# First Offcial Look of Enterprise from New Film



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I think she looks great!

http://movies.aol.com/movie-photo/star-trek-new-enterprise-cast-photos


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

repost... http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=207164&page=3 :wave:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

And besides the link on the other thread has wider images of the Enterprise.


----------



## TOS Maniac (Jun 26, 2006)

UHH...I don't know... But I thought it was the voyages of the STARSHIP Enterprise, not the AIRLINER Enterprise. What's with the oversized jet engines? Why can't they just leave her the frak alone? It's a subtle slap at Matt Jeffries. With TOS:Remastered we've seen how awesome the original design can look. I mean..the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain, IMHO


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I am not exactly a fan of this whole remake concept. Far from it.
But looking at that, it truly grieves me how much they are monkeying with legends. Yes, The Enterprise is a legend. She is displayed in the Smithsonian for a reason.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Moneying around,its been done before.Indeed the Enterprise is a legend,look how that legend was treated in Star Trek III.As still recall,my best friends look after the premiere of Star Trek III,it was like the world ended.The Enterprise was the symbol of Star trek.Even when the first film was being made,Gene Roddenberry,didn't want to change the ship too much.Even though it was,I wound up loving the New Enterprise.As far as the new look for the original Enterprise for the upcoming film,yes it should be kept very similar.Of course they'll have to make the ship,look appealing to the general public,after all,People are going to pay too see this movie.But also pay some homage to the people,like me who loved Star Trek,most of their life.I still would like to see this film,and enjoy it,even though,I'm not as big a fan,as I was,Guy S.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> She is displayed in the Smithsonian for a reason.


Because ParaBorg gave it to them? :tongue:


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

She is actually sitting in the gift shop on the bottom level....


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I like it.

Though you can't tell a lot from the photo, it looks a lot more like Gabes version.

I do think a lot of people are going to freak on this, because they can't get past their own personal issues.

Its not Shanter and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock - So why should it the EXACTLY the original 'E'.

Granted, the old design still holds up and those who ONLY want the original design can enjoy it more than ever before in the remastered HD DVD's. and the fan films.

What I gather from the photo is a ship about twice the size of the original 'E' by comparison of the yard worker in the shot and the porportional size of the bridge to the apparent size of the saucer.
The saucer contour is closer to that of the refit than the TOS and obviously the hull plating. And it looks like an extra bulge......like a 'D' deck.

The nacelles simply look like they haven't installed the bussard covers......or perhaps that look will be finalized by a 'force field' of some type.

Can't wait to see the rest.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

newbie dooby said:


> She is actually sitting in the gift shop on the bottom level....


...all the way at the back where you can't even see her when you come in the gift shop doors. It's not an official display so when I asked for directions to her, there were no placards directing, nor did any of the museum staff I encountered know precisely where she was. Not like the old girl is in a closet, but she hardly has a place of honor as she did when I was in my 20's.

John O.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

ClubTepes said:


> Its not Shanter and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock - So why should it the EXACTLY the original 'E'.


Actually, Nimoy _is_ playing Spock.

However, since this is the Enterprise _under construction_, we should expect to think that it will be a bit different from the Enterprise of TOS, just like the Enterprise of TMP was a little different. Let's just hope it's not _too_ different.

---------------


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

It's Koerner's version of the 1701. It's probably been tweaked some but it's the same critter:

http://www.cstse.es/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ent_123106_01.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/kroenerprise1.jpg

http://www.startrekreborn.net/images/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

So, like, the TOS ship is a _refit_?

Duude.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's Koerner's version of the 1701. It's probably been tweaked some but it's the same critter:
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/kroenerprise1.jpg
> 
> http://www.startrekreborn.net/images/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg



I really like this design.


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

It does seem to have a resemblance to Koerner's version. Personaly, I like the Koerner's version design. I would be happy either way. Keep it classic or changeit up for the movie.

Scott


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

IMHO, it's so very close to Koerner's version that he could sue. It makes much more sense that his version was bought/commissioned for the upcoming film.

He's probably signed a non-disclosure agreement so he can't come in and clarify the situation. There are way too many points of similarity to realistically deny it, however.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Whatever the design used in the film looks like,
when will the kit be released?


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hey, where's the shot of the guys pulling the red-hot rivets out of the fire and tossing them to the rivet driver who then pounds them in? Might as well show all the old fashion ways of "ship building"

Just strikes me as funny that they are supposed to be in the future but there are no "futuristic" construction techniques. Even today we have automated welding machines, you would think that by then they would be doing better than that. Must be a union yard...


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> I am not exactly a fan of this whole remake concept. Far from it.
> But looking at that, it truly grieves me how much they are monkeying with legends. Yes, The Enterprise is a legend. She is displayed in the Smithsonian for a reason.



While I fully agree that she is a legend... it kind of pisses me off that she is displayed down in the toy shop... not out in the real museum where she fully deserves to be displayed!

oh... I tried to use Photoshop to adjust levels and have a look at the underside of the saucer... but the YouTube thing was shot off of a movie screen... when the real things get's posted on Monday... we should be able to adjust levels and look into the shadows to see the underside of the saucer at the beginning of that shot!


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Yep- I'd prefer a nice scab built Starship.



X15-A2 said:


> Hey, where's the shot of the guys pulling the red-hot rivets out of the fire and tossing them to the rivet driver who then pounds them in? Might as well show all the old fashion ways of "ship building"
> 
> Just strikes me as funny that they are supposed to be in the future but there are no "futuristic" construction techniques. Even today we have automated welding machines, you would think that by then they would be doing better than that. Must be a union yard...


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I just downloaded the first teaser trailer for Star trek 11.I didn't think it was possible,at this late time but,I am now looking forward to this film.It was cool sealing those builders in googles welding,the Original USS Enterprise together.Hearing Leonard Nimoys voice and the old transporter sound.The hull of the Enterprise will be spanking new.Isn't that metallic look reminesent,of the Enterprises hull(Archers Ship)that is.Back in the time of the original series,The Enterprise was the largest man made vessel in space.I hope this film pays homage to that.it sounds like they may.Guy S.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

That would be very fitting, given the history of the name. This from the FAS.org website:



> At the commissioning of ENTERPRISE on September 24, 1960, the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was the mightiest warship to ever sail the seas. Enterprise is the longest carrier in the Navy at 1,123 feet. It is also the tallest (250 feet) and fastest (30+ nautical miles per hour) carrier in the fleet. She was built with a distinctive square island supporting phased-array radars and a complex EW system.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Well... another 2 cents or so... the trailer achieved the goal of getting me excited... visually magnificent, I think... but in terms of the basic premise and concept of what Star Trek is... the bright future... we don't even use money, we've got transporter beams, faster than light travel... food comes out of a machine that can make anything you want... but we've got guys welding the Enterprise together with torches? God I hope this is just a set of images put together for the trailer, and not really the way the world works in the new old Star Trek!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Well uh,you do have a good point,something a bit more advanced then blow torches in the 23rd century,assembling the Enterprise.and those googles,way too 20th century looking,Guy S.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Guy, it's a _teaser_. It's only meant to suggest the upcoming film and unless I'm WAY off base, I don't think that teaser material normally doesn't make it into the final print! Does it?!?!?

I have to say that I'm VERY sceptical that this is the _Enterprise_. By my eye, it looks to be Gabe's _Enterprise_ which is NOT supposed to be the version for this movie. I have a feeling that we could be being misled- misinformation, as it were- maybe to gauge reaction for the studio?

I think I'm going to have to wait and see the movie to see what it's about. Also, in 6 months or so, there should be more definitive information on the ship as well. Patience!! The movie isn't till the OTHER end of this year! LOL!


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Didn't see any blow-torches. Saw somebody holding a rod that created a welding spark, but, no blow-torches.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

One thing is for sure, it's definitely being built planetside. No space suits and the under gantries supporting the hull are obvious.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

They're using _Phaser_-torches.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Yup,the Original Enterprises components,Primary Hull,Warp Drive nacelles and secondary hull,were built at the San Fransico navy Yards.And lifted into orbit and assembled,I specifically recall that.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

CaptFrank said:


> They're using _Phaser_-torches.


No, it's a "magic rod"...well, that's at least what i tell my girlfriends :devil:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

"Magic rod"?
Is the construction gang trained by Harry Potter?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

*remastered HD Enterprise*

I have the HD-DVD remastered first season of TOS. The Enterprise looks good, but it's amazing how CBS still screwed her up. A lot of the side shots and some of the overhead shots: the navigational lights barely light up, like they are focused upwards through a giant lens. Other overhead shots they look good, it's inconsistent. 

The lower navigational lights are slightly pinkish and greenish on the old show and DVD (can't see it? turn up the color on the set). There is a point where those lights became white only, but all the first season shots show the lower nav lights colored and bright! The remastered is not like that anymore.

Also, the warp nacelle domes, the lights within blink on and off at once at the same rate. The "rotors" spin, but they are all equidistant and do not change position as the originals did when different lights came on at different times. See the Zephram Cochrane episode where there's a beautiful shot of the ship over the front of the saucer. The rotors spin and there relative blade positions change with respect to each other as the different lights blinks on and off.

Also, the deflector lines now delineate slightly lowered and raised panels on the saucer section. 

If you watch The Menagerie, the initial over the saucer into the bridge dome shot is cut short and kept solely on the viewscreen. They tried to correct for the difference between ship orientation and the bridge shot, ending up going through the bridge wall. Badly, at that.

Why CBS couldn't just use the excellent Defiant mesh from ST:NX01 is beyond me. It looked better than what they are using for the HD remaster.

RE: the new movie...saw the trailer today. The new Enterprise is definitely a combined retro design of the TMP refit with elements of the NX-01. Why build it on Earth? Don't know, since both Enterprise and TMP established orbital builds.

I believe we are seeing an "alternate" universe of Star Trek. The clock has been turned back and Captain's April and Pike never took command of a previously 40 year old ship (by ST3)(I know they said 20, but they screwed up in ST3, too). It looks like Kirk will be taking her up and I hypothesize that all new adventures will take place completely different and separate from anything that has gone before.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm betting that they are gonna leave the "changing of the gaurd" till the sequal.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

I don't think the nacelles are overly big. They look bigger due to the "shoulders" on the collectors, and a whole hell of a lot of telephoto compression.

