# Model of New Enterprise from Star Trek 2009



## PixelMagic

Here is a model of the New Enterprise on display at the Arclight Cinema in LA. It was built up by The FX Company. 

They did a great job. Love it. I want one from Polar Lights.


----------



## Larva

Thanks for posting these pics. How big was this model? Did you happen snap a shot from astern? I'm wondering if this model has the detail undercut on the bottom of the secondary hull that we see for the first time in the new trailer.


----------



## Jodet

I want two from Polar lights.


----------



## TGel63

Looks more like a Harley Earle now more than ever. That isn't a compliment either

Hey Baxter, I said it again, you around?


----------



## PixelMagic

TGel63 said:


> Looks more like a Harley Earle now more than ever. That isn't a compliment either
> 
> Hey Baxter, I said it again, you around?


We get it, you don't like the new ship.


----------



## Scorpitat

If Gene Roddenberry was in a grave, he'd be spinning around in it, at Warp Speed!

BLECK! :freak: That THING makes me ill lookin at it!

Sincerely,
Scorp.


----------



## TGel63

PixelMagic said:


> We get it, you don't like the new ship.


What gave it away?


----------



## Roguepink

I love it. Its beautiful. Gene would be proud to see how his creation has matured and grown and now has come home to its roots. This could well be the best Star Trek movie to date.


----------



## Modeler1964

So this was a build up? Just curious cause AA is coming out with the toy ship soon I think. If it is a build up from scratch then whoever built it did a great job on everything, construction, painting, lighting.
Still not too sure about this design but I have warmed up a little after the initial shock. :thumbsup:


----------



## Roguepink

TGel63 said:


> What gave it away?


Oh, how about your incessant disparaging remarks? To quote the Queen, "We are not amused."


----------



## TGel63

Roguepink said:


> Oh, how about your incessant disparaging remarks? To quote the Queen, "We are not amused."


Ah like your gushing ones ad nasuem?

More have said the same surley.


----------



## Roguepink

...okay.


----------



## TGel63

Roguepink said:


> ...okay.


All in fun Rouge


----------



## Richard Baker

oh great- the hull is covered in aztec paneling again.

Not that I hate the look- I just hate the model painting (Star Trek models get built in an hour and take a month to paint...)

Aside from that is is a good chance to see the vessel shapes better without the SFX in the trailers/promo images.

.


----------



## Fury3

*Growing on me*

Didn't care for it at first. Seeing it in action on the latest trailer, the ship doesn't look as horrid as it did to me at first. Could be the alternate timeline thing that's alluded to that is the cause for changes in the crew, ship and history that's letting me accept the design a little more. You see, it's not our girl but sorta like a cousin instead. Plus, the visuals look pretty good and seeing the Enterprise fire phasers on the big screen will look cool. 

"James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was in another life" or something to that effect from the baddy in the latest trailer.


----------



## hubert

Fury3 said:


> Didn't care for it at first. Seeing it in action on the latest trailer, the ship doesn't look as horrid as it did to me at first. Could be the alternate timeline thing that's alluded to that is the cause for changes in the crew, ship and history that's letting me accept the design a little more. You see, it's not our girl but sorta like a cousin instead. Plus, the visuals look pretty good and seeing the Enterprise fire phasers on the big screen will look cool.
> 
> "James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was in another life" or something to that effect from the baddy in the latest trailer.


Yes, but something is stinky in this trailer. I'm not say'n that the above quote is not in the film, but the voice sounded funny (almost like nimoys') and if you watch that trailer a few more times at that point you'll notice its dubbed (rather badly) on Nero. What this means, I don't know - just thought it was odd for that portion to be so badly done.


----------



## RMBurnett

*The New 1701 Model...*

Gents,

I was there at the Arclight last night. The Enterprise model looks to be about 1/350 Scale...MR/Polar Lights sized. There were three...two were painted by artists (if any of you saw the VADER HEAD displays at the San Diego Comicon...you get the idea...).

But the pictured version, painted like the movie version...is a BEAUTIFUL model. The lighting...the paint job...really, really stunning.

The question is though...WHERE did these come from...? WHO made the multiple copies? Are there more...because each and every one of us would want one upon seeing it...

I'm thinking they may indeed be from Master Replicas.

Someone needs to track down where these came from...because there are at least molds...and I WANT ONE. 

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Carson Dyle

RMBurnett said:


> Someone needs to track down where these came from...because there are at least molds...and I WANT ONE.


Well, I don't know if they'll sell you one, but...



PixelMagic said:


> It was built up by The FX Company.


http://www.thefxcompany.com/

I have heard rumors that Master Replicas has plans to market a replica of the new Enterprise, but I don't believe there's been any sort of official announcement made.


----------



## marc111

Thanks for the photos. The really confirm that this is one of the ugliest most missproportioned ships I have ever seen.

Mark


----------



## derric1968

Scorpitat said:


> If Gene Roddenberry was in a grave, he'd be spinning around in it, at Warp Speed!


Oh really?

"I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest. As they say, tomorrow’s things to tomorrow’s generations…” - Gene Roddenberry

Here's another timely quote from 1989 (ie: 20 years ago)

"I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, 'Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!' And that would please me!" - Gene Roddenberry

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, Scorpitat. I'm just a little sick of the "Gene is spinning in his grave" posts.


----------



## USS Atlantis

TGel63 said:


> Looks more like a Harley Earle now more than ever. That isn't a compliment either
> 
> Hey Baxter, I said it again, you around?


I differ - I think Harley's designs were much better (yes, I remember him)

The more I see of this.... thing... the more I resolve to stay away from the theatre


----------



## Carson Dyle

derric1968 said:


> I'm just a little sick of the "Gene is spinning in his grave" posts.


You aren't the only one.

:thumbsup:


----------



## MAX WEDGE

Why did they design a new Starship, when the movie takes place of the original series? I could understand it if it took place so many years before the original series then I could accept the ship, but it is as if the original design that we all know and love never existed


----------



## Richard Baker

It pains me to say this as I am more of a hardware guy instead of a story guy, but I think this ship looks better in the movie than in a display where you can see the whole thing. In the film trailers the ship is sweeping through the frame and the way it is filmed work with the shapes. 
Some ship designs are best when viewed is motion- one example would be the Naboo N-1 Starfighter. When you hold one and look at it carefully the design to too much forward and the trailing portion looks too small and thin. When you see it in flight in the Phantom Menace it looks OK when flying.
This new Enterprise looks imbalanced from the side in a still shot- when you see it flying around in the trailers it flows through the screen and looks good.
It is still not my choice for a good Constitution variant from an alternate timeline, but _as it appears in the film _it looks better than it does in a still shot.
Considering how many minutes it may be on the screen in exterior shots for the entire movie, it's existence is not going to have me avoid the movie altogether. I may not like the design enough to crave a 1/350 model kit of it, but I can still enjoy the movie.

.


----------



## gareee

I'm guessing they used a rapid prototyping process to build the model from the original cgi model.

And after seeing it, my only real issue is the engines are like 30% too large.

Course I also like the old MPC Zingers and Dave Deal's wheels, so it's not ALL bad!


----------



## MAX WEDGE

gareee said:


> Course I also like the old MPC Zingers and Dave Deal's wheels, so it's not ALL bad!



Zingers!!! Thats the ones I couldn't remember...Thanks Gareee


----------



## gareee

I just wish they had been reissued at more reasonable prices, considering the size.

BTW, just picked up the reissued messerchnizzel a month ago..


----------



## Roguepink

In truth, the saucer and the rest of the ship look mismatched. I love the new engines, the new engineering hull, all put together they look graceful and flowing. The more classic saucer looks too... PLAIN. They should have pushed the redesign all the way, not stopping at the neck.

Its far from the "abomination" that some people call it, but its not 100% either.

I would be pleased to have one of my own. Maybe two, one to build stock and one to see if I could push the saucer enough to really bring the whole design together.


----------



## gareee

Hmm I like that idea.. changing the saucer shape somewhat.. maybe a teardropped shape would have been better suited to the hull and engines?


----------



## jbond

Just look at it in that trailer--it looks tremendous.

And if Rob Burnett wants a model of one, truly we've turned some very important corner...


----------



## Carson Dyle

jbond said:


> if Rob Burnett wants a model of one, truly we've turned some very important corner...


I was thinking the same thing.

And so it begins...


----------



## GKvfx

jbond said:


> Just look at it in that trailer--it looks tremendous.
> 
> And if Rob Burnett wants a model of one, truly we've turned some very important corner...


...or started a downward spiral...... 

Gene


----------



## bigjimslade

Anyone remember "Battle Beyond the Planets"?


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

Overall...I like the new ship...

My only real "complaint" is the size of the nacelles...they just look too "fat" to me...


----------



## Atemylunch

TGel63 said:


> Looks more like a Harley Earle now more than ever. That isn't a compliment either


But there is no chrome on it. 

Rumor has it Take 2 isn't doing anything with it. But Playmates is.


----------



## CaptDistraction

klgonsneedbotox said:


> Overall...I like the new ship...
> 
> My only real "complaint" is the size of the nacelles...they just look too "fat" to me...


The nacelles would work for me if the struts were more straight and a bit more substantial at the top. Also if they were spaced wider. Then move the saucer forward on the top of the neck and slightly push the neck forward. 

I'd have no problem with it then. It would be even more "sleek" at that point, which is exactly what it looks like they were after.


----------



## CaliOkie

Is it just me, or does the new ship look like something that melted?


----------



## RMBurnett

*Now wait a minute...*

Folks,

The MODEL is cool. I love the paint job...and the lighting. But the ship design still sucks. Those uncircumcised warp nacelles and their curved struts are just...goofy. They don't make me believe that version of the Enterprise could really EXIST, if that makes any sense. I believed in the refit the moment I first saw it. Heck, I believed in the KEN ADAM version of the Enterprise. But I don't believe a real Starship would ever be designed with those lines because, what is the functionality behind the design...? How does it WORK?

However, if you provide me with a REASON the nacelle struts are curved...well, then...I might buy it. 

