# Toy/Model of the New Enterprise 2009



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Well fellas, here is the top side of the new Enterprise.










This is a toy/model coming from Playmates later this spring.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Notice the differences in this one, particularly the markings...and quality.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Granted we've only had about 40 years to get used to the original Enterprise, so loving that one is a no brainer, I think the new ship looks pretty sweet (IMO) as well in the upper photo. Very clean and sleek. Not sure what's going on with the one in the lower image...obviously a lower quality model.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Criminy, it's even uglier than I thought!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

From the side, it looks as though something has bitten a huge chunk out of the bottom rear of the secondary hull.

It's even more unbalanced than the 1701D and is a durned sight uglier. :vomit:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I like the top picture! It gives me more faith in Playmates toys. Not sure about that second one. 

You can see the communicator toy, transporter and bridge here:http://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/2008/l090122_startrek/flash.htm?gid=864&aid=4083


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Truly ugly, period.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

the bridge module looks sweet!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

The top picture is encouraging, that side view is hideous. And notice the side view has the red 'NCC-1701' stripes I haven't seen on any other picture of this ship. What up with that, dog?


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

John P said:


> Criminy, it's even uglier than I thought!


You've been pretty quiet on this design, since the first images came out. I'm shocked to read you don't like it.


As to the pictures, not bad. Not great, will take getting used to, but I think I could grow to like it.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

That's so awful, I'll bet Playmates didn't screw it up.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

The second side view of the Enterprise is likely from an old Playmates prototype from early last year. The design of the Enterprise changed slightly between the prototype and what appears in the film. The first image posted in this thread seems to be a more accurate representation of the film version of the E.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> The second side view of the Enterprise is likely from an old Playmates prototype from early last year. The design of the Enterprise changed slightly between the prototype and what appears in the film. The first image posted in this thread seems to be a more accurate representation of the film version of the E.


I had postulated on another board that the image from wizard toys was a prototype image, but here are two things to consider:

-Why post two different images if it's supposed to be the same toy?

-How does that explain the TOS markings and other obvious differences?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Seashark said:


> I had postulated on another board that the image from wizard toys was a prototype image, but here are two things to consider:
> 
> -Why post two different images if it's supposed to be the same toy?
> 
> -How does that explain the TOS markings and other obvious differences?


This happens sometimes. The current three pictures we have of the new communicator is also different in two different pictures. Prototype images get sent out on occasion.

As for the markings, this perfectly explains the differences, they are slightly different designs.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> This happens sometimes. The current three pictures we have of the new communicator is also different in two different pictures. Prototype images get sent out on occasion.


Maybe, I just find it puzzling...




> As for the markings, this perfectly explains the differences, they are slightly different designs.


Well, obviously. You kinda proved my original point. Which is, I think what we may be seeing are two different ships. Or, rather the same ship from two different eras. Anyone out there have a theory or fact?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I remember reading somewhere early on, that there were going to be two different Enterprise toys released.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

No way, no how.....(Ugh!)



Larry


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

I belive the first picture is the final model.It looks very nice.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Man, that is a really ugly design. Really.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Sigh. I wouldn't buy one. I guess I can get that people like it. But it's just lacking the grace or elegance of the original and refit. And yes, I know that is subjective....


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> Sigh. I wouldn't buy one. I guess I can get that people like it. But it's just lacking the grace or elegance of the original and refit. And yes, I know that is subjective....


I'm on the fence about it. I'm trying to like it for what it is, but you are right. The original and refit blow it away. What kills me is PARTS of this design are nice. It's like they fell short of what could have been a really awesome ship.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm on the fence about it. I'm trying to like it for what it is, but you are right. The original and refit blow it away. What kills me is PARTS of this design are nice. It's like they fell short of what could have been a really awesome ship.


Yes, I think you're right. They did get parts of it right, but it's as though some parts of were changed just because the designer felt he had to change them, so he did. It's change for the sake of change. And that doesn't always work out so well. But, some people do like the ship, I suppose.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Although the newest incarnation of the 1701 isn't one of my favorites, the side view from the top looks pretty good. However, when you see the side profile, it just makes you go "ick" when you see it. The underside curvature of the nacelles and the primary hull just don't flow very well with the rest of the design. It just looks "wrong" and not just in comparison to other version of the 1701, just from a visual design perspective.

Bryan


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Quality toys of a bad looking ship.The top profile of the new ship is ehhh and the side profile is bad.The toy gave me my first good look at the Bridge and although I don't care for how much its been changed for the new movie I think its better looking than the exterior.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)




----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Yes it’s ugly and disappointing for sure, a starship with 1950 fins.

Another thing is how can they justify the design? How does it fit in the time line? Pike’s Enterprise had only a few cosmetic differences then Kirk’s, this Enterprise as ugly as it is, looks like it should come after Kirk’s five year mission, not in between Pike’s service and Kirks first assignment. Then only to be change back to the Enterprise we know from the TOS?! 

Why not have the old girl on the screen with a few cosmetic changes? After all she is a star in her own right as much as the crew of the Enterprise, I think she has earned it. Could you image her up on the silver screen in all the new CGI glory that would be great.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

jsnmech18 said:


> You've been pretty quiet on this design, since the first images came out. I'm shocked to read you don't like it.


I like to play it close to the chest.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

John P said:


> Criminy, it's even uglier than I thought!


It's even uglier in person!

Note: I am refering only to the pictures above not any other kind of 'in person'.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I like the nacelle design.
However the ship overall to me looks like like 
Bob designed the nacelles,
Joe designed the saucer,
Rick designed the secondary hull and then they taped it all together.

Just don't feel it has good flow. 
Perhaps I like it after I see it in action.

