# New Enterprise profile



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

These lines are beginning to grow on me.


----------



## 88th division (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm sorry. If the ship is NCC-1701 it has to look like it did in the original series. As far as i am concerned that is the one true Enterprise!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The new ship looks like the MAD Magazine version of the original.


----------



## NWO (Jul 26, 2004)

I kind of like the new design, except for the nacelles being too close together and being TOO FAT!

Of course, or ORIGINAL original will always be the best.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

So there isn't a way to insert a picture that you're not pulling from a webpage? 

Anyone? 

Bueller?


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

if your posting in the advance mode,below there is additional options there is a manage attachments.you can downloand an image from any file in your computer.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Advance mode???? 

I see the 'insert image' button, which wants an internet link.

I see the large 'manage attachments' button which lets you browse to files on your computer and upload them. But not insert them as pictures. 

So what is advance mode?


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

If they were going to remake the Enterprise for this film why couldn't they have made an appealing looking Ship to both the Old Generation and New.And as said in the thread above the True Enterprise is the NCC-1701 as seen in the Original Series.Don't disgrace one of the best looking Spaceships ever designed for Science Fiction with an awful incarnation of it.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Guy Schlicter said:


> If they were going to remake the Enterprise for this film why couldn't they have made an appealing looking Ship to both the Old Generation and New.And as said in the thread above the True Enterprise is the NCC-1701 as seen in the Original Series.Don't disgrace one of the best looking Spaceships ever designed for Science Fiction with an awful incarnation of it.


I think a lot more people have warmed up to the ship now and it's sort of become a non-issue. It looks very graceful in the trailers IMHO. And I nearly vomited in my mouth when I first the thing in all fairness.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

My only gripe with the new E is the bussard domes on the front of the nacelles not being red. If and when they do a kit of her I know I'll be doing those in red regardless.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> The new ship looks like the MAD Magazine version of the original.


Actually, when _Mad_ magazine did their Star Trek spoof back in 1967, they pretty much got the _Enterprise_ right!










At least, it met with expert approval.












Jodet said:


> I see the 'insert image' button, which wants an internet link.
> 
> I see the large 'manage attachments' button which lets you browse to files on your computer and upload them. But not insert them as pictures.


The way I do it is: I go to the Manage Attachments window. I use the "browse" button to select an image file from my computer, then I click on "upload." The filename appears under "Current Attachments." I click on the filename and it opens the picture in a new browser window with its own URL. I then copy and paste that URL into my post, select it, and click on either the Image icon or the Image Left icon, and Bob's your uncle.

Unless there's an easier way, in which case Bob isn't your uncle.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

scotpens said:


> Actually, when _Mad_ magazine did their Star Trek spoof back in 1967, they pretty much got the _Enterprise_ right!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, at least that works!!!! Thanks for the tip Uncle Bob. I suspect the next tip is 'resize your file on your computer before you upload it'.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Jodet said:


> . . . I suspect the next tip is 'resize your file on your computer before you upload it'.


Well, yes, if it's too big.

I usually use Save for Web in Photoshop to resize my image files and save them as GIFs. But there are plenty of simpler programs that'll do the same thing.

And I still think the "new-old" _Enterprise_ looks like Harley Earl redesigned it. When he was drunk.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

In reallity guys it's not the new Enterprise but instead it is the new original Enterprise.
And for those of us who don't realy like this design by Abrams then just look at it this way, it is from a parallel universe that just took it's ship designs down a different path.


----------



## EAGLE_01 (Sep 10, 2008)

Trek Ace said:


> The new ship looks like the MAD Magazine version of the original.


HERE HERE!!!!

That thing is the most unbalanced, cartoonish looking 3rd grade drawing of the beautiful starship named Enterprise I have ever seen. It looks like 5 people worked on different areas, without communicating with each other. It remind me of that word game people used to play where you start a sentence and pass it around the room and read the result at the end, which ends up being some rediculous statement not even close to the original. That thing looks silly, fragile, and non-functional. There will never be a ship built that looks like that, guarenteed. Aesthetics is an important part of design, is it not? 

