# J.j.prise coming



## chiangkaishecky

*Revell "1:500" Cloverprise (Trek'09)*

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/revell-neuheiten-2013/2013/ 








http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/comp_04882-NCC-Enterprise-1701.jpg
04882 USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (Film 12) (Mai 2013, 34.99 Euro) – neue Form

“Im Jahre 2009 lief der mittlerweile 11. Star Trek Film in den Kinos an. Im Zuge einer Zeitreise wurde dabei so viel in der Vergangenheit verändert, daß eine neue Zeitlinie entstand und somit Zusammenhänge, die aus der Serie der 60er Jahre oder den anderen Filmen bekannt sind, keine Gültigkeit mehr haben. Der neue Spielfilm „Into Darkness“ knüpft an die Handlung des Filmes 11 an. Hauptdarsteller zu der um das Jahr 2255 stattfinden Handlung sind wie gewohnt der junge James T. Kirk, Spock sowie Pille & Co. wobei die Nebendarsteller, insbesondere Uhura und Chekov einen wesentlich größeren Part ausfüllen.” (Pressetext Revell)


bing translator said:


> 04882 USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (movie 12) (may 2013, 34.99 euros)-new form
> 
> 
> "In 2009 the now 11 Star Trek was film in cinemas. In the course of a journey so much in the past was changed, that a new time line was and therefore have relationships, which are known from the series of the 1960s or the other films, no longer apply. The new feature film "Into Darkness" alludes to the plot of the film 11. "Around the year 2255 held action actor to the accustomed as the young James t. Kirk, Spock, and pill & co. with the supporting actors, particularly Uhura and Chekov fill out a much larger part." (Press release Revell)


*update*








*update*
Flickr set
























Larger versions @flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/sets/72157632671951387/with/8439929574/
*update Mar 31 2013*
Test shots @dpmv.de
http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/u-s-s-enterprise-ncc-1701-into-darkness/2013/


----------



## phicks

I seem to recall one of our members here is slightly "interested" in a model of this vessel.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

chiangkaishecky said:


> http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/revell-neuheiten-2013/2013/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/comp_04882-NCC-Enterprise-1701.jpg
> 04882 USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (Film 12) (Mai 2013, 34.99 Euro) – neue Form
> 
> “Im Jahre 2009 lief der mittlerweile 11. Star Trek Film in den Kinos an. Im Zuge einer Zeitreise wurde dabei so viel in der Vergangenheit verändert, daß eine neue Zeitlinie entstand und somit Zusammenhänge, die aus der Serie der 60er Jahre oder den anderen Filmen bekannt sind, keine Gültigkeit mehr haben. Der neue Spielfilm „Into Darkness“ knüpft an die Handlung des Filmes 11 an. Hauptdarsteller zu der um das Jahr 2255 stattfinden Handlung sind wie gewohnt der junge James T. Kirk, Spock sowie Pille & Co. wobei die Nebendarsteller, insbesondere Uhura und Chekov einen wesentlich größeren Part ausfüllen.” (Pressetext Revell)


How big will it be at that scale


----------



## Ensign Eddie

I wonder if that's the final "Into Darkness" design (I had heard that it might be tweaked for the new film).

I still think it looks like the Enterprise viewed through a funhouse mirror.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

well I put a model kit of this ship on the backburner after Round 2 cancelled it. I am very happy it will be made as a plastic kit and from Revell of Germany it will be damn good!


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Scrol down...

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/revell-neuheiten-2013/2013/


----------



## RSN

Captain Han Solo said:


> Scrol down...
> 
> http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/revell-neuheiten-2013/2013/


About time we got a kit!! Looking forward to this one.


----------



## drmcoy

YES!!!!

Once someone figures out how to order these, please post here...maybe CultTV Man will get them in.

And for all the "haters" of this design, here's a suggestion -- keep all of your disparaging comments to yourself and channel that negative energy in a more useful way by posting positive comments on the other threads honoring the original design.


----------



## spock62

Good news! I was hoping ROG might take the plunge and produce a kit of this ship. Hopefully, it will be a little easier to get here in the States then their other Star Trek kits.

For such an unpopular design, there's already 2 threads on this!

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=382950


----------



## wjplenge

The present is good and the future looks bright, the Polar Lights 350 TOS Enterprise, Moebius is working on a 1/6 scale TOS LIS Robot and now the missing Enterprise is in the works. And I didn't even send a wish list to Santa.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Well, I do hope that for those of you who want this kit, it's a better representation of the ship than the TOS Enterprise. And note that they say it's 1/500 scale. That would be a huge kit!


----------



## spock62

Guy Schlicter said:


> How big will it be at that scale


Well, it depends on what length Revell decides to go with. Originally, the length of the JJprise was to be 1200 feet. As filming progressed, they decided to bump up the length to make it have a "grander feel", the new length being 2379 feet (this is from the Blu-Ray disc).

So, using a scale calculator I found on the Internet, http://www.scale-models.nl/scalc.html , and assuming it's accurate:

If Revell goes with 1200 ft, then the kit would be 2.4 ft in 1:500 scale.
If Revell goes with 2379 ft, then the kit would be 4.758 ft in 1:500 scale.

Something tells me they'll stick with the 1200 ft version!


----------



## PixelMagic

Finally we get a kit of this ship. It will be bigger than the one Round2 was going to put out as well. I hate parts of design, but I like other parts, so I will build this one.

However, I am in love with the Kelvin, and would jump at the chance to build a kit like that.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I , as one of the design detractors , am glad you guys are finally getting your kit. I am truely sorry it is for the European market, which will make it harder to get and much more expensive. Perhaps Starship modeler or Cult Tv man will carry them. Congratulations guys !


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

*Wonderful news*

Sweet Mammy Moses, this is good news!

between this and the new B-9 kit, it's going to be a fantastic year!


----------



## john_trek

I think it is great to finally see the JJprise come to styrene. I might not build it (like I never built the. 1701-E either) but glad to see it coming soon.

even happier to see the 1:30 scale X-Wing. That is a kit I will build (if I can get one sent across the pond to the Colonies)


----------



## woof359

did any one see a price ? or due date


----------



## spock62

Ductapeforever said:


> I am truely sorry it is for the European market, which will make it harder to get and much more expensive.


I'm hoping that since Revell has the 2009 Star Trek license and no model company in the US has this license, they'll be able it import the kit here, just like they do their other kits.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

I have a feeling their should be no problem getting this kit in the Great USA.


----------



## Zombie_61

woof359 said:


> did any one see a price ? or due date


On the page linked to in the first post, it says (in German) "May 2013, 34.99 Euro", either of which could be subject to change.


----------



## Griffworks

Great news for fans of the design. :thumbsup: 

My only "What th' huh?" on this is - why 1:500 scale? You'd think that they'd go with one of the primary scales already established for Trek, such as 1:1000.


----------



## Bay7

phicks said:


> I seem to recall one of our members here is slightly "interested" in a model of this vessel.



I'm sure it was John P :tongue:

Steve


----------



## Fozzie

CultTVMan had this to say: "The model is reported to be 1:500 scale and coming out in May 2013. Of course, we really don’t know how big this will translate to as we really don’t know how big the actual ship is. The listed price is 35 Euros, which hints that it is not a very large kit. I am guessing it will be similar in size to the other Revell Germany Trek kits."


----------



## charonjr

Heck, if it gets to 18", it'd be great. I think that's about $50. If it is 2.4 feet, given the size of engineering and engines, it could still be done. Isn't this in scale with their 1701 and D7?


----------



## spock62

charonjr said:


> Isn't this in scale with their 1701 and D7?


Both of those kits are 1:600 scale.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

I have a feeling this kit will make it to the store shelves. This is the first time in a very long time a model will be available at the time of the film. When First Contact was made the movie released in November 1996 and the Enterprise E model kit was released by Ertl in October 1997.


----------



## John P

Bay7 said:


> I'm sure it was John P :tongue:
> 
> Steve


I think I still have some firecrackers in the closet...


----------



## Paulbo

Time to dust off the notes I made about aftermarket parts I wanted to do for the planned PL kit.


----------



## NTRPRZ

While I'm not overly thrilled with the design of parts of this Enterprise (I won't call it the "JJPrise"), I will get it. I have a friend in Germany who has been alerted to this and I'll ask her to get it for me before it has a chance to warm up a hobby store shelf.

For the record, my major gripes are with the deflector dish being too large and the dorsal being too far back. I've not had a chance to look closely at the finer details.

Jeff


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Personally, I like the design. It's not the original series ship...but we have the perfect kit of that now.

To me it's just another cool model to ...BUILD!


----------



## falcondesigns

Yay,another Starship!


----------



## Trek Ace

This is great news for all who want this kit.
I plan on buying two. I'll build one 'straight', and one I will modify. It _will _be interesting to see just what "1/500" really translates into.


Curious description of the movie cast. I wonder who "Pill and Co." are?


----------



## Jodet

I think this will be another 'order from Europe on Ebay' deal. 

Pricey, but if you want one you'll finally be able to get one.


----------



## whiskeyrat

*Never liked this Enterprise*

From the moment I first saw it on trekmovie.com years ago, I have always thought this was the ugliest version of our beloved ship ever to have been conceived. Even Andrew Probert said "It doesn't work for me." It looks like what it is, a collection of different parts of different ships from throughout trek lore, cobbled together in a fashion that is only meant to be a _representation_ of the Enterprise, not actually a ship in her own right. Church couldn't even come up with an interesting design on his own, he had to pry the primary hull off of the refit and super glued it to what looks like an early version of the Phase 2 secondary hull. And don't get me started on the spindly, weak-looking engine pylons and the comically over-sized nacelles. None of the ships parts seem to fit together, aesthetically. And what's with the ambiguity about the size of the thing? No-one seems to be able to get a straight answer, so the dang thing shrinks and grows every time there's any speculation. After I saw the ship for the first time my estimation of what the movie was going to be like dropped many notches...and I was right, IMHO.

I won't build this version. I think Gabe Koerner's re-imagined ship was a much better effort.


----------



## spock62

I understand that this design of the Enterprise is not everyone's cup-of-tea. Most that have posted are either glad to hear of Revell’s release of this kit or, while not liking the design themselves, understand why others do.

But, unfortunately, there's always some who feel they have to tell everyone, for the 1000th time, their dislike for the design. They don't like it and would never buy it, but yet they post here. Why? For one purpose, to "enlighten" the rest of us on how bad this design is and how silly we are to want a kit of it.

This thread was started to let people know about Revell's upcoming release, not as a debate as to the merits/demerits of the design. Hopefully, it will stay that way. If people feel like discussing the design of this version of the Enterprise, positive or negative, perhaps another thread should be started for this purpose.


----------



## Bobj812

But...how will people know they're wrong if you don't tell them they are? Over and over and over again...
: )


----------



## whiskeyrat

But, unfortunately, there's always some who feel they have to tell everyone, for the 1000th time, their dislike for the design. They don't like it and would never buy it, but yet they post here. Why? For one purpose, to "enlighten" the rest of us on how bad this design is and how silly we are to want a kit of it.

This thread was started to let people know about Revell's upcoming release, not as a debate as to the merits/demerits of the design. Hopefully, it will stay that way. If people feel like discussing the design of this version of the Enterprise, positive or negative, perhaps another thread should be started for this purpose.[/quote]

I wasn't trying to enlighten anybody. I was merely stating my opinion. Also, I wasn't trying to tell anybody that they were wrong, or right. It was again, my opinion. I thought that was what forums were for. 


spock62 said:


> I understand that this design of the Enterprise is not everyone's cup-of-tea. Most that have posted are either glad to hear of Revell’s release of this kit or, while not liking the design themselves, understand why others do.


----------



## whiskeyrat

Bobj812 said:


> But...how will people know they're wrong if you don't tell them they are? Over and over and over again...
> : )


I didn't tell anybody they were wrong. Please don't infer that from what I posted. I opined that the ship was unattractive _for me_.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

whiskeyrat said:


> I wasn't trying to enlighten anybody. I was merely stating my opinion. Also, I wasn't trying to tell anybody that they were wrong, or right. It was again, my opinion. I thought that was what forums were for.


I didn't start this thread to be another "I hate the JJPrise because",frankly, it's been beat to death. I started it because a buddy of mine informed me of it and I thought some of the guys here would be interested in another Trek model to *BUILD. *

Personally, The only Starship that matters to me, is the original Series Ship,But I can appreciate ALL the designs and best of all..the MODELS of said designs!


However, Your right, forums are for everyone to share their opinions as all are valid...Perhaps,...just perhaps, the negative side should be discussed in ANOTHER Thread??? You could elaborate on why it dosen't appeal to you? 
I am just happy another model of a Spaceship is coming out.


----------



## drmcoy

whiskeyrat -- nobody cares that you think this is the ugliest version. please re-read post #8 in this thread.


----------



## whiskeyrat

Captain Han Solo said:


> I didn't start this thread to be another "I hate the JJPrise because",frankly, it's been beat to death. I started it because a buddy of mine informed me of it and I thought some of the guys here would be interested in another Trek model to *BUILD. *
> 
> Personally, The only Starship that matters to me, is the original Series Ship,But I can appreciate ALL the designs and best of all..the MODELS of said designs!
> 
> 
> However, Your right forums are for everyone to share their opinions as all arer valid...Perhaps,just perhaps the negative side should be discussed in ANOTHER Thread??? You could elaborate on why it dosn't appeal to you?
> I am just happy another model of a Spaceship is coming out.


It's your thread, my apologies for offending. I just thought maybe _both_ viewpoints would be afforded. My fault.


----------



## whiskeyrat

drmcoy said:


> whiskeyrat -- nobody cares that you think this is the ugliest version. please re-read post #8 in this thread.


That's just rude. I wasn't trying to be rude when I posted. Gee, I guess opinions are NOT what forums are for.


----------



## spock62

whiskeyrat said:


> I wasn't trying to enlighten anybody. I was merely stating my opinion. Also, I wasn't trying to tell anybody that they were wrong, or right. It was again, my opinion. I thought that was what forums were for.


Yes, these forums should allow us to express our opinions, within the guidelines laid out by the moderators and as long as the discussion is civil amongst us. But, IMHO, what you posted, didn't really fit into the discussion of this thread.

Like I said, it seems to me that this thread was started to announce that Revell will be producing the 2009 movie version of the Enterprise. It's one thing to say, I won't buy the kit but I'm happy for the rest of you, it's quite another thing to post a mini-dissertation on why the design is bad, and for that matter, why the movie was bad. What, exactly, does that have to do with the announcement of the Revell kit?

Look at it this way, say someone posted on this thread, "What's the big deal about Star Trek, I think Star Wars is better. Star Trek sucks". That person's opinion, which their entitled to, would be out of place in this thread, no? So is saying the design is bad, in context of this thread.

Now if the title of this thread was something along the lines of "JJprise design, good or bad?", then your post would be fine. All I'm saying is that if you or anyone else feels they want to discuss the design aspects of the JJprise (for lack of a better name), then a new thread should be started for that purpose. I'll probably chime in myself.

For the record, I do see where your coming from, for the most part, with your take on the design, especially the fluctuating size (and don't get me started on the Budweiser engine room), but, overall I do like the design.


----------



## whiskeyrat

spock62 said:


> Yes, these forums should allow us to express our opinions, within the guidelines laid out by the moderators and as long as the discussion is civil amongst us. But, IMHO, what you posted, didn't really fit into the discussion of this thread.
> 
> Like I said, it seems to me that this thread was started to announce that Revell will be producing the 2009 movie version of the Enterprise. It's one thing to say, I won't buy the kit but I'm happy for the rest of you, it's quite another thing to post a mini-dissertation on why the design is bad, and for that matter, why the movie was bad. What, exactly, does that have to do with the announcement of the Revell kit?
> 
> Look at it this way, say someone posted on this thread, "What's the big deal about Star Trek, I think Star Wars is better. Star Trek sucks". That person's opinion, which their entitled to, would be out of place in this thread, no? So is saying the design is bad, in context of this thread.
> 
> Now if the title of this thread was something along the lines of "JJprise design, good or bad?", then your post would be fine. All I'm saying is that if you or anyone else feels they want to discuss the design aspects of the JJprise (for lack of a better name), then a new thread should be started for that purpose. I'll probably chime in myself.
> 
> For the record, I do see where your coming from, for the most part, with your take on the design, especially the fluctuating size (and don't get me started on the Budweiser engine room), but, overall I do like the design.


No arguments with any of the above. Forgive my transgression. You are a better man than I, Spock62.


----------



## secretreeve

I'll be buying the kit as long as the price doesn't hike up to much or the scale goes down to much.

I actually quite like the design of the ship and has some interesting features to try to work into it. Probably most noticably being the parts of the nacelles which rise up for warp mode.

I think the code im working on for my 1/350 refit will work quite nicely for this model too. especially if i can get the servo control coding to work properly!

Looking forward to updates on:

price
scale
where the heck to buy!


----------



## Captain Han Solo

whiskeyrat said:


> It's your thread, my apologies for offending. I just thought maybe _both_ viewpoints would be afforded. My fault.


 
No offense here Sir:thumbsup:.
If we talking Just about the ship and the pros and cons of it, yes indeed, both viewpoints are very much valid in the same thread regardless of who's thread it may be.

This was just to announce the "kit"per say and not the merits or lack of.

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else...just suggesting perhaps not in this particular thread.


----------



## spock62

whiskeyrat said:


> No arguments with any of the above. Forgive my transgression. You are a better man than I, Spock62.


Finally, someone recognizes what a great guy I am! Now if I could just get my ex-girlfriend to feel the same way....

Regarding your "transgression", forget about it, no biggie. 

As for the Gabe Koerner version, I remember when I first saw it thinking THAT going to be the Enterprise for the movie. Was a little disappointed when it wasn't.


----------



## SDF-3

While I have voiced my dislike for the design in the past, I will say bravo for all of you who wanted this model and can now get it. Especially you Guy! You must be happy huh?


----------



## StarshipClass

I'm not a big fan of the design but I'm glad this kit is coming out. The more and bigger variety of kits, the better, I say. I won't get it unless it is on sale or something but I can see some great kit-bashing possibilities. I actually _like _the saucer shape as a cool variation.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

SDF-3 said:


> While I have voiced my dislike for the design in the past, I will say bravo for all of you who wanted this model and can now get it. Especially you Guy! You must be happy huh?


Yes!and Happy New Year. Miracles can happen after all.


----------



## Kremin

Anyone know a release date and I'll keep an eye out in local model shops and let you know what sort of price they are doing


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Kremin said:


> Anyone know a release date and I'll keep an eye out in local model shops and let you know what sort of price they are doing


I heard May 2013 and I'm assuming its in timed to be released in conjuction with the Star Trek Sequel


----------



## secretreeve

personally i cant wait.

She will prove a challenge to those who have never built either of the 1/350's or have but not done any fancy work.

i.e the bussard collectors will be a challenge to make "functional". sooooo looking forward to it though. 3 months if the release dates right. Suppose i should get cracking on the prep for that too. busy year....


----------



## Paulbo

Secret - yes, the bussard collectors will be interesting. I can't wait to see what Randy, John, et al. do for them.


----------



## NTRPRZ

Trek Ace said:


> Curious description of the movie cast. I wonder who "Pill and Co." are?


"Pille" is the German equivalent of Kirk's "Bones" nickname for Dr. McCoy. The German word for "bone" is "Knochen," which would sound pretty strange, even in German.

Jeff


----------



## Trek Ace

I wondered about the word "Pill" being in place of "Bones" to describe the doctor. Thanks for clarifying that. I know that the Blu-ray discs of the original series are produced with multiple language tracks. I should look closer to see if there is one in German, and if that is the name Kirk uses for McCoy.


----------



## ClubTepes

Griffworks said:


> Great news for fans of the design. :thumbsup:
> 
> My only "What th' huh?" on this is - why 1:500 scale? You'd think that they'd go with one of the primary scales already established for Trek, such as 1:1000.


Jeff, I actually think it makes a little sense.

If you consider the 1,200 foot length accurate, then at 1/500, does put it close to the 1/500 Cut a way and the 1/537 stuff.

If you think the longer length is accurate, then that does make the kit 1/1000 ish.


----------



## ClubTepes

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, I do hope that for those of you who want this kit, it's a better representation of the ship than the TOS Enterprise. And note that they say it's 1/500 scale. That would be a huge kit!


I'm willing to bet that it will be a better representation due to the very likely case that they'll be working from CG files.


----------



## drmcoy

whiskeyrat said:


> That's just rude. I wasn't trying to be rude when I posted. Gee, I guess opinions are NOT what forums are for.


My curt response was indeed rude to you, whiskeyrat, and in retrospect, I should have simply asked that you read post #8...I always assume that people who respond to threads have read all posts since the first original post...and perhaps you didn't. 

Bottom line is this -- whiskeyrate and all others who dislike this design -- how is sharing your opinion that you dislike the design contributing to this thread? Having an opinion is one thing...knowing the proper context in which to convey it is another matter entirely.


----------



## ClubTepes

Ensign Eddie said:


> I wonder if that's the final "Into Darkness" design (I had heard that it might be tweaked for the new film).
> 
> I still think it looks like the Enterprise viewed through a funhouse mirror.


Based on this picture, it looks like they spaced the nacelles to the TOS proportions.

The spacing in the first film didn't seem right to me.

Also, it seems as though the engines seem smaller.


----------



## Zombie_61

ClubTepes said:


> Based on this picture, it looks like they spaced the nacelles to the TOS proportions.
> 
> The spacing in the first film didn't seem right to me.
> 
> Also, it seems as though the engines seem smaller.


It's difficult to tell because of the angle of the photo, but the nacelles struts do appear to be straighter than they were in the '09 movie, which would place the warp engines futher apart. Maybe they've changed that aspect of the design for the upcoming movie. I hope this is indeed the case, since I thought the engines were too far inboard in the '09 movie.

Regardless, it'll be interesting to see what the actual dimensions of the model will be and what it'll cost outside of the European market. Both of these issues will affect my decision whether or not to get one, but the size will likely be the deciding factor because I have limited display space.


----------



## Bobj812

whiskeyrat said:


> I didn't tell anybody they were wrong. Please don't infer that from what I posted. I opined that the ship was unattractive _for me_.


Sigh. To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
Don't get your undies all twisted.


----------



## secretreeve

Zombie_61 said:


> but the size will likely be the deciding factor because I have limited display space.


Oh i know that feeling, I have 8ft walls in the living room but still have limited space, and some of that space is taken up by the sword collection and the Voyager build, other space has been reserved for the 1/350 enterprise refit. So i have no idea where im going to put the MkII Viper let alone this beasty.

However, I have decided to do the MkII viper cockpit in fiber optics and depending on how that goes and the optics for the refit shuttlebay go I may choose to do JJPrise entirely in optics


----------



## SDF-3

Guy Schlicter said:


> Yes!and Happy New Year. Miracles can happen after all.


To you too Guy!


----------



## kdaracal

I remember sitting in the theater, hating myself for liking the stinkin' movie. I felt a little like a guy must feel when cheating on his wife of 25 years, with some bimbo blonde bubble head. 

And my first thought, as I watched it, "I want that model kit!" and then second thought: "How the hell can a guy light it, with all that extra blue light all over the place".

I'm guilty as sin.


----------



## MOSUGOJI

I may get one and remake it into the USS Bonaventure from the animated Star Trek since it's engines are all bulbous like that ship's engines were.


----------



## SUNGOD

I wish they'd done another Trek ship like a K'Tinga and not a big fan of the film or the ship but I might pick it up if it looks good.


----------



## mach7

I'm not a fan of the design, but to be honest I'm not in love with anything beyond the TOS and TMP Enterprise's so I'm not a good judge.

But I sure am glad the they are doing a kit, It seems like it is long over due.

More Starships are always good.


----------



## electric indigo

The real challenege for modelers who want to light this kit (I like the design btw.) is how to generate the excessive lens flare in their living rooms.


----------



## Carl_G

SUNGOD said:


> I wish they'd done another Trek ship like a K'Tinga and not a big fan of the film or the ship but I might pick it up if it looks good.


It would be neat if they did a kit of the nuKlingon ships, they were quite a nice redesign. Regardless, I'm glad this kit is _finally_ happening.



electric indigo said:


> The real challenege for modelers who want to light this kit (I like the design btw.) is how to generate the excessive lens flare in their living rooms.


Haha, I think photoshop is your friend in this case....


----------



## Carl_G

Double post, sorry.


----------



## whiskeyrat

Bobj812 said:


> Sigh. To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
> Don't get your undies all twisted.


Sigh. The only joke here is readily apparent.


----------



## Warped9

drmcoy said:


> YES!!!!
> 
> And for all the "haters" of this design, here's a suggestion -- keep all of your disparaging comments to yourself and channel that negative energy in a more useful way by posting positive comments on the other threads honoring the original design.


Hmm...I'm reminded how truly exceptional, noteworthy and beautiful MJ's original design really is.


----------



## whiskeyrat

drmcoy said:


> My curt response was indeed rude to you, whiskeyrat, and in retrospect, I should have simply asked that you read post #8...I always assume that people who respond to threads have read all posts since the first original post...and perhaps you didn't.
> 
> Bottom line is this -- whiskeyrate and all others who dislike this design -- how is sharing your opinion that you dislike the design contributing to this thread? Having an opinion is one thing...knowing the proper context in which to convey it is another matter entirely.


If I had known that spot was so sore and tender, I _never_ would have poked it. Entirely my fault for assuming otherwise. Fascinating. Simply fascinating.


----------



## eagledocf15

*JJprise*

I will get one. Please let us know when we can pre-order these.. thanks


----------



## checksum

Yes, is there a mailing list or something that one can get on to be alerted when it will be for sale?


----------



## Dr. Brad

Well, given that pickings are likely to be pretty slim all you guys who want this ship will likely buy it, but I sure hope Revell of Germany does a better job of it than they did on the TOS Enterprise. I hope they will, but I wouldn't count on it. Still, RG can do decent kits, so maybe this will be one!


----------



## drmcoy

i agree that when i first saw the revell enterprise i was disappointed at some of the gross errors in accuracy...despite the fact that so much reference of the filming model was available. but i have seen a few builds and it has an odd appeal to me for some reason.

i know that if they had released this instead of the original AMT when i was a kid, i would have been just as happy to build it -- maybe more so, as it is so much easier to light up.

that said, i certainly hope they make this new model closer to the actual movie design. 

looking forward to getting this one.


----------



## Antimatter

Why no pennant? Also the bottom of the saucer is too plain.


----------



## Carl_G

Antimatter said:


> Why no pennant? Also the bottom of the saucer is too plain.


Agreed, she looks nekkid with the missing signage.


----------



## Captain April

NTRPRZ said:


> "Pille" is the German equivalent of Kirk's "Bones" nickname for Dr. McCoy. The German word for "bone" is "Knochen," which would sound pretty strange, even in German.
> 
> Jeff





Trek Ace said:


> I wondered about the word "Pill" being in place of "Bones" to describe the doctor. Thanks for clarifying that. I know that the Blu-ray discs of the original series are produced with multiple language tracks. I should look closer to see if there is one in German, and if that is the name Kirk uses for McCoy.


Contrary what JJ and his merry band theorized, "Bones" is short for "sawbones", a 19th Century Civil War/Old West slang term for a doctor. An audience steeped in westerns would pick up on this without the need for explanation, but it was felt that German audiences wouldn't catch the meaning, so "Pill" was substituted.

Which leads one to wonder how German audiences felt about JJTrek, when they went to so much trouble to come up with such a hackneyed reason to start calling Pill, "Bones"....


----------



## ClubTepes

ClubTepes said:


> Jeff, I actually think it makes a little sense.
> 
> If you consider the 1,200 foot length accurate, then at 1/500, does put it close to the 1/500 Cut a way and the 1/537 stuff.
> 
> If you think the longer length is accurate, then that does make the kit 1/1000 ish.


Ok, my mom always told me to never quote myself or I could go blind.....:freak:

So heres how it works out.
366 meters at 1/500 scale comes to 73.2 cm.
735 meters at 1/1000 scale comes to 73.5 cm.

So they may actually be onto something cool.


So now its your choice, display it with all the 1/500ish stuff or display it with all the 1/1000ish stuff.

Either way, since the model is almost 30 inches long, this may be their response to the PL 1/350 TOS.

Either way, its a win win for those JJPrise fans.