Bridge looks interesting.
Communicator looks good also. A little iPodish though.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

JeffG said:


> Granted we've only had about 40 years to get used to the original Enterprise, so loving that one is a no brainer, I think the new ship looks pretty sweet (IMO) as well in the upper photo. Very clean and sleek. Not sure what's going on with the one in the lower image...obviously a lower quality model.


I agree.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

It looks like someone said: "Gee whiz, we got all this money, let's come up with something that looks really cool." Only, they missed the "really" part and the "cool" part and ended up with something that looks like something out of the 1950's. This is not a good retro design. Looks a little "blimpy."


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> Well fellas, here is the top side of the new Enterprise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like a ship I could grow to respect. The first image they released didnt do anything for me, good or bad but this looks more than halfway decent.
I can live with this design.


----------



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

I can , too. Sure there's a few things that nitpick at me, but I didn't design it so it's not going to be the perfect ship in my mind. I like 90% of the ship, which is more than I can say for some ships that are canon like the Norway & the Saber. Now those are just fraking ugly!



falcon49xxx said:


> I belive the first picture is the final model.It looks very nice.


It it. If everyone will actually look at the USA Today link & click on the "First Look" link, you can see that is it. I'm impressed with the bridge playset. They're capitalizing on the "collect the pieces with figures" mentality. The communicator looks cool. The figures look respectably like the actors. The transporter is a bit boring, but it's not bad.

I'm still curious as to how they're going to do the radio-controlled spaceships.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The ship looks like they took parts of the refit, squeezed the nacelles, so it looks like eyes are bugled, and stretched the engineering section. 

I still like the ship, and would like a model of it, just for the looks. BUT, I can not except it as a earlier 1701. The bridge, communicator, and ship, if used in a future ST past ST-NG, I can except, but not pre-TOS.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

^ Agreed. Not retro looking at all. 
Looks more like something after Enterprise A


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's a different timeline, people...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


>


I wholeheartedly agree. The more I see of this thing the worse it looks.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

The production design for this film looks like someone tried to get the rights to Star Trek and couldn't, so they made every thing look like it maybe, kinda might be Star Trek without actually being it. (You know, like Galaxy Quest)Hoping people wouldn't notice and just buy the product anyway. 

For instance:

-That thing they're calling the enterprise.(can't bring myself to call it the Enterprise)

I can understand wanting to go with a retro futuistic look, and normally appreciate that, but honestly; big ram air induction scoops under the bussards? Or how about the grossly inproportionate components i.e. engines, saucer, secondary hull. It really does make the ship look like a parody of the Enterprise.

-Phaser:

Beyond the placement of the handle, in no way does that thing look like a phaser. In fact it looks like a cheap dollar store blaster, laser, ray gun, knock off. Personally I think they would've been better off with the guns they used in Galaxy Quest. 

-Communicator:

Okay, I'm a huge fan of the original comm. While I'm not a fan of the look of this one it has at least two features I would expect. A flip top and a screen. The screen in my mind just makes sense, hell, we almost have those now. Although I would have put it where the moire was on the original but whatever. 

-Tricorder:

Overall I like the look, it looks like a modern take on the old one with a dash of the Trek III Tric. thrown in. 


Don't get me started on that bridge.... :freak:

The story:

Here's the real important part. First, I have to say; those writers....ugh. I'm familiar with thier work so I don't hold out much hope for a clever story or coherent dialog. There seems to be little or no backstory left intact for any of the original characters, while this may be a result of time tampering, I think this is a huge cop out. They could have just as easily incorporated what was already known about the original crew. 

So, those are _my_ gripes. Goofy design, very little resemblence to the original characters, Or the Trek universe I grew up with. 

Having said all that, I'm still going to buy the ship toy for kitbash fodder. :wave:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

*Phaser*

Finally saw what the phaser will look like and think it is kinda cool but would like to see what it can do. I agree it looks a little cheap so I hope it has some nice features, and with us being model builders, I am sure we can spruce it up to look better. Tricorder looks pretty good as does the communicator.

The Narada will be a big toy when they release it. 20" long by 12" high?!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

jbond said:


> It's a different timeline, people...


Jeff, what timeline? Is this what if? Or, starting over, and throwing TOS out with the bath water?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I was and still am a major Bond fan. When Casino Royale was released, it (in a sense) wiped out the Bond 'cannon' that came before it. Well, Casino was a great film and at the end of the day, that's all I wanted was for the franchise to be good again and if that meant resetting the meter in a world that doesn't exist anyway, it didn't matter to me, nor did it mean I had to throw away or disregard the original films just because a new retelling was made.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Jeff, what timeline? Is this what if? Or, starting over, and throwing TOS out with the bath water?


He is talking about the bad guy in the movie going back in time and screwed things up. Which in turn made the Enterprise look different. Watch Back To The Future Part II for reference to this "timeline". Now back to the toy...
Not to bad for a toy.
-Jim


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

you mean this ship is the result of that Romulan altering the past.If thats so then one can only hope we have a much better looking Enterprise coming.Could also be they are showing us this altered Enterprise before revealing the True ship(I hope)An ugly (very ugly duckling)turning into a beautiful swan.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

From the article I read on Trekmovie, and trying to keep this short and simple, the timeline involves Quantum Mechanics. Basically TOS time still exists but in parallel with the movie timeline. Nero went back to kill Kirk's dad and changes that timeline to what it is in the movie. Basically by doing that, THAT timeline continues with Kirk having no father, a different Enterprise, etc. Supposedly they both exist, but as separate times. This was explained in an episode of TNG when Worf is moving through multiple timelines. So the Enterprise in the movies IS the Enterprise. As I understand we won't see anything different, but we'll have to wait for the movie to see.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Not a very detailed toy...


