# Would you buy a model of the New Enterprise?



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks Do any of you have any interest in a model kit being made of the Enterprise in Star Trek 11 and if so would you buy one?I probably will.I don't know how faithful this film will be to the Original Star Trek.But if the Enterprise is a cool design.(not that I'll consider it the T.V.Series Enterprise)I'll probably buy and build a model of it if one is made.At this point I just hope I can get some enjoyment out of this new film.I just hope the Enterprise design is appealing enough in the film where I can enjoy a model kit of it.On that subject anyone know if a kit is being planned?Guy S.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

You bet! I'd buy one, and maybe more than one if the design is cool enough and the kit is accurate to the new movie. Depending on the scale, such a kit might be fun to bash into a TOS/Abrams hybrid.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I can't imagine there would be an on-screen _Enterprise_ that I _wouldn't_ want to have as a kit. My least favorite version so far is the _Enterprise_-C -- and I have a kit of that.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

If it is anything like Korner's design, no way. I'm old school and a purist I guess.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

It would be one I'd be interested in... :thumbsup:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I've bought at least one of every other kit of the various _Enterprises_ offered for sale, don't see why I'd stop now.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

TGel63 said:


> If it is anything like Korner's design, no way. I'm old school and a purist I guess.




AMEN :thumbsup:


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Almost regardless of what the movie turns out to be or not be you bet i would worst case collectors item. :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Totally depends on what it looks like, of course!


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

Yep, I'd buy it. If for no other reason than it'll be good kit-bashing fodder. 

Sean


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd have to think long and hard about it. A lot would depend on the size of the thing, how good a kit it is, and just how much I end up despising the new movie.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i will absolutely buy one.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

I will definitely buy one to build up.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

I will buy one if:

A. I like the movie
B. I like the ship
C. It's a good model

John


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'd buy one. Looks like a cool variation no matter how much it turns out that the movie sucks or does not suck.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Oh you bet I would! 

hey I even built a movie version of the Jupiter 2, and I think we can all agree on the merits of that film..

I've got the same "jones" for this film that I did back before TNG premiered.

it's new TREK!!! are you kidding??


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

No, I would definatly buy five models of the new Enterprise (which I think we'll se by December).


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi Folks Do any of you have any interest in a model kit being made of the Enterprise in Star Trek 11 and if so would you buy one?
> 
> Guy S.


No and no.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I probably will if the details are good and it not be a totally inaccurate version. Unless I really don't like the design which isn't likely.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Yep. As long as we're not talking 1/350 scale or 1/1000. A happy medium scale and you'll get my bucks...:thumbsup:

Greg

Addendum: No. Just...No. I'm NOT going to pay upwards of $20USD for a horribly contrived, unbalanced design... The only thing savable on it is the saucer...MAYBE the engines...MAYBE...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'll buy one just to blow it up.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

More than likely I will. Why have a hole in my Enterpise collection ? Helps if it looks cool though. I agree about the scale- 1 /650 scale would be nice. I always liked that size.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

John P said:


> I'll buy one just to blow it up.


C'mon, John, tell us how you REALLY feel! 

Greg :wave:


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

All depends on whether I like it or not...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

John P said:


> I'll buy one just to blow it up.


That's one idea, except that it's not like the old days, where if you take a lighter to an 18 incher to make yourself a Constellation, you were only out three bucks. This sucker is gonna be at least twenty bucks, and I don't see myself plunking down that much coin on someting I'm gonna deliberately trash.

Besides, those sort of impulses are best satisfied by doing photo manips, having the original ship blowing the crap out of this monstrosity. :devil:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sorry, duplicate post. Not sure how that happened....


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi Folks Do any of you have any interest in a model kit being made of the Enterprise in Star Trek 11 and if so would you buy one?


Heck yea! I'd have to get about six of 'em just for the simple reason that it'd be fun & refershing to build off of the FJ designs in that version! Something you're very familliar with, yet it'll be totally new! :thumbsup:

Hopefully it'll be in 1/1000.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

No.
Do not support the whole remake thing at all.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> No.
> Do not support the whole remake thing at all.


How very narrow minded.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In that taped Joe Biden voice: "Mark my words; this new ship design will be tested. They're gonna post a lot of progress pictures over on Hobbytalk of this thing being built." Absolutely I'd buy one. Why would we buy the NX-01 and not buy this. I liked the 01 and I'm sure this will look better!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PixelMagic said:


> How very narrow minded.


It's called an opinion.
Don't be rude.


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

I probably will and it will be added to my collection of Unbuilt Models that I don't seem to find the time to work on. (Grin)


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

PixelMagic said:


> How very narrow minded.



Incorrect.

I have watched and enjoyed every previous form of Trek.

Every single one.

I have my favories like anyone sure.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And the upcoming abomination ain't one of 'em, eh?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

We shall see.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Captain April said:


> And the upcoming abomination ain't one of 'em, eh?



Nope.

I draw the line at recasting TOS and attempting re-imaginings of it.
Similar to as if someone tried to repaint the Mona Lisa.

Make your own Trek masterpiece. Do not attempt to hijack a unique classic work of a visionary and unique character creations of previous actors and repackage it again when there is absolutely no justification for it all but easy marketing.

I will return to Trek when they do something original again.

But I expect they will just recast and rehash TNG next.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

If the teaser trailer is any indication of how the "new" Enterprise will look I'm guessing it'll be very similar to the Refit version seen in ST: TMP with regards to design, Aztec paint scheme, and font used for the ship's registry, except it'll have straight (rather than angled) nacelle struts and the nacelles themselves will be cylindrical and have the dome-shaped Bussard Ramscoop like the ships in the original series.

I'd be interested in a kit only if it's styrene, no larger than the AMT Enterprise kits from the original series, and no smaller than Polar Lights' 1/1000 TOS Enterprise.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

I have all the Enterprise's except NX-01. I don't consider "Enterprise" canon.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I view "Enterprise" as quasi-canon (the Temporal Cold War can cover a multitude of sins, if spun properly), so no problem with the NX-01 (the damn thing kinda grows on you after a while).

This thing, however, I suspect, will be rejected like a bad kidney transplant.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I view "Enterprise" as quasi-canon (the Temporal Cold War can cover a multitude of sins, if spun properly), so no problem with the NX-01 (the damn thing kinda grows on you after a while).
> 
> This thing, however, I suspect, will be rejected like a bad kidney transplant.


