James Cawley On The New Enterprise | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

James Cawley On The New Enterprise November 13, 2007

by James Cawley , Filed under: Editorial,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

There have been some reports about comments made by Star Trek New Voyage’s Creator James Cawley regarding the new film and the Enterprise design he has seen. TrekMovie.com has invited Mr. Cawley to share his thoughts with the TrekMovie.com community as well as clarify some rumors. More below

————————————–

First off, I would like to start off by saying that I am surprised, and flattered that anyone would care anything about my opinion(s) at all. That being said I do not know who started the rumor that that the new Enterprise “has wings,” but I certainly did not. I have been asked by Anthony to try and describe what I saw, and all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”. That is as much as I feel comfortable in sharing.

Much has been made about me not liking the design. So, let me explain why I don’t. I have been a fan for 35 years. I grew up with TOS. I am a TOS purist. I see Matt Jefferies designs as "Timeless" not dated. To me they are pure Sci-Fi, we do not have anything that looks like them at all. They were clean and streamlined, I love the candy colored buttons with multiple functions, I prefer the Fantasy look, as opposed to The LCD screens and Computer type buttons we have right here and now as featured on "Enterprise". I believe the Original design especially the exterior of The Enterprise is so iconic, that it should be used with only minor updating. But, Just because that is my opinion, does not mean that many more of you, won’t like the possible New Look. Star Trek is an amazing piece of our pop culture, and it’s fan’s are as devoted as they are diverse. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Abram’s and his team. and I wish them all well, in what is sure to be a VERY HARD TASK. I really would love to see The original designs on the big screen, with loving details, I have been waiting for that ever since the announcement of STMP back in 79′. I know that I am not the only one who feels that way.

I more than anyone want this film to succeed! I do not want Star Trek to fail, I hope it continues to speak to all fan’s new and old for many, many years to come. I am dying to see Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock once more, and disappointed that The Ultimate Captain, William Shatner so far, is not in the film. Sorry, that’s the purist thing speaking again! So let me close this all by saying I will be in the audience opening night, with my fingers crossed that J.J. and Co. will have achieved their goal, even if I don’t like the ship, or the costumes, or the color of anyone’s eyes.

The majority of fans said similar things to say about my New Voyages, but in the end many of them have come along for the ride. Gene Roddenberry was sure that the human race was full of "Optimism and Hope". So let’s all remain full of both, and actively look forward to what could be a fun ride. "Go get em’ J.J. "

-James Cawley

 
The Enterprise as seen in the upcoming STNV episode in "Blood and Fire"


James Cawley is the star and executive producer of Star Trek New Voyages.

As with all guest editorials, the opinions are those of the writer and not necessarily those of TrekMovie.com

Comments

1. AJ - November 13, 2007

First? Thanks for that, James.

2. Pr011 - November 13, 2007

First?

I hope they pull it off.

3. Bob Wesley - November 13, 2007

Well said, James. I’ll be sitting beside you in the cinema hoping for great success here, as well.

4. ottervomit - November 13, 2007

CAWLEY IS KIRK!!

5. CW - November 13, 2007

Awww man…. just leak the darn pictures and get the wars over with.

BTW- first?

6. Crusade2267 - November 13, 2007

How close is the new ship to the original? Will it be recognizable as the TOS Enterprise, or will we need another wild stretch of the imagination to believe that a refit could change the ship so much?

7. Shaggy - November 13, 2007

I’m up for whatever they throw at us. I can’t imagine it being drastically different from the original so time will tell.

8. Pr011 - November 13, 2007

Oh my, this thread is going to explode…

9. raulpetersen - November 13, 2007

just finished watching in harms way again, my girlfriend screamed NO! at the tv when the planet killer came through the planet at the enterprise!!
class!!! quinto looks amazing, im convinced that some cloning is going on in hollywood!!!

10. John N - November 13, 2007

Damn… when they said the Enterprise had “Wings”, I was hoping that meant that Paul McCartney was doing the soundtrack… ;)

11. AJ - November 13, 2007

James:

I was stoked with TMP as well. Remember the 1st time you saw the D7 battlecruisers as it opened? Holy Crap! They looked absolutely right, but the level of detail as they made their pass was uncanny, and still sticks in my mind (with the that music pulsing as well).

I would like to see JJ do THAT with the classic design. It IS possible to generate wonder and awe with these classic ships. Just try.

12. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

On BBS, A poster calling himself General Custer mentions “the wings.”
In context, it sure seems like he’s attributing it to James.

Over at the New Voyages website James Cawley who plays Kirk has answered threads that he has seen the ship and has confirmed that it has been redesigned and he doesn’t like it. He said he had friends in high places and they showed it to him when he was out there. It does not even resemble the one that we know of in the original series and was pissed they didn’t keep it true because Star Trek has stayed alive for 40+ years because we love what we see. It has wings. If there is any source to trust then it is Cawley since Paramount gave him permission to create New Voyages and he has spent 100s of thousands of dollars of his own on sets and costumes from the original series. I will try to get a link to the threads. I think he is right when he says you shouldnt change something that has worked for all these years such as the Original Series. Anyway are ou ready to see the ship with wings?

James, if this is not your view, then apologies. However, we’re all VERY hungry for input on this project, so I can’t quite blame myself or anyone to reacting to something that seems like news. I’d LOVE real news releases from the actual studio, but I guess that’s a lot to ask.

13. mctrekkie - November 13, 2007

Thanks for that James… Well said.

Perhaps It’s not about the ship- It’s about the Human Adventure.
(as long as it’s believable Enterprise- I s’pose for the New Fans they didn’t want her to look TOO ’60′s old school)

I have been with NewVoyages since the beginning, and have enjoyed watching your production team and actors mature into that great group that made World Enough and Time.

Wow.

I look forward to Darren D’s further influence on your very good (and well lit!) take of the Big E- and wish you much success.

I also love the nods to Phase II that seem to be coming…

Oh, and PS-

Don’t forget about our friend Gary Seven- If you’re going to bring back Mudd you’ve got to find a Gary Seven & Roberta Lincoln.

14. dude - November 13, 2007

can anyone tell me where he has seen the new enterprise design?

15. MagnumPC - November 13, 2007

11. Agreed. I remember seeing TMP on opening night on the big screen and being impressed with the sense of 3D as the camera flew over the D7 with the stars flying behind it. It was that shot along with the first and final shots of the 1701A that were truly memorable for me.

16. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - November 13, 2007

Contemporary Trek–HMMMM –

WAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too much blue neon

WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too many bright white overly large portholes that would make lovely targets to any enemy with a brain and a descent targeting system

Stupid phaser ring instead of individual banks.

A nursery / pre-school three decks away from the torpedo bay???

Looks like a flying shoe????

Am I on the right track????

17. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

This has been one huge rollercoaster for me. I will be very disappointed if the design of the original 1701 has been radically changed — I could not agree more with Mr. Cawley. Change for the sake of change NEVER WORKS!!!! NEVER HAS WORKED!!!! NEVER WILL WORK!!!!!! Abrams is treading on dangerous territory here — this is a 40+ year old franchise with a fan affinity that is second to none!!!! I only hope that Cawley’s friends at Paramount are playing a practical joke on him!!!!

18. Diabolik - November 13, 2007

This may be the next best thing we can ever have besides having a young Shatner, Nimoy, and the rest, back doing new shows and movies. I for one will be willing to suspend my disbelief at a new cast just to see Kirk and Spock together again. For the first time.

19. Diabolik - November 13, 2007

Contemporary Trek could mean only that it has all the details and layering that we have seen on the Enterprise E, Archer’s ship, etc., in order to bring it more in line with all the other Treks we have seen since, including ST:TMP.

20. RaveOnEd - November 13, 2007

From what I’ve read above (thank you for clarifying, James!), it is merely a case of being a purist seeing changes, where to his eyes and heart there should not need any.

Its merely aestetics. James feels his way, and someone else would like it if Enterprise were tweaked or changed a bit.

I don’t think there is any cause for great concern.

BTW, James, I remember reading your resume, and I portray Buddy Holly in shows, so we have a close lineage with doing tribute acts!

21. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

Pathetic that it has been redesigned when IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that the Classic TOS looks beautiful in CG. Let’s see the new red-headed step child.

22. John - November 13, 2007

I’m sure whoever let James see those designs did it with the strict confidence that it would be kept private. Cawley should have just kept his mouth shut. This is a non-issue really and he could have saved all of his opinions for when the ship is actually unveiled. This sort of public discussion about what is still a confidential item is not good press for Cawley or New Voyages.

23. Mike T. - November 13, 2007

You know, IF the ship does have wings, one way to redeem this movie is to use this movie to erase Generations.
Since it’s supposedly a time travel movie when Spock hopefully returns from his mission to save Kirk he finds he altered the future and Kirk is alive and survived his run in with Soran. With that I could overlook the wings, barely, if there are wings. We’ll see in a little over a year.

24. Dave in RI - November 13, 2007

I don’t have a good feeling about this…..
I can accept moderate updating and was expecting the design to be to a certain extent, but I’m hearing terms like “radical change” being used on other forums to describe the new look.
Now with James Cawley describing it as looking “Contemporary Trek”, I’m remembering how disappointed I was with the look of the NX-01.

Please don’t mess too much with the 1701, or we’ll end up with another “Americanized Godzilla”

25. Charles Trotter - November 13, 2007

I won’t get up in arms if the Enterprise is a total redesign as suggested above, but I will be *very* disappointed. If it’s the Enterprise, I think it should look like the Enterprise. If it doesn’t, it just won’t work. Updating it is fine — I know we’re not going to see the ship exactly how it looked on TOS — but the design should still bare a resemblance to the classic ship.

Having said that, I am not jumping to conclusions. With all due respect to Mr. Cawley, I need to see the design myself before I believe it’s been redesigned. Perhaps the design he saw was a draft? Maybe it was another ship? Or maybe even a fake? It’s not likely, and again, no disrespect to Mr. Cawley or his ability to tell what’s what, but you just never know with these Hollywood types. All this time we (or at least I) have been led to believe that we will be able to tell it is the Enterprise, even though it will *not* be the TOS Enterprise. So I will reserve compliments and/or complaints until I see an actual design for myself.

But I really do hope they remain true enough to the original design that we can tell it is, indeed, the Enterprise. As Abrams himself said, you can’t screw this up. ;)

26. Dr. Image - November 13, 2007

As I stated over at the NV forum, this franchise deserves more respect than this move- giving the E a “contemporary Trek” look, ala “Enterprise”- indicates.
I am a purst as well, and I did not think that this would happen, especially now that Berman is not involved.
I firmly believe now that James, through his efforts with NV, and the others with Classic Trek inspired series, are the ones who will continue to honor and respect the original vision, NOT these guys. Now I’m certain of it. And I don’t CARE about the script. That’s right! It can be Shakespeare, but if they stylistically trash what’s been established- for over FORTY YEARS- it’s an insult, plain and simple. There is MORE to it this time around.
-Donn aka/ QuasiOdo
And if it IS a reboot, they should have the balls to just SAY SO!!
Maybe then I and others will consider respecting the changes.

27. John from Cincinnati - November 13, 2007

I had no idea they were actually changing the design of the Enterprise as well as the uniforms. I can’t believe Leonard Nimoy would be a part of this disgrace! The Enterprise is such an iconic image, as well as the uni’s. I hope this is just an earlier version of the NCC-1701 we haven’t seen before and not a whole new one just because. If it is, I will cease being a lifelong Star Trek fan and boycott the movie.

28. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

They didn’t need to overhaul it to this extent. The Constitution-class ship looked amazing in CG when compared to an NX-01 class ship.

29. Robo-dude - November 13, 2007

Mr. Cawley: Despite my goofy name this is a real person here. Thanks for your unique insight and devotion to Star Trek in your version as despite questionable actor portrayals yours as Kirk is really good and deeply appreciated. I’d love to see you as Kirk in the new movie or to see your show have the budget required and needed to properly address the casting issue because your show does
have excellent highlights and shouldn’t be overlooked. I LOVED the show with Sulu – it shined!
Please continue your vision of the show. Have you ever considered having first time professional actors on your show just to add the needed credence in that area? You’re # 1 never forget that. Ok?

30. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

WHY GOD WHY??!?!?!?!? can they not just make moderate changes and an earlier version.????? WHY????????

31. Charles Trotter - November 13, 2007

#20 RaveOnEd — I agree. Mr. Cawley is a purist, after all, so let’s just wait until we see the design for ourselves before, um… panicking. ;-)

32. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

Listen, J.J., Don’t you DARE change the Enterprises Original design! The fans will be mortified to say the least. I know I will. That ships iconic symbol is a part of history- thats why the original fourteen foot model sits on exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute. We trust in you. Don’t blow it.

You might as well tell me that Santa wears a blue suit.
Errrr

33. Artrek - November 13, 2007

I for one will not be able to accept this movie even with Leonard Nimoy as spock, if the Enterprise does not look like itself as much as Quinto looks like Nimoy!
It will just not feel right and I wont be anything but angry and upset while watching the movie. It may very well be a fault with me, but I do believe that will be my reaction. A slight modification and update, I could accept but anything to far off and it will not be Star Trek to me. Just another footnote in Trek History like the TV series Enterprise is sure to be.

34. Diabolik - November 13, 2007

He could also have seen the ship in an earlier version… we know the trailer has it under cosntruction! That said, I don’t mind more hull detail, ala ST:TMP, at all.

35. lightyearmodels.com - November 13, 2007

Wow….this is good publicity for New Voyage’s…..

36. Nuallain - November 13, 2007

My guess? It’ll be the same *amount* of change as from TOS to TMP but *different* changes. Lots more detailing on the hull, and some big changes to some things like the nacelles and the dish, with lots of minor changes to things like the bridge, the impulse engines..

I can see a purist being upset with that, but I think it will become invisible to most people within ten minutes of screen time. I really can’t believe they’d do anything more drastic than that. I can’t imagine it looking even as different as, say, the Enterprise-E. That’d be crazy, but I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

37. Rastaman - November 13, 2007

So long as the Enterprise has two nacelles and a saucer section, I really don’t mind if they update the ship. I thought the Motion Picture did a fantastic job of staying faithful to the Original Design. However, if the new designers had depended upon even that design for Abram’s new Enterprise, fans like Crawley would still be crying foul.

With a 150 million dollar budget and the evolution of special effects, I would expect the level of detail on the models to increase substantially. It will be interesting to see how the ships move as well. Changes in our understanding of technology since the 1960s should certainly be incorporated. Maybe they are looking to update some of the science of Star Trek in this film in order to improve its believability. Whatever the case, I’ll withhold judgment until I see the ship myself.

Isn’t the short teaser rumored to feature the new Enterprise? If so, can’t wait to see it.

38. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

#35
How true it is…

I’m getting ugly….

39. Al - November 13, 2007

“It has wings” is a common phrase meaning that something has taken flight, begun its journey, etc. For instance, if I recall right, Buzz Aldrin said that the Eagle had wings when it separated from Columbia on its way down to the lunar surface.

I imagine that is the source of the misunderstanding.

40. Jon - November 13, 2007

The constitution that appeared in a mirror darkly loooked fantastic and with subtle but not sweeping updates worked well- I’d love a faithful big screen recreation. But I can accept and understand an updated look- I will be majorly disappointed if the configuration and general shape has changed though, ugh.

41. John from Cincinnati - November 13, 2007

The remastered TOS episodes has beautifully shown how good the Enterprise can look with modern special effects. No more “tweaking” to the design is necessary.

42. Marcus - November 13, 2007

If the LCD-screen had existed back in the 60s, I think Gene Roddenberry would’ve included some on the bridge of the USS Enterprise.

Back then there were candy-buttons, today there are touch-screens.

Vulcan logic clearly states that there should be LCDs on the new Enterprise.

End of line.

43. AJ - November 13, 2007

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Gene Roddenberyy, in his novelization of TMP, when he describes Kirk’s flyover, allude to the classic design (Saucer, neck, nacelles), as something distinctly female? Perhaps in Kirk’s brain only? My copy is long since destroyed, but I remember it.

I mean, what are the coolest ships in 2007 that the kids will buy? Transformers? Star Wars ships were either cities in space or fighters, or pieces of crap held together with duct tape and love. The BSG ship (I don’t watch) was a relic with telephones on board.

JJ has a chance to introduce the classic “female” design to an unsuspecting public, as anything else will be a guess based on focus groups, which are usually wrong

44. James Heaney - November 13, 2007

When James said “contemporary”, I heard one word: Akiraprise. *shudders*

Really, I have very much been hoping for a “classic” Enterprise–and I still am. That fracking red railing and the original blinky-blinkies is so crucial to the old bridge, and as for the exterior… well, it’s the Enterprise. The Original. The Big E. Don’t go messin’ with it. And get the d*mn spinny lights in the nacelles right, for Q’s sake!

That said, it’s far from a deal-breaker for me. Looking forward to seeing what it looks like.

45. Cenobyte - November 13, 2007

I love the original Enterprise, however I also really liked the changes/updates they made for the original crew movies. I was never a big fan of Picard’s Enterprise D… sure the saucer separation was interesting but the ship just seemed too huge and curvy for my tastes. I liked the final Enterprise E design from the last couple movies, they had an updated back to basics look. I think what they did for the Enterprise series with the NX01 was a pretty cool look as well… I’m talking ships here not the insides of the ships, wasn’t a big fan of the bridge of the NX01. I did like how they made the warp engines look a little more like engines, while still keeping a very similar design.

Point is if they update the look I hope they stick to what made the original ship special to begin with… the hull, the engines, the saucer attached to a riser off the hull. As long as they stay within that design spec and update the ship to have more detail and more realistic, science/technology based ship parts then I’ll be happy with the look. It seems silly to think they would move completely away from the original basic design of the ships of the original series era…

46. Jeff - November 13, 2007

If wings can work for MaxiPad, they can work for the Enterprise too!

47. Devon - November 13, 2007

Sorry if this has been addressed already as I skimmed through the comments, and this is meant as NO disrespect to Mr. Cawley.. but I wasn’t even really aware of who he was. So how is it that he wound up seeing the designs?

48. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

ummmm okk

49. Alex - November 13, 2007

Maybe what he saw was the Enterprise-F? :-) (I mean, come on, part of the movie *must* be taking place somewhere around Nemesis or post-Nemesis, so we’ll probably get to see something. Would be nice to have a little connection there a la Nimoy/Quinto. The old and the new. Or hell, maybe it was just the Titan he saw afterall…)

Some time ago, it was mentioned that Eaves was brought back to the team, but not as the head designer. Maybe the new guys take care of the 1701 while he’s back to do some 24th century stuff to stay consistent with his previous work on Trek? Keeping the big E a secret as long as possible would be my top priority as a producer here.

Or maybe someone just showed him a picture of Gabe Koerner’s (cool but completely Trek-Xi-unrelated) E-redesign?

50. dm - November 13, 2007

I think the important thing is not necessarily the outward appearance of the ship, but the sense of how it operates and maneuvers. TOS Enterprise felt like a naval ship: it had momentum, it couldn’t turn on a dime, there was a sense of pitch and roll, commands used nautical and naval terminology. “Modern” Star Trek ships seem more like fighter jets. This seems to be a side effect of improving special effects technology (and possibly of the fact that there are fewer military veterans among the cast and crew).

I think as long as the viewer feels like he is watching people interact with a massive, powerful, complex, and dangerous machine, the ship design is secondary. The details don’t really matter, except as tools to encourage the viewer to overlay his preexisting notions of a ship at sea onto a new medium.

51. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

It’s supposed to be an earlier Enterprise that’s the problem. They need to De-evolve the ship ever so slightly.

this was a problem with “Enterprise Enterprise” in that it looked more advanced than the TOS. Looked great CG-wise but just a little out of time……

…that was until a Classic TOS ship OBLITERATED an NX in In a Mirror Darkly. Then I thought okay, Kirk’s time was streamline but could still kick serious ass!

52. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

I think the important thing is not necessarily the outward appearance of the ship, but the sense of how it operates and maneuvers.

Tell that to the 1701 that rests at the Smithsonian

53. GARY - November 13, 2007

What about a general description istead of a “no liking” commen? and “it has wings” is meaningless… those could be the pylons, nacelles or some weird protuberances coming out of the saucer!

So… let’s put this a simple way:

Or we get a somwhat “decent” description of the ship of this is a NO NO

54. AJ - November 13, 2007

Defiant looked great in that ep., in CG, right next to mirror NX-01. Imagined that redesigned for the massive screen. F-ing wonderful.

55. CCBeck - November 13, 2007

49- Alex
I really like Gabe’s design..it seems like a perfect update to bridge into the new movie designs…

56. Christopher D. Heer - November 13, 2007

Wow. The stupidity level here is really off the charts. “I can’t believe Leonard Nimoy would be a part of this disgrace!” Seriously, do you actually read what you write?

(1) You haven’t seen the new design yet. Stop calling it a disgrace.

(2) Do you think Nimoy saw the new ship before he signed on? Probably not.

(3) Fans need to get over themselves. If all of the hard-core ST fans jumped in a lake, it would barely be a blip on the opening day box office.

(4) Isn’t this a dumb thing to get worked up about? What if you had two choices: (A) a medicore or poor run-of-the-mill story with a perfectly-accurate TOS-era ship, or (B) a terrific script, awesome story with a re-designed ship? If you choose (A) instead of (B), well, then I can’t help you, but I think your priorities are horribly screwed up.

57. hitch1969© - November 13, 2007

Man, I really like the New Voyages and what my main geezah J.C.™ brings to the table with them. I remember coming across them I think a couple of years ago, maybe 3… what excitement to see what the fan base had put together in the waning days of the franchise.

Call me a sentimentalist but I think that I’m about 100% on the same page with Cawley.

Why did they put wings on the Enterprise? What’s that all about?

This reminds me of a time when I was about 6, maybe 7 years old. My buddies and me used to play Star Trek out in the fields, I, of course always being Kirk. I had an introspective brooder of a friend who always wanted to be Spock. I could never understand that. I remember thinking at the time that I was amazed that it was so easy to be the Captain. Because I would always go, “Ok, I get to be Kirk” and this other dude would go, “Well, I want to be Spock” and then the other dudes were happy being Scotty, Chekov, a redshirt… whoever.

I think I understand it better now some 30 odd years later. Me main geezah, J.C.™, he’s been teaching me much repsectah. It’s like I had this girlfriend once… great gal, all that… but she wanted to wear the pants in the deal. She wanted to be the boss. And I knew right away that it would not work out, because hitch is old skewl and the tribe cannot have two chiefs.

Remember on Guns N Roses at the beginning when that old dude says, :some men just cain’t be reached, and that’s the way he wants it”. I think it was Use Your Illusion 2. Great album.

BEST!!

=h=

58. UnReal McCoy - November 13, 2007

No — just NO! No Stealth. Nothing rocket-like. NO BSG turrets. NO blasted transformations.No harrier-like liftoffs OR landings. And Lord forgive you, J.J. if there are any Goddamn wicked looking *WINGS* on my favorite ship. Of all the hare-brained shenanigans…whats next? SHUTTLETANKS!?!? My God, man KEEP TREK ALIVE!

59. The Vulcanista - November 13, 2007

I’m still holding out for the original design, only with spinning chrome rims on the naecelles and “NCC-1701″ all lit up in blinking purple neon lights, gun racks in the shuttle bay, and a great big ole Confederate flag over the bridge dome.

Oh, yeah, and flames, big honking orange, yellow, and red flames all the way down the sides!

(Sorry. Just thought this thread needed a little silliness at 4:16 p.m. EST) ;-D

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

60. Dennis Bailey - November 13, 2007

#52:”Tell that to the 1701 that rests at the Smithsonian”

And let us know what happens. The last time I started talking to one of the dinosaur exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History I was detained by security and sent for a psych evaluation.

61. Dennis Bailey - November 13, 2007

And why is everyone going on with the “wings” thing? James specifically said that the new design doesn’t have wings.

62. Jim - November 13, 2007

The more I hear and read, the less I’m liking it. I echo Mr. Cawley’s comments but unlike him will not be in the audience if the raft of changes continues. First the “nod to the ’60′s” re: the unis, now this bastardized sounding Enterprise. In the words of Scotty, if it’s not “NCC-One-Seven-Oh-One. No bloody A, B, C, or, D” I’ll stay home and watch the remasters on my iPod thank you very much.

While JJ&Co. didn’t start the fiasco that became the “MI” series, I am growing more fearful by the day that it is starting to sound like he’s got the same thing planned here. The only the the “MI” film series had in common with its TV progenitor was the name and the theme music. The concept of teamwork and planning that made the TV show so cool went into the trash can. I only hope that doesn’t happen here…

63. Trekkie, Trekker - Hell, I'm both - November 13, 2007

Nice to see Mr. Cawley’s post with good punctuation. (See the TrekBBS post for comparison.)

All humor aside, I remember when ST:TMP arrived in 1979. I was floored when the CBS Evening News showcased the flyby sequence… and showed a VERY different looking U.S.S. Enterprise. Thanks to the work of Andrew Probert, Mike Minor and others, this TOS ship had changed radically. Part of me loved it, another part of me despised it. After all, what was wrong with the original design?

Ultimately, I LOVED the upgraded NCC-1701. Three Art Asylum models of the NCC-1701 (TOS TV, TMP and TWOK) sit side-by-side, all loved and admired for their designs.

When the ship is unveiled in 2008, I hope to have a similar reaction.

Like you, Mr. Cawley, I love the original series. TOS is–and will remain–my favorite. I’m open to something new. And if you want the TOS NCC-1701 on the big screen, I’m sure you’ll see it tonight @ the “Menagerie” screenings across the globe. I’m looking forward to seeing the TOS Enterprise fly across the big screen. Enjoy… because it’s the last time we’ll see it there.

64. John from Cincinnati - November 13, 2007

This whole redesign talk makes no sense to me. The new movie’s composer has confirmed he is working in the original Alexander Courage theme music into the soundtrack, so then why go and change the original Enterprise? Why would CBS go through such painful processes of accurately show the original Enterprise in CG for the Remastered episodes just to throw everything out the window for the new movie?Totally illogical. More likely Cawley saw a future Enterprise since part of the movie takes place post-TNG (Spock is still on Romulus working on Re-unification).

65. AJ - November 13, 2007

You know, the fact that the first 1701 is in the Smithsonian is actually pretty darn important.

I’ve seen other Trek ships in Vegas, but the one in DC, with its adventures, actually inspired NASA to name a prototype shuttle after it., and has been viewed by millions and millions.

She is untouchable as far as her outside is concerned, as big changes would render that long-hanging display useless to the new younger ‘base’ who only know the ‘new’ design.