Its like an image shot through a 1000+mm lens. I bet that same angle with a wider shot (with the camera obviously being closer) would give away a lot more about how everything is sized.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

'course, since there will be no physical model (guess), they can physically reconfigure it any way they like and shoot any "lens" and "angle" they like.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

There used to be Ball Park Frank commercials that advertised they plump when you cook em and inflated.Thats the way the nacelles look.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Bearing in mind this is a family friendly forum, I shall only say they nacelles look like something that operates on batteries and vibrates.......


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Bearing in mind this is a family friendly forum, I shall only say the nacelles look like something that operates on batteries and vibrates.......


I don't think the nacelles look anything like the old battery powered eraser I used to use.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Let me be the negative one*

IMHO, this concept of casting younger actors to prequel the series sounds like a lamer.

We seem to forget that the oldest of the characters were in the mid forties, most were in in their 30's and some in their 20s.

For example, the guy playing the "younger" Sulu is quite a bit older than George Takei was when the original series ENDED. 

In short, at this point this sound more like Hollywood "high concept".


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Bearing in mind this is a family friendly forum, I shall only say they nacelles look like something that operates on batteries and vibrates.......


Want a link?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

It was mentioned in the Making of ST, that the TOS1701 was constructed in Earth orbit. Sections built in the San Francisco Ship Yards.

I have never missed a ST movie in the theater, until now.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Lloyd Collins said:


> It was mentioned in the Making of ST, that the TOS1701 was constructed in Earth orbit. Sections built in the San Francisco Ship Yards.
> 
> I have never missed a ST movie in the theater, until now.


I'm afraid, Lloyd, that unless it gets great reviews, I'll be waiting until it comes out on DVD (or whatever). Not going to spend my money on this just because it's got the Trek name on it. Hope it will be good, but after the last few Trek movies, I'm not holding my breath, even with the changing of the guard.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I hope this film is good too and I will see it.Truth is their still trying to milk Star Trek for all they can get out of it.My late Father said the same thing.Star Treks time is past,Trying to breathe new life into it at this point is reduntant its been exhausted.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Guy Schlicter*:


> I hope this film is good, too. I will see it.Truth is, they're still trying to milk Star Trek for all they can get out of it. My late Father said the same thing. Star Trek's time has passed. Trying to breathe new life into it at this point is reduntant; it has been exhausted.


I disagree. There are still more stories to tell. They could be set after
the 24th century. Start with a fresh crew, and a new ship.

There was an attempt to create another animated series.
I think the basic premise is good.
It could work for another series. It does not have to be animated.
Or maybe a movie.
The whole story is here:
http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/13/cbs-considering-new-animated-trek-series/



> ...the advice he got from LeVar Burton on how ‘Star Trek should always be about moving forward and what is next in the human adventure.’ So the team came up with the notion of taking a big leap forward and setting a show 150 years after the time of Picard and Star Trek Nemesis, but in a very different and somewhat dark Trek universe.
> 
> The setting is the year 2528 and the Federation is a different place after suffering through a devastating war with the Romulans 60 years earlier. The war was sparked off after a surprise attack of dozens of ‘Omega particle’ detonations throughout the Federation creating vast areas which become impassible to warp travel and essentially cut off almost half the Federation from the rest. During the war the Klingon homeworld was occupied by the Romulans, all of Andoria was destroyed and the Vulcans, who were negotiating reunification with the Romulans, pulled out of the Federation. The setting may seem bleak and not very Trek-like, but that is where the show’s hero Captain Alexander Chase comes in. Relegated to border patrol, Chase is determined to bring the Federation (and a ship called Enterprise) back to the glory days of seeking out new life and new civilizations.
> 
> This new animated series would take place again on a ship called Enterprise, but the old girl has seen better days. Captain Chase’s Enterprise will be a ‘Bismarck Class’ heavy cruiser from the Romulan war and a bit out of date. Her mission will be merely patrolling the border, but Chase chose the Enterprise for a reason. As a student of the Federation’s glory days, he wants to have the Enterprise reclaim her legacy.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Hey! I like that! Seeking out new worlds, new life, trying to create a NEW Federation from the ashes of the old, a very Human story. Perhaps there is division on Vulcan, those who support the Romulan Senate, an underground who believe logic is best served by a free Federation. There would be refugee Andorians, Klingon resistance, LOTS of good material there. How would Cardassia fare in such a future? What shape would Earth be in?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Roguepink said:


> Hey! I like that! Seeking out new worlds, new life, trying to create a NEW Federation from the ashes of the old, a very Human story. Perhaps there is division on Vulcan, those who support the Romulan Senate, an underground who believe logic is best served by a free Federation. There would be refugee Andorians, Klingon resistance, LOTS of good material there. How would Cardassia fare in such a future? What shape would Earth be in?


The concept was screwed up pretty well when it was _Andromeda _(which went off the rails when Wolfe left).


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I have to agree with spe130 - you wouldn't have _Trek_, you would have _Andromeda_. The proposal is patently ridiculous - how the heck would you get "moving forward" with _Trek_ by bombing the crap out of the Federation, so the Space Bullies can dance on the grave of the Federation and spit on the headstone?!?! Maybe they can wipe out the filth that is Humanity in the process.

One of the reasons I liked TOS _Trek_ so much and most of the Original Cast movies was the spirit of exploration, that sense of wonder that partiular era evokes which really wants you to hope that we can overcome our problems on our little planet to be able to reach for the stars! This..... steaming pile of El Toro poo-poo is THE most depressing thing I've ever heard for anything attached to the _Trek_ name. And building on the groundwork of series like _Voyager_ (remember who ran that series, guys!!!) is definitely going in the WRONG direction! Especially in using ANY of the concepts that came out of THAT series, which has to be one of the worst-written, "slap-in-the-face" additions to the _Trek _ universe I have ever seen!

If this travesty actually does happen, I will finally renounce any interest in _Trek_ and the franchise will truly be as dead as so many people have already declared it - which shows in their refusal to even give the upcoming movie a chance. Maybe those of you who love dystopian futures would lap a series like this up, but not for me.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

One reason the TREK after TOS, didn't work right, was getting away from the core ideas Gene set up. 
Why a dark trek, why wars, why death and distruction? TOS was about hope, wonder, and getting along.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I never watched Andromeda.

And yes, Gene's idea was the future of humanity was bright.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

charonjr said:


> . Why build it on Earth? Don't know, since both Enterprise and TMP established orbital builds.
> 
> Captain's April and Pike never took command of a previously 40 year old ship (by ST3)(I know they said 20, but they screwed up in ST3, too). It looks like Kirk will be taking her up and I hypothesize that all new adventures will take place completely different and separate from anything that has gone before.


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm here's something I found. And maybe the previous captains will appear briefly then fast forward to Kirks command.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> One reason the TREK after TOS, didn't work right, was getting away from the core ideas Gene set up.
> Why a dark trek, why wars, why death and distruction? TOS was about hope, wonder, and getting along.


Can you give us a list of the scripts for TOS that *did not* include death, destruction or wars? I'll bet it was a very small percentage.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Yes, they did, but Earth and The Federation were Humanity uplifted. Any wars were from outside agressors. The Federation was strong, was noble, was the ideal, was shown dealing with those lower impulses for violence and intolerance in the way that Gene Roddenberry though we should look toward.

Blindly optimistic to a fault, but we needed it in 1967.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Roguepink said:


> I never watched Andromeda.


There were a few bright spots, and the first season under Robert Hewitt Wolfe was pretty good. Tyr, Harper and Rev Bem were pretty good characters, and the interactions between Tyr and Harper had the feel of the early DS9 Bashir/O'Brien stories. And the art design was incredible - the High Guard ships are some of the best starship designs I've ever seen.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

... then, just like w/VOY and ENT, _Andromeda_ started muckin' about with the timeline thing - and totally lost me.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

And one day, the Time Lords (pre-war) gathered their collective forces, on behalf of the irritated Galactic History department, and threw the entire Federation Era into a time vortex, allowing a more sensible, LINEAR timeline to replace it.


----------



## abu625 (Jul 4, 2002)

I am a little late in joining this particular conversation, but having just seen CLOVERFIELD -- and the new Star Trek trailer -- my conclusion is that what we're seeing is NOT going to be in the movie. In fact, it's not intended to be in the movie. This is a TEASER TRAILER. And it's a JOKE. The punchline occurs at the end of the trailer with the message, "STAR TREK - NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

The trailer is only intended to raise awareness and start buzz. (And if the opening weekend grosses for CLOVERFIELD are any indication, J.J. Abrams is a master at starting BUZZ.) The construction cranes, acetylene torches, etc., only exist to support the punchline: NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 

We're going to have to wait until at least this summer to see anything remotely definitive...if then.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

abu625 said:


> I am a little late in joining this particular conversation, but having just seen CLOVERFIELD -- and the new Star Trek trailer -- my conclusion is that what we're seeing is NOT going to be in the movie. In fact, it's not intended to be in the movie. This is a TEASER TRAILER. And it's a JOKE. The punchline occurs at the end of the trailer with the message, "STAR TREK - NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION."
> 
> The trailer is only intended to raise awareness and start buzz. (And if the opening weekend grosses for CLOVERFIELD are any indication, J.J. Abrams is a master at starting BUZZ.) The construction cranes, acetylene torches, etc., only exist to support the punchline: NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
> 
> We're going to have to wait until at least this summer to see anything remotely definitive...if then.


I agree. All it was intended to do was stir up the anal-retentive types. It did it's job.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes it did.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm not sure if the teaser is a joke or just a clever pun with the under construction line - meaning ship and movie. Either way even if this is not a glimpse of the actual ship we will see in December 2008, I wouldn't be surpised to see some make their own kit bash of the trailer version of the Enterprise.

[EDIT] - nice clear and HD version of the trailer now online at Paramount!

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/?gclid=CP_Widj5h5ECFQS0HgodKjiIAw

I just watched the high def version and it looks great! I was able to use Windows Vista's snipping tool and got some great screen captures at 1680 pixels wide! What is that wide sloping surface in the beginning of the clip?


