that this isn't the TOS universe. Could be ENT's universe which isn't the same.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Uh...yeah. It's clear right from the beginning before nuKirk is even born that this isn't the TOS universe. Could be ENT's universe which isn't the same.


"Enterprise" was about 100 years before Kirk, if I remember right. Nero appeared at the time of Kirk's birth. That would make the Archer Enterprise still in the original timeline.


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

Well, its all a moot point, chicken or the egg kind of stuff. They went out of their way in the new movie to say "THIS ISN"T THE OLD STUFF"

My opinion as a fan, who has seen every episode from every series and film incarnation, is that Kirk Prime screwed it up:

By making Trelane upset, Trelane ran to dad "Q", Q threw Picard to the other side of the galaxy meeting the borg, The borg go back in time, Picard follows, Picard and crew alter First contact, First Contact goes into the Enterprise Series, Enterprise mentions the borg specifically, Admiral Archer retires, Kelvin is attacked, Porthos is beamed to nowhere to be found, Spock Prime shows up and sees how screwed up things are. Tells kirk that he must command the enterprise, and how to make sure that Spock Nu gives up command, he is logical after all, Kirk saves the day, Kirk and Kru are now firmly in their own timline, no matter what or who could ever want to change it. Edith Keeler still dies.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> "Enterprise" was about 100 years before Kirk, if I remember right. Nero appeared at the time of Kirk's birth. That would make the Archer Enterprise still in the original timeline.


I'm refraining from further comment (besides this one) because I have BOATLOADS of issues with ENT as well. In my opinion both it and ST09 are of the same tattered cloth with no relation whatsoever to TOS beyond a few familiar sounding names and references.

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread subject...


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

warped, are you in the wrong thread _again_?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Not for the next Ten Days he won't.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

I know its not exactly ship related, but I thought their choice to cast jimmy bennet as young kirk was a fantastic choice. He pulls off the rebel kid persona really well and thought, through my limited knownledge of kirk, it was really well acted.

although, sod driving a car off a cliff that high up lol.

"my name is James Tiberius Kirk"

awesome.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

secretreeve said:


> I know its not exactly ship related, but I thought their choice to cast jimmy bennet as young kirk was a fantastic choice. He pulls off the rebel kid persona really well and thought, through my limited knownledge of kirk, it was really well acted.
> 
> although, sod driving a car off a cliff that high up lol.
> 
> ...


With the exception of Simon Pegg as Scotty, and whoever played Chekov, casting in that movie was superb. The cast of "Star Trek" is so iconic that I had my doubts it could be done but their choices for Kirk, Spock, McCoy(!), Uhura, Sulu, and Pike all worked for me very well.

One thing about the JJprise that pleased me was that, unlike the original TOS ship, there were actual details on the model to show where the phasers originate from!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think I liked the guy that played Chekov better than Walter Koenig (not that I dislike Koenig; the new guy just seemed more natural). Sulu was too flat and boring for me though...


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

Carl_G said:


> Funnily enough though, the C is a very fun model to _build_... I'm just not fond of the end result... go figure.


I still plan to build one I will probably take liberties with the paint job 

Going back I don't see how someone can be "ok" with the Refit pylons being tapered but not the JJprise. I mean, none of my old ERTL kits had upright engines after 10 years! 

Plus if they release this kit I will have another excuse NOT to build the "ERTL Lights and Sounds" refit sitting my closet. (I take it out, look at it, and put it back in the closet)


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'll be very curious about the engineering of the pylons on this kit. I hope RG will make these easier to purchase for those in the US.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

It will be interesting to see how they engineer that part of the kit. The nacelles are huge compared to other versions. I also wonder how you might light up the deflector dish. This will be a cool challenge!


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

........


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Good heaven's man, the hate being spewed in the hate thread is thicker than molasses in early February!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It's a sad day for hopeful Revell Germany new Trek fans ! See the awful news in the 'J.J. Prise Coming' thread.....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> It's a sad day for hopeful Revell Germany new Trek fans ! See the awful news in the 'J.J. Prise Coming' thread.....


Not sad at all. As we have all posted on that thread, there are any number of ways to get the kit, if one truely wants it. There is a thread that you can go to to rain on the parade, the rest of us will be positive about something we like!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I wan't to see those who have been waiting for so long get one ! There are members here who cannot afford the high prices that will be asked for this kit, it is these folks I feel for the most.

Sure there are folks here where money is no object, ebay scalpers be damned. You mistake my intentions, I am merely spreading the news...don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I hope that the JJ-prise is allowed to be sold directly here in the U.S. I want those who want the kit to get it. There is, judging from the movie's revenues, more than enough to justify a plastic kit. I won't buy one but it never hurts to get more model kits out there (except, perhaps, when there are clear cases of competition or very poor subject choices).