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> . . . the ship overall to me looks like like
> Bob designed the nacelles,
> Joe designed the saucer,
> Rick designed the secondary hull and then they taped it all together.


To me it looks as if they plopped the Refit bridge and B-C decks on top of the TOS saucer, then had Harley Earl design the secondary hull and Virgil Exner design the nacelles. The thing looks like the work of a committee, which makes me wonder if the story, characterizations and dialogue will be a hodgepodge as well.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Love the bridge hotel lobby/beautyshop/hairsalon playset.
Very versatile ! But, Where are the wash stations ?


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Harley Earl? There isn't any chrome on the thing. I would say Karim Rashid did engines and half of the 2nd hull, he ate up all of the design budget. So they stole some meshes from around the net, to finish it off. 

I hear the wash basins come with the figures. Along with their stylist. And the true collector's item will be the old lady sitting at the hair dryer station, getting a pedicure. 

The real question is how do the shuttle doors work? 
"You can't change the laws of physics Captain."


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Didn't read the entire thread so pardon me if this has laready been said, it is not the new Enterprise but the new original Enterprise.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> Didn't read the entire thread so pardon me if this has laready been said, it is not the new Enterprise but the new original Enterprise.


It's all semantics... It is a "New" Enterprise because it is a design not yet seen in any series or movie. It is also the "Old" Enterprise because that is their intention with the movie. So yes, it is the Original Enterprise, but it is a NEW version of her.....

If you ask me, it is a lessor successor to a Grand Lady.....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I've got a pic that sums things up nicely, but it'd almost assuredly get me permabanned from here....


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Um............ does it involve fecal matter ?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That'd be the one.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I can't help but wonder how many complaints there's gonna be after the film is released and this Enterprise is seen onscreen in action. It's probably gonna be quiet enough to hear a church mouse on these threads.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I've got a pic that sums things up nicely, but it'd almost assuredly get me permabanned from here....


Will this do?


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Funny, Edge...that was sort of my reaction to Rob Zombie's "re-imagining" of HALLOWEEN...:freak:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

JeffG said:


> I can't help but wonder how many complaints there's gonna be after the film is released and this Enterprise is seen onscreen in action. It's probably gonna be quiet enough to hear a church mouse on these threads.


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

JeffG said:


> I can't help but wonder how many complaints there's gonna be after the film is released and this Enterprise is seen onscreen in action. It's probably gonna be quiet enough to hear a church mouse on these threads.


Of course it's going to be quiet, the hype will be over after opening weekend. After that the marketing machine will be on the movie that opens the weekend after. Then we will hear more noise when ST goes to DVD in a few months after it's release. After that it will all be history, and hopefully they will let ST rest in peace.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I hate to say it Lunch, but even w/ Wolverine the weekend before, this movie is going to make a splash. I hate to say it. Bad press is better than none. Whether folks here keep complimenting or complaining, it will live regardless. It will thrive. It will get talking heads on tv instilling hype.

Once released, the action it attracts will fill the void star wars has left for action sci-fi adventure genre-franchise. Throw in uhura's underwear and it will go over the top. 

The next gen fan, those in their early 20's, those who were not even alive when TNG first released will flock to it. They will deride TOS and the previous movies as cheesy subpar crap compared to 'their' trek. 

Us oldies will grumble and fade like all curmudgeons do. "It won't be your grandpa's star trek." It will be new. It will be hip. All that trek was not for us, it will be for them. The Great Bird of the Galaxy has flown the coop and the fox rules the hen house.

The studio has no care how many of us go with it. Just as 007 became a farce, so too has Trek. Opening weekend will be promising enough for Paramount to, at the very least, greenlight the next script if it hasn't been hashed out already. Maybe they get a few movies out of it. Maybe they get another series out of it. Either way, Trek will live, we will fade. It will not tank regardless.

The snot-nosed Kirk mouthing off to the cop as he drives his dad's antique car over the cliff says it all. "Step aside old fan, the new kid's in charge now."


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I'll go further and say that Wolverine has a greater chance of failing than Trek does. Both are long time stories w/ devout fans who are pinning great expectations to each. In bastardizing Trek, Paramount stands to gain new legions of younglings. It doesn't matter if the entire ranks of old-timers didn't show, the kids will go. The kids will love it. The next generation will perpetuate the franchise.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Never mind.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh never fear there will be MORE complaints after seeing this monstrosity in action on screen than you would want. And looking at this ship, they would all be justified.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Since the summary judgments have already been rendered months before this movie is even released, wouldn't a more constructive use of time for the people who hate the ship and the movie be to move on to something they actually ENJOY? Obviously Star Trek is over for you guys and it would be much healthier to devote yourself to something that doesn't produce nonstop bitterness and bile. Like Elvis Trek! I hear that's still going...


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Boy oh boy!! Everyone, are you WANTING to see Star Trek die? Just because this film does not meet your exact expectations? How do you expect today's generation to enjoy Star Trek if we stick with the salt and pepper shaker, retro look of the 60's? My kids don't like TOS Star Trek. They like Star Wars. Why? Because Star Wars has more of the action and eye candy they like. Personally I love TOS because that is what I grew up on, but it doesn't mean I don't see the need for change. To appeal to today's audience, whether you like it or not, there has to be change. If you don't realize yet that it is the character relationship/struggle, not the models, props, costumes, etc. that make up Star Trek, then how can you truly understand Gene Roddenberry's vision?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Model Man said:


> . . . Once released, the action it attracts will fill the void star wars has left for action sci-fi adventure genre-franchise. Throw in uhura's underwear and it will go over the top.


