Design Sketch For ‘Reimagined’ Enterprise Leaked [just kidding] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Design Sketch For ‘Reimagined’ Enterprise Leaked [just kidding] April 1, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

TrekMovie.com has been sent a picture of a design sketch of the new Star Trek XI Enterprise from one of our trusted sources. [or then again maybe not]

 

As we have reported before the full art department opens this month, but work has been going on for months. Our source tells us that this is one of many sketches being looked at but the leading contender. No word on who actually reimagined this Enterprise, but clearly they are taking some license with the original design.

 

UPDATE: HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY 

Comments

1. Keith - April 1, 2007

In the UK there is the tradition of the April Fool’s joke on 1 April. Don’t know if that happens in the USA? Could it be?

2. SimmerALPHA - April 1, 2007

This must sound like a clicé but don’t touch my Enterprise. The design is fine. I’ve seen a design for re-imagined Enterprise made by an artist working on Battlestar Galactica (meaning that it looks as much like the Enterprise as apples look like pears) and THAT looked more like the Enterprise. This is really revisionist. Not re-imagining. There’s nothing wrong with the design so don’t change it (too much, such as this). If this is the course they’re heading with Trek XI then there’s no hope left for that movie and possibly the franchise.

I hope that this design is dismissed by the people on top because this is awful.

NOTE: If this were a design for the NX-01 from Enterprise I would’ve liked it over the Akiraprise version.

3. SimmerALPHA - April 1, 2007

I didn’t even realize it was April 1. I hope it’s a joke. Still Paramount don’t touch my Enterprise.

4. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

Yuck (if this is real)…what is wrong with keeping the exterior of the vessel as we have seen it for years a la Matt Jefferies?

If they want to toy with something let it be the interior of the ship, there are lots of things that we could see “upgraded” there (i.e. screens, displays) as well as parts of the Ship we have never seen.

I’ll tell you this (those powers that be that read this) I will accept no bastardizations of the TOS era…and likely most other will not. Just to get a few “new people” to go into the movie theater. What about those that have been doing that for years?

Keep doing this sort of thing and it will flop as bad as the reimaginged “Lost in Space,” and everything that is said about Star Trek V (truthful or not) will be true here…

I don’t mind the new actors…or filling in a few things in TREK history…but this is where I draw the line.

This has to be a hoax!!!

5. AJ - April 1, 2007

At least the nacelles have points.

6. Robert Saint John - April 1, 2007

I hope it’s not a joke. I think it’s a brilliant direction, a “Best of the Best” version of the 1701 through the years. I imagine it’ll look really interesting on screen as well, and quite speedy, powerful and maneuverable.

7. Steve Austin - April 1, 2007

what color is it…it looks more the galactica than the enterprise

and isn’t the blue nacelle thing not introduced until the movies…which are post TOS?

i doubt the final design will look like this but i guess we better brace for change

8. Driver - April 1, 2007

A clever deception. Notice the “other plans” beneath Enterprise. Looks really good, but no dice.

9. Sputnik - April 1, 2007

this must be an april fools joke because in times of CGI-models nobody would do “old fashioned” sketches anymore. ;)
and i agree with simmeralpha – would have looked good as NX-01 (note the “battleship style phaser turrets” remark on the sketch) but this is way too ridiculous even for an re-imagined NCC-1701

10. Jay - April 1, 2007

Ok, this HAS to be an April Fools joke…ha ha, very funny.

11. Kelvington - April 1, 2007

You know when I first saw it, I thought… Christ oh mighty! Then after I looked at it for a few minutes, it started to grow on me. Other than the “phaser turrets” it’s really not that bad. I like the spikes on the end of the Nacelles that would fit with the time line. So far… not bad.

12. Kirky - April 1, 2007

I like it, except for the two spikes sticking out of the front of the two engines.

13. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

Looks very appropriate for the fake Kirk and the fake Spock. Suggestions: Put pretty blue flames coming out of it when it is “zooming” through space with the fake crew…and maybe dub in the sounds of Fred Flintstones feet as it leaves drydock and of baseball cards rattling in the spokes of an accelerating bicycle as it goes into warp speed.

14. Robin Alexander - April 1, 2007

I think its a great design, absolutly love it.
But its not the enterprise, for obvious reasons. Phaser turrets? riiiiiiiiight…

15. Trekscaper - April 1, 2007

It has to be first april joke, just like startrek.com is reporting that a new startrek show is coming called “The Guiding Orb” a scifi soap opera. Funny made :D

16. Jeffrey S. Nelson - April 1, 2007

Aye, the haggis is in the fire for sure. Me poor bairns.
Hope this is a joke.
Captain, I canna take much more…borgus frat!!

17. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 13. Stanklin T. McFibberich

“Flintstones” should have an apostrophe before the s.

18. SPOCKBOY - April 1, 2007

#9 SPUNIK-this must be an april fools joke because in times of CGI-models nobody would do “old fashioned” sketches anymore. ;)

Actually, for those of us who still have some drawing talent, a SKETCH is always the preferred method until you at least reach the final stages of approval. It’s so much easier and practical to whip out a pad and sketch away. You could go through dozens of designs before you even reach something the production designer “sort of” likes. This makes tedious computer model building highly impractical at this point. Also, If it looks good in sketch form then how MUCH better will it look in CGI. SO, instead of wooden models, computer models are employed to see how it moves through various shots.
Then, final tweaking, detailing and color tests.

NOW, to the design…

I am APPALLED at how freakin’ LOUSY this thing looks!
It has STUPID gun turrets, Enterprise E warp nacelles with TOS caps. The saucer is all broken up and the skin is WAY too busy looking!

Don’t F&CK with the original whoever you are.
Jefferies was a genius.
YOU’RE NOT.

19. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

I’ll bet it is very much fun going sledding in a space toboggan down those “thruster quads” during winter explorations. Wheeeeeeeee!

20. Jay - April 1, 2007

VERY well said :-)

21. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

Thank you! Oh, I’ll bet you meant SPOCKBOY :)

22. Jay - April 1, 2007

Actually both of you :-)

23. V. of Romania - April 1, 2007

Whether it is fake or not I really like it.

It looks like a ship that has both exploratory and combat purposes.

The riginal desihn was great, amazing eve, but on the big screen, nowadays, it would look a little bland. This revision is quite cool and if the saucer section does separate, at least it looks great, better than anything before it (separated).

BUT, April fools is a tradition in Romania (my home country as well) so I consider this to be fake.,

Despite that, I still really like it.

And yeah, I’ve seen 90% of all Star Trek.

24. Zak - April 1, 2007

This looks like some awful knock-off that would be sold as an unlicensed toy in third-world countries.

25. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

Maybe the “escape pods” can be used for Mr. Abrams to get away when being chased by angry fans.

26. NaKLocutus - April 1, 2007

Good joke it sill is the 1st of april!!

27. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

Hey, how many bathrooms and turbolifts on the bridge here? They should also really have one of those “porta potties” outside for the toboggan kids.

28. Sleeper Agent X - April 1, 2007

Well, if it’s an April Fool’s joke then my hat’s off to whoever put this together. They put some time and effort into it, and the end result is not too shabby. I actually wouldn’t mind seeing something like this in the movie, with the exception of the phaser turrets and most of all, the pointy things on the nacelle caps. Those just don’t seem to go with the rest of the design.

I think Trek ought to go with this level of redesign. Seeing this drawing, regardless of its authenticity, makes me realize how cool it would be to see Star Trek with a fresh eye again.

29. SimmerALPHA - April 1, 2007

Yeah this is a joke. Note that the saucer section consists of two parts an inner saucer and connected to that is an outer rim. A Sovereign engineering hull, a Refit neck, NX-01/Nova nacelles, Battlestar Galactica turrets, Voyager RCS thrusters. I don’t know who made this but if it’s made by someone from CBS/Paramount (working on Star Trek: XI) then I must ask: “Why do you spend so much time on an April Fool’s joke to come up with a new design but when you guys need to make a new spaceship for a new series such as the NX-01 you just go the easy way.”

Still, I must congratulate TrekMovie.com on such a nice April Fool’s joke. Couldn’t have thought of such a great joke myself. I was the only one who really fell for it because I didn’t see the first post so I forgot it was April 1st. At least now we’ve made it clear that we won’t let CBS/Paramount tamper with the design, because they read this.

30. devolution - April 1, 2007

i agree with #28, if this is a joke, someone put some love into it. the ship includes all the elements from the original model that we’d want to see incorporated into a new design, which works for me, for the most part.

except…if this is a ‘reimagined’ enterprise, one would expect a little more imagination – gun turrets aside. i sincerely hope they don’t just take a look at the old enterprise and choose what pieces can be altered so that it appears fresh, which is what they seem to have done here.

i don’t think it should look like it was generated by the same old guys working on all the previous films. we want to honor the old design, but love it enough to really shake things up, don’t just copy and paste parts of other ships.

