Star Trek Teaser Trailer Online Now + New Viral Site [UPDATE + Screenshots] |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Teaser Trailer Online Now + New Viral Site [UPDATE + Screenshots] January 21, 2008

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

The Trek teaser is now available (including HD) at the new official site…GO!.

Enterprise Shipyard Online
If you look closely on the offiical site you will see a tiny red dot next to ‘UNDER CONSTRUCTION.’ Click that dot and you are taken to a special new site at showing you four ‘webcam’ like images of the Enterprise under construction from the “Shipyard.” Each camera seems to go ‘online’ and ‘offline.’ There are also sliders under each which changes a setting. Go to and play around.

UPDATE: Settings for cameras and screenshot
If you don’t want to play around…then the setting are [CAM 1: 564, CAM 2: 125, CAM 3: 955, CAM 4: 289]. Only three seem to be able to be seen at one time so you have to refresh your screen. Below is a shot of all four cams working and set right (click to enlarge)

UPDATE2:Secret Image
If you wait long enough the ‘offline’ camera will activate and show you a corridor…check it out

UPDATE: click to see enlarged version with brightness added

Teaser also available at…
For today the trailer is available on a limited basis. In addition to the official site it is available (offiically) at Yahoo Movies. (also in HD) and in the UK version is at Empire Online (not HD). The trailer will be made available on a wide basis on Tuesday.

Embedded version

UPDATE 3: Teaser Screenshots of the Enterprise

UPDATE 4: TrekCore has added a full gallery of shots from the trailer

Full Coverage of the Star Trek Trailer:

Fan-made art inspired Trek teaser Roberto Orci Q&A On Teaser
Review – Star Trek Teaser Trailer [w/TRAILER VIDEO]
First Official Image of the USS Entperprise
Review – “Cloverfield”


1. Rick - January 21, 2008

This looks to be a great movie!!

2. Andy Patterson - January 21, 2008

Hmmm… this is what all the fuss is about.

3. Noleuser - January 21, 2008

I suggest people see it in the theatre, that’s the BEST way to see it!

4. Can't Wait for X-Mas 2008 - January 21, 2008

I think im driving my GF nuts by watching the teaser multiple times lol! But im trying to convince her to see this movie when it comes out. Got her to see Transformers and she loved it! Can’t wait to see the actual trailer later this year!

5. Rick - January 21, 2008

Now the webcam images will keep everyone talking about canon. It’s just a movie, but I love star trek as much as the rest (I even have the first edition of the Spock Must Die novel, as well as a 1968 Enterprise with the lights).

6. sloan47 - January 21, 2008

Wow! The viral game now begins!! I know I’m excited now!

7. ensign joe - January 21, 2008


8. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Wow! I think the only way I’m seeing this movie on Christmas Day is to tell my wife I want it as a present…

9. Joe Coatar - January 21, 2008

f’n awesome!

10. Karlore - January 21, 2008

Cool Beans! That’s awesomeness squared!

11. DReffects - January 21, 2008

An its on at in 1080p, 720p and 480p for those like me who have problems with the official website (seems overloaded already :( )

Enjoy :)

12. Noleuser - January 21, 2008

WHAT THE HELL AM I LOOKING AT FOR THE VIRAL SITE!?!?! I think they have better cameras than this for the 23rd Century.

13. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Looks like the cameras have adjustment buttons and sliders….

14. patio - January 21, 2008

i personally think it looks awesome

15. Sxottlan - January 21, 2008

So what’s the numerical combinations for the three cameras?

16. newman - January 21, 2008

ah there is some kinda puzzle to the viral site….lol I’ll wait for you guys to figure it out then tell me how to do it

17. josepepper - January 21, 2008

Looks like the fins or “wings” are on the back of the nacelles

certainly a vry diffferent look

18. Pragmaticus - January 21, 2008

I have three webcams online.

19. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#5 – A 1968 Enterprise with the lights? Where can I see that?

20. KennyB - January 21, 2008

You have to tune in the signal for the 1st 3 cams………..trying to figure out #4 now!!!!!!!

21. Dom - January 21, 2008

Wow! I liked it when I saw the videoed-off the-cinema-screen version.

The full quality version is just wonderful. I t manages to show the classic ship, but the feel of the trailer is unlike anything seen in Trek before.

That’s the best thing about it: a whole new approach to our favourite series!!!

22. PRCCOLE - January 21, 2008

i have 3 webcams…you have adjust them to get close to 100 percent on their scale so you can see what they are

23. bugs a la nixon - January 21, 2008





24. josepepper - January 21, 2008

Really get a lot of good looks at hd, if you stop it you can clearly see the detail under the saucer and an aft forward shot of the nacelles. They absolutely have a very different looking enterprise but have kept 80% of the original look. I think it’s a fair re-imagining portrayal. The fins could be a major issue with fans though. I’m not a big fan of fins on cars or space ships

25. Frank - January 21, 2008

Yea agreed, for 23 century optics…these stink.

26. Pragmaticus - January 21, 2008

564, 125, and 955 gets the three webcams in focus, but doesn’t activate the fourth one.

27. TJ - January 21, 2008

If you tweak the sliders on the base of the webcam windows, it brings the video ‘image’ into focus. 3 webcams seem to be working now. I love viral PR and whatever project pie JJ has his finger in, usually has the best, smartest & kick ass viral going!

28. Trekdude - January 21, 2008

2 camera = 111
3 camera = 940
4 camera = 290

29. Ryan - January 21, 2008

Y#15 –
You slide the bar left and right until you get 100%. That way the picture is no longer distorted.

30. CanuckLou - January 21, 2008

Love the virtual webcams! Very cool idea.

Thanks JJ!

31. Bobby - January 21, 2008

there is a slider under each camera, if you move it around you can clear up the images. it is a clever idea, but i kind of agree with #12…300 years in the future and we still have to tune TV frequency?

32. Ryan - January 21, 2008

damn I’m slow :)

33. Joseph A - January 21, 2008

my cams ‘tuned the best as follows’

1- 547

34. TJ - January 21, 2008

Oowww web 3 just came online, looks like if you refresh the cam online changes…

35. Pragmaticus - January 21, 2008

Huh… looks like different webcams load every time you load the page.

36. RedStatesRule - January 21, 2008


I’m glad to see the ship looking so real and ginormous.

It’s good to see the movie PROBABLY won’t be a mess of CGI.

I like the look of this so far.

37. S P - January 21, 2008

#4 just came online for me

38. Jeyl - January 21, 2008

Checked out the viral site. It now has three cameras online. The adjustment settings I put are as follows.

Camera 1. 564
Camera 2. 125
Camera 4. 289

39. MK - January 21, 2008

Its also on TZN:

40. bugs a la nixon - January 21, 2008

reload the cam page – different each time

41. Pragmaticus - January 21, 2008

Also, it looks like it’s different for every computer.

42. PRCCOLE - January 21, 2008

i had the 4th webcam for a quick second…i think it showed a corridor!

43. newman - January 21, 2008

this is what I got:
cam 1: 567
cam 2: 123
cam 4: 289

You do have to “tune” it like a radio….but as long as you’re within about 5 points of these values you can get a clear picture

44. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Looks like there is some variation in the numbers. My camera two works better at 140..

45. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#42 – I saw that also!

46. Pragmaticus - January 21, 2008

Huh. Jeyl and I actually have the same settings. In my case:

Camera 1 – 564
Camera 2 – 125
Camera 3 – 955
Camera 4 – 289

47. newman - January 21, 2008

holy crap!!! the third cam just flickered online for a second, accompanied by a sound effect, and I got a shot of a dark-looking corridor!

48. Rick - January 21, 2008

#19, it was the orginial model kit that was put out when the show was in production. it used flashlight lights for the bridge and bottom deck and the nacells and the batteries are in ‘engineering’. you turned the deflector right or left to turn the lights on. I was 8 when I got it. Lots of wiring went into it, but it was a cool model.


49. Salvador Nogueira - January 21, 2008

There’s always one camera that is offline… Am I giving up too fast or is it just it?

50. TJ - January 21, 2008

1 = man welding from above, he has a box behind him and the light flashes yellow occassionally… code: 555

2= Random shower of sparks from top right (currently offline on this refresh) OOWWW it just flashed with view of a complete construction looking VERY much like the original engineering view with the ‘A’ shaped framing pattern….Where’s Scotty?

3 = looks like a modified version of cam 4, lots of sparks…possibly in a corridor. code: 948

4 = medium close up of a guy welding, looks like a different view from the scene in cam 4 code: 293

51. GARY - January 21, 2008

The interesting thing is that if you wait long enough you will se SOMETHING on that 4th Camera which doesn’t “work” ;-)

52. The Silly Wabbit - January 21, 2008

I’m just wondering??? Why do they have John Cho, Ben Cross, Bruce Greenwood, and Simon Pegg listed ahead of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto??? Then Winoda Ryder, Zoe Zaldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin and then it says, with Eric Bana and Lenoard Nimoy. I’m curious who is actually starring in this flick???

53. josepepper - January 21, 2008

as you “reload” the page a different camera goes online and offline!!!

woo hoo

funny on JJ

54. Antonio - January 21, 2008

I Think Camera 2 is something big it’s still off line

55. Simon Crosby Buttle - January 21, 2008

Camera 2 – 123 (98.8%) – What looks like a welding flame
Camera 3 – 955 (100%) – Some framework and a welding flame
Camera 4 – 289 (100%) – Man with goggles with framework in the background.

Anyone get anything different?

56. TJ - January 21, 2008

#52 the credits are in alphabetical order except for Eric Bana and Lenoard Nimoy who get the honorific ‘and’ & ‘with’ credits.

57. Elrond L. - January 21, 2008


It looks like the cast is listed in alphabetical order.

58. konar - January 21, 2008

I think the nacelle design is kind of retro “Seaview” — I like it. I think that will help keep a kind of 60s sensability to it.

59. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Gods…. I’m gonna be hanging around this website all year now….

60. Craig - January 21, 2008

The teaser trailer is even better. I am really getting excited now. The TOS theme music was even better when they tilted up showing the front of the 1701. All this whyning about it being built on the ground is pointless. It looks good even being built on the ground.

61. Ryan T. Riddle - January 21, 2008

If you reload the site, you’ll get the off-line cam to come on and another cam will go off-line.

62. TJ - January 21, 2008

if you watch the nacell’s during the track right in the trailer, it looks like they have fan or jet engine type structure in them which is slowly spinning….pretty retro but kinda cool too!

63. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Shall we all sign up for shifts to watch the webcams? Maybe I should add a second monitor… LOL

64. Noleuser - January 21, 2008

WOW! I did not realize that was the top of the nacelle, until now!

65. Dave O - January 21, 2008

I can understand the low resolution when I remember that it doesn’t matter that these are 23rd century cameras… what matters is that I’m are watching on a very early 21st Century monitors!… with early 21st century bandwidths.

(And don’t forget, broadcasting across time will probably affect resolution too.)


66. marv - January 21, 2008

that’s the corridor:

67. Paul - January 21, 2008

#11 – Thanks, man!
However, how come that 1080p is only 42.44 MB while 720p is 50.26 MB?

68. Nx - January 21, 2008

If you correctly set all three cameras to 100%, you’ll get a little sneak peek in the fourth frame. I saw the corridors for a split second

69. Ali - January 21, 2008

Just outakes/reverse angles on the trailer live action as far as I can see

70. Tom_Fleetlord - January 21, 2008

neat looking corridor.

71. Diabolik - January 21, 2008

Feels like a real movie… not seen or felt since ST:TMP and no doubt much better. I think we’re in for a treat.

72. Matt Wright - January 21, 2008

Looks great in 1080p!

73. josepepper - January 21, 2008

How in the hell can we wait 11 more months

I think we are assured a sequel at minimum

I wonder if Nimoy will do the sequel???

74. Ryan Spooner - January 21, 2008

Notice them using in the credits, and yet is currently defunct with very little in the way of updates? Could this mean a new web team is going to be taking over shortly?

75. Smike van Dyke - January 21, 2008

It’s marvellous! All these details. I always thought TMP and ENT had a very detailed rendering of the ships. But compared to this, none of the existing material can stand the test of time.

Heck…Not even the Star Wars PT comes anywhere close to this quality-wise! If they keep up these superb production values throughout the entire movie it is going to be groundbreaking, historic endeavour! I’ve never seen anything like it in hundreds of movies and thousands of TV episodes from all over the cosmos…

76. MK - January 21, 2008

@67: 1080p is nearly 90MB. go here for correct versions:

77. Elrond L. - January 21, 2008

Thanks for the heads-up, Anthony — just got to show the teaser to my wife, who wasn’t with us at the movies on Friday. The viral site is humming in the background as I type this . . . it makes for nice “white noise” to work with. :-)

This is exciting stuff, to see Trek get some real love by Paramount. I started my “evangelism” this weekend by posting some thoughts on my photography blog, if anyone is interested:

78. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#65 – Good thought. Maybe we’re watching the construction of the ship through the eyes of spy cameras of the movie’s antagonists? Maybe time traveling antagonists?

God it’s gonna be a long year…

79. RTC - January 21, 2008

#17, aren’t those just the cooling vents for the nacelles? Perhaps a little bit ‘stylized’ from the TOS Enterprise.

80. British Naval Dude - January 21, 2008

arrrr… looks like one of the blokes is using duct tape… stay away from that section at high warp…

…seems like a bit much for a simple trailer…

81. Mr. Sweets - January 21, 2008

New polish to a rather old apple.
Lets all hope that this was just
but the bottom side of the fruit basket.

82. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#80 – I’d love to see a roll of duct tape in Scotty’s toolbox. Maybe that’s how he got the reputation of being a miracle worker!

83. MrRegular - January 21, 2008

OMG…I almost hit the ceiling while I was watching the trailer…
Totally blew me out of my seat. Fantastic!

84. cameron - January 21, 2008

what is that a picture of in time frame 25-30 during the trailer?

Is that the engineering hull where the pylons for the nacelles connect?

85. Pierre Andre - January 21, 2008

It’s gorgeous (but yah… those nacelles…). Anyway, this is the most impressive look at the USS Enterprise since Star Trek The Motion Picture. It will definitely bring back the Star Trek franchise into the mainstream media. That was about time !!! :-)

86. Edith Keeler - January 21, 2008

One webcam clearly shows Cawley – he’s one of the welders!

87. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

Just saw that corridor, the camera flickered on with a sound effect. :)

88. Allister Gourlay - January 21, 2008

wonderful stuff…. got a real quality buzz about it…

89. CEBG - January 21, 2008

Hmmm…don’t know what to say.

I’m a big fan of Star Trek, and I am looking forward to seeing the movie, but the trailer certainly doesn’t make me giddy as a school girl. I dinna know lads, maybe because I’m more of a story guy, I guess.

Technically, cool shots and all, but I gotta say I’m no more excited to see the movie than I was before…maybe even less so.

Not sure, maybe it hasn’t sunk in yet. Or maybe I’m too old to get excited about it…?

90. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

You guys are dreaming. Doesn’t show squat.

You know, look forward to the movie if you must, but how about looking at this trailer realistically? It in no way shows that this will be a good or bad movie or really anything about it at all other than a couple short dark clips of the ship. Yes, be excited, but anybody who is excited about it over this is hallucinating.

Those web cam things are an annoyance at best. And this whole “viral” idea???? Makes me long for the days of 3-month-delayed news in Starlog.

91. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008


92. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008


93. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

Here’s a savelink for the 1080p from the official site

(43 MB)

94. bb - January 21, 2008

Hey guys, this is the best shot of the corridor I could get:

I am sharing your love in the excitement for this film but the trailer was just sort of boring to me. :(

95. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#90 – I agree that the trailer doesn’t give much insight. Even the best looking trailers can turn out to be real stinkers. But I enjoy a long slow tease. Makes life interesting…

96. shuttlepod10 - January 21, 2008

Awsome. I still like the teaser. Could someone put Jerry Goldsmith’s “The Enterprise” music from TMP over it?

97. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#94 – Good job bb!

I know what you mean about the trailer but we’re still eleven months off. Probably notthing is set in stone and they don’t want to commit to much just yet. I think this is a holding action to keep the fans at bay and start to raise awareness in the rest of the community.

98. Vinceman - January 21, 2008


It’s a trailer, probably not even a part of the final film. That’s ok.

The HD trailer is so exciting!! My enthusiasm level for this film is dangerously high. My mind is spinning with ways I can make this movie the first thing that I do on christmas day. If it opens a few days earlier, so much the better.



99. ShawnP - January 21, 2008

#90 – Thanks for the buzzkill, Stanky. You must be a real joy at parties.

100. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

Now, folks, which part of the ship could THIS be?

101. Tony Whitehead - January 21, 2008

What is that clear bubble on what looks like the engineering hull in the trailer? Down above what looks to be the hanger bay? Could that be an area for astronomical observations? Thoughts?

102. PRCCOLE - January 21, 2008


-my very wild guess is that it is the secondary hull, looking aft? before the pylons to the nacelles are connected

103. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

Party on, Garth!

