New Enterprise Test Footage? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Enterprise Test Footage? October 2, 2007

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

The July TrekMovie.com story that the USS Enterprise will be in the new Star Trek sparked much speculation. A video (titled ‘test footage’) appeared on YouTube a few days after the story, but just got noticed in the last week sparking many emails to TrekMovie.com.

After consulting those in the know, TrekMovie.com has come to the following conclusion…

Comments

1. Pragmaticus - October 2, 2007

Very promising stuff.

2. Michael - October 2, 2007

How did I know you’d use that DS9 clip???

3. Pragmaticus - October 2, 2007

Too bad it’s apparently a fake though.

4. Robert April - October 2, 2007

LOL, nice touch with the “It’s a fake” clip.

5. JCool - October 2, 2007

LoL Anthony!

6. Ed - October 2, 2007

I did like that DS9 episode. I am so looking forward to this movie.

7. Gary - October 2, 2007

It’s totally fake, please that model looks as detailed as a Starfleet Command 2 model… lol and the lighting… oh gawd LAWL

8. Al - October 2, 2007

The effects will not be blue screen, so obviously and totally fake

9. David - October 2, 2007

clearly, undeniably. NOT test footage. Gotta luv the “it’s a faaaaaake!”

10. jock ewing - October 2, 2007

to me it looks better than the cbs digital remaster fake enterprise that looks like a video game animation

11. Sean4000 - October 2, 2007

#10 Agreed.

I doubt that models will be used so heavily as in earlier Trek films. especially after Digital Domain showed up ILM with the CG work in Nemesis. Plus it is really a case of time marching on for the way films are made. However, models have an advantage that CG ships will NEVER have. Models have real mass and weight whereas CG is, well, weightless. It is much easier to make a model to look more appealing with simple math and camera speed settings. CG just requires so much more time and work and if one cue is of then the believability is ruined completely.

That’s the issue I have with TOS-R. They have an improving model but they just don’t know how to get the damn thing to move and behave right!

12. Parosu Grasu - October 2, 2007

very funny, that DS9 clip is awesome :)

13. JC - October 2, 2007

On the subject of the depiction of the new Enterprise…I’d imagine it would have to be depicted much larger than TOS ship .Perhaps the size of the Enterprise B (Excelsior )Would be more realistic especially for a movie and a crew compliment of 400 plus.

14. Jeyl - October 2, 2007

What the? Only one photon torpedo launcher? Talk about a neutered version of one of my favorite ship designs. Thank god it’s a fake!

15. CmdrR. - October 2, 2007

The nacelles look way too fake.
Oh, and the rest of it, too.

16. Craig - October 2, 2007

Darn and I thought I was going to my wish with what I posted about wanting to see what the new Enterprise looked like in the Urban article. Anthony I wondered when seeing that TrekMovie has come to the following conclusion if you would have used that line from DS9. :)

17. Trekee - October 2, 2007

Heh, nicely put…

That model was RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!1111

I’d love to see a proper 40 foot model built but it’s just not going to happen any more. CGI is the way it is now. The limiting factor used to be the details and the closeups but if you look at the CGI Enterprise in the remastered TMP, it passed all inspection and was as graceful as the motion capture ship. It doesn’t HAVE to be pants!

I sometimes think I am more interested in how the big E looks and moves in this new film than who they cast as Kirk tbh as they CAN make a tall ship which moves in a stately fashion to bring that whole ‘Hornblower’ feel to the film that WoK had which makes SO much more difference to the film than letting some crappy frisbee NX-01 pretend to be the Falcon as it swoops in on it’s axis and barrel rolls around the place and makes you think you’re watching some knock off Blake’s 7 clone…!

It’s about dignity goddammit! :-)

Anyway, apologies for the rant but I was all excited for a minute there until I saw that… :-D

Remember the reverence when Sybok talked about a “Star Ship” and even whatsisface, the failed captain in TOS who’s name completey escapes me when he said that Jim Kirk commanded a “Star Ship”..?

The Enterprise is a magical, classical vessel, not some cheapy knockoff Ent-E style spacefighter that swishes around with no real importance :)

it has so much history. There were papers written in the 70s that discussed it’s sexuality if anyone else is old enough to remember that. Men lusted after the ship because if you dropped enough acid you could imagine it was a woman with it’s legs in the air! (Someone got paid to write that but it was around the time of “I am not Spock” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” by the Shat, so fair enough I suspect.

That may not be helping my point mind you, but the point IS that it’s not to be thought of as anything other than the single most memorable and recognisable space ship in the history of science fiction.

So they better not mess it up :)

18. Levois - October 2, 2007

That footage doesn’t look bad though.

19. MiamiTrek - October 2, 2007

“Men lusted after the ship because if you dropped enough acid you could imagine it was a woman with it’s legs in the air!”

I have now officially read it all….I wonder how many geeks on acid trips checked into an ER with a Enterprise model stuck to their nads.

Oh…damn, that’s not a pretty visual.