31. Jeff - April 1, 2007

Oh, for crying out loud, you guys.

Stop nit-picking every damn thing that comes out and just hope they make a good movie. Batman Begins worked, the new James Bond (gasp! he’s BLONDE!) worked, give this a chance.

OK, so they totally fucked up Mission: Impossible in the first two movies (haven’t seen the latest yet) and George Lucas ran Star Wars into the ground himself, but calm down.

And if you keep this up, the Tholians will come by and slooowly construct a web around your apartment.

32. Darren - April 1, 2007

A very good April Fools joke :P

33. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

if this turns out not to be an April Fools joke, and similar to what ends up on screen,

A. It isn’t necessarily a canon violation so let’s not get in a tizzy without thinking this through clearly. We still don’t know precisely when this film occurs, the Enterprise could have experienced a refit to go from this version to the series version. We know anecdotally that the Enterprise has some history despite Pikes Enterprise and how it appeared in Cage and Menagerie.

B. This film could be an alternate timeline film, mirror universe, who knows yet.

C. This Enterprise could still exist within the confines of the established Trek universe, and would only require a slight suspension for this starship to be our Enterprise, merely a modern interpretation, not entirely different from the appearance of TOS with The Motion Picture, same universe, only several years apart, but radically different technology.
It wasn’t a stretch then.

D. This could be an entirely stand alone film, existing within it’s own universe, neither negating, conflicting, or eliminating established canon since the film is a bubble adventure.

E. If this is a relaunch/reboot, the appearance of the old girl is moot.

The interesting thing is, when you inspect this design closely, literally every feature of the Enterprise is present, simply interpreted slightly differently, i.e. the little white squares on the hull for example, or the black rectangles on the nacelle struts.

I think it’s premature to say yay or nay just yet, this is an interesting turn of events assuming it isn’t a joke.

Intriguing Captain, intriguing.

34. Londo - April 1, 2007

Tee hee. When I first saw it I thought “Um… no…” but then I remembered the date.

35. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

If those 4 slits around the circumferance of the primary hull is open space, that’s certainly a new and interesting innovation to the design.

36. DownUnder - April 1, 2007

Now that we have inner and outer rings on the saucer, all we need is some docking pylons and we’d have TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT all in one! Oh and a touch of Star Wars with Phaser turrets.

Seriously , if the saucer section was smoothed out and the “RCS Thrusters” not indented as much it could look OK! We know they are going to tart up the old girl for the big screen. Maybe they should just run with the Movie Version …. then eventually when we’ve all paid for DVD and HD version of the Enhanced TOS they could replace all the original series shots and movie visual shots to match then there would never be a continuity problem! LOL

37. Spirit - April 1, 2007

The only thing i wonder about this is who took the effort of hand-drawing all this just to make it look more authentic as a April Fools joke…

38. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

This is supposed to be the bitchin’ version of the ship for a younger, fresher, Bitchin’ Jim Kirk.

Ain’t a thing wrong with the Enterprise all pimped out. If these bastard teens that cruise the strips can buy jalopies and pimp them out , why can’t an old lady like the Enterprise be pimped out?

Grand Trek Auto – New Kirk City

39. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

The primary hull spins dawg, it spins. Dat’s Phat.

40. Stu Lurring - April 1, 2007

The problem with changing the design of the ship basically means this is a reboot. Not a prequel or a film set before the original series but a proper reboot.

41. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

Da Star Trek

James T. Trick
Mistah’ Spock Rock Boyyyyyyy
Leonard Mac-DaddyCoy
Monty Scotzzzzz
Pavlov Jerkov
Yo Whore-ah
lieutenant Shoofoo
And Yeoman Capn’s lap

Da Enterprize, keepin’ dat shit real yo. Gettin’ dem Klingon-an-on’s all up outta my grill Bitch.

42. Dom - April 1, 2007

I like the design, hoax or not!

This is a relaunch for the 2000s, so the ship should reflect the time in which the film is made!

43. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

Word Dom!

Da U.$.$. Pimpaprize Dawg!

44. ObiWanCon - April 1, 2007

If it wasn’t April the 1st and the design didn’t have nipples on the nacelles then I’d take it serious.

45. Trevok - April 1, 2007

I like it, the April fools joke could be it’s real, has a look of the original concept of the E but updated. Good job, I’d be happy to see it on the big screen. Even if it is a joke the design would look great for another class of ship in the film.
LLAP

46. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - April 1, 2007

This design is very “Sovereignized” and thus could not have been used for ENT, guys. The NX01 had to be a simpler, smaller version — not more advanced looking than the TOS Constitution class ship.

For me the phaser turrets gave away the fact that this was a joke.

47. John Schmidt - April 1, 2007

Prank or no prank, complete reboot or not, I just don’t like this design.

John

48. Spock's Brain - April 1, 2007

This is a trekmovie.com April Fools joke. The design sucks!

49. Spirit - April 1, 2007

#46 – It certainly fits the general “new” path Beavis & Butthead are pursuing so far with the movie though, i.e. boldly going where Berman & Braga unsuccessfully went before… more sex & action for the masses it is, so we sure need a properly sexed up ship – less canon, more cannons – as well… as attempted with NX-01, NCC-1701-E and so forth before…

How was that? “The more things change, the more they stay the same” ;)

50. JohnnyMoo - April 1, 2007

Great sketch, whoever made it!

51. Anonymous Gerbil - April 1, 2007

PRANK

52. Virginia Palmetto - April 1, 2007

[...] http://www.trekmovie.com is reporting a possible redesign of the starship Enterprise for Star Trek XI.  This drawing was leaked over the weekend by, what trekmovie.com calls “a reputable source”.  Read the full story here.   [...]

53. Viking - April 1, 2007

Let’s wait and see if this stilll has legs tomorrow, then we’ll dissect it. I agree that it would have been a good direction to go with the NX-01, tho.

54. V. of Romania - April 1, 2007

I honestly like it. Canon worshipers be damned, I mean come on! Yeah it would be cool to get Shatner, Nimoy and De Kelley back in a new TOS movie, but that’s impossible.

As long as the story is good, I have no problem

This design seems more…well less evolved than the TOS Enterprise and I like it.

Looks like a ship that was built with nowadays mentality. It’s meant for exploration, BUT it can take care of business in the military encounters as well.

And come to think about it, 300 years from now, the human mentality might change towards a peaceful line of thought, but never forget that humans are a fearful bunch. We would build and Ent that had more weapons and defense systems than the TOS one simply because of the “what if” mentality that runs through our collective human history.

Simply put, yeah, I like it. I’m not in love with it, but it’s good, better than expected.

Unfortunately, it might be a hoax, a prank, a joke…And the unfortunate part is the fact that we still have very little info on the movie itself.

55. Rich - April 1, 2007

Why change anything? If I recall, Kiri took over the Enterprise from Capt. Christorher Pike. Pike’s Enterprise looked very much like the classic Enterprise from the original series. So how do they figure a totally different design for the movie?

56. V. of Romania - April 1, 2007

You know what? Maybe when the ship separates only the INTERIOR saucer section turns into a stand alone ship with the outer ring remaining attached to the rest of the ship. Now THAT would be cool and an improvement since all other Enterprises so far that have had the ability to separate the saucer section looked like crap when they did.

The TNG separation sequence sucked because the saucer section looked great while the rest looked like a beheaded monstrosity.

57. Daniel Kirk - April 1, 2007

I’m not sure if it’s the sketch that’s the April Fool, or the idea that TPTB behind the Trek franchise learned absolutely nothing from fan reaction after Berman & Braga flipped fans the bird with that debacle they called ‘Enterprise.’

The Trek Gene Roddenberry created was created for a different time — you won’t ‘reimagine’ that universe better than it was done originally, so either respect the TOS universe Roddenberry created as best you can or leave it alone entirely. Don’t redesign NCC-1701, because with this movie, it’s NCC-1701 you’re selling. Don’t bait and switch us like B&B did — we won’t hold its hand and hope for the best this time.

58. Windsor Bear - April 1, 2007

I think if the inner saucer separated from the outer saucer, it would look like a modified Jupiter II. Of course, with the inner and outer together, it looks like some sort of alien roulette wheel.

59. TrekLog » Blog Archive » Brandheiße Trek XI-News - April 1, 2007

[...] Ein Insider hat eine geheime Skizze der neuen USS Enterprise NCC-1701 aus Star Trek XI ins Netz gestellt… [...]

60. Flake - April 1, 2007

April Fools!

Gabe Koerners version is much better.

61. Ols School Trek Nerd - April 1, 2007

An Enterprise bristling with weapons flies sooooo in the face of Gene Roddenberry’s original vision. Good sketch though.

62. Still Kirok - April 1, 2007

Be wary of any news released today.