104. Allister Gourlay - January 21, 2008

100…top of the nacelle i think looking forward

105. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

I was thinking so (i think this is the sequence #84 is talking about) and if you ask me these “wing pylons” look VERY Phase-2-like…

Compare here:

106. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

104, thats another possibility esp given the bulge in the background.. these things must be huge, and have rather large wings too.

107. Sebi - January 21, 2008

# 102
Nah, thats the top of a nacelle. You know with the fins and all?

But that dome in the middle? Don’t know, maybe the casing of the bussard collector and you can flip that down?

108. Bob, the Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - January 21, 2008

100 “Now, folks, which part of the ship could THIS be?”

Top of a nacelle looking aft. The two “wings” are the coolers.

109. Sebi - January 21, 2008

# 108
you’re right! looking aft! Qua’pla!

So whats that “dome”-thingy then???

110. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#105 – You’re on a nacelle toward the front looing aft. Those “wings” are the “things” that stick out at 45 degree angles at the rear of the nacelle.

Sombody help me here. I actually have no idea what they are called…

111. Woulfe - January 21, 2008

So it begins…..

ARG site, Check…..

Official site, Check….

Teaser, Big check…

– W –
* JJ you nut you, we love you *

112. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

These should be all shots of the Enterprise from the HD Trailer:


113. aqwabawks - January 21, 2008

I still think that you do hear Patrick Stewart or someone close saying “space” at 0:43.

114. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!! - January 21, 2008

Actually, I think your aft looking fore.

115. NCC-73515 - January 21, 2008

maybe we’re looking to the front and the cap is the little foreskin of the bussard collector (gabe koerner)

116. Jaz - January 21, 2008’re right….

117. TOS Purist - January 21, 2008

#112, it’s not Patrick Stewart, it’s the countdown voice-over saying “six.” I agree that it does sound like Stewart, though.

118. NCC-73515 - January 21, 2008

112 – Nimoy.

119. TK - January 21, 2008

Anthony, I need to change my vote for the trailer. If I’d seen this version of the trailer, I would have voted “I’ve already bought my tickets” or whatever it was that you had at the top!!!

120. Blehhh - January 21, 2008

I think the exterior looks awesome… but this corridor looks terrible. :(

Here’s hoping that its really the interior to something other than the enterprise. (like a garbage disposal facility?)

121. Scifigirl - January 21, 2008

*squee* Beautiful!! Gave me goosebumps… I’m sooooo psyched about this movie, how can I wait till Christmas?!!!

122. TK - January 21, 2008

I didn’t like the low res version you had on this site a few days ago, it looked too dark and I didn’t like it for that reason!!!

123. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#105 – Believe it or not I’ve got my model TOS Enterprise in my hand. I’ve positioned my eye over the bussard collector and I am looking down the length of the nacelle. It looks a lot like that shot.

And my wife is looking at me like I’ve lost my mind.

She might be right

124. Elrond L - January 21, 2008

You guys are good, answering #100’s question. In the theater I thought that was the top of the mid-section, but now I see it’s a nacelle. The “wings” work for me, btw.

Watching the trailer now, I see how many little things I missed on the big screen … guess I was in a state of Trek-bliss overload. :-)

125. Beamer - January 21, 2008

that looks like the back of the nacel

126. cameron - January 21, 2008

Wasn’t there a bubble like pc on the aft section of Enterprise during TOS

127. Nx - January 21, 2008

@112: If you listen carefully, you can hear a countdown from six, and after zero, you can hear “ignition” just as the star trek theme starts

128. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


I’m sure that they’ll have a showing before Christmas..

….at 11:59 PM


I love the counter-rotating blades in each nacelle. Although, not enough to want to see them when she’s underway!

129. NCC - 635 - January 21, 2008

*124 – it is – and before people start stressing about fins – the original had fins of a sort – and the refit model and the 1701-A – had basically a large sweeping fin at the rear – so, fins all round –

130. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - January 21, 2008

Very. Cool. Site.

131. Bart - January 21, 2008

I think this teaser makes very clear that the Enterprise will be ASSEMBLED in SPACE! In one shot (00:00:42) we can see the underside of the saucer section. Next to it is another part of the ship under construction, which is clearly NOT connected to the saucer. This implies they are constructing several seperate parts which will be assembled later on (in space?).

132. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

and if you listen extra carefully, you can hear “I buried Paul”…

or is it “cranberry sauce”…

133. Larry - January 21, 2008

I cant look away from the cameras this is so awesome

134. ST-Fan - January 21, 2008

Great Teaser!
Thanks for the the “webcams” so far. Looks excellent so far, thanks to you JJ and your team!
Hope to see some more viral sites and riddles!

135. Hallbjorn - January 21, 2008

now, seeing this movie on Dec. 25 would be a GREAT b-day gift ! But we’ll probably see it in January/Febuary 2009 here in Iceland :(

136. Voltaire - January 21, 2008

119 – I’m sure that’s a shot of the corridor while under construction / before lighting is installed. I guarantee it’s not finished.

137. Kenny S - January 21, 2008

I dont like this trailer at all.. sorry…

Sweaty welders with tools that look like something my grandpa would use in the garage to fix is old Chevy?

I say why dont the chisel the thing with STONE TOOLS while they are at it.

The whole thing is DARK, and has nothing to do with the style of the bright colorful glorious view of the future…

These could be SLAVES… not to mention all the technological problems with just welding together a STARSHIP like that… lol

what happened to “the vision of the future???”

This reminds me more of the construction of the titanic back in 1912 using underpaid sweaty labour.

138. Paul - January 21, 2008

That image #100 mentioned is most defitely the top side of nacelle. However I’m taken rather aback to see there is no ribbing on those coolers. I like the design of those cooler fins, but I think there should be ribs on them.
Well nevermind, perhaps they are on the underside. :)

139. Go Spock! - January 21, 2008


140. Paul - January 21, 2008

#135 – it all depends on your local movie distributor. Do a little lobbying, perhaps you could get the same release date as Britain. You are the customers, after all, and I’d imagine that every paying customer is welcome when you have a market as small as Iceland.

I already started lobbying in my country, too. I’m not willing to wait until February! :-)

141. Andy Patterson - January 21, 2008

Am I missing something? All of these camera angles show nothing to me. I don’t see half of the things people are griping about. Or maybe I’m not doing it right.

142. Larry - January 21, 2008

ok what are we suposed to be doing with these cameras

143. OneBuckFilms - January 21, 2008

It looks like this Enterprise may owe a lot of it’s design to Star Trek: TMP.

Not sure about that Corridor yet. Reminds me of the new Battlestar Galactica corridors.

However, if the Enterprise is still under construction, it may be lit very differently in the final movie.

This will be VERY interesting to see.

144. Diabolik - January 21, 2008

#137…. relax… all we are seeing is the night shift. Makes it more dramaic for the trailer.

I’m sure most of the movie will be filmed in the light.

145. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#142 – Slide the slider and fiddle with the digits until you get 100% in each. It shows images and ocasionally the one camera with no feed shows a corridor. I hope that’s not completed. I’d like to see this thing lit a little better than the corridors of the Battlestar Galactica…

146. Enc - January 21, 2008

top of an engine looking aft.

147. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#143 – Glad I’m not the only one who thought of Galactica when I saw the corridor.

In a way I’m glad to see it have a little more resemblence to TMP Enterprise. Though I like the design of TOS and TMP versions I’ve never been able to accept that one is a refit of the other. Doesn’t ruin my enjoyment of either but it was too much of a jump…

148. karanadon - January 21, 2008

Is it me or is there a separate UK version (here that says “Boxing Day 2008″?

I can’t wait a whole extra DAY!!!! *cries*

149. sloan47 - January 21, 2008

The construction of the Enterprise reminded me of something I read once.

From Memory Alpha’s article on Johnathan Archer:
“For the biographical display seen in “In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II”, writer Mike Sussman wrote a final section of text that didn’t end up being visible on screen, stating that Archer “…died at his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation starship Enterprise, NCC-1701″. Note that Sussman himself has said this information might not be canon. ”

Orci has mentioned Star Trek Enterprise in the past, so I wonder if there’s going to be a mention of that graphic about Archer in the movie. Probably not but it would be cool to see that level of detail in the movie!

150. aqwabawks - January 21, 2008

You guys are right on the bit on it being six… I was just taken aback since it kind of sounded like Stewart…

151. Enc - January 21, 2008

108 is right
they used to look like handles are noe inclosed giving it a “wing” like appearance.

152. New Horizon - January 21, 2008

120. Blehhh – January 21, 2008

The ship is under construction dude, there’s no full lighting. Did you happen to notice the shape of those corridors. :)

153. LarryB - January 21, 2008

A question for Anthony, and perhaps other folks that have tried the webmaster program…
I have a foreign Trek site, it’s quite big, but not in english. My application has been rejected, does anyone know why? I’ve filled out my application with correct info, read the qualifications… Nothing :(
Has anyone tried this?

154. Enc - January 21, 2008

108 said “coolers”
just b4 i read that i was thinking “inter-cooler” or something like that. but i dont know were my ref material is.

155. T Negative - January 21, 2008

Great website. Not so sure of their Enterprise. Why doesn’t it look like the original 1701??? Is this an alternate universe version or something?

156. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#154 – Intercoolers! That may be right.

Anyways, could they be Cawley’s “wings?”

157. Trekee - January 21, 2008

The shot of the underside of the primary hull just gives the whole ship a sense of scale… I do like that. All much improved over the blurovision one before.

I don’t like the TMP sensor array though for some reason. It’s a straight lift off that ship and jars the whole thing for me… ah well, not to worry. :-)

I do think Stanky is in good form tonight though :)

Anyone know if this’ll be on the Apple movie trailers site? Otherwise I’ll have to plug the laptop into the TV for the full effect… (if I’m allowed to….)

158. xizro345 - January 21, 2008

It was just that – a teaser. Not very useful for me, since I want real details 8P

159. Trekee - January 21, 2008

@148 – Boxing Day it is…

I have a friend in LA, I might have to go and visit him for Christmas… New York will get it first, right?

(Actually, when did you last hear of a film NOT have ‘special previews’… it might be before then if we’re lucky…?)

160. Nelson - January 21, 2008

Makes me kind of sad to see this. While the new trailer is very cool and the viral site is great for generating interest, I am somehow sad about it.

What I’m sad about is that while it’s great to have new Star Trek coming, I feel like “my” Star Trek is on it’s way out. My Star Trek is TOS. This will not be your Daddy’s Star Trek.

Nimoy is involved yes, and he approves. That’s great. But somehow, it feels like my time is over. This time it really feels like it’s over. But I’ll be in line on opening day!

161. San Francisco Yards, Earth - January 21, 2008

Shot 1 – show of the starboard nacelle dorsal housing, forward facing from a point well aft
Shot 2 – starboard edge of saucer showing edge detail and transporter emitter
Shot 3 – Construction on nacelle support pylon with port saucer ventral in background
Shot 3 – Pan up revealing neck, nacelle struts on either side of neck from engineering hull, ventral saucer dome with refit-style lights surrounding sensor dome (2 lights instead of movie-era 1), saucer style mix between TOS and refit, with TOS secondary dome under refit bridge dome. Microgramma hull lettering, note no refit phaser emitters

162. Danya Romulus - January 21, 2008

Hey everyone,

I put it on YouTube if you want to add it to Facebook or anything like that.

163. Enc - January 21, 2008

maybe its the romulan corridor

164. Diabolik - January 21, 2008

Just cause we saw a split-second shot of a darkened and unfinished corridor doesn’t mean they are all like that or like that all the time.

Maybe we just saw a narrow secondary access corridor, nothing like the main decks.

Amazing how little things like that are pre-judged.

165. subatoi - January 21, 2008

BTW, Trek sites webmasters should press the “webmaster program” on the official site… Could prove valuable.

166. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#160 – It’s going to be different that’s for certain but I came to grips with that fact back in 1979 when TMP hit the screen. I will survive as long as they pay TOS the proper respect it is due…

167. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#161 – You might be backwards on the look in SHOT 1, but I don’t want to get into a “built on the ground” versus “built in space” argument over it… Time will tell for certain.

168. Yo! - January 21, 2008

I just don’t understand one thing: why do they build the ship by night?
Wouldn’t be easier working at the light of the day? :D

169. Trekee - January 21, 2008

@160 – I know what you mean, but it will still be there. I ordered my TOS HD disks yesterday, and am all excited about it again… :-)

170. Paul - January 21, 2008

RE: 132, thanks for the laugh, you made my day

171. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#164 – Yeah it could be either an unfinished corridor, or a secondary passageway, or “dark alternative Enterprise”, or whatever. Not going to freak out over it but I’m hoping for a bit better there.

172. NCC-73515 - January 21, 2008

when i am the admin of a trek forum on a phpBB basis… but the website itself is hosted by someone else – does that make me a webmaster???

173. pcumby - January 21, 2008

Nacelle looking aft, showing new “winged” intercoolers. I’d be willing to bet that a version of this shipyard scene will be in the movie. maybe a young Kirk visits the construction site?

174. Ralph - January 21, 2008

Ok. It all makes sense now. I slowed done the teaser. The video was sharp. Cool stuff. The construction site is cool for about 2 minutes. I believe if we hype the kids for this, it would work.
I am glad to see them bring a hype to the movie.

175. OR Coast Trekkie - January 21, 2008

#168 – They’re building the ship inside a hanger. Granted, a very large hanger. But it isn’t being built in space, for the welders arent wearing space suits. And as we all know, no helmet in space = death.

Just keep in mind folks, this trailer is a metaphor for the movie. The movie itself is not about the construction of the ship.

176. Neil - January 21, 2008

Are those red doors that can be seen through the open view of the Bridge area?

177. Nelson - January 21, 2008

re: posts 167 and 169- Yes, I agree, we’ll always have TOS on HD-DVD and the films too.

As John Lennon said after the Beatles broke up, “The albums are there, you can listen to them anytime.”

178. Enc - January 21, 2008

right. now the ship dose not look like our TOS ent. if you dont know jack about star trek then you think something is coming. but if your a trek fan then what “I” see is a federation style starship with the ent name on. but i dont see my TOS ent.
now that said
how would you feal if it was the TOS ent just unpainted and still adding hull plateing.

179. Ralph - January 21, 2008

Oh… cool! There is an option for iPhones. NOW THAT”S WHAT I”M TALKING ABOUT! Star Trek rocks!

180. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#175 – That’s a good point. The Big-E might either be assembled off-screen or already in existence during the time of the movie..

181. Charles Trotter - January 21, 2008

Complete transcript of trailer:
“30 seconds and counting… 25 seconds…”
“The eyes of the world now look into space.”
“Godspeed, John Glenn.”
“The Eagle has landed.”
“It’s one small step for man… one giant leap for mankind.”

“Four” onward is almost drowned out by Nimoy saying “Space the final frontier.”

So, no, there’s no Patrick Stewart saying “space”… it’s the countdown guy saying “six.”

182. Fortyseven - January 21, 2008

Enjoy. :D

183. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#178 – My friend it’s never going to be TOS Enterprise. Even with a coat of paint she’s gonna look different in a few ways at least. No sense in floating false hopes.

The question is are you gonna be able to enjoy it or is it a deal killer right from the start. Only you can answer that one…

184. Kenny S - January 21, 2008

I would think that the name of the ship would be painted last… lol

why are these sweaty unshaved stinky slave-workers doing this at night?

I think that these are an alien race of very low technology, with welding irons, trying to back engineer the enterprise and make something that looks like the real enterprise…. HA!

Gene, doing cartwheels in your grave?.. yes I know.

185. Nx - January 21, 2008

@181: Yeah, that’s what I said, and I got ridiculed

About that corridor: they are filming the movie now, and they are filming scenes on board the Enterprise, so that’s probably a corridor from the Enterprise. I doubt it will be that dark in the movie though

186. Enc - January 21, 2008

it might be.
ive zoomed way in. and i see the orang/red truss system with a lattice sub-frame. and it looks like a pink/red something on the back wall. but its out ofplace for a centerline door and way out of place for an offset to port side door. so if its a door, its on the sb side (wrong) or its the port door of a two door tmp style.

oh and i dont think some have zoomed in and thought the third truss on the right was a orang planet on a bridge screen.

and since this is san francisco (up or down) how about that color be intl orange the same as the golden gate bridge.

187. Cheve - January 21, 2008

Love the webcams. It feels as if I had to play with the controls to synthonyze with the future. XDDD

188. Voltaire - January 21, 2008

For those of you commenting on the non-TOS aspects of the ship, Orci made comments in another thread that there is a specific, plot-related reason the ship is not an exact TOS clone. Quite intriguing.

189. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#182 – That looks a little better.

The shape of the corridor reminds me of some doors in TOS when they were going for a more alien look. Not the rectangular doors of the Enterprise but more pear shaped. I’m sure a geometry expert could give the proper name for the shape…

190. Neil - January 21, 2008

What the hell has happened to the official Star Trek site? You can tell the guys with talent have sadly gone. Whoever is left in charge creating those homepage graphics should be stunned. Terrible.

191. Catlas - January 21, 2008

Do you have a link? I would love to read that!

