Famous Location Standing in for a Vulcan Birth? + More On The Enterprise November 29, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
[Possible minor spoilers] Last weekend TrekMovie.com revealed that the production for the new Star Trek movie would be shooting at the famous Vasquez Rocks location (scene of many Trek shots including the Gorn fight in “Arena”). Now according to a source of IESB, the shooting at Vasquez this week will be for “a birth.” The source, who was picketing the location with the WGA, also stated there were “plenty of Vulcans” around. Vasquez Rocks could easily stand in for planet Vulcan, as it did in Star Trek IV. Of course Spock’s birth was already featured in Star Trek V, so that part is a bit harder to decipher.
Same, but grittier Enterprise?
IESB’s report also included another brief description of the Starship Enterprise. Their ‘top secret informant’ told the site the ship was “the basic shape” as the familiar ship, but it has “a new, grittier metal texture.” They speculate this is based on some designs that have been sent out to licensees, but TrekMovie.com has been told recently that licensees have not yet been sent any ship designs (possibly this has changed in the last week). Last month TrekMovie.com did convey reports that the Enterprise for the movie will have the same basic shape (saucer, primary hull, nacelles), but reports also indicate the changes are more than just the texture or ’skin.’ However with all of these second hand reports, it is difficult to really tell since the descriptions are all subjective. The only thing that seems clear is that the Enterprise will be neither an exact copy of the 1960s design, nor a radical redesign that does not follow the same shape.
Loading ...
Comments»
First!
first?
So, it’s like an NX-1701 style. That’s fine with me. I still prefer the streamlined TOS look but this will do.
I went there several times as a child and climbed those rocks. It kept us busy while my dad was shooting scenes. It brings back a bunch of great memories.
Hi there Chris, WOW now I can say I greeted James Doohan’s son. Pleasure to have you on the site.
As long as she has the same shape and appears like a pre-refit version of the TOS 1701 we all grew up with, I don’t mind a some “grittiness” at all. Can’t wait to see the first pictures!
I love Vasquez rocks. My stories are not as cool as your, Chris, but still fun.
Can’t wait to see images of the Enterprise. the anticipation is killing me.
With all the talk of JJ Abrams using many different locations for shooting, I wonder what other nods he’ll have towards past locations. As long as the new Enterprise model is respectable towards the Original, I’ll be happy.
Thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy, if they don’t change the E too much. I expect much more detail, but keep her figure intact!
Man, just don’t mess with the Enterprise, guys. That would really suck!
Why struggle to stick within canon story-wise and character-wise, then change the ship design?
Seems bit odd to me.
They may not be changing the ship design… just adding more texture for the big screen. Same thing happens for superhero costume. I can live with more surface detail, as in ST:TMP.
Chris,
You should write a book about all your trek-oriented memories, a lot of people would be interested! :)
It’s gotta be a closer resenblence to Archer’s time and hull design meaning that style lasted longer than anticipated. Like I said, NX-1701.
Strangely I could live with this.
Somebody had a prefect design incorporating the the elements of ENT and TOS.
New rule. When you say “first” you are actually saying “I am a fracktard”
A little texture ala TMP Refit and some spot lights would be pretty cool. Maybe some activity within the grills of the nacelles when it’s at warp speed. Little things like that would do a great deal to “modernize” the Enterprise without making it look too weird. I just want it too look huge and majestic.
#8: With all the talk of JJ Abrams using many different locations for shooting, I wonder what other nods he’ll have towards past locations.”
It would be really cool if they revisited the location used in “Operation: Annihilate!” (the one with the flying fried eggs). According to Memory Alpha, those outdoor scenes were shot at the headquarters of TRW in Redondo Beach (currently the Northtrop Grumman Space Technology headquarters). It was such a futuristic-looking place and the fact that it was real made it even more impressive. Although I recognize that the movie might have to invent a reason to be on Deneva just to do this, and they can probably create an even more futuristic-looking outdoor setting with special effects, I think the coolness would come from the fact that it would be a location instantly recognizable by fans of TOS. In fact, outdoor Deneva was my first thought when the original article about revisiting locations was posted here.
Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, like in another thread, but is this movie going to make use of the *entire* Trek canon? For example, given Phlox’s presence on Archer’s Enterprise, obviously Denobulans were a known species in Kirk’s time, even though we didn’t see any. It might be interesting if they threw a Denobulan or two in there. They wouldn’t have to figure into the plot — they could just walk by. The type of thing that’s just there and isn’t commented upon, like when E.T. started following the kid dressed in the Yoda costume.
I have said before that I think the “modern look” will be in its detail, as we never really see the ship too “up close and personal” in TOS. Otherwise, it should look the same. This is the trickiest part of any “prequel”. Simply showing a younger and newer audience (which the Trek franchise must win over to survive) the old 1960’s Enterprise will just not do (what we saw then as spectacular, the young ones will see as boring), so these changes have to be impressive, yet still subtle enough not to ruin it for those TOS purists(like myself) among us.
#3,
Huh?
How do we know that the Enterprise didn’t see a cosmetic re-fit and coat of paint between this movie and “Where No Man…”??? Really. We’re all going to recognize it as the Enterprise. End of discussion please.???
Please STXI peoples throw us a bone here!
OK, same basic ship design. Here is what I would hate to see:
Cutaways
Nacelles that weren’t round
Gun turrets
Formerly non-moving parts of the ship now moving.
Anything resembling the NX-01.
Anything too forward looking like the TMP E.
Landing gear.
I know that it’s too much to ask that they keep the ship exactly the same, but I am a collector of these things. I have a fleet of starships from all sorts of science fiction programs and movies but my Enterprise collection is my pride and joy. I have them all dating back to the original Enterprise models from the early seventies with the green bridge domes and white plastic. To change the ship too much just for the sake of change would just diminish, in my mind, the ship that I have grown up with. Am I being too personal and posessive? Probably, but I guess I’m just trying to be a squeaky wheel.
Details and a bit of streamlining if you must but please use discretion, for the sake of those to whom it seems to be an important matter.
WE WANT PICTURES!! At least I do anyway. Two hundred thousand quatloos to the first thrall who comes up with pix, drawings, scribblings, any images of the new Enterprise, finished, unfinished, whatever. I’m frikkin dyin’ over here! IMHO, that ship was the most important character in the show. It wasn’t “These are the voyages of James T. Kirk”, it was “These are the voyages of THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE”. Ok, sure, she’s taken a variety of forms over the years and another change shouldn’t be that big of a deal, but the curiosity is killing me. GIMME PIX!! …please?… :)
It sounds to me like the Big E will possibly look a little like Gabe Koerner’s interpretation, which wouldn’t be so bad, I guess.
Although I do hope they keep it a bit more like the original than his design.