Even the April Fools design is acceptable compared to what I am worried about seeing

66. Will Doe 68 - November 13, 2007

When “contemporary Trek’ was mention,I imagined a Enterprise with more smoother lines. And less straight and angular ones as the original.
But the Dennis Bailey re-design is perfect for old fans and new ones.
(hope my post doesn’t get erased)

67. bugs nixon - November 13, 2007

Star Trek’s production history is punctuated with second chances – the second original pilot, the 2nd motion picture, the next generation itself, even the odd numbered movies had second chances – i never expected the curse to be broken, nor do i subscribe to odd number theory, anyway…

for me this is another in a long line of second chances, i sense it will work, and yes there will be a few naysayers, BUT

i dearly hope the ship looks like the ship…

1701 is iconic – it is equal to Abbey Road, Marylin Monroe and the Empire State Building.

Simply lighting it correctly would do the trick – but it needs to be sufficiently detailed for a 21st century eye and justifiably & plausibly enhanced for a new audience.

but no more than that…

this is the only second chance I’m prepared to give this franchise

the ship is an icon – please be careful JJ

68. Doug L. - November 13, 2007

James Cawley is clearly a purist on the design and really so am I. I love the TOS enterprise. As a matter of storytelling, the refit makes perfect sense for the movies and that design is also pretty stunning, so that all works.

If you’re to view the new movie as a prequel however, the design should be reasonably close to the original. The effect of the ship will obviously be more detailed and dynamic than anything we saw in classic trek, but the design doesn’t need much improving on…. I think the look of the Enterprise was pretty timeless.

I’m sooooooo curious to see what they come up with. Off to Menagerie in a few hours, that’ll be a fun little precursor for seeing classic E on a big screen.

Doug L.

69. FlyingTigress - November 13, 2007

Maybe it is powered by Red Bull, rather than matter/antimatter.

/Red Bull gives you…. oh, never mind.

70. CanuckLou - November 13, 2007

@57 Right on! Face it – this is JJs vision so things are going to change. The ship, props, uniforms etc are window dressing. What matters is if whether or not JJ can recapture the sense of fun and adventure that the original era had. Make a movie that does that, tells a good story, and captures the essence of the original cast in a contemporary way.

That is what the focus should be on.

71. Anthony Pascale - November 13, 2007

Firstly I wanted to thank James for offering up his editorial and thoughts.

It is all going to be a matter of perspective with regards to the production design of the interior and exterior of the Enterprise. James is a self described ‘purist’ and so he has his reaction based on the view that there should be essentially no change. Some are on the exact opposite and want radical change. Personally I am in the middle and would prefer ‘some’ change. Then there is the general movie audience who really don’t think in terms of ‘change’ at all. Bottom line is that the more specific you envision the new movie to be, the more likely you are to have difficulty accepting the film…even if it is the best movie ever made. Abrams and his team have committed to respecting the canon, but have also asked people to keep an open mind.

I for one am keeping my mind open

72. martin anderson - November 13, 2007

I prefer the Motion Picture enterprise over the TV one without a second’s hesitation. I would also like to see a nice bridge, with some kind of Okudagrams, and not toothpaste tops and non-senscicle blinking lights. Why restrict ourselves to a 60′s TV Show budget design,, you all know Rodenberry would have prefered it to be the best it could be with a modern budget, just look at the bridge from Star Trek 6, and you can see his “look” was formed by budget.

73. Christopher D. Heer - November 13, 2007

#64: The theme has nothing to do with the ship. CBS’s recreation of the effects for Remastered Trek has nothing to do with the movie. Your logic is tortured and wrong.

#65: The original ship didn’t inspire NASA to do anything. President Ford wanted the prototype shuttle named Enterprise for publicity purposes.

To the rest who plan to stay home if the ship changes: enjoy your time at home with no new Trek. Those of us who aren’t Luddites will be at the new film to see if it’s any good.

74. Robert Saint John - November 13, 2007

He didn’t say, “It has wings”. He said, “IT’S A LION!”

ho, ho, ho! Okay, now that I have that out of my system, I have to ask this question for the purists, including Mr. Cawley: Where do you draw the line? I look at the image above from NV (excellent btw!), but one could argue that it is not what was seen on TV. The artist has taken some liberties with Jefferies’ original design, right? Enhanced the surface, added some detail that wasn’t there or visible before, changed a few colors here and there. Don’t get me wrong, it really works, IMHO. But someone demanding a deeper level of purity and canonicity could argue with the choices that were made. Heck, I’ve seen fans unable to agree on what COLOR the hull is!

So if I were to complain that the NV rendering goes beyond “minor changes”, how would you defend it? Or is this NV rendering (and those like it) The Line? Can it be pushed a little further? What if they put spikes on bussard collectors? What if they don’t!!? What is the hull is smooth instead of plated? Stainless steel instead of grey? What if the pylons look more “refit”? What if it looks like something that could evolve into the above, the same way the TOS evolved into the TMP version?

Just rhetorical questions. I’m not concerned because whatever they do, the film will not have the ability to erase my memories, or change the models in my den. And in the end, there’s no way we’d all agree 100% no matter what they choose to do, right?

75. star trackie - November 13, 2007

Like Mr. Cawley, I also would like to see Mr. Shatner, the 18th greatest pop icon of all, back in this movie.

Shatner, not Kirk, comes in at #18 in the latest “list” from TV Land.

18. WILLIAM SHATNER
There are many adjectives one could use to describe James Tiberius Kirk, interstellar man of action. Brave. Suave. Empathetic. But the one that best exemplifies the captain of the Enterprise is confident. Shatner was all swagger, like a blend of James Bond and young Elvis. (It’s a blend he now uses to an exaggerated — and Emmy-winning — degree on Boston Legal.) Whether he was negotiating with mad geniuses, troubling with Tribbles, or macking on a bevy of space hotties, we bought Star Trek because Shatner sold it to us.

I have to say I agree with much of Cawley’s take on design. I don’t want plasma screens or calculator buttons on this Enterprise either. I want displays and controls created FOR this ship…something unique..never seen before..that’s where TOS suceeded. They didn’t buy their bridge at Best Buy…it was created. And it’s that very uniqueness that stands the test of time.

But we will see changes..it’s inevitable. And because of the new timeline, I’m cool with it.

76. star trackie - November 13, 2007

#42 “Back then there were candy-buttons, today there are touch-screens.”

Ever shut your eyes and try to operate the flat smooth controls on a microwave oven? Shut your eyes and see how well you operate that I-phone interface.

Tactile functionality is what you need on a starship bridge, not boring “must see it to operate it” touch panels.

77. Red Shirt - November 13, 2007

I really wish our message board pal, Herr Orci would join in….

78. Pr011 - November 13, 2007

#71 “I for one am keeping my mind open ”

Well said.

79. Jim - November 13, 2007

#73 – it’s not about changes – it’s about internal logic and the willing suspension of disbelief required to make fiction work. Don’t ask me to believe the story is set BEFORE events in TOS then give me a ship that is clearly an anachronism or characters in clothing that more appropriately “live” 200 years later. IMHO, the reason TMP Enterprise worked was because the events in TMP happened AFTER TOS. This is also the reason I could never swallow “Enterprise” – although the stories were set before TOS, the ship looked and the crew acted like it came out of a much later era. The incongruity was distracting to the point of making it unwatchable.

80. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

It was just 24 hours ago I was so excited about this movie — I just pray that Mr. Cawley (as I stated before ) is the victim of a practical joke. If Mr. Abrams intends this to be his version of Battlestar Galactica — this movie will be a FAILURE!!!!

81. Paul - November 13, 2007

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Let them have their little redesigned ship.

Every other gifted amateur can make professional-looking CGI these days. All we need Abrams for is *story, actors and sets*.

So, let them make the movie the way they want… when it is done, we’ll take it and remake the CGI to our liking. They will bring the money, actors and sets, we will bring the Enterprise. :-)

82. Michael Foote - November 13, 2007

If the ship is changed too much, it will be a distraction from the story. I have to wonder if this “wings” rumor has anything to do with some pics that floated around the net several months ago that show the Enterprise with what could almost be describe as wings along the engineering hull. From just near the deflector dish to about half way back tapering closer to the hull the further back they went were these wide kinda square platform. I am not describing it very well, but if you have ever seen the models of the original Enterprise EMT put out, there are the small structures near the deflector dish. In these images those had been widened and followed along the hull nearly to the hanger deck. Someone was trying to sell them as the redesigned Enterprise.

83. Juli - November 13, 2007

Ok, didn’t read /all/ the comments, but I was wondering why they don’t use the retouched Enterprise from the new HD DVDs… its looks great and is still true to TOS and it’s fans…

I’m a 2nd gen. trekkie who’s only recently fallen in love with TOS… I’d like to see them keep this movie in line with canon. I mean, the trekkies are the ones who are going to decide whether this succeeds or flops… there’s a certain stigma attached to ST for my generation (I’m 15) and I’m perfectly aware that the special effects will have to be pretty flippin’ fantastic if they want to draw in any sort of audience from the younger bracket, but they’ve already filled the movie with the other necessary elements needed to make a movie succeed with teens… filled it with hot guys (and girls), got actors from our favorite shows (Heroes and House, anyone?), and are supposed to have a great plot. So, could they please just keep the 1701 in it’s original glory? Plus, I’d love to see the costumes in their 60′s primary glare…

84. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

In 2 1/2 hours, those of us on the east coast can see the original E on the big screen.
I’m glad the “wings” rumor is spurious. But, I would like more description about the new, old E than “blecch.”

85. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

Oh and…

Shout out to Vulcanista!! Do you have wings?

86. jonboc - November 13, 2007

The Ships of Trek should be streamlined and smooth. it’s their signature look that sets the Trek universe (24th century excluded) apart from it’s counterparts. For crying out loud isnt there ENOUGH detailed ships that look like every other ship that has been designed since Star Wars came down the pike??

Let Star Trek keep its identity, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

87. Mark Lynch - November 13, 2007

I do not believe for one moment that this design has wings in the literal sense.
Also after everything that JJ and his team have been reported to have said about respecting canon, they and I mean all involved would have to be complete plonkers (It’s an English term, just google it) in the creative and business sense. I think that the look of the Enterprise is something that will (imo) honestly play a large factor in whether this film flies or burns.

What I hope is that we are going to keep the basics of the original design, Saucer, neck, engineering section, pylons and two warp nacelles thank you kindly….

What I would not mind is the spinning light effects on the nacelles to be updated so that it conveys the magnitude of the energies at work inside. I would also like to see more detail and texture on the exterior to give the old girl a proper sense of perspective, size and mass. I also would love to be able to see through the portholes and catch glimpses of the interior.

The interior designs are even more of a minefield, there is no way that 21st Century audiences are going to accept unchanged interiors. We as original TOS fans would love it, but it will not work on either aesthetic or business models.
Why?
Because the film would just be a joke to moviegoers and sales would suffer.

FWIW I would be happy to see something that is similar to but different to what was seen in ST-TMP
Which I think had the best set designs of any Trek movie, certainly it convinced me at the age of 15 in early 1980 that this really was the 23rd century.

There are not enough purists out there to make this movie the success it needs and deserves to be. Star Trek needs to attract and hold an entire new generation to survive and flourish.
Some changes I am sorry to say, need to be made. And I do not envy JJ and his team with the task.

Phew!
Hope this makes some sense, because I think I have begun to ramble. All thoughts and text in this post are copyright to ML inc…. ;)

Good night and good luck :)

88. Vulcan Soul - November 13, 2007

If John Eaves is responsible for the new design, or even had any influence on it, I’m not surprised. All his designs are extremely blocky, busy, “industrial” – in short, the opposite of the organic, flowing, (seemingly) simple yet elegant and “polished” style of Matt Jefferies and TOS.

The former is Star Wars standard affair, based upon today’s narrow-minded view on spacecraft design. The latter, a truly evolved vision of the future.

89. GARY - November 13, 2007

Well… for example, the TOS pylons look… well… meh. The secondary hull is somewhat stale on some places (near the shuttlebay), but i still love it.
Now if they make some parts of the ship more refit like there i won’t be angry :-P

Maybe the dilemma is… Antenna or no Antenna?!

90. Reptileboy - November 13, 2007

The recent work of the New Voyages team and CBS Digital at creating CGI versions of the Enterprise have only show that Matt Jefferies design is Timeless.

Who cannot say that they would not expect to be blown away by the style and detail of the original Enterprise on the big screen with the big budget afforded to this movie?

I am not exactly a purist like James Cawley, but I do know and feel that to change Star Trek beyond reason is only robbing the true ideals behind it.

Hopefully JJ Abrams and his team are working on creating a spectacular movie experience in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek universe and are not merely attempting to shoehorn their own ideals in the it.

If fans want Star Trek to be anything but Star Trek, then they are missing the point. Frankly if this movie does mess around with Star Trek’s crown jewels, it will only end up fracturing the fan community and create a horrible situation where nobody is happy with Star Trek.

New Voyages may have its problems, but it does its best in earnest. And although James is just a fan like us, I think that he is speaking both from his heart and his head when discussing this movie.

91. Balock - November 13, 2007

Ditto to Mr. Cawley et al. If it doesn’t look like the original, then I hope it does have wings and rockets, because I’ll need a few laughs to offset my blood pressure on this issue.

92. FlyingTigress - November 13, 2007

#77

He added a comment about “flames” (and not referring to people’s posts here) a few days ago.

What more would you like? ;)

93. Johnny Ice - November 13, 2007

It make all sense that they(producers) want a new Enterprise and i am very interesting seeing what they will come up with. They aren’t stupid so i am pretty sure new(hopefully cool) Enterprise will have saucer, engineering and nacelles section.. Personally i feel ENT E & Refit are the best ENT designs ever.

94. i'm a bigger fan than you are, so i'm right. - November 13, 2007

for a guy to didn’t mind portraying kirk with an elvis ‘coif, he’s pretty hard on the designers.

i just adore new voyages, and i think it makes a perfect cultural balance to what abrams is doing.

…but if the new enterprise DOESN”T have wings, i’m going to boycott the movie! that’ll show ‘em!

95. Flake - November 13, 2007

People went insane about changes to the look of the Transformers & BSG and look how they turned out both very successful. Leave em alone to get on with it and lose the delusions that the look will be the same and that canon will be untouched because the 60s stuff – iconic and timeless as they are – will not cut it in a $150 million dollar hollywood blockbuster.

If u want to see em get the DVDs out.

96. Balock - November 13, 2007

The orginal E (not what the fools did with the last Smithsonian paint job) and Excelsior (not the annoying Ent-B, Lakota, etc.) are the best designs by far.

97. Matt Wright - November 13, 2007

To back track for a second here… how did James get to see this new Enterprise model?

98. Oceanhopper - November 13, 2007

Dunno what to add – I agree with everything James Cawley said.
(Whom I happen to think is a better keeper of the flame than Rick Berman and about a thousand times better than Brannon Braga).

For what it’s worth:

Simon Pegg as Scotty? Well, I’ll wait till I see him in the role to decide.

No Shatner in the movie? Well, maybe the plot makes it impractical.

Time travel plot rumors? Well, maybe they are false rumors.

The big 1701′s design being changed?
OK – that’s a red line for me right there. For the first time I am starting to worry about this movie…..

99. GARY - November 13, 2007

No idea really, besides he never said model but design

100. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

I feel like Scotty at the K-9 Rot Gutt Inn and the Klingons just pulled out a crayon drawing of the E with wings on it.
“JJ, doncha think ya oughta re-draw that, laddie?”

Seriously, I really want to see it before I pass final judgement.

101. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

or K-7… i get so worked up.

102. DavidJ - November 13, 2007

Something tells me this is going to be SR all over again. Some people saw the new supersuit as a RADICAL redesign that changed way too much, and some saw it as the same traditional design with just a slight updating.

For some people here, anything other than the same exact Enterprise design as on TOS is going to be seen as a HUGE departure.

Frankly I’m surprised at how rigid and unimaginative everyone here seems to be.

103. Chris Pike - November 13, 2007

Having just seen the HD screening, the original E design presented in HD on the large screen was just phenominal – those close up details of panelling and window interiors etc. gave tremendous scale, power, grace, realism and therefore dramatic impact. Why on earth, or Talos, they feel the need to throw that out is beyond me. I for one echo entirely James’s thoughts on the original production design.

104. Brian - November 13, 2007

Im just wondering if what he saw was the “real” design. For all we know only certain people know what the “real” Enterprise looks like in the film. And JJ put out a fake design to throw people off. Or thats what it looks like in the beginning of the film and then at the end it looks like the orginal Enterprise. So you never know. With that being said, im just going to wait and see. If they changed it im fine with that. I was ok with them changing Optimus Prime and Megatron. Im sure I will be ok with this one. Just has long has they have the basic shape and outline of the Enterprise and don’t add stuff like gun turrents or missle launchers to the sides then I think people will be ok. Don’t jump to conclusions just wait it out, has my father would say.

105. GARY - November 13, 2007

well… maybe Anthony should put up the april fools enterprise again and see what happens ;-)

106. Classic trek - November 13, 2007

completely agree with james. good interview. i dont think they should mess too much with the ship, the buttons on the bridge etc. id like to see it pretty much as it was but on a much grander scale, vibrant colours as of the old series. i want the old colour uniforms, spock in blue, kirk in that beige/gold top and scotty in red. i want all the old bridge noises when they press buttons etc. i also want that little row of lights under the main view screen! oh and that blue scanner that spock always looks into.

i also want shatner too! i guess that makes me a purist too!!! im ok with that.
cheers
greg
united kingdom

107. Doug L. - November 13, 2007

re 103… I am cyked to be seeing this shortly!!!

Just looking at this from a purely aesthetic level, The TOS Ent. is a reeeally cool design, why change it? A few tweaks are cool, and fine tuning the detail etc… (and maybe that’s all that they’re doing for all we know. everybody does like to freak out over this stuff me included)

But I’m just asking, why would you change this design? It doesn’t impact the storytelling or success of the movie to do so…

I’m wondering what people think? Doug L.

108. Doug L. - November 13, 2007

re 107 (i’m talking exterior design) d

109. Reptileboy - November 13, 2007

I think it rather unfair to compare the recent Transformers movie and the Reimagined Battlestar Galactica to what is going on with the new Star Trek movie.

Transformers was a standalone product. It did not conform to the various stories that went before it. I mean, just look at the number of Transformers fans who have tried to reconcile the various series and comics into one cohesive continuity. It’s frankly an impossible task.

Indeed, the biggest gripe that seemed to get the fans of Transformers up in arms was the voice casting. And for many fans, the Enterprise is a character just like Spock and Kirk. We are not simply talking about having a younger version, or suspending belief that new actors are performing classic characters. The Enterprise must look just as believable as any of the other topline characters.

Likewise, Star Trek has a heritage of over 40 years and 100′s of episodes. And while being a HUGE fan of the original Battlestar Galactica, that series, while being fondly remembered by fans and casual viewers alike, only lasted 1 Series. To reimagine something that has essentially been dead, or at least sleeping, for 20 years is infinitely easier than reimagining a successful franchise that only recently went on a hiatus.

Would anyone bother to watch a reimagining of Buffy The Vampire Slayer if it was made today? There is a reason shows like Star Trek and others are successful, and while some fade over time and leave only the memory of good times, Star Trek remains very much alive and is still in the public eye. Why else would Paramount be investing such a huge amount of creative talent, time and money into the project if they didn’t feel the movie would not be HUGE.

If they are mucking around with the Enterprise design, then why should they bother having Quinto with pointy ears and eyebrows. It would be mindboggling if the producers choose to remain faithful to the alien makeup over the design of the ship. I also feel it would be rather lazy if they did not at least try and see what the original Enterprise would look like onscreen.

The movie is still over a year from being released. And while I’m sure that they’ve already done most of the design work, any thing is really possible.

110. New Horizon - November 13, 2007

My concern is that they’re going to turn it into an ugly, hulking mass. Something outfitted with guns, huge bulky paneling…just all the modern Trek crap. I was truly hoping we would see an improved Enterprise, but keeping with the clean lines and majesty of Matt Jeffries original. GAH.

111. GaryS - November 13, 2007

wings? they are probably redesigned nacelles .

112. CW - November 13, 2007

I’m gonna take a “wait and see” attitude, but with Orci & Kurtzman being writers AND producers of this film and also responsible for the writing of Transformers and defenders of those robot designs… well, lets just hope for the best any way.

113. Ryan T. Riddle - November 13, 2007

I am hoping that this movie is like the cover to a piece of music. In other words, it has the same beats, melodies and lyrics but with a slight alteration to arrangement. As long as their is a Captain named Kirk, a Vulcan named Spock and a cranky doctor named Bones all on a starship called Enterprise, I’ll be happy (oh, and a kick-ass, well-written yarn would help as well).

And I know that this isn’t always a popular example, but if it’s like how Singer and crew approached Superman by mining the history and tying it thinly together than this Trek might just work.

114. Daoud - November 13, 2007

To quote Alfred E. Neuman, ‘what, me worry?’

Frankly, the only thing being committed to film right now are the scenes with live actors.

Space sequences will be worked upon right up until the prints have to be run for delivery to theaters, about a year from today. Glad James spoke out. If the model they’re planning to use sucks that bad, gripe and complain about it *now* when there’s still a chance to change the final result.

Plenty of time to… to quote Barney Fife… “nip it in the bud”

Of course, there’s no reason one couldn’t accept minor tweaks to the pre-WNMHGB Enterprise, explaining it as “refit from its Pike missions, but yet to receive its thick gray perma/duracoating, so more detail is visible on the outer hull…”

Sort of a “reverse engineering” of the same thing Probert said about why the TMP refit looked rather different….

115. Doug L. - November 13, 2007

re 109. Nicely spoken! My sentiments exactly on all counts. (love the new BSG too, and I’m a huge fan of Classic BSG… diehard fans do have open minds)

dl

116. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

#71

Andy,
I respect what you say. I AM open to change, but I believe some things should NOT be changed. The 1701 is the 1701, period. They can give us more detail, but they can’t change the original design. If they want to stick to canon they should start where it counts the most. The reason for the Smithsonian Exhibit of the Enterprise is because the 1701 is an historical icon.

117. Captain Amazing!! - November 13, 2007

I agree with number 19, Diabolik. That was the first thing that came to mind when reading Mr. Cawley’s comments about the “Contemporary Trek” look. If not, too bad and J.J. should and I hope does read this site and react accordingly as the ship design won’t be affected by the writers’ strike. On the other hand, everyone who’s panicking here should recall one thing…the people responsible for this film have repeatedly stated they are updating while honoring the original, that they are well aware of what we all think and they respect us and our opinions (unlike a certain man by the name of Rick Berman who couldn’t have cared less about what we thought).

118. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

I’m not sure the new Enterprise design will please hardcore fans, but JJ seems to like it:

http://www.plaidstallions.com/images/remcotrek.jpg

119. Jim - November 13, 2007

what the f*ck does a vehicle designed to fly solely in space need wings for anyway???

120. Mark Anton - November 13, 2007

As far as the Enterprise design goes, the closer it looks and feels like the original series– the better. Years ago a few “bright” individuals decided to “update” the look of Godzilla, and we all know how that turned out. If you want to make a Godzilla movie, then the monster should look like Godzilla. And if you want to make TOS Star Trek, I think you’re going to be most successful if you do every thing you can to capture the look and feel of the original series. It’s such a fantastic look, and none of the other ST series even came close to it. I’m going to a “The Menagerie” screening tonight, and we all know that that film will certainly have the look and feel of classic Trek. It could certainly be done by Abrams and Company. I just hope they’re smart of enough to know that. And smart enough to actually do it.

121. Robert Saint John - November 13, 2007

This is silly. “Wings” is quickly becoming the 2008 version of “flames”. Unless someone can specifically point out an individual or post written by someone who claims to have seen these “wings”, maybe we can just drop it? Because so far AFAIK, only James has said he’s seen the design, and he says “That being said I do not know who started the rumor that that the new Enterprise “has wings,” but I certainly did not.”

122. Captain Amazing!! - November 13, 2007

Hey, CmdrR!! Thanks for that!!!!! Frikkin’ hilarious and a blast from the past for me!! I used to have one of those!!! Love it!!!! I wish I still had it so my kids could check it out!

123. Buckaroohawk - November 13, 2007

It’s amazing how often people put the cart before the horse here. I’ve been guilty of it myself, and every time I end up regretting my words.

People, we haven’t seen the new Enterprise yet. Cawley has, and he’s made his opinions known without giving any details away. As a self-confessed Trek Purist, he wasn’t thrilled with the design. Roberto Orci has mentioned that the design stays surprisingly true to the original, however. Let’s face it, the ship won’t look 100% like the one from TOS, or even the Remastered episodes, but I’m betting it’s not too far a walk way from the iconic design.

Until an image of the new design is released, can’t we at least try to restrain ourselves a bit. Collectively, we’re beginning to sound like a bunch of Chicken Little’s, screaming that the sky is falling with each new tidbit of info or opinion. Thank goodness that Abrams and company have shown some respect for Trek, because they’d have to go a long way to have any respect for US after reading many of the comments here. They’re probably laughing themselves silly over all of this.

Angels and Ministers of Grace protect us…from ourselves. Everyone chill until we see it for ourselves. Yeesh!

124. Stanky McFibberich - November 13, 2007

I have always been against the recasting.
Changing the ship design significantly is as bad or worse.
I will wait until I see the design of the thing before commenting futher on that.

125. Gary Lee - November 13, 2007

Maybe the Enterprise looks different because the Romulans have changed the past and so some things don’t look the same anymore. But wait Spock will travel back in time and changes things back to normal.

126. David - November 13, 2007

My God, how ridiculous are some of these posts? I love Star Trek as much as anyone here, but come on guys, some of you really need to get a grip – the hatred of anything other than those 76 original episodes that dares call itself ‘Star Trek’ (TNG etc) – so its your favourite series, but Star Trek is about more than just one series and one cast. Relax a bit, wait for the film to come out and be thankful that the spirit of Gene’s original series is continuing! It does seem that anything less than Shatner putting on that Girdle again and a tight yellow shirt won’t satisfy a certain purist desire among some!

Now, rant out of the way, of course the ship can be re-designed, and don’t forget John Eaves is on the design team, so it will probably borrow heavily from the Enterprise – E (Shock horror to the aforementioned purists of all things 1960′s!).

In terms of the story, its fairly obvious from the leaks so far that the change in history will have taken place BEFORE the 5 year mission, so the point is that the timeline is altered when Kirk etc are very young (maybe before they are born?), so the ships, uniforms etc will and can be different.

I like this idea, as it gives the connection to the original look and timeline, but also allows an update for new audiences. Don’t forget, a lof of the audience will probably have seen First Contact as their most recent Trek film (the last one that had huge box office appeal), so they will expect more than a cruelly oversized exact reproduction of 1701 on the screen. Its an iconic design, but…well it reflects the modelling technology of the time, hence the constant change of design.

Lets all enjoy someone else’s vision of the design, not condemn it before we’ve even seen it!