192. Enc - January 21, 2008

184 I would think that the name of the ship would be painted last… lol

well maybe “painted” maybe its some future type of application that must be apllied to the plates b4 assembly, during the plates manufacture process.

184 I think that these are an alien race of very low technology, with welding irons, trying to back engineer the enterprise and make something that looks like the real enterprise…. HA!

can always re-watch in the perkining :D

193. Kirk's Girdle - January 21, 2008

Re #58 Konar

I thought of the Seaview too. Man, are we old.

194. Voltaire - January 21, 2008

@ 199 Catlas

Sure, here it is, copied over from the Orci thread.

A poster said this in post 203 (this is just the first sentence):

“Why did you guys decide to change the design of the Enterprise so radically from a design which had become such a well-known cultural icon?”

Orci replied by saying this (post 282, I think):

“Can’t comment too much because it involves a story point to a degree, but I can say that one of our guiding principles in our approach to many things in this movie is to make them feel REAL as can be. Willing to discuss this more as we get closer.”

195. The Vulcanista - January 21, 2008


According to the beancounters at Starfleet HQ, they’re already six weeks behind production, so round-the-clock shifts and overtime for all!


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

196. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#186 – I zoomed way in also and I think I see Kirk making out with a girlfriend in the back seat!

197. Voltaire - January 21, 2008

Oops, that should be 191 Catlas.

198. Fansince9 - January 21, 2008

Boy, that copied version on Youtube just didn’t give justice to the real deal. That trailer was really good and it makes me excited for a what I’m expecting will be a great movie.

199. Tallguy - January 21, 2008

#175 – Why not a hanger IN SPACE?

200. Enc - January 21, 2008

in tom paris’ car ? :D

201. Charles Trotter - January 21, 2008

Two hundred and FIRST!!!

202. The Vulcanista - January 21, 2008


I’d think the fact that this movie is set waaay before the 5-year mission. would preclude us seeing the TOS Enterprise. Or maybe we’ll see it at the end of this movie. I dunno!

Besides, she’s still *under construction* in both the figurative and literal senses.

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

203. Commander K, USS Sovereign - January 21, 2008

Is it me..or does the guy at the start of the trailer look like Ray Liotta?!

204. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#200 – Nice tie in there. Hopefully Orci is reading this thread…

205. SteveinSF - January 21, 2008

This is pretty cool–I can see so much more detail in the HD version of the trailer. I like the NCC 170 site–still, the welding guys..hmm..when finished, do they jump in their Ford or Chevy pick-ups and head to the local pub? It just seems a bit to retro to have these guys spot welding.

Regardless, I am really looking forward to the finished project.

206. Enc - January 21, 2008

after looking at that pic and going back to the teaser pic.
i think it is the ent corridor.
zoom in on the open sec above the ‘ENT..’ and i see those black walls and white sec lines devideing the corridor.

207. Veridian - January 21, 2008

Guys, this ship is HUGE, apparently much larger than the 947 feet generally accepted as thew length of the TOS Enterprise. Look at the welders on the front of the primary hull – they are much smaller than they should be, unless the ship is being constructed by midgets. And the workers on the back of the nacelle, that nacelle is much larger than the TOS version.

208. San Francisco Yards, Earth - January 21, 2008

1.Comments on hull lettering; hull lettering a different type of metal than the rest of the hull, no need to “paint”, she’s named as she’s built
2. Good shots of trailer posted – anyone notice NCC-1701 lettering absent from the front of the saucer ventral? Where could it be? :) (think TOS)
3. Google “TOS Enterprise” and take a look at the rear top of the nacelles… there’s the “wings”.
4. Red square visible on bridge; too wide and short for doors, how about large screen above science station? :)
5. Corridor shot from; night shift lighting, color removed from shot (remember – TMP had individual colors for decks)
6. Built on Earth / orbital dry dock: no matter where she’s built, makes sense to pressurize the work area instead of manage hundreds of EVA suits, no? And why can’t she be built on Earth… navy ships aren’t built in the water, are they?

209. Moonwatcher - January 21, 2008

To all of you that have cried foul and mentioned things like, “why are there sweaty welders” or “in the future it would all be done with robots,” etc, etc. One must remember that way back in the beginning Mr. Roddenberry had a concept. It essentially was that he was going to place 20th century people and ideals in the 24th century. Do you actually think Scotty would have such a thick accent some 200 years from now? Or that one would flip toggle switches to active machines. I suspect we would have an impossible time trying to relate and understand a true portrayal of the 24th century. Christ, we would all be like that primitive man in the scene from the film “Quest for Fire” where another tribe member creates fire as he looks on. Scratching our heads trying, but failing, to comprehend the magic before us.

210. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#207 – It’s been a while since I read this but wasn’t the TOS Enterprise supposed to be on the scale of a large modern day aircraft carrier? You like like a midget compared to one of those also…

211. Enc - January 21, 2008

Chevy’s w/ like a rock playing. oh and in slow mo.

212. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#206 – Agreed. It’s a passageway in the ENT, but is it completed? Maybe, but I doubt it…

213. GilmourD - January 21, 2008


It was established by Gene Roddenberry himself that the Enterprise was built on Earth on the surface. This is also backed up by the fact that major sections of ships are shown on the surface of Mars in the Utopia Planitia shipyards in episodes of The Next Generation. It’s probably actually easier to build sections on the ground if you’re not hindered by bulky spacesuits and then put the major sections together in space.

214. Aj Collins - January 21, 2008

Direct downloads from Paramount.

I’m uploading it to YouTube now. I’ll post another comment when it’s up.

215. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 21, 2008

Wow blown away!!!!

The new E in glorious HD. Can’t wait to blow this up on my 65″ DLP later!!!

A couple more observations.

1.The new E is definately more TMP than original E. From what we can see (more clearly now in HD) It looks like a much larger movie E with more TV E looking warp engines.

2. The ship looks to be around 800 meters in length (I am working on a drawing size comparison which I hope to have up by tomorrow)

3. The new saucer edge/rim is 4 decks high where the movie and TV E were both 2 decks high

Awesome stuff

216. Blowback - January 21, 2008

I smell the daily “built in space” versus “built on the ground” war starting up… (Puts on flame resistant jacket and pants)…

217. Enc - January 21, 2008

now this is going to bring up the ol how big is it arguement, 19,21,23,24 decks. how tall is the leading edge of the saucer, is that decks 6 &7 or does the under saucer curve in the hull under cut the deck. then every one brings out there fav or held dear what they believe cross section to prove their point.
oh and yes 947′ is one of many LOA that can be found out there for TOS ent.

218. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#217 – Never really worried about the size. On one level I understand that in the 60’s they were only concerned about keeping the production moving and some fudging happened that still causes problems today for some people.

I just can’t get into the weeds that deep. Keep it reasonable, don’t break continuity in a way that’s gonna make me notice, and give me a compelling story.

Oh, and PLEASE don’t rely on time travel all the time… ENOUGH ALREADY… Sheesh…

219. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Hi all,

Downloaded the trailer in the highest possible resolution. Must say that it is probably the best Star Trek trailer since ST-TMP and that is saying something. It really looks like Paramount are giving this Star Trek movie every possible chance to be a success. All we have to do is stop bitching and go see it seventeen times… per person…

But, and you just knew there would be a ‘but’ didn’t you? The thing that makes me feel a bit sad is the fact that there will not be a real Enterprise in this new movie. Of course what I mean is, there will not have been a team of skilled model makers, painters, electricians, electronic experts and so on to actually make a real ship for us to marvel at.

Now before anybody jumps on me for this comment, please bear in mind that;
1) This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
2) I am aware of the skills which go into building a CGI model and getting it to look real and I am not detracting from these talented people in any way.

Although I am looking forward to this film with nearly as much anticipation as when I first heard about ST-TMP, the lack of a physical model does take the edge off of it, for me anyway.

Unless I am completely wrong and a real model will be used. Anyone know either way for sure?

It is also my hope that the use of green/blue screen will be kept to minimum for the live action shots.

Oh yeah, don’t those bubbles on the top of the saucer section near the front look like TMP style phaser emitters? Apologies if that has already been asked and answered.
As for the fins/wings they are definitely related to what the original TV Enterprise had, so in that shot from the trailer we are on top of the nacelle, looking aft. Not sure of what to make of that lump right at the back though. Perhaps it is something akin to the cover the Enterprise Space Shuttle used to have over its engines when it was on the back of the 747 being flown around.

Isn’t it great to be able to discuss this stuff like this? :) Still miss Starlog though :(

Question for Stanky;
I have read many of your comments and have laughed, agreed and disagreed with them, obviously and not necessarily all at the same time! What I’d like to know is, given that a new movie is going to be made anyhow, what would actually meet with your approval and if it was your call, how would you re-invigorate the Star Trek franchise? because God knows it needs it.

Cheers and good night from this tired UK Star Trek fan :)

220. Ralph F - January 21, 2008

So are we finally going to find out if NCC stands for NAVAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT number? :)

221. Enc - January 21, 2008

2. The ship looks to be around 800 meters in length (I am working on a drawing size comparison which I hope to have up by tomorrow)

id like to see that

222. Charles Trotter - January 21, 2008

Holy crap, there really is a corridor!

I *saw* it! It is REEEEEAL!!!

/end Benny Russell ref

223. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#219 – Excellent post from start to end.

I also thought about the lack of a real model and it is a shame that she will only exist in her digital realm. Nothing for future generations to see in an exhibit in the future…

224. Enc - January 21, 2008

#217 – Never really worried about the size. On one level I understand that in the 60’s they were only concerned about keeping the production moving and some fudging happened that still causes problems today for some people.

Millenium falcon???

225. Blowback - January 21, 2008

And while we are on in, what does the “USS” really stand for?

226. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 219
“All we have to do is stop bitching and go see it seventeen times… per person…”

Yes, let’s all do that, even if it stinks. We must support Star Trek even if it is bad. (Not saying it will be bad…but what IF?) :)

227. mooseday - January 21, 2008

Love it love it love it ….. Big E in HD looks great!!!!

228. A.J. - January 21, 2008

To me, Star Trek is a philosophy…..Star Trek is hope. Star Trek is a vehicle for political commentary that is sometimes controversial(i hope this movie does some of that). AND then…….Star Trek is really cool. The teaser indicates these guys have the same perception of Star Trek that makes it unique. Secondly, they have put Star Trek on a much grander scale ALREADY than its been on recently. This movie, just based on the teaser, doesnt seem like it will have the SUPER EPISODE feel that to me that all the TNG movies had(which is a tragedy by the way because they could have been great). These guys are taking chances with this and it might be absolutely wonderful. The only thing I fear is the chemistry between the cast. Star Trek is soooo character driven. The texture of the characters sometimes pulled off episodes even if the story was lacking and it will be interesting to see if their cast can re-capture some of that. God I hope Chris Pine can pull off the intelligence and intensity of Captain Kirk!
Lastly, the contsruction of the Enterprise lends itself to an awesome scene where I predict a child Kirk will take a tour around the ship like a remake of the shuttle scene in Star Trek I. At least that would be awesome.

229. Pah Wraith - January 21, 2008

Is it just me, or the “Webmaster programm” stuff is offline? What was that about?

230. Enc - January 21, 2008


thats not what i was thinking.
i was thinking that ‘I dont have that much money’ :D

231. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Exactly how I feel. Having a model on display in the Smithsonian, is just not the same as having your polygons etc. backed up onto a dual layer DVDR. You guys in the States are so lucky to have all this neat stuff t go and see you know….

I wonder where the original TMP starship is these days? Anyone know that?

Question for Mr. Orci, did you ever consider using a physical model? And, what are your preferences on this particular matter?

232. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 219
“Question for Stanky;
I have read many of your comments and have laughed, agreed and disagreed with them, obviously and not necessarily all at the same time! What I’d like to know is, given that a new movie is going to be made anyhow, what would actually meet with your approval and if it was your call, how would you re-invigorate the Star Trek franchise? because God knows it needs it.”

What I would like to see (and I know that anyone with any money or power to do anything about it will not be interested) would be along the lines of Exeter, with a virtually identical starship with a different crew. And this would be a TV series, rather than a movie. It would be consistent with the 60s Star Trek series and be set in that time period.

I would want it to have the retro look and make references to the (offscreen) Enterprise and its crew on occasion.
Would this reinvigorate the franchise? Probably not. But then, that’s not my job.

Does it really need invigorating? To me they are not invigorating, they are out-and-out changing for the tastes of the perceived modern audience in order to make money. That’s business and I understand it. But I don’t like the product. I’d rather see no Star Trek than fake Star Trek.

233. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Thanks for the comment, but I was hoping you might repond to the bit specifically for you at the end of my post.

234. LarryB - January 21, 2008

WM program is still online, as far as I can tell. But it rejected me, but really don’t know why :-/
Has anyone else tried to apply?

235. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#226: Of course we will not go seventeen times. Being a fan doesn’t mean we’re brainless… It’s like buying a Star Trek game. I got burned once and learned not to invest in newer titles unless they had positive reviews and I got a chance to try a demo.

If this comes out of the gate stinking like a bag of dung it’s gonna make me think twice…

236. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 233
see 232

237. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

#226 in post #232
Of course I meant ‘respond’. Bloody laptop keyboards…. Grrrrrr! or lack of brain cells perhaps? Who knows for sure?
But seriously, I would be interested to see your thoughts on my question Stanky.

238. robin alexander - January 21, 2008


I havent been this psyched about a movie since Star Wars Episode II came out in 2002.

on a side note I DID like Episode II.

239. Enc - January 21, 2008


oh the ol if it were me.
i was thinking of a pre tos show.
its the ent with pike and crew.

240. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Oh bugger! Sorry, I’ll go and have a look now. :) I’m sure that was not here a minute ago…..

241. NCC-73515 - January 21, 2008

225. Blowback – January 21, 2008
And while we are on in, what does the “USS” really stand for?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Pike said he was from the United Space Ship Enterprise in The Cage.

242. robin alexander - January 21, 2008


about the TMP ent. I believe its hanging on a wall at ILM, well the saucer section anyway.

243. Viking - January 21, 2008

I love it…..I love it……..I love it………

244. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Those workers are still going…. Not even a lunch break….

245. Brian - January 21, 2008

Looks like a MAJOR TMP influence on this project…. the aztec tiling/general style of the saucer to the “secret image” that looks like a TMP Enterprise corridor.

Makes sense to have a hybrid look to the ship….makes the transition to the TMP refit make more visual sense.

246. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#241 – That sounds right. Something I heard in the distant past. But since every second of film has been sliced, diced, and examined over the last 40 + years I was wondering if a new explanation was put forth…

#242 – Isn’t the TMP Entrprise part of the tour going on now?

247. ivy - January 21, 2008

I’m annoying everyone with my repetitive watching of the teaser and talking almost non-stop about it.

248. Freddie Wise - January 21, 2008


USS stands for United Space Ship ;)

249. KirkTrekModeler - January 21, 2008

^^^ It’s prbably going to take about a year to build it.

250. Enc - January 21, 2008


visual sense?

what about chronological sense.
oh yes we’ve heard the back and forth style argument.
so how about this. you see the retro styling in the auto market?
maybe this jj trek is what it looked like back in its day and TMP is the retro version of that. now before some says yes.
what does that say about tos style?

251. Blowback - January 21, 2008

Anyone want to bet if the Enterprise is considered a “Starship Class” or a “Constitution Class?” For everyone who has been using the plaque as proof what do you make of that reference?

252. Enc - January 21, 2008


against picards reading it as a constitution class in the Naked Now, with a pic of TMP ent?

253. Aj Collins - January 21, 2008

Now on YouTube.

254. DReffects - January 21, 2008

i’ve just added various platform independent formats to my website:

– divx6
– wmv
– mp4 for Ipod, PSP and mobile phones

just in case one does not like mighty quicktime :)

255. Brian - January 21, 2008


As much as I love the classic look, let’s face it: Putting the original version of the Enterprise on the big screen would be absurd. That look was wonderful for it’s day, but that day was 40 years ago. Folks either have to accept a more modern version or simply avoid the project altogether. Personally, I’m looking forward to it.

256. Enc - January 21, 2008


production stand point? or story stand point?
why not just a movie ver of it like how the borg costumes changed.
wheres my post from…. oh here it is.

sorry but let me jump in for a sec.
sure it could be argued that trek is the human adventure/condition so on and so forth. and also that it is star trek and wouldnt be trek with out the ship. but the writer is not the art dept. if trek is about humanity and all that then let the writer do his/her job and convey what message they will. and let the art dept recreate our beautiful lady. why should some one else change her. campy or not, a science fiction space ship is a science fiction space ship, its always going to look funny to someone.

257. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Well I can see where you are coming from with this.
What I guess you are feeling is that this new incarnation is riding on the coat tails of an already well established item and there is not much in the way of originality or creativity involved with the new and therefore it is not worth bothering with. And obviously something which you feel strongly about.

The thing is, I am willing to give it a chance because I would like to see more adventures with these iconic characters and as long as the new actors can honour the original characters (not mimic the original actors performances) why is that so bad? Another way I am looking at this is thinking about all the different actors which have portrayed Shakespeare’s creations, do we refer to any of them as fake? I don’t believe that is so. If Gene Roddenberry’s creation has a fraction of the longevity of Shakespeare, is that not a great thing? We may even have the peculiarity of Star Trek catching up with itself in years to come, would that not be something grand to see?