It's like the difference between each STAR WARS trilogy. I bought all the vehicles in the first series...but the Flash Gordon influenced design of the prequels didn't make me BELIEVE in them because they just seemed like affectations of a big SCI FI movie.

On another note, I really love the visual effect of Vulcan's implosion in the new trailer. Brings back fond memories of the destruction of Jupiter from the end of 2010.


----------



## Wolvster

Just a few points.. The model was assembled, painted, and
lighted by the *FX Company*. *QMX* was contracted by Paramount
to make several of these, and since they were under a TIGHT constraint
they were SLA'd from the original files from ILM.

And no, MR is NOT going to be making the NEW Enterprise...

Oh, and yes, the model is 350 scale and measures in
at 34 inches in length.

More to come later as QMX is going to be
putting up a _" build diary " _of sorts on
the project..


----------



## Modeler1964

Wolvster said:


> Just a few points.. The model was assembled, painted, and
> lighted by the *FX Company*. *QMX* was contracted by Paramount
> to make several of these, and since they were under a TIGHT constraint
> they were SLA'd from the original files from ILM.
> 
> And no, MR is NOT going to be making the NEW Enterprise...
> 
> Oh, and yes, the model is 350 scale and measures in
> at 34 inches in length.
> 
> More to come later as QMX is going to be
> putting up a _" build diary " _of sorts on
> the project..


Hey thanks for the info and background on this. As a model builder, I am very interested in the whole process. The builders did a great job and I would be envious to have been on their team for the project.


----------



## LGFugate

How about we all agree to disagree? I, too, hate (and I mean that) this "design" for Enterprise. However, those who like it get really defensive when those of us who don't express our opinion. Show the photo and move on. Let's not bait each other into a discussion that's going to get locked.

Larry

:freak:


----------



## bigjimslade

The fundamental problem with this model is that it is stylistically inconsistent. It looks like it was designed by three people independly of each other: The saucer is angular and regularlly shaped; the neck/pylons/engineering are highly curved; the warp engines have yet another style.

Imagine a TNG-like saucer on this and it would look less funny. Or, a TOS engineering hull/neck/pylons -- and it would look better.

Note how much better it looks in the front views.

The neck mades a decent transition from the angular saucer to the curves of the engineering hull. However, the engineering hull is simply an abortion. It defies structural engineering and practical form. That is the critical flaw here.

The pylons look out of place on both the engineering hull and the warp engine. They do not have the transitional appearance of the neck.

Personally, the warp engines do nothing for me. However, it appears that with a better engineering hull/pylons they could have been made to work with the saucer.


----------



## RMBurnett

*Admittedly...*

Folks,

To be fair, there are indeed angles which look GREAT on this new model. Anything from the front or rear looks pretty kick-ass. 

The Arclight lobby is pretty crowded, and taking copious photos is, well, geeky, but if anyone recognizes me...they'd only go, "OF COURSE you're taking pictures of that model you frakkin' GEEK"...but if so inclined...I might go up and take a few more.

It's hard to get direct front and back shots, as that model is flanked by two others...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Wolvster said:


> Just a few points.. The model was assembled, painted, and
> lighted by the *FX Company*. *QMX* was contracted by Paramount
> to make several of these, and since they were under a TIGHT constraint
> they were SLA'd from the original files from ILM.
> 
> And no, MR is NOT going to be making the NEW Enterprise...
> 
> Oh, and yes, the model is 350 scale and measures in
> at 34 inches in length.
> 
> More to come later as QMX is going to be
> putting up a _" build diary " _of sorts on
> the project..


Wolvster,
That's a bummer. 
I thought I remembered reading that MR Did get the rights to produce a high end collectible and that Corgi would be handling the low end diecasts.

That being said.. I would dearly love a kit of this scale build up


----------



## gareee

MR is in deep financial straights right now.. they dropped the Ghostbusters license they obtained last year, and they WERE going to do full size Ghostbuster gear replicas.


----------



## jbond

I get annoyed by ALL the venom, going both ways. I'm not in love with the design but I do like it and it does look great in action in the film. I completely understand all the discussion about proportions and the collision of design elements (and the ship looks the way it does because it WAS designed by three people: Matt Jefferies, Scott Chambliss and Ryan Church, and if Jefferies' original shapes hadn't been retained there'd be 100 times more vomit expended on these boards).

I prefer the original design and the Refit, I probably even prefer the D--but I like this ship better than the E or the Voyager, by far. But it does seem rather disingenuous to suggest that it's the people who haven't so far vomited over the new design multiple times and talked about how it's raped their childhood and how Roddenberry is turning in his grave...that they are the ones being hypersensitive.


----------



## Wolvster

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Wolvster,
> That's a bummer.
> I thought I remembered reading that MR Did get the rights to produce a high end collectible and that Corgi would be handling the low end diecasts.
> 
> That being said.. I would dearly love a kit of this scale build up



From what I was told, MR does not have
the License for the NEW MOVIE... 

They DO have a TREK LICENSE, but
you know how Studios like to keep things separate
to keep the cash flowing in.. So, MR would have
to buy *ANOTHER* License to do anything from the Movie..


----------



## RMBurnett

*Love the ENTERPRISE your with...*

Folks,

Enough of the merits of the design. Now that we have her...I want to know all about her...

I'd like to ask WOLVSTER a few questions...

From the footage I've seen, the Enterprise appears to be MUCH, MUCH larger than the TOS Connie. Even judging from the Iowa Shipyard stuff...the Enterprise looks HUGE.

Yet, the 1/350 scale build up of the new Enterprise seems to be almost exactly the same size as the original, if my Master Replicas ship is anything to go by.

Care to comment? 

Best,

Rob


----------



## Wolvster

I can't vouch for the _" EXACT " _size but from what
I have been told shes is supposed to be in the same
general size as the Refit we all know..

So, you can get an idea of scale by how much
bigger the Refit is to the TOS ship.

If you want to ask some detailed questions I suggest
you go here and ask away.. 


http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek.html


----------



## Carson Dyle

Robert, you need to get over the MUCH, MUCH LARGER thing. The Enterprise in Trek XI is essentially the same scale as the Refit. Period.


----------



## Jodet

jbond said:


> I get annoyed by ALL the venom, going both ways. I'm not in love with the design but I do like it and it does look great in action in the film. I completely understand all the discussion about proportions and the collision of design elements (and the ship looks the way it does because it WAS designed by three people: Matt Jefferies, Scott Chambliss and Ryan Church, and if Jefferies' original shapes hadn't been retained there'd be 100 times more vomit expended on these boards).
> 
> I prefer the original design and the Refit, I probably even prefer the D--but I like this ship better than the E or the Voyager, by far. But it does seem rather disingenuous to suggest that it's the people who haven't so far vomited over the new design multiple times and talked about how it's raped their childhood and how Roddenberry is turning in his grave...that they are the ones being hypersensitive.


Yes, the D has grown on me quite a bit over the years. It's my second favorite (to the refit, of course). I wouldn't say I hated Voyager and the 1701-E. I just consider them a sad, wasted opportunity. They both look like ironing boards to me. Long and thin and flat. WTF up with that? BO-RING.


----------



## JeffG

Even though I like the Voyager and the Ent-E, I think they suffer a little bit from trying to look TOO cool, kinda like the starship equivalent to the red haired guy on CSI: Miami! I think that the better designers can still have a degree of clunk to a design and still have it look awesome. Hell, look at the Millennium Falcon. It's a train wreck and yet somehow still looks sweet.


----------



## Dale Jackson

This is the alternate timeline Enterprise. The movie is about alternate timelines. Remember STTNG "All Good Things" the Enterprise looked very different in the parallel universe, this is the same deal.


----------



## Dale Jackson

"Even judging from the Iowa Shipyard stuff...the Enterprise looks HUGE."

You really can't judge that one single shot. All it takes is Camera focal length to make things in the distance appear larger and close to foreground objects. You see this all the time in professional airshow photography where the subject aircraft appears closer and larger than in real life.

The camera focal length in the new trek movie is much more advanced than used in the TOS shows, which was pretty primitive compared to today's filming.


----------



## RMBurnett

*Focal lengths...?*

Folks,

Good point. Next time I run across a Starship under construction in the Iowa shipyards, I'll make sure I shoot from multiple perspectives to indicate exact size. ;-)

However, the dimensions of the new bridge would seem to indicate a much larger size than the original. It's not out of line to figure this would also translate to the rest of the ship.

On another note...I did get a few chills when Kirk takes the center seat in that new trailer. Not unlike when he slid his hands across it and walked away in GENERATIONS. Of course, for very different reasons.

After reading the first two issues of COUNTDOWN...I find myself very intrigued about the new movie. I have to agree with the sentiments expressed by my good friend Jeff Bond (who is anything but The Lazy Modeler...)...STAR TREK lives.


----------



## Dale Jackson

RMBurnett said:


> Folks,
> 
> Good point. Next time I run across a Starship under construction in the Iowa shipyards, I'll make sure I shoot from multiple perspectives to indicate exact size. ;-)
> 
> However, the dimensions of the new bridge would seem to indicate a much larger size than the original. It's not out of line to figure this would also translate to the rest of the ship.
> 
> On another note...I did get a few chills when Kirk takes the center seat in that new trailer. Not unlike when he slid his hands across it and walked away in GENERATIONS. Of course, for very different reasons.
> 
> After reading the first two issues of COUNTDOWN...I find myself very intrigued about the new movie. I have to agree with the sentiments expressed by my good friend Jeff Bond (who is anything but The Lazy Modeler...)...STAR TREK lives.



But you must keep in mind that this is an alternate timeline ship. Just like "Yesterday's Enterprise" or other parallel universe themed episodes of Star Trek (all series). So you can't really compare the ship to TOS.


----------



## g_xii

RMBurnett said:


> ... Those uncircumcised warp nacelles and their curved struts are just...goofy. They don't make me believe that version of the Enterprise could really EXIST, if that makes any sense...


I kind of agree here on this. They DO look "uncut" to me as well! 

