# The New Enterprise



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Holy Crap that thing is ugly.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Is this real? 

If it is.... omg.. its really ugly!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I was expecting much worse. I can live with that if the movies good.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Not totally un-aesthetic...


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well it has traits of the Refit, most notably the saucer rim view ports. And with extensive work it might turn in to the Refit.... I guess it can grow on me once different views can bee seen.... time will tell.


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

Folks,

Or...a bad dream.

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

That is disgusting. that just tore it for me, IF I see the movie it will be as a rental, thanks alot JJ.


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

Is that really it???
I just dont know what to think if it is. Not what I was expecting at all.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Sorry, guys...I kinda like it...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'm hoping that's just a really aweful angle and that it doesn't really look that bad ... Unfortunately I don't think it is just an aweful angle.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

NJFNick said:


> Is that really it???


Yes, that really is.

I am SO glad this day has finally come.

Could have been a lot worse. Should have been a lot better.

Not sure wtf they were thinking with those over-sized engines and drastically scooped-out fantail. It's kind of hard to tell from this perspective, but those nacelles are MASSIVE in relation to the secondary hull.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> I'm hoping that's just a really aweful angle and that it doesn't really look that bad ... Unfortunately I don't think it is just an aweful angle.


If anything the angle is flattering, emphasizing as it does the saucer section over the engines. When viewed from the side, the thing looks a bit on the lopsided side. :hat:


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Butchered. 

I was going to post it I found it on EW.com.

I mean where are they going with this? We see a bridge that is white with all glass. Now this?! I'm blown away of the sense of control ppl have over something that was part of most of our lives. Was what we grew up with before a dream?! 

Never change the past since the timeline might get all mixed up and we will be left scratchin our heads.

All flash and no substance.
bor


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Strange, but kinda cool. Seems to have more in common with the refit. To be truthful, I think it looks better than the 'D'. At least IMO. I think I can live with it!


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

That makes me wish for Korner's POS now, wow this movie deserves to tank.


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

Open minds required I think!
It has quality detailing and has that TMP look that lent the lady so much realism. 
Watched with some stiring instrumentals and crisp HD flybys....
"Young minds - fresh ideas".


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


>


Well. 

I like the saucer as we can see it since it pays tribute to the TMP design.

Dorsal looks ok except that it scopes backwards way too far. Reminds me of the Ralph McQuarry Enterprise design it had a similar neck. 

Secondary hull… well the fantail should be shorter. As is it makes the secondary hull look to thin. Also don’t exactly like that the deflector almost hangs underneath the centre of the saucer but it could be the angle of how we see her. 

Warp pylons look like they are attached right above the hangar bay.. well if there still is a hangar bay at the aft of the secondary hull. 

Warp nacelles are over designed and by far to massive. It looks like the maximum nacelle diameter is even larger then the maximum dia
meter of the secondary hull. 

Overall it looks ok. I’d like it to look more like the TOS Enterprise, but it was clear this wasn’t going to happen. I just wished they would have put more attention to the balance of the design since she looks a bit…. Distorted.. and I can't really imagine a profile view that doesn’t look odd.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

I knew from the start, once they announced that JJ was in charge, that they'd muck things up

Oh how I hate being right

At this point, I may not even use a Netflix slot to see this thing - it just keeps getting worse and worse


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

A hint of 1701D in the proportions?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I'm intrigued by it. to me, it has a lot of "phase II" design elements popping up in it ( I always thought that version was cool)...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG;2579493To be truthful said:


> Anything looks better than the D (except the C,E and NX).


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

It's as if they couldn't figure out what to do with the secondary hull...


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Could some of you CGI artists try to create a side view from this? 
What I see in my mind as a side view I dont like...


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Well I will file my vote under the "Like" collum:thumbsup:


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

It grows on you, but I REALLY want better pictures. I'm quite surprised it's such a departure from the original TV Enterprise. Quite surprised. I wonder if this is really it? 

Oh, and I want a model of this RFN.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

That secondary hull definitely appears to have some D elements. A top and bottom view would tell the tale. Strange design- I like Koerner's better.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

I saw it, and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder how the hobbytalk guys are taking this".

The proportions are just too off for me. The taper of the pylons and neck, bit too much fantail (then again, I'm just not a big butt lovin kinda guy). However, the secondary hull is just enough too far forward that it kills most of the proportions we're used to.

I guess they were shooting for sleek, but I wish they had gone with Jeffrie's original layout and just used their updated objects and designs in place of the originals.

The saucer's good (set too far back on neck, IMO)
the neck is long, but it makes more sense than TOS neck
2nd hull is smallish due to rake of fantail
I'm ok with the engines and their relationship to the saucer.

Another interesting thing to note, is that I've only seen 3 spots with registry for the ship: outbord of nacelle tails, and the primary hull (where its massively oversized, but again I guess makes sense for trying to visually identify a "space ship")

I wonder how off this old beauty shot looks now:


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent29.jpg

(linked due to image size)


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

It looks to me like a good portion of the secondary hull is missing. 

And the warp nacelles are far to close to the saucer. 

It's not very well designed, very disappointing. 
I've seen fanboy ships look far superior.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

After looking at it a bit the only thing I don't like is the neck, it's a ltiile to um whats the word... overdone. I do like the nacelles I was looking forward something different than the typical blue and red we are so very used to.

The deflecter I like but I dont see how the the retro E would have the light up blue effect then refited with an antenna then refited again back to the blue but eh, I guess they need a fresh start

All and all I do like it but I have never been a die hard for TOS


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

It is obvious that no thought was given to the sleek "its moving" and has majesty concepts that Roddenberry tried so hard to create. The positioning of the dorsal makes it look like a lame duck not wanting to move. No one would design a secondary hull whoose whole rear half was too small to contain any useful deck space, not to mention loosing the shuttlebay. The secondary hull is to short and all out of proportion.

This has got to be the worst abortion of a ship I have seen yet. If there was ever something bad happening to Star Trek it has been JJ Abrams!


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

Couldn't they post a pic that doesn't cut off the front of the saucer and the back fo the port nacelle? 
I reared back when I first saw it, but it does grow on you. It has an almost retro feel design-wise that works. It has to be seen in motion, then it will have more life to it! 
JJ couldn't win all over with this, there's too much history/love of the original design. I think you still have to wait for more images!

KK


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

At first glance, it has the proportions of the Enterprise-C.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

This smacks more of "change for the sake of change," rather than a well thought out design. Okay, I know, I know, the original Enterprise would never work as a real ship, but this thing doesn't evoke a sense of majesty for me. An old friend of mine commented that what she like about the refit (and, I suppose, the TOS ships) was that is evoked images of majestic sailing ships. This ... doesn't. It's just ... different, and not in a good way, for me at least.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I wish I had a little bowler hat so I could say "I give it two snaps and a circle!" I do like it overall though. Wonder if the bussard collectors are powered down in this shot though. Not many hull markings, The dish looks fairly flat, so lighting it in a kit evenly someday will be a challenge. Love to see more angles.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Wonder if the bussard collectors are powered down in this shot though.


They are.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

I think this sentence from the story tells all 

" JJ Abrams wasn't a huge fan of the original Star Trek TV series as a kid, but " 

by looking at that we can tell he wasent a fan. 

not sure if i'd get the model of that or not.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

I like it! Its different. Isnt the movie supposed to be a reboot?


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Truly a POS. 

Whomever is responsible should hand in their pencil and or tablet.


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

I'm going to be honest.. I don't hate it.
I grew up on the films and to me the TOS E always looked kind of off... It has grown on me in the last few years though especially since without it we wouldn't have had the refit.
I will gladly say that they SHOULD have gone with the TOS Enterprise but as they have clearly decided upon a new direction with the ship, I'll give it a chance.


Maybe we'll get lucky and this will be shot into the ship we remember


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nope, sorry. 

Hideous.

Like Uma Thurman playing Emma Peel, Ben Stiller playing Starsky, Will Smith playing James West. 

Just. Wrong.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I think the design is fine. It will take some getting used to though. My only complaint is with everyone else's about the fantail being so long and nacelles so massive the secondary hull looks too small. But I still like the design. 

Just to reiterate what I have stated before, just because this isn't the Enterprise you grew up with, doesn't mean this isn't Star Trek. The concept is about the characters and story, not ship design. Personally I think the Enterprise D was always worst in design. I never cared for it, but many here love the D and I don't fault them for that. My favorite was always the refit and I grew up with TOS long before TMP ever showed on the screen, and can remember fans dissing that design. The final point to me was the characters and the story and the fact that they both spelled out hope for the future.

It does not surprise me many on this site do not like the design and feel the movie will tank based on it. I heard it before when TMP came out and when TNG came out from the same "fans" discussing those Enterprise designs.

If this movie tanks, it tanks on its own merit, not because the Enterprise didn't meet the fans expectations. Personally, I hope this is the blockbuster Paramount expects it to be. I would love to see the story of Star Trek continue no matter what the Enterprise looks like.


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> I think the design is fine. It will take some getting used to though. My only complaint is with everyone else's about the fantail being so long and nacelles so massive the secondary hull looks too small. But I still like the design.
> 
> Just to reiterate what I have stated before, just because this isn't the Enterprise you grew up with, doesn't mean this isn't Star Trek. The concept is about the characters and story, not ship design. Personally I think the Enterprise D was always worst in design. I never cared for it, but many here love the D and I don't fault them for that. My favorite was always the refit and I grew up with TOS long before TMP ever showed on the screen, and can remember fans dissing that design. The final point to me was the characters and the story and the fact that they both spelled out hope for the future.
> 
> ...



My wife is NOT a trek fan and to her, it looks like the Enterprise.. she actually HATES Trek and yet she WANTS to see this film.
She saw the picture, saw the look on my face and asked what was wrong with it, even when I tried to show her, it looked like the Enterprise to her.
I have a feeling that whether or not this film appeals to Trek fans it WILL be successful.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

The-Nightsky said:


> I like it! Its different. Isnt the movie supposed to be a reboot?


This is going beyond a simple re-boot - this is a total re-imagining 

Gene's ashes must be spinning in a cyclone effect (rolling over in his grave - cremated style) over what Para-suck is doing with his creation


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This thing looks like it got it's ass kicked so hard, the deflector was shoved way out front.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

It's hard to gauge the relative engine size based on the image provided, so here's a quick & dirty trace of the profile...


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

*I can now honestly say I remember the day Star Trek died*

I frankly don't know what to say...:freak:


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Carson Dyle said:


> It's hard to gauge the relative engine size based on the image provided, so here's a quick & dirty trace of the profile...


why does your have an antenna dish on the front and the preview has the light up blue deflector? Hrmmm....


----------



## OneAM (Jul 9, 2008)

The day Star Trek _died_? Since when is Star Trek all about a design? Star Trek is a vision of the future that goes beyond simple aesthetics, and we've yet to see whether this movie will deliver where it actually counts. And even if the movie sucks, so what? We've had horrid Trek before, and we'll have it again. The franchise will survive. Even if no new series or movies are produced it will survive. Where is the perspective?


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

The only comment I had when I first saw it needs to be said like "Higgins" from Magnum...

oh, My, GOD! Abrams, what you have done!


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

OneAM said:


> The day Star Trek _died_? Since when is Star Trek all about a design? Star Trek is a vision of the future that goes beyond simple aesthetics, and we've yet to see whether this movie will deliver where it actually counts. And even if the movie sucks, so what? We've had horrid Trek before, and we'll have it again. The franchise will survive. Even if no new series or movies are produced it will survive. Where is the perspective?