Her underwear will go over the top of what?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)




----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

I hope it does bomb big time. 

Why?

Because I want to see something new, I'm sick of new Star Trek, rehashed Star Wars, rebooted BSG, or anything compiled from a 30-40 year old show. These guys making these things are doing so because they thought they were good. And that's what audiences want. The only problem is, they will never match the originals, because they can't write shows the way they did in the 60's. So if kids need something that is their generation then why start with a 40 year old tv show, or a 30 year old movie franchise. Wouldn't it better to make something original that they can call their own. As long as the franchises has the same name they will always be those old things, nothing new. 

For your information ST TOS was not Roddenberry's vision, but STNG was. That show was a true yawner.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> How do you expect today's generation to enjoy Star Trek if we stick with the salt and pepper shaker, retro look of the 60's?


Right! Why use painted salt and pepper shakers when you can use three different types of un-modified barcode scanners along side desk lamps on the ibridge.

First, no one here is saying this needs to look like '60's retro, that's your assumption. 

Second, how is making the bridge look like a futuristic hair salon going to attract the youth audience? 

My brother is thirteen, loves video games and Star Wars and even _he_ says this movie looks like excrement. So don't count on the cheesy look and 'splosions to generate throngs of young people or even throngs of _people_ period. The only thing that will get people in to see this flick are slick adverts every five minutes and/or a good, well written story. (Which will generate positive word of mouth via the audience, not some ad exec. see: The dark knight.) From what I've seen they have the advertising down.


Just so you can maybe understand where the majority of the negativity is coming from. Most of us here have been into Trek for the better part of our lives, I think many here love it. So, when you get a guy who states he doesn't like Star Trek and then he proceeds to take the most beloved characters and remake them into something the TOS fans don't recognize, your going to get some major resistance. I don't believe anyone here would like to see '60's special effects on the big screen I think they want to see something new, totally new. New characters, new ship, new situations. I think if they weren't insisting on rehashing the adventures of Kirk and Spock the anger would be minimal. What, I think, the fans really don't want to see is Trek reduced to cheap gags and explosions just to serve a "general audience". We've seen enough of that in Trek (Insurrection anyone?) And keep in mind all the films post Generations were geared toward a general audience and, with the exception of First Contact, look how those turned out. 

My point is you can't tell people to shut up and get over it. First of all it's rude. Second of all It's out of line, just like it's out of line for me to tell you to shut up and agree with _me_. You're excited about the movie and that's okay, I'm glad people are excited, I wish I was too. Just remember that, no matter your feelings, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. Your best bet is to not get angry and chastise us for having opinions that differ from yours. What does it matter anyway, people like yourself have been telling me that the old guard no longer matters, so why get so upset if we don't like it? Just blow us off and make a positive comment irregardless of everyone else. Hell, you could even start your own thread. Or go to trekmovie.com where only true believers are welcome.  

BTW. To those that agree with me that this movie looks like crap. If you see someone start, for lack of a better term, a "pro XI" Thread. Just leave it, let them have their thread. It really isin't worth all the fighting. Go build a model instead! Now, I think I'm going to take my own advice. :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> It's all semantics... It is a "New" Enterprise because it is a design not yet seen in any series or movie. It is also the "Old" Enterprise because that is their intention with the movie. So yes, it is the Original Enterprise, but it is a NEW version of her.....
> 
> If you ask me, it is a lessor successor to a Grand Lady.....


The way I see it is this movie is an idea that was first put on ffilm in TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" and then again in an episode of TNG where Worf is returning to the Enterprise after competing in an Klingon competition, aboard a shuttle and ends up finding himself on a different Enterprise.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Seashark said:


> First, no one here is saying this needs to look like '60's retro, that's your assumption.


Perhaps, but many have stated they want TOS Enterprise which tells me they want the retro look and are not open to change.



Seashark said:


> so you can maybe understand where the majority of the negativity is coming from. Most of us here have been into Trek for the better part of our lives, I think many here love it. So, when you get a guy who states he doesn't like Star Trek and then he proceeds to take the most beloved characters and remake them into something the TOS fans don't recognize, your going to get some major resistance. I don't believe anyone here would like to see '60's special effects on the big screen I think they want to see something new, totally new. New characters, new ship, new situations. I think if they weren't insisting on rehashing the adventures of Kirk and Spock the anger would be minimal. What, I think, the fans really don't want to see is Trek reduced to cheap gags and explosions just to serve a "general audience". We've seen enough of that in Trek (Insurrection anyone?) And keep in mind all the films post Generations were geared toward a general audience and, with the exception of First Contact, look how those turned out.


I agree with most of this. No one wants to just see eye candy, but a good story. However, many have stated they want to see the old retro look.



Seashark said:


> My point is you can't tell people to shut up and get over it. First of all it's rude.


I never said this. I was asking if people want Star Trek to die because they are griping about the aesthetics of the film instead of looking into what Star Trek was about, the characters and stories. No one has seen this film but I keep seeing people state they will not see it because it doesn't look like TOS.



Seashark said:


> It's out of line, just like it's out of line for me to tell you to shut up and agree with _me_. You're excited about the movie and that's okay, I'm glad people are excited, I wish I was too. Just remember that, no matter your feelings, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. Your best bet is to not get angry and chastise us for having opinions that differ from yours. What does it matter anyway, people like yourself have been telling me that the old guard no longer matters, so why get so upset if we don't like it? Just blow us off and make a positive comment irregardless of everyone else. Hell, you could even start your own thread. Or go to trekmovie.com where only true believers are welcome.


I am not saying the old guard doesn't matter. I am also not angry. I am disappointed in hearing the same old argument I heard when TMP came out and again with TNG. It was "These aren't the original Kirk and Spock, that is not the original Enterprise so I will not see it because it sucks". I question those that claim to be true fans but don't seem to realize what Trek is all about.