Look at the old pre-production designs that Mr. Roddenberry rejected. This one fits right in there. He said "No fins, No rockets, and it has to look powerfull.." That thing clearly is NOT what Mr Roddenberry would approve of.


----------



## EAGLE_01 (Sep 10, 2008)

irishtrek said:


> In reallity guys it's not the new Enterprise but instead it is the new original Enterprise.
> And for those of us who don't realy like this design by Abrams then just look at it this way, it is from a parallel universe that just took it's ship designs down a different path.



Then it should have a title that indicates such, like "Star Trek: Alternate Universe" or something instead of trying to rip-off Mr Roddenberry's great dream of the future, and calling it his own. Just my opinion, of course, but I feel insulted when I look at that thing, and I think Abrams is a plageristic hack. People aren't going to look at that thing and say "Oh, Cool!!" like they did for TOS Enterprise, they are going to look at it and go "how stupid" or "that is so fake". That thing is worse than ugly.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

EAGLE_01 said:


> Then it should have a title that indicates such, like "Star Trek: Alternate Universe" or something instead of trying to rip-off Mr Roddenberry's great dream of the future, and calling it his own. Just my opinion, of course, but I feel insulted when I look at that thing, and I think Abrams is a plageristic hack. People aren't going to look at that thing and say "Oh, Cool!!" like they did for TOS Enterprise, they are going to look at it and go "how stupid" or "that is so fake". That thing is worse than ugly.


How can somebody be a plagiarist hack when you are HIRED by the entity that holds all legal rights to the material?

Like it, don't like it...it's immaterial at this point. This IS the ship we will have. I for one am tired of this same argument being brought up time and time again in a new thread.

They redesigned the ship to what they felt suited their requirements. Nothing you or I say or feel will change that. I was one who posted their dislike for this design and although I am still not happy with it (engines), I am starting to find redeeming elements in the ship.

This is no paralled universe folks, it is a fundamental shift in the time line that alters events and technology and most everything we knew is no more.

This movie looks like it will be good. I will see it and then and ONLY then will I decide if I like the changes or not

Until then, let's stop these endless bitch-fest threads that do nothing but rehash the same old arguments over and over. You're beating a dead horse here.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> This is no paralled universe folks, it is a fundamental shift in the time line that alters events and technology and most everything we knew is no more.


Roberto Orci has admitted that this movie takes place in an alternate timeline.

Care to try again?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

EAGLE_01 said:


> HERE HERE!!!!
> 
> That thing is the most unbalanced, cartoonish looking 3rd grade drawing of the beautiful starship named Enterprise I have ever seen. It looks like 5 people worked on different areas, without communicating with each other. It remind me of that word game people used to play where you start a sentence and pass it around the room and read the result at the end, which ends up being some rediculous statement not even close to the original. That thing looks silly, fragile, and non-functional. There will never be a ship built that looks like that, guarenteed. Aesthetics is an important part of design, is it not?
> 
> Look at the old pre-production designs that Mr. Roddenberry rejected. This one fits right in there. He said "No fins, No rockets, and it has to look powerfull.." That thing clearly is NOT what Mr Roddenberry would approve of.


You know, it's funny. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE who has seen anything of this movie (I mean insiders, not people watching a trailer) have raved about it. These are real live people. Kevin Smith, Wil Wheaton, Leonard Nimoy, on and on. You pull up a DEAD PERSON and put your words into his mouth? You might want to re-think that.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Frankly, the one saving grace of this thing, the fact that it's an alternate timeline, is also the very thing that makes me least interested in seeing it.


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

To quote Kirk in ST III, "Young minds, Fresh Ideas. Be tolerant." Yes, I'm also an old "fuddy duddy" who preferres the old Enterprise over this new one. But give Paramount SOME credit. They are trying to breathe new life into what is an old franchise that was on the brink of if not already dead, a new life and bring in a new younger fanbase. So things HAD to be changed to draw them in.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Capt_L_Hogthrob said:


> To quote Kirk in ST III, "Young minds, Fresh Ideas. Be tolerant." Yes, I'm also an old "fuddy duddy" who preferres the old Enterprise over this new one. But give Paramount SOME credit. They are trying to breathe new life into what is an old franchise that was on the brink of if not already dead, a new life and bring in a new younger fanbase. So things HAD to be changed to draw them in.