Your use of the word "quasi" indicates you're more forgiving than I am.

Yes, the NX01 has grown on me...like rectal heat itch.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

I'd choose the NX-01 over any Koerner-esque abomination without any hesitation.


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

I will buy one for sure. If I like the movie I will buy more.

If they produced bad guy ships and the movie sucked I would not be getting those. I eventually got a scorpion on sale but I never got the Kazon torpedo or Maquee ship


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I got the Maquis ship as a present and decided to fix it up as a cargo ship one might see in the Alpha quadrant. I need to finish my weathering and highlighting job on it and post some pics. Thanks for reminding me of that :thumbsup:

I still like the idea of variants of the original 1701 design even if I don't consider it to the the real thing.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Captain April said:


> I view "Enterprise" as quasi-canon (the Temporal Cold War can cover a multitude of sins, if spun properly), so no problem with the NX-01 (the damn thing kinda grows on you after a while).
> 
> This thing, however, I suspect, will be rejected like a bad kidney transplant.



I read a description of the new ST trailer and it said nothing of a clip of the new Enterprise. I would like to see it before I reject or praise it.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Your use of the word "quasi" indicates you're more forgiving than I am.
> 
> Yes, the NX01 has grown on me...like rectal heat itch.


I don't care who you are, now that's funny.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

All this invoking of Gabe's little doodle reminded me of a little something I put together a while ago...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

LOL, this should actually appear on a coffee table in the new TOS movie! Can you imagine?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

That's awesome! Hahahaha.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I _know_ that magazine cover's a fake, 'cuz by the year 2268 those decimal points on the cover price would be two places to the right _at least_. 

As far as Koerner's designs...well, they could do _much_ worse.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> All this invoking of Gabe's little doodle reminded me of a little something I put together a while ago...


:thumbsup:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Zombie_61 said:


> I _know_ that magazine cover's a fake, 'cuz by the year 2268 those decimal points on the cover price would be two places to the right _at least_.
> 
> As far as Koerner's designs...well, they could do _much_ worse.


I know it's fake because they don't use money in the 23rd century.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Yes, I will buy one, no matter what. Just to say I got one. Even if it is only so-so, I'm always looking for stuff to try out new techniques on -- and I imagine if it is well built it will look good. Been buying Enterprise models since 1966 when they came with clear green domes on the saucer and clear orange domes on the nacelles. You put a couple of C batteries in the engineering section that lit the flashlight bulbs in the saucer and nacelles. You turned it on by turning the deflector dish housing.

Does anyone else remember that? That was the first model to have lights in it, if I'm not mistaken. Pretty cool for those days.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Yep (lol)! I remember on the end of the pylons they had this U shaped opening that you were supposed to slip some plastic piece into to lock it to the secondary hull. I also remember gravity always won that fight and the engines would begin sagging down! All the more reason we need a new 350th version with provisions for lights. But it's not like I'm hinting at anything. Heaven forbid, Moebius. I'm just not that shallow.:thumbsup:


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Jeff, allow me, as I AM that shallow! PLEASE PLEASE Please, Moebius, PLEASE make a 1/350th TOS Enterprise!

There - that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Larry


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

JeffG said:


> In that taped Joe Biden voice: "Mark my words; this new ship design will be tested. They're gonna post a lot of progress pictures over on Hobbytalk of this thing being built."


LOL

Yes, I would buy one, either at 1/1000 scale or 1/2500, the latter being the preferred scale.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Now having seen what it really will look like in the film, I would definitely buy one.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

And frankly, this is a MUCH better design then the Enterprise J:
http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/ships/1701j/entj.jpg


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Zombie_61 said:


> I _know_ that magazine cover's a fake, 'cuz by the year 2268 those decimal points on the cover price would be two places to the right _at least_.
> 
> As far as Koerner's designs...well, they could do _much_ worse.


They *have* done much, much worse.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Would I buy a model of the "reimagined" Enterprise?

In a word..."no"

Bryan


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Gemini1999 said:


> Would I buy a model of the "reimagined" Enterprise?
> 
> In a word..."no"
> 
> Bryan


My sentiments, exactly.

10 years from now, I might change my mind, but other kits are calling my name.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nope.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

After the sneek peek, I still say yes. There's a lot of kitbashing goodness in there.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, if by "kitbashing", you mean with a Louisville Slugger...


----------



## derric1968 (Jun 13, 2003)

*Yes*

Yes. Absolutely. Without hesitation. Not only would I buy a kit of the new Enterprise, I would also buy a kit of the Kelvin, as well. Preferably in 1/1000 scale (I'm looking at you Polar Lights/Round 2).


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Captain April said:


> Well, if by "kitbashing", you mean with a Louisville Slugger...


I was thinking of a butane torch. 
I won't be buying one, there are far better models out there. Like the AMT non-smoothe Refit.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've officially changed my mind about buying one. I don't even see buying it for parts. 
Is there any way we can petition Paramount to change the effects to use the Gabe Koerner design instead? (And, yes, I know the answer is "no.")


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

It's all CGI modeled so it wouldn't be too hard to swap in a modified ship into an existing CGI background scene?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^^Great! More for me!

I want to see more, of Course, but I'm digging this design a heck of a lot better than the "B" , "C" or "D"

Sign me up for a kit or three

apparently, if there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

The only way I could see lighting the deflector is if the dish were modeled clear, frosted and set into recess that had a light source which would hopefully turn it into a big fiber optic.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well, now that I've seen it.... nope. Never.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Having also now seen it I would still have to say yes. I kinda like it.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Not a chance.

Bring back the AMT Enterprise C kit instead!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> They *have* done much, much worse.


Yeah, but it does have one thing going for it--it's better than the hideous NCC-1701-D. :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Hell ya, I'll buy one or three!

Just because it's _different_. And not necessarily because it's the _Enterprise_, either.


----------



## AZbuilder (Jul 16, 1999)

*I would buy*

I think I would buy this kit if it became available. If nothing else as a challenge for my model building skills

AZbuilder
John

*Let Your Imagination Soar*


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I dunno, but prolly, yeah. 

Maybe..... 

BTW, I still don't think this recent pic is of "the" _Enterprise_, but one from an alternate timeline.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I hope you're right. Either way, I'll buy a model of it and proudly display it with the rest of my Enterprises. 
Sure, my first reaction when seeing the picture was "Well, that's just too bad."
Maybe it will grow on me, and maybe it won't. Right now, I'm hoping for a movie that will satisfy my craving for new and better Trek. If the characters and story are good, then so will be the movie. (As always, IMHO.)


