# Enterprise from Star Trek 2009 in High Res



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Still don't like the redesign, but I'm starting to get "used" to it. It's not as horrible as when I first saw it. That being said, I'm still a long way from "loving" it like I do the refit.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Nice pic, still a horrible ship


----------



## IEDBountyHunter (Oct 17, 2008)

I like the saucer section. Thats about it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

She's more impressive once you see her in action.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> She's more impressive once you see her in action.


Like during that whole planetary phaser bombardment sub-plot? I admit, she does look fantastic throughout all those shots. Oops! Has that bit been leaked yet? lol!


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

The new ship must not be Jewish.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

TGel63 said:


> Nice pic, still a horrible ship


Reminds me of "Battle Beyond the Planets."


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Edge said:


> The new ship must not be Jewish.


If you're referring to the appearance of the warp engine nacelles . . . Oooh, have you got a dirty mind!! :devil:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I appreciate having a high-res picture!! 

I am waiting for the movie before deciding on bouquets or brickbats.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

When I see the New Enterprise all I can think of is the 1950's...fins and all. Disappointing design for sure.


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Look under the dish it's "1701".


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i am sloooooowly warming to the design... oh so slowly


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I figured out whats missing...the red pennant stripes. 

Not a new discovery, I know but still..I like the new design, but that bit would have really sold it for me


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

There have been far worse designs throughout Trek's history. She'll do fine.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

And there have been far better. This isn't one of them.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Too bad they didn't put out a pic of the whole ship without the shuttles or a different angle like 3/4 rear view.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Yea, give us some orthos to rip apart. I'm not to keen on this design either, but it is not as heinous as I originally stated.... marginally better than the Koerner abortion.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You're right. It's horrible, it's a flying disaster, evil wrapped in a hull. It was designed by unstable minds. It should be painted flat black with a skull and crossbones on the side. It's putrid and responsible for the economic crisis. It's commanding officer should be Captain Blagojevich. It's a disrespectful punch in one's kidney. I've seen Bear Grylls eat better looking things. Woe unto he who idolizes this design for they shall be cast into the lake of fire. And furthermore, I'd like nothing more than to have a 1/350th scale model of it...you know, to study, er...where they went wrong. Yeah, that's it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

It took me over a year to warm up to the Enterprise-D but now I really like it. 

I want more pics, damnit! I hope they won't make us wait till May for them.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I find it ironic that the biggest fans of this...thing...also tend to berate the original design as "too 60's" and "outdated", seeing as the new design looks far more retro than the original ever did, GM tailfins and all.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> You're right. It's horrible, it's a flying disaster, evil wrapped in a hull. It was designed by unstable minds. It should be painted flat black with a skull and crossbones on the side. It's putrid and responsible for the economic crisis. It's commanding officer should be Captain Blagojevich. It's a disrespectful punch in one's kidney. ...


Thanks Jeff, you pretty much summarized what I was thinking


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Captain April said:


> I find it ironic that the biggest fans of this...thing...also tend to berate the original design as "too 60's" and "outdated", seeing as the new design looks far more retro than the original ever did, GM tailfins and all.


Your right on Captain. You can't have anyone NOT liking it either without people getting indignant at you either.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

JeffG said:


> There have been far worse designs throughout Trek's history. She'll do fine.


None of them were meant to _replace _the original.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Let's not rehash old debates. It solves nothing and no good can come out of it. I just wanna check out a rear 3/4 view of the new Enterprise to see if the new hangar bay looks kind of like the Kelvin's or not.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

John P said:


> None of them were meant to _replace _the original.


How can it_ replace _the original? If you pop in a DVD of the original, will TOS Enterprise be somehow gone and this one appear in it's place? Of course not. I see this as merely a different take on it. Though I respect your opinion, I've gone through all this before and don't care to get started again. "Dave, this conversation can no longer serve any meaningful purpose."


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

JeffG said:


> You're right. It's horrible, it's a flying disaster, evil wrapped in a hull. It was designed by unstable minds. It should be painted flat black with a skull and crossbones on the side. It's putrid and responsible for the economic crisis. It's commanding officer should be Captain Blagojevich. It's a disrespectful punch in one's kidney. I've seen Bear Grylls eat better looking things. Woe unto he who idolizes this design for they shall be cast into the lake of fire. And furthermore, I'd like nothing more than to have a 1/350th scale model of it...you know, to study, er...where they went wrong. Yeah, that's it! :thumbsup:


Glad to see you've finally come around!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

You know, the more I look at this, the more I figure out what is wrong with this design. It's the secondary hull, plain and simple. As I look at the saucer, neck, and nacelles, I think they all look pretty bad ass. It's the secondary hull. It's a very weird shape, too organic. If they had hit a nice midpoint between this secondary hull, and the secondary hull of the refit, I think this design would have been pretty awesome.

Is the secondary hull really as tiny as it looks in this image, Carson? Also, from the rear, is the fantail scoop defined, or is it just now a kind of sunken undefined area?


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

The secondary hull looks like a cleaned-up version of the doomsday machine from T.O.S......pinched off and h-i-d-e-o-u-s! However, this is the only picture I've seen of it to be fair.:freak:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

The saucer I can deal with, the warp engines ehh not so bad, the secondary hull though, wow. It looks like a cartoon or caricature, like the car-toons with the big wheels and fire breathing engines and stuff. Yeah.......