127. Captain Amazing!! - November 13, 2007

Incidentally…as much as I respect James Cawley and what he’s managed to accomplish (with lots of help…don’t want to leave anyone out) with New Voyages, I think it would be far more important to fans to know what Leonard Nimoy thinks of it.

128. Jay - November 13, 2007

# 38… Santa wore Green originally dude… before the red it was green… sorry man

I dont care too much about the design of the ship… come on guys, thats sooo geeky, that is what gives Star Trek Fans a bad name to all non-trekkers!!! I just want the Ship to look like the Enterprise from the outside… with a ST:VI style bridge and uniforms that look something like the original… as in have the same rank style on the sleeves and are either Gold/Green, Yellow or Blue… thats it!! oh and Romulans look like Romulans and Klingons look like Klingons… the nitty gritty details arnt important to me its the basic familiarity… the fact that it looks Trekish and preferably TOSish

This film is going to look modern whether we like it not guys… all we can hope is that it look familiar and feels Trekish!

129. SteveinSF - November 13, 2007

I really hope the powers that be creating this film realize that the Matt Jeffries design is indeed timeless. To create a complete redesign of the ship as well as the show makes no sense when you have Nimoy in there. It just screws with the ever troublesome continuity. Enterprise bombed not only for repetitive stories from earlier TNG spin offs, but from the effects design. When I saw the Defiant on the “Mirror” something episode I was so happy to see that TOS design and almost correct sound effects. The Enterprise TOS design is a very important part of the series. It has it’s own character, identity, if you will.

I can’t wait to see what happens with all this.

130. Trekee - November 13, 2007

I’m almost, kinda with the whole chrome fins and rocket booster engines thing…

Flash Gordon meets Matt Jeffries.

Spocko hanging out the window, waving at the girls…

Maybe fins, rather than wings?

But yes, stupidity aside, I think that there were so many things I wanted this to be… but basically I wanted it to be TOS on the big screen. And they did that, it was Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture, so be careful what you wish for..

There’s no Shatner, so I’m a bit sad. There is no original TOS Enterprise, so I’m a bit sadder. Sylar in Spock hair just looked depressing somehow (but what did I expect?) I just need to see the new spandex Bridge Combat Starfleet Survival Suit Body Armour and I’ll be completely melancholy…

But, and to agree with almost everyone here (I think). It might very well be very OK, maybe once the dashing of all one’s hopes on the rocks of Updating and Contemporarifying are done, it’s still something I want to see.

Very. Very much.

Sucks being a fanboy doesn’t it? :-)

PS. I liked this thread a lot better than the ‘lets jump on Harlan’s head’ thread.

131. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

Didn’t Nimoy respond to TOS-R with “shame on them” and without even seeing any of the eps?

Things that would be cool:
The Enterprise-era sfx of the reactions going on in the nacelle caps…
CGI-enabled looks at here-to-fore never noticed details…
A deflector dish (I always thought it was the sensor array until TNG came along) that looks something other than 1965 tech…
CGI-enabled tours of the ship in great detail, a la the loving shots of The White City in LOTRROTK…
some CGI-motion-capture enabled aliens to crew the new E…
red panties…
new phaser/photon/warp effects…

There’s tons of room for creative people to play. I seriously hope they consider keeping the very basic aesthetics of the E.

132. Sci-Fi Bri - November 13, 2007

not XI related, but a cool redesign:
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0003.jpg

133. bob - November 13, 2007

Movie has romulans right? Maybe someone mistook a TOS romulan bird of prey for the enterprise.

134. sean - November 13, 2007

I can’t see why or how, on a production this closely guarded and secretive, they’d let a guy that makes internet fan films see what is most likely the most guarded design in the new film. No offense to James Cawley, but I don’t think he has friends THAT high up. Hell, Zach Quinto said he was one of the only actors allowed to have his own copy of the script! I’ll wait for a trailer to see what they’ve really come up with or get worked up.

135. Captain Furious - November 13, 2007

Look if Cawley wants to break down and cry then pull himself together and fly into a screaming rage and poop into his hand and then throw it at the screen before finally slitting his wrists when the new 1701 Ent appears on screen with wings and takes off from san francisco airport with flames coming out of the new jet portals and the Millenium Falcon flys out the hanger bay (which is now found where the bridge used to be) come 25th Dec then thats ok with me providing that i aint in the same cinema….

Seriously though i hope they DON’T change at all……or if they do they keep it very minor. I dont mind some changes to make it look more futurstic (like the TMP Ent)

anyway like some one on here said – whoever it was that showed Cawley the design probably showed him the Enterprise E or the new Ent F for Nimoys Spock scenes set in the TNG era LOL….so Cawley pukes his guts up thinking its the classic 1701 enterprise and runs like Shatner Shore Leave style to his computer to tell everyone (which like…um…you’re like not supposed to do when someone entrusts you with secret info? – I bet whoever it was that showed him is going ‘Well i was about to give him a copy of the script, show him all the new uniforms, introduce him to Nimoy and get him a part as a redshirt but he can totally f**k off now!’) lol again…

oh dont mind me – i just jealous cause i dont get to play Capt Kirk alongside Takei and Konig etc in my own star trek episodes…

136. jonboc - November 13, 2007

#126- “the hatred of anything other than those 76 original episodes ”

79 episodes actually.

“so they will expect more than a cruelly oversized exact reproduction of 1701 on the screen. Its an iconic design, but…well it reflects the modelling technology of the time, hence the constant change of design.”

The modeling technology of the time simply created what was designed. That’s what determined the look of the ship, not the construction technique. And the ship’s design holds up just fine, thank you.

In fact, in about 2 1/2 hours, we’ll see just how much that design does hold up on the big screen. We’ll see how many laugh and walk out snickering at this outdated relic.

Not many, I’d wager.

137. Bobby - November 13, 2007

agree with #22 John

JC…you arse! James pelase keep your “inside scoops” to yourself. First off you are jeopardizing someones job by talking about how you have seen the design of the Enterprise…or anything else. Don’t you think the production staff read stuff here? And, who made you an authority? Second i don’t care about recieving news from you…especially in regards to design.

138. GARY - November 13, 2007

UUUUPA, people stop attacking each other!!!!

139. Myrth - November 13, 2007

Why are people here still going on about wings when his post states that he did not propigate that rumer and that it is just that, a rumer? We all should read a little closer I think before we get worked up.

140. Reign1701A - November 13, 2007

Okay, so long as it keeps the same basic shape, I’m cool with it. In the same vein that the refit Enterprise was similar to the original. I just hope they don’t make it too radically different in shape, for example the Enterprise-D as compared to the original.

141. Phil Smith - November 13, 2007

It’s probably misinformation to keep fans interested while the design work continues. This tactic was used by the crew of Alien back in 1979 with huge success.

I’ll wait until opening day before making judgements on the aesthetics.

142. Reign1701A - November 13, 2007

Oh and I should add: of course they’re going to change it a bit! By late 70′s they realized the original design did not have nearly enough detail to awe audiences on the big screen. So now that it’s over 40 years later, people still expect them to use the same exact design?

143. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

#128
Christmas will never be the same…

144. David - November 13, 2007

#136 – no offense, i love the original design, i’m just realistic about what will be seen in the film.

But I really don’t think the showing of the Menagerie is a good comparison – several tens of thousands of fans watching a favourite episode doesnt really tell us that the roughly 50 million cinema-goers who will be expected (hopefully) to see the new movie will have the same appreciation of the original design.

Its like trains – some people love steam trains, but if one pulled up at the station for your daily commute into London, you’d be pretty pissed off! You expect all mod-cons, just like when you go to the movies

I think we will see something similar but new – just like the Ent A, B, C, D, E and J are all twists on the classic design.

The point is its great to see the crew out treking, no matter what the ship looks like

145. Bobby - November 13, 2007

#135

LOL funny stuff..and i agree! he needs to be sensative to what he says, when and who he can get in trouble by talking about stuff he may be pervy to.

146. Kevin - November 13, 2007

Uh-oh. I’m not liking the sound of this. So far, the glimpses of the uniforms under the raincoats (if those are the uniforms, it doesn’t even look like they kept the original colors) and now hearing that the Enterprise has been radically changed.

Ah well. I don’t actually have to like or go see this movie. A little disapointing all the same.

147. I AM THX-1138 - November 13, 2007

#134 Sean, it was words to that affect that I stated in the post about the Quinto in Spock’s makeup thread (#150, I think). I ‘aint from Missouri, but I think if you saw the Enterprise drawings, why don’t you post a sketch of what you saw and SHOW US. My point here is that it starts to sound like a flaming type of comment to just say hte ship is redesigned and I am not happy with it. And then just leave it at that. Why don’t you like it? What was changed? I can guess that James Cawley can draw a decent picture, so again I ask; why don’t you post it and end the pointless debate?

Right now, I am not buying into anyone having seen anything. It doesn’t make any sense to show an outsider who would air his criticisms of the design publicly. Hate to say it, but it defies logic.

148. CmdrR - November 13, 2007

The ship/bridge scenes don’t begin filming until January, remember? The uni’s you’ve seen could easily be civilians or Romulans, or 24th Century, or early 23rd Century.
We’re ALL reading too much into too little info. Very illogical.

149. David - November 13, 2007

The costumes seen in the Quinto video clip are clearly just Vucan or Romulan clothing, looking like the stuff Picard and Spock wore in Unification.

Everyone seems to have a bee in their bonnet over all these details. CALM DOWN! Breathe in, breathe out…and relax.

Oh, no, hang on, there’s a button that doesnt look like it did 40 years ago, OH MY GOD……….!!!!

It is getting a tad silly

150. Pragmaticus - November 13, 2007

132 – I actually like that.

Seriously guys, chill out. For those unfamiliar with the production of Transformers, before the movie came out the design for Megatron was leaked out. The fan protest was vehement enough that Megatron’s face was completely redesigned to more resemble the original version. So don’t worry, they are listening – and will likely make changes based on our reactions.

151. Atlas - November 13, 2007

I am totally open to new ideas, after all that’s what is best about Trek–the new and unexplored. Not the phoned-in, backstory-entangled, political storylines and vapid technobabble handwavium. But the way art forces us to perceive ourselves in a totally new way. The premise of this movie has potential to go either way, so I’ll withhold judgment. As a common fan, I very much hope this film doesn’t suck. (Remember when SG1 “200″ showed a re-imagining for a younger, edgier crowd? If Trek is done this way, TPTB harakiri is in order, and I’d welcome the death-by-tribble-pelting of this beloved franchise).

Its true heart will continue to beat in fans like Mr. Cawley and his team’s awesome work. Trek is bigger than its canon. But I think it’s not which series, which ship, or which crew. I think it’s the right attitude–and the irremovable element of hope for a more civil human race. And cool explosions.

Oh: if I had to work on the TOS bridge I’d go bat**** in 5 minutes with all that noise and blinking. Surprised it didn’t trigger seizures in the command crew.

PS These days, why is youthful attractiveness glorified over experience and character? I like ugly people in major roles too. One would hope future society be more concerned with individualistic potentials than sexual attraction, but, it’s an old story.

Liked Batman Begins. Didn’t like Star Wars 1-3 (I don’t care for CGI actors no matter how slick).
Like New Voyages. Delancy. Majel Barrett. You know, the human element.

152. Dave - November 13, 2007

I hope they don’t change the Enterprise. Maybe a few details, but do we really need ‘em? Look at our own space shuttle -basically a 2 tone curvy airplane. and our navy fleet and planes – do they have “Aztec panelling” on them?

Besides the Enterprise was more than just a ship… she was as much a Character in the show as Kirk SPock and McCoy. That’s why, moreso than the Ent D – people were genuinely upset when Kirk blew her up in ST 3 – that was like watching Spock die. – and we all hoped we’d get a new 1701-a and we did!

“She’s a Beautiful LAdy and we love her! – James T. Kirk

153. Blowback - November 13, 2007

The heck with how Big E looks, are they going to have the buffont hairdos, miniskirts and go-go boots? Because it’s just not Star Trek without them! I will never accept this movie if the dress regs are different.

I’m kidding of course…. I was able to accept TMP Enterprise and while I don’t expect to compelely agree with the new design for 2008, I expect it will be something I can grow into…

154. Captain Pike - November 13, 2007

I had been feeling quite positive lately about ST08. I liked most of the casting choices. If what James says is true, then the ST08 producers have their second major fan revolt in the offing (the first being Shatnergate ’07).

I have posted several times my opinion on the good old Enterprise. If ST08 producers have changed it too much then they don’t know what makes Trek Trek*. If there is only one design aspect of TOS they have to keep to make it “real” STAR TREK, its Matt Jefferies’ Constitution Class. If they have changed something as iconic to Trek as the Starship Enterprise then are in for the mother of all internet flamewars.

And now I’m off to see the real Enterprise in the best Trek movie ever, The Cage. Okay The Cage with those annoying framing bits from TOS.

*What about the new Enterprise in STtMP you ask? I’ve never liked it stylistically. STtMP barely passes my test for “real” Trek because it includes the original cast. Otherwise, meh….

155. Wayne Spitzer - November 13, 2007

“…all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek.”

Well, what’s the point, then? And this after those great pictures of young Spock! I’m no absolute purist and have been on board with most the decisions made so far, but if they drop the ball on this one, well, that’s worse than poor judgment, it’s poor taste. Does it really take a rocket scientist to appreciate and retain what is timeless (i.e., classic) while adding some contemporary dash? There’s no reason and no excuse for a radical redesign of the ship. And there’s no reason to go back to TOS if you aren’t going to proceed from its strengths, Matt Jeffries’ designs among them. I have faith that J.J. and crew will make the right decisions.

“What, me worry?” is right.
Wayne Spitzer

156. BOB-MAN - November 13, 2007

I can’t wait for the new movie but please don’t mess with the enterprise design its iconic. But maybe the story will transition pikes enterprise and kirks enterprise.

157. Ban An Appeal - November 13, 2007

Next from J.J. Abrams will be an updated version of “Lassie”.

Lassie will be played by a pitbull who, in the climax of the film, will attempt to save Timmy from the well using a grappler built into his collar…but it won’t be necessary because Timmy will have wings and fly himself out.

“You don’t pull the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with the “E”!

158. Lou - November 13, 2007

As long as the design is done more faithfully than Megatron and StarScream, I’ll be content.

159. Greg2600 - November 13, 2007

I have a feeling if the Enterprise looks like I think it might, it maybe a very short stay in the theater for me.

160. karanadon - November 13, 2007

What I would love to come of this film is for it to be so good and so cool that it becomes popular again; I’d love to see like a load of schoolkids wanting desperately to play with new Trek action figures etc. or having pretend phaser battles across the schoolyards and get swept up with the franchise, just like UK kids have with the new Doctor Who, so that Star Trek survives in the memory for aeons to come. If that means a redesigning of the Enterprise (such that the TOS Enterprise design can be explained too…) then I’m OK with that. Just make a good film that puts Star Trek back on the map, in the public hearts and minds!! I’ll reference #104 here and just note how the redesigning of Optimus Prime etc really reinvigorated what was a dead/dying 80s franchise in Transformers…

And when you think about it, the NX-01 was a “new Trek” design, so maybe the Enterprise should follow on from that…

And does that mean that Anthony’s April Fools design was closer to the final design than we originally thought…? (Can we see that again, pretty please? Infact if the Enterprise did turn out like that I wouldn’t be too bothered, though I am well aware that not all out there feel as I do…)

And as much as I love James Cawley and ST:NV don’t you think that “closer to ‘Contemporary Trek’” is only something that is a matter of opinion? We’ve all got thousands of images in our heads of what this exactly means, I’m sure…

Guys, don’t panic. I’m sure JJ’s lot know what they’re doing with this. Just pray that this is the new lease of life the franchise has been praying for…!

161. Jackson Roykirk - November 13, 2007

Atlas: I agree about the noise. Talk about noise pollution in your work environment!!!

But really, the best Trek is about characters, stories, and ideas. Not about how many black panels there are on the inner side of each of the 1701′s warp pylons. (Four in TOS Remastered, I believe.)

On the one hand, the 1701 design shouldn’t be the make-or-break factor in the Trek ’08. On the other hand, it IS a character and it is well-known and much loved by Trek fans. Even non-fans recognize it. And if JJ is smart he’ll try to turn former non-fans into Trekkers.

162. fanboy B - November 13, 2007

I like the contemporary look of Trek, so this is a plus for me… I prefer the more sleek, more designed and textured look over the “dated”/”timeless”/ whatever you wanna call it look of the original.

163. Hbasm - November 13, 2007

Starship designs are crucial. They tell a story about, who built them (was it a peaceloving species driven to space by curiosity, exploration, survival, trader, or war?) and how advanced were the builders, and when were they built (federation starships are easily placed on a timeline because we know Trek’s history)… However all of this, plays heavily on our expectations: The audience comes with certain expectations. In reality, we may be easily fooled because we compare everything to “what we know”.

We don’t know in reality, how an alien species would design warships compared to civilian ships. We don’t know what constitutes “advanced design” from their perspective… They may favor minimalism or not; its a cultural thing.

Anyway: Colours, materials, and even shapes, envoke moods in us… Personally I always loved the NCC1701-D for its bright and warm colours – and not to forget, the bridge is so uncluttered! I feel that’s the right direction to go in keeping the spirit and message of Star Trek… The newer designs are also quite nice, but I see some problems with the NCC1701-E in particular due to its dark, militaristic design. The same goes for the Defiant. While these designs may come from a desperate need for survival, it just doesn’t sit well… remember there was a time when the federation didn’t need warships. That was more in concert with Roddenberry’s bright future.

On a related note, I’ve always had a problem (and I know I’m not the only one, though this IS a matter of personal reference – so it seems) with the overly twisted exterior shape of the NCC1701-E… It makes it hard to “grasp”. The ship may still look “federation-like”, but its an odd shape that is hard to “see”.

Aside from these considerations, starships are noticable landmarks of humanitys scientific advancement… I’m sure we will be proud of them in the future. Provided we have the resources, we will make it a priority to design them well, and make them aestetically beautiful… Though I do suspect, the design will remain primarily an outgrowth of function, and the first many generations of starships will probably favor a simple, economic design. It makes a lot of sense that the TOS era doesn’t look as technologically advanced as the TNG era.

I’ve also been told that Gene Roddenberry said, the technology will sooner or later become so advanced that you can barely see it … I think that’s a good point! And generally, I’m not impressed with lots and lots of buttons and flashing leds (its usually nonsense) nor do I appriciate that every single function on the ship is readily accessible – “on screen”… No, functions should be hidden in a hirachy and only the most important functions are visible at any given time. What this means is, the viewscreens should not contain a lot of information that you don’t need, and the consols don’t need to be lifesize.

Yes, starship designs are an interesting topics. I love them, not for the flashing buttons nor the insane speeds or the powerful weapons, but because they signal mankinds expansion into space. We come in peace with the purest motivation, not to conquer but to learn.

However the fact is, we don’t even know if faster-than-light travel is possible, without using some sort of wormhole. Is warp-speed a realistic dream? Maybe so, but what about the intertial dampeners? Some say they are a little too fantastic… but never say never… But the point is, we don’t know the technology of the future. We can only make guesses.

I look forward to see what Abrams has in store for us… His interpretation of Star Trek will no doubt be slightly different and new to us, and it could be great. In any case, its a new chapter in the saga, and I hope the ship designs will honor the Trek tradition; surely, the federation starships are the most unique designs I have ever seen in sci-fi… They do not really resemble any natural shape, like a bird, but they still look so “natural” and simply makes a lot of sense.

164. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

How can you compare Transformers to Star Trek — that is like comparing Super Bad to Gone With the Wind!!!! The ship should be the original design period — there is no logical reason why it should not be. Was the USS Defiant in “In a Mirror Darkly” radically different? NO OF COURSE NOT!!! Was the U.S.S. Enterprise in “Trials and Tribulations” radically different? NO OF COURSE NOT!!!! Hey J.J. and company if it ain’t broke don’t break it. Of course the Enterprise had a new look in TMP (DUH!!!!) — since it took place AFTER TOS. This is a (supposedly) time travel story that takes place in Captain Pike’s era — how can anyone logicall explain the Enterprise looking radically different??????

165. Lostrod - November 13, 2007

Anybody remember this earlier re-design of the Enterprise done by Ralph McQuarrie for STTMP?

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/04/uss-enterprise-phase-ii.html

166. Will Doe 68 - November 13, 2007

Say what you will about Gabe Koerners’ design,but you have to admit that this click Rocks!!! (remember this is not cannon,just an excuse to show this)
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/trekreel002.mov

167. Cenobyte - November 13, 2007

#132

Cool designs… looked at some of the other stuff and I’m impressed… I bet most fans could live with the changes presented in those renders, I know I’d be fine with the Enterprise looking like this, it’s a classy almost deco rethinking!

Check out this quicktime demo using this dudes kick ass model…

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/trekreel002.mov

PS this stuff belongs to a guy named Gabe C. Koerner, according to his resume he worked on the final few ep’s of Enterprise.

168. Cenobyte - November 13, 2007

looks like WIll Doe and I had the same idea ;)

169. GARY - November 13, 2007

Nice video, but that ship does not look peaceful at all, in fact it’s the Enterprise on steroids. Why is it so inmense? and why does if look so industrial? It’s closer to a transformer than to the other Enterprises

170. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

That is a great design — but still it is not the original……
Not trying to be stubborn — but just for sake of continuity, why can’t we just keep the original design????????

171. Lou - November 13, 2007

@170. out of date. the same reason they used the “Constitution refit” design in TMP.

172. I AM THX-1138 - November 13, 2007

#166
It is good. But still, no.

#165
Hell no! RM is genius, but Hell No!

173. James Heaney - November 13, 2007

#57: Holy frack! Have I been buried somewhere and somehow missed the triumphant return of ol’ Hitch “Mac in the Pants” 1969? Good to see ya, sir!

174. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

#171 — NOT of out of date, if a good chunk of this film revolves around the Captain Pike era — it should be the same original design that ALSO APPEARED in DS9 and ENTERPRISE (why weren’t different designs used then). AGAIN as I stated in a prior post, re-fit for TMP was because it took place AFTER TOS. Pike’s ship took place in the TOS. My G-d what is it that we’re not getting here???? Besides being a new movie can someone please give me a logical reason why the original look cannot be featured in this movie?????

BTW kudos to the Yankees for keeping Jorge Posada!!!!!!

175. John Trumbull - November 13, 2007

The Enterprise design “borrows from contemporary Trek”? That makes me a bit nervous. If he means the TMP Enterprise, okay. But TNG onward… bleah.

176. hitch1969© - November 13, 2007

Thank you James Heany, you are a Starfleet officer, and a gentleman.

And for clarification on my post #57 – the reason that we were playing in a field was because it was rural midwest Colorado in the late 1970s and we were pretending that we just beamed down to a planet.

I thought that kind of explained itself, but you never know. I can’t understand why any kid wouldn’t want to play the part of James T. Cawley.

Rock on New Voyages!

=h=

177. Balock - November 13, 2007

ok, maybe some minor cleanup to interior, but again, leave the exterior alone. Changing it adds no value, except to create some buzz around the release of the movie. I can already see Entertainment Tonight doing a text message survey for old vs. new 1701.

BTW, no one could ever replace the Shat as TOS Kirk and my childhood hero, but I won’t cry if he isn’t in the movie (sorry Shat).

178. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

Thank you #177 — Changing it adds no value! Or perhaps (my theory) is that the “Enterpise on Wings” is 24th century altered timeline version — perhaps giving Spock another reason to go back in time and fix things. That is the only logica that I can come up with on that one.

Yankees offered Mariano Rivera 45 million for 3 years. Hey MO — just sign the dotted line already.

179. jond - November 13, 2007

It does not matter to me what it looks like. The enterprise and her crew by the end of the film will be born again. I am not going to lose my composure over how it will or will not change. The irony of all of this debate is ,that the message of trek is the hope for the future . If fans cannot be positive over what is new and unexplored how can the message of trek flourish? Love the past but embrace the future. I love all trek. I have my favorites. But I respect each attempt to entertain while spreading the messsage of a hopeful future. I will hope that this movie will do the same …regardless of how it attempts to further the message.

180. Oregon Trek Geek - November 13, 2007

I will be disappointed if the E is changed radically. I would expect some updating, sure, but the essential style should remain the same, just as Mr. Cawley said. Still, like James, I will want the movie to succeed, and of course I’ll be at the movie! The recent pics of Zachary Quinto were simply amazing!

On another topic (please excuse the off-topic question here)–James, if you read any of these–where can I see a video of you doing Elvis? I have seen stills of you in the Aloha suit (looks amazing), but I have never heard you sing or do the moves. I’ve not found anything on youtube, etc… I would love to see a video of you doing Elvis!

181. Jawinka Smith - November 13, 2007

As much as I love to complain about things, I think we just all need to relax. If you don’t like it, then don’t see it. Then you can complain that we have to wait 10 years for Trek.

So they changed the Enterprise… the film has to appeal to the masses, as well as to Trek fans. While I wouldn’t mind it staying the same, who nowadays wants to go see a movie with a CGI ship that looks like it’s plastic? If it’s supposed to be in the future, then why use all those 60′s dials and such? Again, I wouldn’t mind, because I am cool with Trek. However, if they don’t redesign it to some extent, it will look cheesy to the average movie-goer.

182. cd - November 13, 2007

Great…so it will be a deimagining then. Back to pessimistic… >|>{

So Leonard Nimoy’s Spock is a different Spock then we know, or does the GoF send them back to an alternate history, or what?

183. Dan - November 13, 2007

With as much attention as the producers say they are paying to the canon, with as much detail as they have given to the look of Spock, the look of Chris Pine as a Kirk, the look of Zoe Saldana as Uhura and Anton Yelchin as Chekov, I cannot imagine they are going to totally blow up the original design and start over. Orci said in an earlier interview here that the design will be “faithful”. But it cannot possibly, in 2008, look exactly like it did in the 1960s. It has to look like it belongs in the 23rd century to 21st century kids who buy tickets. It won’t look like James Cawley’s mimicry of the original. But I can’t imagine that it will ever look like something from Galaxy Quest or Lost in Space. It will be recognizable as Jim Kirk’s enterprise, I’m sure.

184. T Negative - November 13, 2007

I’d like to point out that Ryan Church is working on the Enterprise designs and has most likely given them to ILM to render in their computers by now. So, does Mr. Cawley know Ryan Church or anyone at ILM that can grant him access to that faciltiy?? Maybe, my guess is…..no.

I am still holding out hope that Abrams allows TrekMovie.com readers to give him feedback on the design. However, this scenario is also very unlikely.

I just hope the E is VERY close to Matt Jeffries original designs. My mind is open on everything else, just don’t screw with the ship!!!

185. ShawnP - November 13, 2007

Wow, a lot of yous guys are having conniption fits. I, for one, welcome any updating of the Enterprise, uniforms, sideburns, boots, whatever. Update as much as you can, Abrams et al., update as much as you can. I like the look of contemporary Trek, and I think a serious, big screen reinvigoration of the franchise needs to move beyond the limited production quality of the 1960s.