63. trekmaster - April 1, 2007

@Flake
Yes, but Koerners Version fits more to the time between the end of the original series and the first motion picture.
Of course this ship here is a hoax like the whole enterprise nx-01 series was made for fooling us 4 years…

64. Robert April - April 1, 2007

Funny post.

The Tuvix effect for starships.

I guess this is what you get when you have a transporter accident while simultaneously beaming down all known ship designs into the toy isle at the local Walmart store.

Hurry up and take that picture down. Somewhere in the world it HAS to be April 2nd by now…

65. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

Real design or not, as I basically said before, fake Kirk needs his fake Enterprise. It would not shock me in the least if this ridiculous design is what they go with for the ship. It doesn’t really matter if this is an April Fools’ joke or not, because the whole project will likely be a bigger one.

If this is indeed an early mission, maybe putting actual “training wheels” on the ship would be the way to go! :o

66. Justin Barber - April 1, 2007

as far as starships go, the design is cool. i could really see that ship in a future series or movie set during the post Nemisis period. but as far as it being a replacement or redesign of the original Enterprise…No.

happy april fool’s day though.

67. JB - April 1, 2007

April Fool’s joke, or an intentional leak to test the waters?

My $.02 (and I do hope Abrams & co. are listening):

It messes too much with the original, is too impractical, and clearly is trying to please everyone by incorporating design elements from every other Trek show/movie. “Battleship style phaser turrets”? WTF?? Would you want to stop the ship, put on a space suit and do an EVA to repair those things every time one of them overheated? And those curved sections of the primary hull make no sense at all – a complete waste of space that make movement within the ship more difficult. Jefferies put a lot of thought and consultation with the leading futurists of his time (such as the Rand Corp. and NASA) into the original Big E’s design; if Abrams wants to do a reboot, he should at least take the same approach and put a little more thought and engineering into it. If he isn’t looking to do a reboot, he should leave the exterior alone and focus on the interior.

All of that said, it is reasonable to expect that, in order to look believable on the big screen (remember the dilemma of moving ST:Phase II to the big screen?), the original Big E design would need some amount of additional surface detail, but I believe it should be kept to a minimum – escape pods, hatches, maneuvering thrusters – these things make sense and would enhance the practicality of Jefferies’ design without being visually distracting.

Abrams should remember that a fundamental principle of Roddenberry’s approach to ST was believability – within the confines of a TV series budget and the technology of the day, every effort was made to make the viewer believe they were really on a 23rd century starship. The original ST was more 2001 than Battlestar Galactica or Buck Rogers. The sketch shown (leaked?) here is more the latter.

68. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

At the bottom of the picture it says, “Much better! I really like the direction this one is headed.”
It looks to me like the direction it is flying is Southeast. That must mean that in the movie, the Enterprise will be exploring the Southeast Quadrant of the Galaxy! Everyone knows that that is known as “Fake Quadrant-Mark XI,” so that could explain why nothing (especially the characters) will look or sound the way it should.
I am so relieved! Now I can just sit back and enjoy this project all to pieces!

69. calvination - April 1, 2007

Do they think we like that ST: ENT look? Did anyone tell them that ST: ENT had DISMAL ratings? What is the matter with these people?

NOTE TO PRODUCERS OF ST Xi: If you’re going to “recapture” the baby boomer generation who grew up with ST:TOS, then you better go back to the roots, loose the stupid galactica-wannabee look, and show us the ships that we grew up with, for cryin’ out loud…

70. PetiG - April 1, 2007

As you can see it is the 4th sketch of the Enterprise, and it is likely that it is not the last one. Have you seen the sketches of the Voyager? Uhh… I’m sure this ship won’t appear in the movie in this form.

I really do not like the idea of using this ship in the movie, but what if it’s supposed to be a prototype vessel of the Constitution class?
(just like when car companies show their new models on Auto shows, there are a lot of fancy elements, which can’t be found on the production models)

The hull is almost the same as the original (except lacking almost third of the saucer section), maybe they want to use a prototype during the movie, which becomes the old E for the ending (maybe with the Shatner-Nimoy cameos).
Don’t forget, we are talking about the same ship, the NCC-1701! The 60′s ship has to be the more advanced version.

I don’t think it’s a prank, but I hope that footnote is not written by JJ.

71. Lukus - April 1, 2007

I kinda wish it was real! Some of you people have no sense of imagination! None whatsoever. First, it is just a sketch! They never are the same in the end. Second, it still looks like a Star Trek ship. Third, it looks like a ‘modern’ vision of the future rather than a 60′s vision of the future.
But it is fake, so in the end it doesn’t matter.

72. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

I like the spiked nacelles…but I HATE the gun turrets and the clunky looking saucer section.

I don’t like it when they take chunks out of the saucer section…it is just not aesthetically pleasing. The TMP Enterprise had a smooth skinned saucer…and looked EXCELLENT! They added detail by adding the aztec pattern…and it worked!

Folkses, I don’t think this illustration is a hoax. It looks like professional conceptual art that could have been done by the likes of an Andy Probert or John Eaves. I am not saying one of them did the design though.

TTM

73. Dom - April 1, 2007

The TOS Enterprise was basically a 1950s flying saucer with some fancy bits added on!

The new Trek film needs to be bold and do something new with the design, while keeping the basic TOS ship silhouette.

74. Captain April - April 1, 2007

It may be a joke but it’s not a bad one. I like the direction the engines are going design wise. The saucer is a different story I don’t care for the large cutouts, no reason for it. And yes we still do tons of drawings before we start building a CGI model, pen and paper is still faster and cheaper!! Besides we are still a long way from start of production, the final ship may look very different from this one, hopefully better. Nice start, if it’s real. Nice drawing if it’s not.

75. Jon - April 1, 2007

April fools!(pointing up).

76. jsonitsac - April 1, 2007

This has to be a joke. Please say it’s a joke. This thing is ugly and so much for sticking to established canon. First, the color scheme looks like it’s out of TNG. Second, what is up with the saucer section? It looks more DS9 then a starship. Furthermore “battleship style phaser ports” what is with that? Such ideas go against the whole ideals of the Federation. Except for the Defiant, the Federation does not build battleships! I say if this thing goes through, fire Abrams and pull the plug on XI.

77. Lougan - April 1, 2007

hehe. you guys are funny. You act like this hasnt happened before… Lets look at ST: TMP. Man… that Enterprise sure doesnt look like the TOS version. Its like they redesigned it… to look sexier and more practical. Even more real.

I dont see you bitching about that. But for those of us who have followed this kinda thing for a while, know that yes, designs like this exist. (even if this is an april fools joke). The idea has crossed someone’s mind. The 1701 will look different. We all know it. Whether this is the design or not, we’re going to have to deal. And honestly, if you are just going to drop the franchise just because the ship looks different. Jeez. you obviously dont get the “idea of trek” that we have a brighter future. That we can overcome ourselves and become something more.

the best example of a complete 360 change. Take the Defiant, it started out as a “beefy runabout”, evolved into what is now a Nova Class ship (the Equinox), then finally ended up as the squat little Defiant we all know and love. You can call it an april fools joke all you want… haha. but some artsy guy working in the design department probably drew something very similar, and its a good thing.

78. non-fanatic - April 1, 2007

“Semi-translucent copper bussard collectors” !

79. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

…and maybe paint some psychedelic flowers and stuff on the side to make it more 60s ish.

80. FlyingTigress - April 1, 2007

Yes. It is April 1st.

Recall the design variations — published in reference books — about the design concepts that led to the Ent-TOS (Jeffries’ “design noodling”), the Ent-TNG?, the Sovereign-class Ent-TNG (including the ‘duck-neck’ 1701-E?), DS9, itself?, Voyager, and some of the designs of the NX-01 that filtered out around the web before someone posted the Paramount studio visitors’ photo of the exterior of the set — with the image of, what later was realized as the Ent ‘patch’?

There’s something about the drawing style that appears a LOT like sketches that have appeared (J. Eaves) before, so, (do we know if John was hired?)

1) if it isn’t legit, it is a good ‘fake’ — and the sketches underneath actually contribute to the “hmmmm” (possibly legit!) factor… Since, to the ‘plus’ side, there would be some preliminary sketches in pencil, to the ‘negative’ side, would they happen to be (conveniently) placed right below a color rendering?

2) if it is, one possibility would be that it is like the scripts for past movies,
and some of the props — made a little bit different from what was intended to combat leaked/stolen information from the studio…

3) also if it is, one possibility is that it might be coming out to gauge fan-reaction to ‘how far from established iconic images can we go before the core audience balks?’ … i.e. a trial balloon?

I recall that with LOTR, Jackson actually solicited opinion from the web-based LOTR-fan base in formulating his decisions on the trilogy

4) others?