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Looks like it's a pun on the under construction...but only time will tell...either way a buzz has been started.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> What is that wide sloping surface in the beginning of the clip?


That's the view looking aft (I'm guessing) from where the dorsal neck is attached to the secondary hull. I think you're seeing where the support struts for the warp nacelles connect to the engineering hull--consistent with the Koerner reboot version, by the way. 

Or, it could be the view between the cooling fins on the rear of one of the warp nacelles looking aft. 

This is cool:

http://www.ncc-1701.com/


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I just watched in HD as well. I am really excited about this film.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Yeah hopefully they will put out some new trailers soon so we can try and piece together the new Enterprise clip by clip!

BTW, just came back from watching Coverfield. It might have been because the theater hadn't turned down the lights yet but the Star Trek preview was dark and hard to see. The official online preview looks much better, especially the high def one.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=52614

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=52615

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=52644

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=52647


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW6.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW5.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW4.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW3.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW2.jpg










LARGER: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/1701NEW1.jpg


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

Here is a link to HD verions of the new Teaser. (Scroll to the bottom of the page)

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/justthefacts_startrek.html


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is interesting:










LARGER:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/ENGINEROOM.jpg


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that's quite a stretch at this point to think that it is the engine room. Looks like a box on some girders to me.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> This is cool: http://www.ncc-1701.com/


Interesting site with the "shipyard" cameras. I wonder who owns it, or if it could be official?

In the "engine room" image above, I wondered the same thing when I first saw it. But I'm trying to identify what the welders are working on above it? Also, on one of the early shots in the teaser, what is that sloping object moving under the saucer - the connecting dorsal maybe?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Interesting site with the "shipyard" cameras. I wonder who owns it, or if it could be official?


I saw it on http://trekmovie.com


Also, it seems a modeler was responsible for inspiring this teaser:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/20/fan-made-image-inspired-teaser-trailer/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Anyone see this secret image on the movie website?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Yeah thats a cool shipyard image with the old AMT kit of the TOS Enterprise. I've seen it on the net for some time. It causes a double take the first time you see it! The new Paramount teaser can certainly be considered a homage to it 

That corridor pic is interesting. Need to find out who owns the domain those cam pics are hosted on! I just noticed you can move the sliders under each camera and get it tuned in and fine tune with the last of the 3 numbers!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

The shipyard site is linked from the official ParaBorg page - click the red dot next to "Under Construction" - that should clear up any questions about who owns the site.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Looks like a mix of a lot of modern cues painted over the Big E, with a little refit love for continuity in their "update".

I for one like it. It has the shapes of the original version (with only outstanding pylons and neck treatment to see), but it does follow a lot of the refit's styling (in the bridge and planetary sensor). So even if this is a one shot gig, at least it looks like it tries to fit in there with previous designs.

So I wonder if aztecing went out the window now, haha. Not a lot of windows on her either.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm to the point where I don't care anymore.
I just want a mass-produced styrene plastic kit of
moderate size (About 18-20") of whatever appears in 
the movie that I can waddle into a hobby shop and buy for $10-15!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

You waddle?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Depends on how many models I'm carrying.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

:freak:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Looks like an emotional totem pole.

However, I'd speculate that Captain April is less than impressed, at least with the teaser Enterprise.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Or he doesn't like to be accused of waddling.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How does he feel about Kipling?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Don't know, I don't think he's ever kippled.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> Don't know, I don't think he's ever kippled.


Got tired of waiting for someone else to say it, did ya? 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Somebody's gotta bite the bullet.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Why, was it misbehaving?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I said bite, not spank!


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Bite, spank, its all foreplay to me.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Tmi!!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> Tmi!!


*cancels John's invitation to the "Rear Window" convention*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Who's Tim?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

He's an Enchanter.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Well... Tim... I see you're a busy man.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Hmmm...

From what I've seen of the NEW ol' Gray(Pearl?) Lady...

Not TOO bad. I'm not really sure about the lower Cheney Sensor Dome, with extensions to make it look more like the Refit's, but I guess it's understandable. (If they're gonna use beauty lights as on the Refit.)
As long as it 'reads' in shape to me as the original Enterprise if I blur my eyes a bit, I can live with the updates...

I guess they COULDN'T keep it EXACTLY like the mesh used for the revised episodes, if only because the lack of surface detail, when blown up to movie screen size, probably would read as 'fake'. I remember reading that's why Robert Wise had them create the Refit Miniature with all that surface detailing, that the TV Phase II Brick Price Built model WOULDN'T hold up in front of the cameras...especially with the long, detailed flyaround that they did in the Motion Picture.

(I'll lay odds that they'll do a homage to that scene in the new film, so they can properly show off the new girl...)

I DO hope that whoever gives us a model of this girl, gets the details as close as possible...I don't want a repeat of ERTL's 18" inaccurate Refit.
I'm still hoping that the design is CLOSE enough to the original so that conversion kits can be made to backdate the model to (or close to) original specs.

Be Well, Guys.

Greg :wave:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain America said:


> . . . I'm still hoping that the design is CLOSE enough to the original so that conversion kits can be made to backdate the model to (or close to) original specs.


My thoughts, exactly! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It'd be rather ironic if the model comes out inaccurate with regards to the Battlestar Enterprise  , but winds up matching up better to the original ship.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Seems to me one of the great things about the original design was its bizarre verticality, but all the other versions try to streamline this out. This tendency was carried over into the ships of all the Star Trek spin-offs, most of whose vessels IMHO ended up looking increasingly like flying toilet-bowls. Mind you, I'm tempted to say such a vessel would be appropriate enough for the crew lined up for this new film (Nimoy excepted).


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Man, you guys astound me with your refusal to accept a modernized update to the Enterprise. I love the TOS Enterprise, it's a beauty, but it's SOOO outdated that it would be laughable that a ship 250 years from now would look like that, especially the interiors.

Heck, even the Enterprise-D is starting to look a little dated, especially from the first couple of seasons.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And you astound me that you think our beloved old beauty is outdated and laughable, and that you blindly accept anything they hand you, no matter how ridiculous-looking a pile of crap it is.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> And you astound me that you think our beloved old beauty is outdated and laughable, and that you blindly accept anything they hand you, no matter how ridiculous-looking a pile of crap it is.


But it's a pile of crap with whipped cream and a cherry on top! :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I certainly don't think the TOS E is dated; to the contrary, I love it and I think its wonderfully elegant.

But at the same time, I certainly want to keep an open mind to what the Enterprise may look like in the new movie. 

Can't a guy think that more than one girl is hot? Same with the Enterprise!

Huzz


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Man, you guys astound me with your refusal to accept a modernized update to the Enterprise. I love the TOS Enterprise, it's a beauty, but it's SOOO outdated that it would be laughable that a ship 250 years from now would look like that, especially the interiors.
> 
> Heck, even the Enterprise-D is starting to look a little dated, especially from the first couple of seasons.


The only things I find dated with the TOS _E_ are _some_ of the interior computer consoles. Everything else looks fine to me.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

There's nothing outdated about the exterior of the TOS Enterprise. They even did a pretty good looking Defiant for that last season of "Enterprise".


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dave Hussey said:


> Can't a guy think that more than one girl is hot?
> 
> Huzz


 Sure, but they're _replacing _my favorite classy girl with some Goth chick and trying to tell me she's the same one I've always loved.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think Greg Jein (sp?) did an excellent job with his half scale TOS Enterprise for the "Trials and Tribbulations" DS9 episode too.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I agree 100%. The original Enterprise is the _standard._ No one has even _tried_ to see if it would work on the big screen... they just make weak claims that "it won't hold up." Its my opinion that comment is a cover for the director's egotistical needs to control everything, to redesign everything according to their own vision.

Well, let me tell you I have made my own CG Enterprise fly on the big screen. I know it can work because I've seen it.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> I agree 100%. The original Enterprise is the _standard._ No one has even _tried_ to see if it would work on the big screen... they just make weak claims that "it won't hold up." Its my opinion that comment is a cover for the director's egotistical needs to control everything, to redesign everything according to their own vision.


Having seen the TV show model, I have to say it's no wonder directors change it for the movies.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Sure, but they're _replacing _my favorite classy girl with some Goth chick and trying to tell me she's the same one I've always loved.


 :lol: :thumbsup:


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

The old TV miniature wouldn't be used for a new movie. It would be CGI, if it were to be done at all. So the current condition of the series model would not even be a factor. People change things to make it "theirs". People like to own things, no matter how much they screw it up in the process. You know, pissing on the hydrant.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> Sure, but they're _replacing _my favorite classy girl with some Goth chick and trying to tell me she's the same one I've always loved.


Well, I never knew you had such strong feelings about Jane Wyatt, but I say you should give Winona Ryder a chance!



Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> Sure, but they're _replacing _my favorite classy girl with some Goth chick and trying to tell me she's the same one I've always loved.


Now John, you don't know that for sure. You may find the new Enterprise to be quite lovely indeed and a very worthy successor. And, if you still find it ugly after you've seen better pics of the ship, you'll get not further argument on the point from me.

Huzz


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

bigjimslade said:


> Having seen the TV show model, I have to say it's no wonder directors change it for the movies.



We're not talking about the 40-year old miniature, we're talking about the _design._ I think you must realize that.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

The DESIGN itself is outdated. I know you guys grew up with it, and loved it, but it's just not a modern looking scifi design.


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

That simply is not true... 
modern, contemporary, choose any adjective you want. It's what you do with it. I'll bet the new ship is very close in overall feel. Matt Jefferies' design is as fresh now as it was forty years ago. 
oh... to me.

KK


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

The Original USS Enterprise outdated.No way.Doesn't need much updating for the new film.The design is still futuristic good looking and will always be a classic.Guy S.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

To a lot of us!

It's a timeless design. A credit to Jefferies for the design and to the shows producers for approving it. That kind of forward thinking vision doesn't seem to make it to film anymore.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> The DESIGN itself is outdated. I know you guys grew up with it, and loved it, but it's just not a modern looking scifi design.