186. dalek - November 13, 2007

I dont mind alterations as long as it looks like the Enterprise.

Most beautiful scene of the ship i’ve ever seen, scratches et al, was the tour in TMP. Nothing, not even the latest CGI when Nemesis came out, was more stunning than that. If they can top that with their re-fit hats off to them.

I would however like to see characters that look upon the ship in awe again as a “she” a real character.

James is very elegant and respectful to other fans and views as always.

187. T Negative - November 13, 2007

#185

If you update the Enterprise to look like “Contemporary” Trek, that is like putting Superman in a green suit. It won’t work.

188. Magic_Al - November 13, 2007

#42. Regarding LCD displays, the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was made at the same time as Star Trek and its flat-panel computer readouts (rear-projection animations on set) tuned out to be one of the movie’s most amazingly accurate predictions in both form and timing (then the 1980s sequel screwed it up by using CRTs in the recreated sets)

If I were designing Star Trek I’d combine the original designs of TOS with those of 2001: A Space Odyssey, preserving a 1960s view of the future but combining all the best ideas of that time. That’s pretty much what TMP did but I’d make it look less sterile (seen what the inside of the International Space Station looks like?).

I’m very happy with the way New Voyages looks.

I think post-Roddenberry Trek was very determined to abandon the more imaginative design elements of TOS and TNG, because too many dullards reject counterintuitive design as weird rather than ponder the futuristic concepts behind them (example: the TNG bridge having fewer computer displays because better computers do more work for us vs. the Enterprise-E and Voyager bridges having more computer displays than ever, just because more is more).

189. Cenobyte - November 13, 2007

#174 – Dude, if you’re using continuity as an argument you may as well go all the way. The Enterprise would have pointy gold lightning rod things sticking out of the front of the warp nacelles, a higher bridge and a funky deflector dish… the Cage Enterprise really looked like a product of the 1960′s, they refined that stuff when they started the series.

And I would be fine with the lightning rod things etc. I believe the newly updated version of “where no man has gone before” uses the original gold rod design in their CGI Enterprise… so why not? If they update a texture or 2, give the ship a little more detail, add a few windows/hatches/tiles or whatever. Even *shudder* practical alterations to some parts of the body… not a big deal in my opinion.

As long as it isn’t some totally new redesign which looks like ass, which I don’t see them doing honestly… the Shat thinks that not putting him in the movie makes bad business sense, I would think not getting the Enterprise right would have to fall in a similar category, and we know it’s made it into the flick, so… ;)

190. Robogeek - November 13, 2007

BTW…

I would dearly love (LOVE!) a 1440 x 900 version of the new “New Voyages” (Dochterman?) Enterprise.

That’s an absolutely gorgeous shot… but not _quite_ wide enough to fill my MacBook Pro’s 15″ screen. ;-)

(Yes, I am a selfish geeky bastard.)

191. Viking - November 13, 2007

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5……..#Infinity:

‘I have been asked by Anthony to try and describe what I saw, and all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”.’

I’m not one to be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century technology, not by a long shot, but Rule #1: don’t fart around with the classic design. It can be embellished a little, layered and textured, given a new gloss, but don’t go Mannheim Steamroller on us – it’s tacky. Yes, give me dynamic displays, consoles that actually look like they DO something, and give the ol’ girl more sensual curves – nobody minds a tummy tuck and boob tassels – but radical plasic surgery turns it into something unrecognizable. Something a lot of people used to know, but now will walk down the opposite side of the street not to be seen in public with. Kinda like the old girlfriend that you bump into after twenty years, and she’s turned into a stretch-pants earth pig.

Having said that, the first Quinto-as-Spock spy pics don’t seem too far afield. It appears they have the basic concept in hand. :-D

192. ShawnP - November 13, 2007

#187

Green suit? Huh? I was thinking more along the lines of the Enterprise on “Enterprise.” That was believable and would work for this movie, methinks. I agree with #181 in that retaining the TOS design would look cheesy to the average moviegoer, especially those who are accustomed to all the CGI effects and whatnot that is present in today’s movies. And I think we agree that one of the major goals of this movie is to reinvigorate the franchise and to draw more fans, which I don’t think a TOS design on the big screen would do. I like TOS because of the characters and the plots, but every time I see the ship fly by and see the randomly blinking buttons on the bridge, I think, “Lord, how dated.” That’s just me, and I fathom there are plenty of people who feel similarly.

But as they say, “De gustibus, non disputandum est.”

193. Jeffrey S. Nelson - November 13, 2007

I agree with Cawley completely. Keep the iconic design of the ship and everything else classic Trek. Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. Like the look of the Big E in the next New Voyages episode, too.

194. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

Thanks #189 — The point I was making was this movie should have continuity for that TOS era. If Berman and company can do that in ENTERPRISE and DS9, then JJ and company FOR SURE can do that for this movie.

195. Thomas Jensen - November 13, 2007

If they are doing a new version with the classic characters, sure, change the ship… and the uniforms and update the sets. Make the classic characters reflect what the original series was with new actors for newer people. If everyone likes it then, wow!

And if it doesn’t find an audience that won’t be a surprise, either.

But if the movie is the classic star trek, then it should fit in with what was established. Within reason. And any changes made within this context would be reasonable and artistic to the needs of the material and to the audience. In other words, they’d change things so cleverly you’d think, “ok, that’ works.”

So in conclusion, with regards to the Enterprise changing from the basic classic design to a ‘new improved version’, I’d say, “TEACHER, JUST LEAVE OUR SHIP ALONE!!”

(…but use the classic version in the movie).

196. Gene Coon was the Better Gene - November 13, 2007

The one constant in ST is the Enterprise. The original Enterprise. All the ships since the original have evoked the saucer/nacelle/engineering theme, but each of them was just a bit…off. The latest TNG version (I don’t keep up with the dashes) was a bit more faithful, but still only an echo. I include the TMP E as correct, because she kept the basic visual proportions as the original, so that when you came about and saw her for the first time head-on, she was the Enterprise. Those youngsters who never saw TMP on the screen on that first weekend in 1979 can’t quite understand what it was like to see her 40′ across with the music swelling after having been gone for ten years. JJ and Co. need to understand that the look of the original Jeffries Enterprise carries an emotional attachment that a re-imagining cannot.

JJ and Co are fortunate that they have a built in safety valve of audience acceptance to tap. They have to know that there is even a small chance that some fans will not completely embrace the new actors in the old familiar roles. Their safety valve is the Enterprise. Untouched, she can automatically bridge the gap and provide the fans with the reassuring nod they might need to accept the new approach.

I suggest that an approach similar to Jaws would be perfect. Don’t lead with the shark. We spend the first 45 minutes of the movie getting to know the characters, understand their situations and challenges, and only then, we get the big reveal of the real Enterprise.

Cue the kleenex.

197. ShawnP - November 13, 2007

#196

What of the purported teaser trailer to reveal the building of the Enterprise? Depending on what that shows, I’m sure it will affect any “big reveal” moment in the movie. Clearly, we don’t know what exactly this trailer will show, but I’m sure you’ll be able to tell something about the ship’s design. I agree though that the saucer-engineering-nacelle design should be maintained, and I can’t imagine that the production designers would deviate completely from those bare necessities. Cue the singing bear…

198. Dave in RI - November 13, 2007

All of this angst and hand wringing about the ship’s appearance will probably go on up til opening day….I’ll wager the new design will be the last thing to be released to the public, much like the new Godzilla was back in ’98.

…I hope and pray that I won’t be as horrified… :-(

199. Cenobyte - November 13, 2007

#196 – Cue the kleenex – lol

There is a reason the ship had its own 20 minute long reveal in ST:TMP (at least it seemed like 20 minutes as a 12 yo kid :P)… to me the Enterprise is just as important as Jim, Spock n’ Bones. JJ and Co gotta understand this… and I’m pretty sure they do.

200. Ralph F - November 13, 2007

At least Michael Giacchino, a fantastic composer, has gone on record about keeping the opening fanfare — though, honestly, I think it would be nice to do it “Casino Royale” style; don’t bring it in full ’til the very end and just before the credits. (FWIW, I thought SUPERMAN RETURNS should have kept the march in check until Lois first sees Superman streak past the window from the jet.)

Getting off track.

As I’ve said to anyone who’ll listen to the rantings of a person born the day they recorded the music for the first episode, recast everyone, change the cannon, update the music, do what you want to the costumes, the bridge, the turbolift, the Klingons (ridge/no ridge), the Romulans (same), but don’t, DO NOT, mess with the Big E.

201. Ralph F - November 13, 2007

And ditto on #196′s comments.

202. warpfactor - November 13, 2007

#174 – Who says the Enterprise wasn’t refitted (in a similar way to TOS-TMP) between the time this story takes place and The Cage. There’s nothing to say that the exterior design we see in TOS was the first.

Surely to fit into Trek Cannon, this new Enterprise has to go somewhere in between NX-01 and TOS. Obviously closer to TOS, as it is the same ship, but that doesn’t mean it can’t look like the one in the video (#166,167).

203. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

But that ship looks like it belongs in the 27th century nad wold bot fit well with lineage. not to say that the NX fit perfectly but surely more than that (166, 167) thing would.

204. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

I am so sorry for my spelling errors. I am very nervous about this whole thing.

205. warpfactor - November 13, 2007

#203 – My point was, the ship in the video (#166/167) aside, that if Cawley means that it borrows from ENTERPRISE design when he says ‘Contemporary Trek’, then this may not be a bad thing, continuity-wise.

206. COMPASSIONATE GOD - November 13, 2007

As I said to David in the Spock photo thread, we have experienced a “modernized” Enterprise–in the Star Trek movies. Six films over the span of twelve years. Been there, done that.

Keeping in theme with a pre-TOS story, we also suffered with “Enterprise” which completely trashed any sense that the ship was of a pre-TOS era, looking more like yet another TNG era ship.

So again, its been there, done that with revision.

The popularity of the classic ship design in modern film productions was proven in Trek history: DS9’s “Trials and Tribble-ations” and the mirror 2-parter on “Enterprise.” In both cases, we witnessed the original hull design (not to mention interiors) through current stock, lighting and cinematography and what was the result? Two of the most popular episodes of both series! Fans embraced it, because if handled as in the two times before, the classic designs work.

Changing the Enterprise into some winged, revisionist thing smells like revision just to be different, not because it is what was absolutely necessary.

207. Sam Belil - November 13, 2007

#206-That is EXACTLY what I said in my prior posts when referring to DS9 and Enterprise. Thank G-d the Compassionate G-d is seeing the light on this!!!!

Hey why just don’t we change James T. Kirk to Jane T. Kirk for that matter…..

208. StarTrekkie - November 13, 2007

this thread makes me sick.

209. cbspock - November 13, 2007

#207 than this would be a Battlestar Galactica re-image…lol

210. Pragmaticus - November 13, 2007

As I have said before, who is to say that the TOS-era designs, interior and exterior (though this applies more to the interior) weren’t simply a stylistic choice for that period in time? Maybe, at that time, a retro, less-sleek look was what was in fashion? Perhaps, although they could have made it look sleeker and more modern, it was a stylistic choice on the part of Starfleet to make everything look less advanced. It’s kind of like how different styles of glasses go in and out of fashion – in the 80′s, huge glasses were commonplace, in the 90′s, granny glasses made a comeback, and now, people can’t get enough of giant sunglasses. It was a stylistic choice. Therefore, in the period of time preceding TOS, it was possible for the Enterprise to look more sleek, inside and out.

211. cbspock - November 13, 2007

#206- I agree. The whole point of this project is in revisiting the original series. That means the original ship, designs, costumes. As you said we saw the results when it is done right, and Enterprise and DS9 proved the old designs still worked.

212. cbspock - November 13, 2007

I think seeing the TOS Enterprise on the big screen would be the same type of experience as seeing the TMP Enterprise for the first time on the big screen. Since they are changing the design, what’s the point. Like someone said, they have been there and done that already.

213. nyxtreme007 - November 13, 2007

My personal reaction is that though the Enterprise may be updated, I believe she will resemble the original Constitution class. Let’s look at this objectively. The producers insist that they would honor canon. Also, Leonard Nimoy will appear in it. And as for the movie posters of ST11, they convey “classic” tones. Why would the powers that be reboot the starship when they know that one of the main stars in Star Trek is the USS Enterprise herself? Getting different actors for the classic characters are one thing, but radically changing the USS Enterprise is just plain silly.

214. warpfactor - November 13, 2007

#206,207 – The classic designs worked on the small screen in episodes of established series that weren’t trying to attract new viewers in the same numbers that are required to make a feature film with a budget of $150 million successful.

Why can’t the producers change the design slightly, in line with the cannon. (ie. making it seem a little older) as an older fitting than the one we see in TOS. (Assuming a refit somewhere before The Cage). Why not borrow a little from the NX-01, which is the cannon ship next back in the time-line. Remember, this film is probably set 10 years before The Cage.

However much you may dislike ENTERPRISE or the design of the NX class, the fact is that it is part of the established Cannon that you are clinging so dearly to. If this is what Cawley means by borrowing from Contemporary Trek, then this causes no problems with continuity, and may also attract new viewers to the franchise who (however mistakenly) believe the original design to be outdated. I say, it should be good.

215. TrekNerd - November 13, 2007

“whoever it was that showed Cawley the design probably showed him the Enterprise E or the new Ent F for Nimoys Spock scenes set in the TNG era LOL….so Cawley pukes his guts up thinking its the classic 1701 enterprise and runs like Shatner Shore Leave style to his computer to tell everyone”

“runs like Shatner Shore Leave style” — BRILLIANT!!!

216. JLC - November 13, 2007

# 26, #44, 196 I am a trek purist as well. I am deeply insulted for them bringing any modern trek into this.

ditto to all of you..
# 196 Enterprise. The old girl had a soul. and Scott and Jim gave life to her.

# 206 agreed “Keeping in theme with a pre-TOS story, we also suffered with “Enterprise” which completely trashed any sense that the ship was of a pre-TOS era, looking more like yet another TNG era ship.”

I hate modern trek ship design always have. there is no elegance to modern trek ships. sets bland, uniforms dull..

The one thing I liked when I was a kid was everything was so alive with color on our trek.

To coin a phrase from SW..” I have a bad feeling about this” trek movie.. its not doing a good job of honoring what TOS is about.

217. NZorak - November 13, 2007

If anybody reads these forums, they know I’m opinionated. Anyone who knows I’m opinionated knows that my opinions are always correct. Futhermore, anyone who know that I’m opinionated and that I’m always correct knows that the original Enterprise model looks like someone made it with three toilet paper roles, two small plates, and some small wooden boards. It’s like they couldn’t afford the Andy Worhol design so they went with Gene’s two-year-old’s design instead. They need to not only overhaul the design and give it a facelift, but they also need to completely redesign it from the ground up, give it wings, streamers on the wings, and a little bell on the handle bars. For ultimate kewlness, they should even give it landing gear – you know, the type with wheels, which don’t retract. Man, the Enterprise design is so old school, it might as well just be a single stage rocket ship that takes off and lands without need of a parachute. It’s seriously like the old Flash Gordon stuff from the early 1900′s.

The bridge also needs a joystick at the helm.

218. Dr. Image - November 13, 2007

James? Chime in? Thoughts?
Seems we have a consensus here, “open minds” and all:
Don’t F with the E!!

219. warpfactor - November 13, 2007

#211 – Original costumes? Remember, this is Pike’s era. Almost certainly a good deal of time before The Cage. When has there been another Trek period where the uniform hasn’t changed significantly in that time.

220. Demode - November 13, 2007

Less is more.

The 1701 is iconic, and a real beauty. Keep her looking simple and elegant and people will love her. Start adding bits of junk on her hull, to make her look more “realistic”, and you loose the original designs charm.

221. reptileboy - November 13, 2007

The main reason this movie needs to appeal to the masses is because of the massive budget and the continued career success of the talent involved. For the fans, all this movie needs to be is simple: GOOD. We could accept if this movie failed financially, but we could never accept if it was terrible to watch.

If this movie manages to appeal to the masses AND to the fans, then it will make a HUGE amount of money and launch Star Trek back in the mainstream. Indeed, I really hope this movie is great because I want to see a Star Trek film I enjoy in the cinema once more. Frankly, I’m sure that if the movie is brilliant, I’ll go and see it multiple times. And while the success of this movie will be based on whether or not it makes its money back and not the quality of the story or the standard of its acting, or even the acceptance of the fans.

It has been shown time and again that Paramount knew that it could pretty much guarantee that it would recoup the cost of any Star Trek movie if they keep the budget average. It’s only when they have an event such as The Motion Picture that they’ll throw more money at the franchise. Just look at The Final Frontier. It was made on a budget of $27.8 million, while The Voyage Home was made for $25 million and was a massive worldwide hit. So, the reward for success was nothing more than an extra %10 increase in budget for the sequel.

Rather than spend more money on taking Star Trek to the next level, Paramount has always felt that it could make a modest movie on a modest movie, and fingers crossed, it would get a sleeper hit. No wonder the expectation for Star Trek movies have fallen over the years. The fans know that it won’t be a blockbuster because the money simply isn’t there.

Just look at the success of Serenity. Virtually the entire revenue from cinema takings for that movie came from die hard fans going repeatedly to see it. I personally only saw it once, but I know friends who go to the cinema twice a week and didn’t bother to see it. Even though they were going to see crap they knew would be terrible. The reason Serenity was not able to translate into huge success was its failure to break into the mainstream. Much like the series Firefly that spawned it, Serenity was something that a large number of fans followed rabidly, but was unable to attract the casual consumer.

However, I think that while their are many fans who would like to see a reboot, a reimagining or a bastardisation of Star Trek, they’ll still go and see the movie even if it is traditional and respectful. However, for many fans, lots of whom have expressed such in this thread, value Star Trek’s tradition. It’s why we love the fact that Leonard Nimoy is back as Spock, and saddened that William Shatner isn’t as Kirk. They are essential elements to why we love the original Star Trek. It is why cast and crew have repeatedly stated over the years that the real star of the show is the Enterprise herself.

This is why when someone like James Cawley, who has repeatedly brought me back from the brink of hysteria over the changes in the film by reminding me to have optimism and hope, deserves a little more respect than some of the posters have given him. James is the fan I wish I could be. He lives and breathes Star Trek in a way I think we wish we all could. Before the Remastered Star Trek was even thought of as a viable cash cow, his work on New Voyages demonstrated what many of us had forgotten. We still love the Original Star Trek. We knew it deep down, but we hadn’t really explored it as much as we wanted to. We became dazzled by the new.

It probably comes more as an annoyance to James right now, to be embroiled in a debate that has been ignited by comments he made as fan. It is a shame since many will feel that James is somehow being territorial and even jealous of the movie treading on his own playground that is New Voyages. If we had the chance to be a fly on the wall with this movie I’m certain we wouldn’t be holding back on our own opinions and the spoilers we might be in posession of.

222. Leonel - November 13, 2007

OK. I began to feel compelled to post even though I’ve read through probably a third of the posts so I have no idea if I’m rehashing anyone’s statements.

At any rate, it is a challenge to put Mr. Cawley’s comments into context. When referring to the ship design, what is he referring to? External? Internal? Maybe I’m missing something. At the minimum it would have been great to know if at least the external view is similar or the same as the old girl we have come to know in the original series.

Very difficult to base any opinion on this. Regardless I think its great the production team is soliciting input and feedback from people like James Cawley, Peter David, and who knows who else. This I find reassuring. And at the same time, cautiously optimistic.

223. Neo - November 13, 2007

THIS is beautiful..I only wish…

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0009.jpg

Great work…

224. Atlas - November 13, 2007

Well, if it’s canon….

You take the Defiant, stick it on top of the battle bridge of the D, stick on 5 nacelles (one from each E in succession). You put drunk Klingon Sisko in the center seat, surrounded by Spider Barclay, Morn, Quark’s mother, Kivas Fajo, Wesley’s first werewolf girlfriend, Data’s busted head, the devolved Worf beast, and the Malon Vihaar. Put the men in miniskirts and the women in Klingon battle garb. Release cordrazine into the ventilation shaft and ship ‘em off to Risa. Gold, I tell ya! The fans’ll eat it like fried gagh.

**

Recasting Trek with various new actors in familiar roles reminds me of Shakespeare in the Park. How about Star Trek in the park?

Hey, I just watched James Cawley’s latest, World Enough and Time, with George Takei among others. Had me in tears by the end. I honestly cannot remember the last Trek episode that made me tear up.

Oh, that’s right. It was To Serve All My Days. Cawley’s Chekov redux.

I think the only other times were The Inner Light, and Data’s death.

700 episodes vs Cawley’s half dozen…..

225. Gene Coon was the Better Gene - November 13, 2007

#222 Agree with that last paragraph you wrote. Maybe we are seeing a little informal polling not unlike test screenings of the movie before its release?

“Hey, see if they like this one!”

226. JayB - November 13, 2007

Well, after seeing “The Menagerie” on the big screen tonight, I can say without a doubt CBS Digital’s CGI Enterprise looks incredible on the big screen! There is no need to screw with a proven design – and I say that with no offense intended for the “complete re-design” crowd. There were some scenes where they cut from the original effects footage to the remastered cgi version and the cgi version looked huge, majestic and very believable. The person who warned “change for change’s sake never works” has a point – just look at the “Lost In Space” movie. Everyone I know just said “WTF??” when they saw the new Jupiter 2. It just didn’t work. I would say they need to stick with the ideas Matt Jeffries developed for the show and stick with those concepts. No “greeblie” stuff on the hull, just smooth, slick, simple and 23rd century. Leave the rest for the Star Wars universe.

227. Adam Cohen - November 13, 2007

Wow, what a thread!

First, I can see you hitch, can you see me?! Good to see you back in the game.

Second, and more to the point of this article, here’s why I think so many of you (and myself) have an issue with redesigning the Enterprise– It’s not so much that the ship has a different look, but that in the context of getting the audience to buy these new, young actors as a part of the existing TOS mythos, having the Enterprise there is like having a Christmas tree on 12/25. There are certain elements that make the event “real” for us. Case in point, those pics of Quinto got a lot of us jazzed because we can see a young Spock there. No, he’s not a clone of Nimoy, but we can make the necessary connections of the past 40 years of Nimoy to Quinto based on their overall similarities.

I believe the same holds true for the Enterprise. In 1979, when they rolled out the refit ship, that new design worked because it was a sensible extension of the original design. I’m sure there were some fans that still wanted to see the TV ship onscreen, but given the context of that film, the refit worked perfectly. And it happens to be (IMHO) the sexiest design of any Enterprise.

But here, in 2007, we’re trying to accept this “new” crew and adding a significantly different Enterprise to the mix could bounce a lot of fans out of that experience. Personally, I’m with Anthony here– I’m willing to keep an open mind about the ENTIRE show until I’ve seen it on 12/25/08. But if there were ever a time for Abrams & Co. to be careful about how to treat the source material, the ship… aye, the ship is the prize.

228. steve adams - November 13, 2007

I’m so thankfull to the oldschoolers that want the original ship and uniforms.
^
If these change the Star Trek world too radicaly then the film will turn into a blackhole of dispair…

^
There’s no JJ Abrhams script in the universe that will save this film if they change the look.
^
So redesign that ole ship and crew JJ, and watch your futures end…

229. I AM THX-1138 - November 13, 2007

#190

I have a great shot of the E that you are talking about on my 19″ flat-widescreen monitor. Looks fantastic with much detail. For the record.

230. New Horizon - November 13, 2007

Well, I just came from seeing the Menagerie on the big screen. The ship….was glorious. :) It totally worked on the big screen. It was sleek, and graceful. With some very minor tweaks/updates/detailing…it could work in the movie. I fear for the look of the ship from what James has said. I sure hope it was just a concept sketch. The Enterprise is a ship of peace, I don’t want to see it looking like a battle plated tank.

231. max - November 13, 2007

About the look of the ship, I’ll just say I’m open to new ideas. I’m looking forward to seeing what this new generation is cooking up. I don’t really expect we’ll see a drastic departure from what we’re used to.

232. Sean4000 - November 13, 2007

Yes, I want to see this thing……NOW

233. cd - November 13, 2007

I don’t really see how the refit in ST:TMP compares to changing an established design. Refitting is explainable without altering the known ‘reality’. The only way to have a different TOS time frame Enterprise is to have an altered timeline. Now, you can have some wiggle room in that: something like the improvements to the Fesarius in TOS-R, for example. You can have finer detail on Enterprise, aztec hull plating when light hits it justs right, the way it is lit, etc, but the changes that Cawley seem to indicate sound too severe to be anything but a reimagining or whatever you want to call it. I am afraid this will be Ultimate Star Trek or All-Star Star Trek, maybe we can call it Star Trek 2.0 or Star Trek: Reboot or star trek. But it does not sound like it will be Star Trek.

234. jonboc - November 13, 2007

I just saw the TOS E on the big screen with a packed crowd and not one person laughed and left the theater. In fact, from the “oohs” and “ahs” I’d guess many had never seen Trek remastered. The ol’ girl looked gorgeous and 100% believable.

Also when the TOS bridge was on the screen, it came alive. The colors popped and it was visually INTERESTING. As much as I like the historic look of Pike’s bridge, on the big screen, there was no comparison between it and the bridge of the series. JJ, please don’t mute the colors on this movie. Those colors, red railings and all, rocked on the silver screen. Fun stuff.

Like I said, the theater was packed, my party had to seperate to find seats. There is some serious hunger for TOS out there, witness the expanded showings.

Play your cards right, JJ, and you will have a huge hit on your hands, people are hungry for this stuff. Don’t know about the rest of the country, but retro-TOS was rocking Texas hard tonight!

235. The Realist - November 13, 2007

I am no purist, not by a long shot. I loved the later Treks and I even like Berman and Braga. But I have to say, I hope they do not screw around with the E to much, yes give her a fresh coat of paint, update the sets a bit with working monitors even tie in the 1701 to the NX – 01 a tiny bit for the sake of canon, and give a purpose to all the blinking buttons, maybe tone them and the colours down a bit, but don’t redesign from the ground up.
Berman/Cotto did not touch the design in ENT, they new that it still worked.