----------



## jbond

It's not going to be 30 inches long at the price point mentioned earlier, which is in line with the RG TOS Enterprise--I would expect the size to be similar, and probably in defiance of either scale. Remember RG seems to be a fan of "box scale" as shown with all their Star Wars kits--I would not be at all surprised if the stated scale on the box had no relationship to the actual dimensions of the kit, especially since (as everyone has mentioned) no one really knows the dimensions of this ship. A 30-inch model from a movie (even a Star Trek movie) would be utterly unprecedented and a gigantic financial investment and gamble for Revell-Germany. I'm hopeful we'll see a model between 18 and 20 inches long and I'm very happy to see this subject getting a release--I loved the engineering of the previous two TOS kits and I anticipate the JJprise will be a very enjoyable build. Also the prerelease art looks promising--remember that most of the inaccuracies of the previous Trek kits were on full display in the prerelease artwork so we may be looking at a more accurate take on the JJprise here.


----------



## SteveR

jbond said:


> Remember RG seems to be a fan of "box scale" as shown with all their Star Wars kits--I would not be at all surprised if the stated scale on the box had no relationship to the actual dimensions of the kit ...


I agree. I'd expect something about the size of R-G's TOS Enterprise. 1/500 is probably just a rough guess, something to put on the box.

... and 35 Euros would be pretty cheap for a three-foot kit, IMO.


----------



## RSN

SteveR said:


> I agree. I'd expect something about the size of R-G's TOS Enterprise. 1/500 is probably just a rough guess, something to put on the box.
> 
> ... and 35 Euros would be pretty cheap for a three-foot kit, IMO.


It may seem "cheap" but if they are not trying to engineer in a shuttle bay and bridge and are not including parts and decals to make one of three versions, I imagine that would reduce the cost significantly.


----------



## PixelMagic

jbond said:


> Also the prerelease art looks promising--remember that most of the inaccuracies of the previous Trek kits were on full display in the prerelease artwork so we may be looking at a more accurate take on the JJprise here.


The "pre-release art" is simply a ILM render of the CG JJprise used in the movie. It doesn't get more accurate than that.  Whether the tooling is as accurate is yet to be seen. Round2 had the actual CG files from ILM for reference, so let's hope RG has a similar deal going with their development.


----------



## jbond

"It may seem "cheap" but if they are not trying to engineer in a shuttle bay and bridge and are not including parts and decals to make one of three versions, I imagine that would reduce the cost significantly."

Not that significantly...they're not selling a 30-inch kit for 44 dollars. Anything that size would sell for two or three times that (check out the pricing for the Refit and TOS Enterprise kits for example). I'll happily eat my words if I'm wrong but RG ought to have the same ability to gauge a market that R2 had--R2 was originally going with a smaller JJprise and that only makes sense given the market. The Refit and TOS Enterprise had decades to build up market recognition and desirability. And when released at 1/350 they were expensive kits. It would be ridiculous for RG to gamble on a gigantic model kit that many people would not have room to display, on a subject that has so far demonstrated no capability to move the vast numbers of units necessary to offset the tooling costs of such a large kit--and then to practically give the kits away at a very low cost at that.

With the kit release only five months away I would think they would be to the prototype stage at least so I we should get some kind of look at how accurate it is fairly soon...


----------



## RSN

Yes, but again, the two R2 1/350 Enterprise kits both had extensive interior pieces that required engineering to fit in the model as well as shuttlecrafts, all needing extra molds for the parts to create those interiors and crafts. If the RG Enterprise (THAT is the name of the ship!) is nothing more than a shell like most models, the cost will drop a good bit on just the savings alone from the number of molds needing to be tooled. No matter the size of the kit, they have given a preliminary price for it, so they must know what will make them a profit, Hobbytalk "experts" be darned!


----------



## SteveR

Place yer bets!


----------



## Captain April

Is it possible RG bought the tooling that had been worked up for R2's attempt at this subject? It'd certainly be quite a time saver.


----------



## scifiguy67

is It me ...or do It seems RG models have a toy like quality to them?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

scifiguy67 said:


> is It me ...or do It seems RG models have a toy like quality to them?


Build "out of box" - yes:










But add just a little color to them (here a wash and a quick drybrush, nothing more), and the toy like look is gone:


----------



## scifiguy67

wow! now that makes a difference!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

just spitballing here, but IF they used existing CGI meshes to generate their molds (no lenghthy development time) AND minimized the part count by only offering a "shell" (no interior sets, no clever engineering to allow lighting or kitbashing opportunities) IS IT POSSIBLE that they could offer a large-ish kit for the price listed?

I'm just happy it's being made at all


----------



## mach7

I don't know, but both Jamie and Moebius have said that as the size of the tooling goes up the cost to create it skyrockets.

If I remember correctly that was a sticking point for both the big E and the J2.

Luckily both got built.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

here's something...what if they went the way of producing the saucer in segments?

smaller box, smaller tools (one assumes) just because R2 makes their saucers in two parts doesn't mean RoG has to


----------



## secretreeve

Revell is a large company. Maybe they are planning on more large kits and consider it a "swallow-able" cost?


----------



## Fozzie

Lou Dalmaso said:


> here's something...what if they went the way of producing the saucer in segments?
> 
> smaller box, smaller tools (one assumes) just because R2 makes their saucers in two parts doesn't mean RoG has to


I seem to recall that a "leaked" photo of R2's JJPrise actually DID have the saucer done in segments. Anyone else remember seeing that?


----------



## mach7

That does sound familiar.
Isn't the C57D also done in segments?


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Fozzie said:


> I seem to recall that a "leaked" photo of R2's JJPrise actually DID have the saucer done in segments. Anyone else remember seeing that?


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3864810&postcount=70


----------



## StarshipClass

chiangkaishecky said:


> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3864810&postcount=70


I don't care who you are or what you like in starships, that's a good looking model kit! :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave in RI

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, given that pickings are likely to be pretty slim all you guys who want this ship will likely buy it, but I sure hope Revell of Germany does a better job of it than they did on the TOS Enterprise. I hope they will, but I wouldn't count on it. Still, RG can do decent kits, so maybe this will be one!


I have to wonder with some people not liking the design of this Enterprise, could any inaccuracies on Revell of Germany's part, ironically be something to look forward to in the hopes of improving the design?


----------



## Guy Schlicter

This really was a shock when I read that the Enterprise from the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies will finally make it to model kit form. After the whole thing with Round 2 cancelling it I really thought the chance of it being made as a model was finished. I have both the Revell/Germany Original USS Enterprise and Klingon Battle Cruiser and I like them alot. I have confidence Revell will do an excellent job with this upcoming model kit. And we know its scheduled to be released at the time with the next Star Trek Movie. That I am very happy about and I know Revell will have it out in time for the movie.


----------



## Paulbo

Wish there was something in the photos to give a sense of size.


----------



## spock62

Assuming Revell will be using the CGI files from the 2009 movie (and, perhaps, the upcoming 2013 movie), the JJprise should be a pretty accurate kit. These files represent the only source for the design of the ship, unlike the TOS Enterprise that has seen slight variations in design between different Trek shows, Trek publications, etc.

The reason that the TOS Enterprise was not totally accurate to the 11 foot miniature (based on previous posts on this forum and others), was that Revell apparently decided to make that kit a combination of several different design variations of the Enterprise (i.e. 3 footer, 11 footer, DS9 episode, re-imagined episodes, etc.), in order to make it different from what other companies had done before.


----------



## checksum

So how did "someone" get ahold of the model already?


----------



## Fozzie

checksum said:


> So how did "someone" get ahold of the model already?


If you're referring to the photos earlier in the thread that is NOT the kit coming from Revell. That is the aborted R2 model.


----------



## checksum

Im talking about the photos posted by chiangkaishecky 3-4 posts back...


----------



## secretreeve

checksum said:


> Im talking about the photos posted by chiangkaishecky 3-4 posts back...





Fozzie said:


> If you're referring to the photos earlier in the thread that is NOT the kit coming from Revell. That is the aborted R2 model.



one and the same thing.


----------



## falcondesigns

Marco Scheloske said:


> Build "out of box" - yes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But add just a little color to them (here a wash and a quick drybrush, nothing more), and the toy like look is gone:


It's called modelling........


----------



## SocrManiac

Lou Dalmaso said:


> just spitballing here, but IF they used existing CGI meshes to generate their molds (no lenghthy development time) AND minimized the part count by only offering a "shell" (no interior sets, no clever engineering to allow lighting or kitbashing opportunities) IS IT POSSIBLE that they could offer a large-ish kit for the price listed?
> 
> I'm just happy it's being made at all


Injection molded models come as shells to achieve a uniform wall thickness in the plastic. This is important for two reasons.

When plastic is injected into the mold, it immediately starts to cool. As it cools, it shrinks. Thicker walls shrink more. As the plastic cools more is squeezed in to try to compensate, but once thr plastic hardens you can't get any more in. So, when you have these thicker wall sections, such as near a post or a locating hole, you often get sinks or voids in the plastic. Sound familiar?

The second reason is financial. Obviously, you can't open the mold and eject the part until the plastic has hardened. The length of time it takes for the plastic to harden is substantially governed by its thickness. Additionally, it's an exponential curve. Something like a saucer section on a typical starship at a half-inch thickness would take well over a minute to fully harden as opposed to the seconds it takes for a typical model component. Kit manufacturers have to pay molding machine and operator labor rates in addition to the raw material (the far more substantial portion of production cost). Increasing the time it takes to manufacture a component is the fastest way to drive the price through the roof!


----------



## Captain April

My analysis and prediction: The 1/500 scale cited on the box is meaningless, and only on the box for the sake of putting _something_ there. The model itself will be no bigger than 22" long, probably closer to 18" or 19", so it'll look good next to the TOS E and D7..


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

SocrManiac said:


> Injection molded models come as shells to achieve a uniform wall thickness in the plastic. This is important for two reasons.
> 
> When plastic is injected into the mold, it immediately starts to cool. As it cools, it shrinks. Thicker walls shrink more. As the plastic cools more is squeezed in to try to compensate, but once thr plastic hardens you can't get any more in. So, when you have these thicker wall sections, such as near a post or a locating hole, you often get sinks or voids in the plastic. Sound familiar?
> 
> The second reason is financial. Obviously, you can't open the mold and eject the part until the plastic has hardened. The length of time it takes for the plastic to harden is substantially governed by its thickness. Additionally, it's an exponential curve. Something like a saucer section on a typical starship at a half-inch thickness would take well over a minute to fully harden as opposed to the seconds it takes for a typical model component. Kit manufacturers have to pay molding machine and operator labor rates in addition to the raw material (the far more substantial portion of production cost). Increasing the time it takes to manufacture a component is the fastest way to drive the price through the roof!


I have no idea why this prompted a lesson on plastic injection.. When I said "Shell" I meant a kit that had no interior sets (like the refit and the new TOS Enterprise do). Clearly I know that the model would be a hollow form of plastic and wasn't expecting a solid cast ship


----------



## Zombie_61

Paulbo said:


> Wish there was something in the photos to give a sense of size.


What, the rubber bands aren't enough for ya'? :lol:


----------



## John P

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I don't care who you are or what you like in starships, that's a good looking model kit! :thumbsup:


I don't care who I am either, but I know what I like, and if the ship is ugly, the model is ugly too.


----------



## SteveR

Thread's gettin' testy ...


----------



## John P

I went back and put a smilie on mine. I was just bein' silly.


----------



## Griffworks

Breath, people. Remember to respect the opinions of others as you want them to respect yours.


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> I don't care who I am either, but I know what I like, and if the ship is ugly, the model is ugly too.


I suppose, in retrospect, I should have said "well engineered" kit. I just meant to point out that they did a great job on the kitting of that subject, whatever the subject is.

Yeah, I know you're kidding around (and I think most know that I'm not a fan of the nudesign either) but just wanted to explain in case someone really does take it the wrong way.:freak:


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> My analysis and prediction: The 1/500 scale cited on the box is meaningless, and only on the box for the sake of putting _something_ there. The model itself will be no bigger than 22" long, probably closer to 18" or 19", so it'll look good next to the TOS E and D7..


Maybe at that size it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/1400 if the 725 meter length is correct?


----------



## Captain April

Any correlation between the stated scale, the size of the model, and the "actual size" of the JJPrise will be purely coincidental, unintentional, and mostly likely the work of a mischievous and capricious deity.


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> Any correlation between the stated scale, the size of the model, and the "actual size" of the JJPrise will be purely coincidental, unintentional, and mostly likely the work of a mischievous and capricious deity.


Yeah, you've got a point. When do we get the final word on the intended size of the CGI created ship? All I've found so far have been discussions about it--nothing conclusive, which I assume would have to come from the movie folks themselves.


----------



## Captain April

The movie folks are where the contradictions are coming from. And when _*they*_ can't even agree about the size of the ship *they* created, it all becomes pretty pointless.


----------



## publiusr

Having the saucer in segments allows lots of bash options if they go that route.

I think the top of the JJ, with elements of the Kelvin would look nice atop a 1/537 refit.
A flatter, more dangerous looking saucer would be a good mirro universe ship.


----------



## SteveR

Captain April said:


> The movie folks are where the contradictions are coming from. And when _*they*_ can't even agree about the size of the ship *they* created, it all becomes pretty pointless.


They might have started close to the size of the TOS/Refit ship, but biggified it for the night shot of the earthbound dry dock without adjusting the window sizes.


----------



## Captain April

I really don't care about the "why", the fact is that they did it, which doesn't speak well of their opinion of their own work, or the intelligence of the audience. A good writer, who knows how to work within the limitations set before him, changes the scene so that it works within those limitations, he doesn't arbitrarily flaunt those limitations for the sake of a spectacular camera shot.

People notice these things, and Star Trek fans in particular are notorious for pointing out inconsistencies as minor as how many times the transporter platform flashes from one beaming to the next. How can anyone expect us to ignore something as glaring as a starship that changes sizes this radically?


----------



## RSN

Considering there is some debate right here on HobbyTalk among Star Trek "experts" as to the actual vs. intendid size of the original Matt Jeffries Enterprise, I will not lose sleep over the size of the new Enterprise. As a matter of fact, I really don't care, it in no way effects how much I enjoyed the film or the new design. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April

The difference in the alleged sizes of the original ship is a rounding error compared to this one.


----------



## Paulbo

Captain April said:


> The difference in the alleged sizes of the original ship is a rounding error compared to this one.


Too true.


----------



## drmcoy

RSN said:


> Considering there is some debate right here on HobbyTalk among Star Trek "experts" as to the actual vs. intendid size of the original Matt Jeffries Enterprise, I will not lose sleep over the size of the new Enterprise. As a matter of fact, I really don't care, it in no way effects how much I enjoyed the film or the new design. :thumbsup:


i agree. so much time and energy spent on arguing/debating what is, in my opinion, a moot point.

to me, star trek is first and foremost about STORYTELLING and the CHARACTERS that tell the story. it's about the ADVENTURES these characters have.

yes, i love the props and ships and uniforms...but all of this is meaningless to me unless they are part of an interesting story full of engaging characters.

before all the bean counters start throwing shoes at me, i agree that whoever's job it is to design these fantasy ships should have all the measurement stuff figured out for the most part...but at the end of the day, the size of the ship doesn't truly alter the importance of the story/characters -- in fact, all the ships/props are only there to help serve the story.

and knowing the true "size" does not change how cool i think the ship design is one way or the other.

here's another thing i like about the JJ Enterprise -- it is the first time i have ever seen the ship visually depicted as having true "warp" power -- the visual effects of the ship they used throughout the movie made me believe that ship existed more than in any other Trek TV show or movie...from the beginning on the Kelvin when we are inside ship and crewperson gets sucked out hole caused from enemy fire to scenes of Enterprise traveling at warp speeds. Some truly beautiful scenes of the Enterprise in that movie -- it had power, grace and elegance -- all handled in a visual fashion it deserved for big screen treatment.

take a look and tell me any other movie that showcased the enterprise in a more visually stunning way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUptZhKkMo


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Nice clip, Drmcoy!

I like how the impulse engines on the ship look... just flows, in a way.


----------



## checksum

The best part of these fantasy ships is that they really can be ANY size you want. Me, I think that all the ship sizes are all waayy too small. I think they should all be 3-4-5 times the size they are listed at. But if you feel the other way. Then you can say the ships are smaller.


----------



## Zombie_61

Captain April said:


> ...People notice these things, and Star Trek fans in particular are notorious for pointing out inconsistencies as minor as how many times the transporter platform flashes from one beaming to the next. How can anyone expect us to ignore something as glaring as a starship that changes sizes this radically?


Like the Klingon Bird of Prey, for example? 



checksum said:


> The best part of these fantasy ships is that they really can be ANY size you want. Me, I think that all the ship sizes are all waayy too small. I think they should all be 3-4-5 times the size they are listed at. But if you feel the other way. Then you can say the ships are smaller.


And I do. Regardless of what J.J. and/or anyone on his crew says, in my mind the "Nu" Enterprise is roughly the same size as the Original Series' Enterprise. To quote Adam Savage, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."


----------



## Trek Ace

We should all just wait for the kit to be released - then tear it apart!


----------



## spock62

Didn't we go through the "why the JJprise design sucks" conversation a few posts back? I thought this was a thread about the upcoming release of the Revell kit and for those of us that are interested in it? After the fella that posted the original "offending" post realized this was the wrong thread to start that discussion, and even apologized, most of us figured "case closed". Now we seem to have become mired in this again. 

Said it before, and I'll say it again, while everyone's opinions should be welcomed, I feel they should be expressed in the proper threads. For those of you that find the design less then perfect and need to go on and on about it, how about starting another thread to deal with this "issue"?


----------



## StarshipClass

Zombie_61 said:


> Regardless of what J.J. and/or anyone on his crew says, in my mind the "Nu" Enterprise is roughly the same size as the Original Series' Enterprise. . . .


Fair enough but it might also look cool (for those who appreciate it) next to the 1/1400 1701D model.


----------



## electric indigo

Since Revell Germany has a history of selling existing kits under their own brand, it's not too far-fetched that they have bought the molds from R2. Maybe R2 just lacked the marketing and distribution power to make the kit profitable. In Germany, every shop that sells model kits has Revell products on their shelves, they are even present in the toys section in larger stores where no other hobby products are sold.

With the new movie not far away, I hope we'll see pics of the actual kit soon.


----------



## secretreeve

Revell models are quite well stocked in the uk model shops too, Even hoobycraft stores carry them. But then hobby craft stock more airfix crud that revell but they are there.

I really hate airfix stuff. so cheap and tacky...


----------



## SUNGOD

secretreeve said:


> Revell models are quite well stocked in the uk model shops too, Even hoobycraft stores carry them. But then hobby craft stock more airfix crud that revell but they are there.
> 
> I really hate airfix stuff. so cheap and tacky...




That's a bit of an over generalisation. Some older Airfix kits are rubbish but they're bringing out more nice stuff now.


----------



## secretreeve

I doubt airfix are anywhere near round 2, moebius or revell for quality/detail though.


----------



## John P

Go buy some and find out. :shrug:


----------



## SteveR

SUNGOD said:


> Some older Airfix kits are rubbish but they're bringing out more nice stuff now.


Yes ... apparently, since they were bought out by Hornby, the quality has improved.


----------



## secretreeve

Buy one? meh, I have one of their visitor center things up the road from me. I can just pop in and pester them about quality if I ever got the urge to buy airfix.


----------



## Captain April

Zombie_61 said:


> Like the Klingon Bird of Prey, for example?


Ah, but they didn't try to get us to buy the concept that the 12-man scout ship we saw in TSFS was the very same gargantuan ship we later saw alongside the E-D in various TNG episodes. They at least addressed the issue by giving us the workaround idea of another ship class of similar design, just ten times bigger.

But then, TNG had professional writers who knew how to deal with problems like this...


----------



## Captain April

secretreeve said:


> Buy one? meh, I have one of their visitor center things up the road from me. I can just pop in and pester them about quality if I ever got the urge to buy airfix.


On a somewhat related note, recently BBC America gave us a break from the daily marathons of Top Gear, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, and TNG freak and ran some episodes of "James May's Toy Stories", one of which involved a scheme to enlist a group of school children in building an Airfix Spitfire, only instead of 1/72, this one was full scale, in order to get them excited about building models. For several of the kids, he succeeded spectacularly. And the Spitfire came out rather well, too.


----------



## RSN

As for the "professional writers" who came up with the BS concept that the Klingons built the same ship only 10 times bigger, the only reason they wrote that was because fanboy "experts" wrote the show to complain that they were making their show wrong and that the Bird of Prey was scaled to big with the Enterprise-D. Up until then, they didn't give a flip about what the FX guys did when they shot the models and composited them!


----------



## Captain April

Still beats JJ and his Amazing Inflatable Starship.

The man has a serious case of Star Destroyer Envy....


----------



## RSN

Captain April said:


> Still beats JJ and his Amazing Inflatable Starship.
> 
> The man has a serious case of Star Destroyer Envy....


Sorry you don't like the design, but I do and so do a good number of people who enjoy talking about it here. That was a hint! :thumbsup:


----------



## Heero Kasshu

How many times do haters need to whine, go make another thread and complain til the cows come home. Don't like JJ Trek, I can't stand Lucas Prequels, so there we go.


----------



## checksum

C'mon people. No hating...


----------



## secretreeve

I do grow tired of people posting on threads related to subjects they dont like, I mean, sometimes I will do it, but only if it adds something to the discussion, not pointless hating like my airfix comments.

The JJPrise is a lovely ship, if you take it out of the ST universe and forget about ST's past, the ship is really nice with some awesome features.

Love it or hate it, you CANNOT deny them the artistic skill that went into that ship!


----------



## Zombie_61

Uhh, a little _focus_ here, folks. Captain April's comment was a follow-up to our posts regarding filmmakers' decisions to arbitrarily upscale a given starship; i.e., he was referring to the _size_ of J.J.'s Enterprise, not the _design_. He may have expressed his dislike of the design previously or in other threads (I don't really know, to be honest), but that was not the case here.


----------



## secretreeve

Well the way I see it is its another LARGE kit with loads of potential for people to show off their creativity and skills with.

and isn't that the point of modelling?


----------



## checksum

I like it just for the fact that I can now take it and modify its look a little bit to be more like what I wanted it to look like.


----------



## Carl_G

Looking forward to your build, *checksum*. Did you have any particular modifications in mind?


----------



## Heero Kasshu

I plan on building 2 of them. 

One stock per the look in the actual film.

One more of a TOS Nu Hybrid. Red/Orange Nacelles, Maybe a widened secondary hull. Grey Hull color. etc.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Heero Kasshu said:


> I plan on building 2 of them.
> 
> One stock per the look in the actual film.
> 
> One more of a TOS Nu Hybrid. Red/Orange Nacelles, Maybe a widened secondary hull. Grey Hull color. etc.


yes, yes, me too. orange bussard collectors, red striping. all the original markings


----------



## SteveR

Lou Dalmaso said:


> yes, yes, me too. orange bussard collectors, red striping. all the original markings


And gridlines!


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy

When I saw the thread I thought it was a mistake after all the rumours.

I am not a fan of the ship but I would like to see one built to see what it looks like in front of me. Hey it might change my mind about the ship.

It is like the Voyager model how the back hump looks odd as they almost never showed it from that angle.


----------



## Warped9

Heero Kasshu said:


> How many times do haters need to whine, go make another thread and complain til the cows come home.


Already done, and it's awesome.


----------



## Heero Kasshu

hey warped.............ummm............guess who made that thread for you........

me.....


----------



## sunburn800

I don't care for the new ship myself but understand that others really love it and more power to them. All that being said i will buy one when they make it to the states at a good price point.


----------



## clactonite

I am looking forward to the kit being available and like the design although, with it's apple styling I think it should be called the iprise. Two things I dislike are the lit ends of the nacelles and the hangar bay.
Even as a kid I thought the idea of the lights at the front of the engine was much more inventive and gave an air of mystery to the propulsion system (it is clear from the interiors that the new enterprise is run on beer).
However, as a reboot, it was necessary to make changes (as was the case with BSG) and, to their credit,the designers didn't stray too far from the original design.


----------



## Carl_G

Heero Kasshu said:


> hey warped.............ummm............guess who made that thread for you........
> 
> me.....


And what a strategic masterstroke it was...:thumbsup:

If we were in the same country, I'd buy you a beer.


----------



## jbond

I agree--you've made those people so happy, now they can foam at the mouth at their leisure...


----------



## Carl_G

jbond said:


> I agree--you've made those people so happy, now they can foam at the mouth at their leisure...


And we can gush at ours -- everybody gets it out of their systems!


----------



## StarshipClass

Heero Kasshu said:


> hey warped.............ummm............guess who made that thread for you........
> 
> me.....


Got to hand it to you: that was a great job, newbie! (No insult intended but you are a relative newcomer _here_.) And welcome to HT!:wave:

I had my doubts that it would be acceptable or that people would abide by it but so far, so good.

It's obvious that some of the critics and the gushers get on each other's nerves and sensitivities are raised to the nth degree in some individuals. Your solution was simple yet brilliant. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April

I suspect this kit will do better overseas than stateside.


----------



## Heero Kasshu

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Got to hand it to you: that was a great job, newbie! (No insult intended but you are a relative newcomer _here_.) And welcome to HT!:wave:
> 
> I had my doubts that it would be acceptable or that people would abide by it but so far, so good.
> 
> It's obvious that some of the critics and the gushers get on each other's nerves and sensitivities are raised to the nth degree in some individuals. Your solution was simple yet brilliant. :thumbsup:


LOL Well thank you guys! 

I was just trying to find a way to appeal to each camp. And the easiest way was to divide and give each an outlet to do so. 

I will say that it will do well overseas like Captain April stated, but mostly due to the fact that it will only be available over seas.

I'm giddy with the idea of a new subject matter from trek. 

In the last year I have built:
1k TOS Enterprise
1/650 AMT Enterprise 
1/650 AMT Ent. as the Constellation
1/600 Revell Enterprise lighted
1/650 Romulan Bird of Prey


I WANT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TOS!!!!! LOL

This will give me that opportunity.

And I know, there are the Refit, A,B,C,D,E, NX, all in various scales..........but yeah AMT Did most of the work 20 years ago on those kits. PL has done some great stuff but I want some fresh Nu Trek. I can see there being a whole new series of Nu Ships in styrene. And I'll gladly buy.


----------



## PixelMagic

I wonder when we will see test shots of this thing.


----------



## [email protected]

*Test Shots Unlikely*



PixelMagic said:


> I wonder when we will see test shots of this thing.


Not all kit companies are as nice as Moebius and Round 2, allowing their customers to see a preview before the kit hits the shelves. There were no "test shots" of the RevellGermany STAR TREK kits, to my knowledge.


----------



## Carl_G

Heero Kasshu said:


> I WANT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TOS!!!!! LOL


I hear you. If PL or Revell or anyone came out with some new TNG-era styrene kits (*cough* akiranorwaysteamrunner *cough*), I would fling money at them so hard it would sting their hands when they caught it. 



[email protected] said:


> Not all kit companies are as nice as Moebius and Round 2, allowing their customers to see a preview before the kit hits the shelves. There were no "test shots" of the RevellGermany STAR TREK kits, to my knowledge.


Didn't the RevellGermany STAR TREK kits get previewed at some model convention or other though? I could be wrong...


----------



## electric indigo

With some luck, they'll show us something at the Nuremberg Toy Fair, which begins at Jan, 30th.


----------



## roadskare63

oh happy happy joy joy!!!!!!i for one will drop the dough for the new jj-prise...thank you trek gods!!!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::woohoo:


----------



## Warped9

Heero Kasshu said:


> I WANT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TOS!!!!!


For that I can find LOTS of other sci-fi kits light-years more interesting and far better looking than the JJprise.


----------



## Heero Kasshu

i'm happy you have other subjects you would like to build that are more interesting,

I on the other hand am interested in this particular subject, If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, why keep coming back and trying to flame? 

There is a thread completely dedicated to that in particular, as I have already pointed out numerous times.

Back on topic:

I'm hoping for plenty of clear windows like the TOS kit had. It was very easy to light up, And I hope that there some good details on the deflector and bussard collectors.


----------



## Captain April

Heero Kasshu said:


> I will say that it will do well overseas like Captain April stated, but mostly due to the fact that it will only be available over seas.


Has that been confirmed? Revell still sells a lot of kits stateside, y'know.

The main point I was driving at is that overseas fans aren't necessarily as attached to the original design, and so are more likely to pick up the JJPrise in greater numbers.


