Image From Charlie X Remastered | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Image From Charlie X Remastered July 3, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: TOS-R Preview , trackback

StarTrek.com have put up a new image from next weekend’s "Charlie X." It shows a new design for the freighter USS Antares which was never shown in the original. CBS-D based the design on the USS Woden (although it looks a lot like a TAS cargo drone)

This is another example of what is great about the Remastered project – putting a ship into the establishing shot that should have been there in the first place but wasn’t due to time and/or budget issues.

Note that this weekend’s remastered episode is "Return To Tomorrow." The preview trailer isn’t available yet, but StarTrek.com do have a new desktop showing Spock and Dr. Mulhall (played by Diana Muldaur who later played Dr. Pulaski on TNG).

Thanks to Major Joe Ely Carrales for the TAS tip

 

Image courtesy of CBS and StarTrek.com.  

 

 

 

Comments

1. Random name of the day - July 3, 2007

Wow. I think that’s quite possibly the first CBS digital image I’ve looked at and really been impressed by — not to say the others haven’t been good, but there’s really something quite nice about this one. Well done!

2. Trekmatt - July 3, 2007

Nice pic, quite impressive!

3. Ro-Dan - July 3, 2007

Wow! That is sweet. I’ve always wondered what other non-Constitution Starfleet ships looked like in the TOS era.

4. Ro-Dan - July 3, 2007

Dig those cute little warp nacelles too.

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

This also looks a bit like a TAS ship…

 

6. Stanky Costanza - July 3, 2007

Sorry, this is somewhat off subject but in reading the articles on this site, I have been bewildered by some of the usage. Examples from above:

“StarTrek.com *have* put up a new image”
“StarTrek.com *do have* a new desktop showing Spock”

Would it not be correct to say “has” and “does have”? – would not “StarTrek.com” be a singular entity?

No offense, but these types of things have been driving me nuts for months :)

If i am wrong i would like to know why.

7. Anthony Pascale - July 3, 2007

thanks Ely…that link doesnt work but i added a link above to memory alpha and removed your broken link

8. Matt Wright - July 3, 2007

Good stuff!

9. OneBuckFilms - July 3, 2007

Now THAT is how the Enterprise should look.

I like :-)

10. Granger - July 3, 2007

Now that is a great image, with scaling that makes Charlie’s remarks about the larger size of the Enterprise ring true. And it is great to see TAS-style elements once again coming into the show.

11. TrekMD - July 3, 2007

This is cool. It does look like a modified version of the cargo drone from TAS. Maybe because this ship does have a crew, the forward section is larger than on the drone.

And Stanky, you’re correct.

12. Lao3D - July 3, 2007

That just rocks — and the E does look particularly good too. Looks like the same shot used in Space Seed, which I think remains their high point in terms of ship rendering.

13. Sean4000 - July 3, 2007

I’m loving this!

14. Joe Siegler - July 3, 2007

That ship looks a lot like the ore freighters the Enterprise was protecting in the Animated Series Tribble episode.

15. Scott Gammans - July 3, 2007

The Enterprise looks extra lovely in that image. And I am *totally* digging the new Antares model!

16. Joe Siegler - July 3, 2007

Here’s a picture of the freighter I think it looks like:

http://www.siegler.net/images/tasfreighter.jpg

17. James - July 3, 2007

In response to Stanky at #6 – the people in England seem to have the notion that a singular thing or object, if it is a collective, should have a plural verb, even though it is ONE THING. It’s very irritating, and I ignore it in my head while reading, putting the correct ending on the verb.

They enjoy saying ‘Congress say’ instead of ‘Congress says’. Or even “The Football League are” instead of “The Football league is.”

They also have the annoying habit of not putting a comma before and. “Eggs, cheese, and bacon” becomes “eggs, cheese and bacon” – which seems to imply a connecting with ‘cheese’ and ‘bacon’ much like PB&J goes together and are thought of as a unit.

18. 8of5 - July 3, 2007

Excellent use of the TAS design, I like that they thought it through enough to add an extra module to the front for the crew to live in, which the original robot ship design would not have required.

19. Scott Gammans - July 3, 2007

p.s. Stanky, I’m guessing that Anthony is from the United Kingdom. Referring to companies using collective nouns and plural verb forms is a signature difference between American and British English.

20. david - July 3, 2007

hey looks like the preveiw is finally up 2!

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68762.html

21. jon1701 - July 3, 2007

Re : James#17

Its called “English Grammar”. Look it up. Dont assume everyone that reads this website is american you ignorant twat. Its called the World Wide Web. You want to speak our language? Fine, but dont start complaining when you alter the rules of that language. You dont need the third comma. Its totally redundant.

Completely ignorant.

ON TOPIC

Great pic. Best CGI model yet.

22. Scott Gammans - July 3, 2007

#20 David: That’s the preview for “Return to Tomorrow”, not “Charlie X”.

#21 jon1701: Ya think you could have been a little more nasty with that comment? I didn’t detect any hostility in Stanky’s comments. Lighten up.

23. cap10kirk - July 3, 2007

guys it also looks like they used the TAS ss Huron from pirates of orion

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Huron-freighter.jpg

24. cap10kirk - July 3, 2007

guys it also looks like they used the TAS ss Huron from pirates of orion

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Huron-freighter.jpg

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

Now we can see what all the comments about ST:TAS on that site are all about. Seems like they are trying to at least make what can fit in TAS “canon.” I must say I enjoy that.

Why? When I was a boy the only STAR TREK I was was TAS on Nickelodeon. That is likely why I am a fan today.

I hope to see more TAS.

As to the use of the British language…”I am honoured to try to speak it.”