My complaint also doesn't necessarily mean I am all in support of the film. There are aspects I don't like about it either. However, I am keeping an open mind to see if the story is good and is a true Star Trek story. I am not going to refuse to see a movie because the ship doesn't meet my expectations. I just wish everyone else was willing to do this as well instead of refusing to see it because they don't like that the navigational deflector is too far forward or something. 



Seashark said:


> BTW. To those that agree with me that this movie looks like crap. If you see someone start, for lack of a better term, a "pro XI" Thread. Just leave it, let them have their thread. It really isin't worth all the fighting. Go build a model instead! Now, I think I'm going to take my own advice. :thumbsup:


I very much agree. I would rather see threads that discuss what models to build rather than "I won't see this because ..."


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Model/Toy/Stage set Design-wise:
These things are essentially done by committee. In the case of the E, up to several concept artists are likely to have done various sketches. Their Sup, or JJ himself, come along and say I like this, refine that, the rest is garbage. Round after round of this occurs: "This part of that sketch is cool and that part of this sketch is cool, combine them". Thus you have the ship and toy.

It's not just JJ who is not a fan, it is business executives, Sups, Leads and all sorts of other voices chiming in that have control over various elements being produced. Trek is a corporate business property w/ over a 16 billion dollar history to it. 

In some cases, Production has no ideas on how something should go and they leave that design and decision to an effects house. The conceptualization trickles down the pipe and gurgles back up again until JJ ok's it. 

This is why there is no cohesion to design and the resulting effect of having non-fans up and down the pipeline, spanning hundreds of people, making the call on what they think looks good and the way they think it should be. Mix in heaps of monstrous ego and you get what will appear on screen May 9.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have Lucas ruling SW via total control. Empire was the best, because he did the least. That's an argument for another thread. Crystal Skull...

On a personal note:
Back in July I heard I was going to work on the film. I was ecstatic. The first shot I opened was Nimoy giving the LL&P to the camera. It was so cool. By the end of work in Sept., I was heart-broken and disillusioned. From our "I've never seen the show" Sups designing key elements, to things as simple as seeing the pea-shooter phasers in action. I was a broken fan. That's why I say Paramount isn't worried about us old-timers going or not. This film is going to recoup its cost and XII will likely get the greenlight w/ this cast. Having only seen the pilot for Enterprise, I still don't understand how that lasted, 4 seasons was it? 

Maybe Lunch, you are right, and ST will finally die w/ a whimper and we can get back to business as usual. Until then, the more wandering-far-off-topic threads that start up here, the more bitterness on both sides expressed, the more it will remain alive haunting us all. I made my peace w/ the film months ago. I guess the general populace will have to wait another 5 months before they do too.

Paramount- 1, Fans- 0. 
Game over.


----------



## AlienHunter08 (Jan 10, 2009)

Good looking ship, I still prefer the Defiant tho.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> My complaint also doesn't necessarily mean I am all in support of the film. There are aspects I don't like about it either. However, I am keeping an open mind to see if the story is good and is a true Star Trek story. I am not going to refuse to see a movie because the ship doesn't meet my expectations. I just wish everyone else was willing to do this as well instead of refusing to see it because they don't like that the navigational deflector is too far forward or something.


Fair enough. I can't speak for everyone else, but I can say with certainty that it is not just the production design that has me disinterested in this film. It's the whole concept. Just keep in mind that not everyone wants to see a retelling of that which came before. 



> I am not saying the old guard doesn't matter. I am also not angry. I am disappointed in hearing the same old argument I heard when TMP came out and again with TNG. It was "These aren't the original Kirk and Spock, that is not the original Enterprise so I will not see it because it sucks". I question those that claim to be true fans but don't seem to realize what Trek is all about.


That's one of the drawbacks of the internet, you can't read the intent of others. I think that I was assigning you all the lame arguments of others, for that, I appologize. I too am disapointed in fellow fans. I'm disapointed in those who will buy anything with the Star Trek name slapped on it. That is how we got seven seasons of Voyager and four of enterprise. I think you misunderstand the argument. You mention TMP and TNG these were _continuations_ of the mythology not retellings of it. They built on what came before where as this film, it seems, throws it all away.





> Perhaps, but many have stated they want TOS Enterprise which tells me they want the retro look and are not open to change.


That's an assumption. I've not seen anyone on this thread say they want the Original Enterprise smooth hull and all. What I hear is they want something true to the original, only updated with more detail. Check out some of the cg modeling sites you will see plenty of examples. 



> I agree with most of this. No one wants to just see eye candy, but a good story. However, many have stated they want to see the old retro look.


To my knowlege no one here has said they want the old retro bridge or anything. They just want something that looks like it is at least related to what came before. I mean, what's the point of rehashing Kirk and Spock et all if they don't want to retain at least some of the look? (I know, I know, name recognition.) 




> I never said this. I was asking if people want Star Trek to die because they are griping about the aesthetics of the film instead of looking into what Star Trek was about, the characters and stories. No one has seen this film but I keep seeing people state they will not see it because it doesn't look like TOS


You're right you didn't say that. I think that was inferred by another poster. Again, I appologize. I think you're putting too much emphasis on this films success. If it fails, Star Trek will not die; It's too good of a concept. It will be back in one way or another. Besides, I would rather have _No_ trek than _Bad_ trek wouldn't you? I mean, who wants to see a poor product? I think Trek fans have had their fill of that. Again you're presuming that it's only the look that people are reacting negatively to. You're also presuming that those of us who criticize this film do so because we expect a literal translation of TOS. I don't think either is the case. Again, I only speak for myself. But it is the whole concept that bothers me. And is the reason I refuse to support this film, the look is secondary. On that note, this film looks cheesy, from the hair salon ibridge to the brushed aluminum phasers, it screams CHEESE! That is what people are responding to, not the fact that it's not a literal TOS translation.

