First Official Picture Of The USS Enterprise |
jump to navigation

First Official Picture Of The USS Enterprise January 17, 2008

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

AOL/Moviephone has got the exclusive on the first glimps of the USS Enterprise from the new Star Trek.

Here she is…being built. Presumably an image from the teaser.

click to enlarge

At first glance it appears pretty faithful to the TOS Enterprise. The nacelles seem a bit over sized and the skin is more like the movie era Enterprise, but I think everyone’s childhood is safe from being ravaged.

an even higher res version is available at AOL/Moviephone

VOTE: Love the new E?

Vote in our latest poll. What do you think of what you can see so far of the new Enterprise? (see right sidebar)


1. Benjamin Adams - January 17, 2008

I’ve got a good feeling about this!

2. This guy - January 17, 2008

Let me be the FIRST to say…she’s alive

3. This guy - January 17, 2008

Please people no bitching

4. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

Why hello there! :-)

5. Tom Riker - January 17, 2008

It looks good.

6. roberto orci - January 17, 2008

2 LOL.

7. andrew - January 17, 2008


8. CCBeck - January 17, 2008

wow…looks like it will be faithful to the original. Is it me or do the Nacelles look an awful lot like Gabriel Koerner’s concept?

9. Capt Abe - January 17, 2008

Wow this looks very cool!!!!!!!!

10. SPB - January 17, 2008


…the LETTERING is different, folks. Get ready for the sh*tstorm.

11. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

Pants = soiled. Awesome! This is bigger than Duke Nukem Forever’s impending release :D

12. cosmo kid - January 17, 2008

That looks great!
Yee haw!

13. JB Gestl - January 17, 2008

Nice… Maybe I will go see Cloverfield.

14. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

#8 – Yep, looks a lot like Koerner’s. I hated his concept, too “busy” and “industrial,” but I think we’re stuck with it.

15. Sean - January 17, 2008

Pretty faithful to the original. Faithful enough that I’m cool with it. One weird thing is the nacelles. They look like they might… transform?

16. Noleuser - January 17, 2008


17. Diabolik - January 17, 2008

Hooray! We can relax…. it’s TOS ship with TMP detailing…just what I was hoping for!

However, this ship is way before the timeframe for the movie… we are probably seeing a special scene made just for the trailer, or maybe one thwt will be used under the opening credits showing the history of the ship.

18. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

I hated the “aztec” pattern on the movie enterprises. Gimme the pristine hull of the original.

19. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

woohoo!!! this whole bigger scope thing is exactly what im looking for!!

20. Justin Toney - January 17, 2008


21. trekofficial - January 17, 2008

Lettering is NOT CANNON! BOYCOTT!!!

22. Michael - January 17, 2008

I like it. Look close at the engines – there are slight fins along the length. Here are your wings folks!

23. Scott Gammans - January 17, 2008

Why is there steam rising from one of those open panels? Is the Enterprise being constructed IN San Francisco??

24. Mike - January 17, 2008

This looks great, better than I expected. Anyone planning to complain please save your breath (or fingers).

25. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

You know.. with that glare on the U in U.S.S. it kindof looks like an I.. as in I.S.S.

26. Clinton - January 17, 2008


27. Tim Handrahan - January 17, 2008

To quote the late great chief engineer:

“Aye, She’s a beauty, lad.”

28. TheVamp - January 17, 2008


I think those ”fins” are supposed to be the updated coolers for the warp drive nacelles.

29. Deep Space 913 - January 17, 2008

Freaking Sweet!

30. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

24 – Why can’t we complain? I don’t like the way it looks. Alas.

31. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

I just have to say that is so effing cool! Thank you, Roberto.

32. Harry Ballz - January 17, 2008

Mmmmmm………..can’t talk, looking! :)

33. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Interesting proportions for the bridge bubble and nacelles. Maybe this is to accomodate a “grander” vision of the bridge, more in scope like the Cygnus from the Black Hole

34. me - January 17, 2008

Looks good. The engines are too big, but maybe only coz of the perspective. I think in movement it will work.
Exactly as I imagined her. Until now good job.

35. mattniss - January 17, 2008

Other than the fact that the nacelles look bit too large, I’m extremely happy with the first look!

36. DarthLowBudget - January 17, 2008

First time I’ve ever posted anything over here, but I have to say, the ship looks great!

37. Johnny Ice - January 17, 2008

I don’t knew, i just hope they have fixed thin neck line. I need to see more of this. Can we have some confirmation that this is authentic Enterprise for XI movie or do we haved to wait until 18 jan..

38. Diabolik - January 17, 2008

Looks like the covers for the nacalle caps are not in place yet, and we are seeing the interior of the blades that cause the light effects. Cool that they actually incorporate that into the actual ship! I can see why some thought “airplane engines,” it looks like a turbine!

39. robin alexander - January 17, 2008

Now im officialy stoked about this movie!
Best shot ever!


40. Flake - January 17, 2008

I like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cant wait to see the teaser !

41. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#34 – I thought the same thing about the nacelles at first too, but looking at this drawing, it seems right on the dot:

42. Elrond L - January 17, 2008

WOW. She looks BEAUTIFUL. This is everything we hoped for. We have matinee tickets for Cloverfield, and I can’t wait!!

Thanks, Anthony!

43. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

Oh man…this is going to bring down the entire US internet structure, and for good reason, hahaha

44. catchupwiththesun - January 17, 2008

holy crap!!!!! aw man that looks sick!!!!

45. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

Hello, Big E

You are such a sweet beauty!

46. me - January 17, 2008

I think in “the cage” the bridge bubble also was a bit different than in the rest of the serie. So the 1701 had a redesign even before the Refit.

47. lodownX - January 17, 2008

awesome… the next 11 months is going to feel like a prison sentence.

48. Xai . U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701 is reborn! - January 17, 2008

“There she is… THERE she is!

First time I got goosebumps since they greenlit the movie

49. Viking - January 17, 2008

Look at the size of those honkin’ warp nacelles! Roberto, you guys ROCK! I can’t wait to we get a ‘full frontal’! LOL ;-)

50. table10 - January 17, 2008

First the cool sleek modern new logo, and then a rare glimpse into the skeleton of an absolutely iconic vessel.

Absolutely awesome trek fan day!

51. Diabolik - January 17, 2008

It could be that the larger nacelle ends are reflecting an earlier, more primitive version of the ship than what is seen in the movie. Remember it was constructed many years before Kirk and co came along.

52. RaveOnEd - January 17, 2008

That is GORGEOUS! WOW! Good construction shot – you can see that the nacelle caps are not on it yet, but round ports where the gold nacelle points would go in the middle!

I zoomed in, not much to offer from trying to peek at the exposed corridor areas, dang!

But, she’s gorgeous! Roberto, please pass word along that this is a wonderful job!

53. Mark Lynch - January 17, 2008

Holy crap! It loks like I am going to get the Big E just as I wanted, right down to the hull detailing. I want to see more, now! :)

54. CmdrR - January 17, 2008


55. Viking - January 17, 2008

I even think the new hull registry font kicks ass, too. ;-)

56. Mark Lynch - January 17, 2008

Watch this thread go past 1000 posts in about 12.532 minutes!!!! ;)

Go for it Guys (and Girls too of course)

57. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008


The steam is possibling coming from welding and soldering.

It is one of many compentents that is being constructed.

58. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

It’s certainly interesting, but doesn’t look to me anyway like the pilot version of the E

Or not necessarily something that would evolve into it . . . obviously that’s what it is supposed to be tho . . .

But it’s a great image nevertheless – very compelling.

59. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

I have far less a problem with the look of the ship in this image than I do with reports of the absolutely idiotic notion that it’s being built on Earth. Stupid stupid stupid.

60. simonkey - January 17, 2008


61. Alex Rosenzweig - January 17, 2008

It does look pretty neat. :) Some aspects remind me of Koerner’s, but this looks a bit truer to the original than his, which is all to the good. Of course, there’s a lot that we can’t see, and the places where his design tended to run off the rails were on the secondary hull, which we can’t see here.

#21 – What actually amuses me a lot about that lettering is that it’s the microgramma style used in Franz Joseph’s blueprints. ;)

#28 – I think you’re right. They do look like the intercoolers.

The hull plating really does look like it has a strong influence from TMP, and maybe the Defiant from ENT. No complaints from me on that. :)

Obviously I shall reserve judgement ’til I can see a few more angles, but it is looking like it’s gonna be a pretty faithful rendition, and if that holds true as we see more of her, then I will happily say to the production and VFX teams, “Thanks!”

62. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

I can not wait until the beauty shot is released

63. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

The font looks like Microgramma like specified in The Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph

64. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

Know what? I have saved the picture as my desktop wallpaper! :D

65. Spaceboy - January 17, 2008

Canon = we’ve seen it already. Let’s hope they give us something we haven’t seen already…

66. Captain Fantastic - January 17, 2008

it looks cool, the nacelles are pretty big though. I love the way a few people are assuming that nacelle caps will go on, cos for all we know they might just be left as they are.

it looks like a cool ship, certainly in line with canon and can clearly be seen to be a predecessor of the 1701-D and 1701-E

67. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

man I wish we had an actual forum instead of this stupid “comment” system…

68. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#59 Allan Cook – I think we established in some of the other threads that the Enterprise was in fact built on Earth, but assembled in space.

69. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

And the nacelles looking too large? Merely a trick of photography. Taking a photo of an actual physical 1/1 scale Enterprise from a certain distance with a wide lens would produce the same effect.

70. Mr Darcy - January 17, 2008

I think I’ve just fallen in love!

Karl Urban absolutely nailed it:

The way I feel about it, being as specific as I’m allowed to be, is it’s like listening to a radio station in AM and then tuning it into high-definition stereo. Everything will sort of really come into high-definition focus…

71. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto - January 17, 2008

E = Engaging
N = Never looked better
T = Too perfect for words
E = Energetic photo!
R= Respecting the E
P= Proud, you have done Roddenberry’s vision proud
R= Roberto Orci, you tell everyone thanks!
I = I like it very much
S = San Francisco, Califonia, that’s what the plaque of the Enterprise
says in every episode of the Kirk era show
E= The E is Back!

72. Ensign Ricky - January 17, 2008


73. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#68 – Which is stupid, stupid, and more stupid. There is no practical reason to do so, other than some folks involved with the production with wouldn’t-it-be-coolitis

74. DavidJ - January 17, 2008


Somehow I doubt they would have the solid red caps like in The Cage, but I DO think it would be cool to see a combination of the two styles– keep the caps transparent but glowing red instead of yellow, and with the spikey things attached to them.

75. Daniel Broadway - January 17, 2008

The bridge dome is very similar to the refit bridge dome. See….

Obviously, we can’t see much from this photo, but I think it’s gonna be cool.

76. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

I’m loving it. Can’t wait for a beauty shot!

77. table10 - January 17, 2008

Makes me wonder what James Cawley saw. Wasn’t he really dissappointed that it looked nothing like the original?

Unless what he saw was the interior of the ship.

78. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#73 Allan Cook – I haven’t verified this, but Roddenberry co-wrote a book that stated definitively that the ship was built in San Francisco (it’s quotes on this site somewhere). Even a TAS episode (I linked it in some other thread) has Robert April reminiscing about seeing the ship built in San Francisco.

79. TonyD - January 17, 2008

Looks really good to me. I love the added detail and metallic collor of the primary hull. Kind of harkens back to the look from ST: TMP, which is perfectly fine by me as I loved the look of that movie.

80. lodownX - January 17, 2008

#64… you’re not the only one that is Desktopping this.!!!!

81. Woulfe - January 17, 2008

Hello old gal, so nice to see you again after all these years.

Tell ILM they’ve earned thier pay for this film allready ;)

– W –
* Thanks guys, the next few months will breeze by quickly now *

82. Jeff Bond - January 17, 2008

It DOES look like Koerner’s…pretty cool!

83. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

the images reminds me of close encounters in a way… here’s hoping they use that budget of theirs to the fullest!!

84. DavidJ - January 17, 2008


Um, don’t you think if NASA had anti-gravity technology too they’d be constructing larger chunks of the ISS space station on Earth, and then float them up into space afterwards?

There’s no reason to construct the entire thing in space if you don’t HAVE to.

85. John, Mary Jo, and Nicky Tenuto - January 17, 2008


Sorry to tell you, but Gene Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield in their book The Making of Star Trek from 1968 on page 171 explicity state that the Enterprise was built on Earth and assembled in space.

The plaque of the original Enterprise in EVERY episode of the show says “USS Enterprise” and then “San Fransico, Calif”

Is San Francisco CALIFORNIA in orbit of Earth?

The Enterprise was built on Earth.

86. Jupiter1701 - January 17, 2008

Shoot, I was hoping for a triangle-shaped saucer-section with pink lettering, and nacelles that are shaped like hamburgers instead of hot dogs. With a coat of yellow paint and fire decals on the body.

Sigh, but since they decided to make it look like the original ship, I guess I’ll have to live with it . . . .

Hee hee hee.

87. DavidJ - January 17, 2008


Not only that, but the dedication plaque on the original bridge specifically says it was constructed in SF.

End of story.

88. Alex - January 17, 2008


I have to change my pants!!

89. Scotty - January 17, 2008

I like the design of the Enterprse it doesn’t look like they changed her design tat much from the original movies.

90. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#78: Roddenberry was just as capable of being stupid as the people who have reportedly placed construction on Earth for this trailer.

This ship would have been built in orbit.

Components assembled on the ground, sure. But not structures. Nothing involving the frame.

91. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008

Hey there, good-looking….

We’ve missed you…

92. PatsPhanNH - January 17, 2008

Since I was a young boy, the Enterprise was my childhood “ship of dreams.” Like many of us, I love that ship. I was even misty-eyed when the refitted E (no bloody A, B, C or D) was destroyed in STIII:TSOS.

I like–and dare I say, love–what I see, but I *do* need to see more.

Roberto: would it be so bad to slide us some concept drawings or something on the down-low? ;) It’s a long eleven months, man!

93. roberto orci - January 17, 2008


Yeah, and those nacelles look like ridiculous hair dryers. — the whole thing looks like a giant toilet/soapdispencer/bathroom unit.

94. Scifigirl - January 17, 2008

I think it looks fantastic! Bring it on! I want to see more.

#47 – Amen to that!


What business does a Vulcan, a Man and a Tribble have in my sickbay? Speak quickly!

95. Adam - January 17, 2008

Looks like Enterprise to me. I’m not worried.

96. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#89 – I’m not sure where your insistent denial of this documented fact of the series is coming from, Not really sure how to respond other than, “Um, okay.” Perhaps Roddenberry was capable of being stupid as you say…

97. not William Shatner - January 17, 2008

ooooh yeah….oh yeah….almost there….oh yeah oooooh yeah…..ahhhhhhhhhhh. Wooooooo……what a great picture.

98. MvRojo - January 17, 2008

I like it a lot. It look pretty much in line with the refit Enterprise with updated TOS-nacelles (these seem a bit curvier), so I have no complaints.

99. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

I would love to see what Gabe thinks of it.

Where are you, Gabe Koerner?!

100. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#91 take it back!

101. Dab - January 17, 2008

Wow… I think i just found my inner Trekkie. I am not a raging fan, never have been. But this almost brought a tear to my eye. Can’t wait to see what the trailer actually does to my emotions. LOL

102. Mr Darcy - January 17, 2008

#34 – I thought the same thing about the nacelles at first too, but looking at this drawing, it seems right on the dot:

Thanks for posting this.

Look at the bottom drawing, it is spot on.

103. Balock - January 17, 2008

– Needs some of that white-grey hull paint coating
– Nacelles appear to have a weird shape
– Left nacelle appears to have a clear cover, needs to be translucent
– Upper saucer/bridge section proportions look off
– Hopefully when the nacelles are fired up, we get orange glow

104. Bobby - January 17, 2008

based off of this shot alone it looks pretty cool. but i will wait to see more until i jump for joy.

105. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

The picture is little too low for my desltop wallpaper in terms of resolution. The resolution on my computer is 1920 x 1200. Is there any picture with similar resultion available online?

106. Diabolik - January 17, 2008

Since we are mostly sure it was built on Earth and assembled in space, I am wondering about seeing the nacelles attached. But maybe they had to do it so that the average movie-goer would recognise it as the Enterpeise, which being only a saucer they might not. Might not be important to the movie.

107. kmart - January 17, 2008

It looks like concept art, not physical at all. I wasn’t expecting much, but I’m disappointed anyway.

108. Gottasmoke - January 17, 2008

It looks like one of the decepticons

109. CanuckLou - January 17, 2008


Treat her like a lady and she’ll always bring you home.

110. PaoloM - January 17, 2008

What a majestic, beautiful, fantastic ship!

111. Danpaine - January 17, 2008

Sharp. No complaints here.

112. DavidJ - January 17, 2008

So is that part of the bridge we’re looking at in that cutaway section, or is the bridge in the dome up above I wonder? Hard to tell what the scale of this is…

113. JeFF - January 17, 2008

Well would you look at THAT…!

…I think she looks beautiful. She’s got the right name. She’s got the right crew.

…now, let’s see her fly!

114. doubleofive - January 17, 2008

Such beauty, I love it!

And the smoke rising shows that its being built on Earth. Which is odd that the nacelles would be able to be supported with all that weight on the surface…

115. trekofficial - January 17, 2008

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……OOOOO……………………OOOOO……OOOOOOO……OOOOO……………………OOOOO…….. …….OOOOO………………….OOOOO…..OOOO..OOOO…..OOOOO………………….OOOOO……… ……..OOOOO…….OOO…….OOOOO…..OOOO….OOOO…..OOOOO…….OOO…….OOOOO………. ………OOOOO…..OOOO…..OOOOO…..OOOO……OOOO…..OOOOO…..OOOO…..OOOOO……….. ……….OOOOO…OOOOO…OOOOO……OOOO……OOOO……OOOOO…OOOOO…OOOOO………… ………..OOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOO…….OOOO……OOOO…….OOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOO…………. …………OOOOOOO….OOOOOOO………OOOO….OOOO………OOOOOOO….OOOOOOO………….. ………….OOOOOO……OOOOOO………..OOOOOOOOO………..OOOOOO……OOOOOO…………… …………..OOOOO……..OOOOO…………..OOOOOOO…………..OOOOO……..OOOOO……………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

116. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008

This pic offers a very limited view of the ship.

The nacelles seem to be fairly true to the original, but seem to be larger. The lettering on the hull is a different font and it also seems larger than on the TOS Enterprise. The steep incline of the saucer, the aztecing on the hull, and the shape of the bridge module appear to resemble the movie-era Enterprise. Of course, all of this could be attributed to the cropped, extreme close-up nature of the picture.

I hope we get to see a wider shot of the saucer/nacelles and the engineering hull in the trailer. I’ll reserve judgement until then…

117. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#94: Yes, it was stupid of Roddenberry to suggest this ship was built on Earth. That was what I was saying. Glad you figured that out. Roddenberry was often wrong in matters of true science and physics, which is one reason why he hired so many established hard-SF writers to work on the series. It’s too bad he didn’t have one of them working with him instead of Stephen Whitfield when he entered this notion into ‘canon’.

118. cugel the clever - January 17, 2008


A wonderful homage to the grand old girl. Lettering is no big deal – construction happened years before the era of TOS, so it’s very possible that this is the original lettering, and that there were refits and repainting in the subsequent years before the events of The Cage.

119. Lord Cheescakebreath - January 17, 2008

It looks great so far. I hope the more we see the more we like it!!!

120. Hand Solo - January 17, 2008

#95 I agree

121. doubleofive - January 17, 2008

103. Follow the link to the AOL/Moviephone page and grab the 1828×778 image they have there. Shrink accordingly.

122. Number 99 - January 17, 2008

Pretty nice ship. Can’t wait to see the trailer.

123. Avindair - January 17, 2008


Mr. Orci, please congratulate your team for a job well-done.

The design looks fantastic. Hell, at this point I don’t even mind that she’s being built on Earth. It just looks gorgeous.

#82: Yep, it reminds me Koerner’s work, too…and that’s a GOOD thing.

I’m stoked.

124. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#115 – Condescending much?

But, alas, we know what they say about opinions…

125. Trek Fan - January 17, 2008

LEts see the tie fighter try to take her on now

126. Allister Gourlay - January 17, 2008

wooohoo…it does look like a cross between the TV version and TMP version

127. Promoboy - January 17, 2008

Fascinating. (Hey- someone had to say it.)

128. Habs2919 - January 17, 2008

I need to go change my pants now….. FRIKKIN SWEET!!!

129. Cenobyte - January 17, 2008

“Ah. Not so wounded as we were led to believe. So much the better. ”

Looks great!

130. Doctor Spock - January 17, 2008

If this ship was destroyed in the seventh movie why are they building it again now.

131. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

Yeah, getting ready to make it into my new desktop image. Would have prefered a little more TOS like but looks good. I liked the bussards on gabe k’s version which look similar to this, the paneling/saucer looks like the refit and the bridge (to me) kinda like the phase 2 version.

Anyway can’t wait to see it in motion.

132. Rice - January 17, 2008

#95 I don’t get it

133. Allister Gourlay - January 17, 2008

The font does look like its still based on Eurostile – the movie font, if they used the original tv series font – it would look far too dated!

134. TrekLog » Blog Archive » Star Trek-Teaser-Trailer - erste Bilder! - January 17, 2008

[…] hat erste Bilder aus dem bald in die Kinos kommenden Star Trek-Teaser-Trailer veröffentlicht!! Man sieht tatsächlich die Konstruktion der Enterprise auf der Erdoberfläche und wie Mechaniker auf der Hülle herumlaufen und Bauteile zusammenschweißen. Das Schiff ähnelt texturmäßig der bekannten Film-Enterprise, auch hinsichtlich des Schriftzuges auf der Untertassensektion. Die Warpgondeln scheinen auch etwas größer zu sein und erinnern an das CGI-Modell von Gabriel Koerner… bin mal riesig gespannt und werde auch extra nach sehr langer Zeit mal wieder ins Kino gehen, um mir Cloverfield und im Vorfeld dazu diesen Teaser-Trailer anzuschauen!! […]

135. Rastaman - January 17, 2008

Not much to criticize here, because honestly, that is a pretty awful angle on the ship construction. You can’t even see the primary hull or the nacelle shafts. I think people are jumping to conclusions to criticize the overall design based on this picture. It’s so dark you can hardly see anything.

All I can see is that the ship has nacelles, a saucer, and a bridge, and the font kind of reminds me of the Star Trek: Enterprise era font. Other than that, I’m happy.

136. KennyB - January 17, 2008

It ……………looks……………REAL……………I think they have really BUILT IT somewhere. Prob area 51. :-)

137. MagnumPC - January 17, 2008


138. Allister Gourlay - January 17, 2008

Built on Earth? Maybe its in a space dock with artificial gravity!

139. Hugh - January 17, 2008

#132 get out of here with that nazi talk

140. star trackie - January 17, 2008

So much for that “corny” original design being “laughed” off the screen. Sorry Star Warsies…this isn’t your universe. Sleek…elegant…looking very nice indeed. can’t wait to see it on the big screen tomorrow!

141. Dr. Spock - January 17, 2008


142. Anthony Pascale - January 17, 2008

Orci….you are a liar

I see no flames!

143. Myrth - January 17, 2008

#115, wether you like it or not, there is a visual history of ships being built in part on the surface of a planet and then assembled in space. We have a picture of the Utopia shipyards on Mars in of of the TNG episodes with a Galaxy class under construnction in parts on the ground.

144. Plum - January 17, 2008

ooooooooooooooh… the description of this shot never mentioned it was AT NIGHT.

And wow, note how like the original it is but with interesting detail yet with the same sleek surface (Matt Jeffries would be proud). Note the bussard collectors, the ‘fans’ are curved!

This is really sweet. :)

145. Cheve - January 17, 2008

¡I want my high def 1280×1024 wallpaper now!

146. rob - January 17, 2008

the font’s wrong

147. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008

#8 & #14:
You’re right. Those big ‘bumps’ behind the nacelle caps were part of Gabe Koerner’s design.

The TNG episode ‘Parallels’ establishes that they built Galaxy-class starships on the ground (albeit Martian Ground). No other Star Trek TV show or movie has ever established verbally where the Enterprise was built…But the plaque DOES say San Francisco, CALIFORNIA…I would assume they mean the ‘California’ that is firmly attached to the Earth.

One could even argue that what we saw at the beginning of TMP wasn’t a construction platform, but rather just a spacedock. We really don’t even know where the TMP refit was done (the refit was complete by the time Scotty gave Kirk the grand tour). Most assume (including me) that the TMP refit was done in space, but there is no actual basis for that assumption.

148. pcumby - January 17, 2008

Hi there!

149. Marvin the Martian - January 17, 2008


Oh, great… let’s bag on Stephen Whitfield while we’re at it. Geez, you people never let up.

The Making of Star Trek is one of the finest behind-the-scenes guides to the making of *any* TV show. Period. Even though the book has transitioned to more of a time-capsule now that the nature of TV production has greatly advanced since the 1960s, it’s still a wonderfully entertaining and informative read.

150. Mazzer - January 17, 2008

#103: The image on Moviephone (see Anthony’s link) is 1828×778, but a little blurry.

The nacelles remind me of looking into jet engines, which was one of JJ’s first images in “Lost”. Interesting. I wonder if they will indeed get covered or remain “open” as in the picture.

151. deleted - January 17, 2008

deleted by admin

152. Pragmaticus - January 17, 2008

There we go, folks! It looks fantastic!!!

153. Sputnik - January 17, 2008

She’s _not_ dead, Jim.

Like it, though the nacelles seem a bit to large.

154. Rainbucket - January 17, 2008

#101 – If we are seeing transparent nacelle caps, maybe this is what the TOS engines looked like switched off. We never really saw that.

Perhaps once they’re up and running it’s a glowy spinning haze in there.

#112 – The nacelles are propped on big futuristic cinder blocks. Archer was going to steal the technology from the Kzinti in ENT season 4.

155. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

The nacelle size is fine — it’s only the viewing angle that makes them seem too large.

156. deleted - January 17, 2008

deleted by admin

157. Dbhays - January 17, 2008

Looks really good! I remember when the E-D stills were released back in the late 80s. It was like a big WTF? This – pure magic.

158. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#147: Not bagging on Mr. Whitfield at all. The Making Of, is as you say, a fantastic book. It’s just too bad there was no one there at the time they were writing that one tiny bit of it who knew a little more about physics to say “guys, they’d never build this on Earth”…

159. Dave Roberts - January 17, 2008

The ship looks great but mine is better…..