Although my affection for the actors who have played these roles is vast, I am trying to be subjective enough to accept that, much like the Bond movies, it is possible to replace the main characters and still maintain the integrity and entertainment of the product overall.

I believe this new film has a chance of being something interesting and even meaningful for today’s audiences, and dare I say, us old timers too. If we can just get an intriguing and worthwhile storyline, then I will be there, not on Christmas Day, but soon after.

The one thing that really gives me hope is Leonard Nimoy coming out of retirement to play Spock again.
Many times in the past I have been impressed with his overall reverence toward the character of Spock and Star Trek in general. After all it is not as if he needs the money these days does he? And lets not forget he has actually been involved with Star Trek since day one, and no other cast member can say that. Also Mr. Nimoy passed on Generations, citing that there was nothing of value to his character in that movie.

So based on his involvement alone, I have hope. And in the end is that not what Star Trek is all about?

Stanky, I also hope that you will at the least see this movie one time. You might just be pleasantly surprised and even if you are not, there are always the TOS DVDs to enjoy.

Man, I am really going on far too much tonight. If anything I have said above makes any sense, great. If not, sorry about that. It made sense while I was writing it.

258. Daniel Broadway - January 21, 2008

I too love when movies use physical models for starships (i.e. miniatures). And I’m an aspiring CG/VFX artist. Don’t get me wrong, I love CG too. But there’s just something about a miniature that is great. Especially when it’s done with lots of detail.

But at this point in time, computers have gotten so powerful, that you can put more detail on a CG model, with greater ease, than it is to put that detail on a physical model.

259. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#255 – I agree with you but I would love to see a believable vision of TOS Enterprise with minimal updating. It’s clear this version of the Big-E will be significantly different but is it possible to take the classic design and update it just enough that it would stand up on the silver screen and modern audiences?

Anyone ever give it a try?

260. Nathan - January 21, 2008

That is so cool…

This movie’s gonna rock!

261. Brian - January 21, 2008


Point taken, but if that original look was so timeless, why didn’t Gene keep it intact in TMP?

Also, this film is not just being made for the fan base; its intent is to reach a larger audience. Putting the original design on the screen would get it laughed out of the theater. There HAD to be changes made.

Let’s give JJ and gang a chance before burying them.

262. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Sad to admit, but I agree with what you say.

I just don’t believe that there will be quite so much of the ‘goosebump’ factor for me when I see the big E this year. Of course I won’t be 16 years old either…… :)

I’d be interested to see that too.

263. Z - January 21, 2008

Dear Haters,

It seems some starships are still constructed on planets even in the 24th century.
Unless you want to write off TNG as non-canon too…


264. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

In case anyone is remotely interested, I was 16 when ST-TMP came out and that is what I was referring to when talking about seeing the big E….

265. Gd846c3 - January 21, 2008

I expect this movie, because it was written by Orci and Kurtzman, will resonate their type of movie making style but at the same time will be faithful almost to the letter to Gene’s vision of Trek. In other words, like Transformers and M.I. III, there will be a lot of action and what not, but at the same time this will be accompanied by a great story that fits perfectly into the original “meaning” of Star Trek. I imagine this is why they chose to go with an original series story. So that they can tell Star Trek in a way that hasn’t been tackled in a while that looks new and exciting, allowing viewers of all kinds to look at it in a new way and see truly what Star Trek is suppose to mean.

I thoroughly look forward to this movie and know that whether it looks drastically different or not, it will be faithful to the essence of Star Trek.

266. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#261 “There HAD to be changes made”

Totally agreed. The bridge of the Enterprise-D in Generations was different than the TV version of TNG. No strange explanation needed. No altered timeline. The designer simply told that the differences were to be intended retroactive, that is: the bridge of E-D had always been that way. It’s called suspension of disbelief, ’cause every movie production introduces artistic and visual enhancements. We have to live with it.

267. Daniel Broadway - January 21, 2008


I was -5 when TMP came out. :p

268. Etha Williams - January 21, 2008

Love the shipyard site. And I was worried about how I would put off doing that problem set tonight…well, I will worry no more.

269. Jeff - January 21, 2008

On the “it’s not being constructed in space” debate, the book “Flag Full of Stars” depicts the Enterprise saucer section being refit on the ground in San Francisco and then flown into space to attach to the primary hull. Sure, not technically canon, but maybe where the idea came from.

270. Mark Lynch - January 21, 2008

Nice looking ship you have there. Any renderings of it in a completed state?

271. Kenny S - January 21, 2008


USS at first was meant to be United Space Ship

but then they changed the meaning to

United Star Ship

The Enterprise is a Starship, capable of interstellar travel, not any ol spaceship….

272. Enc - January 21, 2008


a bit out of argment but pg 27 of st phase II
gene wanted it updated not redesigned.

im just looking for a movie version. more details, lighting, sense of scale.

273. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


Before anyone hisses, let me speculate for just a moment… I’m only putting two data points together which probably weren’t meant to go together…

In that TNG novel, Dark Mirror (iirc), there was a reference to the Mirror Enterprise (D) being much larger — as a battleship — than the Enterprise (D) [our universe] was.

Roberto O has had to be coy “for plot reasons” about the reason that this Enterprise appears different from our TOS Enterprise…

Not that I’m saying that this is a “Mirror Universe” movie, but, could the result of the actions of our [known] Romulan character have affected development in the Federation (or Terra) to the point that “this” Enterprise is one of the consequences?

Not expecting this to be the case, but, a ‘thought experiment’ of sorts….

274. NCC-73515 - January 21, 2008

Picard himself said “you’re aboard a space ship” :P

275. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008

Polite corrections of a misimpression, or, data that others might already be aware of that I’ve missed, would be welcome.

276. T Negative - January 21, 2008

Why does the corridor look like a DOOM game or some shoot’em up video game?? Oh well, I will try to keep an open mind on this. Hopefully it will look better when lit.

277. Enc - January 21, 2008

oh you talking about that alternate reality ep?

278. Brian - January 21, 2008


I hear ya.

The basic design looks to be the same….it’s the details that people seem to have trouble with. Be interesting to see if the “turbines” on the nacelles will be covered like they were on TOS or left exposed.

279. Anthony Thompson - January 21, 2008

232. Stanky.
Updating the look of the ship will make it a “fake Star Trek”? You seriously would prefer retro sets and model ships? That is NOSTALGIA, not good sense. Gene Roddenberry created the most forward-looking vision of the future that he could (in the 1960’s). He wasn’t into nostalgia or looking backwards.

I enjoy the Exeter and New Voyages fan films. They are fun. But would I want to see them on the big screen (or weekly on television)? No. Star Trek is about ideas and adventure, not a stagnant relic.

280. Paul - January 21, 2008

#259, #262 – “like classic ENT, just updated”? It has been done already. One talented guy called Vektor made this “updated for bigh screen” Enterprise (WIP):

See other views here:

281. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


They not only help propel a starship at FTL speeds, but they also slice, dice and prepare julienne fries…

But wait! There’s more!

282. Daniel Broadway - January 21, 2008


I have one completed render, but it’s hard to see…

Also, I have a render that shows all the detail I put into the “under construction” version that I used in my fan trailer…

Disclaimer : This is NOT the official Enterprise from the movie. It is fan art.

283. NCC - 635 - January 21, 2008

For those guys worried about build quality, with these dodgy cowboy welders making the enterprise – its ok – it fits with CANNON – it explains why the ship needed a huge overhaul a decade down the line (the refit)- and also why they never used this design of ship after the kirk era – aka (you only see miranda and excelcior and oberth class ships really) it because it was so badly made – (for those who can’t tell – this is sarchasm)

Sci-Fi – clues in the title

i love how people are trying to justify a change in design with some bizzare plot explenation – they changed it because the original would have looked shit on screen – nuff said

284. Paul - January 21, 2008

#279 – it doesn’t need to be MODEL ships. Classic design can be made to look “real”, just like this new design could be made to look “false”. It’s just a matter of CGI artists and their prowess.

As for retro sets, well, they don’t have to be THE SAME cardboard walls. All that needs to stay the same is overall shape (walls and floor in 90 degree angle, unless you really want the crew to bump their heads into sloped walls constantly) and basic color scheme (military grayish walls, colored doors), as both of them are strictly utilitarian. It is not *supposed* to have ornaments, but feel free to add as much functional detals as you want – consoles, piping, hatches, signage, whatever floats your boat.

285. I HATE DRAGON WARS - January 21, 2008

i love how people are trying to justify a change in design with some bizzare plot explenation – they changed it because the original would have looked shit on screen – nuff said

Right on NCC 635

286. Rick Sternbach - January 21, 2008

#263 – The Galaxy class spaceframe and other hull components were fabricated under 0.3g conditions on the surface of Mars and underwent systems integration testing on the surface before being disconnected, powered down, and hauled into Mars orbit over Utopia Planitia for reassembly. Interior habitation elements were installed by means of industrial transporter pads and automated gamma-welding systems, and tied into standard consumables re– say, you -are- cleared for this information, aren’t you?

A Franchise Guy Once Upon a Time

287. Chris - January 21, 2008

the corridor looks like something out of the Pegasus, or Galactica.

288. Enc - January 21, 2008


that would cover the built on the ground issue.
but if, a alternate reality then mirror was I.S.S. and this ground built Ent is U.S.S.
so what is that a non-mirror iniverse alternate reality?

Dark Mirror pg 62
The design was overtly the same – the sloped deisk of the primary hull, the nacels, the secondary hull seemed larger; the naccels were raked further forward, and lower. The primary hull’s curve was deeper and now had a frowning look about it. If ships had expressions, this one had its eyes narrowed. It was a cruel look, and intimidating. Just visable, because of the rake of the primary hull……

289. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


From upthread…

“Why did you guys decide to change the design of the Enterprise so radically from a design which had become such a well-known cultural icon?”

Orci replied by saying this (post 282, I think):

“Can’t comment too much because it involves a story point to a degree, but I can say that one of our guiding principles in our approach to many things in this movie is to make them feel REAL as can be. Willing to discuss this more as we get closer.”

290. NCC - 635 - January 21, 2008

I made a kit car in my garage once – then wheeled it outside – that was real!

291. Enc - January 21, 2008


instead of a transparrent medium i was thinking of a field that held back what ever it was that was behind it. for this movie any way.

292. Kirk, James T. - January 21, 2008

This is how Star Trek is done for this century – Epic in scale, relevant in todays world and Star Trek in everything else. truly fantastic.

293. tin man - January 21, 2008

Don’t know if this has been mentioned, cuz I didn’t read every post , but as for the corridors ,they look like the new sections of corridors from the defiant from “In A Mirror Darkly”?

294. Balock - January 21, 2008

hmmm. The ant-gravs can get this up into space…. but… why do they needs cranes, scaffold, etc.? Anti-gravs should eliminate the need for these… Also, I am diappointed that they have chosen to go more with the TMP look for the E… looks like no lower sensor dome, instead looks like cruumy TMP E lower suacer design… yuk…

295. Enc - January 21, 2008


what ship was in the space dock as seen in TNG Galaxys Child?
was the after her orbital fitting.

296. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


My point wasn’t that this was a Mirror universe movie…

“Not that I’m saying that this is a “Mirror Universe” movie, but, could the result of the actions of our [known] Romulan character have affected development in the Federation (or Terra) to the point that “this” Enterprise is one of the consequences?”

My point was that in Dark Mirror, there was a reference that Picard noted — in reading some of ‘his’ books — an increasing divergence between the mores of the “Mirror Universe” and the “our Universe”… That, iirc, the characters of Shakespeare were already a little different than their ‘normal’ universe counterparts, but that the degree of difference widened as time progressed — to the point that there was a huge difference in human morals between the ‘contemporary’ Mirror Universe and the ‘contemporary’ ‘our’ universe.

I’m only trying to make sense of the coy remark by one of the writers that there may be a plot point in the basis for the difference, and that a non-canon source (and, non-canon sources were not going to necessarily be ignored) has some discussion about differences between even ‘contemporary’ Enterprises.

That’s all…

297. Woulfe - January 21, 2008

To those complaineing about it not looking 100% like it did in TOS.

Modern Movie goers would of LAUGHED at the teaser and I would of had to sneak out of the the theater after Cloverfield was over, hanging my head in shame for being a Star Trek fan.

The 1960’s model is still in Washington D.C. if you want to see it still.

This is a 2008 film, deal with the changes, or do you want Trek to die for good ? If you do want it to die for good that’s verry selfish of you. It’s no longer 1966 folks, you have to accept that.

– W –
* Who’s let go of the past as it’ll NEVER come back EVER *

298. JustAGuy - January 21, 2008

I’m pretty sure (and please do correct me if i am wrong) that the Enterprise we all have seen in TOS was not a new ship when Kirk became captain. Kirk was the third captain, apparently, after captains April and Pike. Therefore, that ship was in service for some time before Kirk, which gives A LOT of opportunity to explain any design differences between the time of its construction and the TOS series.

In fact if you believe the dates provided by the Wikipedia references, the NCC-1701 was built in 2245 and the TOS series “5 year mission” took place from 2265-2270.

Or am i wrong?

source: wikipedia page on “starship enterprise” which also has its own references

299. NCC - 635 - January 21, 2008


Dosn’t change my point about the reason behind changing the design – the original would have looked shit on screen

– regardless whether it is part of the plot or not

300. He's Dead Jim - January 21, 2008

It’s not my movie to make, but… if it were, I sure as heck wouldn’t make the construction of the Enterprise look like a 1930s shipyard building a battleship for the USN. Good grief! I hope this is not a foreshadowing of how they are going to treat the technology look and feel for the rest of the film… What’s next? Vacuum tubes under the bridge consoles…? Come on, guys!!!!! You can do better!!!

301. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

I like the fact that this “version” looks closer to the TMP version (which I still feel is the best version of the Enterprise….Ever.) Yeah, it’s a bit of retconning, but so what.

302. Sean4000 - January 21, 2008

Yahoo has a write up on this:

303. NCC - 635 - January 21, 2008

301 –

the original was a crappy model put together on the cheap for a tv series-

even Rodenberry said at the time of TMP – that that the TMP version is what the original should have looked like if they had budget in the 60s

304. Enc - January 21, 2008


any change or ‘divergence’ is still a change. A changed, diverged, or mirrored universe is still an alternate reality and thus not our own.
so long as it is undone and we come back to our universe our TOS Ent.

305. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


Individual electronic components hard-wired on perf board…

It’d be canon, after all.


306. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

I think it’s still the same size to, or at least, more realistic as far as how the decks look like they’re placed. I always thought it was funny in all those blueprints and cross sections of the various starships how you almost never see ANY wiring, conduit or utility corridors in the schematics. I mean, a ship with the ability to travel hundreds of times the speed of light would have to have some mechanics on each deck other than just what we saw in Engineering.

307. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008


Agree with ya there. That was my point exactly. Even GR said the TMP version was the bomb!

308. GARY - January 21, 2008

hey Rick! 286!

What do you think about the glimpse we saw of the new ship???

309. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


Perhaps. There’s been a cottage industry (**cough** Harlan **cough** among others) about statements Gene made after-the-fact… whether deliberately or inadvertently.

If I’d just spent a snoot-load of Paramount’s money on a new model, I’d think it wise to say the previous one was crap, too. Regardless.

310. JB - January 21, 2008

The ship looks good to me; the saucer section looks remarkably similar to TMP’s, which I always thought was a great look. It’s more faithful to the original design than I thought it would be. Also, is it me or does it look bigger than the original?

311. Enc - January 21, 2008


iirc the essex (2167) had a crew of 200+ and pike had a crew of 200+ and then kirk got pikes ship with the same 200+ crew and was later a 430+ crew.

312. Viking - January 21, 2008

That one shot looking towards the back of the nacelle reminds me of the Seaview from Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea…….kewl. :-)

313. Brian - January 21, 2008


I totally agree….the refitted Enterprise from TMP is the best looking of all the Enterprises…that design still holds up!

314. CmdrR - January 21, 2008

I love how everyone who’s carrying this trailer is crowing, saying it’s exclusive.

I think this is a wonderful trailer. I only hope the movie lives up to the level of creativity and care shown thus far.

It opens next week, right??

315. Kenny S - January 21, 2008

#300. He’s Dead Jim –

You are right…. this is not a vision of the future to me…

I WOULD NEVER write and direct this in this way…

I would make something very high tech, something interesting…
sweaty unshaved welders???? NEVER EVER!!!!

316. Enc - January 21, 2008


its all flash and for the kewlness factor of todays audiance to see that mix of contruction yard AND sci-fi ship. and it is cool too look at.

but on another note isnt todays spacecraft build in hangers and clean rooms?

317. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


They’re there to get (some) middle-aged women to be interested in the movie… :)

318. Viking - January 21, 2008

#286 Rick – care to offer an honest critique on the design/construction techniques?

319. Woulfe - January 21, 2008

Buliding Starships is a messy, messy bussiness ;)

It’ll look a lot better all lit up and under her own power folks, trust me….