However, I'm thinking about how HUGE cell phones were just 20 years ago, and I read recently they just stuck one in a watch -- Just like ole' Dick Tracy! Maybe the engines are so large because that represents the technology that is supposed to be in effect in the time period of the movie. Granted, "Enterprise" had sleek nacelles, but it was a SMALLER ship. This ship looks quite a bit like a _big_ starship, and maybe engines that size are needed to drive her. 

That's one way of thinking. 

Otherwise, if you really stop to think about it, they could have made it a LOT worse... that's one to really get ya' shaking in yer boots!

Overall, it's not going to scare me away from the movie theatre. I confess, when I first saw the "Enterprise-D," I _really_ hated the design. And after a short while I got to where I really liked it. I felt the same way about the "Enterprise-E" as well. But by the last film, I was thinking about how the "Enterprise-E" sure looked nasty and war-like and how much I had grown to like it. 

Maybe it's just a matter of getting used to the changes. 

However, it would not have broken my heart, either, to have them just used the EXACT same ship as the one used in "The Cage". I would have dearly liked to have seen that one on the big screen.

All we can do is take what they give us. Thankfully, we can still express opinions.

--Henry


----------



## Carson Dyle

RMBurnett said:


> the dimensions of the new bridge would seem to indicate a much larger size than the original.


Honest to God Robert, the new bridge set isn't any larger than the set built for STTMP. No doubt the filmmakers would be delighted by the sense of scope they've conveyed, but the difference in scale you're alluding to simply isn't there.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

I took the original image and altered it...moved the saucer forward some...thinned out the nacelles and moved them back a little...here's the real one and my variation...thoughts???


----------



## Zombie_61

MAX WEDGE said:


> Why did they design a new Starship, when the movie takes place of the original series? I could understand it if it took place so many years before the original series then I could accept the ship, but it is as if the original design that we all know and love never existed


Well, that's a major plot point in this film. A Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) goes back to a point in time before the era of the original series and somehow alters the timeline. As a result, the Federation develops differently than it did in the timeline we currently know, which affects the ships, the uniforms, the gear, etc.., and, presumably, the Federation's role in the Star Trek universe.


----------



## AJ-1701

I just jumped on QMXs site and though a little chunky and artdecoish I still like the new ship. My only beef is the bussard domes on the front of the nacelles being blue which is how they seem to apprear on the trailers too, but I really feel they should've been red.


----------



## Captain April

Regarding Rob's concerns, I'll only say this much at this time: The TOS, TMP, and TNG bridges are all roughly the same size, and the new iBridge is a helluva lot bigger than any of those.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

More ammunition
http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek.html


----------



## Carson Dyle

Captain April said:


> Regarding Rob's concerns, I'll only say this much at this time: The TOS, TMP, and TNG bridges are all roughly the same size, and the new iBridge is a helluva lot bigger than any of those.


I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but if that qualifies as a "helluva lot" I'll concede the point. Judging from the film the set doesn't seem that massive to me, but it's not like I've taken a yardstick to the thing.

I _am_ surprised to hear that the TMP and TNG bridge sets were the same size as the TOS bridge. I'd always been under the impression that the latter incarnations of the bridge were a bit bigger than the original by approximately the same degree depicted above. I suppose this is why the Trek XI bridge didn't, and still doesn't, seem that much bigger to me than what's come before.

I still maintain the new ship is essentially the same sized vessel as the TMP Enterprise, but I'll leave it to the experts to prove me wrong.


----------



## Dale Jackson

Captain April said:


> Regarding Rob's concerns, I'll only say this much at this time: The TOS, TMP, and TNG bridges are all roughly the same size, and the new iBridge is a helluva lot bigger than any of those.


Ex-Astris is probably the best place to get detailed Trek information.

Bridge comparison chart 22nd to 23rd century

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/federation-bridges1.jpg

The NCC-1701D bridge is a LOT bigger than the original TOS bridge

Bridge comparison chart 24th to 29th century

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/federation-bridges2.jpg

Also some very detailed bridge schematics are here: http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~tweimann/pages/frames/frame_schematics.html

I use Ex-Astris for all my referencing needs. :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Dale Jackson said:


> The NCC-1701D bridge is a LOT bigger than the original TOS bridge


Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. 

BTW, the Ex-Astris links are blocked.


----------



## Dale Jackson

Carson Dyle said:


> Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind.
> 
> BTW, the Ex-Astris links are blocked.


Hmm, well go here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges1.htm

Ex-Astris probably doesn't like hotlinking directly to their pics. Strange, however, as I can go to those links easily...oh well


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Ah, but the important question in all of this...

Does the bridge point to the front of the ship?

Looks like they solved the offset rotation problem. Score one for the A(brams) team!


----------



## Dale Jackson

Another great schematics site: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/gilso.php

I lined up the bridge of the TOS 1701, movie 1701A, and TNG 1701D, sizing compared to the seats, I know it's not perfect. But just by adjusting to the captains seat size, the Enterprise D is very large (even if my comparison is off by a few inches on seat size).


----------



## jbond

The one thing I do wish had been retained is the red--actually orange-- nacelle domes--mainly because in the big shots in the film the ship DOES give the feel of the original Enterprise and that one little detail would really seal the deal.


----------



## Richard Baker

IIRC they used the same ceiling mounted studio lighting for filming that was set up for the Motion Picture on all the different bridge sets (even Voyager's)

.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Does anyone have a link to an _accurate_ accounting of the Trek XI bridge? I'd be curious to know _exactly_ how much bigger it is than the TMP bridge.


----------



## Dale Jackson

Well one thing is for sure, with this alternate timeline plot the Bridge looks quite different than normal federation standards.










I'm really not sure what those vertical screens are for, perhaps operations displays like they show in ops on Naval ships today? My brother works with ops on Navy destroyers, they have some screens up I think, I'll have to ask him.










Here's the new Star Trek toys coming out: New Star Trek Toys


----------



## hubert

Dale Jackson said:


> I'm really not sure what those vertical screens are for, perhaps operations displays like they show in ops on Naval ships today? My brother works with ops on Navy destroyers, they have some screens up I think, I'll have to ask him.


In Ops/ CIC you would be correct where it is dimly lit, but not on the brightly lit iBridge. I'm sure the set designer thought, 'hey you know what would be cool?'

I'd love to see a parody where someone is walking fast on the bridge and hits one from the side (since they seem to just be in the middle of everything. Maybe they turn opaque when energized and allow private phone calls on the bridge...


----------



## Carson Dyle

Dale Jackson said:


> Well one thing is for sure, with this alternate timeline plot the Bridge looks quite different than normal federation standards.


A good thing, IMO. Nothing will ever come close to improving upon the awesome iconic coolness of the TOS bridge, but I've been repeatedly disappointed by the bland Toyota Camry dullness of subsequent bridge sets.


----------



## Carson Dyle

hubert said:


> In Ops/ CIC you would be correct where it is dimly lit, but not on the brightly lit iBridge.


Not to single you out hubert, but I've noticed a lot of "the bridge is too bright" comments here and elsewhere, and inevitably I can't help but wonder what the posters in question must think of the lighting scheme Stanley Kubrick cooked up for "2001." Of course we all know what a hack Kubrick was when it comes to cinematography, but does it bug you Trek XI bridge haters that the interiors of Space Station V, Clavius Base, and the Discovery are so bright -- brighter even than the bridge of the dreaded Trek XI Enterprise? 

Reason I ask, there's an unconfirmed rumor that Kubrick may have done a little technical research in this area, and I'm wondering if it's possible that his ARMY OF ENGINEERS, TECHNOLOGISTS, and ROCKET SCIENTISTS may have gotten it wrong...


----------



## GKvfx

Carson Dyle said:


> ......I'm wondering if it's possible that his ARMY OF ENGINEERS, TECHNOLOGISTS, and ROCKET SCIENTISTS may have gotten it wrong...


They weren't Trekkies and they didn't have the benefit of the internet and chat rooms, so, yeah, they were *wrong*.

Gene


----------



## hubert

Carson Dyle said:


> Not to single you out hubert, but I've noticed a lot of "the bridge is too bright" comments here and elsewhere, and inevitably I can't help but wonder what the posters in question must think of the lighting scheme Stanley Kubrick cooked up for "2001." Of course we all know what a hack Kubrick was when it comes to cinematography, but does it bug you Trek XI bridge haters that the interiors of Space Station V, Clavius Base, and the Discovery are so bright -- brighter even than the bridge of the dreaded Trek XI Enterprise?
> 
> Reason I ask, there's an unconfirmed rumor that Kubrick may have done a little technical research in this area, and I'm wondering if it's possible that his ARMY OF ENGINEERS, TECHNOLOGISTS, and ROCKET SCIENTISTS may have gotten it wrong...


We'll one thing they got wrong... There is no 'Pan Am' 

Besides, you didn't mention the cockpit/ bridges of those sets in your post. I think each was dark for a reason. 

I personally don't care about the brightness of the bridge. That said, I do think viewing a (viewscreen / viewport) is easier on the eyes when the ambient light is much lower, especially since we don't use our eyes the same way when its dark. 
I know when learning to fly and during my time in the service (like locating stars to 'reduce' for fixes) we are taught to never look directly at an object but off to the side. 
For this reason, I personally like TOS lighting the most (even with its colors and hues) because it seemed subdued yet still so bright that Spock would have to use his magic viewer. 

Not that any of this matter for a movie set that is suppose to 'look good' (that is not a digg).


----------



## JeffG

A question about the timeline change; do you think the ship and sets look different _because_ of the timeline shift, or that it actually _is_ meant to be our TOS hardware and this is just the designer's updating for the look of the movie and this is their take on giving things a more technically plausible feel? Any thoughts?


----------



## Richard Baker

Yes


One is the excuse for the other.

.


----------



## Dale Jackson

hubert said:


> In Ops/ CIC you would be correct where it is dimly lit, but not on the brightly lit iBridge. I'm sure the set designer thought, 'hey you know what would be cool?'
> 
> I'd love to see a parody where someone is walking fast on the bridge and hits one from the side (since they seem to just be in the middle of everything. Maybe they turn opaque when energized and allow private phone calls on the bridge...