20. SirMartman - October 2, 2007

Fake,, pffttt,,

But the “Gabe Koerner 3d Enterprise” sure is interesting,hes got 2 Enterprise movies on youtube by the way,hes put alot of hard work into his clips.

look up GCKoerner on youtube.com

That guy has alot of talent

21. Trekee - October 2, 2007

It was a long time ago, and I’m sure I read it in a tabloid, but there was some bloke with many letters after his name who swore that was why Star Trek was popular… :-)

Right, go find that old ERTL kit you have and blow the dust off it, and take a good look at where they put the shuttlebay doors and see if he is right!

I suspect it depends on the angle you look at…..

(Disclaimer: I’m just passing on old memories, I have to say I REALLY hope he’s not right, but it’s more that people took the ship *that* seriously before CGI frying pans became a 5 minute job on Lightwave. It’s the Beagle, the Endeavour, the Kon Tiki rolled into one and made myth… they named the first Space Shuttle after it and if you ask me (which you didn’t) it all went downhill with the Ent-D).

22. CmdrR. - October 2, 2007

The E-D was very much a creature of its time, as was the Big E.
60s = sexy curves.
80s = stealth bomber technology

Personally, decades later I still like sexy curves.

23. =A= - October 2, 2007

I disagree that Enterprise II designed because of one photon torpedo launcher. mr spock and kirk never been on borad. dont show in movie..

24. MiamiTrek - October 2, 2007

It took me a long time to like the Enterprise D. I was 13 when TNG premiered and I though it looked like the Enterprise had a baby with some kind of spinal disorder. REALLY big head and tiny little lower body and legs.

But then some neat angles, the quick u-turn and jump to warp happen and I was in love again. My fave Enterprise will always be the ones in the movies. So sleek and graceful.

In a platonic non-sexual way, of course.

25. Thomas Jensen - October 2, 2007

Wouldn’t the ship in the move be the “pilot” version if it takes place before WNMHGB? After that time it would be the “production” version. If the events of the first season are the beginning of the 5-year-mission, then it seems the ship was upgraded after it’s adventure to the edge of the galaxy.

It would be fun to see both in the movie, if events dictated. But this fake version just comes out of nowhere. Looks good though.

26. Gary - October 2, 2007

Sexual or Not we want our beloved BABY BACK as we remember it! :-)

27. Craig - October 2, 2007

#24. Same here I didn’t like the D at first but it grew on me. I wonder if the new Enterprise will be radically different? Or if it will have the same exterior except maybe larger but the inside will be dramatically different.

28. CmdrR. - October 2, 2007

Hope the windows are smaller. Big windows (or too bright at too long of a distance) ruin the sense of scale. That’s my biggest problem with the E-D; the dang windows would have to be three decks high!
If the new E is the same size as TOS (about three decks deep in the forward saucer) then it would be neat if they acknowledged that with the set. They would be more like a submarine in that the corridors would be crowded with instrumentation, maybe some work stations, and working pipes and guts. That would be cool.

29. MiamiTrek - October 2, 2007

I honestly don’t think it will be radically different. But I am certain that there will be some changes. Hopefully not too many purists will have aneurysms when the new design is released. Interiors should have some minor upgrades but still have the look and feel of the original, hopefully they will expand so you get the feel that the Enterprise is really a big ship, kind of what they did in TMP in the …well, whatever that REALLY big room was…you know what I mean.

30. Trekee - October 2, 2007

@25 – it really depends on if it’s a BSG reboot or a faithful reproduction that fits perfectly with canon.

At this point, we really don’t know for sure about any of the design for the film.

I think it must be one of the hardest things to decide on for the whole project.

If you look at the TNG episode with Scotty, ‘Relics’, when he went back to the bridge of the Enterprise it looked wonderful – it was exactly the same, but ‘different and shocking to see it on TNG. The lighting can be used to make old sets seem new. But it was still retro and I’m not sure that the studio sponsored man in the street who will be used for test screenings will get the whole fuzzy that life longer trekkies will get from that. And they count more, sad to say. Also, in the episode for 2 minutes it was good, but would you buy into buttons and rheostat knobs for 2 hours? It might seem twee.

They can’t make it look out of place, so there will be the strong strong pressure to make it look newer, a la ‘nx01′ (cough, hack spit) for ‘modern’ audiences. But I’d much rather they took the design and made it look ‘older’, say 50′s Buster Crabbe Heart of Gold older (am I showing my age now?) than some fop to our new, lowest common denominator movie audience.

I just want it to look, I dunno… ‘classy’ :-)

It is the difference between “dated” and “period” as was pointed out re the TNG box sets. If they can make a 60′s period sci-fi film and carry it off, then we can have our old Enterprise back. If not, then we’ll have to have some new hussy to bat her running lights at us and see if we’re still enchanted.

31. Craig - October 2, 2007

What if they did the Phase II design?

32. Gary Lee - October 2, 2007

It’s a fake – (Senator Rekar) Stephen McHattie would make a great Romulan in the movie or how about Peter Weller as the Romulan Leader? Judson Scott played Commander Rekar on Voyager could be a Romulan also you need a Romulan crew.

33. OneBuckFilms - October 2, 2007

#31 – I think they could use the original series design, but use modern lighting techniques.

Trials and Tribblations got it right, and so did Enterprise’s mirror universe Defiant.

They maintained the original look and feel, but enhanced it just a little, so it looked good to current cameras and lighting.

Take the original Enterprise, and place her in new environments and situations that perhaps may look and feel new and different.