A lot of the design in TOS looks more blue-sky futuristic than modern sci-fi design. 2001, Star Wars, Alien and Blade Runner emphasised functionality and threw aside Star Trek's smooth, minimalist hulls and interiors. Yet, ironically, this smoothness and design simplicity is now to be seen once again at the cutting edge of contemporary industrial design. Just look at the ipod or iphone, which both strive to be a featureless smooth box. They connect more to the world of Star Trek with its smooth simple engine cylinders than to the detailed textures of recent SF.

And if the design ethic of a company like Apple found its way into future aerospace design there wouldn't even be any _panel lines _ visible on the Enterprise!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Why all this talk that the Enterprise in the new movie must look more MODERN than the original. That is precisely how it should NOT look.

Modern means NOW. Modern will look DATED in a year or two.

Matt Jefferies' designs still work because they NEVER looked MODERN. They looked FUTURISTIC -- and they still do. Too bad we can't see his original designs fully realized with MODERN film technology. I'd love to see them full-blown and uncompromised by mid-60s TV limitations. 

Give me a bridge with the same design he created, but with all the delicate curves and ergonomic sensibilities he had to forego so Desilu's union carpenters could bring the set in on budget. Give me that upper ring of data screens dancing with live information from each department, so the captain can absorb the true state of his ship at a glance from his command chair. Give me holographic, heads-up labels that seem to hover in space over the various colorful buttons on Uhura's console, reconfiguring with each separate function overlay she selects, and fading from view as the camera trucks away from her station. 

No, Jefferies' designs are not dated, or too unambitious for the big screen. They are surprising in their depth and scope and as pristine and futuristic as ever; waiting for someone with a sense of awe and the imagination to set them free...

...and that's what Star Trek art direction is all about, Charlie Brown.

M.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

If nothing else, reading over this thread reinforces the inescapable conclusion (as if it needed any reinforcing) that A) _Trek_ fans can't seem to agree on anything, and B) _Trek_ fans have stood so close to this particular subject for so long they can't even see what they're looking at anymore.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I think it was actually Kirk that said it best; "People can be very afraid of change."


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

If the _Trek_ franchise can withstand the Honda Accord-esque design aesthetic of the Enterprise D it can withstand anything.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Why all this talk that the Enterprise in the new movie must look more MODERN than the original. That is precisely how it should NOT look.
> 
> Modern means NOW. Modern will look DATED in a year or two.
> 
> ...


 :thumbsup: 

Amen, brother!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> If nothing else, reading over this thread reinforces the inescapable conclusion (as if it needed any reinforcing) that A) _Trek_ fans can't seem to agree on anything, and B) _Trek_ fans have stood so close to this particular subject for so long they can't even see what they're looking at anymore.


 :thumbsup:


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> If nothing else, reading over this thread reinforces the inescapable conclusion (as if it needed any reinforcing) that A) _Trek_ fans can't seem to agree on anything, and B) _Trek_ fans have stood so close to this particular subject for so long they can't even see what they're looking at anymore.


So? Football fans don't agree on anything either. Everyone, every single person has their own likes and dislikes.

I have a positive obsession with the original Enterprise. I've spent years recreating her in 3D, over and over again. For my 2 cents, you don't get better than that. She inspired feelings of awe for me years ago and no redesign is going to encompass that or surpass it.

Then again, it's my opinion and I'm welcome to it! 

Some are going to love the new design, no matter what. Others will hate it.

Old folks like me will look at it and either find it lacking or find good aspects to it. But (and here is the important part for me) no matter what, it will NEVER be the original again. That time is gone but thank god, it is not lost. I've got the DVDs.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I'm just hoping the Enterprise looks o.k.I doubt they will radically change the appearance of the ship.It they do it won't be believable that its the Enterprise.I read earlier Leonard Nimoy said 3 actors(hes one of the 3)will play Spock in the film.Its obvious we will see some time bouncing around in this film.Which also means the Enterprise should change too.As is well known the ship changed on the interior and exterior between the pilots and the 3rd season.they should remain somewhat faithful to that.Enthusiasm is building,just 11 more lonnnnnng months.Guy S.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> We're not talking about the 40-year old miniature, we're talking about the _design._ I think you must realize that.


I am talking about the design. The basic layout works but there are a lot of oddities. The fantail area is a real mess.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I thought you were talking about the model too. Going by your last post, it seemed you were making the comment that looking at the miniature, the producers would not want to use it in the movie.

Aside from the hanger bay doors problematic geometry, I don't see anything wrong with the back-end of the secondary hull. Visually, it looks pretty sharp. Certainly nothing that would qualify for "real mess" status. That, I usually reserve for reconciling interior layouts with exterior sets, like the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview.


----------



## fiercegaming (Jul 21, 2004)

Looks pretty friggin nice. Can't wait until she comes out.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

scifieric said:


> But (and here is the important part for me) no matter what, it will NEVER be the original again. That time is gone but thank god, it is not lost. I've got the DVDs.


Absolutely right. Star Trek can only exist on those dvds and nowhere else. You don't have to be a mushy nostalgic to believe this. ST was an exuberant burst of the 'blue-sky' thinking of the time - something that has ceased to be possible since the end of the 60s. The sci-fi format was selected by Roddenberry as a vehicle for a utopian vision of human potential (not as an excuse to stick some blokes, any blokes, on a spaceship with an established franchise and make money as is the case today). 

The optimism that generated TOS has long gone. The later Star Trek series and films are all necessarily contaminated by the general pessimism brought about by the cancellation of the 'blue-sky' future - even if it's only in the darker lighting of the sets and models. Just this was enough to trash the spirit of ST. The look of all later ST was brought down from the gauzy, ethereal brightness of TOS to a sort of confused murk after the wave of 'future depression' caused by Alien, Blade Runner and their ilk. Which had the crazy effect of making the later Enterprises etc. feel closer to us in time, and making the old show appear much further off in the future, while at the same time looking _dated_ in its production values.

And plus in TOS you could see the legs of the chicks better.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

gourounaki said:


> The look of all later ST was brought down from the gauzy, ethereal brightness of TOS to a sort of confused murk after the wave of 'future depression' caused by Alien, Blade Runner and their ilk. Which had the crazy effect of making the later Enterprises etc. feel closer to us in time, and making the old show appear much further off in the future, while at the same time looking _dated_ in its production values.
> 
> And plus in TOS you could see the legs of the chicks better.


Obviously I agree (especially about the legs of the chicks! LOL!) even though I love Blade Runner and Alien. They too were products of their times and I think that accounts for the steep decline in the ability of the sequels to hold their own (with the notable exception of Aliens).


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Yeah, I love Alien and Blade Runner too. Both aesthetics are great, the 'optimistic' and the 'pessimistic' - it's just that the influence of the latter is counter to the whole utopian philosophy of Star Trek as conceived, and is one of the reasons the spirit of the show could never be revived. 

TOS was just a warmer place to be. I'd love to talk about the emptiness of all later ST characters in comparison to the sheer attention paid to character chemistry in the old show, but that's for a different time and place sadly. I'd just say though that people tend to forget that Roddenberry's starting point for ST was not spaceships but characterisation. The whole focus was on a vision of humanity's ultimate moral potential expressed through precise, impassioned characterisation. That's why it's a work of genius, and why the spin-offs are not. You wait, I'll bet a single twitch of McCoy's cheek from the old show packs more expressive power than the whole running time of this new film.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

gourounaki said:


> Yeah, I love Alien and Blade Runner too. Both aesthetics are great, the 'optimistic' and the 'pessimistic' - it's just that the influence of the latter is counter to the whole utopian philosophy of Star Trek as conceived, and is one of the reasons the spirit of the show could never be revived.
> 
> TOS was just a warmer place to be. I'd love to talk about the emptiness of all later ST characters in comparison to the sheer attention paid to character chemistry in the old show, but that's for a different time and place sadly. I'd just say though that people tend to forget that Roddenberry's starting point for ST was not spaceships but characterisation. The whole focus was on a vision of humanity's ultimate moral potential expressed through precise, impassioned characterisation. That's why it's a work of genius, and why the spin-offs are not. You wait, I'll bet a single twitch of McCoy's cheek from the old show packs more expressive power than the whole running time of this new film.


I've never read such an ironically pessimistic post all about a lack of optimism. Incidentally, I think you saw the mirror-universe version of the spin-off shows -- that description certainly doesn't match what _I_ remember seeing.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> The later Star Trek series and films are all necessarily contaminated by the general pessimism brought about by the cancellation of the 'blue-sky' future -


Yeah, that Save the Whales sequel was a real bummer.

Sorry, but I don't buy the premise that the _Trek_ films expressed a darker, more pessimistic world view than that of the series. Certainly the production design of the films was influenced by our ever evolving idea of what an idealized 23rd century should look like, but the future as depicted is hardly a dystopian nightmare.

Contrary to popular belief, optimism for the future did not die off with J.F.K. It simply lost its tail fins.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Carson,
I think what he was trying to say was that there was terrible trend in the movies (post TWOK) and in all of the series (post TNG yr 2) to portray even Starfleet as a corrupt organization full of scheming admirals and crazy captains (section 31 anyone?) which smack the utopian future in the face.

It's a shame that after the passing of GR the powers that were weren't creative enough to find ways to tell good stories without resorting to tapping into the American public's basic distrust of authority to find their inspiration


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Carson,
> I think what he was trying to say was that there was terrible trend in the movies (post TWOK) and in all of the series (post TNG yr 2) to portray even Starfleet as a corrupt organization full of scheming admirals and crazy captains (section 31 anyone?) which smack the utopian future in the face.
> 
> It's a shame that after the passing of GR the powers that were weren't creative enough to find ways to tell good stories without resorting to tapping into the American public's basic distrust of authority to find their inspiration


I think you need to re-watch the original series. Most of the Federation officials we see in the series are officious bureaucrats. In episodes like "Amok Time" and "Mark of Gideon," Starfleet officials are an obstacle to overcome. In more than one episode, a Starfleet captain is shown to be insane. In fact "Courtmartial," the first episode to use the term "Starfleet," shows them trying to railroad Kirk into a guilty verdict.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Carson,
> It's a shame that after the passing of GR the powers that were weren't creative enough to find ways to tell good stories without resorting to tapping into the American public's basic distrust of authority to find their inspiration


I've seen the various ST shows only through re-runs. Typically, you see three shows a day in chronological order.