I loved the dimly lit bridge in The Motion Picture, IMO that is more realistic of ops/CIC. Yeah my brother says the same thing about the iBridge being brightly lit, you wouldn't be able to see squat on those iScreens.


----------



## Carson Dyle

JeffG said:


> ...do you think the ship and sets look different _because_ of the timeline shift...


Well, I know that's what the filmmakers told themselves, and there's little doubt it's what they'd have us believe. 

Thing is, the one piece of pre-time disruption Federation technology we see in Trek XI is the USS Kelvin. Strictly speaking, with all the fervent TOS dogma I can muster, I do not buy the Kelvin design as one that would have existed in the pre-Constitution Class TOS universe as we know (knew) it. 

It all gets back to how much creative latitude one is willing to concede to the filmmakers. Since I'm of the opinion that the finished film is pretty good, I'm not as bothered by the design dis-continuity as I might otherwise have been.


----------



## Dale Jackson

JeffG said:


> A question about the timeline change; do you think the ship and sets look different _because_ of the timeline shift, or that it actually _is_ meant to be our TOS hardware and this is just the designer's updating for the look of the movie and this is their take on giving things a more technically plausible feel? Any thoughts?


If I understand the talk over at startrek.com forums, Abrams is using the alternate reality to permanetly change how Star Trek looks and feels for a younger audience.

It's even suggested that there is no reverting back to the original timeline - so it seems you might as well get used to the reboot look of Star Trek.

Ex-Astris says this: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/stxi_continuity.htm

_"There is one more reason why I feel let down by the premise of the movie. We have seen so many time travel stories before, and most of them with an incursion that changed history for the worse, and that had to be fixed in some fashion. The crews of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer were struggling hard to correct history, up to the point of self-sacrifice ("Let's make sure that history never forgets the name... Enterprise"). And they always succeeded. In "Star Trek XI" they don't seem to try hard enough. The damaged timeline, the bad universe will persist. Is this a great twist, just for a change? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is depressing. The whole of Star Trek will take place in a universe that has lost its "innocence", that has been contaminated with future technology, that may not be up to the bright future we know especially from the TNG age. Star Trek has frequently brought in "dark" elements as a conscious antithesis to Roddenberry's idea of a better humanity, most obviously the Dominion War on DS9. But now something similar is being done retroactively to the Star Trek Universe. Depending on how it is depicted, it may not show up immediately in the new movie, but the basic setting of Star Trek is being changed for the worse.

Anyway, while I may not be going to like what Robert Orci, together with co-writer Alex Kurtzman, with Damon Lindelof, J.J. Abrams and the rest of the creative staff have done in "Star Trek XI", his efforts to make the most possible sense of the new story are laudable."_


----------



## hubert

Carson Dyle said:


> Thing is, the one piece of pre-time disruption Federation technology we see in Trek XI is the USS Kelvin. Strictly speaking, with all the fervent TOS dogma I can muster, I do not buy the Kelvin design as one that would have existed in the pre-Constitution Class TOS universe as we know (knew) it.


Agreed. Thats why I think they are smoking something when trying to 'explain' their collective genius on this stuff...



Dale Jackson said:


> It's even suggested that there is no reverting back to the original timeline - so it seems you might as well get used to the reboot look of Star Trek.


Well, at least until another 'producer/director' tells us to ignore this universe, right. Kinda like Superman Returns did with Superman III.

Maybe in a few years someone can make a movie about killing Nero off in the future before he goes back in time to create skynet. :freak:


----------



## Dale Jackson

hubert said:


> Well, at least until another 'producer/director' tells us to ignore this universe, right. Kinda like Superman Returns did with Superman III.
> Maybe in a few years someone can make a movie about killing Nero off in the future before he goes back in time to create skynet. :freak:


Oh so true!!

New Director, new Trek. After all that's how the uniforms got changed to military style in STII and why DS9 went off on a religious tangent (even thought that's a no-no for Gene Rodenberry). And a totally new Trek style with Nemesis with a Director that hasn't watched Trek.

Trek just evolves with each new director, I guess it's sort of like play-doh.

Trek-doh.

Or Trek-DOH!!!!! (Homer)


----------



## hubert

Dale Jackson said:


> Or Trek-DOH!!!!! (Homer)


That was so funny, I almost laughed out here at work!

It's also the way I'm starting to think of it.

To be fair, I think the ship model looks OK, but still too much like a play school toy that needs a string to be pulled behind the tot.


----------



## JeffG

Personally, I have no problem with the aesthetic changes at all and fully understand that the look for a current audience would almost certainly have to be updated from a series produced in 1967.


----------



## Roguepink

Its a testament to the power of Star Trek, more than any other franchise in history, of how passionate and protective the fans are not of just the characters, but the hardware, the style, and adherence to canon and established story.

Its also a handicap, one that dooms the franchise to increasing irrelevance.


----------



## sunburn800

This enterprise will be hard for me to get use to,however i does have a few good angles, i'm going to wait until i get a chance to see it at the movies before i cast judgement on it.


----------



## RMBurnett

Folks,

Now this is more like it...actual analysis of what we're going to see. Judging from the 20 minutes of the film viewed by Mr. Bond and myself...there were many indicators in various sets...Sickbay...Engineering...The Bridge...the ship seems much, much larger than the TOS Enterprise. I don't know if it's ever stated in the film, but I heard early reports which gave the ship a crew of THOUSANDS. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Two months away now...


----------



## RMBurnett

*Size matters not...or does it?*

Folks,

Now this is more like it...actual analysis of what we're going to see. Judging from the 20 minutes of the film viewed by Mr. Bond and myself...there were many indicators in various sets...Sickbay...Engineering...The Bridge...the ship seems much, much larger than the TOS Enterprise. I don't know if it's ever stated in the film, but I heard early reports which gave the ship a crew of THOUSANDS. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Two months away now...


----------



## Richard Baker

In TOS Trek the crew size between Pike & Kirk was doubled- presumably through more effecient tech and not having to carry raw materials and food along. I could see using even more advanced technology and good space planning of gettin gthe crew up to a thousand in a ship roughly the same size as the Consitution class.

.


----------



## Carson Dyle

I'm having one of those surreal, disorienting, "maybe the world _is _flat" moments.

Robert, please indulge me for second, and take a good, long, close look at those shots of the new Enterprise model at the top of the thread. Look at the tell-tale indicators... the phaser banks... the windows.... the travel pod docking portals... the size of the aztec panels... etc. Factor all these things together and ask yourself if the ship you're looking at is in fact MUCH, MUCH LARGER than the TOS Enterprise. If you consider the refit MUCH, MUCH LARGER than the TOS Enterprise then, okay, maybe we simply disagree as to the meaning of MUCH, MUCH LARGER.

But, dude, I've seen the finished film, in its entirety, three times now, and I'm telling you that if the new MUCH, MUCH LARGER Enterprise carries a crew of THOUSANDS then it's the best kept secret in the history of Trek.


----------



## Dale Jackson

this new Enterprise in XI certainly does NOT carry thousands. At most 400-500 just like the TOS and TMP. The Galaxy class was one that carried 1,014 crew size.

This new ship cannot possibly crew "thousands"

I understand that today's aircraft carriers (Nimitz class and up) can carry up to 5,000, but the quarters on those ships are so tiny - 4-5 people to one room.

The Enterprise in Star Trek is really a comfort ship (even klingons in TNG said so). So the Enterprise is certainly not a vessel of "thousands"


----------



## Jodet

*This is so odd*

I like the new E but I'm not nuts about it. Don't hate it, don't love it. It's nice. I'm sure it will look fine in the movie. 

But something about the attached comparison makes me like it more. A LOT MORE. 

Weird.


PS: Dumb forum question. How can I put pictures IN my post and not have them just be thumbnails?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Dale Jackson said:


> It's even suggested that there is no reverting back to the original timeline - so it seems you might as well get used to the reboot look of Star Trek.
> [/I]


Well, that and the fact Desilu hasn't made any new episiodes in over forty years.


----------



## d_jedi1

I'm not at all distressed by the new Enterprise.
Sure, I'll miss seeing the old one BUT I'll miss the planet Vulcan (assuming that WAS Vulcan being destroyed) MUCH more...


How is Spock gonna come back now?


----------



## TriggerMan

Dale Jackson said:


> Star Trek has frequently brought in "dark" elements as a conscious antithesis to Roddenberry's idea of a better humanity, most obviously the Dominion War on DS9. But now something similar is being done retroactively to the Star Trek Universe. Depending on how it is depicted, it may not show up immediately in the new movie, but the basic setting of Star Trek is being changed for the worse.


 I know that isn't your statement Dale, but that's still a bit of a goofy comment from that site. If you notice, the ones who have told themselves to hate the movie and are giving us their "expert opinions" are the ones who _haven't seen it yet_... tell me something that is wrong with that.


----------



## robiwon

Wow, in the drawing that Jodet posted, I just realized how close the nacelles are together! They're almost standing straight up.


----------



## Richard Baker

Consider for a moment how strange the Monster from Cloverfield when you finally saw it all by it self-
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=42049
And remember how it looked in the film- you get a totally different impression when it is moving through the frame with the lighting, dynamic camera, etc...

I think this new Enterprise is similar- seeing it all by itself will look strange, seeing it in the trailers gives a differnt impression.

.


----------



## RMBurnett

*A clarification*

Dudes,

I'm not saying there ARE Thousands of crewmembers on the new Enterprise...just that at one point, I believe there were supposed to be...

And while I haven't seen the entire film yet, from what I did see, the Bridge, the Sickbay and especially Engineering all seem to be quite large...and filled with many more personnel than we're normally used to seeing in those locales.

To my mind, everything appeared about 10-20% larger...which wouldn't be readily apparent from the Exterior of the craft. But the bridge certainly seems bigger.

But I'll defer to Rob on this one, obviously, one of the last surviving Vulcans on these boards (btw...your RC Shuttle is AWESOME...can I come see it?)


----------



## sgrille

*larger crew? saucer*

Have you noticed the new saucer is two complete Decks high in the center?
It is not curved underneath any more. That gives a lot more space to play with.
The curvature never made any sense technically, but looked good, and gave the structure a certain lightness. The new saucer looks quite massive.