----------



## fire91bird

Captain April said:


> Has that been confirmed? Revell still sells a lot of kits stateside, y'know.
> 
> The main point I was driving at is that overseas fans aren't necessarily as attached to the original design, and so are more likely to pick up the JJPrise in greater numbers.


It's by Revell Germany which is a different company.


----------



## Paulbo

fire91bird said:


> It's by Revell Germany which is a different company.


Not anymore - they're now owned by the same company that owns Revell USA.


----------



## StarshipClass

Paulbo said:


> Not anymore - they're now owned by the same company that owns Revell USA.


That's what I was thinking. It's just the licenses for different markets that restrict the sales making the imports more expensive.


----------



## fire91bird

Paulbo said:


> Not anymore - they're now owned by the same company that owns Revell USA.


True, they have the same parent company, but Revell Germany's products are still not as readily available in the states as Revell's and Revell Germany's licensing of Star Trek is certainly different from Revell's.


----------



## Captain April

Ah, but the licensing for the movie is different than the bulk of the franchise, so the rules that precluded the stateside sale of Revell's TOS Enterprise don't necessarily apply to the JJPrise.


----------



## Heero Kasshu

well captain april, I guess we'll just have to find out when Revell of Germany decides to let us know.

As for R2 holding the current Stateside Star Trek license, I'm pretty sure it encompasses everything trek model wise. Please for the record, let me know where I can find a TOS Enterprise, TOS Klingon ship, or one of the re-released Voyager kits here in the states.

I won't matter either way for this modeler, I'll be buying it from the first place I can get ahold of it.


----------



## StarshipClass

Two excellent places to start the search:

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/

http://www.megahobby.com/


----------



## Captain April

Revell _was_ selling the Voyager kits stateside when they first started making them, so you might get lucky and find a few stragglers here and there, but your best bet is eBay at this late date.


----------



## fire91bird

Captain April said:


> Ah, but the licensing for the movie is different than the bulk of the franchise, so the rules that precluded the stateside sale of Revell's TOS Enterprise don't necessarily apply to the JJPrise.


My point was that Revell and Revell Germany are different despite sharing a parent company and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. That is, just because Revell kits are easily found stateside, the same is not necessarily true of Revell Germany kits. My expectation is that the JJPrise will be found as easily as any other Revell Germany kit, which in my area is spotty at best. YMMV.


----------



## Trek Ace

I bought my RG ST kits at HobbyTown.


----------



## StarshipClass

fire91bird said:


> My point was that Revell and Revell Germany are different despite sharing a parent company and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. That is, just because Revell kits are easily found stateside, the same is not necessarily true of Revell Germany kits. My expectation is that the JJPrise will be found as easily as any other Revell Germany kit, which in my area is spotty at best. YMMV.


It's all about licensing. The restrictions have not, so far, made kits _impossible _to find, they've just made them more expensive when shipped in from areas where the licensing allowed them to be sold wholesale to. Seems stupid to me to do things like this but if it leads to kits being made that might not otherwise have been, it may not be all bad.


----------



## Richard Baker

A lot depends on how the LHS works with their distributers. Both Hobbytown and my LHS carried the RG-Star Wars and Bandai Trek kits because the people they deal with had them available. Both product lines were not set for this market, but the owners knew they would sell so they made an effort to put them on their shelves. I paid more than online for them, but for me it is supporting the local storefronts and giving them some positive motivation to keep trying to stock the hard to find kits.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Just out of curiosity, how reliable are RG's release dates? When they say "May," is there, say, an 80% chance it actually will be in May?


----------



## shabo451

Looking to get at least two of these. One regular and one battle damaged (based on what I've seen in the new trailer). I'm guessing ebay will be the best bet for this.


----------



## ClubTepes

Dr. Brad said:


> Just out of curiosity, how reliable are RG's release dates? When they say "May," is there, say, an 80% chance it actually will be in May?


There is always the unforeseen complications of model kit production that can throw the release date off of a kit.


----------



## derric1968

Heero Kasshu said:


> As for R2 holding the current Stateside Star Trek license, I'm pretty sure it encompasses everything trek model wise.


Actually, Captain April is correct on this one. Round 2's license includes everything _except_ the new movies. The licenses for _Star Trek_ (2009) and _Star Trek Into Darkness_ are totally separate from everything else and *not* included in Round 2's "group" license. This isn't conjecture or supposition, either. Jaime from Round 2 has been open about this fact.

So, it's entirely possible for Revell to pick up the North American license for _Star Trek Into Darkness_, buy a bulk order of nuEnterprise kits from Revell Germany, and sell them, legally, in the US. This is the same arrangement Revell already uses to sell Revel Germany's Star Wars kits in the US.

P.S. - Regardless of whether it's a domestic release or an import, I'm definitely getting one!!!


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Hi Folks, I just saw on Revell/Germanys website the J.J. Abrams U.S.S. Enterprise is scheduled to be released in May. I read on another website the model is scheduled to be released in conjuction with the Release of Into Darkness. There should be no problem getting that kit here I believe. No Disrespect to Round 2 at all but since Revell/Germany holds the license for the next film I don't see why they can't sell the model of the Enterprise from the film here in the U.S.


----------



## wjplenge

Whether Revell of Germany can sell the kit here will boil down to a matter of licensing. Just because Round 2 doesn't have the liscense for the Star Trek 2009 stuff for North America doesn't mean someone else doesn't hold it (It may be Revell for all we know.)


----------



## Trek Ace

Whether or not Revell has the North American license for the Nu Trek, there will still be options for getting the model. The only difference may be price and shipping costs.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

By the way, there is a new info about the size: Forget the "1:500" (it may be right only if the JJprise is much smaller in the new movie), as the length of the model will be 588 mm.


----------



## Captain April

That's around 23 inches.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

More like pushing 4 feet in 1/500 scale using that measurement.

588 meters is 1929 feet and a bit. This ship is bigger than an Excelsior - more along the size of the Lunar Excelsior model to the AMT Refit Enterprise but even so, I once worked out the Lunar Excelsior (if scaled to the AMT Refit) was about 1850 feet, approximately.

This even makes this ship larger than an Ambassador class which is 526 meters long.


----------



## Captain April

588 mm = 58.8 cm = right around 23 inches.

Anything else is trivia.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Captain April said:


> 588 mm = 58.8 cm = right around 23 inches.
> 
> Anything else is trivia.


So, the 588 meter new Enterprise is 23" at 1/500 scale?

Trivia: the Refit Enterprise is 305 meters long and the AMT Refit model -at 1/530-ish- is also 23" long.

305 meters and 588 meters both work out to 23" in 1/500 by your math?

Okay, I can't reconcile the difference, but that's just my opinion, trivial as it is...


----------



## Prowler901

I think all Captain was pointing out was that the model will be ~23" long based on the 588 mm in Marco's post. So, no one was talking scales. And, no one here said the new Enterprise was 588 meters. The model is going to be 588 millimeters.


----------



## Carl_G

Sounds like a pretty substantial kit. A good sign.


----------



## jbond

That seems like a huge model for the price point--what's the source for the 588mm size? Don't get me wrong, I would love for it to be that large, I'm just still skeptical that it will be...


----------



## Carl_G

^That's what it says on the Revell Germany site. They did do that big gorgeous Venator, so I suppose it's not entirely without precedent...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

jbond,
look up about 8 posts. Marco reported new info about the kit


----------



## Dr. Brad

So this would put the new model somewhere around 1/1000-1/1100 scale?


----------



## jbond

Nobody knows! 

It will be wonderful if the kit is 23 inches long. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Captain April

Just to take the tangent a tad further, 588mm x 500 = 294000mm = 294m

So, according to Revell at least (assuming they're sticking with that 1/500 scale), the JJPrise is 294 meters in length.

But, as stated above, I wasn't even remotely dealing with a "real world" size of this monster, merely clarifying the size of the model for those of us who don't live by the metric system.


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> Just to take the tangent a tad further, 588mm x 500 = 294000mm = 294m
> 
> So, according to Revell at least (assuming they're sticking with that 1/500 scale), the JJPrise is 294 meters in length.
> 
> But, as stated above, I wasn't even remotely dealing with a "real world" size of this monster, merely clarifying the size of the model for those of us who don't live by the metric system.


So Revell is saying that the nu1701 is just slightly longer than the STOS 1701???

That is a difficult sell, IMHO.:freak:


----------



## woof359

*big detailed kit*

I dont think any company is gonna invest big money in a huge , detailed kit for a ship that a lot of folk are still on the fence about, Heck at first I was all for an updated ship, but then I didnt like some of the tweek's but...............Im coming around, slowly. theres good and bad to consider.:drunk:


----------



## woof359

Captains: Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), Spock (Zachary Quinto), James T. Kirk (Chris Pine)

Measurements for this version's final size range from 610 meters to 910 meters.[11][12][13][14] In an interview in Cinefex magazine No. 118, Industrial Light & Magic Art Director Alex Jaeger discussed the design's growth in size during early production of the film, saying "The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations – approximately 1,200 feet (370 m) long compared to the 947 foot (289 m) ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale – shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined – so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail." A special feature on starships in the Blu-ray Disc (BD) version of the movie gives the length as 2,379 feet (725 m).


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Woof359:

Yes, but all those infos are from the 2009 movie!

Nobody knows if they re-sized the ship (countless people said that the 2009 size was ridicolous) for the 2013 movie.

The Revell model is from the 2013 movie.


----------



## PixelMagic

Any idea when we'll see product shots for this thing?


----------



## jbond

I still think it's funny that 1000 feet is somehow a perfectly believable, rational size for a 23rd century vehicle that houses hundreds of people, travels around the galaxy at will and occasionally slingshots around stars to travel backward in time--but TWENTY THREE HUNDRED FEET--suddenly everyone's face palming and snorting about how that is just TOTALLY unbelievable. I mean, seriously--ridiculous! 23 HUNDRED! Someone tell me exactly where is the length where it changes from acceptable to ridiculous--is it between 1500 and 1600 feet? 1550?


----------



## woof359

*way to big*

being so big is one of the things that bothered me, not enough not to buy the DVD and watch the movie several times though (-:


----------



## StarshipClass

jbond said:


> I still think it's funny that 1000 feet is somehow a perfectly believable, rational size for a 23rd century vehicle that houses hundreds of people, travels around the galaxy at will and occasionally slingshots around stars to travel backward in time--but TWENTY THREE HUNDRED FEET--suddenly everyone's face palming and snorting about how that is just TOTALLY unbelievable. I mean, seriously--ridiculous! 23 HUNDRED! Someone tell me exactly where is the length where it changes from acceptable to ridiculous--is it between 1500 and 1600 feet? 1550?


I think the main problem is that a size--any size--has not been nailed down yet. I think the smaller size is a more difficult sell considering what was seen on screen in the shuttlebay. It should be bigger based on that but just how big is it?

The next problem is that with a huge size comes a huge crew capacity and yet another departure from previous canon. That may or may not bother some folks but still, if that's the case, then come out and just establish it so people can get used to it.


----------



## Gemini1999

Good grief... You guys could go on and on about trying to estimate size/scale of the JJ Prise. I remember a similar discussion about the scale/size back when the film came out, but it was inconclusive. In the end, isn't the size of the model really what counts?


----------



## Paulbo

Party Pooper


----------



## Zombie_61

jbond said:


> I still think it's funny that 1000 feet is somehow a perfectly believable, rational size for a 23rd century vehicle that houses hundreds of people, travels around the galaxy at will and occasionally slingshots around stars to travel backward in time--but TWENTY THREE HUNDRED FEET--suddenly everyone's face palming and snorting about how that is just TOTALLY unbelievable. I mean, seriously--ridiculous! 23 HUNDRED! Someone tell me exactly where is the length where it changes from acceptable to ridiculous--is it between 1500 and 1600 feet? 1550?


For me it all comes down to the visual cues of the external details of the ship.

For example, the primary hull of the "JJPrise" looks very similar to that of the primary hull of the Refit Enterprise, which was supposedly only slightly larger than the original Enterprise. The bridge housing which sits atop the JJPrise's primary hull, specifically, retains roughly the same proportions as that of the Refit when compared to the bulk of the primary hull. If the JJPrise was as large as J.J. and his crew insist, the bridge housing should be _much_ smaller. Similarly, the windows/viewports on the peripheral surfaces of the primary hull should be much smaller as well.

I agree, ultimately it's completely unimportant. But everyone decides for themselves where their threshold for "suspension of disbelief" lies, and for me the "supersized" JJPrise is unnecessary and absurd.


----------



## Captain April

Marco Scheloske said:


> Woof359:
> 
> Yes, but all those infos are from the 2009 movie!
> 
> Nobody knows if the re-sized the ship (countless people said that the 2009 size was ridicolous) for the 2013 movie.
> 
> The Revell model is from the 2013 movie.


Are you seriously trying to put forward the idea that the ship in the upcoming movie _*ISN'T*_ the same ship as in the 2009 film?


----------



## Griffworks

Marco's usually a pretty serious guy when it comes to technical details.


----------



## spock62

Griffworks said:


> Marco's usually a pretty serious guy when it comes to technical details.


He was also very accurate when it came to providing info about Revell's TOS Enterprise/Klingon kits before they were released if I remember correctly.


----------



## Captain April

Hence, my dismay at his approach on this matter.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Captain April said:


> Are you seriously trying to put forward the idea that the ship in the upcoming movie _*ISN'T*_ the same ship as in the 2009 film?


All I try to say is that it is VERY difficult to discuss wether or not the scale of 1:500 for a model length of 588 mm / 23 inch is wrong before the new movie is in the theaters.

And before shouting out loud "Revell is wrong!" it SHOULD at least be considered that a license holder who is in close contact to the licensor MIGHT have infos about the ship in the 2013 movie - which is the source for the model, NOT the 2009 movie - which aren't available to the public yet.

That doesn't imply that the ship isn't the same as in the first JJ movie. BUT they might have gone the "forget what we said about the size 4 years ago, what you see here is correct from now on"-road.


----------



## StarshipClass

Marco Scheloske said:


> BUT they might have gone the "forget what we said about the size 4 years ago, what you see here is correct from now on"-road.


Yeah, I can see them doing that.:freak:


----------



## Captain April

Occam's Razor would indicate that the producers don't have a set size for the ship, and don't care, and that Revell just pulled a number out of their corporate keisters for the sake of having something on the box.

I suppose we've been spoiled by previous Trek productions with technical staff who actually sweated out the details and stuck to them. What we've got now is the Irwin Allen approach to technical details, which is to look the fans in the eye and tell them, "Shut up, kid, you ask too many questions."


----------



## RSN

Captain April said:


> Occam's Razor would indicate that the producers don't have a set size for the ship, and don't care, and that Revell just pulled a number out of their corporate keisters for the sake of having something on the box.
> 
> I suppose we've been spoiled by previous Trek productions with technical staff who actually sweated out the details and stuck to them. What we've got now is the Irwin Allen approach to technical details, which is to look the fans in the eye and tell them, "Shut up, kid, you ask too many questions."


Do you mean the "Star Trek" production people who threw Andy Probert's design of the windows around the rim of the Enterprise-D out and trippled the size of the ship in the second season so they could fit 10 Forward inside? Is that the "technical staff who actually sweated out the details" you mean?!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

I consider the JJ-Prise to be a 'scale-less' ship. Much like the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. 

Revell Germany's stated scale could be like what AMT did with the majority of the starship models, claiming that they were all "1/650" scale, regardless of their stated 'actual' size. We'll all know soon enough.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

If the model does come in around the 23" mark (same size as the AMT Refit), that will be a nicely sized model and the scale - whatever it's supposed to be - can be worked out depending on which length you would want to consider it. I still prefer the original intention of 1200 feet, which is not unreasonable, IMO.

However, it's just as likely it will be a smaller model, depending on how Revell Germany decides to do it. Too many unknowns at this point.


----------



## Gary7

Zombie_61 said:


> For me it all comes down to the visual cues of the external details of the ship.
> 
> For example, the primary hull of the "JJPrise" looks very similar to that of the primary hull of the Refit Enterprise, which was supposedly only slightly larger than the original Enterprise. The bridge housing which sits atop the JJPrise's primary hull, specifically, retains roughly the same proportions as that of the Refit when compared to the bulk of the primary hull. If the JJPrise was as large as J.J. and his crew insist, the bridge housing should be _much_ smaller. Similarly, the windows/viewports on the peripheral surfaces of the primary hull should be much smaller as well.
> 
> I agree, ultimately it's completely unimportant. But everyone decides for themselves where their threshold for "suspension of disbelief" lies, and for me the "supersized" JJPrise is unnecessary and absurd.


To me, when I first saw ST-TMP. Looking at the scene were the travel pod docked onto the Enterprise, considering the relative size of the pod & people, the shipped looked like it might actually be smaller than the original TOS Enterprise, IMHO.


----------



## Griffworks

RSN said:


> Do you mean the "Star Trek" production people who threw Andy Probert's design of the windows around the rim of the Enterprise-D out and trippled the size of the ship in the second season so they could fit 10 Forward inside? Is that the "technical staff who actually sweated out the details" you mean?!!! :thumbsup:


... and don't forget the ever-expanding - and shrinking! - Klingon Bird-of-Prey! Or all the other ships on DS9 and VOY.


----------



## Zombie_61

Gary7 said:


> To me, when I first saw ST-TMP. Looking at the scene were the travel pod docked onto the Enterprise, considering the relative size of the pod & people, the shipped looked like it might actually be smaller than the original TOS Enterprise, IMHO.


I've never actually thought about it while watching the movie. My comment about the Refit Enterprise being slightly larger than the original series Enterprise was based on after-the-fact comparisons. This graphic, for example, shows not only the size comparison between the OS Enterprise and the Refit Enterprise, but also what I consider to be a reasonable size comparison between the two ships and the "JJPrise".


----------



## StarshipClass

RSN said:


> Do you mean the "Star Trek" production people who threw Andy Probert's design of the windows around the rim of the Enterprise-D out and trippled the size of the ship in the second season so they could fit 10 Forward inside? Is that the "technical staff who actually sweated out the details" you mean?!!! :thumbsup:


They didn't triple the size of the ship. They didn't change the scale at all. The details of the change are interesting, however: 

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/galaxy.htm

It's also fascinating that they went to the trouble they did when creating a new fx model to reflect these changes.


----------



## RSN

PerfesserCoffee said:


> They didn't triple the size of the ship. They didn't change the scale at all. The details of the change are interesting, however:
> 
> http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/galaxy.htm
> 
> It's also fascinating that they went to the trouble they did when creating a new fx model to reflect these changes.


I didn't say they changed the scale of the ship, the designer himself did. "Destroyed the Scale" is the phrase Andrew Probert used. http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/designing-the-enterprise-ds-lounge-areas/ He designed the rim to be 12-14 feet high and only a single deck with curved windows at the top and bottom, as the illustration I posted shows. Ten Forward is over that height and is the lower deck of two along the rim starting in the second season. I am a draftsman, I can do the math!!

What I love about the link you posted is, it shows just how much they didn't really care about if it would fit or not and despite building a new model and the abllity to reflect the Ten Forward windows in it, they still didn't get it to match the set. It was just a TV show, full of mistakes so that things looked good on the screen. They didn't design it so you could go out and build one full size with their plans...............like in "Galaxy Quest". They built it to facilitate production demands, not fan expectations.

I stand by my statement and that of the designer. Anyone else can try and rationalize it however they want so "Star Trek" remains unblemished. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

RSN said:


> I didn't say they changed the scale of the ship, the designer himself did. "Destroyed the Scale" is the phrase Andrew Probert used. http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/designing-the-enterprise-ds-lounge-areas/ He designed the rim to be 12-14 feet high and only a single deck with curved windows at the top and bottom, as the illustration I posted shows. Ten Forward is over that height and is the lower deck of two along the rim starting in the second season. I am a draftsman, I can do the math!!
> 
> What I love about the link you posted is, it shows just how much they didn't really care about if it would fit or not and despite building a new model and the abllity to reflect the Ten Forward windows in it, they still didn't get it to match the set. It was just a TV show, full of mistakes so that things looked good on the screen. They didn't design it so you could go out and build one full size with their plans...............like in "Galaxy Quest". They built it to facilitate production demands, not fan expectations.
> 
> I stand by my statement and that of the designer. Anyone else can try and rationalize it however they want so "Star Trek" remains unblemished. :thumbsup:



Nothing is "unblemished" and I'm the last one on the world to argue that so you're not arguing against _me_ on that point.  I still love the Irwin Allen ships though I hold_ Star Trek_ up to a higher standard--a standard that was, in fact, engendered by their relatively high attention to detail in the past. The first show, despite its inconsistencies, was, for a weekly TV program, very good (not perfect, mind you) at keeping its facts in good order for the most part unlike everything that had come before in TV science fiction.

What is remarkable about the _ST:TNG_ efforts to fit 10 Forward into the ship is that they took advantage of what had so far not been thoroughly established on screen and shifted the decks around some from what had been the working plans. It's a crime against perfectionism perhaps but was handled, in my opinion, very well. 

And, they still didn't "triple the size" of the ship and there was no attempt to change the overall scale (& I don't care who said it--it doesn't hold up and was, no doubt, a bit of hyperbole on Probert's part) and that was the overall thrust of your argument in context of discussing the scale of the nu1701 that I was objecting to. Maybe they screwed up some of the finer details a bit but that is often done on purpose or inadvertently in the pursuit of creating a certain impression on screen when showing close-ups of certain parts of the ships. 

But one has come to expect that an expensive production with the name _Star Trek_ attached would at least be able to give us the size, within a few meters, of the ship which is, after all, the central character of the franchise. That's all I'm saying. There's no law that they _have_ to, it's just a disappointment is all.:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

Sorry, but it is silly to try and say the scale was not changed. In Probert's sketch that I posted, it is plain to see that the windows in the floor and in the ceiling around the rim are about 6 feet long. His design called for the edge of the saucer to be 12 feet thick and only ONE deck and this was how the original miniature was built. The windows in Ten Forward are clearly more than 6 feet from bottom curve to top curve with a corrisponding window implied on the deck above. This would at least double the scaling to get it to fit. Sorry if you don't take the word of a professional Production Designer, but as a set designer myself, I respect his opinion on something he created.

Now, should we address the impossible cargo bay doors that are a straight verticle garage doors when no such surface exists on the miniature?!!!

Point is, they do what they need to do, even if they go against previous designs.

The scale of the new Enterprise model from the upcoming film means nothing to me, as long as it looks like it does on screen!! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

RSN said:


> Sorry, but it is silly to try and say the scale was not changed. . . . This would at least double the scaling to get it to fit.


I hate to employ a tautology but the scale did not change because the scale of the ship did not change. The dictates of the story comes first. Firm blueprints did not exist then as far as "canonicity" was concerned. As far as the viewer was concerned and what was detectable on screen, it wasn't a big deal. They did a pretty good job "retrofitting" this single detail change. 

Who's nitpicking here, anyway? I don't think it's me. It's just a TV show and the model serves the storytelling purpose. Yet, even so, they went to some trouble to fit Ten Forward in there _even altering the new FX model to reflect that change._ Beats the heck out of what they did with the Jupiter 2 when they needed the engine room--which was nothing. 

Though it may the same in principle, this kind of thing is all a matter of degree. _Star Trek_ has _never been perfect _in this department, it's only been _better_. I don't think anyone's demanding absolute perfection in all the various calculations but it's nice to have something to go on in a fairly consistent scaling of the ship something along the lines of similar information we've gotten in the past. 

I think we're debating somewhat different points, anyway. As far as a comparison to the _nu1701_, all I think some of us are asking for is an overall size--what it is _supposed_ to be. You're not invalidating this request by pointing out previous flaws on some details. A size was firmly established for the _1701D _as well as all other main ships used in the various series despite what discrepancies occasionally cropped up. Even the original 1701, where 3 different versions of the 11 footer (and a few other differently configured models) were used to represent the same ship, had a set size.




RSN said:


> Sorry if you don't take the word of a professional Production Designer, but as a set designer myself, I respect his opinion on something he created.


I personally wish they'd stuck with Probert's original idea but, considering the fact that they were going to change it, I think they did a pretty good job at it.



RSN said:


> The scale of the new Enterprise model from the upcoming film means nothing to me, as long as it looks like it does on screen!! :thumbsup:


And for others, it's an important point. Subjectiveness acknowledged, sir!:wave:


----------



## RSN

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I hate to employ a tautology but the scale did not change because the scale of the ship did not change. The dictates of the story comes first. Firm blueprints did not exist then as far as "canonicity" was concerned. As far as the viewer was concerned and what was detectable on screen, it wasn't a big deal. They did a pretty good job "retrofitting" this single detail change.
> 
> Who's nitpicking here, anyway? I don't think it's me. It's just a TV show and the model serves the storytelling purpose. Yet, even so, they went to some trouble to fit Ten Forward in there _even altering the new FX model to reflect that change._ Beats the heck out of what they did with the Jupiter 2 when they needed the engine room--which was nothing.
> 
> Though it may the same in principle, this kind of thing is all a matter of degree. _Star Trek_ has not been _perfect _in this department, it's been _better_. I don't think anyone's demanding absolute perfection in all the various calculations but it's nice to have something to go on in a fairly consistent scaling of the ship something along the lines of similar information we've gotten in the past.
> 
> I think we're debating somewhat different points, anyway. As far as a comparison to the _nu1701_, all I think some of us are asking for is an overall size--what it is _supposed_ to be. You're not invalidating this request by pointing out previous flaws on some details. A size was firmly established for the _1701D _as well as all other main ships used in the various series despite what discrepancies occasionally cropped up. Even the original 1701 where 3 different versions of the 11 footer (and a few other differently configured models) were used to represent the same ship, had a set size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally wish they'd stuck with Probert's original idea but, considering the fact that they were going to change it, I think they did a pretty good job at it.
> 
> 
> 
> And for others, it's an important point. Subjectiveness acknowledged, sir!:wave:


:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

Back on subject, I think the only thing I would like to have seen, and it may be changed in the new film, is the Enterprise engines having an orange glow to them, not blue. I would probably change that on my build and pray the "Perfection Police" don't kick in my door and shoot me for it!

One thing I noticed the other day when I was watching the last movie was that there is a large work area behind the bridge. It can be seen as Spock walks down a corridor and enters a side door to the bridge. This is toward the end of the film, there-by showing the bridge module houses more than just the command bridge, and is larger than one would think just looking at it from outside. This would significantly increase the overall size of the ship.............I can live with that!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So, has no one tried to figure out the scale based on screen captures?

To me, the ship seems much bigger then even 1200 feet.

I base that not only on the area seen behind the bridge that RSN mentions, 

but also on the cavernous engineering section( I'm guessing that was an engineering section, looked more like a cross between a sewer treatment plant and an olympic sized hamster Habitrail set);

but most notably, the previews that showed welders working on and in the saucer section.

I don't know if the movie showed the welders or not, I've never bothered to buy a DVD muchless a high def Blu-Ray of the movie, though I saw it in the theater.

If some kind of admittedly rough (okay, really rough) scale of the saucer section can be made from those welding scenes and perhaps the section that contains the command bridge, it could then be used to get a rough scale of the overall ship, including length.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Also, scaling aside, some accurate orthographic views of the JJPrise would be helpful too.

Especially accurate window size(in terms of proportion - not real world height or width) and placement would be important.

I have zero proof of this at this point, and may be completely wrong, but I'm willing to bet the small number of windows on the secondary hull might need to be scaled at a much larger size then the ones on the TOS Enterprise.

That's strickly an intuitive interpretation, based primarily on the seemingly much larger saucer section.

BTWay, we should consider too, that it's not uncommon for later classes of ships serving the same purpose to be smaller as technology improves. Battleships and destroyers would be a better example then aircraft carriers, of course.

The TOS Enterprise had been in service for some time before Kirk took command in TOS. So (screwed up timeline aside) there is always the possibility that in the original TOS timeline the Enterprise had once been larger and refitted into a smaller, more tightly integrated TOS Enterprise before it was seen in the series.


----------



## RSN

Chuck, you were close. They fiimed the engineering section in a brewery!! 

I honestly don't think they cared about a size for the ship so they were not locked into anything. The new films are not made for diehard Trekkies who want to be spoon fed information so they can accept it properly. The reason these films are a "Do-Over" is to get rid of that type of strict "Everything has to work THIS way!" attitude and they could be free to tell good action stories with great characters. I took my teenage daughters to see the first one and they really liked it.........they can't stand any of the old stuff, but they really liked this one.