236. MiniKirk - November 13, 2007

56- I agree with you, and all others who think like you. This is aimed at all the morons with the screwed up priorities, regarding this movie. Seriously, what the hell does it matter how things LOOK? What’s important here, is how the STORY is, people! Besides that, its just a freaking tv show! There is so much worse out there, than a redesigned FICTIONAL ship. Even if it has “wings”, its STILL the Enterprise. Even tho the cast don’t exactly resemble the original, they’re still the crew. All this is, really, is just a stupid little movie, that hopefully will once more push Trek into the mainstream, and maybe even give it the respect that it deserves. Hell, if this movie is done right, EVERYONE will go see it. The people behind it, really have the right idea. The reason the past few movies/tv shows have failed so hard, is because they’re not accessiable to new/non fans. The BTS people have it spot on, really, trying to make it appeal to the mainstream public. The straights, as I refer to them. And if the movie sucks? Tough! Find something else to obsess over then! Just do me a favor, and stop bitching. Seriously! There’s far more important things going on, in the world, than just some stupid movie, thats still 13 months, one week, five days off (yes, I’m exited. I never said I wasn’t a fan). There’s conflict in Darfur, there’s conflict in the Middle East. Hell, a dictator has just taken controll of Pakistan, and if we’re not carefull we’ll be election a Nixon-Clone for prez here in the States. (Clinton.) In closing, get over it!

237. T Negative - November 13, 2007

Mr. Abrams,

The Enterprise should look like this…

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/tiy/new_tiy_11.jpg

Minor changes are acceptable as long as they are M-I-N-O-R in nature.

238. cd - November 13, 2007

#234, 235 – I agree!. #236 – disagree with what you are saying about Star Trek but agree with you about the real world. And it is my God-given right to gripe about things that have absolutely no importance. >;>}

239. Jupiter1701 - November 13, 2007

Sorry, purists, but the CGI Enterprise that CBS has come up with looks like a cartoon or video game. I’m all for updating the look for the new movie, as long is it stays true to the main shape of the original.

And this is 2007, not 1967, do you really expect to see a bridge that was designed in the 60′s?

It’s just a movie. Go and see it and enjoy it.

240. MiniKirk - November 13, 2007

238 – Go for it! Just please wait untill the movie comes out, eh? Wait untill you’ve seen it, and you can judge the STORY, which really is what Trek is about. “The Human Adventure Continues…” ended TMP, right? The HUMAN Adventure, not the Starship Adventure. Remember this, folks.

241. Jon - November 13, 2007

The old TOS design would never work on the big screen….and it would be laughed at by the people who they are trying to target.

242. Oregon Trek Geek - November 13, 2007

236 – Jeesh, I just wanted to see James Cawley do his Elvis impersonation….. :D

243. David (the other David, not the cool one who writes better) - November 13, 2007

sweet jimmy jones people!

I was only kidding about the wings. I asked Mr. Orci was there any truth “my” rumor (note the tongue in cheek element), and he responded no wings, but flames – another tongue in cheek reference to the Transformers.

Get a grip, I am sorry I posted that! You have to understand anything posted in a comments list MUST be taken with a few grains of salt.

All I care about is 2 nacelles, 1 saucer, and 1 engineering hull. TOS, revised or otherwise, if she has the shape, she’ll be the Enterprise to me.

244. jonboc - November 13, 2007

#241- “The old TOS design would never work on the big screen”

Wrong.
Clearly you didn’t attend the screening of The Menagerie tonight…on the big screen.

Seeing is believing!

245. xizro345 - November 13, 2007

So, the producer/creator of a fan series (hence not “official” at least for now), complains that he doesn’t like the design, which he says he saw (but I don’t believe people on words alone, hence I’m skeptic)…What’s the point of this news?

246. "Uncle" Clay Farrow - November 13, 2007

73: Your info is inaccurate, my friend. My grandfather worked on the shuttle program in the 70′s and early 80′s, so here’s the real skinny on her name. OV-101′s name had nothing to do with President Ford’s desire “for publicity purposes.” OV-101 was to be named ‘Constitution’ in honor of the upcoming Bicentennial. However, to to a HUGE letter-writing campaign by fans, her name was changed to ‘Enterprise.’

Personally, I’d have loved to see OV-101 named ‘Constitution,’ and OV-102 actually named ‘Enterprise’ instead of ‘Columbia.’ It would have followed Star Trek’s presumed canonical naming protocols (in that the first of her line, NCC-1700 was named ‘Constitution,’ hence ‘Constitution class’), and then the Big E would have actually flown in space for real…

As far as the new design, does it have wings for extra protection? You know, for those heavy (warp plasma) flow days??? :)

247. MiniKirk - November 13, 2007

241 – I agree. Looking at Orci’s work on Transformers, and going by what Abrahms and Co. have said in interviews, they’re going for something to appeal to both established fans, and converts (after the release of the new movie) and the converts, being for the sake of this argument people not familiar with Trek, would most likely see the big E as being cheesy, or campy, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, it would detract from people going to see the movie. A redesigned E would be better, if only because it would look better to non-fans, who, unfortunatly, are accustomed to modern-looking things. Sadly the Classic E (which I’ve been in love with since my closest friend turned me onto Trek back fifteen years ago) wouldn’t work.
244 – See above, with addn: The Menagerie, is already established Trek, and thus, I’m willing to be Dollars to Doughnuts that the majority of the audience were fans that have been into it, since before the new movie was announced. Which would go a long way to explaining why they loved the way the big E looked on the big screen.

248. MiniKirk - November 13, 2007

^^^willing to bet Dollars to Doughnuts. Bloody typos

249. John from Cincinnati - November 13, 2007

For all of those who say “why worry over such little details?”….Well, the Enterprise is just as an important character as Kirk, Spock and McCoy. So let’s also make Spock an African-American and McCoy a female and Kirk a transvestite. I mean, it’s just little details, who cares?

250. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2007

I gotta agree with jonboc. “The Menagerie”, and some of the snippets from other episodes, really demonstrated that the new VFX knocked the ball out of the park with the TOS Enterprise. It looked and felt real and substantial, and the ship remains what it most needs to be…visually interesting. Show that design with the extra detail warranted by a full-up feature, and it would rock and rock hard.

Best,
Alex

251. Queefer Bukkake - November 13, 2007

I have friends pretty high up as well, and I’ve seen designs myself. The Enterprise has a penis! I can’t tell you how I know this, but I have it on pretty good authority that the ship I saw is the actual Enterprise from Abrams’ movie.

252. cd - November 13, 2007

#250 – what you said. Otherwise, what’s the point?

253. MiniKirk - November 13, 2007

251 – Yeah, they used mine for reference. I just hope they don’t make it too small…(they don’t call me tripod for nothing =P)

254. Kevin - November 13, 2007

I still don’t understand why the exterior of the Enterprise would look cheesey. The refit was essentially the same thing with different nacelles, deflector dish and more detail. Yes I know that there were more differences than that, but you actually have to study the two different models to realize that.

The same ship with some more detail and the aztec hull to convey a little more size and depth. Show us where the phasers and photon torpedo launchers are (and I don’t mean photon torpedo launchers on the secondary hull like the refit) so people don’t wonder where those came from. Maybe little things like the tractor beam, docking port and some aft phasers. Add some detail in the windows and done.

Why would that look cheesey? It’s the same design, just a little added detail that wasn’t present on an 11 foot model that was designed to be shown on a 13 inch television with a grainy image.

Why would it need to be re-imagined for younger audiences or non-fans?

Sure, the interior’s going to need some work. LCDs and plasma screens. Not just blinking lights but actual screens that appear to do something while still retaining the familiar look of TOS (think Enterprise in the last season). Overhead screens that are actually screens not pretty pictures …make ‘em do something. Replace a few buttons with touch screens, but keep a few buttons (it was done just fine in STVI and they used buttons in Enterprise). Make the bridge look like it’s made of metal not cardboard.

Slidebars on the transporter console should still be there. Scotty needs slidebars.

255. Captain "You Now have a Selection" Pike - November 13, 2007

TNG had it’s love letter to the Constitution Class in Relics. DS9 had it in Trials and Tribblations. Enterprise had it in Mirror Darkly. All the aforementioned favorites in their series.
I just can’t believe we’re finally going to get a new Trek epic movie and not see the Enterprise we love. Okay I can believe it but I don’t want to.

256. Dude McSpock - November 13, 2007

I don’t know, I’d like to see something that sticks close to the original design, but if they change it I just hope it’s cool. Certainly they wouldn’t stray from the basic design?

Speaking of Star Trek ships, you oughta check out this poster I found a while ago:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jibbyimages/527295231/

257. USS SANTA - November 13, 2007

I happen to be a fan of ‘Lost in Space’, (the first season). I couldn’t wait to see it at the movies. Then when I saw it at the theater, with the different Jupiter 2, different Robot. No space pot, no charriot. I was mortified!
I pray to thee ‘Great Bird of the Galaxy’ Do not let this happen to ‘Star Trek’.

258. Will Doe 68 - November 13, 2007

This is exactly what they need to do.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8679/entmod2vj3wb1.jpg
It will satisfy purist and bring in newbies.
And this post might get yanked,…………….again.

259. Valarone - November 13, 2007

James sounds like a class act, most of the people responding do not.

260. Queefer Bukkake - November 13, 2007

Look, this is going to have to be retooled no matter what, folks. The old Enterprise doesn’t look futuristic any more, especially on the inside. Concessions must be made to today’s new understanding of science and engineering. Wanting it to look like TOS is condemning the new film to an even more limited audience and killing off the franchise in total. Is that what you want?

261. NZorak - November 13, 2007

I actually rather like this one http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0009.jpg

The beauty of it is that it stays true enough to the original while looking sexy, being more detailed, and allowing for the improvements of the refit. I really do think it would get laughed at if this big budget movie came on and we see the really basic looking Enterprise as it appeared back in the ’60s. Even Roddenberry was OK with some redesigning when he was alive, hence the refit that we see in the movies. I really think the purists should relax a little bit and remember that Abrams, Orci, and a number of people on this project are also huge fans. It will be good.

262. Mike - November 14, 2007

They will do whatever they decide to do, and you will either like it or you won’t. Probably you will like parts of it and not others. Life is like that. Complaining is a waste of time and energy.

I just wanted to post for Dennis Bailey, who I have chatted with briefly on the forums and honestly did not realize (until tonight) that he did Exeter or that he also did my favorite revision of the TOS E (maybe without the finials), posted just a few above here. Dennis, your work is a quadruple decker awesome sandwich. Exeter is in many ways the “new” star trek show I always wanted, and your work there is the most evocative of the look and feel of the original TOS that I have ever seen anywhere ever, including the remastered edition. Dennis puts his time and energy into actually creating something, an activity that most armchair captains are unfamiliar with. Anyways, hope you read this. Cheers.

263. toddk - November 14, 2007

what is the point of remastering the old enterprise if the ship is going to be different in the movie, I’ll bet that when the 2008 movie comes to dvd that it will look exactly like the NX-O1

264. Iowagirl - November 14, 2007

Whatever you say – it’s the originals that excite the most posts.

265. Lektric Jezder - November 14, 2007

I was born the same year that STAR TREK was born. One of my earliest memories is of being plunked down in front of the old Magnovox console TV and watching the opening credits. This show has impacted my life in so many ways. Nothing about Trek has seemed right since the passing of Mr. Roddenberry (The Great Bird of the Galaxy). When He and Jefferies, and Coon, and the rest designed Trek from scratch, they had a lot of input, including NASA. The Enterprise (particularly the TMP version) resembles nothing so much as a noble bird, say, a swan, in space. J.J. Abrams: Please don’t mess with success. Detail her, and tweak what you must, but please don’t change her radically. If the Enterprise has wings, I, for one, will get up and walk out of the theater.

266. Morg Not Eymorg - November 14, 2007

So far I haven’t heard any real compelling argument that convinces me that the classic Lady E wouldn’t go over very well in the movie. Comments like cheesy or hokey or non futuristic or laughing stock just shows me that sadly some people just don’t get how beautiful that ship is and nothing more.

The Classic TOS Enterprise is the best designed space ship I have ever seen. I sometimes just sit back and look over at my replica of it and study it. Franz Joseph’s design was brilliant.

The Enterprise is unique and special and looks sleek and gorgeous. Why would we need to change that? Gaudy it up with excessive detail? Be like every other sci fi show out there?

The Enterprise is the one that to me looks the most realistic. I haven’t seen any real life engineering look anything like the stuff sci fi has put out the last several years and it all started with Star Wars. Just because something is built in the future doesn’t mean it isn’t going to follow the basic fundamentals of engineering design principles. Unless of course its entirely alien. :)

And last night in a theater in Plano, Texas my theory was proved as that ship finally was shown on a big screen and looked magnificent.

So here’s hoping that we get to see it come next December.

267. Bernd Schneider - November 14, 2007

Knowing that Cawley thinks about it the same way as I do, I am prepared for the very worst regarding the “new” Enterprise. As far as I am concerned, overdone production design has the potential to ruin the whole film. I may not even enter the theater if it is a “Battlestar Enterprise” style redesign (or if it has wings).

268. Trekminal - November 14, 2007

The original design of the starship Enterprise is an icon for trek fans. If Kirk and Spock will be on this ship, we need to view the original design on the big screen.
Look for NV ship, for the “Trials and tribble-ations” ship, for the “In a mirror darkly” Defiant. Please don´t kill this iconic ship!

269. CCBeck - November 14, 2007

261 NZorak
I could not agree more.

270. jonboc - November 14, 2007

#254 ” still don’t understand why the exterior of the Enterprise would look cheesey”

You don’t understand because there is nothing TO understand. It looks perfectly fine, it just so happens there are many who were raised on the gobbledy-gook, cluttered look of Star Wars ships so they equate anything older than that with “Cheese”.

The classic E is a streamlined, majestic and graceful…as a lady should be, and not cluttered up with a bunch of “why the heck is all that crap stuck on the surface of the ship??” odds and ends.

It’s all basic symetry and aesthetics and it has nothing to do with age. It looked good then, and it looks good now. No scratch that…having seen it on a 70′ screen for the first time last night, she looks GREAT now.

The proof is in the pudding and I had my belly full last night!

271. Sam Belil - November 14, 2007

#266-You could not have stated it any better!!!! For all of you who say the original design won’t work on the big screen, have any of you bothered to read the post from people who saw the Menagerie — IT TOTALLY WORKS ON THE BIG SCREEN!!!! Another thing re:Abrams making this movie for mass appeal, I don’t know about that one. It’s because of the CORE FANS that:
1-There were movies 10 (going on 11).
2-4 incarnations on TV
3-Animated series
4-Conventions
5-G-d knows how many novels and hardcover books
6-A boat-load of comic book series (DC, Marvel, IDW, Gold Key)
7-Websites like this excellent one
8-A franchise that has been around for 40+ years.
Mr. Abrams do not forget that!!!! This isn’t Star Wars, this isn’t Flash Gordon, this isn’t Battlestar Galactica — this is Star Trek, please do not mess it up!!!!!!!

272. The Professor - November 14, 2007

Changing the outside look of the Enterprise? That’s just wrong. One only has to look at another sci-fi staple, Doctor Who, to see that it is wrong. Police Public Callboxes are extremely rare in England now. When the original Doctor Who started in 1963, they were quite common. So, when the TARDIS, the Doctor’s craft in Doctor Who, took on the shape of the Police Public Callbox in the first 1963 episode, everyone recognized it. But, many people, especially younger viewers, did not recognize it in 2005 when the show was started again (even commented on by the character Rose “What is a… Police Public Callbox?”). But, they kept the same exterior appearance because it was iconic and it is very Doctor Who. So should they keep the iconic Enterprise in this movie. Very sad.

273. Randall - November 14, 2007

A lot of jumping to conclusions here. One guy sees a model or a picture of a model and everyone’s up in arms.

If it’s true that there’s a time-travel angle in this movie, then anything’s possible. Maybe what Cawley saw was some “alternate timeline Enterprise” or some such nonsense. Who knows?

Wait for the freakin’ movie to come out… or at least wait for some more authoritative, official word on this kind of thing.

274. ArtfulDodger - November 14, 2007

I HAVE SEEN THE ENTERPRISE. It’s this aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, right?

275. Vejur - November 14, 2007

#244, actually #241 is right and with all due respect TOS Enterprise was obsolete in 90s and its more obsolete now.. its was great in 60s but not now.
Everyone says Matt Jeffries design is iconic or classic what ever
however when Jeffries was asked to judge starship model contest and he viewed dozen(20ish) starship modeler design. Most of them were hight quality, great details but he critic that they were all configuration of original Enterprise except one model.
That model who was different wasn’t best in quality or details(heck Jeffries wasn’t sure if the guy who build it had discovered sandpaper)
Despite this, Jeffries awarded him first prise because of originality because he felt that had to count for some-think.

276. spookster - November 14, 2007

“sigh”. The purpose of this entire project is to rejuvenate Star Trek, correct?. Some elements will be intact and others will be enhanced. Change is good, especially when it is in good hands depending on your stance on the matter. I do have some questions regarding the project as well, however, I think there is enough good decisions being made that override the questionable ones. As for Cawley, I am not a fan of New Voyages because these are not Trek actors. They are fans trying to be Trek characters. That does not mean I think its a bad production. In fact, the sets and the directing is TOS quality at times but the negative of the New Voyages project is that it just relies heavily on TOS to be relevant. There is very little originality in that, someone used the term Fake Trek for this new movie, New Voyages is just that at times. Cawley’s Kirk is campy to the point of being laughable at times. If they tried to give it some nuance in the acting or the writing, I’d probably be praising them endlessly. They try too much to be like the characters from TOS that it puts me out of the production. Although, I should point out that the new New Voyages episode looks and sounds very interesting. It doesn’t seem to rely on existing canon too much and the the Enterprise moves and looks awesome as well. Speaking of the Enterprise, I want it to look like the Original refit movie model but times call for some detail to justify it being blown up on the big screen with every minute detail being scrutinized. The TOS Model wouldn’t hold up on the big screen especially since space would be depicted far more realistically than the space shots in Remastered trek. So I will reserve judgement until I see the movie in December of 09′. I am excited about the new Star Trek movie and hope that people just don’t throw shit at it because details aren’t being sent for their approval. Your generation of Trek is being done by amateurs, our generation of Trek was done by Bermaga “groan”. This new generation of Trek is for those still not aware or familiar with Trek. I bid them well. I hope that I have not offended anyone, this is merely my opinion on the matter. Thank you for reading.

277. TheVamp - November 14, 2007

Seeing Dennis Bailey’s modified Phoenix/Enterprise design I have to say I prefer that design over Gabe Koerner’s. If that what Trek XI’s Enterprise looked like, I’d be totally happy.

As an illustrator and designer myself, I have nothing but respect for both of these guys and I think that they’re both very talented, but it just seems to me that Gabe’s design is a little too muscular for my taste. Kinda like a guy with three testicles, it’s just a little much!

That’s just my opinion, of course, YMMV.

278. RetroWarbird - November 14, 2007

Eh. No matter what, just to BE the Enterprise (even before a theoretical and 40 years of design changing refitting prior to TOS starting), it has to have …

Engineering. Saucer section. Two nacelles. Bridge on the top. Deflector dish on the bottom. Shuttle bay on the back.

These things are required for all the Trek-tacular plot points to work.

If they want to clutter up the basic, slick design, Star Wars style so it seems “more real”, that’s their call. I don’t think it needs it, but it could go together pretty nicely if done well. (You can’t take away from the slickness of Federation designs too much).

No, I imagine it’ll still be slick and Federation looking too.

The only differences I can see are maybe shortening the neck and the pylons, or fattening up the ship a little to make it look less fragile … maybe having more mass to the pylons themselves, so they have a sweeping design (winglike) … and possibly altering the classic circular saucer section to a more ovoid one like the Enterprise-E has …

I think a ship with the classic style (TOS era Federation ships have an almost Mac or iPod or Nintendo Wii slick look to them, compared to the kind of “ugly-sheik” of the 24th century stuff), with some updated shapes and changes could look really, really good.

I’m as curious as anyone.

279. New Horizon - November 14, 2007

“241. Jon – November 13, 2007
The old TOS design would never work on the big screen….and it would be laughed at by the people who they are trying to target.”

I had some doubts about the ship holding up on a movie screen, until I saw The Menagerie at the movie theater last night. I brought my wife along with me, and she is definitely NOT a fan of TOS, nor a Trekkie/Trekker in any capacity, it was a bit of a date night for us. That being said, he loved the episode, and thought the ship looked absolutely beautiful AND believable on the screen. This was definitely one of CBS-D’s well done episodes, and it shows The shots were understated and true to the series.

Seeing is believing, and The Menagerie made a believer out of me and my wife last night.

280. New Horizon - November 14, 2007

OH, an addition to what I just said…my wife would be part of that target audience you mentioned Jon, and she didn’t laugh when the Enterprise appeared on screen…she said, “Wow!”.

281. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2007

277- I’m of a similar mind regarding Dennis’s Enterprise/Phoenix concept, and I hope that’s what James means when he talks about an influence from “Contemporary Trek”. There are certainly some stylistic and detail differences from the original design, but it remains true to the form of the Enterprise, and that combination, if that’s the sort of thing that’s in the film, would be fine with me.

But I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Best,
Alex

282. Bernd Schneider - November 14, 2007

#276:
““sigh”. The purpose of this entire project is to rejuvenate Star Trek, correct?.”

It depends whose motivation you’re looking at.
Paramount Pictures: squeeze some more money out of the franchise
Abrams and his bunch: do a professional job, with the option to put their personal stamp on it
Some fans: hope that it will fit in seamlessly
Some other fans: hope that it will be different
General public: doesn’t care, just wants it to be an entertaining movie

The bottom line is, there is not really a predetermined direction to go. They can follow either the path of Star Trek (continuity preservation is important) or of other movie remakes or reboots (continuity is irrelevant).

“Some elements will be intact and others will be enhanced.”

That’s an interesting statement because the antithesis to “intact” would be “damaged” and IMHO that’s exactly what a different Enterprise design would do to the franchise. And “enhanced” can mean anything from slight enhancements (like in TOS-R) to a BSG-style reboot.

I’d wish I had seen “The Menagerie” on the big screen. But I’d wish even more that the people in charge had seen it!

283. Doug Haffner - November 14, 2007

The way I look at it (and really who cares what I think) is that I liked the Enterprise from “Enterprise” but the show pretty much stunk. On the other hand, I absolutely loved The Next Gen…but the Enterprise D stunk (it looked like a starship with downs syndrome).
If I have to choose, I’d hope that the movie is great and the acting is awesome and they entertain me beyond the value of my money…if the ship stinks, so be it.
Too bad if it’s a total overhaul though…the Connie was never the bathwater in the Star Trek tub.

284. Cervantes - November 14, 2007

“…all I will say is that the ship design borrows heavily from Contemporary Trek”…

Crikey! Right then, that’s it…having read this whole enlightening piece by James Cawley ( who views on this I absolutely agree with ), I think those of us that really hoped for a proper TOS-era representation of the wonderful Matt Jeffries ‘Enterprise’ exterior can FORGET IT!

Having now gotten a rough, but revealing, idea of the direction the present film-makers have taken with this iconic design, count me officially unimpressed. It just remains now to see HOW radically changed the new ‘E’ has turned out…unfortunately.

By the way, that shot above of the ‘New Voyages’ Enterprise STILL looks better than the ‘remastered series version…

285. Dennis Bailey - November 14, 2007

#244:”#241- “The old TOS design would never work on the big screen”

Wrong.
Clearly you didn’t attend the screening of The Menagerie tonight…on the big screen.

Seeing is believing!”

I did attend the screening and was considerably less impressed.

It was fun seeing one of my favorite episodes on the big screen. The CG Enterprise, unsurprisingly, worked about as well there as it does on the TV airings – that is, some of the shots are really impressive and some are just adequate.

No aspect of the production design, certainly not the ship or shuttle, is adequate for the big screen today. The least that needs to be done is a TMP-style redesign of the various elements.

Of course, one thing that didn’t help “The Menagerie” last night is that the effects were still set up and lit to be seen on a small TV screen – the fill ratio is ridiculously high.

286. Decker's Stubble - November 14, 2007

The ship has ‘wings’, like a maxipad?

287. Iowagirl - November 14, 2007

#286

That would make it the ultra experience…

288. RaveOnEd - November 14, 2007

I’m thinking that the new Enterprise looks something akin to Dennis Bailey’s version, posted above.

Just based on James Cawley’s description (Contemporary Trek: visible hull plates, blue glow engines), and how it seems enough to be a departure from the stock original to not be liked by a purist.

I saw the Menagerie last night also, and although the new effects were amazing on the big screen, I think the ship needs a little more scale and texture to translate to a larger screen ratio.

Plus, with the detailing, she can still keep her majesty and also satisfy the need to have very detailed views on screen.

I mean, look at Dennis’ version. Tell me that wouldn’t scare the hell out of you if it was bearing down on you under command of James T. Kirk or a pissed off Pike?

289. star trackie - November 14, 2007

#285 “No aspect of the production design, certainly not the ship or shuttle, is adequate for the big screen today. ”

Really? While a brighter DLP or film image would have helped considerably, I saw it last night and the others I was with, along with myself, absolutely loved how it looked.

So I guess you’re opinion remains just that.

290. JL - November 14, 2007

All I know is, I hope it doesn’t come with a Hemi.

291. cd - November 14, 2007

#277, #281,#285 – Dennis, do you have an actual design to look at? I stumbled around your website, didn’t find it.

292. cd - November 14, 2007

#290 – LOL. You know, I watch FF4:TRotSS with the knowledge it would be silly, and I was able to suspend disbelief, until the Hemi bit.

293. Bald is Beautiful - Picard for President! - November 14, 2007

My wife and I had a fun time with The Menagerie. She’s not a Trekkie and still liked it.

“TOS designs suck” ADD Generation posters would say the same about Citizen Kane or The Birth of a Nation or The Ten Commandments or even Gone with the Wind.

I suppose they will say “Tin Man” is way cooler and more believable than The Wizard of Oz!

The Big E is a beautiful design and it’s only old in the sense it was designed 45 years ago. If Steve Jobs introduced it today it would be hailed as an instant classic!

I hope JJ and Roberto tell a story worth telling. Someone said “Shakespearean” and that would be nice. It would be even nicer if it looked like the show we all know and love, too.

294. Dennis Bailey - November 14, 2007

#289:”Really? While a brighter DLP or film image would have helped considerably, I saw it last night and the others I was with, along with myself, absolutely loved how it looked.”

A group of self-selected TOS fans willing to pay 12.00 a pop to see a rerun on the big screen will always approve of what they see.

How many folks showed up at your venue, BTW? Couple hundred? What was the average age? Tell the truth, now.

Paramount can only go broke by trying to please TOS fans at the expense of everyone else.

295. ACR - November 14, 2007

Have any of you seen the Enterprise model at the Smithsonian – it looks pretty crappy in person. I was SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you!

I’m excited to see the new design. Its a tough task to take a classic and well-known design and make it look like a real, as if it actually existed in the 23rd Century. The suspension of disbelief during the 60s was huge (no wires here!). TMP was an amazing transition to the big screen – and absolutely necessary.

Now I’m pretty excited to see how the current design crew conquers these issues. They have some great talent onboard – give them a shot to do something just as amazing as the refit design.