26. Stanky McFibberich - July 3, 2007

Apparently not using apostrophes in contractions and not capitalizing “American” are differences as well…and the spelling of “twit.” :)

Thanks for the answers, but all-in-all I’m sorry I brought it up. ;)

27. Diabolik - July 3, 2007

Yay! I never expected that to show up in this episode… but I was looking for it in “The Ultimate Computer,” which it still may.

I was hoping to see a realistic version of the ST:TAS freighter ship…. another excellent bit of backwards-continuity!

Go CBS!

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

Careful there, Major, old jon1701 is likely bite your head off for typing without a proper accent.

Great links to TAS ships there folks. Cool to see the inspirations for the new remastered ships. TAS got us through the lean years, didn’t it?

29. DavidJ - July 3, 2007

I think the only real difference is that here (and in Space Seed) we’re getting long, beautiful shots of the E just cruising slowly through space.

Most of the rest of the time, the ship is either whooshing by the camera at full speed, or it’s in orbit of a planet where the CBS guys throw lots of colored highlights onto the ship that aren’t always that flattering.

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

#26
Nah, I think he meant “twat”. But you’re OK in my book, Stank.

31. Cranston - July 3, 2007

Oh please, people. Grammatical conventions vary from place to place and country to country. Yes, the use of collective verbs and plural verb forms is standard in the UK. And yes, in the US there is an implied difference in meaning between “eggs, cheese, and bacon” and “eggs, cheese and bacon” — the former lists three independent items and the second implies two items (“eggs” and “cheese and bacon”).

Arguing over the “correctness” of different regional language traits over others is one of the silliest things that I (regularly) see people get into a huff over. Language is malleable, and “linguistic correctness” is an abstract, artificial construct at best.

*Deep breath*

Nice image from “Charlie X”. I love the use of different designs!

32. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 3, 2007

Looks cinematic to me.

33. Anthony Pascale - July 3, 2007

i am so pleased so many are interested in my grammar. Just an FYI I lived for many years in the UK and still do write for UK clients. I still use “ring me”
“get it sorted” and other Brit affectations in my daily life.

If anyone wants to volunteer to help TrekMovie.com by acting as researcher and proofreader feel free to ring me

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

So…What will the “Woden” look like in “The Ultimate Computer?” I am impressed…if only emotionally!!

Major Carrales

35. Anthony Pascale - July 3, 2007

oh and jon1701 and others getting personal and comments like calling people ‘twats’ is not welcome here. So get yourself sorted.

36. Nelson - July 3, 2007

The Enterprise looks the best it’s ever looked here from the CBS team! I’d love to see a large Hi-Rez image of this, because I think it could probably pass muster for Star Trek 2008 with just some added detailing.

But I have to say that the Antares is a little of a dissapointment for me. I appreciate and think it’s great that there is more references to TAS! But that design doesn’t quite work for me, too 70’s and not 1960″s Matt Jeffries. But I can really appreciate the effort and nod to TAS. So, “A++” for effort, “C” for Antares design. But that’s just my opinion! : )

Next ship to see is perhaps the Astral Queen from Conscience of the King.

37. OV-101 - July 3, 2007

The color of the ships is getting much more in line with the original ship models. Great work! The work keeps getting better!!!

38. Cranston - July 3, 2007

#36 — I actually agree a bit too. While I like this design because of its link to TAS, I admit that I’d pictured something a bit more Jefferies-esque when I heard they were going to show the Antares. Some never-seen, older-looking version of the disc + nacelles config. I’ll certainly accept this, but I agree with what you’re saying too.

39. Joe (The Quirk) - July 3, 2007

31. Cranston – July 3, 2007
Oh please, people. Grammatical conventions vary from place to place and country to country. Yes, the use of collective verbs and plural verb forms is standard in the UK. And yes, in the US there is an implied difference in meaning between “eggs, cheese, and bacon” and “eggs, cheese and bacon” — the former lists three independent items and the second implies two items (”eggs” and “cheese and bacon”).

Arguing over the “correctness” of different regional language traits over others is one of the silliest things that I (regularly) see people get into a huff over. Language is malleable, and “linguistic correctness” is an abstract, artificial construct at best.

*Deep breath*

Nice image from “Charlie X”. I love the use of different designs!

Thank you Cranston, I agree. I’m so sick of the grammar police, I could puke.

As for the TAS nod. Blech! Taking something as brilliant as TOS and turning it into TAS is just plain wrong, on so many levels.

40. New Horizon - July 3, 2007

DAMN!!! Now THAT’S the way the Enterprise should ALWAYS look in the remastered project. For a second, I thought that I was looking at a cleaned up version of original footage or something.

Lets hope CBS-D can go back and get the ship looking this great in all the episodes.

41. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 3, 2007

Most impressive. Maybe we’ll see Charlie make the warped baffle plate on the Antares go away. Better be nice to him.

42. Dennis Bailey - July 3, 2007

Love the new Antares – probably my favorite so far of the new TOS-R ships.

43. CmdrR - July 3, 2007

So nice to finally meet the Antares, if only briefly before they go ker-blooey! Way to go, CBS-D!

44. Gavin Harris - July 3, 2007

Major Carrales I agree. Can we be friends. I enjoy reading your posts and Im sorry about before. Im Gavin Harris.

45. Stanky X - July 3, 2007

I was unaware that was a British thing and that Mr. Pascale had any UK connections. I did not mean to start a war of words. As I originally stated, no offense intended. Basically, I’m just not used to hearing that and since have seen it here from time to time, I wondered about it. I tried to look it up without any luck. It has all been explained to my satisfaction.

As for Charlie X, it is one episode I often go out of my way to avoid watching. I spent much of the winter and spring watching the episodes and never could bring myself to watch that one. I’m not even sure what it is about it, but could be just because the character of Charlie gives me the creeps. I will, of course, watch the remastered effort.