Youtube Link to Gabe Koerner’s Enterprise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aON_SnlcPA4&feature=related
#19) I think that shows more of a problem with the young people today than it does with anything else. I am only 21 myself (so I’m saying this from a young-er fan’s point of view) and I still think the Classic Enterprise is the most beautifully designed and sculpted vessel i’ve ever seen on ANY science fiction program or movie. To change that design any more than updating it as we see it in the remastered Treks would be a true shame. There’s nothing wrong with the Big-E as she is; I think that she looks just as, if not more, realistic than any other ship we’ve seen in Star Trek.
IMnsHO, I just think that the youth today has become too accustomed to these ridiculous-looking, quasi-futuristic, overly-exaggerated, war-machine-esque ships in sci-fi nowadays (modern-era Trek included) and have never come to realize what a timeless and gorgeous gal the Classic Enterprise really was.
Trek doesn’t need a “reImagining” or “reInventing”, it just needs a good story, good characters and The Great Bird of the Galaxy’s spirit to guide her to the stars. At least we still have the amazing crew at New Voyages to give us that, even if Mr. Abrams can’t.
=/\= James
#3
Did you mean the Hull material or the design?
Perhaps the new Enterprise will have a texture that could resemble the familiar movie version Enterprise. I could but that with all the shield arrays and such. It would be much in line with Star Trek Enterprise and the Star Trek movies and the other Star Trek spinoffs.
Aztec panel lines again, I am sure.
I always thought the lack of panel lines was a tribute to the advanced engineering that is available in the 23rd century.
THE WAS PART OF THE ‘WONDER FACTOR’ OF THE ORIGINAL TREK!
Surely with advancements like the Transporter, engineers would be able to manufacture a seemless hull (down to the last molecule). Would’nt that also greatly help reduce friction or drag and increase strength should the ship ever need to enter an atmosphere?
A perfectly smooth hull may have assisted the ship when at high Impluse power too. Considering that Impulse propulsion BRINGS THE SHIP VERY CLOSE TO LIGHT SPEED! Even a minor panel gridline would create resistance that would rip it from the hull!
Another thing that has been ACCEPTED for many years is the understanding that parts of the hull are “Transparent to Energy.” If you look at the original Enterprise you will see that there are glowing squares on parts of the ship. Mostly on the Saucer (advanced propulsion?)
I always thought that they assisted the ship in maintaining a steady Warp Field, Shields, or for slowing the ship’s forward prgression, when needed, at impulse power. I’d be surprised if they don’t address that issue. Sure the whole ship could spin around and fire its impulse engines to slow. But we have never seen any Starship ship do this maneuver.
I also always considered that the Enterprise’s deflectors are part of what makes the ship always visible in deep space. No need for unrealistic mood lighting around the ship if there is an energy field that illuminates the hull.
KUDOS TO THE ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE DESIGN!
It truley envisioned science, WHILE ONLY NEEDING TO HINT AT THE WONDER of future technology.
Also, PLEASE do not show any more arc welders in space! I think we are all capable of uderstanding that there will be advancements that we are surprised to see. Considerable advancements that are not easily understood by us 21st century primates.
My two cents.
#21 - EXACTLY. Love it or hate it, any time period that wasnt show on TV doesn’t really have established canon (or alot of it anyway.) Im’ REALLY looking forward to this.
#16 Good idea. F.I.R.S.T. is an acronym for F***ing Idiot Reeks Start of Thread.
#26 A little detail under the gray thermocoat is reasonable, and would fit in the period of refits between what would have been the end of Pike’s 2nd 5YM, and the WNMHGB stage. If we get a bit of exposition, I don’t think the movie NCC-1701-in-refit-stage will be so unreasonable. At least I hope they’re smart enough to do that. A couple throwaway lines right up front fix this issue, and then we can move on. That the GEOMETRY appears to be exactly the classic 1701 is a superb sign.
One thing for sure… whichever site posts the first pictures of the new Enterprise will have a traffic spike the likes of which has never been seen.
You hear me, Internet? Scoop it for the ad views!
A birth on Vulcan?Maybe Spock will have had a son.
One other item concerning my post #29.
Since the transporters were an early development on Archer’s Enterprise the development of a seemless hull would have been a logical next step.
Period.
i love the original enterprise, but i wouldnt hold them to the original look any more than i’d expect them to hang crappy looking probes on wires and have them wobble through the ship. have to modernize. as long as it has the same basic design, go ahead and update.
I think Enterprise was paramounts best and worst shot in re-imagining and look what happened. I can’t stand the design of the NX-01. Let’s not have a repeat of what happened with enterprise..Please?
33 - Or possibly a grandson.
They tried to make the ship as modern(futuristic) as they could on TOS with a limited budget.I think the movie makers should go with THAT and forsake looking ‘gritty’.I’d like to see that vision of the future portrayed(seemless,modern,visionary)like TOS but with the resources of a big movie budget.
#29 and #34 - Exactly!
I hope the producers REALLY thought this one through.
They must understand that if they are respecting the history as they say, changing the E just for the sake of change would make them look like idiots.
Let’s also hope that they’ve still been visiting HERE, where the only logical paths lie.
Gotta say folks, I don’t trust IESB with news that sounds good to me any more than I do with news that doesn’t sound good to me. So I think we need to cool off and remember the unreliable source of this rumor before we all get excited about what it means.
Yeah, I especially enjoyed seeing how the “Mirror Darkly” episode depicted the crew being in AWE of the Defiant’s tech.
37.Pragmaticus.How would that work?The movie is supposed to show their first voyage with an TNG older Spock doing a backwards time travel.
#36-Agreed
Go ahead and cast Peggy as Scotty. Let the Enterprise crew drink Slusho. You can cast Shatner as the chef if you want.
But please, oh please, do not radically change the E too much.
Addendum to my above post #23:
No fins, flames, or transformations. It shall not become a giant robot.
I’ve been out to Vasquez Rocks near Cold Water Canon for a wee walk…it was the middle of August and DAMN it was hot!! The film crew will no doubt be glad its Nov / Dec and not the middle of the summer! Pretty awesome place, spectacular view from the rocks (theres two actually, one often used to film and pretend its the same thing from a different view) over the valley/canon to the highway. I always remember it being repeatedly used in Bonanza!!
#23 might have a problem, considering that the NX-01 was heavily based on the original 1701.
# 23 - THX
Hear, Hear. The classic shape is beautiful and iconic.
Well, we’ll know.
#45: “#23 might have a problem, considering that the NX-01 was heavily based on the original 1701.”
Yep. A ship that looked like the NX-01 but with the addition of an engineering hull below the saucer and nacelles would fit the iesb description to a “T.” ;)
42 - Maybe the kid is named Jim, which then segues to a scene of older Spock reminiscing about his fallen friend.
#45. How was the NX-01 based on the original E other than a few token details like the dish in the front and the black docking strips? Its totally based on the Akira. And the hull is texture just like any other TNG type ship.
Screw the “Bring back Kirk” movement.