(“Fascinating”)

I’d agree that it causes a little sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, and agree that, like the designers probably felt with ST:TMP, and as mentioned in #23, something that looks really, really good on a 60′s 15″ B&W (or even the then still comparatively uncommon color console sets), would look fake blown up to fill a theater screen — and something had to be done.

81. FlyingTigress - April 1, 2007

From a practicality standpoint, having the RCS thrusters tucked in from the hull extensions seems a little odd… Jeffries’ final design of the TOS-era “E” made sense from an engineering (albeit from an extrapolated level of technology) standpoint…

Re: #3, IF legit, we know that (at least) the CBS(D) staff know about – and visit — TM.com (remember the U.S.S. Consolation practical joke from a few months ago?).

82. Kyle Nin - April 1, 2007

I hope this is a joke. I do like ENT, but this movie isn’t ENT, it’s more like TOS, and it should look that way.

83. BillyBoy - April 1, 2007

oh lord, over 80 messages so far in such a short space of time. This joke sure worked.

84. Spirit - April 1, 2007

Humm, thinking about it, my guess is that this shot was taken at CBS-Digital and one of the guys there drew the sketch for trekmovie.com At least it wouldnt surprise me ;)

85. James Heaney - April 1, 2007

OMG, those people at Paramount have lost their minds!

Thank goodness there’s an “Enterprise” re-run on tonight. It’s been far too many years since I last saw “The Interregnum.”

86. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - April 1, 2007

It is an interesting design for A starship but not for THE starship… too reminiscent to the NX-01 for my tastes. I think the rebirth of the Enterprise should closely follow the lines and design sensibilities of the “first” Enterprise we saw in TOS, albeit, with wonderful bits of detail and subtle additions that allow us to experience an old friend in a new way.

As a previous poster pointed out, this is the 4th sketch or iteration in the re-design… I would love to see the first three sketches as well as the pencils beneath the sketch shown above.

By the way, I’ve suspected that Josh T. and Hitch are the same person for some time… ;)

87. SteveinSF - April 1, 2007

pee—uuuu

gotta be April Fools!

88. Adam - April 1, 2007

You know what’s really funny. After all these comments on ‘it’s an April Fools joke’ there are still people going mad, thinking it’s real.

As for the design, regardless, it’s certainly interesting. It’s grown on me, but I’m still glad it’s a joke.

89. Crusade2267 - April 1, 2007

Good one guys. Startrek.com has some pretty good jokes up too. “Berman’s making a fan film” is my favorite

90. Nelson - April 1, 2007

Guys! This is a legit design….for the Mirror Universe! Get it, the evil Kirk get’s his ship all battleready for a showdown. And this is how they get Shatner back in the film as Kirk, he’s still alive and getting action.

Of course this is an April Fools joke, but I actually think it might make an appropriate Mirror ship design if you follow what happened after A Mirror Darkly. It integrates the design from NX-01 and the Defiant.

As for design processes. I am an industrial designer. At the approrpiate time of the design process, doodles and sketches like this are still done. Some younger designers like to use the sketching and painting tools in Alias and Photoshop for sketching with a tablet. And they have a similar feel, but not quite like markers.

91. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

One thing is for sure…and take heed CBS-PARAMOUNT…the reactions to this (HOAX OR NOT) are a reflection of what reations will be to your film if it is screwed up.

What if…some person over at Star Trek said… “Hey, look at this…let’s float a test ballon and guage the reactions. If it tanks…its April Fool’s Day and we can have deniability”

Screw with the film too much and the franchise is dead.

There is a distinct difference between what ST-TMP is and a lousy reboob. ST-TMP used te same characters and extablished that it was the same ship. This plot device was evident when Decker says “She’s a totally new Enterprise.” New, but still the same ship of Pike and Kirk.
Making a new Starship for a “cool factor” at the expense of long established trek is meshuggah!!!

One can keep the same profiles and design lines with more detail…but screwing with it like this really puts” boogers in the oatmeal!!!”

92. ShellyD - April 1, 2007

lol look at this…

http://www.trekzone.de/mediapool/news/trekxi/render01.jpg

93. New Horizon - April 1, 2007

April fools joke. I like some of it though. The saucer is ugly though…and also far too militant. The Enterprise should be a smooth, graceful lady. :)

I like the nacelles though.

94. Robert April - April 1, 2007

#92

Hmmmmmm….cool but not very pretty

95. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - April 1, 2007

Lord Garth Hates April Fools. No dance for Anthony today. Instead Marta will recite her poetry….. God is that awful. Looks like what I hate most about the next gen era ships combined with a maltese cross. Could be a cool alternate universe Prussian Federation U.S.S. Otto Von Bismark

96. Kyle Nin - April 1, 2007

It looks like the ship is still being built, like it’s only half finished. Not good. I really hope this is an April Fool’s Day joke.

97. Driver - April 1, 2007

Startrek.com is chock full of April Fools goodies today.

98. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

If they could make that saucer spin it would make a good grinding wheel. Look out bad guys!

99. Thomas Marrone - April 1, 2007

It’s a FAAAAAAAAAAKEEEEEEE!!!

100. Frogr1701 - April 1, 2007

First Post here, yay!

That aside, #92

I’ve seen that concept before and its not in relation to the new movie. I can’t find the website at the moment but it was someone’s idea of combining ENT with TOS. I found a similar ship on another person’s website he calls it a Valiant Class: http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/conjectural.htm

Could be wrong however. But I am 99.99 % certain of myself.

The concept Enterprise above is most interesting. It looks like a TOS-era Nova class, or another parallel universe ship. I think the blue should be inside not on top, kinda like this: http://store.starfleetstore.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=S&Product_Code=5724&Category_Code=10
The RCS thrusters are silly for a ship of that style, but if they modified it somehow to be more appropriate, I could go for it. The turrets give a whole new definition to “phaser gun crews” mentioned a few times in the early TOS episodes.

101. steve623 - April 1, 2007

I’m chalking this one up to April Fool’s Day until otherwise advised.

102. Kyle Nin - April 1, 2007

Maybe if the movie took place halfway between ENT and TOS, this ship design would be okay. But it doesn’t. You can’t just go from THIS to what it looks like on TOS. It’s too much of a change.

I really really hope that this is a joke.

103. Smike van Dyke - April 1, 2007

Don’t fool yourself. While this MIGHT pretty likely be an April Fool’s joke, the design which they’ll eventually come up with might be even farther away from the original design or it might be far worse than this! So I think we’d be well off with this one.

If it’s legit, I might like it. Hope they’re gonna open up an entirely new timeline, directly evolving out of the known one, instead of just rebooting Trek without any explanation.
Just let the events of ENT create a new timeline and we can still rewatch the old one without a grudge…or even revisit it at some point…

104. fresh1306 - April 1, 2007

has anyone seen all the april fool´s jokes on startrek.com? it´s full of them^^

105. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 103
“Just let the events of ENT create a new timeline…”

Now there’s an April Fools joke!

Bwaaaaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaa!!!!!

106. Olde Timey Fan - April 1, 2007

^95

Bloody Kriegsmarine Panzerschiff indeed! BLECH.

Hey Paramount:

NO NEXT GEN / DS9 / VOYAGER / ENTERPRISE CRAP IN THIS MOVIE!

Nein! Mach nixen auf der Braganen!

Can you guys please, please, please, please please think in terms of ELEGANCE and TASTE?

THANK YOU!

107. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

I have always held that the more “simple design” of the NCC-1701 (a la Pike and Kirk) amounted to the 23rd version of “Art Decco.”

In “Enterprise,” the designs are “functional.” Thus, lots of rough spaces and technical “piping” that seems “more advanced.”

I submit, that by Kirk’s time, there was a design movement to “streamline” things to a simple means.

Dax make a comment that would fit in with that in DS9: Tribbles when she comments on the design of the tricorder.

One might even say that is why there is little remanant of TOS era stuff in the post-TMP Alpha-Quadrant. Much like today’s PT Crusier looks to a past style, NCC-1701 (and ships of her day) may be of that ilk.

Undoing that with a “cool” anachronism…to get more people into theaters is a wrong approach.

I am hoping that a TV series set in the TOS time will bring Star Trek to a new audience. But still attract the old school, not repulse them.

108. SimmerALPHA - April 1, 2007

#92 That’s the one by the BSG artist I mentioned. Thanks for providing a link I couldn’t find it anymore.

109. Skippy 2k - April 1, 2007

I kinda like it, kinda not…. Not too bad for another ship but I prefer it not to be the enterprise.

Here is an image I rendered awhile back as a “Conjectural Design” for the early Enterprise. I made some modificatons to Dennis Bailey’s Phoenix (pretty cool ship), added spikes, larger deflector and gave it the dark nacelle caps. I like the design because it basicly keeps the shape of the enterprise so it wouldn’t take much to upgrade it to what we know.

