Big Reaction To New Enterprise – New Designer Responds | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Big Reaction To New Enterprise – New Designer Responds November 12, 2008

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Fandom,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The new USS Enterprise released yesterday has spawned dozens if not hundreds of articles across the globe in the mainstream press and the geekosphere. Reaction here at TrekMovie has been running at one comment every 49 seconds for 24 hours straight. In that deluge are a few notables, including former Star Trek designer Rick Sternbach and the designer of the new ship, Ryan Church.

 

Sternbach and Church on the new E
Rick Sternbach was a senior illustrator and designer for the Trek franchise going all the way back to star Trek The Motion Picture, working mostly on the TV series in the TNG era (Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager). He designed dozens of Trek ships and stations, including Deep Space Nine, the Klingon Vor’cha battle cruise, the USS Voyager, and the USS Enterprise C.

I get the distinct impression that to do the nacelles and secondary hull, someone stared at the USS Pasteur for a while. Just a thought. But even the Pasteur’s Bussard collectors had line of sight to open space, which the nacelles on this new ship don’t seem to have. Perhaps the designers didn’t know exactly how the different hardware bits worked (I violated this rule a little here and there, but I knew when I was doing it). Now I’m not being a whiner, just an informed critic. There’s room in this Trek world for healthy design criticism, as well as simply sitting back and enjoying a well made SF film. I -hope- the film is well written and clever and has good proportions of action, humor, tech, etc. but I’m also prepared to analyze the design work to see, perhaps, how far the shapes and colors and functions stray from 40 years of evolved gear.

This and the many other comments got the notice of the designer of the new Enterprise, Ryan Church, who has worked on the Star Wars prequels, the Transformers movies and the new James Cameron film Avatar. Church wrote in the TrekMovie comments:

I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.

Sternbach replied back, noting that he has since had a chance to see a new angle of the Enterprise (lucky Rick!)

I went back and checked the Bussard clearance, and yeah, it works. I’ve seen a port side ortho[graphic] elevation, and I don’t have a problem with the mechanics of it, it’s the proportions and flows of the basic parts that look odd to me. Granted, no ship ever looks perfect in every ortho view, nor in every perspective view. We who have done this stuff in our sleep know that most vehicle and prop designs have their “best” faces. I’m not going to bore people with excerpts from my classical art and architecture books, though I will probably thumb through them here just to see if I can glean anything relevant. Like I said, I’ll wait to see how the film looks as a whole effort.

Which all just goes to show you that even the pros can take different views and even modify their views, especially when given more information. So far we have only two views of the new Enterprise and we have yet to see it in motion, that is worth considering.

Fan comparisons and mods
One of the great things about TrekMovie.com is our community of Trekkies and their creativity. Here are some comparison and modification images from our members (click to enlarge).


Comparison of new with TOS and TMP Enterprises by Kirky


Tongue in cheek critique via comparison to 50s cars by RedSpar


Modded primary hull and nacelle cap plus strut comparisons by Aqua and Jochen G.


‘Filled in’ by Mark T.


modded secondary hull by Spockboy Paul


modded in secondary hull and TMP struts by Ben


another secondary hull and nacelle mod by Daniel Broadway

And this for a little fun
The current poll shows that fans are split on the new Enterprise, with a bit over half ‘loving it’ or ‘mostly liking it.’ Although less than 1 out of 5 are voting that they don’t like it, it appears that some of that group are quite vocal to be sure. Our pal Spockboy Paul also put together this little video that encapsulates some of those fans reaction to the new Enterprise

Note on new image: it is not in the trailer
The new image released this week of the USS Enterprise is not a shot from the trailer. The Enterprise is seen clearly in the trailer being constructed and also going to warp. It may also be seen briefly in some of the quick cut battle scenes, but the specific shot released yesterday from Paramount is from a different point in the film.

Comments

1. Blowback - November 12, 2008

Keeping an open mind…

2. SChaos1701 - November 12, 2008

I like the new Enterprise just the way it is.

3. Brian - November 12, 2008

Keeping an open mind too….would like to see a few more angles.

