# OT: Koerner Enterprise concept isn't the Trek movie verion



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

*OT: Koerner Enterprise concept isn't the Trek movie version*

... but, apparently, nothing has been ruled out in terms of new designs. This from TrekMovie.com:

http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/04/gabe-kroener-concept-mistaken-for-leaked-enterprise/


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Gee - it looked kinda neat!
Huzz


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

I like it – greeblies and all – as a ship of its own, but I don't think I could get past it in the new Trek film.

Still, it would be ace to model at 1/350.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Thank god! While it was well done... to me it was _not_ Trek.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Personally, I don't need JJ & Co to tell me what the Enterprise looks like!

Period.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

It occurs to me ... perhaps we should start an internet petition to hand in to JJ to tell him we like our Enterprise as she is, and that she doesn't need redesigning, refitting or re-imagining. Or maybe even a FB group. Or something.

Just my 0,02 $ worth.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Reimagined Enterprise, for the reimagined crew. Doesn't matter, I have no plans to see it. Star Trek is dead.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

X15-A2 said:


> Personally, I don't need JJ & Co to tell me what the Enterprise looks like!
> 
> Period.



Count me in that club! :thumbsup: 


http://nova-designs.com/2d_3d/3d_imgs/trek/TOS_E_v3/E_beauty5_1280x1024.jpg


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Xenon said:


> It occurs to me ... perhaps we should start an internet petition to hand in to JJ to tell him we like our Enterprise as she is, and that she doesn't need redesigning, refitting or re-imagining. Or maybe even a FB group. Or something.
> 
> Just my 0,02 $ worth.


And we all know how well that worked when Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's been known for some time that Koerner's E isn't being used for the movie. And thank god, 'cause it's fugly beyond fugly.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> I like it – greeblies and all – as a ship of its own, but I don't think I could get past it in the new Trek film.
> 
> Still, it would be ace to model at 1/350.


Put me into that category. It's very cool but couldn't reasonably represent what the 1701 used to look like nor could I tolerate a "reboot" of that magnitude.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

BEBruns said:


> And we all know how well that worked when Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond.


I'm not privy to the Daniel Craig internet thing ...

Then again, I rather quite liked his turn as Bond. *ducks*


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

I tell ya... it scares me to read some of the stuff I have about them re-designing the Enterprise for the movie. Do they really want to alienate all us TOS fans? There's absolutely no reason it should look any different from the original pilot or TV series.

And, Xenon, I'm with you. I thought Daniel Craig was an excellent Bond 

Regards,
Todd


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

The thing is, I can understand _some_ desire to do something with the Enterprise, in the sense that if she underwent refit between TOS and TMP, it's understandable that she might have undergone some work between her original launch and TOS. I don't think any of us would presume to debate that. But after seeing the Akira-prise (don't get me started), I simply have no faith in the notion that what we will see in the film we seem like a logical precursor to the TOS vessel, and that's what bothers me the most.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

OK. Apparently I assumed people knew more about the Bond controversy. When Craig was announced there was whining all over the internet. "James Bond isn't blond!" "He's too ugly to play Bond!" The producers wisely ignored the complaints of these "fans" and Craig ended up being declared the best Bond since Connery. 

Frankly, I see the same thing happening here. There's no reason to change the look of the Enterprise? How about the fact it is no longer 1966? Since then we've had 2001, STAR WARS, ALIEN, even the orignal STAR TREK movie. The bar has been raised on what a realistic future looks like. If they try to slavishly recreate the look of the original series, audiences will laugh.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

It's no longer 1977, either. Why didn't they change the look of the Millenium Falcon in the special editions?


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's no longer 1977, either. Why didn't they change the look of the Millenium Falcon in the special editions?


Because STAR WARS was made in 1977. We're talking about a movie being made in 2007-2008. 

And yes, I'm aware the source material was made in 1966, but we're not talking about the source, we're talking about something new based on the old series.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I don't think there's any logic in changing the _1701_ _drastically_ (and the _degree_ of change is what we're talking about). 

It had better be very close to the _TOS _version for me to willingly suspend disbelief. I want consistency in the look of the ship. 

It all seems to boil down to a sense of aesthetics, however. If the _TOS Enterprise_ offends thee, pluck it out.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It ain't 1944 any more either. Let's hope the next WWII film that gets made updates the P-51s to look like F-16s so audiences won't laugh. :freak:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

John, John, John...
aw man, why are you going there again? 

Star Trek is *not * History...


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

John P said:


> It ain't 1944 any more either. Let's hope the next WWII film that gets made updates the P-51s to look like F-16s so audiences won't laugh. :freak:


A better analogy is if they made a WW II movie and shot the flying scenes with obvious rear projection.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

John P said:


> It ain't 1944 any more either. Let's hope the next WWII film that gets made updates the P-51s to look like F-16s so audiences won't laugh. :freak:


Or _Spruance_-class destroyers at Pearl Harbor, 1941? Oh yeah, forgot. They did feature in the Michael Bay flick.