46. last o' the timelords - July 3, 2007

Don’t like the Antares’ nacelle caps at all.

47. Commodore Z - July 3, 2007

#21: Since we’re nitpicking grammar, note that it should be “It’s totally redundant.” Note use of apostrophe.

48. Cranston - July 3, 2007

Charlie X has always been one of my favorites. Scary character, and great performances all around. (Plus, a nice homage to one of the best Twilight Zone episodes, “It’s a Good Life.”)

49. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 3, 2007

Marta has voluteered to be our official proofreader, should she fail in her duties she will be executed and my mute knifewielding Tellerite henchman will assume the duites he has a BA in English from Zantell 5 Community college

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

44. Gavin Harris – July 3, 2007

My friend…I thank you for the kind words. There will be times where we will disagree…may we always come away friends.

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

Lasting image burned into my childhood memory:

Charlie doing the big face-erase to the chick in the corridor on the E. Freaked me out!! Disturbing to a little kid as I think I was about 7 and saw it first in reruns.
Yeah, this is one of my faves.

52. steve623 - July 3, 2007

Perfect choice on the Antares. The TAS pedigree ties things together nicely, its something that Gene must have seen and signed off on way back when, and it also gets the CBS-D folks off the hook if people hate the design – they can always point back to TAS and say “if you don’t like it, you can blame Gene and Filmation”.

Huzzah, kudos and applause, applause.

53. steve623 - July 3, 2007

By the way, if anybody can make out the registry number on the Antares nacelle, we can all start another heated argument :-)

54. OR Coast Trekkie - July 3, 2007

Wow! Great shot CBS-D. Best Enterprise rendering yet. Not to mention a great Anteres. Kudos to using a TAS design.

Perhaps we’ll see another TAS design for one of the unnamed ships in “The Ultimate Computer.” We mentioned in another forum about the possibility of using different class startships for one of the unnamed ones. Maybe even give the ship rectangular nacelles (?). Of course you keep the Excalibur a Constitution class ship but you give it it’s own little tweak and personality.

55. Gavin Harris - July 3, 2007

Major Carrales, thank you sir. I will always respect your opinion. Thank you im new to star trek websites i hope u are the first of many friends. Let’s hope for the best trek movie so far. Im gavin harris.

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

I’m Fred Garvin, lover of old time starships with smooth hulls.

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

54. OR Coast Trekkie – July 3, 2007

I have often wondered, since these ships are often on the frontiers of FEDERATION space…if they do end up being “customized.”

I mean, let’s say the USS Intrepid or the USS Constellation has survived and had to be repaired “en space,” then report to some place like Star Base 12. As advances in technology presented themselves coupled with the damage to the general “superstruacture,” might a Starship sort of evolve so that the original 12 starships might, if ever “met up” somewhere, have minor differences (maybe major ones)

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

55. Gavin Harris – July 3, 2007

I look forward to indepth discussions of TREK.

By the way, I consider myself a “Universal Trek Theorist,” (not “terrorist”), meaning that everyone who likes TREK in any of its forms, should love it in all of its forms. TNG types should love TOS as “history,” and TOS types as peopel gifted with the knowledge of the future via TNG et al and “history” via ENT.

I also enjoy the idea of Star Trek’s “canon,” and feel it is what makes TREK unique. Thus, “reboots” and “remagining” are damnable words that mark the end of TREK. (why I took the name “John Gill,” another ill-fated bloke that toyed with HISTORY and paid a heavy price)

59. Buckaroohawk - July 3, 2007

Lovin’ that shot of the Enterprise and the Antares! Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!

There ain’t no way that the design is based on the Woden, though. That’s a TAS freighter through and through. Which is cool as I’ve always liked the design.

Oh, and please pardon my grammar ;-)

60. Cranston - July 3, 2007

#57 Major Carrales:

I’ve thought about that (opportunistic repairs over time) too. In fact, one of the reasons Voyager didn’t work for me was that I felt that should have been one of the guiding principles of the show’s design. The ship looked too pristine. I always thought that the show should end 50 years later, with Voyager half replaced with alien technology and alien repairs, and a crew that was only 10-20% the original folks, finally arriving at Earth, unrecognizable but surviving.

Of course, they decided to go a different route.

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

60. Cranston – July 3, 2007

To me, it makes sense. Especially after watching footage of B-17 returning to England after bombing Germany during WWII, retrofitted Cessna aircrafft of all types from the 1950-60s still in the air and fishing vessels in Corpus Chrsiti, Texas; they all have minor (sometimes major) customizing that is the result fo what you call “opportunistic repairs.”

Ships out on the frontier, if their careers are like those of the USS Enterprise, should have to have major “field” repairs and upgrades.

Somewhere on the internet, and I cannot find it, is a model someone made of the USS Constitution (NCC-1700) relettered in TMP style and with a TMP bridge module and other modifications that do not go as far as the refitted Enterprise. I wish I could find the linkm but it is a perfect example (down to the faded “ghost” imaging of its TOS lettering) of this. A ship so far out in space that it never gets a “full” upgrade and is “retrofit” uthe point where it is decommissioned.

If anyone knows that modler or has that link, please post it here.

62. OM - July 3, 2007

…Frack the photo, I’ve been looking for that mesh for weeks now!

63. Jim J - July 3, 2007

This looks so cool. I’m anxious, though I’ve never been a fan of the episode.

64. Jovan - July 3, 2007

This is the sort of “risk” they should have taken in Errand of Mercy, showing more Federation ship designs in background so we can actually SEE there’s a fleet that has the Enterprise’s back.

I’m in support of this little change, and can’t wait to see the finished episode.

65. Harry Ballz - July 3, 2007

Hey, the above posts keep talking about grammar. If anyone wishes a debate on the subtleties regarding lingo, I must warn you, I AM a cunning linguist!!!