4. trekkerguy - November 12, 2008

Holy crap it looks amazing! Love it! Can’t wait to see 007 and see the trailer!

5. International Bon Vivant - November 12, 2008

Great video clip Spockboy!

Maybe we need a Trek design smackdown between past and present Trek design luminaries (presided over by Matt Jefferies via Ouija Board).

6. Weerd1 - November 12, 2008

It’s not awful. Still like Gabe Kroener’s better, but I really REALLY need to see other angles. And maybe full technical specs and a manual ;)

7. Blowback - November 12, 2008

I’m okay with it in all honesty. My only complaint is the deflector dish juts out a little too far for my taste. My head did not explode when I saw the third nacelle on TNG Enterprise so I’m sure in time I will learn to love this also…

What will really knock me out will be the interior sets…

8. Irishtrekkie - November 12, 2008

Of course there is a big reaction , its Star trek , the enterprise is Star trek in many ways, its a symbol of the show, and in my opinion it is the most Real thing on the show .

I remember reading that one of the most important things to gene was that the ship was real , and felt real, non of that lost in space , ship being bigger on the inside then on the outsidet stuff.

i knew they would change the design , but i was hoping for something more like Gabe Koerner design , really its not too bad, just the neck and engineering sec look wrong , like its top heavy.

Some one over at subspace-comms.net was photoshoping it ,
I think this looks alot better , but thats just my opinion
http://aqua.mysfdb.com/wp-content/gallery/fan-art/fifth_ugly_kitbash.jpg

9. Orb of the Emissary - November 12, 2008

Still cautiously optimistic… I’ll wait until another angle of the Enterprise shows up and to see it in it’s full glory on the big screen before I make a final decision.

10. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Still hate the engineering hull. Both Spockboy’s and Ben’s rendering give it more balance. Not against change at all. Fine with the updated design but the engineering hull looks like poo and I have hundreds of other posters here who think the very same thing.

Fix the damn engineering hull and flip the warp pylons upside down so we can get behind this baby,…please???

11. cellojammer - November 12, 2008

Now that I’ve had a chance to take it all in…I *love* it! Nicely done.

12. Robert - November 12, 2008

Thanks for re-posting these comments. For one, I had no idea that Ryan worked on this design (GREAT JOB RYAN! If this is mostly yours, it’s one of your finest!). More than anything else, though, I would encourage the pros to take no notice of us, rah-rah’ing or whining. It’s counterproductive. It was an impossible task. You would never have made everyone happy. AFAIC, you were true to the spirit of Trek and of this new Trek in particular. Kudos for that!

13. Splurch - November 12, 2008

It’s great that people involved with Trek production post here. The new design is growing on me. I can’t wait to actually see some footage of it.

14. BlackBirdCD - November 12, 2008

I’m wondering at what point (while reading the feedback) did Ryan Church regret taking this gig? :)

Cheers, it’s fun to watch a new Enterprise ‘reveal’

15. sloan47 - November 12, 2008

I love the look and direction so far in the new film. This is a re-imagination the franchise and they have been extremely faithful of the original while making it look modern. Kudos!

16. Gd846c3 - November 12, 2008

This new design has definitely grown on me. If you keep an open mind and stop trying to compare it to other designs, it becomes that much more stunning.

17. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

nice article, AP!!!

awesome.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

18. CIT - November 12, 2008

Actually, now that I’ve had some time to look at it, it does look pretty cool! (I did get a shock when I first saw it) It looks 60′s and very futuristic at the same time. I just hope it looks ‘real’ on the big screen.

19. LostonNCC1701 - November 12, 2008

I still like this design. It’s still close enough. A good enough representation of the Enterprise and a true beauty.

Trust me, the normal folk either won’t notice the difference (since it’s reasonably close to the Movie enterprises), won’t care or will just go “OHHHH, pretty special effects!”.

20. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

I like the ship! It looks cool! It looks a lot better than the one in the Enterprise TV series.

21. Pete359 - November 12, 2008

I love it! Great job!!

