ILM To Provide Effects For ‘Star Trek’ – Enterprise To Appear In Film |
jump to navigation

ILM To Provide Effects For ‘Star Trek’ – Enterprise To Appear In Film July 2, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback has confirmed two things that should not come as a surprise with regards to the new ‘Star Trek’ film in pre-production. Firstly we have learned from a number of sources that George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) has been selected to provide the special visual effects for Star Trek (2008). In keeping with the usual Star Trek secrecy neither Paramount nor ILM will officially confirm it, however sources say that some planning work on the effects has already started. Abrams has worked with ILM before and the choice is another example of Abrams sticking with his trusted Mission: Impossible III team. On the M:I:III DVD Abrams effuses about how excited he was to work with ILM and how happy he was with their work on the film. ILM also worked with the Star Trek writers/executive producers Orci & Kurtzman on Paramount/Dreamwork’s summer blockbuster Transformers. Although he wouldn’t confirm it, at the recent Transformers junket Orci told that he ‘certainly hoped’ that ILM would work on Star Trek. The choice of ILM shows that Paramount is giving Abrams and his team the budget and resources to achieve their goal to re-energizing the Trek franchise.

Trek and ILM have a long history going back to 1982 and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan which was only their 3rd non-Lucas production (ILM lists the CGI created Genesis effect in STII as one of their key technical achievements). ILM also went on to do the effects for STIII, STIV, STVI, Generations and First Contact. They also did the effects for the pilot of The Next Generation. Since the late 70s ILM has been the gold standard for visual effects racking up a number of Academy Awards. In addition to six Star Trek films (and of course all six Star Wars films), ILM has worked on most of the films of the last 25 years with space effects including Galaxy Quest, The Chronicles of Riddick, Space Coyboys, Deep Impact, Starship Troopers, E.T. and of course Spaceballs.

ILM packs the ships into this shot from Star Wars Episode III

We will see the Enterprise
The other non surprising but significant thing we can now confirm is that the Enterprise (NCC-1701) will appear in the film. In the world of Star Trek the ships and especially The Enterprise(s) are as beloved as the heroes themselves. Since Star Trek (2008) is a prequel it was unclear if the ship would make an appearance. Now we know that we will see Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise in Star Trek (2008). Some version of an Enterprise has appeared in every single Trek film (although the Enterprise A is only shown briefly at the end of STIV, but in Generations you even had two Enterprises: B & D). It is still unclear how big a role in the film the Enterprise has in the new film, but bear in mind that the writers describe the film as ‘a starship adventure.’

This will not be the first time ILM have worked on the NCC-1701 in a feature film. The ‘refit’ version of the Enterprise (built for Star Trek: The Motion Picture) appeared in the Star Trek II and Star Trek III (where ILM showed the ship get destroyed…see below). ILM also worked with the replacement Enterprise-A (Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI), and built the (Excelsior class reuse) Enterprise-B (Generations), the Enterprise D (TNG) and Enterprise E (First Contact). Of course almost all of ILM’s previous Trek work (and even some of their work on M:I:III) was model work, but a year ago they sold their model shop making ILM all digital (although they still work with their former model shop on some shots).

The end of the NCC 1701 (STII:TSFS)…will we see the beginning?

What will it look like?
The Original Series design for the Enterprise has never been seen in a feature film. When they made Star Trek: The Motion Picture the ship was ‘refit’ to make it look better on the big screen. That is explained away because the ship was literally put into spacedock to get an upgrade. The Enterprise for the new Star Trek will be from the time around or before the The Original Series. Of course, even the original model went through some minor changes throughout the three seasons…most notably the switch away from the pilot version’s pointy nacelle caps. The current ‘Star Trek Remastered’ project approaches creating a digital version of the Enterprise (pictured below) with the brief to make it match as closely as possible to the original. However, that project is literally replacing shots from within the original show whereas the film is a stand-alone piece. Therefore, Trekkies should probably expect some level of changes with regards to the new Enterprise. Regardless the new ILM Enterprise is sure to spark just as much debate as the CBS-Digital Enterprise for TOS-R. To date the film makers have not talked much about the look of the new movie, but this issue is something they are pondering. Unlike their approach to the story matching up with the canon, this section from an MTV interview with the writers (and exec. producers) shows that they may be more flexible on the look:

We’re not going to start totally from scratch. We want it to feel like it’s updated and of the now. That’s actually the discussions we’re having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing’s new. It’s tricky.

CBS-Digital Enteprise from Star Trek Remastered ("Mirror Mirror")

VOTE: How do you feel about change?
do you want to see the Big E exactly as it was, a new design…something in between. Vote in the new Enterprise poll (right column)


1. FreddyE - July 2, 2007

oh yeah…Enterprise NCC 1701 no damn NX, A, B, C, D, or E….;-)
Majestetically moving out of the dock….*sigh*

2. Kev - July 2, 2007

Good news. I hope they use both a physical model and CGI, as they have dome with many Star Wars ships. Either way, what they do will be good.

3. Admiral Kent - July 2, 2007

Okay…I’m excited! It’ll be great having ILM back. Now if only James Horner was doing the score…

4. Anthony Pascale - July 2, 2007

Kev…I added a sentence to clarify that. ILM do not do model work anymore. In fact some of the last model work they did was with MI3 (the helicopter sequence)

5. Jeff - July 2, 2007

ILM without models? What has the world come to?

6. Joe - July 2, 2007

I hope they re-design the 1701 to update it. It looked futuristic for 1967, but it looks like a 1960’s spaceship in 2007.

Take a look at this beauty…..that should be the new 1701

7. Jeyl - July 2, 2007

“ has confirmed two things that should not come as a surprise with regards to the new ‘Star Trek’ film in pre-production.”

Not come as a surprise? ILM (My favorite visual effects company) hasn’t worked with Star Trek in 11 years and it’s shown. Bringing them back for this next feature had me jumping for joy all over the place at work. This is like a dream come true!

8. Joe - July 2, 2007

Here are some more pics..

9. Joe - July 2, 2007

Click on the picture again to get a better look at the detail

10. stspringfield - July 2, 2007

this guy needs a job…at CBS-D

11. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

It looks like a cartoon.


12. Xai - July 2, 2007

Paramount takes a good step forward with hiring JJ and now contracts with ILM.

Somehow someone here will find this to be a bad thing, but I think it’s another positive movement toward a good movie on Christmas ’08.

E is back in good hands again.

13. Floydhead Max! - July 2, 2007

OK, here are my thoughts:

#1.) If ILM has any intention of using a physical model, they should ask the air and space museum for access to the original 18 foot shooting model from the series and use THAT one. Nothing has ever looked as good (my opinion anyway!) and that is the ship Kirk and Spock should be on.

#2.) If it’s going to be all digital, I sure hope they do a better job than CBSdigital did, especially with the nacelle caps! We will never hear the end of it if it looks like the first few remasters!! LOL!!
Until Next Time,

14. Joe - July 2, 2007

The guy who did it is named Gabe koerner. He was that kid in the first Trekkies movie…remember the one with the long blond hair with his dad in the truck that looked like a shuttle craft.

He actually realized his dream and he was on staff for the last Season of “Enterprise”. He has also done effects work on the new Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek Voyager.

Here is his website…

15. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

For the record: RICHARD TAYLOR and ANDY PROBERT redesigned the Enterprise used in STAR TREK:TMP – STAR TREK VI: TUC. Doug Trumbull only made some minor suggestion/additions to the model after Robert Abel and Associates was fired by Robert Wise. Trumbull added the extra detail around the lower saucer dome and the spotlights that appear on the hull of the ship.

Other than that, it was (largely) all TAYLOR and PROBERT!

16. Michael Hall - July 2, 2007

My awesome prediction: any way ILM chooses to go, retro or revamped, all CGI or model–a number of folks here will be unhappy, with a subset ready to go on the warpath. But if anything intrigues me about this project more than the story or recasting, it will be how they choose to approach the conondrum of designing a retro-future, and if they have better luck at it than the designers on “Enterprise” did.

17. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

Prolly. Enterprise should be SMOOTH skinned as seen in TOS…not that junky plated look that we saw in Enterprise…

18. Xai - July 2, 2007


Before someone jumps all over the “no model” comments, please realize we are talking about ILM here, the “king”. This is not CBS-D.
While CBS-D has been doing a wonderful job, in my opinion ILM’s work will not disappoint when it comes to reviving Enterprise on the big screen.

19. Rover ILP - July 2, 2007

re: 2 – “James Horner….score”

I read earlier that Michael Gianchinno was the favorite of Team Abrams. I hope this turns out to be the case. I had not bought a soundtrack in years, and then I gave a close listen to “the Incredibles”. His music has the right pacing, feel and versatility for Trek. He may be able to remain true to the original Courage themes, while give us something fresh.

The problem with Horner’s scores is they keep turning up. Give a re-listen to Cocoon, The Rocketeer, Aliens, Titanic, Apollo 13, Braveheart, and Katie’s CBS Evening News theme. You can hear the Enterprise leaving Regula 1 heading for Mutara over and over again. The Titanic version would make a nice soundtrack for “Steam Trek”!

Love the site.

20. Jawinka Smith - July 2, 2007

Good to see ILM working on Trek. To me, they are the the epitomy of effects.

21. mb - July 2, 2007

ILM probably hasn’t used models for any on-air use for a good ten years.

22. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - July 2, 2007

#10 – How about NO!

Some things you don’t mess with, and the Big E is one of them.

23. Joe - July 2, 2007

Acutally they have…

ILM did the crash sequence in Nemesis……and before you say I am wrong….find out yourself.

The crash sequence in nemesis was actually a model!!

24. Xai - July 2, 2007

Something that needs said.

Anthony, thanks to you and Trekmovie for keeping us informed. It’s not said often enough.


25. T Negative - July 2, 2007

I want the original 1701!! That’s what should be there and it has proven to hold up even today with the re-mastered project. I think the original 1701 looks great when photographed with modern techniques.

What is wrong with this??

Great news regarding ILM doing the project!!!

26. Joe - July 2, 2007

The old ship on the big screen would appeal only to us fans. to the new crowd it would look boring and bland.

I say update the ship!!!!

27. marv - July 2, 2007

If they stay true to Trek history, I wonder how they want to include the Enterprise. Kirk had as Captain two predecessors (Pike and April) and Memory Alpha says: “Pike’s half-Vulcan science officer, Spock, who served under him for over eleven years […]”

28. Joe - July 2, 2007

And going off the “old ship will look boring on screen” idea….can you imagine if they kept the original corridors from the original series……

Update the look like “Enterprise” did save the NX-01.

29. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 2, 2007


30. Craig - July 2, 2007

They wont have the interior, the customes and props look like the 60’s set right? I say keep the outside the same but maybe have the Enterprise A’ computer system. Would that be good?

31. Joe - July 2, 2007

I think the original exterior of the ship is too boring for the big screen. Heck, even the first movie knew that.

As much as I love the original 1701, it’s just too boring and bland for newbies to the franchise.

At this point they are more important then us…why? Because even if we all went to go see it, it still would not mean success for the movie.

We need new fans to make this movie a success.

And if that means altering canon, or the ships then go right ahead.

32. Nelson - July 2, 2007

ILM’s involvement is good news.

Gabe Koerner does a nice job as a CG artist. But I don’t care for his view of the Enterprise. In my opinion, and I am a designer, his design is too busy and over worked. I am speaking from a designers point of view, and not from a view point of being slavish to TOS.

As much as I would love to see a CGI Enterprise 1701 as it appears in TOS, I’m sure this will not be the case as they have to modify it as it was done for Star Trek The Motion Picture in order to have the level of detail that today’s audiences demand. But I think it can be done very, very minimally. Matt Jeffries’ design is a classic and it doesn’t have to be tarted up.

Anthony’s article is right, the new 1701 design will be a very active subject of discussion in the near future.

33. Joe - July 2, 2007

What have you designed Nelson?

34. Joe - July 2, 2007

What have you designed Nelson?

From a designers point of view doesn’t the original ship scream 1960’s sci fi tv show…cause it will to everyone else who is not a Trek fan.

35. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 2, 2007


I do not like the look of the clips you linked us to. Not that they were not well-done, they just don’t have the right look.

And I really have no interest in “the new crowd.” I know there are those who say without the new crowd, Star Trek will die. Well, if they fiddle with it too much it is already dead for me.