########### ###############
########## ###############
# ###
# ###
# ###
## ##
\ ####################
/ ###########

160. deleted - January 17, 2008

deleted by admin

161. Jupiter1701 - January 17, 2008

#91 Mr. Orci:

Yeah, it just looks way to much like a 1960’s kitchen or bathroom appliance. Everyone knows that the ship should look more like the new, updated designs from the 70’s. I mean, the saucer should be lime green and the nacelles could only be almond colored. And where are the flaps on the nacelles — the ones shaped like bell bottoms?

Well, if you at least get the dark-colored wood paneling right on the bridge, with the shag carpeting, we’ll let this one pass . . . . But I’m watching you, Mister!

(LOL, thanks for joking around with me — it looks great, by the way.)

162. Brian - January 17, 2008

Love it! Can’t Wait to see the actual teaser in the theaters tomorrow!

163. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#156 .. uhh.. its sci-fi right? who’s to say they couldn’t do it on earth and why.. maybe a wee bit too critical?

164. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#143. I modified it here to fit my desktop, took the pic was there and pretty much just overlayed and moved the bars so it wouldn’t stretch.

165. Michael Hall - January 17, 2008

My inner geek just. . . well, you don’t want to know. Suffice to say that I’m quite pleased. :-)

166. Sputnik - January 17, 2008

Thanks #162 – Wallpapered :-)

167. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 17, 2008

OMG …. WINGS! (or fins)


She looks great guys!

168. Ed - January 17, 2008

Boy is she gonna look nice on the big screen…

169. Adam Cohen - January 17, 2008

I gotta see this thing.

170. The Dark Knight - January 17, 2008

Love it! The first shot doesn’t reveal much, but it makes me even more anticipated! The film’s going to be massive! JJ will do a great job! CAN’T WAIT!

171. star trackie - January 17, 2008

..I’m back looking at it again. Love what it is, and more so, I’m loving what it isn’t! There was soo much room to screw this up…but lo and behold…the lady remains a lady. Good vibes fer sure.

Damn you JJ… how am I supposed to get back to work now??

172. A. - January 17, 2008

I’ll reserve full judgement until I see the whole thing, but so far so good. Worst case scenario I can’t imagine being too disappointed.

173. freezejeans - January 17, 2008


JJ! Dude…you guys rock, tell everyone we’re dying over here waiting to see more :)

174. Captain Vaz - January 17, 2008

Look cool enough for me. It seems to be very faithful too.

175. RaveOnEd - January 17, 2008

The flames – the flames! Its from the welders’ torches!

That’s where the flames are on the Enterprise!!!!!

Orci, you brilliant bastard!

BTW, is that really you, Mr. Abrams? If so, thank you so much for bringing my favorite Trek back to life (and my wife doesn’t let any conversation happen when Lost is on!)

176. david - January 17, 2008

That really does look great – and now, finally, will everyone stop going on about how their childhood, their deepest memories, their emtional core is being destroyed by every tiny change being made in this film!

At the end of the day, this is a new film by new film-makers, and everything we’ve seen or heard, this included, suggests that Star Trek is in good hands.

Things change, they get better!

Lets enjoy seeing the Enterprise and her crew out and about roaming the stars again in this new telling of the story and drop the melodrama when someone suggests the rivets holding the deck plates ‘aren’t cannon’ …

Well done Mr Abrams and his team I say! I hope the film is a great success, you’ve no doubt had to put up with reams of winging emails from fans crying over all of this. I hope when the film is out and we all have a great 2 hours in the cinema, the same fans write to say thank you!

177. Elrond L. - January 17, 2008

#91 roberto
“the whole thing looks like a giant toilet/soapdispencer/bathroom unit.”

Well, some folks wanted to see the bathrooms . . . little did we know the entire E is a bathroom!

(Who cares, she’s gorgeous.)

178. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

#162 Skippy

What about the 1920 x 1200 resolution?

*crossing my fingers*

179. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

lol.. forever known amongst the trekmovie boards as “poster 149″

180. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008

#156 – Allan Cook

Who knows what kind of technology they will have that far in the future. They already have phasers, shields, warp drive and transporters. Can you explain all of that? For all you know they assemble everything in sections and beam it up to the drydocks in orbit.

If you need further proof that the ship was built in San Francisco…

IT’S SCIENCE FICTION!!! Stop being so literal and enjoy it! Let it go man!

181. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

149 (deleted)

hahaha…this thread’s filling up so fast that I hadn’t refreshed the page before posting a few minutes ago, wow.

182. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#162. Give me a minute and I will resize it. :)

183. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

Or #177. I should have said….

184. SPB - January 17, 2008


…to mercilessly trash this image. :)

185. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008

#156 —

They move through space at speeds hundreds of times faster than light, they have artificial gravity on their ships, they speak and hear through unseen universal translators, they transform their bodies into sub-atomic particles that they can transport from place to place…and your worrying about how they can build a ship on the ground?

To answer your question: I would guess that it needs to be structurally strong enough to survive the strains that the impulse engines alone put on the ship, so structural integrity in Earth’s gravity isn’t an issue…and then since they have mastered anti-gravity and tractor beams and such, I suppose lifting it into space, in whole or in parts, isn’t a problem either.

186. Jon - January 17, 2008

I’ll just add my 2c here


187. JoeR - January 17, 2008

Not Sure about it. I would have to see the whole thing.

One last thing. I would like to know the age of the people who likes the ship.
I bet more then half are some teens or are in the early twenties. Also if you like it, are you a fan of TOS or Later series.

188. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008

#178 beat me to the post…same sentiments.

189. J M Enterprise - January 17, 2008

I agree with 50
What a great day for Star Trek fans. I really have a good feeling about this movie and this shot does not dissapoint. This is the first time in years that i’ve got a tingling feeling about Star Treks future.
Much the same as I did when Q first introduced us to the borg, or when Worf joined DS9 and the battle that followed in Way of the Warrior.

This could do for Star Trek what Wrath of Khan did.

A new look, a new feel. Bring on the new Tv Series which is sure to follow.

Also anyone noticed Star has been updated for the first time since December with the new link.

190. Ali - January 17, 2008

That bridge looks double decked to me…

And for the last time, canon not cannon.

191. Vreenak - January 17, 2008


192. Yiggy - January 17, 2008

Breathing a VERY BIG sigh of relief.

193. Captain Vaz - January 17, 2008

Oh my god, they changed the font, it´s the end of world as we know it! what will come next? parabolic antenna no more?

I am wondering to see the interior. And the new communicator and tricorder.

194. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#187 I’m looking for more feature films myself.. though its going to be interesting with this cast.. anyone know how many films they signed on for?

195. Aelora - January 17, 2008

That’s it. I’m divorcing my husband and marrying this ship!

196. Kregano - January 17, 2008

The Big E looks pretty good. I can see where some people would think Koerner’s design is.

Hearing that the Enterprise would be built on Earth made me facepalm. While it is “kewl”, it doesn’t make sense, especially if those docks from TMP were part of the San Francisco shipyard (I may be wrong about that).

197. Adam - January 17, 2008

185: I’m 15, so I guess I fall into the teen category and I grant you that there is an inner part of me that loves it because of the aztecing and ‘cool’ look, but I also like it because it is the Enterprise. She’s got all the lines and character of the original but for a new contemporary age. I loved the original Big E as much as the next man, but the need for change is there and I’m pleased they’ve done it in the way they have, because it looks great and is recognisably the ship of legend. Well done to all on the design.

198. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008


I believe it is real — but didn’t Australia already see the trailer today (attached to cloverfield)?? I could be wrong about that — but if that’s true, can any Aussies confirm this image?

199. Ryan T. Riddle - January 17, 2008

It kinda reminds me of Gabe Kroner’s updated version of the TOS E, which I really liked. So, I really like what I see so far. As long as the lines are the same, I’m fine. Can’t wait to see what it looks like inside; I hope that it gives us technology that’s similar but projected farther from what we already have just as TOS tech projected what was in the 60s.

200. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 17, 2008

Nacelle caps.

Head exploding!

201. Stef* - January 17, 2008

Thank you …. Thank you soooo much.

Just one very, very happy and fannish German ….

202. CW - January 17, 2008

Personally, I’m digging it.

However, I’m sure that many here must feel the dread because it closely resembles canon, and that not enough “change” has been inflicted upon it. Surely, by not making enough “change” teh filmmakers aren’t showing any creativity, but are locking themselves into a creative straight jacket.
Moreover, by making this so close to canon it will alienate the newer audiences, and they will rin from the theaters screaming and this movie will surely flop at the box office.

203. lwr - January 17, 2008

i think the ship looks great.

i think the oversize look of the nacelles and the numbering is due to a forced perspective of the camera.

and as for those fins… they were on the original ship to.

this is awesome… now how about the uniforms


204. Father Rob - January 17, 2008

It looks like (nitpick alert) the lettering for the name and registry number is too far forward on the saucer section.

Other than that, I agree, it looks a lot like Gabe Koerner’s design.

And that’s a good thing.

205. Ensign Ricky - January 17, 2008

#169….couldn’t agree more. I have been back to look at it several times, it looks amazing. My work day is shot!!

206. Thomas Jensen - January 17, 2008

One of the best things the Enterprise had which the movies ship lost was the rotating nacelles: which always conveyed a sense of power. This looks promising! I’m hoping for a very close version to the original with detailing like that from the remastered. Nice, so far….

207. Urban - January 17, 2008

Too early to say something. At least the shape looks like in TOS… I hate the colors…

plus… since when are starships build on Earth? (Even the NX was build in space)… Oh wait… never mind I asked… Abrams is making this movie… and he has not the slightest clue of TREK anyway…

208. Cheve - January 17, 2008

This wallpaper will live tin my desktop for a looooooong time.

¡Or at least untill we get the next beautyfull picture!

209. Habs2919 - January 17, 2008

Did anybody notice the NCC-1701 across the front of the saucer section?

210. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#176…finally got the right number (I think). :) Here is a 1920×1200 version:

211. waterhouse - January 17, 2008


Dedication plaque of TOS Enterprise clearly says

San Francisco, Calif

so I thinkt that the fact that this beautiful ship will be built on earth fits into canon perfectly

212. TomBot2008 - January 17, 2008

Nitpicking a TEASER trailer image seems highly presumptious, likely not indicative of the final outcome… However, this seems pretty concrete evidence of what they are aiming for with the exterior of the Enterprise, faithful to TOS but leaning more towards the MOVIE Enterprise version. Fine by me. :-)

213. adcreator - January 17, 2008

Looks good. I’ve got the upmost faith in Abrams!

214. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008


Besides that one on-screen shot in the TNG episode “Parallels”?

215. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008

Sorry. #207

216. Multitrek - January 17, 2008

Nacelles, bridge, lettering can be changed during a future refit. Hull can be painted later. Maybe TMP Enterprise was just never painted. Canon can rest.

Somehow I expected more details and scaffolding from what was described. But it’s just a picture…

But overall I like what I’m seeing. Seems very realistic and looks like the Enterprise.

11 months to go!!! Hours will seem like days. ;)

217. waterhouse - January 17, 2008


@ 207 of course

218. Cheve - January 17, 2008

#200, Not only will they run sreeming, but taking their eyes off with their own popcorn boxes.

As thay said in Futurama:

You’ve Watched it, You can’t unwatch it!

219. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 17, 2008

It looks like they reversed engineered a “hybrid” of the Motion Picture E and the TOS E. the Saucer looks pretty good other then the placement of the lettering (nitpicking) and the overly curvasious nacelles. Once the Bussard Collectors are “full” of hydrogen and all glowing red I bet they will look cool Who is to say officially what is inside an empty bussard collector? We have never seen one up close and empty. How does the hydrogen “dump” when they need it? What pulls it in and compresses it? Looks like some thought about it. NOt bad!

220. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

For those who don’t like the complaints, too bad.
The point of a forum is to voice opinions. Don’t like the opinions, don’t read the forum.

So far, from what I can see, I’m happy (and I’m a purist). The Nacelles look awfully big, but the shape is there, the bridge looks good… But there is still a LOT more ship to see before a verdict can be made.

So far so good…now that hideous uniform, however… looks an awful lot like an Imperial officer uniform, or a Battlestar Galactica reject.

221. Smike van Dyke - January 17, 2008

This makes my day. It THE Enterprise, just with a really cinematic feeling about it…Finally the good ol days are back, just better…This the beginning of something BIG!

ST II-VI were an elaborate swansong on TOS…But this is the BEGINNING…it’s a major launch…This has to be it or Trek is done…

222. Ivory - January 17, 2008

not bad

223. Spock - January 17, 2008

I guess the nacelle caps are still “under construction”. Looks interesting. Who is Gabe Koemer?? What designs has he done?

224. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008


You and me, both… :)

The pissy answer to #205 could have been “Since, apparently, January 17, 2008″

225. -A- - January 17, 2008


226. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008

#210 – Skippy

Many thanks! :D

227. J M Enterprise - January 17, 2008

With regard to 200, I think that if there were too many changes in creativity there would be a riot on our hands here on these comments but I would not be supprised when the movie does launch that there will be creativity in the script. Remember this is a relaunch and to quote the official web-sites note at the bottom:
” From JJ Abrams comes a NEW VISION of the greatest space adventure of all time, STAR TREK”

I think there will be plenty more to write about here over the next year or so!

228. star trackie - January 17, 2008

..thanks skippy!

229. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008


Everyone who is providing thought-out arguments (such as the technology to master gravity) as to why they could is missing the real, central question: Why would they BOTHER?

This is, as you pointed out, SCIENCE fiction. There’s no doubt that the technologies Trek ascribes to would provide the means to build this ship in space. Once you can build it in space, why would you bother to build it anywhere else? It would be a massive amount of wasted effort and energy.

(Why shouldn’t Starfleet’s San Fransisco Yards have been in geosynchronous orbit above San Fransisco? Indeed, that’s where Roddenberry himself wanted the drydock to be depicted in The Motion Picture.)

230. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#225 lol.. as long as they’ve found a way to keep those nacells from sagging..

231. Bobby - January 17, 2008

HEY! I just looked carefully at the high res image and if you look closely just above the “S” to the left at the open panel on the saucer section you can see what looks to be a man standing holding a light!!!!

232. AJ - January 17, 2008

137: That was uncalled for. Sorry, but why is that poster speaking like a Nazi? Perhaps you read German, and it was as offensive as Nazism was?

It was actually a normal fanboy reference to the Koerner design, and quite a neutral comment.

Germany is the biggest market for Trek in continental Europe, and we can translate German posts in 5 seconds with a simple Google. What was the point of insulting this poster without reading the post? Unreal.

233. Harry Ballz - January 17, 2008


234. Scott - January 17, 2008

So Far So Good!

235. Pragmaticus - January 17, 2008

194 – I believe the main cast is signed on for three films.

236. A. - January 17, 2008

Love it so far
Are those fan blades? What would they be for? NO way for speed, could it?

237. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008


We have to prepare ourselves to buy a few new Star Trek keepsake ornaments which are similar to that new ship when the movie comes out.

Keep it in your mind!

238. Harry Ballz - January 17, 2008

#230 “as long as they’ve found a way to keep those nacelles from sagging”

Yeah…’s a sad truth about life…..once a ship has “spit out” a few shuttlecraft…….the old nacelles hang pretty low! :)

239. Bobby - January 17, 2008

Also, looks like the left cap is on the necelle and the right is off.

240. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

The blades are so it can take off, like a plane.. just not sure if the “wings” are quite big enough.

241. Phil Smith - January 17, 2008

Looks pretty good to me.

242. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#236: Presumably the Bussard Ramscoop mechanism that generates a massive electromagnetic field to gather interstellar hydrogen for the propulsion systems.

(See? Real science and canon CAN get along!)

243. j w wright - January 17, 2008

so much for being built in orbit over san francisco, this movie is off to a great start…

hopefully the ramscoop caps are simply not yet in place

the ship is very big and heavy, it is not designed to hold up under its own weight, why build this thing at the bottom of a gravity well?

i wouldnt be surprised to see landing gear added to the old girl…

this doesnt make much sense to build this on a planets surface, what a waste of energy

244. YARN - January 17, 2008

Who cares if the thing were built on Earth or in orbit?

We are talking future engineering here and we are talking fictional future engineering at that. Who is really to say how they would build the thing?

If you are willing to buy warp drive, transporters, and subspace FTL communication, you should be willing to accept that it may have been built in orbit or on the ground.

245. gord - January 17, 2008

Stupidly excited now. WOW.

246. tribble farmer - January 17, 2008

I think I’ll wait until I see the whole thing before I decide if I hate it or not, but I’m extremely pleased with this shot.

Though the nacelles do look a bit too big xP

247. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#230: Nacelles sag in gravity? We should build the ship in orbit then! ;)

248. Cheve - January 17, 2008


In fact. I find more reasonable that it is safer and cheaper to put a hundred (or more) workers to build a thing on the ground than on outher space.

On space you need lots of spacesuits, lots of artficial air, a system that avoids looing parts that are unattached…

I think that it is logic to build most of in on the ground, where the worker can wear normal protective clothing, breath the free earth air and go home in the afternoon. (Which the crew in the picture doesn’t seem to be doing. They must be under schedule)

249. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#238 omg i don’t think i was ready for that visual…

but i was actually referring to this:

lucky for me though i was able to enforce my sagging nacelles with some tp, a bolt and glue.. gave it some “battle damage” to boot…

250. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 17, 2008



lets say you are in a nebula or planet where the density of the atmosphere is more than say, the vacuum of space. You would want some type of “scoop” or suction like a jet airplane engine to force the “air” or in this case hydrogen into the bussard collector.

251. Son of V'ger - January 17, 2008

The true NCC 1701 died a heroic death in orbit of Planet Genesis, let it rest in peace & reject this farce with it’s non-canon hull lettering & TMP plating.

252. TrekMD - January 17, 2008

OK, I’m drooling and I can’t seem to stop. This is THE Enterprise! AWESOME!

253. Viking - January 17, 2008

Roberto – I can’t tell from the pic (lousy laptop screen), but are those nacelles capped ? If not, and you go sucking a bird up into one of those intakes, you’ll have to send a redshirt crawling in there just to clean out all the muck. LOL :-)

Kirk: “Mr. Scott, are the engines ready for a restart?”

Scotty (over the intercom): “Aye, sir.”

Kirk: “Very good. Initiate.” (looks around) “Hey, where’s Ensign Ricky?”




Scotty (over the intercom): “Sir, we have another wee bit of a problem.”

254. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

“The true NCC 1701 died a heroic death in orbit of Planet Genesis, let it rest in peace & reject this farce with it’s non-canon hull lettering & TMP plating.”

No – despite the propaganda the refit was no more the original 1701, less so maybe.

255. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 17, 2008

Wouldnt it be a great inside joke for us hard core trekkies if during a space inspection or his first arrival at the E kirk says something like “I like it, but those nacelle caps just look funny to me”


256. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#253. Yeah thats Greg Grunburgs part! ;-)

257. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#251 to my knowledge V’ger having kids is not canon :O whoa!! hey!!

258. Sean4000 - January 17, 2008

I can accept the ground build.

So, this is what the ship looked like when it was launched around 2245. Hmm…not bad at all. I would suppose Pike’s Enterprise was major refit one, Kirk’s was minor refit one, TMP’s was major refit 2. Then, as #251 said, “NCC 1701 died a heroic death in orbit of Planet Genesis”

259. j w wright - January 17, 2008

its well known that the 1701 was built in earth orbit, and it makes sense, regardless of technology, engineering still respects economy of resource

by this time in the future, asteroid mining is commonplace, and those rocks are loaded with metals, and zero g refining would be much more efficient than in the old days, and produce better metals, too

that ship is enormous and very heavy, why the extra expense and risk of now having to push it up off the ground and into space? i can see a surface vehicle, like a bop or a large shuttle built on a planet surface for whatever reason, i guess, but the only thing on the constitution class that should come near a planetary surface is the saucer section in an emergency scenario


i hope that when this thing goes to warp, the nacelles emit miles of obvious rocket thrust, because, hey, it looks so cool… why not?


260. Vulcan Soul - January 17, 2008

Funny, at first I thought we’re seeing an image of the NX-01 from the launch trailers of Enterprise back from 2001!

261. AJ - January 17, 2008

Wow, that was great. honey. I need a cigarette…

And those ARE fan blades, blowing pure Star Trek goodness to all the fans.

Now for the pointy nacelles and seat belts…

262. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

Understand, I’m not going to get upset over changes GR himself couldn’t even keep himself from doing to the ship in either “Phase II” or TMP. And thus far I like what I see – that’s Enterprise!

263. Ty Webb - January 17, 2008

So far so good, but we can’t see below the saucer section. It could still go tits up. So I’ll hold back any further thoughts until we can see it all.

264. Son of V'ger - January 17, 2008

#257 to my knowledge V’ger having kids is not canon :O whoa!! hey!!

Spock Unit did note at the end of TMP they witnessed the birth of a new life form! : )

265. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#248: It’s logical to build many components on the ground. It is not logical to build any major structural elements on the ground. Massive wasted effort for a craft never intended to fly atmospheric or land in a gravity well.

And of course, in the future of Trek, millions of people already live in space (where they have lots of spacesuits, plenty of air and artificial gravity to keep tools from flying away), so they’d still have a workforce that can go straight home after their shift is done.

266. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

could someone ban
137. Hugh – January 17, 2008
for his “#132 get out of here with that nazi talk”

267. section9 - January 17, 2008



268. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008

I guess that, after today, it’ll be (instead) “It is well known that the Enterprise was assembled …”

269. Spock's Brain - January 17, 2008

#90 The bitching has started…

270. corbett - January 17, 2008

Ok, ok, ok, now I’m getting excited.

271. Diacanu - January 17, 2008

Zooming in, you can almost peek inside the bridge.

Looks like you can see a screen with a little orange planet on it.

272. Mary Jane - January 17, 2008

Looks great. Looks beautiful. Love it.

273. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008


I think that we should be honored by all of the starship designers, temporally-transported from the 23rd Century, posting here.


274. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

“To me she was always like my child. I was there in the San Francisco Navy Yards when her unit components were built.” — Robert April, The Counter-Clock Incident

Hmm sounds like someone a long time before this thought her parts and pieces were made on the ground. “Navy Yards” do not evoke images of space stations.

275. MoJoD - January 17, 2008

I thinking the hysteria over JJ and crew peeing on the fans and on canon is overblown. We should be enjoying any new Trek!

276. Vulcan Soul - January 17, 2008

Jesus, I just upped the brightness of the large pic a bit and these nacelles gonna be quite some turbo fans!

277. Stuart Baird (no not the nemesis director) - January 17, 2008

Wow this ship looks HOT!

Really cant wait to see her fly now!

278. Justathought - January 17, 2008

I wouldn’t be surprised if this shot was made solely for the teaser in order to accomplish JJ’s goal of demonstrating scale and making a connection to current times. In order to attract the new fans, he’s attempting to give them something they can relate to, which this pic and teaser likely do very well. Whether it is constructed in space or in JJ’s back yard is much less important than the quality of the end product. For Star Trek to flourish, new fans must be brought into the fold, which is exactly what I think he’s trying to do.

279. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#274: ““Navy Yards” do not evoke images of space stations.”

Why not? This is the future, you know. Science fiction. Throughout the rest of Trek we’ve seen plenty of orbital facilities. I for one had never imagined something so primitive as an earthbound facility when April spoke that line…

280. waterhouse - January 17, 2008



I also think that the whole “ground vs space” debate is very symbolic, and represents the very challenge Mr JJ and his theme have to face : some members of the fanbase are simply unable accept change, even if it’s justified and it does not violete canon.

It’s true we haven’t seen any ship (up to this moment) built on the ground. However, we also haven’t seen anything which would make it non-canon (dialogue in which there’s a mention that “Starfleet alwyas build ships in space “drydocks for example)…

281. Jimmy - January 17, 2008

The nacelles appear to have fan blades. This would explain and add why it can travel in the atmosphere. The left nacelle cap appears that it is able to mechanically open. The necelle cap would be open in the atmospher to allow air to enter and to operate just like a jet engine. The saucer section alone looks aerodynamic enough. At a low orbit, caps would close and impulse drive could be used to pull the ship into orbit.

282. Xon - January 17, 2008

Cool font. The overall the design of the primary hull/saucer section looks really good.

But are those supposed to be *propellors* or airscoops on the fronts of the nacelles??? If so, that’s a big big problem. It makes the whole thing looks like a camaro or something.

And yes, a starship should be built either in orbit or near Mars. Not in San Francisco. This makes me very worried.

283. steve adams - January 17, 2008

It looks good but I’m waiting for thr full pic.
I hope in this film we see the Shields in action. Hope they don’t look like the wimpy hull-plating we saw in Enterprise.

284. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#264 I’ll give you that..

285. Spud - January 17, 2008

roberto orci

Never mind the awesome looking soap dispenser. LOL. Good job! Be a pal now and slip us the trailer. Ok how about after midnight. Or what ever time after JJ goes’ to sleep. :) We the geek nation need to see it. LOL….

286. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008


And, in fact, we’ve seen a screen-cap of an image — broadcast — that shows a Galaxy Class ship being assembled on the ground.

Of course, maybe that’s only in THAT quantum-signature parallel universe.

Which might be ‘our’s’, for that matter.

287. Son of Sarek - January 17, 2008

Actually who says that making it in orbit is more efficient? If you go by TOS the Enterprise is capable of flying in the atmosphere. I think we’ve also seen this in Voyager. So, why not build it on the ground and let it lift off under it’s own power?

288. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

So, the plaque said built in San Fransisco (well known ship-yards).
Nothing to say SOME of it wasn’t built on the ground!!!

And as for those wondering about landing gear… The original had ’em. The saucer was designed by Jeffries to seperate, and it could land. So… why not build it on the ground?

In any case… so far.. so good. We’ll see final recations when we finally get to se ethe WHOLE thing!

And again… for those who don’t like people complaining… get over it. A forum is for ALL opinions.

289. Sean4000 - January 17, 2008

#279, and doesn’t the N in N.C.C. mean Naval? Weird coincidence if true.

290. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


I tend to agree to your sentiments in regards to building the ship planetside and then transporting it into orbit. I was just pointing out that, according to “canon” they did not. That’s not to say that the San Francisco Fleet Yards aren’t in geosynchronous orbit above San Francisco. Aside from the dedication plaques, we have never seen any on-screen evidence that indicates either way.

The only reason I can come up with to support them building the ship on the surface and then transporting it into orbit is that it would be easier and faster to move, and probably safer without the pressure suits that they would have to wear in space.

