# fate of the 2009 movie U.S.S.Enterprise



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

*fate and future of the 2009 movie U.S.S.Enterprise*

Ever since Round 2 announced that they were not going to produce 
the U.S.S. Enterprise from the 2009 Star Trek Movie there has been
a uproar of controversy over what really happened and some who 
felt it was a blessinig that the kit was never produced. 

This thread was created to really have some frank talk about what 
people really felt about the design, a possible kit in the future if
there is another movie, and what they felt about the 2009 movie
verus the Star Trek Roddenberry universe.

I would very much appreciate some feedback on these points and
any others folks would like to put out there.


Thanks,


fortress:wave:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Oh dear...


----------



## Wolvster (Mar 14, 2006)

Where the hell is that popcorn emoticon ?

Actually, for this we need a whole *AUDITORIUM*
of popcorn eating emoticons...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Groundhog Day !


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

I hope this won't go bad like the "Grid Line Debate of 2011" went.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Why discuss this at all? Round 2 will not comment on the official reason, guessing and conjecture doesn't help, No good can come from this.....and we're walking....we're walking !

Refer back to any one of a multitude of threads already put forth, it's Pandora's Box I tell you It's Madness ! Madness !


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

5......4.......3......"Get out of there! Get OUUUUUUT!".....2......1.........


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

"Damn it Jim , I'm a Doctor..not a modelbuilder ! It's dead JIm !


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

A frank evaluation...


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

No good can come of this.........


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

" Laddie,....could you poor a bit more salt in the wound,...there...now I can't feel my face !"


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

"Fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me!"


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Yes, Fortress, just search the forums for "JJPrise" or "movie enterprise" and you'll find more discussion than you'll ever want or need.

I'm outtahere.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

yeah its a pointless discussion for those of us who want one, as is evident by the influx of haters already.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Yeah, ya know...

short form? for me, the '09 ship was just plain a mess, aesthetically. It was unbalanced and awkward. It seemed more a parody of the Enterprise then anything else.

Should there be a kit of it? sure, why not? They made a kit (2) of the NX-01 and I really disliked that (as a ship named Enterprise) as well.

Both were designed under similar thinking. "well, we're tired of THAT, we need NEW FRESH DIFFERENT that's kinda sorta the same".

A pox on that thinking. just my opinion.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Reporter to a Trailer Park Resident:

"So....can you tell us what it was like...you know, the Tornado and all?"


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

> "Fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me!"


 -Gomer Pyle, USMC-


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Rotwang said:


> -Gomer Pyle, USMC-


Montgomery Scott, "Friday's Child" :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

James Tiberius said:


> yeah its a pointless discussion for those of us who want one, as is evident by the influx of haters already.


I want one too, but like you, I know where this is headed. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> Why discuss this at all? Round 2 will not comment on the official reason, guessing and conjecture doesn't help, No good can come from this.....and we're walking....we're walking !
> 
> Refer back to any one of a multitude of threads already put forth, it's Pandora's Box I tell you It's Madness ! Madness !


That's probably one of the most sensible posts on the subject. Round 2 doesn't owe anyone an answer even if people get on their knees and beg for one.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Well don't quote me on this but, I heard somewhere that the Enterprise in the next movie will look different.
Maybe R2 is waiting on that.
-Jim


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

JGG1701 said:


> Well don't quote me on this but, I heard somewhere that the Enterprise in the next movie will look different.
> Maybe R2 is waiting on that.
> -Jim


We were also told that the Enterprise would look different in the *last* movie. And it did. But y'know where *that* went...


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

fortress said:


> Ever since Round 2 announced that they were not going to produce
> the U.S.S. Enterprise from the 2009 Star Trek Movie there has been
> a uproar of controversy over what really happened and some who
> felt it was a blessinig that the kit was never produced.
> ...


Frankly, I liked after I saw it on the screen. I would have liked to have a kit of the ship.

Bor


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

I am sure that after Revell makes TOS Enterprise and D7 and they are a sucess, they will get the Euro licsense to make JJ kits. 

We'll get a 1/1400 or something close to it.

On a side note, blocking another members posts via the ignore option has made this thread more enjoyable for me.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

every one on these boards have our opinions of the so called "JJprise, and yes it would be nice for R2 to tell us why thety dropped the kit.
But my question about this thread is, what not again??????????????":freak::freak:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Considering the legitimate questions regarding just how big the damn thing is in the first place (tough to nail down a scale when you've got three or four different size estimates floating around...and that's just from _official_ sources), and how JJ & Co. seem to be putting the kibosh on just about every licensed product that comes down the pike lately (remember those tie-in novels that vanished at the last minute? I'm sure Pocket Books is happy to have shelled out all that money for books they can't sell) and the dismal sales of the stuff that _did_ make it to market, and it seems likely that Round2 came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the crapstorm to work up a model of the size they were planning that wasn't guaranteed to sell well enough to make its money back; they're holding their breath over the TOS Enterprise, and that one we've been screaming about for years. Reaction to the JJPrise, on the other hand, has been rather mixed.

So, why no JJPrise? Wasn't worth the effort.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Considering the legitimate questions regarding just how big the damn thing is in the first place (tough to nail down a scale when you've got three or four different size estimates floating around...and that's just from _official_ sources), and how JJ & Co. seem to be putting the kibosh on just about every licensed product that comes down the pike lately (remember those tie-in novels that vanished at the last minute? I'm sure Pocket Books is happy to have shelled out all that money for books they can't sell) and the dismal sales of the stuff that _did_ make it to market, and it seems likely that Round2 came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the crapstorm to work up a model of the size they were planning that wasn't guaranteed to sell well enough to make its money back; they're holding their breath over the TOS Enterprise, and that one we've been screaming about for years. Reaction to the JJPrise, on the other hand, has been rather mixed.
> 
> So, why no JJPrise? Wasn't worth the effort.


At this point I have abandoned hope about Round 2 producing a model kit of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I can't believe some model company wouldn't want to produce a model kit of it. Someone said something about licensing. If you remember back in 1995 AMT/Ertl was producing Star Trek model kits here in the U.S. and Monogram was producing the Voyager kits. 2 different model companies were producing Star Trek kits in the U.S. at the same time. I know they are gearing up for merchandising for the next Star Trek movie by J.J.Abrams. I could be wrong but whether the Enterprise is changed or not some model kit company will make a model kit of it to coinside with the release of the next film.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

Here we go again!


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

well so far it seems that this really seems to be a dead issue, heck
if you even bring it up you start having rocks thrown at you, that's
fine of cousre cause even in that you learn a few things (not Good
of course).

My thanks to Captain April, Steve H, JGG 1701 who offered their
points of views and not complaints over the thread being posted
yet again, for those who wish to add more points or fair counter
points please do so, hey it's a free country don't like the subject
matter, change the channel. There are many things talked about 
on this and many other forums more than once. I was looking for
a really concentrated talk on not only the kit, but the NEW 
franchise or not, this was not posted to get folks hot under
the collar. That's NOT where I want or wanted this to go.


fortress


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

We're just sick of thread after thread after thread that seems to spring up like a bad case of Herpies. It's all been said...time after time, for and against. When they announce one,we can talk, till then it's just air through our teeth.....

Someone please bury this thread......deep this time!


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

*Rotwang* posted:



> I hope this won't go bad like the "Grid Line Debate of 2011" went.


I seem to remember that thread. It actually did have some worthwhile posts, but ended up being closed due to the immaturity of some of the posters. I would have preferred that the offenders be "banned" rather that have the thread closed.

But *this* subject has been beaten to death.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I thought it was ugly.
:shrug:


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

I never liked the Nu enterprise either and yes there has been thread after thread about a model of this subject because some people are passionate about it. However I would rather have a millions threads about the Nu enterprise than be called a whiner and have a thread closed because I thought a new model kit had some short comings.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Yeah, ya know...
> 
> short form? for me, the '09 ship was just plain a mess, aesthetically. It was unbalanced and awkward. It seemed more a parody of the Enterprise then anything else.


The Battle Beyond the Planets version of the Enterprise.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

There are days when I wish that someone would make a model of this albatross just so people that want one could stop going on about NOT having one...

Of course, then it would open up a whole new set of complaints about accuracy to the screen version, scale, etc., so I guess you just trade one set of complaints for another.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

One moment......To repeat what I have said before for those of you who feel that
this thread has cause some sort of break in the fabric of their reality I would say 
it would be best to steer clear of this post or to make it simpler I will offer the same 
suggestion I make to my girlfriend when she points out the fact that did not put
my coat on the rack where it belongs " Honey you can do two things, either pick it
up or just leave where it is"', the coat dose not care and really neither do I".

Now back to task...I was looking over Bernd Scheider site regarding the 2009 
design overall he did not think much of it and I have to tell ya I did not like it
either but it grew on me, the darn thing grew on me. I really liked the concept
done by Gabriel Koerner it seems to be the logical direction, but Ryan Church's
design is just different not better just different. I guess that's what get's me.

fortress


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

bigjimslade said:


> The Battle Beyond the Planets version of the Enterprise.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

fortress said:


> This thread was created to really have some frank talk about what
> people really felt about the design


Most new designs in the last 20 years have been atrocious. They lack common sense in basic design principles. There is no focus or direction, lopsided, or over designed, generic looking or look like a heaping pile of trash. This goes for Star Trek 09, Avatar, Dark Knight, Transformers, Star Wars prequels, take your pick. I know art is subjective, but we have certainly entered into an "abstract" sense of design nowadays.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would not blanket condemn all current designs, but there is a trend towards ships that are over-designed and covered with fussy detail. I am getting a little tired of the CGI lighting with most surfaces and engines having hundreds of little tiny lights because they can. I think the designers are trying to get even for being forced to make do with a big light bulb in each engine and fiber optic strands for windows...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I didn't like the parallel universe...sequel or not. Thanks for the peek Mr. Abrams , but I won't be returning for a visit !


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ And it's sentiments like _that_ which makes prospects for the next movie a tad less secure. Yeah, it made a ton of money, but not everyone who showed up liked what they saw, and disappointed viewers generally don't want to be reminded of their disappointment by buying a model from that movie. Remember how the Scorpion and the Kazon torpedo both crashed and burned?

If I were in charge of this at Round 2, the most I'd go for is something no bigger than the 1/1000 TOS E, regardless of what the actual scale would shake out to, and see what the response is on that.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

But its sentiments of younger viewers and casual movie goers who made the movie profitable, and more popular than "prime timeline Trek".

As to the size of the ship. It was going to be the size of the 1k kit and scaled at 2500. R2 just dropped the ball for reasons unknown, most likely the 350 kit. We'll never know. But I'm sure that one will get made hopefully by the time I'm an "Elder Statesman" and the Alt timeline will have made 3 or 4 movies.

As far as the TOS only group. You have a huge kit coming out of your favorite kit, let those of us who want ANYTHING different than another scale of the same ship discuss our dream of a different trek than you.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I have fond memories of the Trek universe established over the period of nearly 50 plus years. My Trek as I remember it,... is dead! It's the end of an era for me . Let the younger new generation have their version, they're welcome to it. But it will never erase the fondness of Roddenberry's original vision, or replace it. I have my Trek...you have yours, I'm just not fond of yours! And I'm not wrong because of it,...just different! IDIC...Live Long and Prosper, Spock would say.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

James Tiberius said:


> But its sentiments of younger viewers and casual movie goers who made the movie profitable, and more popular than "prime timeline Trek".
> 
> As to the size of the ship. It was going to be the size of the 1k kit and scaled at 2500. R2 just dropped the ball for reasons unknown, most likely the 350 kit. We'll never know. But I'm sure that one will get made hopefully by the time I'm an "Elder Statesman" and the Alt timeline will have made 3 or 4 movies.
> 
> As far as the TOS only group. You have a huge kit coming out of your favorite kit, let those of us who want ANYTHING different than another scale of the same ship discuss our dream of a different trek than you.


Oh, no problem! No problem at all. To each his own, whatever floats your boat, etc. 

But if somebody asks, I gotta chime in.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I would not blanket condemn all current designs, but there is a trend towards ships that are over-designed and covered with fussy detail. I am getting a little tired of the CGI lighting with most surfaces and engines having hundreds of little tiny lights because they can. I think the designers are trying to get even for being forced to make do with a big light bulb in each engine and fiber optic strands for windows...


I'll go further and make myself seem even more an a**. 

I think we've reached the point where CGI effects, especially spacecraft, hurt the finished product, because there's nothing impressive anymore.

When it's well done and totally immersive, that is the 'green stage', the main limitation is making sure the actors are interacting properly, and the director should make sure that all the 'eyelines' and angles fit. I've felt 'thrown off' when I'm watching a movie shot greenstage and angles and sightlines and actors aren't matched. parts of Sin City, for example. 