– W –
* Who likes what he’s seen so far *

320. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008

And, it could be worse.. it could be sweaty unshaven men throwing red-hot rivets up to the guys on the primary hull — where a couple of them start wailing away with sledge hammers.

321. Edith Keeler - January 21, 2008

How did Cawley fit all of that Elvis pompadour under the welder’s headgear? Does appearing in a teaser – but not the film the teaser promotes – count as being a “cameo”?

322. FD - January 21, 2008

Anyone else think the “web” cams point a way to another IP address: 564.125.955.289? Nothing there now, but maybe some day?

323. Viking - January 21, 2008

321. Edith Keeler – I didn’t see anyone vaguely resembling Cawley……….

324. Captain Scokirk - January 21, 2008

TOS- Enterprise 2265- Retro 1960’s look to everything

Enterrise built 2245- Retro 1940’s World War II look to shipyards

Hence groovy 300th Anniversary WW II special limited edition goggles and arc welders to commemorate historic San Fran shipyards. If they had filmed the trailer the day after everyone would be back to using “gamma welders” and quasi futuristic goggles……

325. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 279
“You seriously would prefer retro sets and model ships? That is NOSTALGIA, not good sense. ”

Not my job to evaluate Star Trek based on business sense…just what I like or don’t like.

And for me, Star Trek is about the original actors in the original series, not about certain ideas, or “Roddenberry’s (ever changing) Vision” or box office.

I really think Star Trek works much better as a TV series than it does as a movie. I enjoy most of the movies based on the series, but while watching them it seems like a whole different deal. I always thought they should have stuck closer to the series uniforms, etc.

I did like the ST-TMP version of the Enterprise. In that context, it made sense to change the shape of the warp engines, etc. because it was explained as a refit.

326. Brian - January 21, 2008

I know that some fans hate to think of Trek as a business, but the simple fact is that that is EXACTLY what it is, and always was.

Everyone better hope this film works and makes alot of bank otherwise Trek will go away for a loooooooooong time.

327. JodarTrekFan - January 21, 2008

I saw the trailer in glorious 2K digital projection in a THX cert theater right before Cloverfield began. The sound and picture were stupendous BUT the audience reaction was nil. Audience members were mostly 20somethings and naval academy cadets.

I think they should release a teaser, if not every month, at least with every major event movie release or at least Paramount film, which I’m counting 11. Each trailer giving us a little more info on the movie.

The next one should continue with the Enterprise but in space and have her complete and do a TMP-style flyover, turn to show it at impulse with the bright orange/red glow and deep subwoofer rumble. Let the camera slowly pull back to do a beauty pass of the ship with all its working running lights, strobe light effects, turbine twirling. Maybe a shot or several of people working can be seen in the port windows. Then the impulse engine shuts off as the warp engines come to life, the nacelles begin a more powerful subwoofer rumble as the theater shakes and then the ship goes into warp in a glorious transphotic blur of color as it achieves warp speed. Then the title card and Christmas ’08 release date!

328. Flying Tigress - January 21, 2008


Maybe that was the day that Henry J. Kaiser XV took over as head of the shipyard, and, in honor of his great-great-great…grandfather…

329. Captain Scokirk - January 21, 2008


Oh no lets hope the Enterprise isnt a fiasco, then they’ll have to pack up the molds and start building 2nd rate copies in Argentina….

(this is not a critique against the fine people of Argentina, but merely an allusion to the now defunct Kaiser Motors operation….)

330. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 21, 2008

Finally. After the theater’s failure to include Trek in the Cloverfield pre-show, I have seen it.

It was marvellous. I continue to see that Abrams -gets- it. This is going to be Wagon Train to the Stars. I could not be happier.

A few complaints about being built on the ground. That’s an incoherent position, because the only thing that that violates is fan speculation on the canon, not canon itself.

Anyhow, I’m just sitting here waiting for that last camera to come online and show me some corridor action. Looks very Galactica 2003 from the screenshot.

331. Edith Keeler - January 21, 2008

#323 – they put goggles and a black skull cap on him and covered him with dilithium grease. Of course he’s hard to see. He’s so hard up to get in everyone’s movie he’ll do just about anything for a few pixelated frames.

332. Viking - January 21, 2008

#331 – you must be looking at the HD version, yes?

333. Nelson - January 21, 2008

On a side note, I just quickly saw my recording of Let That Be Your Last Battlefield Remastered. Skipped to all the CGI scenes. The new decontamination sequence is very subtle, and there’s a new hatch opened under the secondary hull where they are spraying stuff from.

There’s some cool new fly-bys, the shot where they circle at warp 10 is just okay. The syndicated cut took advantage of the repetitive scenes of Lokai and Bele running around the corridors and cut them out. I was curious if those had CGI cities burning. The dead planet looked cool.

I’m sure Anthony will have these up for us soon The news of the trailer and viral site of course took priority.

334. Sprout - January 21, 2008

Everyone seems to agree that the one screen grab is of people working on the top of the nacells and that those are the nacell’s ‘wings.’ But the shot from the front of the ship shows the nacell ‘fans,’ (one is even slowly rotating) but nothing connected behind them. Anyway, I’m confused.

335. Rick - January 21, 2008

Man the imagery does seem to give size and power to the ENTERPRISE in the clip! Something about the way they set up the scenes with the angles and the slow reveal. I still think some are reading too much into what of this may or may not be in the final film from this teaser. It is doing it’s job by causing people to talk about it and give the film some publicity. It is featured on the Yahoo home page in fact. It should be an interesting film, but then we will see if it works as a good STAR TREK film.

336. Captain Scokirk - January 21, 2008

Re: Corridors- inconsistent refits

The only corridors we see in THE CAGE are the angled corridors reminiescent of what we are seeing here….

wider straight walled ones show up in WHERE NO MAN….,

besides, its a big ship, how much have we seen in TOS anyway,

Real World Precedents for unrecognizable refits-

U.S.S. Midway Aircraft Carrier was a straight deck with simple con tower,
later refitted with angled flight deck and modernized con tower, virtually un recognizable as original ship

U.S.S. Enterprise CVAN-65

Originally built with “Wedding Cake” above con tower, and with radar frames along sides of con tower

Refit with Wedding cake and frames removed

1961 Presidential Lincoln Limousine- Outfitted with 1962 grille, later 1965 Typography and tailights

“1972” Presidential Lincoln Limo began as 1970 undercarriage, later outfitted with 1979 Front and rear ends in early 1980’s

Probably other examples too.

Merely a suggestion to satisfy “Canon” Unlikely maybe, implausible, possibly, but not imposible

Of course maybe its all a reboot, and Leonard Nimoy was cast due to his startling resemblance to Zach Quinto…. to play “Old” Spock (not our revered Canon Spock)

337. diabolk - January 21, 2008

Let us hope that JJ’s different kind of trailer (and different kind of movie) makes it looks interesting to the common viewer. For most of the culture, Star Trek is a dead issue. “They still make that stuff?”

If it is made only for fans we’ll never see another one. Come on, JJ, Make a huge hit that people want to see in spite of it being Trek.

Trek is no longer cool. It’s not even “no longer cool.” It’s “uncool.”

He has a long uphill road andI wish him luck.

338. Balock - January 21, 2008

so far, what I see is that the new E is a step backwards from TOS E. If you are going to change it, make it better, changing it just to change it and being real creative by making it look like TMP E is a joke…

339. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re326. Brian – January 21, 2008
“I know that some fans hate to think of Trek as a business, but the simple fact is that that is EXACTLY what it is, and always was. Everyone better hope this film works and makes alot of bank otherwise Trek will go away for a loooooooooong time.”

Which is fine if it turns out to be a turkey.

I understand the business aspect of it. They want to make as much money off it as they can. They will do this by trying to guess what will bring the most people to the theater and to buy their merchandise and they will gear the movie towards that. Not hard to understand.

But if the product turns out to be something I don’t care to use any more, then it ceases to exist for me anyway. So I’m good either way.

340. ajd - January 21, 2008

K…..question. Am I nuts or is this going to be the TMP Enterprise with old nacelles?

341. m aspill - January 21, 2008

#336 good point !! see a very good example of jj following trek cannon and i bet most would nt have noticed . would people moan if he had tos series corrodors rather than pilot episode i think not . we cant respect all trek cannon if they did this film would be so restricted they would nt have made it give the guys a break /

342. John from Cincinnati - January 21, 2008

I HATE dark corridors, it looks like a Klingon ship or worse….a submarine.

343. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

I don’t mind as much the ship being different I just hope that it doesn’t completely overide the original in TOS. I mean a version prior to “The Cage” that gets upgraded/refit into what we see later ok. I can accept that it gets updated before but if they show it in a time later between “The Cage” and “WNMHGB” or later TOS I would be dissapointed.

344. m aspill - January 21, 2008

surely this enterprise can look however jj wants it to look as long as its got the basics of the 1966 e he can easily say it was latter refit for the 5 year mission and thats why its different .

345. Bond - January 21, 2008

The viral site is obviously us (the viral people) tuning in as the “bad guys” spying on the construction of the Enterprise…hence the “tuning in” aspects of it and “sinister” sounds…

346. Rick Sternbach - January 21, 2008

#308 – Without making a judgment on whether or not I’m going to simply sit back and try to be entertained by the film as a whole (probably will, but we’ll see in December), I can say that I don’t accept the fabrication visuals as being 23rd century. Abrams and co. may indeed want us to associate the welding sparks and the plating and the cranes with a more contemporary naval shipyard, and that’s okay, but I would have done it with a bit more Trek-future gear and energy effects. If the ship is truly a mash-up of the TOS Ent and the refit, with a few more smooth curves thrown in, fine, I guess. Can’t see enough to say yay or nay within the context of -this- incarnation; again, I wouldn’t have done it like this but would have stuck closer to the TOS original. Ask me again in sixth months. :)


347. Bond - January 21, 2008

…and who says the corridor is one from the Enterprise?

348. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

Of course he can do it however he likes, and I think it looks pretty cool and real which is good and can accept a later refit into what we see. What I meant was given that it has Pike and we allready know what it looked like 13 years before the rest of TOS I hope that part is set prior to “The Cage” rather than directly conflicting with the later version.

349. Avindair - January 21, 2008

First off, enjoyed the teaser.

Secondly, for those out there who are worried about canon, I think I have a logic loop for you to deal with things:

1. Star Trek: First Contact altered the timeline by allowing Zephram Cochrane a glance at the Enterprise-E, and also told him his destiny.

2. This altered timeline led to “Star Trek: Enterprise”.

3. This movie is the extension of the First Contact -> Enterprise timeline, and is a separate timeline from the classic original series.

So, no worries.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. ;)

350. Michael P. Delaney - January 21, 2008

Fans like me have always wanted to see the styles, costumes, and designs of the original series on the big screen. We have never had that pleasure. I remember feeling very let down by the radical changes that even the first movie made in the whole appearance and atmosphere of the Trek universe. Just for once PLEASE give us the unadulterated Matt Jeffries design on the big screen with modern, big budget effects! I guarantee it would revitalize the entire franchise! Just like the Brits love their Dr. Who, we Americans have a genuine love and affection for Star Trek- The Original Series.

351. m aspill - January 21, 2008

349 genius uve settled the whole argument thank god and there is presedence in enterprise with the borg episode and cocran telling people in a speach about the borg well done

352. Imrahil - January 21, 2008

That corridor makes me sad. I don’t want to have to watch a movie, squinting to see what the hell’s going on all the time.

353. m aspill - January 21, 2008

the corridor wont be dark in the film guys

354. Christopher - January 21, 2008

I think that it is both cool and a bit odd that the Enterprise is being built on Earth. It would be a magnificent scene to see Captain Pike and Lt. Spock watching the Enterprise journey up towards the sky into space.

355. Daniel Broadway - January 21, 2008

To all those complaining about canon…

356. The Truth Is Out There - January 21, 2008

So… now that we have a high-def version of the trailer, I guess we can look for signs of Easter Eggs.

Makes me wonder if anyone stamped the “Dhama Initiative” logo into the hull plating somewhere… :)

(Actually, the TMP NCC-1701 model had quite a few naughty words written *inside* the warp nacelles–none of which was visible to us viewers. But the modelers had fun doing it.)

357. tenfingersofdoom - January 21, 2008

Judging by how awesome that was and how realistic, it is unfortunately safe to say that models have truly been replaced by CG

358. Enc - January 21, 2008



359. diabolk - January 21, 2008

The corridor lights aren’t on! JJ raped my childhood! I refuse to see the movie unless they turn on the lights in the corridor! (wets diaper)

360. Gina - January 21, 2008

Okay, the ship’s great, how about some of the actors now?

361. DJT - January 21, 2008

#322 –

I think you’re onto something.

Try alternating the IP sequence or remodulating your camera feeds to exactly 100% for a more precise numerical sequence from each feed.

Have you accounted for the whales to water ratio in a …….oh wait. Darn.

362. Sean4000 - January 21, 2008

I don’t agree with the idea that the TOS model doesn’t hold up with modern CGI. In a Mirror Darkly laid that to rest in my mind.

363. Lou - January 21, 2008

how long do you have to wait for that thing to appear in the camera that doesn’t work?

if I have to wait 17 minutes and 1 second, I’m gonna hurl.

364. Michael Hall - January 21, 2008

“. . .they put goggles and a black skull cap on him and covered him with dilithium grease. Of course he’s hard to see. He’s so hard up to get in everyone’s movie he’ll do just about anything for a few pixelated frames.”

So what’s the deal with your apparent obsession with James Cawley, whose only crimes are doing Elvis impersonations and making very elaborate, well-received fan films based on TOS? And who, so far as anyone besides you seems to know, hasn’t been within a light-year of Abrams’ set?

365. Elrond L. - January 21, 2008


Very cool to see the great Henry Kaiser’s name evoked, as someone who grew up a few miles from the Kaiser Steel mill in Fontana. I hope the saucer section doesn’t share the same fate as the mill, or we’ll be seeing NASCAR races around the bridge dome! :-)

366. Blowback - January 21, 2008

#280 – Nice visuals. Classic look with some updating. Anyone else know if there is more out there.

#286, #346 – Rick, I’ve only recetly began haunting this site so it’s a pleasure to meet you. Huge fan of your design work and glad to see the opinion of someone who paid his dues (so to speak)

367. KJTrek - January 21, 2008

great trailer and viral site is interesting, but I can’t get the 4th camera to do something – I just see static. I have all 3 others to 100%. do I just have to wait longer?

368. falcon - January 21, 2008

#322 –

IP addresses go from to That’s all there is. However, there’s nothing to suggest that there might not be some combination of those numbers that would point to another site. Abrams is big on numbers – like the lottery numbers in LOST that were also on the big “manhole cover” on the island.

369. roytheboy - January 21, 2008

The corridors look a little “BattleStar Gallactica” – ish. Probably based on TMP/TWOK. Funny how the corridors look so narrow compared with NX-01 Enterprise, or TOS, or any other TV ship, ie Enterprise-D , Voyager. The more I look at the saucer section the more it looks like the refit Enterprise especially underneath (in the area of the phaser emitters, or whatever they actually are). It bugged me about the warp nascelles until I tried looking at my own model of Enterprise (and lets be honest, most of us have one) from the same angle as the teaser shot. The perspective changes so they appear larger. The new ships nascelles are bigger but until we see the whole vessel we’re not going to get the proportions.

370. mctrekkie - January 21, 2008

Sure was nice to hear Nimoy’s voice-over again.

371. Captain Hackett - January 21, 2008

Dang Cam 1 is offline. I have to try it over again and again until I get it right.

372. Oregon Trek Geek - January 21, 2008

It looks a lot better in HD, and is definitely really cool. But I still like’s teaser better. :)

373. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

I kinda have to laugh when people say, “This may be a good film, but it remains to be seen if it is going to be a good Star Trek film” ,
Like they’ve been the penacles of success in film making or something. I’ve liked most of them for the most part, but they’ve never been “Critic” proof or something that people, other than us goofball fans, talk about for hours after seeing them.

Let’s face facts here: ST has had more duds than jems in the feature film department. Three of the four TNG movies were, well, pretty forgetful (And all of them felt very ‘routine’ if you know what I mean). The original had two that didn’t live up to expectations (one of which most people want to forget).

The new one needs to be a great film… PERIOD. Not the “Family Reunion” films we’ve had for the last 20 years.

It has to clobber everything else and make people walk out of the theater saying things like, “Wow! That was the best MOVIE I’ve ever seen” Or, at the very least, “One of the best I’ve seen this year.”

Looks to me like they’re at least trying this time to do it right.

374. PM - January 21, 2008

Didn’t ANYBODY else notice the green colored frequency bar below the camera image. It can spell ONLY one thing ROMULAN!!!


375. T Negative - January 21, 2008


That is a great version of the TOS Enterprise!

It would have been perfect! It’s a shame she won’t look like that in the movie, judging by the trailer.

Mr. Orci,

It’s not too late to change it!!

376. Nelson - January 21, 2008

Just a thought to toss out. The overall opinion of screen cap 1 above from the teaser is an aft view of an engine nacelle. Makes sense, the “wings” match what we see in the final shot.