I doubt that they’d fly components up through the atmosphere anyways. They would probably assemble everything in sections and then beam it up to the drydock.

You stressed that it is SCIENCE fiction, and I agree. All good science fiction shows have a grounding in science. But, lets not forget that they are also FICTION. At the time the show was conceived, we had barely gotten into space and very few people fully understood the forces involved with space travel.

As it seems that both of our arguements have merit, and we really can’t do anything to change how the film-makers and studio execs choose to depict the construction of the ship, I suggest we table this discussion.

Besides…However they supposedly construct it, the end result is one good looking ship!

291. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#280: For my part, my arguments are based on my love of SCIENCE Fiction, not ‘canon’ (which, while beloved, is inconsistent at best and fanatically clung to like a bad religion at worst).

292. mojonaut - January 17, 2008

I wonder if the general look is going to be closer to the Motion Picture than TOS? Basing the visual canon on the movies rather than the series would make some sense.

The shot reminds me of a drydock scene. And you can almost see the deck cutaway. They use the TMP ship’s markings. But the TMP signage is cool.

293. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

#274: ““Navy Yards” do not evoke images of space stations.”
Why not? This is the future, you know. Science fiction. Throughout the rest of Trek we’ve seen plenty of orbital facilities. I for one had never imagined something so primitive as an earthbound facility when April spoke that line…

If they weren’t called “The San Fransisco Navy Yards” Maybe, but San Fransisco is a very specific place and there are even actual real navy construction yards by that name.

294. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#289: Matt Jeffries always intended for NCC to stand for Naval Construction Contract. And Starfleet is a Navy. (You don’t need a water-filled sea for a Navy, folks. If so, we’d better kick all our Marines off the land!)

295. Viking - January 17, 2008

#271 – if you could peek inside the bridge, you’d probably see half-full coffee cups full of cigarette butts and empty Vienna sausage can laying everywhere. ;-)

296. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

Something else… why are we all assuming they are on land??

I don’t see anything to indicate they are. It could easily be an enclosed bay or spacedock.

297. Tom_Fleetlord - January 17, 2008

section9 – January 17, 2008


LOL, with Shater looking out the window at it and no one believing him..hmm seems de, de de, de de

298. Tom_Fleetlord - January 17, 2008

Here is the real pictute of the ent’s construction:

299. Sean4000 - January 17, 2008

I think it all works just fine with the whole san fran/ Navy/ starfleet construction thing. This suits me just fine.

300. j w wright - January 17, 2008

the mass of the nacelles and their supporting struts alone cannot support themselves in heavy gravity…

are the construction crews working in an enhanced structural integrity field? generated at great cost of energy? (if anyone even put any thought behind this build scenario)

just another advantage of zero gravity construction, no scaffolding hundreds of feet tall…. and no teamsters falling to their deaths

this is a huge request for disbelief suspension

they also appear to have changed the scale of the ship… is it deck 3 or 4 where someone saw fit to add another segment to the upper primary hull?

“Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth. The Constitution-class starship was previously captained by Robert April and Christopher Pike, before coming under the command of Captain James T. Kirk. ”

maybe they’ll make han solo the first captain and zena, warrior princess, his number one?

so aweseome, dude!


301. Popcorn - January 17, 2008

I Don’t see any stars in the picture. Maybe it is being built in orbit in an inclosed structure that makes it easier on the workers.

302. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

people… we didn’t see a lot! wait for the secondary hull (esp. the deflector is most interesting to me)…

303. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

Cute use of the AMT kit :) I’ve seen that one before, I belive. Very nice!

304. Doug - January 17, 2008




305. trekofficial - January 17, 2008

uHM isn’t there going to be covering for the Nacelle’s? A semi transparent dome..which we could see the spinning things behind it..this is obviously before those covering’s go on.

They aren’t fan blades..*rolls eyes*

306. British Naval Dude - January 17, 2008

Where’s the sails and the mast??? Arrrr… Be that the real Enterprize?

Looks good. I think this film will deliver.

307. The Realist - January 17, 2008

Absolutely brilliant

308. trekofficial - January 17, 2008

You can’t even see the rest of the picture..for all you know the Nacelle’s are sitting ON THE GROUND along with the saucer..good grief chill out until you know the whole story or see more…

chill dude…

[quote]300. j w wright – January 17, 2008

the mass of the nacelles and their supporting struts alone cannot support themselves in heavy gravity…

are the construction crews working in an enhanced structural integrity field? generated at great cost of energy? (if anyone even put any thought behind this build scenario)

just another advantage of zero gravity construction, no scaffolding hundreds of feet tall…. and no teamsters falling to their deaths

this is a huge request for disbelief suspension

they also appear to have changed the scale of the ship… is it deck 3 or 4 where someone saw fit to add another segment to the upper primary hull?

“Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth. The Constitution-class starship was previously captained by Robert April and Christopher Pike, before coming under the command of Captain James T. Kirk. ”

maybe they’ll make han solo the first captain and zena, warrior princess, his number one?

so aweseome, dude!


309. SB - January 17, 2008

“#289: Matt Jeffries always intended for NCC to stand for Naval Construction Contract.”

Well, as long as we’re being anally canonical about this — which was not meant as a personal dig, by the way, since I myself am about to do that very thing:

Matt Jefferies stated that “NCC” didn’t stand for anything in particular. It was a combination of letters he felt looked good and sufficiently naval.

“Naval Construction Contract” comes to us via Franz Joseph’s U.S.S. Enterprise blueprints, first published by Ballantine Books in the 1970s. I always thought it was a clever, plausible explanation of “NCC,” myself… if you ignore the fact that Starfleet isn’t naval by any accurate usage of the word.

310. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

Fantastic!!! This is what I had in mind.

311. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

“And again… for those who don’t like people complaining… get over it. A forum is for ALL opinions.”

isn’t the opinion carried by people “who don’t like people complaining” an opinion also? lol therefore your argument is that people who have bad opinions of someone elses opinion need to change their opinion to be more accepting of other opinions?

312. GraniteTrek - January 17, 2008

I just hope they have more than one bathroom on this Enterprise! And you thought the line on that one episode was to the transporter room! :)

313. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#309: I was sure I’d read that as a Jeffries quote somewhere! (And I wasn’t suggesting it was canonical. Personally, I don’t think that anything we haven’t heard and seen on screen should be considered canonical. The ‘canon’ that presents is enough of a mess without adding in the hundreds of inconsistencies from other sources!)

314. BrandonJ - January 17, 2008

Hello, ship….

“You treat ‘er like a lady, and she’ll always bring you home…”

315. Wick - January 17, 2008


Hay, I agree. It would just seem to make more since that if a large starship was built, it would be better to build it on the ground than in space. It would be easier for the workers to access the ship. I am sure all the components would be built in various cities around the world, and it would make since just to ship them by ground to the construction site rather than blast them into space. I am sure final assembly details and refits could be done in space. But really, it just makes more since that initial construction would be done on the ground.

We don’t build ships in the water.

316. SB - January 17, 2008

#313: Amen to that, sir.

317. Chain of Command - January 17, 2008

Cool. Looks like it’s going to be just as impressive as the refit version. I’m fine with that!

318. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#313: “We don’t build ships in the water.”

(To quote someone smarter and more articulate than me who is discussing this very matter elsewhere:)

We also don’t build them somewhere miles from the water, where it would take huge amounts of energy to get them to the water.

Use the International Space Station as the realistic analog. We build modules down here at the bottom of the gravity well, and then we ship them up for assembly. For as long as we have been contemplating sending big things into space, this has been the general plan. The ISS, like the Enterprise, is not configured for a gravity environment. Building it within one would be an insane amount of extra work. Why, then, would Star Fleet, hundreds of years hence, resort to a less efficient means of building their starships?

319. Stef* - January 17, 2008


As I am German and speak it fluently – as I do with English – I was actually a bit alienated about this Nr.137 talk and to see such in the middle of Trek Fans.

There was nothing wrong, only a fan-blog in German language and a description of the E’s design.

While it doesn’t make much sense to post it into an English commenting thread, instead of translating it, it’s otherwise no harm either.

So thanks, for mentioning this. :)

I wish we had a real Forum oder phpboard to talk about the new details … *sigh*

320. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

sorry, that should reference #315, not #313.

321. waterhouse - January 17, 2008


surely alternative (quantom) universe from “Parallels” cannot be compared to mirror universe in terms of diffrences between it and the trek “reality” :)


Attempts to analyze ground based ship construction on the bases of logic, “realism” etc are fine for me :)

322. waterhouse - January 17, 2008


” The ISS, like the Enterprise, is not configured for a gravity environment. ”

However, as we’ve all seen in ” Tomorrow Is Yesterday” it can surwive in such enviroment.

323. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

We gotta make a thousand posts on this baby.

324. DEMODE - January 17, 2008

Looks amazing! I can’t wait to see the whole ship.

325. tin man - January 17, 2008

Maybe the construction is in space and it’s just being done inside a huge pressurised hanger, perhaps another nod to Franz Joseph’s tech manual (in addition to the font, that is)?

326. Mr Darcy - January 17, 2008

There is actually no way to tell if the ship is being built on the surface of a planet or in a drydock in orbit with an artificial atmosphere. Why don’t we wait until we know more before we jump to any conclusions?

327. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

New image! Liftoff:

Ok, just joking.

I have allways assumed that the ship was built in orbit. I thought I read somwhere (non-cannon probably) that the yard was in geo-orbit above SF.
I don’t have a problem with it being built on the ground though I would think it might still be possible that the components were put together in orbit.

As far as the galaxy being shown on the ground. It appeard to be being built on mars which would have had less gravity to worry about, plus we see the Enterprise with most of the saucer exposed “back where it all started” so it could be either way.

328. Mr. Mike - January 17, 2008

I am beside myself with joy! The ship looks exactly as I hoped (from what I can see from the pic), faithful to the original with a couple of slight tweaks to make it look even cooler.

Thank you Star Trek XI team!

329. Driver - January 17, 2008

That is Effing nice!!

330. JimJ - January 17, 2008

I didn’t take the time to read all of the comments, but all I can say (sorry if someone already used this), “brought a tear to me eye!” STAR TREK IS BACK, BAYYYYYYYBEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

331. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


That is an interesting possibility!

Wish we had a wider shot to look at so we could see more of the environment. Maybe when the trailer comes out…

332. Wick - January 17, 2008


I think it would be safe to say that any ship that can cross several light years in a matter of a few days would have no problem escaping the Earths gravity well. Just a thought…

333. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#326: You’re right, of course. In my own defense, I did acknowledge in my very first post that I had issues with the REPORTS that it was going to be shown being built on the ground.

(In retrospect, I wonder if I shouldn’t have found something that we have specifically been shown to point out as being stupid. Like the fact that it’s pretty dumb to suggest that they’re going to bother painting registry markings on a hull that’s not even complete yet…)

334. Dave O - January 17, 2008

So, you’re building the E, and you haven’t installed the artificial gravity systems yet.

Doesn’t it just make sense to let Earth provide the vertically oriented gravity for the early work, so you don’t waste energy?

Then once the components are in orbit, *then* you install and turn on the gravity systems?

Just sayin’.

335. waterhouse - January 17, 2008


very good point..

336. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

Maybe they have different teams for construction that for painting. Why not paint whats finished? I could paint my living room while work is being done in the kitchen.

337. Classic trek - January 17, 2008

how wonderful to see the old ship.

star trek has come home. very exciting indeed

338. Don't be hating! - January 17, 2008

#333 – agreed.

No hating from me, though. It’s an oversight most of the public won’t think about. I dislike the Microgramma font for the “U.S.S. Enterprise.” Beyond that, this looks like the E we know and love! Thank you, Paramount/Viacom/BadRobot!!!

339. Doug - January 17, 2008

Okay? Anyone know who might have or is going to get the rights to do a model??? (sadly, Polar Lights is no more… their Big E (movie) kit was stupendous!) I want it!!!!


Gee, Hallmark will get creamed if they don’t come out with this as their 2008 ‘Star Trek’ Christmas ornament…

340. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008

Something that should be brought up…

This is probably a shot of the refit that takes place before Kirk takes command and not the original construction. So, there’s no reason that it would even have to take place in San Francisco or in Earth orbit. It could be at Utopia Planitia or any number of other similarly equipped construction yards or starbases.

341. 7 of 5 - January 17, 2008

I don’t know what to say. I’m flabbergasted in a very good way. I am one of those folks who enjoyed ST:TMP for the FX. I had already heard the plot was a rehash of severalTV episodes, so I went in with low plot expectations and I was suitable rewarded. In retrospect, I’d hoped they would get the hardware right the first movie and work on plot the next time around, which is exactly how it turned out.

Looks like they nailed the hardware and if they nail the characters, this thing could be a box office monster!

342. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008

#138 Allan Cool —

Why are you picking on this particular piece of Stra Trek Technology (the ability to lift heavy objects into space) when there are plenty of other questionable technologies strewn throughout the previous 5 TV series and 10 films?

If you are this critical about possible anti-gravity heavy-lift capabilities, then I’m surprised you didn’t give up on Star Trek a long time ago along with its ‘pseudo-science’.

343. Wick - January 17, 2008

There could be a reason they painted Enterprise while during construction. Maybe it was for some PR campaign or something. Or maybe it is inlaid into the hull plating. There can be all kinds of reasons…

344. Jackson Roykirk - January 17, 2008

342 I’m sorry, I meant Allen Cook.

345. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

#309–They do, however, use very “Naval” rank structure , terminology, and tradition throughout the series (all of them).

346. me - January 17, 2008

Very good job. The best that could have been done.

347. Darth Quixote - January 17, 2008

I’m digging it. As long as it looks like the Enterprise I’ll be happy.

The ST Encyclopedia says “Launched in 2245 from the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth.” I always assumed the yards we’re orbiting above San Francisco. I guess “launched” and “built” are two different words. Either way, who cares? More Trek for everybody!

348. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#334: So, you’re building the E, and you haven’t installed the Structural Integrity Field yet.

Doesn’t it make sense to let space provide the microgravity environment that would prevent the various large hull components from overstressing each other and causing a cascading collapse, instead of building it at the bottom of a gravity well and having to waste time, energy and materials to construct a huge scaffold to hold everything together?

349. RaveOnEd - January 17, 2008

Maybe the name and number is on there for the teaser trailer?

Dunno, just sayin’

350. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008


351. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#343: “There could be a reason they painted Enterprise while during construction. Maybe it was for some PR campaign or something”

That’s exactly right! And it’s working! I totally geeked out when I saw that name painted across that unfinished hull!

352. GARY - January 17, 2008

Oh… they changed it.

353. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#342: You’re missing my point completely, but I don’t mind being called “Cool”. Thanks!

354. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


Yes! A model…I hadn’t even thought about that.

I imagine that Art Asylum (who has the license for the action figures), and Johnny Lightning (who is producing small scale prebuilt models) will put something out. Hallmark is doing ornaments and Corgi is currently doing die-cast prebuilt, prepainted models.

Anyone know who has the license to put out the build-your-own model kits?

355. Captain Presley - January 17, 2008

Does it come in black?

356. mooseday - January 17, 2008

Simply … YAY!!!!!!!

357. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

all this on date 17.01.

358. Section 31 - January 17, 2008

The warp necelles look too akward and the lettering DOES NOT fit with established canon!

Imagine the horrors within the ship!



359. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#357: Hadn’t even made that connection. Very cool!

360. j w wright - January 17, 2008

i wonder if each ‘fleet ship will have its own unique insignia, as was the original case… or will they all have the enterprise arrowhead…

why would the registry number and ship name be on the craft long before construction is complete?

what if someone scratches the paint?

god i hope the main deflector has a huge ‘dish one’ or ‘direct tv’ logo plastered on it

the original ship did not have landing gear for landing, the primary hull had crash gear for “landing” after a saucer seperation emergency, but thats all

unless you count gold key comics (and at this point, why not?)

i think this movie might have more in common with gold key ‘canon’ than anything seen on screen before:

it could be total crap, but i’d still see it, but i would feel strangley like a star wars fan does…

361. pcumby - January 17, 2008

It looks like the ’57 Chevy version of the big E. Hotrodded, big swoopy nacelles with fins…

362. Wayne Spitzer - January 17, 2008

Kennedy speaking. Americans (for the sake of argument) BUILDING something. Just a movie–sure. But that other sound? That’s the Zeitgeist humming, baby. The sound of ’08.

Nacelles do seem a bit large but love the turbines. No matter–you look at that picture and you know… They get it. It’s going to be grand. Heh, heh, heh….

Seems the big scheme of things is cycling around again. Nice to have lived to see it.

363. Joseph - January 17, 2008

soooo looking forward to the midnight screening of cloverfield!

364. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


I also hadn’t made that connection. Good catch!

365. AJ - January 17, 2008

She’s come home. Can’t wait to see the inside.

BTW, Family Guy has a Trek reference in the latest episode. Ricardo Montalban plays a cow ready for slaughter in an abattoir, and references how they “killed my beloved wiiiiife…”

366. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

#354, AMT has always had the license in the past. 2 years ago they reissued the original castings of the E and the Klingon d7… hunt around and you can still find one occassionally.

#357 very observant and very cool!!

367. Section 31 - January 17, 2008

Why is there a late 20th century, early 21st century CONSTRUCTION CRANE in the background?!?!?!

I thought this film takes place in the 23rd century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

368. Wick - January 17, 2008

Allan Cook, thank you for playing the devils advocate in our conversation. I am sure they have built a construction framework to handle the stresses of the pre completed mass. They probably have a template structure already in place, did not they build 12 other constitution class starships….

369. Nathan - January 17, 2008


She’s a beauty, aint she?

370. Ryan - January 17, 2008

WHAT NO FLAMES!?!?!? That’s a real kick in the crotch!

371. D - January 17, 2008

I don’t think that the nacelles are necessarily oversized. I don’t think they’re attached to the secondary hull yet, so they’re closer to the primary hull than they would be assembled to the secondary hull support struts…
(God that was a moment of geekout)

As for the ship being on Earth…asside from the metaphorical significance, of the ship, hence the movie being under construction, I think it’s to show, in clear terms for everyone seeing the trailer, a scale of how big the Enterprise is. It’s easy to throw around lengths, and more realistic maybe to show her in orbit, but showing her like this, being built like this, gives Johnny Nobody who may be slightly interested a clear sense of what they’re really talking about.

After all, “the ship is only a model ‘that big'”….

372. ensign joe - January 17, 2008

#357 nice

373. dalek - January 17, 2008

Wow! Great tease!

I do, however, object to the new Enterprise being a Ford Mustang!

374. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

I have to admit when I first heard the Enterprise was being built on Terra Firma I was skeptical, I mean wasn’t it always implied that the ship was built in orbit?, but then they never confirmed this so it doesn’t realy matter. If it isn’t onscreen then it tends to be merely conjecture.

Besides showing a Enterprise being built in a spacedock would have been a rehash of a scene from the very first movie, this way you get to see something we have never seen upclose before a saucer section and nacelles (nothing else shown or implied) being constructed in some sort of Earth-like environment.

What we know:

1) Ent was built at San Fran Naval Yards, most likely a suface and orbital complex

2)The Enterprise can withstand tremendous gravitational forces from FTL travel, Stellar/Planetary bodies, and on some occasions entry into the atmoshere of Earth

3)These scene descriptions show a saucer section and 2 nacelles

Given that we were never shown the construction of the Ent on screen what does this teaser really contradict or show beyond the capabilities of everyone’s favorite starship?

375. Mr Darcy - January 17, 2008

Since I am currently feeling creative:

If it is being built in an orbiting drydock, they could just turn off the artificial gravity as soon as they’ve finished the construction work.

However they do it, I can’t wait to see this movie!

(And I am REALLY serious Canon Purist xD)

376. Mr. Atoz - January 17, 2008

The nacells do look a little bigger than the original and I think should be scaled down just a bit. Maybe it’s just the angle, I’m not sure, but they seem a liitle to modernized for the time this film is supposed to be set.

All in all, it looks pretty darn good but wish they would be just a little more faithful to the original design in that area. Not trying to be to negative here. Like I said, it looks pretty good, just needs a few tweaks!

maybe when I see the full trailer I’ll have a better idea.

377. GilmourD - January 17, 2008

Is it possible that this version of the Big E is along the same lines as what Roddenberry said about Klingons in TMP (they were always supposed to look like that)? Maybe it’s to bring the TOS Enterprise closer to the movie Enterprise so people stop complaining about how many differences there are between the two and how a refit doesn’t seem possible.

378. Buckaroohawk - January 17, 2008

Well, Beam Me Up, Scotty! It’s the Enterprise!!!!

Updated, yes, but from what I can see, it looks like the redesign isn’t as radical as some may have feared. There seems to be some influence from Gabe Koerner’s version in there. Could he have been pulling the wool over our eyes all this time?

And, since this is a thread about images from the teaser, I’ll repost a comment I made in an earlier thread:

I’ve also had a thought about the much-discussed teaser, but the thread on that page has grown far too long, so I’ll post it here. Of course, I haven’t seen it, but much has been made about the Enterprise being built on land instead of in orbit, using what seem to be contemporary tools instead of futuristic ones. What if the teaser isn’t meant to represent the “real” Enterprise (the 23rd century one the characters actually serve upon in the movie), but the MOVIE ITSELF? As if the production crew is saying “we’re building the Enterprise from the ground up for our cast and crew to play around in.” In a sense, the film is “Under Construction,” so maybe the teaser is a representation of that idea and what’s seen is meant to be taken figuratively instead of literally.

Tell me, everyone, if this sounds logical to you.

Just doing my part to make this a 1000 post thread!

379. Trekee - January 17, 2008


It’s a lovely shot – you can see right inside the bridge to the Communications Station (so Uhura has a giant orange TV? Sweet!)

It does look quite different though, the nacelles sweeping upwards but those engines look like they mean business don’t they?

Excellent tease… just enough to get us all frothy and panting, but still not seeing her in element, framed against space.

Pretty sure the aztec pattern is faintly visible in some of the CBS shots too now, so it’s not a million light years from that… yet!

Will come back and the morning and see if we hit the thousand mark too…

380. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


Thanks for the factual recap. We may all be reading WAY too much into a single still shot. Hopefully the trailer tomorrow will have more…

381. Mr. Atoz - January 17, 2008


Is it possible that this is merely to guage the design from fans remarks?
maybe this design is being used to test the waters and will not necessarily be used in the film.

just curious what others think

382. Darth Quixote - January 17, 2008

371 – Now if only we can get Tawny Madison to repeat the computer. Never give up! Never surrender!

383. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

59. Allan Cook
364. Taskmaster09
366. 1701 over Gotham City
372. ensign joe

THANK YOU! I guess I noticed that because it’s the 17.01. here in europe and in the US it’s the 01.17.

Oh, and tomorrow is my birthday… what better present could there be than the teaser :D

384. Penhall - January 17, 2008

Hard to tell much from that pic, but it looks much more like the Enterprise A to me, not like the original…

385. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008

You know, they had better not have any water closets on this version of the Enterprise.

We did not, after all, see any — therefore, toilets aren’t canon!


386. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008

Something to consider…

If they are constructing this ship in orbit, as many of you are suggesting, then why is all of the smoke/vapor traveling up?

387. sean - January 17, 2008

I was waiting for Section 31 to post, and they didn’t let me down. Though she/he may now be deceased as the above pic caused immediate spontaneous human combustion.

I think it’s pretty badass, honestly. It looks like a proper mix between the TOS & TMP versions (and come on, how many of you REALLY can say you preferred the show version to the movie version?) which was what I expected. The lettering looks like the movie style, which is a-okay with me. The nacelles look a bit bigger, but the bridge dome looks just like TMP verison to me.

388. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - January 17, 2008

Wall papered and drooling till Christmas!

389. Jupiter1701 - January 17, 2008

I read somewhere in some book that ship-building in space was negotiated out of the union contract with the Starfleet Corp of Engineers. Starfleet gave that up and the union caved on Healthcare.

It seems that anyone with any health issues was given a red shirt and had been eliminated off the payroll by the time of the next contract negotiations. Hence, Healthcare wasn’t an issue with the next contract and building starships in space resumed after the Enterprise was built.

You think I’m making that up? OK, prove me wrong!

390. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008


Great Picture!!

391. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#368: “I am sure they have built a construction framework to handle the stresses of the pre completed mass. They probably have a template structure already in place, did not they build 12 other constitution class starships….”

The Enterprise’s mass and scale preclude it from being a self-supporting structure. (This one simple fact of physics and engineering is the reason why the Structural Integrity Field was introduced into canon — too many fans of the show were smart enough to know that it couldn’t hold itself together at that size!) The earth-bound scaffold system you’d suggest would have to be rebuilt itself between each of the twelve ships in this class due to the incredible stresses placed on it during construction (indeed, most 21st century ocean-vessel shipyards on earth need major refitting and repair after each build, and for the very same reasons). It would be an incredible waste of time, energy and effort to construct any of these ships on earth. The big E would be built in space.

392. The Vulcanista - January 17, 2008


Sweetness!! More and more, please!

#375: Reformed, Orthodox, or Ultraconservative Orthodox? ;-)

Peace. Live long and Prosper.
The Vulcanista

393. The Vulcanista - January 17, 2008


Decidedly middle-aged.

And there were other Treks besides TOS? :-)

Peace. Live long and Prosper.
The Vulcanista

394. Gabriel Bell - January 17, 2008

It took 392 posts for The Vulcanista to chime in?!? WOW! Most amazing thread ever.

395. Fansince9 - January 17, 2008

From what I can see about the Enterpise so far, she’s a beauty!

396. Captain Hackett - January 17, 2008


What happened to your }:-| signature? LMAO

Your excitement must be overwhelming!

397. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

I am so impressed that I must rethink the logic behind the rectangular shape of Star Treks the Motion Picture’s Enterprise.

G * A * S * P ! ! ! !

Why a rectangular shape on the TMP ship anyhow??? In almost any episode of TOS you could hear the turbines of the engines spinning up to speed (esp. when going to warp). The round engine design does seem to be the most logical design element!!! And the intakes turbines ARE GREAT!!!! SCALE IS GREAT TOO!!!

And a BIG THANKS goes out especially the design team involved!
“Who” is responsible for this design anyhow?
I want thier name(s) AND thier autograph!!!

I,… I,… I feel Young Again!!!

And, rest in peace Walter Matthew “Matt” Jefferies. We still owe you a BIG THANKS too. Too bad he’s not here with us to see it in THIS dimension.

398. Ahkenatan - January 17, 2008

Honestly it looks beefed up, almost like a hotrod version of Enterprise. The nacelles do look close but they may be just sitting on supports ready to be attached. I really, really like the look of this ship. I hope we get to see her take a beating and hand one out at the same time!

399. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008



400. Crusty McCoy - January 17, 2008

All I need is a tall ship…

Now how about that star to steer her by?

401. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

What’s with all the blind enthusiasm?? Is everyone on crack???
Cawley was right.
What we’re being shown is AN Enterprise, but not THE Enterprise that fits within what’s come before.
And if you ask me, this IS one of Gabe’s designs, or they blatently ripped him off.
It’s so disappointing. Yes it’s a cool design, but not what it should have been.
Roberto- NOW tell us it’s not a reboot.

402. toddk - January 17, 2008

Maybe the nacelles are complete and we are looking at pike era enterprise here.. I don’t think that the “assembled in orbit” thing is going to work here for it already seems complete, I mean what would the nacelles be attached to? oh , and by the way..the dedication plaques that many people pointed to regarding where this ship was built , do not leave room for the NX-01 as a part of the trek universe..Thus the NX-01 never offically existed…muhahahhahhahaaaa!

403. Victor Hugo - January 17, 2008

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE! this is like….new year fireworks….beautiful!
lovely lovely lovely!

404. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Okay it is more probable especially by extrapolating present technology/scientific capabilities that the Ent was built in space, but that doesnt negate the apparent fact now that it was built atleast in part on Earth.

It is no less a stretch required than the many required by the other 42 years of star trek and so should not be held against the producers of the film as being unique to them.

I mean come on,

1701-Refit/A has a warp core complete with gangway presumably passing through the two story torpedo bay in a space clearly not taller then one story.

Trek V- an observation deck with no corresponding viewports on the ship, a Turbolift shaft some 50 decks taller than the ship itself also presumably passing through the same torpedo room and or warp core.

Chris Pike has a spacious cabin by 21st century standards complete with T.V. and viewport. Jim Kirk antique lover has neither a T.V. or a window, but he does have an antique 1960’s suitcase….

Add your favorite, please…

I love Trek, and paricularly like finding clever excuses for these inconsistencies, but I think it is unfair to the new film’s producers to place canon violations as a new phenomenon unique to them and there suposed disregard for our devotion.

405. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

It’s great to see the hard work going into the Enterprise’s construction.
This will make it VERY hard to watch when/if the ship is attacked.
A very important aspect of character development in a story is learning about a characters origin (yes, I know it’s a ship) and seeing growth through change! I hope this is in the actual movie, and from what Mr. Orci said last night, it seems that it will be.

406. Stringfellow Hawke - January 17, 2008

Oh god, I hope those are just test Rolls Royce turbines. I love the colours in the shot, but I pray those aren’t wings on the ‘nacelles’.

407. Mary Jay - January 17, 2008

Wow…! I personally got chills! Like it a lot!

408. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#397: Actually, a cross-section of the ‘rectangular’ nacelles on The Motion Picture Enterprise (also designed by Matt Jeffries) show a perfectly round cylinder at their core as well…

409. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

i wonder… will there be GNDN pipes aboard? :D

410. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

Matt Jefferies is spinning in his grave at warp speed.

411. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

408. Allan Cook

No offense to M.J. But does’nt that leave ALOT of wasted space in there.
These engines look like they function logically (as did the TOS design) The TMP “E” just sorta’ glowed. This is much more dynamic.

412. The Vulcanista - January 17, 2008


Hey! I was actually at a deposition all day, *working.* ;-P

Peace. Live long and Prosper.
The Vulcanista

413. Harry - January 17, 2008

This looks good. A few random remarks/replies:

– It doesn’t look very much at all like Gabe’s ship. The only thing I can find is the raised ‘hump’ on the forward part of the nacelles, which does immediately remind you of Gabe’s design. But “blatantly ripped them off” is just a silly remark, since they are both very closely based on the same thing, and are actually – when looking at the images side by side – really quite different.

– I’ve always thought presenting this as a reboot would’ve been a much better idea. So I love seeing that they actually did a proper redesign of the ship!

– I don’t envy them one bit for making a movie for such a difficult audience as die hard Trekkies. But it seems (at least on this forum, at this time), the majority of people have quite positive first reactions. And besides, if it’s a good movie, who cares even if they’re flying around in a cardboard box? I sooo hope this movie will work out good.

– I may be one of the few that finds the idea of building a starship on dry land quite funky. If you can make a faster than light, time travelling, spacious, luxurious starship, you can bloody well build it however you like :P Also, it’s the perfect shirt-sleeve (well, asbestos shirt sleeve) environment you can think of ;)

414. GARY - January 17, 2008

The Nacelles seem to be almost ON the Saucer… or are they that inmense? :-/

415. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

410. Dr. Image

[Matt Jefferies is spinning in his grave at warp speed.]

I believe Matt’s spirit may have been the helping hand here.
Props to Gabe’s design too. Although excelent, his was a work of fandom.
This is official and SWEET!!


Chis Pines stock just took a HUGE jump in my book. No pressure Mr. Pine!!! LOL!!! {; )

416. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

The more I look at it, those nacelles just aren’t quite in the Cage era to me.

Yes they might be predecessors and that’s fine. But I’m wondering if this image isn’t perhaps part of a flashback by the older Spock to the “Lost Era” between TOS and movies when the ship was being refit, and maybe these were an intermediate design.

There’s reference to that in The Ship’s of the Line book I believe . . .

Just wondering . . .

I keep thinking that if they have gone to the trouble of casting performers who look at least similar to the originator’s of the roles, then why would they change the look of the Ent??

417. TOS Purist - January 17, 2008

I’m still trying to figure out why they’re STILL hell-bent on “reimagining.” Don’t they know that more than 40 years of “reimagining” is what almost killed the genre? Would it really kill THEM to show us the version of Trek that enamoured us in it in the first place…the original?

They’d save themselves a lot of trouble if they just went with Matt Jeffries’ original designs. Dunno, just a thought. Either way, it looks like I STILL won’t get to see the original, un-“reimagined” on the big screen…I mean, we didn’t get it back in ’79, and we’re STILL not getting it some 30 years later!!

418. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

There is the argument that the nacelles contained most of the warp drive components in TOS prior to the central warp core in the refit and later series. With the refit and later ships the nacelles would have the field coils and as you can see in “Eye of the beholder?” were largly empty space.

If this is the way it works or not who knows for sure just what I have read.

419. lwr - January 17, 2008

i noticed that this shot ( and again, I love it) looks a lot like the TMP shot of the Enterprise when kirk,spock,mccoy,illia-probe,decker walk on hull.

same angles and forced perspective.

anyone notice that?

420. Blowback - January 17, 2008

#187: I am 43 and like what I see so far.

I always had trouble reconciling TOS Enterprise with TMP Entrerprise. Not to the point that it ruined my enjoyment of ST but I would have been happier with a smoother transition.

That said the original Enterprise was put together in the 60’s on a tight budget and I am glad that the remastered Trek team is keeping it close to the original look. It’s a body of work that needs to be maintained with only minor tweaks.

But for this movie where they have the budget I want to see echoes of TMP Enterprise while remaining heavily influenced by TOS Enterprise.

So, overall I am upbeat…

421. ss - January 17, 2008

Why all the heartache about building it on Earth? They have artificial gravity technology… The whole shipyard could be 0g or .1g or whatever it takes to keep the ship from being damaged. Same thing for getting the ship off the ground… or they can use their giant fusion engines…

422. garen - January 17, 2008

hey guys…click over to the aol/moviephone site. scroll throught images until you get to Zoe. there you will find that she is playing the role of “Nyota Uhura”.

Is this first time we’ve seen a CANON mention of Uhura’s first name?

I’m not sure, of course, thats why im posing the question to all of you. But as far as i knew there was doubt to the actual first name of Uhura.

423. New Horizon - January 17, 2008

What I can see of it, I like. :)

424. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#419. I thought the same thing, I wen’t to trekcore to compare but its the directors cut screencaps and so a different angle for that shot.

425. zandor - January 17, 2008

too shiny. chrome is so Eighties.

reminds me of the movie version of the Jupiter II.

426. Scott Gammans - January 17, 2008

426 comments and counting for one brief glimpse of the USS Enterprise, and only 123 for the human cast. I guess we know who the REAL star of the movie is! :)

427. joe1306 - January 17, 2008

This is just soooooooo BEAUTIFUL! I love it!
I´ve got a very very very good feeling on this!
FANTASTIC! *falling in love*

428. AJ - January 17, 2008

E is sorted.

429. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

Dr. Image — you are SO FREAKIN’ RIGHT!!!!! Cawley was right!!! Having said that, if we are to assume that this (under construction) Enterprise is the “first version” of the so-called original Constitution Class Starships, we all know who the FIRST Captain of the Enterprise was — and that was Robert April (no one has brought this up).

And since it is quite apparent that there will NO Robert April in this movie, guess what??? This movie has to be a COMPLETE RE-IMAGINING of TOS — forget reboot, and DEFINITELY forget canon!!!!!! TOS history has been completely shoved aside (sorry to spoil anyone’s enthiusiam).

430. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


Hopefully AMT/ERTL will not be allowed to do this as a model. Preferably Monogram or someone else. Always got saggy nacelles with AMT.

I have to say from what I see, they did a great job in design. Looking forward to Christmas.

431. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008


No Robert April and I must have missed any mention of Gary Mitchell.

Wouldn’t he be around here too???

432. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


Who’s said Robert April isn’t in it??

433. Kirk's Girdle - January 17, 2008

The saucer section does look for all the world like the TMP Enterprise, from the plating, to the shape of the bridge to the font lettering (I’ve applied many of those decals m’self in the old days). I see why that article referred to the nacelles as aircraft like. They do look like huge jet engines in their current state. Can’t wait to see the rest.

434. Taskmaster09 - January 17, 2008


Or Gary Mitchell?

435. Multitrek - January 17, 2008

Actually the nacelle size may be right after all. They just seem closer from one another.

Crop this image and you’ll see… Can’t get the same rectangle ratio from a close-up of the saucer section. The nacelles would be almost off frame.

436. asc1138 - January 17, 2008

Wow, I’m torn. It looks great, but the registry should still reflect the old style. I wish they would have taken greater strides at bridging the look closer to the originals. I hope there is a logical explanation for the differences. It could be that the changes occur due to the alterred time that both Spocks restore. Its a little too TMP and I’m worried that it will depreciate the impact of the scene in TMP where Kirk sees the Enterprise for the first time after its 18 month refit. I hope there is some way to explain the lack of differences between TOS and TMP Enterprises. Yeah I know its ridiculous, but hey I’m a Star Trek fan, What else would you expect :-)

437. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#417: “Don’t they know that more than 40 years of “reimagining” is what almost killed the genre?”

Wrong. Forty of years of “reimagining” *was* the genre – all of those different versions made Paramount the vast majority of the billions they’ve made off of “Star Trek.”

They are why there still is a “Star Trek” four decades later.

Saying that all those versions “almost killed” Trek is true only in the narrow and pointless way that one can argue “we start dying as soon as we’re born.”

438. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 17, 2008

The font used for “Enterprise” is incorrect!!! Phasers on KILL!!! Phasers on KILL!!! KIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!

After that bit of fun, now for the real observation: yeah, the bridge dome is not exactly TOS at all, and i’m not too fond of the TMP-inspired steel appearance.

Now, I wonder about the appearance of the shuttlecraft and hand devices.

439. Q - January 17, 2008

Wow… Um… The nacelles are freaking enormous….

I don’t know if I can fully condone that. I pray that they size them down… a bit… because that’s freaking rediculous. What ever happened to the nice, slim nacelles of yesteryear? Those things look like Rosie O’Donald

Ah well, it’s the soul that counts, not the girth. This’ll be a good movie.

440. Stan - January 17, 2008

This is fantastic! And for those complaining it looks too much like TMP, consider that the TMP Enterprise was itself a refit of this one. This ship looks like it could be refit into the TMP Enterprise. If that isn’t a nod to canon, I don’t know what is.

441. Elliot - January 17, 2008

I kinda wonder whether those “nacelles” are the engines of an exterior tug meant to pull the Enterprise into orbit…? Maybe it’s a sort of visual trick.

442. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

439: Nacelle size is exactly correct to the accurate, scale model I have of TOS Enterprise right here in front of me. That they appear large is simply a trick of the camera lens and focal length.

443. Kirk, James T. - January 17, 2008

wow, thats a beautiful ship, loving the not to kroners ship

444. nscates - January 17, 2008

Loving the big ‘E’.

As far as constructing a ship of that size in orbit vs on the ground, I think that it would be logistically complicated wherever they did it. On the ground, they would have to work in a modified gravity environment or the ship would collapse under it’s own weight – especially the nacelles. Then there’s the (relative) difficulty of moving the assembled sections to orbit. Very costly, from an energy comsumption standpoint.


To build it in orbit would require similar expenditures. First there’s the cost of getting all of the components to the orbiting construction facility. Then, there’s the working environment. It’s no secret that real-life astronauts have had a rough time building things in space. It’s a hostile enviroment, so you’d either need a pressure suit (very hard to work in) or an IMMENSE enclosed, pressurized facility so that contruction crews could work without EVA gear. BIG Cha-ching. Plus, zero-gee creates lots of logistical complications such as tools floating away, anything spilled (bucket of rivets, lets say) becomes a nightmare to clean up because nothing real ever holds still in zero G or microgravity unless it’s bolted down already. So to build in orbit would reuire *some* active gravity generation, which again would be costly.

So, from my viewpoint, each method seems frightfully complex and expensive. I’m not sure that one is necessarily more feasable than the other.

It’s probably best not to examine these things too closely. Otherwise the whole design of the Enterprise (beautiful though it is) doesn’t really hold up. Sure looks great, though.

Doing my bit to get to 1000 posts!

445. FlyingTigress - January 17, 2008


Forty years of obsessive sniping about what was canon is what almost killed the franchise, jmho.

/Thank my higher power for the 12-step program for recovering canon-addicts

446. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

I thought Kroner’s take on the Enterprise was particularly awful, and I’m much relieved to see this one closer to TOS version.

447. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

I have been screaming about Gary Mitchell since virtually day one!!! Since there has been no mention of them being casted at this point — and would have to assume they would be major players, especially Gary Mitchell — don’t you think by now we have heard which actors would be playing them.? Again if this is the first every Constitution Class Enterprise, then Captain April was its first Captain — yet NO MENTION of his character in this movie. I stand by case, this is not a re-boot, this is either an alternate time-line story or re-imagined TOS story, and I would be fine with that if only Abrams and Company would “fess up” to it.

448. Petitspock - January 17, 2008

The bussard collectors look a little odd. On the other hand they look like they might actually do what they are supposed to do.

449. GaryS - January 17, 2008

Its like saying hello to an old friend you havent seen in a long time.
Mr. Orci and Mr.Abrams,

450. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

Jeffrey Hauser (recent story about him here) sort of “Looks” like Gary Mitchell don’t you think??

A younger version . . . .

451. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 17, 2008

Re:437. Dennis Bailey – January 17, 2008
#417: “Don’t they know that more than 40 years of “reimagining” is what almost killed the genre?”

Wrong. Forty of years of “reimagining” *was* the genre – all of those different versions made Paramount the vast majority of the billions they’ve made off of “Star Trek.”

To be honest, by the time ST4 hit theatres in ’86–before a TNG–the Trek property was already a serious money-machine for Paramount. That same year, ST celebrated its 20th anniversary with much media fanfare, so as a franchise, it was going strong before what some consider the Berman period.

452. Primogen - January 17, 2008

#429 — TOS has been COMPLETELY RE-IMAGINED and CANON THROWN OUT just because Robert April doesn’t appear in this teaser and some of Enterprise’s external details have been changed?????????

As Spock would say, “You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.”

First, this movie apparently takes place AFTER Captain April’s command — when Kirk takes command of the Enterprise from Captain Pike. Remember, what we’re seeing is just a teaser — not a scene from the movie. See the ship is shown under construction, just like the movie is under constructon. Get it?

Second, the ship that we saw on TV was a cheaply constructed model whose nacelle caps changed three times over the series. Those kinds of art direction changes don’t deserve being preserved as “canon”. I’m sure that if Matt Jeffries were alive today and working on this film, even he would update the look of the Enterprise exterior.

453. AJ - January 17, 2008

My contribution one thousand. Awesome.

454. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

fellow fans… now i’m 23. today is my birthday, but more… much more than this… it’s TREK TRAILER DAY!!! at least here in europe…

455. Phil123 - January 17, 2008

“du dudu” i hum the star trek theame

456. Ryan - January 17, 2008

Happy Brithday NCC-73515

457. GARY - January 17, 2008

452. Primogen

Don’t say that the original enterprise was a cheap model, that is a CHEAP comment .

458. Allan Cook - January 17, 2008

#444: “First there’s the cost of getting all of the components to the orbiting construction facility.”

Same cost as using the transporters at any other time. The orbital construction facility would most certainly be outfitted with a large-scale cargo transporter.

“Then, there’s the working environment. It’s no secret that real-life astronauts have had a rough time building things in space. It’s a hostile enviroment, so you’d either need a pressure suit (very hard to work in)” Fortunately they won’t be using early-21st Century tech to do so! We’ve already seen that these technologies have significantly improved for ease-of-use by the Trek era (including the technology for “IMMENSE enclosed, pressurized facility so that contruction crews could work without EVA gear.”

“BIG Cha-ching.” How many times in Trek have we been informed that there is no economy to be concerned with the cost of things in? Many.

“Plus, zero-gee creates lots of logistical complications such as tools floating away, anything spilled (bucket of rivets, lets say) becomes a nightmare to clean up because nothing real ever holds still in zero G or microgravity unless it’s bolted down already. So to build in orbit would reuire *some* active gravity generation, which again would be costly.”

No more costly than the simple gravity generators that lay under the flooring of any hallway of any Starfleet ship or station. Every worker would have a few as standard equipment to toss under their working area. Very practical at this point in construction, in fact, as they can be easily moved throughout the shell of the ship to wherever they’re needed.

Significantly more troublesome would be the need for massive earthbound anti-gravity generators to alleviate the immense structural stresses of trying to build such a design on the ground. (Indeed, the workers on the ground would still have to carry around gravity generators to countermand the effect the anti-grav structural assist systems would have on their general productivity!)

459. OR Coast Trekkie - January 17, 2008

WOW! I gotta say, this is no girl… this is a BEAST!! Big E straight up has bawlz!

However, as for things such as skin changes and whatnot… you have to do things like that for movies, simply because this is meant to be shown in a dark movie theatre on a big screen where more detail can be seen. Things like that have to look different for practical reasons.

460. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

More than likely Robert April wont be in the movie, atleast not in a significant fashion, don’t Lost, ALIAS, Cloverfield jump all over the place? I mean this is probaly a scene in flashback, and not neccesarily the moment Kirk assumes command or the day April picks up the keys… Like the use of Cybertron in the Transformers, some flashback, “In 2245 the Starship Enterprise was under construction…..” etc. At this point all you can do is codify what you do know about the movie, not what you infer is not in the movie.

461. Jack - January 17, 2008

wow, people are not complaining about everything. Is this an alternate universe trek movie board? Honestly, be excited. It looks great and we should all be looking forward to this re-imagination of our show.

462. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

With all due respect #452, if this the first Constitution Class Enterprise being constructed — do you know for sure that is not an actual scene from the movie. and NOT a teaser????? And if it is, an actual scene according to Star Trek history Robert April should be in command. And in your own words if this a movie in which Pike tosses the baton to Kirk, then leaving Gary Mitchell out (since there has still been absolutely no mention of him being in this movie), is a huge oversite!!!

463. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#451:”To be honest, by the time ST4 hit theatres in ‘86–before a TNG–the Trek property was already a serious money-machine for Paramount.”

Although they’ve made a huge amount of money on modern Trek relative to TOS-based stuff, I’ll just note that if the poster in #417 is claiming “40 years of reimagining” then that has to start with “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” – not the Franchise’s successful return to television *twenty* years ago.

464. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

Robert April has never been mentioned in any of the movies or live-action television series – only the animated series. He ain’t canon – Pike could turn out to be the first Captain of the Enterprise without violating consistency.

465. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

Thank you, Ryan!

466. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Continuing to debate the logistics of why the Enterprise could or could not be built on Earth is like asking a stonemason from 1700 how to build a present day skyscraper in Dubai. I’ll bet he’d be hard pressed to give you an affirmative answer.

And Scotty used phasers as a cutting tool, so maybe they still weld in the 23rd century

467. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

This might not be flashback, but an upgrade/refit. The ship did look different from Pike to Kirk. Or it could be a flashback, who knows?

this doesn’t have to have April. At this point he would have been gone from the ship for well over a decade. No reason for him to be around… although a mention at least would ROCK!!!!!

Now, Gary Mitchell… he should CERTAINLY be around. But I had a strong feeling from the start we wouldn’t see him. Which is very unfortunate.

Anybody going to see the trailer? i might even stick around for that 2 hour tag-along, Cloverfield. But really… I’m going for the trailer :)

468. Adrian Zmed - January 17, 2008

Hey yo… why ain’t I attached to this? Me and TJ go way back.

469. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

and what are the phaser/tricorder/communicator going to look like, hmmmmmmm??? Something to go with that Babboon-butt-ugly-uniform?

470. Turgenev - January 17, 2008

Amid the vast discussions about our common passion- Star Trek- and the endless debate of canon over experience… I can only stop and wonder…
Does anybody else realize The Vulcanista is female? Shouldn’t we be all over her?

This was just a thought from a gentleman Star Trek fan.

471. 1701 over Gotham City - January 17, 2008

Adrian Zmed? Shouldn’t you be filming Grease 4 or something?

472. Pete359 - January 17, 2008

Looks brilliant! Got so excited when I saw it before Cloverfield!

As for being constructed on Earth… well…

Enterprise D was constructed at Utopia Planitia *ground* base. You can see it in segments in this screen from Memory Alpha:

And then she was still undergoind construction and assembly in space, see this image from All Good Things:

Either way, I very much like what I’m seeing.

Oh and Nimoy’s “Space the Final Frontier”… BRILLIANT!

473. TOS Purist - January 17, 2008

I’ll say it again…

I’m still trying to figure out why they’re STILL hell-bent on “reimagining.” I mean, there’s nothing that gets rid of complications and keeps things simple than going back to the roots…the roots AS THEY WERE, not changed AGAIN. That only complicates things further. Would it really kill them to show us the version of Trek that enamoured us in it in the first place…the original?

They’d save themselves a lot of trouble if they just went with Matt Jeffries’ original designs. Dunno, just a thought. Either way, it looks like I STILL won’t get to see the original, un-”reimagined” on the big screen…I mean, we didn’t get it back in ‘79, and we’re STILL not getting it some 30 years later!!

474. TOS Purist - January 17, 2008

Another thing I don’t understand…they used the old hull font for their website/tagline (“Under Construction”), but they didn’t use it on the actual ship. Since they were clearly aware of the “correct” font, why didn’t they use it??

475. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Robert April was the FIRST Captain of the Enterprise! But lets forget April for a moment. How can Gary Mitchell not be in this movie, though he was only one episode — he was MAJOR player in Kirk’s life — his best friend, his first officer (that requested for his first command), in other words a huge history with Kirk and Mitchell. Having Gary Mitchell in this movie (my opinion only) is more important that having Sulu, Chekov and Uhura — heck, Chekov and Uhrura they were not even around for Kirk’s first command. This HAS to be a re-imagined/alternate timline story.

476. david - January 17, 2008

guy check out this lovely wallpaper with the image of the enterprise :)

477. nscates - January 17, 2008

@ 458

“Significantly more troublesome would be the need for massive earthbound anti-gravity generators to alleviate the immense structural stresses of trying to build such a design on the ground. (Indeed, the workers on the ground would still have to carry around gravity generators to countermand the effect the anti-grav structural assist systems would have on their general productivity!) ”

I’m not sure how it would be more troublesome to create a low gravity enviroment on earth than an enclosed, low gravity, shielded, pressurized environment in orbit. Not sure why the workers would have to carry personal generators. I would think that a uniform .33 G environment would be ideal on earth or in orbit. Part of the problem, I guess, is that gravity manipulation is complete fiction at the moment, so there’s no way to really know the issues that might be involved.

As far as cost goes, I know that it’s canon (that word again) that money doesn’t change hands in the fictional 23rd and 24th centuries. That doesn’t mean that all methods become equally efficient and energy expenditures aren’t somehow allocated. Another case where the specifics are lacking. Sure, they’d use transporters wherever that’s most efficient, but if they have an energy budget (tough to see how they wouldn’t) I’d think they’d move parts on the cheap, wherever possible.

“No more costly than the simple gravity generators that lay under the flooring of any hallway of any Starfleet ship or station. Every worker would have a few as standard equipment to toss under their working area. Very practical at this point in construction, in fact, as they can be easily moved throughout the shell of the ship to wherever they’re needed”

Now that’s an interesting idea. Portable gravity generators. I want two.

Long-winded though it was, my basic point was there is no way to construct a ship of that design and mass without serious and ongoing manipulation of gravity.

Enjoying this conversation, thanks for taking the time to respond, Allan.

478. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

according to the tng technical manual, the 1701-D construction began in 2350… at the utopia yards located 16.625 km above the surface of mars in a synchronous orbit :D
it even gives you the height :D quite funny…

479. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#475: “According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Robert April was the FIRST Captain of the Enterprise!”

The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn’t establish official continuity and it contains a certain amount of conjecture – the authors themselves point that out.

If it hasn’t been in a film or a live-action television series, it’s not part of the onscreen continuity – or “canon” – and let us not forget that the canon itself contains many contradictions.

480. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

I think this IS an alternate universe Trek board.
Have you all become pod people??
Matt Jefferies would no doubt go, “nice, but that’s not how I designed it.”
I love great industrial design.
I love Gabe’s designs.
I love Probert/Trumbull’s TMP design.
Stop pretending that this makes sense- admit it, this is a REBOOT.

481. manrum - January 17, 2008

Dr. Image has to the understianding reebooting equal the contrivity of the film!! I like some visual, but the crane? I don’t understand how this fit with the assemby.


482. Twilightsol - January 17, 2008

Theres my girl

483. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

There is a shot of a construction crane in an establishing shot from The Menagerie of the Starbase grounds.

I think it’s appropriate.
Especially for Pike era (or pre-Pike . . . .)

484. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

I can’t totally see a reboot with Leonard Nimoy in the film, as well as look-a-like casting, however looking at this shot sort of makes me wonder . . .

485. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

Dr. Image — once again — I’m TOTALLY WITH YOU!!!!
Okay #479 your points are well taken — but still no Gary Mitchell????

486. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Has anyone seen a render of the original enterprise form with the aztec pattern? I mean I think the flat scale-less hull of the original Enterprise If detailed as If it were made of many pieces of metal would easily make it flow with what came after and what was retconed before.

The tough thing is that Jefferies meant for the Ent to have a somooth uniform surface and not be made up of tiny visible paneling because it would me more in line with streamlining. Like in the Aviator when Howard Hughes insists the rivets be ground down til the ship is completely smooth, I think that was the original intent.

The problem is a question of scale and it is why azteking came about to add 20th sentury scale and realism to an earthbound audience.

This new Enterprise looks largely like the original with aztecing/paneling for scale.

The tough thing I think is that as filmakers they are drawing from all of Trek’s incarnations in terms of a visual fabric instead of literally extrapolating from the two original pilots, in visual terms the least Star Trek-ey of the oeuvre

487. Nina - January 17, 2008

Don’t care if the proportions are canon, where it’s being built, etc. — but then I’m a post-80’s, next-gen Trekkie. The ship looks good and the feel of it is modern, appealing. Can’t wait to see more.

488. kmart - January 17, 2008


TOS ship was a CHEAPLY constructed model? Boy, anything BUT!
Do your homework before you post, bucko.

489. Vulcan927 - January 17, 2008

BEAUTIFUL!!! I am so excited! Looking frwd to Cloverfield to wet my appetite even more.

490. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - January 17, 2008

I’m a 43 year old fart, and I LOVE IT! Lighten up folks! :-)

491. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#480 “admit it, this is a REBOOT.”

How about “I don’t care?”

“I don’t care” works for me. Does it work for you? ;)

492. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Wow. I’m impressed. Looks great. I love it! Didn’t see this in the original (i.e. the history of the ship). It just started with them on it. This is exciting. When you enlarge the screen you can see more details. Love it!! Love it!!

I’m okay. Whew.


493. Ronnie Paule - January 17, 2008

I think I just wet myself.

494. JonCates - January 17, 2008

Why does anyone care about the orbital/ vs. non-orbital shipyard? Within TOS there were numerous inaccuracies. Phaser blasts changed colour, Warp Speeds varied, continuity was eschewed. Often one writer to the next didn’t know what was happening. Hell, you even let the Klingons re-write their DNA! Yet you argue about a simple matter about where a fictional ship was built. We know less about the life of Jesus or Muhammad than we do about the life of NCC-1701 no bloody A, B, C or D. Give it a rest and accept the fact that this wonderful franchise is being re-born. Look at that ship and say it is anything but a work of art. Imagine the adventures that can occur.

In STII, Kahn rather amusingly notes ‘i never forget a face’. Any keen follower of TOS knows that our faithful Russian friend wasn’t assigned to the Enterprise til the 3rd season. If Robert Orci or JJ wanted to spring a surprise and introduce a few more characters that we’ve not heard of, I say bring it on.

May Star Trek live long and prosper.

Robert Orci, great job.

495. trekofficial - January 17, 2008

Looks AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

496. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


Actually the second season.

497. Will Decker - January 17, 2008

494 Chekov was assigned during the 2nd Season.

498. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

#494-Our old faithful Russian become a series-regular SEASON TWO……

499. siridi - January 17, 2008

all i ask for is that ship and a star to guide it by.

500. Blowback - January 17, 2008

That portion underneath the dome that’s exposed has my attention. Wish I could blow it up and peek in there better…

501. Benjamin Adams - January 17, 2008

The nacelles look exactly right to me. Check the bottom image here:

502. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

According to a ST novel Chekov was assigned to a security detail that was off-screen and trying to capture Khan . . . . .

(hate to admit I don’t remember the name)

503. Levois - January 17, 2008

Well I need to see more before I can judge. I don’t mind them tinkering with the look of the lettering and the hull. I would expect them to take some cues from the previous films.

504. JonCates - January 17, 2008

My mistake, and a stupid one too. He also referred to Leningrad and various Soviet civic interventions, a kindly reminder that Star Trek was, and is, very much a product of its time.

505. Vulcan Soul - January 17, 2008

I think the real hull color is dark grey actually… look at the bottom of the pic.. the bluish tone is from the construction lights

506. section9 - January 17, 2008

They are going to have to solve the Gary Mitchell problem, if not in this film, then in the next one.

Gary Mitchell is a pivotal person in Kirk’s life. According to Trek Canon, Spock and Kirk don’t become close until after Mitchell dies. I can see Mitchell being transferred in from another starship, for instance. However, it’s a big character continuity issue.

507. Aragorn189 - January 17, 2008

I am loving the new look. Faitful to the original, yet stylish and balanced with the newer series. Ship is good. Now lets see the bridge, transporter room, engineering, and the cast in costume. This is a great start. I can’t wait. I wish that the slingshot effect were possible.

508. nscates - January 17, 2008

“Why does anyone care about the orbital/ vs. non-orbital shipyard?”

I don’t really care. It’s just an interesting thing to extrapolate. It has zero bearing on whether I’ll see the movie (I will), or whether I’ll enjoy it (I certainly hope so).

509. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


How can you remember?? My god, there are so many novels! Remember “Spock Messiah”

510. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008


That’s because Putin will probably change it back to Leningrad when Russia ges communist again,

Clarke got it right in 2010 too.


511. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

Another thought — Pike is in the movie…where is:
1-Number One
2-Dr. Boyce
3-Jose Tyler
4-Yeomann Colt???????????????????????
5-Oh and I forgot—-“Tango”??????????????

512. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Sorry — in my previous posting (#492) I meant to say “didn’t see this in the original SERIES” (i.e. the building of the ship).

If I remember correctly, it was captained by Chris Pike before Kirk.


Regarding the “new look” of the NCC 1701 —

They sort of did the same thing to the Jupiter 2 (is that the right name?). In the remake of “Lost In Space” it did look identical then as it took off, it lost the outer part like our old rockets did (stage 1, stage 2 etc.) Actually, the new one looked a lot different than the 1960’s TV show one. I didn’t mind but the purists might. I’ll take it any ol’ way.

At least this one is pretty close.



513. VOODOO - January 17, 2008

Cool shot.

Can’t wait for the trailer.

514. Sebastian - January 17, 2008

That is beautiful work! Round of applause for the visual effects folks! And if anyone wants to boycott this movie because the nacelles are not this or that, or the registry letters are blah, blah, blah…then go ahead. Boycott it! One more seat for me to stretch out on! Looks better than ever!

515. Edge - January 17, 2008

There’s too much sniveling going on about this.

Can’t we just appreciate the fact that there is going to be NEW TREK????
Enjoy it while you can because you don’t know when, if ever, there will be any more.

516. sean - January 17, 2008

We don’t know that Gary Mitchell won’t be in this. I mean, where’s the proof he’s not? It’s not like he’d necessarily be a huge character. We only know of 22 or so official casting decisions, but surely this production will employ many more actors beyond the core cast members. Just be patient.

Plus, you guys are getting bent out of shape about a character that featured in ONE EPISODE. An episode, I might point out, that contains several continuity errors and – alongside ‘The Cage’ – was essentially a rough-draft/work-in-progress. Gary Mitchell was never mentioned by Kirk or anyone else, ever again. Will we really die if he’s not included?

517. Kirk's Girdle - January 17, 2008

Upon further examination: those nacelles do look a lot like Koerner’s

518. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


Damn Sam, if they get everyone you mention there won ‘t be much time for a story would it?

519. Commodore Robert April - January 17, 2008

I would be very upset if they give the first captaincy of the Enterprise to Pike over April! Most fans know and accept April as the first captain, how long he was captain do we really know? He may not have truely been in command any longer than Decker was. He could easily be fit into almost any storyline, but have Pike be the first to command her for a full 5 year mission. Gary Mitchell should also be included somewhere in this reboot.

520. Redjac - January 17, 2008

Those nacelle domes look like the ones on the Koenerprise! This better not be the Koenerprise!!! :-(

521. Magic_Al - January 17, 2008

Finally, something gets more comments than a Shatner topic.

522. Jon C - January 17, 2008

501.those engines look much bigger than TOS engines.Perhaps this is pre-TOS refit.Is there such a thing?I’ll leave that trivia to the purists-Was E refitted before Kirk took charge of the five year mission?

523. Kempec - January 17, 2008

OMFG!!! Wow The Old Girl is giving me goosebumps again!!! Can’t wait to see more!!! Nice Job people Keep it up and you will have a masterpiece on your hands!!!

524. JonCates - January 17, 2008

What do you plaintiffs think of the discrepancy between the bridge of the Klingon Bird of Prey in STIII and in STIV? Had you been alive and/or had the internet, do you think the redesign would’ve been cause for a boycott? Just a thought.

525. OM - January 17, 2008

…Kids, I don’t think the nacelles are oversized. What we might be seeing is a bit of perspective illusion at play. I did a few quick tests with 3D Studio and a mesh, and managed to get the nacelles looking a bit larger from that particular angle.

Of course, the real question is what sort of Easter Eggs are visible in those exposed decks :-P

526. Sam Belil - January 17, 2008

#511 Dr. Daystrom — I was just having fun with that one — how about Mr. Ed playing the role of “Tango”???

#516 — yes Mitchell was only in one episode, but there is a serious “history” with him and Kirk, and you saw that when you saw the pain in Kirk’s face in WNMHB. Hey, was not Captain Pike only one episode only also??? As pivotal a character that Pike was to Spock in that one episode, the same can be said for Mitchell to Kirk in WNMHB. There was even a 3 part novel written which gave us even more insight to the Kirk/Mitchell relationship. When DC Comics publiished Star Trek, there were many stories (I should know I have them in my collection) that featured Gary Mitchell. More recently, 4 years ago, Marvel Comics did an excellent Star Trek/X-Men team up — guess who one of the bad guys was — Gary Mitchell!!!!

527. nscates - January 17, 2008

@ 521
“Finally, something gets more comments than a Shatner topic. ”

Well, if numbers of post are any indication of fannish appeal, then it’s:

1. The Enterprise
2. Shatner
3. Everything else


528. Data_Lives_in_B4 - January 17, 2008

Miss the Galaxy Class Enterprise-D.

However, from what I can see, this is the most realistic portrayal of a starship construction ever portrayed in Trek.

I know Trek is in good hands.

Can’t wait for the teaser and can’t wait for the film!

Appreciate the level of secrecy.
It’s like allowing wine to age to perfection…

529. Johnnie F - January 17, 2008

For those of you that don’t like the “new” Enterprise – why? We are not in the 60’s anymore you know, film technolgy has changed – get with the program! The picture looks great and is true to the spirit of the original Star Trek. If you want to live in the 60’s, watch the revised versions of the original series. Star Trek has always been about what our future could be like – what Roddenberry thought it be and people liked it. Times have changed and that future has changed, allow the spirit of Star Trek to be realistic about what our future holds and change some with the times.

I for one hope this movie sets off a whole new round of interest and shows and movies.

530. Will Doe 68 - January 17, 2008

I’m loving it. Can’t wait till tomorrow night to see it before Cloverfield. :D

531. table10 - January 17, 2008

I think its great, what worries me though is that I am a huge supporter of getting this movie to the mainstream masses to save the franchise, but this first step doesn’t look like it will do that.

I reserve judgement until other trailers come out, but from what I read of the teaser review over at, the reaction so far of none fans from this first one is troublesome.

532. JonCates - January 17, 2008

#529. I concur.

533. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008


I second that. I would love for this to be the start for a new series.

534. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

524- re: Bridge of H.M.S. Bounty

Oh that’s a good one, because either:

1. Ship has 2 bridges, the one from ST 3, and the ST 4 with the ST3 bridge being in the primary structure of the ship and the ST4 bridge at the end of the boom

2) Scotty and the Vulcans designed and built/remodeled the bridge without translating the Klingon consoles using no Federation technology, Klingon spies liked it and incorporated it into all future iterations of the ship and their fleet in general, and went back in time to the 22nd century to pass on their ergonomic improvements to their ancestors

3)Set director raped my childhood by blatantly disregarding canon and cannons apparently since we are dealing with a Klingon ship here

I did boycott the movie and only saw it 2 in the theaters for that very reason. Okay maybe it was cause I was 9 and I could only convince my family to go twice with me.

535. Captain Vaz - January 17, 2008

I must confess. I prefer a total reboot like Galactica than a crazy travel story with romulans, only to respect the cannon. That´s what I am afraid of. Travel in time history with poor writing. Reboot it´s ok.

536. JonCates - January 17, 2008

I like to go with the ‘raped my childhood option’. Set directors are clearly motivated by that. They’re also ALL stupid, as are the writers, directors, producers, actors and, indeed, everyone to do with production.

537. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Re: my post 534

Choice 1. becomes unlikely because as Worf, a Klingon says:
“A Ship has one bridge, ONE BRIDGE !!!!!!!!!!!!”

So more than likely it was number 2) Scotty and the Vulcans on Trading Spaces Bird of Prey edition

538. Chris Peterson - January 17, 2008

It doesn’t have the scanning red light in front like the original… Oops, sorry, wrong web page. There’s a discussion almost exactly like this over on Knight Rider Online. Just substitute K.I.T.T. for Enterprise… :-)

539. munk - January 17, 2008

I kinda hate the text treatment and the ginormous nacelles

540. Richard Daystrom - January 17, 2008

One more thought before the Romulan Ale starts to take effect. Hell, too late!

541. Z - January 17, 2008

She’s beautiful.

And to all the haters who have a problem with it being on Earth, on the dedication plaque, the Big E is said to have been built at San Francisco Fleet Yards. While fans have always ASSUMED this was just the name of an orbital complex, I don’t think think JJ is taking too much of a liberty by placing San Francisco Fleet Yards IN SAN FRANCISCO!

542. nscates - January 17, 2008

@ 534

I’m voting for option 3 also. Why make a movie if not to rape childhoods. Honestly, it makes perfect sense to me. ; D

543. Jay — A Preview Of What Every Trekkie’s Next Christmas - January 17, 2008

[…] A first look at the new Enterprise. […]

544. JonCates - January 17, 2008

The nacelles are not too large. If anyone here knew anything about linear perspective or photographic depth of field you would understand what is going on. Also, have none of you ever drawn schematics of the enterprise? I have and they look a lot like that. So.

545. Colin Barnard - January 17, 2008

With grudging and perhaps premature relaxation, at least someone in the Abrams camp realizes at this stage that Star Trek is about the “voyages of the USS Enterprise”- the central charcter. Now, if they would trim down the character moments, get rid of any reference to Star Fleet Academy, bring in Gary Mitchell, ditch McCoy, ditch Chekov, ditch all parents (Winona are you listening?), ditch another lame timetravel story, and do a story about the “voyages of the USS Enterprise” the way Roddenberry intended, I may go see Mr. Abrams’ movie……as Ed Harris says in the film “The Abyss”, “keep yer pantyhose on……”!

546. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008

this looks AMAZING!!!

(I’m too distracted by that big shiny ship at the top to say more!)

547. Steve - January 17, 2008

This is my first post here. I’m mostly impressed with this shot. As several people have mentioned, I don’t know what to say about those big-a#$ warp nacelles. Anyways, I reserve judgment until I see “Cloverfield” tomorrow.

Take care, and God bless!

548. Johnnie F - January 17, 2008

Why do you want to ditch McCoy?

549. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008

oooo ahhh oooh

550. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#537. Worf neglected that the ship he served on had 2 bridges. ;-) Ok a “main bridge” and a “battle bridge” but both bridges.

551. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

The nacelles appear large because of what appears to be that hump- thing behind the bussards.

Plus, you can’t say that the bussards are as small as that compared to the outside diameter when looking at a face on schematic. The bussard endcaps are almost the entire outside dimension on every view of the ship I have ever seen.

Look again

It is true that a long lens will compress the look, but it will not make them appear larger relative to everything else. It all gets the same treatment.

It’s the humps reminiscent of Gabe’s ship.

552. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008


553. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008


554. NCC-73515 - January 17, 2008

this discussion about launching from the surface… it always reminds me of STAR WRECK – in the pirkinning. there (in an excellent animation!!!) a sovereign class starship lifts from the ground, rises to the sky… and destroys the ISS before taking over the world. not that i would support such behavior, the launch sequence is brilliantly done – and since then, i am open for surface launches (even if the ship can not land anymore, that doesn’t mean is can never have been launched)

555. I AM THX-1138 - January 17, 2008

Forgive me for not reading the other 5 jillion posts. Nobody will read my post either, so it balances out in the end.

Childhood is intact. ROUND nacelles, check. Spinny hoo-hahs, check. Have to wait to see if rest of ship is as nice, but so far so good.

OK fellas, you have my permission to continue with the movie.

556. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008

549 – *gawk*

557. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008

– #549 – *gawk*

558. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008

#549 – *gawking*

559. Go Spock! - January 17, 2008


560. Shaggy - January 17, 2008

As was stated by a few posters somewhere above, let’s see the flames! :P

Anyways, I like the design. It does remind me of the TMP Enterprise a bit but I think that the nacelles look better this way to be honest, instead of the long thin ones. Makes the Enterprise look like a tougher ship.

And I don’t mind if it’s being built on Earth – seeing how where exactly it was built was never shown in the series, I think it’s a stretch to say it’s screwing with your childhood (if anyone really thinks that – it’s not like they are replacing hand phasers with walkie talkies here!) and it’s OK for them to take the liberty of doing it on Earth. I think it certainly makes it more dramatic with the steam rising up and all.

561. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

Its on youtube! :-) Of course while it says “in motion” its just a video of the still posted in this thread…… :-(

562. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008



Perhaps ST3 BOP Bridge was Battle Bridge, and ST4 was main bridge,

very good,

CANON satisfied, sort-of

and since “A ship has one main bridge, ONE MAIN BRIDGE!’ is clunky we can forgive Mr. Woof

563. Alex Prewitt - January 17, 2008

Looks good to me. I love reading people bitch and moan about those little obscure details, and crying about the changes. Will these people be there in line to see the film–probably. If they decide to boycott – good for them.

564. SPB - January 17, 2008

#474/475 TOS Purist –

What’s it like to be stuck in the 1960’s?

565. Stanky McFibberich - January 17, 2008

Not really enough to go on, but from that angle it could be worse.

566. Primogen - January 17, 2008


No offense was intended against the TOS art department by my ill-chosen word “cheap”, Gary. I’ve been a fan of TOS since it first appeared, read Stephen Whitfield’s book, and marveled at the original Enterprise model at the Smithsonian.

By “cheap”, I merely meant that the production values and budgets of 1960 television do not match what can be done with modern-day films.

567. richpit - January 17, 2008

I couldn’t read this whole post…487??

It looks great from what I can see! I’m very psyched!!

568. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#544: “The nacelles are not too large. If anyone here knew anything about linear perspective or photographic depth of field you would understand what is going on.”

I have and I do – and those nacelles are considerably bigger in diameter relative to the rest of the ship than in the original series.

Whether they are positioned differently or not may *well* be a matter of rendered perspective.

569. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#562. Also the ship he made the statement on was the same class as the Ent so both ships had multiple bridges…. And while I have seen that ep several times and remember the line it didn’t even occur to me that it wasn’t true untill your post. lol

Not sure about the BOP though I don’t see the klingons having a non “battle bridge”. Probably a “battle kitchen” and “battle bathroom” as well….. maybe Kirk just wanted a more familiar design but then wasn’t the first one up on a higher platform where he couldn have looked down on all around him?

570. SPB - January 17, 2008


…it’s a RE-FIT. Think about it.

571. Captain Robert April - January 17, 2008

JJ and his merry band can blow me.

I’m with Cawley, that is NOT the Enterprise, and they sure as hell are NOT getting my money.

The single most iconic spaceship in all of science fiction, AND THEY CAN’T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT!?! God only knows how the screwed up the rest of the movie is!

Forget it, I’m out.

572. cpelc - January 17, 2008

i made a 1024 X 768 desktop of the image

here’s the link

I brightened up the pic a little to bring out more details

573. sean - January 17, 2008


Actually, Pike was featured in 3 episodes – The Cage, The Menagerie Pt I & The Menagerie Pt II. That aside, I don’t disregard the impact of the episode as a stand-alone. It’s one of my favorites, actually. Still, it just won’t break my heart if they don’t feature Gary Mitchell in this movie.

We have no idea how much time the film will focus on Kirk’s academy days, so who’s to say it’s actually breaking ‘canon’ if they don’t have him in it? Maybe it would prove too distracting to include every ancillary character ever mentioned in this film? Perhaps Mitchell is on leave during the time period depicted? Or he’s on deep space assignment? Hell, he might have a bad case of diarrhea from that Regulan Bloodworm cocktail he had at last week’s student mixer!

All I’m saying is, just because the character isn’t referenced doesn’t mean they’re erasing him from history. His inclusion may have taken 20 minutes of subplot away from something cooler. Who knows?

574. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#571: “The single most iconic spaceship in all of science fiction, AND THEY CAN’T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT!?!”

They didn’t “get it wrong.”

They changed it. ;)

575. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008


Kirk and crew remodeling doesnt fit because our gallant crews’ “remodel” became the basis for everything that followed and then Enterprise used variants too.

Soo neglecting an error/disregard on the part of the filmmakers the only realistic answer is that a 12 person Klingon scout has two rooms from which an officer can supervise his crew.

Really not a big deal considering battle bridges from Next Gen, or Auxillary Control from the Original Series

576. Primogen - January 17, 2008

(continuing from post 566)

More importantly, while the 1960’s television design seemed futuristic to a 1960’s television audience, that 1966 design would not create that same sensation for a 2008 audience.

I guess it depends upon what’s more important to you. To recreate the exact same physical details as TOS, or to evoke the same feelings as TOS.

577. JonCates - January 17, 2008

#568 i refer you to

not the exact same angle. However, if you were to foreshorten that appropriately the resultant rendering would be somewhat similar to what we see above.

Besides, this is a partially re-designed ship. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with the nacelles.

578. SPB - January 17, 2008


“Forget it, I’m out.”

See ya. Don’t let the door hit ya in the kiester on the way out.

579. welovevenue44 - January 17, 2008

It looks like they are sticking to “CANNON”?

But the description of the trailer sounds like they are ignoring the events of the series “ENTERPRISE”?

I think they will be faithful! Nimoy would have not got involved otherwise would he? He said so himself?

This makes the Enterprise 40 yrs old when it was destroyed in ST3?

580. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#577: “not the exact same angle. However, if you were to foreshorten that appropriately the resultant rendering would be somewhat similar to what we see above.”

No, it would not.

581. CmdrR - January 17, 2008

What’s “The Dawn of Mankind” in some of these?
Helluva long dawn.

and good to see yet another non-Shat thread that’s pushing 600 entries!!!

582. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008


I don’t agree and it’s clear in the schematic you post.

the end caps are very close to the outer diameter and they aren’t in our new version (above)

they are considerably smaller due to that “hump” cowling or whatever.

No, there isn’t anything wrong, I just don’t see the similarity to the Pike-era ship . . . .

583. Mr Darcy - January 17, 2008

#579: “But the description of the trailer sounds like they are ignoring the events of the series “ENTERPRISE”?”

What makes you think that?

584. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008

If anything, this sort of looks like not too long after Enterprise . . .

585. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#577. The schematics like that don’t have the depth (if thats the right way to describe it) I loaded a 3d model and turned up the camera focus/length seeing how it came out and they still seemed pretty dang big.

Here is a similar shot of the TOS ent from “Trials and Tribbleations”:

586. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

The latter part of this htread makes me think again about what Dawn Brown, a Set Designer, said a few articles back.

“Set Designer Talks About New Enterprise”

[There have been several reports as to what the interior and exterior of the newly-designed USS Enterprise will look like…

Brown tells SyFy Portal: I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out. As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same. I don’t know if that came from J.J. or Paramount. … If you see this movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great time.

Brown naturally could not go into great detail, but she did offer some insight into the film’s use of green screens.]

Looks like “she” was off her mark on the exterior. Now the BIG question is: What is to become of the Bridge and other interior designs?

I have posted numerous times that I saw a big hollywood style reboot/remake in ST’s near future. With a ship twp to three times what we are used to, and a bridge twice the size with additional support departments and personnell that will circle the main bridge.

Looks like I was wrong about the Enterprise being so much larger. And with the “E” being the same size externally, I think we are on safe ground.
Except for the Green Screen comments. Still worried about that one.


587. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008

Maybe the Ent was 20 yrs old since being remodeled from the JJ version, or maybe Admiral Morrow’s memory slipped and he said 20 instead of 40, kinda like when people say decades but its less than 10 years because its like 1987-1994, “spanning 2 decades” or like “man that was like 20 years ago…” but it was closer to 35. Old people do stuff like that. Lady at church said Abortion was legal in the 60’s but it was really the 70’s stuff like that with senior moments….

588. JonCates - January 17, 2008

#582, yeah, no similarity to the Pike era ship really. I just got annoyed by people saying the nacelles were wrong in some terrible God Forsaken way, as if they were monsters about to consume the saucer section. You clearly don’t think that, which is pleasing.

589. Just an casual observation - January 17, 2008

Why do they need a crano to “lift” things in space???

590. Just an casual observation - January 17, 2008

I meant to type “crane”.

591. Randy Holland - January 17, 2008

Here’s the thing: people seem fine with Spock looking a little different, Kirk looking a little different, etc. The Enterprise is as much a character as any of the main crew, and I’m not surprised she looks a little different too. Not “wrong”, per se, just different. And – as far as this dimly lit shot of a part of the ship can reveal – not overly different. Seems they have as much concern about fidelity as Quinto’s makeup and facial structure – which is to say a goodly amount of concern without putting him in a Nimoy mask. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until the ship is shown as simply too different to be graced with the name – and legacy – of “Enterprise”.

592. welovevenue44 - January 17, 2008

We should not get toooo hyped up over this film. Remember The Phantom Menace? 16yrs of “I can’t wait, I’m happy to die once i’ve seen the next Star Wars film!” – All destroyed in 2hrs and 30mins! I hope this film will deliver, Star Trek is LOADS BETTER THAN star wars!

593. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

Here is a comparison of the new and original, similar angle but different zoom/depth:

594. D - January 17, 2008

Heck, the green screen set might be something like the hanger deck, or it could be a set that is supposed to represent a building on a planet.

595. pinky - January 17, 2008

Really majestic, really clean, really nice-looking ship. Colours are great here, too. I like the bightly lit Trek on the inside of the ship and the darkness on the outside. Very cool.

I am going to forgive the high nacels by suggesting they are not yet connected to the body of the ship. But I have to arch an eyebrow as I try to figure out how lame those little Vulcan ears on the nacels might turn out….