With spaceships as virtual models, it's even worse. Directors LOVE that 'god's eye' view, bouncing a camera hither and yon in the frame. It can be exciting but it's also lazy, trying to make the viewer sick in a CGI roller coaster and the desire to achieve THAT seems to be used as a substitute for story, plot. 

And then there's the 'happy accident' of the real model. Star Trek the Motion Picture, they wanted the ship lit up like a cruise ship, so to get that effect lots of small mirrors were angled all over with powerful pinpoint spotlights focused on them to create the light effects, something that really can't be done in a model (yet so many do try and many of those actually manage to make it work in some places) and it's been a fixture of ST ever since. Now it's done with CG but it's too clean, too perfect. No light bouncing off the curve of the hull, no variations.

blowing up a model still looks better than a CG explosion.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Paramount got lucky with JJ's version, it made a boatload of money from BOTH old and new fans starved for any Trek to the big screen. Rarely does a sequel do as well as it's first installment, however this time around the disinfranchised old Trek fans have wised up and realized that they disliked the new ship design and the liberties taken with Trek's history, not to mention the tour through the brewery representing the engine room! Most of these old Trek fans won't be there this time unless changes are made more to their liking. Can the new Trek fans keep this new franchise alive? Paramount lost their shirts on merchandising from the last film. And nerves are on edge already for the sequel. I wish them all the best, but I wouldn't quit my day job. Nor attend a second outing. I proudly own every Star Trek program since the original series on DVD , and all the movies....except JJ's version, and I don't feel like I missed much.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I'll definitely have a look see at the next movie, but likely not until its on disc. Don't think I'd want to predict how it will do, though. Might be a bit premature for that. As for the ship, well, yeah, I'm not exactly a fan. But I know some are...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I'm pretty much ambivalent when it comes to the '09 _Trek Enterprise_. I don't hate it, but I don't "love" it either. Give me the TOS or Refit ship anytime. 

However, as a model, R2 will not speak about it for whatever reason so any appeals to get them to divulge the reasons is only going to cause them to 'dig in' and make them more stubborn and create more ill-will along the way. At least that's how I see it. 

I'm going to let it go. There may or may not be a model of this ship in the future. I've got the imperfect-but-serviceable Playmates toy on my shelf and the Blu-ray disc holder as well. I'm okay with what I have for now.


----------



## scifiguy67 (Jan 18, 2011)

WarpCore Breach said:


> I'm pretty much ambivalent when it comes to the '09 _Trek Enterprise_. I don't hate it, but I don't "love" it either. Give me the TOS or Refit ship anytime.
> 
> However, as a model, R2 will not speak about it for whatever reason so any appeals to get them to divulge the reasons is only going to cause them to 'dig in' and make them more stubborn and create more ill-will along the way. At least that's how I see it.
> 
> I'm going to let it go. There may or may not be a model of this ship in the future. I've got the imperfect-but-serviceable Playmates toy on my shelf and the Blu-ray disc holder as well. I'm okay with what I have for now.


me too and there both ugly!


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

This might not be germaine to this discussion, but I just read that the sequel has been delayed at least until 2013. JJ says they're still working on the _outline _and don't have a final script yet! He hopes they'll be able to make an announcement "in a month or so." He also says the next installment will be a stand-alone movie that doesn't presume you're familiar with any previous Trek, including the '09 reboot. Good luck with that! What's confusing/disturbing depending on how much you read into it is that he also mentioned that in a sense, they were "starting over" again, preserving what worked in the first movie, but trying to do something fresh and new at the same time. What this really means is anyone's guess.

As for my humble opinion of the reboot and the JJPrise, I just watched the blu-ray of it for maybe the third time to refresh my memory. The good: I liked the actors playing the original characters. I thought the casting was great. As for the bad, well: the movie was entertaining, but took too many liberties with the original history for my liking. I grew up on TOS. It and LIS were were my first exposures to science fiction. JJ's premise was basically good and had potential, but the execution left much to be desired. I don't particularly like the new Enterprise. Like many, I find it misproportioned and lacking the elegant lines of the original. I don't care much for the interior sets either, and I'm not just referring to the engineering/brewery room either. I'm not wild about the new uniforms except for the miniskirts for the female crewmembers... 

As for the story itself, as I said, it had potential, but there were just too many little things that just didn't sit right: Kirk going from midshipman to Captain virtually overnight instead of working his way up through the ranks over a dozen years or so; "red matter" - whatthehell is red matter???; the Spock/Uhura relationship; Checkov being only 17!?!; Delta Vega rather than being another star system would have to have been a moon of Vulcan in order to have the planet appear that large in the sky, yet in the original timeline, it's established that Vulcan has no moon; etc.

I know I'm being nitpicky (maybe even anal). There wasn't any major thing that made me dislike the reboot, rather, it was the accumulation of dozens of little things. As much as I like and admire JJ Abrams, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, they blew it on this one. They only way they could redeem themselves is if in the sequel, they use "blue matter" (to counter their "red matter") or whatever they can think of, to restore the original timeline, save Vulcan, and then show the early years of the crew before the time of TOS. But I know they won't do that.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to those who like the reboot and/or the new ship. The OP asked for opinions, and since I've never posted mine on HT before, well, there it is. For those that like the new ship, I do hope you get a decent model of it someday, though I probably won't buy one. And, for the record, I'll go and see the sequel when/if they ever make it, and I'll buy the blu-ray to add to my collection. I just don't have high expectations for it..


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This thread would have been DOA, if, NO ONE HAD COMMENTED, but, NO! You just had to do it. When will this madness end! If only half of the built model threads got THIS MUCH ATTENTION!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

LOL, I can't help it. It's like kicking a bag full of kittens. Someone stop me!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

*boomph* *MRRROW!!*


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Larry523 said:


> What's confusing/disturbing depending on how much you read into it is that he also mentioned that in a sense, they were "starting over" again, preserving what worked in the first movie, but trying to do something fresh and new at the same time. What this really means is anyone's guess.


I think that would be wonderful. Just begin it in the second or third year of Kirk's command. Don't mention Kirk's bad boy days or his ridiculously rapid rise to command. Don't revisit Spock's romance with Uhura. Show us an _Enterprise_ that look's "right". Talk about Vulcan as if Nero never existed. The original series wasn't always internally consistent, and I think I could live with them discarding much of the nonsense from the first film.

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


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, Vulcan would become the planetary equivalent of Kenny in South Park?

*"OH MY GOD! YOU BLEW UP VULCAN!"

"YOU BASTARDS!"
*


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I could type a lengthy response, but in the interests of expedience I'll once again let The Onion convey my feelings on the matter...


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Larry523 said:


> "red matter" - whatthehell is red matter???


Dont know if anyone here is a fan but if youve ever seen "Giant Robo" you'll see that red matter is simply Dr.Shizuma's "Shizuma Drive" !


----------



## Cajjunwolfman (Nov 15, 2004)

Carson Dyle:

Brutal but funny as heck!


----------



## roadskare63 (Apr 14, 2010)

i guess i'm just one of the freaks of our little family, as i would have absolutely loved a model of the 2009 ship...i like the ship...i like the movie...got my son the playmates toy enterprise...(only one available) so i wish...i wish...

guess we'll just have to wait and see if they "refit" her to something the majority of fans like.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

There so far have been some very interesting points that have been made
I think that quite a few folks out there did not care much for JJ's re-boot, 
I liked it but to me, it's not Trek, not the Trek I grew up on, nor will it ever 
be. The same way Coke is better than Pepsi, but they are both cola's and they
both have a following. There is room for both in my book.

1701 VS 1701
There is no question that Round 2 made a better choice going with the 1701(TOS)
for all the right reasons, I get that now, But I still feel that the 2009 Enterprise has
a valid reason to be kitted providing that they do not change the design for the 
next movie, which as already been moved back a year (interesting). It's pretty 
odd that the Kelvin as seen more shelf life than the 1701.

fortress


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

fortress said:


> There so far have been some very interesting points that have been made
> I think that quite a few folks out there did not care much for JJ's re-boot,
> I liked it but to me, it's not Trek, not the Trek I grew up on, nor will it ever
> be. The same way Coke is better than Pepsi, but they are both cola's and they
> ...



Well, you're seemingly assuming that the '09 E was canceled to make the 1/350 TOS E, and that's not necessarily true. Again as others have said, we really don't know what happened and likely never will except as second and third hand rumors.

From what seemed to be happening I'm guessing there was constant issues with the licensor approval process. I would guess these issues caused so much lag that the best chance for sales window vanished. 

Granted, Star Trek kits always sell, but this kit needed coattails to ride on for a chance at mass retail sales. 2 years after just don't cut it. 

Given how much hate for licensing that seems to have surrounded this movie (because to make something you have to lock down things like size and THAT seems to be topic forbidden with JJ) (no, seriously, it's like Paramount has totally forgotten that Trek makes them HUGE bank in the LONG TERM. SOMEBODY buys all those paperbacks) I'm guessing there just came a point where it was costing more to develop then R2 expected to make. 

Again, all guesses. Don't take it as from on high.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think you nailed it.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Well, you're seemingly assuming that the '09 E was canceled to make the 1/350 TOS E, and that's not necessarily true. Again as others have said, we really don't know what happened and likely never will except as second and third hand rumors.
> 
> From what seemed to be happening I'm guessing there was constant issues with the licensor approval process. I would guess these issues caused so much lag that the best chance for sales window vanished.
> 
> ...


I agree, I agree, Steve H, I was looking at youtube and caught some
of the Polar Lights Presentation at wonderfest 2011 regarding the
1701 where They talked fully about the development of the TOS
Enterprise, if you have not seen it check it out. Great Stuff!



















Check out Jamie Hood when they ask him about the 2009 Enterprise.
Like I said, I now can see why producing that kit for them would have
been a problem. A resin version I dare see at this point would seem to
be the only way this subject would see the light of day.

fortress


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

IF only y'all were as passionate when Firefly was on, it might have lasted longer than *14 EPISODES!*


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Lloyd Collins said:


> IF only y'all were as passionate when Firefly was on, it might have lasted longer than *14 EPISODES!*


L.C. When it comes to Firefly I have a personal thing with that, A close
friend of mine wanted me to watch the show I told him no, no, and no, 
after a few days of telling me how great a Sci-Fi TV show it was he shows
up to my door with the complete boxset, he says "try it out take a long as
you like, but I warn you it won't take long". Man I stayed up all night
watching all the episodes, some even twice! When I gave him back the
set I said "Thanks guy that made my week". 2 months latter he died 
and a week after his funeral his sister gave me the boxset. So Firefly
is not only a great show,but it was a gift from a friend.

If it were up to me Firefly would have never left the air or at best
had 2 more movies or an anmie series done by now, In my book 
it is the most underrated Sci-FI show I have ever seen.

We talk about Trek allot, but in regards to Firefly you will get not 
arguement from me, it's one of a kind.

End of Line.


fortress


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Lloyd Collins said:


> IF only y'all were as passionate when Firefly was on, it might have lasted longer than *14 EPISODES!*


Friend, passion don't mean a thing when the fix is in...

Seriously, Firefly was doomed before it aired. The Suits just didn't 'get' it and IIRC the exec who gave the greenlight and championed the show was gone just before the season started.

OTOH DVD sales got the Serenity movie made. And needless death ensued. 

frankly, I'm shocked that Fringe has lasted as long as it has, and anyone betting the upcoming Terra Nova lasts more than 8 episodes aired?

anyway.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

As I've said before, I've no doubt that a styrene kit of the jjprise will come about; it's just a matter of time. *All* the various iterations of the Enterprise have made it to styrene eventually. Patients guys, patients.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

We'll all be patients if these arguments continue!

Seriously, remember that Jamie made a blog post about the JJ when Round 2 was still working on it that was quickly pulled down, with pictures of prototype parts. That makes me think it was something beyond the control of Round 2 that killed it, like maybe development went on so long that the license ran out. But I don't know either.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

did anyone ever copy the pictures of the prototype? or the blog? I would love to see that.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

^ Yes, a member here (whose name I cannot remember) snagged the pics of the proto from the blog. Here they are again:




























Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure Round 2 won't be producing a kit; when I suggested patients I did so with the understanding that the ship will be produced by _another_ company. (Revell of Germany, perhaps?)


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

Thanks for posting those! NOW I want one even more! I know R2 won't make one but hopefully revell of Germany could after TOS Ent and D7


----------



## Blufusion (Jan 30, 2010)

*Star TRek 2009*

People get took upset about Star Trek Models and shows . Can't we all say its a TV show. That's all it is . I love building models. and when I get on here and all you see is complaints thatt dot really matter.. Weather having lights and other accesories that cost a whole lot of money. Give me a few days and all my models. for sale.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Blufusion said:


> Can't we all say its a TV show. That's all it is . .