Let me rephrase...

The day Star Trek died *for me.*


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> This thing looks like it got it's ass kicked so hard, the deflector was shoved way out front.


Now that is funny.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

That thing is horrible looking.I wish that other ship we saw earlier was the Enterprise.I could have lived with that and it would have made a nice looking model.Guy S


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

Guy Schlicter said:


> That thing is horrible looking.I wish that other ship we saw earlier was the Enterprise.I could have lived with that and it would have made a nice looking model.Guy S


I agree. The first version we saw looked okay, but this thing is an abortion!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

i actually like her profile. Very powerful looking.

They seemed to want to emphasize the engines. I wonder if that has to do with their stated desire to stress the "realness" of interstellar space travel.

Carson, I'm surprised by the length of the fantail in your profile, given that the released image seems to suggest a squared tail ending just behind the pylons. Is the secondary hull wider than it appears? Does it taper back behind the pylons?

IMHO, given that profile image, they may have inadvertently released an image of one of her worst angles as their first picture.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

That is very ugly, fugly even. It reminds me of the slug they had in "Battle beyond the stars" they just took the BBTS ship and slammed a saucer on it. It could have been so much better.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think I'm going to be sick :drunk:

This is the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" make-over of the original _Enterprise_. It sucks--a lot! 

I can't think of a ship in all of_ Star Trek_ history that I hate worse than this abortion! Don't even bother putting lipstick on this pig! This ship is going to help turn the _Star Trek_ franchise into BBQ!

I was hoping it would be closer to the Gabe Koerner version which I would have bought as a model kit and loved as a cool variation if not, in my heart, the real thing. Now I don't think I can even go see the movie. 

This movie will bomb. _Star Trek_ always depends on its built-in base of fans. This is the ultimate in-your-face show of disrespect to the original fans that I've every seen. This is another _Star Trek: Enterprise_ fiasco except that, as much as I didn't care for the ship in that one, this one is WORSE!

DISCLAIMER: This is all my VERY SUBJECTIVE opinion so if you have a problem with it, I'm just going to sputter and say, "Oh, yeah?"


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Abortion? Rape?

Ya know, they're doing wonderful things with decaff these days......


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krako said:


> Is the secondary hull wider than it appears? Does it taper back behind the pylons?


Yes and yes.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm only going to say this once:

Kindly avoid comments of a personal nature.

Comments re: the design itself are welcome.

I don't won't to have to shut this thread, but if it degenerates into a bunch of childish name calling I'll have no choice.

Save your barbs (or praise, as the case may be) for the subject itself.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> It's hard to gauge the relative engine size based on the image provided, so here's a quick & dirty trace of the profile...



See, this profile shot doesn't look near as out of proportion as the picture from ILM. It must just be an odd camera angle.

Because here, the nacelles look HUGE, and in the shot from ILM, they don't look that big, and the secondary hull looks very small.

Still, it's ugly as sin. Man, Carson, you were right, I should never have questioned you. I just can't believe they would go this far out in left field with her design. You say it could have been worse, but I don't think it could have been much worse.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Struth....!!!

Ok I've weighed off going into these debate-I hate-I love-mmm not sure threads but here's an aussie fans pov...

Actually I don't mind it... :thumbsup: my minds eye had pictured something a little different but on the whole I'm not dissapointed in it.

It's a fair comment to say that there will never be anything that would do grace to the origional Enterprise. This design however IMHO seems to work in better with the whole refit concept for ST-TMP era. I've grown to accept the "refit" term but for me it seemed like a "rebuild" don't burn me I still love the ship.

JJ admitted he was more of a star wars fan than a star trek fan and we know this a re-boot, which past experiance for me says that 9 times out of 10 re-boot means a "re-invention".

The pic is on an oblique profile so I'll still stay open minded.  From what I make out of ithe pic and Carsons image, I reckon the shuttle bay is in the bulge between the nacelle pylons. As for its overall design if you retro'd the 'Enterprise E' this could be one of its starting origons in designs. 

Would I still by the model??? Yes!:thumbsup:
Would I still see the film??? Yes! :thumbsup:

For the record I've been a strong TOS fan for 4 decades. Sadly I never gave next gen a go and was proven wrong. DS9 I liked and was proven wrong in that by the last 3 seasons. Voyager was never in question for me... Long live Admiral Janeway! Enterprise was cool a little to violent which I think was its down fall. So I am as I said earlier staying open minded.

Cheers,

Alec :wave:


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

R.I.P. Starship Enterprise...We grieve with thee.



Good side of this - I can now use the money I might have used to see this stinker to buy more model kits!!!

Larry


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

BTW - I'll buy this movie the same way I bought the "modernized" Thunderbirds movie - in the $1 bin at Dollar General!

Larry


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

A few months ago, I frankensteined this image from two others in another 1701 speculation thread. Those images were excellent work and my apologies to the fellow who did those for what I have done to them here.

I wanted to post this and ask, "Well, what if looked like this..."









It would have been dangerous back then to even post this crappy image. But now that the real thing is out there...

This is accurate insofar as the BC decks we knew are gone; the dish is about this wide and flat, the upper primary is dreadnought than constitution, the engines are about as long as the primary, the torpedo bay is at the base of the neck, the 2ndary slopes similarly and I think the hangar is back there, though I don't remember now.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Sorry, the D was a graceful looking ship, in line with the mission and emphasis of 24th Century Starfleet. The NX was by far _the_ worst design. Thank God I don't consider ENT "Star Trek." As for this one:



Carson Dyle said:


> It's hard to gauge the relative engine size based on the image provided, so here's a quick & dirty trace of the profile...


I don't hate it. In fact, I want to like it a lot. Certainly in profile it keeps with the spirit of the Lady. I wish the engineering hull was wider at the bottom so that it balanced it out a bit better. Not sure whether I like that the neck stretches out to the shuttle bay. Overall, even if the movie tanks I think I'll welcome the design with open arms.

Someone asked why the profile shot has a deflector dish whereas the photo just showed a glowing concave dome a la the Refit. My theory is that it's the deflector dish itself that's glowing blue.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

PS. I think that were this introduced as another class in the movie/TNG era, all the haters here would be going bonkers. However, as the Pike/Kirk era Enterprise, it's clearly a disappointment for me too on many levels (not least of which is the ananchronistic tech gap). And a disappointment on the bridge (whoever turned Uhura into a perfume sales lady -awesome sarcasm!).... And since no one has seen the engine room yet, I'll not opine on that herein.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The new design seems to have fogotten that this was supposed to be a machine to do things instead of a sculpture. I never really liked the refits nacelles- they were too stylized- the best warp engines look aside from TOS was the NX-10's- they looked like machinery which worked. This new design does not look remotely functional. I wonder if the hanger bay will open at the top - the rear looks to low to have much of a door.

.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

PPS. 
This has the worst features of the D, too primitive a thought on the Refit and zero TOS, 

Someone said they like the saucer. Nice one! I guess the only way to mess up a saucer is to turn it into a teacup..

This is a very unbalanced. design









Lucky this isn't a throwing knife design. It'd probably go straight into your foot!

Imagine many years from now, Lucas has left us, and someone decides to reboot the star destroyer, the Falcon, the XWings, Vader(!) to make them more contemporary and 'edgy'. That would not fly.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Ahem ... everyone seemed to like this design:
http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/ships/1701j/entjbig.jpg

Personally I thought this sucked.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> Ahem ... everyone seemed to like this design:
> http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/ships/1701j/entjbig.jpg
> 
> Personally I thought this sucked.



Blech. Glad I never saw that before. It's like the Romulans thought they were being ultra-clever, in a bugs bunny kind of way, and looking to sneak into Fed space unnoticed.


----------



## cireskul (Jul 16, 2006)

From now on, I will think of this "Star Trek" as Star Tangent. As in a “Back to the Future” type reboot of Star Trek. That is the only excuse. 

But then again, that’s what Paramount set out to do, yes?


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm not wild about it... I can see the TMP elements (deflector dish, saucer), but they look planted on when compared to the "all new" elements. It's like they just stuck them on so fans would have something familiar to cling to. Proportionally, it's all out of whack. It just doesn't have the sense of purpose that the TV and film designs had. I wouldn't buy (or build) a model of it if they make one.

You guys think that this is bad - JJ Abrams screened 4 completed scenes from the film for the press. Everyone goes on and on about how "spectacular" it looks, but the description of the plot elements makes the film sound like a real turkey.

Bryan


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Time to cobble together some pictures of the original Enterprise blowing this pretender to kingdom come.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The profile outline Carson posted looks alright, except the secondary hull at the bottom looks a bit too streamlined to me. Like a champagne glass. I just wish they would have made the fantail shorter so the engineering hull would look thicker. It doesn't look like it would support the torque stress produced by the engines accelerating to warp speed unless its a big slingshot. It reminds me more of a sportscar than a starship. You'd think if they were looking at the design as a transition to TMP "refit from this" version, it would be less streamlined. My first impression is Star Trek meets Art Deco's streamline moderne. I guess I'll get more used to it by this May.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Can't wait for John Payne to see it.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Gemini1999 said:


> JJ Abrams screened 4 completed scenes from the film for the press. Everyone goes on and on about how "spectacular" it looks, but the description of the plot elements makes the film sound like a real turkey.


Do you know vaguely what they were, Bryan?


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

John's post:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2579710&postcount=40


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Actually all the reactions I've heard to actually seeing the scenes from the film (or the whole film) have been very positive.

Yes, the deflector antenna glows blue--it will be interesting seeing how modelers attempt to reproduce this effect. I've seen the ship in motion and all I can say is I thought it was insane for the first minute and then I got used to it. It looks very real and very large on screen. It's no more or less crazy than any of the other Enterprise designs, all of which have their fans and detractors (I prefer the original and the refit and like the D, hate the E, hate the Voyager, etc.).

I love seeing all the pants-wetting "they raped my childhood" reactions--it's only a (CGI) model. All of Trek with its five million variations good and bad will continue to exist along with this new version and I for one can't wait to see every aspect of the Trek world turned upside down and reinvented like this. I can watch TOS whenever I want and everything I've seen from this movie looks like a blast.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

That's just so...NOT RIGHT!!!


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

I will reserve any comment until I see the movie but it's just not ......??????


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Slightly larger image here:










Looks like it says NCC-1701 under the front of the secondary hull. The nacelle shape kind of reminds me of the doomsday machine.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Supposedly, the studio edict was that the exterior was supposed to remain "unaltered."

This must be some new meaning of the word "unaltered" that I was previously unaware of.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

This look about right?


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Opus Penguin said:


> Ahem ... everyone seemed to like this design:
> http://www.utopiaplanitia.info/ships/1701j/entjbig.jpg
> 
> Personally I thought this sucked.


I agree with you there.... That is just plain awfull!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Model Man said:


> Do you know vaguely what they were, Bryan?


Careful.....there be SPOILERS here:

http://denofgeek.com/movies/144620/star_trek_four_full_scenes_and_new_trailer_reviewed.html

If you don't wanna know fairly large bits of the plot, don't read it...

Bryan


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

Assuming the fantail is longer then it appears (call it a bad angle), I could deal with this. 