She’ll hold up.

You treat her like a lady, and she’ll always bring you home.

34. CmdrR. - October 2, 2007

Paramount has its most experienced man working on the new E:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://tmw.jagflyhosting.com/trek2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_10_03.html&h=242&w=360&sz=28&hl=en&start=99&um=1&tbnid=89CVYtSDuvcJxM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstarship%2Benterprise%2Bcartoon%26start%3D80%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

(it’s about 2/3 down the page, sorry this is such an addy-full)

35. Trekee - October 2, 2007

@31

but then it would be *after* the 5 year mission and they would all get a nosebleed from the temporal instability…

@29

Recreation hall? But yes, if they can do that I’ll be giddy as a schoolgirl, but I’m preparing myself for a ‘re-imagining’ just in case.

36. Sean4000 - October 2, 2007

#33. ENT didn’t get it right. They got it right, hit the nail on the head, lightning struck twice, struck gold, AND hit the bullseye! That is what I was hoping for from TOS-R but was sadly, not surprisingly, disappointed. If ILM screws up, then the world is ready to end.

37. Cranston - October 2, 2007

I’d love the filmmakers to take this approach: rather than a slavish replication of the original TV sets (down to the glowing-chicklets buttons), I’d like them to imagine the original sets as an “approximation” of a real vessel, but done with 1960s lowish-budget design and construction. Now, imagine that you can do a 2007 approximation of the same original vessel, but with lots more detail, and without some of the 1960′s-specific tweaks. So — the overall “look” is familiar, but it feels much more “modern” (or at least timeless) in the details, and maybe even in the overall feel.

IOW, think of the contrast between a 1950s World War II movie and a 1990s WWII movie. The both try to replicate the same sorts of 1940s originals (i.e. ships, equipment, uniforms, civilian clothes, cities), but their approach and attention to detail are very different. But despite the differences, we can see both of them as depicting the same “reality,” but with different tools.

38. Trekee - October 2, 2007

@36

they haven’t shown TOS-R over the pond yet so all the opinion I see is from this site. Fuzzy YouTube clips of the new episodes don’t really tell the whole story so what I’ve seen looks great (apart from the Doomsday machine Death Star Trench run bit but I forgive them in their enthusiasm).

I was bowled over by the DS9 and ENT portrayals of the ships of the day at the time, and I remember all sorts of things being seen for the first time, the grid lines on the saucer used to be a thing of debate back in olden times, but the new CGI model showed them up as obvously – they’d been there all along.

But had we seen them before? The old AMT/ERTL kits had HUGE gridlines, and the TV show seemed not to show them and so there was a debate if they were there or not… there was a scale modelling magazine I bought as a kid in the 80s that had a ‘perfect guide’ to the kit which said that the lines weren’t there, so sand them off!

But the DS9 show suddenly showed the lines. So THAT meant they’d been there all along, like Klingons with flat foreheads. It is just that prior to that, we’d never seen the detail.

I think, if they take the original 60s ship, and add new lighting, new textures but retain the basic shape, grace and feel, then we’ll accept that up until now, we’d not seen the detail either.

39. JeFF - October 2, 2007

Too funny… thank you, Vreenak, for confirming what I’d already suspected. For that, you should somehow be featured in the new movie…

40. Aggi - October 2, 2007

Hi,

I saw an image of this ship months ago in a thread somewhere on a cgi web-site, but I don’t know where to find it anymore. It is an attempt to reimagine the Enterprise by a fan of STAR TREK.

In my opinion the Big E made by Gabe Koerner is the best reimagination. Still to big (double size of TOS E) but the best. The general look of his ship is on the right way. It should be more to the original size of 300 m in length.

41. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - October 2, 2007

Weak,,, Bring on legit spoilers

42. Chris - October 2, 2007

It looks like a shot from TMP but with the old enterprise

43. Dr. Image - October 2, 2007

#38– The original 11 foot E had gridlines drawn on in PENCIL and were VERY faint.
TOS-R is getting it right in that area.

44. Axinar - October 2, 2007

Interesting.

Apocryphal – but interesting.

(Single photon tube, 1701-A pylons and hangar deck line – interesting looking of course, but not historically accurate …)

45. Scott Gammans - October 2, 2007

Hmmm… maybe me or Dennis should put one of our Enterprise animations on YouTube and label it “test footage”… now THAT would get tongues a-clucking. (evil grin)

46. Mike - October 2, 2007

The Quickening:

I sure hope it’s a fake. TPTB need to radically alter the design of the Enterprise, making it more realistic and believable. This is 2007. I always thought the TOS and TNG Enterprise ships looked like toys in space rather than actual vessels.

47. Lou - October 2, 2007

lol! of course it’s fake! everyone knows they use green screen instead of blue screen now!! :P

48. DJT - October 2, 2007

This looks like it’s a combination of the TOS version and the TMP Refit.

You know, before Scotty threw on the new Type II warp engines and replaced the deflector dish with the flush deflector array.

This footage is probably from when he took her out for spin during the Lost Years in between TOS and TMP.

Makes total sense. Yeah.