They did a nice job of bringing a bit of new life to the franchise in the form of a new and younger audiance and they did a good job of giving a large portion of the original fans like me a movie we could enjoy as well. As for those who can't accept change......the film did just fine without their blessing and if "Into Darkness" is as good, it will succeed without them as well.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> Chuck, you were close. They fiimed the engineering section in a brewery!!
> 
> I honestly don't think they cared about a size for the ship so they were not locked into anything. The new films are not made for diehard Trekkies who want to be spoon fed information so they can accept it properly. The reason these films are a "Do-Over" is to get rid of that type of strict "Everything has to work THIS way!" attitude and they could be free to tell good action stories with great characters. I took my teenage daughters to see the first one and they really liked it.........they can't stand any of the old stuff, but they really liked this one.
> 
> They did a nice job of bringing a bit of new life to the franchise in the form of a new and younger audiance and they did a good job of giving a large portion of the original fans like me a movie we could enjoy as well. As for those who can't accept change......the film did just fine without their blessing and if "Into Darkness" is as good, it will succeed without them as well.


I enjoyed the movie as a movie.

I don't like what they did to the timeline, but it's not going to ruin my life, make me lose sleep, or any of the genuine love and appreciation I have for TOS and a good bit of what came after TOS.

Also, there are ways of making the movie fit into the TOS timeline if one is willing to rationalize the changes.

For example, the difference in Kirk taking command of the Enterprise in her maiden voyage rather then after Pike and Spock, for example.

Who is to say that another, intermediate class of heavily armed Starships hadn't been created hastily due to the Romulan ship from the future's attack?

Starfleet might have rushed into production a completely different class of starships that Pike and Spock had served on and the class of the 1701 Enterprise in the movie was an even more advanced class who was brought into service after whatever ship Pike and Spock had served on.

To be brief about it, I don't like a lot of the changes made to the timeline - most notably the destruction of Vulcan.

But there are ways of rationalizing it to fit TOS into the timeline as an alternate timeline.

I don't like that, just as I've hated for years and years all of the timelines that B & B destroyed and made null in void in their undying overuse of time-hoping nonsense.

But I still did enjoy the movie as a movie.



I just wish sci-fi writers would declare a moratorium on time-travel plot gimmicks.

It's not even scientifically plausible to travel backwards in time, though going forward in relative time is possible - and only as a one way ticket mind you.

Can't anyone write good sci-fi that doesn't involve going back in time?

It has really gotten ridiculous as of late.

Too me, it reminds me of my 8th grade creative writing class in which half the class
ended their stories with "and then I woke up!"

It's _*almost*_, _*extremely close*_ to being, that lame!

It's a cheap gimmick that to me shows a lack of imagination.


----------



## Griffworks

*Chuck* - you don't get on here every day nor nearly as often as you used to, so you're going to get a Bye on this....

Please don't discuss your opinions on the 2009 Star Trek movie. Keep it to the ship design, leave J.J. Abrams, the actors, production crew, writers and further commentary about the _movie itself that don't have to do w/the ship_ out of the discussion. It causes too much hostility from BOTH sides of the... discussion... and makes my job that much more frustrating. 

Thanks.


----------



## Captain April

Duplicate post


----------



## Captain April

Some of the better size analyses I've seen involve that "Under Construction" trailer, the cavernous hangar deck, and that exterior closeup of the bridge (looking in through the windshield :freak, all of which point to the JJPrise being somewhat larger than the Enterprise-D.

So, if certain folks don't like the term "JJPrise", howzabout "Battlestar Enterprise"? 'Cause that's the shift in scale we're talking about here.


----------



## jbond

I'm fine with JJprise...


----------



## RSN

I will stick with Enterprise. :thumbsup:


----------



## Carl_G

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also, scaling aside, some accurate orthographic views of the JJPrise would be helpful too.


Until anything official comes out, your best bet for orthos is Tobias Richter's amazing CG model of the JJprise

http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/uss_enterprise_new_ortho.jpg

(There's probably bigger images than that one around. )


----------



## MLCrisis32

Carl_G said:


> Until anything official comes out, your best bet for orthos is Tobias Richter's amazing CG model of the JJprise
> 
> http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/uss_enterprise_new_ortho.jpg
> 
> (There's probably bigger images than that one around. )


I'm really wondering how they can design it so the nacelles don't start to droop over time. In CG it's not an issue but even some of those amazing QMX built kits they are definitely sagging in the rear.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> *Chuck* - you don't get on here every day nor nearly as often as you used to, so you're going to get a Bye on this....
> 
> Please don't discuss your opinions on the 2009 Star Trek movie. Keep it to the ship design, leave J.J. Abrams, the actors, production crew, writers and further commentary about the _movie itself that don't have to do w/the ship_ out of the discussion. It causes too much hostility from BOTH sides of the... discussion... and makes my job that much more frustrating.
> 
> Thanks.


Sorry about that. I sometimes forget that the in-forum world can be a lot more heated then just mentioning one's feelings about a movie or whatever to a friend or co-worker.

I had both pro and con feelings on the subject I won't rehash. But I can see people on both sides perhaps taking the ball and running with it.

After typing it I thought afterwards perhaps the last part of the post(which became the majority of the post  ) about the cavernous engineering section, I thought to myself "maybe that last part would be better mentioned in the Movies and TV discussion section."

But I only intended it as an aside comment in response to RSN's statement, and had no real intention to start a discussion about that subject.

But I can see where it might lead to such.

A good deal of what I find frustrating about sci-fi today is not specific to that movie, it's a general problem I see with the over-use of the *time-travel-into-the-past-and-change-everything gimmick*. SyFy has started yet another series along that vein just this week. 

But again, I ramble.

I rarely think too much about the movie unless I see a trailer on cable or whatever and perhaps have intentionally pushed it aside mentally so I guess it being 
a heated issue is something I don't spend a lot of time thinking about either. 

But as you are a moderator I can imagine you have to deal with the issue from a totally different angle.
Sorry if I risked you having to deal with a potential flare up. It wasn't intentional.

Such asides didn't used to be a problem in this forum, but I can see now in retrospect that on the particular subject of the 2009 movie it has begun to take on a taboo nature with far too much emotion surrounding it.

I guess sort of like those who try to discuss what will or will not fit inside a 947 foot TOS E.

People can start off discussing it rationally, then it usually degenerates into a very vitrolic exchange pretty quickly.

I'll make every attempt to avoid the aspects of the movie you discussed, as it seems that it's gotten to that point on that subject too,

and try to confine the discussion of the subjects to issues of scale and design, etc.

Sorry about that. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sorry about that. I sometimes forget that the in-forum world can be a lot more heated then just mentioning one's feelings about a movie or whatever to a friend or co-worker.
> 
> I had both pro and con feelings on the subject I won't rehash. But I can see people on both sides perhaps taking the ball and running with it.
> 
> After typing it I thought afterwards perhaps the last part of the post(which became the majority of the post  ) about the cavernous engineering section, I thought to myself "maybe that last part would be better mentioned in the Movies and TV discussion section."
> 
> But I only intended it as an aside comment in response to RSN's statement, and had no real intention to start a discussion about that subject.
> 
> But I can see where it might lead to such.
> 
> A good deal of what I find frustrating about sci-fi today is not specific to that movie, it's a general problem I see with the use of the time-travel gimmick. SyFy has started yet another series along that vein just this week.
> 
> But again, I ramble.
> 
> Such asides didn't used to be a problem in this forum, but I can see now in retrospect that on the particular subject of the 2009 movie it has begun to take on a taboo nature with far too much emotion surrounding it.
> 
> I guess sort of like those who try to discuss what will or will not fit inside a 947 foot TOS E.
> 
> People can start off discussing it rationally, then it usually degenerates into a very vitrolic exchange pretty quickly.
> 
> I'll make every attempt to avoid the aspects of the movie you discussed, as it seems that it's gotten to that point on that subject to,
> 
> and try to confine the discussion of the subjects to issues of scale and design, etc.
> 
> Sorry about that. :thumbsup:


I had NO problems with any of your opinions, just so we are clear!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MLCrisis32 said:


> I'm really wondering how they can design it so the nacelles don't start to droop over time. In CG it's not an issue but even some of those amazing QMX built kits they are definitely sagging in the rear.


Yeah, that is going to be rough to deal with. If it were going to be a garage kit I'd guess maybe high-density foam over an armature, but since it's going to be a mass produced styrene kit I have no idea how they are going to deal with that.

Who was the designer of that version of the E? Where they in any way connected with technical designers from the series or earlier movie Enterprises?


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yeah, that is going to be rough to deal with. If it were going to be a garage kit I'd guess maybe high-density foam over an armature, but since it's going to be a mass produced styrene kit I have no idea how they are going to deal with that.
> 
> Who was the designer of that version of the E? Where they in any way connected with technical designers from the series or earlier movie Enterprises?


This may help answer your question.

http://blastr.com/2009/04/how-ilm-came-up-with-the.php


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Carl_G said:


> Until anything official comes out, your best bet for orthos is Tobias Richter's amazing CG model of the JJprise
> 
> http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/uss_enterprise_new_ortho.jpg
> 
> (There's probably bigger images than that one around. )


Thanks Carl!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> This may help answer your question.
> 
> http://blastr.com/2009/04/how-ilm-came-up-with-the.php



That does answer a ton of questions!

Thanks!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> This may help answer your question.
> 
> http://blastr.com/2009/04/how-ilm-came-up-with-the.php



Wow.

Two things I found interesting in RSN's link.

The nacelles actually move and change position when going in and out of warp.:freak:

And the deflector dish grows and shrinks.:freak:
They were not too clear on what conditions under which it grows and shrinks.

Ilm certainly didn't make it easy for a real world scale model of the ship to be made.


----------



## RSN

I just watched the movie the other day. I think there were plates that opened up around the front of the engines at one point, like flower petals. Or my memory is playing tricks on me after reading that interview. :freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

From a design standpoint, I think ILM might have missed an opportunity.

The producer's directive was to make the ship look like a "hot rod" version of the Enterprise, something fast and powerfull yet not totally detached from the earlier incarnations.

The first thing that always impresses me about hot rods is how they are structurally extremely sound.

They have to be in order to obtain the speeds they do.

The second thing that stands out in my mind is that the rear of a "hot rod" is usually much wider and heavily built then the front.

How might that translate into the basic saucer, secondary hull, and nacelle design?

Rather then start large with the rounded saucer and taper backwards . . .

Wouldn't a truly "hot-rod" like design start with 

perhaps a still good sized but *tapered* primary hull( like the tapered primary hull on *Voyager*), and then have the secondary hull and engines become *wider* and more sturdy as you follow the line of the craft towards the rear?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> I just watched the movie the other day. I think there were plates that opened up around the front of the engines at one point, like flower petals. Or my memory is playing tricks on me after reading that interview. :freak:


I was assuming that's how the sensor dish expanded and contracted.

While I'm not too crazy about the design, I might take a little time in the next few days to watch a few scenes.

Aesthetic issues aside, that post has peaked my geek curiosity.


----------



## RSN

Don't forget, when ILM last designed a starship for Trek, we got the Excelsior. This was their idea to advance the Enterprise design, which they complained was not photogenic from enough angles. It was intended in STIII that the new Enterprise would be this new design. I got that from Majel Barrett, who was a guest at a convention I ran. She said that Gene hated the design and fan reaction was so strong against it, that he still had enough pull at the studio to get the original Enterprise back at the end on IV.

Lookiing at the new Enterprise, the secondary hull looks to have retained some of the Excelsior design, mostly around the severe undercut on the fantail.


----------



## jbond

The nacelles don't move or change position but there are parts ON the nacelles that do--mainly the rear fins or "intercoolers" lift up away from the main nacelle body slightly when the ship goes to warp. 

I do agree about the potential for nacelle droop--although because of the way the nacelles are shaped, the weight should be pushed toward the front. The QMX droop is pretty inexcusable--and a lot of people see those models at conventions so it's understandable if people hate the design based on that. But that's not the way the engines are supposed to look.


----------



## RSN

jbond said:


> The nacelles don't move or change position but there are parts ON the nacelles that do--mainly the rear fins or "intercoolers" lift up away from the main nacelle body slightly when the ship goes to warp.


OK, that is what I remember seeing, but they were actually on the back of the engines, not the front.


----------



## electric indigo

Visit concept designer Ryan Church's site:

http://ryanchurch.com/pagestartrek/

The direction for the redesign must have been something like "Rocket-powered Hood Ornament".


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I found a few minutes to watch some regular def scenes from the movie.

Does anyone have any hard numbers on the length of the full size studio shuttles used to transport up to the Enterprise? 

Based on the platform and door hatch widths, I'd put the length at 44' to 50 feet.

But I'd welcome anyone with more reliable data.

The reason I ask is that in the scene when Kirk and McCoy shuttle into the hanger bay there are already landed shuttles parked inside.

I would guesstimate that from the centerline of the ship to the starboard outer hull, at the point just forward of the bay doors, to be approximately to be 3.5 shuttles wide, making the ship at that point about 7 shuttle lengths wide.


----------



## PixelMagic

electric indigo said:


> Visit concept designer Ryan Church's site:
> 
> http://ryanchurch.com/pagestartrek/
> 
> The direction for the redesign must have been something like "Rocket-powered Hood Ornament".


Very interesting how the 4th image Kelvin concept looks VERY much like TOS stylings, but with enough surface detail to appear modern. It is my understanding that Ryan Church at first stayed very close to TOS design, but was told by Scott Chambliss (production desginer) that he needed to go further away from the classic look. Church then went too far away from federation starship design, and Chambliss told him to dial it back. On top of this, JJ wanted some of the refit design thrown in. Thus, we end up with the current JJprise. Some classic design here, some radical departure there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Wow!

Based on shuttlecraft length, the secondary hull would be about 308 to 350 feet wide just forward of the bay doors.

Assuming it's even narrower, 300 feet, that roughly makes the ship *5836 feet long!!!!!*

The saucer section would be roughly *2711 feet wide!!!!*

Granted I may be off slightly, but you could lop off 20% of that estimate(and I'd be willing to bet my guesstimate errs on the small side not the big side) and it would still be *humongous!!!!!*


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wow!
> 
> Based on shuttlecraft length, the secondary hull would be about 308 to 350 feet wide just forward of the bay doors.
> 
> Assuming it's even narrower, 300 feet, that roughly makes the ship *5836 feet long!!!!!*
> 
> The saucer section would be roughly *2711 feet wide!!!!*
> 
> Granted I may be off slightly, but you could lop off 20% of that estimate(and I'd be willing to bet my guesstimate errs on the small side not the big side) and it would still be *humongous!!!!!*


She's a big girl, no doubt about it, no matter what scale she turns out to be. Built to combat an unknown alien ship that could reappear at any time and any place..............which it did. And the Enterprise did the job she was built for!! 

The model will do the job I build her for, to look cool and be a great addition to all the other Enterprise kits I have built


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> She's a big girl, no doubt about it, no matter what scale she turns out to be. Built to combat an unknown alien ship that could reappear at any time and any place..............which it did. And the Enterprise did the job she was built for!!
> 
> The model will do the job I build her for, to look cool and be a great addition to all the other Enterprise kits I have built


After watching the movie a second time, it has struck me that in this new Trek universe everything's scale seems to have been enlarged.

According to Pike, Kirk's father saved *800* crewman by ramming the Romulan ship!

We don't necessarily know that that it is out of scale with the TOS timeline as the Kelvin might have been originally been built for service in the Romulan Wars.

So the scales of the ships, both for the Romulan wars and perhaps due to the Kelvin's destruction might be logical.

The scales could make sense. The NX-01 was an experimental class, who knows what unmentioned classes were created for the Romulan war that may or may not have included the name Enterprise?

But the new Enterprise's class of ships due seem to be built on a scale meant to support a huge crew with no outside help or support for years and years if need be.

I do have to say I kind of liked the design of the Kelvin. 

The Kelvin almost seemed like an homage to Franz Joseph, not to mention the orbiting Starfleet headquarters, which also looked very Franz Joseph-ish.


----------



## Captain April

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wow!
> 
> Based on shuttlecraft length, the secondary hull would be about 308 to 350 feet wide just forward of the bay doors.
> 
> Assuming it's even narrower, 300 feet, that roughly makes the ship *5836 feet long!!!!!*
> 
> The saucer section would be roughly *2711 feet wide!!!!*
> 
> Granted I may be off slightly, but you could lop off 20% of that estimate(and I'd be willing to bet my guesstimate errs on the small side not the big side) and it would still be *humongous!!!!!*


_Fleeing the Klingon tyranny, the last battlestar, Enterprise, leads a ragtag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest...._


----------



## Fireangel

Hi! Kinda new here. If I may:



Chuck_P.R. said:


> According to Pike, Kirk's father saved *800* crewman by ramming the Romulan ship!


Correction: he saved 800 _lives_. The fact that Winona Kirk (a civilian) was on board at a time when civilian families were not embarked in Starfleet ships means that it is entirely likely that Kelvin was transporting civilians to Earth, so the 800 number (which might be a rounding from 700-and-a-bunch [otherwise it would be logical to state "_over_ 800 lives"]) is almost certainly not the crew compliment of the ship. 

Given Kelvin's beer-powered technology and, assuming a size and crew generally consistent with TOS large ships like the Constitution cruisers, a crew compliment of 350-450 would seem reasonable, with 500-550 on the high side. That would mean that a significant portion of the "800 lives" saved were not crew.

Regarding the actual size of the JJ ship, this section of the Memory Alpha Trek wiki might be useful.

Ex Astris Scientia has an excellent article on the subject, which should be of particular interest for modelers dealing with the designs.

For those who don't want to read a lot, this pic from said article pretty much tells the story.


----------



## Carl_G

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wow!
> 
> Based on shuttlecraft length, the secondary hull would be about 308 to 350 feet wide just forward of the bay doors.
> 
> Assuming it's even narrower, 300 feet, that roughly makes the ship *5836 feet long!!!!!*
> 
> The saucer section would be roughly *2711 feet wide!!!!*
> 
> Granted I may be off slightly, but you could lop off 20% of that estimate(and I'd be willing to bet my guesstimate errs on the small side not the big side) and it would still be *humongous!!!!!*



I just had the mental image of Kirk on a bridge the size of a football field, going "Hey, Spock! Echo!...echo!...echo..."


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fireangel said:


> Hi! Kinda new here. If I may:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: he saved 800 _lives_. The fact that Winona Kirk (a civilian) was on board at a time when civilian families were not embarked in Starfleet ships means that it is entirely likely that Kelvin was transporting civilians to Earth, so the 800 number (which might be a rounding from 700-and-a-bunch [otherwise it would be logical to state "_over_ 800 lives"]) is almost certainly not the crew compliment of the ship.


First, welcome Fireangel.

Let me say that I'm not sure that what point you are making. I wasn't trying discuss military to civilian personell ratio, I was just stating that he saved 800 lives.

I'm willing to bet the ship carried more people then that even, considering the casualties and damage shown.

But let's assume 800. Still a really big number.

Let's also consider that the Kelvin had little to no habitable secondary hull.

Due to another assumption I didn't even bother to mention.

You had to have a place to put at least 37 shuttlecraft.

While I don't think having at least 37 shuttlecraft on a ship was common in the TOS era.

Remember these events were pre-TOS.

Remember, as I earlier stated, we really don't know the class of the Kelvin or it's age. There is a possibility that the ship was a carry over from the Romulan War. 

In which case it would not have been weird for it to have been much larger and carried many more troops and personell then a peacetime ship.

Similarly, with a vessel somewhere out there with the abilities of the ship that attacked the Kelvin, there is no reason to think they wouldn't similarly make any newer ships more powerful.

But I don't think either way the Kelvin's ship is necessarily out of line with the original TOS timeline,

I was just saying it was a big, bigger then seen in TOS yes. 

But not necessarily out of line with what might have existed pre-TOS during and after the Romulan Wars.




Fireangel said:


> Regarding the actual size of the JJ ship, this section of the Memory Alpha Trek wiki might be useful.
> 
> Ex Astris Scientia has an excellent article on the subject, which should be of particular interest for modelers dealing with the designs.
> 
> For those who don't want to read a lot, this pic from said article pretty much tells the story.


Thanks for the links.

They are interesting, but I don't consider any of them to be authoritative.

At least not more authoritative then simply eyeballing what we saw onscreen.

As I've said before, there is a decent margin of error in the way I'm trying to calculate the size - but some of the very lowball numbers thrown around casually in some of those articles are obviously not based on what was actually seen on screen

Which I feel is the true test of accuracy.

Not one of the actual designers were pinned down on an exact size, if anything interviews with them simply give the impression that the ship was upscaled as needed.


I found one quote in particular interesting, as it mentions the designers had to rethink their own then generalized opinions about the scale once they had designed the shuttlebay - which is exactly what I chose to base my calculations on.

the author quotes a designer as follows:

"ILM Art Director Alex Jaeger says: 

"The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations -- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."

Then - and this is important as I want to make a distinction between the quote and the article so as not to imply Alex Jaeger said it - 

the author of the article immediately afterwards says:

_So the ship was designed at 1200ft (366m) by Ryan Church, and was later scaled up by a factor of 2! _

This is clearly in error, as a 2400 foot ship would not have a secondary hull as big as seen onscreen in the shuttlecraft boarding scene.
It would make the secondary hull, at the point where the first parked shuttle on the starboard side seen in the attached jpeg below,
only about 127 feet wide. As the shuttles are somewhere around 44' to 50' wide, that would make the secondary hull less then half the
width seen in that scene.




There are lots of quotes of articles appearing in magazines and statements made at the Enterprise Tour website.

But none of that can trump what's seen with our own eyes when it comes to scaling the ship.

It's possible I'm missing something, and as I said my evaluation of the length of the shuttlecrafts used in the boarding scene is not exact,

also up for debate would be exactly how many shuttlecrafts would fit between the centerline to the starboard outer hull skin (times 2 for the total width), 

But even given a large margin of error I believe the ship needs to be at least 5000 feet.

I don't believe, as has been shown in countless interviews, the designers themselves were all that concerned with exactly how big the ship was.

As they added different elements they had to expand the size and admitted to doing so.

I will give Alex Jaeger and others at ILM credit for the fact that they very much seemed to care that everything fit inside the ship properly,
which I believe is way more important then trying to make everything fit into an arbitrarily chosen size.

I'd rather they did what they did in growing the external size of the ship, if it's a choice between that and not having everything
seen on screen being able to fit in a real world craft.



Where they ended up in size after all was said and done - is the question.

In one of the links a paraphrased quote was attributed to John Eaves:

"Star Trek illustrator John Eaves recalls that before he finished working on the movie in October 2007, the size of the Enterprise had been very much undefined, anywhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (900 and 1,500 meters)."

I would say that by the time they were done the ship probably finished over the 5000 foot mark.

ILM was given a ton of freedom on this, and they took the ball and ran with it.

I have no qualms with their increasing the size of the ship for the purposes of the plotline.

Or even with them altering the look a bit. Personally I think they went too overboard for my own taste.

But I'm not going to tell people what they should like and not like. That's an asthetic thing.

I'm just trying to figure out what a fairly accurate, true world size of the craft would be for purposes of scaling.


Thanks for the links, Fireangel, especially the designer comments.:thumbsup:

Sorry if I was unclear on the Kelvin thing.


----------



## Avian

Sorry if this has been brought up already (and I'm just referring to memory here).

Wasn't it mentioned on the DVD extras that the Narada was 6 miles long? If that were the case then the Enterprise - if it's over 5,000 feet - would be about 1/6th the size of the Narada. In the movie the Enterprise is clearly smaller than that, isn't it?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Avian said:


> Sorry if this has been brought up already (and I'm just referring to memory here).
> 
> Wasn't it mentioned on the DVD extras that the Narada was 6 miles long? If that were the case then the Enterprise - if it's over 5,000 feet - would be about 1/6th the size of the Narada. In the movie the Enterprise is clearly smaller than that, isn't it?


That doesn't surprise me. I don't have the DVD set, so I can't really say. I have no reason to doubt it.

But the problem with dealing with those kinds of sources is the information often conflicts with what we saw onscreen.

Statements about the ships length are all over the place, even from people who were involved in the ships design!

A Paramount endorsed website that sells the DVDs places the length of the 2009 movie Enterprise at 2500 feet.
http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/

But clearly that stated length is at least 50% too small to fit the cavernous shuttlebay shown onscreen.

Checkout the screencap in my previous post.

I can't be sure if the secondary hull is 6 or 7 shuttlecrafts wide from port to starboard(I would say closer to 7), or the exact length of the shuttlecraft( I would guess 44' to 50 feet).

But if the movie Enterprise were only 2500 feet then the secondary hull would be only about 138 feet wide at the point in the secondary hull where we see the shuttles parked.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that in that screencap that the ship would have to be more then twice that wide for the shuttles to fit the way they do.

Which would make the ship about 5000 feet long or longer. 




N.B. Anyone who has any details on the shuttlecraft lengths, please chime in.


----------



## jbond

Relative sizes of objects are often cheated for dramatic effect. In the Wrath of Khan when we pan down from the Reliant over the planetoid Regula I orbits, the scale indicates that the planetetoid is only a few miles across, but it's clearly shown to have earth-like gravity inside. Similarly, in TOS battle scenes they're often shouting about how the enemy ship is x number (thousands usually) of kilometers away, yet it occupies the screen with the Enterprise. Then there's Matt Decker's shuttlecraft, which appears to be about half the size of the Enterprise when it enters the planet killer.


----------



## Dr. Brad

jbond said:


> Then there's Matt Decker's shuttlecraft, which appears to be about half the size of the Enterprise when it enters the planet killer.


Heh. I remember noticing that as a kid watching the show in reruns. Even back then I just chalked up to an effects "cheat."


----------



## jbond

I think it's safe to say they wanted the Enterprise to look "big."


----------



## Ductapeforever

Regardless of all the scale 'guesstimations', Revell DE will most likely produce a kit somewhere between 18in and 22in at best ! Any scale cited on the box will be pure fantasy. Scale comparisons should be based on the bridge module as we at least know within reason it's relative size.


----------



## Prowler901

Ductapeforever said:


> Regardless of all the scale 'guesstimations', Revell DE will most likely produce a kit somewhere between 18in and 22in at best ! Any scale cited on the box will be pure fantasy. Scale comparisons should be based on the bridge module as we at least know within reason it's relative size.


Exactly. And, I can't wait to get one to build. :thumbsup:

With regard to the bridge module... Seems to me from the movie that the actual bridge is where those windows are that are below what we would actually call the bridge module. Looks more like it is where the B/C decks are on the Refit E. So I'm not sure we can use the bridge module.


----------



## Captain April

Well, there's "big" and there's "you're out of your freakin' mind"...


----------



## RSN

There is reality............and then there is fantasy!!! 

Bring on the kit and bring on "Star Trek: Into Darkness" so the kit sells big and we get more!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Ductapeforever said:


> Regardless of all the scale 'guesstimations', Revell DE will most likely produce a kit somewhere between 18in and 22in at best ! Any scale cited on the box will be pure fantasy. Scale comparisons should be based on the bridge module as we at least know within reason it's relative size.


I haven't bothered to size the bridge yet.

But I'd be willing to bet they worked on that before the shuttlebay area of the secondary hull. Based on the quote of Alex Yaeger that was in one of the links FireAngel provided, it seems like he himself was surprised by how much they had to upscale the ship to make it all fit.

In which case I wouldn't be surprised that their upscaling of the secondary hull when placing the cavernous shuttlebay in it

may have caused the bridge module to be increased way past the size of what was suggested in the "through the window" view Captain April mentioned earlier.

Not sure about that, but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> Well, there's "big" and there's "you're out of your freakin' mind"...



:roll:


:lol:


I understand your feelings on the subject.

When I first started trying to figure out how big the ship would have to be to fit that darned shuttlebay I was totally incredulous about the numbers myself.

With the limited info at hand, I checked and re-checked and almost didn't post what I had come up with.

I still would love to see some harder numbers on the shuttlecraft and perhaps hear the opinions of others on my estimation of how wide the shuttlebay would have to be to fit everything as seen in that screencap I posted.

But I still don't see a tremendous reduction of my estimate forthcoming from what I can tell.

I know the number look a bit silly, almost ridiculous.

But when you apply a little inductive and deductive logic to the problem, the conclusion seems to be inescapable that the ship has to be at least 5000 feet - probably a good bit more!