36. Joe - July 2, 2007

Sorry for the double post. dont take it as me being a jerk…


37. Craig - July 2, 2007

How about a cross between the 1701 and the 1701 E? I

I knew the post I did before was a stupid question. With the budget being huge and using ILM their is no way they would do Trek like the 60’s version.

38. Joe - July 2, 2007

You have no interest in the new crowd?

So you don’t care about the franchise continuing on then huh?

If you did, you would realize attracting more fans is much more important then keeping things exactly as they have been for the last 40 years.

39. Gsmarty Pants - July 2, 2007

Good news, good news.

As for the ship, I hope they keep the original contours but give it the shiny aircraft aluminum-type skin like Gabriel Koerner’s model.

Nerding out at work, what?

40. Lao3D - July 2, 2007

I think there’s a lot that can be done to subtly enhance the lines and texture of the original Matt Jeffries design without having it look like something that’s been assimilated by the Borg. But we know engineers — they LOVE to change things…

41. Joe - July 2, 2007

Poster: Gsmarty

I could go for that. It just needs a fresh appearance. Something that will look like the future we envision today, not the future they envisioned 40 years ago.

42. Rick - July 2, 2007

Assuming ILM tries to remain relatively faithful to the original 1701, the challenge — and, I think, the approach most likely to satisfy most moviegoers — is to create an Enterprise that basically looks like what the original would ‘look’ like if it were a real starship previously projected on a small TV screen now projected on a hi-def movie screen. In other words, we should be looking at it and saying, “Oh yeah, THAT’S what it really looks like, I just never saw it that close/big/resolved before.” That’s a tough order. Good luck to ILM!

43. Kelvington - July 2, 2007

Well, the look of the ship they HAVE to keep exactly the same as the 1960’s version. There’s no way a spiffy updated E is going to draw anyone in, so keep the ship looking the same for the fans sake.

If they are sitting in production meetings and saying, “you know what would really draw fans in?” “An updated ship design, just like in BSG!” They would be very, very wrong. While I don’t mind making it look better for the big screen, I don’t think they should touch a thing. In fact they should get the original model, PAINT IT PROPERLY, not like the rubbish it looks like now. Thank you very much whatever dumbass who ruined it with that stupid flipping paint job! Then make scan it or GOD FORBID shoot the model for the big screen.

Make it look like this –

44. Chris Pike - July 2, 2007

Ultimately, the classic 60’s E has become the most recognisable, charismatic, famous and beautiful of fictional spacecraft ever realised on film. They would have to be very brave to alter her or reimagine her for the film. They would also have to be very brave to leave her looking identical, with perhaps some extra extreme fine detailing on close up. I wouldn’t expect to see any changes to the extent of Gabriels excellent rendition, nor would I want to.

45. Joe - July 2, 2007

You guys just don’t get it……

Keeping that ship the same will make you guys happy, but it won’t translate into anything that the new audience can relate too.

The original design looks dated….it even looked dated in 1978-1979 as well.

For the fans sake….you mean the fans who will watch anything with Star Trek on it, the fans that only like TOS, the fans who only like DS9….

We can’t speak about the fans as if we are one group who want to see exactly the same thing!!!

46. THX-1138--Fred's old Space Ship - July 2, 2007

Rick, I would tend to agree with what you said. At least it’s an answer that could live with.
Here’s where I become a dickhead:

DO NOT fancy up the Enterprise exterior design with modern visions of what it SHOULD HAVE looked like. It’s an icon. My prediction would be that you would be shooting yourself in the foot if you did. Cripes, even people who don’t know Trek from shinola know the E. I respect the skill that Gabe Koerner has. I just don’t happen to like his re-imagining of a starship that I personally regard as an old friend. I like the ship more than many characters in the show for heavens sake.
And Stanky, they get my vote for red bridge railings!

47. norm - July 2, 2007


ILM is the best!

48. Anthony Pascale - July 2, 2007

I have added a poll on the look of the Enterprise

you want an exact copy or are you more flexible? vote in the poll

49. Flake - July 2, 2007

I am 100% certain the 60s look will be updated to an extent. Personally I hope they go for a semi-refit kind of look. Aztec patterns, spotlights, photon torp tubes, movie-era fonts/decals, movie era window patterns – but have it look visibly inferior to the refit, perhaps with older nacelles & a different deflector dish.

I do think they will end up going the Gabe Koerner route though and making something completley new, but my idea would preserve canon to a degree and make it look appealing to todays ipod generation.

50. Joe - July 2, 2007

ipod generation….whats that supposed to mean

Looks like you are getting old Flake…..

So I guess you were called the 8-Track generation?

51. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 2, 2007

re: 38 Joe
“So you don’t care about the franchise continuing on then huh?
If you did, you would realize attracting more fans is much more important then keeping things exactly as they have been for the last 40 years. ”

I have nothing against Star Trek continuing. What I am against is trying to redo the series-era with new actors and an Enterprise that doesn’t look like the Enterprise from that time. They could do some other starship with some other crew and that would be fine with me.

It is difficult to imagine anything they could do to change my stance on this. Time will tell, I guess.

52. Joe - July 2, 2007

They probably wont change your stance on this. You will refuse to watch a change….in a piece of fiction…and you will be left behind. The franchise will move on without you.

53. Trekkie84 - July 2, 2007

My biggest concern with the enterprise appearing, and this being an “early” adventure with Kirk and Spock is the Year(s) and who’s in command, its well known Pike at least came before Kirk, and that Kirk didn’t get the ENT until whatever year the second pilot takes place.

54. Joe - July 2, 2007

It’s Fiction…its ok to change stuff a little bit.

55. Anthony Pascale - July 2, 2007

Joe, do you need to reply to ever single post….I may agree with your points but you are spamming at this point

56. Joe - July 2, 2007

What if the new Trek movie is about World War III?

57. Joe - July 2, 2007

How is that spamming?

Guess this isn’t a chat board…..

58. Joe - July 2, 2007

You should get Phbb…its free and much more easy to talk to each other then the current format.

And you aren’t considered a spammer when you converse with your fellow posters!!

59. Joe - July 2, 2007

And you can edit your posts, so you don’t have to keep adding meaningless posts!!!

60. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 2, 2007

re: 52. Joe – July 2, 2007
“They probably wont change your stance on this. You will refuse to watch a change….in a piece of fiction…and you will be left behind. The franchise will move on without you.”

There is nothing wrong with liking things a certain way. Nothing at all.

61. THX-1138--Fred's old Space Ship - July 2, 2007

It’s America. Feel free to change whatever you want.
I will see this movie no matter what. But if the powers that be would like me, and others like me to make return trips to the theater, or purchase the DVD, perhaps some attention should be paid to the “8 track generation” that has been loyal from the beginning. If I am in the minority, so be it. Some things I don’t want screwed with and the E is one of them. Don’t screw up the old Coke either. How’d that work out?
And sorry Stanky, I can live with new actors playing the old characters. BUT they better do a good job or I’m out.

Wow, I HAVE turned into my old man.

62. Joe - July 2, 2007

Of course there is nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with refusing to watch something just because you think something important to you changed to much. It will keep you from experiencing something new and fresh and fun!

63. Tyler - July 2, 2007

From my perspective as a model-maker, I find that the Enterprise as it was in ’69 looks fine, unless you blow it up to a larger size. Then you need to add details, like panel lines, hatches, and markings, so that the final version doesn’t look “toy-like”. I’ve built both a ten-inch version of the Enterprise and a 22″ version and the smaller version looks better even though I kept the same markings and details. The only way a larger version can work is if there is more detail. There should be a subtle panel-work all over the ship, as if it’s made up of plates of metal and not concrete. But I must stress that I don’t want the actual design changed at all, just detailed so that it doesn’t look like a B-movie ship. Also, someone PLEASE put in recognizable phaser and photon torpedo ports!!

Here’s my Enterprise(along with a paper Reliant):

64. neal - July 2, 2007

I love ILM as much as my first-born.

65. TrekMD - July 2, 2007

I think it is totally unrealistic to expect for there to be no changes to the Enterprise. As much as I like and respect Matt Jeffries work, the ship will need updating. No, I’m not advocating a major change of the design…that is clealry not necessary since the design itself holds up with current FX as evidenced by the two Enterprise Mirror episodes. But details, as Tyler mentions, would enchance the ship. I, for one, would favor adding a glow to the nacelles and behind the deflector among other details.

This is one issue, however, where I can see ILM is going to have a lot to deal with!

66. Sponge Bob - July 2, 2007

Tyler makes a good point RE: weapons
One thing about the original is that the weapons make no sense. There is just a single turret on the ship that fires all forms of weapons? What if someone is behind or above you? That alone shows that from a practical point of view you really have to start making some changes. This is the kind of thing they realised when they made TMP…they made the ship more believable for the big screen. I see no reason not to do the same this time. Sure it wont perfectly match TOS,  but you know what? I can deal with that

67. Joe - July 2, 2007

I am less concerned about how the ship fires its weapons, than about a good solid story and plot.

Remember Star Trek isn’t about how the ship fires its torpedoes….but it with the advent of Techno-babble…..we now argue about how a ship looks rather then what wonders of space our crew will find in the next movie.

Techno-babble was a smart move on the Part of Berman and Braga…..we forgot that Star Trek was about exploration and instead worry about weapons upgrades.

68. urseus - July 2, 2007

All i want is the cool Cage and Where no man has gone before uniforms. They would look really good on the big screen, maybe moderned up just a little.


69. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 2, 2007

re: 62. Joe

I don’t care about new and fresh and fun. And I never said I refuse to see it. It’s unlikely I will watch it more than once.

70. Nelson - July 2, 2007

re post # 33 and 34-Joe

I am an industrial designer, I designed medical products, toys,computer and consumer stuff and such. Essentially, a hardware designer with an aesthetic and functional focus.

As Tyler pointed out, the original design is still good. It’s an icon now. What we are used to seeing in TOS was a pretty cool model in it’s day. As has been said, it can’t stand up to the fidelity of a movie screen as is. Keeping the overall design the same, proportions and forms the same can still work.

However, for a feature film, the details require some fleshing out, surface panels (not necessarily the aztec design), hatches, graphics, portholes, weapons, how the nacelles attach to the lower hull, how are the bussard collectors treated, etc, etc. What they did for Star Trek TMP essentially, but keeping the forms and proportions simialr to the TV series, meaning no angled engine pylons, or flallened engines. Gabe went too far in his take, in my opinion.

A wholesale redesign that’s of the same aesthetic of the Voyager and Ent E is a mistake. It’s too far removed.

71. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 2, 2007

The Original Enterprise (NCC-1701 in its original configuration) is likely the result of the design ethics of the Star Trek era. in “Trials and Tribbulations” Dax made a comment about that.

It is not “boring,” it is the design ethic of its time. Sort of like how a 1957 Chevy has “fins” and a PT Crusier of moder times tries to reflect a design ethic.

The new movie could make some minor changes with details, but the link you posted is almost hyperbole.

This is my take on TOS style ships…

1) Earlier time periods used the detailed metal panel look, i.e. NX-01. The designers of the Constitution Class likely wanted a “sleeker” look and designed this vessle to have a plain look. Even the interiors show this simple design ethic.

2) This was the design ethic from when the Constitution Class’s inception until the TMP era where advances in Warp Drive and other energy systems called for a “retrofit.” Thus, the REDESIGNED Constitution Class looks as it does because it has “next generation” (as in “beta model,” not “TNG”) technology grafted on to it.

This set up a new design ethic that continued until the Excelsor and Ambassador where we went “sleek” again. Resulting in the Galaxy class and its other contemporaries.

The next step involved mitigation of the Borg.

72. Dave - July 2, 2007

(Hey, newbie here, figured I’d finally join in).

Anyway, even though I think the classic design still works great, I think we need to realize that not everybody loves the “retro-cool” stuff as much as we do. Even if you add some more plating and a few more lines, general audiences are STILL just going to see a flying saucer with a bunch of simple cigar shapes stuck to it.

Plus an updated ship design would prepare people for all the other changes. I know for me , it would be very odd to see the same ol’ Enterprise with completely different actors walking around inside playing Kirk and Spock. A newer looking ship would make it much easier to accept these new actors. At least for me.

73. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 2, 2007

72. Dave – July 2, 2007

I don’t see that as an issue. We can create a movie where newbies will enjoy it as an intro to the franchise and also give the fans what they want.