Again, if you like what you see and want to support it, go for it! But please don't begrudge the rest of us our right to bitch and moan  

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

*toy thoughts*

Actually, this toy version of the new TOS Enterprise looks a heck of a lot better than the photos released a few months ago of the actual FX physical or CGI model. The more I see of this re-imagined ship, the more interesting it becomes for me. It does look very retro, almost like a 1950's version of the refit and TOS Enterprises. Do I wish that we'd all be seeing the old familiar Starship/Constitution class Enterprise on the big screen? Of course!!!!

However, this is not "our" old familiar Star Trek. It's a vision of Trek held by a younger set with fresh new ideas. Also, don't forget, we're dealing with a Star Trek in a slightly altered timeline. Who knows what we'll see if the timeline is restored...maybe Matt Jeffries' loved design will still materialize. Even if it doesn't, let's not get to hung up on appearances, ignore the characters and story, and trash the film before we even see it.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Atemylunch said:


> I hope it does bomb big time.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because I want to see something new, I'm sick of new Star Trek, rehashed


I think that's a bit selfish of you. You want to deny others of something because of your own personal tastes? If it isn't successful, you won't be seeing anything new.. period. So you better hope it does well, plays itself out, then if they see it is financial stable again, it can potentially be the "Voyage Home -> The Next Generation" effect. I don't get fans who wish for their favorite franchise to be brought down, but okay.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Seashark said:


> Well, obviously. You kinda proved my original point. Which is, I think what we may be seeing are two different ships. Or, rather the same ship from two different eras. Anyone out there have a theory or fact?


For what it is worth, the original site that had these images (Wizard Universe or something like that) had a whole page of rather low quality images, including one of the "Narada." However, those images were taken down with in a day or two, and we found out that the Narada image was nothing more than a concept and wasn't even what the ship would look like, let alone the toy which apparently has yet to be designed. So that second side view of the Enterprise, considering how pretty different it is from the USA Today image (Starboard Top View that is) we can assume that the second Enterprise image is nothing official and probably nothing merely more than a concept drawing.

Personally, while the Paramount Image released a few months ago did nothing for me, the new Playmates image from the USA Today article is quite good I think, and the new ship is apparently much better in action on screen from the indications I can tell.

There were some fans who did some photoshop manips and did absolutely WONDERFUL work with the new ship, putting into concept action, etc.

Of course I will post it up when I reach my 2 post mark!

Here is one, by "GothTrek" over at TrekBBS.

http://www.redshirtsbrigade.com/XIE.jpg


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Seashark said:


> If you see someone start, for lack of a better term, a "pro XI" Thread. Just leave it, let them have their thread. It really isin't worth all the fighting.


Thanks for the sentiment, but you're about three months late. Suffice it to say rival Trek fans seem genetically incapable of respecting each other's opinions. 

As I've stated _repeatedly_ in the past, I'm willing to let the "debate" continue as long as the discussion remains civil. Once the personal attacks begin the thread will be locked.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

TriggerMan said:


> I think that's a bit selfish of you. You want to deny others of something because of your own personal tastes? If it isn't successful, you won't be seeing anything new.. period. So you better hope it does well, plays itself out, then if they see it is financial stable again, it can potentially be the "Voyage Home -> The Next Generation" effect. I don't get fans who wish for their favorite franchise to be brought down, but okay.


How is that any less selfish than those who want the have a complete reboot ala 90210 because they think TOS was cheesy? You can't have it both ways. Its not selfish to have an opinion that contradicts someone else's. And its a ridiculous argument to make that it is.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Maritain said:


> Yes it’s ugly and disappointing for sure, a starship with 1950 fins.
> 
> Another thing is how can they justify the design? How does it fit in the time line? Pike’s Enterprise had only a few cosmetic differences then Kirk’s, this Enterprise as ugly as it is, looks like it should come after Kirk’s five year mission, not in between Pike’s service and Kirks first assignment. Then only to be change back to the Enterprise we know from the TOS?!
> 
> Why not have the old girl on the screen with a few cosmetic changes? After all she is a star in her own right as much as the crew of the Enterprise, I think she has earned it. Could you image her up on the silver screen in all the new CGI glory that would be great.


There are a few ideas just pass around. Personally, I think the original ship is terrific for what it is but I never considered it to be what I would use straight up onto the movie screen. I think CBS did a wonderful job with remastering it and it looked cool on the big screen during the Menagerie, but I also was aware that I was watching a 1960s television episode as well and it worked just because of that context, for me at least. However, this is a late 2000s feature film, design aesthetics & ideas have changed since the 1960s and the such, even within Star Trek (yes I know, the timeline progresses, etc.)

Granted, if I was doing the redesign I would have stuck a little closer to the original proportions but keep some of the detailing they have on this ship. I think it would probably flow a little better from most angles. I would keep it a perfect mesh of the Church's and the old design somehow, something that really works as a modern model but not going too far without it not being able to be accepted as the old ship.