Thanks for the comparison chart, Captain April.

As silly as the numbers seem, I don't see them changing by much.

I'm not saying it's not shocking. I may have miscalculated a bit somewhere, I'm willing to hear anybody's criticism of the method or my guesstimates.

I just don't see it getting much below, or even near below 5000 feet!

I'm just as shocked as you Captain April, I'm willing to hear any suggestions, ideas or info anyone else can work up that will result in something more accurate or concrete.

I know there are several members here who are masters of photographic analysis, Phil Broad, MGagen, Petri B., just to name a few of probably more than a dozen I know have an expert eye for that sort of thing. Any opinions or analysis of anyone here that they would be willing to share, would be welcome and greatly appreciated.

Again, thanks for the comparison chart, Captain April. :thumbsup:


----------



## whiskeyrat

:lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


>




There is an alternative explanation to the larger Enterprise.

Admiral Pike was supposed to become the Captain of the flagship Enterprise,

and the guy clearly was getting up in age . . . 


Maybe they made her extra large and HoverRound friendly for him,
assuming he'd be there awhile.

The U.S.S. Enterprise - *Large Print Edition*.


----------



## RSN

When Kirk rides his bike up to the shipyard to look at the Old Girl under construction, it is clearly NOT a mile long. If you tried to scale the size of the 1966 Enterprise based on the Hanger Deck miniature built seperate, you would end up with a ship that is much larger than the established size.

It is called artistic license, deal with it! EVERY sfi-fi production uses it to create large and impressive sets that don't fit into exteriors but they look good on the screen!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...Not one of the actual designers were pinned down on an exact size, if anything interviews with them simply give the impression that the ship was upscaled as needed...I don't believe, as has been shown in countless interviews, the designers themselves were all that concerned with exactly how big the ship was...As they added different elements they had to expand the size and admitted to doing so...


I think these statements sum up the "situation" rather well, and explain why we haven't seen any exact measurements for the JJPrise--even the people who "built" it don't have any. J.J. said, "Make it bigger," and they did. As long as J.J. was happy and the ship's functionality was feasible (i.e., everything fits inside the hull as it should), realistically there was no reason they should be concerned with how long the ship(s) would be from a real-world perspective.

That said, I can imagine this conversation having taken place: "Hey J.J., we've upscaled the ship 600%. How long would that make it?" "Who cares? Let the fanboys figure that out." *round of laughter in the room* 

As for Revell's stated scale, I think they'd be better off if they simply put the length of the finished kit on the box rather than an estimated scale that would likely not be particularly accurate.


----------



## Captain April

Even artistic license has to be limited by plausibility and a certain level of logic. And a ship that changes size without explanation (or the use of chameleon circuit or some other bit of Gallifreyan technology) definitely goes beyond those simple limitations.


----------



## Zombie_61

At least this one's bigger on the _outside_ for a change. :lol:


----------



## charonjr

At a mile long, the windows conveniently become deck high!


----------



## Fireangel

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Captain April said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's "big" and there's "you're out of your freakin' mind"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started trying to figure out how big the ship would have to be to fit that darned shuttlebay I was totally incredulous about the numbers myself.
> 
> Any opinions or analysis of anyone here that they would be willing to share, would be welcome and greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

The key is that even what is seen on the screen contradicts itself; the scene where Pike flies out the shuttlebay with Kirk, Sulu... and a guy in a redshirt... shows a shuttlebay significantly smaller in relation to the shuttle than the ginormous double-decker parking garage in the scene where Kirk & Bones arrive.

The simple fact is that the numbers simply don't make sense. The supersized Enterprise was stated to be so in order to justify one, single, solitary scene (the double-decker shuttlebay); everything else clearly points to a significantly smaller ship; larger than TOS/TMP connies, but most certainly smaller than a Galaxy-class.


Y'all realize that the TOS enterprise neatly fits inside of the sooper-dooper-sized jjprise's bussard collector? :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> Even artistic license has to be limited by plausibility and a certain level of logic. And a ship that changes size without explanation (or the use of chameleon circuit or some other bit of Gallifreyan technology) definitely goes beyond those simple limitations.


Agreed. :thumbsup:

The question I have been trying to figure out, is what size it would have to be for everything to fit.

Not whether or not I was able to "deal with" artistic license, as someone else quipped.

Scale modeling is about scale. Not artistic license.

The excuse of "artistic license" has it's limits.

While I'd still like to pin the numbers down more specifically, I think we've established this puppy is humongously enormous.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> When Kirk rides his bike up to the shipyard to look at the Old Girl under construction, it is clearly NOT a mile long.


I took a fresh look at that shot.

I can't find anything in it to support the idea you propose that it is "clearly NOT a mile long."

Maybe it's not. Maybe it's two miles long. I don't think you can tell from that scene.

He's on a open flat plain. Outside a perimeter gate.

How far is he from the perimeter gate?

There is nothing I can see on the hull of the ship to give it scale.

There are vehicles moving behind the gate and in front of the ship.

But how far are the vehicles behind the gate?

How far are they in front of the ship?

There are huge buildings of indeterminant size past the moving vehicles.

Past those buildings are open ground and then past that huge struts to support the ship building in progress.


The secondary hull seen in the shot has to be quite far back from the gate as well, as the nacelles would extend over the perimeter gate.

Add to that the fact they would not just want the nacelles to be anywhere near the perimeter gates as that would nullify any attempts at having a secure naval yard/facility.

They also probably don't want the nacelles or saucer being built over or close to the huge buildings on the site, said buildings being further back from the moving buildings,
and the the vehicles an unknown distance from the perimeter fence.

All that tells me is that we can not reliably say how long the ship is or is not from that shot.

Your statement is based on trying to make a claim as to how big the ship is _not_.

What I'm trying to do is come as close as possible to finding out how big the ship _is_.

Not how big the ship is not.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> I think these statements sum up the "situation" rather well, and explain why we haven't seen any exact measurements for the JJPrise--even the people who "built" it don't have any. J.J. said, "Make it bigger," and they did. As long as J.J. was happy and the ship's functionality was feasible (i.e., everything fits inside the hull as it should), realistically there was no reason they should be concerned with how long the ship(s) would be from a real-world perspective.
> 
> That said, I can imagine this conversation having taken place: "Hey J.J., we've upscaled the ship 600%. How long would that make it?" "Who cares? Let the fanboys figure that out." *round of laughter in the room*


Yep. 

And while I wouldn't call us fanboys, here we are trying to do just that. :freak:

They got us didn't they?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> At least this one's bigger on the _outside_ for a change. :lol:


Agreed. 

As off the charts as the size seems to be, I still give them credit for trying to make sure it all fit.


----------



## RSN

The scale only matters in modeling IF you are building an interior for it. If you are building the just the outside, the only thing that matters is "Does it look like what I saw on screen?"!

I can tell very easily by the surrounding equipment and girders how big the Enterprise is in the shot with Kirk on his bike. It looks to be bigger than the Enterprise-D but not by much. Is this reflected in everything in the film? No.........Artistic License. (Mine had no restrictions on it when I got out of design school!)

As for things fitting inside and not relating to the exterior. Lets look at the Refit Enterprise, and my personal favorite version of the ship. First off, the rec-deck would never fit in the edge of the primary hull as built in set form. On top of that, there are two turbo lifts that go up to another deck or down to another deck, but when looking at the model, they would be shooting into space. (I suppose the people of the 23rd century are too lazy to climb a flight of stairs to go up one level in the rec-deck!) truth is, the set was designed to fit in the bottom of the secondary hull and then moved.

Next is the engine room and the corridor that stretches too far forward to fit where the engine room is supposed to be inside the model. Then there is the matter of how the elevators get from the the secondary hull to the primary hull. The only direct route is taken up by the verticle intermix chamber. The neck is too narrow for a lift to go around it, unless you double the size of the ship.

For me, I can't see how it really helps my hobby to get hung up on things that were designed to entertain, not to be built to work in the real world.

In the end it is all about what brings you happiness, so to each his own and HAPPY BUILDING to all!!


----------



## jbond

Where is the "I Hate the Refit Enterprise" thread?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fireangel said:


> The key is that even what is seen on the screen contradicts itself; the scene where Pike flies out the shuttlebay with Kirk, Sulu... and a guy in a redshirt... shows a shuttlebay significantly smaller in relation to the shuttle than the ginormous double-decker parking garage in the scene where Kirk & Bones arrive.
> 
> The simple fact is that the numbers simply don't make sense. The supersized Enterprise was stated to be so in order to justify one, single, solitary scene (the double-decker shuttlebay); everything else clearly points to a significantly smaller ship; larger than TOS/TMP connies, but most certainly smaller than a Galaxy-class.
> 
> 
> Y'all realize that the TOS enterprise neatly fits inside of the sooper-dooper-sized jjprise's bussard collector? :lol:


I read that in the link you posted earlier in which most of those opinions where expressed.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size



And I can't agree with many of the conclusions of the author,
which if you sit back and analyze them don't hold much water.

He also has a habit of inserting opinions immediately into sentences after long quotes, which if one is not paying attention my lead the reader into thinking the opinion is part of the statement being made by the person being quoted.



If you read what he writes from the very beginning - whether he himself realizes it or not -

he basically admits that he is extremely biased in his analysis and has the really bad habit of literally claiming to speak for "millions of fans."

I don't believe that there is anyone involved in Trek who has spoken to millions of fans directly - let alone has the authority to speak for them.

He states as fact that "millions" of fans "who care about starship design" agree with what he thought when he saw the film.

For one thing, I don't believe there are millions of fans that who "care about starship design,"

and secondly, I believe it total hyperbole to make a statement such as,

"Like millions of other fans, I have seen "Star Trek (2009)". And like pretty much everyone else who cares about starship design I was totally convinced that the new ship has to be about the same size as the original Enterprise"



Secondly, let me say that while I don't spend a lot of time outside of Trek modeling forums,

_virtually every comment I've read about the ship from other Trek fans *stated the complete opposite opinion*._

While I've seen low ball guesstimates of the size and dozens of different numbers thrown around with nothing to back them up, the only reaction I've heard from long term Trek fans

is that the new ship is tremendously bigger then the original Enterprise.

Apparently that person knows millions of fans who were "totally convinced that the new ship has to be about the same size as the original Enterprise."

I find that odd since he's the first one I've ever come across to express that opinion.

Let's consider some of the specific points made in the link that you refer to



Fireangel said:


> The key is that even what is seen on the screen contradicts itself; the scene where Pike flies out the shuttlebay with Kirk, Sulu... and a guy in a redshirt... shows a shuttlebay significantly smaller in relation to the shuttle than the ginormous double-decker parking garage in the scene where Kirk & Bones arrive.


Again this is stated as fact in his post, which I'm assuming you may have been persuaded to agree with. 


But please consider that the exit scene has camera positionings and angles that make it near impossible to say it conflicts with the earlier scene.

We see them get into the shuttle. 

We see a low on the dashboard video of them flying towards the opening shuttlebay - _but with no way of telling how far away from the opening doors they are._

We then see them fly out the shuttlebay from a point outside directly beneath where the shuttle flys out and moving with the shuttle - making the shuttlecraft look huge (passing right over the camera) and impossible to tell how far away the doorway is from the clamshell doors from the same camera.

So I'd say he picked a bad choice to point out inconsistencies.

Not to say there aren't any.

I just point this one out because he seems to use that statement, along with something he tacks on to a really long quote of Alex Jaeger in a sentence after the quote,

which suggests, if one is not paying close attention, that one statement is supported by the other.

Notably,

>>>>>>>

"The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations -- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail." So the ship was designed at 1200ft (366m) by Ryan Church, and was later scaled up by a factor of 2!

>>>>>>>>

Notice immediately after the Yaeger quote "So the ship was designed at 1200ft (366m) by Ryan Church, and was later scaled up by a factor of 2!"

So implies "this shows."

Which it doesn't at all in this case.

Yaeger never said he increased the ship by a factor of two,

he simply said "The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale."

The designers clearly have avoided flat out statements of size.

Not only haven't they been pinned down on it, it seems as if they are not likely to be either,

Case in point, a quip made by Ryan Church, who is quoted extensively by the author at your link above, at the link you gave us at Memory Alpha:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)#Size

"Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question."

Basic translation: "Go ask Abrams how big it is."





Fireangel said:


> The supersized Enterprise was stated to be so in order to justify one, single, solitary scene (the double-decker shuttlebay); everything else clearly points to a significantly smaller ship; larger than TOS/TMP connies, but most certainly smaller than a Galaxy-class.


The designers never said that.

That was a conclusion drawn by a guy writing the article you linked to at ex-astris-scientia.

An almost vehement assertion that was not supported by the quotes and information he provided.

The designers simply said "The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale."

They never said we should ignore or wish-away the bumped up scale.

They simply said they bumped it up. Not that we should ignore it.





Fireangel said:


> Y'all realize that the TOS enterprise neatly fits inside of the sooper-dooper-sized jjprise's bussard collector? :lol:


Hey, I sincerely share your sense of near incredulousness. 

But none of us here designed the puppy.

I know how you feel.

I've long since measured the circular part of the bridge platform containing the windows
since I came up with the 5836 foot length.

I still don't feel comfortable telling anyone how big the diameter of that thing came
out to be!!!! :freak:

I'm just trying to measure and weigh the darn thing.

We're going to need a longer tape measure and a lot more puppy formula then I ever would have imagined. :tongue:

Live long and Prosper! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

jbond said:


> Where is the "I Hate the Refit Enterprise" thread?


I accidentally posted in that one yesterday myself before realizing I had clicked too quickly.

Seems like a really long thread considering it's purpose.

I personally am just interested in discussing the scale and how practical it will be to make as a kit.

Also, since it's being made by Revell Germany, there may be an accuracy issue if their latest Trek kit is any indication.

But this is not that "hate" thread. Even if I'm not particularly fond of the design myself, I wouldn't tell someone what to like or not like.

Try another door and see what's behind it.


----------



## Avian

For the heck of it I thought I'd post a pic that helps with visualizing just how big a Mega-Enterprise would be, using Captain April's diagram superimposed upon a diagram of the world's current Top Ten tallest buildings.

(Scale in Feet and Meters at the side)




http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/jjandbuildings.jpg/


----------



## StarshipClass

Fireangel said:


> Y'all realize that the TOS enterprise neatly fits inside of the sooper-dooper-sized jjprise's bussard collector? :lol:


THAT is where the doomsday machine came from!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Avian said:


> For the heck of it I thought I'd post a pic that helps with visualizing just how big a Mega-Enterprise would be, using Captain April's diagram superimposed upon a diagram of the world's current Top Ten tallest buildings.
> 
> (Scale in Feet and Meters at the side)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/jjandbuildings.jpg/



Looks like a ship you would use to colonize a new planet and transport a ton of troops, rather then just a "peacekeeping(i.e. military)" and research vessel.

The ship looks big enough to be a true small city in space.


Not something we're used to seeing. I don't know if I'd ever want to put that much resources and that many eggs in one basket - even if I could.

But nobody asked anyone here what we thought, so I guess we are stuck with it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee said:


> THAT is where the doomsday machine came from!


:lol:


The doomsday machine would definitely have to pull out the slicing beam for this ship!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> For me, I can't see how it really helps my hobby to get hung up on things that were designed to entertain, not to be built to work in the real world.


While I can't agree that trying out to figure out the scale and size of something in a scale modeling forum is getting "hung up,"

I've truly enjoyed trying to figure out how large "the real thing" would be ever since I started building sci-fi models as a kid.




RSN said:


> In the end it is all about what brings you happiness, so to each his own and HAPPY BUILDING to all!!


On this we can find common ground, and agree totally. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fireangel

RSN said:


> The scale only matters in modeling IF you are building an interior for it. If you are building the just the outside, the only thing that matters is "Does it look like what I saw on screen?"!


It does matter if you are sticking to a specific scale... or are interested in dioramas... or are actually looking to make a size comparison model...


----------



## drmcoy

not to derail this delightful debate about relative starship scale, but if anyone is keeping score, you can count me in amongst those that are content to imagine that the JJ ship was roughly the size of the refit...maybe a tad larger.

to consider it being 5 times bigger has always seemed somewhat absurd to me -- seems odd that they would take the same shape and just size it up that much bigger...as some have said, if you make the ship that enormous scale, then the windows seem a tad oversize, no?

the scale became clear to me in a very imprecise way in the scene where we are inside the bridge and camera pulls out through front window/viewscreen and we are suddenly outside the ship -- this allows us to kind of/sort of get a sense of scale as we can imagine how tall someone was compared to the window, and then as camera continues to pull back, we get a sense of the exterior bridge and the relative size of people compared to that.

that said, when we see entire ship, we can sort of imagine how tall an average person would be if they were standing just outside that front bridge window.

of course, i realize this is sloppy way to address scale, but it satisfied my curiosity about the issue...perhaps because in the end, i truly can't imagine the ship being too much bigger than the TOS, 1701-A or Next Generation versions.

regardless of this thread's conclusions, i'll buy the model and put it on my shelf...and when i look at it and imagine kirk and spock inside the bridge, the bridge will be roughly the size of the ones I've seen on the other Enterprise ships.


----------



## drmcoy

this is how MY mind sees the scale comparison.

mr spock would roll his eyes at me because it is based on nothing other than how big i THINK they should be, but as McCoy would say, LOGIC BE DAMNED!!!! 










and yeah yeah yeah, i get that the shuttle bay was messed up scale wise. doesn't change a thing in my overall viewpoint.

ah, the beauty of being illogical. give it a try...you might like it.


----------



## RSN

drmcoy said:


> not to derail this delightful debate about relative starship scale, but if anyone is keeping score, you can count me in amongst those that are content to imagine that the JJ ship was roughly the size of the refit...maybe a tad larger.
> 
> to consider it being 5 times bigger has always seemed somewhat absurd to me -- seems odd that they would take the same shape and just size it up that much bigger...as some have said, if you make the ship that enormous scale, then the windows seem a tad oversize, no?
> 
> the scale became clear to me in a very imprecise way in the scene where we are inside the bridge and camera pulls out through front window/viewscreen and we are suddenly outside the ship -- this allows us to kind of/sort of get a sense of scale as we can imagine how tall someone was compared to the window, and then as camera continues to pull back, we get a sense of the exterior bridge and the relative size of people compared to that.
> 
> that said, when we see entire ship, we can sort of imagine how tall an average person would be if they were standing just outside that front bridge window.
> 
> of course, i realize this is sloppy way to address scale, but it satisfied my curiosity about the issue...perhaps because in the end, i truly can't imagine the ship being too much bigger than the TOS, 1701-A or Next Generation versions.
> 
> regardless of this thread's conclusions, i'll buy the model and put it on my shelf...and when i look at it and imagine kirk and spock inside the bridge, the bridge will be roughly the size of the ones I've seen on the other Enterprise ships.


:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

drmcoy said:


> this is how MY mind sees the scale comparison.
> 
> mr spock would roll his eyes at me because it is based on nothing other than how big i THINK they should be, but as McCoy would say, LOGIC BE DAMNED!!!!


Exactly what I said about 10 posts back, based on the shot of Kirk at the construction site. :thumbsup:


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Revell catalogue webpage is up
http://tinyurl.com/ae6w8ne
588mm lange=23" long
62 pieces


----------



## MLCrisis32

chiangkaishecky said:


> Revell catalogue webpage is up
> http://tinyurl.com/ae6w8ne
> 588mm lange=23" long
> 62 pieces


Thanks 23" is a great size for a ship :thumbsup: It will look great next to the ERTL Refit I haven't built yet.

So if their scale is true that makes it what 965ft long? Edit feet not meters doh.


----------



## holt32

No at 965ft she would be smaller then the refit ship which is 1000ft long.

If the model is 588mm that makes the ship 588m long right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.


----------



## drmcoy

holt32 said:


> No at 965ft she would be smaller then the refit ship which is 1000ft long.
> 
> If the model is 588mm that makes the ship 588m long right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.


HA! bravo.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

drmcoy said:


> not to derail this delightful debate about relative starship scale, but if anyone is keeping score, you can count me in amongst those that are content to imagine that the JJ ship was roughly the size of the refit...maybe a tad larger.
> 
> to consider it being 5 times bigger has always seemed somewhat absurd to me -- seems odd that they would take the same shape and just size it up that much bigger...as some have said, if you make the ship that enormous scale, then the windows seem a tad oversize, no?
> 
> the scale became clear to me in a very imprecise way in the scene where we are inside the bridge and camera pulls out through front window/viewscreen and we are suddenly outside the ship -- this allows us to kind of/sort of get a sense of scale as we can imagine how tall someone was compared to the window, and then as camera continues to pull back, we get a sense of the exterior bridge and the relative size of people compared to that.
> 
> that said, when we see entire ship, we can sort of imagine how tall an average person would be if they were standing just outside that front bridge window.
> 
> of course, i realize this is sloppy way to address scale, but it satisfied my curiosity about the issue...perhaps because in the end, i truly can't imagine the ship being too much bigger than the TOS, 1701-A or Next Generation versions.
> 
> regardless of this thread's conclusions, i'll buy the model and put it on my shelf...and when i look at it and imagine kirk and spock inside the bridge, the bridge will be roughly the size of the ones I've seen on the other Enterprise ships.


I'd never try to deny anyone their imagination.

But do consider that just the act of looking through the window is an attempt at scaling the thing properly.


I totally understand the inclination to want to ignore the 800 pound gorilla shuttlebay that's standing in the corner of the room. :tongue:

I don't like the crazy size it requires either.

But nonetheless, it's in the movie.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

drmcoy said:


> this is how MY mind sees the scale comparison.
> 
> mr spock would roll his eyes at me because it is based on nothing other than how big i THINK they should be, but as McCoy would say, LOGIC BE DAMNED!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yeah yeah yeah, i get that the shuttle bay was messed up scale wise. doesn't change a thing in my overall viewpoint.
> 
> ah, the beauty of being illogical. give it a try...you might like it.


Does . . . not . . . compute . . . :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fireangel said:


> It does matter if you are sticking to a specific scale... or are interested in dioramas... or are actually looking to make a size comparison model...


Good point.

I hadn't even considered dioramas.

I was just nerding out and trying to figure out how big the thing would be in order to make everything fit. 

I wouldn't expect a 1/350th scale version kit anytime soon, whether one imagines her to be 2300 feet or over 5000.


----------



## drmcoy

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'd never try to deny anyone their imagination.
> But do consider that just the act of looking through the window is an attempt at scaling the thing properly.


ah, good catch. poor wording on my behalf. to be more precise in my meaning, i do indeed "scale" the ship...it is simply that my scale is influenced primarily by the size i THINK it should be based on loose observation, and not the more methodical analysis of the ship exterior vs interior based on how many shuttles are in the bay -- to me it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

but i'm guessing you surmised this already from my overall intent of what i wrote.

to those that truly wanna figger this out, doesn't it strike you as odd how freakish the ship would be if it were truly 5800 ft long (or whatever that scale was)? 

i would compare it to a TOS Shuttlecraft being 5 to 10 times as big -- the overall shape and attributes of that shape defy the basic logic of how something of that scale would truly look. in other words, if they made the shuttlecraft bigger, they wouldn't just enlarge the exact exterior shape/shell 5 to 10 times -- they would re-engineer the exterior shape in, for lack of a better word, ergonomic fashion. It would be a bigger shuttlecraft, but it would have an exterior shape that was in line with the scale of the life forms that would go inside it.

not sure if i am making my point.

if JJ enterprise were truly the extreme larger scale, seems like the overall DESIGN of the ship would not be a simple "enlargement" of the smaller starship exterior. just doesn't make sense...at least not to me.

but this is a tricky thought for me to convey...wish i could think of a better analogy.

maybe this clarifies it...

think of a car that seats 4 people. now think of a bus. the bus is NOT a simple enlargement of the car exterior -- it is designed entirely differently. if they made the exact car shape big enough to hold as many people as a bus, it would look freakish driving down the road compared to other cars...the people riding inside this freakishly huge car would look weird sitting in smaller seats with their tiny heads peering thru ginormous windows.

or think of a small airplane, like a piper cub, that hold 2 to 4 people. if you enlarged that EXACT piper cub exterior shape in a fashion that could hold 400 people, it would look like odd.

sorry for the ramble ... bottom line is, i can't wrap my head around taking the TOS starship basic design and making it 4 to 5 times bigger.


----------



## Zombie_61

drmcoy said:


> ...i would compare it to a TOS Shuttlecraft being 5 to 10 times as big -- the overall shape and attributes of that shape defy the basic logic of how something of that scale would truly look. in other words, if they made the shuttlecraft bigger, they wouldn't just enlarge the exact exterior shape/shell 5 to 10 times -- they would re-engineer the exterior shape in, for lack of a better word, ergonomic fashion. It would be a bigger shuttlecraft, but it would have an exterior shape that was in line with the scale of the life forms that would go inside it.
> 
> not sure if i am making my point.
> 
> if JJ enterprise were truly the extreme larger scale, seems like the overall DESIGN of the ship would not be a simple "enlargement" of the smaller starship exterior. just doesn't make sense...at least not to me.


This is part of what I was attempting to convey when I posted earlier in this thread that the visual cues of the external details of the ship don't support it being as large as J.J. insists it is; I might have been able to express this myself if I were more eloquent.

On the other hand, this would provide a convenient in-universe explanation for why the JJPrise looks so different when compared to the original series' Enterprise: "Of _course_ the warp engines, nacelle pylons, and secondary hull look different--they had to be re-designed to support a ship that's over a mile long." That doesn't necessarily explain the oversized windows, but I think you see my point.

Aww, nuts. I think I may have just talked (written?) my way into thinking the ship is indeed as large as Chuck_P.R.'s measurements determine it to be. :lol:

On that note, if Chuck_P.R.'s estimated length and my math are correct, at 23" long Revell's model of the JJPrise would be 1:3045 scale.


----------



## StarshipClass

holt32 said:


> If the model is 588mm that makes the ship 588m long right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.


At 1/1000 scale, that would be correct. IIRC, the stated scale is 1/500 so 23" works out to be 958'. 

I think 1/1000 scale makes much more sense from what we've seen on screen though a ship roughly the size of the original or the refit makes more sense in terms of proportions, window size, size of bridge, etc. compared to the original series ships.


----------



## Paulbo

holt32 said:


> No at 965ft she would be smaller then the refit ship which is 1000ft long.
> 
> If the model is 588mm that makes the ship 588m long right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.


The stated scale is 1/500, so multiplying 0.588m (588mm) by 500 yields 294m - 965 feet. Not making a judgement call on the ship's size based on the stated scale - I think it's a hot mess how they played fast and loose with it.


----------



## Fireangel

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I wouldn't expect a 1/350th scale version kit anytime soon, whether one imagines her to be 2300 feet or over 5000.


5,836' at 1/350... 16.67'...

It would fit in my garage... barely... just have to park the car elsewhere... :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

drmcoy said:


> ah, good catch. poor wording on my behalf. to be more precise in my meaning, i do indeed "scale" the ship...it is simply that my scale is influenced primarily by the size i THINK it should be based on loose observation, and not the more methodical analysis of the ship exterior vs interior based on how many shuttles are in the bay -- to me it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> but i'm guessing you surmised this already from my overall intent of what i wrote.
> 
> to those that truly wanna figger this out, doesn't it strike you as odd how freakish the ship would be if it were truly 5800 ft long (or whatever that scale was)?


Yep. 

Beyond odd in fact. I don't like the idea of a 5000 foot plus ship either. 




drmcoy said:


> i would compare it to a TOS Shuttlecraft being 5 to 10 times as big -- the overall shape and attributes of that shape defy the basic logic of how something of that scale would truly look. in other words, if they made the shuttlecraft bigger, they wouldn't just enlarge the exact exterior shape/shell 5 to 10 times -- they would re-engineer the exterior shape in, for lack of a better word, ergonomic fashion. It would be a bigger shuttlecraft, but it would have an exterior shape that was in line with the scale of the life forms that would go inside it.
> 
> not sure if i am making my point.
> 
> if JJ enterprise were truly the extreme larger scale, seems like the overall DESIGN of the ship would not be a simple "enlargement" of the smaller starship exterior. just doesn't make sense...at least not to me.
> 
> but this is a tricky thought for me to convey...wish i could think of a better analogy.
> 
> maybe this clarifies it...
> 
> think of a car that seats 4 people. now think of a bus. the bus is NOT a simple enlargement of the car exterior -- it is designed entirely differently. if they made the exact car shape big enough to hold as many people as a bus, it would look freakish driving down the road compared to other cars...the people riding inside this freakishly huge car would look weird sitting in smaller seats with their tiny heads peering thru ginormous windows.
> 
> or think of a small airplane, like a piper cub, that hold 2 to 4 people. if you enlarged that EXACT piper cub exterior shape in a fashion that could hold 400 people, it would look like odd.
> 
> sorry for the ramble ... bottom line is, i can't wrap my head around taking the TOS starship basic design and making it 4 to 5 times bigger.





drmcoy said:


> i would compare it to a TOS Shuttlecraft being 5 to 10 times as big -- the overall shape and attributes of that shape defy the basic logic of how something of that scale would truly look. in other words, if they made the shuttlecraft bigger, they wouldn't just enlarge the exact exterior shape/shell 5 to 10 times -- they would re-engineer the exterior shape in, for lack of a better word, ergonomic fashion. It would be a bigger shuttlecraft, but it would have an exterior shape that was in line with the scale of the life forms that would go inside it.
> 
> not sure if i am making my point.