What I find striking is how often the same story line is recycled. It would be interesting to come up with counts for the number of episodes where the the story is:

1. Character's personality is split into to bodies.
2. The Holodeck goes crazy.
3. Character's personality is moved to another body.

During the limit period of time when SPIKE is not The CSI Channel and I can watch the voyager re-runs, it is rare that I see an episode with an original story.

I have caught only a few Enterprise episodes and I have to see one where they story is not a rehash. (I'm not talking about homages, like the TNG story about the drunk disease -- that they managed to turn into a Wesley Crusher takes over the enterprise story).

I don't even think the problem is not having GR. The first few seasons of TNG are pretty lame (ie until they got rid of Wesley Crusher). I have read the old Making of book and it quotes GR as saying that they had to be real. He gives the example that the Captain would never hold a yeoman on the bridge to comfort her in a time of crisis. Yet, that same GR had the even more incomprehensible situation of a teenager running the enterprise. 

Even Wesley was a rehash. It's interesting how many bad sci-fi shows find the need for a Will Robinson character. (Sea Quest anyone?).

As I watch the series in sequence I can just imagine a writer's meeting?
"Any ideas folks?"
"We're all tapped out."
"Come on, we've got to come up with something for the next show?"
"We've used up everything"
"OK then, the holodeck goes crazy and can't be unplugged again."


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

yeah, fair enough there was Captain Garth and Ronald Tracy and Janice Lester (if you think she ever would have made Captain.) Individuals who were corrupt. but not the system itself


but it wasn't till the ST6 where you had high ranking Starfleet admirals conspiring with Romulans and the Klingons to wreck the peace process in order to keep space destabilized.

but nobody was trying to railroad Kirk in Courtmartial...

They were acting on the evidence. They just couldn't believe that anybody could _rig_ the evidence. they had too much blind faith in their computers

if they were really trying to railroad Kirk, they never would have allowed the change in venue.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

BigJim,
you are absolutely right! the holodeck was a crutch that was used waaaay too much.

between those, the "Data explores humanity" stories and "picard get his pants in a wad over the forced relocation of the locals" stories, there wasn't that much else to talk about


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I think what he was trying to say was that there was terrible trend in the movies (post TWOK) and in all of the series (post TNG yr 2) to portray even Starfleet as a corrupt organization full of scheming admirals and crazy.


While I can’t address any of the post-TOS televison series (yawn), I’m at a loss to find evidence of a broken utopia in any of the feature films. Certainly the Cold war-themed _Undiscovered Country_ features a couple of Oliver North-inspired renegades, but as you yourself point out…



Lou Dalmaso said:


> Individuals were corrupt. but not the system itself





gourounaki said:


> people tend to forget that Roddenberry's starting point for ST was not spaceships but characterisation.


IIRC, Roddenberry’s “starting point” was the desire to profer social commentary disguised as action/ sci-fi entertainment. The characters were there to support the series theme(s), and not the other way around.

Also, from a dramatic standpoint, there's a big difference between "characterization" and "character" (the former is superficial; the latter runs deep). 



Lou Dalmaso said:


> It's a shame that after the passing of GR the powers that were weren't creative enough to find ways to tell good stories without resorting to tapping into the American public's basic distrust of authority to find their inspiration


Oh c’mon, TOS asked us to Question Authority at every turn. Roddenberry fancied himself an iconoclast, and I suspect he would’ve appreciated _Undiscovered Country _for its willingness to explore a topical theme. Even Utopia needs a healthy dose of skepticism (just ask Dr. McCoy).


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, that Save the Whales sequel was a real bummer.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy the premise that the _Trek_ films expressed a darker, more pessimistic world view than that of the series. Certainly the production design of the films was influenced by our ever evolving idea of what an idealized 23rd century should look like, but the future as depicted is hardly a dystopian nightmare.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, optimism for the future did not die off with J.F.K. It simply lost its tail fins.


Yeah, I admit the original cast movies managed to bring over some of the original optimism, by virtue of the residual characterisation, but I did qualify my point by saying the influence of 70s pessimism was to be seen there if only in aspects of the production design. The real thrust of my argument was aimed at the spin-off series and films. Sorry, it's hard to write a water-tight thesis in the confines of a small post! 

Your last remark was rather nice, but just to be sure I fully understand you, what _exactly_ do the tailfins represent? Shallow and unrealistic aspirations for the future?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> . . . what _exactly_ do the tailfins represent? Shallow and unrealistic aspirations for the future?


I thought he meant losing its way (unable to stay on course).


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson, thanks for your corrections, but none of them really altered the basic drift of what I was saying. The point stands that Rodders wasn't primarily interested in the sf format per se, but the theme of positive human potential etc. for which he selected sf as the best vehicle. Ok, so the theme came first but it's expressed through the characters, that's why I emphasised characterisation (one of the definitions of which is the act of imparting character to someone or something).


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> …Your last remark was rather nice, but just to be sure I fully understand you, what _exactly_ do the tailfins represent?


Just because Hollywood's vision of the future no longer resembles an episode of The Jetsons doesn’t mean we've lost our optimism.



gourounaki said:


> Carson, thanks for your corrections, but none of them really altered the basic drift of what I was saying.


I was reacting to comments like these:



gourounaki said:


> ST was an exuberant burst of the 'blue-sky' thinking of the time…





gourounaki said:


> The optimism that generated TOS has long gone.





gourounaki said:


> The later Star Trek series and films are all necessarily contaminated by the general pessimism


Those who romanticize the 60’s as having been a more hopeful age are conveniently forgetting what a terrifying time it was -- megaton for megaton probably _the _most terrifying time in human history.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of this thread, I’d argue that any design as famous and emblematic of its era as the TOS _Enterprise_ has no choice but to age in the mind of the public. Saying the _Enterprise_ hasn’t aged is like saying the Eiffel Tower hasn’t aged. Both are great designs, and both were considered futuristic when they first appeared. By contemporary standards however they harken back to yesterday more than they suggest tomorrow, and for _Star Trek_ this is a problem.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I like this. This is good discussion with points on all sides.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I'd like.
In the 60's, when the original series said to question "Authority" it was because "Kirk knows best" when he broke the rules as in the private little war, it was to save the hill people or when he destroyed Vaal it was because Akuta &Co. were stagnating before a "false god". In the case of Landru, he wanted to get his fellow officers back from the mind control. 

it never seemed to be out of any sort of agenda or malice.

Ambassador Fox, Commodre Stocker ( and Nils Baris, to a lesser extent) were desk bound paper pushers who didn't know what the trenches were like.

Kirk was a maverick and a rule breaker and we liked him that way

But, when the "space Hippies" arrived, suddenly OUR GUYS were the Authority.
a lot of folks rag on that episode, but I found it really revealing. Especially how Scotty's character reacts. 

What I'm saying is that in TNG and later incarnations of the series, Starfleet itself took a darker turn and was more like the the FBI in X-files. It was not just "the boss" but an adversary in itself. The cowboy diplomacy was no longer tolerated and our boys were told to shape up and fly right. Startiing in ST3 with the Starfleet secret service keeping an eye on McCoy, lest he say the "wrong" thing in public regarding Genesis (which is a topic in itself for our utopian future ) to the crew being refused to take the E back to Genesis to get Spock's body.

The premise of Section 31 is also counter to the goals of the Utopian society .


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> What I'm saying is that in TNG and later incarnations of the series, Starfleet itself took a darker turn and was more like the the FBI in X-files


Sounds like the producers were scrounging for new bad guys. Considering the longevity of the franchise it’s hard to blame them for getting tired of the Romulans, the Klingons, and the occasional disembodied head floating in space. 

Likewise, given post-TOS events like Watergate, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, etc. it’s hard to blame contemporary _Trek_ writers for casting a suspicious eye toward government and the military. Certainly the subject matter wouldn’t have intimidated Roddenberry or **** (NBC would no doubt have been be another matter).


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Personally, I think that these filmmakers today are making a bad move when they try to make Trek too topical by inserting todays politics into their storys. That may have happened here and there in TOS but overall, I would say that it was more closely tied to the 1940s. That was when most of its important creative lights had come of age and by 1967, that was effectively ancient history. Being thus tied to what amounts to "an earlier age" they were paradoxically able to achieve a feel of "the future" (retro or not, a "different age" is a "different age"). No matter what, TOS is not "now" today or in 1967, instead it was definitely another age. In effect, its social moires were already "past" so it could not go "out of style" because it was never in style to begin with, if you see what I mean. That gave TOS "legs". None of what has followed (TV or film) has been able to break its contemporary "feel" in a similar fashion and I think this contributes (among other things) to their inability to impact the market in the same way.

Why make movies about the "future" which project todays cynicism? The Great Depression was when we saw the height of silly musicals, people didn't want to see shows about how awful life was then, they already knew! Similarly, todays audiences don't need to be reminded of the conflicts of our day, we already know about them. Witness the poor returns for dramas about todays conflicts, audiences don't need to hear about them and even less, need to hear Hollywoods point of view about them. TOS was bold, the later shows were merely mundane (read: "today").

I say, forget "Watergate" and the rest, make Star Trek about a bold, glorious future, full of adventure and exploration. That will get the butts into the seats and possibly re-start money making franchise.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Why all this talk that the Enterprise in the new movie must look more MODERN than the original. That is precisely how it should NOT look.
> 
> Modern means NOW. Modern will look DATED in a year or two.
> 
> ...


I sure have missed reading your elegant, common sense answers. It's a shame enlightened art criticism like this isn't prevalent at the TrekBBS, among theatre goers, or in Hollywood.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Personally, I think that these filmmakers today are making a bad move when they try to make Trek too topical by inserting todays politics into their storys.


If the filmmakers were to concentrate solely on current events I agree it would be a mistake. Obviously strong characters, epic adventure, and breathtaking special FX are a big part of the Trek formula. Nevertheless, separating Trek from its socially conscious underpinnings strikes as being an ill-fated move.

It’s probably a moot point as far as the new film is concerned, because so far as I can tell J.J. Abrams is more interested in entertaining audiences than he is in challenging them. Which is fine with me (although I suspect Roddenberry and Co. might have expected more from “future” filmmakers).