SACRILEGE! BURN THE NON BELIEVER! 



Ok, thats out of my system. I feel better.

Sorry


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

IT'S JUST A MODEL!Running for cover.....


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

James Tiberius said:


> Thanks for posting those! NOW I want one even more! I know R2 won't make one but hopefully revell of Germany could after TOS Ent and D7


I emailed a request to Revell about them producing a kit of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I consider Revell one of the best plastic model kit companies and I'd love to see them make a kit of it and bigger than 11 inches. I haven't heard anything back yet.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Quick, Lloyd there's only one lifeboat left...get in before this ship goes under!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seashark said:


> ^ Yes, a member here (whose name I cannot remember) snagged the pics of the proto from the blog. Here they are again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like they had made some good progress, a shame it was stopped.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

RSN said:


> Looks like they had made some good progress, a shame it was stopped.


agreed


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> Quick, Lloyd there's only one lifeboat left...get in before this ship goes under!


Too late....


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

...and the band played on !


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

RSN said:


> Looks like they had made some good progress, a shame it was stopped.


Thanks for the photos Seashark! I always wanted see how far they
progressed with the kit, looks pretty darn good, I wonder if Revell 
Germany would be interested in buying up Round 2's casts and ect,
would save allot of time, maybe money too. Just a thought.

.....I know I am going to pay for saying it.


fortress:tongue:


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

There is some talk that when the sequel comes out in 2012 that there will be a new version of this monstrocity ala refit. Hard to believe they could make this ship any uglier, but JJ Abrams could. Perhaps he is holding out liscencing for the next movie and hawking it to other manufacturers. With Round 2 coming out with the 1/350 "real Enterprise" in 2012, this will overshadow anything Abrams could do with his Trek.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

dreadnaught726 said:


> There is some talk that when the sequel comes out in 2012 that there will be a new version of this monstrocity ala refit. Hard to believe they could make this ship any uglier, but JJ Abrams could. Perhaps he is holding out liscencing for the next movie and hawking it to other manufacturers. With Round 2 coming out with the 1/350 "real Enterprise" in 2012, this will overshadow anything Abrams could do with his Trek.


perhaps if J.J. Abrams just designed a good looking Starship from the get go. There would have been not so much contraversy over its appearance and Round 2 may not have been so hesitant on making a model kit of it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Guy Schlicter said:


> perhaps if J.J. Abrams just designed a good looking Starship from the get go. There would have been not so much contraversy over its appearance and Round 2 may not have been so hesitant on making a model kit of it.


Everyone is eager to bash the design of the ship because it does not look as elegant as the original Enterprise. HELLO.....did you see the movie? The timeline was altered, long before the Enterprise was in the design stage, an immense alien ship appeared out of nowhere and destroyed the U.S.S Kelvin, then disappeared. Starfleet had to address this threat and design ships that could go up against such a foe. The new Enterprise was just such a ship, with heavy armor on the engines and a larger profile over all. I get it, some don't like the new interpretation....fine. At least understand WHY the ship designed the way it was. There are a few little things I don’t care for on it, but overall I think it is a good looking ship. :thumbsup:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It has some good elements, but the proportions of the secondary hull just do not balance the design. I was hoping for a model kit of it so I could rearrange things a bit and see where it could go.
I hope a revised version in the next movie is not just wishfull thinking. While I did not like what he scrambled in the classic universe, the movie was well crafted and did fait better in the box office that the TNG films.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard Baker said:


> It has some good elements, but the proportions of the secondary hull just do not balance the design. I was hoping for a model kit of it so I could rearrange things a bit and see where it could go.
> I hope a revised version in the next movie is not just wishfull thinking. While I did not like what he scrambled in the classic universe, the movie was well crafted and did fait better in the box office that the TNG films.


That was my only real complaint as well. A bit more on the back end, so to speak, would have made the proportions much better. :thumbsup:


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

Maybe Round 2 should issue Kirk's 200 year old Vette. I'm sure AMT has the molds for it. Maybe that will make everyone happy!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

dreadnaught726 said:


> Maybe Round 2 should issue Kirk's 200 year old Vette. I'm sure AMT has the molds for it. Maybe that will make everyone happy!


Actually, that would be kind of cool. I would buy it. Maybe it could come with a Kirk boy figure and a police bike .


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

How about a figure of Spock kissing Uhura? Now that would truely be unique (and ridiculous!!)


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

dreadnaught726 said:


> How about a figure of Spock kissing Uhura? Now that would truely be unique (and ridiculous!!)


Actually, that made relationship made sense. In TOS Uhura was flirting quite a bit with Spock in the early episodes. Talking to him about walks in moonlight in "The Enemy Within" and singing with him seductively, with him smiling back at her, in "Charlie X". See, one can be a BIG fan of the original and not hate, but even love, the new timeline version! :thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

I honestly never understood the logic behind the new design. Its essentially a mix between TMP saucer with an "anime bug shell" type back end. It really clashes. I expected something a lot closer in design to TOS or something completely different from either TOS or TMP. 

If they were so keen on TMP saucer then they should have kept the TMP design only adding the TOS warp domes.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

RSN said:


> Starfleet had to address this threat and design ships that could go up against such a foe. The new Enterprise was just such a ship, with heavy armor on the engines and a larger profile over all. I get it, some don't like the new interpretation....fine. At least understand WHY the ship designed the way it was.


I'm still a bit confused about why there weren't any windshield wipers.

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


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

scotthm said:


> I'm still a bit confused about why there weren't any windshield wipers.
> 
> ---------------


Ok, that was the other design detail I found to be poor! :thumbsup:


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

I still want to know how they got it off Earth and into orbit. Perhaps some retired shuttle boosters placed around the perimeter of the ship. Maybe these were left over from the shuttle missions(hey if Kirk can be tooling around in a 200 year old Corvette,why not?)


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

How did they get the ship into orbit? Thats easy they just used JJ's Ego to lift it off the ground and in to space.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

It had retractable wings like the (anime) Yamato.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

How did they get it off the ground, maybe it fell Up like that ridiculous Spindrift many of you love lol.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

There weren't any windshield wipers because they would've knocked off the guy cleaning the windows at the StarBase!

Larry


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Guy Schlicter said:


> I emailed a request to Revell about them producing a kit of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I consider Revell one of the best plastic model kit companies and I'd love to see them make a kit of it and bigger than 11 inches. I haven't heard anything back yet.


I heard back from Revell. Revell(America) says they are not producing any Star Trek kits at this time. So hope is fading that this ship will make it to model kit form. I guess if it does happen someone like Pegasus Hobbies may a model kit of it.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Perhaps now this topic may die a dignified death in cyberspace....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Revell Germany is the division with the Star Trek license, so they'd be the ones to talk to.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Seashark said:


> ^ Yes, a member here (whose name I cannot remember) snagged the pics of the proto from the blog. Here they are again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any indication of just how big this sucker is? And what the final size was gonna be?

BTW, the word you're looking for is "patience".


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks, for anyone who wanted a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise its time to put it on the back burner. For whatever reason there was going to be a model kit of it that was utimatley cancelled. Seeing all the work and pictures of the model kit that Round 2 was preparing doesn't help. As of right now this kit is not a possibilty. And there are so many other good models that have come out recently. The Moebius Mark VII Viper for one I really like and the Moebius Galactica is another. I will concentrate my efforts on these models and if the J.J. Abrams Enterprise kit does make it to kit form then we'll have something to talk about but for right now its a closed subject.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Perhaps now this topic may die a dignified death in cyberspace....


Dignified? in Cyberspace?! 

I believe you may have an unclear understanding of this realm, sir. 

WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP!!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Perhaps now this topic may die a dignified death in cyberspace....


I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm hoping those who don't want to discuss this can respect those of us who do. It would be more fun for me if those who don't like a thread I'm enjoying avoid it rather than writing about how it should not exist. 

I don't mean this to be insulting or snarky or weird in any way. Just asking.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Ductapeforever said:


> Perhaps now this topic may die a dignified death in cyberspace....


Ironically, the only thing that might silence this thread would be wrapping it in duct tape.
:tongue:


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

I think this has more to do with the business of an evolving hobby than any aesthetic choice on the part of the ship designers or model manufacturers. 

Licensed products used to be no big deal for the simple reason that there were so few of them. Nowadays, everything is licensed for re-use in some form or another. And they are so intricately tied together that trying to "time the market" (so to speak) is tricky. This has to do with an ever broadening range of activities competing for our free time as well as a gentrifying core audience for model making that is not (in my opinion) being replaced by a younger generation that is as rabid about model making as we were when we were their age.

Star Wars has a broad and continuing universe to draw from. Star Trek, while equally creative and inspiring (again, in my opinion) - not so much. Given the development time/costs for any model of this scope, it has to be timed to capitalize on the release of the property in some other medium (ie: the release of the film). The sweet spot for anything related to the 2009 ST movie is passed. While they may be able to capitalize on the release of a new ST film in 2013, it will still be a gamble.

My two cents.

Gene

PS - In talking to Larry over at Pegasus about stuff like this, I would be flat out amazed if they even ventured into talks with Paramount/CBS about a ST license (when the current one expires....). Too many other things to produce.

PPS - This may not appeal to the fans that wanted a kit of the 2009 Enterprise, but upon reflection, given the efforts of Moebius, Pegasus, Polar Lights, et al, (not to mention the great garage companies) we really are living in a golden age for sci-fi / space modeling.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

With Round 2 holding north American licensing for Trek, and Revell DE holding the Trek License in Europe ,there is no chance for a model company to aquire either license for the foreseeable future.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Kit said:


> I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm hoping those who don't want to discuss this can respect those of us who do. It would be more fun for me if those who don't like a thread I'm enjoying avoid it rather than writing about how it should not exist.
> 
> I don't mean this to be insulting or snarky or weird in any way. Just asking.


Thank You Kit! When I started this thread I made that very clear 
but I guess some folks out there don't really understand VERY CLEAR
ENGLISH, I feel sorry for them but not sorry enough to stop talking 
about models that I like and would like to see. So we are going 
to ignore them and move forward. Speaking 
of which I found this the other day;

http://www.startrekdesktopwallpaper...NCC1701_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_2048.jpg

It has a strange power this Enterprise dose it can convert some folks
to it's side and others can drive them quite primeval :freak:. Hey it's 
all in good fun, after all I would think that the folks that read this 
thread all like Star Trek.......at least I think so?

fortress


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Don't really like the ship, as I've said. But ... in a mild kind of way I'm curious about why the kit was cancelled. I'm sure we'd learn something about how things work in the business. We probably won't, but it would be interesting....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Y'know, for a closed subject, it sure is getting a lot of responses...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> Don't really like the ship, as I've said. But ... in a mild kind of way I'm curious about why the kit was cancelled. I'm sure we'd learn something about how things work in the business. We probably won't, but it would be interesting....


It seems to me that whenever one of these things falls apart, the parties involved seem to be under some sort of gag order. We never really have gotten a clear reason why the books were pulled, although a pretty good theory has been pieced together about how the producers didn't want to feel penned in by any other stories (which is idiotic, because onscreen stuff has always had the prerogative to completely ignore the novels).

It just seems like some sort of ultraparanoid "nobody can do anything Star Trek 09 related but US!" kind of stance. Which is fine for maintaining continuity (which is ironic given their open contempt for TOS' continuity), but for merchandizing, it's suicidal.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Ductapeforever said:


> With Round 2 holding north American licensing for Trek, and Revell DE holding the Trek License in Europe ,there is no chance for a model company to aquire either license for the foreseeable future.


Uhm - the license from Revell Germany is not for classic Trek only... they have a license for ALL Star Trek related items, including ST XI.

The reason that they release the two TOS models (Enterprise and D7) at their first ST kits is simply that TOS Star Trek is the most common here in Germany. RoG thinks that with those classic kits they will reach the greatest target group, and I guess they are right with that idea. Here in Germany TOS "Star Trek" - or, better, "Raumschiff Enterprise", as the series was called here, is still THE Star Trek. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura. All other movies and series are not so broadly known here.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Granted, I thoroughly disliked (kindly speaking) Abram's film and I detested the nu1701---a thoroughly awful corruption of a beautiful design. But whether they make a kit of it is no matter to me except that it would please those few who do like the design.

The fact that no reason has been offered to explain why the kit is not being produced only fuels speculation. For what it's worth I strongly suspect there is a licensing issue involved and it could be as simple as TPTB wanting too much money for the licensing rights and no one is willing to be pay it. It could also be that market research is telling them that there just isn't sufficient interest to justify the expense in terms of licensing and tooling and production.