Bring back our ENTERPRISE NCC-1701!
I don’t think we’ll see dramatic changes in an overall shape,(and I don’t know what ship an NX-1701 is), but like others have said, some detail will likely be added.
As for a vulcan birth, this makes sense to use the rocks. STIV used them as a background and then we see Spock move off the ledge and into an interior room to continue his re-education. It makes sense that this could be on Sarek’s property or near their home. Spock would be born there as well.
Oh I forgot…
Slusho for all! Zoom!
the original design needs to be updated, simple as that, but with details only, keeping the same shape and design would be the smartest thing they can do.
As a young Trek fan, I want to see something new and amazing, not the exactly same ship I can see 3 times a day on television. J.J is moving forward with Trek, and we should too, not stay in the past :D
No wings or flames for that matter. Aaaaaargh! Damn you Michael Bay!*
I’m sending out a big THANK YOU to everyone involved for not messing with my blessed icon!
*Generic fan-boy scream of disgust used for no real reason.
Live models or CGI? No Trek CGI has ever looked as great as the model photography. In fact I dont think there has been anything in a Trek movie as visually spectacular as the shots in the first ever film.
#45-Commodore Z
That was one of my problems with the NX-01. It was based on the TOS Enterprise (allegedly). Logic would dictate the opposite. A ship from the past should not be based on a ship frome it’s own future. The show should have had a Daedulus class ship as the hero’s mode of transport. IMO that is.
#48-You are correct, sir.
Well with the fact that with BSG they changed everything but the outer design of the main two ships I would think the new trek team would look at BSG and just do what they did. I imagine that the new ship will be the same just a totally updated inside. They could do almost anything with that if we are to believe this movie is set after TOS and before TMP. But sadly I see them taking some of the same ways the NX-01 was made. Like the LCD screens and a version of the mirror NX-01 tech like the talking computer that was clearly a TNG era item and not a TOS era item.
Welcome aboard, Chris! Great to have you here. Your Dad was a huge inspiration!
The problem with using one of those spherical ships that are non-canonically called “Daedalus” is that the design looks like crap. There’s a reason that Jefferies and Roddenberry passed on it back when they were creating stuff for TOS.
The NX-01 was fine. Not everyone liked it - big whoop.
You nitpicking bastards are the reason that Star Trek died a long time ago…
#57:” mirror NX-01 tech like the talking computer that was clearly a TNG era item and not a TOS era item.”
Kirk talked to the ship’s computer all the time, and it talked back - including in the original “Mirror, Mirror.”
Well, They are going to use Vasquez Rocks again and this time its Vulcan landscape. I am fine with that thou i really want to see different take on Vulcan planet, f.e. cities, instead off same desert landscape again and again.
Regarding Enterprise, i still believe they will modernize it and will not use 60s old TOS Enterprise. Frankly that design has serious weakness f.e. thin neck and pylons, They need to modernize it and make it more sleek and compact. I have kit bash this from rejected Enterprise E(Eaves design) that i think would be great Enterprise for XI.
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enerhy2.png
An NX/1701 mix is what was implied. I used a dash when I meant a “/”
Some one had a beautiful diagram of what a hybrid Pre-Kirk TOS ent wold look like with an NX-01 influence.
Perfectly said #59. Bravo
Sherie,
Although I agree that there is some serious over the top nitpicking, there is no need to flame people…so a warning for flaming
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback
You as well #60. The design needs updating. Move one people.
#59-Could you elaborate on this thought. How did nitpicking kill Star Trek? And when do you propose that it died?
Dennis, I don’t think the NX-01 was a bad ship, just misplaced. My opinion is that it would look better coming after TOS and before TMP. And I don’t think the Daedalus looked like crap. I think many people would have had an easier time accepting “Enterprise” (the show) if they had used this design and called the ship something different. Using a design that Jeffries came up with is closer to canon than the NX-01, again, IMO.
But you know what they say about Star Trek fans and opinions: We’re all a**holes. Or something like that.
Given the advances in special effects during the last 4 decades, there can be no doubt that the Enterprise will look different. Same design? Yes. Same appearance on screen? No.
If the ship is allowed to have the same appearance, then you simply stick cheesy 1960’s effects into a 2007 movie. That puts the thing in great risk of self-parody, which Trek must avoid at all costs.
No change to Enterprise design + sucky plot = bad movie.
Some changes to Enterprise design + awesome plot = excellent movie.
In other words, unless the ship is totally unrecognizable, I’m not going to care if there is some detail on the ship that doesn’t meet my fanboy vision of what the Enterprise is supposed to look like. Just make a good movie.
Personally I’d be happy to see the ST1 - ST6 movie-version of the Enterprise on the screen again. Let’s just pretend like it always looked that way. Like the Klingons always had ridges.
Somebody just show the dang thing
#68 I don’t think the Daedalus looked like crap.
Sorry but Dennis is right. Daedalus is the ugliest design for ST star ships ever. NX-01 was alright but it had its problem(akira influence)
For the most part I agree with THX-1138 about the design of the NX-01.
It always reminded me of the Akira class starship from First Contact:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class
I don’t think this is nitpicking…This is just a forum to get together and toss around thoughts and ideas. The subject of the design of the Enterprise is something that is fun to discuss, and something we all care about!
This new design will still have NOTHING on the Enterprise E.
Oh and 72nd HELL YEAH!!!!!
Not to be the voice of dissent…I’ll probably be reduced to dust here but…its a ship. Seriously, ‘Trek’ was far more then the Enrprise (granted its iconic and awesome), its whole…essence are the characters and their story not the design per say. I’m concerned about them screwing with the characters, the rest is immaterial. Like Pegg as Scotty….
NNNNNNNNNNNAAARRRPP!!
Simon Pegg was supposed to do a live interview with his mate Nick Frost on BBC Radio 1, a national station in the UK today, but the poor bloke is sick! They’re writing a new movie together about ‘two warm hearted geeks’…. (he talks about it here: http://www.radio1movies.com/ )
But if he’s over in the UK, he cant have a huge part in the film unless his bit is filmed later.
ya know, every time i here the “akira-prise” argument i just can’t buy it. yes, NX-01 was a bit of a ringer for that TNG era ship, but it’s roots are very apart from it. the designers were totally trying to emulate second world war aircraft, and i gotta say it looks alot like the P-38 my father flew. it has alot in common with the C-119 (a cargo plane) as well. i’m not sure if they were successful or not, but i’m sure they were trying to pre-empt TOS technology by a hundred years there, not rip off TNG aethestics.
i hope the new enterprise has o’reilly’s bowling alleys.
Vejur, I’ll have to disagree with you. The ugliest design for a Trek starship belongs to Ralph McQuarrie.
#74,
The E is my favorite and D2 brought it to stunning realism in Nemesis.