X15-A2 said:


> In effect, its social moires were already "past" so it could not go "out of style" because it was never in style to begin with, if you see what I mean.


Yes and no. Obviously the past influences the present, but the 60’s were a period of rapid change, and IMO _Star Trek_ is as much a child of that era as The Beatles, space walks, and Martin Luther King.



X15-A2 said:


> Why make movies about the "future" which project todays cynicism?


As a _Planet of the Apes_ fan I’m surprised you have to ask that question.  

Kidding aside, I’ll state outright that _Star Trek_ is the last place in the galaxy I want or expect to find cynicism (unless, as I mentioned before, that cynicism expresses itself via Dr. McCoy).



X15-A2 said:



> todays audiences don't need to be reminded of the conflicts of our day..


I’m not saying audiences need to be “reminded” of modern day conflicts, but I do think those conflicts can be used to provide dramatic context (not to mention subtext), which in turn can energize an otherwise mundane plot.

Granted the 40’s gave us silly MGM musicals, but they also gave us grim Warner Brothers Film Noirs (and a darker bunch of films have never been made).



X15-A2 said:


> audiences don't need to hear about them and even less, need to hear Hollywoods point of view about them.


One of these days I want to meet this Hollywood fellow.



X15-A2 said:


> I say, forget "Watergate" and the rest, make Star Trek about a bold, glorious future, full of adventure and exploration. That will get the butts into the seats and possibly re-start money making franchise.


I think _Trek_ is big enough for political subtext, social concern, and rip-roaring adventure. Contrary to popular belief, they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

QUOTE ; Carson Dyle: 

" Those who romanticize the 60’s as having been a more hopeful age are conveniently forgetting what a terrifying time it was -- megaton for megaton probably _the _most terrifying time in human history."

To say the 60s was a more hopeful age is not to ignore the grim facts of the period but to suggest that the ability to hope for a better future was stronger then. When I said TOS was an example of the exuberant 'blue-sky' thinking of the time, I was referring specifically to that branch of futurology, which was, at the time, the dominant one. Of course the roots of the dystopian projections had begun: Dick's novels began to appear in the 60s. But the dominant trend was 'blue-sky' (NASA's term for their long-term techno-hopes). The blue-sky hope went like this: the Cold War was a major nightmare, but if it could be ended, perhaps we could get to the gleaming future. But then with the start of the 70s came the full realisation of environmental disaster, overpopulation (a fear since reduced) and perhaps most important, the Opec oil crisis, all of which, along with Watergate, Vietnam, the indefinite postponement of the space dream with the cancellation of Apollo, _and_ the ongoing Cold War, combined pretty much finally to break people's faith in a better tomorrow. (And I'd add that convention has it that _this_ was the moment the optimism gave out rather than JFK's death - after all, the big 60s party with Star Trek and the Beatles came after).

As you said, you don't need tailfins for a bright future, but unless someone comes up with something soon, we _are_ still going to need _oil_ - and to do something about the environment. The Opec crisis and eco-alarms of the early 70s were what really put the downers on the bright future hopes, and they cast their shadow to this day. Despite the Cold War, people in the 60s could still_ hope _ we'd spend the 21st century boldly exploring space in love and friendship, but from our perspective today we can see the present century will more likely be spent instead here on a ruined Earth in an ugly squabble for natural resources......which is, on the other hand, better than outright nuclear annihilation, so perhaps the future looks bright after all.

But anyway, anyway, back to the shape of the Nichelles - I mean the _Nicholls_ - no, I mean the _nacelles,_ sorry...


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

X15-A2 said:


> I would say that it was more closely tied to the 1940s. That was when most of its important creative lights had come of age and by 1967, that was effectively ancient history. Being thus tied to what amounts to "an earlier age" they were paradoxically able to achieve a feel of "the future" (retro or not, a "different age" is a "different age"). No matter what, TOS is not "now" today or in 1967, instead it was definitely another age. In effect, its social moires were already "past" so it could not go "out of style" because it was never in style to begin with, if you see what I mean. That gave TOS "legs". .


Interesting stuff.


----------



## Daikaiju1 (Apr 26, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Granted the 40’s gave us silly MGM musicals, but they also gave us grim Warner Brothers Film Noirs (and a darker bunch of films have never been made)


So, I know this is not the movie forum, but from that comment obviously no-one has seen Sweeny Todd?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Is the that the one with Angela Lansbury? 

Seriously, _Nightmare Alley_ (1947) makes _Sweeny Todd _look like _The Sound of Music_.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Is the that the one with Angela Lansbury?
> 
> Seriously, _Nightmare Alley_ (1947) makes _Sweeny Todd _look like _The Sound of Music_.


Think he prolly means the new Tim Burton-directed _Sweeney Todd_ starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman.

Just released in NZ and Australia a week or two ago. And Depp sings...


----------



## Daikaiju1 (Apr 26, 2005)

Yeah I did mean the new Burton Sweeny Todd. Sorry, I thought it would have opened in the US earlier than here. Yes, Johnny Depp sings, and not too bad. At least, perfect for his character (when is he not?) Superb performances from him, Rickman and Spall, not too bad from Helena BC. At least better than the diabolical Planet of the Apes.
Put me off pies but...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Anyone know if the character of Gary Mitchell is going to be in this flick? If it's about Kirk's early days on the _Enterprise_ then it follows that he should be...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Sorry guys, I was kidding. I've seen the new _Sweeny Todd_, and I enjoyed it very much.

Now then, where were we... ah, yes. We were discussing the look of the new _Enterprise_...

I just hope Spock and Sulu still have those little scanners to peek into. And unless the doors make a familiar swishing sound I'm walking out.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> And unless the doors make a familiar swishing sound I'm walking out.


We could always go "sshh" in the theatre each time the doors move. It might become a Rocky Horror-type event. You know, where the audience goes "sshh", shouts "dammit, Jim" when Bones shows up, screams when Chekov appears ... that sort of thing.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> I say, forget "Watergate" and the rest, make Star Trek about a bold, glorious future, full of adventure and exploration. That will get the butts into the seats and possibly re-start money making franchise.


Very well said. :thumbsup:


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> I just hope Spock and Sulu still have those little scanners to peek into. And unless the doors make a familiar swishing sound I'm walking out.


Darn right. And I want black trousers tucked into black boots, and tights and miniskirts or I'm not even paying the admission. That was another thing wrong with those later Trek movies: how could it be Star Trek when they were all walking round in those awful Space:1999 slacks?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I want styrofoam rocks, big flats for walls with red and blue lights aimed at them, closeups of women filmed through cheese cloth, grainy off color effects shots and stunt people that bear no resemblance to the actors they're doubling for. You know, all the original stuff that made Trek so great!


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Not just styrofoam rocks... but styrofoam rocks that bounce off of Spock's head like it was made of cast-rhodinium... ala` 'Return of the Archons'.

Yeah. That would be cool. Landru! Help us!


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

SteveR said:


> We could always go "sshh" in the theatre each time the doors move. It might become a Rocky Horror-type event. You know, where the audience goes "sshh", shouts "dammit, Jim" when Bones shows up, screams when Chekov appears ... that sort of thing.


...And then throw a bowl of Plomeek soup at the screen while screaming " If I wanted your attention, I would have asked for it! ", every time Nurse Chapel appears.

I must mate or die....


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

And don't forget wall decorations made of spray-painted Styrofoam packing material, medical instruments made out of salt shakers, and the same fake-looking matte painting used for backgrounds on five different planets.

And a speech by Kirk about the burden of command and how he doesn't have time for romance because he's married to his ship (while bonking every cute space babe who passes his way), some lines for Spock about how he's torn between his Vulcan and human halves and how hard he tries to hide his feelings, and Uhura opening the hailing frequencies and admitting that she's frightened.

And at least one or two "laundry lists" -- the cheap writer's device to remind the audience that this is The Future. "Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lee Kwan, Krotus. . ."


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

How about the "shh" doors like they had in Airplane 2? I think was about the time Shatner started to really relax and truly make fun of his own persona.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Why all this talk that the Enterprise in the new movie must look more MODERN than the original. That is precisely how it should NOT look.
> 
> Modern means NOW. Modern will look DATED in a year or two.
> 
> ...


:woohoo: :thumbsup:


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

scotpens said:


> And don't forget wall decorations made of spray-painted Styrofoam packing material, medical instruments made out of salt shakers, and the same fake-looking matte painting used for backgrounds on five different planets.
> 
> And a speech by Kirk about the burden of command and how he doesn't have time for romance because he's married to his ship (while bonking every cute space babe who passes his way), some lines for Spock about how he's torn between his Vulcan and human halves and how hard he tries to hide his feelings, and Uhura opening the hailing frequencies and admitting that she's frightened.
> 
> And at least one or two "laundry lists" -- the cheap writer's device to remind the audience that this is The Future. "Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lee Kwan, Krotus. . ."


Much laughter over here... but I'd still prefer the daftness outlined above to watching a pile of charisma-less dummies wading through a load of the usual soul-less CGI, which, short of a miracle, is about all this new film will probably add up to. The new film may perhaps achieve more believable rocks and walls, but that'll probably be about it.

Still, who knows, maybe they _will _ give that yeoman chick a two-foot-high peroxide wickerbasket hairdo, and all will be well...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

gourounaki said:


> I'd still prefer the daftness outlined above to watching a pile of charisma-less dummies wading through a load of the usual soul-less CGI, which, short of a miracle, is about all this new film will probably add up to.


Upon what are you basing this conclusion? Seriously.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Experience?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Experience?


  

You're right, John!

None of us _want_ it to be that way but we've been disappointed in the last few movies.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

sbaxter said:


> Upon what are you basing this conclusion? Seriously.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


 The conclusion that the new movie won't be as entertaining as the old show no matter how silly TOS could be at times? I base it on the sheer banality of the majority of big fx movies over the last 15 years. The trend makes it a fair bet this will be nothing to get excited about either. 