And for those who cry foul with the design, I understand. It’s different yes, but this gives them an opportunity to evolve the design. Just like Kirk and Spock at each others throats (literally) the ship will evolve over the course of the movies.

Now I doubt it’ll change at the end of this movie, but I believe they will be respecting the look of the original E… eventually. Now let’s say this new series of movies goes on for three or four films, I’d imagine they’d gradually change bits and pieces to bring this new E in line with the old one over the course of those films.

The Nacelles are bigger… yes… but remember how big computers used to be? And mobile phones? So that doesn’t bother me at all. The hull plating is obvious, I mean come on! ILM is doing the FX I want them to detail every little piece of this ship. And they’ll probably do what they did with the NX-02 on “Enterprise” give it a slightly white paint job as the films go on.

I’m enjoying this ride, can’t waiting ’till May!

22. the king in shreds and tatters - November 12, 2008

…I like the shuttles.

23. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008

Let’s see some other angles so that we can get the complete picture. I don’t think this could qualify as its “beauty shot”.

24. Robert - November 12, 2008

Hey, looking at those photos, and taking in Ryan’s comments, I just realized something…. THE DEFLECTOR SECTION IS GOING TO MOVE. In this photo, it’s extended forward. It can pull back in when “deactivated”, bringing it closer to the traditional profile. Just a theory. But pull up that “filled in” shot, and soom in on it. Anyone else agree?

25. Weerd1 - November 12, 2008

Whatever else it means, at least we are talking about Star Trek again. That’s nice despite people being rude.

Reminds me of the NX-01 reveal… and the 1701E reveal… and the 1701D reveal… and the TMP reveal… Wow, I’ve been at this way too long.

26. Ashley - November 12, 2008

like I said in the other thread, for those who think it’s disproportionate or top-heavy, they’re looking at it the wrong way… the secondary hull doesn’t support the saucer, the saucer supports the secondary hull… it ‘hangs’ off of it, much the same as the Kelvin, or even the Saladin-class or any other ship where the primary hull is well, the primary part of the ship…

also, ortho-views for Ashley please? ^_^

27. Matt - November 12, 2008

I think we should take serious (in that sense) the idea that this is one view, and it’s incomplete. And, it’s moving.

28. AJ - November 12, 2008

I’m really happy Ryan Church has come out quite quickly to discuss this. It’s somewhat of a thankless job, and I assume his “E” will be analyzed to a subatomic level, and that, because he’s in the business, he realizes it.

I agree with 3. “Brian” that a few more photos would help.

For what it’s worth, some grandeur would help. Enterprise is not a clunky Imperial Cruiser, a hyperactive tiefighter, or a spunky X-wing doing barrell-rolls over Coruscant.

Hopefully, Mr. Church realizes this.

29. Unhappy Fan - November 12, 2008

I wish Gabe Koerner had got the job. I’m not a hater or an obsessed fanboy, but for me, this just simply doesn’t feel like the Enterprise.

It’s missed the potential to be someting special instead of a parody.

That said, I am really looking forward to the movie and I hope it looks better on screen.
I hope this is the worst thing about the film

30. Agent69 - November 12, 2008

I personally LOVE the ‘new old’ Enterprise.

31. New Horizon - November 12, 2008

Yup, I could totally get behind this ship if it looked like this…
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_spockboyt.jpg

or this..

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_bent.jpg

There was plenty of room for the designers to create something that was far more true to the Enterprise. I would have been happy with either of these designs. They’re far more balanced. We’ve got until May….how about making some tweaks JJ and Team.

32. Irishtrekkie - November 12, 2008

i like the shuttles too lol .

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/shuttle-70172-screen.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/shuttle-70172.jpg

33. Weerd1 - November 12, 2008

Small observation… no visible registry number under the saucer.

34. Captain Roy mustang - November 12, 2008

Needs more editing

35. Devon - November 12, 2008

I still think they really messed up the Neck/Secondary Hull. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make the Enterprise look graceful. I mean, I’ve never seen so many call a ship “Ugly” before! If the target audience like it, fine, but goodness!