#59
And, given some of the design elements from the “Discovery” in 2001 and 2010, there would be some asking about rip-offs — notwithstanding the early “U.S.S. Yorktown” concept sketches from Matt Jeffries.
I think the design for the Discovery came after Star Trek debuted. Not that any of this matters.
Hey, Chris - I dunno if I missed the staff meeting on this, but has there been an outcome re: your audition?
It sounds like they’ve re-engineered the Big E along the lines of the new Galactica - same general proportions and symmetry, but built more like a wolf than a greyhound.
I can dig it.
While I never really felt comfortable the NX-01 Enterprise, (I thought it was a bit more futuristic than NCC-1701), I always thought that the TOS “E” was a bit lacking in detail when compared to the first movie . So if they update the TOS “E” for the new movie that will be alright with me as long it is not too drastic. I watched “In The Mirror Darkly” this past Friday for the first time and I thought they did a great job updating the Constellation Class without over doing it too much, but I suspect it will get a more modern update in the new movie.
Plus, depending on how they pull this off in the movie, what is the new E going to do to the plastic model business. Are we going to discard all our old AMT models?
Nitpicking didn’t kill Star Trek. Nitpicking is an integral part of Star Trek!
If anything killed it, it was two things…
1) B, and
2) B.
(You know of whom I speak.)…
But Star Trek has been dead before, and reborn. We’ll see how it goes this time.
About Enterprise, it is encouraging that it will be the same basic shape (one wonders how “basic”) but “grittier” does not sound promising. I am cautiously neutral. >;>}
And welcome aboard, Chris Doohan!
I don’t know what everyone is so worried about, it’s going to look the same but with more detail with more modern looking instrumentation on the inside. I have to believe they would know better than to mess with the Enterprise!
And I have to add that the NX-01 did look ALOT less advanced than the NCC-1701 if you were to ignore the LCD displays (there was really no way around that). “In A Mirror Darkly” provides a perfect example of this with or without the LCD displays actually. They made the constitution class look out of this worldinside and out!
#86 — Yes, I was very impressed with NCC-1701 in “In A Mirror Darkly.” One of the things ENT did right — copy that design for the movie and I’d be happy.
#85:”Nitpicking didn’t kill Star Trek. ”
It’s done its part by helping to turn Trek fandom into an albatross and a laughing stock.
#86, I’ll drink to that. Right on!
The grappler, phase canons, photonic torpedoes, one person transporter, early missile thing they used in “Regeneration,” warp 5 max, no food replicators, hand communicators, these all helped with the prequel idea.
But the shows were 40 years apart, some things had to change. I did get a submarine-feel out of the NX-01.
Still, it was nice to se the NX-01 and the TOS ship side by side. Retro futuristic came out on top of modern day.
#88 - How so?
I would just like to say that I strongly agree with #16 Tony.
Oh, so the “nitpicking bastards” comment gets to stay?
#89 - I always hoped that Enterprise (the series) would have been something more like the Starfleet Museum: the design aesthetic looks more inline with TOS Enterprise. They could have done something like that, but The Powers That Were (and Aint No More) wanted to do something like Akira, basically blowing off TOS and fans, in this aspect of the show and others (temporal cold war and other garbage), and got early cancellation for it.
I am hoping JJ Abrams and crew will appreciate Star Trek and its fans; early indications are that they will, or make a good attempt. (I really appreciate Roberto Orci listening in).
That’s much more than we got ever from B and B. Ever.
Dennis, I would think that calling the Trek fanbase a “laughing-stock” would be going a bit overboard. How do we compare to say, Star Wars fans? Or Rocky Horror fans? We are given this enormous body of stories to watch and be entertained by. Some of us have been watching TOS for 40 or more years. There is going to be a tendency to examine and re-examine the material so some of us may snip or snark over the inconsistencies that are invariably found. But I submit that just about all fanbases will have fans amongst them that would do the same thing. People feel badly about themselves when they feel that the “outside” world thinks of them as geeks. I say celebrate your geekiness. Don’t worry about what others think of you. Try to get along with your fellow fans and maybe sometimes agree to disagree.
We fans are what have kept Star Trek alive, not what has killed it.
If it’s no more different from the original than the TMP version was, it should be fine. The key for me is that any changes are functionally rationalized, like the TMP design was most thoroughly. If they do a really good job they might be able to sell technical manuals. That’s an area of Trek publishing that’s languished for a long time.
#94 - Much better than I could have said it. Thanks!
#60, Sherrie, the only thing worse than “nitpicking bastards” are people who detract from other’s fun. Like you.
#94:”Dennis, I would think that calling the Trek fanbase a “laughing-stock” would be going a bit overboard. How do we compare to say, Star Wars fans? Or Rocky Horror fans?”
Star Trek fans are mocked and are the butts of far more jokes than either “Star Wars” or “Rocky Horror” fans by far. Heck, RH fans don’t even place in this particular competition.
People are more likely to think of Trekkies as nerdish, far too serious about their hobby, and confused about the line between reality and fantasy than most fandoms. You know that’s true - trekkies are an easy punch-line for any stand-up comic because everyone recognizes and laughs at the stereotype. Good old “Comic Book Guy” on “The Simpsons” is just one example.
THERE SHE IS…
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/ObiWanCon/newent2.jpg
#98 - well, it hasn’t stopped me yet, I don’t see any reason to change now. >;>}
I look at it this way, the fans who are made fun of are also the smarter and more detail oriented people in our society. They are the people that went and made the flip phones based on communicators. They are the people that are going into space for real. It is the geeks that are driving the technological revolution we are in now. Not bad.
And often the people making fun of “us” are fans as well. Look at Futurama, it makes fun of just about every aspect of Star Trek and science fiction, but I never feel laughed at. I feel laughed with.
And if there are others who laugh at us, they are the same talking head idiots that laugh at any science or thing they don’t understand, until it become an integral part of their lives, like cell phones and Blackberrys, and let’s just say I don’t exactly value their opinion. >;>}
#99 AAAAAAHH!!!! Nightmarish images of the SeanBurns/MattWright feud of Fall 2006 returning. lol.
That model has caused so much debate it’s not funny.
#99
I like it! But, I am sure I am missing the history on this image.
Buckaroohawk where are you?
#25: I came here to post that. If it ends up looking anything like Gabe’s, I’ll be happy.
#29: Gridlines create resistance? Maybe in an atmosphere, but this is SPACE. Doesn’t matter how smooth or rough the ship is, there’s no resistance to be had. I suppose you could argue that it interferes with a warp bubble, but you did specifically mention impulse drive, which is standard sub-light propulsion.
#94/98
I have to back up Dennis here. Star Wars is geeky, but it’s considered ‘cool’ geeky courtesy of Kevin Smith, That 70’s Show, etc. Hell, our man Abrams has admitted to being more a Star Wars fan than a Trek fan, and I guarantee you the second admission would earn him more teasing than the first. Trek fans are considered ‘nerds’, and anyone that went to High School knows that the difference between a nerd and a geek is considerable.