I see the new Movie version as one that shoudl have minor details. If it looked like the Original Enterprise from a reasonable distance, but as some have said, more detailed when closer…it think that could be mitigated in the mind of fans.

However, don’t give me the redesigned “Jupiter II” from the NEW LOST IN SPACE…why, because most people remember the old “Jupiter II” where as the NEW LOST IN SPACE is almost forgotten.

This can be proven by doing a google image search on Lost in Space…

’nuff said.

74. JohnnyMoo - July 2, 2007

I think the original design would work just fine. It’s majestic and doesn’t look like anything else in science fiction. As far as Gabe Koerner’s version is concerned, it’s well rendered and it is well designed, but it’s also pretty ugly, clunky and is detailed just like any other space craft design nowadays. The simplicity of the original 1701 can’t be beaten.

75. Magic_Al - July 2, 2007

The TOS Enterprise has appeared in a feature film. “Airplane II” used a TOS Enterprise flyby film element from Paramount’s vaults for the gag when Shatner looked through the periscope. Since it wasn’t just a videotape blowup from an episode but actual film I’d say this counts as a big-screen debut. It looked great!

76. urseus - July 2, 2007

I think they need to stop making them to pull in new audiences. It should be made 100% canon, assuming you have seen most of the original series and movies, and know abit about how the trek universe works. Screw new people. Youll get more return from the millions of trek fans, than from half them and a dozen new people.

77. last o' the timelords - July 2, 2007

#67 Joe
Grow up and leave the adults alone.

78. Dave - July 2, 2007


I agree it should keep the same basic shape, but up close you should REALLY think that you’re looking at something that was created in the distant future (and not just a 1960s-inspired future).

Simply throwing some aztec plating or a few more lights onto the TOS model isn’t going to be enough. I wouldn’t want it to be as gunked up with detail as the NX-01 was, but probably something in between that and the TOS-E might work….

79. TrekLog » Blog Archive » Trek XI - ILM macht Effekte - July 2, 2007

[…] Laut den Quellen des Trek Movie Report hat sich ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) als Effektschmiede bereit gestellt, obwohl Paramount als auch ILM selbst nicht das geringste davon zu bestätigen gedenken… ILM ist für sämtliche Trek-Produktionen der Vergangenheit zuständig gewesen, lediglich in den letzten Jahren hat man wohl auf kostengünstigere Firmen gesetzt. Krasse Beispiele für “billige” Effekte anderer Firmen bieten die Filme Star Trek V: The Final Frontier und Star Trek IX: Insurrection, welche u.a. auch deswegen schlecht an den Kassen abschnitten… Was jedoch für den kommenden Film bestätigt wurde, betrifft hochoffiziell die Mitwirkung von Kirk, Spock und der 1701! Man darf also gespannt sein, wer in die Rollen schlüpfen wird und wie die Original-Enterprise dank ILM auf der großen Leinwand zur Wirkung gelangt. Der Trek Movie Report hat übrigens auch einen Vote zur Verfügung gestellt, in dem es genau um diese Frage geht. Soll die Enterprise lediglich detaillierter dargestellt werden oder darf man fürs Kino flexibler sein, gerade in Bezug zum ersten Star Trek-Film, in dem das Schiff ganz offiziell ein 2 Jahre andauerndes Upgrade im Raumdock erhalten hat, da der visuelle Stil der Serie schon anno 1979 fürs Kino doch etwas zu antiquiert gewirkt haben mochte… Ach ja, auch Autor Roberto Orci gab mal wieder ein paar kryptische Infoschnipsel von sich. Star Trek XI werde nicht zwangsläufig ein Prequel bzw. Reboot sein. Es werde eher eine Einführung in Star Trek sein und quasi aus zwei Filmen in einem bestehen. Man kann davon ausgehen, dass er damit die Zweigleisigkeit des Projektes anspricht, das sowohl für Fans als auch für normale Zuschauer gemacht sein soll (wie eigentlich jeder Trek-Film in der Vergangenheit, und kaum einer konnte das einhalten). Somit liege die Bewertung dessen, wie neu- oder altmodisch der Film sei, wohl im Auge des Betrachters einer dieser beiden Zuschauergruppen. Gerade hier darf man gespannt sein, denn das Aufarbeiten der Trek-Vergangenheit muss tatsächlich nicht zwangsläufig die Bezeichnung Prequel tragen. Es kann auch sein, dass der Film in der Zukunft spielt, und Shatner bzw. Nimoy erzählen rückwirkend von früheren Abenteuern bzw. Shatner aka ‘der echte Kirk’ befindet sich noch immer im Nexus (d. h. sein Tod in Star Trek: Generations war nur der Tod einer Kopie) und Spock versucht, ihn da raus zu holen (im Nexus sind Zeit- und Raumsprünge kein Problem und ohne Bedeutung). Man erinnere sich dabei auch an die Bring Back Kirk-Fankampagne, die u. a. genau das thematisiert hat. Also es gibt da 1000 Deutungsmöglichkeiten, was ein Film im Film denn nun alles sein kann… BTW Sat.1 hatte beizeiten mal die wöchentliche FilmFilm-Reihe… […]

80. Dennis Bailey - July 2, 2007

While ILM sold off its model units a year or two ago, they continue to exist as Kerner Optical – an independent firm that ILM works with when miniatures are called for. Kerner, for instance, built a good deal of stuff for the “Pirates Of The Carribean” movies:

So simply because ILM is doing the film doesn’t rule out the use of miniatures as they think appropriate – it’s not that they no longer use them, they just don’t do that stuff in-house any more.

The basic contours of what would become the TMP Enterprise were actually laid down by Matt Jefferies in 1977 – the design was extensively enhanced and modified by Probert and Taylor, but they didn’t originate the major changes like disposing of the cylindrical nacelles or adding the visible torpedo tubes or the swept-back pylons. Jefferies did all that. The TMP designers improved upon his choices a great deal.

81. Dennis Bailey - July 2, 2007

Here’s Probert’s web page devoted to the redesign he and Taylor did based upon Jefferies’ Phase II redesign:

82. dil - July 2, 2007

Info to help form the upcoming movie has to be culled from references in TOS and other Star Trek series. Like John Gil being an instructor at the academy. As for the ship, the same. Take references from The Cage, and if willing Archer’s Enterprise. Conceptual art from Roddenberry may be justified, but the ship design doesn’t seem as it’s been retrofitted. The deflector dish and/or the shuttle bay may be candidates. Most upgrades would be internal – new tech.

83. Kelvington - July 2, 2007

#73 – That’s a PERFECT point about the NEW Jupiter II, your 100% correct. How many more fans did that bring in? The robot in that film was ASS, by comparison to the original. Like Matt LeBlanc’s career it’s been long forgotten and we will only have the warm fuzzys for Robot and the original J2.

If they go in and screw with this too much, rest assure while I might see it, I’ll be buying a ticket for Harry Potter or whatever rubbish film is out there and walking into the Trek theater. It’s both effective and mean at the same time.

Look at Die Hard, here is a film where they tried to water it down to make it more appealing, to bring in a wider audience, and people chose a RAT over Bruce Willis… A RAT!!!! And while the CGI film was cool, it was by no means as good as any of the R-Rated Die Hard Films were.

Paramount better get it’s head out of it’s ass, and realize that a good film, one that I will want to see over and over will be a thousand times better than some water downed Star Trek that is meant to bring young ones in, or appeal to a broader audience.

You can make a movie that does both… it was called Galaxy Quest, it only made 71 million in the US, but how much more would it have made if it had Shatner and company in it? You could have added another 100 million to the till.

The good news is, no matter how bad this films could be, no matter how much they screw it up… the good news is, that in five years time, someone else will give it a crack, and maybe they will learn from the past, and just make a good Trek film, and not just a movie that has some Trek crap in it.

84. Driver - July 2, 2007

The difference in the new E. is going to be akin to a 1967 Mustang versus a 2007 Mustang.

85. Dave - July 2, 2007

Actually I thought the new LiS robot (at least the bigger version) was cool as hell. It was about the ONLY cool thing in that movie.

And yeah the redesigned Jupiter 2 sucked, but that doesn’t mean ALL redesigned ships that are ever created in the future are going to suck too.

86. Redshirt - July 2, 2007

That’s the best news I heard about this production is ILM’s Involvement in the special effects. After so many years of so many Effects companies doing a sub-standard job in Trek films. I have more faith in the effects than the story so far though. You really cant do a decent Star Trek classic story without the original Enterprise.

87. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 2, 2007

84. 67 Mustang

I had a ’67 Mustang for 29 years…and it’s the best design for the car bearing that name. Disapointed that Ford didn’t go more retro. I think the analogy holds true for the Big E.

88. Anthony Pascale - July 2, 2007

i had a red 66 mustang convertible…i miss that car. I like the new stang too though.

Personally I think the best Enterprise of all was the TMP refit enterprise. That is also the one best known to movie audiences. I would have no problem if the new ship looked more like that than the 1965 model.

I do find the current poll interesting…only one out of five are in the change=bad category. Bearing in mind that this site\’s readership is a sample of only a fraction of the film\’s target market…and certainly the most fervent.



am curious…will anyone not go see the movie if they know the model doesn look the way they want it to look? (and if otherwise the reviews are good and the film sticks close to canon storywise)

89. Olde Timey Fan - July 2, 2007

It is interesting to note the level of discussion at this site. Last year, when it was new, there was a good deal more said about the nature of the stories, the sepcial effects understood merely as enabliers of suspension of disbelief.

Today, summer of 2007, the discussion has devolved to, frankly, geek shit over whether new fans will be induced by the coolness of some made-up spaceship computer image. GOOD GRIEF! IT’S A FRIGGIN’ CARTOON PEOPLE!

The main purpose of retaining the old design esthetic, with or without added detail, is to give a little present to the 40+ year fans who have provided a substantial standard fo living for anyone in a Star Trek leadership capacity at Paramount. I have got to tell you, anyone who thinks John Q. Public gives a rat’s ass about the Enterprise design is deep in juvenile denial — despite the obvious fun we have here, ripping CBS-D’s decisions to shreds.

No — this MUST be a bet, wet kiss to us original Trekkers. I may have been only 3 years old at the time, but I remember The Doomsday Machine from network programming. I earned the right to see my beloved Enterprise on a 25 foot screen! I cannot adequately express the heart-breaking, crushing shock of seeing the strange, new Enterprise of TMP. Totally devastating!

Anyway, there aren’t enough nerds in all the world to finance a movie of this magnitude on the strength of its spaceship design being “now”. Just look at the disaster the fanboy indulgences have been — nothing more than a deep, black, money-sucking hole because no one cares if the spaceship makes a 10th grade boy horny — the stories and the acting JUST PLAIN SUCK! Who the hell cares if the E looks good when the acting is abominable and the story is worse????!!? It’s nothing more than a $50,000 boondoggle for a handful of insane fans with too much time on their hands. And no one here should be so naive as to believe otherwise.

So what do we learn from this?

Audiences could not care less about the particulars of SFX etc. So long as they don’t distract anyone, NO ONE CARES!

Stories and strong acting are what attract a paying audience. Have one but not the other? Well, it’s the difference between drama and farce.

But theatre has been here and been drawing audiences for at least 2,500 years with no SFX top speak of. We still read Aristophenes and Shakespeare and Dunne to this very day becasue they were geniuses with something to say.

Star Trek is a pop-art retelling of the classics at its best, and a bizarre, masturbatory mix of geek-fantasies of “Aztec plating”, “phaser turrets”, “canon” and other bullshit at its worst. If possible, it’s even more insulting when all that effort is wasted on people that never lived in civilizations that never existed about a time that never happened!


And it must not reflect the ethos of a dwindling number of infantile fanboys who care more about the color of a (non-existant) “Bussard Collector” than they do a jaw-dropping, mind-blowing story that makes sense to REAL, LIVE, BRATHING MEN AND WOMEN with REAL LIVE FAMILIES, CHILDREN, JOBS, NEIGHBORS AND THE PROBLEMS OF LIVING AND DYING.

(That last phrase was from “The Cage” for those not old enough to know that life existed before Apple Computers.)

Olde Timey Fan hath spoken.

90. Joe - July 2, 2007

Sing it brother!!!!

91. Dennis Bailey - July 2, 2007

#89: ” I earned the right to see my beloved Enterprise on a 25 foot screen!”