:)

49. Vejur - October 2, 2007

I am probably the only one that doesn’t want the original Enterprise design in XI movie. I want some new approach take f.e this Gabe Koerner re-imaged Enterprise isn’t good enough for me. I Like this more http://gabekoerner.com/fx/Gallery/nightshade1064.jpg alternative design by Koerner more promising for the Enterprise in XI movie.
It just need retro color of the original and TMP and nacelles need look more like Ent E nacelles.

50. Anthony Pascale - October 2, 2007

guys the only reason I put this article up is for people to stop emailing me the link….but I decided to have some fun, and just to be sure I did ask a few folks

51. Vejur - October 2, 2007

#46 i agree

52. DarenDoc - October 2, 2007

I’m a little sick of the old “miniatures are better than CG” arguments. The truth is, neither is better than the other. It all depends on the artists producing the images. Lighting, composition, and shot choreography are the things most responsible for projecting “weight” of an object. A well executed CG shot will be 100 times more convincing than a half-assed miniature shot… and of course vice versa. All one has to do is look at the miniature work done on “Alien” and the miniature work done on “Flash Gordon”… movies that were made at almost exactly the same time… Both were done using miniatures and motion control. One looks completely convincing… the other looks like a joke. (you could argue that Flash Gordon was “supposed” to look bad and “campy”… ) but the fact is, same technology, same techniques… vastly different guidance behind the scenes.
In terms of space shots, I’d put up the stuff being done for the new Galactica show against any motion picture work ever done… it’s well designed and expertly carried out. …And it’s all CG.

it’s not the plane. it’s the pilot.

Oh, and it looks like that clip is of someone’s attempt at the Phase II Enterprise model… I’d be happy if that were the ship being used in the movie. But I have a feeling we won’t be that lucky.

53. Magic_Al - October 2, 2007

^46. And yet simpler designs are what Roddenberry saw as futuristic. Something really advanced would have less external complexity. Look at an iPod compared to an old Walkman, for example. The true look of Star Trek is the original and TNG Enterprises, and the TNG bridge is really the ultimate expression of Roddenberry’s view of technology. Roddenberry insisted the bridge would be comfortable and have fewer control panels. After he was gone, they added more control panels to subsequent bridges, doing what was obvious and expected and rather than try to make the point Roddenberry was making.

54. Craig - October 2, 2007

Maybe they could also keep the same exterior only make it look larger and more detailed? Then have the interior either have the Enterprise A, D, or E’s computer system?

55. Viking - October 2, 2007

LOL – ‘resident expert’…….. LMAO :D

56. Cox of Seagulls - October 2, 2007

I don’t like the look of that, thank goodness it’s a fake.
There’s no real need to update the sets or the ship’s exterior, they hold up fine.
Case in point:
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=96&pos=3
Much better lighting and the 40 year old design still looks futuristic.
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=96&pos=652
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=96&pos=712
Still a thing of beauty.

57. JC - October 2, 2007

The old Enterprise is too AMT model familiar.They need to re-interpret it.

58. Quatlo - October 2, 2007

Gabe’s Big E concept is great. I’ve been meaning to email him and tell him that for about 9 months now. Pardon me while I do it here.

Great work Gabe! Your take on a possible reworking was imaginative and worthy. Good luck to you in all your future doings.

59. New Horizon - October 2, 2007

Gabe’s reworking is very good work, but it takes a graceful design and turns it into something bulky. The TMP refit even took the design too far in the wrong direction. The TOS enterprise still looks futuristic to this day. The design is just so simple, that it makes perfect sense. Gabe’s design looks too much like todays thinking…the TOS Enterprise…despite being rooted in the sixties, looked like nothing else from the time period. It’s unique. As for the fake footage…not a bad mix of TOS and RE-FIT. I think phase to when I look at it. Wouldn’t look bad on the screen, but would require a little more refining to look as graceful as the TOS ship.

60. JCool - October 2, 2007

“All i ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by”

61. Viking - October 2, 2007

#54 Craig – I think the ship interiors should reflect the Enterprise, circa STVI. I have no problems with the TOS Big E, as long as it’s updated accordingly – it’s a fine line between being too retro, and overthinking the damn plumbing. Hell, I’d even settle for that April Fool’s Joke pulled on us this year (except for those blunderbuss phase cannons – I think even J.J. knows he’d get a flaming Michelin necktie for that one. LOL) Of course, if there’s a kernel of truth in an alleged nine-figure budget to take the defibrillators to the franchise this time around, I seriously doubt we’ll be seeing velour jammies and static, gumdrop console buttons with that amount of coin.

What has me scratching my head – and I don’t even pretend to be a student of the film industry – are two specific points:

1) This movie is supposedly to go in front of the cameras next month, yet only three of the principals have been confirmed as cast (I count the Spock Unit as one role). No Kirk. No Scott. No McCoy. No antagonist. No supporting or cameo roles. It just seems to me you’d want to give your actors adequate time to prep for their roles.

Having said that,

2) Star Trek is notorious for leaking along the way, no matter how tight they try to keep security. For every new lock, someone is going to build a better key. If the shooting schedule is correct, someone – somewhere – has seen some sets, props, or at least concept sketches. We have yet to see so much as a scribble on the back of a cocktail napkin. (Could the pressure of high expectations be causing a few puckered gluteal orifices amongst the project members? Hmmmmmmmmm………..)