----------



## psytce (Jan 17, 2007)

Yes I would, and I hope they come out with one......:thumbsup:


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Ya cain't fix what ain't broke.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> I dunno, but prolly, yeah.
> 
> Maybe.....
> 
> BTW, I still don't think this recent pic is of "the" _Enterprise_, but one from an alternate timeline.



But Carson says that's it.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

The Enterprise is supposed to have a couple variations in the film, but for a majority of the screen time there's one "hero" ship. That should be the one.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> I dunno, but prolly, yeah.
> 
> Maybe.....
> 
> BTW, I still don't think this recent pic is of "the" _Enterprise_, but one from an alternate timeline.


The designer itself, Ryan Church, said that this is THE Enterprise. Here you can see his answer to the reactions all over the web about his ship: http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

No, I don't think I will buy it.

Bor


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Steve Mavronis posted a very interesting picture at post #237 here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showth...234890&page=16

Have others here seen that? I understand that it is a guesstimate of what the ship looks like in profile. As for me, well, if that is the new Enterprise, then I have to say that I quite like it. Apparently the designer, Ryan Church, said of that first photo we've all been commenting on:


_I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say._


Huzz


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Here is the schematic interpretation you mention:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

There's also this interesting interpretation, posted here by Antimatter, and originally posted over on trekmovie.com. Not sure of its origin, and it seems to deviate slightly from Carson's posted profile outline of the ship a few nights ago. Still, this illustration seems to have the same shapes in the bridge area, so I'm curious about how accurate it is overall. Nice looking ship, in profile...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=69385&d=1226620543


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You guys leave me alone! I'm feeling perseids-acuted... and stuff.... 




I'm in denial, alright? I _really_ don't want that to be THE _Enterprise_ that would carry over in to any future Trek movies. I could live with an alternate timeline version, but not _Big E_ herself. That thing is just fugly, IMNSHO. It offends my sense of aesthetics. Plus, as has already been said, there was no reason to do a major fix of what wasn't already broken. Tweak it a bit like we see in the Remastered episodes or from ENT's two-parter "Through a Mirror, Darkly", but not something this extreme.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Griff - Sounds like a trip to Bridie Molloy's is in order! Cold beers served by a smokin' hot waitress on a Friday afternoon and all will be right with the world!

Huzz


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

It's kinda growing on me. I'd buy it.

Todd


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

I may buy a model of this interpetation of the Enterprise, not sure yet if their is even gonna be a model! But personally I love the origanal. 
Jim


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Just for fun I pasted the secondary hull of the Kelvin over the Enterprise:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Looks like a crossbreed between the Planet Killer & Galaxy Quest! Ehwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!:freak:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd definitely prefer the Protector to this thing.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The Protector was actually sort of a cool ship!

I loved the whole Star Trek spoof thing with the story too.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Here is the schematic interpretation you mention:


Please note that the profile of the re-design depicted here is completely inaccurate.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^
Yes it is only an basic interpretation from the single photo. Do you know when or if the powers that be might release either more photos or a more accurate profile illustration better than this one? The one above does look nice though...


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Do you know when or if the powers that be might release either more photos or a more accurate profile illustration better than this one?


Here's 40screen grabs from the trailer I made. There's a couple shots of the New E head on.
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/Star Trek XI/


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Please note that the profile of the re-design depicted here is completely inaccurate.


Well except for the too short fantail and that the bridge section is flatter then the Refits used in that depiction …. where exactly is it so “completely inaccurate” if compared to your fast drawn profile?










…Looks pretty close to me!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Prince of Styrene II said:


> Here's 40screen grabs from the trailer I made. There's a couple shots of the New E head on.
> 
> http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff5/Prince_of_Styrene_II/Star Trek XI/


And one of the ship being built, fully assembled, *ON THE FREAKING GROUND!!*

So much for final assembly in orbit.

Buncha damn liars...


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Captain April said:


> And one of the ship being built, fully assembled, *ON THE FREAKING GROUND!!*


Huh? Where - I can`t find such a shot over there.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Right here Marco, picture 4 

http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/...ek XI/?action=view&current=trailer_still4.jpg


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's a much more powerful image (IMO) seeing this MASSIVE ship being constructed in a familiar environment than just another space effect. It also instantly ties it into traditional ship building in a yard. I'd also imagine that at this point, Kirk is trying to find direction in his life, hasn't been in space yet (at least as an officer) and seeing the big E is a motivating factor and turning point in his life. In that respect, I think their decision to have a planet side assembly is a sound one.:thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

only thing mising is Ms President of the United Federation smash a bottle at her bow.... yeah lets root all SF movies in todays reality.. very SF then.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You know what? I was gonna write a clever retort, but why bother. It's becoming a waste of time. Apparently this film can do no right by some so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe if there is a Nexus, you can spend it in your childhood bedroom looking at old episodes of Trek. Ooops...guess I wrote a clever retort anyway!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

TMP showed how a spaceship is build in 300 years from now: in a space dock! Not in a earht bound dry dock like a todays naval ship!

But I do get why JJ did it: as you point out.. it looks good! And besides, if not for the earth dry dock, he would have to recreate the TMP dry dock scene to show the 1701 being build....


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Keep in mind that they're not necessarily going by what we've seen before. Sorry if I got a little snippy earlier. It's just that fans complain that Trek has gotten stagnate, then when someone tries to change things, many of them complain about that too. Abrams is faced with a seemingly impossible task. Personally, I think he has the ability breathe fresh life into Trek and I've liked everything I've seen so far. As far as his directing capabilities, just look at what he did for Mission Impossible III. I, for one, am very excited to have someone with that talent being involved with Star Trek. I just wish others would at least give it a chance before rushing to judge and criticize everything about it. Then if you've seen it and despise it, fine. Until then however, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

On that note, I think I'm gonna leave this subject alone for a while now. As someone else mentioned in so many words; this roundy round is gettin' old, and I think by now we've pretty much exhausted all our points for and against this film. After all, even though it's Star Trek it's still just a movie and not worth being insulting or demeaning to another persons point of view over. And that goes both ways.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

*Would you buy a model of the New Enterprise? *

No


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> TMP showed how a spaceship is build in 300 years from now: in a space dock! Not in a earht bound dry dock like a todays naval ship!