Actually, you haven’t done anything to “earn” something from the people who make “Star Trek.”

You’ve obviously gotten a fair-value exchange for any money you’ve paid them for entertainment, because you continued to do so.

If/when you weren’t getting a fair exchange for your money, you stopped paying them.

Rational economics: value-for-value exchange there.

It’s the geeky fan nonsense about “deserving” and “earning” and being entitled to something from the Trek people that’s *really* sad.

92. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

To Nelson:

Man, you are right 200%!!! The original ship just does not need that much tweaking. Maybe add some glowing panels to the inside of the engines where those glowless grills are now…and streamline a couple things here and there…otherwise, it’s perfect almost AS IS. I wouldn’t mind if they added the aztec pattern that the ST:TMP ship had…that was just the right amount of detailing on that ship!

One other thing…I HATED it when they started fattening the connecting dorsal between the primary and secondary hulls. The only ship that looked elegant with this, IMO, is the NCC-1701-D (and, go figure…Probert again had a hand in the design for that one! So, naturally, it looked GOOD!). I hated the Excelsior and the Enterprise E. To me, starship design started going wrong when they fattened or reduced the dorsal and started messing with the shape of the saucer section! The saucer section should be ROUND! Not arrow shaped, crescent shaped, oblong…whatever.

Nilo Rhodis Jamero was one of the worst things to happen to starship design. After Excelsior, I just hated the designs…in the features that is.


93. Prem - July 2, 2007

Adding detail to the Enterprise…tick.

Re-imaging the bridge controls etc to make “sense”…tick

Changing the shape of the Enterprise to resemble a ST:VOY era vessel…………..HERESY!!

This would represent a wholesale breech of canon that conceptually invalidates the rich and complex world that has already been structured progressively for 40 years. From a marketing perspective it is an “all-in” bet. You would have to create something so good that core fans were ready to abandon their doctrinal stances and adopt the rebooted Star Trek whole heartedly. It is sort of asking them to imagine all that they had seen before was a “dream” that could be discounted back to zero at the moment the new “Star Trek” hit the screens.

This franchise is not Lost in Space or Battlestar Galactica. Comparisons to those are irrelevant. This is a franchise on par with Star Wars, for complexity and cultural enthusiasm. Admittedly it has been run down by a number of poor decisions; and yes making G.W. Bush Captain of the Enterprise was by far the worst (Rod Stewart theme song a close second).

If there is a fundamental breech with canon here a franchise that could be worth billions will be reduced to fan fiction for decades.

By all means show us new places and new faces, but show some respect to anyone over 18 y/o to whom Star Trek has been an important part of our adult lives and show appropriate regard to its loving fans. What is a loving fan? Someone that knows that:

-the Enterprise is a Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser not just a Starship
-James T. Kirk’s middle name isn’t Teddy
– “The Federation” is an abbreviation

94. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

What’s truly sad are these pretentious Star Trek “experts” who always have to get some kind of dig in the fans. I don’t think anyone actually believes they have “earned” anything from the Trek production team…but many of us are just passionate about “our show” and have strong opinions as to what we want to see.

“Experts” included.

95. JB - July 2, 2007

I’m with Joe on this one. I love TOS but the Enterprise and almost all the effects were just pain ugly. I REALLY like the re-imagined Enterprise Joe linked to. Simply beautiful, if the new movie uses models like that we are in for a real treat visually.

96. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

Gabe’ Enterprise, while technically admirable, is clunky.

The Enterprise should be graceful and sleek. Gabe’s just isn’t.

97. Dennis Bailey - July 2, 2007

#94: ” I don’t think anyone actually believes they have “earned” anything from the Trek production team…”

One would hope not. The rhetoric has gotten really overheated.

98. Dave - July 2, 2007

#7 Just reading your post gave me the chills. Yes its been 11 years and its great to have top notch FX in trek again

99. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

#97 Would you expect anything less from Trek fans? LOL!!! :-)

100. IrishTrekkie - July 2, 2007

i like a lot of people i have seen the re-imagined enterprise that joe linked to before a while back , and i really really like , plus it fits in so well with the nx enterprise look , . i think if ILM, go off in a total new direction it would be a mistake, i have already said i dont want a reboot, this is not battlestar galatica , this is star trek and there is more history and culture on this show then on any other show ever . Anyway i really hope the new movie looks great , and is a great movie .

101. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Enterprise) McFibberich - July 2, 2007

re: 95. JB – July 2, 2007
“I’m with Joe on this one. I love TOS but the Enterprise and almost all the effects were just pain ugly. I REALLY like the re-imagined Enterprise Joe linked to. Simply beautiful, if the new movie uses models like that we are in for a real treat visually.”

Revising my earlier statements, if they use a model like the one Joe linked to then it is safe to assume that I truly will NOT go see it.
The Enterprise as used on the series is far from ugly. Wonderful design.
Obviously the amount of detail needed for the big screen will have to be factored in, but that does not require any significant changes. There are so many other ways in which this could get screwed up. Let’s not start by messing with the main visual element. Hopefully the makers of Star Trek XI will realize this.

102. SPOCKBOY - July 2, 2007

15. THEETrekMaster – July 2, 2007

For the record: RICHARD TAYLOR and ANDY PROBERT redesigned the Enterprise used in STAR TREK:TMP
I had to chime in here.
You are totally mistaken. The genius MATT JEFFRIES designed the Enterprise used in Star Trek TMP for the most part. His design for Star
Trek phase 2….

…was obviously almost exactly what was used in Star Trek TMP.
Give credit where credit is due brother.

Here are the details….
“Gene Roddenberry asked Matt Jefferies to update the famous starship to reflect the refit that the ship had undergone. Jefferies’ redesign changed the engine nacelles from tubes to thin, flat-sided modules, and tapered their supports. He also added the distinctive photon torpedo ports on the saucer connector.

“Basically,” Jefferies said, “what I did to it was change the power units, and make a slight change in the struts that supported them. I gave the main hull a taper, then I went flat-sided and thin with the power units, rather than keeping the cylindrical shape. Trying to work out the logic of the refit, I knew a lot of the equipment inside would change, but I didn’t see that there would be any need to change the exterior of the saucer. Certainly, though, the engines would be a primary thing to change. Part of the theory of the ship’s design in the first place was that we didn’t know what these powerful things were or how devastating it would be if anything went awry, so that’s why we kept them away from the crew. And that meant they could be easily changed if you had to replace one.”

: )

103. Captain Pike (retired) - July 2, 2007


Yes? I’m old but I’m not deaf (yet).

It has to look like the classic Constitution class. More detail would interesting in close ups but it has to be “our” beloved TOS Enterprise with no “Bloody A, B, C, or D.” to quote our favorite engineer.

104. Len Krieger - July 2, 2007

Let me be clear on this point about the Enterprise,

What was wrong with the Original Design in the First Place?!?! All of this talk about changing this or tweeking that makes me see red. If the Original Design of the Enterprise was bad then why has that show survived so long? Why must the ship be Changed or Updated just to revitalize Star Trek? It wasn’t the ship or the sets that sunk Star Trek, we can all point to many tired plot-lines and reused formulas in Voyager and Enterprise that did that!

I say don’t throw away 40 years of History

105. Tripper - July 2, 2007

Speaking as a director, I say that keeping everything as it looked in The Cage is the right way to go, as long as everything has an intentionally retro look (save for the VFX) A retro future look to film would mean classic filming styles of camera movement, composition, lighting, and music. Think of Scoreses’ Cape Fear and how it looked like a Hitchcock film.

I am not a 40 year old fan boy, I simply feel that if anything is reimagined, it would be like saying the last 40 years of Trek are moot. You can’t throw out canon on a franchise like this. To me part of the attraction is the continuity between the series.

106. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

#102 That image is inaccurate.

The model designed by Jeffries (built by Don Loos of Brick Price Movie Miniatures) was SIMILAR to the TMP Enterprise, but I can tell you right now that photo is bogus. That photo IS the model from STP2, but is has been modified by Wonderworks (formerly Brick Price Movie Miniatures) to look like the model from ST:TMP. For example, the detail around the bottom saucer dome that is in that photo did not even exist when the model for P2 was built. That detail was added by Trumbull AFTER RA&A had left the production. Also, the engine details in that picture are all wrong for P2. There is a link further up in this thread to Andy Probert’s site…THAT shows what the P2 ship was going to look like. Also, look at the illustration on the cover to Pocket Books Star Trek Phase 2 book written by Garfield and Reeves. You’ll notice it doesn’t look like the picture you posted the link to.

The Phase 2 miniature was never completed as it was intended to look in the series. Wonderworks finished it YEARS later (relatively recently as seen in the pic you posted a link to), but again, completed it as some weird hybrid between the TMP miniature and the Phase 2 mininature — true to neither.

Look, not to brag or namedrop (because that’s not my bag) but, I KNOW Richard Taylor…and there is an extensive interview I conducted with him back in 2001. I even own an original drawing with notes on it that (that he GAVE me) details the changes made by RA&A. It’s sitting on the bookcase right next to me as a matter of fact.

107. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

#102 That image is inaccurate.

The model designed by Jeffries (built by Don Loos of Brick Price Movie Miniatures) was SIMILAR to the TMP Enterprise, but I can tell you right now that photo is bogus. That photo IS the model from STP2, but is has been modified by Wonderworks (formerly Brick Price Movie Miniatures) to look like the model from ST:TMP. For example, the detail around the bottom saucer dome that is in that photo did not even exist when the model for P2 was built. That detail was added by Trumbull AFTER RA&A had left the production. Also, the engine details in that picture are all wrong for P2. There is a link further up in this thread to Andy Probert’s site…THAT shows what the P2 ship was going to look like. Also, look at the illustration on the cover to Pocket Books Star Trek Phase 2 book written by Garfield and Reeves. You’ll notice it doesn’t look like the picture you posted the link to.

The Phase 2 miniature was never completed as it was intended to look in the series. Wonderworks finished it YEARS later (relatively recently as seen in the pic you posted a link to), but again, completed it as some weird hybrid between the TMP miniature and the Phase 2 mininature — true to neither.

The P2 ship also had pentagonal travel pod doors on the miniature as the travel pods in P2 were going to be flying hedrons that detached from the space office complex.

Look, not to brag or namedrop (because that’s not my bag) but, I KNOW Richard Taylor…and there is an extensive interview I conducted with him back in 2001. I even own an original drawing with notes on it that (that he GAVE me) details the changes made by RA&A. It’s sitting on the bookcase right next to me as a matter of fact.

108. Kevin - July 2, 2007

Well, I don’t see any reason to make drastic changes to the design of the ships exterior. But detailing it so it looks like more like a real ship and less a like a model is something I’d love to see. Having things like the hull plating that we see on the movie models, the way it gave it scale and glistened like real metal. The weathering could be a little improved too. That’s something I’ve always wanted to see. But other than minor things, I personally don’t really see the ship’s design as dated. I have a feeling that the part of the ship that will see the bigest facelift will be the interior (which is dated), but that’s just my speculation.

109. THEETrekMaster - July 2, 2007

Ya know, the more I look at the picture of the so-called Phase 2 Enterprise that Spockboy posted a link to…the more baffled I am as to exactly WHAT miniature that is! I don’t even thing it’s the Brick Price miniature…

If it is, it’s been majorly screwed up!

110. Buckaroohawk - July 2, 2007

If the current Trek film crew maintain their scruples, the classic silhouette of Matt Jeffries’ original Enterprise design will remain essentially the same. I believe a lot of surface detail will be added, however, to give the ship a better sense of scale. There is nothing wrong with the original design, but it will need a bit of a “facelift” to bring it to the big screen.

The speculative design that Gabriel Koerner of Zoic Studios envisioned is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship, but it’s far too heavy-handed in it’s details. It looks like the Battlestar Enterprise. Also, if you look at the size of the windows, he really ramped up the scale of the ship. It looks to be on par with the Enterprise-D in terms of size, which is way, way too big. However, some of the mechanical details, like the warp nacelle caps, are a nice visual touch that I can see making the transition to the new big screen version of the Enterprise.

I’m really looking forward to seeing what ILM comes up with regarding the Enterprise design. As far as I’m concerned, the news that they will be doing the FX is another positive sign for this project.