----------



## SteveR

I wouldn't assume that the interiors actually fit inside the ship.


----------



## Carson Dyle

RMBurnett said:


> To my mind, everything appeared about 10-20% larger...


Okay, with some of those interiors I suppose I could _maybe_ get behind the 10% bigger thing. In some cases, at least. Certainly the engine room (aka the Schlitz Brewery) is a massive "set," but I always thought the TOS engine room was intended to be a pretty big space (despite the surprisingly small set; great production design, that).

It's the whole MUCH, MUCH LARGER assertion I have a problem with, because it simply doesn't jibe with my perception of what I've seen. In particular, the external dimensions of the Trek XI Enterprise appear to _me_ to be somewhere in the general ballpark of the refit. This perception is not based on any special "insider" data, but on my own sense of scale as derived from the external tell-tales I mentioned above (windows, docking seals, torpedo bay, nav lights, etc). 



RMBurnett said:


> (btw...your RC Shuttle is AWESOME...can I come see it?)


Dude, you know you have a standing invite. Did someone say FLAKE? :hat:


----------



## jbond

Some of this speculation is just so loaded...I think the timeline idea is a pretty ingenious way to acknowledge and use what's gone before while still retooling things for a contemporary audience and starting fresh. And the idea that this is all designed to give us a "new, dark" Trek is ridiculous--the stated intent again and again has been to retain the optimism of Star Trek, that is the entire point of doing this movie. Anyone who can look at those Sixties uniforms on the big screen and think this is going to be some dark, Matrix-y Star Trek is crazy.

The scale question is a good one though. The shuttlebay shown in the trailers and footage we saw is HUGE, a little like the Galactica's landing bays. Maybe it's supposed to run deeper into the ship than we saw previously but that and the size of engineering indicates a huge ship (I think the engineering question is not going to be solved to anyone's satisfaction--that was a case of using a real location, possibly for stylistic reasons but also for economic ones, and I just don't think you're going to be able to reconcile the size of the location with the ship).


----------



## TriggerMan

jbond said:


> The scale question is a good one though. The shuttlebay shown in the trailers and footage we saw is HUGE,


I don't believe that is the Enterprise shuttlebay. It appears this where the cadets are getting their assignments from wherever and all the shuttles are taking the new crew members up to the Enterprise.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

agreed.

there are a lot of misconceptions of the plot of the movie based on out of context shots in the trailer. Some folks think that Kirk just jumps off his motorcycle and takes command of the Enterprise

I also believe that the scene that folks have mistaken for the Enterprise Shuttlebay takes place at the academy


----------



## Dale Jackson

TriggerMan said:


> I don't believe that is the Enterprise hangar deck. It appears this where the cadets are getting their assignments from wherever and all the shuttles are taking the new crew members up to the Enterprise.


It's not the hangar deck of the Enterprise.

This is a very huge hangar, but that's NOT the hangar of the USS Enterprise or any other starship.

These big hangars are over in San Francisco too, and my take on it is that starfleet is still using these historic huge hangars in the movie and NOT trying to convey that they are some type of starship hangar. But the real historical blimp hangars. They either filmed it here in Santa Ana (I live in L.A. area) or in San Francisco (where Mythbusters films at often).

It would make sense about being in SF because Starfleet Academy is supposed to be in SF.

I'm guessing they filmed this scene at Santa Ana Airport (John Wayne airport - formerly Santa Ana NAS). This is where they housed Navy blimps long ago. I'll have to find out which location they filmed at.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Dale Jackson said:


> It's not the hangar deck of the Enterprise.


No, it isn't. The Santa Ana dirigible hangar serves as an Academy shuttle hangar in the film.


----------



## RMBurnett

Gents,

Okay then...Rob...at least SOME of the shuttles pictured belong to the Enterprise...and they're obviously bigger then the TOS shuttles...and based on the number of shuttles you see arriving at the ship from Starfleet Academy during the film, can you extrapolate the size of the hanger deck?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

uh...big enough for a couple shuttles?

Again, we don't have enough info to guesstimate. Are both of the shuttles we see in that original EW picture ever shown in the bay at the same time? might one or both of them use a docking ring?

are they standard or extra big shuttles? do they even both belong to the "E"?

Patience..two months from now you'll know a lot more than we can only guess at now


----------



## Antimatter

There are folks who don't believe modern aircraft carriers have crews of 6000 or more on them. The Enterprise should have at least 2000.


----------



## Carson Dyle

RMBurnett said:


> Okay then...Rob...at least SOME of the shuttles pictured belong to the Enterprise...and they're obviously bigger then the TOS shuttles...and based on the number of shuttles you see arriving at the ship from Starfleet Academy during the film, can you extrapolate the size of the hanger deck?


Who says we see the shuttles arriving at the ship from Starfleet Academy? 

Come to think of it, who says we see the Enterprise's shuttle bay at all?


----------



## Richard Baker

edit

.

.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Richard Baker said:


> I think that shuttlebay is not on the Enterprise but on Earth - the cabets are leaving Starfleet Academy to the various assignments.


I miss the Cabets. Sebastion was my favorite.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

my favorite was Henry Cabet Lodge


----------



## jbond

Well we at least see a shuttle or two leaving the Enterprise shuttlebay in the film; that's in the 20 minute presentation Rob Burnett and I saw. But as I recall it's mostly viewed from inside the shuttle so I don't know if you get a great overall view of the shuttlebay...but it does seem quite large.


----------



## Carson Dyle

You guy are killing me. 

(in my best Noah Cross voice): "You may _think_ you know what's going on with the Enterprise shuttlebay... but believe me you don't."

For one thing, the launch you're referring to doesn't occur in the Enterprise shuttlebay.


----------



## John Duncan

Wait and see, we must.

The only thing about the new ship is the aztec. I wish they'd left that off. I don't have a refit finished due to that finish. I do have a set of decals for it now though.

They could have gone with a simpler finish. Other than that, all we can do is hope the story holds up and we get a kick in the pants and a laugh from the character interaction.


----------



## JerryUK

I suppose there is a tendancy for humans to form emotional bonds with certain inanimate objects. I'm guilty of this as I remember the destruction of the enterprise in STIII..I was upset and outraged at the time my reaction being "..they can't do THAT!!!!.."
With these emotional 'attachments' I think there would be high expectations for the new ship..meaning fans expected something near identical to TOS design, but with a hell of a lot more detailing and only subtle differences, and also indicating a clear upgrade path to the movie refit.

That isn't what has happened, so disappointment is to be expected.

I agree with other comments that the saucer is fine, the engines look like a child designed them, they are too fat. The neck design doesn't match the saucer, and the secondary hull and pylons look too organic.

The parts that look wrong were probably designed by a 'designer' :freak:rather than an engineer:thumbsup:, and look a bit stupid.

The simple question is 'do you accept it as the enterprise' ?
At the moment it's a 'no' for me..that will probably change after seing the movie.

Let's hope the film is good !:thumbsup:


----------



## JerryUK

Just a further thought..

Maybe in the movie the saucer seperates and survives, the rest being destroyed...and then at the end maybe the saucer is mated with a new design that actually looks like TOS enterprise..

I wonder....?????


----------



## Carson Dyle

JerryUK said:


> I suppose there is a tendancy for humans to form emotional bonds with certain inanimate objects. :


Oh, absolutely. Case in point…












JerryUK said:


> ...and then at the end maybe the saucer is mated with a new design...


As long as it’s not one of these…


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Hey Rob, 
Was that swatch from his owned and worn pants?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Yes, as I understand it, they were both owned _and_ worn.


----------



## oshkosh619

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, as I understand it, they were both owned _and_ worn.


Does that mean the swatch I bought that was _owned_ but _not worn_ isn't worth anything? I feel so used.....


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, as I understand it, they were both owned _and_ worn.


Too bad, it's the variant "worn but not owned" swatch that fetches the big bucks with Ruby collectors.


----------



## Carson Dyle

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Too bad, it's the variant "worn but not owned" swatch that fetches the big bucks with Ruby collectors.


Yeah, Paul Allen keeps snapping up the really rare stuff for his Pant Swatch Museum in Seattle.


----------



## Fury3

*Link to more pictures of the Model*

Here's more pics of the model. Some angles look very good.


http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek_Gallery.html


----------



## RMBurnett

*What?!?!*

Rob!

You can't DISS NELL! The Varda teaches us there's beauty in all forms (aside from certain, uncut warp nacelles).


----------



## julianmaurice

TGel63 said:


> Looks more like a Harley Earle now more than ever. That isn't a compliment either


Looks as though any of us Trekkies, who loved the original series, need to forget the whole thing and pretend it never happened. Otherwise it might spoil what's in store. 

I have an open mind!


----------



## Carson Dyle

RMBurnett said:


> Rob!
> 
> You can't DISS NELL!



Oh I diss Nell, my aesthetically confused friend, I diss Nell most emphatically!

Come to think of it, the last guy who cozied up to Nell around here got banned -- and I don't mean just banned from HobbyTalk, but from all of planet Earth.

Consider that a friendly warning. Nell = Bad.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Carson Dyle said:


> Oh I diss Nell, my aesthetically confused friend, I diss Nell most emphatically!
> Consider that a friendly warning. Nell = Bad.


What?! That was some of Jodie Foster's best work!

Chicka, chicka, chickabee!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Damn, Scott... here we are having a nice chat about aesthetically challenged spacecraft and rare pant swatches and you have to go and kill the buzz.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Don't make me go all Nell Carter on you, Rob.


----------



## Jodet

Fury3 said:


> Here's more pics of the model. Some angles look very good.
> 
> 
> http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek_Gallery.html


The more I see of this ship the more I really, REALLY want to build one. 

Someday, maybe....


----------



## RMBurnett

*Do you think....*

Gents,

What do you want to bet they went Aztec Dummy on that saucer?


----------



## d_jedi1

wouldn't surprise me


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Well, it certainly would surprise ME! :wave:

I'd offer my services for free to get my hands on a kit of the new ship!