It might simply come down to who did this film appeal to and how many of them are believed to likely buy this kit? Of course there are indeed some folks who would buy the kit, but TPTB might not be convinced there are enough of you to justify the expense. They're not seeing enough demand.

Compare this with R2's commitment to the 1/350 TOS _E._ The demand has been vocal and long standing. Also there is the proven track record that Trek kits, particularly the TOS and TMP Enterprise and Klingon ships, are well received good sellers.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Warped9 said:


> it could be as simple as TPTB wanting too much money for the licensing rights and no one is willing to be pay it.


That's very possible as this is a very common occurrance. It's ironic that people are so greedy they're willing to settle for nothing.

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


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Also what other ST09 tie-in merchandise has there been? Was any of it really successful or also lean? Maybe that's another barometer putting a damper on this kit.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

scotthm said:


> That's very possible as this is a very common occurrance. It's ironic that people are so greedy they're willing to settle for nothing.
> 
> ---------------


I don't know, but it seems unlikely that was the reason. I think they would have figured out the cost of the license before they went ahead and started mastering the parts.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I still think, one way or another, this kit will eventually be made. One thing I've learned about sci-fi kits especially recently; never say never.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Uhm - the license from Revell Germany is not for classic Trek only... they have a license for ALL Star Trek related items, including ST XI.
> 
> The reason that they release the two TOS models (Enterprise and D7) at their first ST kits is simply that TOS Star Trek is the most common here in Germany. RoG thinks that with those classic kits they will reach the greatest target group, and I guess they are right with that idea. Here in Germany TOS "Star Trek" - or, better, "Raumschiff Enterprise", as the series was called here, is still THE Star Trek. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura. All other movies and series are not so broadly known here.


Thanks for the imput from abroad Marco, I was wondering based on
what you saw, how well was the 2009 Star Trek movie received in
Germany?

fortress


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

fortress said:


> I was wondering based on
> what you saw, how well was the 2009 Star Trek movie received in
> Germany?


It was only two weeks in the theaters, so it was not a huge success.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The line of toys from Playmates went over like a lead balloon, and the line of books from Pocket Books (probably the one merchandizing idea that probably would've made money) got the plug pulled at the last minute (which didn't make any friends over at Pocket). Filter in the mangled handling of the JJPrise model, and a bit of a pattern emerges - a rousing dud on the one hand, and galactically stupid mismanagement on the other.

Round 2 is better off being out of it now.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Our local Big Lots store has an entire isle filled with Playmates Toys. So much merchandise it looks as if the movie had opened yesterday instead of 2009. I spoke with the manager and he said the merchandise was forced on him by corporate from the warehouses and he said they've had the display up for weeks and not a single item has sold. Not ONE!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Captain April said:


> The line of toys from Playmates went over like a lead balloon, and the line of books from Pocket Books (probably the one merchandizing idea that probably would've made money) got the plug pulled at the last minute (which didn't make any friends over at Pocket). Filter in the mangled handling of the JJPrise model, and a bit of a pattern emerges - a rousing dud on the one hand, and galactically stupid mismanagement on the other.
> 
> Round 2 is better off being out of it now.


Maybe Paramount will let this kit be produced by a model kit company that has been around a while. Round 2 is the new kid on the block. Let a more experienced model kit company do a kit of it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I won't own the movie, even if given free. If the model had come out, the same. Their is only one Star Trek, 45 years old September 8th, 2011.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

In all fairness most movie/toy tie-ins seem to fail. Even E.T. merchandising was a complete dud. I wonder how Jurassic Park toys did, or Avatars? I imagine Tron Legacy, Green Lantern, Hulk and Thor tie-ins were disappointing as well. 

This really started with Star Wars. No one had any idea how much demand there was going to be for Star Wars merchandise. Then it all exploded. Since then everyone expects their films to match the merchandising success of Star Wars.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Also realize that the economy pretty much sucks all across the world

Movie Merchandise is a luxury that a lot of people who WOULD buy it, CAN'T afford it

And we will probably never know why R2 canceled the JJ-Prise - NDA's and all that

Not that I really care much about anything on film that says Trek put out after Insurrection - Nemesis pretty much killed the franchise and JJ just added insult to injury IMHO


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I am beginning to think that there are some people here who may not have like the 2009 movie, and take pride in mocking those who do. Maybe it is just my imagination, Star Trek fans are supposed to be tolerant and understand that we are all entitled to our own opinions. Knowingly speaking harshly, to make a person feel bad about what they enjoy goes against everything The Original Series stood for. With this in mind, I must be imagining it, because that would never happen in the Star Trek community of fandom that I had a part in keeping alive for 45 years! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> Also what other ST09 tie-in merchandise has there been? Was any of it really successful or also lean? Maybe that's another barometer putting a damper on this kit.


According to my hobby-shop-owning friend, ST'09 merchandise sold _terrible_.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

At the local Toys R Us they STILL have bunches of figures from the JJ-Trek movie, can't move those Sulus at all. I also see the Nu-prise Bridge playset at various Big Lots locations. 

I did break down and get the Tricorder toy, just because I like roleplay toys and it was down to like $6.99 redtag.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I won't knock anyone for liking the 2009 movie, the JJ-prise, or any of the merchandising, but....in regards to the merchandising (other than the lack of a scale plastic model), look at the discussions on this forum. We've got discussion threads regarding classic Phasers, Tricorders (and probably one for a Communicator if I dug deep enough), but do we ever see anyone here going ga-ga over buying a 2009 movie Phaser, Communicator, etc.? I've looked at the prop merchandising that showed up in stores after the film came out - just to get a good look at them if nothing else. I know that they are actually toys, but the designs just scream "kids toy" instead of a film prop when you look at them. I've got a classic Phaser and I have it displayed at home next to a TNG Tricorder that I've had for years. I keep trying to justify purchasing one of the TMP Phasers as well as the classic Tricorder and Communicator. I love really good looking prop replicas, but I don't want them to look like a cheap toy - least of all when they cost 20 to 40.00 bucks a pop.

Even if they're marked down to 6.99, if it looks like a toy instead of a prop, I ain't buying it.

Bryan


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

o.k. Folks, to anyone who wants a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise I have some possible good news. I heard tonight from a reliable source that its his understanding their may be a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I want one so I asked what I could find out about it. It will be made of resin and it will be available later this year. So we'll see. The person who told me this is credible. I hope it happens for sure.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Resin=expensive !


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Guy Schlicter said:


> I heard tonight from a reliable source that its his understanding their may be a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise....It will be made of resin and it will be available later this year.


Please pass the salt.

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


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I amend my above post. Resin may or may not be expensive. If the model was done in any decent size scale it will be expensive, and heavy. Then we have bubbles to contend
with. Budgetary constraints may make this an option for only the most dedicated fans.
Not particularly good news at all.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Perhaps the news is best judged by the individual. For some the glass is always half full. To me the news is good, if a kit will finally be made available. Alas, I will not be able to build it, for health reasons I can not work with a resin kit. I will bide my time until a plastic kit comes along. If it doesn't, my glass is still half full, I have a ton of kits in the closet, and a ton of kits coming from Moebius.......and a 1/350 Enterprise!


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Most of the '09 _Trek_ merchandise is long gone from our shelves. One of the biggest annoyances was that none of the figures came with Bridge stations, making the Bridge playset utterly useless! And the fact that one figure - Captain Pike - was non-existent. I did see a pic of that figure but it really looked nothing like Bruce Greenwood.

I did get the _Enterprise_ (the only large-scale "model"/toy of the ship) along with the phaser, tricorder and communicator. Those last were okay, but not as appealing as the TOS pieces.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

WarpCore Breach said:


> I did get the _Enterprise_ (the only large-scale "model"/toy of the ship) along with the phaser, tricorder and communicator. Those last were okay, but not as appealing as the TOS pieces.


Sounds like the whole movie in a nutshell.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The thread that won't die.....must be a Zombie.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Guy Schlicter said:


> o.k. Folks, to anyone who wants a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise I have some possible good news. I heard tonight from a reliable source that its his understanding their may be a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I want one so I asked what I could find out about it. It will be made of resin and it will be available later this year. So we'll see. The person who told me this is credible. I hope it happens for sure.


Thanks for the update Guy, hopefully that subject will see the light
of day, please keep us posted! Even a resin version would be most
appreciated. As far as the price point goes I think there are quite
a few modelers out there who have "broke the bank" to get that
desired kit so whoever they are "bring it on".

fortress:dude:


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Guy Schlicter said:


> o.k. Folks, to anyone who wants a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise I have some possible good news. I heard tonight from a reliable source that its his understanding their may be a model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise. I want one so I asked what I could find out about it. It will be made of resin and it will be available later this year. So we'll see. The person who told me this is credible. I hope it happens for sure.


Thanks for the update Guy, hopefully that subject will see the light
of day, please keep us posted! Even a resin version would be most
appreciated. As far as the price point goes I think there are quite
a few modelers out there who have "broke the bank" to get that
desired kit so whoever they are "bring it on".

fortress:dude:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Thunderbolt, please don't start trolling. I like RSN's quote because I feel the same way. It's about respect for differing opinions, even if we don't agree with them. Thank you for your consideration.



RSN said:


> I am beginning to think that there are some people here who may not have like the 2009 movie, and take pride in mocking those who do. Maybe it is just my imagination, Star Trek fans are supposed to be tolerant and understand that we are all entitled to our own opinions. Knowingly speaking harshly, to make a person feel bad about what they enjoy goes against everything The Original Series stood for. With this in mind, I must be imagining it, because that would never happen in the Star Trek community of fandom that I had a part in keeping alive for 45 years! :thumbsup:


----------



## Thunderbolt1 (Nov 28, 2008)

It should have grid lines on it or something too


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

thunderbolt1 said:


> it should have grid lines on it or something too


omg !


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Okay, already! You guys who hate the JJ1701 have convinced me to stay away from this thread because of your continual berating of the topic at hand. Put simply: I don't want to read your posts. Go troll somewhere else, please. You're like those people who insist the world's going to end, so any moment of happiness should be ignored. Good Day.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> I amend my above post. Resin may or may not be expensive. If the model was done in any decent size scale it will be expensive, and heavy. Then we have bubbles to contend
> with. Budgetary constraints may make this an option for only the most dedicated fans.
> Not particularly good news at all.


You make it sound like nobody buys resin kits but the wealthy! :lol:

A kit of the JJPrize around the same size as the 1/1000 PL E will be about the same price as other 1/1000 resin Trek kits - say, $65 to $85. The Alliance Enterprise-A kit is $75 at Federation Models.

Here's a picture of _some _of the resin kits I have in my stockpile:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/shelves/shelves08-003.jpg


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK, folks, the snarky comments about the popularity of the movie need to stop. They're not conducive to open, friendly discussion of the topic at hand - the model itself. They tend to incite folks to respond in-kind and that's where it gets ugly. 

*If you don't like the subject of the thread, go find other threads to read and respond to.*


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Speaking for only myself, I enjoyed the movie and view it as what it was stated as - an alternate timeline. Apparently, the movie did pretty well, money-wise, so it seemed a no-brainer to me for the model to be produced. I wasn't so thrilled w/the apparent size(s) of the ship in the movie, but at least understood the thinking behind it's design and size as far as in-movie mentality was concerned. Heck, I liked the movie enough to pay to go see it twice, tho the second showing I viewed was at the dollar theater.


I'd still like to see a series of kits for the JJ-Timeline made available, be they resin or plastic, so long as the price is within the normal range for kits of the size/scale produced. Go with the intended length for the "JJ-Prise" or scale it down a bit, but at least give us a kit, someone.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

If you like this vessel, don't let the idea of a kit being resin put you off. In many ways, they're better than styrene kits where it comes to the really nuanced details (certainly true of figure kits). Once you get the hang of it, working with resin isn't all that much different than plastic.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think JJ would have to absolutely nail down just how big the damn thing is, and so far it appears that he's adamantly opposed to being held to _any_ hard figures, even if they come from his own team.

I could go on with how this mirrors his whole approach to the movie itself, but that's already been hashed out elsewhere...I think...


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

John P said:


> You make it sound like nobody buys resin kits but the wealthy! :lol:
> 
> A kit of the JJPrize around the same size as the 1/1000 PL E will be about the same price as other 1/1000 resin Trek kits - say, $65 to $85. The Alliance Enterprise-A kit is $75 at Federation Models.
> 
> ...


Wow John P!!!! Now that's what I call a feast for the soul! kinda looks
like my basement.