36. Denise de Arman - November 12, 2008

Fantastic article-about-the-article. Very cool job, Trekmovie staff.

37. sloan47 - November 12, 2008

I just wanted to add my comments about Gabe’s version of the Enterprise. While it is a masterpiece into itself, I think it’s a bit too “busy” for what they wanted to do in this film. This design is very sleek and retro. It totally fits into what I’ve been hearing from JJ and the crew.

38. BK613 - November 12, 2008

lol spockboy that is too funny

39. Irishtrekkie - November 12, 2008

@32 (lol myself), repaste , dont click on the links i posted above.

also this topic will go on for another 1,000 post, Paramount needs to man up and post some video clips of the ship moving and from maybe a different angle . !

40. Q - November 12, 2008

10% of the saucer section is missing and 20% of the left nacelle, and another 15% of the engineering section is blocked by those shuttles flyin’ around.

C’monn guys, you can give us a better shot of the ship. It’s not like we are going to brake the DaVinci code if we had a better glimpse.

41. Jeff Jacobs - November 12, 2008

Jeez, come on, people – this thing is beautiful. Yes, it’s a little different than what we’re all used to, but every artist has his own vision. I can’t imagine how much complaining there’s gonna be when the phasers/communicators/tricorders get updated. and somehow, I doubt Chris Pine will have a little stack of rectangular plastic chips to stick into the computer interface on his chair. I wish everyone would just lighten up and wait for the damn movie to come out before ripping every little detail. I think these guys know what they’re doing.

42. Kirk's Revenge - November 12, 2008

You know, now I’ve looked at the new E for the hundredth time…
No, I still hate it.
Edselprise, indeed!

43. Chingatchkook - November 12, 2008

Spockboy’s video is hilarious and amazing! If you’re out there SB, what software did you use to put that together?

44. MikeG - November 12, 2008

I have held off commenting until I got used to the new design.

My first thought when I saw the new design is it is still unmistakingly the Enterprise. It will still take awhile to get use to it, but I do like it.

45. Toddk - November 12, 2008

I saw the modified pics of the enterprise here..it looks better..now change the nacelles to their original shape, then maybe i’ll shut up…..I think the saucer and deflector are fine though..guess i wasnt quite ready to shut up :)

46. Space Ghost Joey - November 12, 2008

Yeah it’s crap and he knows it. looks like his version went thru the mud slinger. Even the phase 2 version looks better than this garbage scow.

47. Blowback - November 12, 2008

Yep, it’s the extended deflector dish that’s bothering me. My eye keeps getting drawn to it and it looks out of place.

Remember the scene in the last Austin Powers movie where he’s obsessed with Fred Savage’s mole? I’m kinda in that mode right now….

48. aries127 - November 12, 2008

The nacelle clearance was one of my first head-tilt moments upon initial viewing. Once I saw the great XI – TOS – TMP comparison provided here, it all makes more sense.

I think our perception of this new ship will evolve as we see it from different angles and in motion. I can’t wait to see the “go to warp” effect in the trailer!

My general reaction is that it is a fantastic update of the TMP ship. I have no idea how Church was able to integrate all the elements of the TMP E that he did while updating it seemlessly, especially the neck, which has been the site of much criticism, but which I think is the most impressive part of the update.

My only concern is that it still moves like a ship at sea. Roddenberry was a Navy man, and Trek is a Navy-based show. These things are mammoth space vessels, not agile sports cars. Treat the movement with the reverence and respect a ship of this caliber deserves, and it’s all good by me.

49. Yammer - November 12, 2008

I’ve loved the grey lady since the early 70s, I have the Franz Joseph blueprints, etc… and this redesign looks good to me. I was hoping a little bit for the 1964 Enterprise but I am fine with this take, which, to me, is blends the lines of the Matt Jefferies symmetrically planed original wooden boat with the organic, sweeping compound curves of Andrew Probert’s radical (but lovely) Enterprise-D.