111. Captain Pike - July 2, 2007

Re: SpockBoy’s pic. A local chain movie theatre (Surrey BC Canada) had about a 10′ model like that back in the early 90s. It had a TMP rear end and engines married to a TOS saucer. It didn’t look like an actual sfx model. I always thought it was just made for display in the movie theatre. Why it was made that way I don’t know. I liked to imagine the makers were using the molds made for ST:P2.

SpockBoy’s pic looks like the ship I remember but I have not seen it in years.

112. Xai - July 2, 2007

Hey Buck, enjoyed the trailer

113. Tony - July 2, 2007

I am most certainly not a 40 year old fan-boy. But I do love that old NCC-1701 from the original series to Search For Spock. Perhaps Kirk said it best way back in an original series episode: “she’s a beautiful lady, and we love her!” As illogical as it may sound to love an inanimate object, its a design that stands the test of time. Its no wonder that the majority of starships that we’ve seen throughout each incarnation of Trek has that basic structure – and may I point out – as does Joe’s reimagined Enterprise.

Definitely will only accept “very close to original with minor details changed.” But that won’t keep me away from the theatre!! :) Wouldn’t want to be that closed-minded.

114. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 2, 2007

Original design, aztec pattern with some nice pearls and metalics like the TMP rather than flat greys. No extranious blue neon, it’s a starship not a Next Gene looking X-mas ornament. Some other minor detailing (docking ports, actual phaser banks and at least detail as to where the torps emit from and tweaks. Why not bring in Andrew Probert?? I kind of Like Gabe’s caps, look like they are crackling with power but still very true to original.
I have faith in these guys, to stay true to the original with some minor tweaks, it’s freakin ILM!!!, Guess I’m crazy judging by the mayhem in the talkback, I’d like it to be 85% original and the rest sensible and interesting tweaking

115. Josh T. ( The trouble with Trek fans is......) Kirk Esq. - July 2, 2007

For the love of God, NO battlestar Enterprise aka Gabes rendition of the Enterprise , which though stylistic and intriguing, in no way shape or form represents the slick symmetry of a majestic 23rd century starship .

Klingons have utilitarian designs to their ships, not the Enterprise.

Jefferies designed the Enterprise smooth because you wouldn’t want crews constantly exposed to the vacuum of space repairing exterior detail and devices.


The Enterprise is clean, neat, pristine, and ocean-liner like. THAT is what distinguishes Star Trek from Star Wars, and all other sci-fi series visually.

Say NO to Battlestar Enterprise.

116. big E - July 2, 2007

I know some people who claim they won’t watch the new transformer movie because of the changes to the robots designs. So I think it’s likely there would be fans who would boycott this movie (or at least claim to) if the design of the Enterprise isn’t 100% what the think it should be.

Personally, I’d like to see the original design, but tweaked to look more realistic on the big screen.

117. Josh T. ( The trouble with Trek fans is......) Kirk Esq. - July 2, 2007


Greeblies, do not scale or detail make.

118. Prem - July 3, 2007

I’m getting the impression there’s some viral marketing going on re the Enterprise reboot concept. This debate is appearing in a few locations. Reimagining the Enterprise’s appearance, other that detail and tweakage is likely to be a mistake. A “money” mistake. It wasn’t done in the Star Wars prequels and shouldn’t be done here. I think there is a lot of scope for reinvigorating the original design with expanded detail and maybe new visual effects that we haven’t seen before. Certainly the bridge can be digitalised with a lot of detail that fits into the existing design.

I am just fearful that if I sit in a movie theatre and see NCC-1701 and it looks like NCC-1701J I will lose all emotional continuity with the franchise. I think a more conservative approach to the visuals that reflects an appreciation of the enormous pre-existing content will better serve all and be better appreciated. I hope that the more tuned in financial guardians at Paramount will take the risk adverse, but creatively sound approach.

Say NO to Frankenstein’s Enterprise.

119. gastrof - July 3, 2007

I tried to vote in the poll on how the Enterprise should look, but the server told me I already had. Interesting. I’d only heard about this a few minutes before coming here, and nobody else had access to my computer or my ISP connection.

120. non-fanatic - July 3, 2007

“Here is his website…

This guy looks like like he could play a young Kirk to me.

121. Joe - July 3, 2007

Gabes Enterprise from another angle….looks spectacular to me!!

122. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 3, 2007

88. 104.

Somebody said on this site fairly recently that Star Trek’s simple designs evoke a point in the future where things have a simplistic practicality. The 1966 designs hold up today because of this. The Big E’s exterior doesn’t need any tweaking! Matt Jefferies was brillaint. Sure, if you want to show some hull plates that are soldered together, fine! But please don’t change things. We don’t need a Battlestar Galactica reboot, and I think Abrams’ team said they won’t do this!! The original series’ Enterprise would be great for the big screen as she is…give ‘er a chance…as Scotty would say, “She’s a beauty!”
Once again… I suggest actor Jesse Lee Soffer who plays Will Munson on the “As The World Turns” CBS soap should play Kirk!!! But I digress! I wonder what Stanky thinks of my casting choice??


123. Giuseppe - July 3, 2007

Well I believe the Enterprise should be changed along the lines we’ve seen in this guy’s (Gabe Koerner) work. Keep the original over-all look, but make it look like something from the 23rd century that we imagine now, not the 23rd century imagined 40 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the original Enterprise, but I also think it doesn’t have nearly enough detail to it to look good on the big screen. On your average TV it’s no problem, but when expand it to the big screen it’s obvious there’s not enough there to make you go “My God, that looks awesome! I wouldn’t want to get caught on the receiving end of that baby”.

124. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 3, 2007

122, Anthony Pascale

Have you checked out Jesse Lee Soffer on “As The World Turns”? A perfect Kirk…whattaya think?
And yeah, my Mustang was candy apple red, too! I finally sold it because I got tired of paying thousands of dollars of garage rent over the years! And I got tired of obsessing over every little scratch! Lee Iocca had the right idea with the stainless steel DeLorean! Would put body shops out of business, though!!

125. Joe - July 3, 2007

“Keep the original over-all look, but make it look like something from the 23rd century that we imagine now, not the 23rd century imagined 40 years ago.”

Cant say it better myself!!

126. snake - July 3, 2007

holy shit – so many posts – i cant read all them!

IMO they should update the NCC 1701 alittle bit from how it appeared in TOS – make it a little closer to the EXCELLENT NCC 1701 movie design…(the most cinematic looking enterprise of all)….after all if it is a prequel leading up to Kirk being Capt of Ent they can just say ‘oh well the ent had another redesign between The Cage and Where No Man so it looks like thus…’ (then again since we’re gonna have diff actors and everything looking non 1960s what the fuck does it matter right?)

And ILM are back huh? cool stuff – remember Bran Ferrens piss poor effects for Final Frontier?! LMAO!!! even the spaceship effect looked terrible – wtf was he trying to do?! homage the effects from TOS?! I remember reading a review when V came out that said even the pink barrier FX from ‘Where No Man’ looked better than the great barrier in V LOL

I think ILM were doing about 5 other big pics for summer 89…(Indy, BTTF 2, Ghostbuster 2 etc ) so couldnt do them…

127. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Enterprise) McFibberich - July 3, 2007

Glad to see so many are supporting changes to the Enterprise only in the amount of detail needed for big screen.
I kind of like that retro Idea (105. Tripper).
As for Mr. Nelson and his choice for fake Kirk, I don’t watch As The World Turns, so I cannot give any reasons why this guy should not play the fake Kirk other than the fact that he is not young Shatner. :)

128. Vejur - July 3, 2007

Please Abrams have some balls and make Enterprise radically different…only retaining the general Enterprise shape. I favor hybird of ENT REFIT and ENT E thus sleek and combact . Orginal ENT is 1960s design and clearly is outdated.

129. THEETrekMaster - July 3, 2007

It’s NOT outdated. The future is the future. The original design is perfection. The exterior is fine. All that’s needed are very minor changes. Anything more than that will piss me off.

130. » Archivo del weblog » ILM creará los efectos especiales de Star Trek XI - July 3, 2007

[…] Deacuerdo a las últimas noticias aparecidas en, Industrial Ligtht and Magic  será la encargada de crear los efectos especiales de la nueva película de Star Trek, al parecer, JJ Abrams quedó muy satisfecho con los resultados de Misión Imposible III, por lo que la elección de ILM era bastante obvio,  aunque no es la primera vez que esta empresa se encarga de los efectos en la franquicia, esto demuestra que Paramount va en serio, también hay que recordar que  la productora alquilará un estudio a su competidora Universal Estudios, para recrear un decorado de dimensiones descomunales, lo que presupone que Star Trek XI será una superproducción al estilo de Mision Imposible III, o Transformers.    […]

131. Hon. David Kulessa - July 3, 2007


“I favor hybird of the Enterprise REFIT and Enterprise-E thus sleek and compact .”

So you want something that looks like the Akira-prise from ENT? That was the worst mistake they made on the show. I’d hate for it to translate into a “reawakening” of the series as well.

At least Rick Berman isn’t coming near this one.

132. snake - July 3, 2007

I’ll be happy with a cross between the Movie NCC 1701 and TOS NCC 1701…

man to be sitting in a theatre seeing the ORIGINAL enterprise soar on the big screen again..


The E in First Contact wasnt too bad a design but to quote Riker ‘Shes not the Enterprise sir’

133. Cervantes - July 3, 2007

Great news that ILM is doing the effects for this Movie. It goes without saying that the actual effects should be terrific then, but let’s hope the DESIGNS are. Given a choice, I would have the Enterprise closely resembling the original TOS design, but without the “spikes” on the nacelles, and with the “grills” instead of the “balls” ( but that’s just me ). I would also like to see the surface detail somewhat resembling the amount on the original model refitted for Star Trek:The Motion Picture. One thing I sorely missed from that redesign was the iconic nacelles, and I think these will look terrific in all their lit up glory on the big screen…if kept!

134. snake - July 3, 2007

hey everyone – check this out – this is what it must have been like to be an extra on TOS!!

135. jonboc - July 3, 2007

The original Enterprise was always referred to as a lady. Kirk real true love was that lady called Enterprise. With all due respect, Gabe’s ship looks like an ugly man. Nuff said.

136. snake - July 3, 2007

Kirk would have banged the Enterprise (original) if he could…

the Ent A would have just been a one night stand (i got the impression he wasnt too bothered about the A in V and VI actually)

137. Vejur - July 3, 2007

,,So you want something that looks like the Akira-prise from ENT? ,,

NX-01 or Akiraprise with a mixure of Supmarine was bad idea.
However fact is the guy who design ENT E for First Concact got his inspiration from ENT refit. There is clear similarity between ENT E and Classic ENT Refit. XI movie scould be locking at smaller version ENT E with thick forward ankle neck

138. Vejur - July 3, 2007

139. Anthony Pascale - July 3, 2007

boy this is certainly a hot topic! I am surprised at the poll numbers..over 3/4s want something in between total dogma and ‘radical redesign’. (which is where i am i admit). Compared to the ‘canon’ debates recently I think even the hard core fanbase (lets face it anyone here is ‘hardcore’) seem more flexible when it comes to the look of the movie than when it comes to the story and contradicting history. I imagine that people will be even more flexible with the costumes since those changed all the time…there are some interesting ideas going on that in the TrekBBS Future of Trek forum now. Certainly casual fans (and of course the general action movie fans) will not be too fussed one way or another…they will just want it all to look cool.

One thing I am fairly sure of is that they will do their best to keep the new ship designs out of the public eye for as long as possible (I doubt you will see much even in a teaser trailer).

so that leaves us to the speculation and of course the debate.

140. snake - July 3, 2007

regarding the costumes
Wounder mind something similar to the First Contact uniforms

141. Stanky (Don't Change Stuff) McFibberich - July 3, 2007

This has all gotten too complex for me to handle. Trying to comprehend why people are so in favor of major changes is causing me much distress.

142. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 3, 2007

If it is a ‘radical redesign’ you want, don’t call it Star Trek: TOS era. If you want cool “new” things, please start were Nemesis left off.

The redesigned USS Enterprise seen in the posts by “Joe,” looks like a sistership of the USS Enterprise-E in the 24th Century Star Fleet.

Please, don’t try to pull a “fast one” on us and stop trying to “sell out” to fans we don’t have!

143. marco - July 3, 2007

The original ENTERPRISE doesn’ t look boring. It would be very interesting to see it on the big screen. A new designed (or re-imagined) NCC-1701 is going to destroy the continuity of the whole series.