----------



## Roguepink

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Well, it certainly would surprise ME! :wave:
> 
> I'd offer my services for free to get my hands on a kit of the new ship!


Amen, brother!


----------



## sunburn800

Wow this is only my second post and i have been to this site everyday for the last 2 years. This new enterprise is never going to replace the orginal for me nore the refit which to me is the best starship design. Saying that this new ship at least close up has a few good angles not a total bust.She may take a while to grow on me but she is a lot better than some designs i have seen in star trek like the shampoo bottle with engines. Well thats my opinion for what its worth.


----------



## Roguepink

sunburn800 said:


> Wow this is only my second post and i have been to this site everyday for the last 2 years. This new enterprise is never going to replace the orginal for me nore the refit which to me is the best starship design. Saying that this new ship at least close up has a few good angles not a total bust.She may take a while to grow on me but she is a lot better than some designs i have seen in star trek like the shampoo bottle with engines. Well thats my opinion for what its worth.


Shampoo bottle with engines... Voyager?

The ex called that one THE SPOON.


----------



## Richard Baker

The Defiant looks to me like a big shampoo bottle...

.


----------



## RMBurnett

*This is incriminating...*

Gents,

Your thoughts...?


----------



## sbaxter

Roguepink said:


> Shampoo bottle with engines... Voyager?


I'm presuming he means the _Daedalus_-class.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sunburn800

Richard got it right that ship just never did anything for me but others like it so thats all that matters.You know different bites for different likes.


----------



## guartho

It doesn't do anything for me either. I don't dislike it though. I'm just... *meh* about it. I still want to build it though, and then I want to build another with the "how I would've done it" modifications.


----------



## robcomet

Fury3 said:


> Here's more pics of the model. Some angles look very good.
> 
> 
> http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek_Gallery.html


You know what? I'm really liking the look of this new Enterprise. There is something about the rear three quarter view that looks just right. Admittedly, she's not quite as classic looking as the original but she could have looked a whole lot worse.

Rob


----------



## Richard Baker

Well I must admit the new ship does look better than flaming vomit....

Actually I think it will look better on film than in still pictures.
To be honest I did not care that much for the Refit- the engines did not look like machines to me. I got used to that new 'Starfleet look' so I will probably get used to this one also.

.


----------



## Roguepink

Star Wars recut to the Star Trek XI trailer soundtrack... I like it. It actually made me care about some of the Anakin scenes. The music score used for the Star Trek trailer is really well chosen.

...guess we've just about talked the new model out, huh?


----------



## Larva

The images from QM are great! The ship, indeed, is looking better and better. What's with the triangular gray-colored patch on the shuttle hangar doors?


----------



## SteveR

Fury3 said:


> http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek_Gallery.html


The first rear 3/4 shot kinda looks like a weird two-gun Jar-Jar Binks to me. The impulse engines are the eyes, the shuttlebay is the mouth, and the warp nacelles are the guns.

But then again, I see Madonna in a piece of toast ...


----------



## Richard Baker

If you mean the singer I see her mostly in a Taco...

.


----------



## abacero

I want to take the topic to a light side.

The USS Enterprise, NCC-1701 was built in the Starfleet Shipyards in San Francisco.... Near to the Starfleet Academy... Maybe some experts can confirm this. As far as I remember, it was in the plate near the turbolift.

And about the design... let's think that it is a prequel, so it is BEFORE the Enterprise we meet in the 60's and 70's, so it could be a PRE-FIT of the ship's design....

Who knows....

And also, as you can see in other shows and movies, they reinvent classics in the "cool" of the times... see "The War of the Worlds" from the 50's and the Tom Cruise one... it's still the same concept (the HG Wells novel) but the concept in the Gene Barry' version is unrelated tho the new one...

For me the new Enterprise look weird too, I prefer the original or the refit A, this version looks like some kind of a NCC-1701C on steroids... (al least on the warp nacelles), but we should look it under the light of the times and is created for a new generation of newcomers and new fans.

Just some thoughts....

Best regards,

Alberto

_"There are always possibilities".- Spock_


----------



## Captain April

Is it just me, or do the pylons actually lean forward a tad?


----------



## lizzybus

Yup, i noticed that too. I kinda like it!

Rich


----------



## lizzybus

SteveR said:


> The first rear 3/4 shot kinda looks like a weird two-gun Jar-Jar Binks to me. The impulse engines are the eyes, the shuttlebay is the mouth, and the warp nacelles are the guns.
> 
> But then again, I see Madonna in a piece of toast ...


OMG......i really loved this redesign, but now, i swear, all i can see is Jar Jar Binks goggling the ship........

I laughed at first, but now i'm terrified that i'll have "okee-day" flash-backs when i see the film in the cinema....

Rich


----------



## Captain April

Serves ya right.


----------



## marc111

PixelMagic said:


> Here is a model of the New Enterprise on display at the Arclight Cinema in LA. It was built up by The FX Company.


OK so I really hate the proportions of this ship and I figured out what bugged me the most. The positioning of the dorsal and the relationship between the pylons and the nacelles. SOooo. With some photoshop magic I "improved" it.

Opinions?









Mark


----------



## Nova Designs

You know that subtle difference makes it look MUCH better.



Still hate the design though. *shrugs*


----------



## Richard Baker

When the first images were relesaed TrekBBS.com had a photoshop field day with it. Most balanced better that the 'real' one.

.


----------



## EAGLE_01

Sorry to intrude, but I hate it. 

Those engines look like they have the original AMT kit problem..SAGGING. They are going to snap off any time now. And the primary hull aesthetic in no way matches the rest of the design...just a grade school hurry-up-and-get-it-done look. With that, the sets, the toyish looking "phaser" and "communicator".. I'm passing. Abrams is a hack.


----------



## Dale Jackson

EAGLE_01 said:


> Sorry to intrude, but I hate it.
> 
> Those engines look like they have the original AMT kit problem..SAGGING. They are going to snap off any time now. And the primary hull aesthetic in no way matches the rest of the design...just a grade school hurry-up-and-get-it-done look. With that, the sets, the toyish looking "phaser" and "communicator".. I'm passing. Abrams is a hack.


It's an alternate timeline, it's supposed to look different.


----------



## MartinHatfield

Dale Jackson said:


> It's an alternate timeline, it's supposed to look different.



Yes it is, and I am loving the way that things are coming together in the comic prequel to the movie. It is making a lot more sense now, especially after seeing the latest trailer and Neros' comment about James T. Kirk once being a great captain.


----------



## Dale Jackson

If you ask me, it was pretty smart marketing to leak out views of the alternate Enterprise. I'm sure the "committee" said "Oh that will get the fans talking."

And they are right. They know their fan-base. Let's just hope the movie turns out good.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Leave it to a Romulan to screw things up for us


----------



## TriggerMan

EAGLE_01 said:


> Sorry to intrude, but I hate it.
> 
> Those engines look like they have the original AMT kit problem..SAGGING. They are going to snap off any time now. And the primary hull aesthetic in no way matches the rest of the design...just a grade school hurry-up-and-get-it-done look. With that, the sets, the toyish looking "phaser" and "communicator".. I'm passing. Abrams is a hack.


Someone who could care less about the story? Nice.


----------



## Dale Jackson

Ryan church is certainly not a "grade school hurry-up-and-get-it-done" kind of guy. I think people are judging this "alternate timeline" Enterprise, trying to compare it to the original when it's not supposed to look exactly like the original ON PURPOSE.


----------



## SteveR

Dale Jackson said:


> ... when it's not supposed to look exactly like the original ON PURPOSE.


Now that I can get behind. Story-wise.

Really guys, props to the writers for using a timeline mess-up to justify a new look. That way, we can still believe that the original timeline still "exists".

In our nerdy, get-a-life kind of way.


----------



## Roguepink

SteveR said:


> Really guys, props to the writers for using a timeline mess-up to justify a new look. That way, we can still believe that the original timeline still "exists".


IT FREAKING DOES, okay? You can buy it on DVD or download it on iTunes RIGHT NOW. JJ Abrams is not erasing all the VHS tapes ever recorded of the original Star Trek. People are acting like Paramount is going to send out goons to find and destroy every trace of 1967. Go buy the AMT or Polar Lights kits. Go watch Star Trek on CBS's website. Please explain to me in what way the look of the new movie ship is destorying all that was ever good in Star Trek. I just don't get it.


----------



## abacero

Roguepink said:


> IT FREAKING DOES, okay? You can buy it on DVD or download it on iTunes RIGHT NOW. JJ Abrams is not erasing all the VHS tapes ever recorded of the original Star Trek. People are acting like Paramount is going to send out goons to find and destroy every trace of 1967. Go buy the AMT or Polar Lights kits. Go watch Star Trek on CBS's website. Please explain to me in what way the look of the new movie ship is destorying all that was ever good in Star Trek. I just don't get it.


I think it is a little bit premature to actually know if the new movie es a prequel, an alternate universe (remember that actually exist one with a bearded Spock and female officers with even hotter uniforms than the "real" universe) or a new animal.

The design of the Enterprise took some of the original elements but they put their "personal" touch (as I mentioned before, I still think is the Enterprise C in steroids). It shows the lack of the Matt Jeffreys' touch...

If they are looking to explain the origin of James T. Kirk and the creation of the wonderful team of the Enterprise, well... We all considered that as granted, they are there and that's it!

We should wait to see the movie. We are playing Paramount's game to keep the snowball growing in the specutlation and rumors (and, in fact, we are all wondering what is gonna happen in the movie and leave our imagination to fly warp speed).

Let's grant the benefit of the doubt...

Best regards,


Alberto

_"There are always possibilities".- Spock_


----------



## PixelMagic

New Star Trek Poster...










And Link to a REALLY high res version here....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/20090326_1238020389.jpg

And an alternative poster...










I didn't like it at first, but the New Enterprise is starting to grow on me. Not perfect, but not horrible either.


----------



## Richard Baker

All links are deadends now...

.


----------



## PixelMagic

I fixed the links with my own backups.


----------



## Richard Baker

Those are great- the main poster looks like the Enterprise is getting the worst of it...