I moved the saucer and neck forward. In my opinion the deflecter should be under the neck, not the sensor array. It does look like the C.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Someone asked why the profile shot has a deflector dish whereas the photo just showed a glowing concave dome a la the Refit. My theory is that it's the deflector dish itself that's glowing blue.


Yeah, well, the problem with that particular question is that the photo doesn't show a glowing concave dome a la the Refit. :freak:

For the record, my obviously (and intentionally) sketchy outline is based on production art of the final design, and should not be taken as a literal representation of the fully rendered finish. Nevertheless, based on what I’ve seen, the contours appear pretty close to the mark.

As for the posted photograph, the usual (and occasionally misleading) issues of focal length and lens distortion apply.


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*Had to weigh in...*

Folks,

I've been thinking about this all day...and I have to say, judging from the scene descriptions and now this first glimpse of the new Enterprise, I'm not very optomistic about the upcoming film.

In my experience, the original series is viewed one of two ways; for those who grew up with it, love it and continue to enjoy it, we take it seriously. The best episodes have storylines which are both intellectually compelling, vastly entertaining and certainly of an adult nature. The actors and the characters they play are striving to tell illuminating stories about the human condition. It's all very serious to us. But most importantly, we BELIEVE it. Utterly.

We never see paper mache rocks, fake planetscapes or substandard visual effects (which were, at the time, beyond state of the art), we see a universe we can believe in. The planets look the way they look because...well...THAT'S THE WAY THEY LOOK. We don't go, "Nah...doesn't look realistic to me..." We POUR over every minute detail, trying to recreate every grill and panel line, because up unti now, the creators and designers of all five Trek series strived to create an absolutely believable future. The franchise faltered when it moved away from that goal (the entire third season of Enterprise is a perfect example of this, Trek reduced to not much more than a Flash Gordon serial and no one, not even the hardest core fan, believed any of what they were watching).

Then, there's the more modern viewer, who came to Star Trek later,as someone with previously concieved notions, who was already aware of the SHAT factor, so they're never really able to see Kirk as a "real" character, but only as a pop culture icon, and always with tongue firmly in cheek. Sure, they can recognize the value of the storytelling, but they'll never take it "seriously," if that makes any kind of sense.

J.J. Abrams is clearly one of these viewers...and now he's directed the new movie.

The production design of the bridge and of this new Enterprise and the scene descriptions of the new film, clearly illustrate this. In almost every interview, J.J. Abrams talks about not being a Trek fan, but being more of a Star Wars fan. This is very telling. I'm sure while watching the original series in preperation for directing this new Trek, it never seemed very "real" to J.J. There was never a Mos Eisley spaceport, a Star Destroyer or Death Star in Trek. He believed in those. But the Fesarius? The Doomsday Machine? The Romulan Bird of Prey? Not so much.

I'm sure he could recognize the great storytelling, but while probably engaged somewhat during a few episodes, I'll bet he never got past the fact Trek was just a bit silly to him on a number of levels.

I'll bet he said to himself, "If only Trek could be more like Star Wars, with characters a modern audience could immediately identify with, like Felicity, Sydney Bristow and the cast of LOST, I'd really have something."

Which brings me to why this new Enterprise looks the way it does...and its interior follows suit. As will the rest of this new Trek film.

The producers of this new Trek film simply don't care whether or not anything appears "real" or functional, but whether or not it appears COOL. After all, STAR TREK is just SCI-FI...and that's NOT real now, is it? So the now-boring original Enterprise has to be the souped-up version of the design. Its outer lines no longer have to have any kind of relationship to functional design elements in the interior...they just have to look really cool (and we can see what someone's idea of a "cool" Enterprise is).

I'm sure the characters and story elements will be treated the same as well...we'll all be able to recognize the troubled rogue James T. Kirk as being like the characters from everything from Rebel Without a Cause to Top Gun. Spock will be the troubled alien outsider with a chip on his shoulder. It'll all be easy to understand for a modern audience, because they will have seen such characters and storylines all before.

For those posting on this forum, we clearly enjoy it most when the fantastic vehicles we so love recreating seem absolutely real to us, or we at least WISH they were real. The Nautilus and Seaview. The Galactica or Star Destroyer. Space Station One and the Discovery. And particularly the Refit 1701. We know these ships are REAL. Their creators believed something along their lines might possibly exist one day. Their design elements alone prove it. The fact we spend hours reading and posting on this forum proves we do too. It might just be in our imaginations, but we know our favorite modeling subjects are absolutely REAL.

This new Enterprise...isn't. It doesn't make any sense and flies in the face of a design asthetic which has worked and made us believe for over forty years. Just consider the location of the impulse engines and the warp drive. On the Refit Enterprise, the whole thing finally made sense. Even the swept back nacelle struts were justified. Now? I just don't see it. Why waste space indenting the dorsal between the primary and secondary hull? Not for functionalities sake, but for the "cool" factor.

That's why I don't like the new Enterprise. I just don't believe it. I saw the version I DO believe in STAR TREK - THE MOTION PICTURE. As a child of 12, I was TERRIFIED they'd screw up my favorite spaceship of all time. Instead, they made it better than I ever thought possible. I couldn't get my hands on a "smoothie" fast enough.

I believed that Enterprise then. 29 years later, I still do.

But this new Enterprise has no basis in, well, fact.

That being said, I will be first in line to see the new Trek film...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think some of the folks who think this new...thing....actually _honors_ the original design need their eyes checked.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Supposedly, the studio edict was that the exterior was supposed to remain "unaltered."


There was never any such edict. 

Perhaps there should have been.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Bravo, Rob. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Except for that last bit...



> That being said, I will be first in line to see the new Trek film...


I, for one, refuse to reward this kind of slipshod production by contributing to the opening weekend box office.

I _might_ go see it at the bargain theatre. 

If someone else pays. 

And there's nothing better playing. 

And I'm really, really bored.

And anybody else in the theatre better be prepared for a live MST3K treatment of this turkey.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Captain April said:


> Bravo, Rob. Couldn't have said it better myself.
> Except for that last bit...
> 
> 
> ...


How about latenight on cable, when your deliriously ill. 
And there is nothing better on. 
(I saw parts of Nemesis on a Sunday afternoon, and I could only wish I was deliriously ill.)


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Gemini1999 said:


> Careful.....there be SPOILERS here:
> 
> http://denofgeek.com/movies/144620/star_trek_four_full_scenes_and_new_trailer_reviewed.html
> 
> ...


Thanks Bryan, 
I knew 2 of the 4 scenes described and I'm not surprised about the other 2. 

I'm glad I didn't pay to see Crystal Skull this year and STXI is another that I will likely see, but will not drop a dime for the 'privilage'. 
Heck, I didn't see Nemesis until a month ago. It still hurts thinking about that one. 

This film genuinely needed a Trekker at the helm (and throughout the pipeline for that matter), not a hotshot name w/ no vested interest. 
I don't know a single frame of JJ's other work, so I can't knock or praise him on that, but his vision is wrong for this. 

I hate to say it, but it's time for Trek to go to sleep. 
Long and blissful sleep. 
No more pain. 
No more suffering.
Peace.

The first is still the best








LL&P.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Abomination!*

What _is_ that thing?

O.K. I like the blue glowing Deflector dish.
I know it's supposed to be a gold dish, but I like the blue glow.

The only way I could live with this design would have to be
that it is a sub-class of the _Constitution_-class. You know,
a variant.

Starfleet said, "We have the Connie, now we need a slightly
smaller one." Something like that.

I suppose I'll have to buy a kit of it, just because it's a space ship.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

They've put Hulk Hogan's arms on Ed Grimley's body and called it a hero.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Model Man said:


> The first is still the best
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Y'know what?

I'm not even gonna bitch about that forward running light.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

It reminds me of "Nell"....only less endowed.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Captain April said:


> Y'know what?
> 
> I'm not even gonna bitch about that forward running light.


You just did. :thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson thx for the profil.

Reducing the fantail somewhat like that makes for a more “balanced” look. 









As I said.. I think I can live with this new Enterprise since well… its gona happen! No matter how hard we bitch this new design and ask for one that’s more in line with what we know, this movie is going to be released. 

In my opinion they should have gotten Andy Probert or Jon Eaves to design this re envisioned Enterprise. Someone who KNOWS what the ship looks like. But this new version seems to have been design by ppl who have no clue about Star Trek and with that I mean ppl who did not work on a Trek project before. The insider is missing, that takes care of what went before. 

Although I can live with this Enterprise, I too as of now would have preferred a Koerner Enterprise. His design was more in line with the original outline of the ship but needed to loos the borgification, since the surface detailing was way too busy. 

With Kirks words form TWOK: “A life as it could have been, but it wasn’t” just substitute life with Enterprise. 


I have now read the plot outlined in those four scenes. And well… I don’t like the way they made Kirk an outcast, a loner a maverick. I mean… Chekov, Sulu Uhura… they all gets a ship assignment BEFORE Kirk did? What are they smoking? And McCoy smuggles Kirk aboard the Enterprise by faking a viral infection that makes his hands and tongue swell??? Good havens, we knew he was allergic to Retinax5, but making for comic relief with swollen hands and tongue, possibly giving us some Jar Jar Binks talk when he got hit by the discharge of Anies pot racer?? 

The only bit I like is the one they describe with the old Spock, and if that’s how it shows in the movie, I do understand why Nimoy took it: that scene DOES indeed sound like the Star Trek we knew! Perhaps Nimoy did not get the whole picture, but they only handed a rough outline of the movie and a detailed synopsis of his part? Any how. 

Having said all that, I am sure this movie will be a hit! 

Why?

Well because it appeals to the younger (movie going) audience with a young disobedient main character, it appears to have lots of action (wouldn’t be JJ without action) and the ship design (interior and outside) looks “hip” enough to attract the iPod generation and have them say “yeah man, that’s what a starship looks like in 300 years!!”


I can accept that since well… TOS, TNG etc will still be there and especially when TOS is through with its re-mastering, am going to pick up all 3 seasons and watch the REAL TOS timeframe Enterprise sail through space in all her not out dated design!!

Have a nice day


Edit. someone at a german message board made her "whole"










still don't know.... the visual balance the TOS and Refit had is completely missing in this design.



2nd Edit: 

I retooled her so that the saucer and dorsal are set to a more Refit like position and reduced the fantail undercut… 










makes it a TMP or rather a post TMP stile starship but still not a pre TOS one! But at least the „flow“ of the lines are more like it wouldn’t you say?


----------



## tobiasrichter (Jan 3, 2007)

Wow - that ruined my day. I love the Enterprise and had high hopes for it - the saucer looks fine, but what the hell happened to the rest - especially the secondary section looks totally off, the nacelles are way too big? This is the worst design ever to bear the name Enterprise. Even the "C" was nicer looking! I hope this is just a bad dream going away quickly.... :freak::drunk:


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

its very telling that non-trekkers that have seen both call the g.k. version cool, and kinda react to this one with "huh?" .

the biggest problem with this one seems to be the placement of the dorsal neck on the secondary hull. its too far back. its almost reminiscent of the old coloring and comic books where the artists wernt too familiar with trek and put it almost in the center of the secondary hull.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Holy Crap that thing is ugly.


It has to be said: _*What an ugly piece of crap!*_ Look what they've done to our beautiful lady. Matt Jefferies is hanging his head in disgust somewhere up there.

And reading those spoilers of scenes and indications of characterization nails it that this has zero to do with our beloved TOS. To which I am eternally grateful to the Lord Almighty.