But I was thinking it could also be the upper portion of the secondary hull, the “wings” could be where the engine pylons attach. Just an alternative take on the image.

Great to see Rick Sternbach here commenting. I agree, it’s really tough to make a call on the design. I’m a designer too. I am open to new ideas, but the engine nacelles on the last shot cause me the most concern, so soft and blobby!

377. BaronByng - January 21, 2008

#350 “Just like the Brits love their Dr. Who, we Americans have a genuine love and affection for Star Trek- The Original Series.”

And they still love Dr. Who even though it’s had a complete reboot by Russell T. Davies.

Instead of being a serial of 30 minute cliffhanger episodes, it’s now a regular one-hour show (or 45 min with commercials).

They blew up Gallifrey and killed The Master.

They have former pop stars on as Companions.

There’s a completely NEW interior that is like a strange combination of bioengineered coral and 20,000 Leagues Beneath The Sea Victorian curves and rivets. If you want to be a Who continuity nerd you can point out discrepancies in the various versions of the blue exterior box prop (including anachronistic typography, my personal demon).

And you know what? the new series is 10,000 times better than the old, incomprehensible plots shot on cardboard sets fighting rubber monsters.

Not because of the technical advances (though they are welcome, and one might say expected, in this day and age) but because the characters have depth and emotional range and go through crises that are not technobabble-related, it’s down to human choices and frailty. It’s more relatable, as it’s clearly set more in our contemporary world (when they’re on Earth) — with the TARDIS materialising in a council estate and not a gravel pit for once! — and contemporary references, etc.

They seem to know that “it’s just a TV show” and have fun with it — putting their energy into making something enjoyable and dramatic. They respect Who canon, and love bringing back classic aliens and characters, but these are used sparingly; they’re writing new shows that speak to us today, plus they know there are are huge grey areas left unfilled,and they have the authority to fill them.

Without a reinvention for contemporary sensibilities, Doctor Who would be off television altogether.

I think there’s a lesson here.

378. diabolk - January 21, 2008

OMG ! A corridor that has no lights yet! I must kill myself!

379. BaronByng - January 21, 2008

373 –

ditto. Just like I thought Casino Royale wasn’t “good for a Bond film,” it was a good MOVIE all around. The BAFTA nominations kind of prove that.

380. Charles Trotter - January 21, 2008

As a correction to my previous post, the countdown actually begins during the “One small step for man…” speech. It starts at nine; six is the first number heard after the speech, and by “four”, Leonard Nimoy starts talking.

Not sure if anyone caught that… haven’t read all the comments. :/

381. New Horizon - January 21, 2008

– 373. Chain of Command – January 21, 2008
The new one needs to be a great film… PERIOD. Not the “Family Reunion” films we’ve had for the last 20 years.

Oh man, you’ve said what I’ve been feeling about the Trek Movies for such a long time now. With the exception of The Motion Picture, TWOK, and SFS, they have all felt like nostalgia laced, family reunions. I just stopped believing the characters were real after awhile, it was just the actors up there going through the motions. I suppose that happens after awhile, but man…it got old. My hope has always been for a movie that would capture the awe, majesty and grace of TMP…but balance that against the warmth of TOS. The warmth didn’t kick into TMP until the end, but when it did…it felt right.

I really want this movie to blow me away. My standards for Trek are high, so I hope this can exceed them. Best of luck Roberto and co!

382. Doug Haffner - January 21, 2008

Regarding that hallway…at first I thought it seemed awfully small..then I remembered how the “original” looked in “the cage”…certainly not a duplicate, but it has similarities check it out….

383. ZtoA - January 21, 2008

Maybe someone pointed this out already, but I just noticed when watching the HD version of the trailer that the nacelle caps (or their inner workings) are slowly rotating…

384. Steve - January 21, 2008

Fantastic! This is going to be the best Christmas EVER!

Currently, I’m still waiting for the one camera to go online on the viral site. I want to see the corridor, DAGNABIT!

Anyways, I’m glad that “Star Trek” is still alive and well, for now anyways!

Take care, and God bless!

385. GilmourD - January 21, 2008


It has, but I don’t think anybody else has noticed that BOTH, yes BOTH, are spinning. Yes, I’m a nerd, and I sat here advancing the trailer frame by frame and I noticed that the other nacelle’s Bussard collector is indeed spinning VERY slowly

386. ZtoA - January 21, 2008

Right now I’ve got Vin Diesel working the plasma torch on Camera 4.

387. mars396 - January 21, 2008

thank you Vulcan Soul and Aj Collins

I now have the high rez 1080p version burned onto DVD and playing in a repeating loop through my upconverting player on my HDTV

…life is good .. . . . ..

388. ferndawg1972 - January 21, 2008

I’m not sure anyone else has mentioned this; I’m sure they have…but I think it’s cool that one of the final images that we had of the original Enterprise in Star Trek III, the one which had her primary hull exploding, resembles the shot of our reintroduction of the new Enterprise in the trailer. I mean it’s not a shot for shot recreation nor was it intended to be, but I think it’s cool that after 24 years we return to the starship that started it all!

389. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

Haven’t gotten to go see Cloverfield yet….work :-( Still plan to go this week both for the movie and to see what this looks like big.

In the mean time I burnt the 1080p version to a disc and checked it out on my HDTV. Looks cool at 52″, can’t wait to see it really big. Love the pan up over the saucer “Space the final frontier”. :-)

390. neo - January 21, 2008

can’t seem to find anywhere that will play it smoothly, except those camera-in-a-theatre ones on youtube.

but as i’ve asked before, why are they building it? it was already flying for a decade by the time this movie takes place. and they’ve established in other shows that a ship like that can’t leave atmosphere.

391. Batts - January 21, 2008

OK! This trailer has grown on me! I truly got absorbed by the mission statements of the past such as Kennedy and Armstrong and then NIMOY!! Than our classic trek intro music. I got a big old goosebump!! Abrams you got my attention!! I bet Shatner is kicking himself in the balls that after 14 years..who would have thought paramount would go BACK IN TIME!! Hey! that was an unintentional joke!!!

392. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

a reader named Dustin sent in a better version of the corridor…i have added it…plus I added an enlarged version with some brightness on it. The hallway looks very TMP era to me

393. Doug - January 21, 2008

I saw “Cloverfield” this evening. It’s very well done–it is what the “Godzilla” remake a few years back should have been.

Seeing the “Star Trek” trailer on the bigscreen was great! Like in “TMP” or “First Contact,” seeing people on the hull made the Big E look big and real. I can’t wait for the movie!

I hope they use a physical model, but know that CGI will probably be the route taken. CGI is a good, but I’ve yet to see a CGI rendered model that looks as good as a real model. Let’s get Douglas Trumbull.

Someone complained about the order of the cast list… it’s in alpha order.

394. Doug - January 21, 2008

#390 … “but as I’ve asked before, why are they building it? it was already flying for a decade by the time this movie takes place.”

Neo, I think that what we see in the trailer has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. The Enterprise is pushing 20 years when Kirk takes command (who knows how long Capt. April was the ship’s C.O.; I think Pike was the skipper for close to 14 years).

The sign in the trailer saying “Under Construction” seems to me a metaphor. Roberto Orci skirted the question when asked if this is an actual scene from the movie.

395. 11 - January 21, 2008

Is it just me, or do the warp nacelles look really short?

396. Dipling - January 21, 2008

The ship looks huge and great. Imagine ENT D in shipyard.

397. Erehwonnz - January 21, 2008

#377 – BaronByng

I think that is the best case anyone has made for re-imagining Trek, yet! Although I have been behind the effort from the start, I think your words settled some discontent I felt regarding it. Thanks! A very insightful post.

398. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

That corridor reminds me of Galactica, it looks ok to me and does seem to have an older feel to it. Thanks for the “enhancement” image!

399. Steve Knight - January 21, 2008

The ship appears to be the RE-fit Enterprise of the movies, NOT the original series vessel. Uhhhh, I thought this movie was supposed to pre-date TOS– the era perhaps even before Capt. Pike. Just made me a little nervous to see the re-fit Enterprise. It would be a crying shame to see J.J. Abrams do to this new Trek movie what Brannon Braga did to “Enterprise” and make things in the early Star Fleet days look more advanced than the technology in TOS “because it looks better for modern audiences.” Never made any sense to me.

Following that logic, it would be OK to have 21st century uniforms and F-16 fighter jets in the production design of a World War II movie. Let’s revise history for all Hollywood period pieces and throw in all sorts of new modern things “because it looks better for modern audiences.”

Heck, if we’re going to no longer care about honoring historical precedent in terms of design/visual canon, lets just make the early Enterprise the size of the Death Star. Let’s have Kirk be a hot female babe, Spock can be her passionate, emotional lover and let’s make Uhura the lesbian ship’s doctor- you know to update things. Make them more appealing.

400. Cheve - January 21, 2008

I’m only worried for the crewmen. Those sharp edges on the corridors are an accident waiting to happen!


401. Skippy 2k - January 21, 2008

^ “Risk is there business, thats what “this” starship is all about.”

402. Rob - January 21, 2008

This could easily be a staging area or gangway to the ship. NASA is fond of gangway shots to ingresse and would be appropriate since JJ wants things to feel as real as possible – the comparison to a SS launch is in need of mention. IMHO.

403. Rob - January 21, 2008

399 – there are apparently 3 Spocks – who’s to say there is only 1 Enterprise? This could be froma na altered timeline for all we know…

404. Christoph Zapletal - January 22, 2008

To all the people complaining that this doesn’t exactly look like the Enterprise from the Original Series. Please, seriously, don’t expect it to. This film is not from the 60’s it won’t look like one from the sixties. This is not a history movie, so, please, aesthetic-wise, canon hopefully won’t be respected. I just don’t see how they are supposed to do a multi-million-$$$ blockbuster that attracts the GENERAL AUDIENCE (!!!!!!!!) while at the same time sticking to the design of the 1960’s.

I personally don’t even feel that this needs to be explained away with alternate timelines or any other technobabble. This is a new approach to the franchise. Please, people, give the creators some artistic license.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the Original Series, I like the look of that, for it’s time, for a weekly television series, it was spectacular. I liked it when TNG, DS9 and ENT did their TOS Nostalgia Episodes. It was fun. But it was just one out of dozens of Episodes. You just can’t do this with the most expensive Star Trek Production that has ever been there. Won’t work.

I hope for a good story, a good production design and something that STORY-WISE stays true to the original. That’s what it’s about, the story, not some freakin’ nacelle intercoolers.

Oh, and one more thing: I just love the welding idea. It just illustrates how much work man and mankind had to do to build such a ship like the enterprise. This feeling of scale and greatness – I only felt it once before when seeing the Enterprise on the big screen – in TMP.

Just my two cents.

405. Captain Neill - January 22, 2008

why are the corridors lloking like something from BSG rather than the way we like?

Can’t they keep it like it was but darken it a little. Enterprise proved TOS sets can still look great today

406. StarTrekRockerGirl - January 22, 2008

I’m ready for the Future to be now!

407. Nuallain - January 22, 2008

You know, we actually see a lot more of the ship in that teaser than we first thought. You can see the top of the saucer, the underside of the saucer, the front of the nacelles, the top of the nacelles, the struts (sorry, can’t think of the proper name) that connect the nacelles to the secondary hull and you get a hint of the shape of the ‘neck’.

Very nice.

408. me - January 22, 2008

The corridors look like they should look in “The Cage” a bit:

409. Rac0r - January 22, 2008

Overall I like the look of the trailer and the ship. I don’t mind a few changes as long as the ship does not turn into a caricature of itself. Until now I have not seen a danger of this happening. However, I have to agree with what Rick wrote earlier: It does not look like the future. While I understand and enjoy the idea of connecting Trek with today, I believe the welders are a step to far. Even today no ship is built like that. Robots manufacture the complete hull in several large compartmens which are then welded together – not every tiny bit of hullplating. In Space that made sense – because you don’t have any gravity and can move and place every part exactly where it’s supposed to be, on earth however, that’s not been done in a while. I also always imagined the material the Enterprise was built of to be far stronger, so that conventional welding would not have any effect on it. This won’t ruin the movie for me and hopefully I won’t notice it at all, when the final picture is finished. I was wondering wether they took part of the idea from the “A flag full of stars” – book by Brad Ferguson. In that book the saucer section of the Enterprise is undergoing her refit on earth.

410. haissemguy - January 22, 2008

#219 “As for the fins/wings they are definitely related to what the original TV Enterprise had, so in that shot from the trailer we are on top of the nacelle, looking aft. Not sure of what to make of that lump right at the back though. Perhaps it is something akin to the cover the Enterprise Space Shuttle used to have over its engines when it was on the back of the 747 being flown around.”

I don’t think that shot is of the top of the nacelles looking aft. I think it is more likely the top of the secondary hull and the “wings” at the side are actually the start of the nacelle pylons. The bump the background is probably the shuttle bay.

Well that is what i have judged from looking at the trailer shots.

What does everyone think?

411. Stanky McFibberich - January 22, 2008

re: 410
I think I’ll wait until they show a picture that definitely shows what it is.

412. haissemguy - January 22, 2008

#399 “The ship appears to be the RE-fit Enterprise of the movies, NOT the original series vessel.”

Please point out when you have EVER seen those nacelles in any Star Trek movie. They are round. Very much like the ones in TOS just with more detail. The nacelles in TMP et al were art deco and thin.

413. Nuallain - January 22, 2008

#410 – That’s a pretty tiny secondary hull then. Look at the scale of the people on it. Besides, it looks we can see the pylons elsewhere in the trailer and they’re much further along than that –

414. haissemguy - January 22, 2008

#413 By the looks of the shot i would say that if those are the nacelle pylons being built then i don’t think that they have been attached yet. There’s no way the saucer would look like that from the point where the camera is. Its possible they have yet to be attached.

I think you may be right about the first pic being the nacelles and not secondary hull. The scale of the people on the hull dosnt suggest a particularly large hull.

Saying that i never really though that the width of the secondary hull was that big. It has been established that the witch of the shuttle doors is maybe twice the size of a shuttle and the hull dosn’t get much wider as the you move forward. Plus the size of the neck which can’t be much wider than a turbolift points towards quite a thin secondary hull.

What do you think?

415. AJ - January 22, 2008

I can’t wait for JJ to start “mucking” about with that website.

And the corridor would seem to jibe with the interiors we glimpse through the “holes” in the E we see in the teaser/picture.

How can that corridor be so dark with all those lights in the ceiling? I’d hate to be in charge of changing lightbulbs on that thing.

416. New Horizon - January 22, 2008

399. Steve Knight –

It’s hardly the refit. The TOS design is still there, but with some different styling and a lot more detail. Still pretty retro looking if you ask me.

417. Jad - January 22, 2008

Is that a Companion Cube in the top left of the ‘corridor’ image?

418. Rick James - January 22, 2008

So far I am really liking this new look. The look of the exterior, the look of the interior hallway, it reminds me so much of the TMP era Enterprise. Which happens to be my #1 favorite Enterprise starship rendition ever. It is the only Enterprise I own scale model(s) of. I’ve had opportunities, in the past, to get my hands on other versions of the Enterprise (in scale model form) but gladly passed because they were not the TMP Enterprise.

I almost had an accident in my shorts when Polar Lights originally announced the TMP Enterprise 1/350 kit. I bought one of these kits but haven’t had the time to paint/assemble it yet. I have opened the box and examined all the parts to make sure nothing was broken or missing. This kit is massive. The saucer is about 16″ in diamter and the overall length of the ship, once assembled, is roughly three feet. Currently the Art Asylum 1701-A graces my book case while my old (ERTL? or Corgi?) TMP 1701 diecast is in storage somewhere. I still have an old AMT/ERTL 1701-A that is yet to be painted and assembled.

As good as this new Enterprise looks I don’t think al went far enough IMO. Frankly I would be happy if JJ and crew retconned the TOS era Enterprise and said it always looked like the TMP Era Enterprise and just used the TMP Era Enterprise instead for the new movie. I doubt this will happen.

I really hope JJ do not cave into the loud vocal minority who wish to have their old 1960s era relic resurrected for the big screen. I’ve been a Star Trek fan since the mid 1970s and I find the old look to be outdated and cheesy.

I can understand wanting to bring back the old ship for nostalga reasons. However even Ford, GM and Dodge did not bring back their old retro designs (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) and make them look nearly exactly like the 1960s versions. Nostalga can only go so far. The 1960s are over and todays car buying public will not buy something from the 1960s in sufficient numbers to make it financially worth the automakers while to produce such a car.

For better or worse, Star Trek is also a business and must change to appeal to an audience that does not share the nostalgic memories of the old 1960s iconography. Star Trek movies are out to generate box office first. When ST: Nemesis box office couldn’t even out do Main In Manhatten box office during opening weekend, I figured that was the end of Star Trek movies. This new movie is a second chance at getting it right.

419. Rick James - January 22, 2008


The TMP Enterprise shooting model was sold at auction for around $250k USD. Google for the Sotheby’s Star Trek auction and you may be able to find pictures of the TMP Enterprise at the auction site.