C’mon, Insiders, give us a peek at the goodies. :D

62. Viking - October 2, 2007

A phaser. Yeah, that’s it. Just show us a phaser. :D

63. Michael Hall - October 2, 2007

“I’m a little sick of the old “miniatures are better than CG” arguments.”

Daren, amen. To believe that, you’d have to think that John Dykstra’s motion-controlled miniatures in the original ‘Galactica’ are more convincing spaceships than Zoic’s CG models in the remake. And that’s patently absurd.

Of course, CG artists themselves make a similar error when they insist that one piece of software is inherently more able to produce photoreal imagery than another, when the truth at this point is that just about all of the professional-level packages (and even some of the hobbyist ones) are able to create great images in the hands of a dedicated user like yourself.

Truly, it is the artist, and not the toolset.

64. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - October 2, 2007

Agree with Dirty Daren

EXCEPT!!!! The model work in TMP is just so perfect and real looking, I have yet to see any CGI or Minrature work that looks so I don’t know…Tangible??

can’t wait for real spoilers!!!!

65. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - October 2, 2007

Let’s have the original Enterprise…leave the cheezy reimaginings on YOUTUBE.

We don’t have to UPGRADE the TITANIC into a 21st Century NIGHTMARE because we make a modern version of the film; same goes for teh Enterprise.

66. Thomas - October 2, 2007

I say keep the same general look to both the interiors ans exteriors, but they will of course be some alterations just to make them presentable on the big screen. No big changes, but just some minor fine-tuning. After all, the movie camera is far more scrutinizing than the TV camera.

67. pat - October 2, 2007

i recently took a trip to the air and space musem and snaped a pic on my cell phone of the old girl in permant dry dock. it would be nice if the could borrow her and use the exact model for the new movie.hers a link if you wanna check her out http://www.patdemos.com/eneterprise

68. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - October 2, 2007

66. Thomas – October 2, 2007

Well said, you minor finishing touches…in Trek, it has been the story that drives, not so much the spec FX. And when too much attention is paid to that, we get a slow movie like TMP.

Let the OLD GIRL appear, provide minor detail that might be “blurred” in the 60s version, but keep the general shape and dementions.

69. cd - October 2, 2007

#67 – Of course, the paint job that the museum did to the original is excruciatingly bad. It might be good for dimensional measurements but that’s about it, but I think the CGI models are good on that.
Of course, as a canonist >;>} , I think the Enterprise should stay exactly as it is. The model from ENT (#56) looks pretty good. The current CGI from TOS-R is very inconsistent: from identical to the original (except, of course, for that 2nd from center shorter window on the starboard front primary hull edge, what is that about?) to almost as bad as the Air and Space job. A model with the aztec pattern glinting in bright light, maybe, but otherwise stick with the known detail.
#37 – I agree that we can view the original as an approximation, but a pretty close one! Tweaks like the TOS-R chronometer, and functioning screens instead of paper cutouts, would be good. I always thought the control on Spock’s viewer should be a set of finely graduated rotary controls instead of a wooden knob.
Keep the 60′s aesthetic, but allow for more realism and detail.

70. Kuvagh - October 2, 2007

I’m 28, so I grew up on 1701-A and 1701-D, but I must say… use the familiar 1701 from TOS. Please. It’s a great design. It just needs proper detail, lighting and effects.

13: Why do you want the Enterprise to grow in size? It’s already huge compared to, say, an aircraft carrier. It has plenty of room for the crew. Check out some deck plans.

22: I don’t think the stealth bomber had been seen by the public when Probert drew the Enterprise-D in ’86. Everything he did for TNG was relatively organic, which was in contrast to what was going on in the films and in automotive designs of the time. I like that design, but it did open the door for more and more streamlined ships in Trek, which I think was a mistake in retrospect. Presumably, it enhances performance because the warp field interacts with the ship’s shape, but it really removes the ships from space design and puts them into the atmospheric and submarine realms.

33: Yeah. I’ve only seen screen caps of that ENT episode, but they look good.

37: I think that’s a good way of looking at it. As a graphic design and illustration student, I really wish I could be involved in the project. :)

46: I don’t think anything about the form of the vessel is too old fashioned. And when you say that the TOS and TNG Enterprises looked like toys, well… the ships in most present day sci-fi look more like toys to me. That includes the Enterprise-E. Eaves is an excellent illustrator, but I think the Sovereign has a case of the fake-o sexeh 1337 d00dZ because of the producers. Jefferies had a military design background. When he designed the TOS Enterprise, he consulted with people at NASA. That Enterprise, the ships from 2001: A Space Odyssey, McQuarrie’s Star Wars ships, non-streamlined BSG ships… those say outer space.

I’d like to see them return to the days when they’d ask for feedback from NASA guys, from Asimov, from Stephen Hawking, etc. Speaking of NASA, I’d like to see them bring back Rick Sternbach for some real-space detailing on the Constitution-class exterior and interior sets. “Ya know, it’d be a more convincing airlock if… ”

Gabe Koerner fans: His work is awesome, but I definitely wouldn’t go in that direction. With the proper approach, the Jefferies design can be simultaneously retro/authentic AND believable. It really can.

54: Why larger? It’s already gigantic. More detailed? Yes.