The only way I'll see this thing is if it's available on download somewhere because no way in hell am I paying even a nickel otherwise.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Hard to tell from this angle but it would appear (from where the engine struts attach to the secondary hull) that it might have a wide oval boat tail shuttle hangar opening. I hope now that this picture is out that they release more angles for viewing/reviewing


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

razorwyre1 said:


> its very telling that non-trekkers that have seen both call the g.k. version cool, and kinda react to this one with "huh . . ?"


You're right! Gabe's version is uber-cool no matter if it necessarily fits with what most folks think as a retro version or not. It had looked like (from some of the angles shown at first) that Gabe's version at least influenced their design. If so, only minutely. 

Gabe has an artistic sense that is definitely lacking from this "doodle" version of the 1701. He also has a true fan's respect for the show (even if he is a young whipper-snapper compared to a lot of us here and didn't see the original series when it first aired).


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

It's a Dorkfish!! 

That was my first thought, the damn ship has an overbite!

Not the Enterprise to me..... sad attempt but she doesn't fly.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

At least now we can have a full title for this, er, film: _Star Trek: Cloverfield_

"...and the monster proved to be hideous beyond imagination."


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I used to have problems with the Enterprise D design.But I could still get some enjoyment out of it and the Model kit of it.Not a chance at all of that happening with this.Maybe it will look slightly better in the movie but its just a very bad design.If Gene Roddenberry were still here.I think he would look at that ship they're trying to pass of as the Enterprise and he would cry.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think this would have been better - by getting rid of the large scoop under the hangar deck all together in this GIMP'ed image I edited:










I wonder if the back profile is like a rounded cornered D-shape trapazoid? A flat taper to the hangar deck (instead of the champagne glass scoop) transition from the circular bottom of the hull would give it a wider stance from behind and more structural support fot the engine attachment points. Also if the lower sensor array was glassed in that would look better too.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The original _E_ remains my favourite. The TMP refit comes in a close second. The D wasn't something I liked right off, but it grew on me to some extent. I've never liked the B, C and F versions.

The NX-01 bad isn't in of itself, but I could never accept it as a credible century old predecessor.

This new _thing_ is a disgrace. It evokes the ugly designs and proportions we are now seeing in some new cars particularly from Chrysler. It looks like something a four year old child would draw.

I can envision different ways the basic MJ concept could have been reinterpreted and still result in something rather novel and appealing, but certainly not ungainly and ugly.


Every so often contemporary Trek PTB would slip something in that made an absurdity of the whole exercise: calling a Klingon Klang, calling a race the Remans who inhabit a part of a planet where the sun rarely if ever shines, and now this caricature of the most famous ship in science fiction. When these things crop up it strikes me that these people really have a latent contempt for the subject matter that they don't have the guts to admit openly.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

It's hideous. It's nothing like the Enterprise we knew from the original TV show. What were they thinking with that engineering hull. And the nacelles are all out of proportion.

I won't even bother to rent this movie or even buy it for $4.99 in the discount bin where it will be three months after the movie crashes and burns in the theaters.

This is not what I was expecting with a big screen "Star Trek" movie.










What? 

Jim
(going with the flow and loving every minute of it)


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*So, What I miss??*

Boy I take one day off from work and away from the internet and all Sto'vo'Kor breaks loose!!..

Now that I've had the chance to read all of the posts and get caught up I gotta say that if some of you guys aren't careful, you might just overreact.

When I look at the one picture taken from the one angle, I think it's very successful because at first glance it says "Enterprise". Theres a saucer, two warp engines and a secondary hull.

Now if you want to quibble and whine about the proportions and surface details then go to it. Frankly when I saw the first line drawing of the "D" all I could see was a pregnant whale. I still am not that wild about it. I think the warp engines are way too small and the pylons are too thin. 

I want to see it in action before I issue any sort of decree

PS..
I'm glad so many of you won't be buying kits cuz that just means more for me


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

What made the original Enterprise work was the engine pylons looking too thin- they were designed that way on purpose to show that the technology and materials had advanced way beyond what we are familiar with today.
What I dislike about this new design is not that it looks too weak to support the stresses but it looks like a big doodle a kid would do. The only part that looks like a machine people might build to use in space is the saucer- everything else looks like a the overdesigned Batmobile from 'Batman & Robin'.

.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In the words of an 800 year old Jedi; 'You must unlearn what you have learned.' You have to go into this thing as though you are seeing Trek for the first time. People who have not seen or paid much attention to TOS will likely see this design and say 'Damn, that's sweet!' They are not in love with every line and curve and detail of the original as we are and that's fine.

I think there is largely an over critical, knee jerk reaction to this one angle of the ship. Every ship has flattering and unflattering angles. Voyager head on looks like a table lamp! I'm not gonna try to convince somebody to like this thing. I do, so far. But don't be surprised if you warm up to it from different angles and in motion with a big sweeping soundtrack. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

TGel63 said:


> That makes me wish for Korner's POS now, wow this movie deserves to tank.


I came to this party late and am just now seeing it. I'm Laughing Out Loud at this. I don't mind the 'creative imagery' but TGel has me thinking the same. 

Sorry Carson, I don't see how you could compare this to Korner's version (or that other now beautiful mockup we've seen recently on this board)... 'Could have done worse, should have done better...' Just Laughing. Way to screw Star Trek, JJ. Oh, I read that he was quoted as saying he really wasn't a fan after all. I can tell, JJ, I can tell.

I'm ready to give credit to whoever coined this as 'Trek 90210' ...


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I think this movie is going to be a train wreck.

Forget the Fuglyprise, just scanning the descriptions of the preview scenes re-enforces my opinion that they never should have touched TOS.


Some people like train wrecks though.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I have argued on other threads that the new film should be judged in its entirety, and not simply on one aspect that we may have personal dislikes for. 

While I still believe that, as of right now I'm more than a little underwhelmed by the new Enterprise. 

Huzz


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I agree with you 110 percent Cessnadriver


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Beyond all the gnashing teeth (mine included) and totally ignoring any thought of TOS, this ship fails on basic aesthetic design principles. Any design, be it a car, plane, couch or starship, should be made up of elements that work together and compliment each other to project a pleasing whole.

To me, this design looks more like the product of a type of "hole" that politeness prevents me from specifying here.

Phil


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

movie deserves to tank because of the ship? oh come on! its not that bad, could have been worse....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Beyond all the gnashing teeth (mine included) and totally ignoring any thought of TOS, this ship fails on basic aesthetic design principles. Any design, be it a car, plane, couch or starship, should be made up of elements that work together and compliment each other to project a pleasing whole.
> 
> To me, this design looks more like the product of a type of "hole" that politeness prevents me from specifying here.
> 
> Phil


Well said.


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

Looks like they took the refit and gave it a galaxy quest redesign...

or maybe this is a crossover universe and tim allens going to give the enterprise "more power.. ar ar arrrrrr."

Josh


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

First of all it seems most of us need to take a chill pill. First of all at least it isn't B&B, second let's see what the writing and acting is like. I'll admit I am not a big fan of this look at first glance, but I'll give it a chance. After all don't judge a book by it's cover, and they can always change it. 

Personally I was expecting something more along the lines of what we saw in "ST Enterprise a Mirror Darkly", Constitution Class with an aztek paint scheme, but they did more. I am really gald they got rid of the boring bridge. Th old looked fine for a '60's TV set but about as far as I woud go.....


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I wonder if the movie's CGI artists are reading this? Are they panicing and rushing to redesign? I would like to see official movie concept art to see if any of the re-imagining of the TOS Enterprise were closer to the original proportions and shape. I'd be happy with a new release delay to Christmas 2009 to undo the damage to us TOS old timers! 

That being said, I hope the movie is a hit regardless of what we think. The general public "new" to the original Kirk days of Trek aren't the type to go over every contour of the original ship and compare like us.

One thing I'm really looking forward to more than this movie is the 1/350 model of the 1960's iconic TOS Enterpise. I bet besides people making exact replicas of the TV model, some will super detail it to what it could have been looking like for this movie.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The design doesn't hang together. Did Homer Simpson have a hand in this?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

When I read that new actors were cast for Kirk and crew, I was against the movie. Now the ?Enterprise? !!!. This is the straw that broke it, I will never think of THIS movie as ST. I never watched HIS vision of BSG, because I liked the look of the original, and now....

On another note, I like the design of the ship, but not as the ENTERPRISE.


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Another 'like' vote here from a 51-year-old long-time TOS fan. In fact, I really like it, from this one pic. Can't wait to see it from other angles and in full motion. I think it shows a very careful and respectful re-imagining of the original, gorgeous Matt Jeffries design and demonstrates the same modern aesthetic as the shots we've seen of the crew and the bridge. So far, I'm seeing a consistent 'look' developing, which is achingly familiar yet stylishly updated, just as was promised.

I'd got very tired of the 'franchise' in recent incarnations (while still loving TOS), feeling that the later series had moved far, far away from the core strengths of the original, and I'm really quite excited about this movie.

And let's face it, if the movie's great....we've still got the originals. And if - as so many seem to fear, and despite my optimistic expectations - the movie's awful we've still got the originals! What's to lose!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

/\/\ $10 plus.


----------



## belkin (Jun 4, 2008)

That Enterprise looks like the Borg got a hold of it. This design looks like it should come after Kirk's Enterprise. This make Kirk's Enterprise look like a box car.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Maybe if we are lucky, this "was" the Enterprise "before" we see it under construction, err... should I say re-construction! Either that or I hope it's from a future post-TMP timeline part of the movie.


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

I don't post often, mostly I lurk behind the scenes and try to gleem as much information from these pages as my neophyte self can use. I grew up with the TOS and lived through Star Wars...the first 3, ya know, the good ones. When I was a kid I made my share of AMT's kits. I built Shuttle Crafts, Klingon Cruisers, Romulan Birds of Prey and Enterprise's when the boxes they came in were big and painting models for me we done in the basement with spray cans and little tiny jars with the words Testors or Practa on them and glue came in a red and white squeeze tube. I had Mego figures and walkie talkie communicators, books and posters so yes, I loved and still love Star Trek. In '79...and most of you know where this is going, The Motion Picture came out. Our introduction to the, in my opinion, most beautiful incarnation of the Enterprise, it took my breath away. How could they make something that was fantastic to me into something better? That first sight of the ship partially obscured by the spidery dock.... wow. 
Now, I liked Cloverfield the scope of it was pretty cool and it didn't bore me. When Abrahms was to be the director of the next trek movie I was happy as hell to hear it. Besides I wanted to see the updated look of the ship. Our ship, if I can employ a fan's ownership. I have to admit, I'm more than a little let down because while the basic shape is there, the classic lines are gone. Still, I'll plunk down my 10 bucks, force the girlfriend to come with me trading off on some unkown chick flick I'll know I'll see down the road and I'll sit back and see how this new movie plays out. If anything, it may spark a new interest in Star Trek, merchandising, stuff like that. We still have our classic TOS and yes, we love it or we wouldn't be so passionate about it, but maybe this movie won't suck as much as some of think. Myself, I'll just enjoy it as much as I'm able to. 

Thanks for Reading


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Jafo said:


> movie deserves to tank because of the ship? oh come on! its not that bad, could have been worse....


Yeah,
We coulda got stuck with that POS McQuarrie design for TMP.