144. Vejur - July 3, 2007

,,The redesigned USS Enterprise seen in the posts by “Joe,” looks like a sistership of the USS Enterprise-E in the 24th Century Star Fleet. ,,
are you kidding, if you are talkin about gabekroner design there much closer resambles to it as sistership of orginal ENT then ENT E and that why i dont like gabekroner design it is as outdated as orginal ENT.

145. THEETrekMaster - July 3, 2007

#132 says…

“I’ll be happy with a cross between the Movie NCC 1701 and TOS NCC 1701…”

That’s almost EXACTLY what I want to see.


146. Scott Gammans - July 3, 2007

“A new designed (or re-imagined) NCC-1701 is going to destroy the continuity of the whole series.”

That’s a bit overboard, no?

147. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 3, 2007

In another thread I said this…

“This next film will only succeed is if does the following…

1) Unites the fan base, to do that it will have to be “fresh” yet traditional. It has to be “revolutionary,” yet “status quo.” Can it be done? Yes, ST:TWOK and ST:TUC did it by linking to the past of TREK (Kahn in the former and Kirk versus the Klingons in the latter)

2) Provides a story compelling enough to attract non-trekers. You all, of course, should realize that there is a vast segment that will not…I say again…will not watch it because it simply is a “TREK movie!” These are the “action movie” fans and “chick flick” types with, upon seeing the poster for it, even after all other shows are sold out, will go bowling.

I suspect that these are the so called “new fan base,” an dgroup you will never get.

The trick will be in having a good story…one that the younger brother or sister of the “ANTI-TREKKER” can say…go, “you’ll like it.”

3) Create a balance in the above. If you produce a product that fans find…unpalitable…and that new people will find no interest in due to techno-bable or some other thing, then the film will always loose money.

Approach it like a “period film,” several of these films have been gems. One doesn’t need to know the in and outs of the “American Civil War” (War between the States) to understand and enjoy the film “Glory” or have all the knowledge of the Second World War to like “Saving Private Ryan.” Yet, both of these films are true to their era down to the most “canonical,” historical detail.

Why can we not have that in Star Trek?”

Now, there were limits to 60s TREK, mostly budgets and technology. But, I don’t see why this can’t be treated like a “period” piece. No radical changes…we don’t see modern tanks and laser cannons in “Civil War Films” or Aircraft Carriers in “Horatio Hornblower” movies…instead we see a qualty rendition of that time period.

What we should have in any such film, is a USS Enterprise, that looks as much as what the TOS series one did…but, with “a quality rendition of that time period.” Lots of that ship’s interiors were “unseen…” extreme closes ups of the exterior were also “unseen.”

Thus, a modern effort can provide detail without “putting boogers in the oatmeal.”

RADICAL REDESIGN is not going to bring in anyone…it will only anger fans. I don’t think the local “popular” kids are gonna turned down “American Pie X: Convent Crazy” to see STAR TREK because “look at the cool new ship!” All you are going to go is cause a die hard fan to question whether they want to see it.

Oh…and consider this hard. There is a new audience we need to “sell” on TOS…that is the blind-TREK fans for TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Making a “period piece” that respects canon, present a quality appreance of TOS (lat looks like TOS) and that does not “sell out the fans;” will, in my opinion as a thinking person, do just that.

148. Parker - July 3, 2007

Since Daren Doc worked/designed the Poseidon, which was used in the film, it would be cool, I think, if he’s involved in designing this “new” U.S.S. Enterprise !

149. Just Another Hero - July 3, 2007

I think I’d rather just see it ‘getting built’ in spacedock as an epilogue to the movie or something.

150. SciFi Surplus » Blog Archive » ILM Doing Star Trek Effects - July 3, 2007

[…] ILM is going to be producing the special effects for the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. […]

151. Bart - July 3, 2007

Gabriel Koerner’s model looks as if the Enterprise has been assimilated by the borg.

152. Michael Hall - July 3, 2007

It might be good to point out that even though it’s now confirmed that the Enterprise will appear in the new film, there’s nothing to indicate that the story is set aboard her. It could even be that the plot will feature a mission for Kirk and Spock that has nothing to do with the E or even any of the other familiar characters, and will only conclude with “young Kirk” being given command of the ship. The discussion points on the exterior Enterprise design would still apply, but this would bypass any need to address any interior redesign until the sequel. Plus, they wouldn’t have to recast any roles but the two main leads. Just a thought, but since we know so little about the film it doesn’t hurt to remember that right now anything’s possible.

153. Paul - July 3, 2007

As far as they keep the shape, size and smooth hull, I´m okay with changes – be it glowing deflector, self-ilumination, extendable phaser turrets, polished aluminium hull in TMP style, whatever. Overall shape is what really matters about this design – it is balanced, perfectly logical and timeless like classic car and it should stay that way, as it is a part of its appeal.

Second point: it is perfectly recognizable shape which can be drawn even by small child. Priceless for marketing. :-)

And finally: since they are already changing the CREW, they can´t afford to change SHIP, too… at least not too much. They simply need to have something recognizable…

154. Craig - July 3, 2007

Will TrekMovie add a forum soon to discuss the movie? Or is this the best way to chat about news topics?

155. Hon. David Kulessa - July 3, 2007


“that is the blind-TREK fans for TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.”

As a “blind” Trek fan of the 24th century series’, I hope they keep the canon tight. I’d hate to see something “futuristic” that looks like the E-E. While I haven’t watched much TOS, I hope they do good.


156. JB - July 3, 2007

Anthony, I take it your forum does not enforce uniqueness of names. Re:#95, I thought I was JB.

157. THX-1138--Fred Garvin's grammar class - July 3, 2007

I’m Fred Garvin, male grammar class prostitute.

158. Dave Molinarolo - July 3, 2007

I feel that they need to take the look of the NX-01 and update that to what the NCC-1701 would look like by its era. Let’s please not refit it out to look like 1967 for God’s sake…interior wise, that is. The exterior can retain the same basic shape, but add more detail ala the NX-01.

The problem with the TOS ship designs was that they were a relic of the 1960s. Very basic looking. The show ENT changed canon a bit, which I feel is a good thing, because the tech used in the TOS in the 23rd Century would be outdated even in today’s standards.

Especially since NASA has replaced all those those massive control boards with flashing lights and knobs, to several flat panel PC screens all connected to the mainframe somewhere else in the facility, and of course regular laptops.

159. beezelbub - July 3, 2007

ILM did model work on the pirates films as well before the model shop was spun off as Kerner Optical.

Since splitting off from the main company Kerner Optical has worked on nearly every film ILM has had (Pirates 3, Transformers, Evan Almighty, Spiderwick Chronicles, etc.).

160. SpongeBob - July 3, 2007

miniatures and models are still used sure…but not for space stuff. I dont think any of the recent Star Wars movies or the last two Star Trek movies used any models for the space stuff. Certainly for a 2008 space movie they are going to use all digital models. Maybe some minatures for closeups but it would be limited

161. Dennis Bailey - July 3, 2007

My ideal preference would be for something with the lines and detail of the TMP Enterprise but with engines much more like the TOS Enterprise.

And if the damned things must glow somewhere other than the nacelle caps, then light up the rear rather than this blue neon glow pouring out the sides. Consistency with the past is not a virtue in this respect.

162. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 3, 2007

158. Dave Molinarolo – July 3, 2007

In the 1940s American Railroads were still firmly planted in the Steam Era. Large locomotive, Hudsons, Challengers and Big Boys, road the rails.

Steam locomotives were the pinicle of some 100 years of railroad technology. Large piping and drive rods…

Toward the end of that era, some would say the “golden age,” the design dynamic was to “streamline” these locomotives…×500.jpg

Thus, all the cumbersome moving parts and the “technical” aspects of the locomotive gace way to “form” instead of function.

Then came large scale dieselization in the 1950s and 1960s. These “beta” versions of railroad technology contained the same design ethic. Thus, E and F units were streamlined…

As, even this technology evolved, we returned to utility in the 1970s and 1980s…

Today, they are now streamling these locomotives again…

Now, what has all this to do with the issue?

Well, during the ENT era technology was as the ‘steam era” (Even the Mirror Trip Tucker said it…”it’e like i’ve been workin’ on a steamship”) Computers were not as advanced and were very “technical.” The designs of a ship with “hull plating” and all sorts of panels is sort of like the visual effect of a “steam locomotive.”

As time went on in the Trek universe, designers likely wanted to “streamline” as technology advanced. It is common. Thus, the streamlined look of the TOS Enterprise (anologous to the 20th Centruy Limited Hudson Locomotive…still basically STEAM, but with style and the hieght of its technology)

By the TMP/Movie Era, these ships were being “retro fitted” with the beta TOS technology…shown up in “glowing” engines and the sort of plating…albiet still streamlined (look at the fins on the back of those things) That is like the early diesel era, sure the Constitution class was “upgraded.” But the “beta technology” was carried on in ships like the Oberth and the Mirada class.

All this is consolidated in the newly streamlined Excelsior class that pushes for FORM over FUNCTON. Like todays latest lococomotives.

It makes sense even in canon, even paralled to the real world (via railroads).

163. trekmaster - July 4, 2007

The “Akiraprise” [ENT] is based on a lack of fantasy and innovation. I don’t believe that anyone of the designers had the time to make parallels to the history of trains. And the lack of time was the other problem next to the lack of fantasy and innovation.

164. trektacular - July 4, 2007

The original is the best use it!

165. Cervantes - July 4, 2007

Oh, forgot to say that the “swept back” pylons of the ST:TMP “Enterprise were a good update to the look of the original design, and I would keep that aspect.

166. Shaggy - July 4, 2007

I’m pretty sure someone mentioned this above but I think that we may very well see Robert April in this – I think that would be pretty interesting since we have already seen Captain Pike in action and the book Star Trek Final Frontier portrayed him well. Someone has to be commanding the Enterprise that isn’t Kirk if this really is about when Kirk comes out of the academy so that’s Pike or April. Too bad Gene isn’t still around to portray April. But I wonder if we’ll see Kirk on the Farragut(or Republic) and they will team up with the Enterprise for some reason.

167. Len Krieger - July 4, 2007

What is going on here?
Upgraded with much more detail…but still very recognizable (38%)
Very close to original with minor details changed (36%)
Exactly like the original…no changes period (19%) !?!?!

Why do some of you feel that the Enterprise needs to be changed?

If Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman TRUELY honor the Canon of Star Trek they should Not Change what has been established. I will not accept the argument that “This is a movie for the Big Screen” Have we forgotten that the sets and the Enterprise D model from Star Trek Generations was the SAME sets and ship models, used on the TNG series for the small screen.?

How would you have felt if CBS Digital released TOS-R following the results of this poll? Why didn’t they change the look of the Enterprise? TOS-R is certainly an excellent opportunity to gage the response of the fans. But they didn’t, they kept a design that was nearly 42 years old! Why did the “powers that be” make that decision?

This constant debate of what’s going to change for this movie is pointless. In the past, Paramount has demonstrated time and time again, that they are going to do what THEY want to do with Star Trek and we the fans have acquiesced and accepted it. Case in point; Star Trek – The Motion Picture explained logically the reasons for the redesign of the sets and the Enterprise. The crew was now 10 years older and Starfleet undoubtedly would have improved on the technology in that amount of time. And we, the fans, had to live with what was put on the screen by Paramount. But with all of the movies “updates”, on one hand it was the worst Star Trek Movie made in the series and on the other hand made a ton of money.

Why did this happen? The answer is simple. The long fight was over. The long Nightmare of “is Star Trek on again off again” is it to be a “2 hour movie of the week” or a “big screen blockbuster” had ended. An emotional roller coaster of rumors that had both, uplifted then disappointed, has now faded. Simply put the fans had been Starving for Star Trek to be brought back, that we were glad to have it given to us on December 7, 1979! On that day our collective cheer allowed us to compromise on the “New Look of Star Trek.”

That was then and this is now. The series, Star Trek – Enterprise has failed. A concept that had an excellent chance to recapture what was great about Star Trek was lost. It was lost in the “re-booting/re-imagining” mind set! As a result the fans abandoned it in mass. Our actions set a clear message to the “powers that be” that this Star Trek is not something we will accept.
Allow me to remind all of you of a simple FACT. It is the fan base that buys the tickets to the movies. It is the fan base that buys the DVD’s. It is the fan base that buys the toys and various memorabilia thus lining the pockets of those at Paramount with wads of cash. As number #89 has written; “I earned the right to see my beloved Enterprise on a 25 foot screen!” And the power that has given us this right is the “All Mighty Dollar”!