“Conjectural Enterprise”
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5557/entmod2vj3.jpg

110. Viking - April 1, 2007

If it ain’t a joke, it could go a lot farther if they’d lose those damned phaser turrets. It looks like it ought to be belching engine smoke and dueling a Jap destroyer off Guadalcanal…………..

111. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - April 1, 2007

Lord Garth has land to sell many of you it is quite valuble and is said to have large deposits of gold and diamonds on it.

112. Aaron R. - April 1, 2007

Interesting. I think it is a real drawing from paramount let out as a hoax on April 1st. Think about it. They slap some of different actual design elements out in one sketch probably changed a touch but with real concepts they are thinking about and wait to see your reaction. As one would expect the reaction is mixed and the die hard TOS cannon fodder people are extremely upset but they aren’t the ones we care about remember. As I have talked about in other posts the die-hards are now the minority and that’s why we need to bring in new blood new fans… F**K the die-hards basically because there dwindling numbers are the reason the last movie and show failed. Is this making sense yet? They release this put together sketch with real elements they are thinking about using and then they ignore the negative feed back and look only at the positive feedback because they know that this good feedback is coming from the non cannon fodder cronies who they are targeting the movie toward anyways. And what do you know within a day this thread is over a hundred and I am guessing will go over 200 hundred on this one site alone and looky here walla they have successfully created a online opinion pole which can later just be written off as a April fools joke however they will listen to some of the positive comments and don’t be shocked when some of these elements are on our new E when we see the film… Think deeper guys, deeper. Guys who are working for paramount with this little opinion poll / April fools day hoax here is some positive input from little ole me.

1. Ship looks bitchin don’t be afraid to frak with cannon to make it look cool. For gods sake its Star Trek and a creative writer can find a plethora of ways around cannon as Josh T. pointed out. Don’t get tied down to much.

2. Leave the phaser turrets they rock and whose to say those didn’t get removed in a refit later before TOS. I would like to think she is refitted before every 5 year mission. Again creative writing you know.

3. Keep the nacelle points but tone them down they are a bit to big.

4. I like the escape pods it makes sense that the big E had some we just never saw them all to clearly.

5. Biggest one guys don’t be afraid to change it even more! Why not have a shuttle bay with combat shuttles in the front saucer grooves you have created. We know Kirk and Spock are both accomplished shuttle pilots why not let them fight inside shuttles in the Romulan war or whatever you are planning to do. Why not get rid of the phaser strips all together maybe they haven’t been invented yet and all we have are the cannon style phasers. Why not add more, more, more… Don’t hold back!!!

Aaron Ringewold
Writer/Director
Stage and Independent Film

113. T Negative - April 1, 2007

People,people, people…..There is no way on God’s green Earth that JJ Abrams is going to let THE MAIN CHARACTER of his new Star Trek film LEAK OUT this early. This is an April fools day joke for sure and a damn good one at that.

I think most if the people on here realize this, but some people aren’t getting the joke.

Further, do you think Paramount would EVER let something like this leak out almost two years before the movie is released?? I guarantee you the Enterprise design is in Fort Frickin Knox right now.

Anyway, I think Abrams is going to use Jeffries “classic” design FWIW.

114. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

112. Aaron R.

You are hereby sentenced to smoke cigars with Iman on Rura Penthe!

115. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

At first I wondered why the nacelle points were sticking out so far, then I remembered, “it is very COLD in space!”

116. Crusade2267 - April 1, 2007

#113: Agreed. It’s way to early for us to be getting concept art leaked. When its closer to production time, then it;ll be time. Plus, most of the leaks from “reliable sources” have been made up. If this were real, wouldn’t we know more about the source other than he is “trusted?” Everyone has been so tight-lipped about this movie that it is unlikely there would be such a major leak so early.

I would also tend to agree that the classic design will remain basically unchanged. Look at every use of the TOS ship since TNG began. Trials and Tribbleations, Mirror Darkly, and TOS-Remastered have all kept the basic design the same.

117. Aaron R. - April 1, 2007

114 Stankster…

I guess it could be worse… After all IMAN is smokin hot after all. And being from a city in the desert I love cold and the snow… Woo whoo vacation! Oh but wait… Iman is not going to morph into a double of me and try to kiss me is she?!?!? AHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Aaron R.

118. TREKS in SCI-FI Podcast » Blog Archive » Cartoons for Podcast # 113 - April 1, 2007

[...] [...]

119. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

#112
You make some very good points, with my taking exception to one; “dwindling numbers are the reason the last movie and show failed”.
I would suggest that the primary reason for the diminished audience numbers is simply because the last movie and show stunk up the place! Nemesis was a hodge-podge bullshit ego-driven Picard and Data roadshow. The disaster that was Enterprise is mainly in regard to the casting. Scott Bakula seems like a nice guy and all, but totally miscast as a starship captain. If the lead had been someone with a charismatic “edge” and better “acting chops”, then it might have succeeded. Give us something COMPELLING to watch and we’ll gladly go to the movies and tune in the show!

120. Ron Jon - April 1, 2007

If it is real, I would say that Anthony just got someone in big trouble.

121. Aaron R. - April 1, 2007

119 Mike A.

Here is the thing with Nemesis. The previews made Nemesis look AWESOME as previews tend to do but the movie was lacking. The argument that the low numbers are because of the quality of the movie doesn’t hold merit because until you have seen the movie you can’t jusdge if it was good or bad. No one went to see it in the theater so how did they know not to go because it sucked because they they hadn’t seen it… AHHH its like a temporal anomaly of stupidity… How can you know a movie sucks and choose not to see it when you haven’t seen it and the previews make the movie look good.

Aaron R.

122. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

I love this as a design in general, though not necessarily for the TOS Enterprise.

That said, this is obviously an “April Fools!” gag. :lol:

123. Trek Defense League - April 1, 2007

Where’s the grace of the old design? This isn’t a ship Matt Damon could go emo over after being exposed to the Psi-2000 virus and babbling about “flesh woman…no beach to walk on.” Get off my ship!

124. Russ - April 1, 2007

I like it. Doesn’t seem like an April Fools joke. Looks realistic and plausible enough.

125. Thomas - April 1, 2007

I like the design, but not for OUR Enterprise.
Everything on Startrek.com is an April Fools joke.
I especially thought the clip of the “Picard Maneuver” was Great!
Check out the Sulu Book review. Is this a reference to him coming out of the closet? LOL
Flintstones? Trek?
Still a Favorite of mine after all of these years!

http://www.stonetrek.com/

126. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

In fact, given the day on which this is being released, the most obvious evidence that it’s a gag is that Anthony doesn’t say explicitly that “this is not an April’s Fool gag.”

BTW, the art itself is great and the various call-outs nicely persuasive. Hopefully Anthony will be able to tell us in a day or two who the artist is.

127. Thomas - April 1, 2007

Maybe I should have said…A Robert April Fools Joke.

128. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 121, 119

All this talk about “Nemesis” makes me want to run out and rent it….

April Fool!

129. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#25: “Maybe the “escape pods” can be used for Mr. Abrams to get away when being chased by angry fans.”

Why? They going to whine him to death if they catch him?

130. R. W. Tompkins - April 1, 2007

It looks to me as if this Enterprise is a far more likely starship to have evolved from the Enterprise of Captain Archer’s time than TOS’s Enterprise.
It doesn’t appear they are taking too much liberty with canon – yet.

131. Jeffrey S. Nelson - April 1, 2007

Bump bump on the head…it’s a fooley.

132. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#109

I like that one! But it needs the intercoolers on the nacelles…in back…

133. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 129. Dennis Bailey
“Why? They going to whine him to death if they catch him?”

Yes…and I hear it is worse than the Klingon Mind-Sifter.

134. drh1589 - April 1, 2007

APRIL FOOLS! God, I hope that isn’t it…if this is real… *shivers*

135. Redshirt - April 1, 2007

This is a bad joke… Even if its real its a bad joke.

136. Kevin - April 1, 2007

Well, it’s a nice design as a maybe a TOS era warship, but it’s not the Enterprise. This sort of stuff frightens me into thinking more and more this is gonna be some kind of crappy re-imagining, re-boot garbage. If that’s gonna be the case, Paramount’s not getting any more of my money.

137. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

#121 Aaron R.
Thanks for the response, appreciate it. I guess what I’m referring to could be described as “word of mouth” promotion. Maybe a great number of people don’t come out for opening weekend, but the few that do, if they like the film, start to tell their friends and a groundswell of interest builds, eventually turning said film into a huge box-office hit. Now, I know the numbers for Nemesis were low to begin with, but if it had been a great film, then what I just described might have happened.
Of course, the reverse effect can happen as well. Look at what transpired with ST:II+III. Both GREAT movies that got tremendous word of mouth, thus building a huge audience then pre-sold to go see ST:IV. The payoff? The best numbers ever for a Trek film with The Voyage Home, even though it was a piece of dogshit. People, being enamored with WOK and SFS, went to see TVH expecting the continuing flavour of drama, friendship and honour. What did they get? Whaleshit and farcical humour a ten year old would be embarrassed by. If it had been anybody other than Nimoy pitching that idea, he would have been laughed out of the room! Meanwhile Paramount, being impressed with the revenue for TVH, decide to “stay the course” with the same crappy Three Stooges storylines. Hey Spock, how many fingers am I holding up? Whooo, whooo, whooo…nyuk nyuk! THAT is the seminal moment when Star Trek went “off the rails” and never fully recovered. Let’s hope Abrams knows what he’s doing!