For that matter, so did Enterprise. And that was supposed to be, what, a hundred years earlier? Did spaceship construction go into a bit of a dark age for while before they figured out you're better off building a ship the size of an aircraft carrier _in orbit_?



> But I do get why JJ did it: as you point out.. it looks good! And besides, if not for the earth dry dock, he would have to recreate the TMP dry dock scene to show the 1701 being build....


Yeah, to hell with whether or not it makes a lick of sense, so long as it looks _kewl, dood!_


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I have never heard anyone complain that Trek is "stagnate" Rehashed plots, over used time travel gimmicks, poorly developed characters, no respect for canon, worse and worse design.... absolutely!

But never "stagnant."


But hey look, we're getting more of that same thing we've gotten since Voyager! Its so fresh and new.

Yea.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I've heard the stagnant coments before. Don't agree w/them where TOS is concerned, but am still keeping an open mind about this movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> . . . On that note, I think I'm gonna leave this subject alone for a while now. As someone else mentioned in so many words; this roundy round is gettin' old, and I think by now we've pretty much exhausted all our points for and against this film. After all, even though it's Star Trek it's still just a movie and not worth being insulting or demeaning to another persons point of view over. And that goes both ways.


Jeff:

There's no need to get all upset about others' being upset to begin with. It's not your responsibility (unless you've been appointed by one of "the powers that be") to console nor to convert people to being open to the new movie once they've learned how the art direction has completely ignored what has already been established in one of the most consistent (despite a goodly number of inconsistencies) series of TV series ever.

Relax and enjoy the criticisms!  If this winds up being another BSG-like reboot (which I, myself, sincerely doubt), then we'll have our comeuppance and you can say, "I told you so!" :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee; I'm not nearly as upset as those who've had their childhood memories pillaged. That's gotta be a real SOB to have a movie do that to you. Last time I even came close to seeing a movie that powerful was when I saw 'The Exorcist' as a kid. There's also no way I'm trying to convert anyone-just appeal to their sense of reason and at least give this film a fair shake first, but apparently that's asking too much. Ultimately, to each his or her own. And BTW, I've never been the type to say 'I told you so'. That would be childish-like hating your dinner before you try it.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> PerfesserCoffee; I'm not nearly as upset as those who've had their childhood memories pillaged. That's gotta be a real SOB to have a movie do that to you. Last time I even came close to seeing a movie that powerful was when I saw 'The Exorcist' as a kid. There's also no way I'm trying to convert anyone-just appeal to their sense of reason and at least give this film a fair shake first, but apparently that's asking too much. Ultimately, to each his or her own. And BTW, I've never been the type to say 'I told you so'. That would be childish-like hating your dinner before you try it.


I know you were joking Jeff, no TV show is that important. It is an SOB that this movie, however, does this to some of us. I love "The Exorcist" but we are talking about 70 hrs of TV history and a different world which I wanted to belong in as a kid. I was different, so the show helped while watching in syndication. 

When I first read about this new movie a few months back ST had already lost me. Camp was all it has become for many years now. Not every show was bad but I stopped watching for the most part. As the ships got sleeker (never understood the reason for this), the scripts got weaker. The faster the great giant ships moved onscreen, the less likely I was to believe it. 

The only thing I valued were those memories from TOS. 

I was glad they were spending some real money again; hiring real talent and thought they had so much material to draw from (since it is a popular series). Imagine, we could have seen references to Captain Garth whose exploits were required reading at the academy, Matt Decker (doomsday machine), Instructor Ben Finney (court marshal), John Gill (patterns of force), Janice Lester, Capt. Ronald Tracy (Omega Glory) and Ruth (shore leave).

It was ironic that TOS trivia would eventually give this real life academy cadet any breaks (since TOS is loved at the military academies). We were required to know all information about real fleet ships; but it was knowledge that the Big 'E' was 947' long, displaced 190,000 tons, had a beam of 417' that would gain extra favors for me and my friends. 

I would eventually have my own Finnegan (again from shore leave) to deal with (think less physical, more mental) who was a real-life SOB. 

So yes, for some of us to have Annikan-Kirk, 'rebel with a cause', all crew ages the same, ship built on land for 'maximum visual impact' with a lot of spot-welders for a ship that travels at hundreds of times the speed of light, changes for the sake of change - I do take issue with that. 

I'm sure the movie will be successful and I'm glad for them. I don't have to see it but I will. 

It still hurts, nevertheless...


(Probably not - buy the model, that is)


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I understand. No matter how the film turns out though, we'll still have the DVD's and our memories and no other incarnation of Trek, good or bad, can take that away.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Thanks, Jeff! It really warmed my heart to see your post.

Larry


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

How about a diorama kit of the ship being built planetside?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> . . . That would be childish-like hating your dinner before you try it.


Neither do I--usually. However, I DO take a cautionary whiff first and 99% of the time I can tell if it's rotten or not before the food reaches my palate.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Look, I love the TOS Enterprise as much as any guy. I grew up with it too. I would watch it each day after school when it aired in the mid 70's. It was just awesome! I ate the stuff up.

But I'm receptive to the new Enterprise at the same time. 

For me, its like what Ford did with the Mustang. There was the classic car from decades ago. And there is also the new Mustang. I like both cars and think they are both gorgeous machines for their time. For me, the same holds true for the Enterprise.

Long may she sail the stars.

Huzz


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Dave Hussey said:


> Long may she sail the stars.


...just hopefully not in the current design... :wave:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

to play Devil's Advocate...I can rationalize why The Enterprise is built on the ground than in orbit.

In the wake of the Xindi incursion and the recent Romulan War, It became an issue of Planetary Security to build this new generation of starship planetside to try to maintain the Top Secret technologies used in its construction.

Also of note, recent studies by the starfeet surgeon general's office have concluded that the construction workers who were working in a natural atmosphere developed less health issues than those who spent prolonged periods in work suits in zero G


there, that was easy...


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Dave Hussey said:


> For me, its like what Ford did with the Mustang. There was the classic car from decades ago. And there is also the new Mustang. I like both cars and think they are both gorgeous machines for their time. For me, the same holds true for the Enterprise.


Huzz, that's a great comparison. This is how I look at it, too.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> For me, its like what Ford did with the Mustang. There was the classic car from decades ago. And there is also the new Mustang. I like both cars and think they are both gorgeous machines for their time. For me, the same holds true for the Enterprise.


Great comparison. Could not agree more.



> Long may she sail the stars.