296. Dennis Bailey - November 14, 2007

#291: “Dennis, do you have an actual design to look at? I stumbled around your website, didn’t find it.”

I don’t, actually. I used to noodle those things out in Lightwave just for fun – the contours and elements of that model are so closely derived from Jefferies’ and Probert’s versions of the ship that there wasn’t much design work to be done, just detailing.

I release those meshes into the public domain, and the folks who create images with them do far more artistic and impressive renderings than I’m capable of.

Thanks for the kind words.

297. JL - November 14, 2007

You know, I’ve read many of these posts and something just kind of hit me.

First, at this point, we have no proof of what the hell the ship will end up looking like.

Do you honestly think for one minute that this team, led by a TOS-loving maniac purist like Roberto Orci, is going to completely re-design the original Enterprise? I can’t imagine them throwing it out the window and starting from scratch… the original E means something to these guys, at least to Orci, and I bet the farm he has done justice to the ship. Seriously, think about it. Some retooling, some detailing, maybe nudgng some things around, but I bet it will look a lot like the original baby.

298. Scott - November 14, 2007

Kevin’s post (#254) sounds about right to me. Good post. I just about memorized the Star Trek Concordance and the Technical Manual as a 13 year-old, so I’m about as purist as it gets, but minor tweaks is all the show needs to be believable on the big screen in 2008. Let’s face it — ANYTHING they design is going to look dated in 10-20 years, so why not go retro-hip with the production design? He asked rhetorically.

I wouldn’t change the ship design any more than Dennis Bailey’s take on it (link at #258. Lose the spikes and change the blue to red on the inner thighs of the nacelles and we’re there).

As for touchpads versus buttons — there are some practical reasons to have buttons. As much smoke and steam as bridge crews have to work through whenever anyone fires a phaser at them, buttons help keep you oriented. I for one will be the last guy to switch from a computer keyboard with distinct buttons to a seamless touchpad whenever that craziness might happen.

Let’s face it…if there are FTL starships zipping around in 250 years, the instrument interfaces will probably look nothing like anything you would (or even should) see in a Star Trek film made this year.

Scott B. out.

299. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2007

285 – “No aspect of the production design, certainly not the ship or shuttle, is adequate for the big screen today. The least that needs to be done is a TMP-style redesign of the various elements.”

Okay, with that I’d agree.

I think “The Menagerie” proved that the design could work on the large screen, but given that it was still designed for the scale of TV, even hi-def TV, it does need a lot more detailing. The shuttle certainly did. (Also, factor in that the camera work for a feature would be quite different than for a TV episode, and thus a model detailed to the level of what we saw would be treated differently in a feature.)

That’s why I have no objection to the idea of building in a whole new level of fine detail for the portrayal of that ship in the film, much as Dennis did in the model referenced above. But the basic design, the arrangement of shapes and forms…that still works, and works very well.

As to what TPTB actually did, well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Best,
Alex

300. JC - November 14, 2007

Yes, the Enterprise on the big screen at “The Menagerie” looked really great (can’t say the same for the shuttlecraft shots). But you know what? That’s not what I remember about the experience of seeing that episode on the big screen. What I remember is the great story, the tragic character elements, Spock’s incredible loyalty, the dark twists the story takes. If I were to just get all worked up over the ship design, I would have missed the whole point. I can’t believe this thread has already gotten so many hot and bothered before we’ve even seen anything from an upcoming movie – and particularly not in any context!

“The Menagerie” proves that good Star Trek is about good storytelling, not about design. With that said, I have every confidence that JJ’s team is full of _good_ designers who know what they’re doing even if some fans will disagree with their final choices.

As a side note, it was also very interesting to me that “The Menagerie” is carried by Nimoy (with all due credit to Jeffrey Hunter). I also think that proves prescient in JJ’s story choice to focus on Spock. It works well, and Kirk doesn’t necessarily have to be front and center for it to feel like Star Trek. Not wanting to throw fuel onto an already out-of-control fire, but it makes me less and less interested in the whole “bring back Shatner” campaign.

301. RaveOnEd - November 14, 2007

For me, seeing the E in The Menagerie last night looked fantastic, and brought a tear to my eye.

But, then I remember the feeling I got when I saw TUC, and seeing the E and Excelsior together over Khitomer. The scale of that shot brought a tear to my eye, and just made me sink in my seat from the sheer feel of that shot.

The Enterprise for the movie needs to stir the latter feeling for a large screen. She’s a big ship, and it can be conveyed well on the screen.

But, I don’t think the detail (as nice as it is) from the TOS ship untouched may not translate well.

302. Ralph - November 14, 2007

I will be disappointed if they change the Enterprise. Unless JJ can capture the essence and the style GR protrayed. JJ must create a believable story.
You have to remember. Earth came out of WWIII nearly destroyed. So to me, a clean streamlined look of the sixties makes sense.

303. Jeffery Wright - November 14, 2007

borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”?

just great, plenty of convoluted and needless kitbashed model parts glued all over the surface…. ooh.

unless they mean the nx-01, which was a nice, convincing design, but that flying dust-buster, the voyager… with its silly variable geometry nacells… ugh. post tng ship design often looks ridiculous… and the 1701e looks like someone squashed and stretched it, it has no distinctive profile (though it has many homage attributes to previous ships, including the original 1701)

the jefferies 1701 is classic future, and a real lady, they better tread carefully when applying “Contemporary Trek”… in a way star wars started all this, for better or worse

304. star trackie - November 14, 2007

#294-
“A group of self-selected TOS fans willing to pay 12.00 a pop to see a rerun on the big screen will always approve of what they see.”

Excluding yourself of course, and even more I’m sure. Which just proves not every one seeing it rubber stamps the ships look because they are Trekkers and shelled out $12 a pop…as you would suggest.

“How many folks showed up at your venue, BTW? Couple hundred? What was the average age? Tell the truth, now.”

We had a packed house, but being in Dallas I expected it. Pretty evenly mixed with men and women, mostly dates or wives I would presume. Not many llittle ones though, which is too bad as they are the ones that would have really enjoyed the imaginative imagery. Did have some teen girls there, one was painted green, the other wore some goggles. Not sure what that was all about, but hey they’re teenagers, go figure. And yes, the teens did appear to enjoy the show, despite the alleged “cheese” factor. Whether or not they believed the Enterprise to be hanging by a string, I can’t answer…but judging from the applause at the end, I doubt it.

305. Rich yan - November 14, 2007

“The old TOS design would never work on the big screen”

This week a digitally remastered version of “The Menagerie” is playing at in theatres. Not sure why but the old ship will be up on the big screen tonight at 7:30 at a theatre near you. Well near me anyway.

306. Matthew - November 14, 2007

James, yes this is your opinion. I am not a purist and Kirk (the William Shatner incarnation) is NOT the best captain. He was a jerk and would never make it in any service to the rank of captain, even the Merchant Marine. Roddenberry didn’t like him either. Only in movies 2-4 & 6 did he present the character in a decent way.
I really enjoy your ‘fan film’ episodes and think you do a pretty good job (sometimes like Shatner, you do go over the top, not often but sometimes)so stick with what you do best and leave the re-imaging to the big boys.
Purists are SOOOO annoying!

307. GARY - November 14, 2007

Well this disscution is long enogh, I belive we DESERVE MORE DETAILS!!!!

How different is the ship?!

308. Sam Belil - November 14, 2007

If it’s really different — than I’m really un-happy!

309. Daoud - November 14, 2007

Dennis Bailey’s Phoenix version of the Enterprise (see link at #258) would be marvelous on the big screen.

It’s really from a scientific perspective about the lighting in the background. For a deep-space area far from the light of a nearby star, it really should look like that #258.

Under the glare of a star, in orbit around a planet, it really ought to look like what we see in TOS-R.

That’s always been my retcon. Pictures of the ISS when it’s in the penumbra and umbra look very different from when it’s receiving full solar illumination.

If they really want to be slick, as the Enterprise approaches a star system to go in orbit about a planet, it should transition from something like the #258, to a washed-out gray look as we see in TOS-R.

That would be “the best of both worlds”… and very renderable, I’m sure.

310. CW - November 14, 2007

And the arrogance and elitism of people like post #306 are sooooo nauseating.

311. Hopeful - November 14, 2007

I will be really upset if they change the design. Everyone else I have spoken to says the same thing. There is no point to it. They should keep the interior the same more or less.

JJ. DON’T MAKE THIS MISTAKE. THERE IS STILL TIME.

Listen to the fans. Please!

312. New Horizon - November 14, 2007

I think I should further refine my own message about the ship looking marvelous on the big screen in The Menagerie, since some were nit-picking it. Yes, it was obviously not up to Motion Picture standards…but the point I was trying to make was, if the flawed CBS-D version can look as good as it did on a HUGE screen, then a film with a real budget could truly make something that retains the simplicity and beauty of the original design look that much more believable. At any rate, the ship looked believable…despite the fact I knew it was CGI.

313. I AM THX-1138 - November 14, 2007

#307-”I belive we DESERVE MORE DETAILS!!!!”

That is what I have been getting at. If Cawley has seen the thing, why doesn’t he just come out and describe (or better yet, draw) what he saw. It’s like announcing to everyone that you have some really important news, and then not saying anything. Why did you bother with the topic to begin with?

And I would also like to reiterate that I am not a Cawley hater. But neither am I his mother. I happen to not buy into his having seen anything until he proves it. And why should I? If I came onto this site and made similar claims, I would have been grilled like there was no tomorrow. James Cawley shouldn’t get a pass because he does a fan film. Dude opened a can of worms, so I would think the right thing to do would be to come clean one way or another. I am willing to wager that if he has seen the ship that 90% of the people here are DYING to see his rendering.

I like New Voyages. I love Exeter. But let’s put our cards on the table and show us what you got.

314. TomBot2007 - November 14, 2007

Jeez, a humongous thread… I feel like the scare factor is too easy to throw out there. If JJ is dumb enough to toss the TOS out of Star Trek… then it will be sure be a short ride for some of us. You can only go so far with the “re-imagining” re-boot of TOS! Otherwise, you really, REALLY should be doing just a new version with a new crew set after the NEXT GEN, or whatnot. I’m keeping my panties on till there’s really something to cry about… it’s a long way to the release date of this TREK. :-)

And hey, that Dennis Bailey, Phoenix/1701 version at post #258 is on the right track. Add some more details, some subtle effect effect to the Bussard’s( I don’t dig the dark red with nothing going on) and maybe lose the blue glow on the nacelles, or play it out different. :-)

315. GARY - November 14, 2007

Exactly my point!!! Or we get MORE info or all this talk is nonsense!!!

316. GARY - November 14, 2007

313 & 314

If the ship would look or at least resemble that “Phoenix” then no harm was done!!!
The Thing is, will we get more details or is this thread going nowhere?!

317. Diabolik - November 14, 2007

We should fully EXPECT the ship to be brough in line with the detailing seen in the subsequent Treks. I have no problem with that as long as the basic TOS outline is there. In side-by-side silhouette, they should look the same, but the details come out when in full light. I’d be fine with fleshing it out according to ST:TMP detailing.

318. Adam - November 14, 2007

My opinion is that the Enterprise look should be updated. It was designed for a 1960s audience and should be updated for a 21st century audience. The exterior should resemble the original look; I’d be happy with a design such as posts #223 or #258. As far as the interior goes, the bridge layout should stay pretty much the same but the color scheme and construction should resemble that of NX-01 w/ lcd monitors. I remember reading somewhere that the reason for all the different colors of the original Enterprise was to show off the new color TV in the 1960s.

By the way, I appreciate what James Cawley is doing with “New Voyages.” Keep up the good work.

319. Sean4000 - November 14, 2007

256: I agree 100% It’s EnterPike and fits just right.

320. Demode - November 14, 2007

I really dig this design by Dennis Bailey. I would love to see it in the movie!

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8679/entmod2vj3wb1.jpg

That other design that keeps making the rounds, with the movie style photo torpedo launcher, and blue paint on the secondary hull looks like a 24th century ship to my eyes. I don’t like it for Kirk’s ship.

321. MichaelJohn - November 14, 2007

I really hope the new Enterprise looks similar to the ST: TMP version (which is my favorite) and less like TNG version (which I never cared for).

I also like the shape of the original shuttlecraft best, but I must admit the original interior was pretty simplistic and lacked realistic detail

Mike :o

322. MH - November 14, 2007

As far as I know, “The Cage” is set in 2254 (based on a comment of Spock, I assume) and according to Memory Alpha Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy in the same year.

If the storyline is set around 2254 (or in this decade), the ship should consequentially look like Pike’s Enterprise, like the one we have seen in the (remastered) “Menagerie”.

I don’t expect them to do that, but I still hope for a design that makes sense!

323. Sam Belil - November 14, 2007

Hey #320 if that is the version that Abrams is using then all I can say is “sign me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

324. Doug L. - November 14, 2007

re 285

I was curious about how The Ent would appear in high def on the big screen and was a bit let down by the Ship effect in the Menagerie last night. (and subsequently reminded, that CBS-D’s more recent efforts are much improved over this episode)

However, I don’t think the problem is the ship’s design on the big screen. I would still push for a mildly tweaked version of Matt Jeffries design for the new movie. Tweaked to give it the depth, detail and dimension that it deserves, and filmed dynamically.

As many have said, The Ent is as much a character as Kirk, Spock or McCoy and needs to be pretty identifiable. It’s the glue that pulls it all together on some level as classic trek.

I accept that we have set changes, costume updates, new actors, etc… but the Ent is the cornerstone, and some level of visual continuity should be maintained… (like the classic viper in the new BSG – even tho the show is radically different from the original, the Classic Viper puts down the BSG stamp and connects me to something I loved as a kid)

Doug L.

325. Vejur - November 14, 2007

(,,I have been asked by Anthony to try and describe what I saw, and all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”.,,)

Can similar to this(nightshade by koerner) be next Enterprise hmmm, well its look very contemporary trek design doesn’t it http://gabekoerner.com/fx/Gallery/nightshade1064.jpgimage=nightshade1064yy3.jpg

326. Doug L. - November 14, 2007

re 254… Kevin.

Right on man! I just don’t see the design as cheesy or dated, or why it’s not sleek enough. It’ not like the millenium falcon was sleek or pretty, it was weird, but every kid loved it.

The Enterprise doesn’t need to be redesigned, the model (real or digital) and the effects need to be appropriate for the audiences. The design is fine.

Doug L.

327. Vejur - November 14, 2007

ups, try this link
http://gabekoerner.com/fx/Gallery/nightshade1064.jpg

328. Doug L. - November 14, 2007

275 Vejur and others… What’s obsolete about it anyway?

276 Spookster… paragraphs man… paragraphs.

d

329. I AM THX-1138 - November 14, 2007

Vejur, that’s a cool ship. If it appears in the movie as the Enterprise I predict villagers with pitchforks and torches storming the castle.

330. New Horizon - November 14, 2007

If I saw something like Nightshade labeled Enterprise, I would vomit.

331. New Horizon - November 14, 2007

If I saw something like Nightshade labeled Enterprise, I would vomit. I just don’t understand this leaning towards ‘flatter’ star ships. The enterpriese E and Voyager look like suppositories.

332. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 14, 2007

Looking more and more like I will wait for the DVD on this Trek.

JJ it looks like you do not like to play well with others.

I always thought the lack of panel lines was a tribute to the engineering the is available in the 23rd century. The was part of the ‘wonder factor’ of the original Trek.

I liked Rodenberrys comments that tech in the future would not be very apparant. That made sense.

I think the original reason that ST-TMP Enterprise was so detailed was (again) because of the sucess of Star Wars. We just can’t have a smooth looking ship onscreen after seeing the Star Destoyer or M. Falcon can we? Or better yet, It would be hard to make it look big on screen – ehhhh—ahhhh—eee. IDIOTS!

Stick with the Original or else sales are going to plummet!
I may have to reconsider my stock in Paramont.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID! Sheesh.

333. Skippy 2k - November 14, 2007

Even before seeing “The Menagerie” I was hoping to see the original ship (even though I figured there would be added detail) but having seen it yesterday on the big screen I thought it looked great. I really want to see what they did with the ship, i’m hoping thats its not as major as what seems to be going around.

http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e1701bgcyf1.jpg

334. GARY - November 14, 2007

KISS Princible must be applied, but they should also respect the proportions of the Enterprise. No one here would tolerate some disproportionate Enterprise-Frankenstein-love-child swooping around and calling itself “Enterprise”.

335. section9 - November 14, 2007

Nightshade is too 24th Century/TNG to work as The Big E.

Have you all ever wondered why “The Menagerie” was put out into theaters in remastered form? This year? Before production goes to ILM for final wrap?

They want to guage audience reaction the the Big E on the Big Screen from the fans. The only ones going to the movie are the Trek people, and Paramount wants to see if the classic ship works on the Big Screen. Big E, with alterations, will appear as its iconic self in the rebooted series.

I’m also convinced that there is a LOT of disinformation that is being peddled by the production team. Lucas did this during the original Star Wars trilogy to throw off rival studios and the media.

Star Wars’ ships are eminently forgettable. Twenty years from now, the only ship that might be remotely remembered is the “Millenium Falcon”. The rest of Lucas’ extremely boxy and dirty ships are mere homages to “Blade Runner”, and don’t resonate with the public the way Enterprise does.

Everyone will remember the “Enterprise”. JJ needs to remember that. And I think he does.

336. Doug L. - November 14, 2007

re 335 section 9

Couldn’t disagree with you more. I think the original Star Wars movies had stellar designs. AT AT’s, tie fighters, Mil Falcon, star destroyers all very cool.

Also, the only reason for the release of Menagerie at the big screen is to promote the HD DVD release to the fans and showcase the HD transfers to as many people as they can. It’s an advertisment for the DVD’s.

Doug L.

337. Dennis Bailey - November 14, 2007

#335:”Have you all ever wondered why “The Menagerie” was put out into theaters in remastered form? ”

No. It’s explicitly to promote sales of the Remastered HD/DVDs. :)

338. Michael Foote - November 14, 2007

Ok, I found the Enterprise with wings, it is from Phase II which became TMP

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/phaseiistudy2-model1.jpg

339. section9 - November 14, 2007

I think there’s more to it than that. I know the DVD’s are coming out. But I also think that the producers want to check out audience reaction to the Classic designs and the Classic canon. People still go for it.

I just don’t expect a lot of deviationism in the ship design.

340. Anonymous Gasbag - November 14, 2007

“Star Wars’ ships are eminently forgettable. Twenty years from now, the only ship that might be remotely remembered is the “Millenium Falcon”. The rest of Lucas’ extremely boxy and dirty ships are mere homages to “Blade Runner”, and don’t resonate with the public the way Enterprise does.”

So people will forget all about those crappy X-Wings, I guess.

That reveal of the Super Star Destroyer in Empire? Yawn.

And who even remembers what a Tie fighter looks or sounds like?

Also, Blade Runner came out in 1982. Kind of hard to do an homage to a film that does not exist yet. Unless you’re a precog or something, but that’s another film altogether.

341. GARY - November 14, 2007

Spockkkkkkk Seriously this lack of more details has US DOWN!

342. Wayne Spitzer - November 14, 2007

“The old TOS design would never work on the big screen”

Dunno, I won’t catch “The Menagerie” until Thursday. But I do know the re-fitted Enterprise from TMP through The Undiscovered Country (ST5 never happened, right? Check!) worked fine on the big screen, because I was there for all of them, in the theater, on opening day. And we’re talking a BIG screen, because they hadn’t broken all the theaters down into little multiplexes yet, at least not for TMP through TWOK. Here’s the thing: I’m not sure this idea of the modern screen demanding more detail is entirely accurate. Overall, screens are smaller and CGI is flatter (not always, but anyone who saw the original Star Wars movies during their initial run knows what I’m talking about). The picture seemed to have a lot more depth and heft to it back then, and not, I think, just because our eyes were younger (though I’m not ruling that out!). A TMP-style updating to the tune of today’s TECHNOLOGICAL aesthetic (as opposed to a fashion aesthetic) would be fine by me and play just as fine on today’s screen as it did in ‘the 70s and ’80s for TMP or TWOK.

I’d actually like to see the opposite of the usual re-imaging (that is, a tear-dropped suggestion of the original shape but with added junk and a darker veneer). I’d like to see the graceful lines of the original made MORE graceful by making them sleeker, not, however, in the dully-rounded fashion of the TNG and beyond ships. I’d like to see the original design with slightly smoother lines and a tad more flair and free of complete anachronisms like the big ’60s dish-thingy on the front. I’d like it to be finely-detailed but white as a swan, with black accents and red/gold indicia and–sure, why not?–blue neon warp nacelles. I guess I’d just like to see a combination of those timeless elements (whatever they are) that work best from all the shows (but mainly TOS).

Failing that, I’ll definitely take Dennis Bailey’s version from post #320. That would do nicely, I think.

And failing that, I’ll just take the original.

Wayne Spitzer

ps.
And what’s so wrong with a bunch of Star Trek fans geeking out over the new ship, anyway? Is work a better place to do that? Your dissertation committee? The local bar, maybe? It’s a Star Trek forum and we’re Star Trekin’.

I’m having a blast keeping tabs on all this.

343. Dennis Bailey - November 14, 2007

#342:”But I do know the re-fitted Enterprise from TMP through The Undiscovered Country (ST5 never happened, right? Check!) worked fine on the big screen, because I was there for all of them, in the theater, on opening day.”

Agreed. I think that’s the *minimum* level of enhancement the original ship needs.

344. Myrth - November 14, 2007

First off, we all have to remember that the voice of the die hard trekkie is a small voice in relation to the number of people needed to make this rebirth a success. Some poster much earlier in this discussion was horrified at the thought of comparing Star Trek and Transformers, but it is an excelent comparison in my opinion. Both are older properties, both have adult, set in our ways fan base. I must admit, as a huge Transformers fan, my knee jerk reaction to the newly designed bots was not good at all. The optimus I loved was not what was on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. But then something happened, I started listenting to my friends who all could have cared less about Transformers, and these new bots which pissed off all us 30 somethings who were living in 1984 really connected with alot of others. I looked again at the designs and realized they were good, and went to see the movie. It was great. I loved it, and so did many, many others, and now Transformers is a hit again with many fans from all walks of life. How great is that. My college age next door neighbor party girl came over and commented how great my display of Transformers was and how she loved the movie. Who wouldn’t want that for Trek? Well, the elitist 50 year old trekies I guess. What was doen then was great, but we have to keep moving foward. If JJ can do for Trek what Bay did for Transformers, then i say redesign away. Its not 1985 anymore people, and nor is it 1965, keep chalenging your perspectives and acepting the new and you will stay young and happy much longer instead of comming here and ranting about how a redisign of a fictional ship will cause pain.

345. Dr. Image - November 14, 2007

#320- Dennis’ design:
WOW. Yeah, I’m a purist, but this design is really impressive.
If they’re changing it, I REALLY hope it looks like this. (Does it, James?)

346. John from Cincinnati - November 14, 2007

If they change the design of the classic E then the film won’t be canon, it can’t be. Plain and simple.

347. badboy1230 - November 14, 2007

I could live with that design (in #320) of they change the decal on the side to what was in the TV show

348. Sam Belil - November 14, 2007

#318-”My opinion is that the Enterprise look should be updated. It was designed for a 1960s audience and should be updated for a 21st century audience” —

That argument holds no water, since “Trials and Tribulations” and “In a Mirror Darkly” were in fact made for a 21st century audience — and yet the producers DID NOT use an updated Enterprise/Defiant — they use the original, beautiful Constitiution design. ANOTHER REASON — why there should be NO TWEAKING of even the uniforms, because in BOTH cases Archer and Crew/Sisko and Crew wore the classic look uniforms. Having said that (pardon the pun) — logic dictates the uniforms from the Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before Era — including the women wearing pants (and believe I love a good set of legs as much as the next person), should be worn in this movie. Hey it’s all about continuity and GREAT story telling.

#344 — as I said in a prior post comparing ST to Transformers is like comparing Gone With The Wind to Super Bad. ST is a 40+ year old franchise that been around this long because of the CORE FANS not the casual ST/Sci-Fi Fan. ST at its best is pure drama that happens to be
taking place in the future (just look at some of the best written episodes from season 1 of TOS).

I happen to be in the media research business (for 20 years). I have been involved and designed many proprietary studies and focus groups. One thing that I have learned is that you do not change something just for the sake of change. I have seen subscibers of certain publications plead (in focus groups) not to even change the logo of a given publication (just as an example).

Franchises like ST and James Bond have survived for nearly a combined 50 years because of the core fan base. The bottom line is that if this movie fails it could very well possibly mean the end of Star Trek, Abrams and company have to be aware of that — especially as it pertains the core fan base. I have been visiting this website from virtually the time that it was first launched, the passion that I have seen from everyone writing is overwhelming — do you really believe that a casual ST fan could generate this kind of passion? I believe that you are insulting many of us when you say that the “Die Hard Trekkie’s Voice is Small…..” FAR FROM SMALL MY FRIEND, FAR FROM SMALL!!!!!!!!!

Dennis Bailey design TOTALLY WORKS FOR ME!!!!!

349. Sean4000 - November 14, 2007

Remember how Trek writers redesigned Zephram Cochran and ruined the character?

350. warpfactor - November 14, 2007

346 – They can change it slightly (eg to Dennis Bailey design or similar) and still be cannon. So long as the film is set before The Cage, it is possible for the ship to be refitted between this film and The Cage. Even the uniforms can be different. Starfleet changes it’s uniforms every few years all the time.

351. Sean4000 - November 14, 2007

350. Very true and that’s what I’m hoping for.

352. Wayne Spitzer - November 14, 2007

As I recall, I came across “Starship Exeter” in the dark days after Star Trek: Nemesis and was just amazed at its (Exeter’s) craftsmanship and fidelity to “Gene’s vision” (because we all know it’s more complicated than that, and that there’s more than one Gene). Am honored to provoke a response from a fellow filmmaker, especially one involved with such excellent work! I think most of us knew what needed to be done after Nemesis (and some of us long before), and they seem to be doing it, at last, so we’ll see, aye? I could get behind sort of an original meets TMP re-fit meets…just a hint, say, I mean a VAPOR…of the First Contact E. We’ll see.

Wayne Spitzer

353. James Heaney - November 14, 2007

Given that the readership is some of the more -open-minded readership on in the online Treksphere, Mr. Abrams would be well-advised to note that, even here, there is much pull for a non redesigned ship.

I’m uncommitted on this point, but I had to point out that I loved Dr. Image’s slogan: “Don’t F with the E!” Clever.

354. Andy Patterson - November 14, 2007

349

I do remember that actually. He went from being an innovative genius and a man out of time to being a drunk hippie with no drive or ambition just so Cromwell could have a big “acting” moment and TNG could further spit on what was.

to paraphrase Kirk’s speech from the Undiscovered Country, “I’ve never liked or trusted TNG.”