You're right. I give them a lot of credit for keeping the series alive over the years. I just disagree with what they've done lately with the franchise.

The movies have really been stinkers lately and I went into the last two movies VERY ENTHUSIASTIC and VERY SURE that the movie would be really good at least and hopefully would blow me away. Pardon me for being cynical of what I've seen so far. It's just the way I see it. 

Now, on the other hand, if you want REAL cynicism you should ask me about our economy sometime. (I saw this coming years ago and got out of the stock market--whew!)


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

My favourite answer to all the arguments about the new film: read the credits. Right at the end it displays "Based Upon Star Trek Created by Gene Roddenberry". So it's someone's interpretation of the original. If you want more "Original" Trek, I would suggest holding a seance!

Rob


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Roberto Orci has admitted that this movie takes place in an alternate timeline.
> 
> Care to try again?


No I do not. From what I've heard, the event with the Kelvin is where the timeline is ALTERED (there is your alternate timeline) and that event leads to divergent development of events and technologies which is why things look different in this movie from what is "known" to have/will happen. I stand by what I said. If I am......incorrect, I will readily admit my error.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

So go download the original series from iTunes. Nobody is deleting them. Or go buy the DVDs. You can still do that. You can still buy an original 1701 model, either the AMT or the Polar Lights kit. Nobody is smashing the molds and melting the plastic. Its all still there for you and I to enjoy.

Hey, Eagle1 -- I LOVE THE NEW SHIP.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

robcomet said:


> My favourite answer to all the arguments about the new film: read the credits. Right at the end it displays "Based Upon Star Trek Created by Gene Roddenberry". So it's someone's interpretation of the original. If you want more "Original" Trek, I would suggest holding a seance!
> 
> Rob


Just so you know every Trek movie and series since TNG has had those same words in the credits "based upon Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry".
And the worst part of the new design in my opinon any way is the angle of the engine pylons, in a word UGH!!


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Roguepink said:


> So go download the original series from iTunes. Nobody is deleting them. Or go buy the DVDs. You can still do that. You can still buy an original 1701 model, either the AMT or the Polar Lights kit. Nobody is smashing the molds and melting the plastic. Its all still there for you and I to enjoy.
> 
> Hey, Eagle1 -- I LOVE THE NEW SHIP.


Still at it Rouge?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

"Never give up, never surrender!" - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I love the comment that there will NEVER be a real spaceship built that looks like this new Enterprise design.

Yeah...so on the other hand, the original Sixties design IS a valid design for a real spaceship? Yeah yeah, and of course Gene Roddenberry would never approve of this new design...some of these arguments are starting to sound like they're coming straight out of the Saturday Night Live Trekkies sketch.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=78685&stc=1&d=1237261137[/IMG-LEFT]




"GET A LIFE, will you people?
I mean, for crying out loud,
it's just a TV show!"


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

scotpens said:


> [IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=78685&stc=1&d=1237261137[/IMG-LEFT]
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I couldn't agree more!!! I think of this with EVERY disagreement about ST! And get out of the basement and for goodness sake, KISS A GIRL!!!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Some folks here should calm down, take a step back, and realize that your opinion is just that, an opinion. One is just as valid as the other. Anyway, you know what they say about opinions right? 

They're like backsides, everybody's got one and they all stink. 

Oh by the way the whole "Get a life" bit? Yeah, look in the dictionary under irony.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> No I do not. From what I've heard, the event with the Kelvin is where the timeline is ALTERED (there is your alternate timeline) and that event leads to divergent development of events and technologies which is why things look different in this movie from what is "known" to have/will happen. I stand by what I said. If I am......incorrect, I will readily admit my error.


And Orci explains why the original TOS time line still exists. According to Orci and his quantum mechanics theory...