I do have to disagree about the Daedulus ship though, Dennis. I thought it was a pretty spiffy design. They even riffed on it in the TNG finale with the medical ship Crusher commanded, and I thought that ship was actually pretty f*!king cool. The ENT ship just felt like a retread of a dozen others.
Alright, I’m sure someone else has said this, but conforming to the basics of “Saucer, primary hull, and nacelles” doesn’t mean it’s gonna look anything like the TOS Enterprise.
I don’t get why they seem so adamant about redesigning it. I can make peace with added more hull lines, bolts, and such. But nothing that’s majorly noticeable from a distance beyond maybe some very slight shadows and some specular highlights.
Sure, Gabe Koerner’s personal project of a re-imagined TOS ship is awesome… but that’s just not what should be done for anything that precedes the stories of TOS, more so if it’s supposed to eventually lead direct to the first episode of TOS.
I can’t wait for this damn movie to come out so I can replace the CGI space scenes with proper versions using that real Original Enterprise.
#104 - I lost all interest in Star Wars after Lucas made a mess of it with Episodes 1,2,and 3, but to each his own.
When I went to high school, nerd and geek were about the same, but that was almost a quarter of a century ago. >;>}
#104
Yeah, the “grid line” reference in my post #29, was intended for the paragraph concerning atmospheric entry of the ship. That was a cut and paste error for that sentence. My bad. So much for the perfect post.
But read it again. The 21st century primative who just posted #105 proves my point quite well.
The intelligent fans with an imagination do deserve thier due.
#102: That’s the CGI Enterprise from the recent remasterings. Specifically from “Miri” I think? (maybe not). But that’s just what I’d like to see the Big-E look like on the Big Screen, but I guess we won’t have any of that.
=/\= James
I guess Dennis and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.
cd, I still try to keep a positive attitude with Star Wars, but my problems started with the Ewoks. 1, 2, and 3 didn’t help but the FX were cool. You can always win me over with eye candy. And ships.
ILM needs to use models again along with the CG, Generations and First Contact looked the best because of this blending and I hope they continue with this method.
no bloody nods to the A.B,C or D. But mostly no nods to an NX. Please. They aren’t needed amd most likely won’t be recognised by most.
Here’s my 2 cents. Sorry if I’m repeating what others have posted. We won’t see crazy beehive do’s, or rubber Gorns. Nor would we want to. This holds true for the Enterprise. The original was smooth and simple ‘cuz that’s what it needed to be to get the cameras rolling ASAP.The designers had grand plans for all set pieces and vehicles as is the case on any prod. However, they were horrendously limited by time and budget. We should keep in mind that GRod and his art dept. would have pushed the details much, much further had they the resources. If you have any doubts just look at the 1701-A. It is so far beyond what a simple military “refit’ would have entailed. Gene and the boys were free to cut loose and give us something amazing, new, and very different than 1965. Instead of arguing about whether or not this or that should remain unchanged let’s hope that the new team asks themselves this question: What would they have done in 1965 with an unlimited budget and another year to design? Use the 1965 designs as a springboard. Take what were basically rushed thumbnail sketches and finish the painting. The shapes are all there they just never had time to finish the masterpiece.
#99: That image was the first one released by CBS Digital showing off what the Enteprise would look like for the Star Trek Remastered project. That was the first model they used for the first few remastered episodes. It was soon replaced with a more detailed version that allowed for faster FX rendering.
I still think that Dennis Bailey’s U.S.S. Phoenix design would make a perfect Enterprise for this movie. It retains the classic shape everyone knows while adding necessary details that both give it a sense of scale and bring it closer to the update seen in TMP. It’s a beautiful design, much closer to the spirit of the ship than Gabe Koerner’s lovely, yet overly “teched up” version.
I’m dying to see what the new version of the Enterprise will look like! Won’t someone from the production please PLEASE throw us a bone?
TrekMadeMeWonder (#102): I’m a little late to this party, but I hope I was in time to save the day.
#109 - I agree about the Ewoks; ROTJ was weak overall but much much better than 1,2,and 3.
Dennis, for good or bad, nitpicking HAS been an integral part of Star Trek fandom almost ever since I can remember (Trek magazine for example) and I don’t see that changing.
For myself, I am trying to come to grips (gripes?) with the changes in Star Trek. I still hope that the Enterprise won’t be “Akirarized” but the movie will be what it will be.
Most Star Trek fans I know of do know the difference between real life and fiction. Or maybe they don’t so that’s why they work to make real life more like Star Trek. There are worse things than trying to make the world better.
>;>}
Where are everyone’s reinagined Enterprise shots? There is one in particular that I love!
#106
Oh, I agree. Star Wars never fascinated me in the way Trek does, and Eps 1-3 were pretty god awful. It’s just that in the popular consciousness, Trek is still the nerdier choice.
#107
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, so I think you intended to reply to someone else.
I am reminded of when New Line Cinema changed the Jupiter II and the design of the Robot for the new Lost in Space movie. When licensed merchandise came out, both new design and original design merchandise was on the shelves. From everything I’ve read, the original design stuff outsold the new design stuff by a very large margin.
While people say they like stuff to be updated, they also tend to be more comfortable with what is “familiar”. Anybody remember the fiasco when “Coke II” was released? A slight update to the original formula and the public had a fit.
When the new Star Trek movie comes out, and new licensed items for the “updated” Enterprise are on the shelves, I’m sure original Enterprise items will be there as well. Will be interesting to see which items fly off the shelf first. It would also be interesting to know the comparison of sales of the original Enterprise model kits versus the sale of movie-era Enterprise kits since 1979 when the first movie came out. I doubt anyone has that data, but I would wager that the original design Enterprise wins.
Just my own personal 2-cents on the Enterprise design issue.
One more thing to consider is the issue of scale. The original models were built to register on craptastic old television screens. The models used were quite small as well (in relation to their real world size). Bumping a model up in scale just a bit can make a tremendous difference. If you study the 3 foot Millenium Falcon vs. the 6 foot shooting model you will get an idea. There is a world of difference between them. Now, imagine a 12 or 16 foot model, etc. CG should allow the enterprise to be “seen” for the first time. It should “remove the gause” so to speak. We should see details that were “always there” just beyond our focus, just out of reach. The new CG models are great, but they are really just faithful copies of small scale, low budget TV models. When we sharpen the focus and zoom in the her the Enterprise should reveal things like flush docking ports and suprise panels that we always thought should be there and in fact always were! It’s only logical.
#80
Sorry. My point was that if ENT had used a “Daedelus”-class-looking design (shown in a model in Sisko’s office in DS9) for the NX-01, that some might not realize that the initial Yorktown designs during the run-up to the series had preceeded the Discovery/A.C. Clarke type partial/full ‘dumbell’-configured ship.