I think that eventually there will be a deal to sell the kit here directly. I can't see the model companies involved not wanting to make money if the licensing can be worked out. It could be that the European release is a test market of sorts before selling it over here.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I hope that the JJ-prise is allowed to be sold directly here in the U.S. I want those who want the kit to get it. There is, judging from the movie's revenues, more than enough to justify a plastic kit. I won't buy one but it never hurts to get more model kits out there (except, perhaps, when there are clear cases of competition or very poor subject choices).


Let me say first there are lots of ways to get the kit, including Ebay.
If Revell's Enterprise kit is any indication, it will probably cost about $55 to $60 U.S. currency and about $18-24 dollars to ship.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think that eventually there will be a deal to sell the kit here directly. I can't see the model companies involved not wanting to make money if the licensing can be worked out. It could be that the European release is a test market of sorts before selling it over here.


Revell legally can't do anything to help see it sold here.
They only have a foreign license.

If anyone in the US has a license to produce Trek kits from the movies, I believe that procludes any other
company from selling it here, even if the US licensor hasn't released their own version.

I may be entirely wrong, but I don't believe Paramount licenses their Trek rights out movie-by-movie.

R2 has the rights to produce and sell models from the various Trek movies in the US, Enterprise E, Reliant,
and Refit.

I don't think it's impossible that R2 couldn't perhaps contract out with Revell to make the kits for them.
That's possible, but it's also possible that Paramount has put a clause in each of one another's licenses
in order to avoid them doing that kind of an end run around their selling licenses.

Anyone who is interested could always contact R2 and ask them about it, they are pretty open about that
sort of thing.

A US retailer that imports it for resale is breaking the law, which I'm sure is why CultTVman wont be selling it.

Another US website Sci-Fi kit seller was mentioned by someone in another thread because they supposedly re-sold the Revell Germany TOS Enterprise kit.

I won't repeat the name because, as said before it's verbotten.

There is nothing to stop third parties from buying the kits in Europe and selling it to people on Ebay.

Plus there are several German and English model shops that have Ebay storefronts and sell kits for only a few dollars more then they would sell it in Europe and ship it to you.

I don't think that's legal either, but they do it all the time.

The biggest expense is shipping, which will probably cost almost half the cost of one kit.

If someone thinks they are going to build more then just one, buy a few or a case(budget and desire balanced accordingly) to save on the shipping.

I'm not saying this flippantly. I know many people may not be able to afford to do this, perhaps a few of you who want the kit and know and trust
one another can buy a case together. I'm guessing that they probably come six or so to a case.

It might cost about twice as much or so to ship a case of them via British or German postage but that's way cheaper then six times the cost.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Revell legally can't do anything to help see it sold here.
> They only have a foreign license.


So far. I think that will change as it has on other licensed properties--to our benefit. It may take a year or two . . .


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> So far. I think that will change as it has on other licensed properties--to our benefit. It may take a year or two . . .



I hope not.

I've never seen them give licenses to more then one company in the U.S. market.

R2 has been doing a fantastic job satisfying Trek modelers of late. I would hate to see anyone else take over the license.

I added some info to my previous post without seeing yours. Sorry about that. 

One possible solution, if R2 thought it to be profitable, would be to have Revell Germany produce the kits for them.

There's a good chance Paraborg has put some kind of clause in both R2 and Revell Germany's contracts to prevent such a thing.

But again, someone who is interested would have to ask them about that.

The circumstances might be entirely different now, but their are a bunch of guys here who know a lot about AMT and Aurora's agreements back when each of them held seperate licenses and produced the exact same Trek kits in the US and Europe.

I believe there is even at least one member here who used to work for AMT.

Back in the day, I believe they either shared molds or used the original pantographs to make their own versions.

But whichever way they did it(would love to know if someone has some authoratative info on it)

I believe each physically produced the models in their own respective markets. The AMT models were made here in the US and the Aurora models were actually made in as well as for the European market.

I would much rather see some kind of agreement made between R2 and Revell Germany for cross production - if at all possible - then to see R2 lose it license,

or even Paraborg start to issue multiple licenses.


R2's doing a great job since their comeback. I wouldn't want to see anything change that.


I unterstand you feelings of wanting to see more model kits on the easy-to-get-to market though Perfessor. :thumbsup:

I too hope that everyone who wants one can eventually get one.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Never mind - just read the other thread and my comment became moot.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I'll try ebay or the like first, but if that doesn't work out, I have a buddy who lives in Germany that could probably help me out.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I unterstand you feelings of wanting to see more model kits on the easy-to-get-to market though Perfessor. :thumbsup:
> 
> I too hope that everyone who wants one can eventually get one.


Yeah, the licenses are done per movie, IIRC, and even though it might not happen this year or the next, it might eventually since the licenses run out and model kits could be licensed for the US market--eventually. Usually seems to happen that way. That's all I was saying.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Given the pattern on the deflector dish, I would hazard that lighting it would require a light source behind and a patterned light-block on the face of it. The part would have to be transparent. It would be perfect for the old Lightsheet if someone could cut it finely enough. Or just back the dish with electroluminescent sheet or an LED if there's room.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Have these been posted over here yet?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

robiwon said:


> Have these been posted over here yet?