Well if anyone was dose do it in resin form It would be sweet if it
was in scale with the Starcrafts Models 2009 fleet line.:thumbsup:



fortress


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Speaking for only myself, I enjoyed the movie and view it as what it was stated as - an alternate timeline. Apparently, the movie did pretty well, money-wise, so it seemed a no-brainer to me for the model to be produced. I wasn't so thrilled w/the apparent size(s) of the ship in the movie, but at least understood the thinking behind it's design and size as far as in-movie mentality was concerned...I'd still like to see a series of kits for the JJ-Timeline made available, be they resin or plastic, so long as the price is within the normal range for kits of the size/scale produced. Go with the intended length for the "JJ-Prise" or scale it down a bit, but at least give us a kit, someone.


These statements sum up my thoughts fairly well. I consider myself a fan of the original series, and there were some things I would have done differently with regards to plot and characterizations in Abrams' movie, but overall I accepted and enjoyed the movie for what it was.

As for potential kits of the Enterprise and/or other ships from the movie I'd prefer styrene over resin, but that's simply a personal preference. They can call it whatever scale they want to, but I'd like something comparable in size to Polar Lights' 1/1000 original series Enterprise kit (i.e., under 12" in length).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

As a movie, I thought it would have made a OK TV episode of Enterprise. 

Seriously, I thought the cast was great, overall. (pardon me for using character names as I'm too tired and lazy to go to IMDB  ) I was a bit let down in Spock (or, Young Spock) but I figure he can get better, McCoy was PERFECT and had it dead on, Sulu and Chekov were nothing but hollow cyphers and Scotty...man, that just hurt. I do like the actor and he tried hard but no, no.

I think, story-wise, the most troublesome issue to me was the idea that the entire Classic Trek crew were all about the same age and woo hoo buds for LIFE, which just seems wrong, even if you choose to ignore 'what had gone before'. It's just illogical. 

I like the idea (as seen in the series) that Spock might have more time in-service compared to Kirk. I like that Scotty has been around and knows his stuff. I like that McCoy is older then Kirk but has less time in rank (it's been generally accepted that he was a successful doctor in private practice when something happens and he joins StarFleet), I like that Chekov was the 'new kid' on the ship. 

So, whatever. JJTrek exists, Paramount will continue to let him do crap until there's a regime change at the studio, that's just reality. 10 year from now some other 'hot new guy' will get it in his (or her) head that they need to 'revive' the dormant Star Trek franchise again and we'll do this dance over and over...


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> As a movie, I thought it would have made a OK TV episode of Enterprise.
> 
> Seriously, I thought the cast was great, overall. (pardon me for using character names as I'm too tired and lazy to go to IMDB  ) I was a bit let down in Spock (or, Young Spock) but I figure he can get better, McCoy was PERFECT and had it dead on, Sulu and Chekov were nothing but hollow cyphers and Scotty...man, that just hurt. I do like the actor and he tried hard but no, no.
> 
> ...


Right on Steve H, The guy who played Scott (Simon Pegg) good actor, 
a little over the top, and I like the fact that now Chekov the russian 
whiz kid saves the day, Sulu can't Drive at first (Lol), Spock and Uhura
....very different. Kirk and Spock enemies at first....nooooway.

the same world and at the same time......Not really. Interesting.

It's no wonder the 2009 Enterprise looks the way it dose, maybe that
was JJ's point all long, everything is confused..but right at the same
time.  

Hey folks don't mind me...I went through a earthquake today and I 
think I shook lose I think I need.:thumbsup:

fortress


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

fortress said:


> Right on Steve H, The guy who played Scott (Simon Pegg) good actor,
> a little over the top, and I like the fact that now Chekov the russian
> whiz kid saves the day, Sulu can't Drive at first (Lol), Spock and Uhura
> ....very different. Kirk and Spock enemies at first....nooooway.
> ...



This is exactly right. It is not the same universe anymore. Everything that has happened since the Romulan Mining ship appeared in the past, changed the course of everyones lives and personalities as well as Starfleet designs.

I wonder though, if it were all real, wouldn't the Nimoy/Spock from the future go to the, as yet, undiscovered Guardian of Forever and go back and set things right? Hmmmm...................


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is where I'm content to live in the past. The present is just too garish, loud, shallow and ugly for my sensibilities...at least in regards to Trek.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Here we go again. Round 4,798!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, how many hundreds of hours of "Old Star Trek" are there. Those are still available for fans who only like that. The 2009 film is for people, or a fan like me, to get something new if they choose it. No one is going around erasing the "Old Trek" out of existance. If people don't care for the new series of films, they don't have to watch them. IDIC people, IDIC!!!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

RSN said:


> This is exactly right. It is not the same universe anymore. Everything that has happened since the Romulan Mining ship appeared in the past, changed the course of everyones lives and personalities as well as Starfleet designs.
> 
> I wonder though, if it were all real, wouldn't the Nimoy/Spock from the future go to the, as yet, undiscovered Guardian of Forever and go back and set things right? Hmmmm...................


People's Exhibit #1 of how that ain't the Spock we've known for 40+ years.

What we saw was the rebooting of an alternate timeline into another alternate timeline. I put the point of divergence a lot further back than Nero's appearance; more like somewhere during the Temporal Cold War.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> People's Exhibit #1 of how that ain't the Spock we've known for 40+ years.
> 
> What we saw was the rebooting of an alternate timeline into another alternate timeline. I put the point of divergence a lot further back than Nero's appearance; more like somewhere during the Temporal Cold War.


Defense Exhibit #1 that it was the Spock from the Original Series. Why was the Spock of The Original Series the one who came back to this alternate timeline then? It would have been the one we saw in the 2009 movie, that was created by the Temperal Cold War. The Spock that came back had to have been born in the Original Trek Universe, before the Temperal Cold War effected the timeline, if it indeed did! Don't ya just love time travel paradoxes?! :thumbsup:


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

My wife, who has no time for Trek, loved the movie. Being an old TOS fan, I was cautious, but I loved it too. Yes the timeline thing has been done before, but what storyline hasn't. There were moments in the film that New Kirk (Chris Pine) reminded me of old Kirk (Shatner). At the end of the day it was an enjoyable movie. Would I have bought the kit? Maybe. Am I disappointed that they aren't doing a movie version? A little. Will I buy a 1/350 Tos E. Most likely, but only one.....no room for it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BATBOB said:


> My wife, who has no time for Trek, loved the movie. Being an old TOS fan, I was cautious, but I loved it too. Yes the timeline thing has been done before, but what storyline hasn't. There were moments in the film that New Kirk (Chris Pine) reminded me of old Kirk (Shatner). At the end of the day it was an enjoyable movie. Would I have bought the kit? Maybe. Am I disappointed that they aren't doing a movie version? A little. Will I buy a 1/350 Tos E. Most likely, but only one.....no room for it.


My teenage , who will not watch ANY old Trek, begged to go see the movie and really liked it. Chris Pine had a lot to wih it, but she really enjoyed the movie, as well as I did. She rolled her eyes as I "Geeked Out" to the original series music at the end. The movie had me right from the start with the attack on the Kelvin and her evacuation. I knew right there that evrything I "knew" about Trek would be different, and I was OK with that. But my daughter was the target audiance for this movie, not me the "Geeky Fan", so I would say they hit a home-run......and the box office reflected that.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

You're right. Old farts like us are not the target audience, and getting back to modelling, once we're gone in 10 years or so, they'd better have some new modellers on board or the industry will be dead. I think it's dying anyway if the dwindling LHS is the canary in the coalmine.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

BATBOB said:


> You're right. Old farts like us are not the target audience, and getting back to modelling, once we're gone in 10 years or so, they'd better have some new modellers on board or the industry will be dead. I think it's dying anyway if the dwindling LHS is the canary in the coalmine.


 OK, I am officially depressed now...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BATBOB said:


> You're right. Old farts like us are not the target audience, and getting back to modelling, once we're gone in 10 years or so, they'd better have some new modellers on board or the industry will be dead. I think it's dying anyway if the dwindling LHS is the canary in the coalmine.


Model building will go the way of FX in films. The generation after us will still build replicas, they will just be making 3-D renderings in a computer rather than in plastic. Things change, those who live in the past will always be miserable at changes going on around them. I love my past and visit often, but I LIVE in the present and have an eye on the future. Life is good and the closet of kits I have and the ones I am looking forward to coming out soon, make it ALL the better! Build on!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> Defense Exhibit #1 that it was the Spock from the Original Series. Why was the Spock of The Original Series the one who came back to this alternate timeline then? It would have been the one we saw in the 2009 movie, that was created by the Temperal Cold War. The Spock that came back had to have been born in the Original Trek Universe, before the Temperal Cold War effected the timeline, if it indeed did! Don't ya just love time travel paradoxes?! :thumbsup:


Wrong. The TOS Spock sure as hell would know when Kirk would have commanded the _Enterprise_ and he'd surely know it wasn't when he was a dumb-ass cadet. How else could this older Spock have been confused about nuKirk not being in command of the ship? It's because the older Spock isn't the TOS Spock, but yet another variant of Abrams' stunted imagination.

The film is full of stupid crap like this.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Wrong. The TOS Spock sure as hell would know when Kirk would have commanded the _Enterprise_ and he'd surely know it wasn't when he was a dumb-ass cadet. How else could this older Spock have been confused about nuKirk not being in command of the ship? It's because the older Spock isn't the TOS Spock, but yet another variant of Abrams' stunted imagination.
> 
> The film is full of stupid crap like this.


You didn't read correctly or understand what I wrote so I will clarify it. If the JJ Universe were the creation of the Temperal War, as you yourself put forth, then the Spock that came back in time would have been the same one who was born in the JJ Universe, and he would not have any knowledge about the Original Series continuity. The Spock that came back DID have this knowledge and is precisely why he DID know things were wrong. The new continuity/universe began when Nero appeared and destroyed the Kelvin. This led Starfleet to develop bigger, more armoured, ships to stand up to this threat looming out in the galaxy. Hence, the new Enterprise design. Time travel stories can be difficult for some to understand so no problem. As for your continued insluts of the movie, it does nothing to make your point....we get it, you don't like the movie. Some of us in this thread do....that is why it was started. :thumbsup:


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks, I told you several days ago that a resin model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise may be available by the end of this year. That will be great if it happens. To those of you who like and want the J.J. Abrams Enterprise as a plastic model kit. I ask you do you think some plastic model company will pick up where Round 2 left off and produce their own kit. I certainly would like to have a plastic model kit of it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi Folks, I told you several days ago that a resin model of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise may be available by the end of this year. That will be great if it happens. To those of you who like and want the J.J. Abrams Enterprise as a plastic model kit. I ask you do you think some plastic model company will pick up where Round 2 left off and produce their own kit. I certainly would like to have a plastic model kit of it.


As has been seen by the photos posted, R2 did make some progress on the patterns. I am not sure how it works, but if these were done by computer program, mayhaps another company could purchase the work done so far and complete the job. If there is a market for the ship from "Galaxy Quest", (An excellent film!), I imagine that just as much interest for the new Enterprise is out there.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Make it stop!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Dammit, Jim! I couldn't stay away.... We must continue torturing the non-believers! Yes, I say! Yes to a Nu1701 model from the alternate 2009 JJ-Trek movie! A-ahahahahaha!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Having a brewski with the Easter Bunny sure is nice. Gonna do some shopping later with the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I think some of us "haters" would be a bit happier (note I didn't say we *WOULD* be happy...) if there had been a few seconds long scene where one of the StarFleet designers, pointing to a diagram of the TOS Enterprise, would have noted that they needed to beef up the shielding in places, and it needed to be larger to cope with the unknown menace that destroyed the Kelvin. they might have even mentioned that they had to build it on the ground due to the threat of it being destroyed during constructon in orbit...

Well, at least *I* would have been happier!! 

Larry


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> I think some of us "haters" would be a bit happier (note I didn't say we *WOULD* be happy...) if there had been a few seconds long scene where one of the StarFleet designers, pointing to a diagram of the TOS Enterprise, would have noted that they needed to beef up the shielding in places, and it needed to be larger to cope with the unknown menace that destroyed the Kelvin. they might have even mentioned that they had to build it on the ground due to the threat of it being destroyed during constructon in orbit...
> 
> Well, at least *I* would have been happier!!
> 
> Larry


Rationalizing it won't make it look any better.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I hate the term "haters." It's something a subset of fans came up with to make themselves sound superior to others. That ain't IDIC, baby!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

LGFugate said:


> I think some of us "haters" would be a bit happier (note I didn't say we *WOULD* be happy...) if there had been a few seconds long scene where one of the StarFleet designers, pointing to a diagram of the TOS Enterprise, would have noted that they needed to beef up the shielding in places, and it needed to be larger to cope with the unknown menace that destroyed the Kelvin. they might have even mentioned that they had to build it on the ground due to the threat of it being destroyed during constructon in orbit...
> 
> Well, at least *I* would have been happier!!
> 
> Larry


Well, that is what I got from the story, without it having to be said. I tend to think outside the box, it expands the mind! :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Now that their timeline is all screwed up, Nero's ship did have Borg technology. You don't want any lightweight ships going up against something like that.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Jeff,

Where did they show Borg technology? I don't recall any mention of the Borg or their tech, and they would have still been in the Delta Quadrant in the TOS timeline. (Even this altered one!)