66th anniverary of the Day of Infamy, BTW. Here in NZ anyways, tomorrow for you guys.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Supposedly from those who have seen the ILM version of the big E in the new movie, it is still the same basic shape and look but does not look like the ship from TOS. As long as drastic changes aren't made I would not be opposed to this. However, in saying that, I was also very much opposed to the refit E in STTMP but gre to love the design to the point that it is one of my favorites. So this design could be a favorite as well.

One last thing to note ... The teaser is supposed to be out next month when "Cloverfield" premieres that shows the construction of the big E so we'll get our first look around then.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> One last thing to note ... The teaser is supposed to be out next month when "Cloverfield" premieres that shows the construction of the big E so we'll get our first look around then.


Fingers crossed, then, lads.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> The teaser is supposed to be out next month when "Cloverfield" premieres that shows the construction of the big E so we'll get our first look around then.


Just wondering where you heard this.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

www.trekmovie.com

More specifically:

http://trekmovie.com/2007/11/30/star-trek-teaser-coming-with-cloverfield/#more-1313


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Browsing through the trailer article on TrekMovie, there was a link for this 3D render of Enterprise in the comments:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/1701_3d-1.jpg

I don't know who the artist is, but I love the render. Just a few little accents to the hull, plus the windows along the rim of the primary hull showing activity behind them ... very nice. This is what I'd love to see on the big screen.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm sure to see this movie when it is released, But if this is around the time of kirks early adventures then i wish they would stay as faithfull to the original series desine as possible.And i'm sure if they thought about it,They could even have bill shatner in it. Just before the nexus incident.The enterprise of young kirks time probably was looking like the one in the pilot.It Sounds....Logical :dude:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

spocks beard said:


> I'm sure to see this movie when it is released, But if this is around the time of kirks early adventures then i wish they would stay as faithfull to the original series desine as possible.And i'm sure if they thought about it,They could even have bill shatner in it. Just before the nexus incident.The enterprise of young kirks time probably was looking like the one in the pilot.It Sounds....Logical :dude:


You mean with data printed out on paper, giant plexiglass communicators, and TV sets in the officers' cabins?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Come on now, BEBruns. We've all got the right to our opinions. Let's be mindful of the fact that not everyone is going to agree on all counts. I get what you're saying, but don't agree with it. For me, there's no need for the original design to be changed, tho I have no problem with minor changes here and there. 


Let's everyone remember and respect the opinions of other folks. There's no need to pick apart the opinions of those with whom we don't agree. Let's not let this get ugly, M'Kay?


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

So long as they don't make Starbuck a gir...oh never mind. :drunk:


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Zing !


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Come on now, BEBruns. We've all got the right to our opinions. Let's be mindful of the fact that not everyone is going to agree on all counts. I get what you're saying, but don't agree with it. For me, there's no need for the original design to be changed, tho I have no problem with minor changes here and there.
> 
> 
> Let's everyone remember and respect the opinions of other folks. There's no need to pick apart the opinions of those with whom we don't agree. Let's not let this get ugly, M'Kay?


I apologize if my comments came across as nasty. 

I've been a fan of STAR TREK since I was 9 and I frankly can't understand the desire of some to trap it in some retro-geek ghetto. There is no reason to give non-fans more reason to treat it as a joke.

Actually, I think the design should probably lean toward the pilot version. I think they actually look less dated than the series, but both versions contain a lot of things that just look silly in retrospect. No surprise. No science fiction writer has ever been able to accurately predict the future, let alone a TV production designer. 

I'd like to see a combination of the pilot and series version with some of the more dated elements of both eliminated and a much higher level of detail.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Sorry, wasn't meaning that you were getting nasty. My apologies. I don't think you were, but I can see things headin' that way with some of the subtle jabs that have come up against opposites sides of the discussion. It's the little digs that tend to get under folks' skin - which I've been guilty of allowing happen to me in the past.  

To a point, I agree w/both sides. However, I'd _really_ rather not see a big change in the exterior or interior of _Enterprise_. I don't have a problem with subtle stuff, such as changing the TV screens to more of a flat screen or something similar, some changes to the surfaces of the control stations, minor exterior changes to the ship herself, simple updates to hand-held equipment (tho I really don't see a need for this at all) and other stuff that doesn't do a major change in the look of things. While I like Mr. Koerner's version of _Enterprise_, I don't like it as being a replacement *for* _Enterprise_. I think she'd look good as, say the original _Constitution_ as she underwent initial trials with our beloved TOS design being the more finalized version - either "The Cage" version or the later production version - or even a mid-level refit prior to TMP. 

I just don't see any need for a major change in the production designs from the 60's TOS - either for the sets & props or the ship herself. 