61: I disagree about going for Star Trek VI’s look. With nice materials and subtle details, the original design can look excellent. Have you seen the two pilots recently? The sets actually resemble the ones on the Enterprise-E and Voyager in many ways! Beige and blue walls. In the first pilot, black and gray bannisters and stations on the bridge instead of bright red paint… none of those multi-colored dance club lights in the corridors…

71. cd - October 2, 2007

#65 – well said. The original premise of TOS was that the voyages had already occurred, through the device of the captain’s log (Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman): like an historic recounting. Just as more recent versions of Titanic tend to be more accurate (at least technically, if not storywise), this new Star Trek movie can be more “accurate” than the original.

72. cd - October 2, 2007

#70 – good points!

73. Buckaroohawk - October 2, 2007

I’m one of those who e-mailed a link to this clip to Anthony, so I guess the joke’s on me. I’ve had that video in my Youtube favorites list for a while now. I wasn’t sure if it was the real deal or not, since it has the ILM logo on it. I know that stuff can be easily faked, but I guess I wanted to believe that I stumbled upon a little nugget of gold. Alas, it seems to be a fake. So much for my scoop.

The main reason the ship doesn’t look all that great is that the folks at Youtube seriously compress the clips uploaded to the site to maximize space. if you look clsely, there are some very interesting details on that ship. I’m sure whoever did this has a hi-res version that looks much better.

Also, this is a CGI model, not a physical model. The “bluescreen” color behind it is simply used as a neutral background to help check color and lighting. I use a blue background as I’m building CGI models as well. It’s better than using a black or white background and helps when working out how shadows fall across the hull.

Daren, I’m with you, too. Top-notch CGI FX are just as good as top-notch physical FX. Your work on the Director’s Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is proof of that. I defy anyone who isn’t familiar with that movie to discern which FX shots are original footage using the physical model and which ones are new CGI shots.

And, since I’m here, I’ll toss my vote in again that, if the new Trek production crew have any sense, they’ll be using the U.S.S. Phoenix that Dennis Bailey designed as the new, original Enterprise. It’s a stunning model, and it perfectly updates the TOS design while keeping the classic silhouette. God, I wish I had a copy of that model in my CGI library.

Hey, I just thought of something. Anthony said he consulted “those in the know” about that CGI clip and determined that it’s a fake. That means that they must also know what the Big E is going to look like in the new movie. If that’s the case, then I can only say…
SHOW US SOMETHING!!! PLEASE!!! Just a little snippet. One tiny piece of hull plating. Is that too much to ask? I’m begging, here!

74. trektacular - October 2, 2007

You guys are nuts, models look better than CG and they’re easier to light and shoot than having to render them all the time.
What I’d like to know is why models being used for spaceships is so verboten these days.

75. M_E - October 2, 2007

“”In my opinion the Big E made by Gabe Koerner is the best reimagination. Still to big (double size of TOS E) but the best.”"

Uh? No, the reimagined Constitution is, if much, just a little bigger than the TMP era Constitution.

76. Bramblett - October 2, 2007

The Enterprise doesn’t need to be changed. It’s an iconic design and is one of the things about TOS that holds up well after 40 years.

77. theinquisitor - October 3, 2007

and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.

78. Cervantes ( hoping for some TOS imagery in this supposedly 'TOS-era' Movie... ) - October 3, 2007

Didn’t ‘Industrial Light & Magic’ seperate itself from it’s ‘miniature making’ side a while back, to concentrate on CGI? Maybe someone could confirm that for me here.

If it was Peter Jackson’s ‘Weta Digital’ doing the effects, they might have built a nice ‘bigature’ of the new ‘Enterprise’ to film…who knows…

Oh, and I’m firmly rooting for a ‘TOS-era’ design of the ‘Enterprise’, realised in a big budget way ( either with a filmed model, OR with some well-executed CGI ), but without any re-imagining nonsense to the overall original design…or it might as well be ANY Generation ‘Star Trek’, or ‘Galaxy Quest 2′…

79. George Armstrong Custer - October 3, 2007

It is not a fake but the real deal. This will be the Enterprise in the Movie. I know!

80. Snake - October 3, 2007

Recently i’ve been thinking that maybe they wont update the ship, uniforms or sets that much at all….

81. Iowagirl - October 3, 2007

What a pity you can’t have a kind of re-casting show for the Enterprise as well – Abrams would like that…

82. Vejur - October 3, 2007

#76 & 79 If that is the case that TOS Enterprise will be unchanged. Young audience who really doesn’t know TOS Enterprise will think it is ridiculous and i wouldn’t be surprised hearing laughter in cinema. Why, the reason is young audience(15-25) are used much more advanced GCI respective how starship scold look like. If Abrams & co bring the 40 years old TOS Enterprise design almost unchanged would proparly not appeal to them as ,, cool,,

#70 Why do you want the Enterprise to grow in size? It’s already huge compared to, say, an aircraft carrier.
Actually in length Enterprise the aircraft carrier and the star ship is almost identical. I know new aircraft carriers are 30-40 meters longer so i am open to new Enterprise will be between 300 to 350 meters

I agree on bringing in feedback from NASA guys.