Dodged a bullet there...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Arronax said:


> It's hideous. It's nothing like the Enterprise we knew from the original TV show. What were they thinking with that engineering hull. And the nacelles are all out of proportion.
> 
> I won't even bother to rent this movie or even buy it for $4.99 in the discount bin where it will be three months after the movie crashes and burns in the theaters.
> 
> ...


Good points, Jim:thumbsup:

I too seem to remember similiar responses when ST:TMP came out, and practically every other version of Star Trek.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

RMBurnett said:


> I'll bet he said to himself, "If only Trek could be more like Star Wars, with characters a modern audience could immediately identify with, like Felicity, Sydney Bristow and the cast of LOST, I'd really have something."
> 
> Which brings me to why this new Enterprise looks the way it does...and its interior follows suit. As will the rest of this new Trek film.
> 
> ...


Well written. Not sure I will be able to support this effort myself. I'm tired of being dished crap and paying for it. But fan support doesn't seem to matter, so I'm thinking of paying (ticket wise) for another movie and seeing this. You may not think this is right, but it may be my way of protesting. After all, if it is so good, I'll always go back to see it a second time.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

First impression, it looks like an arthritic chicken. 

I won't be buying any model kits of this, that's for sure.

-John


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

To all of you who say you won't go see this movie in the theaters... and I say this with a smile (I'm not yelling or being mean here)....

You're all LIARS! Each and every one of you, and you know it! Sure you'll say that now but we all know the truth... come May 2009 you'll all head down to your local theater and ante up to see the new Star Trek movie. Sure, you might do a perp' walk going in (collar turned up, face hiding, "does anyone from Hobbytalk see me?", slink into the middle of the theater to get the best seat)... yeah, we all know it. 

I'll buy the notion that you might not go see it on opening night, but you will likely not wait much more than opening weekend. 

So there, I'm calling you out! BAAahahahahahahaha!

(edit... and you'll buy the model kit too!! HAHHAHAHAHAH)


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Wanna bet on that? I will do neither, so strong is my conviction. I would not waste one penny on that abomination to build it.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

TGel63 said:


> Wanna bet on that? I will do neither, so strong is my conviction. I would not waste one penny on that abomination to build it.


You tell'em TGel63!. :thumbsup:

As for me, yes, I will see the movie, but I won't buy a model of a ship I don't like.

-John


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

hell_fighter_8 said:


> Assuming the fantail is longer then it appears (call it a bad angle), I could deal with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Infinately better, move the nacelles ~10% forward on their mounts and the old girl's shape comes back in.

I was born well after the refit's design, and I really have to say that both the original and the refit (my all time favorite space vehicle) look more majestic.

I'm still giving it a chance, like we all should, but first ship they've designed that's a dissapointment. I'll give them that its really hard to replace something so loved.

I remember all the spy shots of the E-E, and somewhere I saved images that were progressive as more and more detail came through, was really interestin to see. I'd love to see what design progression they went through here.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

schmidtjv said:


> You tell'em TGel63!. :thumbsup:
> 
> As for me, yes, I will see the movie, but I won't buy a model of a ship I don't like.
> 
> -John


LIARS!!! We will catch you in line.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I would buy the model, but not see the movie. I didn't like the NX-01, but bought the model, and don't regret it. I never watched ENTERPRISE. 

As stated, we always have TOS, the best of all the series. But, ST models are ST models, no matter how much you don't loke them.

Just think what John Payne can do with the model, I can't wait!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I hope this is a very bad joke they are trying to pull on us and much closer to the film they will reveal another much better looking ship that will be the Enterprise.I believe John Eave designed this with strong influence from someone who hates Star Trek.And this is their revenge on us.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I would buy the model, but not see the movie. I didn't like the NX-01, but bought the model, and don't regret it. I never watched ENTERPRISE.
> 
> As stated, we always have TOS, the best of all the series. But, ST models are ST models, no matter how much you don't loke them.
> 
> Just think what John Payne can do with the model, I can't wait!


I actually like enterprise. The screwing with timeline and cannon is terrible, but I think it has among the better character dynamics of crew and gets back to the "where no man has gone before" ambition. I've been recording them lately, as I initially passed on the show.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> To all of you who say you won't go see this movie in the theaters... and I say this with a smile (I'm not yelling or being mean here)....
> 
> You're all LIARS! Each and every one of you, and you know it! Sure you'll say that now but we all know the truth... come May 2009 you'll all head down to your local theater and ante up to see the new Star Trek movie. Sure, you might do a perp' walk going in (collar turned up, face hiding, "does anyone from Hobbytalk see me?", slink into the middle of the theater to get the best seat)... yeah, we all know it.
> 
> ...


Uh, no. I won't. Not opening night, definately not in the theater. If I happen to stumble upon a broken/scratched/free or other wise discarded copy somewhere; I might bend over to pick it up, that's about as much effort as I'm willing to afford this piece. You can call me a LIAR! all you want; that still won't make your statement a trueism. HAAAAAAHHAAAAAA!!!!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

BlackbirdCD said:


> ll buy the notion that you might not go see it on opening night, but you will likely not wait much more than opening weekend.


Heck, I'm not one of the naysayers -- I'm looking forward to the movie -- and I probably won't see it opening night!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

Man, moving the deflector dish under the neck is a HUGE difference! That makes it look 100% better to me. 
I really don't understand why the refit saucer is no big deal to most here, it makes even less sense to me than the secondary hull mess. Wait to see more. You can't really judge this thing until you see the film. I have to admit I think Abrams is pulling our chains here with timeline junk. He went out of his way to be secretive/sneaky with Cloverfield, and I think he is a master of manipulating the media to his advantage. I bet we'll see more than one incarnation of the Enterprise in this film.

KK


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Nektu said:


> He went out of his way to be secretive/sneaky with Cloverfield, and I think he is a master of manipulating the media to his advantage. I bet we'll see more than one incarnation of the Enterprise in this film.


That's what I am thinking too.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I may even buy a model kit of it, but I won't enjoy it.

Playmates was showing THREE different Enterprises- due to timelines being altered. One was described as a battleship. I guess we are going to have to wait to see how this all pans out.

.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Is there a link to the Playmates site that shows this?


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

When I first saw this picture of the "new" Enterprise, I was very disappointed. Now that I have had a chance to digest it and allow it to grow on me... I still hate it!!!

I hope the movie is good. I can get past a poor ship design if the characters and story are there.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

> Is there a link to the Playmates site that shows this?


No links and no photos. It was a closed door viewing at a toy show for venders. No one was allowed even a camera phone- I think we are just going to have to wait and see what develops- and I hate waiting. It would be nice to have somethings released for the Christmas season- with the economy doing as it is. Even with the release of the movie pushed back a lot of times tie-in merchandise is released before the movie- I saw 'Happy Feet' and WALL-e stuff months before the movies.

.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Here is a photoshop manip I did. I think it should look more like this...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

My _*God*_, what have they done! 

I seriously have tears in my eyes right now. That is an _absolute_ abomination. Not because its a "new" design. Because its a horribly BAD design that is supposed to replace the most iconic and gorgeous spaceship of all time. Disgusting!

The more that is leaked about this movie... every photo, every detail of the story, trailers, teasers... just reinforces my original position that this movie is pure suckage incarnate. Oh I'm completely certain there will be many people who love it. Good for them, I don't care. It doesn't change anything. Since when have the masses ever had taste? Um, Rap music anyone? 

Hollyweird cannot remake TOS. They just don't get it, never will. This movie is not TOS, its another WB-themed, androgenously cast, disfunctional teen, leave-your-brain-at-the-door, popcorn, 90-minute sexed and space battled _waste of money._

Gene is dead. Jefferies is dead. Star Trek: The Original Series died with them. RIP. 


And Chris, seriously, you won't find me in line for this. I feel like I got mugged by Enterprise the last couple of Trek movies. I'm done until its on TV.

Yeah, that old ship looks so dated...
http://nova-designs.com/2d_3d/movies/trek/Stock_shot_from_nose2_WM.avi


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

PixelMagic said:


> Here is a photoshop manip I did. I think it should look more like this...


Helps it a bit...

Guys, I think one of the best ways to get the point across that this design $UCK$ is to make sure we continue to pick up models of the 'Enterprise Classic' and Refit. If there's little to no demand for this...parade float, modelwise, while the Original & Refit kits fly off the shelves...maybe someone at Paramount will catch a clue...and FIX IT for the next movie...

If there IS a next movie...
_____________

"No...That's NOT the true Enterprise...THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"

"Search your feelings...you KNOW this to be true!"

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No... No..." 
____________

[Mr. Horse Voice] No, sir...I don't like it! [/Mr. Horse Voice]

Greg


----------



## belkin (Jun 4, 2008)

Abrams should reconsider and have William Shatner in this movie...so Kirk can blow up this Enterprise too!!
The Borg wouldn't even be interested in this piece of work.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

if there's an injection kit produced... there's PLENTY of good kit bash material in there!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Nova,

Nice shot. What others have you done?



I have to say I'm not that impressed with this design.
Looks like two different ships bashed together if you ask me.
I really don't care for the 'hoods' over the bussard collector.llooks to me like someone said...."you know how the new Martian War Machines had the 'hoodie' look? Lets add those here.
I think I'd prefer a mix of Gabes design and the TOS.

Stiill, again, the most important thing is the story, and a good story can make me accept the design.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

A buddy at work just found the definitive, Michael Bay version. 
I think ya'll agree that this is a SIGNIFICANT improvement! Enjoy!










http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/?attachment_id=6002


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Guys, I think this says it all...






HeeeHeee! :jest::jest:

Greg


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Gabe's design is no better than this. Its NOT TOS, is a POS!

No story can make me accept this POS, or the POS bridge, or the POS story points I've read about. Too many changes into a 90210 in space.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Still haven't seen Generations. Won't be seeing this either. 

Not a chance I would buy a kit of this. Hoping they re-release the Enterprise C.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

BTW: 

Why are they making a Star Trek film to appeal to non-Star Trek fans?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Because they are clueless.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> Gabe's design is no better than this. Its NOT TOS, is a POS!


That of course is opinion, not 'fact'.

I wonder what people would have said about the refit if the internet was around in 79


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Guys, I think this says it all...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8B1GNCSfX0&fmt=18


Greg, that was funny. And somewhat cathartic.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> That of course is opinion, not 'fact'.
> 
> I wonder what people would have said about the refit if the internet was around in 79



_So?_ What's your point? Its fact enough to me. I have enough education and experience as an artist, creatve director, and a film industry professional to back up my opinion with something more than just internet bravado.

And FWIW, I have never met _anyone_ who had these feelings about the Refit. Even at the conventions I went to back in the 70s (which was pretty much the only way Trek fans could get together, en masse) reaction to the Refit was very positive. Frankly its just a really beautiful design, well thought out and implemented.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Model Man said:


> A buddy at work just found the definitive, Michael Bay version.
> I think ya'll agree that this is a SIGNIFICANT improvement! Enjoy!


The Romulans wouldn't have the nerve to fight someone with balls enough to paint their ship like that!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> _So?_ What's your point? Its fact enough to me. I have enough education and experience as an artist, creatve director, and a film industry professional to back up my opinion with something more than just internet bravado.


Congratulations. So do I.

My point is, that its a fine line venting a personal objective opinion, and coming off sounding irrational.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

"Gentlemen, gentlemen...such unprofessional behavior. (motions with phaser) Into that little room!"