I will not accept the explanation that, “Paramount owns Star Trek and can do with it as they like,” rhetoric. Business corporations have changed their business mindset based on consumer viewpoints and demands. This argument has no weight when viewed under the lens of the buying public and free enterprise. As it is the consumer who ultimately decides the success or failure of a product-not the company who produces it.

Star Trek – Enterprise was BEFORE the time of Kirk and Spock, TMP was 10 years AFTER TOS and TNG was 80 years beyond. This time this Motion Picture will deal with the time of Kirk and Spock. It is the time of TOS. The time is NOW to let Paramount know that changing Star Trek in any form is a bad idea. The time is NOW to let Paramount know who lines their pockets with dollars.

The Star Trek-2008 movie is currently in (if the rumors and headlines are to be believed) in pre-production. Are we to have a movie with new sets and redesigned ship that we are willing to compromise on? Every article on this site dealing with this new Star Trek Movie points to change. Will we the fans, be satisfied with something that merely tips its hat to what had been established on Star Trek – TOS rather than embrace it? Are we the fans, willing to acquiesce and compromise once again because of the tired old reason, “Paramount will do with Star Trek as it pleases,” and we the fans have to like it? Will we the fans, be given a Christmas present in 2008 that we will be less than happy with? It will be too late to voice our concerns once this film goes before the cameras and subsequently to our neighborhood movie screens. The Time is now to voice these concerns while this film is in Pre-Production.

Otherwise we are we lemmings stupidly willing to hand over our dollars and not the intelligent creatures Gene Roddenberry believed us to be?

What is going on here?

168. Andrew - July 4, 2007

Technically this would no be the first time TOS E was seen on screen. Anyone remember Airplane 2? William Shatner appeared as Cdr. Buck Murdock. At one point he looks in a periscope and we see a quick shot of the big E making a flyby.

169. Vejur - July 4, 2007

167. I disagree with you 99%.

1. Star Trek the Motion Picture is easily the most realistic and one of the best of all Star Trek films and clearly is the closest a Trek movie has come to Gene Roddenberry’s view of the future.
Well i think and clearly majority voting disagree with you, THANK GOD. If Paramount is that dumb letting orginal ENT without any changes in XI movie it will be laughable to main audiance, this would be as dumb as having Batmobil on 1960s television series in Batman Begins. Last time i check the year is 2007 not 1966 and XI movie has to be reimageing/reboot smillier to Batman Begins or Supermans Returns.

170. Mike - July 4, 2007

I think it’s interesting that the majority want the original enterprise with very minor changes. I like this idea, but I wonder if that’s because you, like myself, disliked the cartoony / fantastical turn in ship designs, and have little faith that yet another revision will produce better results.

I wish that the new enterprise would look plausible. I love the original E, it’s a beautiful design, but I remember having a few of those as a kid, they broke very easily. The nacelles are just too heavy for the struts, the neck is way too thin. Just moving the ship around caused the engines to wobble and strain. Placing the bridge at the top of the ship is dumb and the entire weapons scheme is senseless. I know there are pseudo scientific explanations, but I still don’t think you would build a “heavy cruiser” that way. I would like to see the original E reinterpreted from a practical navel perspective. It would be great to see a version that had enough detail and subtle alterations that it retains the profile of the original but takes it in a more realistic direction. And (dare I hope?) maybe even got rid of the silly looking glowing primary colors.

171. Charles_13 - July 4, 2007

I believe that the original design should be adhered to, but then *slightly* updated, specifically to where the mysterious phaser banks and photon torpedo tubes really are.

As for any “modernization” design, such that Cervantes and Joe have been advocating for, the idea is stupid. Yes, the original did look cartoon-ish, but that was due to ’60s era effects and lighting. I LOVED the way the CBS-D did the original (though I was hoping for Bussard collectors to be like they were in the DS9 episode “Trials and Tribble-ations”). Hell, I have loved ALL the Enterprise designs, but my favorites are the E (2nd) and the original (1st).

But each design has their place in their respective Star Trek universe eras. To make the original like the E would be jumping over a hundred years worth of technological advancements and industrial design ethics. Technology evolves, much like animals and species. To make the original look much more advanced or different would be comparable to showing a Homo sapien as a Neanderthal; I certainly do not want that.

As for appealing to non-fans, a redesign of a ship EVERYBODY knows would not be something that would make them go to the theaters to see the movie. Instead, they will just laugh it off as some cop-out by Star Trek to get them to see it; they would lose respect for it. As for making it look cool, I think its already cool, but then there will be some things that need minor adjustments. The interiors I love, but a few changes, such as lighting, should be done to make it feel a little bit more lively. The bridge I find to be one of the most ergonomic, logical, and sensible designs in Star Trek, and except for maybe an LCD here or there, and changing the patterns in the sub-screens, it should be kept the same. What WILL get fans into the theaters is a better way to market the movie. What I have found rather sad is the use of shots from different movies in trailers. That’s not going to make them come to the theater. However, if J.J. Abrams is in charge of the trailers, sensing from the trailer for 1-18-08, I won’t be complaining. And audiences will have their interests piqued.

As for appealing to fans, I am 24. ANY DESIGN CHANGE WILL MAKE ME NOT LIKE THE MOVIE. Yes, there is a new change of face, but I don’t mind that. Yes, its J.J. Abrams directing, and it should be real good. Yes, its Orci and Kurtzman, who wrote a great script for Transformers, and they should do pretty damned good. But the thing that will make me hate it is a redesigned Enterprise. She is Character #8, one of the very few things I think of when I hear the name Kirk, and she is MAJOR canon. To change her would be disastrous for the franchise, for not only would I not ever watch it again, but so would other fans. For a fledgling franchise, practically on its knees, to alienate fans, especially hardcore fans for which there would be no franchise with, would be cutting its legs off, and setting back the franchise for maybe another 10 years. I, for one, don’t want to see that happening, but if they change the design, Paramount/CBS can NOT afford the outcome.

If they do a prequel, they already have canon references, basically the Enterprise seen in “The Cage” and in “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. But they are still THE SAME DESIGN. Its CANON, and there really is nothing that can be done to change it.

172. trekmaster - July 4, 2007

That’s not correct! The Enterprise-D in “Generations” was another much more detailed model than it has been used before during the series. Almost 20 years before, in 1976, Roddenberry & Co. decided to make changes for the motion picture because on the big screen you see everything much more resoluted and the old 1701-model looked very aged even 10 years after the end of the original series. So it was and still is a logical decision to add at least much more detail to this original Enterprise. NOW we are able make it look fine, NOW we have SFX abilities that no one could have imagined in 1979. So let’s use this abilities, otherwise try to take the 60’s model from the smithonian institute in front of the camera… BUT I guess that a lot of people won’t like a cheapy looking design. The 1701 is a fine ship, now it either needs a fine presentation.

173. Al Hartman - July 4, 2007

It’s not true that the original Enterprise NCC-1701 has NEVER appeared on the Big Screen. While it has neve appeared in a Star Trek Feature Film, it DID appear in the movie “Airplane II – The Sequel”.

When Shatner as “Buck Murdock” looks through the periscope on the psuedo “bridge” set, he sees the Enterprise… looks away and does a great double take.

And the Enterprise looked BEAUTIFUL on the big screen.

174. Al Hartman - July 4, 2007

If they wanted to use a Physical Model (and I don’t know why they would), they don’t need to use the original from the Air and Space Museum.

Greg Jein’s Replica from DS9 “Trial and Tribbleations” is a much nicer and filming friendly model.

175. Al Hartman - July 4, 2007

Left out the link:

176. Len Krieger - July 4, 2007

#172 It is correct. The Enterprise D from TNG was used especially the six footer that seperated the saucer was used in Generations.

But I would like to talk about something else. A creation that dates back centuries. This poor forgotten creation has been all but been ignored and taken for granted. It is now 2007 and I think the time has come for us to “Re-Boot” The Wheel.

Perhaps we should all Re-imagine The Wheel and restore its greatness as the simpliest machine ever created.

#169 I disagree with you 100% I know there are Sci Fi Fans here, so I want to ask you all, Are there any Original BSG fans here who will not watch the new BSG because of the changes? Furthermore, is there anyone here who became physcally ill while watching the “Re-booted” Lost In Space?

177. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 4, 2007

176. Len Krieger – July 4, 2007

“Furthermore, is there anyone here who became physcally ill while watching the “Re-booted” Lost In Space? ”

Banana-Beef…who comes up with these flavors.

Here is the thing about the “Lost in Space” and “Planet of the Apes” so-called reboots: They are and were failures. They had no continuing “legacy,” not sequels no series to follow. Their toys were in stores for about six months and how they are in the 2 Dollar video bin at Wal*Mart.

When people say “Dr Zachary Smith” they think…Johnathan Harris , not Gary Olman…(the goodle image search below demonstrates…)

When they think of Planet of the Apes’s Col Taylor, they think of Charleston Heston, not Mark Wahlberg.

That is what a total “reboot” and “reimagining” of Star Trek will likely fail…even if it is a commercial sucess.


178. Tim Handrahan - July 4, 2007

The original Enterprise also appeared in the teaser trailer for Star Trek VI.

179. Anthony Pascale - July 5, 2007

RE: 170. Mike – I think it’s interesting that the majority want the original enterprise with very minor changes.

actually the final results have no majority, but a ‘plurality’ prefer more than minor changes….results
Prefer the Enterprise (for Star Trek 2008) to appear….
* Exactly like the original…no changes period (19%)
* Very close to original with minor details changed (35%)
* Upgraded with much more detail…but still very recognizable (40%)
* Radically different…only retaining the general shape (7%)
poll has rotated out, but you can still vote:

In reading the above comments I see a lot acknowledge that more surface detail is good, more logical use of the phasers and photon tubes, and maybe swept back nacelle pylons. Well pretty quickly you end up with the movie version….which lets face it worked much better on the big screen. I would agree with Dennis that something like the movie version with some kind of TOS elements (glowing somethign on the nacelles) might work but I am not going to dictate what I think they should do. I think they should make it look great and make it look like something James T. Kirk would consider his lady. In 1979 they realised an exact duplicate on the film screen would not work in 70mm and they made changes….there can be no doubt they will do the same in 2008.

And since less than 1 in 5 of the ‘hardcore’ want the ‘exact copy’ and the hardcore only represent less than 1 in 5 of the general audience…I don’t think Paramount have anything to worry about. Unless they just do something silly like make it jet black with 5 nacelles and flames on the side or somethign.

180. Anthony Pascale - July 5, 2007

oh and if you have a hard time dealing with the whole canon and things look differently…then just insert some fanon in your mind at the end of the film that they are headed in for a smoothing refit. Or since they never explained why the ship changed throughout the TOS era anyway…use whatever logic you use for that!

181. Cervantes - July 5, 2007

# Charles_13

Ouch, can’t believe you lumped me in with Joe and his views…

As a designer myself, I am actually someone who truly wishes for this Movie to somewhat recreate that 60’s TOS era .design ethic, in MANY areas, albiet with updated materials and effects. I was actually going to post today that while I stood by my above post # 133 yesterday, I had CHANGED MY MIND about my post # 165, realising that was quite a departure from the original “Enterprise”, and that I should have known better than to even think about that for a little while. I accept that I deserve a spell in the nearest Agony Booth for that one… Just so we are clear, I am AGAINST any “modernization” design just for the sake of creating something new.
Some kind of surface detail suggesting a large mass object will no doubt be in order for the big screen, but this doesn’t need to be extra bits and bobs added. I want the clean, sleek, looking lines of the ORIGINAL ( yes, including the pylons! ), but even if it ends up being detailed with an “Aztec panelling” look and spotlights like the refit in ST:TMP did, I think that we can agree that the refit in that movie DID look clean, sleek , and successfully large too.

182. Stanky McFibberich - July 5, 2007

Polls mean nothing.

183. trekmaster - July 5, 2007

??? I thought it was just the 1701-A!?

184. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 5, 2007

182. Stanky McFibberich – July 5, 2007
Polls mean nothing.

Exactally…even posts here may not be by who they claim. How do we know the same people aren’t voting over and over again?