BEBruns said:


> I'd like to see a combination of the pilot and series version with some of the more dated elements of both eliminated and a much higher level of detail.


That's something I could definitely go for. Such as Dennis Bailey's "_U.S.S. Phoenix_"? It's sort of a cross between the NX-01 level of details and the TOS "no details" designs. Sorry, don't have a link, but it's got more detail without going overboard, IMNSHO. Sort of like what I think you're talking about, if we're on the same page.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

BEBruns said:


> No science fiction writer has ever been able to accurately predict the future, let alone a TV production designer.



Actually that's not true at all. For example both Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov accurately predicted multiple events and technologies and in fact inspired several through their insightful and forward looking sci-fi writings. 

Hollywood on the otherhand...


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Nova Designs said:


> Actually that's not true at all. For example both Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov accurately predicted multiple events and technologies and in fact inspired several through their insightful and forward looking sci-fi writings.


As well as the more recent wave of luminaries, such as William Gibson and Bruce Sterling.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

I've been a star trek fan since the early seventies when it was first rebroadcast for syndication.I still am a big fan of the original series and all the other spin offs,sorry if i ruffled a few feathers but it was just my oppinion regarding the desine of the enterprise.I thought it would be cool to leave it close to the way it did in the original series,if they are doing a movie around that time period. By all meens they can replace the tv sets and big plexiglass communicators. Peace! :dude:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Actually that's not true at all. For example both Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov accurately predicted multiple events and technologies and in fact inspired several through their insightful and forward looking sci-fi writings.
> 
> Hollywood on the otherhand...


Yes, many writers have made accurate individual predictions, but no work has ever gotten everything right. And often, when we look at it in hindsight, there are often obvious blindspots. For instance, in TOS, we are shown table top computer terminals, but they did not have display screens. They had to make "tapes" and play them on a viewer.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Hey Griff- Thought you might like to see this phoenix flyby on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XuTQwie_Y&feature=related

I think it's pretty cool! It's got me even more stoked about my build.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Unfortunately I can't view YouTube here. The COMM Nazi's have it blocked....


----------



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

I'd love to see the grand lady on the big screen but it seems like it would make more sense to see a brief shot of it in space dock or in passing. The USS Republic would make a better choice for the pre-TOS film. After all that was Kirks first assignment.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Modeler1964 said:


> Hey Griff- Thought you might like to see this phoenix flyby on youtube...





Griffworks said:


> Unfortunately I can't view YouTube here. The COMM Nazi's have it blocked....


Griff, it's basically a 15-second flyby test shot of a CGI TOS Enterprise (port side, "camera" level with the secondary hull), with roughly the same level of detail as the remastered episodes. A few minor changes, such as the Bussard Collectors, but basically the ship we all know and love.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Radical design.........

http://www.technochitlins.com/mt-archives/Enterprise.jpg

...I know, it's crazy, but I love her. 


and the only cast that would ever truly work.....

http://www.sherylfranklin.com/images/trek/tos_002.jpg


Dangerous thinking I know.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, imagine being perfectly happy with things the way they are.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> John, John, John...
> aw man, why are you going there again?
> 
> Star Trek is *not * History...


 Of course it is. The _show _is history. It happened 40 years ago in California - a specific series of events at a specific time in the past, which happened in a specific, unalterable way. Everybody knows how and when it happened, and what it looked like. Sounds like a piece of history to _me_.

Any writer who can't write a new story that fits into existing events in an existing history (real or fictional), isn't worth the moniker.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

They shouldnt be messing with TOS.

PERIOD.

New ship, different crew in that era, fine.

Even Captain April or something.

But recasting and mucking with it all is wrong.


Surprised fans are so receptive actually.

Trek deserves better then the standard issue all too common Hollywood rehash.

Creative bankruptcy.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

CessnaDriver said:


> Creative bankruptcy.



Welcome to Hollywood.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Since half-way through DS9, which I didn't like (*ducks*), I thought that the only thing to do with the Trek franchise was to shelve it for another 20 years until someone can pick it up Roddenberry-style, not Berman/Bragga/RDM-style. That sentiment was reinforced even more so by the time Enterprise came along (*ducks again*). Unfortunately, as Cessna indicated, there's a good deal of creative bankruptcy in HW, and I just don't get any feeling that the Trek franchise is going to progress in the same spirit as ToS and the first half of TNG's run.

Sigh.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

They should probably stick with something very close to the pilot Enterprise, which is the first Enterprise version they made. Or something close to the schematic drawings published in TMOST that Jefferies made before they built the model. Watch it be something like the Franz Joseph blueprints


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

We already know what the ship is supposed to look like during the early days of Kirk's command.

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x03hd/wherenomanhasgonebeforehd385.jpg

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x03hd/wherenomanhasgonebeforehd138.jpg


----------