Larry


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

LGFugate said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Where did they show Borg technology? I don't recall any mention of the Borg or their tech, and they would have still been in the Delta Quadrant in the TOS timeline. (Even this altered one!)
> 
> Larry


I was affraid to ask that, I thought maybe I had missed something from the TNG films. I wasn't thrilled enough with them to remember little details.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Everytime I see the DVD at Wal-Mart, I laugh. I'm not sure why, either because of the stupid story, or the brain damage FROM watching it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's on the special features section of the blu ray. There's a part on the disc where you can rotate the Enterprise and the Narada to predetermined angles where callouts and descriptions appear, and they do in fact say that the modified mining ship of Nero's did have Borg technology.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

JeffG said:


> It's on the special features section of the blu ray. There's a part on the disc where you can rotate the Enterprise and the Narada to predetermined angles where callouts and descriptions appear, and they do in fact say that the modified mining ship of Nero's did have Borg technology.


Cool, I did not see that on there. Now I have something new to look for, thank you. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, if it isn't mentioned in the film itself, it really doesn't count. People who only saw it in the theater don't have access to the DVD extras. A movie needs to stand on its own, without the need for external reference sources.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Well, if it isn't mentioned in the film itself, it really doesn't count. People who only saw it in the theater don't have access to the DVD extras. A movie needs to stand on its own, without the need for external reference sources.


It actually does make some sense. In TNG, when the Romulans reappear in "The Neutral Zone", they say their abscense in recent years was due to an "Internal Problem". It has been said by the writers that this was the set-up for the Borg, that the Borg were meant to be a continuing threat starting in the second season. This idea got side tracked until "Q Who", where they were finally introduced. The Romulans fighting the Borg would certainly explain the sheer size of the Warbird! But since all this was just what the writers intended, but did not follow through on, it is just interesting to think about Nero's ship possibly having some Borg tech behind it.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

Its like I always say: "Picard screws it up!"

runs into the borg w/ Q,

Fights the borg in the past, and leaves a few to find Archer's crew.

I firmly believe that picard is the reason for the new timeline with the Kelvin.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> Well, if it isn't mentioned in the film itself, it really doesn't count. People who only saw it in the theater don't have access to the DVD extras. A movie needs to stand on its own, without the need for external reference sources.


Aww come on.......
The tech trekkies thrive on all those little blueprint bits of info.
Thats what's propelled almost everything in trek modeling.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

ClubTepes said:


> Aww come on.......
> The tech trekkies thrive on all those little blueprint bits of info.
> Thats what's propelled almost everything in trek modeling.


Oh, absolutely, but that's a different issue all together. Fanfic, fan tech, and all that are a separate entity from the series and films.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm thinking of just taking my Playmates toy JJprise apart and re-building it as model kit. The dimensions on the toy look fairly accurate to my eye. I do wish however, someone would say for certain if there will never be a JJprise model kit, even when the new movie comes out. I'll be pissed if I spend all that effort on the toy and then have a new shiny model kit come out.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm thinking of just taking my Playmates toy JJprise apart and re-building it as model kit. The dimensions on the toy look fairly accurate to my eye. I do wish however, someone would say for certain if there will never be a JJprise model kit, even when the new movie comes out. I'll be pissed if I spend all that effort on the toy and then have a new shiny model kit come out.


Okay, here goes:
There there will never be a JJprise model kit! (Running for cover)
-Jim


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Found this on the web, sad, but Oh so funny !


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

THAT was good for a spit-take, brother! Thank you!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

But the Precious is coming in 2012, TOS 1701 1/350, not no bloody JJprise.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Lloyd Collins said:


> But the Precious is coming in 2012, TOS 1701 1/350, not no bloody JJprise.


Amen Lloyd, watching and waiting....


----------



## RedHeadKevin (May 1, 2009)

> Well, if it isn't mentioned in the film itself, it really doesn't count. People who only saw it in the theater don't have access to the DVD extras. A movie needs to stand on its own, without the need for external reference sources


>cough< Harry Potter Movies >cough<

But I digress... Getting back, for a moment, to the subject of a 2009 Enterprise model... Wasn't the 2009 Enterprise the biggest of all the Enterprises? l've seen size estimates of up to 725 meters for the 2009-1701, which would make it even bigger than the Next Generation Enterprise. It seems that the most realistic size estimates puts it a bit bigger than the Refit. Depending on what size the model designers went with for the 2009-1701, you'd wind up with VASTLY differing scales. A "1/1000" scale model might be "in scale" with the 1/350th refit, while a "1/350" kit might need a new room on your house. Just a small technical issue with making a kit of the new Enterprise.

But back to geekery for a second: If the Kelvin incident was the beginning of the new timeline, did all the time-travel stuff happen in the JJ-verse? Did Star Trek IV, First Contact, and any other "in the past" events take place? How about the whole Khan/Botany Bay incident? And wouldn't putting a black hole between Romulus and the Supernova be just about as bad as the supernova itself?


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

RedHeadKevin said:


> >cough< Harry Potter Movies >cough<
> 
> But I digress... Getting back, for a moment, to the subject of a 2009 Enterprise model... Wasn't the 2009 Enterprise the biggest of all the Enterprises? l've seen size estimates of up to 725 meters for the 2009-1701, which would make it even bigger than the Next Generation Enterprise. It seems that the most realistic size estimates puts it a bit bigger than the Refit. Depending on what size the model designers went with for the 2009-1701, you'd wind up with VASTLY differing scales. A "1/1000" scale model might be "in scale" with the 1/350th refit, while a "1/350" kit might need a new room on your house. Just a small technical issue with making a kit of the new Enterprise.
> 
> But back to geekery for a second: If the Kelvin incident was the beginning of the new timeline, did all the time-travel stuff happen in the JJ-verse? Did Star Trek IV, First Contact, and any other "in the past" events take place? How about the whole Khan/Botany Bay incident? And wouldn't putting a black hole between Romulus and the Supernova be just about as bad as the supernova itself?


Now I know why time travel theory gave Janeway a headache  Ok for me the reboot of the startrek series started to happen with the Star trek First contact movie certain individuals got glimpses into the future that they shouldn't have and changed the design lineage slightly. (my simple explanation :freak


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

John P said:


> Well, if it isn't mentioned in the film itself, it really doesn't count. People who only saw it in the theater don't have access to the DVD extras. A movie needs to stand on its own, without the need for external reference sources.


Right, because all of the other Trek movies were crafted so carefully to make sure they could stand alone, with no prior knowledge of the characters, the hardware, or the history.


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

Bernard Guignar said:


> Now I know why time travel theory gave Janeway a headache  Ok for me the reboot of the startrek series started to happen with the Star trek First contact movie certain individuals got glimpses into the future that they shouldn't have and changed the design lineage slightly. (my simple explanation :freak


I agree. Archer, in the Borg episode of ST: Enterprise, directly referred to the events of ST: First Contact--so I'm thinking that all of the JJverse stuff really started in ST: First Contact. 

Sean


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Google these terms together:
"PJT models" 2009 trek

To find a listing on daBay of a 2009 Enterprise model. For real?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SJF said:


> I agree. Archer, in the Borg episode of ST: Enterprise, directly referred to the events of ST: First Contact--so I'm thinking that all of the JJverse stuff really started in ST: First Contact.
> 
> Sean


Don't forget, 1986 and Scotty giving up the formula for Transparent Aluminum before it was invented in their history. (And I find it hard to believe an engineer would not know who, where and when, something as important as Transparent Aluminum was invented!) :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ In the novelization, the guy they were talking to _was_ they guy who invented it. Scotty just gave him a nudge towards something he was going to do anyway.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> ^ In the novelization, the guy they were talking to _was_ they guy who invented it. Scotty just gave him a nudge towards something he was going to do anyway.


But that wasn't in the movie so it doesn't count!! 

Once and for all, the entire Star Trek Universe, From Star Trek: Enterprise through Star Trek: Nemesis happened in the same continuity. The new movie Continuity begins when Nero appears and destroys the Kelvin. That was the intent of the film! It is not really that hard to figure out....unless you just like to overthink things I guess.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

For those of you who sincerely want a model kit of the JJ-Prise, I sincerely hope that you get it some day. Although I didn't care for the design, it was yet another take on the original ship, and those who want a model should get one.

The model that I always wanted was a 1/350 scale model of the orignal TV ship. That wish is now coming true - after nearly 47 years. I hope that you folks don't have to wait as long.

I would have bought at least one or two of the kits, just to see what I could do to modify it into something I found more aesthetically pleasing. I kind of regret not getting a chance to do that, now.

I believe the reason that the kit was not produced was two-fold. The design of the kit from the digital files was wrought with problems and delays - pushing the production of the kit further into the future than originally intended. This ran the production of the kit right smack into the time when they needed every penny of tooling funds to realize the development and release of the 1/350 original TV ship kit. Since the demand for the original series ship was so high, and the desire for the 2009 movie kit decidedly mixed, with sales of other 2009 movie products from other companies falling way below expectations, it was an economic decision to pull the JJ-Prise kit from the production pipeline in order to free up funds and resources to focus on the original ship kit.

Perhaps when the next film is released and is again a "hot" property, Round 2 will revisit this model again.

My two cents.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _Transparent Aluminum_


Anybody ever read "After Worlds Collide"? Not as popular as the original book, or the movie, but the new ark humans discovered an ancient dead civilization on Bellus and they had relics of clear metal. 

It is a better read than you might think. I liked it as much as some Asimov, Heinlein or Bradbury.

Sorry. Off topic. And I DO NOT mind the new 2009 Enterprise design. If it's ever produced, I defy anyone to light it accurately. When I first saw it, in all its glory, I thought, "how in the h*** are you supposed to light _that_!"


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RedHeadKevin said:


> >cough< Harry Potter Movies >cough<


And since I never read the books, those films damn well had better stand on their own.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Kit said:


> Right, because all of the other Trek movies were crafted so carefully to make sure they could stand alone, with no prior knowledge of the characters, the hardware, or the history.


I didn't say all movies DO, I said all movies SHOULD. Any info essential for knowing what's going on in the movie needs to be there so that people unfamiliar with the universe aren't left out. For example, in Wrath of Khan, the backstory is taken care of in the dialog when Khan and Chekov discuss the events of Space Seed for Capt. Terrell's benefit.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

So one thing I've always wondered. Was the wife Khan mourned the erstwhile Lt. McGivers?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> So one thing I've always wondered. Was the wife Khan mourned the erstwhile Lt. McGivers?


Yes, it was!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Bad news, the 2009 movie Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise model has been canceled!

I really hated to bring the bad new to you, so move along, life goes on. For some, anyway, for the rest, professional help is available.:wave:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks Lloyd, ...you know somehow, I didn't know that. I really need to keep up with the news. I would have waited....well forever, thanks now I can focus on my nose goblin collection !


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Yes, but will the cancelled 2009 Enterprise be in the collectors tin or regular box? If it is in a box I may not pick it up as soon as I can't. I don't want to not spend extra to not get one if it just comes in a collector's tin! If the box version will not be not out until later, I will wait to not get one!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> Yes, but will the cancelled 2009 Enterprise be in the collectors tin or regular box? If it is in a box I may not pick it up as soon as I can't. I don't want to not spend extra to not get one if it just comes in a collector's tin! If the box version will not be not out until later, I will wait to not get one!!


I almost choked on my drink just now!
OMG :lol::jest::lol::jest::jest::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

What scale won't it be in?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

RSN said:


> Yes, it was!


Great! But it wasn't mentioned in the movie, was it? Just something you had to learn from other sources.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

OMG ! Pepsi hurts when it spurts out your nostrils.....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> Great! But it wasn't mentioned in the movie, was it? Just something you had to learn from other sources.


Yes, from Susan Sackett, Gene's assistant, when she presented a slide show on the film at my convention in 1982. It was in the film, but was cut, along with the subplot of the baby that Chekov and Terrell find in the Botony Bay wreckage and later seen crawling up to the torpedo in the transporter room as it is on a build-up to detination. The baby rapidly ages from shot to shot. See what you miss on the cutting room floor!!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Interesting: I don't recall any episode or movie mentioning the size of any of the Enterprises except for First Contact. Every mention of size has been in making of books or technical manuals, published by Paramount. Does this mean that these sources don't count because we never see ship statistics mentioned in an episode or movie?