> _*
> Anthony:* So what happens with the destruction of the Kelvin is the creation of an alternative timeline, but what happens to the prime timeline after Nero leaves it? Does it continue or does it wink out of existence once he goes back and creates this new timeline.
> 
> *Bob:It continues. According to the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever, quantum mechanics, it continues. *_


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Roberto Orci has admitted that this movie takes place in an alternate timeline.
> 
> Care to try again?


Be nice, now....


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

This is definitely in keeping with the theories put forth by Connie Willis in "To Say Nothing Of The Dog". Ms. Willis discards the notion of infinite universes each playing out subtle choices. She says that changes to history, rather than creating a split, instead create RIPPLES that propagate further depending on the severity of the changed event. The farther you go from the event that changes, the ripples lose energy and eventually fall back into the smooth surface. Time, in this manner, is SELF HEALING and does not create "quantum realities". Applying this theory, the change of the Kelvin being destroyed changes the development program of Starfleet enough that certain technologies advance and a young Jim Kirk has a bit of a different childhood. But self-healing time will ultimately make sure there is a Captain James T. Kirk in command of the Enterprise. By a generation or so down the line, what we know of as established history begins to look much like itself again.

So this new Star Trek is the result of a ripple-effect change of state and we are seeing the natural process of established history reasserting itself; no matter how much Nero tries to disrupt what was, James T. Kirk MUST be the captain of the Enterprise.

I'm more annoyed at the need to use time travel as a plot device in Star Trek. Its as though anyone who writes for Star Trek can't think of any other story ideas. At least Nemesis WASN'T A TIME TRAVEL STORY. Leave time travel to the Gallifreyans, I say.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Roguepink said:


> So this new Star Trek is the result of a ripple-effect change


Except for that pesky interview again where Orci announces they are following the quantum mechanics theory


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Orci wouldn't know quantum mechanics if it bit him in the exhaust manifold.

ah.... but I would have to expect Star Trek to have an ORIGINAL IDEA.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Roguepink said:


> Orci wouldn't know quantum mechanics if it bit him in the exhaust manifold.


I think it matters little weather or not Orci understands quantum mechanics. He expresses that the original TOS time line still exists even though Nero's intrusion of the time line makes a few changes. call this theory waht ever you like, but an alternate time line is established by Orci's comments.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

What do any of us like about the "new" Enterprise?
For me the saucer section looks ok.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I like the new engines and secondary hull. I wish the saucer had been pushed further along those lines. As it is, it looks like two different concepts slapped together at the neck.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

The "continuing" original time line in accordance with quantum mechanics is just a mollifying statement to shut those up who are complaining about the changing Trek history.

When McCoy changed the timeline in COTEoF, the Guardian told them they had to travel back themselves to correct the change. Why didn't it just offer to allow them to jump over to the original, unaltered timeline and live happily ever after?

On a more obvious note, with the release of the Star Trek ships in diecast, it's quite obvious that Paramount has erased the real original Enterprise from it's timeline and substituted this Invasion of the Body Snatcher replica ship.

Regardless,I just have to wait for the movie to see if Trek has a chance to be good again in this new incarnation or if it is just more disappointment. Here's hoping....


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> it's quite obvious that Paramount has erased the real original Enterprise from it's timeline and substituted this Invasion of the Body Snatcher replica ship.


No such thing has happened.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

EAGLE_01 said:


> Then it should have a title that indicates such, like "Star Trek: Alternate Universe" or something instead of trying to rip-off Mr Roddenberry's great dream of the future, and calling it his own.


Oh brother. :freak:



> Just my opinion, of course, but I feel insulted when I look at that thing,


And again....



> People aren't going to look at that thing and say "Oh, Cool!!" like they did for TOS Enterprise, they are going to look at it and go "how stupid" or "that is so fake".


Which is funny considering many have warmed up to it or at least have gotten more used to it, if they haven't yet. This is along the same lines of the comments for the last trailer I saw on one site. There were at least a few dozen positive reviews all in a row of the new trailer from fans, then one random guy comes along and says "J.J. has ruined the franchise and slapped all the fans in the face and insulted them," despite the fact that he was outnumbered several dozen to one on that "claim."