You are. I totally understand where you are coming from.




drmcoy said:


> if JJ enterprise were truly the extreme larger scale, seems like the overall DESIGN of the ship would not be a simple "enlargement" of the smaller starship exterior. just doesn't make sense...at least not to me.
> 
> but this is a tricky thought for me to convey...wish i could think of a better analogy.
> 
> maybe this clarifies it...
> 
> think of a car that seats 4 people. now think of a bus. the bus is NOT a simple enlargement of the car exterior -- it is designed entirely differently. if they made the exact car shape big enough to hold as many people as a bus, it would look freakish driving down the road compared to other cars...the people riding inside this freakishly huge car would look weird sitting in smaller seats with their tiny heads peering thru ginormous windows.
> 
> or think of a small airplane, like a piper cub, that hold 2 to 4 people. if you enlarged that EXACT piper cub exterior shape in a fashion that could hold 400 people, it would look like odd.


It would look ridiculous to do that of course.

I would not have made the choices the FX designers did if I had built the thing. I would have redesigned the shuttlebay before simply "bumping up the scale," as Alex Yaeger put it.

I give him credit for acknowledging what they did and some for at least wanting to have everything fit right.

But it didn't show a lot of discipline on their part.

Yes, there is such a thing as artistic license, 

but when it comes to creating an F/X craft of any kind that artist is also being paid to make something that is consistent and believable.





drmcoy said:


> sorry for the ramble ... bottom line is, i can't wrap my head around taking the TOS starship basic design and making it 4 to 5 times bigger.


I'm more than a bit of a rambler myself. Otherwise I've found it very easy to be misinterpreted. It still happens even with my way too extended explanations sometimes.

I understand having trouble wrapping your head around just making it 4 to 5 times bigger in order to fit everything.

I not only felt the same way when first trying to figure this out,

I've found that I still haven't wrapped my own head around the concept.

But that's what the FX guys left us with. 






I don't know if I'm going to go much further with this intellectual exercise myself, especially considering I'm not that fond of the aesthetics of the design to begin with.

But for those who might be or become interested, I can say there are ways to explain the upscaling even if they are a bit of a stretch.

While I like your shuttle, car, and piper analogies - your car to bus analogy probably being the best . . .

It is a bit easier to explain when you consider it's a craft that in the original universe held 400 people plus the ability to transport at least as small number more in relative comfort.

In the TOS realm, there wasn't an eminent threat hanging over the Federation the way there was after the Kelvin was attacked in the new universe.

Let's assume the Kelvin was as big as she was because she was a refitted ship left over from the Romulan Wars.

Along comes the mystery threat that just disappears after attacking the Kelvin.

I could see a Federation on the verge of perhaps scaling down their wartime fleet to newer, scaled down defense, exploration and diplomatic Constitution craft we saw in the TOS universe.

With the destruction of the Kelvin, all that goes out the window.

Much in the same way that Starfleet changed it's priorities once Q introduced the Borg to our galaxy hundreds of years prior to when Starfleet would have had to face them.

Priorities change.

So after the Kelvin, the Federation scraps plans to downsize Starfleet and goes even bigger with there starship designs then they did when they were at war with the Romulans - as whatever attacked the Kelvin clearly had better technology then not just the Romulans, but also anything ever seen before.

They might even have designed the new class to hold not just a tremendous amount of troops, but perhaps made them all self-sustaining cities that could last for decades on their own in case most of the fleet were wiped out and one or more of the ships became the only way to flee and re-establish a preserved Federation culture somewhere else.

Just as Vulcan was forced to.

Okay, Captain April - cue _Battlestar Galactica_ theme! :tongue:


Even the window size issue can be explained away, though it's a stretch as well.



Again, none of these alternatives are preferable to them having just built a more reasonable shuttlebay.

But it is what it is. None of us seem to be happy about it. 

Live long and prosper! :thumbsup:

Or as Abrams' Spock would say, "Good Luck!"


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> The doomsday machine would definitely have to pull out the slicing beam for this ship!


I was thinking, rather, that one of the engines from the mile long ship, after being battered in some cataclysmic battle, was reprogrammed, separated from the rest of the ship, and slipped into another dimension, the normal Trek universe, and started eating planets and starships to survive.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> This is part of what I was attempting to convey when I posted earlier in this thread that the visual cues of the external details of the ship don't support it being as large as J.J. insists it is; I might have been able to express this myself if I were more eloquent.
> 
> On the other hand, this would provide a convenient in-universe explanation for why the JJPrise looks so different when compared to the original series' Enterprise: "Of _course_ the warp engines, nacelle pylons, and secondary hull look different--they had to be re-designed to support a ship that's over a mile long." That doesn't necessarily explain the oversized windows, but I think you see my point.
> 
> Aww, nuts. I think I may have just talked (written?) my way into thinking the ship is indeed as large as Chuck_P.R.'s measurements determine it to be. :lol:


I'm as torn as you are my friend! 

There are arkward ways of explaining away the change in window size, the most awkward way being the bridge windows - but it can be done.


On the design size, I understand too where drmcoy was coming from too.
His car to bus analogy being most especially apt.

On the "why keep increasing and decreasing the size of the same design?" issue there are plausible explanations too.

I would say it probably could have something to do with the shape created by the warp bubble.

Everything might have to fit within an oval shape we saw displayed a few times in TNG.

Also, you wan't two warp engines, for the same reason aircraft carrier pilots prefer the twin engine F-22 to any of the single engine aircraft.

Whether over the ocean or in deep space, if one is damaged you want a backup.

So now we have two nacelles, the struts I'd assume would be to distance them from the ship in the case of some sort of malfunction, as well as make them easier to replace and or eject.

That takes care of the rear upper part of the warp bubble, so you have 2/3rds left.

Rather then make a craft that fills the rest of the space in one solid mass, it makes sense to have two parts that can function independantly - both for purposes of attack and as lifeboats of a sort.

All that could explain why Starfleet would keep using the same basic design over and over again, from the NX-01 to the Enterprise E, regardless of size.


Okay, enough Trek-jecture for me for awhile, time for some coffee!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I was thinking, rather, that one of the engines from the mile long ship, after being battered in some cataclysmic battle, was reprogrammed, separated from the rest of the ship, and slipped into another dimension, the normal Trek universe, and started eating planets and starships to survive.


:roll:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

*I was born a poor black child...*

All of this hoo-haw about scale reminds me of the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk". At the beginning of the movie they show the small, humble cabin he and his family live in. 

He makes and loses a fortune, but always sent money home so his family could finally afford a bigger home.

The last scene is him returning home to find they built an exact replica of their original humble cabin, but 4 times larger. Complete with 4 times larger windows and door. 

I think Abrams must have seen this as well :hat:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Lou Dalmaso said:


> All of this hoo-haw about scale reminds me of the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk". At the beginning of the movie they show the small, humble cabin he and his family live in.
> 
> He makes and loses a fortune, but always sent money home so his family could finally afford a bigger home.
> 
> The last scene is him returning home to find they built an exact replica of their original humble cabin, but 4 times larger. Complete with 4 times larger windows and door.
> 
> I think Abrams must have seen this as well :hat:



:roll:


I've _got_ to watch that again now!!!


That and "All of Me."
I remember trying to not make a scene in the movie theater as I was turning purple with laughter during Martin's first few minutes of being "possessed." 



I don't remember the late cabin scene you're talking about, but that's just about what happened in the case of the JJPrise.


----------



## Carl_G

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I was thinking, rather, that one of the engines from the mile long ship, after being battered in some cataclysmic battle, was reprogrammed, separated from the rest of the ship, and slipped into another dimension, the normal Trek universe, and started eating planets and starships to survive.


.... Here. Have an internet. You won it fair and square.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

*my goof*

it was only twice as big


----------



## Paulbo

No, you were right ... it had 4 times the footprint


----------



## electric indigo

The Spielwarenmesse Nuremberg opens tomorrow. With a little luck, Revell has something to show there...


----------



## Carl_G

Do we have any German members? they could be unofficial news correspondents or something...


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Carl_G said:


> Do we have any German members? they could be unofficial news correspondents or something...


:dude:



>


Source: Panzer-modelle.de


----------



## electric indigo

Beeindruckend!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Please Sir, may I have some more?


----------



## PixelMagic

The model looks good and very accurate from what I can tell about this picture, but that paint job is a bit heavy handed.


----------



## Prowler901

WOAH!!! :freak: Sweet! :thumbsup: Definitely, more please!


----------



## Richard Baker

I guess that settles the speculation about the exterior design being 'adjusted' for the new movie...


----------



## RSN

I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Carl_G

Danke schön! 

(Disclaimer: I don't know any German and am placing my faith in google translate.)

I can't wait to build this sucker!


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Richard Baker said:


> I guess that settles the speculation about the exterior design being 'adjusted' for the new movie...


Well, the windows looks like they are the same size (judged by the relation between windows and ship hull) like the refit or the TOS. So the size of the ship is much smaller in the 2013 movie than in the 2009 one.


----------



## electric indigo

So can anybody already spot if this is the R2 kit?


----------



## PixelMagic

electric indigo said:


> So can anybody already spot if this is the R2 kit?


:freak:


----------



## jbond

This looks fantastic!!

The R2 kit was a lot smaller, and never got this far into development.


----------



## spock62

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, the windows looks like they are the same size (judged by the relation between windows and ship hull) like the refit or the TOS. So the size of the ship is much smaller in the 2013 movie than in the 2009 one.


Thanks for posting the picture. Kit looks good to me, but I think the size is unchanged from the first movie. Check out the attached photo. To me, the window sizes appear to be the same.


----------



## Garbaron

Not a fan of the desing, but I'll get the kit because I have accepted her as the
ship of the new Trek movie generation and I want to build it


----------



## jaws62666

Did you guys notice on the details sheet. Kit says 588 mm which is a little over 23 inches. Plenty big for me.


----------



## Garbaron

Yep, its a good sized kit. Not too small. Not too big.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Marco Scheloske said:


> :dude:
> 
> 
> Source: Panzer-modelle.de



Weird.

Somehow as a kit, she doesn't look as crazy to me as she did in the movie.

I'm still upset that ILM sc*@&ed the pooch on the scale with that
shuttlebay scene.

But the overall ship, if you throw attempts to scale her out the window,
doesn't look as unreasonable as it did in the movie.

Of course, I think the ridiculous use of the shaky camera / lens flare (aren't we supposed to consider ourselves unseen witnesses? not watching something a crew member filmed on break while holding a personal camcorder?)

technique of filming might have had a lot to do with it. 

Not a big fan of hysterical film method used to overdramatize key moments in the film.

IMHopinion, it just gets annoying and makes the action more confusing - not more dramatic.

Plus is really distorts our perception of the special effects. 

Anyhow, again the kit somehow makes her look more attractive then the ship appeared in the movie.

Thanks for the pics, Marco!


----------



## jbond

Now let's not go crazy, here--please, please don't tell me that the release of this kit might in some way tone down even for one minute the avalanche of hatred, vitriol, anger and rage over this design and JJ Abrams in general. Please, I don't want my safe, predictable Interweb to change!

BTW if you check out "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or "Corbomite Manuever," those episodes (and other classic Trek episodes) use handheld camerawork and it actually adds some real immediacy and realism to those episodes. However, there aren't a lot of lens flares (those got popular later in the 60s).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

jbond said:


> Now let's not go crazy, here--please, please don't tell me that the release of this kit might in some way tone down even for one minute the avalanche of hatred, vitriol, anger and rage over this design and JJ Abrams in general. Please, I don't want my safe, predictable Interweb to change!


I think you are safe on that count. 

I still don't like the design much, most notably the nacelles, but I'm not someone who is going to tell everyone else to dislike it.

When it comes to aesthetics and food, people should just like what they like and not feel pressured to feel otherwise.




jbond said:


> BTW if you check out "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or "Corbomite Manuever," those episodes (and other classic Trek episodes) use handheld camerawork and it actually adds some real immediacy and realism to those episodes. However, there aren't a lot of lens flares (those got popular later in the 60s).



Not sure what scenes you are talking about.
I'm not questioning that handheld cameras were used,

but I don't remember the camera work as being frenetic, over the top shaky and confusing, plus the lack of lens flares you mentioned already.

You were never forced to feel like you were watching something some nervous guy who wasn't even quite sure what to look at was filming with a hand held camcorder.

Strangely enough, I found that method often worked in the battle scenes in the recent Battlestar Galactica series,

but because most of it was shown from a perspective of someone in a dogfight with other small craft outside a huge capital ship.



In the capital ship to capital ship universe of Star Trek I don't believe that method works as well - if at all.

Plus I don't think it was ever overused in Battlestar Galactica the way it was in the 2009 Trek movie.
In Battlestar Galactica it's occassional use enhanced our appreciation of the F/X

In the 2009 movie it's heavy over-use detracted from both the appreciation of what was going on,
plus more and most importantly - our perception of the special effects.

and as a result - our understanding and perception of the ship's design.

Making our ability to compare it to earlier versions of the Enterprise designs difficult.

Seeing a properly proportioned(if not scaled) model of it makes the ship look more reasonable
from a modeling perspective.


----------



## jbond

Actually they use handheld and shaky-cam all over the place on the Galactica bridge scenes. And when you say "our" appreciation you make it sound like this was the universal reaction to the movie--the camerawork didn't undermine my appreciation of the visual effects at all. Obviously it didn't work for all the people who are complaining about it on message boards, but it's highly arguable what percentage of moviegoers that represents, given how financially and critically successful Trek 2009 was.


----------



## jbond

For "WNMHGB" and "Corbomite," check out the early scenes where characters enter the turbolift to get to the bridge--you have handheld camerawork that follows the characters all the way up to the bridge and out into the bridge (a shot from "Corbomite" which inspired the shot of Spock going from the shuttlebay levels to the bridge in Trek 2009 BTW).


----------



## RSN

jbond said:


> For "WNMHGB" and "Corbomite," check out the early scenes where characters enter the turbolift to get to the bridge--you have handheld camerawork that follows the characters all the way up to the bridge and out into the bridge (a shot from "Corbomite" which inspired the shot of Spock going from the shuttlebay levels to the bridge in Trek 2009 BTW).


That is a great shot in WNMHGB. We see Kirk enter the lift from the outside then the camera angle shifts inside as Gary jumps in. Outside the lift door is what looks like a typical wall panel. The actors deliver their lines and the doors open and the bridge is now visible outside the lift........without an edit. They simply removed the wall piece that blocked the bridge from the camera as Gary got in. 

Shatner created a similar shot in ST5 when they exit the hangar deck and enter the turbo lift. The actors talk and then the doors open onto the bridge without an edit. This time the lift set actually rotated from the hangar deck set around to the bridge set!!


----------



## Gemini1999

Folks, let's remember that this thread is about the upcoming model, not the 2009 film or the filming techniques used in it. I'm sure that there are plenty of other threads covering, or have covered that subject. Let's not have Jeff swoop in and lock the thread and order temporary bans because we can't police ourselves.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

jbond said:


> Actually they use handheld and shaky-cam all over the place on the Galactica bridge scenes. And when you say "our" appreciation you make it sound like this was the universal reaction to the movie--the camerawork didn't undermine my appreciation of the visual effects at all.


I find it's overuse annoying.

I didn't mean to convey that the exterior dog fight scenes were the only times they were used. I never envisioned someone getting that impression from what I was saying.

So I'm sorry if I was unclear. 

I was simply saying it wasn't over-used in the new Galactica the way it was in the 2009 Trek movie
.
There were plenty enough static shot scenes that gave a really balanced view of what was going on.




jbond said:


> And when you say "our" appreciation you make it sound like this was the universal reaction to the movie--the camerawork didn't undermine my appreciation of the visual effects at all.



You have me there.

While I feel that most people's sense of scale and ability to follow what's going would be compromised by shaky handheld camerwork,

you have every right to dissagree.

Please note however, that I was discussing it's effect on the perception of the special effects - not simply whether or not the viewer found it to be either exciting or annoying.

I found it both distracting and annoying, but there is no need for you to feel the same way.




jbond said:


> but it's highly arguable what percentage of moviegoers that represents, given how financially and critically successful Trek 2009 was.


Box office success. Perhaps.

Critical success, not so sure.

I've personally never depended on mainstream critics when it comes to judging a movie.


They have panned movies I and most people I know have loved,

and raved about movies I've found trifling, boring, pedantic, juvenile, derivative, idiot-plot driven, gimmick-plot ridden, and over-promoted and over-praised due to culture and pc pressure.

Personally I like what I like - and vice versa.

I've seen really bad remakes and sequels that did tremendous box offices and had good mainstream critical approval.

So over the years I've learned not to judge a movie by those standards - pro and con.

Sometimes movies get praise they don't deserve from critics.

Sometimes I've seen great movies panned by critics.

Again, I don't think box office or critics should be used to convince people to like something they don't.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gemini1999 said:


> Folks, let's remember that this thread is about the upcoming model, not the 2009 film or the filming techniques used in it. I'm sure that there are plenty of other threads covering, or have covered that subject. Let's not have Jeff swoop in and lock the thread and order temporary bans because we can't police ourselves.



Agreed.

I made every attempt to limit my discussion of the filming techniques used in the movie

just to say I believe they had an effect on how the ship's design was perceived(at least by me), 

In relation to how shocked I was that the kit makes the design look much more reasonable and attractive.

In explaining that comment I may have inadvertently let myself be drawn too far afield

For that I apologize.

To reiterate, seeing the kit photo Marco posted has altered my perception of the design.

Considered alongside an old AMT 22" Refit or an old 23" (? going by memory) Cutaway TOS E, I don't think the model would look as radically different as I first though it would.



Again, sorry for the only remotely related, over-explaining, of what started as as a simple observation of my impression of the model.


----------



## RSN

Gemini1999 said:


> Folks, let's remember that this thread is about the upcoming model, not the 2009 film or the filming techniques used in it. I'm sure that there are plenty of other threads covering, or have covered that subject. Let's not have Jeff swoop in and lock the thread and order temporary bans because we can't police ourselves.


Just having a friendly conversation. :thumbsup:

And as I have said, I am looking forward to the kits release. Until then, what more can be said about a kit that is not out yet?!


----------



## jbond

I think the kit looks great. 

I do think though that having the ship out there in three dimensions might make some people think twice about whether they hate it or not. Up until now we've only had a toy, which is not a great presentation of the ship, and a few other very small replicas. This looks like a nice, big model that will probably have a few good angles (and let's remember that even the revered refit—which I love BTW—was something ILM filmmakers,who know a thing or two about shooting miniatures, thought only had a few good angles!) I just don't think this ship deserves quite the level of animosity it's generated so far...


----------



## Carl_G

RSN said:


> Until then, what more can be said about a kit that is not out yet?!


Rampant, unfounded speculation?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

jbond said:


> I think the kit looks great.
> 
> I do think though that having the ship out there in three dimensions might make some people think twice about whether they hate it or not. Up until now we've only had a toy, which is not a great presentation of the ship, and a few other very small replicas.


Agreed. 

I'd love to see Marco's picture of the model alongside a similar shot of the 22" Refit and a 23" Cutaway TOS E all from the same side, angle and depth of field.


----------



## RSN

Carl_G said:


> Rampant, unfounded speculation?


Oh......well...........there is that. My bad, I stand corrected!! :thumbsup:


----------



## MLCrisis32

PixelMagic said:


> The model looks good and very accurate from what I can tell about this picture, but that paint job is a bit heavy handed.


I agree it would look much better without the black squares on the nacelles or rings around the saucer etc. Also it looks off as a white ship. The CG model looks more silver/gray but whatever I'm happy someone is making this.


----------



## jbond

I think it's amazing they have the thing ready to view so I'm not going to quibble about the paint job. Judging by this I'd say it looks like they will hit their release date of May. Obviously you would need aztec details or masks to get this anywhere near the look of the movie (and given the "scale" that's going to be an interesting proposition in itself). This seems close enough for me--I'm surprised it's painted at all!


----------



## RSN

From looking at it, I thought most of the markings were decals and not paint. It will be a challenge to get the dish to light up and look like it does in the movie. I don't think just lighting it from behind, out of the secondary hull, will look quite right. Lightsheet perhaps?!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> From looking at it, I thought most of the markings were decals and not paint. It will be a challenge to get the dish to light up and look like it does in the movie. I don't think just lighting it from behind, out of the secondary hull, will look quite right. Lightsheet perhaps?!


Illuminescent sheets are the way to go.


----------



## Gemini1999

Even though it's not my preferred design of the Enterprise, it is nice to finally see a scale model of what it would look like as a kit. The paint details in the picture (too many black lines for my taste) aren't very attractive, but it's not bad.


----------



## mach7

jbond said:


> I think the kit looks great.
> 
> I do think though that having the ship out there in three dimensions might make some people think twice about whether they hate it or not. /../ I just don't think this ship deserves quite the level of animosity it's generated so far...


Nope I still don't like it at all.

I am, however, very happy that those of you who do like it will be able to
build it.


----------



## jbond

You've still only seen it in two dimensions.


----------



## Captain April

ip


Marco Scheloske said:


> :dude:
> 
> 
> Source: Panzer-modelle.de


It looks like a cartoon parody of the Enterprise that was designed during an acid trip.

In other words, for those who complain that the original ship is "too sixties", if anything, it's the JJPrise that looks like something from the 1960's!


----------



## kenlee

One question is answered, 588 mm = 23.14 inches, a nice size kit.
At the stated 1:500 scale, that works out to 967 feet.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

jaws62666 said:


> Did you guys notice on the details sheet. Kit says 588 mm which is a little over 23 inches. Plenty big for me.





kenlee said:


> One question is answered, 588 mm = 23.14 inches, a nice size kit.


Revell released that info last week
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4434716&postcount=312
but no not everyone notices


----------



## RSN

kenlee said:


> One question is answered, 588 mm = 23.14 inches, a nice size kit.
> At the stated 1:500 scale, that works out to 967 feet.


I think the scale may be wrong, but I don't care, the ship and the kit look GREAT!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> I think the scale may be wrong, but I don't care, the ship and the kit look GREAT!!


Better they mess up the scale then the kit itself.

Have you seen their recent TOS E release?

The JJPrise looks more accurate then their TOS E!!!!

How could they have gotten the proportions and details wrong on a subject that has been so thoroughly documented over a period of almost 50 years????

That was surprising.

Apparently the weight of the pylons is not as big an issue as one would assume, even though that incredibly expense studio scale version had problems - they seem to have been able to solve it on a styrene kit!!!

Kudos to German engineering I guess.

I'm willing to bet the internal support structure underneath the pylons precludes any attempts to open or show a shuttlebay.

Which is quite ironically fortunate, as that might allow the average person to not notice the scaling issues.

One outcome might be that the value of all those 22" AMT Refit kits people have been hoarding( Hi, John P. :wave might go up as people might want to display them alongside that and maybe a 23" TOS E Cutaway - or even original AMT.


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Better they mess up the scale then the kit itself.
> 
> Have you seen their recent TOS E release?
> 
> The JJPrise looks more accurate then their TOS E!!!!
> 
> How could they have gotten the proportions and details wrong on a subject that has been so thoroughly documented over a period of almost 50 years????
> 
> That was surprising.
> 
> Apparently the weight of the pylons is not as big an issue as one would assume, even though that incredibly expense studio scale version had problems - they seem to have been able to solve it on a styrene kit!!!
> 
> Kudos to German engineering I guess.
> 
> I'm willing to bet the internal support structure underneath the pylons precludes any attempts to open or show a shuttlebay.
> 
> Which is quite ironically fortunate, as that might allow the average person to not notice the scaling issues.
> 
> One outcome might be that the value of all those 22" AMT Refit kits people have been hoarding( Hi, John P. :wave might go up as people might want to display them alongside that and maybe a 23" TOS E Cutaway - or even original AMT.


My ONLY defense of Revell in their patterns for TOS Enterprise is they were trying to incorporate the look of the Animated Series into it. If that was their intention, (Which if I were them I would adopt!), then they nailed it, otherwise........................ :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> My ONLY defense of Revell in their patterns for TOS Enterprise is thay were trying to incorporate the look of the Animated Series into it. If that was their intention, (Which if I were them I would adopt!), then they nailed it, otherwise........................ :thumbsup:


Can't swallow . . . that . . . defense . . . 

need water . . .

water not working . . .

Nicole!!!! . . .

. . .

Okay. Much better now.
Fortunately my girlfriend knows the Heimlich manuever! :tongue:


----------



## jbond

I think the 2009 Enterprise design WAS intended to have something of a '60s look to it--after all this is an interpretation of the original design from Kirk's era, just as they retained the 60s-style uniforms and a few other touches. And I appreciate it AS an "acid trip" version of the original...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

jbond said:


> I think the 2009 Enterprise design WAS intended to have something of a '60s look to it--after all this is an interpretation of the original design from Kirk's era, just as they retained the 60s-style uniforms and a few other touches.


I think they did try to make it both retro and modern in terms of design, which is easily seen in the model kit buildup.

I think they went too heavily towards introducing other retro design features - namely automotive. 

The nacelles screamed _both "muscle car" and old Chevy bullet headlights_ to me from the moment I saw them.

I was half expecting Kirk to put on some low-rider music, flip a switch, and have the Enterprise bounce up and down as it went into warp! 




jbond said:


> I appreciate it AS an "acid trip" version of the original...


I can find no flaw in your logic.


----------



## Dr. Brad

RSN said:


> I think the scale may be wrong, but I don't care, the ship and the kit look GREAT!!


Well, at the ILM stated length of 2300-ish feet, it works out pretty close to 1/1000 scale. That's the only reason I might actually buy one!


----------



## RSN

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, at the ILM stated length of 2300-ish feet, it works out pretty close to 1/1000 scale. That's the only reason I might actually buy one!


I scaled it by using the two doors on either side of the fantail, flanking the clamshell, and came up with about 2,600 feet, so I would guess ILM knows what they are talking about, that size would work for me!! :thumbsup:


----------



## TrekFX

That's cool... yesterday I did the same with the docking ports on the neck and lower hull. Called them 8 feet and came up with around 2400 feet.

So it's all pretty much matching up.


----------



## Wolvster

Build up looks like it might be pretty accurate.


I'd prefer to see the parts on the tree so I'd
know if they actually used _{ or at least followed }_
the Maya files or not ? 

Paint job is horrible though !!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

TrekFX said:


> That's cool... yesterday I did the same with the docking ports on the neck and lower hull. Called them 8 feet and came up with around 2400 feet.
> 
> So it's all pretty much matching up.


Try scaling it by the shuttlebay scene when the crew was first carried up to the Enterprise and see what you come up with. 

The shuttlecraft are approximately 44' to 50' feet long.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, at the ILM stated length of 2300-ish feet, it works out pretty close to 1/1000 scale. That's the only reason I might actually buy one!


Actually there is no official scale given by the designers and ILM.

When pressed one ILM guy told his interviewer he should ask Abrams how big the ship is!!!!:freak:


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Try scaling it by the shuttlebay scene when the crew was first carried up to the Enterprise and see what you come up with.
> 
> The shuttlecraft are approximately 44' to 50' feet long.


Try scaling the '66 Enterprise with that hanger deck interior they built and see how much bigger the ship would be. A non-issue for me, I just build 'em 'cuz they are purddy!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## jbond

That's actually true--if you based the TOS Enterprise on the miniature hangar shots the ship would probably be about 2000 feet long. A flat-out RIDICULOUS SIZE for a starship, which as we know can only be 947 feet long.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> Try scaling the '66 Enterprise with that hanger deck interior they built and see how much bigger the ship would be. :thumbsup:



What was that Sister Mary Beth used to beat into us in school? . . .