#112
I don’t know if they would have ‘pushed’ the design much further. Granted, in the real world, things then still in development like the LEM had all sorts of stuff sticking out, but, the scifi ship design aesthetic of the period was, from what I recall, your rivet-less smooth skin (think Jupiter 2, think C-57D cruiser from FP, etc.) with windows and lights, combined with the oft-mentioned theory of designing a craft that didn’t have stuff outside, where a hypothetical crewdog would have to don an EVA suit to maintain the damaged (phaser control circuitry, Feinberger relay, whatever) in that external GNDN conduit.
#106
BOLTS? You think the hull of a Starship should have bolts holding it together? Be resonable.
The 21st primative comment was a jest.
But still appropriate in its context.
I was trying to show that we have as much understanding on how a Starships hull could be put together, as anyone from the 19th century understands how a Nuclear submarine’s engineering is accomplished.
200+ years of engineering and design will provide plenty of new building techniques that we can not conceive of today. And I am sure a smooth seemless hull could provide benefits to the Starship design that we cannot now understand. Simply put, a smooth hull can be believable and logical and yes, majestic.
Read #29…again. You’ll get my meaning. No offense.
Also, Thanks Buckaroo!
I’ll get those decals ready tonight!
Happy trekking all!
But please NO BOLTS on the damn hull. .
Sorry the above (post #120) was supposed to address #116 (not 106.)
Don’t get me wrong Tigress. I love the smooth look of her. It’s just that what’s smooth at that scale and that distance might reveal hidden details when examined up close, not just smoothness to an infinite degree. While each piece of the massive hull would be built to the most exacting measurements, the finished product would most likely reveal that it was in fact made of millions of individual parts, not carved from a block of marble. The play of light on the panels would be dazzling. I’m hoping JJ gets us right up in there like never before. As for not pushing the envelope further you might be right, but I imagine Roddenberry looking at the consoles full of candy buttons and chochkies and wishing for a little something more, or the refit would have just been more of the same. Remember, it was only 7 or 8 years later that he began the designwork for Phase 2. It’s fun to wonder. Wish he was here to help answer these questions.
My bad #104. The previous was supposed to address #105. ugh.
#99 - She might just need the lighting tweaked a bit for the big screen.
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/ctksatx/newent.jpg
With the proper lighting the so-called “need” for a redesign becomes unnecessary, and…. highly illogical!
Thanks #124. Precisely!
And to bolster my thoughts posted in #29 concerning the deflectors illuminating the ship, consider this example (amongst many other)…
http://www.ufoarea.com/events_conistonphoto.html
: )
Guess James Cawley was just talking out of something other than his mouth
Yeah. We better see something really soon. This is killing me.
This is what your all get for being content 21st century primatives.
Expecting the orignal, better think again.
Looks like you are going to get what you deserve.
http://www.putfile.com/startrekmovie
You just know someone working on the film is reading this board and laughing at us. For weeks now we’ve mentioned our preference for the ship design. And we’ve show our own ideas. Abrams says he will respect Trek history. But that doesn’t mean he can’t find a loophole or two.
Between the NX-01 and NCC-17001,there can be a intermediate design.
This has already been mention above,show the Enterprise when she was first launched. Its going to look different,it changed twice in the original series.
The engines were changed and radio dish was shrunk,as was the bridge.
But it wasn’t really that noticeable,but trying to mesh things for continuity is going to create problems.
Personally I still find Dennis Baileys design the best in showing the same old thing,yet not.
I can only hope the design team on this film will take that to heart,other wise when the first image is released. And they change it too much.
That will be the day the internet shut-down.
Sean…
How were Phase Cannons and Photonics more primitive? It’s just a NAME change!
The Warp 5 Drive and Grapplers were fine, and the Spatial Torpedoes were at least a different tech, although the name is fairly indescriptive (were they loaded with Spatial Warheads? Containing Spatial Energy?), although the Vulcans and Klingons had Warp 6 drives, and in 2161, there was a Warp 7 drive anyway…
Jesus, those guys were morons…
#128. trek made me wonder, I don’t buy into that image. All I see is a very hazy image based on the Enterprise secondary hull and engines,with a “Independence Day”sauce in front of it.
We know there going to change things. But I have to believe they’ll try harder.
I don’t think I am gonna last before the first official Enterprise image comes out…. :)
Just out of curiosity how many changes are we going to let them make to the Star Trek we all know and love. Just how far are we willing to let them go before as fans we are compromised. Change the ship why?
NX/1701 hybrid outer hull texture with same shapes as pre-refit Constitution class 1701, eh? I could definitely live with that. In re #25, not sure about the blue trim in Gabe Koerner’s version, but those clips are pretty darn swell.
This is it… :)
http://www.islc.net/~sullivan/TrekXI-Ent.jpg
wow scott sullivan, where did you get that amazing inside super spy photo?????
BLECH!!!
Although…
Observe it, ponder it, puke if you must… then imagine a smooth skin over it…
Could we be seeing the “birth” of the ship we know and love? Could this be a “prime” version? Might we see OUR ship by film’s end?
The shape is true… and the nacelles have the antennaes the way the original “Cage” design had!!
because if that’s the real thing… it really blows. Put a skin on it!
oh… and re-first with the new news!! ;P
Consider this…
Why in the 21st century do we have sleek stealthy aircraft (F-18s and Joint Stike Fighters)? Would not a logical progression show that smooth skin vessels (23rd century’s NCC-1701) be so? Regardless when Roddenberry was approving the first design of the Enterprise it was smooth as well, only when the series was given the green light for production that he “dirtied the ship up abit” and mapped textures/details and a barely noticable top saucer grid.
I’m hoping they stay true to the original ship and add finer detail for the big screen…thats all. And lets all hope that they use a model for scale and weight.
Check out her history right here:
http://startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html
Bryan –
Thanks for the photos and the accompanying text. I’m no CGI expert, but it seems to me a model would be better for close-up shots, while CG is acceptable for the longer shots.
By the way…I’m glad their second studio (Linwood Dunn’s studio) had air conditioning so that guy could put his shirt back on.
#135
LOL
(remembers the discussions, on April 1st, about that one)
#136 is that a real image? im sure ive seen it before? i dont know what to think of it yet until im sure its real.
#136
ummmmm… Hmmmm.
that for real? I don’t know what 2 to say.
ummmm…
#114:”Dennis, for good or bad, nitpicking HAS been an integral part of Star Trek fandom almost ever since I can remember (Trek magazine for example) and I don’t see that changing.”
On that we can certainly agree.
I think it’s much more for the bad than the good; some fans carry it to loathesome extremes and it’s both hurt Trek and made fandom on the Internet a much less pleasant experience.
#126:”Guess James Cawley was just talking out of something other than his mouth”
Not in the least - though you’re certainly quick to draw that conclusion based on a thumbnail description of a rumor. Why is that?