66. Harry Ballz - July 3, 2007

Boy, it takes Ballz to make a remark like that!!!

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

66. Harry Ballz – July 3, 2007

Yes, that took chutzpah!!!

68. dmack - July 4, 2007

finally!

THAT’S what the “E” should have looked like all along! FINALLY!
Now please, b4 it’s too late, go back and tweak some of the awful videogamey shots before we plunk down our dough for the DVD/HD sets!

69. Stanky Garvin - Male - July 4, 2007

56. THX-1138–Fred Garvin’s grammar class – July 3, 2007
“I’m Fred Garvin, lover of old time starships with smooth hulls.”

…and elaborate series of trusses

70. cd - July 4, 2007

Excellent job on Antares! Very much like the TAS freighters but with very believable modifications. It looks like something that they might design and built if they had the time and money for the original series. It has an early 1960’s industrial aesthetic that is very much in keeping with TOS.
I am hoping this the kind of thing they will do with the new Trek movie: take what we have seen and expand on it in a believable and stylistically consistent way, both in terms of technology and story, characterization, etc.
I’d like to see the movie be made almost as if it was a war/military movie made in the early 1960’s: same production styles, etc. but with the advantage of modern budget and CGi. I’d like to see a large scale, panoramic believable Starfleet and Federation in a 23rd century seen through the 1960s as powered by the moviemaking magic of the 21st century.
Or is that too much to ask?

71. spsblue - July 4, 2007

17: Oh, so that annoying comma before ‘and’, comes from Amercia getting our language ‘wrong’ j/k :-) as well.

I wish people wouldn’t keep insisting that American English is the same as the Queen’s English, or what we speak here in the UK.

72. jon1701 - July 4, 2007

Apologies for flying off the handle.

The OP (stanky) was merely asking a question. My anger wasnt focused on him, it was poster #17. I’m not bothered by grammar on the internet either. I was more concerned with the poster talking about english language as “annoying” and “irritating” and talking about the UK in general as if this was website was solely visited by americans. It’s simply not called for. If I had a personal problem with any other language or culture, I would never post this view on the internet – a medium that is read daily by any number of people. If I posted about how I found american grammer and spelling annoying (which I dont, by the way), I would expect a similar if not larger backlash.

But again, I apologise for my outburst.

73. OR Coast Trekkie - July 4, 2007

57. Major Joe

I agree with your line of thinking, and you would be correct. As ships receive battle damage, wear and tear, etc. repairs and modifications would be made, which could end up sometimes, giving ships a complete make-over. But mine actually goes a step further. I don’t think Starfleet initially built the ships completely cookie-cutter identical in the first place. I mean, if you do research on other Star Trek websites (startrek.com or memory alpha) there are some classes of ships that do have variations within the class. I am also bringing TNG era shows, and Enterprise in the mix for this argument: There were differences between the look of the bridge for the Enterprise, the “real” Yamato and the Odyssey. There were differences between the bridges of the Defiant and “Defiant 2.” There were differences in hull coloring between the NX-01 Enterprise and the Columbia. I mean, after all, Starfleet has multiple shipyards. Each one may give it’s own flair to each ship. Plus, different ships are built with different purposes and missions. A Constituion-class ship which is to patrol the neutral zone border may have more in the way of weapons fire than a Constitution-class ship sent to chart quasars.

This alos made me think of something that the CBS-D people should do… show battle damage to the Enterprise throughout the rest of an episode! Here’s where you have the advantage of using CGI as opposed to filming models. Keep that hull breach throughout the rest of the show; show the patchwork, or little repair teams walking on the hull (including the sides, underneath). Just another one of those little details that CBS-D could address before releasing the DVD’s.

74. Giuseppe - July 4, 2007

#73

What you say about battle damage carried across episodes, patchwork, repair teams and all that sounds cool, but I doubt we’ll see something like this in TOS-R. It would take more work from CBS-D and I’m not sure they have the time and resources to do this, even for the DVD release.

75. FredCFO - July 4, 2007

“England and America are two countries separated by a common language.”
–George Bernard Shaw

Yeah, this is what remastering should be all about. Adding where 1960’s budget concerns left off.

Now will we see the Antares blow up? The Thasian ship?

Anthony — the design of the Woden? Not USS Woden as it was a commercial ore freighter. And as we all know, the Woden was a reuse of the Botany Bay. (Oh BTW, I like your commentaries.)

“This must be a space first. A transport ship that doesn’t need anything?”
Another good line.

76. non-fanatic - July 4, 2007

I don’t know all of the episodes inside-out like a lot of people here (thankfully), but isn’t Charlie X the episode where Kirk goes into the lift wearing one shirt and comes out with another? I don’t suppose they’ll try and fix that.

And talking of differences in language; why is it called a ‘turbo-lift” when it’s an American TV program? We say lift here in England but I thought Americans called it an elevator? Just curious.

77. BLFSisko - July 4, 2007

In 99 % I´m happy with CBS-D. They´re making a great job. But this time, I have to say – and it´s only my personal opininion – the Antares looks terrible (both the design and the rendering). But of course it is nice that they hade made a reference to TAS. By the way, now we know, that this Antares doesn´t have anything in common with the “Antares”-Class ships like the Batris or Xhosa, as often speculated.

78. Shadow6283 - July 4, 2007

Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP – July 3, 2007
55. Gavin Harris – July 3, 2007

I look forward to indepth discussions of TREK.

By the way, I consider myself a “Universal Trek Theorist,” (not “terrorist”), meaning that everyone who likes TREK in any of its forms, should love it in all of its forms. TNG types should love TOS as “history,” and TOS types as peopel gifted with the knowledge of the future via TNG et al and “history” via ENT.