I still do not love the design, but I think when it is moving on screen it will look a lot better than a static shot.

.


----------



## TGel63

The Enterprise is getting beat up, good maybe there is hope it will be repaired a little closer to the original by film's end........

Who am I kidding..............


----------



## Steve Mavronis

TGel63 said:


> The Enterprise is getting beat up, good maybe there is hope it will be repaired a little closer to the original by film's end........


Maybe it will get repaired into the TOS version, j/k :tongue:


----------



## schmidtjv

I have to admit, the new design is starting to grow on me.


...Kind of like toe fungus. :tongue:

-J


----------



## enterprise_fan

I just came from the movie plex. One of the previews that they showing was ST-XI. We all know that movie makers show most of the good parts to get public to see their movies. Seeing the preview on the big screen is a lot better than the small screen (computer). It might turn out to be an OK movie.


----------



## lizzybus

I know it's all cgi, but i still love the way the Enterprise seems huge and heavy when moving in the trailer. 

Rich


----------



## JeffG

Good cgi can have a sense of mass to it. Look at Galactica. That ship seems heavy, as do the weapons when they fire.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I loved the CGI in Babylon 5 too. You can get much more detailed than a physical model too and get shots impossible for an optical camera to achieve. I'm sure the CGI effects in the new Star Trek movie will be great as well.


----------



## Richard Baker

One big advantage to ship design with CGI is lighting. You can have tiny hull lights, engine sun-sections, complete interiors behind window, interactive light control with force fields/weapons...
ST-Voyager used both typed of SFX- it is easy to tell which ship is CGI as the sern windows could not be lit with a physical model.
Tw BIG things to avoid with Blue/Green screen SFX was chrome and rounded glass in th ecockpits (ILM would just leave the glass out and have the framing show the window). With the CGI in the prequels George could finally show chrome spaceships and bubble canopies (Naboo N-1, any Naboo spacecraft).


----------



## whitestar

*not a Plastic Model but...*

Matel alive in Star Trek Models..

You remember the first Models from Matel? The Classic Enterprise and the Klingon Cruiser with shooting Torpedos?

Now - Matel is coming out with the new Enterprise Model from the upcoming
ST XI Movie.

Not a Plastic Model - but i will hope Polar Lights bring out a 1/350 new Enterprise....

See Link / picture from my ST. dealer (Germany!) the new Model - coming out in April or May this year.

http://www.starbase8.de/startrek/toy-store/andere/mattel/1701-nm_vpk-detail.jpg

http://www.starbase8.de/

And I`ve found the Video from "RC Flying Enterprise" and Tricorder and Communicator by You Toube :
see link:






Not interested for me - but I hope Star Trek alive in Plastic Models to build.
See hopeless to Polar Lights  and I want the new Model when he cames out 

Greeting :wave:

Michael
(sorry for my bad English)....


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

OK,
I'm reading more and more reports about the approx. 350 scale models of the new Enterprise that Paramount is handing out to different folks to paint for their hipster parties and other events like the Arclight Theatre displays..

http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/27/par...trek-photobooths-and-star-trek-dance-parties/

this tells me that not only do they have a kit designed ready to go, but also some way of readily producing multiple copies. Surely they are not "growing" these things individually everytime the need comes up.

So when are we going to be seeing these made available to the general public?!!


----------



## Richard Baker

Depends I think on when people quit screaming about how much they hate the design.
That sort of environment makes it hard to plan a massive production/release of a kit.

.


----------



## Captain April

Lou Dalmaso said:


> OK,
> I'm reading more and more reports about the approx. 350 scale models of the new Enterprise that Paramount is handing out to different folks to paint for their hipster parties and other events like the Arclight Theatre displays..
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/27/par...trek-photobooths-and-star-trek-dance-parties/
> 
> this tells me that not only do they have a kit designed ready to go, but also some way of readily producing multiple copies. Surely they are not "growing" these things individually everytime the need comes up.
> 
> So when are we going to be seeing these made available to the general public?!!


Those were for special events, and yeah, they were pretty much one-off (or three-off, if you wanna get picky) models, based on the CGI model, so we're probably talking rapid prototyping for professional use; designing the thing for ease of assembly probably wasn't a consideration.


----------



## Roguepink

Yeah, big difference there. In rapid prototyping, you can work some wicked undercuts that just won't translate to hard steel tooling. When you dump direct from a 3D solid, you also don't have to work out alignment bosses or parts breakdown for injection molding. An actual manufacturable kit will still require extensive design time and will be more costly than a few prototypes.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

but at least one of them was lit. so they can just be solid resin

I think we're looking at proyotypes of what ever qmx is going to be offering in the future


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Love it or loathe it, but this is just a darn shame!

Hey, send me a kit if you have that many to spare

from a party in NY


----------



## PixelMagic

Yeah, Lou, I saw that as well on Trekmovie. I wish I had a kit of it. I'd make it look awesome, not destroy it.


----------



## Captain April

I think I just found me a new avatar for TrekBBS.


----------



## TGel63

Oh, I''d use the old lawndarts on it to make sure I didn't miss.


----------



## Richard Baker

And people wonder why a company does not spend thousands of dollars bring a kit of this subject to market.


----------



## PixelMagic

You know, the new Enterprise design isn't THAT horrible. It could be much worse.

You know, I think I'll design my own update to the Enterprise and see what you guys think.


----------



## TGel63

PixelMagic said:


> You know, the new Enterprise design isn't THAT horrible. It could be much worse.
> 
> You know, I think I'll design my own update to the Enterprise and see what you guys think.


I'd seriously be interested to see what you could do Pixel, I know your a talanted artist.


----------



## chiangkaishecky

I didn't know Harry Knowles was an artist but he got one
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40546
Seems Mr. Dalmaso may be more right than some are willing to admit in that there could be dozens out there 'cause honestly ... Harry Knowles?
I'm surprised some artsy craftsy type hasn't put one on ebay and passed off the very act of putting it up for auction as some hipper than thou bit of performance art.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

You know what would be really "Hip"?
take one of these new Enterprise models and (not changing the structure an iota) paint it to look like the classic "Grey Lady" you know orange nacelle caps, copper deflector, big honkin' red pennant stripes, all of the red and yellow circles, rectangles and such. Just to show that the classic elements are timeless and would look just as good today.

it would be the (ahem) Best of Both Worlds


----------



## derric1968

Well, it looks like Paramount is feeling pretty confident. They've already signed a deal with the current writing and producing team to start work on a sequel. Check it out:

http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/30/bre...d-on-star-trek-sequel-supreme-court-on-board/


----------



## bigjimslade

Looks more like promotion for the movie.

If any deal is made at this point, you can be sure it has an easy backout in case the film does not do all that well.


----------



## Model Man

PixelMagic said:


> You know, I think I'll design my own update to the Enterprise and see what you guys think.


I don't doubt that any thoughtful artist can make a better stab at it, but does one of us get to play the role of JJ, pass your work around to other 3 or 5 artists, altering your work beyond recognition to suit "JJ's" tastes, _then _present the result to the forum for praise?


----------



## PixelMagic

Model Man said:


> I don't doubt that any thoughtful artist can make a better stab at it, but does one of us get to play the role of JJ, pass your work around to other 3 or 5 artists, altering your work beyond recognition to suit "JJ's" tastes, _then _present the result to the forum for praise?


That's a very good point. Rarely does a concept artist get to use his own vision fully in a film. I'm sure this Enterprise was not 100% Ryan Church's creation.

Doing a my own updating of the Big E is more of an exercise in fun than trying to beat Ryan Church. Church is a FAR better artist than me, by a long shot.


----------



## Model Man

PixelMagic said:


> Doing a my own updating of the Big E is more of an exercise in fun....


And this would be an excellent new topic for all us haters (speaking for myself) to put up or shut up. Renders wouldn't have to be fully lit CG, I think a good pencil rendering should be adequate to show things off. Perhaps I'll get started on one as well! 

I think the only design consideration is that it must not use any of the TOS elements -as JJ seems to have had a pure hatred for the genuine article.


----------



## Roguepink

Model Man said:


> And this would be an excellent new topic for all us haters (speaking for myself) to put up or shut up. Renders wouldn't have to be fully lit CG, I think a good pencil rendering should be adequate to show things off. Perhaps I'll get started on one as well!
> 
> I think the only design consideration is that it must not use any of the TOS elements -as JJ seems to have had a pure hatred for the genuine article.


Y'know, I've seen line overlays of both the classic and the new and, this is surprising, they sure have an awful lot in common. Seems to me he could have scrapped the entire design concept and made it look like a potted begonia instead. I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion of "pure hatred for the genuine article" from. To quote our favorite Vulcan, "Your statement is not logical."

Having said that, it seems that Gabriel Koerner has already given us one interpretation of a reimagined 1701. I think his is too heavy-handed industrial, lacking the clean lines of the Connie or even the Refit. I would love to see what others may be inspired to create and, having some complaints about the new 1701 myself, will probably toss in a few sketches of my own.


----------



## Roguepink

derric1968 said:


> Well, it looks like Paramount is feeling pretty confident. They've already signed a deal with the current writing and producing team to start work on a sequel. Check it out:
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/30/bre...d-on-star-trek-sequel-supreme-court-on-board/


I don't trust anything within 24 hours of April 1st.


----------



## Model Man

Roguepink said:


> I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion of "pure hatred for the genuine article" from. To quote our favorite Vulcan, "Your statement is not logical."


Somewhere around here it was stated (whether true or false) that a guy was fired for having too much affinity to the TOS design. Also, JJ has adamantly stated he is not a fan. At all.


----------



## derric1968

Model Man said:


> Also, JJ has adamantly stated he is not a fan. At all.


And Nicholas Meyer openly admitted that he wasn't a fan of Star Trek before accepting the job to direct Wrath of Khan. So, what's your point?


----------



## derric1968

Roguepink said:


> I don't trust anything within 24 hours of April 1st.


Well, the announcement was made on Monday, so the news is well outside your 24 hour window of tomfoolery. :thumbsup:


----------



## sbaxter

Model Man said:


> JJ has adamantly stated he is not a fan. At all.