596. Just a casual observation - January 17, 2008

Who do you think would win…the new Enterprise or the new Battlestar Galactica?

597. trektacular - January 17, 2008

Looks too Micahel Bayish.

598. I AM THX-1138 - January 17, 2008

The enterprise looks great. If you have an Enterprise to compare scale to, then you realize that the nacelles are just about right.

BTW, it is my opinion that if you come onto a web-site about a new Star Trek movie just to complain about every single thing pertaining to the movie, you are a loser. Even Stanky (yes, I said it) has an air of optimism,if guarded and cautious. An un-named few piss and moan about every detail being wrong and that the movie will be a violation of their memories or something.

If there is nothing here for you to like, what is your purpose here? Why subject yourself to something you don’t like? If this is so bad, why don’t you go somewhere else?

I am looking forward to this with great anticipation and I’m tired of suffering the whiners. I say get on board or get lost.

599. Chris Dawson - January 17, 2008


it’s a good comparison, but the top image uses a wide angle lens and is close to the model when photographed,

this new shot looks more like a long lens, much further away, hence a sense of compression

600. Dontkilltngcanon - January 17, 2008

I am curious, does this new movie wipe the slate clean and start again, i.e ignoring TNG etc. what i mean to say is will it fit in there with the whole legacy or will overwrite everything??

601. Just a casual observation - January 17, 2008


Congratulations…from your zeal I can deduce to things…you’re 23 and you have never been laid!

602. sean - January 17, 2008


She wasn’t off. That’s still very much recognizable as the Enterprise. It’s not as though they were going to spend $130 million to make it look like a 40-year old model. All they’ve done is add greater detail.

603. trekfansince1977 - January 17, 2008

Guys I was born a trek fan, I was watching the reruns as a kid in the 80’s and then I was into the new stuff, but get a good look at the photo, do you see what I do? no stars, smoke rising, and what looks like a fire in the hull, I had heard a rumor that they were gonna be building the enterprise at area 51, and it looks like a drydock on the planet, the consitution class wasn’t designed for planetary flights, because it was built entirely in space… And the bussard collecters on those nacelles are way to massive.. But being a guru of the canon I guess i’m bound to bitch.. Hopefully they make it work..

604. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008


“I try to figure out how lame those little Vulcan ears on the nacels might turn out…. ”

More importantly how will the Vulcan earlobes on these engines turn out?

And will they have to pluck or wax that registry number to keep it more Nimoy-ish

All kidding aside I am excited at the prospects of this movie, a GRAND trek, not since TMP has the film been visually GRAND, or ambitious, dont get me wrong I love all the movies, but for the most part the scope has been somewhat smalish, especially the Next Gen movies.

605. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#599. Yeah I realize that, not exact lens but the angles are similar. Here is one more as I figured I should throw the refit version in there as well…

606. NCC-1701 All The Way! - January 17, 2008

So, CBS-D… what gives?? Can’t match ILM’s expertise? Can’t deliver shots half as detailed as this? Can’t…

Just kidding.

I’m REALLY looking forward to this!

607. Primogen - January 17, 2008

#600 — I think that Roberto Orci said that JJ’s Trek film(s) would be untold early stories of Kirk and the Enterprise crew that would not contradict with the stories that have already been told in TOS, TNG, etc.

608. Shaggy - January 17, 2008

All the talk about canon makes me think that those Star Trek inconsistency videos need to be posted again to remind those so concerned about it to lighten up a little bit. The story and what goes on with the characters is going to be more important than how things look. Saying you won’t see the movie because of one still photo is fairly silly.

609. sean - January 17, 2008


I’ve seen a lot of Michael Bay films, and I don’t recall anything that resembled the Enterprise in any of them.

610. particle flux - January 17, 2008

I’m getting a little teary.
I love this!!!

611. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

#593 – Great comparison shot. So those nacelles are AT LEAST twice normal size…imagine how awkward this is gonna look…

612. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

“The single most iconic spaceship in all of science fiction, AND THEY CAN’T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT!?! God only knows how the screwed up the rest of the movie is!”

They screwed up the Millenium Falcon? You have an over exaggerated sense of Star Trek and its place in things.

Like Dennis said, its not a screw up.

613. Star Trek Trailer - January 17, 2008

It looks good!

614. GARY - January 17, 2008

After seeing this ….

whoa?! Seriously what’s up with those nacelles? are they going to eat the ship alive? The more i see them, the more they look like this

so the ship has 2 mega airplane turbines attached to it?

615. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

A quick-and-dirty reference pic:

616. trekfansince1977 - January 17, 2008

The falcon was cool, but she was a beater, like something my hick brother in law would drive, beat to shit paint job, missing parts, but an engine that could blow the tires off a farri lol

617. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

615 – can you do a comparison between that and the new one?

618. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

Mine is with a great deal of foreshortening – really going the opposite direction from the focal lengths in Gary’s #614 pictures, to bring the nacelles visually “closer” to the camera as in today’s publicity shot.

619. jonboc - January 17, 2008

Hard to judge the overall look of the ship just y the saucer alone. Is it symetrical? Does it balance out.? oh .how I hated that top heavy ugly beast of a ship the Enterprise D. But so far, so good, I like what I see.

620. Jeffery Wright - January 17, 2008

they got the scale wrong, definitely, if what we’re seeing is the entire bridge deck (partially exposed) the bridge deck is supposed to be the structure that looks like a cylinder below the top sensor dome (see image link)

and what is this new structure they’ve added?

typical constitution class deck one / bridge:

how hard would it be to depict orbital construction? did they think people might find that concept hard to believe?

if they’re going to change something so fundamental about the history of the 1701, why not feature members of the spice girls and ‘n sync as the bridge crew, playing themselves?

captain justin timberlake, reporting for duty, dude… woah, britney spears is all green!

whats that all about, dude?

621. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

Yeah, the Ent-D is a nasty piece of work. A clam with stunted arms. Of course, Voyager was just an upside-down spoon with stunted arms…

Oh, alas, for the beauty of the real Enterprise.

622. Redjac - January 17, 2008

#620 We don’t know there is no orbital construction of some kind…people are really jumping to conclusions…

I thought I was bad about that…but damn…

623. Jon C - January 17, 2008

I think those aren’t the engines from TOS.They’re bigger earlier generation warp engines.These engines are ones we haven’t seen yet because the enterprise may have been refitted midway through Pike’s charge of the E.

624. Alex - January 17, 2008

Just one image. And the thread is exploding. Maybe tomorrow, under the “Teaser Trailer available online” headline, I will be able to get the 1000th post. :-)

625. Redjac - January 17, 2008

#614 I don’t think the nacelle domes have been installed yet in this pic…the inner workings are exposed. At least I HOPE that’s what I am seeing…

626. theinquisitor - January 17, 2008

#621 You’re talking about the woman I love! I mean starship.

627. Tox Uthat - January 17, 2008

Officer: “Hey, Cadet Kirk, where’s that pain in the ass friend of yours Gary Mitchell?”

Kirk: “He’s in sick bay, he has a pain in the ass……sir.”

2 lines of dialogue, Mitchell’s mentioned and not in the movie.


This will be a teaser, not a trailer. JJ & Co. are letting the world know there is a new Trek movie coming, with a new spin, but it will be similiar and it’s going to be BIG. Just like those huge freaking engines.

When JJ, Roberto, any of the actors talk on the record 1) please listen first and 2) listen between the lines.

I accept many here don’t want change. I too will miss the “old” Trek. But, in case you haven’t noticed, life is change. Someone once said “People are afraid of change”. “Well, there it sits, Commander.”

628. GARY - January 17, 2008

#620 I think you should reassess that image… from what i can see the bridge is a 2 story structure

629. Jon C - January 17, 2008

That teaser’s gotta show up on the ‘net soon.The internet is geek central.

630. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

” 616. trekfansince1977 – January 17, 2008
The falcon was cool, but she was a beater, like something my hick brother in law would drive, beat to shit paint job, missing parts, but an engine that could blow the tires off a farri lol”

Well my point was: More none genre fans would likely recognize the Falcon before the Enterprise, and if they saw the Enterprise likely think it belongs in those “Star Wars” movies since I think Star Wars has a certain resonances in the public conscious in ways Star Trek does not. Calling Enterprise, any of them “The most iconic ship…” is overstating the matter.


631. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#620. Noticed that little level too. I wonder if the bridge is actually in the top structure but the upper part where you have labeled bridge is the upper sensor (the glowing dome or upper section of the taller cage bridge dome). If in a later refit the bridge was kept in the same deck but the B/C deck was lowered taking out that little deck you have labeled “WTF” :-) it would stick out taller like the Cage/WNMHGB bridge?

Don’t really know just thought it could work out that way.

632. Jon C - January 17, 2008

From picture.The Enterprise looks very metallic.

633. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

As I am sitting here posting “Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” happens to be on the tube. The contestant (Ms. America) was asked: What is the largest heavenly body in our solar system? She guessed “the Universe!” The fifth grade girl guessed “the Milky Way.”

The host read the correct answer and the AND THE CROWD was dissapointed (Ohhhhh!) when they both got it wrong!!!!

Actually, the other 5th grade contestant (1 out of 3) did get it right.

Miss America has had a few other questions right too. One on the Preamble of the Constitution. So, I guess Astronomy is not a strong point for her. Oh wait, she just said she is not smarter tha a 5th grader. sheesh…

Now, I gotta ask you all (and the ST XI Producers) a question. Why must we appeal to the general public with this new Trek? MOST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S UP. Litterally! I think we may be in a danger zone here with the producers wanting the movie to have mass appeal.

Us Trekkies, must be really assuring to them with all the posting and positive comments on this site, esp. today. So my point is that this movie MUST appeal to INTELLIGENT people, cause noone else is going to have a clue at the movies. The smart ones (Trekkies) are the people that will make this movie money.

In light of the above, let me remark that, Trek without the science and without the strong connection to the original, is like a Wonder Bra without the Klum. Understand now? You suits?

I am sure Trek XI must be logical and intelligent to make real big money.
Its gonna be the REPEAT customers that assure a succcess.

Now, am I being to hard on the general public’s intelligence on this one?



634. John from Cincinnati - January 17, 2008

The interior of the ship better be a lot brighter than the exterior!!!!!

635. Jon C - January 17, 2008

620 Jeff.I noticed what looks like an added structure too.I’m still wondering if that’s a visual trick caused by the welder’s smoke.

636. Jeyl - January 17, 2008

“This was the first Enterprise. Constitution Class.”
– Benjamin Sisko

And it always will be.

637. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

#491- Dennis
“How about ‘I don’t care?'”
That’s just the kind of attitude that ended up bringing us Voyager and Enterprise, and it does NOT work for me.
You can have it. I’ve had enough.

Also re:#615- Sorry. No amount of foreshortening can make those nacelles look THAT huge. They’re even beefier than Gabe’s design!

638. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

“Now, I gotta ask you all (and the ST XI Producers) a question. Why must we appeal to the general public with this new Trek? ”

because that’s how films and franchises make more money. There simply aren’t enough Trek fans to make a “fan only production” worthwhile, never mind that’s a bad buisness model in any case. The general audience and their “intelligence” is wholly beisde the point regarding who Paramount should be targeting…

to think otherwise is to be an Trekkie elitist

639. Michael (The Original, from Texas by way of Afganistan) - January 17, 2008

Roberto –
My ONLY complaint is that we didn’t get a side view.
I wanted to see the flames, and then I remembered what you said in another thread. So, I assume that since she’s “Under Construction”, that the Holographic generators aren’t online yet.
Guess we won’t get to see the flames until she’s underway.
She’s A Beauty!

640. Spockette - January 17, 2008

Sweet! That looks awesome! I can’t wait!

641. Tony Pieta - January 17, 2008

I was born during the 2nd season run, and take a certain demented pride that my parents propped me up in the crib for TOS season 3; so I have been with Trek since almost the beginning. I have seen every incarnation and re imagining along the way; Hell, even my dog is named Spock. All I can say is that from what I see (and it isn’t much) I like it. It looks real and believable in a sense. I think i can connect to this ship. Let’s hope.

642. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

“The smart ones (Trekkies) are the people that will make this movie money.”

That’s a Trekkie genre nerd pipe dream, its always the general public that makes films worth putting money behind – there aren’t enough Trekkies for it to be worth a damn.

And just from perusing Fandom boards my assessment of Trekkies being more “intelligent” the joe schmoe is a myth that Trek fans love to help spread about themselves. Its not a fact by any means.

643. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

638. Sharr Khan

Well I hope YOU know the answer to that question, Sharr!!! ; )

But, I disagree. It could have both science and Trek. Just add the ‘action’ along the way. That will keep the masses a crunchin’

It’s the science in the Trek fiction that makes me wonder (proudly too.).

644. Anthony Thompson - January 17, 2008

It’s a beauty…and closer in spirit to the ship of TOS rather than the movie refit. GREAT!

645. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#637: “How about ‘I don’t care?’”
That’s just the kind of attitude that ended up bringing us Voyager and Enterprise, and it does NOT work for me.
You can have it. I’ve had enough.”

That works for me, too. ;)

646. Captain Fantastic - January 17, 2008

actually, those nacelle are way too big, aren’t they? they look like massive turbines strapped to the back of the ship. can’t wait for the teaser, to see whether this really is what they look like

647. Andy Patterson - January 17, 2008

#614 I don’t think the nacelle domes have been installed yet in this pic…the inner workings are exposed. At least I HOPE that’s what I am seeing…

That’s what I’ve been saying.

648. Captain Fantastic - January 17, 2008

actually, those nacelle are way too big, aren’t they? they look like massive turbines strapped to the back of the ship. can’t wait for the teaser, to see whether this really is what they look like

649. Sharr Khan - January 17, 2008

All this films is required to be is: ENTERTAINING – same as any movie ever has to. If it fails in that its sunk.

Certainly that’s the beginning and end of my expectations of Trek “XI”, I want it to stand out from other Trek productions as well – that is not be the run of the mill Star Trek film… and I have reason to expect it will meet my expectations there ;)

650. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

What is the largest heavenly body in our solar system?

I would have a very HARD time enjoying a conversation with the ‘typical’ adult who did not know that answer.

This would be a great Poll question on this site – just to make my point.
But it would seem to be a VERY absurd one.

651. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#648 – I posted this schematic earlier, as did someone else. But using this schematic as a reference, the nacelles seem to be in the proper proportion to the rest of the ship:

652. SirMartman - January 17, 2008

Thats a nice ship,, I was really really realllly hoping to see good old Billy boy return as Kirk, but His name isnt on the Star Trek web site with Nimoys,, so Ive lost all hope of Mr Shatner being in this,,that is a very sad loss,,however Im looking forward to the new trek

cant wait to see the Star Trek trailer

653. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

Here’s what I would like to see with the new ship’s design.

Remove all the cowling and outer casings on the main engines. That would make them much lighter for the initial launch. Then once in orbit they could be fitted with a strong shell that would make them resistent to the hazards of space and ready for battle.

654. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#648 – No, they don’t. Here’s a close-up foreshortened shot of a model that matches the schematic you link to:

655. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

Sorry, that was directed to #651.

656. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

Thank you Dennis!

I was waiting for that. AWESOME!

657. Captain Dunsel - January 17, 2008

A little late but…


I decided tonight to go to Cloverfield anyway even though I don’t really care to. I just HAVE to see the trailer on the big screen first!

658. PoliSciFi: A PoliBlog Sideblog » First Glimpse of NCC-1701 Reborn - January 17, 2008

[…] At First Official Picture Of The USS Enterprise Filed under: Trek, Movies | |Send TrackBack […]

659. Pragmaticus - January 17, 2008

Calm down, people. I actually think they’re right about the warp engines. They always looked way too flimsy, like they’d snap off the ship, and it was hard to believe that they could propel a ship at such speeds. This is far more believable.

660. hitch1969© - January 17, 2008

this is awesome. wow.


661. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

#654 – Not being an expert on photography, perspective, or foreshortening, I’m unclear on what the discrepancy is that leads you to say that the nacelles are not in proportion. The model in the link you posted seems to be able to accomplish the same proportion as the publicity shot. Admittedly, this is not my forte, so do elaborate.

662. Ralph F - January 17, 2008

Probably already said but remember this is just a teaser. It’s not actually a scene from the film, so don’t sweat the “it’s supposed to be built in orbit” thing.

663. Jupiter1701 - January 17, 2008

Little do ‘ya all know, but the ship looks totally different beneath the saucer section (which is all we can see in the photo.

Word is that the engineering body of the ship closely resembles a 1966 Corvette. Bright red, in fact.

And how does the ship look from the rear? Well, where they used to have landing bay doors, now it has one of those glow-in-the-dark license plates.

You heard it hear first.

664. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

#659 – Warp engines didn’t “propel” the ship–there’s no thrust coming out of them. They just do some gobbledygook and let the ship move through warped space. Besides, there’s more gobbledygook about the structural integrity field.

If you wanted a “realistic” ship, go look at the Discovery from 2001. I want a pretty one, not a big souped-up monster.

665. James Jamziz - January 17, 2008

I love it. I hope that it brings some more original design concepts then what they have shown. It looks so sick right now. What a solid move.

666. chrispikeswheelchair - January 17, 2008

I think it looks great, maybe hoping that JJ would have had IL&M move away from the aztec and back to TOS smooth but hey…I’ll take the big honkin ROUND nacelles I watched on TOS first run when I was three and a half ! (yes I do remember my childhood first memories!) of the BIG E.

It’s a nice set up as it is supposed to be just coming off the line, before Pike, before more refined technical leaps that would allow reduction of engine size. Would make for a noticible change as they move from Pike to Kirk showing the passage of time and technology breakthroughs.

I too don;t know why James CAwley would be so down on it… plenty of room to enjoy his straight old style & the reimagined new MP I’ll love both!
I also enjoy the hell out of Enterpise too, Archer should have had a year 5 (with Berman kicked to the curve).

667. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

I liked “Enterprise” quite a bit myself. :)

668. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008


You like Enterprise. Ah ha!

Gettin to know your preferences now. ; )

669. Irishtrekkie - January 17, 2008

lol well i like most of it so far, once question


i dont mind i just think its funny, i mean the klingons will know what ship this is from light years way ,

cause it has ” U.S.S. ENTERPRISE” is HUGH letters on it !

… trek is

670. miguel - January 17, 2008

I dont get why people are mad about the lettering!

It’s not green, doesnt turn into a giant mecha robot, doesnt battle space godzilla, doesnt have seven nacelles, and doesn’t have flames.

Except for the flames. It needs flames.

671. GARY - January 17, 2008

Ok… I have made an updated picture using the great input of all of you so we can compare

672. Tassieboy - January 17, 2008

This looks Awesome!!

I see nothing here that makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief. FANTASTIC!

673. chrispikeswheelchair - January 17, 2008

OMG….I’m doomed I was POST 666! Dang I wanted to see the MP in December.

Er…meant to say “kicked to the curb” And….Berman ( I mean c’mon Janeway with that ridiculous hair……)should have been completely replaced by the great showrunner Many Koto who just hit his stride in ENT Season 4.

674. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

664. Imrahil

[If you wanted a “realistic” ship, go look at the Discovery from 2001.
I want a pretty one, not a big souped-up monster.]

I don’t belive that ship ever went to “warp.”

The Enterprise engines are a great element of the Enterprise design and are nicely placed allowing jettison if things go bad.

Which is a real problem I had with the Warp Core idea.
Logically, the main engines should be the place where the
‘cores’ are located..

675. Jon C - January 17, 2008

From the website…”a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time”. Wow, that’s calling out the Star Wars geeks.I agree though.Personally,I liked Star Wars but I think Star Wars got really hoakey.

676. Q - January 17, 2008

YAY! It looks freaking AMAZING! *runs around in circles*

677. Viking - January 17, 2008

#256 Skippy 2K – yeah ! Grunberg wanted a part, so I wrote one for him. And we can bring him back in every sequel, so he gets offed in the first ten minutes in various gruesome ways.

“Oh, my God, they killed Ricky!” “You bastards!” ;-)

678. Veridian - January 17, 2008

One thing I like about the new look for the old E is that this retconned version provides a more logical baseline leading to the TMP refit. It always bothered me that the refit from TMP, while beautiful, looked more like a completely new ship, with none of the proportions of the original. The primary hull, the engineering hull, the pylons, the engines, all had distinctively different shapes – while similar overall, there’s not one hull line that stayed the same. You’d think a “refit” might have new engines, new systems, etc, but the hull would remain basically the same. Not so in TMP.

Now, this new version of the old E may rectify this a bit. The TMP refit now may look like a logical progression from this ship.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the original ship – love it so much I bought one of Jim Key’s 66″ incredible replica models. However, in my mind updating the original design to better fit in the timeline and lineage from the NX-01 to the NCC-1701-A is not a mistake from a canon perspective – in fact it brings the TOS design more in line with “canon” ship designs established by the rest of the trek series and movies. I know, I know – the TOS design is the one that started it all, but don’t forget, TOS is only about 80 hrs in over 900 hours of Star Trek canon.

Of course, I may change my mind once I see the bottom of the ship and discover that it does indeeed loomk like a ’57 chevy.

679. Chirs M - January 17, 2008

That is absolutely awesome!

680. GARY - January 17, 2008

HEY!!! Are those bumps TMP-era phaser emplacements just fore and aft of the hyphen in “NCC-1701″ ????

681. Viking - January 17, 2008

#671 Gary – do you have a hi-res shot of that center pic? That looks great…….

682. Imrahil - January 17, 2008

678 – That’s my big problem, though–this is erasing TOS from the continuity “correcting” it. TOS isn’t the problem–the rest is.

683. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

#677. Star Trek 12….

Kirk: “Whats your na….. wait you look alot like Ensign Ricky!”

Ricky(Grunberg): “Thats me sir, Robert Ricky!”

Kirk: “But you were killed!”

Ricky(Grunber): “Oh, no… that was my brother Roberto Ricky!”

684. Veridian - January 17, 2008

The only things I *don’t* like are the positions of the lettering. It’s too close to the front and just a bit LARGE for my taste.

I like the big bruiser engines, though, and the cool fins. This baby is gonna scream…

Anybody notice the four “bumps’ (phasers?) on the top front of the primary hull?

685. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

Are the sensors on the front of the Primary hull missing?

Love the atmosphere and smoke fx too. And a worker to provide
real scale. I’ve been waiting 20 years for this!

Also, any reports on the musical score would be GREATLY appreciated.
I have not seen any here!

686. Veridian - January 17, 2008

I see that #680 noticed the bumps…

687. Veridian - January 17, 2008

#685 – I bet the enterpise fanfare plays as soon as the shot zooms out enough for the audience to realize what they are looking at…

688. chrispikeswheelchair - January 17, 2008

MAybe in the new movie we’ll get to see another transporter accident like in TMP except this time, Leonard Nimoy’s head will switch w/ Quinto’s and we’ll get the orginal for another 40 years.

Pan to the Shat at the control console as he winks to the camera and moves his tupee up and down..sigh…. hope he makes into this MP or STXII

689. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

687. Veridian

#685 – I bet the enterprise fanfare plays…


NOOOO!!!! Use the TOS theme. Please!!!!

690. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

I took the liberty of Doctoring the Image- hmm, what’s in those shadows?
Check it out:
(Hope the link works…)

691. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

#668: “You like Enterprise. Ah ha!”

I like most “Star Trek.” I think people who hang around and complain about and condemn the versions they don’t like are generally asses. So nu?

692. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

690. Dr. Image

I like the effort, but what are you seeing?

693. Enc - January 17, 2008

what im seeing is as tmp bridge increasd by 100% (twice the size) and is now two decks (an A/B deck housing). and the wtf is a C deck housing instead of what should be a B/C deck housing. even the dome (decks 4/5) is a bit off at the top of it if you look closely at the left. then as you look right and notice the aztec plating should show a sence of the curve but it just dosent look right.
why even the scale of the crane dosent look right. if you look a the crane its fine. but if you put in contrast with thte rest of the image… the boom arm sem to be lighting the bridge dome while the caounter wait at the other end is behind the nnaccel. im just hoping this is a perspective issue.
now forgive me for not reading all the posts (671 at this count) but did any else notice the lack of saucer sec leading edge sensors (you know. those 3 round circle on the front). yes i know, there are some hull plates missing but at least one plate is in placed right up to the center line and ther should be a a space for a large round white censor there (or is it a aux deflector).

damn that welders smoke and the still pic.

694. Daniel Broadway - January 17, 2008


I bet those are just nav. lights. Instead of one, it looks like two.

695. GARY - January 17, 2008

Sure… here you go

696. cbspock - January 17, 2008

Is it possible that the nacelles are just covered while the ship is under construction in this picture and the nacelles will be closer to the originals?

697. Dr. Image - January 17, 2008

#692- More than before. And a better sense of what it’ll look like in an alternate illumination. What are YOU seeing?
(This is fun. Me want more pix.)

698. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

691. Dennis Bailey – January 17, 2008

I like most “Star Trek.”…

Me too. But its hard not to be sarcastic when watching the shows.
Like last night (on Spike) when Janeway directs the ship to return the the Space anomaly to heal it. And after they barely escaped destruction in the 1st act.

Kirk would have blown it up, fearing it was going to reproduce. HA!

And Janeway’s hair. Janeway was a good character. Just one I would not have minded seeing off’d in the 1st season.

But at least it’s Trek/Sci-Fi.

699. ShawnP - January 17, 2008

Is this the teaser trailer?

700. Viking - January 17, 2008

Gary – thanks!

701. shuttlepod10 - January 17, 2008

Gee, and here I thought Firefly fans were whiny bastards.

702. Mark T. - January 17, 2008

I LOVE IT! I cannot wait to see the trailer. One of the many things I love about TOS Trek is how they make a plastic future relatable to a present day audience. Of course, it was mostly the stories. However, it was also the little details they added like the nods to Naval tradition. It just gives the audience a reference point to balance them and suspend their disbelief as they go on this wild adventure. So, yes, I am sure they could have come up with some “whiz bang” sci-fi way of constructing the ship with replicators or some such hooey. However, I have NO problem with cranes and welders. I am sure that even in a push-button, automated, multi-tronic future, there will still be a need to manually attach one piece of metal to another with a high temp heat source of some kind.

Besides, if you watch any of those “Building the Ultimate” type shows on Discovery and TLC, you’ll see that present day engineering borders on science fiction as it is. It boggles my non-engineer mind to think that we can build some of these amazingly huge aircraft carriers and such. I recall what graphic designer Lee Cole said in the 20/20 special on TMP regarding the design of the Enterprise bridge set; “It’s hard enough to keep up with the present, let alone look into the future.”

703. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

699. ShawnP
Is this the teaser trailer?


704. Daniel Broadway - January 17, 2008


I feel for that at first, but actually, the trailer is here….

He he he.

705. SteveinSF - January 17, 2008

#693rd! YES!

Well, the lighting is cool and it looks some what realistic but I have to say the nacelles are just big enough to look like they’ve been pimped out by that MTV Pimp My Ride thing. I can hear Jerry Goldsmith and Alexander Courage vibrating in their graves as the Beat Boxing Big E rolls on out of space dock, spinners and all.

706. SteveinSF - January 17, 2008

oops I mean, 705th

707. Veridian - January 17, 2008

#698 – I meant the Enterprise fanfare from TOS, of course. The fanfare that plays at the beginning of the opening credits and every time the ship appears on screen – you know:

Da da daaaa, da da da da daaaa… DAH DAH!

708. Veridian - January 17, 2008

Oops, I meant #689…

709. Balock - January 17, 2008

#620, I also noticed the wtf upper saucer section. Maybe it is still under construction, but I hope it doesn’t end up looking like that. Why monkey around with that? Also, I think the size/perspective of the nacelles is okay (for now), but they do appear to have a funky shape. Why monkey around with that?

710. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

697. Dr. Image

What are YOU seeing?

An AWESOME design!!!
One that I would not expect to pass corporate on a 150 mil and then let a little known actor at the helm. That’s promising too.

At least I hope Pine makes it there. But he will.


693. Enc

Its way too early to comment definitively. But I enjoyed your suposicion!

711. Mawazitus - January 17, 2008

So, I’m examining the large version of the image. Are there some sort of flared hoods over the nacelle caps?

712. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

707. Veridian

“Da da daaaa, da da da da daaaa… DAH DAH!”

I was going to type thay earlier too.
But, I thought i would not come across well.

713. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008


That’s actually one of the pictures we initially showed JJ to get him excited about making trek feel real.

714. Mawazitus - January 17, 2008

Perhaps it’s just the perspective. The nacelles are just bulky at the front, I suppose.

715. shuttlepod10 - January 17, 2008

Do we get to hear that familar RED ALERT whine in the movie?

716. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

713. roberto Orci

“That’s actually one of the pictures we initially showed JJ to get him excited about making trek feel real.”

And the one that leaked it is still in the Agonizer Booth.” HA!

717. freezejeans - January 17, 2008


That’s awesome, good to see you back here again…all I know is, my dad in the 60’s didn’t go pick up my mom for dates until Star Trek was over. And now at age 40 I’m getting HIM hyped up again for your film. Funny how that works!

718. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

717. freezejeans


719. Pragmaticus - January 17, 2008

713 – Roberto, you guys have done a great job!

720. Alex Rosenzweig - January 17, 2008

#511 – One thing I figured was that the Enterprise parts in this film may take place a number of years after the events of “The Cage”. That suggests there could be a lot of changeover in the crew. Hollywood portrayals aside, it really wouldn’t be expected that the same crew would stay in the same places for years on end.

#517 – Yeah, I’m looking at it now on a much better monitor, and there are more subtle differences than were visible when I looked at it earlier, from a different machine. The nacelles look more Koerner-esque, and the Decks 1-3 superstructure also looks a lot wider than on the original ship.

#574 – Well, the question becomes an aesthetic one, perhaps. Some changes may be more right than others. ;) I’m going to wait ‘tl I see more views of her before I decide whether they’ve done it “right”, according to my aesthetics.

#620 – The part you labeled “Bridge?” looks like the upper sensor dome to me. The open part just below looks like decks 1 and 2. “Wtf?” looks like deck 3, and the area just below that looks like decks 4 and 5, though much more curved upward than on the original ship (as Dennis’s image linked in #615 also shows).

I suppose one might theorize that the ship was refit at some point, though I think the logical choice would be that this is just how she looked during Pike’s command, and maybe the very beginning of Kirk’s, and then she was refitted sometime between that point and “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. ‘Course, if they show us the ship at some point later in Kirk’s command–or she shows up in the sequel still looking like this–we’ll have to think of something else. ;)

721. Enc - January 17, 2008


722. jim - January 17, 2008

671 –

Link does not work for me

723. Noleuser - January 17, 2008

I really like how the trailer is expressing the beginning of space travel, it reminds me of how they advertised for Star Trek: Enterprise in the beginning.

724. nyxtreme - January 17, 2008

What is so awesome about this frame is that, not only this Enterprise is faithful to canon, but it is also the most realistic looking so far! I commend JJ Abrams’ vision of augmenting and realizing Gene Roddenbery’s vision to today’s generation. With so much negativity around the world, one could only hope for a better future. Star Trek will always be better than Star Wars!!! (It’s my personal opinion.) Love live the ORIGINAL big E!!! May JJ Abrams’ steer this ship to new adventures!!!

725. Jesustrek - January 17, 2008

. EEE oooooooooo


726. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

718. TrekMadeMeWonder

One of my earliest memories is of watching “Arena” with him and getting freaked out by “the thing trying to kill Captain Kirk,” thus running out of the room screaming. Heh.

I agree with your earlier post about TMP’s rectangular design (#397)…I loved that thing for years growing up, but this new curve-enhanced version is looking better. Wonder what Jefferies would think?

727. xfiler93 - January 17, 2008

Looks awesome, just hope the movie is. Very much a stickler for continunity and canon, so hope they dont butcher it. Otherwise, cant wait till December!!!

728. Alex Rosenzweig - January 17, 2008

#680, 686 – I dunno. I think the hyphen in the registry makes those things look more like a phaser bank than is intended. They darker spots look more like slightly different shaded plates to me, though it’s hard to be certain in that light.

As I look at the pics more, I’m thinking I’m not liking the nacelles that much, not so much because they’re different as because they’re less attractive, at least to my aesthetic sensibilities. I’m going to caveat that, though, by saying that I might change my mind once I see another angle and get a sense of how the engines’ overall structure looks. The bow-on view might be misleading.

729. cd - January 17, 2008


oh well…

730. DJT - January 17, 2008

Hello, ship.

731. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008


They have reached a deal. Just reprorted on CNN.


732. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

726. freezejeans

[One of my earliest memories… ]

Funny! Me too. At 42 my earliest memory was watching the Moon shot lift for space. I was on the living room rug with a tape recorder playing like it was Spocks’ tricorder.

Trek and science is ingrained in my soul!!!

733. Q - January 17, 2008

To point out to anyone who is complaining about the energy economics about moving an Earth-bound ship into orbit should take into consideration that ships in Trek can move thousands of times the speed of light using an incredibly dangerous energy source: antimatter. I think that if they can build deflectors, starships, warp cores, and pointy rocks fashioned onto polls to use as weapons, that they can use tractors beams or long strands of lichorice to hoist the Big E into the San Francisco Fleet Yards.

734. Regular Joe - January 17, 2008

Roberto, I salute you sir. You are living my dream (and the dream of every other obsessive fan on this site).

The ship looks wonderful. That’s no plastic model. That’s a huge space-going vessel. Thank you. Star Trek is in safe hands.

735. Viking - January 17, 2008

Not that it matters to anyone, but all the Dr. Who shut-ins over at AICN are tearing this shot a new dung sluice. LOL ;-)

736. Viking - January 17, 2008

#31 TrekMadeMeWonder – I just passed through Drudge’s site. That was the DIRECTOR’S guild. The WGA issue appears to be an entirely different bag o’ marbles (correct me if I’m wrong, Roberto).

737. table10 - January 17, 2008


I think its the directors guild that has come to an agreement, but im not sure.

738. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

732. TrekMadeMeWonder

That’s great…were you able to record anything from the Moon landing? That must have been a blast. I have a pic of me in front of the TV watching it, but was too young to remember, unfortunately.

You probably also had the Mego tape recorder toy that was shaped like a tricorder, too :D That thing was awesome, think it came out in the early 70’s and mine took a beating from dragging it around everywhere I went. Ah, memories…check it out!

739. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 17, 2008

WOW!!! Finally something we can really sink our teeth in to! This is what many of us have been waiting for!

Very happy with what we can see so far! It is very exciting!

*Very Happy Trekker Girl!* :)


740. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

738. freezejeans – January 17, 2008

[…were you able to record anything from the Moon landing?]

It’s funny how memory is at such a young age. Its just a faint memory these days. And no, it was not a real tricorder. Just a standard reel to reel recorder and its whereabouts and recordings are unknown today.

But Trek did make a great grande impression on our nation. Did it not?
It sure fired my imagination at such a young age. Thank you Gene and NASA too!!!

741. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

738. freezejeans

Great video!!! That’s how I remember my childhood too!!! HAHAHAHAHA

742. Woulfe - January 17, 2008

OVER 700 replys just for a photo ?

The internet is gonna melt down after the teaser is put on it !

– W –
* sheesh *

743. Terpor - January 17, 2008

It really looks so freaking good! NICE JOB!

744. Devon - January 17, 2008

The DGA and WGA are two different things. The Directors Guild is obviously a Director’s union.. the Writers Guild is a Writer’s union.

745. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008

555 “Forgive me for not reading the other 5 jillion posts. Nobody will read my post either, so it balances out in the end.”

I read every post.

746. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

740. TrekMadeMeWonder

Ya got that right, I remember the NASA announcement about the test shuttle, with the pic of Gene and cast on hand (minus Shat)…1975 or so? It was in Weekly Reader, heh.

Off to bed, have a great night and thanks for sharing about the good ol’ days! I’m guessing this story will have 1,200 replies or so by the time I wake up, hahaha…

747. Adam - January 17, 2008

I’m happy with the picture. I like the look of the hull plating. The nacells look like they are still under construction so I’m not too worried about them. I am still wating, like everyone else, for a picture of the bridge set.

As far as the construction on Earth issue. It doesn’t matter too much. My guess is they put the ship structure together on earth, then take it apart and have final assembly in orbit.

If anyone has seen the entire trailer let us know if we see more of the ship… it is about midnight on the east coast.

748. J. E. Carrales - January 17, 2008

It looks as if the ships is under construction with NO CAPs (note this is in ALL CAPS), I would like to see it in full, not close up.

749. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 17, 2008

745. roberto Orci – January 17, 2008

[I read every post.]

I comment on every post! HAHAHAHAHHHAH hAHAHAH AH AHAA!

Sorry all it’s a sickness. I’ve been hooked on this site recently.

And Anthony? I will stop posting for a while now. : )
Not that you asked me too. I just don’t want to be a hog here.

750. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

…and, naturally, I see Mr. Orci’s back so I won’t be going to sleep anytime soon, haha.

OK, here’s a fun question for ya, Roberto. Will Chris Pine have the posture that Shatner used to have? I tried to demonstrate it a few years ago: :D Frakes did it during TNG’s first season and it was kind of funny.

And thanks for reading all of our posts, there’s a LOT to wade through!

751. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 17, 2008

I’ve always liked the “aztec” detailing, but I really like how you can see all the details going on inside the ship, and the exposed nacelle “turbines” are a nice touch!

Usually you have to wait for a ship to be damaged before you can see the interiors and the insides of a ship. This is nice to be able to see her in her pristine condition!

752. Viking - January 17, 2008

#750 freezejeans – I’m here late because my squaw came home from work, late and tired, and proceeded to snooze. So, I figure that if I’m not getting any scamper tonight, I might as well throw my two bits into the hat. ;-)

753. Alex Rosenzweig - January 17, 2008

#745 – Well, Roberto, all I can say is thank you for reading through all this. :) I just hope that I’m making some degree of sense in my posts, and maybe even being helpful in some tiny way.

754. Dansk - January 17, 2008

Holy shit, I’m in love!

755. Justin Toney - January 17, 2008

I think I understand something about what Uncle JJ and the team is doing. Fact, Enterprise was built in the San Francisco yards (says so on the dedication plaque), so this could possibly be any place either on Earth, in space around Earth, or close to Mars.

They have done an incredible job of, reimaging (if I may say so), the original E to make her look like it should have. Matt Jefferies design is classic and will always be, the director and producers of the film are just seeing what it will be like with today’s technology (which was unavailable back in the 60s).

Fact: The ship is going to be awesome, and is sure to bring a clearer understanding of the massive size of a Starship.

Look at the cover of the ‘Relics’ novel. I think it shows a picture of the classic 1701. Look closely at the perspective of the shot and tell me if it isn’t close to what we see here.

756. the king in shreds and tatters - January 17, 2008

I like the insides of the ramscoops… nice touch.

757. Ralph - January 17, 2008

That shot is in a atmosphere. Smoke, haze and arc welding. Those engines are the first jet turbine and warp drive nacelle hybrid. It is soon dropped due to high expenditures. Anyhow the crane is designed with gravity in mind. In space, there is little or no gravity.
Ok, just kidding about the engines.

758. freezejeans - January 17, 2008

752. Viking

LOL I just re-read your “full frontal” post again (#49). That AICN thread is hilarious, too…read through it earlier today, but now it’s even funnier. Sorry to hear about the snoozin’, too :)

759. the king in shreds and tatters - January 17, 2008

And it looks better than the remastered TOS Enterprise, that’s for damn sure.

Actually, that makes me wonder… If the studio were thoroughly redesigning the ship for the new movie, why would they keep an unaltered design in the remastered TOS show, instead of building audience familiarity with the new version?

760. hitch1969© - January 17, 2008

I’m still just in awe, hours later.

this is so beyond mac in the pants, its like trousers full of Kraft’s cheesiest.

wow. just effing wow.



761. Jabob Slatter - January 17, 2008

This is gorgeous! It looks real, like they photographed a model, instead of being CG. Very cool!

The only time scale was ever established well was in First Contact, when the boys took a walk under the saucer. I hope Abrams understands that Enterprise is as important as the characters, and the detail on this photo would imply that. So, at least the design will be cool, based on this peek.

And I don’t give a bloody bump about whether the ship is “supposed” to be built in space or not. I got better reasons to shriek like a baby.

762. OneBuckFilms - January 17, 2008

Well, interesting design.

I though at first that it was a very well made fake.

Interested to see what the in-space shots look like.

763. elmachocombo - January 17, 2008

Attention please, the ghost of G. Rod has something to say. “Ahem…cough…wheeeeeze. Kids, had we the time and money way back in 1965, this is exactly the ship you’d have seen on your T.V. screens….for me to poop on!”

Well, there you have it.

The engines look like european blow dryers crossed with Geiger’s Alien wrapped in a couple of dildos. Do I see a Hiundai logo on the hood?
Peace out bitches! See you at the movies.

764. Brian - January 17, 2008

The Big E looks great, a combo of TOS and TMP with a little extra thrown in(thought it was cool they kept the aztec tiling from TMP too). I’m looking forward to seeing more of her!

765. elmachocombo - January 17, 2008

I keeed, I keeed. She’s looking fine and in line.

766. Harry Ballz - January 17, 2008

#763 elmachocombo “the ghost of G. Rod”

for someone from L.A…………… speak da truth! :)

767. Viking - January 17, 2008

Hitch, my man, welcome to the festivities. Roberto Orci is keeping us entertained with his drive-by commentary…..;-)

768. OneBuckFilms - January 17, 2008

759 – In all likelyhood, it could be because CBS owns the Television franchise, while Paramount own the Movie side of things.

Another reason is simply that CBS-Digital were working on a restoration and enhancement of the Original Series, and they had to work before the new Movie Enterprise was finalized in any real way.

769. Jabob Slatter - January 17, 2008

Wow, they’re a lot more like Klingons at AICN’s talkback. We’re much more civilized here.

I think I’ll move over to AICN for a little while and unleash my inner Klingon. See ya later!

770. BOSSOMATIC - January 17, 2008

Hell you can barely make anything out of that picture, could be the new Batmobile for all I know.

771. Will Doe 68 - January 17, 2008

Funny there’s all this talk about scale and proportions,about the engines and the saucer section. Maybe the engines aren’t in the proper position yet. They just seem to be,I mean it’s still under construction here.
So there just in a temporary hold,till their later fitted to ship.
And the bridge definitely is remodeled from olden days.
But one thing that strikes me a little odd is the fact that,no one has mentioned picking up there own Enterprise model and holding it up to your nose and seeing the difference in perspective.
I mean we’re all Trek fans here,Right!?
That means you must have a toy or model somewhere in your bedroom.

772. Skippy 2k - January 17, 2008

The batmobile has the same registry….and name as the trek ship? ;-)

773. elmachocombo - January 17, 2008

She’s touching my noooooooose, NOW!
Hey, that tickles.

774. KirkTrekModeler - January 17, 2008

Thank you Robert and thank you Gabe!!!! When everyone was running you into the ground and talkin smack about your ship, I was 100% behind you.

Who’s having the last laugh now? Gabriel That’s who WHOOT!

I’m loving it! HAW HAW HAW!!!

Just think boys and girls, you saw the ship months ago and all you could do was gripe and whine! Har, har har!

775. MrRegular - January 17, 2008

Love it, Can’t wait for the teaser…
Thanks JJ and crew!

776. non-belligerency confirmed - January 17, 2008

don’t know if i’m loving the pic or enjoying the loser’s lament more. those of you who are dissapointed by this brilliant image are so screwing themselves. my deepest sympathy, really. i suppose maybe you all had bad childhoods.

well, i HOPE you did.

anyway, my girlfriend said when she saw it (and i quote):
“i wanna go down on anyone who made this happen.”

of course i forbid that. but, still.

lucky me, in love with a hot trekslut.

777. elmachocombo - January 17, 2008

It’s a little bit country, and a little bit rock n’ roll.
Good night, Harry.
Could you send us out with a final rhyme?

778. Adam - January 17, 2008

I want to second #775’s (MrRegular’s) thanks to JJ and crew. Not all movies put out a teaser this early in production.

Thanks guys,

779. KirkTrekModeler - January 17, 2008

So tell me Gabe, or Robert. Does the bridge have a 35 degree offset from the centerline, or is that just more fanboy foolishness?


780. greeley - January 17, 2008

I love it. Only thing I am concerned about is that it looks to be being built in San Francisco. Not cannon at least not yet. But if things like this are all that are changed to bring back our beloved trek I feel good about it. To me it makes more sense that a ship would be built on a planet just like how we build real space things.

781. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008

Many have pointed out an issue that we researched and debated internally: IS THERE ANY REASON THE ENTERPRISE WOULD BE BUILT ON THE GROUND?

Our answer is “YES.” Many of you are correct to point out that much has been written about the efficiency of constructing interstellar ships or satellites in space. However, further research will point out that it is more efficient because the materials do not need to be as strong since these ships never need to endure the effects of gravity. The Enterprise is different, however. It has to sustain an artificial gravitational field inside (unlike the station in 2001 which accomplished its gravity through centrifugal forces), AND the Enterprise has to be strong enough to sustain the massive spacetime curvature that ioccurs at warp speed. If a child is born and raised on a space station, he/she can never come to earth comfortably or without risking severe health risks because their bodies would not be tempered to sustain such forces. Created in space = not as durable or strong.

And as a final bit of trivia, let me just say that it turns out that warp nacelles have to be built in a sufficiently strong gravity well (like earth’s) to be properly balanced! ;)

782. Adam - January 17, 2008

Does stuff seen in trailers count as canon?

783. manrum - January 17, 2008

it be because CBS has the television, though Paramount has the side or the things of the fim XI. Despite CBS was the operation has the restoration and heightens to him or stories by deliveries, and had in the principle to work before the new company of the film was concluded anyway. Nice looking, unfortunate.


784. Dennis Bailey - January 17, 2008

We’ll make 1000 posts easy on this one. :)

785. Jeffrey S. Nelson - January 17, 2008

Lettering is not only a different font but doesn’t follow the curve of the hull.

786. trekfansince1977 - January 17, 2008

674. TrekMadeMeWonder

I don’t belive that ship ever went to “warp.”

The Enterprise engines are a great element of the Enterprise design and are nicely placed allowing jettison if things go bad.

Which is a real problem I had with the Warp Core idea.
Logically, the main engines should be the place where the
‘cores’ are located..

They aren’t engines tho, the engine was in main engineering, the Nacelles create a warp field, and that it what makes them go to warp, they use the impulse engines to speed up to sub-light that then they jump to warp, so in a sence, the impulse engines are still propelling the ship. Not The nacelles

787. Voice - January 17, 2008

800 comments and you’re all idiots. You’re all idiots. Idiots.

Stop wasting your time debating a ship built on the ground. This is so obvious. I seriously doubt the movie is going far enough back in time to see the ship being built. Trailers like these NEVER have actual movie footage.

This is just to show that the franchise is being rebuilt. It’s done on the ground by 1940’s ship yard builders because its a romantic image. A ship built by hand. Its not literal. Trek fans are supposed to be so darn smart with their high ideal science fiction. And yet almost none of you get a simple visual analogy. Instead you debate it like, well, um, uh, I have no other word than “fanboys”. You give Trekkies a bad name. Right now the producers are shifting through all this crap and wondering why they would make a movie for a bunch of imbeciles like most of you. Grow up.

788. Ralph - January 17, 2008

In the picture, I think I saw what looks like some Klingons rapping next to the Enterprise. Do you think they will key it? I wonder if they have their green card?

789. Can't Wait for X-Mas 2008 - January 17, 2008

#781, Roberto after reading your post, it just reinforces my feeling that you, Alex and JJ are perfect for Star Trek. Can’t wait to see the teaser in front of Cloverfield! Is there still any chance of flames being put on the Enterprise ? :)

790. Sebastian Fontius - January 17, 2008

And there’s my new wallpaper…

791. Stanky McFibberich - January 17, 2008

re:781. roberto Orci

Orci has spoken.

792. Prologic9 - January 17, 2008


Did you guys ever finish your Refit blueprints?

793. I AM THX-1138 - January 17, 2008

#787-You are an enabler.

What a greedy bastard I am. I see a snippett of the E and I want more.

More! More! More! More! More! More! More!

Ok, when’s the next trailer coming out?

794. Dilithium'R'Us - January 17, 2008

#781 roberto Orci
“And as a final bit of trivia, let me just say that it turns out that warp nacelles have to be built in a sufficiently strong gravity well (like earth’s) to be properly balanced!”

I wonder what it must feel like to be placed in the enviable (unenviable?) position of being officially contracted to “create” Star Trek canon. :)

795. originalfan - January 17, 2008

hey every one

well i can live with this enterprise from what i have seen so far. It looks like the original.. one of the other posters blew up the pic and lightened it up, the nacelles dont look to big (mayb slghtly) when lightened and slightly enlarged.

the biggest test will be the deflector dish, how will that work? and the secondary hull and the nacelle side markings. i hope they keep them the same.

796. roberto Orci - January 17, 2008


Feels like being appointed to the supreme court. Of course, future jurors may overturn us.

797. Viking - January 17, 2008

Roberto, just don’t leave a pubic hair on the canonical Coke can. LOL ;-)

798. Habs2919 - January 17, 2008

796* Everything looks great so far Mr. Orci… tell everybody to keep up the good work!

799. Viking - January 17, 2008

Are we at 800 posts yet? :-) C’mon slackers. LOL ;-)

800. Viking - January 17, 2008

OK, I’ll do it. 800. Now I go to bed.

801. Charles Trotter - January 17, 2008

Just got back from the midnight viewing of Cloverfield. These are indeed shots from the teaser trailer. The trailer (and the ship) are amazing. I’m sure glad I didn’t read any of the descriptions that leaked. ;)

By the way… Cloverfield was outstanding. One hell of a fun, wild ride. Unless you own a big screen TV, you will want to see this movie in theaters. So do it! :D

802. Gary Seven - January 17, 2008

Mr. Orci:

You read every post?

Just want to say I think that is great. Here we have a writer of the new movie who is also a Star Trek fan. Besides that, he reads every post (at least in this thread, which is impressive enough). He talks to us, within the limits of what he can say. I so appreciate the thought he put into the question of if the E was built in space or not. It could have been a stupid, thoughtless corporate decision with our much-loved ship, but it clearly wasn’t. I hope, and have reason to be optimistic, that Mr. Orci and others put that kind of thoughtfulness into other aspects involved in taking care of our beloved show. That is not the same thing as keeping it EXACTLY the same. My point is that they seem to be (we’ll find out more in December) putting respectful thought into what Star Trek is, and how they are going to uphold it.
It is not possible for any of us to know at this point whether this movie will be the greatest Star Trek ever, the worst ever, or something in-between.
But it is possible to recognize how great it is that we have the ability to have an ongoing dialogue with one of the writers. I am grateful to Mr. Orci and to the possibilities of the internet. We could not do this without either of them. Thank you.

803. TomBot2008 - January 17, 2008

Some mornings, I wake up, and I wish I was the janitor on the Original Big E out there on a five year mission… Heh, heh. Whatever, all this bitch and complaining about a “teaser” . When we get some “real” shots of the Enterprise, etc. is when I start getting non-plussed or flustered. Right now, it’s just some low key excitement, that things might not be too f’ed up by the new kids in charge. The canon arguements are all fine in conjecture, but do I or many us really take that stuff seriously? Only to a point, I think. Heck, I remember seeing TMP as a kid and immediately accepting the bumpy headed Klingons and the “new” Enterprise. Most of us will get over inconsistences quite quickly IF the movie is good, or heaven help up, great! If there are some that want to hang on to their damn quibbles to the end, well, let them. I for one, won’t give a tribble’s ass. Are we1K yet:? ;-)

804. The Arbiter - January 17, 2008

so…does no one have any links to the teaser trailer yet???
I mean COME ON lol…

805. Will Doe 68 - January 17, 2008

787. Voice – January 17, 2008

800 comments and you’re all idiots. You’re all idiots. Idiots.

Stop wasting your time debating a ship built on the ground. This is so obvious. I seriously doubt the movie is going far enough back in time to see the ship being built. Trailers like these NEVER have actual movie footage.

This is just to show that the franchise is being rebuilt. It’s done on the ground by 1940’s ship yard builders because its a romantic image. A ship built by hand. Its not literal. Trek fans are supposed to be so darn smart with their high ideal science fiction. And yet almost none of you get a simple visual analogy. Instead you debate it like, well, um, uh, I have no other word than “fanboys”. You give Trekkies a bad name. Right now the producers are shifting through all this crap and wondering why they would make a movie for a bunch of imbeciles like most of you. Grow up.

My God he’s right! We’re so stupid! Stupid.stupid,stupid! I’m gong to bed now,with no milk or cookies. :(
Nothing like a message board for the intellectual giants to put us thoughtless minions in place.
From now on,no more fun. :)

806. David (now over the wings & flames thing. Sorta.) - January 17, 2008

Bloody heck – 800 posts?