138. Thomas - April 1, 2007

A retro-fit after each 5 year mission is very likely.
I prefer the old girl in the Pike era.
Cobra headed view screens…Yeah!
And I likes me some big old nipples on my nacelles!

139. Snappy Tom - April 1, 2007

GUN TURRETS?!!

It;s Star Trek dub ass, not Star Wars. Jesus when are they going to finally get that?

I hope this isn’t the direction they plan to go in.

140. Thomas - April 1, 2007

Nacelle Nipples…didn’t she play Uhura?

141. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#109:

Nice. Did you do a mod on the mesh, or is this Photoshop?

142. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

#140 “Nacelle Nipples” This is what I was referring to in #115! Did ANYBODY get it?

143. jvalmeida - April 1, 2007

Seems fine. But what the f&uck are those cannons doing on it? Battlestar Enterprise?

144. Eric Augst - April 1, 2007

Not Funny! People get hurt over stuff like this!

145. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

If somebody is offended, in this day and age, by a “nipple” joke, they should go back and crawl under their bed, it’s not safe out here!

146. ozy - April 1, 2007

This is crap. Reboot.

147. Kev - April 1, 2007

This design to me kind of looks like they felt they had to make changes, whether or not those changes fit the simplicity of the original. If they are thinking that the series ship won’t work on the movie screen, I think that is mistaken, based on the TMP ship. If anything, the TV ship’s light color and bold red markings would be more striking in the movies. The turrets go against both the missionm philosophy and technology portrayed in the series. Unfortunately , the Bond “success” may have emboldened them to go in a grittier, more warlike direction (even though the last Brosnan , even with the water skiing stuff, probably made more when you take into account inflation. Distressingly, to me anyway, that ‘s a Bond without Q, gadgets, stylish sets and fun, so not necessarily an improvement though it is a well made film. If they are going to change Trek this much, then Shatner and Nimoy’s presence may not be as necessary as I thought. And if the E is to look like this, there’s no need explaining how Kirk is alive– this is an alternate universe. As for BSG as an influence, despite all the talk, and it is a well done show, the ratings it gets don’t warrant any use of it as a template. I will see this film, but it’s looking like much of what made Trek Trek will not be part of it. After all, if you can’t respect the design brilliance of that ship, what’s left?

148. Skippy 2k - April 1, 2007

#141 Dennis, it isn’t photoshopped added the spikes and played with the bussard settings. I originally did it out of curiousity to see what the dark bussards would look like as I think the phoenix would be a good choice if they “must” alter the original. I actually like the way the caps turned out better than the ones used for the remastered menagerie/mirror mirror.

I put a credit on the image, didn’t see a text file or anything in the folder I have for it. Is that allright?

149. The Gospel Truth - April 1, 2007

It looks absolute Rubbish. Change the cast but don’t change the ship.

150. freezejeans - April 1, 2007

April Fool’s joke or not, it’s still a cool design. Remember, Google rolled out Gmail on April 1st and people thought that was fake, too :)

151. Michael - April 1, 2007

Here’s a thought–let “Star Trek” rest on the slagheap of memory. Obviously no one wants to change anything or touch the sacred cow. . .God forbid new minds come in and actually re-think and resurrect an obviously languishing franchise.

“Doctor Who” has survived a rethinking and a resurrection and become quite a power-house. I think “Star Trek” can stand the same type fo thing without anyone dying.

It’s only a TV show or a movie franchise. Hell, the Holy Bible has even been re-written by men a few times. . .”Star Trek” will be alright.

152. =A= - April 1, 2007

umm look great for Enterprise? nah it’s too much design/ future, i rather same old Enterprise. this design should be Enterprise II better one smile.

153. Sam Belil - April 1, 2007

This has to be a joke!!!! If not that I am seriously concerned. Change for the sake of change will NOT work. Having said that I was seriously impressed by the image that #109 posted. Paramount needs to seriously think twice about p—ing off the core fans of TOS.

154. THEETrekMaster - April 1, 2007

#151

Nothing wrong with new…but when new is BAD…then yes, something should be said about that. Why should anyone say, “Well, hell…it’s new… guess I should like even though it sucks ass!”

Where’s the logic in that?

TTM

155. Scott Gammans - April 1, 2007

Brilliantly played joke, Anthony… so brilliant that a lot people still don’t realize it *IS* a joke. LOL!

Happy April Fools’ Day, everyone! :D

156. Scott Gammans - April 1, 2007

Oh and p.s., nice mod on Dennis’s lovely Phoenix, Skippy 2k.

157. Imrahil - April 1, 2007

Oy. I know it’s april fool’s, but this just isn’t funny.

Gah, what a piece of shit.

158. Flier1701 - April 1, 2007

My money is that this i a joke. However, if it were not, I’m strangely okay with it.

Although I would love to see the 1701 in all her glory on the big screen, it would definetly have to be updated to look right. I was hoping for just some surface detailing and stuff, but if that’s the way it has to be, then okay, i can live with it.

159. Ed Hall - April 1, 2007

Dang, they got me. They got me good. I haven’t been fooled by an April Fool’s joke this good in years.

And it *has* to be an April Fool’s joke doesn’t it? They wouldn’t be so stupid as to change the design of one of the most beloved vessels in science fiction history, would they?

There are just so many things wrong with this design, the little design details that won’t exist until the time of the 1701-A’s refit for one, the “scallops” taken out of the primary hull for another.

One thing I do like in this design is the little pointy things on the front end of the warp engines, but that’s only because we know from first season ST:TOS episodes the the Enterprise had those early in it’s career.

Anyway, great April Fool’s joke — you got me.

Just don’t film this ship design, ’cause then you’ve lost me….

-Ed

160. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

151. Michael – April 1, 2007

Yes, it is only a show…but, we pay for this. Their goal is to make money, pleasing fans is part of that equastion. If they fail at the one they fail at the other.

Star Trek is a moneymaker because it is traditional and is nostalgic. Star Trek came into the Television Lexicon when Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass was topping the charts on teh Hollywood Palace, when man had not been to the moon.

Anyone who thinks that can generate modern TREKKERS with the same passion as the original series did…from scratch, is barking up the wrong tree. TNG was built on the foundations of TOS, as much as we love TNG it would have never survived without that already existant fan base.

As I said, we pay for this…or not!

161. TrekNerd - April 1, 2007

The first picture of Spider-Man from the first movie came out in early 2001 — a full year and a half before the first movie was released in theaters.

As for the Enterprise, the TOS version and the Movies I – VI version is Shatner’s ship. I don’t want to see any other version of Kirk flying Shatner’s ship.

Reboot, reimagining, etc. — why can’t anybody understand that J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek is essentially a remake of the original?

It won’t conflict with canon (i.e., I doubt Kirk will be turned into a villain a la Jim Phelps in the 1996 Mission: Impossible movie, which was actually a sequel to the show rather than a remake), but it won’t dwell on it either.

When I see the General Lee, lovingly recreated as she was in the original series, in clips of the theatrical motion picture version and the new DVD, my heart beats with nostalgia. However, when I see the new actors and the tawdry nature of the new iterations, I cringe that the classic General Lee design is involved in these devolved shenanigans and wish that they totally redesigned the General Lee, because these new films are a disgrace to the Dukes of Hazzard legacy.

I am sure that J.J. Abrams’ version of Star Trek won’t be as tawdry or in bad taste as the new Dukes of Hazzard, but it’s not going to be the same Star Trek of 1964-1991, either. The above picture, whether real or fake, is immediately recognizable to me as the Enterprise. It may not be the best or most ideal version of the Enteprise, but it is the Enterprise. It’s definitely not the Battlestar Galactica, Jupiter II, or the Discovery — or even the Millennium Falcon or a Star Destroyer. No matter what final design they settle on, as long as it has the familiar elements of the Enterprise, however modified, it will be the Enterprise — the Enterprise of J.J. Abrams’ new vision of Star Trek.

By the way, for those who don’t remember, the Enterprise in the TOS movies was often referred to as a Federation battle cruiser.

162. The Gospel Truth - April 1, 2007

They should offer up a few designs for the fans to vote for online and then use that one.

163. Sebastian Prooth - April 1, 2007

I believe that this is an April Fools joke similar to the ones that are appearing on StarTrek.com today. StarTrek.com has been doing April Fools articles since 1997.