Where? Show me.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Model Man said:


> Somewhere around here it was stated (whether true or false) that a guy was fired for having too much affinity to the TOS design. Also, JJ has adamantly stated he is not a fan. At all.


Sorry. "Somewhere around here" does not constitute a source

Hey, a friend of my sister's Dentist's neighbor's tax accountant said she saw Ferris at the 7-11 and he was sick as a dog. I think he's gonna need a kidney transplant:wave:


----------



## Model Man

April Fools. 
Far too many people here get far too riled up over what is, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless crap. 

Lay off the venom. You'll live happier lives.:thumbsup:


----------



## Jafo

i too, am sick of aztecing!


----------



## Richard Baker

I have not built an Enterprise model all the way through for years because of the stupid aztecing. You build a kit in an afternoon and spend the next three months masking and painting the hull- what kind of fun is that???


----------



## Roguepink

Richard Baker said:


> I have not built an Enterprise model all the way through for years because of the stupid aztecing. You build a kit in an afternoon and spend the next three months masking and painting the hull- what kind of fun is that???


LOTS of fun. Its part of the hobby. Those willing to put in the greater effort are rewarded with greater results.


----------



## JeffG

Painting a model is a very intricate process and is ultimately what adds realism. While there are those who are faster than others, I think some modelers are too wrapped up in finishing a kit the same week it's released and the end result suffers. Take the time to put in the effort. It may be a vehicle, but it ain't going anywhere. Sit back, put on your favorite music or DVD in the background and enjoy the process of creation!


----------



## Richard Baker

I enjoy weathering and adding damage/use detail- giving a craft a hitory. For me painting five thousand little squares (even repeative) just the right shade while slavishly following blueprint references is bogging down a project. There are masks made for these kits, but they often cost more than the kit itself.
I do not have a tremendous amount of time for models so I spend it on what I can feasibly get accomplished in what time I do have.


----------



## TriggerMan

You can probably get a mask or two on Ebay real cheap I think.


----------



## TriggerMan

Roguepink said:


> LOTS of fun. Its part of the hobby. Those willing to put in the greater effort are rewarded with greater results.


I hear you on that one, though I have to say it will cause me to get burn out on the project though. That's why I went with the masks, it's instant gratification almost.


----------



## Roguepink

TriggerMan said:


> I hear you on that one, though I have to say it will cause me to get burn out on the project though. That's why I went with the masks, it's instant gratification almost.


Using masks is a proper professional tool of model making. When I did the proto model on the "E-Interceptor" Estes kit, I used vinyl masks for fast painting. Masks are the correct way to get an accurately repeated pattern. (Gloss white base, white pearlescent acrylic paneling, guess where I got the inspiration...)

Mr. Baker, the point of the hobby is to HAVE FUN. If laborious painting is not fun for you, I totally get it. There are many times I just want to pop something together and get to playing with it.


----------



## audio

Hi everyone, 

I'm the proud new owner of the prototype FX Company/Quantum Mechanix model. I know there's a lot of debate about the look of the new Enterprise for the movie (personally, I like it), but whatever your feelings are I think everyone would agree that this model is absolutely beautiful.

(Oops... I tried to link to the photos I took of it, but the board won't let me until I have more posts).

I'm not a collector though, and I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what I have on my hands, here. I'd appreciate any input, or even advice on what to do with it!  

Cheers.


----------



## Paulbo

Welcome Audio!

I would be more than happy to store it for you


----------



## audio

Thanks Paulbo, but I'm good. 

Actually, storage is an issue. This is not a small item. And like I said, I'm not a collector, so... I think the path forward is pretty clear for me at the moment. 

Also, this post will give me the requisite two that should allow me to post links (to photos). Let's see if this works....


----------



## audio

I hope these photos make my double-posting worth it:

[link]


----------



## Richard Baker

audio said:


> I hope these photos make my double-posting worth it:
> 
> [link]


THANKS!
Those were some great, well thought out shots. For the first time I was able to see some of the details of that ship (better than you see in the movie)
I really appreciate your taking the time to make them and sharing them!

.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Thanks for posting.

I admit to being a little fuzzy re: the story behind this model.

Will FX be marketing these to the general public?

I'm not a huge fan of the re-design, but it's still a nice looking replica.

How, if you don't mind my asking, did you come to acquire it?


----------



## charonjr

Yes, they're supposed to do the 34" version and a smaller 1/1000 scale version, iirc. Audio, is QMX already selling them? How did you get one?


----------



## Griffworks

Very kewel! Welcome to the forums, as well. Congrat's on your winning the QMX replica and thanks for sharing those pics!


----------



## audio

I also have to admit to some degree of fuzziness about the model. Now that I have some time on my hands my first goal is to contact Quantum Mechanix and/or the FX Company and ask them to give me any details they can. But I think I know some things.

This model was built by Quantum Mechanix and detailed by the FX Company (I'm 99% sure on that one) for inclusion in Paramount's 'Enterprise Project.' If you follow that link, the one that I have is the top-leftmost. The other ships were created from 'blanks' that QMx built for other artists to paint on. Anyway, this particular model was used for promotion for the movie. Where it traveled to is a question I intend to ask.

Quantum Mechanix recently secured the rights to produce more of these, and somewhere I read that they'll go on sale at the end of the year. That little factoid is not contained in the QMx press release on the subject. Regardless, this is now the prototype.

I actually won this in an online promotion. I took part in the ARG (or for the uninitiated like I was until recently, an 'Alternate Reality Game' or viral campaign) that supported the new movie. Nobody expected prizes, but apparently Paramount thought otherwise. The prize was announced online, much to my considerable surprise. 






So that's the story of how a non-collector like me got his hands on something that seems pretty special. We unpacked the ship in order to take the pictures that I posted above and promptly repacked it. But after looking at this set, it may be worth it to unpack it and try again. It's something I'm definitely considering.

ETA that this is the 34" model (though we measured 35").


----------



## Carson Dyle

Gotcha.

Congrats on your win, and thanks for the background scoop.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Great pics, thanks for posting those. What a great story and score!


----------



## JeffG

See, that's the difference between you and me; I would have lied and said it was a quick study model that I slammed together based on screen grabs I took in the theater with my cell phone!

Seriously though, congrats. That's pretty sweet. Display it prominently.


----------



## audio

Oh. Well in that case --

This is just a quick study model I slammed together based upon my first viewing of the movie... but I did it by memory. It's primarily made of popsicle sticks and chewing gum. 



It amazed me how cool I found this model. I say that because I'm not generally into this sort of thing. However I think the best option for me is to sell it... for a variety of reasons. Yes, money is good. But just as importantly this is something that belongs with someone who has the room for it, can take care of it properly and who can appreciate it as much as it deserves to be appreciated. After taking it out of its box and getting a feel for it, I strongly believe this.

So now the question is... what next? I don't know where to begin, and so I hope to get some advice. I don't even know where to turn in the yellow pages for someone to call. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## RMBurnett

*How much you want for it?*

Audio,

How many quatloos for the newcomer?

(how much do you want for it?)

PM me.


----------



## audio

PM'd you back. But I thought I'd also paraphrase what I said to you here.

One of the main things I need advice on is how I even go about figuring out the value of this thing. That is why I'm seeking all of your input. First, I wanted to share the model with you, since I found that you had started a thread on it months ago. But now I feel like I'm among some people who could really help me figure this out. 

And sure.... if there's a potential buyer here, then that's awesome! But I don't want you guys to mistake my intentions here. I'm seeking out the experts. And if not experts, at least the enthusiasts who have insights into where I can turn.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Audio, congrats on winning that QMx model of the Enterprise! I think that I entered that contest too hearing about it on TrekMovie.com.

I'm curious though about the advice you want, because while it's cool to know the value of this special prototype model (you should write to QMx for a baseline value) being a Star Trek fan I could never part with it. The farthest I would go is maybe temporarily loan it out for a limited time to a museum or my local science center or display it at a local sci-fi convention for an exhibit for others to enjoy.

Hey, maybe you could get it laser scanned in 3D so we could all get accurate plans of it? It was built from the movie's 3D model plans after all.


----------



## Richard Baker

You might want to check the shipping info to see if there was an insured value placed on it- that would get you into the right ballpark for value.
What you have is unique and if it went to an auction with the right people in the audience it would skyrocket IMO.


----------



## Captain April

Given the history and nature of the piece in question and the still lingering hype, I'd respond to any offer of less than a thousand dollars with some very foul words I learned in the Air Force.

Personally, I'd happily accept a straight swap for a MR TOS E. But that's me.


----------



## audio

Richard, thanks for the advice. That's exactly the sort of input I'd hoped for. I feel like a fish out of water with this thing, so even the most basic and obvious steps are eluding me. 

Steve, did you take part in the ARG? If so, what did you think? As far as keeping it goes, yeah... it would be nice to. Logistically it's not feasible for me... at least not at this stage in my life. But as you illustrated, there are many many people who would really value and cherish this thing. It's best to put it in their hands. I'm a Trek fan, but I've still gotta make this move.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Maybe when they have the next big Christie's auction for Star Trek memorabilia you could look into it. Then you'd get top dollar and you'd be sure it actually goes into the hands of a Star Trek fan and collector.

Try their Auction Services link for a free estimate. The description says, "Ever wondered what it's worth? Request a complimentary auction estimate."

https://www.christies.com/services/auction-estimates/

If I win the Mega Millions lottery tonight I'll make you an offer


----------



## spacecraft guy

My advice would be to check out Master Replicas website and see what they are charging for their autographed model of the TOS E and use that as a baseline figure to start with. 

If I remember correctly, their TOS E went for $1200 USD retail when it was first issued.


----------



## audio

spacecraft guy said:


> My advice would be to check out Master Replicas website and see what they are charging for their autographed model of the TOS E and use that as a baseline figure to start with.
> 
> If I remember correctly, their TOS E went for $1200 USD retail when it was first issued.


I'd do that, but it seems that their website is pretty much just a press release now. I guess the company has been bought out? 

I'd be interested to see how many of those E's are in existence. Do you know?


----------