I wouldn’t go that far. IDIC, remember? I’ve always been a Classic Trek fan, and never cared for any of the others, aside from, of course. TAS, then or now. Folks know what they like, regardless of the name “Star Trek” nailed onto the title, and that’s it.

79. THEETrekMaster - July 4, 2007

Beautiful work!!! Was not expecting the freigher in this one….

80. mrregular - July 4, 2007

Since I was a kid in the 70s I always wondered why the Antares was not shown onscreen in any form. Now the CBS-D team has corrected that oversight. Thanks again guys!

81. Captain Pike - July 4, 2007

I’m pleased to see TAS being embraced by the CBS-D crew. The best of TAS is as good as much of live Trek. The worst is no poorer than Spock’s Brain, or that gawd episode of DS9 where Vedek Bareil spends the whole time dying, or that episode of Voyager with Michael McKean as a clown, or etc.

For those of us who were young fans when TAS aired, it gave us a fresh Trek experience when there was little new Trek. I’m glad to see others remember it fondly too.

82. JB - July 4, 2007

That is a wonderful shot. Not only is the Big E vastly improved over CBS-D’s early efforts (compare this to “Miri” – yecch!), but it’s also delightful that they’re making use of the designs presented in TAS.

83. JB - July 4, 2007

#45 – Hey Stanky,

I never really liked “Charlie X” when I was a kid, either, but over the years it’s become one of my favorites, for this reason: the writers do a great job of villainizing Charlie, to the point where we really want to see Kirk land that punch, and yet, when the aliens take him away, we feel genuinely sorry for him – the scene has a sense of tragedy and loss to it. Great writing that was well-acted.

84. KS Trekker - July 4, 2007

RE: #76

I would think that with the unification of Earth people over time, phrases from different languages and cultures would all become part of the vernacular. Didn’t people say turbo elevator on the show at some point?

On another note…

I am glad to see that CBS-D is (are? – better be careful in this thread!) taking notes from TAS. I personally love the animated shows and can’t understand why they can’t be considered canon. Now, I don’t want to open a can of worms with the whole ‘canon’ issue, but if it is a fictional history, who is to say what is ‘fact’ and what isn’t? Besides, as I mentioned in another thread, TAS is better than most of the animated crap that’s on the air today – it engages the imagination, and shows as much love for Star Trek as anything else that’s been put out.

I look forward to seeing ‘Charie X'; I just read James Blish’s adaptation (called ‘Charlie’s Law’) and it reminded me of how annoying Charlie was. That much power in the hands of one who doesn’t know how to properly use it is indeed a scary prospect. (And I won’t go into any political overtones with that one, tempting as it may be, lest I get told to sod off!) :)

Thank you, Anthony, for all your hard work!

85. Ron - July 4, 2007

Very sweet. Both Enterprise and Antares look stunning in this shot. So good that it almost looks like Enterprise has received another CGI upgrade – beautiful shading and detail. Put me on the list of people anxiously awaiting “The Ultimate Computer” :-)

86. IrishTrekkie - July 4, 2007

alot of talk about english grammer , i will just say, the english may have invented the language, but it was the Irish would made it truly poetic.

oh my god , oh my god ……..a starfleet vessel and its NOT a Constitution class, but wait no ! the Reliant was the first non-Constitution-class Starfleet starship in star trek ………………..so confused , i feel like a computer that kirk just used logic to outsmart. ………….they are rewriting history ……..nooooo http://khaaan.com/ .

actually wait , i really like the new ship ……..good work CBS-D

87. Nelson - July 4, 2007

Had another look at this image today. I noticed how cool it is that the Enterprise appears to have a bluish tint to it. I don’t know if that is an artifact of image manipulation at CBS or startrek.com, but it’s a great look over the recent already great work. The current work is really well done, but ship appears so monochrome.

I hate to bring up that old, and tired discussion about how the ship needs a blue tint to it. But in the case of this image, it brings a liviness to the Enterprise. The image “pops”.

88. Jeff Bond - July 4, 2007

I absolutely LOVE that they’re adding these TAS designs…my only complaint is I really wanted to see the S.S. Huron class here and the drone freighter design in “The Ultimate Computer.” It’s VERY cool that they’ve modified the drone design to give it living space. Bring on the model kit!!

89. Sean - July 4, 2007

I have to say, they’re getting quite good with the shadowing and textures on the Enterprise. It’s looking great!

90. OR Coast Trekkie - July 4, 2007

#74 – I know what you mean. There is a sadness, and an irony, to the fact that there are time and budget restrictions to fixing effects that were a result of time and budget restrictions. Iv’e said it before and I ‘ll say it again, I’d be more than willing to wait a couple of extra months and shell out a couple of extra bucks if they do some more fine tuning, like battle damage. I’m sure that’s a universal thought across the board.

91. Andrew F - July 4, 2007

[quote – 12. Lao3D – July 3, 2007] That just rocks — and the E does look particularly good too. Looks like the same shot used in Space Seed, which I think remains their high point in terms of ship rendering. [end quote]

I agree with that, but the S.S Botany Bay could have looked better, the CGI for that looked like it was out of a computer game.

[quote – 17. James – July 3, 2007] In response to Stanky at #6 – the people in England seem to have the notion that a singular thing or object, if it is a collective, should have a plural verb, even though it is ONE THING. It’s very irritating, and I ignore it in my head while reading, putting the correct ending on the verb. [end quote]

Yeah but we (British) invented the English language, so ours is the definitive version. :p

92. THEETrekMaster - July 4, 2007

“Yeah but we (British) invented the English language, so ours is the definitive version.”

Well, la-ti-frickkin-DA! *We* invented human flight and moon landings!

So whadayasay to that, bloke? ;-)

93. COMPASSIONATE GOD - July 4, 2007

TAS strikes again!! First, Spock’s home city from “Yesteryear” appears in “Amok Time”, now a ship from the animated classic! Wonderful!!