355. Dr. Image - November 14, 2007

JJ!! See Sam #348 above!
Read and learn!

356. Gene Coon was the Better Gene - November 14, 2007

#354 OORAH! Arrrr me hardies! I’m down for an all out TOS/TNG flame out. Pass the grog and throw me a phaser. Those lilly-livered TNGers haven’t a chance! None shall pass! Come on you pansies! Tis but a scratch! Have at you!

20 years ago I sat down to watch the first TNG episode, wanting to like it, and they managed to lose me during the opening credits; “…where no ONE has gone before.” You can’t get that right? You had to soften it up? That was it. TNG had a few moments, but it remains a pale imitation for me at least.

JJ and Co have all these posts, and the experience of TNG from which to learn. Can’t imagine they are that dumb. The Enterprise will sail again, and she’ll be our REAL authentic Enterprise.

P. S. Have to say I could really live with the Phoenix, but are there other angles of it out there?

357. Anonymous Gasbag - November 14, 2007

# 348

Given the poster images that have been released, it seems the new group is on this track to some degree.

That said, if there aren’t a lot of people (especially young people in today’s market) looking at your product to begin with, some change may be necessary just to stay relevant, despite the wishes of existing consumers, who’s dollars presumably are no longer enough.

Pointing to a self-selected sampling of internet opinionators is hardly a reliable source of unbiased data. The “core” fans who complain about changes they themselves have not seen are not enough, alone, to continue the thing on anyway. Not in any credible money-making capacity. Otherwise there’d still be a show on the air, or another movie by the old management, and Trek wouldn’t have been totally in a coma for a year or so after they got the boot. Everything from props to sets wouldn’t have been auctioned off.

At this stage, as long as it’s recognizably Star Trek (which it will be… it’ll be different, I bet, but it’ll still all fit if you want to keep your mind open), the filmmakers should feel free to make whatever “changes” they like. Give it wings and a trunk for all I care. Put a mini bar on the captain’s chair. This movie, apart from hopefully just telling an actual good story, is meant to open people’s minds to Trek and give it another future (ie more money over time for the studio). You can’t do that by appealing to the same group of people over and over again. If that really worked, we wouldn’t be talking about this.

“Oh, the plea for sanity dollar. Huge! Huge market!”

358. Wayne Spitzer - November 14, 2007

Okay, I’m getting back to work now. I really am. So long, Star Trek forum…for awhile. But the funniest thought just occurred to me: someone needs to do a cartoon of a Klingon guy, all full of swarm and bluster–in his twenties, say–leaning close to Doohan’s Montgomery Scott, leading with his chin, say, and telling him that great line from–was it “The Trouble with Tribbles?”–about his Enterprise looking like a “garbage scow.”

Scotty’s reaction and the reaction of many on this board is indicative of how we all feel about this mythical ship. Sure, sure, it’s the story that counts, it’s the people, all that’s true, but even Kirk noticed that it wasn’t the Klingon’s words about HIM that set Scotty off. It was their disparaging of his ship.

Funny stuff. And instructive.

Wayne Spitzer

359. Ralph - November 14, 2007

#320

Nice photo! I can accept that. Maybe JJ should accept fan art to draw from.

360. Mike - November 14, 2007

TOS E: Two points.

- Beautiful, iconic and amazingly original design. Set the bar for all designs to follow.
- Unbelievably fragile and non sensical structure. The ship would snap like a twig under any stress. Even the models engines will wobble, and mathematically the stress will increase exponentially (not linearly) as the size increases. From an engineering standpoint this design couldn’t be used on a space bound luxury liner, and definitely never on a military spacecraft. Yes, it’s pretty, but isn’t is also a little silly that the neck connecting the two hulls is thinner than the width of the bridge? The decks in the neck would be like broom closets. And why would you ever put the command center at the top of the ship? And why is the weapons arrangement so completely retarded? So it’s only ever going to engage targets beneath or in front of it? Really? Is attacking from other angles in violation of the Space Geneva Convention?

If Star Trek hadn’t always been willing to cheat reality and have vessels line up on a parallel plane, if every trek villain ever hadn’t been so inexplicably stupid as to not notice that both engines and the primary hull could be easily blown right off, if the weapons hadn’t always been ridiculously underpowered, the five year mission would have lasted about ten minutes.

It may be that you don’t care about these criticisms. That is completely fair. As a science fiction fan however, and not just a trek fan, I really do prefer universes that attempt (in as much as possible) to present a believable universe, and the original E design, while absolutely gorgeous, DOES fly in the face of reason. I’m torn between wanting a faithful recreation of the original E and finally having some of the bizarre and frankly unsupportable tenants of the franchise FINALLY changed, as I think they should have been a long time ago.

Sorry, I know it’s just my opinion.

361. Dude McSpock - November 14, 2007

The Defiant was the first main ship in a Star Trek series to be believable from an engineering standpoint. It is also my favorite ship. But I fell in love with all the ship designs. To me, the Enterprise is as much a character as Kirk or Spock. This seems to be the element that many of the people who make Star Trek seem to forget.

That being said, I’ll forgive a design change if it’s still a beautiful ship. Still, they should, and most likely will, keep the basic design. But this IS a refit…

And hey, I’m not the only one who really likes the ships of Star Trek. Check this out if you haven’t yet:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jibbyimages/527295231/

362. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2007

360 – The thing of it is, they really set out to portray a ship that was very different from the “conventional rocketship” paradigm. And, in space, there wouldn’t be the sorts of gravitational stresses that would mitigate against a design like that of the Enterprise. Indeed, “real life” spacecraft are likely to look far more “fragile” than the Enterprise. Far from being nonsensical, the Enterprise represented a painstakingly researched concept of far future technologies and capabilities, to the best of the abilities of her designers.

Even within the fiction, once the shields go down, any Trek ship we’ve ever seen is fundamentally vulnerable, no matter its shape. (Look how quickly the Defiant was reduced to shrapnel once she lost her shields in battle in the waning episodes of “Deep Space Nine”.) And, as we know, when the Enterprise was designed, the shapes were entirely deliberate, intended to convey a message about that ship and how it worked. It would be a terrible shame if that message were lost simply for the sake of changing a design that does in fact work, and not only that, looks aesthetically pleasing in motion on screen (yet another important characteristic of good design for a film or TV series).

Mr. Orci, if you and your colleagues are reading here, please… Don’t mess with the Enterprise. Detail her so she’ll look believable on the big screen, as we saw work so well in the first six Trek features. We know there’s room for a lot of detail we never saw in TOS. But be true to that original design and what it has represented for the last four decades. In ST: TOS, the Enterprise isn’t “just hardware”; in many ways, she was a character herself, and deserves as much loving care and attention to fidelity as any of the human performers you’ve clearly worked hard to cast. Give the Enterprise the same respect and attention, and you will be rewarded, I have little doubt.

Best,
Alex

363. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 14, 2007

#362 The silence is deafening.
Must be the strike.

364. Brian - November 14, 2007

Since I started the whole comparing Transformers to Star Trek comment I think I better do some explaining since alot of people are upset I used that example. What I should have made clear from my earlier post that I didn’t say. Was that Star Trek and Transformers have two very rabid fan bases. And when you do anything to change the orginal designs fans will complain. Flames on Optimus Prime is a “prime” example. My orginal reaction when I saw the new Optimus was like everyones what the hell are they doing put flames on him and putting a mouth on him?! Now that was my first reaction but then when I saw the movie I was fine. Loved the new design and actual prefer it to the classic look. And I im only a trek fan in my 20′s so I grew up with Transformers so another reason for me to compair the two. Now like I said in my ealier post, we do not know if the design James Cawley saw was the actual design of what the Enterprise is going to look like. Like I said before this very well could be a trick by JJ to keep the “real” design underwraps till the teaser trailer or even until the release of the movie. Now after saying that, I wonder if Leonard Nimoy has seen the design? Something tells me if Nimoy didn’t like the look of the Enterprise he would not do the movie.

365. JustBob - November 14, 2007

362. Alex Rosenzweig,

That last paragraph is spot on, my friend. I hope Mr. Orci and crew take it to heart. You are most correct in stating that the Enterprise is “in many ways” a character. She’s just as important a character as Kirk, Spock and the others.

Well said, Alex.

366. spookster - November 14, 2007

The Dennis Bailey model is perfect IMHO. It looks very much like what I imagined the Enterprise should look like for this new movie. I like Gabe’s model but I think it would be a 24th century refit of the constitution that would work well for that century and style.

367. lwr - November 15, 2007

just a message to paramount ( not abrams, because he IS the man that wanted to change superman’s costume from the red/blue to black leather…)

you have a lot of money riding on this one, guys… hell the post office made a stamp of it and the smithsonian hung it is a museum!

don’t lok for it Taylor, you may not like what you find!

you don’t pull on supermans cape.
you dont spit in the wind
you dont pull the mask off that old lone ranger….

and you don’t mess around with the ship!

368. Haissemguy - November 15, 2007

#76 “Ever shut your eyes and try to operate the flat smooth controls on a microwave oven? Shut your eyes and see how well you operate that I-phone interface.

Tactile functionality is what you need on a starship bridge, not boring “must see it to operate it” touch panels”

You don’t have too see to use the panels as proven in Voyagers ‘Year of Hell episode’. After Tuvok is blinded by a Krenim torpedo he is trying to deactivate, he resumes his duties on the bridge and orders the computer to activate tactile controls and is able to use them without problem.

Sorry to burst that particular bubble of yours.

369. cd - November 15, 2007

The Dennis Bailey version looks good, although I don’t neccessarily like the RCS (always thought they can maneuver anti-gravitically), or the 4 brackets on each nacelle cap, or the dark rectangle on the primary hull edge. (Did I miss anything? >;>} Wow, I guess I’m a purist.)
I agree that Pike’s Enterprise should be white, then after the battle with Nero (I would guess there would be one), the refit of Enterprise removes the nacelle spikes, replaces the damaged tall bridge module, and it gets an overall gray paint job.

370. Dyson Sphere - November 15, 2007

Rodenberry would save money by just updating what was already available a bit as far as the exterior. Interior, the “viewscreens” could be made LCD but the buttons, etc. should not be replaced with TNG LCARS type controls, etc.

Having an identifiable item makes branding much easier (makes more $$).

371. FlyingTigress - November 15, 2007

#362

Then, too, the design of the “E” was conveying something about the [fictional] “culture” that had created this (admittedly, revised from the ‘heavy cruiser’ references in the initial story treatments) ‘starship’. In DS9, iirc, the mention was made that the Defiant was the first ‘warship’ produced by the Federation.

Just like the screen-shown alien ships were intended to reflect what the production staff wanted to convey about each: Klingon, First Federation, Romulan… respective culture’s values, ethos, etc.

372. Ryan - November 15, 2007

I will not see the movie if they touch the Enterprise.

373. star trackie - November 15, 2007

#368 “You don’t have too see to use the panels as proven in Voyagers ‘Year of Hell episode.”

Proven schmoven!
For maximum impact, try and take out some money at the ATM, using the touch screen with your eyes closed. When you withdraw $400 instead of the $20 you wanted for lunch, maybe you’ll understand.

374. Sam Belil - November 15, 2007

Sorry #357 — for the month of October this website recorded some 28,000 visitors — that hardly constitutes a “small sample”. I should know I have been in the media research business for some 20 years now.

375. Scott - November 15, 2007

#374

Wow. Does that number mean individual visitors, Sam, or does it count me separately each time I visit? Thanks!

Scott B. out.

376. I AM THX-1138 - November 15, 2007

An interesting point here is that it appears that many of us are commenting on how much we like Dennis’ Phoenix design and would approve of it it being the template from which the new movie’s Enterprise is modeled after, while Dennis himself seems to prefer a slightly more substantial “re-imagining.”

And #345, don’t hold your breath because apparently he isn’t going to answer that question.

377. Blowback - November 15, 2007

Where can I go to see a few still shots of Dennis’ Phoenix design?

378. Frank - November 15, 2007

Just please. make the bridge ROUND. Not oval, not oblong, not square, not rectangular…R-O-U-N-D.

379. Sam Belil - November 15, 2007

#375 — yessir — up 54% from Sep 2007 and up a WHOPPING 243% from October 2006!!!!!

380. sarpok - November 15, 2007

When Star Trek was on the air, it was said that the ship got more fan mail than the actors.

“These are the Voyages of the Starship Enterprise”.

The Enterprise is as much as a star as any one in the cast.

And EVERYONE KNOWS what it looks like.

Why get the original Spock, cast new actors that look like the old cast and then change the USS Enterprise?

If someone made a movie about 1965, they would NOT change the look of a 1965 Mustang. That would make no sense.

I KNOW NCC-1701 is not real- however it’s appearance is as real to me as that 1965 Mustang.

Star Trek has been called the history of the future. Change the look of the Enterprise beyond cosmetic detail and you will lose that future.

381. Sam Belil - November 15, 2007

#380 — You could not have stated it ANY BETTER!!!!

382. bob - November 15, 2007

It is a matter of believability- something Gene Roddenberry put in the
original Star Trek (writer’s) Bible.

For me, change the Enterprise too much-. well, I just won’t believe it anymore.

383. GARY - November 15, 2007

No answers, how dissapointing….

384. Doug L. - November 15, 2007

I like Dennis’ design, but i’m gonna hold out for the classic. Nobody has bothered to post as to why the classic ent exterior design is cheesier than any other design.

Just cause it came out in the 60′s doesn’t mean it looks like the 60′s. What’s cheesy about it? It’s not as streamlined as the later ships, but that doesn’t make it good, bad or cheesy. I also question why people say this design “doesn’t translate to the big screen”. Again…, let’s hear some thoughts on why not.

Sometimes there are very good reasons, that I may not have thought of, so curious for feedback…

IMHO… Minor tweaks are all it needs to give it it’s true depth of scale and detail.

This thread is winding down, so prolly won’t get any responses. Doug L.

385. Rick - November 15, 2007

Wow Dennis I really like your Enterprise! Great work! Wow it is amazing how much emotion a spaceship from a Scifi series can bring up. Of course the third movie with the Enterprise burning up in orbit…well.;) I am like many here is hoping they keep at least 85% of the original look. Of course in a few hours I will see her on the big screen.;) Oh yes Doug L. I agree with you.

386. I AM THX-1138 - November 15, 2007

On a slightly related note, I just received shipment of my Art Asylum or Diamond Select or whoever they are now TWoK Enterprise replica and it is AWESOME! I waited about 8 months, but it was totally worth it!

They really need to do the B, C, and D. so that I can complete my collection.

387. trektacular - November 15, 2007

I think that the people who ant a new design for Enterprise don’t think the ship looks dated really, they just want something new. Am I right or what?

388. Alex Rosenzweig - November 15, 2007

384. – Doug, I agree. And I don’t know that you’ll get many responses on the question of cheesiness, because all folks have is the subjective, to wit, either they like the look of the ship or they don’t.

I’d actually be interested in what James C. thinks of Dennis’s design and Gabriel’s, too, either just on their own or in comparison to what he’s seen out of Paramount. But if he answered that, it might still give away too much about what he saw. ;)

Best,
Alex

389. Scotty's Swollen Left Testicle - November 15, 2007

Forgot what I was going to say.

390. Baron Byng - November 15, 2007

From a continuity perspective, it’d make more sense if the Enterprise looked somewhat different. Most canon materials note that the ship was built in 2245, The Cage takes place somewhere around 2253, and Kirk takes command in the 2260s. In real life, we have battleships and aircraft carriers serving in the US Navy — some of which go back to World War II –that have been constantly refit over the years. It’d make sense if there were different nacelles, a different paint scheme (or no paint, with bare metal), and a different bridge module, maybe even different to the one seen in The Cage (the Robert April-era bridge, say).

I take issue with several posters’ claims that somehow the NX-01 Enterprise looks “too advanced” for its era. The reality is that — at least as far as the bridge and controls go — it looks very close to OUR era. It’s recognizably designed as an extrapolation of current “glass cockpit” designs — I mean the one on the F-18 was new 20 years ago, already, and has no-one been on a commercial airliner in the last 5-10 years? Or seen shots of the interior of the Space Shuttle or the ISS? The producers explicitly stated as much. I mean, in the time frame in which it’s set, it’s an EARTH ship, not a federation ship; it looks deliberately “cruder” than the smooth lines of the TOS Enterprise.

To my eyes, the TOS Enterprise is incomparably advanced — Eames-era modern design, wide hallways, rectangular doors, bright lighting, etc. etc. compared to the dark, submarine-like cramped quarters of NX-01.

Having said that — If we make allowances for the budgets of 1960s television shows –as well as the fact that 1960s analog television sets displayed a lot LESS resolution than what we’re used to today — all those dark panels of coloured blinkenlightzen on the TOS Enterprise’s bridge were really just there to SUGGEST some sort of advanced control panels.

If JJ Abrams retcons them into combinations of flat panels and physical switches, that are more believable for a modern-day non-Trekker audience as well as people who enjoyed all the post-TOS TV shows — well, I’ll be perfectly happy.

It would make perfect sense, in an “adjusted for continuity” redesign of the bridge, to keep the general layouts and colour schemes etc, but to replace randomly flashing coloured bars and rectangles with something recognizable as a predecessor of the LCARS / Okudagram style. Something midway between Enterprise NX-01 and the Enterprise-A…

Given that the LCARS / Okudagram style has been seen in every ST feature film – certainly cemented with the 1701-A – and continues, with evolution, through HUNDREDS of episodes of TNG, DS9 and Voyager — heck, if we just consider the movies as canon, wouldn’t it seem very odd that just, oh, a couple of years prior to TMP, that the controls of the Enterprise were the equivalent of stone knives and bearskins?

As for the exterior of the ship — something between the TOS ship and Gabe Koerner’s design would fit into continuity as, say, the “Robert April Enterprise” that gets refit — maybe as a result of her adventures — into the Pike-era Enterprise. It just makes sense to me.

as long as they give it the proper sense of size, scale, weight, and motion…ahem…unlike certain “purist” reincarnations that had the ship rearing up like a stallion to zoom forth in a cartoon fashion…ahem…

391. trektacular - November 16, 2007

I agree I want the ship to have some weight to it, if thats accomplished 90% of the problems will be solved.

392. Wayne Spitzer - November 16, 2007

Saw the re-mastered Star Trek: The Menagerie tonight and was blown away by the the quality of the restoration/effects as well as story, which holds up just fine, thanks–powerful and moving as ever. The original Enterprise looked magnificent. Abrams and company would do well to not change her much. Alas, it appears they will be re-designing this great icon. So here’s my own shoddy attempt at a “re-imaging,” which proceeds from the expectation that they will be re-booting the entire time-line (as opposed to shoe-horning a never-before-seen re-fit into established canon). Not sure how crazy I am about touching the ship at all nor am I particularly enamored of my own take (if I can call it that; I’ve cobbled it together from things I found on the Internet). For finer quality work you need to check out the real pros, Dennis Bailey and Gabe Koerner. Can’t wait till ’08. (NOTE: FOR MY PART, THIS IS A PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGE AND I CLAIM NO OWNERSHIP OF IT. AS I SAID, IT WAS TEASED OUT OF EXISTING IMAGES USING MY EXTREMELY LIMITED SKILLS IN PHOTOSHOP. NOR AM I SUGGESTING THIS IS HOW THE NEW SHIP OUGHT TO LOOK. IT’S JUST THAT, WELL, BOYS WILL BE BOYS AND I JUST HAD TO HAVE A GO….)

http://theboythattimeforgot.blogspot.com/

http://bp2.blogger.com/_RO7I9UFOLiQ/Rz1lv3VoHqI/AAAAAAAAA68/AO2T8683bEU/s400/USSSpitzer.JPG

393. Cervantes - November 16, 2007

If I had my way on this Movie, we’d be seeing something very similar to the exterior look of Matt Jeffrie’s classic series ‘Enterprise’ – but with ‘spotlighting’, ‘aztec plate panelling, and smaller windows for big screen ‘scale’, like the ‘refitted’ ST:TMP version…but WITHOUT the nacelle cap ‘spikes’ or the ‘balls’ at the back! ( I always preferred the ‘grills’ look personally ).

Unfortunately, as I have no say in this cinematic reboot, and it seems we are not getting something as close to the original as I’d wished, allow me to hope that production designer Scott Chambliss and J.J. do something along the lines of Gabe Koerner’s excellent reimagining linked up on post #223, and NOT something like the Dennis Bailey one linked up on post #320! KEEP the nacelle cape ‘spike’ free, and please…NO blue ‘neon’ anywhere on the warp nacelles…

Fingers crossed they don’t go mad with this…

394. Baron Byng - November 16, 2007

the “spitzerprise” isn’t bad, actually. And in fact it would be more believable to go from that, to the TMP enterprise..

Why? Well Bernd Schneider’s site mentions the big continuity gap between the TOS and TMP Enterprises.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm

The saucer was widened, the neck was changed, the new engineering hull would completely swallow the old one, and of course the pylons and nacelles are new. Were they simply re-using a good portion of the TOS ship’s old superstructure, essentially building a new Enterprise from scratch around it? It might be explained, _maybe_, as them building a test bed for the Constitution II class from this ship, but wouldn’t it make more sense just to build a new ship? Schneider’s article notes that, apart perhaps from the saucer, it doesn’t seem to make sense to do that. Nothing in canon or semi-canon seems to support that hypothesis besides the throwaway line from TMP: “Admiral, this is an almost completely new Enterprise.”

UNLESS the TOS Enterprise was a bit closer in proportion to the later movie Enterprise to begin with….

395. Balock - November 16, 2007

I saw Menagerie last night. I wanted see if CGI looked better in big HD versus the web previews. I was disappointed with all shots where the models use to be. In fact, there were shots of the models in previews, and the closing credits, and they looked better then the CGI stuff.

Generally, I’m okay to tweaks made to other artwork, for example, all the improvements around around Starbase11 looked great. Also, the overall image quality was great in HD, although overall scenes seemed a little too dark too me. I’m also okay with an attempt to bring more shots of ships, angles, etc. Too bad they didn’t use models, because the CGI jst doesn’t cut it (the shuttlebay, shuttelcraft, Ent, etc.). I think the result would have been better if they cleaned up the original model shots. The one exception may be the Doomsday Machine, perhaps the Ultimate Computer.

So may final vote would be to keep the original ent exteriors, use models, keep the uniforms, do some updating of interior.

396. Dennis Bailey - November 16, 2007

#374: “Sorry #357 — for the month of October this website recorded some 28,000 visitors — that hardly constitutes a ‘small sample’.”

And how many of them posted an opinion – any opinion at all – on any subject?

That *is* a small and self-selected sample.

Thanks to everyone for the kind words about my CG model (as modified by the artist who did that rendering). It is, however, the work of a hobbyist fooling around in my spare time and doing the thing exactly the way I felt like at the time – no input from other folks, no responsibility, no guidance from employers and no production requirements etc etc. I’m a long way from being a “pro” but I do appreciate the compliment, Wayne.

As for what I’d like to see in the movie, to be real clear: I would be thrilled beyond words to see all of Matt Jefferies designs on the big screen and most especially the Enterprise.

That said, I don’t expect that to be the case. I appreciate the many reasons that it probably won’t be and am not troubled by the prospect of seeing something startlingly different from what “Star Trek” has been in the past. I’ll know whether or not I like it when I see it – not before. :)

397. Dennis Bailey - November 16, 2007

BTW, if anyone wants to fool around with the model it’s in LightWave 5.x format and can be downloaded from the Lightwave Group here:

http://www.lwg3d.com/v3/meshes.php?item=111

The model doesn’t include the mods that transform it into the Enterprise, which were made by the artist who did that rendering. They’re mainly changes to the registry and fronts of the nacelles. The original model, dubbed “Phoenix” appears as http://www.lwg3d.com/v3/resources/item111-1.jpg

398. Sam Belil - November 16, 2007

Hey Dennis first starters I TOTALLY LOVE your design, hopefully they will use it. You are NOT as far away from being a pro, you did a great job!

That 28,000 is in fact a third party number, not self selected just go to this website Compete.com (they measure web traffic), key in Trekmovie.com and you will see where those numbers came from.

399. Dennis Bailey - November 16, 2007

Yes, [b]Sam[/b], but it’s still the number of *visitors* – not the number of people who post.

We don’t know what those 28,000 people think or want where Trek is concerned. We only know that they’re interested in the movie.

The people whose opinions we know are the people who actually post here – and we are a very small, self-selected group of opinionated people.

Thanks very much for the kind words about my model. :)

400. Sean4000 - November 16, 2007

#400 Wahoo!

If we don’t see something soon I’ll crack! The Enterprise model is a major hurdle for thi film.

401. Michael Foote - November 16, 2007

Four hundred first!

402. Sam Belil - November 16, 2007

#399 — Hey Dennis, perhaps (lets have some fun here). Lets have the powers that be who run this site conduct on an official on-line survey. Being in media research for the past 20 years I’d be more than happy to assist in designing the questionnaire as a free consultant.

Any takers?????????

403. GARY - November 16, 2007

We have the right to know, we are the Star Trek!!!!!!

404. Wayne Spitzer - November 16, 2007

#394: Hey, thanks, man!
#393: I agree; blue neon on the nacelles is dubious. It just sort of inserts itself whenever one begins associating “contemporary Trek” with TOS. It does occur to me however that a stripe of RED neon (muted) might work, as it would suggest the red decals which originally ran the length of the nacelles. I do think the color scheme of white, red and gold should be maintained, if muted (What’s “timeless?” Well, primary colors!). Not that I really managed that myself.
#396: You’re a pro compared to this analog-era dabbler, Dennis. Pike’s bridge is about my speed.

Paramount: Gene’s universe. Justman/Coon’s sense of character and bravura. Jeffrie’s shapes and clean lines updated. A John Horner-esque score (with HEAVY nods to Alexander Courage). Mini-skirts and go-go boots. Mine TNG (the only contemporary Trek I can get behind) for what you can, if you can. Pike era-inspired jackets and perhaps even phasers (they can receive new ones as the franchise continues). Modernized interiors that capture the essence and basic color scheme of the original.

Even go all-new, if you insist, but go BOLDLY. Because at its heart, ironically, Trek is the least geekiest of all SF platforms. It’s got men who exemplify what manhood is all about; it’s got bold, beautiful and powerful vessels; it’s got fist fights. And it’s got green animal women who really want nothing more than to help you sire an entire human community– what’s wrong with that?

Sound off like you got a pair, JJ. Because TOS sure as hell did.

405. Myrth - November 16, 2007

#402, It would still be a sefl selected survey because coming to the site and taking the survey is a voluntary thing. What I was trying to say, that prompted this responce in the frirst place is that the number of posters here, of which there are reletivly few are a very vocal minority in the grand scheme of things. Npt to mention 28,000 is a very big sample size, IF and only IF that is 28,000 randomly selected from a varying strata of people. If its 28,000 people interested in a trek movie and only a very few vocal enough to post, the validity of that 28,000 as a sample goes way down. Not to mention that is web site hits, which constitute mis-clicks, and people hitting the site from multiple computers, which, given the nature of the fan base, is a resonable thing to assume that that percentage is high. I know myself that I hit the site from about 5 different computers. It is an industry rule of thumb that the “rabid” I hate the term, but that is what is used, fan base that post on sites like this and even give things like the design of this ship[ thought make up a very small percentage of what is needed for main stream success.