We’ll see what we see when we see it. :)
#130:”Sean…
How were Phase Cannons and Photonics more primitive? It’s just a NAME change!”
Welcome to “Star Trek.” Nothing *ever* changes.
In the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries they use rayguns and travel in big starships and use transporters and such.
Jump forward to the 29th or 30th century and they call them “temporal transporters” but they’re still beaming down and flying around in big ships and so on and so forth.
Nothing ever changes in “Star Trek” except the names.
Whoa… censorship… oh well. I posted some stuff, it disappeared, and you all get to miss out.
Hey, at least in Enterprise (the series) they didn’t have shields, and thus they did take on more visible hull damage than the later Enterprises. I also appreciated the greater use of shuttles, leaving the transporter for emergencies.
Here’s one thing it would be hard to retcon: How is it that society got all sexist just in the TOS era, when in Archer’s day the women were dressed in relatively egalitarian garb (for the most part), and then later, in the TNG era, it happened again, but in between, all the women were forced to wear super-short miniskirts, and there weren’t any women in command positions.
(P.S. - I’m not counting “Number One” from the Cage, because that was one of the reasons why that pilot wasn’t accepted by the execs at the time.)
#59 Dennis Bailey….
I for one thought that the Dadelus design, (which is canon since there was a model of the ship in Ben Sisco’s quarters) and referred to in the Beverly Crusher’s medical ship in “All Good Things” is a neat design as a retro look. I would have rather seen something like that in Enterprise than what we got, which was too similar to the actual first Enterprise that came 100 years later.
#135:
Oh, please, tell me you’re kidding.
That’s…awful.
Yeah, let’s waste valuable shipboard space by having pointless cut-outs in the primary hull.
And “battleship style turrets?”
Dear god, that’s just terrible.
Also that ship design there in #136 came out a looong time ago and was debunked as a fake, thank goodness.
#150: “I for one thought that the Dadelus design, (which is canon since there was a model of the ship in Ben Sisco’s quarters) and referred to in the Beverly Crusher’s medical ship in “All Good Things” is a neat design as a retro look.”
Well, first of all it’s not “canon” - there was a model in a shot on DS9, yeah, but it was never identified onscreen as a “Daedalus.” That it was a Daedalus was someone’s *intention,* but a new designer or writer or producer could explicitly identify some completely different kind of ship as a Daedalus without contradicting a thing that was ever said or shown in a “Star Trek” production.
I don’t like the globe-hulled ship, but more interesting than my opinion I suppose is that of its designer, Matt Jefferies:
“The habitat part I felt ideally should be a ball, but it got too awkward to play with. It just didn’t look like it would get out of first gear, much less the speeds he was talking about. So it gradually got flattened.”
That’s a generally fascinating interview, BTW, in which the guy most responsible for the look of “Star Trek” speaks at greater length and more specifically about his designs than almost anywhere else. It can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/interviews/jefferies/page1.shtml
What I want to know is why the heck Spock would be born in a rock cavern (ST5) or at Vasquez Rocks instead of, oh I don’t know, a hospital…
one imagines we might get to see something really new in the conception-o-spock scene. pointy eared vulcan spermatoids maybe.
love seeing the april fool ‘prise again. in manages to address every single fear expressed at this site, right down to the enthusiastic “much better!” scrawl. thanks to all involved, a nitpickers money shot.
Does anyone know if the ship will be entirely CGI?
Too bad the design isn’t the original, with only more surface detail, e.g., Remastered or Daren Doc’s work.
To quote The Genie…
“well, don’t I feel sheepish”
Yep, that design got me. Didn’t realize it was a fake. Thank God!!!
Although I don’t consider STV to be taken seriously, I assumed that the cave was the family birthplace, considering the Vulcan penchant for ancient traditions.
But a hospital seems a better place! According to Gene himself, as on “Inside ST” he states that Spock was genetically altered to enable a Human-Vulcan offspring, something not possible by itself, and certainly the first.
I love the “rebirth” of the April Fool’s NCC-1701, LMAO!
#150: “All Good Things” took place in a an alternate future, where The Enterprise was refit with three nacelles. Both ships were cool, but neither is canon.
I hope JJ’s Enterprise can do a saucer separation. I think the old Franz Joseph Constitution Class blueprints said it could.
Also, JJ: pointed nacelles, and an oversized deflector dish, please.
Nitpicking is fun, and I am not a geek or a nerd. And the fact that JJ’s hired guns lurk this site actually kinda puts a new positive twist on Internet fandom.
#158
Actually from the ‘Inside ST’ CD I think you will find that Sarek said to Roddenberry when GR stated that Spock was the first Vulcan/Human hybrid. “No, not the first. But the first to survive.”
Cool CD, listened to it again in my car recently and my partner just gives me one of “those” looks. :)
#159
I think that pointed nacelles and an oversized deflector dish will serve to make the model look, well a bit corny IMO. We need to see something going on inside the nacelles (at the domes) that will convey the sheer power being generated to move her. Something not unlike what we saw for the engineering section in ST:TMP would be a good idea.
Also the smaller defelctor dish gave the model a better sense of scale to me. Which is why I think they changed it.
But I honestly think that the deflector dish needs to be incorporated more into the hull, much like the re-fitted Enterprise had in ST:TMP
Okay I admit it I love that ship. If the designers can come up with something that honours the original and has elements of the ship from ST:TMP then for me that will be just about perfect.
#160: It’s not a requirement, just a piper dream, especially since the “Remastered” team kept them in for Menagerie and WNMHGB. I agree that the TMP dish was an improvement.
AJ, ya’ ‘aint foolin’ nobody. Yer a geek. Wave yer flag all proud-like.
Addendum to #23:
No propellers.
(BTW, my list pretty much describes the April Fools ‘prise.)
#160 response to #159
Lowering the bridge dome, IMHO, probably did more to improve the sense of scale… although… remember that there is canonical references to a significant difference in the number of crewmembers in Pike’s Enterprise versus Kirk’s Enterprise.
Maybe the “E” grew up.. \
…or Pike had lost approximately 40% of his crew prior to the events shown in “The Cage”. Damn. Being an “Ensign Ricky” aboard Pike’s Enterprise was even worse than being aboard during Kirk’s command.
/I won’t mention the possibility of James “Tomcat” Kirk stocking the “E” with female personnel to cover his needs for a full “5 year mission” LOL
pimf “are”
/more coffee
#140. Bryan,thanks for that link. I’d lost track of that web page and couldn’t find it. :)
http://startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html
Share we must share the gospel. :D
Pointed Nacelles!
Pointed Nacelles!
Pointed Nacelles!
Large Deflector Dish!
Large Deflector Dish!
Large Deflector Dish!
Taller Bridge Dome!
Taller Bridge Dome!
Taller Bridge Dome!
Decal Makings on Saucer Top!
Decal Makings on Saucer Top!