As for the design of this ship, aide from the gun turrets, I would not be surprised if this is an early or middle of the road sketch. There is a pin through it, and it has a not from a “producer” on it saying “they like the direction.”

In my opinion, as a longtime Star Trek fan, if this is the direction in which it is heading, that’s fine with me. A new Enterprise to go with our new Kirk and McCoy and Spock…I think that the producers will not let the fans down as you are correct, we do pay for this and they know that perhaps better than you do. Paramount is not in the business of putting out stuff that is set up to fail. Enterprise might have failed in its fourth season, but it is widely agreed that it was then that it started to pick up and find its feet.

I think people here and everywhere need to consider that we are talking about a movie here. This is a movie made in 2007/08 that has to attract the new audience that they are interested in getting, and not just please the established arm chair fans. The producers are fully aware of the fact that a ship that looks like it was designed with the knowledge of the human race in the 1960′s will not work in 2007. It needs to be re-imagined.

Good April Fools joke. Reasonable ship design…looks like a John Eaves drawing…

-Sebastian

-For interviews with Star Trek production staff and full DVD audio commentaries visit http://www.SebRT.com-

164. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

#161 “these new films are a disgrace to the Dukes of Hazzard legacy” Hahahahahahahahahaa……that’s the funniest soundbite I’ve ever read!! Dukes of Hazzard legacy?? Isn’t that phrase an oxymoron much like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”? What’s next, Gilligan’s Island being referred to as a Saga?

165. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

How about this…we reimagine our way to see another movie?

Attract a new audience? Poppycock!!! The only new audience for Star Trek will be based on previous fans. A reimagining will be a “one shot.”

Much like “War of the Worlds,” the Tom Cruise movie was big for about three months…now it is forgotten.

I say, BOYCOTT the film if it is going to crap on Star Trek.

Battlestar Galactica and Dr. Who are all great on the Sci Fi channel…there is no mainstream audience for Sci Fi. If you look at it, only the franchise Sci Fi (Star Trek and Star Wars) keeps the momentum going.

What ever happened to Westerns? Reinvented…

Mess with the formula…and the franchise is broken. Sad, really, if this turns out to be the last Star Trek film ever…due to reimagining. Imagine that!!!!

166. Paul McDowell - April 1, 2007

Does anyone really believe that the original enterprise will look good on the big screen??? No amount of surface detailing is going work. Why do you think they redesigned the Enterprise for The Motion Picture in the first place??? Because the design wouldnt look right in huge scale.

Dont get me wrong I love the original but the design is dated looking and oh so retro. I dont think it would have any credibility in a movie made today. Newcomers will be unimpressed and children will be laughing. Just accept the fact that the enterprise is going to look different.
I dont see how people get so caught up in how this thing looks… I’m much more interested in what they do with genes vision (not aesthetically speaking) of the future and what kind of story they will tell.

Let them make it look like a movie of today…

I you’re all expecting the women to be wandering around with bee hive hairdoos and chekov (if he’s in it) to still have his monkies style barnet then you are all crazy!!!

Look at the brige of the original series and tell me it doesnt need some serious interior design adjustments!

167. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

Chekov won’t have his Monkee mop of hair? That’s it….I’m outta here!!

168. TrekNerd - April 1, 2007

#164#161 “these new films are a disgrace to the Dukes of Hazzard legacy” Hahahahahahahahahaa……that’s the funniest soundbite I’ve ever read!! Dukes of Hazzard legacy?? Isn’t that phrase an oxymoron much like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”? What’s next, Gilligan’s Island being referred to as a Saga?

That’s exactly what mainstream film and television audiences say about Star Trek, and especially what they will say if the new movie looks exactly like the 1960s show in terms of ship and set designs.

169. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

I believe in STAR TREK…

Chekov’s hair is part of it…so is the real Enterprise. I don’t care what it looks like on the “Big Screen” because it will look as it should.

We don’t alter movies about Napolean to wear a modern French Uniforms, command modern French troops and place him in modern times because “that is the sign of the time.”

Some April Fool’s Joke…it uncovers many problems this project could bring to the surface.

Maybe they should set it in another TREK TIME PERIOD.

170. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 164. Michael Appleton

Do NOT take Gilligan’s Island in vain, sir.

171. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

Yes, of course, you’re right. Gilligan’s Island has never been equalled in the history of television! To be critical of such a program demeans us all!

172. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 1, 2007

re: 171

Thanks for understanding that.

You are very understanding.

Thank you.

173. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

No, no, thank you!

174. FlyingTigress - April 1, 2007

#164

“What’s next, Gilligan’s Island being referred to as a Saga?”

Those poor people.

/Maltazar, from the Klaatu Nebula

175. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

Galaxy Quest was SO FUNNY!!! Loved it!!

176. TrekNerd - April 1, 2007

J.J. Abrams’ challenge is to make Star Trek as good as Galaxy Quest.

177. Josh T. ( The Phantom Shatner ) Kirk Esquire' - April 1, 2007

I think with the right approach the classic Constitution class version can be done justice on the big screen, with the right approach that is.

Me personally, as much as I love the refit, and as graceful as it is, Matt Jefferies original unused update to the refit was always a very interesting appearance. Granted, it probably wouldnt fit in with the timeline of this new film, but depending on the story and timeframe, I wouldn’t mind if they glance at those blueprints.

178. Rico - April 1, 2007

Great April Fool’s joke guys! Loved it and mentioned on the podcast today!

179. Drij - April 1, 2007

Looks better then the NX-01 =P

180. Windsor Bear - April 1, 2007

Original Enterprise design wouldn’t look good on the big screen? Why not?? Looks good hanging in the Smithsonian. Maybe it’s just me, but the “sleek” ships look more believeable to me than the overly detailed ones. I’ve always felt the TOS Enterprise looked more believeable than anything else they’ve ever come up with.

181. Dennis Bailey - April 1, 2007

#148: “I put a credit on the image, didn’t see a text file or anything in the folder I have for it. Is that allright?”

Sure. Great work, there. :)

182. TrekNerd - April 1, 2007

“Original Enterprise design wouldn’t look good on the big screen? Why not?? Looks good hanging in the Smithsonian. Maybe it’s just me, but the “sleek” ships look more believeable to me than the overly detailed ones. I’ve always felt the TOS Enterprise looked more believeable than anything else they’ve ever come up with.”

Obviously, as producer of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Gene Roddenberry didn’t feel the same way.

183. Xai - April 1, 2007

I Love it… some of you get sooo upset before thinking things through.
Happy April, Fools

184. Windsor Bear - April 1, 2007

If I remember correctly, Gene got a little “over-zealous” with special effects on TMP. First it was circle the Enterprise over and over looking at it, and then it was fly close to VGER and look at all the effects. It was interesting to look at the first time around, but on repeat viewings, that was when I got up, went to the bathroom and got some popcorn from the concession stand. Yeah, the movie Enterprise looked good on the big screen… but if Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica hadn’t come out previously, I wonder how much “detail” the movie version would have had?

185. Olde Timey Fan - April 1, 2007

^166 Paul McDowell

“I dont see how people get so caught up in how this thing looks… I’m much more interested in what they do with genes vision (not aesthetically speaking) of the future and what kind of story they will tell.

***

What’s really dated about Star Trek is exactly Roddenberry’s “I’m too hip to be square” so-called vision of paternalistic, all-powerful governments enabled by insufferably arrogant bureaucrats that preside, “Walden II”-like, over the benighted peasants.

No… give me Matt Jeffries’ timeless, elegant and classic design and the heroic stories written to match it.

If they turn the Big E into a rip-off of BSG, they will also change the stories because it reflects their internal thinking on the project. I love BSG. I love Star Trek.

I want to see a Star Trek movie not a BSG rip-off (although I’d pay to see BSG on the big screen – sure!)

BTW: How can certain posters here continually claim Jeffries’ Enterprise “won’t hold up on the big screen”???? Says who? Please do your own thinking and stop parrotting an apocryphal, throw-away line from 1978!

186. Skippy 2k - April 1, 2007

#132. THEETrekMaster, allright I added the intercoolers and rendered an image of the three (well the two main and this test) versions of the 1701.

#181. Glad you don’t mind Dennis, I like fiddeling with it… per TrekMasters suggestion I put on some “intercoolers”, someone also suggested before the blue glow behind the dish… tried it but didn’t care for it here.

187. Skippy 2k - April 1, 2007

^ I suppose I could actually post the link…..

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2285/enterpriserendersdc0.jpg

188. Olde Timey Fan - April 1, 2007

One more thinkg about Roddenberry and his “vision” thing.