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Model Man said:


> A buddy at work just found the definitive, Michael Bay version.
> I think ya'll agree that this is a SIGNIFICANT improvement! Enjoy!
> 
> 
> ...


Next, on Pimp My 'Prise...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Looks like all the criticism has ruffled the new Enterprise designer's feathers a bit:

Big Reaction To New Enterprise - New Designer Responds -
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/

Even Rick Sternbach goes a few rounds.


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

*Garbage Scow!*

No disrespect to any posters here but this is my humble ( Grumble ) opinion.

I still can't get over it. It blows my mind. 
Here they are going to all the trouble to do the redo on the old shows with CGI stuff. Now here comes a movie whose design is soooo far removed from what is. What can they be thinking?! Will they now re-remake the 79 episodes of the TOS USS. Enterprise to fit this and change all that was.
canon is canon.. Arg.. this should be fired from a cannon! What was displayed in the history of all star trek episodes on the walls as photos and models shown should follow the lines of the TOS 1701 not this Garbage scow!

Heaven forbid if they mess with the transporter! Well maybe they will make that look slick and cool for the old navy generation.

On a final note:
Well they did one thing right they got Spocks ears to go up and not hang like Jar Jar binks!!


Ex-queese me Mysa so upsetie! Oh mooie mooie! Cawazy!


bor


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

A lot of ships do not look good from certain angles- the E-D in 'Encounter at Farpoint' had a shot (energy beam at the end of the show) which was so bad it was never repeated in any scene since. I trust Rick Sternbach's assessment in the fact he has seen different views and knows more about it than we do now. I am curious why if this view is one which distorts the lines of the ship and makes it hard to tell about the shapes, WHY was it chosen to be the first glimpse of the ship?


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Oh lord... it's the Mirth-Mobile. This 'Pre-Fit' Enterprise is the AMC Pacer of the fleet.

Bad. Just.... not good.

Well, maybe this would be the fix for all this:










" All shall be as it was. I am my own beginning and my own end. Through me many such journeys are possible. "


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

How can Paramount let something that disgraceful pass off as the Enterprise.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

*" All those moments will be lost... in time... like... tears...in. rain... "*

Ext: Night. 

Voiceover:










*" All I could do was sit there and watch Star Trek die... maybe in the end they hated the original more than life itself... "*


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Edge said:


> Why are they making a Star Trek film to appeal to non-Star Trek fans?


Math. If Trek is to survive it needs to broaden its fan base. The trick is to do so without alienating the majority of the fan base. I say majority, because short of going back in time and shooting a feature with the original cast, no one film is going to please every member of this particular fan base. Not no way, not no how.

Speaking as a loyal TOS fan, I'll settle for _any_ Trek film that doesn't make me want to retch. To date, Paramount has managed this 1 1/2 times.

Speaking as one who's seen a rough cut of the XI, the worst thing I can say about it is that it's not TOS. Well, I knew that going in, so this is not news. And while I won't waste my breath trying to sway the opinion of those whose minds were made up months ago, I will say that those able to keep an open mind about the film's dramatic potential might actually find something to like. 

Speaking as the moderator of this forum, this ceaselessly cyclical and tiresomely tedious debate has at last exhausted my patience. Please feel free to carry on in my absence, but try to do so in a civil manner. If things get out of hand shoot me a PM and I'll do whatever I must to restore the peace.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

*" You've done a man's job, sir! "*











" It's too bad it won't live... but then again... what does? "


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Rob, that is a lot of big words there. I am just a humble modeler.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

If it's not TOS then why have Nimoy? I knew when it showed the Enterprise being built on Earth that this something was smelling rank. I'm sorry, but the more I see the less I like. I keep thinking of another movie from a fan driven TV show that did what this one seems to be doing: "Lost in Space". God how that movie sucked. I really have given up that this will be a good movie.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Math. If Trek is to survive it needs to broaden its fan base. The trick is to do so without alienating the majority of the fan base. I say majority, because short of going back in time and shooting a feature with the original cast, no one film is going to please every member of this particular fan base. Not no way, not no how.


I have to disagree, if Trek is to survive its FIRST priority is to please the fan base. The fan base is what has held this thing together for more than 40 years. We have a lot of power over the franchise's survival. We are the very first ones to try out anything new in Trek and the ones that everyone else looks to as a gauge for whether its worth getting in on. We can be the ones to lead the rest to this movie... or away from it. I can't begin to tell you how many times over the years people have come to me, knowing that I am a huge fan of Trek, and asking me if the latest thing is worth seeing. 

Paramount has tried too many times already to create a "new" fan base while leaving the loyal to rot. And it has failed miserably, only succeeding in alienating and fracturing the fan base. But they never learn. Nope, they're doing it even WORSE this time, with a reboot of the one that started it all. This is a franchise I am intimately familiar with, I don't need to see any more to make up my mind. I have seen more than enough to know that they are absolutely clueless as to what Star Trek is. I cannot separate the story from the vehicle that carries it, the story is empty and meaningless without the vehicle. And the vehicle is a _massive lemon._ I'm sure all this will do is fracture things even further until the fan base is nothing more than a series of warring camps... hell its not far from that now.



> Speaking as one who's seen a rough cut of the XI, the worst thing I can say about it is that it's not TOS. Well, I knew that going in, so this is not news.


See that's the problem. _It is trying to be TOS,_ same crew, same ship, same time period. That's why it has me so upset.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

John P said:


> Nope, sorry.
> 
> Hideous.
> 
> ...


^whut he said.
Just plain wrong
What a pos


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson:

I just found this: 
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-reimagined.jpg

Please tell me thats NOT what it looks like form the side! 
That is SOOO wrong!!


Edit. 

The more I look at that profile picture, the more I get the feeling the design parameters where like this: leave the saucer intact as much as you can….do to the rest what ever suits you but keep the “secondary hull, pylon, nacelle” elements.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Well, they blew that.

At least get the neck on where it's supposed to be. Why do the Nacelles have air intakes underneath?


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Nova, you've hit the nail on the head. Thank you for so elequently saying what my soul has been trying to say since this project first came to light.

Larry


:thumbsup:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

[Jack Nicholson as The Joker]I have given a name to my pain,
and it is: *Ryan Church*.

Paramount needs an enema![/Jack Nicholson as The Joker]

After contemplating this new _Enterprise_, I have 
some comments.
Everything but the dish/saucer has an animal feel to it.
The dorsal/neck has a protrusion that reminds me of muscle
tissue.
The Warp Nacelles make me think of Octopi. (I don't know why.)
Was this Church guy still operating in the "Deep Space Nine" let's-
base-all-new-ships-on-living-things design mode?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain America said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Guys, I think this says it all...
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

While EXTREMELY rough, I built a 3D model based off the silhouette sketch, which I believe to have fairly accurate proportions to the Star Trek XI Enterprise. Have a look….

http://vimeo.com/2232195


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Carson Dyle posted:


> Speaking as one who has seen a rough cut of the XI...


There is one thing I have got to know:

Are there Communicators?
Tell me they have Communicators!
Little black boxes with flip-up grids, dials, and buttons!
Are there?
Communicators? 

  :tongue:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Garbaron said:


> I just found this:
> 
> http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-reimagined.jpg


Based on that plan view, it looks alright as a starship design and doesn't look like the bad angle of the photograph.

Where did this drawing come from? Is it official or someone's reconstruction of what the side view looks like? If it is not official from the movie it looks somewhat more acceptable to me as a re-imagined Enterprise, and has better secondary hull lines and engine proportions than the image they released to us. Hard to tell where the shuttlecraft hangar opening would be.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

We have actual phones that work now that look much better than the communicators of TOS. Are you forgetting Trek 'hasn't happened' yet? Maybe they'll do something with a flip up or eject from the top antenna with a small touchscreen. I doubt highly if you'll see the flip up with the big speaker and 3 big buttons underneath. But I've been wrong before.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> _So?_
> And FWIW, I have never met _anyone_ who had these feelings about the Refit. Even at the conventions I went to back in the 70s (which was pretty much the only way Trek fans could get together, en masse) reaction to the Refit was very positive. Frankly its just a really beautiful design, well thought out and implemented.


That's not my memory. There were no BB's back then, but if you just look at the "letters to the editor" in Starlog and the other mags back then when ST:TMP came out, they were full of comments about how ugly the refit was and what a slap in the face it was to the TOS version. 

Not to mention a lot of TOS fans thought the movie really, really sucked.

It's really interesting how there's been a almost revisionist history to opinions about ST:TMP among Trek fans over the decades, there's probably an interesting paper in there somewhere. I suspect something similiar will happen with the Abram's version.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

LGFugate said:


> Nova, you've hit the nail on the head. Thank you for so elequently saying what my soul has been trying to say since this project first came to light.
> 
> Larry
> 
> ...


Seconded!

-Hue


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Amen Brother Marlowe! Preach On!

I also remember how many comments I read about how "junked up" the D-7 was and how the designers were trying to copy the Star Wars look.

now its regarded as a beautiful design.

time wounds all heals


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> And FWIW, I have never met anyone who had these feelings about the Refit. Even at the conventions I went to back in the 70s (which was pretty much the only way Trek fans could get together, en masse) reaction to the Refit was very positive. Frankly its just a really beautiful design, well thought out and implemented.


My own reaction to the ST:TMP at first was disappointment that they didn't keep the lighting effect in the nacelles. I would have loved to have seen a hyper-detailed version of the TOS ship in TMP but was so overwhelmed by the refit that, while still not my favorite incarnation, I really loved the design and fully accepted it as canon.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The general design of TMP (except for the Klingons's heads) wasn't that far out-of-whack. It was as if no great timeline-defying leaps of technology were made, but that the Fed had just hired a new designer for starfleet. No big deal, in my opinion. But this happened because the real (not story) time gap between TOS and TMP was so short, and any gains in real-world technology or design were generally incremental. The biggest influence on the design changes seemed to be the motion-picture budget, no? 

But as for reimagining good ol' TOS, the producers have a near-impossible task ahead of them due to the huge gap in tech, design and SF aesthetics since the sixties. Retro or current? Nostalgic, lame, sacrilegious or cool? I'm glad I'm not them. :freak:

Personally, I rebelled against the Refit back in the day, but have grown to love the design. To me, it makes the old TOS girl look clunky. Classic, but clunky. As for this new 2008 ship ... I guess I'm okay with everything except the secondary hull position: it should be pushed back relative to the primary hull. Maybe somebody thought it looked too much like TOS, so they asked the designer to do anything to make it look different. Ugh.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Having just now read Ryan Church's comments about the nacelles of the new ship I started to wonder if maybe those cowlings surrounding the dimmed bussard domes retract, foreskin style, when the warp drive is activated, and the domes light up. That kind of physical transformation (and the guy did work on Transformers) would appeal to the filmmakers and would create a visual cue that the ship was about to warp out - especially to a new audience not wholly up-to-snuff on all things Trek.

Just a theory.


----------



## jcd132 (Jan 13, 2000)

Call me an old fuddydud, but sorry, this design doesn't work for me. I'll still see the movie and may buy a model of the ship if one's released (although probably just one and it may sit in my closet unbuilt for years along with my Kazon Torpedo and Nemesis Scorpion kits), but I am very disappointed.

I'm prepared to see a new TOS movie with different actors playing the old characters, but there's no good reason, IMHO, to make such drastic design changes that make no sense in the overall imagery canon. If they want to do that, then make it a pure reboot and don't try to tie it into the pre-existing ST universe. Having Leonard Nimoy playing the pre-existing Spock puts a big monkeywrench into this being a pure reboot. Maybe Shatner was better off not being in this after all.