All she needs is a star to steer her by


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Yyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssss! 

Huzz


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Raist3001 said:


> Well said. That's exactly the way I feel.


----------



## jowman (Nov 3, 2008)

I would buy one or two for sure!


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

I personally won't buy one. I'll be patiently waiting on a nice sized TOS E.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

On second thought, I'll probably buy a couple of the new/old 1701s for (non STOS) kit bashing at some point due solely to the fact that there'll be dozens of them at $2.99 in the discount bin after a few weeks.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm wondering, how soon after the first Star Trek movie did they come out with 1701-A kits? If it was around the same time to cash in on the film release excitement, then wouldn't Star Trek XI kit(s) already be in the works now to be ready by May/June 2009?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Steve,
I was wondering that, too. I imagine that it's got to be a great deal quicker these days to make a model, tho.

think about it. they could simply use the CGI meshes from the film to go straight to the tooling process. the could skip the physical modelling and approval processes because the results would be accurate from the get-go.

doing the parts breakdown would be the most time consuming part.

of course, I have no real idea what I'm talking about, I'm just speculating based on what I think I know about how kits get made these days.

there has been a lot of quiet about there being a kit from a group that has a hard time keeping quiet. this doesn't bode well.


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*The Smoothie...*

Guys,

If memory serves, the AMT Refit Kit came out almost EXACTLY the same time as THE MOTION PICTURE. I remember receiving one for Hanukkah that year.

We'll probably have a Playmates toy of the new ship, but I wouldn't bet on a model, if only because there just isn't the kind of modeling base there was 29 years ago...


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I doubt I'll buy one. I would buy a 1/1000 refit in a heartbeat, though. And that's despite the fact that I'm starting to get rid of many of my unbuilt kits!


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

Of course! More than one IF I like the movie... I'm ready to give it a chance.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Dave Hussey said:


> For me, its like what Ford did with the Mustang. There was the classic car from decades ago. And there is also the new Mustang. I like both cars and think they are both gorgeous machines for their time. For me, the same holds true for the Enterprise.


Yes, good analogy Huzz. Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave. 

The designers didn't know what they were doing. They decided to take a classic, beloved design and put their stupid "stamp" on it... raping all of our childhood memories in the process. The proportions are all wrong, the nose is curvy when it should straight, the engine's way too big and the interior too small. The front grill is ridiculously large like it's compensating for something.

When I first heard of the redesign I was really scared. What if they got it all wrong?? When I finally saw it, I for one was really saddened that it turned out exactly as I feared. I did not see the brilliant return of the former king of the road, but the destruction of all that we hold dear. 

I'm not capable of love any more.

Hate consumes me.

I _*loathe *_the new Mustang!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Yes, good analogy Huzz. Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave.
> 
> The designers didn't know what they were doing. They decided to take a classic, beloved design and put their stupid "stamp" on it... raping all of our childhood memories in the process. The proportions are all wrong, the nose is curvy when it should straight, the engine's way too big and the interior too small. The front grill is ridiculously large like it's compensating for something.
> 
> When I first heard of the redesign I was really scared. What if they got it all wrong?? When I finally saw it, I for one was really saddened that it turned out exactly as I feared. I did not see the brilliant return of the former king of the road, but the destruction of all that we hold dear.


Yeah, and they claimed it was the original car from the 1960s and even put them in museums and thought we were stupid enough to believe it.

No, wait, I over-reached there. They really just presented the car as something that was all new just based on a classic design. They didn't attempt to rewrite history and merely showed respect and an homage to the great original design. Whew! I was really upset there for a few mintues


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> In the wake of the Xindi incursion and the recent Romulan War, It became an issue of Planetary Security to build this new generation of starship planetside to try to maintain the Top Secret technologies used in its construction.


The Xindi vaporized a large swath of Florida from orbit. What makes you think a ship being built in Iowa would be any safer?



> Also of note, recent studies by the starfeet surgeon general's office have concluded that the construction workers who were working in a natural atmosphere developed less health issues than those who spent prolonged periods in work suits in zero G


That's why there's a break room nearby with full Earth normal gravity and lots of down time on Earth's surface. Plus, if something goes wrong with a warp engine being put together, it doesn't ruin the entire project.

Sorry, but building the ship on the ground is stupid.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hey they have grav plating in the 23rd centurt ya know! 

Besides, I would rather work on something that big in space where a misstep will have me floating rather than falling to my death!

These ships were never designed to function in an atmosphere... how the heck would they get it off the ground to begin with?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They do it be completely ignoring precedent and pretending the warp nacelles are a couple of Saturn V's and just light those candles, baby!


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

El Gato said:


> Yes, good analogy Huzz. Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave.
> 
> The designers didn't know what they were doing. They decided to take a classic, beloved design and put their stupid "stamp" on it... raping all of our childhood memories in the process. The proportions are all wrong, the nose is curvy when it should straight, the engine's way too big and the interior too small. The front grill is ridiculously large like it's compensating for something.
> 
> ...


Acutally the engine is a 4.6l thats real close to a 289 from days long past.As for the design elements.....It has the feel of the old Mustang, the way the New thunderbird had the feel of the old t-bird.I like it and I like the new Enterprise and will watch this with an open mind


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I rather like the new Mustang and T-Bird as well, but there is no way in hell I'm gonna mistake one of those for one of their forebears.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Captain April said:


> I rather like the new Mustang and T-Bird as well, but there is no way in hell I'm gonna mistake one of those for one of their forebears.


My point Exactly! Now lets all look at this new trek flik with that same attitude.:thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> These ships were never designed to function in an atmosphere... how the heck would they get it off the ground to begin with?


And yet, according to "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" (TOS Season 1, Episode 19) in which the Enterprise was seen to have atmospheric flight capabilities, they apparently could.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

If you remember correctly both Scotty and Sulu were having trouble with the helm... and Scotty even said it wasn't designed to operate within the atmosphere. Plus the ship never _landed._


Thats a great pic BTW.... yeah that ship sure looks like crap now that we have the fancy new one to take its place. What were we thinking!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The dialogue pretty much consists of Spock saying they're too low in the atmo to hold that orbit and Kirk ordering Sulu to take them higher.

I would like to direct folks to the orginal effects footage, which shows the Enterprise is quite clearly *not* cruising along happy as a clam, but is struggling to gain some altitude and having trouble (this is before Sulu gets up off the floor and takes control of the helm; in other words, the Enterprise is trying to get out of the atmosphere _all on her own_, which tells me that the automatic systems were quite aware that they were doing something they weren't supposed to, and the Enterprise wasn't waiting for orders).