First Image at higher resolution. This model looks to be very accurate. Except for the tilted upward saucer.


----------



## Cappy1 (Jan 17, 2011)

If the piece was transparent, what about drilling into the post that connects to 
the hull. Then inserting the LED into that hole. Should that not direct the light 
forward and to the edges. Obviously light blocking the back would help the effect. Would that work ?.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Cappy1 said:


> If the piece was transparent, what about drilling into the post that connects to
> the hull. Then inserting the LED into that hole. Should that not direct the light
> forward and to the edges. Obviously light blocking the back would help the effect. Would that work ?.


Some enterprising person will make it work!:wave:


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

PixelMagic said:


> First Image at higher resolution. This model looks to be very accurate. Except for the tilted upward saucer.
> 
> 
> 
> The tilted up saucer is apparently a feature of that Enterprise, it is duplicated on the Playmates toy and the Display model that came with the Blu-Ray disc set. It even appears tilted up in some of the official images released by Paramount


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

If that stand has no "locking parts" AWESOME!

it really bugs me when you have to remove the stand from the model instead of removing the model from the stand.

It looks like the stand curves to the contours of the hull with a couple of side bits to stop it flopping off to the side you can just lift the model off the stand.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

It looks like a similar stand to what they used for the TOS Enterprise ... I hope they got the insignia right this time.


----------



## roadskare63 (Apr 14, 2010)

oh man!!! i want one of those so badly i could pop!!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Popping would be bad...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

kenlee said:


> PixelMagic said:
> 
> 
> > First Image at higher resolution. This model looks to be very accurate. Except for the tilted upward saucer.
> ...


----------



## davejames (Jul 18, 2009)

Count me as another huge fan of this ship. I was a bit thrown off at first like everyone else, but I've quickly come to _love _the swooping lines and "hot rod style" design.

I don't think the picture above really does it justice though. That's a fish-eye view they used in the movie, and it really distorts the actual proportions of the ship.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't think the saucer is tilted; it's simply the angles/"lenses" in some of these shots. We've seen schematics of this ship and it's going "straight" just like any other starship design. Hopefully the problem isn't as pronounced as it appears on these shots of the model. Really looking forward to this and I already have to friends, both major Trek fans, who've seen the new movie and loved it.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

jbond said:


> I don't think the saucer is tilted


It's not- the secondary hull dips down a bit, hence the illusion.


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

I can see some of this maybe spliced with a refit smoothie to make an alternate 1701-A of your own making...


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Or possibly with a Reliant model to make a JJ-Miranda...


----------



## Borz666 (May 17, 2004)

Count me in as a convert too. Loving this ship now and can't wait to see the movie, which (living in the UK) will get to see a week before my colonial friends!!!


----------



## roadskare63 (Apr 14, 2010)

:lol::lol:


Chrisisall said:


> Popping would be bad...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Borz666 said:


> Count me in as a convert too. Loving this ship now and can't wait to see the movie, which (living in the UK) will get to see a week before my colonial friends!!!


Love the "JJ-prise"! Will see the movie this weekend! :thumbsup:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Wow! Movie was good. The Refit brings up all sorts of ideas for garage accurizing kits: new impulse engines, raised rim on top of saucer, blue glow spine aft of bridge is a different shape, four warp engine fin risers in each fin, two new glow bits forward of those depressed vents on the top front warp engines! Wonder what other changes were made?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Just got back from the movie. Was thoroughly enjoyable! My son loved it, too. In fact, better than the first! Wish I could blurt out spoilers because I was very happily surprised. The Enterprise was fabulous, and the Vengeance was considerably different-looking. More so than at first glance.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

BTW, here's a very cool video of the 2009 ship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0i72CsaL2I#&t=0m40s


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

I thought that this movie was better than the first as well. I have grown to like the ship , and am waiting on the Revell to get here from England.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> Just got back from the movie. Was thoroughly enjoyable! My son loved it, too. In fact, better than the first! Wish I could blurt out spoilers because I was very happily surprised. The Enterprise was fabulous, and the Vengeance was considerably different-looking. More so than at first glance.


Actually, I WANT to see it! But my 14 year old Son says no way, if it's not Shatner & Nimoy he'll have nothing to do with it!:freak: Maybe I can stun him so he wakes up after I carry him into the theatre...


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

It was a good movie but as a long-time fan, who actually loved the 2009 film, I was a bit miffed by "the scene" (Trying to stay spoiler-free) near the end. A couple of my die hard Trek friends told me to get the frak over it so I'm trying! Other than my grumbles with that I enjoyed the film. Plus my wife actually likes Trek now so hey it's a win!


----------