94. Robert Bernardo - July 5, 2007

Great to have the same type of cargo vessel as used in Pirates of Orion in TAS! Now if it is not edited out of the show, it would be great to have the female crewperson digitally made “faceless” by Charlie (instead of having on a mask… if you know what I mean). :-)

95. Fred Blogs - July 5, 2007

#92
Well, actually I think ‘you’ had a lot of help from German scientists ‘you’ pouched from world war 2 for ‘your’ rocket missions to the moon.

Oh, and ‘we’ invented the computer during WW2 to help crack the German Enigma codes, and ‘we’ invented the world-wide-web.

We could go on all day listing things one or the other of our counties have ‘invented’. The thing is, I have never invented anything, and, perhaps you have never invented anything, so it’s all a bit silly and nauseatingly patriotic on both sides.

96. THEETrekMaster - July 5, 2007

#95 LMAO!!!! Hey man, I love the UK….so this is all just in fun for me…:-)

97. THEETrekMaster - July 5, 2007

Meh, I thought…and still think…the faceless gal is effective. No need to cgi that….perhaps it’s *Charlies* vision of what a faceless person would look like?

98. marco - July 5, 2007

The NCC-1701 looks quite good!!!! That is the way the ship should look in the new movie!

99. TOS Fan Forever - July 5, 2007

BEST… CGI F/X… LIGHTING… YET!

Exceptional job, CBS-D! The NCC-1701 doesn’t look like a model with shading already added to the textures to simulate shadowing. And the TAS-inspired cargo ship design was VERY welcomed! I always thought the U.S.S. Antares was one of those original Matt Jefferies designs (giant globe for the primary hull, cylindrical secondary hull), but this works well, too.

A very pleased TOS fan here! Keep up great work with shots like these!

100. Kirk's Girdle - July 5, 2007

Finally, THAT’s the Enterprise!

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

My I remind all the “America Bashers” and “Britannia-phobes” that this is a Star Trek webstie and that thsi is neither Lexington…nor Concord…nor Yorktown nor is the date 1812.

Strange that Star Trek…that is supposedly an instrument of peace and unity…is generated this discord (and with an origin in grammar).

Sorry, but, yes, this is a scolding!!!

102. Fred Blogs - July 5, 2007

#96 Don’t you mean “hey bloke” ;-) (actually, we wouldn’t say that).
Yes, let’s all get on and be friendly.

Anyway, the above picture does look good. Perhaps we’ll get to see a larger version of it before long.

I’m puzzled why people think that the Enterprise looks significantly better than usual though. I can’t imagine that they’re still tweaking it, and to me, it’s looked the same for months. I wish I could see what it is that you can see.

103. the king in shreds and tatters - July 5, 2007

wordin’ done works when wordin’ done work; ain’t no more, ain’t no less.

ps. ship looks awesome. the film grain really adds to it.

104. Ozy - July 5, 2007

Antares looks great. Its nice to see some new class of federation ship from that era.

105. IrishTrekkie - July 5, 2007

This is great while the Americans and English fight , we irish will use our evil plan to get an Irish pub in every , city , town , and planet in the universe . mahahahahaha

106. THX-1138--Fred Garvin's grammar class - July 5, 2007

Is ya’ ll dun wif yer gripin’ n whatnot? Cuz ah wuz awundrin whin we could git back ta talkin’ bout nay-celles n such.

107. Dr. Image - July 5, 2007

Both ships look great!! Bluer? Not sure I approve.

Hey, I’m goin’ to Toronto Trek- I mean “Polaris.”
Just thought I’d mention…it’s always a blast.
C-Ya!

108. Redshirt - July 5, 2007

This would make a good desktop image. I wouldn’t care if they used a TAS design or not. It looks like a good scene its very welcomed. But I’m more interested also as Charlie uses his powers what kind of effects might be used. I’m rather curious about that. Its too bad on the official site they have to resort to using non-new shots of the episodes as Desktop Wallpaper. The whole point was promoting CBS-D hard work.

109. Chuck_N - July 5, 2007

Comments on Ship Design – I have to say that I like the Antares’ design; it seems to be a case of form follows function as well as having some recognizable TOS-era technology. I think this design helps to illustrate how ship (or aircraft ) design is a series of deliberate compromises necessary for a particular machine to perform the intented purpose. The Constitution-class starships were the apex of spaceship design in their day and their mission was the most demanding. They had to operate as long range, deep space exploration platforms equipped to perform scientific, diplomatic and military missions with little support. Therefore, they were larger and more capably equipped with state of the art power, sensor and weapons systems. They are also very expensive to develop, build and operate (“only 12 like it in the fleet”). In contrast, the Antares and other lesser vessels are designed differently for their more narrowly defined missions. A freighter is essentially a self propelled box, with minimal space devoted to crew and non-cargo equipment. They are needed in large numbers to be effective so that dictates a design that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture and deploy (simple shapes, common materials and minimal crew requirements). Charlie X’s comment that the Antares was not very well constructed may be seen as an indicator that this class of ship was put together quickly and hastily to meet a great demand for ships during the Federation’s expansion in the 23rd Century. This is not without precident; during WWII the Liberty ships were the standard cargo vessel used by the Allies as they were an inexpensive and easy to build ship produced in the thousands. They were ugly, slow and used an outdated engine design but they met the need. In contrast, the Allied and Axis powers deployed huge aircraft carriers and battleships that were the technological cuttling edge of ship design and capability. But since each represented an enormous investment, their total numbers were limited. These top of the line ships did not look like contemporary cargo or scout vessels because their function dictated their form. It is this practical reality of designing within constraints and to fit specific purposes that undermines the notion that all ships in Starfleet regardless of their mission need to be some variation on the Big “E”s design. They are different because they need to different.