406. Wayne Spitzer - November 16, 2007

#405: It’s just so hard to say. The studio probably is taking a gamble. Honestly, my wife and I may have been the only folks at the screening Thursday night; there was another pair but I think they were employees. So, there you are. That said, I, who have been posting like crazy and even submitted a rather rushed design, am not really a “rabid” fan: I own maybe four episodes of TOS, bought at a second-hand store. I’ve never been to a convention nor donned pointy ears. I don’t own any Trek memorabilia. Yet Trek speaks to me in a way few other SF franchises have, perhaps only because it shows us a world which makes sense and that works. I really think that this current generation can and will respond to it; it just has to be sold the right way. It’s going to be fascinating to see how it develops as we go about our daily lives. For me the show has always represented a sort of conservative liberalism–or liberal conservatism?–which strikes to the core of what America is, or used to be, or can be. I confess to having a certain sociological interest in the whole phenomenon, and a vested interest in its survival. I think Gene’s world-view is good medicine for our country and our youth.

Plus I’m playing hooky, so to speak, from both work and graduate school. Not to mention certain deadlines.

and its philosophy is always with me. I HAVE “kissed a girl”; lot’s of them. Yet I thought the SNL bit with Shatner was hilarious

407. Wayne Spitzer - November 16, 2007

Oops. How embarrassing. Accidentally published some “tailings”– abandoned thoughts and sentence fragments–at the end of that last post. Here’s what I meant to publish. Any way that can be cleaned up, Anthony? Sheesh. I DO have to get back to work.

#405: It’s just so hard to say. The studio probably is taking a gamble. Honestly, my wife and I may have been the only folks at the screening Thursday night; there was another pair but I think they were employees. So, there you are. That said, I, who have been posting like crazy and even submitted a rather rushed design, am not really a “rabid” fan: I own maybe four episodes of TOS, bought at a second-hand store. I’ve never been to a convention nor donned pointy ears. I don’t own any Trek memorabilia. Yet Trek speaks to me in a way few other SF franchises have, perhaps only because it shows us a world which makes sense and that works. I really think that this current generation can and will respond to it; it just has to be sold the right way. It’s going to be fascinating to see how it develops as we go about our daily lives. For me the show has always represented a sort of conservative liberalism–or liberal conservatism?–which strikes to the core of what America is, or used to be, or can be. I confess to having a certain sociological interest in the whole phenomenon, and a vested interest in its survival. I think Gene’s world-view is good medicine for our country and our youth.

Plus I’m playing hooky, so to speak, from both work and graduate school. Not to mention certain deadlines.

408. Sam Belil - November 16, 2007

#405 — It can potentially be a survey where we once person enters this site and we post a pop-up box asking them to participate in the survey. There are so many different ways to screen-in, casual fans, avid fans, non-fans etc. For directional purposes the data gathered can serve to be valuable — if anything just a fun thing to look at, websites like this should also be about having some fun. Another point (as yours’ is well taken) — people lead very very busy lives (work, family, weekend stuff, elderly parents etc.) Who is to say that among those 28,000 (and remember that is a subtantial increase over the past year and past month) — that while those people care enough to visit the site and get information they just don’t want to make the time to post their “two-cents” like we do.

I currently work for a major media firm (publishing/dot.com) — one thing we have learned is that our website traffic increases as a result of big news accouncement or an event. I predict that we will see traffic continue to increase for trekmovie.com. Perhaps as we get closer to the New Year (again with the approval of that power that be) conduct a survey. Again it could be fun thing — and seeing the results would be interesting.

On a side-bar — OF GODS AND MEN is right around the corner –anyone excited about this???

409. Michael Hall - November 16, 2007

#407,

Personally, I always thought it was a sort of “conservative liberalism” that animated TOS–that is, in the spirit of its era, JFK-ism, or Camelot-ism. And of course those of us who attended Gene Roddenberry’s college lectures during the ’70s and ’80s got to hear first hand what the show’s creator thought about the values he was trying to communicate, and judging by the audience reaction, most of us tended to agree with him. But times change, and I’ve been increasingly discomfited through the years to realize that there is a sizeable number of individuals out there who would profess the same love for this franchise that I do and yet whose values and politics I find not merely disagreeable, but repugnant. But I concur that a well-produced Trek would be good medicine for our country at this stage, and appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

410. Atlas - November 16, 2007

Look, I’ve been out of the country for a few years. Back home on my vaca now. Went to the Menagerie. Little intro by Eugene R, nothing special. Two episodes of TOS remastered. Closing with a trailer for season 2.

Everything clean and solid.

Nothing sexy.

I went alone. Good thing!
$12.50 for my ticket (which, on such a slow night, the guy didn’t even stand at his post to rip, I could have just wandered in).

$10.50 for popcorn and coke combo. Seriously, people? It wasn’t even fresh, and for that price, it should have come with a happy ending, or at least a toy whistle.

Left feeling *screwed*, by overpaying for what was essentially a commercial. I guess subconsciously I wanted something new, too. Not to diminish the remastering job–it took 6 weeks for a 5 second zoom into Pike’s bridge from outer space, to go from CGI people to live actors. They worked hard on it, sure. Still, I felt like I paid for an overhaul and just got a new spark plug.

Perhaps a better marketing ploy would have been to promote it freely, not overcharge people over for the chance to see what they’ve already seen 25 times, save for a few cool establishing shots, and cleaner color. I’m at least equally impressed by ST:NV at this point, if not more. Especially since the latest installment, when the gang is really hitting their rhythm and all cylinders are firing.

So my upgraded opinion for JJ’s Enterprise now is, I want to see something sexier than the 1960′s model, however it’s pulled off: a new light, or with better detail, or a complete redesign. I’m now more open to change. I would wish to see something *incredible*, and *new*. TOS E, been there done that, bought the Red Shirt. If I’m going to pay out the blowhole for a movie, I want more than I can get on the TV. I don’t give a flip about canon. Everything Trek up to now is out of date anyway, when you look at movies like Batman Begins and Casino Royale. In my mind, this anachronism includes the original trio and their prequels. I’m ready to move on to a whole new generation. And I’m tired of paying for, essentially, crap with a 1000% markup. I’d rather read a book than watch an overpriced rerun again.

But–at least they got a fan to direct it, rather than someone who is “too cool” to admit to watching more than a few episodes back in the 70′s.

JJ–Sexy it up!

411. TREKFANFROMWAYBACK - November 16, 2007

#409,
I have always held the belief that Star Trek was well representative of the politics and issues of the day, whether it was the 60′s, the 80′s, 90′s, or the 21st Century. I was born in 1975, and my politics and values may be different. However, I still believe that TOS represents the politics and values of its era better than any. In the late 90′s and into this decade, Star Trek became much more militaristic in its attempt to go “mainstream”. I sincerely hope that Abrams can bring back the “beauty” of the Star Trek vision. Unfortunately, I think Star Trek has been most successful on the big screen as a “shoot ‘em up” (Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!). Maybe the reboot will eventually bring ST back to the small screen. Maybe.

412. Rick - November 16, 2007

I know there will be some updating of the new Enterprise in the new film, but seeing The Menagerie on the big screen I thought the original Enterprise seemed great to me. I sometimes think all this oh it has to be updated this way and that way is such BS. Sure I know adjustments will be made for a new version on the big screen. I think sometimes with some of these updates that forget the basics that made the original work work in the first place don’t get it. I have seen many good reboots, updates of properties in the last few years and I have also seen some really bad ones. Don’t even check out the SCI FI FLASH GORDON. Talk about missing the point. Here is hoping for a good one STAR TREK update that really understands and repects it’s origines. Still I hope they keep at least 85% of the classic look of the ship. There is that small part of me feeling I will be dissappointed when I see the first images. Here is hoping I am not.

Oh yes while The Menagerie presentation I saw last night was not perfect by any means. It was an enjoyable experience and showed that elements like the Enterprise, etc. of TOS can work on the big screen. Of course I that is for me, while many out there want slam bam exploding, amped up ship action. Insert orgasm here…While that can be good in some moments I enjoy a more healthy mix of cerebral moments and action like many a classic Star Trek could show us.
Just my 2 cents…

Oh yes the enterprise drinks beer and cheets on its spouse…also it drinks red bull so it must have wings…;) okay so I visit ACIN once in a while I promise not to let it effect me too much…

413. Alex Rosenzweig - November 16, 2007

410 – I guess my thing is that the only Trek ship–okay, no, the only ship in all of TV/movie sci-fi–that’s “sexier” than the TOS 1701 was the refit 1701/1701-A. So I don’t think a complete redesign would be any sort of improvement. [shrug]

As for continuity, I think one of the things that’s made Trek something special is that it’s managed to tell over 600 hours of storytelling on the screen, let alone the hundreds of novels and hundreds more comic book stories, all essentially in the same fictional world. (And let’s not forget, even as one Star Trek series was ending on the screen in 2005, *two more* started up in print!) Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t even comprehend why anybody would want to throw that away.

I will agree, BTW, that “New Voyages” is getting to the point where it is as impressive as much of Paramount’s output, and more impressive than a good chunk of it. And it didn’t need to be “reimagined”. The crew there just got good writing, a decent cast, and real passion for the work, and old-line Trek worked just fine for them. More power to them, sayeth I. Here’s hoping the new feature film moves past this “reboot” crap and gives us a great Star Trek story.

Best,
Alex

414. BrandonR - November 17, 2007

I’m sorry, but to hear a complaint about the new Enterprise from the guy who made the old Enterprise do barrel rolls is kinda rediculous.

415. Closet Trekker - November 17, 2007

The old NCC-1701 design with added “modern” detail will do just fine. #11 made an excellent point about TMP and the D-7 Battlecruiser. It can, and I am sure it will be, done with class…

416. Boxker - November 17, 2007

I am a huge TOS fan, well I like them all but TOS is my favorite, but I must be in a minority when I say that I have never been a fan of the TV version of the Enterprise. Infact when the begginings of this movies started I found myself hoping there would some way to reimagine the series in away that the Enterprise could have always been the refit version from the movies. By the way why does everyone refer to the refit version as the 1701-A version when it was a refit design first. Anyways, long before the current prequel and reimagining craze that’s going on, I have always felt that If I could ever reimaging(for lack of a better term) or do my own version of Star Trek. I would probably made the bridge and the other effects more realistic and I would either have the Enterprise to always have been either the refit version or the Excelsior class version, (the standard Excelsior not the Enterprise B type. What ever that thing is on the side of the secondary hull is absolutely stupid). If there ever was a reimagining of the TNG, I would like to see the Enterprise D slightly changed to make the windows smaller, and not the long rectangles that they have. I think having smaller and more windows would make it apear to be larger. Somtimes it doesn’t seem as large as it is suggested to be, especially in the early episodes when it moving along side the U.S.S Hood. I would also give the dark grey color of the other ships like the Excelsior and Enterprise E. One more thing, I would like them to find away to give the Enterprise D. that self lighting that the Excelsior and the refit Enterprise enjoy.

In the end if the new movie design is kept closer to the TV version hopefully they can make the secondary hull and the warp nacelle pylons similar to the refit style.

417. Wilson - November 17, 2007

why are they trying to “re-invent” the wheel?

I just don’t get it.

We have seen TOS: Remastered and the Enterprise looks amazing, and we see ST: NV and their Enterprise looks equally as amazing.

So, what’s the problem? If anything this Enterprise in the movie should look even more primitive than the Enterprise in TOS, and even the Enterprise that was seen in The Cage. But, I guess it’s all about money. I just hope that this Enterprise doesn’t look like the Enterprise E or something, with like….a late 24th century refit to it or something. But, just because it’s hollywood I can see them doing something like that.

With all of these rumours I’m starting to lose a little bit of faith in this all prequel movie. They are going to screw up big time. BUT, even when they do, Star Trek WILL be more popular than it ever was and re-energize the franchise, and that is what I’m excited for!! =)))

418. Dennis Bailey - November 17, 2007

#417: “why are they trying to “re-invent” the wheel?”

Because the old model had a blow-out and all the money escaped.

419. Wilson - November 17, 2007

lol. exactly.

It’s all about the almighty dollar.

But….is the casual movie goer that knows next to nothing about Star Trek really going to care how the ship is designed? I sure wouldn’t.

So I don’t really get why they just don’t leave well enough alone. I don’t consider myself a “purist” but I do consider myself a nit-picker when it comes to canon and continuity, and if they wreck it up (which they will) it won’t be the same for me. However, as James said, it isn’t about that. It’s about the Human Adventure, so, I think we all need to stop complaining (myself included).

420. Doug L. - November 18, 2007

re 409 Michael Hall

I’ve had that same thought. Doug L.

421. Alex Rosenzweig - November 18, 2007

418: I dunno about your car, Dennis, but with mine, I have to replace a blown-out tire with one of a certain type and measurement, or the car won’t handle properly and other problems could ensue. So, following that same analogy, perhaps TPTB should consider carefully what new tires they try to stick on Trek and not screw around too much with the type and measurements.

Best,
Alex

422. J. Parker - November 18, 2007

Sorry to be cynical but…

Probably part of the motive for a new design in the merchandise licensing — no mega bucks for a kit and mouse pads and calendars that look the same.

J.K. Rowling’s fortune is from the licensing.

I think the original design, with minor changes, would work great on the big screen. A Voyager-like ship won’t work, IMHO.

We’ll see.

423. Dan - November 18, 2007

Not a criticism of Cawley, I thought “World Enough and Time” was a great Star Trek episode, but think about it all this way…

In the 40 years since TOS, technology has changed dramatically. A talking computer seemed completely futuristic in 1966, today it is a reality. A handheld communicator was cool in 1966, today 16 year olds can talk, text, send photos and videos without a second thought.

For JJ Abrams to do this film exactly as if it was all 1966 again would be suicidal. The bridge cannot possibly look exactly as it did in 1966 with big red buttons and big blinking lights. Continuity is one thing, credibility is another. There will have to be at the least, some specific and judicious changes in the production design or the Enterprise will look campy and silly.

But consider what Cawley has done, (and this is not a criticism). Whereas technology has changed in 40 years, people have not. Yet what Cawley has changed is the people. He portrays a Kirk that looks nothing like Shatner, two different Spocks who look nothing like Nimoy and a McCoy who doesn’t even have a southern drawl. He speaks of the Enterprise being a “character”, yet he has (of necessity) altered the even more important characters – the people while insisting that the inanimate objects remain completely “pure”.

Why is it so difficult to accept that JJ Abrams may have to, of necessity, make some alterations to the Enterprise to account for 40 years of change in our culture? As long as the changes are not completely radical, folks ought to give a bit of leeway. And from the looks of Quinto/Spock, and from everything that Roberto Orci has said about respect for canon, I don’t see any reason to think the changes will be all that radical. Just enough to make things believable to a new generation.

424. Baron Byng - November 18, 2007

Dan, I agree 100%. I will saw that the NV gang are getting better at everything — most importantly, the quality of their writing, acting and editing has improved a great deal, making a much more subtly nuanced production. I could put up with a cardboard Enterprise on a stick if the delivery of the drama and cinematography of live-action shots was solid and compelling. It’s still not quite ‘there’ yet, but nearly so. The episode with George Takei was miles better than their early stuff and I wish them success.

As for an ‘updated’ classic Enterprise or even a “2245 pre-Pike-refit” Enterprise that we haven’t seen yet — yeah, it’s got to be more believable than today. Could they have predicted multi-touch interfaces on pocket computing devices in 1966? Yet such devices are within the reach of anyone today. Even if they don’t show how it in great detail, it has to look credible.

If it’s a reboot — even while acknowledging “future continuity” — then that means stripping it down to the essentials, which is the ideals of Starfleet and the Federation, and the personalities and interplay of the lead characters. The ship designs, technobabble and VFX are all icing on the cake, really.

I mean, to make a comparison, ST:TWOK was really an old-fashioned naval battle movie. It could have been set aboard WWII submarines, or 17th century pirate ships. What made it amazing was the story of a commander who thinks he’s over the hill, and the antagonism of an enemy half-forgotten. It’s partly the same dynamics that made ST:FC so good, too.

425. Doug L. - November 19, 2007

423 Dan

Since we obviously can’t tell a live action tale featuring the original classic cast, you have no choice but to recast the characters. That is why it’s important to ground the reality in the places that you can.

If it was a true re-imagining or a venture into an alternate timeline, I would argue differently, but it seems that this will be in continuity, so it’s important to maintain some level of visual respect to the original designs.

Does this mean nothing should be changed? No, not at all, the sets definitely need an overhaul, but the Enterprise itself is like a character, and it’s the one character that actually doesn’t need to be recast.

Doug L.

426. Michael Hall - November 19, 2007

“re 409 Michael Hall

I’ve had that same thought. Doug L. “

Doug,

Thanks. I’ve always respected your thoughts regarding TOS-R, even when I took great exception to them. Glad to have read that you did enjoy your screening of the remastered “Menagerie” in spite of it all. And I definitely agree with regards to the lack of a need for a substantial overhaul on the exterior Enterprise. For long-time fans and “purists” a fidelity to the original will surely be appreciated, and for the twentysomethings mostly unfamilar with TOS and its various spacecraft it’s a non-issue anyway. Maybe I’m not unbiased, but if you unload a few archaic-looking details (e.g. the main deflector dish) it seems to me that Jeffries’ original design looks just as “modern” as anything else out there, and is beautiful to boot, so why not just go with it?

427. J. Parker - November 20, 2007

# 426 – Michael Hall “Maybe I’m not unbiased, but if you unload a few archaic-looking details (e.g. the main deflector dish) it seems to me that Jeffries’ original design looks just as “modern” as anything else out there, and is beautiful to boot, so why not just go with it?”

Hear, Hear. And perhaps for “support” add a pylon connecting the two engines. I like the symmetry and use of circles, and those nacelle caps, the problems to visual effects crews notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, it appears that is not in the cards.

Still, I agree with Captain Cawley:

“So let’s all remain full of both, and actively look forward to what could be a fun ride. “Go get em’ J.J. ”

Or as Stan Lee would say “Excelsior”!

(Damn, I hope the new Enterprise doesn’t look like that lard arse!)

428. SinisterDan - November 27, 2007

I’m an old guy with a great affinity and fondness for TOS, although I’m starting to think that I may no be a purist.

Personally, I’d be very disappointed if they didn’t overhaul the ship to a certain extent – I want to look at something that preserves the style of the old ship, without having to actually look at the old ship. Remaking the Enterprise to match an updated design lineage based on a better understanding of technology then they had in 1966 makes sense. Don’t give me Voyager, but don’t give me the CGI Enterprise from the Re-mastered episodes either. The film makers need to play with the visual styles to make it their own; I have no problem with this.

The visuals need to be different, and imo, they should be different.

…but don’t crash the ambulance…

429. Alienforce - December 5, 2007

I love the original Jeffries design as much as anyone here. To me it is “THE” Enterprise and a lovely lady if there ever was. BUT I for one have no problem with a newly designed Ent for the new movie, reason being their should be SOME distinction between the original show and the reboot. The redesign is being done for the same reasons as companies do branding and logo’s and rely on imagery, they want their product to be distinct and apart from others and people to get an immediate sense of what it is from just a moments look. If u look at an Ipod for example you immediately know what it is and who makes it. If you leave the design as classic, again, from a marketing perspective, the viewer sees that as associated with the classic cast, the classic production. The ‘look and feel’ perhaps would appear out of place, out of sync.

430. Alienforce - December 5, 2007

Another thought… take a look at this design http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0003.jpg

If you look closely and think about it all the original design elements are there. The bridge still has a dome, the impulse engine still has the spine,
the warp naccelles still has the cowling and the spinning bussard. The four rectangular white ports on top of saucer are still there. (Forgot what these are. Transporter emanators or sensors?). Same elements just more modern and slick looking. I can live with it and it will probably grow on me.

431. Prometheus - January 1, 2008

If I was a dodgy Elvis impersonator who’s best efforts at playing Kirk resemble Shatner on a bad day, with a hangover, I would like to think I’d keep my mouth shut as regards anyone elses attempts at re-imagining Star Trek.

James Cawley has taken this “don’t mess with it if it aint broke” ideology far too far – it is the very reason he is trying to actually BE Shatner in ‘ST: New Voyages’, as opposed to making the role his and stamping his own mark on it. Every time he puts on that cheesy face, and spits out Kirkesque lines (badly!), I want to throw stuff at the screen. He is AWFUL, and his co-actor’s Spock is even worse (please, don’t get me started on ST:NV’s Scotty!)

I also think he should be very careful. Paramount CBS has been very kind and lenient when it comes to their tolerance of fan produced Trek. And here is the main actor in the 2nd most prestigious fan produced series slagging off the OFFICIAL movie???? I suspect Paramount CBS might start to look at ST:NV in a totally different light, in view of Mr Cawley’s not very carefully chosen comments. I suspect whoever invited him on set is now in a whole heap o’ shit too!

432. sarpok - January 22, 2008

I have seen the new ship in the teaser.

I don’t like it either.

Star Trek has lost me.

433. Doug - January 23, 2008

If they change the Romular Birds of Prey one little iota, I am walking!

ha! kidding!

434. Doug - January 23, 2008

oops.. that should have read ‘Romulan’ (darned fumble fingers)

435. Jhazy1962 - January 25, 2008

You all seem a bit pensive and rightfully so. As am I but one thing oin the design if you’ve done your homework(webwork) is that Mr. Abrahms is taking TOS back before Enterprise! So the ships design however strange or different from the TOS version is a prototype for all practical purposes. It’s like my purist view of the Ford Mustang…the new 2008 Cobra design it totally Awsome, but my view would be to bring back the original design with all the modern bells and whistles, GPS Digital dash, etc, but the point being the original design for the 1964 Mustang was far more removed from the final production desing. Thus, the new Enterprise is the ship I believe, from what I’ve read, is the predecessor to the NX-01 design!
Anyway, I think whatever is coming down the pipe is going to be a vabulous re-vision of Roddenberry’s vision and I say go get um J.J.!
Oh and Jimmy (Mr. Cawley)… gotta say the New Voyages are excellent and I remember our vision when we played in your basement alkl those years ago…ROCK ON!!!

436. Jhazy1962 - January 25, 2008

Prometheus :
I think if you looked at all the interviews of Jim Cawley about the new movie you’d find that it was J.J. Abrahms who invited him onto the set, and even respected him and his purist view enough to cast a part for him as well. Jim also was good friends with Gene Roddenberry and they both shared the same views about TOS, are you going to ‘DIS’ Gene’s views as well? As a friend of Jim’s growing up I know these things first hand and they spent many hours and days together discussing many aspects and Ideas of new movies and other things, hell The Wrath of Kahn was mostly derived from ideas that Jim had created in his basement bridge set / production set as kids in his teens, he even had a small 20 movie of the destruction of the NCC 1701 filmed. It was great for what he had to work with. As far as his Elvis days a lot of that financed his newest venture ST:NV.!
Besides I wonder how well you would have done in a re-creation of TOS fan-based movies and website with out of pocket expenses and a love for the TOS as it was and in SOME peoples mind should remain???
I don’t usually flame people for their comments, and you’re entitles to them, but you are way off base with you wild comments. Do your homework before you leap off the cliff.
Check the web address below and see for yourself:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/

Enuf said..sorry Jim just had to voice my feelings as I still share the same views and feelings as you! Been a long journey, and still keep coming back to TOS!!!

437. Daniel Kirk - April 17, 2008

Enterprise’s ratings were proof enough that Star Trek fans don’t want the pre-TOS/TOS era ‘reimagined.’ If you want to do a 21st century vision of Roddenberry’s universe, Paramount, do it. But don’t pitch us Star Trek and deliver Enterprise: The Next Generation.

If Paramount didn’t learn from that, they deserve what they get.

438. Chris J - November 12, 2008

What I fear the most is that we will see a division… fans of ‘Star Trek’ i.e the original series, TNG, DS9 etc etc; and fans of ‘Star Trek’ the new film.

Fans of the new film will stray to the television series’ expecting something similar to the film, and I fear that they will catch a glimpse of the dated 60′s effects and give up.

439. TC65 / Trekwebmaster - November 13, 2008

With all of the “subspace” chatter going on about the new redesign, personally I welcome the “buzz.” It means people are getting back into the swing of things again, which is good for Star Trek.

JJ, you surely woke them up…James, great work on STP2, and thank you Paramount and CBS for allowing us all to enjoy more Trek now than we ever have!!!

This is better than when I opened up my first Star Trek computer game (SFA) on Christmas morning! I love it!

TC65 / Trekwebmaster

440. Joseph - November 18, 2008

You have got to be kidding me! This new Trek looks to be exciting, but has everyone missed something here?

THIS MOVIE IS NOT STAR TREK! This movie completely erases 40 years of Trek History, and will never have the chance to become series.

I understand what you’re saying James, and in some ways I agree with you. But making a Fake Trek is not the answer to reviving Star Trek. Star Trek was dying because they skewed so far from the original series. To me, Star Trek began to die with the death of Kirk, and the destruction of the Enterprise. Since those days, Star Trek lossed a ton of support. This movie will dirve traditional Trek fans away, and bring in temporary ones that will fade as the grass turns grey. In short, it’s a temporary flick set to bring everyone to a one-night stand…..nothing more.

441. MARK - December 24, 2008

Sorry, folks, but they sure aren’t getting my dollar. That abomination they are calling the ‘enterprise’ is the UGLIEST piece of JUNK I have ever seen. Truncated, Top-Heavy, and basically stupid looking. I’ve seen third graders draw cooler looking ships. That, and a bunch of teenagers as the crew of a Starship..give me a break. I won’t ever even rent the DVD, if there is one. JJ Abrams is a HACK, plagerizing work done by great men, hoping he can have his name on it. He nees to be sued. And what’s with the communications officer getting naked? If I want to see “A-cup” boobies, I’ll look in the mirror. And Spock assaulting his superior officer? He would be charged, court matialed, and IMPRISONED. This isn’t Star Trek, it’s a rip-off.

442. MARK - December 24, 2008

Thats why he has waited so long to release it.. IT SUCKS, and he wants to build as much HYPE as he can, because he’s gotta pay back the money he used on his Trek RIP OFFor, he’s just plain EMBARASSED. The movie has been in the can for almost 2 years? Not released yet? What the hell is that? JJ Abrams is a HACK, plain and simple.

I PRAY they make model kits of this thing they call “enterprise” so I can see how many different ways I can BLOW IT UP.

Merry Christmas 2008!!!

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