You’re talking about a man who changed wives and girlfriends frequently and without regard to anyone’s feelings save his own. If you can call horniness or betrayal a feeling. He slept with several of his employees while cheating on his wife and on both girlfirends and apparently didn’t care what his infideltiy did to his family. The man similarly blew through religions depending on the fashions of the moment moving from Methodist to Budhist to god-knows-what afterward. Not exactly a stable personality. Hell, Hitch-1969© is infintely more stable that The Great Bird ever was.

No, he was a half-decent story teller but he will never be considered a great thinker, philospoher or role-model.

189. Michael Appleton - April 1, 2007

#188 “Roddenberry…changed wives and girlfriends…religions…”
Oh shit, you sound like one of those wacko types who bang on your door at 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning asking (in a nasal twang), “have you found Jesus?”. Knowing it’s them, I always answer the door in the nude and reply, “No! Let’s go look for him!” as I motion them inside. For some reason they don’t stick around.

190. TrekNerd - April 1, 2007

#184: “Yeah, the movie Enterprise looked good on the big screen… but if Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica hadn’t come out previously, I wonder how much “detail” the movie version would have had?”

If 2001 hadn’t come out previously, I wonder how much “detail” Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica would have had.

The Discovery really set the standard for the modern look of spaceships on film, and the Discovery was on the big screen in 1969 — the same year the Enterprise was on the small screen.

191. kirkfan - April 1, 2007

love the old ship…..but i could like this new one too….if it was real

192. Selarrac Prime - April 1, 2007

If they want to present these new ship designs…then lets see them juxaposed to the original on screen.

One thing I think TOS lacked due to budget was to show lots more of Star Fleet. I wouldn’t mind seeing these other concept ships along side the Enterprise.

I will echo the comment “180. Windsor Bear – April 1, 2007″ that the USS Enterprise should be unchanged as a sleek version reflecting the design ethic of TOS.

Let them up grade the interiors…I would like to see a more funtional bridge that harkened back to the TOS version.

193. Jovan - April 2, 2007

Guys, it’s an April Fool’s joke…

194. Daniel Kirk - April 2, 2007

“hehe. you guys are funny. You act like this hasnt happened before… Lets look at ST: TMP. Man… that Enterprise sure doesnt look like the TOS version. Its like they redesigned it… to look sexier and more practical. Even more real.

I dont see you bitching about that…”

>>>>>[That's because TMP came *after* TOS, chronologically. The 1701 SHOULD have looked more advanced in TMP than it did in TOS. It makes no damn sense for it to "advance" from TNG/VOY-inspired exterior details to the TOS look.]

195. Dennis Bailey - April 2, 2007

“They should offer up a few designs for the fans to vote for online and then use that one.”

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Uh, no.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

196. cLa007 - April 2, 2007

I kinda like it, if they had to change the look I say this one is the best look for the era.

197. arg9 - April 3, 2007

Anyone seen any other ideas on the net? Post ‘em!

198. Blinkn - June 19, 2007

I like it and wouldn’t mind seeing the complete version, the ship from may different angels, maybe not for the remake but I REally like the design, even the turrets. And the original ship is very much in of a make over, not a major one, more flowing and textures an less shiny tin can with large antennae stinking out the front!

199. Phillip J Fry - June 19, 2007

I agree the the design looks pretty good, who made it, is there a complete version? You know pics form the back, bottom, sides, etc… so you can see the whole thing. Cause the original needs work, a tweak to make up for 60s limited idea of the future technology!

200. Craig - September 11, 2007

I like the look of it… but i don’t think it fits in with the period the new movie is set. It looks too much like the Enterprise in “First Contact” and to me would probably fit in better as a ship post “The Next Generation” rather than about 100 years before bearing in mind the other designs for the Enterprise in between all look more dated than this new predecessor…

201. Rideop1 - January 16, 2008

3 Words………………..IT F*&KING SUCKS

202. Rideop1 - January 16, 2008

I would hope that Abrams won’t make the same mistakes that Berman made. The reason Star Trek has lasted so long is the loyalty of it’s fans and staying true (for the most part) to Gene Roddenberry’s concept. Changing the ENTERPRISE for TMP was a an upgrade not a re-imagining, We are talking about the Grand Old Lady Now, Don’t F&*K with the Original Enterprise. I understand todays audiences want more realism, and such. well show the Old Girl the way Roddenberry wanted. Show her the way she looks in the Smithsonian. The lighting in the 60′s washed out all her texturing etc. With CGI, they can make her look the way she was supposed to. Accent details, don’t Change her design. Are they willing to piss off and alienate the loyal fans of decades just to bring in some new people? Berman needed to go, no disputing that, he ruined ENTERPRISE, with all that Xindi bullshit, when he should have filled all the gaps and answered the questions brought up in the original series. Good Riddens. Let’s hope Abrams doesn’t make the same Mistakes.
I think a fantastic openning scene would be Jonathon Archer witnessing the Launch of 1701. His Bio says he lived to see it and died of natural causes shortly after. I think that would make a great connection. then fade out and bring it up to the time of Kirk. similar things have been done before, and worked well.
In Closing, Star Trek Canon exists for a reason. DON’T F&*K WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!

203. tfn - January 18, 2008

Judging from the trailer I just saw, this april fools joke looks damn close

204. Sailorboy - April 20, 2008

Has anyone here read Best Destiny? The film sounds remarkably similar to the plotline of the book. BTW, that drawing is total cow-poo. Anyway, if the new film includes Kirk as a younger man and looking back, wouldn’t there have to be two seperate Enterprises? The NCC-1701-A and the new one? We are also assuming that the Excelsior class of starship is out of bounds here.
P.S. i’m 15 so don’t bite my head off.

205. Gregatron - June 8, 2008

Nice April Fools joke, but also a nice concept. If not enterprise certainly a different wessel.

oh and regarding the comment;
“this must be an april fools joke because in times of CGI-models nobody would do “old fashioned” sketches anymore. ;)”

most if not all cgi-model work is based upon concept artists inital hand drawn designs, even if they’re hand drawn onto a computer via a tablet.

206. Mark Miller - August 11, 2008

I like the concept of this design, but not as a re-imagined NCC-1701.

I would use it as an interim-step in making an earlier ship into a Constitution-upgrade. The Original ship would have had the smaller-diameter saucer, and the “bridges” are meant to support the upgrade outter ring. The next step would then be to skin over the open areas before filling in the decks inside. For that era the idea of doing the upgrades in interim stages might have had an econimical aspect.

A perfect ship for this upgrade process would be the USS Bonaventure as seen on TAS: Time Trap, it had a similar sized saucer while still presenting the familiar Constitution profile.

207. Crazy Guy - August 30, 2008

I just saw some “screencaps” of the new Enterprise, and I must admit, while it does look slick, it’s a letdown. Enterprise 1701 was NOT that bulky, and it looks like a cross between Enterprise E, 1701, and NX-01. And unless we hear that this Enterprise will be seen in the remastered “The Cage” episode, which is unlikely, we’ll be stuck with a “how the hell did THIS look like THAT” issue.

But, I digress. I love the Enterprise, and if this is what the ship is going to look like, so be it. I have no choice but to accept it.

208. zeo za - April 1, 2009

niezła napinka

209. john - May 27, 2009

I imagine, like modern warships, the Enterprise would have been upgraded, modified, and changed over the decades of service as new technology / design styles came into service. The version we are all “used” to seeing in the original series could have been the way the shop looked THEN, but earlier, it may have looked slightly different. As long as they don’t make it look more modern than the 1960′s original series, it shouldn’t be a problem.

210. TOS Fan 1909 - June 10, 2009

What I found most amusing about the comments here were the references to horror at the inclusion of phaser turrets. It was especially funny due to the fact that the original had them.
In the episode where the Enterprise personnel all suspect Spock to be a spy because their first view of a Romulan shows them that they Romulans like just like Vulcans. The phaser turrets were manned by a crew of two sitting at the standard Enterprise console with a viewscreen and a few conduits added for effect. One such crew is overcome by poisonous coolant gas leaking from a battle damaged coolent conduit and Spock has to rescue them and press the firing stud to shoot the Romulan ship. Throughout the sceen Kirk repeatedly calls for the phaser crew to “Fire” even using the ship’s PA system when the overcome phaser turret crew doesn’t respond.
Even the original models had a paired bank of phasers called turrets at the compass points around the saucer section of the ship.

In the end it is just a model and not the one used for the movie but the turrets might have been sool if used in a plot line.

211. TOS Fan 1909 - June 10, 2009

OK I meant to type “cool” not “sool” but you know what I meant

212. Gorn Captain - April 1, 2011

Still gotta love this old joke…brings back memories
http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/design-sketch-for-reimagined-enterprise-leaked/

Random question, but that article reminds me. Does anyone remember when plot details started to slip about STIX…that one report mentioned that there would be 2 enterprises in the movie? A normal one and an alternate “more militarized” one? Or have I just gone crazy?

213. jas_montreal - April 2, 2011

Classic.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.