I'd love to be proved wrong... but it's a difficult thing to pull off, making a charismatic movie. And milking a franchise is not the best way to go about it. Even Lucas in his prequels, and with the deepest commitment, struggled valiantly but ultimately failed to find the old magic. So what hope here?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

gourounaki said:


> I base it on the sheer banality of the majority of big fx movies over the last 15 years. The trend makes it a fair bet this will be nothing to get excited about either.


Okay, but a "trend" isn't making this movie; JJ Abrams is. And he hasn't let me down so far. 


gourounaki said:


> Even Lucas in his prequels, and with the deepest commitment, struggled valiantly but ultimately failed to find the old magic. So what hope here?


First, I disagree that Lucas failed. I may (or may not) be in the minority in that view, but there you go. Second, Lucas isn't making this movie either.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

If anyone is griping this early, you will most certainly be disappointed not matter what.
Just save your money and watch your TOS box set DVDs at home.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

From looking over these boards, I am convinced that even if the movie is another CITIZEN KANE there are people who won't like it for two reasons:

1) It wasn't made in the 1950's

2) They aren't 12 years-old when they first see it.

I recognize the power of nostaligia, but I really see no difference between someone who won't watch the movie because they changed some incidental details and someone who won't watch the original series because they think it look "hokey."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

As hard as it is to win over any audience for any film, why do they make it harder on themselves by changing "incidental details?"


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

sbaxter,

Ok, Abrams appears to have something about him, so maybe the film won't be as lame as the usual big fx fare. Let's hope.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

And look on the bright side - Braga and Berman ain't involved so there's a better than average chance that this won't be a big pile of steamers...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

KUROK said:


> If anyone is griping this early, you will most certainly be disappointed not matter what.
> Just save your money and watch your TOS box set DVDs at home.


I couldn't agree more. Some are not going to be satisfied whatever is done. What right have we to deny a new generation they're vision only to stifle it with what we were comfortable with?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> What right have we to deny a new generation they're vision only to stifle it with what we were comfortable with?


The right of being the ones in power!

Make them adjust to us! 






:jest:


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The right of being the ones in power!
> 
> Make them adjust to us!
> 
> ...


Hate to tell you this, but at this time next year, there is a very good chance we will have a Generation X president. The Baby Boomers reign is at an end.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> And I want black trousers tucked into black boots


You must be thinking of Dr. Smith.

On TOS the pant legs of the male duty uniforms ended at mid-shin in an overlapping cuff, and were not "tucked in."

If you're gonna poke fun at 60's costuming choices at least get the details right. Next you'll be telling me Captain Kirk's shirt was goldenrod yellow.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's add in the possible variable that what we're seeing is an alternate reality battleship, and that by the end of this flick, the Enterprise we all know and love will be restored.

How does that change our perceptions?


----------



## lastastronaut (Jan 29, 2008)

Well, I dunno much about spaceships and battles and such, but when i was just a wee feller, livin on down near crackleberry creek......

Seriously now, I just went and saw a pic of the starship that started this whole thread,and all I can say is I just enjoy the crap out of TOS,and I liked the movies,and the Enterprises are cool..except I have to admit that I ALWAYS thought the one from Next Gen was completely retarded looking and my least favorite..I hated that design).

Otherwise I like the shows, the movies and even though i dont know enough about the ships or all the "nuances" of the 100s of models that have been produced,to know what is supposed to be right or wrong, I Know i am more than mesmerized and floored when people build really incredible models that are lit or painted really clean and beautifully,or detailed to the rediculous degree.
I just build the simplified ones that have easy paint schemes,and try to do a really clean spotless tight presentation on the build...and I just enjoy ythe heck out of it, Whether it's "Filmicly correct" or not.
So when this movie comes out,I'll see it,and based on what i saw in the pic, I will dig the enterprise,and just enjoy the movie and go home and rewatch 
The Motion picture " again... because that one is my favorite.

So everyone who is debating every aspect of the ship and potentially really putting alot of heavy un needed atmosphere on the model building enjoymnet od simple relaxation.....i am in the "complete ignorance of the knowledge of truth of the subject...and happy as all hell," because " Hey.... that spaceship sure is peerrrty..like to have one of those I suppose"


----------



## lastastronaut (Jan 29, 2008)

Originally Posted by Dave Hussey

Can't a guy think that more than one girl is hot? 

Huzz 


Man.... EXACTLY... PERfect analogy....What if everytime some new media or celebrity star came new to the scene, and she was even hotter and more gorgeous or maybe not necesarily that, but jast as beautiful, but DIFFERENT looking, she got shunned becasue she simply wasnt the Gil Elvgren girl of yesteryear....there are LOTS of amazing girls with amazing traits who look none like the other..


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> If you're gonna poke fun at 60's costuming choices at least get the details right. Next you'll be telling me Captain Kirk's shirt was goldenrod yellow.


Well... I imagined in my brain that his shirt was buff. Of course, we only had a 19" B/W to watch the re-runs on... staticky re-runs. 










*" Say buddy... I like the color of your shirt. What's that supposed to be? P**s - Yellah or Puke Green? "*


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Let's add in the possible variable that what we're seeing is an alternate reality battleship, and that by the end of this flick, the Enterprise we all know and love will be restored.
> 
> How does that change our perceptions?



DUDE! Exactly what I was saying back when all of that "green screen sets" malarky was floating around! I had heard of the alt timeline plot points and said the same thing. that they wouldn't put the expence of building sets if they weren't meant to last.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Some plot rumors indicate this may be an alternate reality universe, but even so the description of the Enterprise toy being produced by Playmates indicates it will be a mix of TOS E and TMP E. That leads me to believe what we saw on the teaser is it.

Link for description of toys:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/020208_03.shtml


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Captain April said:


> Let's add in the possible variable that what we're seeing is an alternate reality battleship, and that by the end of this flick, the Enterprise we all know and love will be restored.
> 
> How does that change our perceptions?




Not much, in fact I think I'd want to see this even less than I already do. I _hate_ Trek time travel.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Oh c'mon....

_City on the Edge of Forever_... _Assignment:Earth... Tomorrow is Yesterday... Yesterday's Enterprise... _... These are some of _Trek's_ finest hours. Granted the temptation to rely on cheap time travel gimmicks got the better of certain post-TOS episodes, but as a plot device it has been put to very good use over the years. I have no particular desire to go zipping around time for no good reason, but in terms of connecting certain continuity dots between TOS and the next film there’s no doubt it could be a useful tool.



gourounaki said:


> Despite the Cold War, people in the 60s could still_ hope _ we'd spend the 21st century boldly exploring space in love and friendship, but from our perspective today we can see the present century will more likely be spent instead here on a ruined Earth in an ugly squabble for natural resources......


Bah humbug.

I’ll grant you that young people today are starved for inspiration and leadership, but if you think they’ve given up hope for a brighter future you haven’t been paying attention to the current political scene.

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between hope and naiveté. Just because the jetpacks, flying cars and transporter beams never arrived (at least not yet) that doesn’t mean we’ve lost our hope for a better tomorrow. As long as human beings love their children there will always be hope (consider that my happy thought of the day). 

Speaking of politics, it always amuses me when fans try to divest _Star Trek _of its socio-political agenda. That agenda, more than anything else, was the reason the show was created in the first place. Granted, network censorship required that the message be dialed down – and considering the melodramatic (by our standards) writing and acting styles of the day, this was probably a good thing. Even so, TOS at its best was TV with a Conscience, and I see no reason why the movies should purge themselves of all topical reference. Having a message is not necessarily a bad thing; the trick is to deliver it with a light touch, and in an entertaining way.

I’m not saying the _Trek _films should be dark and edgy a la Ron Moore’s BS:G, but I do think the franchise holds the potential of being more than just a big adventure spectacle. Whether anyone will bother to tap that potential remains to be seen.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Carson, don't make me go through late _TNG_, _DS9_, _Voyager_ and _Enterprise_ to list all the _horrible_ time travel plots... I don't want to waste hours of my time looking them all up and everyone else's time having to read them! You and I both know there are precious few times in Trek history where that particlular plot device has been well-used and not thoroughly run into the ground. And the one's you mentioned are mostly TOS from 40 years ago! Just because _a long time ago_ they got it right doesn't mean its something that we can look forward to today. 

All you're doing is proving my earlier point that Star Trek was once great and steadlily grown weak, tired and in dire need of a break. A _real_ break.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Far be it from me to disagree with the "_Trek_ has gone steadily downhill" part of your post. I get sleepy just reading the titles of the other series you mention. Nevertheless, I think J.J. Abrams pulled a rabbit out of his hat with _M:I-3_, and I'm curious to see if he can work the same magic with _Trek_.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> Some plot rumors indicate this may be an alternate reality universe, but even so the description of the Enterprise toy being produced by Playmates indicates it will be a mix of TOS E and TMP E. That leads me to believe what we saw on the teaser is it.
> 
> Link for description of toys:
> 
> http://www.trektoday.com/news/020208_03.shtml


Something that occurred to me regarding the toys.

Playmates may not be allowed to put out a TOS Enterprise, even if she does show up at the end of the movie, because that license is still held by Art Asylum.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

If Art Asylum ends up issuing an Enterprise from the new movie instead of Playmates, that would be a very good thing. The Art Asylum stuff has been of consistently high quality for the price; whereas Playmates is very clearly a toy - and just a toy.

Recall the effort Art Asylum put into their current TOS Enterprise, engaging Tom Sasser to ensure accuracy.

In fact, I saw a thread somewhere where a guy was comparing the Art Asylum TOS phaser to the high priced prop replica by Master Replicas. It may have been on the Replica Prop Forum (www.therpf.com). The Master Replicas was metal and hundreds of dollars. the Art Asylum was plastic and about $25. But other than that, they were almost identical.

Huzz


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Dave,
and the AA phasers are so good that they were used in "Enterprise" as "real" phasers on the Defiant.