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


> The dialogue pretty much consists of Spock saying they're too low in the atmo to hold that orbit and Kirk ordering Sulu to take them higher.
> 
> I would like to direct folks to the orginal effects footage, which shows the Enterprise is quite clearly *not* cruising along happy as a clam, but is struggling to gain some altitude and having trouble (this is before Sulu gets up off the floor and takes control of the helm; in other words, the Enterprise is trying to get out of the atmosphere _all on her own_, which tells me that the automatic systems were quite aware that they were doing something they weren't supposed to, and the Enterprise wasn't waiting for orders).


Captain, I agree with what we see but I believe this episode was always problematic for GR and the writer/producers back in the day. There was just too much support documentation - other episodes, 'Making of ST', etc. that clearly pointed out that these Starships were incapable of atmospheric flight. This was one of those few times where I just assumed we didn't have all the facts or was a plot error. Otherwise, they could have just floated down to planets anytime they were having transporter problems or about to crash...


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Crashing planetside played a big part in "The Naked Time" as well. I'm betting Enterprise will have some help getting into orbit in the new movie. That would certainly add to the visual impact of the scene.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Well, it can only do better than the Galactica. That ship had about as much atmospheric flight capabilities as someones mother-in-law! I'm thinking it'll either use some type of anti grav or maybe be ferried up by several anti grav 'tugs' and released in lower orbit. That's still an awful lot of weight in earths gravity so I'd think there is some type of support while it's under construction and maybe when she's powered up some sort of structural integrity field comes online.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I made this concept animation about 7 months ago for a possible lift into orbit by tugs....

http://vimeo.com/861933

Frame grabs...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Awesome! Great minds think alike! Still trying to think of how that applies to me though (lol)! Nothing like an aztec pattern spec map!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Beautiful work Very impressive.Why the hell would Starfleet build the Enterprise in the cornfields of Iowa.It has long been established that the Enterprise major components were built at the San Franscico Navy Yards then transported into Earth Orbit and assembled in orbit.Isn't this movie keeping any continuity?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I don't think there's gonna be any tugs or external assistance for the Enterprise's liftoff.

I think they're gonna fire up those impulse engines and it's gonna blast off like the ship from "When Worlds Collide" on steroids. Never mind that the blast is gonna reash all the way to Des Moines, _it'll be so kewl!!!_:drunk:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Who knows. Maybe they'll blast her skyward like in the Lost In Space movie, the outer shell of the re-designed ship will blow off and reveal the original series Enterprise!...Or not.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


> I don't think there's gonna be any tugs or external assistance for the Enterprise's liftoff.
> 
> I think they're gonna fire up those impulse engines and it's gonna blast off like the ship from "When Worlds Collide" on steroids. Never mind that the blast is gonna reash all the way to Des Moines, _it'll be so kewl!!!_:drunk:


Then you really would have a 'popcorn' flick.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

'The Starfleet Farmer'!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> Then you really would have a 'popcorn' flick.


:roll:

Hubert:

That was so bad it was good!


----------



## quantumtorpedo (Nov 23, 2008)

Most definantly. Probably 3 or 4. Looks to be a very nice design. Hope they do it in 1/350 scale. Whatever the scale I will still buy.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

quantumtorpedo said:


> Whatever the scale I will still buy.


Even if it was 1:1?


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Here's the latest JJ quote from the Hollywood Reporter on the Trek advertising campaign:

"Oh, there's a whole crazy campaign that is going to ...," Abrams said, trailing off. "It's insane. We have a life-size Enterprise, but I'm not allowed to talk about it."

Sounds like 1:1 scale to me!!!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Guy Schlicter said:


> It has long been established that the Enterprise major components were built at the San Franscico Navy Yards then transported into Earth Orbit and assembled in orbit


Where, exactly, was this "established"?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

sbaxter said:


> Where, exactly, was this "established"?


SB -

While it was never established on screen, the book "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield (first published in 1968) has a reference that says that the Enterprise components were built on Earth at the San Francisco Navy Yards, but entire ship was assembled in space. I remember reading that too, but it's been a long time. I had to look it up online to confirm where I read it.

"The Making of Star Trek" was the first behind the scenes book on the series. I imagine that the construction references came from either Gene Roddenberry or Matt Jeffries. Details like that always get stuck into the series writing guide (or "bible") for potential future use.

Bryan


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Gemini1999 said:


> it was never established on screen


That's what I thought. I've read the book in question (and countless others as well) so many times I've lost count, but what _has_ been clearly established is that anything not actually spelled out on screen is subject to change.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

saddly yes i wood, 

I hear there gonna make a new film of the Alamo, also heard there gonna give the Texas rebles machine guns and new uniforms to spice up the new flix and place it in vegas..............................>>>>>>>>>>>>.........................


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I think we've gone far, far beyond the original question.

Would YOU buy a model of the "new" _Enterprise_?

I would, just _because_ it's different. 

Not because I love it or hate it. It has... interesting lines and design.

I know that there are some very vocal members saying they wouldn't, and that's fine. Others said they would, others noncommital. That's all okay.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Would I buy a model of the new Enterprise?*

Yes, I would.
I would buy one because it's new.
I'm a model kit junkie.
I'm a spaceship junkie.
I have bought every "Star Trek" kit.
I even bought a Kazon Torpedo!


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

CaptFrank said:


> I even bought a Kazon Torpedo!


[Crewman #6] "Oh. Oh! That's just wrong!" [/Crewman #6]


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> I even bought a Kazon Torpedo!


So, _you're_ the one...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> I even bought a Kazon Torpedo!


Good heavens...a Yale man!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

^^ :lol:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

San Francisco Shipyards was actually listed on the USS Enterprise nameplate next to the turbolift doors on the bridge.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

did it say San Fransisco , _California_?

what would you say if I told you that after the events of the third world war, that there was a ship yard (notice I didn't say NAVAL BASE) but a ship yard named after Saint Francisco built in the fields outside of Riverside, Iowa?

:wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'd say - and with all due respect, Lou  - that yer full of bupkiss! And I don't even know what bupkiss is. 