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Roguepink said:


> I'm more annoyed at the need to use time travel as a plot device in Star Trek. Its as though anyone who writes for Star Trek can't think of any other story ideas.


Time travel gave Star Trek two of its biggest box office intakes ("The Voyage Home," and "First Contact,") and some of the most popular episodes of Star Trek such as "City on the Edge," "Yesterday's Enterprise," "All Good Things," etc. So it can't be all a bad thing (unless one loathes those particular episodes.)

I understand it was a plot device possibly overused in Enterprise, etc, but fans shouldn't overthink it either. It just gets you from Point-A to Point-B, and takes no more than 10 seconds to do in a movie, so you shouldn't sweat it too much. It's giving us a chance to see Leonard Nimoy as Spock one more time and in possibly a meaningful way, so I'm not complaining about it.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

In the next few paragraphs I will state some things that are very obvious to Star Trek fans. Some things that people will no doubt say "duh" to. I am not necessarily saying these things to be informative…but more to prove my point.

The original Enterprise...designed in the mid 1960's...is a great and original concept that suited the era in which the show was created and aired. It is also largely made of WOOD. When we look at it today...at least when I do...I think of an interpretation of the FUTURE...that was done in the PAST. 

Ten years after TOS had ended, and the ST movies had started, EVERYBODY and their GRANDMOTHER KNEW that the image of that TOS ship, while although embedded forever in pop culture and the hearts and minds of Star Trek fans everywhere, looked DATED.

One of the primary influences on how the REFIT Enterprise was detailed was the actual NASA space shuttle of the current day (1977-79). We have all read the numerous articles about the shuttle tiles and the REFIT aztec patterns, right?

By the time the movies that started with the TOS crew had ended, we had already been given multiple spin-off series and further designs for federation starships that existed in those different FUTURE eras. 

In all cases, the designers paid some kind of homage to the original series - its concepts and designs - when they created their new starships - while also incorporating design elements of the "DAY" into their new ships. Just like the writers and producers paid homage to Roddenberry, in one way or another, with the way the characters were developed and portrayed, while making those characters, for the most part, reflective of the actual "TIMES" when the shows aired.

I think the people that scream blasphemy and are outraged by the design of the new ship or the idea of (yet another - in their minds) alternate timeline that allows for characters that are not quite the exact same as the originals -- are just too caught up in their own pre-conceived notions of what the new Star Trek movie SHOULD BE. Instead, they should try to be open minded and accept it for what it IS.

If you consider the different possibilities for this new series of movies (and I can only imagine that is the intent)...then if you put on you Spock EARS and apply LOGIC to the alternatives you will quickly see that not only did the creators of the new ST pay homage to the original concepts and ideas, they did it in about the only way possible - by allowing for an alternative time line.

I have stated before...would "mimicking" TOS, in terms of characters, designs (although lets's concede they would have to be more detailed to look REAL by today's standards), and production come across as anything but parody? I don't care how long they took, or how hard they tried, the simple answer is, THIS WOULD CREATE THE SMALLEST WINDOW OF POSSIBLE SUCCESS. 

And what NEW fans would this bring in? 

Would there be enough box office to support future movies/projects?

We all know the answers...

The folks responsible for the new movie did not abandon the original series or its concepts and ideas. They simply took the most logical path to create a new movie that allows them to explore those things TODAY. And tried to create a larger window for success so that future movies/projects have a chance.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

thanks, klgonsneedbotox. 
very well stated.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Yes, very well stated brother Klingon.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Now that klgonsneedbotox, was about the best thing I have read in a long time regarding the new film. Thanks for sharing


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Originally Posted by *Ohio_Southpaw*  
_it's quite obvious that Paramount has erased the real original Enterprise from it's timeline and substituted this Invasion of the Body Snatcher replica ship._




TriggerMan said:


> No such thing has happened.


Oh but it has my friend.. here is the Hot Wheels ships of Star Trek... Gee, look what just happens to be the "original" Enterprise...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

'Shakka, when the walls fell!'


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

JeffG said:


> 'Shakka, when the walls fell!'


Indeed...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> .. here is the Hot Wheels ships of Star Trek... Gee, look what just happens to be the "original" Enterprise...