----------



## Old_McDonald (Jul 5, 2002)

Ahh welll, my feelings is that this looks like a design that would be proper as a design somewhere between the original and the refit. It has some of the 
qualities of both as a mid-point of refitting all of the Constitution
class ships with the Enterprise being the last with the latest hull
design.

I have to say that I'm too in love with the original design to accept
this ship. It would have been better to keep the origiinal design
and add in the details to it such as the hull texture, lights, and
other finer details. 

Newcomers to the franchise may like this one better due to better
effects and ship detailing but this old goat will stick to the original.

Modeling wise, it'll be a nice diversion from the usual trek issues 
until the 1/1000 thunderchild (class) ship comes out next year.
I'm holding my breath for that one.

May all of you have a Happy New Year - Happy Modeling.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

scotpens said:


> If you're referring to the appearance of the warp engine nacelles . . . Oooh, have you got a dirty mind!! :devil:


Apparently I'm not alone in that regard.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

JeffG said:


> How can it_ replace _the original? If you pop in a DVD of the original, will TOS Enterprise be somehow gone and this one appear in it's place? Of course not.



Well, they _did_ do that, sort of. Have you not seen the new re-runs with the new CGI Enterprise?  In a few years we wil see Shatner beaming into this beastly thing on Friday nights!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

If the secondary hull has a fairly wide fantail for the shuttlecraft hangar bay, that could make up for the shrunken profile in an optical illusion kind of way.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Old_McDonald said:


> Modeling wise, it'll be a nice diversion from the usual trek issues until the 1/1000 thunderchild (class) ship comes out next year. I'm holding my breath for that one.
> 
> May all of you have a Happy New Year - Happy Modeling.


Yes, that is a ship I'm VERY excited to see in a model box!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

JeffG said:


> How can it_ replace _the original? If you pop in a DVD of the original, will TOS Enterprise be somehow gone and this one appear in it's place? Of course not. I see this as merely a different take on it. Though I respect your opinion, I've gone through all this before and don't care to get started again. "Dave, this conversation can no longer serve any meaningful purpose."


You. Know. What. I. Mean.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> ...marginally better than the Koerner abortion.


Hmmm...I think Koerner's design did a better job of "updating" the original design while retaining the proportions, and did a better job of "bridging" the design cues between the classic Enterprise and the Refit (which seems to have been Abrams goal).










If Koerner had eliminated the blue stripes and lights from the secondary hull and reduced or eliminated the extra contours of the secondary hull, I think it might have been more widely accepted and perhaps convinced Abrams to consider his design.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I don't really like Koerner's secondary hull all that much. But the new movie Enterprise is sorely missing the pendant stripes on the hull and the engines. The registry number would have looked cool on the saucer underside and also if they had added the triangular bits under there too. If the narrow part at the back of the secondary hull ends up having a wide stance from behind that would make up the missing mass difference if you know what I mean, like flattening down one end of a cone shaped object.


----------



## srspicer (Oct 14, 2007)

I will have to agree with razorwyre1, slowly liking it. 

The secondary hull design owes a great deal to one Mr. Probert's design scetches for the 'D'. Look through the ref. book and you will see the design in there.

And, it definitely needs the red stripes, IMHO.

Scott

BTW- Happy New Year to everyone!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I like the design, but would like it better as 1701F or G.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

my question is "when the heck is someone going to produce a kit of the koernerprise?"
i dont have the skills (i have some sort of mental block that keeps me from doing a satisfactory job sculpting inorganic objects....honest!) but a decently sized (18" or so) kit would sell pretty well.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

If this was meant to be a _different_ ship in the design lineage ... I could accept it. But personally speaking, I can't accept it as the *original* NCC-1701.

I, and many others, have seen the original Starship Enterprise countless times over the last 42 years ... on the television, in books and magazines, on the internet in pictures and computer generated imagery, and in person. 

Despite what any revisionists may tell you ... There can be only one original, and that *ain't* it!.


----------



## gabeg (Jan 16, 2008)

Looks cool to me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

"Who Mourns For Adonais?" is on as I post this, and it only confirms that JJ's little CGI monstrosity is not, and never will be, the Enterprise.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

remember folks, that dispite nimoys participation, this is a franchise reboot, so ALL of the old canon is out the window and into the dumpster. as such this version is not obligated to look like a prior version of 1701prime, or anything else in any of the previous incarnations of star trek.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

razorwyre1 said:


> remember folks, that dispite nimoys participation, this is a franchise reboot, so ALL of the old canon is out the window and into the dumpster. as such this version is not obligated to look like a prior version of 1701prime, or anything else in any of the previous incarnations of star trek.


I believe that is understood. It does not take away from the fact though that many, myself included do not have to like this POS passing as the Enterprise, but that is only my opinion.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

An opinion obviously shared by others - and one we hear all the time. 

I'm not happy w/this new design either, but the constant bashing and need for folks to re-hash their thoughts and opinions on the design is _already starting to get old again._ :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I agree with Griff.

The constant "reminders" of how some people that hate this ship in every and any discussion regarding it is getting exceedingly tedious.

WE GET IT ALREADY. This thread is a chance to look over some of the details of the new movie ship although I would like to see some different views, not how much so-and-so and others hate it.

And that's MY opinion!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The ship is stoopid and JJ is a big fat poopyhead.


----------