"Two wrongs don't make a right!!!!"


I would point out the difference wouldn't have made the TOS E a mile long, 
but you are still correct that neither don't really add up.

I am personally happier with CBS' reworked and more reasonable version,

even though that might not be a popular statement. 

[As he ducks for cover and runs out of the room . . . ]


----------



## PixelMagic

Why are there no more pictures of this kit? Wasn't it taken at a toy show or something? I thought we'd see other angles by now.


----------



## eradicator178

drmcoy said:


> YES!!!!
> 
> Once someone figures out how to order these, please post here...maybe CultTV Man will get them in.
> 
> And for all the "haters" of this design, here's a suggestion -- keep all of your disparaging comments to yourself and channel that negative energy in a more useful way by posting positive comments on the other threads honoring the original design.


Thank You. drmcoy. Just because someone doesn't like it they don't have to degrade it for us that do!! I definitely want one!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PixelMagic said:


> Why are there no more pictures of this kit? Wasn't it taken at a toy show or something? I thought we'd see other angles by now.





PixelMagic said:


> Why are there no more pictures of this kit? Wasn't it taken at a toy show or something? I thought we'd see other angles by now.


It was posted from a pic on a European website. When I went to it that website was almost exclusively devoted to military armor and aircraft.

http://www.panzer-modell.de/specials/ontour/nuernberg13/12g.jpg

If you look at other pics from that website(I had to do it by changing the number of the jpg file) from that show you'll notice pretty much everything else pictured from the Nuernberg show is military.

I'm guessing the only reason the pic is even stored on the website is the guy wanted to be thorough and include everything in the show.

I am surprised that there have been no other posts from others though. I know we have more then just one European member.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

eradicator178 said:


> Thank You. drmcoy. Just because someone doesn't like it they don't have to degrade it for us that do!! I definitely want one!!


I haven't seen too many people "hating" or "degrading" the design here. Maybe you are quoting a drmcoy post from way back in the thread?

The thread is about the kit, including design elements of the ship.

It would be pointless to simply pan the whole thing - I agree.
And at points people have let discussion of the kit slip into discussions about a movie people have far too heated opinions about.


But of late it seems people are getting way too touchy about criticisms of inanimate objects. 

Kits, models, model building, is both a hobby and an art. People are going to comment on it. 

That's what discussion forums are for. :thumbsup:


----------



## Carl_G

^ Exactly, open discussion is a good thing. Theres nothing wrong with liking/hating the design. It's the pointless sniping and bitchery that we don't need.


----------



## drmcoy

my post that was quoted was indeed from early on, but i stand by what i said.

earlier in this thread, many comments started drifting into the category of "i think the JJ ship is dumb and the movie is dumb and everything about it is dumb and i hate it."

why everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, i felt this thread was one to celebrate the announcement of the kit and news about the kit and not one to get mired down in the futile bickering of "i hate it/i love it" posts. i've rarely if ever read a single post like that which had any considered thought or logic behind it, and i see little sense in any discussion that is essentially people finding new ways to say they hate it.

i could continue to explain this in more detail, but would prefer to keep those discussions to PMs or a separate thread, as the purpose for this thread is to share news about the new kit...which my post here is obviously NOT doing.

but as the subject was brought up again recently, i thought it necessary to explain to others reading that there is indeed a time and place for the welcome discussion of opinion regarding the appreciation (or lack thereof) for the new ship design -- but unless moderators feel differently, i don't think this thread is one of them.


----------



## Carl_G

Thing is, we don't actually have any new info to talk about, so it's kind of the nature of the interwebs that the conversation starts to wander off course until we have some new news to chew on.


----------



## drmcoy

i respectfully submit, Carl, that such discussions should take place in another thread or perhaps you could start your own. but hey, i'm not running the show here, so i imagine people can post whatever they wish until a moderator says otherwise.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Marco Scheloske said:


> Source: Panzer-modelle.de



























Larger versions @flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/sets/72157632671951387/with/8439929574/


----------



## RSN

The profile shot looks really nice!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

I wish I could see the top of the saucer
This screams for painting templates


----------



## Fozzie

They should hire Jim Small to paint their display pieces...

While I'm not a fan of the design, I'm interested to see what people do with this model and I'm glad that it is going to be made available.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

drmcoy said:


> my post that was quoted was indeed from early on, but i stand by what i said.
> 
> earlier in this thread, many comments started drifting into the category of "i think the JJ ship is dumb and the movie is dumb and everything about it is dumb and i hate it."


I did figure it was an earlier post.

I see it all the time where the conversation has gotten very reasonable and social and something is picked up from an earlier rough patch and the unreasonablenous starts again. 

That was the point I was attempting to make. 

I don't feel anyone's being too unreasonable as of late.



drmcoy said:


> why everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, i felt this thread was one to celebrate the announcement of the kit and news about the kit and not one to get mired down in the futile bickering of "i hate it/i love it" posts.


"Celebration?"

I've never seen that test applied to posts within a thread.

I've seen tons of posts for kits that were almost universally loved, 
but even those had reasonable crticisms and likes and dislikes.

I think starting down the path where threads need to be either "celebrations" or "hate" threads is a slippery slope where every thread would be filled with either sweat praise or bitter vitrole.

But if you need to have a "celebration" thread there is in fact a "I love the JJPrise thread."

I noticed it back there somewhere in the thread posts a few days ago when I was looking for something else.


----------



## jbond

Based on these photos it looks like there won't be an option to have the intercooler fins "deployed" for warp drive, and it also looks like the deflector dish is opaque and will require an aftermarket piece for any attempts to light it up.
I also like the profile shot which is strange because that always seemed the worst angle for this design. I have a feeling I'm going to love this ship by the time I finish building it.


----------



## Zombie_61

jbond said:


> ...I also like the profile shot which is strange because that always seemed the worst angle for this design. I have a feeling I'm going to love this ship by the time I finish building it.


Interesting; I've always thought the profile shot was the _best_ angle for this design. :lol: I almost hate to admit this but, after seeing these photos of the kit, this design is starting to grow on me.

That said, in my opinion the white basecoat is a bit too "bright". This may have been done intentionally to show off the decals (if they _are_ decals), but I think a "light gray" might be a better choice. Otherwise, a few minor decaled/painted details aside, I think it looks pretty much like the ship in the 2009 movie (and, yes, I'm aware this is based on the Enterprise in the upcoming movie, which we haven't really seen yet).


----------



## Marco Scheloske

There seems to be a few changes in the design:

- the warp nacelles are looking a bit shorter than in the 2009 movie

- the angle of the warp pylons seems to be "flatter" than in the 2009 movie, so the nacelles are placed more to the outer rim of the saucer section (like they are on the TOS or the Refit)

Especially the last point is important, as I always thought the close-together-nacelles were a major design flaw.


----------



## Fozzie

The new trailer (Super Bowl ad) just hit the 'net and the ship does appear to be whiter in color than I remember it being in the first movie. Could just be the particular shot, of course.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Richard Baker said:


> I guess that settles the speculation about the exterior design being 'adjusted' for the new movie...





Fozzie said:


> The new trailer (Super Bowl ad) just hit the 'net ...


Spoiler?
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4445111&postcount=66


----------



## Zombie_61

Marco Scheloske said:


> There seems to be a few changes in the design:
> 
> - the warp nacelles are looking a bit shorter than in the 2009 movie


I thought that as well. Unfortunately, at this point we can't know if it's a design change on the ship in the upcoming movie, present only on the kit, or an optical illusion created by the camera/photography.



Marco Scheloske said:


> - the angle of the warp pylons seems to be "flatter" than in the 2009 movie, so the nacelles are placed more to the outer rim of the saucer section (like they are on the TOS or the Refit)
> 
> Especially the last point is important, as I always thought the close-together-nacelles were a major design flaw.


I also think the basic design looks better with the nacelles positioned more outboard, i.e. further apart. I've compared the few photos of the kit with shots of the CGI ship from the 2009 movie. It's difficult to determine from the angle of the photos of the kit, and I'm far from being an expert, but I don't see much of a difference, if any.



chiangkaishecky said:


> Spoiler?
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4445111&postcount=66


Well, that brief shot of the JJPrise pretty much puts to rest any speculation on the positioning of the nacelles.


----------



## MLCrisis32

chiangkaishecky said:


> Spoiler?
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4445111&postcount=66


You beat me to it! I Well apparently if you hated the design this leaves room for a redesign already.


----------



## RSN

Plenty of letters left in the alphabet! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever

Well folks, someone out there in Star Trek land doesn't like you new Trek fans of The J.J. Prise.

*It's Official ,* Steve at Cult TV Man just passed the news along that the Revell Germany kit of the new Trek Enterprise *WILL NOT *be available for sale in the USA. It is intended *ONLY* for the European market.

Better start making some friends overseas who can purchase and ship you one,.......they're going to be scarce as Hen's Teeth !


----------



## PixelMagic

Where did you find that new attached image of the model? It's a bit tiny, is there a bigger version?


----------



## RSN

Ductapeforever said:


> Well folks, someone out there in Star Trek land doesn't like you new Trek fans of The J.J. Prise.
> 
> It's Official , Steve at Cult TV Man just passed the news along that the Revell Germany kit of the new Trek Enterprise *WILL NOT *be available for sale in the USA. It is intended *ONLY* for the European market.
> 
> Better start making some friends overseas who can purchase and ship you one,.......they're going to be scarce as Hen's Teeth !


I don't believe in a "No Win" scenario!


----------



## Ductapeforever

PixelMagic said:


> Where did you find that new attached image of the model? It's a bit tiny, is there a bigger version?


I screwed with it some, biggest I could get it. Enjoy,.......it maybe the closest we'll ever get to one !


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Ductapeforever said:


> Well folks, someone out there in Star Trek land doesn't like you new Trek fans of The J.J. Prise.
> 
> *It's Official ,* Steve at Cult TV Man just passed the news along that the Revell Germany kit of the new Trek Enterprise *WILL NOT *be available for sale in the USA. It is intended *ONLY* for the European market.
> 
> Better start making some friends overseas who can purchase and ship you one,.......they're going to be scarce as Hen's Teeth !



There are lots of ways to get around that.
Most easily via Ebay.

A big percentage of the cost will be shipping, so if you really really like the design buy a case of 6 or so in one shot.


----------



## Ductapeforever

If you really can't live with yourself without one, I guess the scalpers on evilbay is the only option. They'll rape you on the cost of the kit and nail you again on the shipping.

I don't have to remind you UPS just raised their International rates, almost double what they were asking.


----------



## PixelMagic

Ductapeforever said:


> I screwed with it some, biggest I could get it. Enjoy,.......it maybe the closest we'll ever get to one !


I'm saying, where did you get this picture? Where did you find it? If you did not take it, what website did you see it on?


----------



## RSN

There are always possibilities.
I use *EBAY* all the time, it is a great way to get what you want if you can't find it in a store. A very useful tool!
We are big boys, we can judge for ourselves what to do and how to spend our money! :thumbsup:


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Cult didn't carry the Revell TOS E and Klingon -- both of which are also *ONLY* for the European market
SSM did
http://starshipmodeler.biz/shop/index.cfm/category/147/trek-full-kits---other-scales.cfm
No doubt, anyway ya slice it, it's gonna be pricey.


----------



## Proper2

Ductapeforever said:


> Well folks, someone out there in Star Trek land doesn't like you new Trek fans of The J.J. Prise.
> 
> *It's Official ,* Steve at Cult TV Man just passed the news along that the Revell Germany kit of the new Trek Enterprise *WILL NOT *be available for sale in the USA. It is intended *ONLY* for the European market.
> 
> Better start making some friends overseas who can purchase and ship you one,.......they're going to be scarce as Hen's Teeth !


Where there's EBAY there's a way. :wave:


----------



## drmcoy

i will make every effort to order this thru a model/hobby shop, but if anyone here can get a case and needs someone to go in with them, give me a shout.


----------



## jbond

I will have one...I swear it...


----------



## Captain April

Did they actually fix the stand for this one?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

chiangkaishecky said:


> Spoiler?
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4445111&postcount=66


Hm... with that much damage to the JJprise in that trailer I'ld say there is hope for a "JJprise refit" for a third movie...


----------



## aeryn43

Well for once I'm glad I live in the UK!..
After having to pay through the nose for Moebius kits (even at sale prices still dearer than the US) it will be nice to grab this kit...perhaps maybe even possible to send the odd one out to you guys...anyone up for bartering!...


----------



## drmcoy

aeryn43 said:


> Well for once I'm glad I live in the UK!..
> After having to pay through the nose for Moebius kits (even at sale prices still dearer than the US) it will be nice to grab this kit...perhaps maybe even possible to send the odd one out to you guys...anyone up for bartering!...


i'm up for bartering!


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Marco Scheloske said:


> Source: Panzer-modelle.de





chiangkaishecky said:


> Larger versions @flickr
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/sets/72157632671951387/with/8439929574/


Another pic










*edit*

Larger(?) version of pic discovered by ductapeforever


----------



## Prowler901

Something doesn't seem right about the angle of the nacelles. Seems to high.


----------



## jbond

I agree; looks like the nacelles are tilting up from the rear. Kind of the opposite of the QMX replica where they are sagging DOWN from the rear. I know this ship has some weird lines but schematics of it do show that the disc, engineering hull and nacelles ARE aligned straight. That's going to be an ugly fix to make if that's the way the model elements are aligned.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

jbond said:


> I agree; looks like the nacelles are tilting up from the rear. Kind of the opposite of the QMX replica where they are sagging DOWN from the rear. I know this ship has some weird lines but schematics of it do show that the disc, engineering hull and nacelles ARE aligned straight. That's going to be an ugly fix to make if that's the way the model elements are aligned.


as this point I'm just happy someone is making a model kit of it.


----------



## RSN

I think by now we all know that when a prototype or a build up is done quickly to display at a show, it is often done in a hurry. Round 2's enterprise was like this at shows! I am sure that in the hands of modelers with time on their hands it will look better than the images released! :thumbsup:


----------



## Jodet

It's not a good design, but thats a nice looking model. 

I'll buy one if it doesn't cost a fortune to get via EBAY.UK.


----------



## jbond

I'm happy to have the model and I'm not going to gripe about it. I think the nacelles do "lean forward" slightly as an aspect of the design, I'd just like to see them leaning forward a bit less on the model--but I'll wait until I'm building it to see about that...


----------



## Wolvster

My guess would be just a hasty build for the show..

Overall it's a pretty good match to the CGI... :thumbsup:


----------



## PixelMagic

Wolvster said:


> My guess would be just a hasty build for the show..
> 
> Overall it's a pretty good match to the CGI... :thumbsup:


Where did you find that CGI render?


----------



## Zombie_61

Prowler901 said:


> Something doesn't seem right about the angle of the nacelles. Seems to high.


Both the nacelles _and_ the primary hull are angled on that build-up--the nacelles angle upward towards aft, the primary hull angles upward towards fore:










Assuming that schematic is accurate, the centerline of the nacelles, the primary hull, and secondary hull should all be level like the green lines; clearly, they're not. I hope this is just an oversight on this particular build-up, and that the actual kits won't be like this.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Zombie_61 said:


> I hope this is just an oversight on this particular build-up, and that the actual kits won't be like this.


There is hope - this build-up is a "quick and dirty" one to have something to show on the toy fair. It is made from grown 3D-parts, NOT from a testshot of the kit.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

According to poster hugescale @SSM model designed for ease of lighting
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=104207&start=94


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Zombie_61 said:


> Both the nacelles _and_ the primary hull are angled on that build-up--the nacelles angle upward towards aft, the primary hull angles upward towards fore:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that schematic is accurate, the centerline of the nacelles, the primary hull, and secondary hull should all be level like the green lines; clearly, they're not. I hope this is just an oversight on this particular build-up, and that the actual kits won't be like this.


You know, the nacelles don't look to be _that _much "off" from the illustration. the decal stripe is way too high in the back and that is compounding the illusion. the actual pitch is within what you could expect if there was any wiggle room in the pocket the nacelle connects to. 

I'd chaulk it up to it being a rush job for the show, and not a truely fair representation of the actual kit's potential


----------



## Wolvster

PixelMagic said:


> Where did you find that CGI render?


I made it.... 

I'm the one that made the pattern for
the QMX JJPrise model, so I had to have the mesh to do that...

I only loaded up this one shot so people could use it as
a reference to the side shot of the mock up....


----------



## PixelMagic

Wolvster said:


> I only loaded up this one shot so people could use it as a reference to the side shot of the mock up....



Oh. I ask because I am building a CG model of the JJprise for fun, and I am lacking accurate orthos because no one has released official schematics of the ship unfortunately. 

My progress below...





















Marco Scheloske said:


> There is hope - this build-up is a "quick and dirty" one to have something to show on the toy fair. It is made from grown 3D-parts, NOT from a testshot of the kit.


If that is the case, I take it this model will be fashioned referencing the CG model supplied by ILM? If so, that is good news, because the kit will be very accurate.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

PixelMagic said:


> If that is the case, I take it this model will be fashioned referencing the CG model supplied by ILM?


Maybe, maybe not.

The Revell TOS Enterprise protoype, for example, which was shown on toy fairs before the model has been released, was a 3D print, also. Is the final kit accurate? :freak:


----------



## PixelMagic

Hmm, I never saw the prototype. Also, on this prototype at least, the panel lines feel the right scale. On so many starship models, especially Revell's Voyager, the panel lines are huge trenches instead of subtle lines. Fine Molds does an excellent job with panel lines on their Star Wars kids, so I am hoping for the same from Revell.


----------



## Wolvster

PixelMagic said:


> Oh. I ask because I am building a CG model of the JJprise for fun, and I am lacking accurate orthos because no one has released official schematics of the ship unfortunately.



Your doing a pretty good job... :thumbsup:

WORST part of the ship is getting the Nacelles correct,
they have an " odd " taper too them front to back and
it's tricky to get correct !

One thing I'm curious about too with the Revell kit
is if the interior to the Nacelles will be there ?

Namely the interior housings for the FAN BLADES ?


----------



## PixelMagic

Wolvster said:


> One thing I'm curious about too with the Revell kit
> is if the interior to the Nacelles will be there ?
> 
> Namely the interior housings for the FAN BLADES?


If you look at the front view of the model pics, you can see a peg hole inside the bussard collector. I suspect this is where the fan blades would connect to, but Revell didn't have enough time to fashion them for the show.


----------



## jbond

Anyone know if the deflector part will be clear? On the mockup it looks opaque with decaled detail...


----------



## Zombie_61

Wolvster said:


> ...One thing I'm curious about too with the Revell kit
> is if the interior to the Nacelles will be there ?
> 
> Namely the interior housings for the FAN BLADES ?


Did the JJPrise _have_ fan blades in the Bussard Collectors? It's been a while since I've watched the movie and I don't remember.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Hi Folks, I talked to Revell USA yesterday about the J.J. Abrams Enterprise model kit being sold here in the U.S. Revell said they won't be selling it here due to licensing issues. Round 2 holds the Star Trek license for the U.S. and give Round 2 credit. They have done alot for Star Trek. You'll have to buy it on ebay or order it from overseas. Thats how I got the Revell Enterprise and Klingon and thats how I'll have to get this model when its released. Revell did say they'd love to have it but its all about licensing.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Zombie_61 said:


> Did the JJPrise _have_ fan blades in the Bussard Collectors? It's been a while since I've watched the movie and I don't remember.






Jump to the relevant bit below @50sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sYMmLCMAJas#t=50s


----------



## Wolvster

Zombie_61 said:


> Did the JJPrise _have_ fan blades in the Bussard Collectors? It's been a while since I've watched the movie and I don't remember.


When I get some free time I'll see about posting
a few reference renders.. But yes, there's two sets of
" fan blades " in each Nacelle housing stacked onto each
other.

When I get some time to load up the mesh I'll take 
a few screen grabs...


----------



## Zombie_61

Wolvster said:


> When I get some free time I'll see about posting
> a few reference renders.. But yes, there's two sets of
> " fan blades " in each Nacelle housing stacked onto each
> other.
> 
> When I get some time to load up the mesh I'll take
> a few screen grabs...


No need to go to all that trouble, unless you really want to. You and Chiangkaishecky both say they're there, that's good enough for me. Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Wolvster said:


> When I get some free time I'll see about posting
> a few reference renders.. But yes, there's two sets of
> " fan blades " in each Nacelle housing stacked onto each
> other.
> 
> When I get some time to load up the mesh I'll take
> a few screen grabs...


I have no doubt they are there either,

But I'd still like to see some screengrabs.

The version I have of the movie
is not so hot for getting sharp stills / screengrabs. 

It's a detail that totally got by me while watching the movie.

Especially interested in seeing what you mean by stacked. 

Any feature shared even tangetially with the TOS design I'd love to see more about. 

Thanks in advance if you can find the time to do them!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

looky here

google is your friend


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Lou Dalmaso said:


> looky here
> 
> google is your friend



Wow. 

Had to run it through Photoshop, which is why I probably never noticed 
what I guess was intended to be a spinning TOS-like nacelle effect before,

but that was a great shot, Lou.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

If they applied what looked to be the intended TOS like effect later in the movie they must 
have assigned the spin rate inside the nacelles to run so fast as to make it unnoticible
compared to what was seen in TOS. 

Also, what was the A/B decks under the clear dome on the TOS E is clearly about four decks high now in that shot!

Which, like the shuttlecraft bay makes the ship way larger and out of scale with other f/x shots in the movie.


----------



## PixelMagic

You can see the spinning blade effect in this shot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAKiWvjfCiQ#&t=1m07s


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PixelMagic said:


> You can see the spinning blade effect in this shot...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAKiWvjfCiQ#&t=1m07s


You're absolutely right!

Very dark and subtle, but it's there.

Thanks for the link! :thumbsup:


----------



## PixelMagic

Topside.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Marco Scheloske said:


> Source: Panzer-modelle.de





chiangkaishecky said:


> Larger versions @flickr
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/sets/72157632671951387/with/8439929574/
> 
> Another pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *edit*
> 
> Larger(?) version of pic discovered by ductapeforever


Another (albeit small) pic (via Trekmovie)










*edit*


PixelMagic said:


>


----------



## Carl_G

I just had a thought... maybe when the kit comes out, some people could build it with a silvery-grey TOS style paintjob, closer to Ryan Church's original concept art:

http://tinyurl.com/avyd7wd 

And if they were really _daring_, they could try to emulate that "lit from within" effect on the warp engines:

http://tinyurl.com/avdr3e9


----------



## chiangkaishecky

very brief video glimpse (@16 sec) from Nuremburg


----------



## Zombie_61

This just in: Due to the size of the JJPrise's "ample" nacelles, the registry will be changed to NCC-1701-DD.


----------



## StarshipClass

Zombie_61 said:


> This just in: Due to the size of the JJPrise's "ample" nacelles, the registry will be changed to NCC-1701-DD.


:roll:

It's what I've said from early on: they've made the old girl more effeminate looking in the design.


----------



## RSN

Zombie_61 said:


> This just in: Due to the size of the JJPrise's "ample" nacelles, the registry will be changed to NCC-1701-DD.


I challenge someone to build one and name her the "U.S.S. Parton" "NCC-1740-DD" (Yes, I looked it up!)
I will buy you a dinner, off the value menu, if you get to it before me!


----------



## Zombie_61

RSN said:


> I challenge someone to build one and name her the "U.S.S. Parton" "NCC-1740-DD" (Yes, I looked it up!)


D'oh! I wish I'd thought of that! But then, I stole that "DD" joke from someone on The RPF, so I guess that makes me a complete and utter...boob.


----------



## RSN

Zombie_61 said:


> D'oh! I wish I'd thought of that! But then, I stole that "DD" joke from someone on The RPF, so I guess that makes me a complete and utter...boob.


No, I give you full credit for the idea, I just "fleshed" it out a bit for you!


----------



## Carl_G

These complaints just make you guys look like a bunch of boobs.


----------



## Jodet

I was just out to the Revell Germany site, they make it very easy to order kits from the U.S. 

I'll order two of these as soon as they're available. I think they said May.


----------



## Zombie_61

Thank you for keeping us abreast of the situation, Jodet!

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. 

But seriously, if they're willing to ship to the U.S. that's at least one way for those of us here in 'Murica to get the kit. Probably not the _least expensive_ way, but...


----------



## eradicator178

The description card in the back ground states it is 588 mm which is 1.92 feet in length. If someone already posted that forgive me I didn't read all the post. Can't wait to get my grubby little mitts on this.


----------



## Carl_G

Zombie_61 said:


> Thank you for keeping us abreast of the situation, Jodet!
> 
> I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.


It certainly made me titter.


----------



## Zombie_61

Carl_G said:


> It certainly made me titter.


Heyooooo!!! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Carl_G said:


> These complaints just make you guys look like a bunch of boobs.



Can I have mine with sprinkles? :tongue:

Hold the glitter please!


----------



## RSN

Anyone building this kit will most certainly have their .........hands full!!!


----------



## mach7

Those nacelles will have to be stacked carefully. Those puppies are like a couple of huge headlights!

Tata for now.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

have we milked this joke enough yet?


----------



## RSN

Lou Dalmaso said:


> have we milked this joke enough yet?


I think we have now........I tip my hat to you!! :thumbsup:


----------



## PixelMagic

Lou Dalmaso said:


> have we milked this joke enough yet?


I do believe so. Every time this thread is bumped I come back and go "oh cool, more news" and then it's just some middle school level tit joke.


----------



## Carl_G

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Can I have mine with sprinkles? :tongue:
> 
> Hold the glitter please!


No spinkles, but it does come with a pair of tassels you can glue to the nacelle spikes...


----------



## spock62

Jodet said:


> I was just out to the Revell Germany site, they make it very easy to order kits from the U.S.
> 
> I'll order two of these as soon as they're available. I think they said May.


Where did you find this on their site? I must have missed it, but I looked and didn't see anything that allows you to order their kits and have them shipped to the US.


----------



## electric indigo

And now the really important news:


----------



## Captain April

:freak:


----------



## Carl_G

Knock-off Legos... *shudder* I'll shell out for the Revell kit, thanks very much


----------



## Jodet

spock62 said:


> Where did you find this on their site? I must have missed it, but I looked and didn't see anything that allows you to order their kits and have them shipped to the US.



Damn. Now I can't find it anywhere. What a PITA. 

Sorry, I've looked and looked. But there was a German website where you could put stuff in your basket and then ship it to the U.S. I WAS THERE. 

I feel like that guy from 'The Invaders'. I SAW IT, REALLY.


----------



## charonjr

David Vincent....wait I was told I was crazy to think he existed....


----------



## technabob

For those of you looking for a place to pre-order one, try here:

www(dot)modellbau-insel(dot)de/neuheiten-2013-/star-clone-wars/1907/revell-04882-u.s.s.-enterprise-ncc-1701-film-12-1-500

They have a May 31 release date listed, and accept PayPal.
I'm not sure if they ship stateside or not, as I didn't want to pay for one to find out.


----------



## drmcoy

thanks, technabob -- this is about what the TOS Revell Germany models cost, no?


----------



## Zombie_61

drmcoy said:


> thanks, technabob -- this is about what the TOS Revell Germany models cost, no?


No, it's about getting the upcoming Revell "JJPrise" kit here in the U.S....or how to get the kit here in the U.S....or whether or not we'll be able to get the kit here in the U.S....or...uhhh...what was the question?


----------



## drmcoy

i think you misunderstood -- somebody listed price to buy them as a pre-order item from a German online company, and the euro conversion works out to be about $40, which is what the other already-released TOS Revell Germany Enterprise and Klingon kits cost -- about $40 each to get them and have them sent to US.

that said, i'll spend $40 to get one of that's the only way to get one...but if someone sells them in US for less, then sure, i'll get it in US.

but to date, nobody knows if anyone in US will be selling these...and even if they do, if price is comparable, seems like one would just go ahead and order from Germany, no?

of course, now that i went back and re-read technobob's post. his concern is not over price, but whether or not the company will even SHIP it to USA...his concern must have been over pre-ordering and paying for a model kit that they might not even ship to him as he lives in US.


----------



## Trek Ace

I've had great success ordering from Hannants in the UK. First-rate prices, shipping and delivery.

Update:

Direct link: http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/RV4882


----------



## Zombie_61

drmcoy said:


> i think you misunderstood...