83. Nuallain - October 3, 2007

#11 – It seems odd to me to quote the “weight” of the model as a benefit when it’s a model of … a weightless spaceship.

84. New Horizon - October 3, 2007

82. Vejur -
That’s a pretty big assumption. I’ve grown up with both models and CGI, I’m 32. In all my years of movie viewing, I’ve seen good models…bad models, good CGI, bad CGI.

Some of the best effects I’ve ever seen in a film were in a recent film called “The Fountain”, directed by Darren Aronofsky. Darren chose to avoid using CGI as much as possible and used mostly dated effects techniques to pull off what he wanted to do. Needless to say, they were glorious and unique…I didn’t hear a giggle in the room.

Ok, not quite the same thing as a 40 year old ship design…but similar. CGI is no better than traditional techniques. If you’re thinking of the ship as it looked on a television budget…try to expand your imagination to envision what it would look like with the proper detail and lighting of a motion picture. The TOS design will look absolutely breathtaking. The design itself is so simple that it’s timeless, it’s only the way in which it’s presented that makes people think otherwise.

If JJ or his effects people can’t see the beauty of the original design…they’re as blind as tiberian bats.

85. Iowagirl - October 3, 2007

# 82

If Abrams & Co. end up doing everything just to please the young audience, they will not fulfill their mission. They shouldn’t make the mistake to disregard that huge part of the audience who really cares what the Enterprise looks like in the new movie and who WILL be able to compare it to the original design. The advancements and improvements compared to 40 years ago will be reached by using improved technical possibilities in the making of the film itself, not by changing the iconic design of THE SHIP just in oder to make it appear more “cool”.

86. Cranston - October 3, 2007

#83 — I think when they say “weight,” they really mean a sense of *mass*, which would remain unchanged in space, and would affect its intertia (and thus the way the object moves).

87. I AM THX-1138 - October 3, 2007

The Enterprise looks fine just the way she is. Nobody is going to laugh her off the screen whether they be young or old, she’s too iconic. I would be more inclined for people to be put off with a major change in how she looks as compared to how she appeared in the original series. I don’t think we give enough credit to the casual fan or the less familiar viewer. Film it beautifully and I think the Enterprise will be accepted just the way it is. As far as CGI or miniatures are concerned, why can’t there be a combination of the two methods? Obviously in LOTR it worked. I know, I know, those are two different movies, Trek and Rings, but for close-ups or details would a model work better? I expect all of the ship exteriors to be shot with CGI (do you even say “shot”?). With all due respect to Gabe and his fine work, no. No changes please. Better detail and glorious, sweeping views, but no changes.

88. LK - October 3, 2007

Koener’s Big E takes all sleekness and class out of the design.

I’m all for some redesigning (in fact, for a big budget film it is INEVITABLE), but designing in the Big E direction makes the ship look like a cross between an extreme men’s razor with 27 blades and a flying suit of armor with blinking lights.

89. Heywood Jablome - October 3, 2007

LK you’re right. I like the detail but overall it doesn’t do much for me. LOVE the Enterprise, she’s arguably the most important character besides Jim Kirk, and has a personlaity all her own. That being said, it would be neat to see her as she was so many years ago now on the big screen, but I have to admit that since we now have different actors who closely resemble our old faves, just so will we see another vessel that closely resembles my baby, but is not an exact duplicate. Which is how it should be. Think about it, she’s been re-imagined so many times since the first movie that we should all be used to it by now. The only question in my mind will be how aesthetically pleasing will the design be. Since we all probably know the traditional saucer/neck/secondary hull/pylons/engines combo will be retained as the basic platform, her appeal will have to be in the arrangement of those structures and in the surface detail. I’ll be willing to bet we all wet our pants with delight when we all get the first glimpse of her…hopefully soon! You listenin, JJ?

90. Anthony Pascale - October 3, 2007

hey my ‘its a faaaaake’ video is climbing up chart the most viewed comedy vids on YouTube today…its now around 50th.

maybe it will go viral and become like the ‘Rickroll’ video

91. Heywood Jablome - October 3, 2007

for somre reason I can’t put my finger on I like this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66r0jlYq6jA&mode=related&search=

92. Chris Pike - October 3, 2007

Moco model vs CGI an endless arguement. I worked on the model unit for Brother’s Grimm, camera dept helping to liaise with Peerless for the CG and comping. The general consesus shooting miniatures is you get so much for free (such as motion blur) and Robbie Scotts fabulous model makers there were constantly redressing the miniature sets with organic materials that would be horrendous to reproduce digitally, a real eye opener to what miniature photography can do – those tower shots look totally convincing.

The 11ft original Enterprise model was and still remains a stunner 43 years old, the remaster project illustrating how difficult it is to recreate that digitally, and to my eye, the digital E in the STTMP DE is still noticeable, and thats without HD or 2k viewing.

I know Angus Bickerton VFX Supervisor for Lost in Space was very keen to use miniatures, and even when CGI versions were used, HiRes photoplates of the miniatures were used for the texture maps. The subtleties here are in fact imperfections that do exist in natural objects, and it is very hard to “dial in” imperfections to CG, but it is getting better continuously. I’m sure the new E will be CG, but you can bet ILM will be using CG modelling/texturing most advanced to date. Judging by the retro look so far in PR visuals, posters, I have an idea and hope JJ, Chambliss and ILM are going to go very close to the original E but show very close up detail with those very subtle imperfections “as if it were there all along but we didn’t have the resolution or close enough shot before” type of arguement. 60′s 70′s retro design is so in and can be so cool, and MJ’s original designs were so inspiring and genius that if they can hook in to that…too much hope?