420. Rick James - January 22, 2008


Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Time travel is a dirty business leading to timeline contamination. I figure this is why the Federation also has a Temporal Prime Directive.

TNG: The Naked Now and TNG: Relics takes place before TNG: First Contact. DS9: Trial and Tribulations might or might not take place before TNG: First Contact.

ENT: In a Mirror Darkly is possibly a “thrown bone” to the TOS fans since the starship Defiant in this two parter could have come from an “alternate universe” i.e. the “original” TOS continuity. Actually the fact the TOS Defiant ended up in the Mirror Universe pretty much makes clear the ship is from an “alternate universe”.

Star Trek First Contact: Chapter 28: When Cochran looks out the window of the Phoenix, sees the Enterprise E and exclaims “Sweet Jesus” this is when TOS continuity was forever altered.

Star Trek Enterprise: The look of the “Akiraprise” NX-01 is the first major piece of evidence of the consequences of the TNG: First Contact timeline contamination incident.

Star Trek XI (2008): This is the latest example of the consequences of the timeline contamination from TNG: First Contact seen previously in Star Trek Enterprise.

421. dalek - January 22, 2008

it was really good and detailed in HD :)

422. AJ - January 22, 2008

Rick James: So you are saying that ZC abandoned his sexy TOS nacelles after seeing Enterprise E?

I think the message of First Contact with regard to Cochrane is that, if the TNG crew had not arrived from the future, the Borg would have assimilated Earth, or at least, Cochrane would have abandoned his project for a slow death from alcohol.

But it doesn’t explain the interior design changes. Nice way to let the canonists sleep more at night!

423. Batts - January 22, 2008

In the Cage. Lt Tyler brags to Dr. Haskins “that our NEW ships can.” implying that something was different on their vessel vs. the others. Maybe Abrams is taking that approach?? I just hope the official uniforms are like those in the Cage.

I just get this impression that we are going to be introduced to Kirk as an athlete of sorts. Perhaps climbing a mountain..or taking the Kobayashi Maru..maybe him recovering from losing captain garrovick or maybe being torn between command possibilities or being a dad!!

424. Rick James - January 22, 2008


I am saying Cochran abandoned some or all of his preconceived notions (whatever they may have been) of what he thought a starship should look like (pre-TOS era) and incorporated elements from the TNG era (1701-E).

425. nx.01 - January 22, 2008

I agree with people that are saying the first image is the top of the secondary hull looking aft. The dome is the dome above the hanger bay – I understand the argument that the scale would indicate that the secondary hull would be smaller in diameter than it should. However if it is the top of one of nacelles, it appears not to round enough and what is a plausible explanation of the dome?

426. Arathorn - January 22, 2008

For those people moaning about the low-tech/sweaty construction:

Construction IS sweaty and nasty. I’m sure if you’d try doing some physical labor you’d realize that. Welding produces heat! No matter what century you’re in! There will always be (even in the 23rd century) guys who do the nitty-gritty dirty work. Star Trek has glossed over that for the past 40 years. We need a dose of reality.

427. Blowback - January 22, 2008

#425 – It’s not a dome, it’s the top of the cowling that houses that round ball that’s in the back of the engine. Sorry to be so non-technical but I don’t know what that ball is called. It was not present in the first couple of TOS episodes but was added by Season 2. If the ball is round the cowling is going to be the same. Go get a model of TOS Enterprise and eyeball it yourself.

As for the overall roundness it appears the nacelle’s housing flattens out a bit in the rear toward the intercoolers.

428. Nx - January 22, 2008

@425: It’s the nacelle, not the secondary hull. And it’s looking forward:

It’s not round there because of the fins, and the dome is the Bussard collector housing.

429. Arathorn - January 22, 2008

Blowback’s right

430. Ryan - January 22, 2008

The final glimpse of the E in the teaser was meant to show, as much as possible, of what it will finally look like. For one thing the nacelles aren’t even attached yet because, unless I’m mistaken, there is no secondary hull there yet and the right nacelle is turned a little inward and closer as indicated by a compairson with the fin on the left nacelle. I’m sure the nacelles won’t be “big honkin” nacelles when we finally see the end product. They might be sitting closer to the camera than they would normally be. Then again it’s just my opinion.

431. CaptainRickover - January 22, 2008

# 425

Do you have a model of the TOS 1701? If you have one, take one of the nacelles close to your left (or right) eye and look to ist end. The look will be very simular to that what you’ve seen in the teaser.

Because of that, I think that welders work in the topside of one nacelle (between the fins). But it sees to mee, that this nacelle is around 1 mile long!

The same extreme size have the saucer section in the picture you see it hang over the cranes. One crane should have a highth of fifty meters, the same for the length should be 20 or 30 meters. In comparsion to that, the saucer seems around 400 meters in diameter!

But in the other pictures the saucer rim seems to be 8 meters high with two decks in it (in the picture you see it from the front) and there are just two or four three down to the very TMP-like sensor dome. The same sizes for the saucer’s topside. The overall size compares to the TOS or TMP 1701 with around 140 meters in diameter.

Not to forget these big nacelles. They have nearly the same diameter as the secondary hull!

I wouldn’t take this teaser as canon nor would I take it very serious. What ever ILM had done there, they playing around with sizes just like young kids with a toolbox. It’s like the teaser said: UNDER CONSTRUCTION

We even can’t be sure, this will be the final design we’ll see in the movie. TMP bridge and sensor dome, Koerner’s nacelle-caps? Are you serious, JJ?

432. CaptainRickover - January 22, 2008

# 429

I must agree. First I thought it would be a look from front to back, but now it’s seems more from back to front.

433. Gene Rodenberry - January 22, 2008

Somebody help me. I’m spinning in my grave!

Just kidding. This has my seal of approval.

434. bmar - January 22, 2008

From our home office in San Francisco, California, here is tonight’s TOP TEN LIST.


10. “Damn! I’m a crappy welder. I’ve been working on this same spot for hours.”
9. “I miss working next to bald guy on camera 4. Ah, those were the days.”
8. “Well, my suitcase is here and I’m all packed to head off to Rigel, if I could just finish this last weld.”
7. “Why do you take this apart now? I’m trying to get us
out of here and you pull both of these. GRRGRGRGGGRRR!” (Shout out to ESB)
6. “Hee hee hee! I bet no one will notice if i burn my initials into the hull… WELDER GUY LOVES JTK.”
5. “Holy Crap my knees hurt!!”
4. “OW! OW! OW! OW!”
3. “Oh my god, this would be a hell of a lot easier to build if it was in space.”
2. “Dammit, if Shatner’s not in this movie, I’m going to to a crummy job on this weld. Let’s see how they deal with a hull breach when the Shat’s not there to save their butts!!”
1. “I wish I could finish this spot so I can head over to the flashing yellow light – disco party over on the starboard nacelle. Those guys sure know how to party!”

435. Nuallain - January 22, 2008

#414 – This isn’t a perfect match, angle wise, but I think it’s close enough to illustrate what I’m talking about:

Maybe it’s not the pylon but it looks right to my eyes.

436. robin alexander - January 22, 2008


tasteless joke, but I did laugh though

437. ryan mannik - January 22, 2008

i remixed the trailer if anyone is interested

438. Rutan Ikswoktur - January 22, 2008

Is OSHA on hand? Where are the safety harnesses? Goggles? No Full Face Masks? I dont see any safety rails. These guys could trip right off the side.

439. Michael P. Delaney - January 22, 2008

#433, Rodenberry isn’t IN a grave! His cremated ashes were launched into space a few years ago aboard a privately-built rocket. Look it up…

440. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 22, 2008


This Ship is DEFINATELY The Biggest E yet. I figure around 800 Meters. The Original and TMP E outer saucer rim was 2 decks high about 7 feet per deck plus another 8 feet or so of hull thickness and beam between the decks. This new ship outer saucer rim is 4 decks high and each of the decks is much more spacious and taller than the originals. I whipped up a size comparison drawing of the New E and TMP E (which it has much more in common with that the TOS E) based on the size of the workmen in comparison with the hull. My scanner cut off extra detail around the edges but you get the idea. This E is Ginormous!!!!!!!

The Lord’s E size comparison

441. radii - January 22, 2008

GAAAHHHH! Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong … you’re WROOOOOONG

Abrams doesn’t get it either. Urban should be Spock, not the hairy Cro-Magnon browed Quinto. And where is the 60s look of the ship??? That’s what made the franchise idiots. A single line of explanation about why the minimalist look is used by Star Fleet was all that was needed for continuity. And using a time-travel device is lame – the weakest way out.

There was finally a chance to do this right, and it’s looking very wrong.

442. I AM THX-1138 - January 22, 2008

#441-“And where is the 60s look of the ship???”

In the sixties, where it belongs. Or in the Smithsonian, if you prefer. A museum, of sorts.

443. Blowback - January 22, 2008

#442 – Don’t feed the trolls. Not worth the effort…

444. Michael - January 22, 2008

I have a hard time with the grittiness of the whole thing. If anything, shouldn’t the look and feel -of the whole movie – fit somewhere between “Enterprise” and “Voyager”? Those are both contemporary enough, still look futuristic (unlike Star Trek or TNG, which are looking more outdated)

The exterior looks halfway decent except for the fact they seemed to think turbines are needed in space? Maybe they are planning an underwater sequence? I wonder if the designer(s) have a clue as to what technological device those are supposed to be other than magic spinny things.

The corridor shots look Cardassian or maybe Reman, not only less clean but also completely something real human beings would – never – ever – design to walk through every day. It looks like a crypt.

Nice that they abandoned the concept of “spacedock” and “Utopia Planitia” shipyards. wtf??? I mean why not just built the Enterprise in what looks like a NJ skyline circa 1980. Why not build it in my backyard! Using ropes and pulleys to lift tons of metal, why even think of using zero-G to assist heavy construction…

Big question is why re-interpret what didn’t need to be reinterpreted. Hmm maybe because it will draw attention

445. Viking - January 22, 2008

LMAO@ #442 & #443…… ;-)

446. Roddenberry was a peacenik - January 22, 2008

I played with the levels on the photoshop enhancement of the corridor. It seemed that if you looked at the lighting, it had been washed out in kind of a sepia tone from where it originally was. So I tried to equalize it a bit.

I think this might be closest to how it originally looked when photographed.

447. Viking - January 22, 2008

Let us face it, brethren and sisteren – for all the bitching, carping, and trolling that may go on, the ship has left the spacedock. Will the franchise take wing, or crash in a molten mound of twisted metal? Who knows? This, though, you can bank $130 million on – Abrams TOS v.2.0 is what we’re gonna get. No bloody ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, OR ‘D’.

Just kick back with Uncle Viking and enjoy the spectacle. ;-)

448. Viking - January 22, 2008

Kudos, #446. That’s the best one yet.

449. explodingman - January 22, 2008

hey guys, about the nacelles, maybe they are just being built really close to the the saucer section. that would be why they look so big. when the build the engineering part, the nacelles will be put farther back and not look as big against the saucer compared with the trailer.

450. I AM THX-1138 - January 22, 2008

#444-“The exterior looks halfway decent except for the fact they seemed to think turbines are needed in space? Maybe they are planning an underwater sequence? I wonder if the designer(s) have a clue as to what technological device those are supposed to be other than magic spinny things.”

Have you ever watched Star Trek? Spinny things have been a part of the nacelles since 1966. Once again, the argument for why it’s being built on the ground has been put to a rest. By the writing of Gene Rodenberry, no less, in the Trek encyclopedia. Also the corridors are kind of close to those depicted in The Cage. Check out Memory Alpha for Utopia Planitia and you may see a Galaxy class ship being built. On the ground.

451. JB - January 22, 2008

428 & 432:

Are you sure about that? Those engines look huge, and I would have sworn that image was looking aft. If the placement of the “intercoolers” is roughly similar to the original, the engine would continue aft for some distance.

I wonder how long it will be before we’re able to see the whole ship. I’ll be curious to see if Lord Garth is right about the ship’s size – I agree it does appear quite a bit bigger.

452. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 22, 2008

I am right !!! Lord garth is always right !!! kidding but I think I do have it right this time. Take a look at my link in my post 440 and let me know what you all think. The real tell is the 4 decks of the outer saucer rim compared with the 2 on the TOS and TMP E, the fact that the shot of the warp engine appears to be nearly as wide as the TOS and TMP secondary hull and the size of the workers on the hull. My guess of 800 meters in length may actually be an underestimate. I do like the design as the TMP E is my favorite and it looks like we are getting a ginormous version of it with TOS style warp engines.

453. JT Willis - January 22, 2008

The nacelles “Brussard” collectors as I recall were supposed to collect and “compress” the rarified hydrogen/plasma when near a star system or passing through a stellar nebula.

In the Star Fleet technical manual they have vertical tanks lining the insides on the nacelles for the “liquified?” hydrogen/oxygen mix.

Must be quite a soup of mixed particles imagine passing through the Ort cloud!

I imagine purified “hydrogen” as tritium could be piped through the struts to the main saucer to be used in fusion “impulse” reactors.. or to fuel thrusters throughout the ship.. in fact maybe even a low pressure soup would be sufficient as long as a few percent could be coaxed into a fusion reaction.

With gravitomagnetic technology perhaps they finally found a way to over come nuclear repulsion in a ratio high enough to make the reaction self sustaining.

Antimatter as a fuel source always bothered me unless it were used as a catalyst for something greater.. perhaps the warp field only forms in an absolutely vacumn and must be teased up in size until it encompasses the ship, shifting certain local universal constants in favorable directions.

If temporal paradoxes could be reconciled by following explicit rules.. large distance could be crossed with a very small reaction mass. In that way “mostly” the warp field would be a “time machine” with only one paradox.. displacement in a preferential direction.

The antimatter might be used a “space cleaning fluid” to scrub a region tightly controlled by fields eminating from dilithium crystals.. sorta like the silicon in integrated circuits is used as a foundation for building complex electrical reactions.

Channels in the dilithuim crystals could be natural “warp” bubble sources just as magentic “bubble memory” used to contain and move around magnetic domains representing ones and zeros.

Adding antimatter might enhance the stabiity and size of the subatomic quantum domains representing warp fields and allow bringing one “up to the surface” where it could be “inflated” to sizes large enough to influence the ship.

It might also explain the artificial gravity.

A lesser efficient quantum “inflator” technology might temporarily magnify the local effects of gravitons that are shot out from engineering in a timed pattern to replicate a horizonal gravitational “field”.

As they get further from the ship they decrease in size and effectiveness “sinking” back into quantum froth and insignificance.

454. Jacques Chirac - January 22, 2008

Corridor look like Battlestar Galactica, or ha’tak from Stargate SG-1, not like Trek.

455. The Vulcanista - January 22, 2008

[scratches head after reading posts.)

This is definitely guy stuff.

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

456. Lestatdelc - January 23, 2008

The bottom of the saucer in the trailer has the same sort of sensor cluster and box shaped projections as the ST:TMP enterprise. It also seems the saucer rim has a rounded top edge like the TMP Enterprise as well. In fact, almost all we see of the saucer section is very much a TMP Enterprise including the Aztec plating pattern.

As to the Nacelles, they are definitely new and a slight homage to the TOS, but still quite different. From what we can see, the intercoolers are more like contoured wings.

While the most obvious departure is the “fans” but we also should remember on the TOS Enterprise beginning in season 2, there were rotating fan blade light patterns inside the interior lit nacelle bubble (bussard collectors).

So we may be looking at interior rotating mechanisms which (while under construction) might be exposed until the translucent covering is attached.

As for the “on earth” construction, you must remember it is TOS cannon that the Enterprise can operate in the earth’s atmosphere (specifically n the episode “Tomorrow is Yesterday” when they slingshot back to earth of the 1960s and end up in an engagement with an air force fighter that gets destroyed in a tractor beam attempt).

457. Captain Neill - January 23, 2008

I believe the Enterprise was built in space and that the components were made in San Fransico. It’s possible the dry dock was named after the city. If Roddenberry stated this then its true.

It would have been impractical for the consitution class to be built on Earth. As far as Im concerned it would have been built in space.

But the plaque says San Fransico so it wont be a canon spolier for me. As far as Im concerned Abrams has already screwed canon by changing the look of the Enterprise and those corridors.

I dont mind things being revamped but if they are saying they are following canon then they have pinned themselves a wall as that would mean things have to look like TOS to fit in.

I hope the BSG feel is not true as this goes against the utopia that Roddenberry envsioned.

458. “Star Trek” de J.J. Abrams segue os passos de “Cloverfield” | Brainstorm #9 - January 23, 2008

[…] Uma das câmeras revela uma imagem secreta, a primeira que mostra o interior da Enterprise. Nos fóruns e sites especializados, os fãs já discutem as possíveis pistas e o conteúdo dessa imagem. No post do, por exemplo, mais de 500 comentários. […]

459. Nuallain - January 23, 2008

#457 – There’s no canon issues with any aspect of the Enterprise’s appearance – even the differences. Since, by all accounts, this movie isn’t set *during* TOS but rather *before* it, it’s perfectly credible for it to look slightly different during the pre-TOS era.