Probably. But the more recent dialogue has been about how modelers here in the U.S. might be able to get the kit in light of the fact that it's been licensed for sale only in the European market, so I was proceeding with that thought in mind. As for the cost of doing so, I'm sure every U.S. modeler that wants one would prefer to pay as little as possible, but mark-ups, currency exchange rates, shipping fees, and/or import fees might just put this particular kit out-of-reach for some of us regardless of what Revell's MSRP will be.


----------



## Richard Baker

It depends on the distributors the seller uses to stock with. My local hobby store can get the 'European Only' models through some of his and he really tries to keep his shelves full- one reason I pay more to buy from him than a few bucks online.
The Starship Modeler site's online store sells the Revell-Germany TOS kits and I am sure they will also have this one as well.


----------



## checksum

hmmm,
lets see. Someone is making a kit for a US-English based movie/franchise, and they think aww heck. Let's only release it everywhere except the home market.
What set of geniuses thought this was a great idea? 
It would be like releasing a rugby ball for sale only in the USA...


----------



## sunburn800

Richard when was the last time you were at Homewood toy and hobbie?Cathy was just there just last week and said there very few models on the shelfs. Have they started to close out the model section?


----------



## Zombie_61

checksum said:


> hmmm, lets see. Someone is making a kit for a US-English based movie/franchise, and they think aww heck. Let's only release it everywhere except the home market.
> What set of geniuses thought this was a great idea?


Lawyers. It's all about licensing and contracts.

Speaking of which, considering Round 2 was planning to release their version of this kit (before they decided to postpone or cancel the project) I'm wondering if their agreement with Paramount (or whoever) might have had something to do with the reason another U.S. company hasn't attempted to produce this kit for the U.S. market. Or perhaps they had, and research revealed there wouldn't be enough interest; I've heard a lot of _Star Trek '09_ merchandising didn't sell very well.


----------



## Captain April

JJTrek merchandizing has been an unmitigated disaster, with not an undue amount of the blame going to JJ himself and his intention of maintaining an iron grip on every aspect.


----------



## Zombie_61

Captain April said:


> JJTrek merchandizing has been an unmitigated disaster, with not an undue amount of the blame going to JJ himself and his intention of maintaining an iron grip on every aspect.


He's just angry because they couldn't figure out how to have the merchandise, in whatever form it took, come with it's own lens flares.


----------



## Captain April

That might explain yanking the plug on four tie-in novels that has already been written, paid for, promoted, and just a month away from hitting the shelves, that would've almost assuredly been very good sellers. Suffice it to say, Pocket Books wasn't amused at having to eat all those books.

As for the toys, from what I can tell, about the only decent sellers were the phaser and the Enterprise, and even then, not exactly big enough to write home about. I'm still seeing various action figures wasting away at Big Lots.


----------



## StarshipClass

PixelMagic said:


> You can see the spinning blade effect in this shot...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAKiWvjfCiQ#&t=1m07s



I'M BLIND! Even the exterior of the ship burned my retinas!


Do the nacelle fans look steampunk to anyone else or is it just me?


Great voice-over by Leonard Nimoy. I have always liked his version of the "Where no man has gone before " speech from the end of ST II.


----------



## Carl_G

^Leonard Nimoy could bring gravitas to my grocery list. 

I can sort of see it. Maybe it's because the spokes are curved, and there seems to be multiple layers rotating in opposite directions from each other. It's kind of like a cross between steamship propellors and an orrery.


----------



## StarshipClass

Carl_G said:


> ^Leonard Nimoy could bring gravitas to my grocery list.


:roll:


----------



## TrekFX

Carl_G said:


> ^Leonard Nimoy could bring gravitas to my grocery list.


In which aisle would I find the gravitas? I have a recipe that calls for it....


----------



## Carl_G

It's on the opposite side of the grocery store from the ham.


----------



## Zombie_61

^ Ohhh, _very_ well played, good Sir! :thumbsup:


----------



## publiusr

Ken Nordine has a good voice too.


----------



## Ductapeforever

You guys might want to keep in mind the International Shipping rates recently almost doubled ! Which when added to the kit price, and any Customs fees or value added tax , could put this thing in the Eighty to One Hundred Dollar range. We won't know till it's out.


----------



## PixelMagic

Every time I come to this thread thinking there's an update because of a new post, it's just someone making a lame joke.


----------



## Captain April

This just in, the JJprise still sucks.

Film at 11.


----------



## Carl_G

You have a whole thread to b***h and moan about it. Go post there.


----------



## PixelMagic

Carl_G said:


> You have a whole thread to b***h and moan about it. Go post there.


Really.


----------



## jbond

One thread to bitch and moan on just isn't enough for some people...


----------



## Captain April

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1hcc1QvM2Q


----------



## Ductapeforever

Come on guys, don't get yet another thread locked by the overlords.


----------



## TrekFX

Ductapeforever said:


> Come on guys, don't get yet another thread locked by the overlords.


There are other methods of cleaning our sandbox...


----------



## Griffworks

I've tried to be understanding of people and their opinions, and really don't like having to drop the hammer down. However, when people can't Play Well With Others, and insist on Trolling... That's where I draw the line for the good of the forum. 

So, I'm going to remind everyone again - you've got your thread that I've allowed you all to bash not only the "J.J.Prise", but the man and movie, as well. Keep it in there! I'm done coddling people's ego's.


----------



## beeblebrox

They say the J.J.prise is coming. Don't believe it myself.


----------



## Carl_G

Well, Polar Lights teased us a couple years back, but it looks like Revell might just come through... At least they managed to churn out a prototype so that's something, right?


----------



## Zombie_61

Carl_G said:


> Well, Polar Lights teased us a couple years back, but it looks like Revell might just come through... At least they managed to churn out a prototype so that's something, right?


As was stated way back in post #437, the prototype was 3D printed and was not a test shot. Also, didn't some photos of Round 2's test shot surface before they pulled the plug? I'm not mentioning this to be negative, but merely as a reminder that anything can happen between now and the time the kits hit the European shelves. _But_, I believe Revell of Germany will come through; I just hope I won't have to sell a kidney to get one. :lol:


----------



## Wattanasiri

Griffworks said:


> I've tried to be understanding of people and their opinions, and really don't like having to drop the hammer down. However, when people can't Play Well With Others, and insist on Trolling... That's where I draw the line for the good of the forum.
> 
> So, I'm going to remind everyone again - you've got your thread that I've allowed you all to bash not only the "J.J.Prise", but the man and movie, as well. Keep it in there! I'm done coddling people's ego's.


Very much appreciated.

Many have wanted this model since the first movie came out in 2009. Love it, like it or hate it; to each their own. Regardless, when this model does become available, many model builders will have the opportunity to assemble it with or without added features each builder chooses. That is what model building is all about...the joy of creating each of our versions of any given model along with satisfying our curiosities from learning about what the "other builders" are creating for their versions. I anticipate some very creative versions of this models.

To someone who spends most of his time on this web site doing more learning than posting, it seems the excitement of constructing models and being creative gets lost because some people choose to make negative posts about something or someone instead of either saying nothing or saying something as simple and deserved "Good idea" or "Nicely done" or "Please explain how you did that?". Old rule that works all the time: If you have nothing nice to say; show wisdom by saying nothing.

I see my soap box time has expired. Good day to everyone.


----------



## StarshipClass

As much as I dislike the ship design, I hope those who want it get their model kit of it. I feel your pain. In the past there have been other deserving ships that took forever to come out and then there have been Kazon torpedo and Scorpion model kits that hit the shelves instead :freak: Every other major 1701 ship design has come out in kit form and I was surprised they didn't come out with this one in 2009.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

eradicator178 said:


> Has anyone heard if the Revell/Germany JJ-Prise has been released yet?





Revell Germany said:


> *Mai 2013*





eradicator178 said:


> If so where can I order one?


Maybe after it's released there'll be more solid info


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Test shots @dpmv.de

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/u-s-s-enterprise-ncc-1701-into-darkness/2013/



dpmv.de via google translate said:


> Time for the start of the 12th Star Trek movie "Into Darkness" Revell brings the "new" old USS Enterprise also the perfect model in 1:500 scale on the market. Here we present the final test shot that was provided to us by Revell kindly ...
> 
> First here are the facts:
> 
> The kit consists of 8 Spray frame with a total of 89 components. Including 46 components are contained in clear parts. Also 5 components for a display stand are provided.
> 
> The saucer has. Diameter of 27.5 cm, the secondary hull has a length of about 23 cm and each Warpgondel is about 30 cm long
> 
> But before we continue with the text we have here first rather "talk" to the pictures:


----------



## chiangkaishecky




----------



## chiangkaishecky




----------



## chiangkaishecky




----------



## chiangkaishecky




----------



## Guy Schlicter

chiangkaishecky said:


>


It looks fantastic. I can't wait!!!


----------



## WarpCore Breach

That's amazing!! It looks to be well-engineered. I like how the pylon undersides are molded as part of the secondary hull; that'll eliminate a major seam as well as keeping engine alignment.

Only other comment from me right now is that the impulse engine should have been molded in clear.


----------



## Trek Ace

I agree about the impulse engine being in clear.

The size looks to be the same as the AMT Refit and the Cutaway. Should make for some interesting kit bashes.


----------



## StarshipClass

Looks to be well-engineered. Not quite up to the level R2 had in the works but still very impressive. I am happy for those who've been wanting this kit. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall

If I like the movie more than the first one I will be sorely tempted to get this kit.
If not...
I still have my Playmates toy.


----------



## Jodet

Detail looks a little soft. I guess we'll see in May.


----------



## Chrisisall

Jodet said:


> Detail looks a little soft.


Cheap camera-?


----------



## RMC

*jj prise*

I agree !,....looks to be very very crisp in detail !



Trek Ace said:


> I agree about the impulse engine being in clear.
> 
> The size looks to be the same as the AMT Refit and the Cutaway. Should make for some interesting kit bashes.


----------



## secretreeve

looks like a relatively discreet stand too, in how it fixes to the ship i mean.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Aaugh. Even though I've let my feelings be known about the ship in another thread, I'm finding myself sorely tempted to get one of these! The kit itself is looking like it might be quite well done! Hope those of you who really wanted this can get one without paying an arm and a leg!


----------



## chiangkaishecky

chiangkaishecky said:


>


No in-warp configuration


----------



## secretreeve

chiangkaishecky said:


> No in-warp configuration


its called an exacto, imagination, poly cement and ingenuity


----------



## Chrisisall

secretreeve said:


> its called an exacto, imagination, poly cement and ingenuity


And a degree of intrepidity.


----------



## secretreeve

or stupidity.

either way, i think a little of both is a good thing, but it will be no big deal for anyone who has one the large scale enterprise models, or AMT's defiant/reliant kits.

its a relatively minor modification given what has to be done


----------



## Chrisisall

At least it requires no ledgerdemain...


----------



## secretreeve

Chrisisall said:


> At least it requires no ledgerdemain...


okay thats twice in as many posts you've used words i had to google. not funny mr!

but yes, it'll be a straight forward build, even if people choose to light the JJprise.

Although the bussards will pose a challenge to the motorisors out there.


----------



## Zombie_61

I'm hoping the styrene is either thicker than it looks or is somehow reinforced on the secondary hull pieces where the pylons meet the hull (the spot I've indicated here: ).










Even with the interior pylon/upper secondary hull piece providing extra support, it seems like that corner could potentially crack from supporting the weight of the warp engines over time. I guess we'll find out eventually.


----------



## secretreeve

there was a spot like that on my revell voyager, the styrene was thicker in that area. i'm willing to bet it'll hold for as long as the model is looked after.


----------



## Zombie_61

You're probably right. It's just that at my last place of employment we heat treated steel and steel alloy parts, primarily for the aerospace industry, and I was trained/conditioned to look for problem spots like this that could become very costly to the company and our customers; old habits die hard.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

chiangkaishecky said:


> No in-warp configuration





secretreeve said:


> its called an exacto, imagination, poly cement and ingenuity


...or inevitable aftermarket resin just like the impulse grille and just like the grille, it would've been nice ... no hate from me.
Also an alternate deflector config isn't included either(?)
Personally, I think the moving parts are self indulgence on Guyett's part but they're canon.



Zombie_61 said:


>


The flipside looks like that corner is almost a very shallow quarter cylinder








The secondary hull bottom insert runs beneath that section too


----------



## jbond

This looks amazingly good--I never expected the warp-positioned parts so that's no big disappointment, but considering all the other clear parts it is odd they didn't do the impulse vents. Otherwise though I can't wait for this...


----------



## secretreeve

RE the impulse engines,

When i lit my voyager, i drilled out the impulse engines and get this awesome "grill" effect what a vertical surface is behind it.

With some careful drilling with a .5mm bit (i got a few lol) and use of new pointed scalpel blades and fine files, i dont think the impulse engines will be too hard to get sorted.

wack some micro krystal clear in the cut outs and job done.

at least with this model, all the windows dont need to be cut out individually cutting down on the work involved to light it up.

guess i'll start R&D on a lighting kit for it.


----------



## jbond

I'm really impressed they opened up the vents underneath the upper "cowls" on the warp engines for lighting--I remember looking at that detail in the theater and thinking a model kit would never include that.


----------



## Chrisisall

jbond said:


> I'm really impressed they opened up the vents underneath the upper "cowls" on the warp engines for lighting--I remember looking at that detail in the theater and thinking a model kit would never include that.


Yeah, that's nice. Great detail.


----------



## ClubTepes

Trek Ace said:


> I agree about the impulse engine being in clear.
> 
> The size looks to be the same as the AMT Refit and the Cutaway. Should make for some interesting kit bashes.


I agree about the kit bashing.
I've already got something in mind.

Warm up the glues and the saws.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

chiangkaishecky said:


>


Did this start with their TOS E?
PL also managed to have portholes on the 1/350 TOS saucer sides without resorting to separate sidewalls.


----------



## SocrManiac

Looks like they're using lifters. Another old molding technology finally making it into the modeling industry- it's nice to see.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Some promotional pix courtesy of scifipulse
http://scifipulse.net/2013/04/82053/


----------



## Chrisisall

Please don't tempt me....


----------



## spock62

Looks good to me. Hopefully, someone in the states will carry this.


----------



## secretreeve

looks like there will be alot of seam filling though


----------



## TrekFX

Being new tooling from Revell of Germany, I would think that things should fit pretty well. I'm constantly surprised at how well the Round 2 1/350 TOS E fits together (or is at least supposed to when parts aren't warped or otherwise compromised during molding!) so I would expect a comparable quality.


----------



## PixelMagic

Those pictures aren't even of the final kit. They look to be of the 3D prototype they quickly built for the model show a few months back.


----------



## electric indigo

spock62 said:


> Looks good to me. Hopefully, someone in the states will carry this.


As an alternative, you can order it from Japan:

http://www.hlj.com/product/REVGR04882/Sci

Just noticed they also have the Moebius Classic Galactica and Viper with a July release date.


----------



## WOI

JJ Abrams made the biggest mistake of his when he hired Ryan Church to redesign the Enterprise and the whole Star Trek Universe.I am not a very
big fan of the JJPrise when they did the reboot of the whole franchise.
That thing is an over-styled parody of what the Enterprise should really
look like.

Let's face it,everybody especially in today's Hollywood hates the beauty
and grace of the Classics,nobody wants to stay close to staying true to them
anymore.


----------



## Carl_G

^There's an entire thread for meaningful contributions like this, you know...
:beatdeadhorse:

(I can't believe we have that smiley, you guys plan for everything. )


----------



## Chrisisall

Carl_G said:


> ^There's an entire thread for meaningful contributions like this, you know...
> :beatdeadhorse:


Anyone here plan to do this model with any heavy mods?


----------



## Griffworks

WOI said:


> JJ Abrams made the biggest mistake of his when he hired Ryan Church to redesign the Enterprise and the whole Star Trek Universe.I am not a very
> big fan of the JJPrise when they did the reboot of the whole franchise.
> That thing is an over-styled parody of what the Enterprise should really
> look like.
> 
> Let's face it,everybody especially in today's Hollywood hates the beauty
> and grace of the Classics,nobody wants to stay close to staying true to them
> anymore.





Carl_G said:


> ^There's an entire thread for meaningful contributions like this, you know...
> :beatdeadhorse:


Yes, WOI, use the other thread. This is your only warning. 


> (I can't believe we have that smiley, you guys plan for everything. )


I know, right?!?


----------



## Carl_G

Chrisisall said:


> Anyone here plan to do this model with any heavy mods?


I think I mentioned this a while back, but there's some concept art of the JJprise in warp, and the warp effect sort of makes the back third of the nacelles translucent... I thought I might have a go at that. Also, more signage on the saucer bottom and nacelle pennants. She looks kinda nekkid without them


----------



## mikephys

Chrisisall said:


> Anyone here plan to do this model with any heavy mods?


Not heavy. I'm seriously considering amber or red bussards however!


----------



## actias

The HLJ website says available in July. Did it get moved from May?


----------



## chiangkaishecky

actias said:


> The HLJ website says available in July. Did it get moved from May?


Still 05/2013 at the manufacturer's site ... is it inconceivable that day and date release isn't same in Europe and Japan?


----------



## chiangkaishecky

behell said:


> Few days ago the decals for this kit arrived. So you can take a look on this big decal sheet.



Saucer's 7 of 1701 don't look right


----------



## Carl_G

Curved to match the saucer angle, maybe? Weird...


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Carl_G said:


> Curved to match the saucer angle, maybe? Weird...



Maybe but it looks like the prototypes bowed 7 carried over into the decals


----------



## electric indigo

Wrong Typography, too. The right end of the "7" should be much thicker.


----------



## davejames

So am I reading that right then, that this _will _come with aztec decals? That's definitely cool if true.

Although it's too bad you probably have to paint the thing pure _white _like in the test shots in order to see them. I've always been more a fan of painting these ships more like we see in the movies, with a hint of gray.


----------



## ClubTepes

Chrisisall said:


> Anyone here plan to do this model with any heavy mods?


Pretty heavy.
Then, painting her in TOS Colors and using TMP decals.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

chiangkaishecky said:


>


drlar at SSM found a vidcap of one of the bluray extras 






and it looks like the Revell missed a curve on the lower saucer grid


----------



## Marco Scheloske

NO aztec decals.


----------



## jbond

I would still paint it in a pearl white; that will give you some gray values. Someone will obviously have to do some aftermarket decals or paint masks...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso




----------



## jbond

Woohooo!!


----------



## chiangkaishecky

SSM has indicated that he'll bring some in
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=106388


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Some new pix courtesy the Trek Collective (not sure if it's the actual kit or more of the prototype)


































Higer res at the Trek Collective

http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2013/05/new-images-of-revells-nutrek-uss.html

direct linx to pix
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C2rwhd-Yx...ek+Into+Darkness+USS+Enterprise+model+kit.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-raWFsDjne...+Darkness+USS+Enterprise+model+kit+saucer.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6vuf95QfU...ness+USS+Enterprise+model+kit+engineering.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PeuXoiHZv...nto+Darkness+USS+Enterprise+model+kit+box.jpg


----------



## davejames

Hmm, not really a fair representation, since someone added the extra aztec detailing to it.

Still though, it does show how good the kit could look when built up properly (although the yellow around the bridge clearly needs to be a lot more subtle).


----------



## Paulbo

I *think* they're photos of the prototype because the nacelles are tilted up at the back.

I don't think showing the kit with a fantastic paint job is a bad thing. Would you think less of a manufacturer who showed a tank kit that's fantastically weathered?


----------



## Zombie_61

davejames said:


> Hmm, not really a fair representation, since someone added the extra aztec detailing to it...





Paulbo said:


> ...I don't think showing the kit with a fantastic paint job is a bad thing. Would you think less of a manufacturer who showed a tank kit that's fantastically weathered?


I can understand both sides of this issue. Clearly Revell would want to show off the kit's potential, but you just know some nitwit out there will buy one thinking everything is included to make it look exactly like the box art.

I just hope the final product doesn't have that discrepancy between the angles of the primary hull and the nacelles that's so obvious in the first photo chiangkaishecky posted. :freak:


----------



## lizzybus

Does anyone have a link to decent reference shots of the CG model?

Rich


----------



## Richard Baker

davejames said:


> Hmm, not really a fair representation, since someone added the extra aztec detailing to it.
> 
> Still though, it does show how good the kit could look when built up properly (although the yellow around the bridge clearly needs to be a lot more subtle).


Considering the new releases and repops by R2 all have Aztec decal sheets for ships shown with that hull detail, it would be natural for a buyer to think they would be included with this one also. I am sure there is something on the box telling them this.
I am looking forward to seeing a build-up with the battle damage as shown in the trailers- that would be a fun project (sort of like the Doomsday Constellation builds)


----------



## Carl_G

chiangkaishecky said:


> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6vuf95QfU...ness+USS+Enterprise+model+kit+engineering.jpg


What is up with the grey decal on the side of the neck? Looks kind of weird and pixelated.


----------



## robcomet

The decals in the box are far better. This looks hand painted.

Rob


----------



## chiangkaishecky

SSM user saleem also has an in box preview
http://s1326.photobucket.com/user/S...rprise contents of box pictures?sort=2&page=1


----------



## charonjr

Explosive bolt panels? Separation line? Don't cross here? The instruction sheet clearly shows the aztec paneling in that bottom view of saucer, though apparently not included in the decals. Great for Garage Artists to make for the aftermarket. Bet we'll have Dummy Aztecs for them soon. 

This really wet my appetite and I have placed my order. My payment should complete Weds. And the model should be here by the end of this month. $70.60 shipped.


----------



## Zombie_61

chiangkaishecky said:


> SSM user saleem also has an in box preview
> http://s1326.photobucket.com/user/S...rprise contents of box pictures?sort=2&page=1


Even though the nacelles are drooping in the photos of his taped-together test fit, it looks as though the alignment issues seen on the prototype have been corrected on the actual kit. I guess I'd better order one before they're all gone.


----------



## cylon75

Just bought this off eBay yesterday for $64 shipped from the UK. plan is to light it. Someone has to do the Aztec decals for it,it will make it look so much better.


----------



## Heero Kasshu

I bought 2 yesterday, should be here within the week. I'll post some comparisons with the AMT Refit hull and the cutaway.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Robcomet's photo essay on the kit trumps all 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=393846

but I found a hidden(?) page on Revell Germany site with one heretofore unseen pic (lower saucer...nothing great since many already have kit in hand)

http://www.revell.de/?id=1028


----------



## Prowler901

Those are some great new pictures. Thanks for pointing those out. :thumbsup:


----------



## electric indigo

Revell's kit spotted at the Shizuoka toy fair. Platz is the local seller for these in Japan.










http://www.1999.co.jp/blog/img/130517ptome31.jpg

Looks like a nicely finished kit, not the prototype.


----------



## jbond

Nice! That certainly addresses the nacelle droop issue...


----------



## electric indigo

Another pic from Shizuoka:










http://www.amiami.jp/blog/2013/05/shs_03/25.jpg


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Do those gray stripe decals look overdone (especially the wide gray bands around the nacelles) to anyone else?


----------



## PixelMagic

Steve Mavronis said:


> Do those gray stripe decals look overdone (especially the wide gray bands around the nacelles) to anyone else?


That whole paint job is overdone. Here is a look at ILM's digital model used in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0i72CsaL2I#&t=40s


----------



## Sparky

Just noticed this option to the Revell kit if you are willing to shell out a bit more green ($7000) and wait a lit bit (3+ years):

https://store.qmxonline.com/Star-Trek-2009-Enterprise-Artisan-Replica_p_147.html


----------



## chiangkaishecky

27 minute review at YT






I feel this guy deserves more than 40 views


----------



## PixelMagic

Before too many people start painting your deflectors, there seems to be a lot of miss understandings of the colors. The dish itself is a pale gold, sort of mimicking the copper dish of TOS. The radial lines glow blue, and the bouncing light inside the dish gives the whole dish a blue look. In Into Darkness, the dish is knocked offline and you can clearly see it is gold in the screengrab below.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

PixelMagic said:


> Before too many people start painting your deflectors, there seems to be a lot of miss understandings of the colors. The dish itself is a pale gold, sort of mimicking the copper dish of TOS. The radial lines glow blue, and the bouncing light inside the dish gives the whole dish a blue look. In Into Darkness, the dish is knocked offline and you can clearly see it is gold in the screengrab below.


you just helped me out and thank you. For my first Revell Into Darkness Enterprise I am thinking of building it with a powered down look. I am going to paint my sensor dish copper and paint everything else as if its powered down.


----------



## PixelMagic

Guy Schlicter said:


> I am going to paint my sensor dish copper and paint everything else as if its powered down.


You may of course paint the dish copper if you'd like, but keep in mind the one in the movie is pale gold instead of copper.


----------



## djnick66

Tamiya Titanium Gold might be good


----------



## PixelMagic

djnick66 said:


> Tamiya Titanium Gold might be good


Indeed that would be a good choice. I paint all my models with Tamiya because it's FAARRRR superior to Testors. However, for that really metallic look, I am thinking about painting the deflector with Alclad II Gold Titanium.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

that's in line with the later starships where the warp engines look like they were copper when powered down, but blue when at warp


----------



## PixelMagic

Lou Dalmaso said:


> that's in line with the later starships where the warp engines look like they were copper when powered down, but blue when at warp


Except in this case, the dish itself doesn't glow. It's always gold. The radial spikes in the dish do glow blue, but throw blue light onto the rest of the dish, giving it a blue appearance. These images of the QMX model show how the dish should look (except theirs is not gold for some reason)


----------



## Guy Schlicter

bottom line is paint it which way that appeals to you. The dish is gold I'm sure but I like the copper color and its not so far off


----------



## interstellarmodeler64

Saw a review of this kit on youtube and it looks pretty good. Nice detailing


----------



## JeffG

Here's a shot in the dark; seeing as how this kit contains quite a few clear parts, does anyone know if a lighting kit is or will be made specifically for this kit? Revell clearly and thoughtfully gave options to facilitate illumination.


----------



## djnick66

I've seen lighting kits on eBay that say they are for this kit. If not, it should not be hard to make one yourself either. Revell's TOS kit is also very lighting-friendly.


----------



## rowdylex

JeffG said:


> Here's a shot in the dark; seeing as how this kit contains quite a few clear parts, does anyone know if a lighting kit is or will be made specifically for this kit? Revell clearly and thoughtfully gave options to facilitate illumination.


Evans Lighting has a kit specifically for this, they have it on ebay and on their website. Very expensive though, I think about $180 or thereabouts.


----------



## JeffG

rowdylex said:


> Evans Lighting has a kit specifically for this, they have it on ebay and on their website. Very expensive though, I think about $180 or thereabouts.


Thanks. That is a nice kit. Expensive though and it still seems to lack some of the beauty/self illumination lights. Not sure how easy or difficult those would be to add. Everything else looks good though if you're up for paying that much.


----------



## Robman007

After Market Decals will be a must for the primary hull registry number and name. The Registry number has the slanted 7, which is not accurate, and the registry does not line up right. Per the CG model, the "-" is located directly below the phaser turret..with the decals as they are now, it does not line up correctly and looks really, really weird


----------



## chiangkaishecky

Apparently the Revell Into Darkness kit did OK as revealed during a press conference with some first quarter 2014 announcements.

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/bl...uneuheiten-januar-april-2014/2013/#more-29158



google translate said:


> As sales highlights of the past year, nearly called Mr. Koss the VW Bus T1 Samba ( 1:24 ) , the Enterprise NCC 1701 film " Star Trek : Into Darkness " and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 G -6 in 1:32 scale.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

chiangkaishecky said:


> Apparently the Revell Into Darkness kit did OK as revealed during a press conference with some first quarter 2014 announcements.
> 
> http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/bl...uneuheiten-januar-april-2014/2013/#more-29158


and I'm glad to hear that. I'm still working on my first Enterprise and Revell/Germany did an awesome job making this kit.


----------



## teslabe

chiangkaishecky said:


> Apparently the Revell Into Darkness kit did OK as revealed during a press conference with some first quarter 2014 announcements.
> 
> http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/bl...uneuheiten-januar-april-2014/2013/#more-29158


That's very good news, I'd like to see it available here in the states through regular channels, not as a marked-up special order. I'd like to pick up a second kit, this time in a box that's not crushed.....:freak:


----------



## Marco Scheloske

It won't come to the USA, since the RoG license for Trek is only valid in Europe. R2 holds the exclusive license for the States.


----------