93. toddk - October 3, 2007

It is in fact “Real” but that it is test footage for star trek phase II that was abandoned when paramount decided on a new updated ship

94. I AM THX-1138 - October 3, 2007

#92
Amen, amen, amen. CG is great but I just hope that where the miniatures or models are concerned, ILM and other FX houses don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. They do still have their place. I don’t know which is more cost effective, but I gather it would be CG which I think works best for live action animation, such as characters or creatures. I still have my opinion that well built and shot models work best for buildings and ships and other “static” or non-animated imaginings.

95. Plum - October 3, 2007

This is just a knock-off of the Motion Picture model of the Enterprise. The torpedo launchers alone… pleeeease.

96. Buckaroohawk - October 3, 2007

toddk (#93),

I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken about that video being from the abandoned “Star Trek, Phase 2″ TV project from the late 1970′s. The model of the Enterprise they were building for that was never completed, and it was later scrapped in favor of the 11′ model built by magicam that appears in TMP.

And I have proof of that. If you watch the TMP movie previews that are part of the Director’s Edition DVD, they use a few shots from test footage of the orginal model designed for “Phase 2.” It is clearly unfinished, and it looks nothing like the ship seen in the video above. The reason they used this test footage is that very few of the actual effects for the film had been shot, yet they knew they had to feature the Enterprise in the previews. Lastly, the video above is clearly a CGI model, and that kind of technology simply didn’t exist back when “Phase 2″ was being prepped.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but whatever that clip is, it isn’t from “Phase 2.” I’d love to know where it came from, though.

97. Snake - October 4, 2007

u dont think ‘Star Trek’ (08) will turn out to be like Superman Returns do you?

i.e. – too involved in homaging the original movies…at the expense of its own

98. Cervantes - October 4, 2007

By the way, that Senator Vreenak video clip reminds me why I want some new, as yet unseen, less-human looking antagonist(s) in this Movie, as opposed to Romulans or Klingons…but that’s just me.

99. Johnny - October 4, 2007

#97. I feel Supermans Returns still worked great thou, but you have a good point. I do agree Superman Returns went perhaps to far, homaging first 2 Superman movies that it didnt stand out as its own.
It seems Star Trek XI are going smilier way by having Nimoy on their movie.

100. New Horizon - October 4, 2007

You know what I would love to see? An official release of the Star Trek Phase 2 Enterprise by Polar Lights.

Sure, it’s pretty much the same ship…but still…there is something about that lost version of the ship that I find alluring. Just the subtle differences. When I look at it, I actually find that I like it more than what we ended up with in TMP. It seemed to retain that sleek, smooth, simplicity of the original series.

101. M_E - October 4, 2007

“homaging first 2 Superman movies that it didnt stand out as its own”

You gotta be kidding…

102. Red Faction - October 4, 2007

I belive that people who have seen the Star Trek series and it’s ten films, should be the only one’s to produce, write and direct them. Get rid of those people like, the ones who messed up the “Enterprise” series, and the producers who created the Nemesis film, and if Abram’s crew made a test footage of that Enterprise, somebody take’em out with everthing you have. “We must reject the imcompetent and cast them out!” We can’t let this problem happen again fans. We must act with force and stop Paramount’s corrupt values. Parmount has been messing up films and shows, and not giving any respect to the original creators.

Peace through tryanny, and watch Paramounts future end!!!!!!

(Clapping in the background)

103. Dennis Bailey - October 4, 2007

I don’t know whether to be surprised that it took folks this long to notice the clip, or that anyone ever noticed it at all. :lol:

104. Woulfe - October 6, 2007

It’s A Faaaaake !

How do I know ?

1. Does ILM even have a Bluescreen soundstage anymore ?

2. SFX is post production, namly AFTER all the live action is shot.

3. The folks at ILM would never leak foottage to the ‘net, ever.

105. New Horizon - October 6, 2007

Woulfe….it’s not a real model, it’s CGI…no soundstage is needed. Regardless of whether SFX is post production or not, they are likely still going to be working on Enterprise designs quite early. Things get leaked all the time…officially, or not.

That being said, it’s still a fake. You’re reasoning however doesn’t prove anything.

106. New Horizon - October 6, 2007

88. LK

Yeah, Gabe’s reimagined ENT looks like a diseased penis.

107. Sean4000 - October 8, 2007

This had to be a fake! I knew this wasn’t CBS-D. The ship is realistically rendered and flies on the correct axis.

108. Question for anyone - October 8, 2007

I love that!

109. Sean4000 - October 8, 2007

I want to know the nae and number of the artist responsible for this clip. CBS-D NEEDS to hire them ASAP! SAVE TOS-R from CBS-D

110. Demode - October 9, 2007

This would be a great Enterprise for “Season 4″ of TOS. A nice “in-between” evolution of the ship design.

111. Charles Trotter - October 9, 2007

ROFLMAO!!!! Love it!!!

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