The joke is that those same phasers were auctioned at Christies. I don't remember off hand how much they went for, but it was a heck of a lot more than they cost at the store. HAH!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Here is a thread on the RPF where they mention that some of the AA's were used on Enterprise:

http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=1918&highlight=asylum

I guess if those guys are interested in them , that speaks highly of the quality. The guy over there says:

"Art Asylum phaser: screen accurate (one of these unmodified toys was used as a phaser prop in the "Star Trek Enterprise" epsidode "In a Mirror Darkly"). Nearly identical to the HMS/Roddenberry.com phaser shown above, but introduces a few errors not present on that model (side ribs that curve up, side knob missing its round rim, inaccurate "popup" targeting sight). Nevertheless, the best reasonably-priced toy replica of the phaser ever made, and can be modified with metal parts to make a darn fine replica for a minimum of money)"

Huzz


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Hi all,

I notice the conversation has touched upon the AA phaser and I hope you don't mind if I show off a little bit. I upgraded this one to full hero status a few years ago and loaned it to Starship Exeter for filming on the set. It has matched paint as well as a lot of metal parts. This was before my first child (now I have two) so I don't have a lot of time for hobbies but it is nice to show pics sometimes. Enjoy.


http://home.comcast.net/~vinceman1/AAUpgrade.html


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Nice job Kurok, that looks great!


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> You must be thinking of Dr. Smith.
> 
> On TOS the pant legs of the male duty uniforms ended at mid-shin in an overlapping cuff, and were not "tucked in."
> 
> If you're gonna poke fun at 60's costuming choices at least get the details right. Next you'll be telling me Captain Kirk's shirt was goldenrod yellow.


Lay off, willya? I was actually chiming in with your sentiments re the old show - the swishing doors etc. I wasn't poking fun at all. I think the trouser look in TOS is great and should've been kept for all later Trek. I didn't realise they were shin-length and 'cuffed', though. I apologise to you with all my heart for not noticing this. Han Solo's trousers are long and tucked in, so it's not even a bad thing, as you seem to suggest. 

This argument may seem asinine, but trousers of sf heroes are a very important consideration. No, I _am_ being serious. Han Solo's trouser and boot look was really crucial to the whole character. As it was for the Enterprise crew. It gave them a more swashbuckling, more rip-roaring look than in the later stuff. 

You should've realised I was sincere about the TOS pants and boots, because in the same breath I said I wanted the tights and miniskirts in the new film as well. What red-blooded male (and I like to think I am such) would mock that spectacular and much-missed element of the old show?

The guys who followed me were the ones having a poke, not me. And more power to 'em. The bit about the styrofoam rock bouncing off Spock's head nearly had me crying with laughter.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

[QUOTE=Carson Dyle:


"Just because the jetpacks, flying cars and transporter beams never arrived (at least not yet) that doesn’t mean we’ve lost our hope for a better tomorrow. As long as human beings love their children there will always be hope (consider that my happy thought of the day). "



As I said before: I'm not talking about the lack of flying cars and jetpacks causing despair for the future, I'm talking about the vast, long-term, intractable problems involving ever-depleting energy resources and ever-increasing environmental pollution.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> Lay off, willya? I was actually chiming in with your sentiments re the old show - the swishing doors etc. I wasn't poking fun at all. I think the trouser look in TOS is great and should've been kept for all later Trek. I didn't realise they were shin-length and 'cuffed', though. I apologise to you with all my heart for not noticing this.


Judging from your defensive reply I think you may have misread the tone of my post. I didn't intend to criticize you with what I thought would be read as a tongue-in-cheek comment (reinforced with a winking smiley-face no less). If I offended, I apologize.

As for my comments re: the future: you continue to miss my point. Obviously the human race has all sorts of challenges to overcome if it is to survive, but what else is new. Certainly you are entitled to your gloomy forecast for the 21st Century (and beyond), but I'm grateful the creators of TOS took a more positive view.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

*Paramount Movie Site Has Forum*

The paramount site for the trek movie now has a fourm up with alot of different topics including a shot of the uniforms in the movie. 

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/forums/index.php


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

1711rob said:


> The paramount site for the trek movie now has a fourm up with alot of different topics including a shot of the uniforms in the movie.
> 
> http://www.paramount.com/startrek/forums/index.php


Can you point a link to the uniforms? I can't find them.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/forums/showthread.php?t=15

they did blur the pic on purpose but at least it's a little peek :wave:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

1711rob said:


> http://www.paramount.com/startrek/forums/showthread.php?t=15
> 
> they did blur the pic on purpose but at least it's a little peek :wave:


Ah, those are the cadet uniforms, and not the actual ones used on a starship.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Yuck!

That's not very "trek-like" at all.

This:










(IMO) looks too much like this:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Thats probably why the pants aren't tucked into the boots. But I would like it if they were. Reminds me of Air Force Cadet uniforms. Maybe thats just the Starfleet Academy issue?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

There was a matching gray cap to the gray uniform jacket worn in "The Cage."


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> Judging from your defensive reply I think you may have misread the tone of my post. I didn't intend to criticize you with what I thought would be read as a tongue-in-cheek comment (reinforced with a winking smiley-face no less). If I offended, I apologize.


No offence taken. Still, it would have delighted my sense of the absurd if we _had _ ended up locking horns in a prolonged battle over Kirk's trousers.

Smilie returned.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

mactrek said:


> Yuck!
> 
> That's not very "trek-like" at all.
> 
> ...


Marvellous: an Enterprise manned by fascists. But without their pants tucked in (even the Nazis had at least the good grace to do this).


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Yes, all this is fine, but will it be a good movie? The new movie appears to be a logical extension of "Enterprise" with very little concern for the original series. It almost seems like they decided to forget TOS when Enterprise came on. 

But, be honest, if it looked just like TOS wouldn't that be pretty cheesy in a '60's sort of way? 

If the movie turns out to be good, all of this will be accepted as the norm. If the movie sucks we will try to put it out of our minds.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CaliOkie said:


> But, be honest, if it looked just like TOS wouldn't that be pretty cheesy in a '60's sort of way?


_*No*_, goddammit.


----------



## hawk1999 (Jul 9, 2000)

id have to agree with john the ships fine the short skirts are fine leave it alone-the hawk


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

CaliOkie said:


> But, be honest, if it looked just like TOS wouldn't that be pretty cheesy in a '60's sort of way?


Yes, very. I'm glad someone else realizes besides me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The episode, "The Cage" has no glaring colors with pretty much everything subdued--not even red tunics for engineering--they wore tan. There were no uniform miniskirts--the girls wore form-fitting pants :thumbsup:

I don't see why a little extra detailing such as done on the CGI ship for ST:ENT would not have sufficed. To go all "fanboy" with the detailing seems to be the cheesy choice to me.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

John P said:


> _*No*_, goddammit.


The perfect statement.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Kindly leave God out of this. Shatner tried that with _Trek V_ and it was a disaster.

Thanks


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Thanks for the reminder. NOT!!!!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Edit- Ooops, just saw the thread on the push back date, my bad.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> Thanks for the reminder. NOT!!!!


LOL! Hysterical.


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

But the question was never answered..."What DOES God need with a starship?" My pain runs deep. I wish to share it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ I suggest ibuprofen. Four tablets equals perscription strength.


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Star Trek Car?*

Star Trek Car (last 2 pictures) at starfleet academy?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36031


----------



## PetarB (Feb 5, 2007)

*Car*

The 'Star Trek car' is actually a real car and will be available later this year. For a movie about the future, that is itself is kinda... lame.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PetarB said:


> The 'Star Trek car' is actually a real car and will be available later this year. For a movie about the future, that is itself is kinda... lame.


I see Model T's, Model A's and cars from the 40's-50's on the road all the time, so a new car today being a 'classic' car in the future may not be so lame.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PetarB said:


> The 'Star Trek car' is actually a real car and will be available later this year. For a movie about the future, that is itself is kinda... lame.


The car in the photo has an actual California plate on the front, best I can tell. Are we sure it will actually be in the film, or could it possibly be guilty by proximity?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

*Just a thought...*

From what I've heard on these threads about the costumes and the bridge set, they appear to be keeping it as close to the OS as possible, but just making it look 'more realistic'...We also know that the plot deals with alternate realities...Might it be possible that the 'Under Construction' Enterprise is one of the Alternate Universe ships? If that IS the case, we may yet see just a slightly massaged 'Grey Lady'...:thumbsup:


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

That's not a car.










NOW THAT'S A CAR!! 

and it matches his shirt.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

What a great picture! 

Never seen that one before. Where'd you find it?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

If you take a drive up to Mojave, you can see it in person.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

I hate to point out something morbid, but all the extras in those "spy" shots were red shirts......


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Get out of there! Run!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Not only does the car match his shirt but so does the lawn!


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Lawn Dart!!

I've had that photo around for years, and used it here before. [along with tigerman]

Actually, it's not a car. It's Kirks' personal shuttle. He uses it to pick up Green Dancing Girls after work. Hence the color. "Hello Laaadies. I have my own starship you know."


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

As much as I am trying to maintain a positive attitude about the new movie I'm starting to have a bad feeling about it. Is it just me, or does it seem that the current stewards of the franchise do not understand it?

It all looks a little too "Starship Troopers" to me. Yikes.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

You guys should go read some of the Trek Movie articles over at aint-it-cool news. If any of it is true I have a little glimmer of hope for this movie.

And as any of you who know me know, I'm not very enthusiastic about this.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

"But, be honest, if it looked just like TOS wouldn't that be pretty cheesy in a '60's sort of way?"

Now its going to be "cheesy" in 2000 sorta way.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

If you ask me, and nobody has, I think a lot of the images that are being leaked and previewed do not represent what will be in the final film. I expect the actual E to be close, but not the same, as the TOS E. I'm guessing they will give it some surface detail (like alternating gloss and dull panels as in TMP Enterprise). I would also expect to see more "self lighting" like in TMP. 

We'll see. As I have mentioned before, if it is a good movie, the specifics are a lot less important. If it's a dud -- well then, who cares what any of it looks like?


----------



## uscav_scout (Feb 14, 2007)

CaliOkie said:


> As much as I am trying to maintain a positive attitude about the new movie I'm starting to have a bad feeling about it. Is it just me, or does it seem that the current stewards of the franchise do not understand it?
> 
> It all looks a little too "Starship Troopers" to me. Yikes.


No one in Hollywood "really" understands Star Trek. All they understand is money!

Regardless, I'll go see it, good or bad, and see it again, and again, etc.

As for the Starship Troopers? The second one was horrible, I used it for target practice when I was in Iraq!


----------