Still, I would take the actually written words here over a poll any day. My Rationale? Any meshuggener can “click” a button on a poll…but to take the time to actually write something longer than a paragraph is more meaningful in my book for this sort of thing.

185. Dennis Bailey - July 5, 2007

#182: “Polls mean nothing.”

You’re right – they mean exactly as much as fan objections expressed on the Internet mean to the people running the studio at this point.

186. Floydhead Max! - July 5, 2007

WoW!! I can’t believe how many posts are in this thred.

I still think the original design works best, (after all it is the E between Pikes time and the beginning of Kirks time). I still think there is something to be said for using the original model from the air and space. I live in DC and have had several opportunities to take close up photo’s, (and just gaze lovingly for long periods of time) and it’s actually pretty amazing how much detail there is that you just can not see from the original TV optical effects. The Smithsonian did a wonderful restoration job, right down to rebuilding the spinning nacelles (when they first hung the model they had blinking on/off lights under a red plastic nacelle cap, and after repairing all the broken mirrors and spinning lights, it now looks almost exactly like it did on TV. Add a small amount of surface detail to go with what was there that you couldn’t see before anyway, and really you would be good to go as far as I’m concerned. Change the actors all you want, just give me the starship I know and love and I’ll be happy!! I may be in the minority, but that’s how I feel anyway!!

Until Next Time,

187. NukeGrey - July 5, 2007

Absolutely REDESIGNED. On way otherwise.
The design of the original series enterprise was the result of a very good work. But as it is it’s improbable and anachronistic. It makes sense if referred to the original shots. Not for a new one.
For people who have only a light knowledge of star trek it would seem ridiculous ti see the ship with such a simple design.
The structure should be the same. But i hope it will be a sort of mediation between the ugly enterprise od Archer and the Phase II enterprise design.

For that i like a lot the design of the ship like it appears in the second fake teaser trailer. I think that it could be an acceptable direction.
The old design meeting the nowadays’ high tech.

Last but not least…


188. NukeGrey - July 5, 2007

Consider this:

1) 1939 Wolkswagen Beetle – 1990 Wolkswagen New Beetle

2) 1970s Mini – 2000s mini cooper

3) 1960s fiat 500 – 2007s Fiat New 500

The point is: design,art, style, graphics.
Asking for no change at all “is noble but unrealistic” (Seven of Nine).
The Enterprise from this artist which has been posted here it’s a bit too “heavy” but i think that it’s the right direction for a movie original enterprise version.
As this movie is a sort of reboo(s)t, it’s obvious that claiming no change is foolish. You don’t have to be too much nostalgic and afraid of the wind if you want to fly REALLY high.

I like very much the enterprise-e design. It’s a good design per se, and it’s a good trekship design. Rational and consistent with the other starship of that era (tng). More aggressive, more streamlined and more balanced.
But that ship was consistent to the tng plot and period of time. Consistent with the borg menace and it had to look aggressive like that.

A bit different and more intriguing story for the orginal ship.
It has to be the same ship, fundamentally, in the core.
But it has to be reinterpreted, redesigned, patched.

It would look like proposing now an operative system who looks like windows 3.1 or mac.os 7. Are you considering that as an option? I don’t think so.
The software and hardware evolution made people used to the rapid change and innovation in technology and is reaching splendid heights day by day.
We’re used to that now.
The redesign is a winwin ever, but it has to be an intelligent and rational redesign in which the past has been gentled and adapted to our conceptions of style and beauty.

Reproposing a 60s design as it is it would be a complete failure.
As Janeway says in voyager finale: “we can have the cake and eat it too…”

189. Stanky McFibberich - July 5, 2007

185. Dennis Bailey – July 5, 2007
“#182: “Polls mean nothing.”
You’re right – they mean exactly as much as fan objections expressed on the Internet mean to the people running the studio at this point.”

I imagine that is very true. They are going to do what they want in accordance with what their ideas are about making money, not to please fans for the sake of pleasing them.
One of my problems with polls is that the way they are worded can influence your vote. For example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “none of the above” choice on any of the polls here. And sometimes I do not vote at all because my choice is not listed.
And Mr. Bailey, list me also as someone anxious to see the conclusion of the Exeter adventure. :) Not that anyone is keeping a list.

190. THX-1138--Fred Garvin, ambivalent prostitute - July 5, 2007


I rarely write things more than a paragraph long here because I find it to be a bit long-winded. I do feel that, occasionally, I have something to add to the mix as well. Stanky is right, but polls are fun to play with. Kind of like most games, they mean nothing. Anyway, I don’t think you are being dismissive by any means I just wanted to clarify that some of us, perhaps more succinct writers, are nonetheless, valid, Besides, to me, if you want to write a lot, get a blog.

Oh, and if they change too much on the Enterprise, I shall threaten to not write here again.

(I guess I’m about to take my own un-official poll)

191. Charles_13 - July 5, 2007

#’s 187 and 188

Refer to my post, #171. I understand what you mean, but I’ve said my bit about any redesign. The original is not anachronistic, its an icon, and an American icon to boot.

And speaking of boots, from what I’ve read, its not a reboot. Star Trek is not something that can be rebooted, considering the length of time it has been in the social conscience. For anything else, refer to my previous post #171.

192. Archer for Prez - July 12, 2007

This really could be all completely pointless, seeing as we don’t really know what the plot of the movie is. It could very well be centered on an entirely different crew and ship (NX-01 maybe?), and end with a look at the newest Starfleet has to offer (enter Enterprise).

However, debate/discussion of the topic is not pointless. It may not sway the decision-making at Paramount et al, but it’s an entertaining (if not enriching) pass-time.

Here’s my opinion (JUST my opinion mind you, but I’m sure it’ll spark more ranting):

I see only two workable possibilities:

1. Don’t change a thing. Keep the E as is (maybe add some grid-line texture maps for “detail”). This would keep most of the die-hard TOS fans (like me!) somewhere between content and jubilent.


2. Go all the way. Completely “modernize” her to the point of almost being unrecognizable. Change the technology. Change her history. This could pave the way for an entire reinvention of the “canon” (a la Battlestar Galactica). What if Kirk never took over the E? What if the 5-year mission turned out very differently? What if the Feds never made peace with the Klingons? What if the Borg forced everyone to brink of extinction? …etc, etc. Sort of an alternate Star Trek time line (a mirror universe maybe)…

Personally I don’t see them going down the option-2 path, but hey…It’s Hollywood!

193. Jordan - July 14, 2007

But the original Enterprise appeared in a 1982 Paramount movie, Airplane II: The Sequel.

194. John Doe - August 12, 2007

ILM effects looked stupid in trek II, III etc… They should have gone with CBS-digital for the movie, if they wanted real photo real quality effects

195. Vince - September 14, 2007

Wow…it just occurred to me…
Before reading this post, I felt the same way most of you guys probably still feel; I was worried about the look and feel of the classic “Starship Enterprise”, and the overall feel of the new Trek Movie. While reading comments posted by Joe, I found myself agreeing with everything he said. The way fans feel about the Enterprise, and all of TREK XI, for that matter, is the same way that Kirk felt about peace with the Klingons in “The Undiscovered Country.”To quote the Klingon Chancellor Gorkon, “If there is to be a bright new future, our generation will have the hardest time living in it.” The same applies to us, the generation who grew up loving the Original Series, and all the cheesy 1960’s special effects and overacting that came with it. The point is, for the sake of Star Trek’s survival, we have to move on. Star Trek is about Revolution, it’s about Change; it makes me feel good to know that Trek is revolutionary again, because that shows me that Trek is, for the first time in a long time, “Boldly going where no one has gone before.”

196. Will Doe 68 - September 17, 2007

The design of this new film,is one the things thats really been eating at me,
I found these surfing around. Check em out.
There credited to a Dennis Bailey, I think they tweak the original just prefect .
Without getting to far away from it.

197. Leo Star Dragon 1. - October 10, 2007

I get through all of that just to make a post about how wrong the writer was, only to see that “Jordon” beat me to the correction! It was a funny scene too. William Shatner’s character is on the Moon base, peering through a periscope, when he see’s the sight gag of the classic iconic starship instead of what he was expecting to see! Funny reaction! It made me wonder if they played a prank on him for real and he managed to stay in character, so they used it. By the way, to beat someone else to it, William was credited as “Captain James Tiberious Kirk” in the movie, “Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey”. Anyway, as for the new design of the ENTERPISE, unless it turns out to be a flashback movie in the end after all, because it is a prequel movie, she should not look like she has appeared before, not even in “The Cage”, for it should have been refitt at least a few times since Launch One! If you remember, Spock even tried to use chemical rockets to blast out of orbit, as the very last resort, but even they failed to work! They also used paper printouts in that episode as “hard copy”. The paper was like that used in calculators and cash resgisters. Captain Pike had a hat for his uniform, but never wore it on screen. The hand-held communicators had transparent casings. The hand-held weapons were lasers not phasers. (Unless the new digital version has the words dubbed over?) I’ve yet to see an official canon explanation for why tech trends go up and down. In Archer’s era they use disks, yet by Pike’s & Kirk’s, they’ve reverted to tapes. Of course in Picard’s era, et al, they use chips. A logical ship design, getting back on course, would set up a look that shows how she evolved up to the point as seen in “The Cage”. Ignoring that would be a “retcon” that would set up the debate about it being an alternate reality or timeline. It’s bad enough they went with a new cast for the younger versions rather than CGI. So I expect a good make-up job at least.

198. GARY - January 21, 2008


199. Roger - May 17, 2008

If the STAR TREK franchise wants to attract a newer/younger audience without alianating the already established fans, why not just create film projects with future story lines…”GOING WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE”? It seems simple enough to me. It frees everyone up to explore and expand the limits of their own creativity WITHOUT tampering with much-beloved and iconic characters, items, and images. Write, design, CREATE something new for ALL the fans to enjoy without “reimagining” what others have already done. It’s called “ORIGINALITY”…the basis for the most enduring successes in the entertainment industry. Gene Roddenberry had it. I’m sure there must be at least a few screenwriters out there who also have it. For the future of the STAR TREK franchise, I certainly hope so.

200. D Talada - September 21, 2008

I don’t believe in any of the “Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek Babies” shows that started with gimmicky TNG and the bald guy with the redundant co-captain……but if NCC-1701 was going to be up on the screen with the round warp nacelles, I would be absolutely thrilled to watch a bunch of non-Kirk/Spock/Bones/Scotties playing Kirk/Spock/Bones/Scotty just to see the Greatest Fictional Space Vehicle In History on the big screen!!
Now I’ve seen pictures of it …..I’m not going.

201. Jon - October 26, 2008

Hey all,

Now 25 years old and I grew up on the Next Generation and DS9 as my base for Star Trek and not TOS. All my friends watched it and my younger brother and his friends grew up with Voyager and Enterprise. To expect the fans of these newer more tech savvy shows will accept the classic image is unrealistic. Personally if the ship looked like it did in the old series I would laugh at how corny it is and it would ruin the movie for me. The original really does look like something from the 60’s and just wont make the cut.

Now that the actual pictures are up for the new ship I am nothing short of amazed at how it looks, and it still holds true to the older build. I agree with the view that it is just the way it was always intended to look, just not possible to create all those years ago.

People like D Talada prove time and time again that change is hard on older fans. You spit at the new design like its nothing, but frankly they kept the original fans in the loop just as much as going for the new ones (the people that will make Trek fresh and new again) by leaving the general shape and dimensions of the ship true to the original.

This also brings to mind all the talk of the show Enterprise being terrible and no good and not true to how things were… I watched it, and loved it. Things must change to be successful. To fight it every step of the way is an a sure loser before you fire the first shot.

So from a younger fan, I think this is the way to go, and I am very excited to see where this film leads for the future of something I grew up with.

202. who cares anyway - January 7, 2009

If they changed the hallways, I would have accepted it.

If they changed the bridge, I would have not liked it, but I would probably see the movie.

The exterior of the New Enterprise is nothing like the old ship.

I am an old Trekkie, and the new Star Trek has lost me.

They kept the dorky uniforms and destroyed my favorite starship.

Live long and Prosper. Without me.

203. kazumi - June 4, 2011

I allways watched to Enterprise on TV who I still was 8 years old because I thought it was a film for childreen hihihi. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.