We know it looked different between Where No Man Has Gone Before and the rest of S1; and the nacelles changed again later in the series. Any differences in the new movie simply suggest another, additional, refit that had previously been undocumented onscreen.

460. stephen - January 23, 2008

I got chills after seeing the trailer and hearing the music and transporter sound. As long as the exterior of the ship looks similar I will be happy. The interior needed redecorating anyway. Roddenberry would be proud. Star Trek isnt just about the ship anyway. Its the story and the people. I cant wait for this film.

461. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

That saucer section looks to be about four or five decks thick at the rim.

They’re making this thing the size of the Enterprise-D!

Someone better start issuing some explanations, and it better include the phrase “the Enterprise will look normal by the end of the picture” or this thing is gonna make “Ishtar” look like “Titanic”.

462. Lançamento do filme Star Trek « Dear Ad… - January 23, 2008

[…] Abaixo das câmeras existem um códigos, o objetivo é chegar nos 100% linkando os códigos, então as imagens começam a parecer mais claras. Porém das 4 câmeras, uma estará offline e segundo um site chamado Trekmovie, se esperar algum tempo a câmera irá ativar e irá aparecer a imagem de um corredor. […]

463. thebruce - January 23, 2008

There’s a wiki set up to track the viral stuff at

464. GilmourD - January 23, 2008

@ 453

> The nacelles “Brussard” collectors as I recall were supposed to collect and
> “compress” the rarified hydrogen/plasma when near a star system or passing
> through a stellar nebula.

Actually, that’s “Bussard,” but, yes, you have the idea correct.

> In the Star Fleet technical manual they have vertical tanks lining the
> insides on the nacelles for the “liquified?” hydrogen/oxygen mix.

Well, all subsequent publications actually say that it’s pure deuterium (a particular isotope of hydrogen) and it’s stored in a tank in the secondary hull.

Also, the Star Fleet Technical Manual has been proven to be non-canon anyway since it illustrates multiple ships that have 1 or 3 nacelles. Gene Roddenberry declared that warp nacelles must come in pairs and that most ships will have two. The Constellation class (like Picard’s Stargazer) was a rare exception having four, but did actually usually only use them in pairs, switching between the upper and lower pairs and only used all four in rare instances.

> Must be quite a soup of mixed particles imagine passing through the Ort
> cloud!

> I imagine purified “hydrogen” as tritium could be piped through the struts
> to the main saucer to be used in fusion “impulse” reactors.. or to fuel
> thrusters throughout the ship.. in fact maybe even a low pressure soup
> would be sufficient as long as a few percent could be coaxed into a fusion
> reaction.

As I said above, it’s deuterium, not tritium, that’s used. The antimatter used for warp reactions is antideuterium. Keeps things even. :)

> With gravitomagnetic technology perhaps they finally found a way to over
> come nuclear repulsion in a ratio high enough to make the reaction self
> sustaining.

> Antimatter as a fuel source always bothered me unless it were used as a
> catalyst for something greater.. perhaps the warp field only forms in an
> absolutely vacumn and must be teased up in size until it encompasses the
> ship, shifting certain local universal constants in favorable directions.

The thing you must understand is that, as per Star Trek’s so-far-fictional science, the matter/antimatter reaction itself doesn’t form the warp field. The MAR creates an energized plasma that’s fed to the nacelles and energizes the warp coils inside the nacelles. I can’t remember what it’s called at the moment, but the warp coils are made out of a material that can react with subspace when fed energized plasma and they’re arranged in rings inside the nacelles.

> If temporal paradoxes could be reconciled by following explicit rules..
> large distance could be crossed with a very small reaction mass. In that
> way “mostly” the warp field would be a “time machine” with only one
> paradox.. displacement in a preferential direction.

> The antimatter might be used a “space cleaning fluid” to scrub a region
> tightly controlled by fields eminating from dilithium crystals.. sorta like
> the silicon in integrated circuits is used as a foundation for building
> complex electrical reactions.

Again, a basic understanding of how warp engines actually work is needed here. There’s no time travel simply by using warp. ACTUALLY, warp engines were created to avoid the affects of time dialation caused by travelling near or at the speed of light (as per Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity). What happens is that when a ship is enveloped in a warp bubble, space in front of it contracts and space behind it expands. The ship actually doesn’t move in comparison to space, so you lose those relativistic affects since the ship is actually still within the bubble. The bubble actually sort of forces space to move around it, thus allowing travel faster than line.

> Channels in the dilithuim crystals could be natural “warp” bubble sources
> just as magentic “bubble memory” used to contain and move around magnetic
> domains representing ones and zeros.

> Adding antimatter might enhance the stabiity and size of the subatomic
> quantum domains representing warp fields and allow bringing one “up to the
> surface” where it could be “inflated” to sizes large enough to influence
> the ship.

I’m really not sure what you just said there.

> It might also explain the artificial gravity.

> A lesser efficient quantum “inflator” technology might temporarily magnify
> the local effects of gravitons that are shot out from engineering in a
> timed pattern to replicate a horizonal gravitational “field”.

> As they get further from the ship they decrease in size and effectiveness
> “sinking” back into quantum froth and insignificance.

Artificial gravity is actually epxplained very well in The Next Generation Technical Manual. I forget how it works off the top of my head at the moment, but I can tell you that artificial gravity has nothing to do with the MARA or warp science.

465. AJ - January 23, 2008

I guess it was confirmed today that E is in the film (Cawley watching shots on the bridge), so this baby is real. It’s size, though, as we all see, is enormous.

Unless the teaser is complete fantasy (20th century welders building something really big), this baby will carry more than 203 or 430 crew for sure.

466. GilmourD - January 23, 2008

Sorry to inject some real science into the thread. :-P

467. GilmourD - January 23, 2008

As far as scale goes… Anybody remember this scene?

Yes, I know the angle is wrong… But I can’t find the picture I want right now, but it gives you an idea of what I’m talking about.

I really don’t think the Enterprise is going to be HUGE. like everybody’s thinking. I think it’ll be about the size of the TMP Enterprise, which really is about the same size anyway.

Oh, I just found the picture.

They look about the same size (but at a different perspective with what appears to be a fisheye lens of some sort) than the welders crouching down.

468. GilmourD - January 23, 2008

Another picture for size reference.

469. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 23, 2008

Sorry Brother Gil but your wrong. and Captain April, this thing looks like it will dwarf the tea sipping captain’s x-mas orniment looking ship. The new E outer saucer rim is 4 decks high while our beloved TMP E is just 2 decks high. And the small area on just one of the new warp engines is roughly the same size of the TMP’s secondary hull

Viva la Behemoth !!!!!! We can kick Galactica’s and any star destroyer’s ass !!!!!

470. Lestatdelc - January 23, 2008

469 Sorry but I disagree The scale is about right, You are confusing machinery and lateral bulkheads with individual decks, The crouching figure wielding in the foreground is next to impossible to get an accurate sense of the height of a standing person. But even taking the spit-ball guess at the width at the shoulders to approximate the size of a standing person, it is roughly the same as what we see in ST:TMP which is.

471. T Negative - January 23, 2008

Another pic to show scale.

472. T Negative - January 23, 2008

Arbrams E looks much larger….

473. nscates - January 23, 2008

@466 Fascinating!

474. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

Let’s just dub this monster “Battlestar Enterprise” and be done with it.

475. JB - January 23, 2008

Here’s another way to look at the size question: the original saucer was only about 20 feet thick in the middle. Any identifiable frames of reference in the teaser for judging the height of the saucer?

476. GilmourD - January 23, 2008


Look at the largest version of the official new Enterprise.

See those two lights to the left of the bridge dome? That’s a person. In the video, if you look, you can see him moving. It’s easiest to see on the 1080p versionThe bottom light is a flashlight or something and the top light is on a stand or something. Anyhow, that’s a full-height person. Going by the distance from the edge of the saucer to the bridge, I’d say that’s about the same scale as the TMP shot.

However, one thing I just noticed about the TMP shot… Look at their heights, then compare that to the edge of the saucer. The saucer’s supposed to be two decks high at the edge, and those windows give scale. They’re too tall in the TMP shot given average deck height. I think the scale of the TMP shot may actually be off, too.

477. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 23, 2008


Yes if you mean the saucer rim by saying middle
The new E has 4 and maybe 5 clearly distinguishable decks. Look at the two Hi res forward saucer shots. They overlap one deck. In the top view there are 3 clearly recognizable decks. In the lower half shot the top deck is repeated from the upper half shot but there are 2 more clearly regognizable decks under it ( 5 decks) In the lower half shot there appears to be 2 workmen on the lowest saucer rim deck. I would figure the new E saucer rim to be about about 45- 50 feet in height.

She a biggun!!!!

478. GilmourD - January 23, 2008

@ 475

20 ft? Average male is about 5’10”, right? The ceilings in my house are 10′ up and the ceilings on most starships seem a bit taller. Then figure deck plating, artificial gravity generators, and anything else that need to run between decks. On top of that, you have the outer hull. That’s gotta be more than 20′.

479. Xplodin' Nacelle - January 23, 2008

How do you tune in the 955 into the 3rd cell?

480. The Vulcanista - January 23, 2008


Also note that humans tend to get taller over the years. We’re a good 4 to 5 inches taller, if not more, than our 18th century ancestors. Average height for a male in the 23rd century might be anywhere from 6’0 to 6’3″.

Now I’m gonna go look at Anthony Vitale some more.

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

481. Nuallain - January 24, 2008

I think people are assuming that decks on a starship sit right one on top of another like stories of a house. That’s not necessarily the case. You may well have a ten foot tall deck for people to walk around in, cabling and infrastructure about five feet deep under that, then another ten foot tall deck.

What I’m trying to say is that when people look at the new image and say there are a lot more than two decks in there, it may not actually be ‘decks’ you’re looking at. Plus, as Gilmore’s pics show, the size of the people on the new ship are consistent with the ones seen on the E’s hull in TMP.

482. GilmourD - January 24, 2008


Thanks. :) That’s what I was getting to. Like I said, there’s deck plating and artificial gravity generators between the decks, if not more. There’s structure to hold the darn thing up so you don’t flex and fall through the floor. There’s probably also EPS conduits, data trunks, and God only knows what else in there. I give at least 3 feet between the ceiling surface of one deck and the floor surface of the deck above.

Besides that… In the open plating on the front edge of the saucer, I see a whole lot of “plumbing” in that part, but I don’t see anything that could be defined as an actual deck surface. I think what we’re looking at is the structure that keeps the outer hull attached to the edge, since I imagine that would be a potential weak spot and would need to be bulked up.

483. Dave O - January 24, 2008

“I love the counter-rotating blades in each nacelle. Although, not enough to want to see them when she’s underway!” – 128 Flying Tigress

I love ’em too, gives them a real engine feel.

But I think they’ll look even cooler when the engine is underway.

In the trailer, we see them rotating very slowly (the song “Shut Up and Drive” just came on the radio as I started typing this :D) … rotation at “idle.”

So, imagine those blades spinning faster and faster as the warp engines are brought on line, until they are a glowing dome-shaped blur.

The spin may assist in forming and shaping the warp field, in addition to serving as a Bussard collector.

But operating rationales aside, it looks sooo cool.

484. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 24, 2008

Prepare to eat lots of crow – Caw Caw not Russell

This thing is huge!!!!!!

485. Irish Trekki - January 24, 2008

Grining like an idiot….. just brilliant! Nice touch with the monitors too!!!

486. JB - January 24, 2008

477: Yes, I meant 20 feet at the rim. Sorry, Lord Garth, I didn’t explain that well.

478: I am referring only to the original 11′ model of the Enterprise, postulated and generally accepted as being 947′ in length. At that scale, the saucer section at its rim would be somewhere around 20 feet thick. Your points about what she would need to carry between decks, and the resulting space requirements, are not unreasonable (although 10′ high decks really make no sense unless you’re moving cargo or have giant crewmembers), and thus there are some minor inconsistencies between the exteriors and interiors we saw on TV (the oversized shuttlebay interior is another example). What happened back in the 60’s is that Roddenberry & co. changed the scale of the ship after the model had been built and the first pilot was filmed, and spaces originally intended to hold a single deck now had to hold two, but when you try to make it all fit, there isn’t much room left for the plumbing. That said, for a 60’s TV show it’s amazing how much detail they got right and that it held together as well as it did. There are some well-done web sites out there that visually explain all this much better than I just did.

487. Nuallain - January 25, 2008

#488: (although 10′ high decks really make no sense unless you’re moving cargo or have giant crewmembers

Or aliens, or emergency equipment, or engineering parts or…

Besides, 10′ is about normal for a ceiling height surely. The ceiling in the office I’m siting in right now is 10′.

488. JB - January 25, 2008

487: But your office isn’t on life support with a finite power supply, surrounded by a completely hostile environment. Or maybe it is.

489. Lewis Trickett - January 26, 2008


490. captin James D Berk - January 26, 2008

i just hope that find reverse in this ship,

491. Captain Robert April - January 26, 2008

Let’s do a little compare and contrast, thanks to someone with a sharper eye than mine who managed to cobble together a likely side view of this beast.

First, let’s be generous and assume that the primary hull has the same thickness as the original:

And what it looks like if Garth and I are right:

No matter how you slice it, it’s still baloney.

492. Steve S - January 27, 2008

Let’s clear this up once and for all and go home:

From “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry. Twenty-sixth printing, November 1990. Originally published by Ballantine Books in September 1968, Pp. 171.

“The unit components (of the Enterprise) were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space.”


493. Captain Robert April - January 27, 2008

EXCEPT, what we’re seeing doesn’t look like components being built for later assembly in orbit.

Looks more like they’re building the whole damn thing on the ground.

494. Acción viral para Star Trek at - January 30, 2008

[…] Vía Compartí­ este post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

495. S Smyth - February 7, 2008

May hap they are getting ready to test structural integrity? You can’t do that efficiently (at least in my book) without at least one G on it.

They fire up a giant anti-grav unit, assemble the components, turn off the AG and look for stress on the hard points. I know they would probably have computer sims of that, but better to test it somewhat before they even get it into orbit.

Then, they start up the AG again, disassemble the units, ferry them into orbit and complete the FINAL construction there. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the whole ship was built on the ground, and then AS A WHOLE is dragged into space.


496. Where To Buy Music Online » Blog Archive » Adventures on Supa-Episode 19 - April 5, 2008

[…] Star Trek Teaser Trailer Online Now + New Viral Site [UPDATE … … going to bring up the ol how big is it arguement, 19 … on the teaser, doesnt seem like it will have the SUPER EPISODE … give it a chance because I would like to see more adventures … […]

497. Agência Samurai » Blog Archive » Star Trek: marketing de mistério e ARG’s - May 9, 2008

[…] especializados, os fãs já discutem as possíveis pistas e o conteúdo dessa imagem. No post do, por exemplo, são mais de 500 […]

498. Gabe - May 17, 2008

Okay, I do have a question. The music you hear during the trailer. Specifically between the speech of President Kennedy and right before you see the phrase, “The Future Begins”? If that is part of the new soundtrack, than this film will really rock. If not, I would like to purchase whatever film soundtrack that it came from.

499. Viral Friday: Bird Poops Into Reporter’s Mouth - ViralBlog - May 26, 2008

[…] cam video’s of the USS Enterprice NCC-1701. Fans with a lot of patience will be rewarded with active camera images. (Source: Empire Online, Filmtotaal, […]

500. anon - September 8, 2008

This movie looks awesome! I haven’t watch ST since TNG when I was little. If Ambrams can film this good like the William Shatner series, I may even ask my GF to see it with me.

501. halfvulcan - October 2, 2008

I’ve always sensed that Star Trek can be so much more and so much better than it has been, and i hope that’s how Mr. Abarams sees it. I like the chosen cast so far and the ship looks as good as ever if not better. We all know though that the “look” of things, though extremely important, won’t be nearly as important as the story, the script, the acting, and settings the movie takes place in.
If we’re lucky, this will be a foundation for an expanded Star Trek universe to build the legend outward from, and if we’re extremely lucky, J.J. Abrams will insist on continuing that mission beyond this movie.
I may have lost some faith in LOST, which I regained partially now that it appears it will have an ending that will tie up loose ends, and I hated Cloverfield for so many reasons that could be an editorial in itself, but I just have a feeling about J.J. Abrams and Star Trek. He may be the perfect guy to turn it into something more than its been, something still true to the original series, but with an expanded, more beautiful, stranger, more “wild” universe. I’ll rarely see a movie at the theater these days, but I’ll be there for this one.

502. halfvulcan - October 2, 2008

How did I do that? Misspelled Abrams. Let me correct it both for me and the post above mine. J.J. Abrams

503. loose tea - August 9, 2011

I may have lost some faith in LOST, which I regained partially now that it appears it will have an ending that will tie up loose ends, and I hated Cloverfield for so many reasons that could be an editorial in itself, but I just have a feeling about J.J. Abrams and Star Trek. He may be the perfect guy to turn it into something more than its been, something still true to the original series, but with an expanded, more beautiful, stranger, more “wild” universe. I’ll rarely see a movie at the theater these days, but I’ll be there for this one. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.