LOL, someone should write to Hot Wheels (Mattel?) to tell them they forgot to include the original classic TV Enterprise!


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Oh but it has my friend.. here is the Hot Wheels ships of Star Trek... Gee, look what just happens to be the "original" Enterprise...


Ahh, so a Hot Wheels ship means that somehow Paramount has entirely erased it (even though I believe that would be CBS's property now btw)? Odd. So should we see Master Replicas or DST recalling and discontinuing all TOS Enterprises and replacing them with Trek 11s ship?)? Or Round 2 recalling the TOS model kits? In fact I'm looking a lot of the general Trek merchandise that is coming out and the all show and the only things of the Trek 11 Enterprise that I can see include the Playmates vessel and the Hotwheels vessel.

In fact, since the TOS movies are being released to Blu-ray and feature the original ship.. I think it is safe to say that nothing is being "erased."


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

'Erased' may have been the wrong term since obviously by quantum mechanics those timelines continue and they can continue to reap the revenue streams from them all. 

What IS apparent is that whomever currently owns the property rights has made it clear that their "original" Enterprise is now the one being offered as authentic since the Refit, Reliant, Ent-D and KBoP are still in their unaltered configurations. Had they put the 60's Enterprise in there as well as the new Doppleganger, I wouldn't have minded at all.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

hm, could it be that maybe mattell preferred a tie in to a new major motion picture rather than a 40 year old tv series (thats run at 2am in my area iirc)?
geez guys, get real.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> What IS apparent is that whomever currently owns the property rights has made it clear that their "original" Enterprise is now the one being offered as authentic since the Refit, Reliant, Ent-D and KBoP are still in their unaltered configurations.


The only thing that is apparent is that Hot Wheels decided to do a movie tie-in with the new Enterprise. That is all.



> Had they put the 60's Enterprise in there as well as the new Doppleganger, I wouldn't have minded at all.


I understand and respect your opinion, but it seems you are letting it be the sole basis for the assumption that somehow this one ship means that everything is going to be this way with the merchandising, when that is simply not true and has already proven not to be


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Hey, RED nacelle caps! Maybe there's hope after all...


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Agreed, I have gone off on a bit of a tangent when my original comment was along the lines of let's accept what is, because it is changing no matter how many fans feel the 60's era Enterprise, with some cosmetic changes was viable for a modern (today) stage.

Yes, I do realize the newest incarnation of the Enterprise is being used as a commercial tie-in due to the imminent release of this film, but I cannot help but also feel that BOTH being offered would have been an ever better choice.

I was originally anti-this new ship. My opinion has been changing by slight degrees, I may not like all the aspects of her, but I am willing to accept them. The trailers have gone a long way to changing my opinion. This looks like it has strong potential to be a very good movie.

I am a nuts and bolts fan...the hardware is what I love, I can do without Kirk, Spock, Picard and all the others so long as the ships and tech stuff is cool. If this movie has me on the edge of my seat by story and action... I'm good and I can like this new-old Enterprise as well. IF she gives me what I need.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Ohio -- that's appreciated. However, I find that to much new Science Fiction suffers from the "whiz-bang" technology replacing CHARACTER and STORY. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (or Han, Luke, Leia and Chewie) are what make MAGIC. So many are so obsessed with this one aspect of Star Trek, that being the ship itself, that they have forgotten what it was that Gene Roddenberry did so very right from the start: ITS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND THE STORIES. How the ship looks is at best SECONDARY and, in my opinion, mostly irrelevant.

Look to the classic Doctor Who stories. No budget of which to speak and the space effects were embarrassing. But the STORIES were magic so I can ignore wires and sparklers and cardboard.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You know what sci-fi is without good characters? Nothing. Starlost. A few seconds of a ship shot every 10 minutes or so. Let's pray we never return to those days of unwatchable sci-fi.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Yes, I do realize the newest incarnation of the Enterprise is being used as a commercial tie-in due to the imminent release of this film, but I cannot help but also feel that BOTH being offered would have been an ever better choice.