However, as fans have done throughout the years, they have just reconciled their own fandom or theories to get around something they don't like. So, while I am not in the position of Carson Dyle that I have seen most of the new movie, I will offer a "theory," which probably doesn't even fit into the movie anyway but still...:

I guess one way to look at the redesign was that after the Kelvin was destroyed and whatever else Nero may have done, Starfleet was made aware of this Armageddon type threat that is lurking out there. Just look at the massive havok Nero inflicted on the Kelvin in the trailer in that span of 2 seconds. It was actually surreal and terrifying for me to see that personally. It almost seemed hopeless. Starfleet had some ship designs on the drawing board, but knowing that this potential threat is out there, they had to go back to the drawing boards and redesign some of their vessels, like the Constitution Class, to handle a defensive situation a lot better and more or less beef them up. We get the TMP phasers added on to the ship, the torpedo bay was added at the bottom of the neck, etc. They kept in the general shape of the constitution class (or I guess it would be the "Starship Class") but some things were shifted around in the process from the original concept.

I've seen a few people say that the ship was made "streamlined now." I don't know if that is accurate or not as I am not expert on what looks streamlined or what, but let's reconcile it! The streamlining can possibly be attributed to the decision for the Enterprise handle sub-atmospheric flight during the design process (why not?,) thus its capability to take off after its Earth bound construction.

I don't know how you reconcile the bridge design. Granted they would have to make it more sophisticated anyway for the big screen but perhaps not so... white. We get two turbolift doors for potential emergency exits instead of one (makes more sense I think.) HUD Displays are sort of being used now so you may as well use them in the future as well if they serve a purpose. So if you want to reach out there, perhaps you can say the guy who designed the bridge in the original timeline was somehow killed in the Kelvin, or they had to beef things up a bit.

I understand a few of the folks who are already upset are going to say that I am full of crap or something and will denounce what I said just for the sake of doing so, and that is okay. But at least I tried to offer something reasonable that, for me at least, makes the new designs a little more acceptable and not too far out from fan reconciliations of the past. Doesn't mean I am defending everything either.

This isn't directed at Maritain who I thought had fair observations. I am more worried about the story and it being a good worthy movie, not if the bridge isn't proportional to the TOS bridge, etc, that would just be silly to dwell on during the film and take me out of it personally. I will watch it for what it is and most of us wont know what it is until AFTER the movie has been watched. Otherwise, getting upset over a set and denouncing a whole ahead of time just because of that fact can possibly deny you what could be a good film. Not sure those details are worth getting worked up over in regards to your outlook on the entire film. So far, between the cuts that were previewed, Carson Dyles fair & balanced comments on the Replica forum, and the press screenings, all indications are pretty encouraging to me to say the least. Though, May 8, 2009, when my butt is in the seat, I will decide for myself.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There's a point where reconciliation is impossible, the differences are just too vast, and this just such a case. The structure of this is ship is more different than the TOS ship is from the TMP refit, plus, at the time of "The Cage", the ship is less than ten years old, essentially still a new ship. It's pretty unlikely she looked all that different than when she was launched.

Trying to make this monstrosity fit is like trying to fit a round peg into a cheese grater.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Nova Designs said:


> How is that any less selfish than those who want the have a complete reboot ala 90210 because they think TOS was cheesy? You can't have it both ways. Its not selfish to have an opinion that contradicts someone else's. And its a ridiculous argument to make that it is.


I never said it was selfish for someone to have a different opinion and my apologies if you took it that way. What I said was that I felt it was selfish to wish misfortune on a franchise just because one feels something isn't meeting their personal taste. It's about the same as me stating that I hope for Batman movies to be unsuccessful because they don't "appeal to my own tastes," even though they clearly seem to appeal to many others. If I don't agree with something or don't think I will like it and it bothers me that bad, I will just stay away from it. But I don't wish to deny others of their harmless enjoyment and entertainment and not sure why someone would.

I am curious, however, what this person feels "isn't new" about this new film they haven't seen though.

Also I'm not sure why you are comparing this to 90210 getting a "reboot," unless I am misunderstanding you.


----------



## TriggerMan (Nov 15, 2008)

Captain April said:


> There's a point where reconciliation is impossible, the differences are just too vast, and this just such a case. The structure of this is ship is more different than the TOS ship is from the TMP refit, plus, at the time of "The Cage", the ship is less than ten years old, essentially still a new ship. It's pretty unlikely she looked all that different than when she was launched.
> 
> Trying to make this monstrosity fit is like trying to fit a round peg into a cheese grater.


My Response: IDIC.

Whether or not you choose to follow a reconciliation is another issue, however.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Seashark said:


> Again, if you like what you see and want to support it, go for it! But please don't begrudge the rest of us our right to bitch and moan
> 
> Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.


We can all agree to disagree, and get back to discussing modeling


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I am personally OK with the whole "reboot/remake" idea.

I expect/ed the ship, it's crew and the effects to be by today's standards.

I know that bothers a lot of hard core fans and there may be no way for them to ever accept the new vision.

I think that is unfortunate...but it's all about personal choice...and we can each choose our own path on that one.

Speaking of this ship though...

Overall, I am OK with it. My biggest gripe to date is that I think the main deflector dish is too far forward (based on the high res pic that is floating around) . Maybe there is some "technical reason" for this that makes sense, but from a strictly asthetic point of view, I think it looks a little odd.

Otherwise, I think the design is interesting and it obviously borrows a little something from almost every Trek series.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> For what it is worth, the original site that had these images (Wizard Universe or something like that) had a whole page of rather low quality images, including one of the "Narada." However, those images were taken down with in a day or two, and we found out that the Narada image was nothing more than a concept and wasn't even what the ship would look like, let alone the toy which apparently has yet to be designed. So that second side view of the Enterprise, considering how pretty different it is from the USA Today image (Starboard Top View that is) we can assume that the second Enterprise image is nothing official and probably nothing merely more than a concept drawing.


Yeah, I got that. I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part. 




> Thanks for the sentiment, but you're about three months late. Suffice it to say rival Trek fans seem genetically incapable of respecting each other's opinions.