110. Chuck_N - July 5, 2007

Starship Modifications – To Major Joe and OR; I agree with the idea that Enterprise and her sister ships would develop very distinct differences from each other based on when/where they were constructed and from the numerous repairs and minor refits any vessel undergoes over a long service life. If you look at modern warships, there are visible differences between ships of the same class even when new and this becomes more pronounced over time. For example, the current Nimitz class aircraft carriers have been around since 1975 and the same basic design is still used. However, the USS Nimitz does look visibly different from the USS Ronald Reagan (location of the “island”, radar installation, etc). even though they are fundamentally the same ship. I recently toured the USS Midway, a retired WWII aircraft carrier and discovered that the entire flight deck was radically changed twice after the ship was first deployed. The ship’s final profile looked completely different when she was decommissioned in 1991 than she did when launched in1945. So, it is logical to speculate that visible variations would be present within the Constitution class starships including engine and main sensor upgrades. An excellent example is the change from the “cap & spike” nacelles of the Enterprise in WNMHGB to the “production” Enterprise which could be argued represents a propulsion refit to some of the first ships in the class.

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

110. Chuck_N – July 5, 2007

Well said. We can assume that a “fleet” is an “organic” creature, changing, adapting…but bound by regulations and specs. Thus, there is variation, but there is also similarity.

We can assume that the interiors would provide more variety. Suppose the “bridge railing” on a sister ship is “blue” or “orange.” Everything from Captain’s Preference to available upgrades.

In the M-5 wargames fleet is would not be out of line to see “spired” warp engines or even more TMP-like modiciations (new bridge module or even an adapted “photon torpedo” launching deck.) These would have to be subtle…if at all.

I think the overall guiding principle in the TOS style ship is “sleek” somewhat plain design…a design shift from the ENT era. Later, after TMP, there is more variation (likely due to th grafting of “Beta” technology.)

We can assume that the Constitution Class ended production after the refits of the 2270s. There were likley 12 original ships, followed by several others. Production stopped and likley the next generation of ships were explored in the EXCELSIOR.

Get this (I love Star Ship Design Specuation)…

The Refitted CONSTITUTION CLASS is not really MOVIE ERA…it is a retread. The MIRADA and EXCELSIOR CLASSES are actually two products of that era. The Consitution class likely held on as long as possible, but the fleet was replaced (based on TNG and DS9) Excelsiors and Reliants. There is no other explanation for that…other than for the Constitution Class refit to have been like a seed; born of another plant, but the mother of a generation.

Thus, we can also logically assume that the TOS Contitution was radically different from its prior ships (likely upscaled ENT type ships)

The TOS Consitution class designer (MATT JEFFERIES’s fictional TOS persona) was the Harley J. Earl of his time!!!

112. OR Coast Trekkie - July 6, 2007

111. Major Joe – We can assume that the Constitution Class ended production after the refits of the 2270s.

Actually Major, that would be an incorrect assumption.

Remember, the 1701-A was commissioned in 2286 and launched in 2287, which would mean that Constitution class ships were still being constructed through the mid 2280’s. However, it is reasonable to assume that the 1701-A was the last Constitution-class ship launched.

This is what we ALL have to remember about the time-line in the “Kirk” era. The refit started in 2270, right after the end of Kirk’s 5 year mission, So that would mean that no more than 3 years passed after TAS and TMP, which, to me, does not mean a new “era.” The new era, would begin with Wrath of Khan, which takes place in 2285, to which we get 4 movies in which the events run concurrently. However, the whale probe attack happen in 2286, and the 1701-A was launched in 2287. Here is how I assume how the time pases: Wrath of Khan/Search for Spock would have to happen between October-December of 2285. The crew returns in January of 2286, with the court-martial soon following. It is reasonable to assume that the little cruise of the 1701-A at the end of Voyage Home would be December of 2286, as the ship would still need to be built, which would put the “launch” of the 1701-A in early 2287 (the dialogue of Scotty saying “Let’s find out what she’s got, well we certainly did” which is what Kirk said at the end of Voyage home would indicate that minimal time passed between Voyage Home and Final Frontier). To account for the fact that it would not be butt-freezing cold in Yellowstone in January: Earth and the Federation do have weather control grids by this time, impled in Voyage Home, one of the reasons why the weather turns horrid is because of the failure of the weather contol grid. The Undiscovered Country takes place in 2293, and the 1701-B, an Excelsior class ship (which looks quite a bit different than the Excelsior) was commissioned/launched in that same year.

While I tend to be long winded, the point I was making was not to be critical of Major Joe, but rather to simply restate that TMP-like features on ships for TOS are compeltely within reason.

Remember this also: none of the 1701 Enterprises were “Enterprise” class ships, which would mean that none of the 1701 Enterprises were the first ships built in their class, assuming that you accept that the class name of the ship is derived from the first ship of it’s class built, which I’m not sure is canon or not. Someone fill me in on this one.

113. OR Coast Trekkie - July 6, 2007

also major joe, I do agree with you, just so ya know

114. Robert Bernardo - July 6, 2007

THEETrekMaster wrote:

> No need to cgi that….perhaps it’s *Charlies* vision of what a faceless
> person would look like?

So you want to keep the look of a mask on the girl? I’d prefer the look of no face (thus making the effect more horrific).

115. OR Coast Trekkie - July 6, 2007

Oh yeah, something else: I stated before showing battle damage throughout an episode. but with computer technology, you can even keep some of those “repair scars” throughout the series. I mean, for us critical minded Trekkies and Trekkers who like continutiy, nothing would seem to break continuity more than an “unscarred” Enterprise. See, this is why they should hire just regular viewers as consultants for this project :-).

116. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 6, 2007

112. OR Coast Trekkie – July 6, 2007

Excellent post…don’t worry about being long winded, I am an historian by trade.

What is always been “unrealistic” (corrected actually by the TMP remaster i.e. the TOS shutlecraft) is that there are little signs of TOS era things in post TMP movies. We have to assume that TOS looked liked it did because in DS9 and ENT it was shown in that way.

Even today, there are places and things that have changed little from the 1950s (at least in element). Also, in terms of ships of all sorts on the seas today, many of them are not from our era. The allusion to the USS Nimitz earlier in this thread is proof of that.

I love this sort of discussion…

117. 1701-4-EVER - July 6, 2007

Please, post a bigger image! I want it to be my new wallpaper! LOL
I love the 1701, and I love the Antares!!!

118. THEETrekMaster - July 6, 2007

#114 No, the original “face wipe” never bothered me. It looks fine to me and, in my opinion, doesn’t need any work. In fact, It’s hardly even on screen…

119. Robert Bernardo - July 6, 2007

THEETrekMaster wrote:

> In fact, It’s hardly even on screen…

Yet, it is on-screen, enough to be noticed (and that’s the point of the shot).

120. THEETrekMaster - July 6, 2007

Leave it alone…not EVERYTHING needs to be cgi…

121. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 6, 2007

WHy won’t this let me post?

The idea is that the USS ENTERPRISE is “too plain” or “too dated” to be relevant to modern audiences.

Those of us that think the TOS USS Enterprise is too plain must have never seen it…

Here is a link to a page where a closeup of the original, albiet restored, filming model as it hangs at the Smithsonian Institution…

Photos of the model…

http://www.uah.edu/~jim/91ENT3.JPG

http://www.uah.edu/~jim/91ENT4.JPG

http://www.uah.edu/~jim/91ENT6.JPG

I don’t see what you people want to turn it into something it is not. ?I say use this model in the new movie, or digitize it and use a CGI based pound pr pound, pixel per pixel.

What say y’all?

122. tfuv - July 6, 2007

well said! I agree.

123. Xai - July 6, 2007

#121
The point is that you don’t need the old model to rebuild it as CGI.

#120
Theetrekmaster

Yes, the face wipe does need help…you can tell they built up the prosethic (sp) to hide the face. Why not make it believable?

124. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 6, 2007

123. Xai – July 6, 2007

The point is that you don’t need to “thow the baby out with the bathwater,” a TOS movie needs to have TOS designs. Not some reimagined monstrosity.

125. THEETrekMaster - July 6, 2007

#123 Xai…don’t hold your breath. LOL

If they didn’t replace the readouts in WNHGB (when Mitchell was reading them quickly) don’t expect something like that face wipe (which was a “if you blink you miss it shot”) to be changed…

LMAO!!!!

126. Robert Bernardo - July 7, 2007

THEETrekMaster wrote:

> Leave it alone…not EVERYTHING needs to be cgi…

Who said anything about making everything CGI?

> If they didn’t replace the readouts in WNHGB (when Mitchell was
> reading them quickly) don’t expect something like that face wipe…

However, they did change Norman’s stomach panel in I, Mudd.

…(which was a “if you blink you miss it shot”) to be changed…

Again you miss the dramatic point of the shot, no matter how long it lasts in duration.

127. THEETrekMaster - July 7, 2007

No, YOU don’t get it.

They are likely NOT going to change it. It’s not worth their time.

Damn. Do I have to beat some sense into you? LMAO!!!

128. THEETrekMaster - July 7, 2007

Oh, and the camera lingered on Norman’s stomach for seemingly an eternity compared to how long we see the face wipe…damn! They aren’t going to change it…accept it. LOL!!!

129. THEETrekMaster - July 7, 2007

Oh, and the camera lingered on Norman’s stomach for seemingly an eternity compared to how long we see the face wipe…damn! They aren’t going to change it…accept it. LOL!!!

Should the little iguana in the corridor be cgi’ed as well? What about Rand’s ass when Charlie slaps it? LMAO!!!!

130. Queefer Bukkake - July 8, 2007

Nice ship but the best effect in this whole episode is still Yeoman Rand.

131. Leo Star Dragon 1. - July 16, 2007

Greetings & Salutations, One & All!

Wow! Nice image! Thanks a lot! I wrote too soon at another site that I couldn’t find any pictures, yet the next site I find has one!

I noticed some debates here, but I’ll avoid those for now as this is my first posting here.

By the way, they made the ANTARES the way I’d always thought it must be once I’d seen the animated series.

The cast are very nice people to meet in person.

Oh, and the animated series suddenly became non-canon because one episode featured Magic. A staple for the Fantasy Genre, not the Science–Fiction genre. The episode writer’s pick-up truck needed a jump start assist from my car, and while we worked on that, we talked about it. He was bitter about it then. Now if the new owners intend to retcon the canon status of the animated episodes, I’m anxious to see how they deal with that!

132. Leo Star Dragon 1. - July 17, 2007

Hello!

I just shared the picture with an English friend, and an Idea occured to me. What if the reason why they have cargo drones in the animated series is because of how easily Charles Evans destroyed the ANTARES? I.e., the simple removal of an already warped baffle plate? Perhaps the shipyard engineers realized that despite the undoable deaths, Mister Evens did them a favor by showing a design flaw, too dangerous for humans and aliens, but not for mere drones. Perhaps even having people aboard lead to the problem in the first place. Also, hey, what if they made the ships not just simply computer automated, but for mainentance tasks, they gave them drone crews like the VALLEY FORGE and BERSKHIRE had in the movie “SILENT RUNNING”? Just an idea.

133. Leo Star Dragon 1. - July 17, 2007

Oh! Also, because then they would go from being “manned ships” to being “drone ships”, as opposed to the ships themselves being the drones.

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