That is something you'll have to ask Hot Wheels about I'm sure.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Roguepink said:


> This is definitely in keeping with the theories put forth by Connie Willis in "To Say Nothing Of The Dog". Ms. Willis discards the notion of infinite universes each playing out subtle choices. She says that changes to history, rather than creating a split, instead create RIPPLES that propagate further depending on the severity of the changed event. The farther you go from the event that changes, the ripples lose energy and eventually fall back into the smooth surface. Time, in this manner, is SELF HEALING and does not create "quantum realities". Applying this theory, the change of the Kelvin being destroyed changes the development program of Starfleet enough that certain technologies advance and a young Jim Kirk has a bit of a different childhood. But self-healing time will ultimately make sure there is a Captain James T. Kirk in command of the Enterprise. By a generation or so down the line, what we know of as established history begins to look much like itself again.
> 
> So this new Star Trek is the result of a ripple-effect change of state and we are seeing the natural process of established history reasserting itself; no matter how much Nero tries to disrupt what was, James T. Kirk MUST be the captain of the Enterprise.


"Self healing?" Is that like aromatherapy??

Seriously, the only reasonable time travel theory I've come across is this one:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/timetravel-lee.htm


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

New image of ILM's CG Enterprise...










You can buy a poster of it here...

http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_6383&products_id=51431

Though I think it should look more like this...










:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

After hearing about Geoff Mandel being fired from this production because he had the audacity to put together a graphic comparing the new ship with the original one (apparently proving that he was "too attached to the original ship"), it'll be a cold day in hell before I see this abomination in any form, let alone purchase any merchandise connected with it.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Two eyestalks for engines? Why does this thing remind me of that robot from mst3k? Maybe it's 'Wrath of JarJar'?


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

PixelMagic said:


> Though I think it should look more like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup: 

Red bussard domes definaltly for me...  I could live with a deflector similar to NX-01... Blue light behind the traditional copper dish.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Model Man said:


> Two eyestalks for engines? Why does this thing remind me of that robot from mst3k? Maybe it's 'Wrath of JarJar'?


USS Crow T. Starship, NCC-3000, perhaps?

Dare we say, separated at birth, um, assembly?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I like it. I think it looks great.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I bought the Playmates toy last night. Funny thing... when you are looking at the actual toy (I won't call it 
a model) in your hands the engines don't look so grossly oversized. It actually looks fairly proportional. I don't quite undertstand it but it looks pretty good on it's stand up on the shelf.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Captain April said:


> After hearing about Geoff Mandel being fired from this production because he had the audacity to put together a graphic comparing the new ship with the original one (apparently proving that he was "too attached to the original ship"), it'll be a cold day in hell before I see this abomination in any form, let alone purchase any merchandise connected with it.



Now we got where they got the idea for this: 

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> After hearing about Geoff Mandel being fired from this production because he had the audacity to put together a graphic comparing the new ship with the original one


Where did you hear this? I poked around a bit, and the only place I've seen anything about this was from you. Not to say it isn't true, but I'm just asking.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> ...... it'll be a cold day in hell before I see this abomination in any form, let alone purchase any merchandise connected with it.


I will never understand comments such as this. Makes absolutely no sense what so ever to be so attached to a fictional story, that anything possibly new and refreshing would be rejected simply because it is not classic. 

Yes folks, the Enterprise is not real. James T. Kirk is not a real living person, and no one has pointed ears.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I salute the best-reviewed, and very probably the most financially successful "abomination" the Star Trek movie franchise has ever produced...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Model Man said:


> Two eyestalks for engines? Why does this thing remind me of that robot from mst3k? Maybe it's 'Wrath of JarJar'?




Close, but the stalks remind me more of the awkward looking engines and supports on this abomination from the (unofficial) first attempt at rebooting _ST:TOS_:




















I don't mean to appear crabby in my comparison but that's just the way this old crustacean sees it.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

jbond said:


> I salute the best-reviewed, and very probably the most financially successful "abomination" the Star Trek movie franchise has ever produced...