Not sure what you mean about being three months late. This is definately a divisive topic much like politics or religion...both of which I try to avoid in venues such as this. I think I'll avoid this topic in the future, I just didn't want anyone here to think themselves in a vacuum. 



> We can all agree to disagree, and get back to discussing modeling


Agreed! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Seashark said:


> Not sure what you mean about being three months late.


Not long ago, in the interest of maintaining the peace (what was I thinking), I established an exclusively "Pro-Trek XI" thread, along with an exclusively "Anti-Trek XI" counterpart -- the idea being to establish separate but equal "safe zones" for like-minded Trek fans to post their views without fear of retaliation from those unwilling (or unable) to respect those views. Not surprisingly the two camps couldn't resist raiding one another at every opportunity, and the threads were soon closed.

I know Trek-related sites are currently overflowing with Trek XI "debates," but when it comes to illustrating the tedious pointlessness of mass-critiquing a movie (almost) no one has seen, Hobbytalk Sci-Fi has proven itself second to none.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Not long ago, in the interest of maintaining the peace (what was I thinking), I established an exclusively "Pro-Trek XI" thread, along with an exclusively "Anti-Trek XI" counterpart -- the idea being to establish separate but equal "safe zones" for like-minded Trek fans to post their views without fear of retaliation from those unwilling (or unable) to respect those views. Not surprisingly the two camps couldn't resist raiding one another at every opportunity, and the threads were soon closed.


I remember the thread. It was a good idea, I think it could have worked quite well if folks had stayed in their respective corners and only posted when they felt they had something pro/con to contribute to the according threads. There seems to be a great passion on both sides. To be honest I hate the fact that there are sides.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

modelmaker 2001 said:


> TOS Enterprises. Do I wish that we'd all be seeing the old familiar Starship/Constitution class Enterprise on the big screen? Of course!!!!



For a very brief moment, she was on the big screen...Airplane 2. And she looked wonderful!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

People can hate the movie all they want after they see it--and if they have no interest in seeing it, or want Trek eradicated from the big screen in perpituity so they can see something new (bon chance!), why devote so much time to these threads? It's not so much the fact of the negativity as it is the intensity of it, it falls into the timeworn "they're raping my childhood" rants that seem to compromise sixty percent of Aint It Cool News and other forums. When I see people typing in all caps, spewing obscenities and wishing death and destruction on the people remaking their baby it just makes me tune them out instantly. I started watching Trek around 1970--I've seen many incarnations, I have liked some and disliked some, but I can't remember so much venom for a Trek project so long before its release. I love Trek but it is only entertainment and I am eager to see it reinterpreted by new artists. It may very well stink but can it really be any worse than Trek V or Nemesis (I know, cue the people who think Nemesis is a great, sorely maligned chapter in the Trek mythos...). You can't please everyone, I just don't think you have to burn down the village four months before the Frankenstein monster comes out of the laboratory. He might be a very GOOD Frankenstein monster!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

pagni said:


>


Thanks for the great photo of an old friend, Pagni.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Thanks for the great photo of an old friend, Pagni.


Pity no one knows where that model is now. I still hold out some hope that it will one day magically resurface...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Damn, I had to scroll back to find that shot. What are you _thinking_, posting a gem like that on a thread like this? 

Please feel free to start your own HT-Sci-Fi thread entitled (something like) "COOL SHOTS OF LONG-LOST TOS ENTERPRISE MINIATURES."

Pity for an image like that to get lost amidst the blithering & dithering of a Toy Enterprise thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

it needs some weathering, its just to white!!!!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Thanks for the great photo of an old friend, Pagni.


I had to take a second look before I realized that was a photo of the three-footer. The underside of the saucer should have given it away in an instant! I deserve to be publicly whipped and have my geek privileges revoked for six months.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I just thought I'd bring us all back a little dose of nostalgic reality....
What with all the bickering.....


----------



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

scotpens said:


> I had to take a second look before I realized that was a photo of the three-footer. The underside of the saucer should have given it away in an instant! I deserve to be publicly whipped and have my geek privileges revoked for six months.


Oooo!! I'll get the wet noodles!!! :woohoo:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

pagni said:


> I just thought I'd bring us all back a little dose of nostalgic reality....
> What with all the bickering.....


Quite a beauty! Thanks for the photo! Any more?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I really like the new Enterprise. Honestly. I'm also a fan going back to the original. Seen every one, MANY times, and I think of all Star Trek, TOS is where the real magic happened (TNG was too clean, the others sort of sucked.) I love the original designs. But I really like the new design and the new bridge, too. Since I only get excited by maybe one movie a year, this looks like the one for me.

OH, I'll buy that toy. The model, too, if/when it comes out.

I wish they had done more with the saucer, though. It looks too plain for the great lines of the rest of the ship.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Quite a beauty! Thanks for the photo! Any more?


um yeah.....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, since the history site is taking its sweet time updating itself, let's see 'em.

If nothing else, they make for great modeling references...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Well, since the history site is taking its sweet time updating itself, let's see 'em.


Is there a link to the "history site?"


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Well, since the history site is taking its sweet time updating itself, let's see 'em.
> 
> If nothing else, they make for great modeling references...


Yes I know, a shame....
It's been over a year since the last update.
Issues..... I understand he's working on a complete revamp of the site, and that things take time.
You can understand my frustration... I, as well as others have provided tons of material.
for those interested :
http://www.startrekhistory.com


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Atemylunch said:


> I hope it does bomb big time.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



If this movie bombs 'big time' that will be the death of filmed Trek and a nail in the coffin of big budget science fiction movies. I'm a fan of both, so I'm going to see this movie opening weekend.


----------