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

I find it laughable that anyone tries to figure out the actual dimensions of any of the Enterprise ships.

How about that whole TOS bridge to the side issue: is it or isn't it.

Shuttle Bay TOS: is it that size or not?

Shuttle TOS: how big is it on the outside? Wow lots of room on the inside.

Wow, this bridge in VI is way bigger than in TMP or TWOK.

The Klingon BOP only has 12 people on it? How big is the one in TNG, what scale is it again?

You mean lots of measurements you swear by are from the unofficial Blueprints that were made years after the series?

All of this and you have a problem with the JJprise?

Where did that third level to the J2 come from? A fold in spacetime?

Everyone has a "canon coping method" the only true fact is that they are all based on a fictional idea. The idea that Your fiction is more real than someone elses Fiction is ridiculous. 

I want a model, it won't happen from R2. I'm going to convert the Playmates toy into a model and fix the neck and add lights etc. to get a decent model like many Star Wars builders do with the Hasbro toys.

End rant. And i'm sure most of you will have a perfect explination to all of my questions, based on your fictional conjecture/experience.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

bigjimslade said:


> The Battle Beyond the Planets version of the Enterprise.


That's just hi-larious!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

James_Tiberius, I, too, have thet Playmates toy. Can I ask what and how you'll make it into what you want? Granted, I'm on 4 hours sleep, but seeing your approach would definitely help me plan mine.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

charonjr said:


> James_Tiberius, I, too, have the Playmates toy.


I have it also, but I disabled the annoying sound & painted the windows- that's all I'm willing to do on this. I like it, but not enough to do serious work on it.
I *do* like the lighting on it, though.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

going to strip it down to its seperate pieces, nacells, secondary and primary hulls.

Take them apart, re-do the electronics and drill out windows for lighting. I'll save the lighting system for the nacells, add LED's for secondary and primary hulls, look at screenshots for painting instructions. Fix the neck angle, fill all gaps with putty.

Then I'll paint it aztec style and add custom decals to finish it off.


----------



## scifiguy67 (Jan 18, 2011)

i have one too..... this is as far as i got on the mods. 
1) i moved the nacelles back.
2) thined the nacelle pylons
3) filled& putty& sand screw holes etc.
4)primer & base coat.
then i stopped the ship design is so ugly i lost interest in it.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

James Tiberius said:


> And i'm sure most of you will have a perfect explination to all of my questions, based on your fictional conjecture/experience.


Easy. They used Time Lord technology.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, we're now blaming the whole thing on a wonky chameleon circuit?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Kit said:


> So one thing I've always wondered. Was the wife Khan mourned the erstwhile Lt. McGivers?


Yup, and I've always wished they'd asked Madeline Rhu to appear, even briefly. She was wheelchair-bound at the time, but still perfectly capable of performing. A scene showing her death would have given us a bit more fuel to Khan's rage.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I totally agree; wish she had shown up. But the movie was really enjoyable anyway, even if there was that hole that could only be filled in with information from other sources, like the old ep or articles in magazines.

Now there's the Internet, and we can even more easily get that bonus information, like the Borg background to Nemo's ship in the 2009 film. And for those who enjoyed the movie, and I respect their opinion even if I don;t share it, so I won't pound away with mine, that extra info hopefully adds to the fun. After all, I'm sure there are people who like decal panel lines, too.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Mythbusters proved that you can indeed polish a turd.

Why reinvent the wheel? 

(Just some humor, that's all!)

Tib


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Tiberious said:


> Why reinvent the wheel?


You know engineers...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

A round shape changed to an octogon will allow for more surface contact and better traction,.....although the ride will be like driving a nitroglycerin truck on a gravel road with potholes!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I read that they will abandon the International Space Station in November, if the JJprise is not released as a model kit.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Tiberious said:


> Mythbusters proved that you can indeed polish a turd.
> 
> Why reinvent the wheel?
> 
> ...


*LOL* :lol:


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> A round shape changed to an octogon will allow for more surface contact and better traction,.....although the ride will be like driving a nitroglycerin truck on a gravel road with potholes!


*LOL* :lol::lol:


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I read that they will abandon the International Space Station in November, if the JJprise is not released as a model kit.


*LOL* :lol::roll::lol:

GUYS, P... P... PLEASE!


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

once again, a thread ruined by old unflexible trolls, shouldnt' you be arguing about CGI looking too real? I.E. better than the old effects.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Thank You, Thank You. I'm here till Thursday ! Try the veal.....


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I absolutely can't wait for the next film to come out. It's gonna be like throwing a machine gun into a room full of monkeys!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

James Tiberius said:


> once again, a thread ruined by old unflexible trolls, shouldnt' you be arguing about CGI looking too real? I.E. better than the old effects.


Who's ruining what now? Who's trolling who now?


----------



## faefrost (May 10, 2011)

Larry523 said:


> This might not be germaine to this discussion, but I just read that the sequel has been delayed at least until 2013. JJ says they're still working on the _outline _and don't have a final script yet! He hopes they'll be able to make an announcement "in a month or so." He also says the next installment will be a stand-alone movie that doesn't presume you're familiar with any previous Trek, including the '09 reboot. Good luck with that! What's confusing/disturbing depending on how much you read into it is that he also mentioned that in a sense, they were "starting over" again, preserving what worked in the first movie, but trying to do something fresh and new at the same time. What this really means is anyone's guess.
> 
> As for my humble opinion of the reboot and the JJPrise, I just watched the blu-ray of it for maybe the third time to refresh my memory. The good: I liked the actors playing the original characters. I thought the casting was great. As for the bad, well: the movie was entertaining, but took too many liberties with the original history for my liking. I grew up on TOS. It and LIS were were my first exposures to science fiction. JJ's premise was basically good and had potential, but the execution left much to be desired. I don't particularly like the new Enterprise. Like many, I find it misproportioned and lacking the elegant lines of the original. I don't care much for the interior sets either, and I'm not just referring to the engineering/brewery room either. I'm not wild about the new uniforms except for the miniskirts for the female crewmembers...
> 
> ...


I think you summed up my feelings on both the movie and the ship unbelievably well. Are you reading my mind?

The casting and cast chemistry was perfect. They more than did the job asked. The ship and sets strayed into what the robotics and CGI people call the uncanny valley. They were something that we are used to and were expecting. As a result rather than appreciating the new designs our eyes automatically picked up on the perceived wrongness of the designs. Particularly some of the weird lines of the new Enterprise. The nacels and the neck are the big problem areas for that. 

What magnified the audiences or fans issues with the new Enterprise was that the absolute first ship we see on screen perfectly matched their subtle and internal expectations of what a star trek starship should look like, while at the same time being new and exciting. The Kelvin's lines were absolute perfection. They brought to mind both the Reliant and the Refit E while at the same time literally turning the whole thing on its head and giving us something unexpected.

And then we saw the new Enterprise...

Which to many observers eyes looked like it had been left on the dashboard in the sun a little too long. 

And then what almost made it worse is we get the feeling that the movies producers had the same sort of discomfort with the new ship. For the Kelvin we get these absolutely gorgeous beauty shots. Stunning close ups and full panoramic sweeps from all sorts of angles. And yet we never seem to get the full on sweeping views of the new enterprise that aren't marred by distance, weird angles, partial views, shaky cam effects or god help me lens flair. As a result almost every view we get of the new E looks like a toy, while the first ship we see looks like a Starship. It's a concept that once it sinks in is hard to claw out of the observers brain.

Would I build a kit of it? Sure. Although I would much prefer almost any of the other JJ ships. Particularly a Kelvin or a Newton. 

As far as why R2 will not be doing the JJPrise. I'm sure it is a number of factors. probably some combination of licensing costs vs production costs to make even a small but acceptable styrene model from the subtly complex CGI ship (just look at the curves on the engines alone. remember this was not built from a studio model that had to obey construction and manufacturing rules. Making this sucker in styrene such that it is an easy build and looks good would not be as straightforward as the TOS or TMP E's.) vs expected returns on the project vs exactly how badly the toys did vs the rumors that there will be substantial changes to the ship in the next movie (it's CGI so they aren't tied to the gazillion dollar studio model like the first 6 movies were) which in turn would mean that any tooling they make today would be outright wrong for selling when the next movie comes out vs finally timing, the reboot movie was 2009, the next won't be out until 2013 now. so they don't have a naturally driven sales and marketing push going on there. A year to design and manufacture a product drops it into a marketing black hole of disinterest in 2012. And in the end they may have wanted too much money for the license for the new movie ship or ships for what the calculated returns would have been on the product.

Heck they would probably get a better profit from a 1/1000 Reliant or Grissom.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

> The Kelvin's lines were absolute perfection. They brought to mind both the Reliant and the Refit E while at the same time literally turning the whole thing on its head and giving us something unexpected.


I know a lot of people liked the Kelvin but I think it's a horrible design. Overly detailed saucer with smooth warp engine and secondary hull. ( I guess that's a secondary hull) 

There's nothing graceful about it in my opinion, no good view, and much worse I cannot tell which side is "up"!


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

its hardly any different than those frans joseph destroyers with the horrible deflector dish hanging from underneath the saucer.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow, I've never been called a troll before. Thanks for being the first JT, no matter how wrong you might be. 

Tib


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Solium said:


> I know a lot of people liked the Kelvin but I think it's a horrible design... There's nothing graceful about it in my opinion, no good view, and much worse I cannot tell which side is "up"!


I've never cared for it either.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I kinda liked it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I have about as many problems with the Kelvin as I have with the JJPrise.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

The Kelvin is a great ship to build after you've dropped your 22" Connie!

http://forums.scalehobby.com/viewthread.php?tid=7018

Work in progress.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

James Tiberius said:


> once again, a thread ruined by old unflexible trolls, shouldnt' you be arguing about CGI looking too real? I.E. better than the old effects.


Where is my bridge I live under?:freak:

I still don't like the way CGI spaceships look, models are better.:wave:


Are you happy now!


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

not my "time of the month" just pointing out a fact as I read the "elder statesman" posts and the same haters who have shown up for 2 years now.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Sometimes "facts" aren't facts and they don't need to be pointed out. Be better then "they/we" are and try not to throw blanket statements out which affect (presumably) everyone who has an opinion/thought that they expressed.

I, for one, had no intention of trolling.... sometimes a joke is simply a joke.

Tib


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

http://www.trekp.com/posters/gw306-idic.jpg


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ah, now we're "trolls" _AND_ "haters."

Got any other personally insulting pejoratives to level at people who don't happen to share your opinions?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Ah, now we're "trolls" _AND_ "haters."
> 
> Got any other personally insulting pejoratives to level at people who don't happen to share your opinions?


Did you HAVE to ask????


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

John P said:


> Ah, now we're "trolls" _AND_ "haters."
> 
> Got any other personally insulting pejoratives to level at people who don't happen to share your opinions?


John -

It's nothing new. I've seen the same phenomenon happen on other boards, but with differing subjects. I find the idea that someone who doesn't agree is merely speaking his mind, or sharing an opinion. Unfortunately, there are those that feel the only way to shout down the dissenting opinions is to attack those that don't agree and call them names like "trolls" and "haters". Most people outgrow this kind of mentality when they leave elementary school, but with the advent of the internet, we see it's merely surpressed and surface in discussions on BBoards over a wide range of topics.

Bryan


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

SteveR said:


> Google these terms together:
> "PJT models" 2009 trek
> 
> To find a listing on daBay of a 2009 Enterprise model. For real?


Thanks for the listing SteveR, Price wise that's just crazy!!! 
but it shows clearly that the move is on to get this subject
kitted, nice work on that one-shot would have made a pretty
nice production kit. It's only a matter of time now.


fortress:thumbsup:


----------



## Husker Adama (Sep 1, 2011)

isnt the "PJT models" 2009 Enterprise just a playmates toy?

I just compared the circular lights on the upper saucer and they match the playmates toy. Sure a nice repaint an fix up, but still its just the playmates toy. I might even do it myself.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Husker Adama said:


> isnt the "PJT models" 2009 Enterprise just a playmates toy?
> 
> I just compared the circular lights on the upper saucer and they match the playmates toy. Sure a nice repaint an fix up, but still its just the playmates toy. I might even do it myself.


You have one? Tweakin' it would be some major work IMO.

Here it is starting bid $10:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/USS-Enterpr...176?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2567222230

And on Amazon for $14 new:
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Enterprise-Iconic-Vehicle/dp/B001KPKMKW

FYI


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

God, that thing is hideous...


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> God, that thing is hideous...