Yep, and that abomination you refer to apparently has already been given the green light for a sequel 

http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/30/brea...ourt-on-board/


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> I will never understand comments such as this. Makes absolutely no sense what so ever to be so attached to a fictional story, that anything possibly new and refreshing would be rejected simply because it is not classic.
> 
> Yes folks, the Enterprise is not real. James T. Kirk is not a real living person, and no one has pointed ears.


How dare you sound so ..... rational!


----------



## Storvick (Jan 21, 2003)

Captain April said:


> After hearing about Geoff Mandel being fired from this production because he had the audacity to put together a graphic comparing the new ship with the original one (apparently proving that he was "too attached to the original ship"), it'll be a cold day in hell before I see this abomination in any form, let alone purchase any merchandise connected with it.


 
Captain April, looks like ya can buy stuff for the new movie now since this past winter it was a cold day in hell. (there are some towns call Hell here in the US. Hell, Michigan.)


----------



## Thunderbolt1 (Nov 28, 2008)

88th division said:


> I'm sorry. If the ship is NCC-1701 it has to look like it did in the original series. As far as i am concerned that is the one true Enterprise!


But sinse this movie took place before the series and all of the other movies, maybe there was a refit sometime after this movie and before the original series started that made it look like it did in the t v show? 
IMHO


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And you thought refitting the original into the TMP version was a stretch?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> I will never understand comments such as this. Makes absolutely no sense what so ever to be so attached to a fictional story, that anything possibly new and refreshing would be rejected simply because it is not classic.
> 
> Yes folks, the Enterprise is not real. James T. Kirk is not a real living person, and no one has pointed ears.


What level of attachment must one have to a show that one would build, especially _scratch _build, models from that television show? 

I've never come across any other creation that has been so intertwined between the look--the _Enterprise _as a character--and the stories of a fictional universe. Being born on TV--a visual medium--there is more of a "real" and "accepted" look to it vs. something that was born in a novel or even a radio program. So, yes, if you think about it, it should make some sense that folks are attached to the look and feel of a fictional story in this case. 

In terms of fictional stories and characters having fans, folks go on and on about Jeremy Brett vs. Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes. Now, Robert Downey, Jr. (of all people!) is starring as Holmes in a new movie. 

It's not just _ST_ "geeks" that get fanatical. There are plenty of other geeks out there. Passion is what has kept the series alive despite _ST:TOS _having been budgetarily hobbled and then brutally canceled in the late 1960s. Passion can be a good thing. I see nothing wrong with the side effects of such strong feelings even if I don't have them. One really big plus in my opinion is that there is no crime being committed here. 

I'm not so sure I can trust someone who calls himself a fan if he is then very quick to accept a very different version of the same story. Did he really like the original that much to begin with? If there is passion for the original, there should be some resistance to significant changes.

Again, I feel compelled to point out the prevalent pattern of the posting here:

1. Poster complains about movie.

2. A supporter of the movie then belittles the complainer.

3. The original poster or others complain about the movie even more.

I don't think any progress is being made by the supporters of the movie. As long as the movie is the object of complaint, why not let it stay at that and keep the complainers' personalities out of it? 

The supporters of the new movie may be called irrational if they have not seen it and gush all over it. The detractors of the movie may be called irrational if they hate it without having seen it yet. Starting today, we'll have lots more folks who will hate it, love it, be ambivalent or indifferent to it based on having actually _seen_ it. 

And, guess what, even after everyone who's interested sees the movie, it's STILL a basically irrational, subjective, emotional appeal or lack thereof that will determine how people feel about it. 

In my case, the more I don't like the look of the movie--of which there has been plenty of evidence presented already--the more the story and action and characters will have to blow me away in order for me to even kind of _like _the movie. 

I hope y'all eat lots of popcorn and have a good time!:wave: I suppose the odds have to be in favor of the movie being at least a little better than the last two _ST:BOMBs_ they've produced. But, if I were to be superstitious, I'd be afraid of bad luck coming in threes.:drunk:


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

The moderators should start a thread in the 'movies for modelers' section that says, 'post here ONLY if you have seen the movie'. And close or move this thread. Why have a 'movies for modelers' section if you're not going to use it?


----------