I'm not holding my breath, but I still hope this is just a mindgame being played on us and this is just some alternate reality version and the "real" version is yet to be seen.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I like this line from the ex-astris article:

"This way it appears like a bastard child of the TMP Enterprise and an alien CGI ship of the week."

A little strong perhaps, but there might something to it...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

jcd132 said:


> Having Leonard Nimoy playing the pre-existing Spock puts a big monkeywrench into this being a pure reboot.


My guess is that it will be a reboot _within the context of the story itself_.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

*Nimoy*

I am sure that Nimoy being in this is the link to the TOS universe we all know and love, and by the end of the film when timelines or whatnot are 'fixed', we will see some new things, familiar things, and maybe a ship or two we recognize. We'll have to wait and see. I really think JJ is screwing with all of our heads, and most are falling hook, line and sinker for it. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's in the entertainment busniness, and this is his version of ST, not any version before. I think you gotta give him a chance. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was feared and reviled by the Tolkien 'purists' and that seemed to turn out okay. It completely hangs on how tight the script is, and what is done to flesh it out. They are spending more on this version than the last four movies combined, right. It will be on the screen. Last time I checked ILM is a pretty capabale outfit, too. They have been involved with many fine films, and this will be one more
Oh, they've also changed Leonard's nose, his ears sweep forward, and his arms are gigantic! Can't have him looking like he did in TOS! (just kidding!)
Relax, people, this movie is not for us old fans only, and I have to say that every 23 year old I have talked to has said this is the first time that they have ever thought Star Trek looked "cool"!

KK


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Nektu said:


> Oh, they've also changed Leonard's nose, his ears sweep forward, and his arms are gigantic! Can't have him looking like he did in TOS! (just kidding!)


It's funny -- my wife and I just finished watching the third season of _24_. Zachary Quinto has a supporting role in that season, and he looked even more like a young Nimoy at that point, because he was a bit thinner than he is now.

I can't believe I didn't see it back when I watched that season originally.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Some people (including Paramount) think that a show like this must be "redesigned" to appeal to a "younger" (read: "new fan base") audience. Where has the old fan base gone?

Apparently "they" are no longer interested in TOS and no longer spend any money on products relating to it.

News to me.

I suppose that if the TOS fans were still around, we would hear them commenting on this new film... silence.

(sarcasm)


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Because they are clueless.



When is your TOS film coming out?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

JeffG said:


> We have actual phones that work now that look much better than the communicators of TOS. Are you forgetting Trek 'hasn't happened' yet? Maybe they'll do something with a flip up or eject from the top antenna with a small touchscreen. I doubt highly if you'll see the flip up with the big speaker and 3 big buttons underneath. But I've been wrong before.


Note that the military does not use fancy cell phones to communicate. They use big, sturdy radio units that do exactly the job they need done and nothing extra.

http://cs.itt.com/pdf/domestic/Soldier Radio.pdf
http://cs.itt.com/pdf/domestic/WSRT.pdf
http://cs.itt.com/dom.html

TOS communicators were compact military comm devices that could transmit and recieve thru subspace over distances of many light-years. that's what they were made for, and that's what they did, period.

Got a cell phone that can do that?


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

<De-lurking>
Ok, I doubt I have anything new to add overall but I'm going to chime in anyhow. My creds are these: I'm a TOS fan. I know way too much about the series, its books and its movies. Secondarily I like TNG, DS9, and watched Voy and Ent.

The closest way I can relate my feelings about this ship is how I reacted to the Enterprise D when another 'New Star Trek' came forward to this TOS-fan's delight and dismay.

I didn't like the D much when I first saw it. To me it had too many windows (my exact reaction was "It's the Love Boat in space, complete with Captain Stubing!!" But I got over it slowly (I instead focused on the horrible stories of the 1st and 2nd season and Wesley-hatred.) It was possible to forgive and come to accept the "D" for ONE reason. It wasn't supposed to be MY Enterprise. It was a future version with enough similarity to the original that I recognized the nod and moved on.

The ship from JJ-Trek 1 is another story entirely. I, like others here, am not afraid of a reboot. I get it, TOS is outdated in many of its designs, but TOS isn't about the designs nor (obviously) its special effects, it's about the crew and stories. So a reboot could be swallowed over time, as I did with BSG. And as with BSG, there's NOTHNG wrong with a nod to its origins, so I would expect the Enterprise to be similar in design, but only similar.

But JJ Trek isn't a reboot. He's actively denied that it's a reboot. It's a reimagination of the original show. It's got Nimoy as Spock, solidifying that relationship. Now that I've established the ground rules for myself, I try to objectively look at what we've seen here, the crew, the sets, the uniforms, and the ship which to me is the crown jewel of Star Trek's universe, it's show piece.

Can I accept the cast - Yes, while I'm not big on Pegg as Scotty (appearances only, otherwise he's a good choice,) I think they generally work....I'll reserve final judgement 'til I see them in character.

Can I accept the uniforms - Yes, though the Enterprise insignia (not Starfleet Insignia) doesn't belong on any other ship, crew, or pennant. I also feel that the insignia patterned onto the cloth is a blatent effort to restrict the fan base from making their own uniforms - a crime to me, greed! It also serves no purpose and is a waste of material and money, something the government doesn't do lightly in our own time (in theory.)

Can I accept the sets - This is a tough quesiton. My bridge is blazing white and shiny. It looks to me like Apple designed it. Kirk's chair nods to the original, which is nice enough. It reminds me of the TMP bridge, white, uncomfortable, unfriendly, and heck it's even got standing stations. But can I accept it? Yeah, grudgingly I guess the old red and black bridge doesn't hold up......or does it? Color schemes change with times, who's to say in the 23rd century we won't like that scheme? But I digress, I can accept it.

Can I accept the Enterprise - Here's the thing. How can I accept the sets (Bridge, anyhow) and not accept the Enterprise. They both nod to the original, as the Ent-D did. Is a nod enough for a movie that isn't a reboot? No. If that's the case, I cannot accept the Enterprise.......can I? Guess what, big boy! You don't have a choice. You're a TOS Trek fan, this is essentially the same as a TOS novel, a new story about Kirk and company. Can I ignore it? I watch Jim Crawley play Kirk (ok Elvis Kirk) and I generally enjoy it. I don't think I'll like Phase 2, but that's another digression. 

So, I've acknowledged that I will watch it, I will grudgingly accept what they've done, at least until I've seen the movie. I freely admit I don't like what I've seen on many levels.

As to the Enterprise specifically I've seen people refer to it as the iEnterprise, ala iPod, I've seen reference to it as a BMX-Bike Enterprise, I've seen people explain why it will work and why it won't. In my opinion someone thought that TMP-Trek was THE original Star Trek and based their designs on it. On the Enterprise specifically they tore the primary hull off, slapped it on their ship and decided to mutilate the rest of the ship basing the secondary hull and engines partially on the Ent-D, Ent-C, and I guess, Megatron from the Transformers movie. I don't consider it creative and I don't consider it the Enterprise.

Jim

<Lurk Mode Reactivated>


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I don't see how a "reimangining" is any different than a "remake" or a "reboot."
It all sounds like the same thing to me!


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

I was lucky enough to hear Gene Roddenberry lecture at Wittenberg University back in the mid-seventies. He said that more than Kirk, Spock, or McCoy, the main character of ST was the Enterprise. It was home for the crew and for us, the familiar safe place we counted on to be there. I could have lived with some detailing, a cosmetic change here and there. But I hate what's in XI. I hope the rumor is true and there are altered timelines and 3 different Enterprises, so we'll all be relieved and happy to see the familiar ship we want to see in the end. Til then :

Edit: apologies for the size. Here's the link: http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/RonH_photos/RestinPeace.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Please make your picture smaller or use a thumbnail. It's killing me having to scroll horizontally as well as vertically.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Raist3001 said:


> When is your TOS film coming out?



What's you point?


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

Two quick points:

1) Not buying models only hurts the model company or the stores that are sitting on them, Paramount could care less until it comes time for license renewal.

2) While this is a central character in a story it is nothing more than bad wardrobe, see how the story and writing go and they can always change it again, they always do...... How many different interiors did you see for the refit???


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

rossjr said:


> Two quick points:
> 
> 1) Not buying models only hurts the model company or the stores that are sitting on them, Paramount could care less until it comes time for license renewal.


How long have modelers been asking for a 1/350 original Enterprise? 3 years? 5 years? More? I'm not interested in supporting companies that don't produce what I want to buy. I'm also not interested in supporting companies that make movies that I don't want to watch.



> 2) While this is a central character in a story it is nothing more than bad wardrobe, see how the story and writing go and they can always change it again, they always do...... How many different interiors did you see for the refit???


huh?


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

John P said:


> Note that the military does not use fancy cell phones to communicate. They use big, sturdy radio units that do exactly the job they need done and nothing extra.
> 
> http://cs.itt.com/pdf/domestic/Soldier Radio.pdf
> http://cs.itt.com/pdf/domestic/WSRT.pdf
> ...


Actually, I think the specs (in some trek guide I read 30 years ago) said that the range was more like 18,000 miles (or kilometers, don't quote me on that). 

I am glad you wrote this, however, because your point is valid. Paramount suites, JJ - please stop bling-blinging everything up when this was the vision of our military in the future...


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I have heard them say they were going to be faithful to the Original Trek in passing.Boy is that an understatement.The truth is the design they are trying to push off as the Enterprise is so bad its funny.On this board someone posted the Original Enterprise side profile with this incarnation of the Enterprise and the Original Enterprise is still attractive and classic.No comment at all about the other one.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> What's you point?


Simply put, you and a few others have done nothing but whine, stamp your feet, and gnash your teeth in respect to the new film.

We get it. You don't like the direction of the film, you don't like the new design, and we understand it is not TOS.

Thus my question.

When is your TOS film being released


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I find the use of the term "whine" as inflammatory, inaccurate, and self-serving.

We can raise our concerns, this is a forum, that's part of what they're for. We can point out things we like and dislike, it's called expressing an opinion. We can complain that we feel something is moving in a direction we don't like, it's called an opinion to express our preferences.

That's not whining. From the Free Dictionary:
*whine* (hw







n, w







n) 
_v._ *whined*, *whin·ing*, *whines* 
_v.__intr._ *1. *To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
*2. *To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
*3. *To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: _jet engines whining._

Unless you're using a reader to view the boards that can carry intonation, I think you should be a little less judgemental of your fellow Hobbytalkers and address the issue, not the writer's tone of "voice" or method of complaint.

Let's stay on topic.

Tib


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> Simply put, you and a few others have done nothing but whine, stamp your feet, and gnash your teeth in respect to the new film.
> 
> We get it. You don't like the direction of the film, you don't like the new design, and we understand it is not TOS.
> 
> ...


Raist, obviously this is a rhetorical question directed as Nova since everyone knows that (just like the model licensing) no one else is allowed to make such a film. I don't know Nova except from on this board, but I would trust him to make a far better film (for the establishment) than someone who is trying to have it both ways (rape ST history, pillage the good parts). I'm glad he is 'whining', it show me someone else cares what they're being asked to swallow...

-Hue


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Tib,

Regarding the term Whining...I think the second definition listed fits perfectly!