LOL, I take it you don't own one....:jest:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> God, that thing is hideous...


To say the least.


----------



## Husker Adama (Sep 1, 2011)

sorry I posted!

I liked the ship and thought it would be cool to make one this way since there isn't a model.

Hard to believe there is so much negative feedback from a few people on a model, arent there enough models of TOS Enterprise?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Never Enough!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Husker Adama said:


> sorry I posted!
> 
> I liked the ship and thought it would be cool to make one this way since there isn't a model.
> 
> Hard to believe there is so much negative feedback from a few people on a model, arent there enough models of TOS Enterprise?


There's nothing personal in others' remarks nor are they aimed at you. Some just have a visceral reaction to the ship and vent a bit here and there.

If you like it, go for it! I think that it is interesting in its own way though I pretty much detest it, myself. Just doesn't work for me--especially when compared to the beloved original. It seems that every ship in sci-fi has at least one fan and at least one detractor. Opinions will vary.:wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The reaction to the JJprise is similar to reaction to images of the new _Man Of Steel_ costume. Some will like it and others will react negatively partly because it violates what they thought was perfectly fine as is and partly because they really don't like the changes. In counterpoint fans of a new design can often dismiss those who disagree by simply labelling them as haters of anything new by reflex rather than considering that a lot of the dissent could actually be genuine and not just a reflex response.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Warped9 said:


> Some will like it and others will react negatively partly because it violates what they thought was perfectly fine as is and partly because they really don't like the changes.


Not really. There are rules of design out there, and the JJprise definitely brakes them - she simply looked unbalanced. She is no good design, like the refit was.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Never Enough!


Speak up, man, don't be shy!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not really. There are rules of design out there, and the JJprise definitely brakes them - she simply looked unbalanced. She is no good design, like the refit was.


I had my issues with the refit, those were mainly nacelle shape stuff, I have a list with the JJprise. Biggest being neck placement & pylon inward curvature which forces the nacelles too close to each other. Were those two main things fixed, I could wrap my head around all the other little things.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

I would like to see one of the resin kit makers (i.e. Starcrafts etc) build a JJ-prise version that "SHOULD HAVE BEEN" and fix a lot of those design flaws. You could probably change it just enough to avoid any copyright issues.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Dennis Bailey did something like that. Still doesn't look like something that would've rolled out of spacedock in 2245, but it's a helluva lot better than that warp driven mutation that we got.

Yes, mark this down, I just said something nice regarding Dennis.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Dennis Bailey did something like that. Still doesn't look like something that would've rolled out of spacedock in 2245, but it's a helluva lot better than that warp driven mutation that we got.



I would like to see some pics of that-- do you have a link?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

There are some elements which I like- the Saucer and connecting dorsal pylon look better that the Refits- they appear like they can handle a load and transfer it to the strongback. The secondary hull, engines and their pylons just do not work for me. 
I hope a kit is released so I can modify it some and see where the design can go.
As mentioned above, it is not just the idea of a ship being redesigned, that has happened many times already. it is just a deisgn which has few angles where it looks balanced. Some of th esketches looks very goos and I wish they had stayed closer to them than what ended up on the screen.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Not really. There are rules of design out there, and the JJprise definitely brakes them - she simply looked unbalanced. She is no good design, like the refit was.


Very good point but some may like the unbalanced design, nevertheless. 

I always thought the 1701D was unbalanced but it looked perfect in the three-nacelle version that was shown in the series finale.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I remember reading somewhere that all of these ships had their sweet spots. For instance, it was stated that they tried to avoid head on shots of Voyager because from that angle it looked like a table lamp.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

JeffG said:


> I remember reading somewhere that all of these ships had their sweet spots. For instance, it was stated that they tried to avoid head on shots of Voyager because from that angle it looked like a table lamp.


I remember that quote - the type of lamp they mentioned was a Chinese lantern.

Bryan


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> I remember reading somewhere that all of these ships had their sweet spots. For instance, it was stated that they tried to avoid head on shots of Voyager because from that angle it looked like a table lamp.


 Funny!

I thought some of the most elegant shots they did with the 1701D were the ones close into the saucer on top.

If the secondary hull and nacelles had been just a little larger and/or the saucer were round on the 1701D, I think the balance would have been perfect. As it is, it has grown on me and the three-nacelled version is close to the top of my list of best starships ever on Star Trek.:wave:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Dennis Bailey did something like that. Still doesn't look like something that would've rolled out of spacedock in 2245, but it's a helluva lot better than that warp driven mutation that we got.
> 
> Yes, mark this down, I just said something nice regarding Dennis.


Why would you say something NOT nice?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ask the TrekBBS regulars.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Not again!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Ask the TrekBBS regulars.


*Dennis* is a very deserving guy...if you get my meaning.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What does Dennis have to do with this topic?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Why? Just because I happen to like the ship. SO THERE!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Why? Just because I happen to like the ship. SO THERE!


I do too and thats a very cool shot of it.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

i loved the original TOS Enterprise. Thought the STTMP movie one was a nice variation, although I was disappointed that the movie version lacked ANY type of dynamic nacelle lighting that made the original so interesting. I also love the JJ design -- at least this one has nacelle lighting reminiscent of the original.

Having been involved in many on-line debates about the JJ ship and movie itself, I have found that it is rarely time well spent....and even more so if you simply embrace the notion that others are always entitled to their opinion and there is little gained in one party convincing the other that their view is more sensible -- because at the end of the day, it is simply a fictional movie, and the real universe will continue to expand regardless of whether you or I think the JJ prise was aesthetically pleasing or not. 

When I see remarks about how the JJ design is not "well balanced" it, at first, makes me want to start a debate about how ridiculous the original design was in the first place...(slim pylons just begging to be blown apart by a well placed photon torpedo, a "neck" section that is also vulnerable to fire, etc.) but it is all a moot point as Star Trek was created first and foremost as a way to present the ideas/stories of mankind exploring the stars -- a "wagon train to outer space" is how I believe Roddenberry pitched it -- and not as a show about the feasibility of futuristic design...although I find it interesting how so much of the Star Trek gadgetry/design seemed to have a prophetic influence on modern-day design (cell phones, computer consoles and Spock's computer "disks", Kirk's clip-board thing (today's i-pad), etc.

Anyways, to balance out the "No sir, I don't like it" comments, consider this a "Yes sir, I love it" post on JJ design (and movie) -- and this coming from a fan who grew up with the original 1960's show and has seen every Star Trek incarnation since. 

I think that, in 10 or 20 years, anybody still fascinated with the Star Trek universe will see the JJ movie in its larger context and it will be embraced and admired for what it was, and not dismissed for what it was not.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The thin connecting pylons were intended to show how far material technology had advanced- no way current engineering could support loads/stresses with that minimal support. Even when the Doomsday machine blew half the thickness of a warp pylon apart the unit stayed in place.
From certain angles like posted above the NuE does look nice- the secondary hull shape is hidden with the perspective of the shot. When the new ship images were first released there were howls of protest, and immediate photoshopping to try and 'fix' the design. A siple repositioning of elements does work wonders- that is why I wanted to have a model kit of this ship. It is not a terrrible design, but from most angles it just does not work for me. It was intended to look like a hot rod- all the shapes except for the saucer thrust forward dramatically. If you were to see it as a drawing from the side with 'speed lines' drawn behind it it looks like a good illustration of the velocity.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Why? Just because I happen to like the ship. SO THERE!


In the interest of discussion allow me to make two observations about this design, two elements that I think would have really helped.

Firstly, there's not enough mass on the upper part of the saucer. It looks visually unbalanced with the mass below the saucer. In other words the area atop the saucer should be taller to be more balanced visually with the bottom.

The second thing that really gets me is the nacelles are really too close together. The angle between the pylons should have been less acute and thus the nacelles spread apart farther.

Those two basic elements alone would have helped the design look much better.

I also have to say that where the pylons attach to the nacelles is much to far forward.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

no argument from me, richard...but i'm sure you'll agree that the relative "strength" of the Enterprise was typically dictated by the "script" -- in other words, when it was time to show the ship taking a "hit" and sustaining visible damage, it had less to do with the imagined "physics" of the modern materials used in the ship's construction and more to do with how the writers wanted the story to progress.

i imagine there are countless times when what happened in a story went against the grain of what the futuristic technology should allow for...one instance that comes to mind is ENEMY WITHIN -- the one where the transporter beams up a person and splits them into two -- one good natured, one driven by base primal urges. In that episode, they can't beam up Sulu and rest of landing party because they fear they will also be split into "two." The idea of sending down the shuttlecraft is never brought up.

Now, I imagine that they could have simply explained this away by saying the atmosphere had special particles in it that would not allow the shuttlecraft to work.

Whatever the case, my point is simply that for every argument about why a ship design works or not, in the end, it is all make believe and pretend, and largely just a matter of personal preference.

You like vanilla, I like chocolate. Neither of us is wrong for liking what we like, and it is senseless for either of us to convince the other that our choice is a better one. 


Peace. Out.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Those row of diagonal lights on the side of the warp engines just goes off in their own direction. My eye follows those lights off the ship and into the nothingness of space. Its another element that makes the design totally unbalanced. There's nothing stream lined about it if that was their intent.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

to paraphrasea famouse Klingon..."We like the Enterprise, We really do..."

I think the two last minute changes that , if undone, would bring a lot of folks back to the fold. 

1) change the bussards back to Orange.-look at the Burger King glasses..they're orange. which means at some point the license holders were given art that had them orange (or else the "king" was a trekker)

2) change the scale back to something akin to the classic refit size. it's obvious by the size of the windows and docking port, that that was the intent. Only the shots of the shuttle bay force the over bloated scale.

if they could do something about the horrible undercut on the secondary hull, that would be nice, but if only those two cosmetic changes were made, it would make a world of difference


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is the Abramsprise. Are you sure?

It's been tweaked. The upper saucer has been thickened and the whole saucer moved forward. The nacelles have also been moved forward and slimmed a bit. The nacelle support pylons have also been moved forward and swept back just a bit. The secondary hull has been thickened and the lower aft undercut has been made less radical.



















I'm still not crazy about this, but already those incremental modifications are an improvement.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

DorothyJones said:


> When I see remarks about how the JJ design is not "well balanced" it, at first, makes me want to start a debate about how ridiculous the original design was in the first place


Well you make a good point. Its the oddest contraption. Take a bunch of geometric shapes and glue them together at right angles. 

But it works! Especially on the TOS and TMP designs. 

I guess its in the details, spacing and how you round off the shapes.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'm still not 100 percent sold on the 1701 E design. Overall I mostly like it, but it seems like it's almost trying too hard to look cool and swoopy...if that makes any sense. I guess you simply can't please everybody.


----------



## Husker Adama (Sep 1, 2011)

at least it wasn't the god awful Gabe Koehner design......that was awful


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Husker Adama said:


> at least it wasn't the god awful Gabe Koehner design......that was awful


I dunno , I kinda liked it.
-Jim


----------



## SDF-3 (Mar 15, 2010)

Husker Adama said:


> at least it wasn't the god awful Gabe Koehner design......that was awful


Korner's design was pretty bad, but I would have gladly taken it over the JJPrise


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

JGG1701 said:


> I dunno , I kinda liked it.
> -Jim


I did too, at least in retrospect and comparing it to the 2009 Enterprise. I remember thinking that it looked like the TOS Enterprise had been assimilated by the Borg on some parts. Overall, the original profile was very nearly the same - at least the scale and proportions of the individual components looked right.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Ahhhh, I just wish the Enterprise had looked like THIS in the new movie:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=26450

Much as I like the refit, the original is still my absolute favourite.
JJ needs a slap.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

SDF-3 said:


> Korner's design was pretty bad, but I would have gladly taken it over the JJPrise


No way... the POS that is the Gabe-prise makes the JJ-prise look like a supermodel... it's THAT hideous, IMO.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I really disliked the JJprise at first. But a couple years between now and my initial reaction, I can look at it somewhat a bit more dispassionately. Aesthetically, I think Ryan Church created a design that is cohesive and bold. I find it balanced and accomplished. Personally, there's still quite a few things I still don't like about it, but I think he gave us a design that is at once new and surprising yet still quite familiar. As for a styrene kit of it? I would buy one. It doesn't matter if you're a denier, a revisionist, an apologist, or just a slightly jaded hobbyist--the JJPrise happened. The movie happened (alternate timeline notwithstanding). It's out there forever. Can't change that. Gimme a model kit! And while they're at it, a styrene Akira, Grissom, and Merchantman would be equally, if not even more cool. Bring it!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

As mch as I hate to do it, I'm locking this thread. I had hoped things would have been more amiable amongst folks, but guess not.


----------