Ok. She looks like she should.

Yes. I got excited. Damn those geek genes.

Now. I am excited.

Good work Orci.

807. blake powers - January 17, 2008

A lot of posts..
mr. orci i think you have the right idea… As long as you stay at the top of your NERDOM I think we are in the right hands….. It’s good to know that this franchise can continue to bloom. Now i just hope you can work Picard into one of these movies.

808. Gary7 - January 17, 2008

#404, #505, #529, #570, #602, #642 – Amen to that.

#490, #537 – LOL

#633 – Trek already has repeat customers, just look at us. I’m guessing that most of us will pay to see the movie, regardless of those that post about boycotting it. Paramount knows that making profit on their $130 million investment involves existing Trekkers and creating new ones.

We Trekkers are so OCD sometimes…Do any of you realize that the Enterprise will first be Captained by Chuck Cunningham from Happy Days? He really didn’t leave home for the Army, he went to Starfleet Academy. Star Trek is a living breathing franchise capable of supporting any cast, crew, and VFX that Paramount and JJ Abrams sees fit to deposit on it!

I’ll bet that that just about anyone not as passionate about Trek as we are (posting about a movie 11 months out) will recognize this ship as the Enterprise.

I think She looks great!

To those who want Trek to look and feel like the Desilu Production, there’s always your chance to make your own fan film, complete with the Ertl Starship Enterprise Model kit painted with white Krylon, Space Hippies and an HD camcorder. ☺

I think that it’s great the Paramount is bringing back Trek, sans Berman and Braga, for a fresh take on the franchise. If you don’t like what JJ Abrams is doing, there are always the DVDs of the original series. That way, you can watch canon being established frame by frame, complete with plot holes and inconstancies that are easy to forgive, since they were produced by Gene Roddenberry himself. Sheesh…many of us accepted that Jean Luc Picard, A Frenchman, has an English Accent, didn’t we?

As for this limited glimpse of the new old Enterprise, It looks like a machine with some heft and mass to it, (just waiting to come alive with her crew) and less like a model…nice. Maybe the Starfleet Rabbi will circumcise the nacelles before her maiden voyage. At the very least, let’s hope that she won’t do barrel rolls.

-just my $.02

809. toddk - January 17, 2008

I think that one of the instructers at the academy is going to call Kirk ‘Mister Adventure” and the audience is going to howl!

810. Captain Scokirk - January 17, 2008


Supreme Court Analogy is probably the best way to describe it, atleast you are admitting indirectly to overturning previous decisions.


Great work so far….

The ship looks great, don’t really have a problem w/ surface construction after thinking it over for a few days

The gravity reasoning is interesting, but the organic life born in space analogy confused me,

Engineers can calculate forces and then design for those forces , materials have finite capabilities, once you determine what you need to withstand those forces you build it out of materials that can take those structural loads. Whether you build it in space or not wouldnt effect the inherrent properties of the materials, I dont understand how building the ship under gravitational stress would make the materials stronger.

Are bridges and structures built fully loaded to make them stronger?

I understand equating the tremendous forces the ship would withstand traveling through space with the ships ability to withstand Earth’s gravity while under construction but the built in space = weaker materials seems unlikely

Now Warp engines being balanced in gravity wells, What the h-e-double hockey sticks, sounds fine with me. Whose to say what idyosncracies Warp travel entails.

Of course my post # 466 applies anyway so maybe I’m full of it for arguing oe way or another

811. Cox of Seagulls - January 17, 2008

Jeez, I thought it said I.S.S. Enterprise on the hull for a second!

812. Allister Gourlay - January 17, 2008

im 49 this week and still excited about the new film!

813. S. John Ross - January 17, 2008

She’s familiar. That’s all I ask.

So, one less thing to worry about [checks box].

814. Alex Trekek - January 17, 2008

Just got out of the midnight “Cloverfield” premier. good film, by the way, and i’m happy to say i saw the “Star Trek” preview. pretty much as was described, but i’d have to say i’m disappointed. its all of about 30 seconds long, and it left me kind of empty, but still excited me. worth wseeing cloverfield for cloverfield. if youre not interested in the movie, dont go just for the star trek teaser. fun to see, but doesnt necessitate buying a ticket for a movie youre not interested in.

815. elmachocombo - January 17, 2008

Hey, 787,
I woke up to tell you something.


816. Adrick - January 18, 2008

Well, I’m excited. As others have pointed out, the Enterprise changed so drastically from TOS to TMP that there’s no reason this couldn’t be the Enterprise as she was before a similar refit into the TOS configuration. Maybe they painted her white to hide the plating and stenciled on the name in a different font. Whatever. It’s close enough to the original TV version, while still looking realistic enough to make one think that we could really go there one day.

And I’m actually excited to see it being built (at least partially) on Earth. I never really bought the idea that the “San Francisco” yards mentioned on the plaque were actually in orbit. I doubt that the ship will “blast off” from Earth’s surface; if we see the launch, it’ll probably be from the usual space dock.

817. Cheve - January 18, 2008

I just realized that the original TOS Enterprise has ALLWAYS had FLAMES!

On the main tubular body under the disk, on each side, a double red line extending from the Enterprise Yellow logo. Those ARE flames!




818. Charles Trotter - January 18, 2008

#164 Skippy 2k

Nice work! Could you add the logo and the tagline “Under Construction”? :-D

819. shuttlepod10 - January 18, 2008

IF it’s built on the ground, how do they get it up into space????

820. Bobby - January 18, 2008

i would consider myself low on the geekometer….but with all this news today…i admit i spiked!!!

Anthony, congrats on a wonderful site for us fans and non fans alike. And to the team of STXI…thank you!

821. Aggi - January 18, 2008

Wow, she looks fantastic! A hybrid between TOS and TMP. Can’t wait to see her in all her glory.

822. Cranston - January 18, 2008

My friends, we’ve come home.


823. Aggi - January 18, 2008

#21. trekofficial – January 17, 2008
Lettering is NOT CANNON! BOYCOTT!!!

Of course it is canon! Take a look at ST:TMP without the red outlines.

824. ich56 - January 18, 2008

First please excuse my bad english, i’m from Germany.
Forgive me, for not beeing so enthusiastic about that Picture, but i can’t follow your Argumentation. Why build a Ship of that size and weight on the Ground? If not during construction, then when it’s completed the Ship would collaps in on itself, because of its own mass and the Gravity. So, why do Starfleet has Spacedocks, just for repair and refit? The Enterprise NX01 and the was build in Space so was the Columbia. Why would Starfleet change that? I agree with you upon the fact, the nacelles would be build on Earth, shipped into Orbit and then mounted on the Ship. Now tell me how you plan on getting the completed Ship into Orbit. It can’t do it by itself, because it was never designed to fly in an atmosphere, because of it’s lack of an aerodynamic form. And before you say, that the Ship has a Artificial Gravity Generator, i have to say, that it’s not possible for that Generator to produce zero Gravity around the hole Ship, because it’s designed to produce Gravity inside the Ship. And Why would the materials be weaker when they are assembled in Space. I don’t get it. The Parts are build on Earth and assembled in Space. Why would they be weaker? o_O
When you say, that the Ship has to be sustain the Strains during Warp Flight, and therefor must be build on earth, then you don’t have a clue how they manage to move the Ship faster than light. The Warpcore produces the Energy that the nacelles need to produce a bubble around the Ship which reduces the Mass of the Ship to near zero. Otherwise, Warptravel would be impossible because the mass of the Object, would increase dramatically and the Ship would be destroyed. So the Strain is not that big during Warpflight.
You can’t compare anorganic materials with an organic body. That are two different things. And you are completely right what you said abaout a child beeing born in Space. But anorganic Materials keep their characteristics. Now tell me. Is the ISS weaker because it’s beeing assembled in Space and it’s beeing build on Earth?

Now one Word about that Picture. I really don’t like the metallic look of the Hull. It looks like a hybrid between the Enterprise NX01 and the TMP Enterprise. Why wouldn’t have the Starfleet painted their Ships in the color seen in the Series? Why? That you are using the Font for the Name on the Hull, ok, i can live with that because it’s closer to the time of the NX01 and they just sticked to it.

825. Scott Hayden - January 18, 2008

I have only 2 question to Orci.
1. When will we see entire Enterprise? Perhaps the trailer?
2. Doses this new Enterprise have thicker neck. Mainly because if its build on Earth apparently. So logic dictate that would mean thicker neck dosent it (gravity people)

826. Trekee - January 18, 2008

re: 781

Now I’m happy enough to go along with the theory that you could lift the ship into space in its entirety, but I’d have thought that doing subassemblies in SF then final assembly in space was more, emm, logical…

Wonder if we’ll ever see it lift into space? Will it use it’s own engines? It got out of orbit easily enough in Tomorrow is Yesterday, so I feel no canon violation coming on…

Ahhhhhhh, I HATE teasers for this very reason!!!

OK, so no probs with the ship being BUILT on the ground….

However, one things bothers me….

You’ve painted the numbers on BEFORE you’ve finished putting the hull plating on? What sort of a mad loon paint shop is Starfleet running??????!!!!!!

You put the stickers on AFTER you’ve build the kit and painted it!!!!!!!

(BTW, lastly – you can see inside the bridge don’t forget, and that brudge rail looks a bit non-orange to me folks….)

827. FreddyE - January 18, 2008

Wow! She´s a real beauty!

828. nyxtreme - January 18, 2008

Are we there yet for post 1-0-0-0? Mr. Orci, thank you for being one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court….LOLOLOL….What kind of philosophy are you advocating then? Are you a strict constructionist? LOLOLOL

829. Commodore Redshirt - January 18, 2008

This is taking too long to read! Whai is it, post number 820-something?
Who reads this far??
I am done with this thread if it reaches 1000 comments…

nice ship, too!

830. Trekee - January 18, 2008

@825 & me

Ah, I just answered my own question. Why use some other rockets to fly parts into space when you can just use the ship itself to get there…?

831. Spock's Brain - January 18, 2008

# 824. ich56 –

Does a the QEII cruise ship collapse on itself; or an aircraft carrier? Also the metal of the ship can be stronger and lighter than anything we know today.

832. ich56 - January 18, 2008

Hm I don’t think the the Mass of theQEII or an Aircraft Carrier is 190000 MetricTons. Thats the Weight of the Enterprise, as Stated here:

833. Iowagirl - January 18, 2008

I like the building crane – apart from being the only instantly distinguishable part of the picture, it also provides the mystical and lofty quality which in former times used to be presented by the E herself.

834. theARE - January 18, 2008

Thinking about this overnight, who’s to say that the entire spacedock facility as seen in TMP isn’t also a huge transporter pad?

Ships constructed on the surface and beamed into orbit for final fitting out?

835. Adam - January 18, 2008

The Enterprise encounters all kinds of spatial phenomena including gravitational anomalies, there is no reason the structure couldn’t handle earth’s gravity.

836. The Realist - January 18, 2008

Ok, I know how the ship got into orbit! They tied a heap of hot air baloons, tied them to the dman ship, got all the bitching Trekies and told them to bitch their lungs out! And in the process discovered all their hot air could power half the planet! WHO CARES how it got in orbit! For pitty sake I can’t believe that Paramount or ANY BODY would want to put up with a bunch of ungrateful wind bags like many people on this board! The Font of the ships writing is not perfect, I dont like the mazaic pattern on the hull, the nacelles don’t look right blah blah blah, this aint cannon, Gary mitchell should be in the movie! BE GRATEFULL THERE IS A MOVIE if not for Abrams there may not have been another Trek movie. And all you purists, TREK NEEDS NEW BLOOD, kids of today wont swallow a 60′ style ship! They WILL however respect and appreciate the original but they want something to relate to as well, this is not JUST ABOUT YOU!!!!! It is about the future of a franchise a franchise that MANY generations to come should add to. So shut up and GROW UP! Many of you are acting like children.

837. ich56 - January 18, 2008

Hm I don’t think the the Mass of theQEII or an Aircraft Carrier is 190000 MetricTons. Thats the Weight of the Enterprise, as Stated here:
It also says there, the the Ship was! build in Space.

838. Gary - January 18, 2008


Hi :)

Why would the ship collapse? The Enterprise was surely built using materials vastly superior to the boron nanutube composites we might be using in the next 20-50 years.

Also, maybe Orci is referring to the stress created by a warp field?

839. Daniel Broadway - January 18, 2008

I saw the trailer tonight when I saw Cloverfield. You see the back of the secondary hull, as in, the spine. It looks very much like the refit Enterprise. You also see a super close up of what appears to be a nacelle pylon with a worker hanging from it welding.

In the trailer, you of course, also see the picture at the top of this page, except that it starts at the bottom of the saucer, and cranes up to the top. The secondary hull cannot be seen in this shot due to all the scaffolding.

Really doesn’t so much, but exciting nonetheless.

840. Gary - January 18, 2008

oops… (correction)


841. canuck trekkie - January 18, 2008

# 834not to be at total geekwad, but you can’t transport items that large as the size of an object increases increases the power exponetially so thats totally out of the question. this is an awsome pic btw but i’m not convinced its so real. the nacelle curvature and bussard sollectors look so much like gabe koerners enterprise, and with some of the talented cg artists these days it could be a hoax. SO EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW MOVIE!

842. Adam - January 18, 2008

Thanks Daniel – I was wondering if we would see more of the ship. I probably won’t be seeing Cloverfield this weekend – I may have to wait ’till Monday to see the trailer on the internet.

843. AJ - January 18, 2008

Couldn’t they raise it into space with a simple Tractor Beam?

844. raffie - January 18, 2008

Well, I’ve been here yesterday without commenting, being in aw of that pic, but now there are a gazzillion comments i just got to add mine ;-)

Oh, and Im goin to go for THOUSANDST

845. mada101 - January 18, 2008

Bit dull, really: not familiar enough to be canon but not different enough to be an exciting, fresh rebooted design.

That said, it looks pretty much as I expected: silver, dark, nBSG-ish. The saucer looks cool but the nacelles are a bit fat and Gabe Kroener-like for my tastes. But since the whole movie isn’t aimed at fans like me, I don’t mind. So long as it brings in the cash (and its acknowledged as a new continuity), I’m all for it :)

846. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 18, 2008

786. trekfansince1977 – January 17, 2008

{…they use the impulse engines to speed up to sub-light that then they jump to warp, so in a sence, the impulse engines are still propelling the ship.]

OOOH MAN. Here I go again.

I saw it that way too, especially ST-TOS. The ship always left at the end of an episode, slowly speeding up to engage the Warp Drive near light speed.

But here is where I still get confused and believe it is all impossible. I hope I can put his all into words clearly for you to understand my points.

It always made sense to me to think that the warp engines (the nacelles) were the bulk of what made the ship go to warp, BUT then also to warp at higher rates of propulsion (I do not want to say speed here.) Increasing the ‘Main Engines’ rotational speed (hear the sound effect they used) appeared to me to be what took the ship to a higher Warp.

Although it looked great, ST-TMP made it a little more difficult for me to understand. As I never heard of a warp core until ST-TMP. But it looked great, it was a simple design and provided a clear understanding of where the power was.

Technically speaking, the word ‘engine’ is defined as “a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion.” That’s two devices. The Power plant and the device that creates propulsion.

How may engines have the power source so far from the mechanical apparatus?

But I hardly think you would want to contain Antimatter across SO MANY decks throughout the ship as shoen in ST-TMP. Another impractical new idea and one more vulnerability in the design.

But Warp is not true propulsion. A real problem I have with Trek (or most fictional Sci-fi) is the concept of faster than light AND/OR Warp travel.

For instance say it takes 16 years to get to Rigel at (normal) light speed. OR, as we see light from Rigel, it’s from 16 years ago.

Lets say the Dohlman of Elaas is on Rigel and she wants to go to the sack with him. She does not having a subspace communicator, so she turns on the red light. It would take that light 16 years to reach Earth for Kirk to see it and know to go there. ; )

So Kirk commands the Enterprise out of Earth’s orbit (Day 1) and Warps to Rigel at Warp 5 (16 times the speed of light – an exponential increase in space time and travel). You are (technically) getting to Rigel 16 years in Earth’s past. Yes?

So Kirk does what he does best and in the morning decides to make it back in time for an award ceremony on Earth.

But then Kirk commands the Enterprise to return to Earth at Warp 8 (124 times the speed of light) Do you arrive back at Earth 108 years in the Earth’s past? On the surface it would seem so. Your returning before you left.(???)

Sounds messed up on the surface of it all. But at least Kirk had a good time and he can return with new advancements in technology from the future. And also have no worries about his progeny. Impossible I say.

But I digress.

Back to the Enterprise’s Impulse and Warp drive.

In ST-TOS, Scotty was always in engineering monitoring and managing the ships Impulse Engines and Warp Drive. Engineering was often referred to as having reactors too. And, by the set design, it looked like those were conventional (nuclear?) reactors there on the deck. The Impulse Engines were also clearly depicted as being at the rear of this Main Engineering deck. Surely the impulse engines did not use antimatter as sub-light propulsion.

The antimatter was for the Warp Drive.

In ST-TOS ther was no ‘Warp Core’ needed to conduit the energy directly up the struts from a main ‘Core.’ Drawing Antimatter energy up the struts seems risky too.

A true weak point in the design is easily seen as the Enterprise’s Antimatter Warp Core must ferret highly volatile Antimatter all around the ship as well as the way up the thin vulnerable struts.

TOS kept it simple and logical.

In ST-TOS I saw that the ‘Jeffries Tubes’ would provide access to the warp engines up the pylons. I always thought it was logical to see the tubes depicted at an angle on ST-TOS. Like they were going up the struts to the Nacelles. A few times in ST-TOS Mr. Scott would be at the top of a ‘Jeffries Tube’ at an access point to manage the Matter/Anti-Matter flow. He was not on the Engineering deck anymore at this point. And although the ‘Jeffries Tube’ was not very long, that to me, seemed to be a trade off due to the limited budget needed to depict such a long tube. Again, he was not in engineering but he was managing the Antimatter near the Nacelles.

I also always imagined Main Engineering being in the rear of the saucer, near the conventionally powered Reactors and Impulse Engines. In the rear of Saucer Mr. Scott could manage the Impulse drive and also oversee the operation of the Warp Nacelles’ performance remotely.

But, in the end, the Enterprise’s Warp propulsion was never clearly depicted onscreen very well. As I understand it, the the Warp Nacelles, create a bubble of magnetic energy around the ship. It was through this distortion of the bubble that the ship could Warp space around itself to travel vast distances. Also, I understood that the Main Deflector would emit a beam of energy ahead of the ship to deflect away any space debris that remained in the path of the ship that might threaten the warp bubble or the ship’s hull.

Really, as I see it, there are three main devices that make the Enterprise ‘move’ at Warp.

1. The Antimatter Reactors, which, I saw, as part of the Nacelles
TOS never showed a core or tube running up to the Nacelles and I belive there were intercoolers located directly on the nacelles too.

2. The Warp Bubble – Generated by the Nacelles


3. The Deflector Dish – which emits a beam of energy ahead of the ship, but which works with the Warp field, to deflect out of the way small debris, ahead of the ship.


But your simple explanation may be best for the masses. But then again, I have NEVER seen the ship spin to slow when coming out of warp speed.

Has anyone??? Perhaps Once. In the Counterclock Incident ; )

Also many, many, times I have seen the Enterprise go to warp (in ST-TPM, ST II and in so many other eps in the newer series) from a near standstill.

Want a refernce? Just ask Khan.


I REALLY hope too SEE a clear depiction displayed of all this onscreen to provide a true ‘universal’ understanding of the overall ships design. An explanation of Lights Speed / Warp Speed / Space Time travel would be great too, but personally, I think that is impossible. The ship could never leave and return without a severe change in thier own timeline once they return to Earth.

Perhaps Sulu was the real Temporal Policeman on the Enterprise.

Another thing that got me with ST-TMPs “E,” was that the Engineering department was redesigned and the Warp Core was shown as a large portion of the secondary hull. But, the secondary hull also housed the large landing bay, rec. deck, deflector control and large cargo bay.

Where do the 420 crew members all reside on the Enterprise??

The Primary hull did not seem to be sufficient in size and the Secondary hull would not seem to provide the extra space needed for all these people on the ship with the new (ST-TMP) design depicted.

That’s how I see it. Love to hear comments on Trek’s use of
space/time/travel. There must be a way!!!

My brain hurts thinking every time I think about “Faster Than Light” OR “Warp” travel. Where’s Carl Sagan when you need him?

847. Green-blooded-bastard - January 18, 2008

I saw the teaser in the theater in front of Cloverfield tonight (which sucked). After my goosebumps settled, I let out a long sigh of relief. I’m sure changes to the interior of the ship will be made, but for the most part, it’s the one and only Enterprise. When Nimoy began the voice-over, people in the theater cheered. It was like a family member came home after a long vacation away. It simply felt good to hear him and see the Enterprise on the big screen again. I’m so thankful that a new Star Trek movie is being made. I’m not going to moan about the ship being built on earth or in space, changes to this or that, canon, Shatner…it means nothing to me. Well, I would like to see Shatner in the film, but even still, I only want to see a good Star Trek movie. I want it to be made with integrity and foresight. I want it to be new and refreshing, but still give a nod to the fans that made Star Trek…”Star Trek”. I’m really looking forward to a new vision in the form of young creative minds and experienced producing and directing. This is such a great opportunity for Mr. Abrams and crew to revitalize this franchise. My prayers are with them all.

848. Dom - January 18, 2008

Looks damn fine to me!

849. Chris Pike - January 18, 2008

It was always put out very nicely in TOS with clever throwaway lines of dialogue how immensly strong the E is and has to be (such as nuclear devices exploding very close to the hull etc) . It has been stated many times in the canon past that the curvature and space time distortions created by the warp effect cause stresses on the ship’s hull substructure that are, and would have to be, many million fold that created by the 1g gravity of Earth type planets. (in Berman Trek I always thought how ridiculous it was that ships would be put in peril by entering some disturbed atmospheric weather phenomenon but can stand the extreme forces of FTL travel and space warps!). So if the ship did have to launch from Earth, overcoming 1g to gently lift off would surely be tip-toeing for a vessel built 250 yrs from now.

850. David P - January 18, 2008


851. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 18, 2008

To the Makers’ of Trek XI

Can we please establish that if you lose the main engines then you also lose gravity on the ship throughout?

That’s serious thinking and makes for a more mature depiction too.

It’s the only way I see that is feesable for ther to be gravity across all the decks unifomally. And the Zero G enviroment was a real surprise for me when I saw it happen to the Klingon ship in Trek VI.

Now that WAS cool and smart thinking!!!

852. Bernd Schneider - January 18, 2008

It’s a frakking re-imagination.

Deck 1 is enlarged at the expense of deck 2, which is flatter and apparently submerged. The top of the bridge with the dome is very much like in TMP, practically denying that the TOS look ever existed. The same with the slits at the bottom. A very unimaginative rip-off of the TMP bridge.

The TMP hull plating is fine with me though, because it gives the ship a realistic feel. And I don’t mind the hull font, although I wonder why they should go forth and then back to the USAF font for TOS. In order to decide whether the saucer hull curvature and the diameter is correct I would have to see more.

The nacelles don’t look like they could be the TOS type. They are more streamlined, perhaps even “organic” (there is some sort of ripple on the inside). But they don’t have to be the very same type that we know at the time the ship was being built – only that my apprehension (and almost a certainty) is that it will still look exactly the same when Kirk takes over the ship later in the movie and just prior to TOS.

So overall it is not the awful BSG-Koerner-style redesign. It is rather pleasantly boring from my point-of-view, but different enough to invalidate the TOS Enterprise, the ship that was only recently faithfully reconstructed for the remastered episodes. Particularly I don’t approve of the re-use of typical TMP elements which are just not suited to insinuate that it is an older version of the Enterprise. It may have been meant to limit the damage but it lets the TOS ship look like it has never existed. Some ENT-style elemnts would have been much better, at least for the Enterprise under construction, which is the only version that is allowed to be redesigned in the first place.

Based on what we already see I bet that
1) the engineering hull is rounded more like the TMP version than the TOS version.
2) the shuttlebay door is sloped more like the TMP version than the TOS version.
3) the nacelle struts are thinner but sloped more like the TMP version than the TOS version.

853. Jackson Roykirk - January 18, 2008

Just saw Cloverfield and the Trek teaser. I won’t spoil it with specific details, but I’ll tell you what the soundtrack was like in general.

First there are some sound bites of dead presidents orating on the space program, then Nimoy does a voice over, then there was the distinctive TOS transporter sound effect. I guess we’ll be hearing lots of the old familiar sounds in ’08.

The crowd, who were probably not expecting anything Trek, were audibly surprised. There was a collective “Wow!”

854. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 18, 2008

853. Jackson Roykirk

[The crowd, who were probably not expecting anything Trek, were audibly surprised. There was a collective “Wow!” ]

You can’t get that experience at home!!

855. trektacular - January 18, 2008

Roykirk, is it old Nimoy or new Nimoy we hear in the voiceover?

856. old sf guy - January 18, 2008

Several authors of “Golden Age” science fiction wrote stories about construction in space. The general consensus: it’s dangerous as hell. Another thought: the idea of building a spaceship “on the ground” has precedent in construction practices for ships that sail on water. You don’t build them *in* the water, you build them on dry land and launch them. Imagine, for example, trying to build a submarine in its natural environment… Also, remember how NASA builds ’em. Anyone remember the Vehicle Assembly Building? One doesn’t build a rocket as a single entity; one builds components and assemble and erect them near the launch point. MUCH safer for workers to do fabrication on the ground, in atmosphere.

857. Adam - January 18, 2008

#856 old sf guy
I agree – I remember seeing a documentary of the construction of a cruise ship and what they did was build the frame and the hull in dry dock – floated it and then did a lot of the interior work with the boat floating at port. They could do something like this with the Enterprise. I am curious how they would get it from the surface to orbit. My guess would be they would partially disassemble it and haul individual components (nacelles, saucer section, engineering hull etc.) up separately. I doubt we would ever see this on screen since I don’t see it being vital to the story. Perhaps the production team will write a book for all of us tekkies who are interested in such things.

858. OR Coast Trekkie - January 18, 2008

Great looking ship… that’s all I gotta say

859. Anthony Pascale - January 18, 2008

To avoid duplication and to avoid this thing hitting the quadruple digits. I am moving discussion of the teaser image into the review for the teaser


860. LOL: Princess of Mars Teaser Trailer, From The Asylum | Top Movies & Blockbusters | News, Reviews, Trailers, Photos, DVDs - November 24, 2009

[…] First Official Picture Of The USS Enterprise | […] is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.