OK, seriously, tho, the dedication plaque does indeed say "San Francisco Shipyards", which tends to infer some sort of shipyards either in, near or immediately above the city of San Francisco, California. TOS was very Amero-centric, if you'll recall. To make the "leap of logic" that they were indeed speaking of SF, CA, isn't exactly a daring thing.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The plaque reads as follows:

USS ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANCISCO, CA

That's it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Maybe that's where the plaque was made.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> Maybe that's where the plaque was made.


That's good!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Griffworks said:


> I'd say - and with all due respect, Lou  - that yer full of bupkiss! And I don't even know what bupkiss is.


The word Bupkis means 'nothing, zero, having no value'.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

much as I would love to be filled with nothing..('specially after the holiday feasting season)

If that plaque is the holy grail of canon, why haven't I heard any of you guys correct people when they refer to the Enterprise as a "Constitution Class" when she's clearly a "Starship Class"

just askin'


CA could stand for Central America for all I care...life is too short to sweat the small stuff


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's amazing how we sometimes obsess over every little detail even where the filmmakers probably just shot from the hip in some cases. Just before they were about to shoot, the DP probably looked through the viewfinder and said 'That wall behind Bill looks pretty blank, could you have the props guys put something there after we break for lunch?' (lol)


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gemini1999 said:


> The word Bupkis means 'nothing, zero, having no value'.


Griff,
here's your moment of Zen for the day...

Can one be full of nothing?

I loves me some existensialism...even if i can't spell it


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> The plaque reads as follows:
> 
> USS ENTERPRISE
> STARSHIP CLASS
> ...


OK, noted. That still infers that _Enterprise_ was constructed in/near/above San Francisco, CA. Since _Enterprise_ is a ship, it stands to reason it was built at a shipyard. 




Gemini1999 said:


> The word Bupkis means 'nothing, zero, having no value'.


Y'know, I actually knew that, but until I saw you put the definition out there, I forgot I knew that. I first read that in a book when I was around 10 or 12 and had to go to a library to look it up as it wasn't in the dictionary we had at the house. I think a character had that as a last name in some SciFi or Fantasy book I was reading, sorta like the main character in John Carpenter's They Live was named John Nada. 

Er... Anyhow.... 




Lou Dalmaso said:


> *>SNIPPERINO!<*
> 
> If that plaque is the holy grail of canon, why haven't I heard any of you guys correct people when they refer to the Enterprise as a "Constitution Class" when she's clearly a "Starship Class"
> 
> just askin'


Oh, c'mon, Lou! Now you're being disingenious w/your reply. For starters, it has indeed been brought up several times - here and at other forums! - and several folks have said something along the lines of "well, technically, it's '_Starship_ Class'". 

But then again, that fails the Common Sense Test, doncha think? Honestly, wouldn't StarFleet come up with something a bit more clever than that, given that we've seen a number of other ship names that are more along the lines of keeping with modern day ship-class naming? Sorta like everything else in TOS? 

Plus, I do believ that in "Space Seed" one of the displays that Khan is looking at shows "Constitution Class". I'm pretty certain that's where fans originally came up with the class name in early fan-produced Treknical Data.


> CA could stand for Central America for all I care...life is too short to sweat the small stuff


Then I gotta ask - why are you sweating the small stuff by arguing such minutiae...? 

Just askin'.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Griff,
> here's your moment of Zen for the day...
> 
> Can one be full of nothing?
> ...


Yes, but only after a really good morning constitutional. And even then, the state of nothingness doens't last for long.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

After honest consideration with myself, I've placed this as the worst looking Enterprise to date. To me it is even worst than the cartoon Bonaventure. So my first thought was no way would I plunk down good cash on rubish. On second thought, the nacelles can go straight into the ole circular file but the rest looks to be useful in kitbashing.
I'll try to buy my copy from the bargin bin if possible.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

yes,
I'm purposefully arguing a detail to it's extreme absurdity to prove that exact point. Also know as "picking the molecular nit"

It goes to show that getting all torqued up over a minor detail just makes you look foolish and suks all the enjoyment out of what could be a really fun film to watch.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That oft-cited diagram wasn't from "Space Seed", it was from "The Trouble With Tribbles", specifically, it was the "technical journal" that Scotty was looking at in the rec room.

The erroneous attribution comes from that fanzine article by Greg Jein about the registry numbers in "Court Martial". Goes to show ya even the experts can make an occasional whoopsie.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I'm hoping for a 1/350 version to be released as a kit, with parts for a shuttle bay. Ive been wondering how you could light the deflector dish and bussards to achieve the on-screen effect, however. Those seem like they will be challenges to light on any large version of the kit.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)




----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Yes, but only after a really good morning constitutional.



So that would make it the _USS Constitutional _class?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> That oft-cited diagram wasn't from "Space Seed", it was from "The Trouble With Tribbles", specifically, it was the "technical journal" that Scotty was looking at in the rec room.
> 
> The erroneous attribution comes from that fanzine article by Greg Jein about the registry numbers in "Court Martial". Goes to show ya even the experts can make an occasional whoopsie.


And I sit corrected once again.  I was indeed using that same "T-Negative" article by Greg Jein as my point of reference as I have that on my Hard Drive and know exactly where to look for it. Sadly, I even knew at one point years ago that it was erroneous, but forgot about that one, too. Not sure if that's from being in a hurry, getting old or what....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> And I sit corrected once again.  I was indeed using that same "T-Negative" article by Greg Jein as my point of reference as I have that on my Hard Drive and know exactly where to look for it. Sadly, I even knew at one point years ago that it was erroneous, but forgot about that one, too. Not sure if that's from being in a hurry, getting old or what....


I'm not sure of the cause, but whatever it is, I've had it my whole life

I've found that the RE-learning curve is steeper than the initial learning curve. 

I'll get things turned around in my head sometimes or otherwise misremember prompting me at long last to go back to the source material. I then have to work hard to overcome what I've been erroneously thinking for far too long. It's like breaking a bad habit I should have never developed in the first place.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I really want a 1/350 model of the TOS production Enterprise but I'd buy one of the new STXI Enterprise too. More Starships the better!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm not sure of the cause, but whatever it is, I've had it my whole life
> 
> I've found that the RE-learning curve is steeper than the initial learning curve.
> 
> I'll get things turned around in my head sometimes or otherwise misremember prompting me at long last to go back to the source material. I then have to work hard to overcome what I've been erroneously thinking for far too long. It's like breaking a bad habit I should have never developed in the first place.


I think that my main problem is that I let myself get too busy, then get lazy on top of it and don't bother to go back and research what I've said. And I should research it before I post, but I sometimes get a bit short on time, so get lazy and don't.....