Decal Makings on Saucer Top! ANNNNNNNNNNND……..
Small Holes on Back Of the Engines….NO BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#145 - Nitpicking, in terms of intelligent attention to detail and discussion thereof, is appropriate. One can take it to a ridiculous and petty extreme which I agree is not necessary. Now I might take something to a ridiculous extreme but not a petty one >;>} and usually I have a point or some intended validity to it. Usually.
To everyone who wants pointed nacelles and not the spectacular “spinning” engines…
Hideous! Pointed nacelles are hideous! *gag*
And I still wonder if Daren “Doc”, who did CGI design for ILM for the film Poseidon is involved. But it’s got to be secret.
Well, we’ll find out soon.
It would be great if the designers of the film approach the Enterprise in the way that Apple approaches their products. iMacs, iPods, etc. look great without a lot of panels, lines, textures, ports, etc. Simplicity is a virtue. Less is more.
These CGI vs model arguments do tend to get silly. I don’t understand how a six, eight, or twelve foot model can convey mass more effectively than a pixelated image - both are pretending to be something they are not. As for Trek CGI never looking good, The Enterprise E was fully CGI for both Insurrection and Nemesis. It looked big to me. And saying the fx never looked better than the TMP model, well, I guess if you ignore the gratuitous matte lines…..
Also, I don’t really see the need for surface plating details to lend an air of authenticity. There are cruise ships plying the waters at this moment that are larger than the Enterprise and made up of thousands of six-foot steel plates, yet their hulls and smooth and shiny white.
Galaxy Quest’s NES Protector looked pretty damn sharp too.
Bottom line. The budget of this film s going to make the ship look phenomenal - better than any Trek we have ever seen, regardless of the design.
#170:”These CGI vs model arguments do tend to get silly. I don’t understand how a six, eight, or twelve foot model can convey mass more effectively than a pixelated image - both are pretending to be something they are not. ”
Exactly so.
Nobody seems to get what I’m saying…. I don’t think the Daedalus design is better than what we got on TOS. I’m not saying the name is canon. Just that the sphere-hulled ship was recognised as a past ship on DS9, and was given a nod to on All Good Things,” alternate future or not.
So, I would have liked to have seen it used in a prequel show somehow, showing the evolution of the Federation ships that were before the sleek ship in TOS. It sould still look cool in a retro-past history way, rather than the Akira copy we got.
That’s all.
I agree. The CG ST:Nemesis Scimitar and Enterprise E were just as convincing as if they were real shooting models. TMP’s Enterprise was a thing of awe and reverence on the big screen.
In the “Star Trek: Ships of the Line” calender and book I have, there is an image of a Bonaventure Class starship. I could not for the life of me find an image of it, although there is one with the NX-01 style deflector dish (which I don’t personally care for) when I did a search online. The one from the calender has a TOS style deflector and is very reminiscent of the beloved original. What would people have thought of that one in “Enterprise”? Just for giggles.
(Can anyone find a pic of the one I’m talking about?)
I, for one, will never forget seeing the TMP NCC-1701 for the 1st time on the big screen in 1978 (New York City, Loews Orpheum, E. 86th St.). I did not mind the endless shuttle ride with Scotty, as many did.
And this was after having been blown away by the highly detailed Klingon cruisers getting womped by V’ger at the start.
I would hope that JJ can blow us away again.
#175…
That shuttlepod tour was the highlight of the movie to me! It was like a miniuature camera swooping over the curves of Beyonce… beautiful, and not something to hurry!
#159
The 1701 did have the ability for saucer seperation. While the ship never did it, Kirk mentions it in one episode, telling the ship to be ready for emergency seperation.
RE: Saucer Separation
I don’t think so. I believe separation, although never used, was incorporated into the Phase 2 / TMP design.
I was much happier with the NX-01 than with some fugly ball-shaped ship ala the so-called “Daedalus.”
As far as ship separation is concerned, Kirk refers to the capability once in “The Apple.” It’s been assumed by a lot of people based on background information that this was a one-time-only emergency manuever, but the question has never been addressed on-screen.
171. Hold a matchbox next to a real car to get my meaning. They arent pretending to be, they simply are. As the Enterprise simply is. The bigger the model (CG or styrene) the more detail you see is all. Zooming in on a smaller model just gives you a bigger image of something small. The Falcon is a good example since the filming models ranged from the size of a coin up to 6 feet long. When you see the 3 footer it looks perfect. You’d swear it’s all there. It isn’t. Look at the bigger one and it’s amazing how much more detailed it is. Same ship. Different scales. Mass. Just look at a bug under a microscope, same thing. I hope the Enterprise looks smooth from a distance (like it did on TV) then, as the camera gets closer we all go, “WOW, I never knew this and that were there!” It should feel natural. I think we all agree on that. And yes, by all means the lighting is critical too.
Here is my design I just made the original enterprise have a metalic look.
sorry forgot the link
http://img106.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newent02awn0.jpg
#181, #182 — If you will permit me the criticism, tone done the sheen — it looks a little too chrome-metallic, whereas I believe the on-screen effect is going to be more like steel-plate-metallic.
Darken her up a bit. Just like a beautiful woman in veils, it adds to her mystery…
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/ctksatx/ent.jpg
#’s 182-184–Kinda like Pimp my Starship.
Bonaventure rules!
# 153 - Dennis Bailey, it’s interesting what Matt Jeffries says about the exterior:
“Basically I wanted to keep it as plain as I could. To be able to play light on it. I didn’t want to load the exterior up with what looked like equipment of some kind. We used to talk about Murphy’s law, that whatever man makes will break at the most inopportune time. So why have equipment on the outside in the worst possible environment to put a crewman out to work on it if you can keep it on the inside?”
As to models versus CGI, I didn’t think the work on Insurrection was that great.
Either technique will be effective, if done properly. In Star Trek V, the model was not lit properly, and looked terrible. Daren Doc made a CGI Enterprise and Doug Trumbull raved about it:
http://www.betafive.com/PORTFOLIOSITE/TrekTMP.html
To those discussing the Constitution Class saucer separation:
I don’t usually plug my own work here, but since the subject was already being discussed…
Here’s a little something I came up with a while back. Hope you like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V08KInikVXQ
#187. Buckaroohawk
Hey, that looks really good!
Buckaroo, that is SWEET!! Loved it! As the saucer section came flying back toward us, I couldn’t help but think that they should have had an episode where the crew go back in time (yes, again) to address some crisis in our present day and the saucer section gets spotted (in the upper atmosphere) from the ground as a flying saucer! Nice!
Thank you, Captain Fantastic and Harry. I’m glad you liked it. I had a lot of fun putting that video together.
Buckaroohawk has gone BIGTIME!
Great seperation indeed!
Buckaroo has gone BIGTIME!
I would say Nice Job , but I know it’s your passion!
Or, at least, one of your passions.
Nice job!