Certainly most of the objections I've read *have been *childish.

and you can tell that by choice of terminology devoid of tone of voice.
I don't think the argument "Because It Sucks!" would fly in a classic debate


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Lou,

I agree with you, the "because it sucks" arguement is totally subjective and unsupportable. I disagree that it's whining, it's just a weak arguement. That said I still feel it was intentionally inflammatory and degrading and not helpful to this discussion. (Added to avoid another post: I didn't say I agreed with your interpretation of the definition childish, I said it was subjective and unsupportable, not childish.)

Tib


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Tib,
hey, you're the one who objected to the term, then provided a definition that fit it any way. 

but seriously folks.. Here's a slight change for you..Remember the very, very end of Search for Spock? when Kirk and crew are first trying out the brand new Enterprise-A? Anyone remember what color the bridge was? Anyone? 

Oh, that's right...it was A BLINDING WHITE!!!

jus' sayin'


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> I think you should be a little less judgemental of your fellow Hobbytalkers and address the issue, not the writer's tone of "voice" or method of complaint.


I was not being judgmental. I was addressing an issue which had nothing to do with a writers tone of voice. Most of the replies I have read have been childish. Simply put. All we have heard over and over from a few of the same folks is how terrible everything is about this film. There is no need to continually rain on everyone's parade. 



Tiberious said:


> We can raise our concerns, this is a forum, that's part of what they're for. We can point out things we like and dislike, it's called expressing an opinion


Could not agree more. Thus please allow me my opinion


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

hubert said:


> I'm glad he is 'whining', it show me someone else cares what they're being asked to swallow...
> 
> -Hue


I like a few aspects of the film and find enough familiarity in the new Enterprise design to keep me interested. And until I see the film, I will reserve my judgments till then. I have not been asked to swallow anything as I have free will to either see the film or not.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I think that one thing all of us on this board have in common is that we all fancy ourselves to be artists (or at least creative folk) to one degree or another. That being said, we all feel that if they had only asked US, we could have come up with something better.

That's probably not true. Oh, we might have started with the noblest of intentions, but we would have used the tremendous opportunity to put our own little flourish on the design and no matter what that was, somebody else here would have ripped us a new one for our troubles.

I'm sure the designer was not working in a vaccuum and was directed to the result we have today. by how big of a committee, we may never know. There were probably factions who lobbied for more drastic changes that were tempered by other purists. 

When the the dust has settled, I'd like to see how this design evolved and what was proposed and what was dismissed (perhaps as a DVD extra)

Remember that the previous Trek films gave us new bridge sets practically every movie. If this movie becomes a franchise, we might get new Enterprise each movie ( like the Batmobile changes in each Batman film )


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> I like a few aspects of the film and find enough familiarity in the new Enterprise design to keep me interested. And until I see the film, I will reserve my judgments till then. I have not been asked to swallow anything as I have free will to either see the film or not.


Fair enough. 

However, this is what I see. (JJ/Paramount suits sold on idea) "We want to take what everyone loves about TOS and re-vamp it, modernize it. Its a reboot, its not a reboot. Its a re-imagining, its really not. We're canon - well we're re-writing canon. We've got Nimoy, so you know it's the real 'McCoy'... ok he died a few years back.*" 

Despite what you write, you are being asked to swallow (from my perspective) quite a bit. What I've read so far, this is another universe of ST all together. I'm sure it will be entertaining.

It's funny that as someone far smarter than myself pointed out earlier in this thread - The producers have tried to widen the audience since ST-IV and it led us to the current crapfest we've gotten. I was just hoping that before I die, I would see one more good effort put toward the ST of old.

* I was fortunate to have known DeForest. HE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD the legacy they bore much better than any suit ever will. But he was just an actor, right.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Childhood raped?, an 'abortion'? Come on fellas, take it back down a few notches. I just have one question; where's Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when we need him (lol)? He could find enough material here for the next ten years!:thumbsup:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Not trying to inflame anything here, but wouldn't it be more prudent for people to wait until they've seen the movie... or at least the trailer that comes out tomorrow.. before condemning the design elements of the movie? Some of the comments here are pretty strong, and might be kinda hard to walk back if the movie in fact doesn't "suck".

Is it the design I would have chosen for Enterprise? Given the teeny tiny amount of information I have at the present time, no. However, I'm missing a huge chunk of visual and narrative context. And so are you.

Apart from Carson, and a handful of others worldwide, none of us really have enough information at this point to understand what we're seeing in these images. And, given the overwhelmingly positive response from those in Europe who have seen parts of the film over the past couple of days, it especially seems premature to judge the film, or its design elements, at this point.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

d_jedi1 said:


> My wife is NOT a trek fan and to her, it looks like the Enterprise.. she actually HATES Trek and yet she WANTS to see this film.
> She saw the picture, saw the look on my face and asked what was wrong with it, even when I tried to show her, it looked like the Enterprise to her.


This encapsulates what's wrong with the "gotta update the design to appeal to modern sensibilities" argument.

*Most folks will not see the difference between this atrocity and the original. 
*
If it won't matter to them, *WHY CHANGE IT?* 

A more realistically detailed version of the TOS design would look just fine to the great unwashed_ and would make the Trek fans ecstatic. Win-Win._

But _noo-ooooooo._

My biggest complaint is that the new design looks like the "natural child" of the TMP-E and the Enterprise D. Take the TMP saucer, attach it to the TNG secondary hull by a singularly ungraceful dorsal pylon, tack on a couple of battery operated "marital aids" for engines and _viola! Merde!_ An ungainly chimera utterly lacking any unifying design principle or functional considerations.

I remember my ambivalence about how the TMP design was going to turn out. Seeing those hideous McQuarry "star destroyerprise" and "asteroid with nacelles" drawings gave me indigestion. Then, on the day TMP premiered, as I waited in line to see the movie, the usher opened the door as the previous showing was winding up and I saw that amazing flyover before going to warp scene at the very end and I knew they had done right by my favorite space ship. Of course, that design was about 90% Matt Jefferies' Phase II refit. 

This time we aren't going to be so lucky...

About the only thing positive I can say about the design is that they seem to have resisted the impulse to make it huge. Judging by the ports, it seems to be about the right size for the Enterprise.

I can also say I couldn't care less if the Bridge set will scale correctly to the model, or even have an opinion about which way it faces.

Coming from _me_ that's the ultimate sign of indifference...

M.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Krako said:


> And, given the overwhelmingly positive response from those in Europe who have seen parts of the film over the past couple of days, it especially seems premature to judge the film, or its design elements, at this point.


Could not agree more.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I agree that they haven't made it ridiculously huge, all good. It does appear somewhat bigger than 947' - 1050', however. And the descriptions of a vast shuttlebay add to the impression that the new ship is bigger than the TOS-E, but until we see more it's hard to tell how big. If we judge by window size on the saucer rim, an eyeball estimate puts her somewhere between the refit-E and the E-B, at least to my eye.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Larva said:


> I agree that they haven't made it ridiculously huge, all good. It does appear somewhat bigger than 947' - 1050', however. And the descriptions of a vast shuttlebay add to the impression that the new ship is bigger than the TOS-E, but until we see more it's hard to tell how big. If we judge by window size on the saucer rim, an eyeball estimate puts her somewhere between the refit-E and the E-B, at least to my eye.


Agreed, and that looks MUCH larger than the original 947' (unless those portals are smaller that the 3' versions of TMP). I know Carson said it wasn't longer, but I figured they couldn't help but make it a bigger, because you know, they can...


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

I think we all need to admit what we all know to be the sad truth. This movie was never intended for the 40+ crowd. It shouldn't be if you think about it. They are trying to save the franchise by getting younger fans involved.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Childhood raped?, an 'abortion'? Come on fellas, take it back down a few notches. I just have one question; where's Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when we need him (lol)? He could find enough material here for the next ten years!:thumbsup:












*"I love the new Enterprise.... love to POOP on it!"*




:


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Well I agree that their aiming this film towards the younger generation.I have loved Star Trek since 1970 and am now 42.I love the Original Enterprise and will voice my opinion on how I feel about the new ship.And no I'm not whining but I think its sad to see what they did with the Enterprise and I'm very dissapointed.Its my right to voice my opinion and I will continue to do so and I never do it in a way that is rude to others.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Hey! I just stumbled onto a great resource for those ready to publicly condemn a film before actually seeing it...

http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/

:hat:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

*The Designer's Reaction*

This may be of interest:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/

Huzz


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Found this on trekmovie.com.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I don't like the ship in the one view we have seen. Rick Sternbach, who created a lot of the Trek designs did not like itr either. He then saw different viws of the ship and altered his opinion. I may also, but for now that image they released is the only one I can go by.
Was it what I was expecting? Probably, considering the shot we saw of the Bridge I could see they were really going to change things.
I think regardless of what they did most people would hate it. People don't even like the TOS-Remastered shows. 
We are not the target audience- they have made that clear. They want to enlarge the audience to bring bigger crowds to the movies. Thinking like this made a dune buggy/mad-max race in the last movie and it really didn't work.
By now all opinions have been voiced and there seems to be a contest on how to describe the hatred for the design in increasingly elaborate insulting terms. I don't like it's engines, but then I still don't like the refit's engines either- I prefer the round cross sectioned types used in TOS and ST-E over the art deco sculpted ones which are 'modern' trek. 
That is all I have to say- I am going to leave this thread now - it has become an endless repeating of the same dozen or so sentences with a scattering of personal attacks. There is nothing positive to be gained by stomping over and over again the same observations- it is getting boring.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Here is a comparison of the TOS and Star Trek XI versions that I combined in one image, based on schematics from the Ex Astris Scientia - Bernd Schneider's Star Trek Site. I just sized them to the same length so they are probably not the same scale to each other:










I kind of like this illustration of the new Enterpise a bit more than the released photo. The lines make more artistic sense in this interpretation and looks cleaner and modernized, although I'd move the saucer a bit more forward from the rest of the ship like everyone else says here.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

> They want to enlarge the audience to bring bigger crowds to the movies.


Just come out and say it... they want to 'dumb it down'. Star Drek for the Masses has truly arrived.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

I like the looks of it. It does not fit what has been established, however. I guess I am wondering what is the point? If you want to make a new movie with new sets and ships, make a movie that takes place some other time. I'm just not sure what the thinking was going into this. The design I'm seeing looks like TMP meets Voyager meets Next Generation. It reminds me of the Enterprise C -- yikes.

Oh well.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

It seems to be the new Battlestar Galactica version of Star Trek to me. I guess we have to accept that fact. And I do love the new BSG even though I miss the original series ship.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

hey, didja hear? Bonds a BLONDE now!


Is Hubert actually commenting on the possibility that the ship might be longer than 947 feet long? OMG call the cops!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Richard Baker said:


> That is all I have to say- I am going to leave this thread now - it has become an endless repeating of the same dozen or so sentences with a scattering of personal attacks. There is nothing positive to be gained by stomping over and over again the same observations- it is getting boring.


Agreed. I can't believe how some of you folks have to constantly take digs at each other - and that's from both sides of the fence. I'm locking the thread because of some of the turns of phrase folks have used which are NOT family friendly by any use. 

I'll ask that some of ya'll can calm down and reign in your attitudes wherein you have to take pot shots at other members or belittle the opinions of others. I'd rather you folks not start another thread until something new is released in the way of news or pics. 

Also, please keep up with ANY other threads that are on the same subject and post in there - we don't need ten different threads about the same subject.


----------