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Captain April said:


>


Maybe that is where she was comissioned rather than built???



Steve Mavronis said:


> I really want a 1/350 model of the TOS production Enterprise but I'd buy one of the new STXI Enterprise too. More Starships the better!


I still reckon a size between 1/1000 & 1/350 would be beaut, a much more storable option and still big enought to detail n light. :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Although the Enterprise in Trek XI is shown under construction in Iowa, the registration plaque on the new bridge set references the "San Francisco Fleet Yards, Earth" (not that we ever get close enough to read this in the film).

I admit I'm baffled by this seeming inconsistency.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

and in tiny text below that, it says

"neener, neener, neener"


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think this just underscores that these guys just don't know what they're doing.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

This is from the trekmovie interview with Roberto Orci. Looks like they gave this a lot of thought...

"TrekMovie: On the Enterprise being built in Iowa — It is amazing that in January after the first trailer, where the ship was being built was the hottest topic. It seem after the second trailer, it still is the hottest topic. Are you surprised this is such a big deal to fans?

Roberto Orci: No, not at all. From the minute we pulled that fan photo of the Enterprise being built in a ship yard - we showed that to JJ as a way to get him excited and to show him how grounded Star Trek could be, literally [laughs]. And he really locked onto that image. We showed with the caveat that if we went down that road, there would be some strong fan reaction, but that we thought we could justify it, but we knew it from second one.

TrekMovie: And do you have any internal reasoning why the ship is being built in Riverside Iowa instead of San Francisco.

Roberto Orci: Yes."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I don't care what sort of rationalization they've cooked up for it, building a ship of that size on the ground is idiotic, and doesn't give me one lick of confidence as far as the rest of the film is concerned.

I was saying all along that the way the ship was dealt with was the one non-negotiable deal breaker with me, and from my vantage point, they not only screwed up that simple benchmark, they violated her on the scale of a snuff film.

At this point, JJ can do me the great honor of eating my shorts, and I *still* won't come within ten parsecs of this film, or purchasing any of the merchandise.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

At least, she'll be sounding "correct"

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/maj...o-play-computer-voice-in-new-star-trek-movie/


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> At least, she'll be sounding "correct"
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/maj...o-play-computer-voice-in-new-star-trek-movie/


Well... her german voice isn`t alive anymore, so...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> At least, she'll be sounding "correct"
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/maj...o-play-computer-voice-in-new-star-trek-movie/


Great news


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> At least, she'll be sounding "correct"
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/maj...o-play-computer-voice-in-new-star-trek-movie/


What an awesome touch! Classy nod to the fans...

I wonder if she'll read the lines TOS computer style, or TNG computer style? Either will be cool, imho.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'd think she'll sound just like a regular woman. We've got automated systems now that sound pretty natural. That should be a no brainer 200 years in the future. It was kind of a big deal when TOS was made. Today, not so much. Good touch though.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, we've got a ship that looks like it was designed by Playskool, a bridge that looks like the cosmetics department at Macy's, an engine room that allegedly makes the the Titanic's engine room look downright modern, corridors that were ripped off from either "The Andromeda Strain" or "X-Men", I'm not sure which, and Kirk not only being the youngest captain in the fleet but the youngest member of the _crew_, *BUT AT LEAST MAJEL'S DOING THE COMPUTER VOICE!!* :thumbsup:

Somebody shoot me now.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Somebody shoot me now.


"We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not... 

...going... 

...to kill...

..._today!_"


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In the words of a possessed Scotty: 'Now get out. Get out or we'll KILL YA!'


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

With the admission from Roberto Orci that we're looking at an alternate timeline, and _not_ necessarily a negation of the traditional timeline, maybe we should have a new poll, since a lot of the decisions were being made based upon feelings towards the film.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

" Working.... "


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Captain,
You really ought to beep when you back up like that

See what happens when form an opinion and set it in stone before you have all of the facts?


It's not an "Admission" if it was planned all along. it's a "revelation"

An admission is something you do if you feel you have to apologize for something

it's OK, we'll still let you into the theatre and you don't have buy a ticket for a chick flick and sneak into "Trek"


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Captain,
> You really ought to beep when you back up like that
> 
> See what happens when form an opinion and set it in stone before you have all of the facts?
> ...


And a 'cop-out' is still a 'cop-out' ...

Lou, can you save us a seat at that great remake "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? It also was pushed back several months for its release and had positive industry buzz preceding it (until released, that is). If we don't show up right away just enjoy the movie anyway. Its got everything you want to see in a movie - special-effects, big name stars and a big budget...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alright you guys, *knock it off*! If you can't play well with others you'll be given the opportunity to take a break to cool your jets for a bit. 

And yes, that's both of you....


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

hey,
by a great coincidence(sp?) I just got back from seeing The Day the Earth Stood Still and thought I'd check in.

You know what? I found some things to enjoy about this remake, too (Except the kid, I'd a belted him early and often).

There were a lot of similarities btween this and the original, but this Klaatu was a lot less forgiving and there wasn't the "gee that Abe Lincoln musta been somethin'" jingoism.

still a better way to spend two hours than gripin' over something that nobodys seen all of yet

Peace


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Whaddaya think Jeff, is it time for me to step in and push the big red button again ????


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I can't bear even the _thought _of seeing _TDTESS _remake.

The original was such a cool movie that, after the severe disappointment of _The Haunting_ remake under similar circumstances (going from very limited special effects to a pimped-out CGI cartoon) I do not want to risk it. 

I'm getting a severe case of remake burn-out, I think. If the original is a great movie, it's going to take a lot to get me into the theatre for one. I just don't get the _need _for a remake in the majority of the cases.

Growing up, most of the remakes I saw I didn't even realize were remakes to begin with. If I enjoyed them, frequently I found that I enjoyed the originals much better. That is definitely the case with _King Kong_ and quite a few others.

It's sort of analogous to my really enjoying the Bee Gee's _Sgt. Pepper's_ album remake. I REALLY liked it until I discovered the original Beatles' version and after that it was just so much useless trash.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Captain April said:


> With the admission from Roberto Orci that we're looking at an alternate timeline, and _not_ necessarily a negation of the traditional timeline, maybe we should have a new poll, since a lot of the decisions were being made based upon feelings towards the film.


How can you be banned and still post? Just curious.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April was given a 7 day ban _after_ the post in question was made.


----------