Not sure I understand the snark coming off Sternback’s comments (unless it is pique) because there’s a whiff of his Enterprise-E in the thickened shoulders and the glowing blue geegaws. Thankfully they did not mess with the flying saucer, merely suggested a much stronger construction for the secondary hull, defensible given the insane torque that must come off her huge engines.

Can’t wait for the new blueprints!!!

50. Irishtrekkie - November 12, 2008

right so votes are in , most us of would be happy with spock boy’s verison of the ship , maybe tone done the nacelles, so movie is coming out in the summer, that still gives ILM time to redue every single effects shot with the big E ??? it will only cost a few million, come on Paramount MAN UP ! , >>;)

51. sean - November 12, 2008

Since only 21% of visitors are totally against this redesign according to the poll, we have to assume the nay voters are far more vocal in the comment sections. It only makes sense, of course, since they’re clearly feeling very passionately about it. But it does give a skewed view of how many fans are crying foul.

52. Charlie in Colorado - November 12, 2008

She actually looks a lot like I thought she would. Having seen the “under construction” trailer, I knew the warp nacelles would be somewhat different from the TOS 1701.

I was 12 years old when ST:TMP came out. I vividly remember being in the school library looking in some magazine at the first pictures of the Enterprise “refit” and being absolutely dismayed over how those thin warp nacelles looked. I was pretty upset at how they ruined the ship! *LOL* I eventually grew to love that ship, and that’s a big reason why I agree with Mr. Sternbach here — I’m going to wait for the film (and some better images) before I make a final ultimate judgement.

But for now… so far, so good. Steady as she goes…

53. Steven JB - November 12, 2008

The ship just looks ridiculous. Does it look like the Enterprise? Yes but that doesn’t mean it looks good. This monstrosity is just insulting.

54. Kathryn - November 12, 2008

Bussard = Blunderbuss

55. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008

I’m less worried about the new ship than I am about Jim Kirk and Chris Pine paling around in a bar together.

56. OM - November 12, 2008

…Rick Sternback’s an old space history colleague. If it’s so-far good enough for him, I’ll give it a chance. Even though the Engineering section is too fracking small, and the Nacelle sstruts suck.

57. DavidJ - November 12, 2008

It’s definitely grown on me, although I’d love to hear from the designer why they didn’t stylize the saucer more to match the rest of the ship. The secondary hull and nacelles are elegant and beautifully designed… and then there’s this boring TMP saucer stuck to the top of it.

It looks like two completely different design aesthetics at work.

58. helenofpeel - November 12, 2008

I suspect the shot of the new Enterprise is a bit distorted with something like a wide-angle lens type of view. That would explain why the dimensions don’t quite seem right on the nacelles versus the saucer… Could be…

Then again, they coulda picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue…

;)

59. TL - November 12, 2008

No comparison to the original. Bad, design. The saucer is from TMP its proportions to the haul is similar to TNG. The neck from the sauser to the haul is terrible and disproportionate to the original. The lettering and markings do not match TOS. This is supose to be before TOS? This is god aweful bad. There were so many different designs floating out there that far surpase this design and in keeping to the orginal look of the Enterprise.

60. silencer - November 12, 2008

I am trying REALLY hard not to choke when I see that they mounted the saucer on the back end, instead of the front….
I just keep seeing a mockery of the established starship designs. All of them.

61. Spockanella - November 12, 2008

This is a great article. Thanks, folks.

I’ve looked at the image several times, trying to like it better, and it’s not working for me so far. HOWEVER, I vowed going into this whole movie that I would keep an open mind, and that includes the ship. Looking forward to seeing more angles, and of course, can’t wait to see how she moves.

62. Alex - November 12, 2008

@ boborci, JJ and everyone whose lurking:

You knew this was coming, right? And I guess you’re really enjoying it. I don’t know yout masterplan, but from this image alone, popping up some days before the trailer, I can clearly see that you have one.

63. Magic_Al - November 12, 2008

The comparison of 2009, TOS, and TMP strikes me that, in these pictures at least, the TMP model most clearly communicates its scale. But, the 2009 model copies a lot of the surface details of the TMP model, and I expect the new movie will be able to make the ship look big and real better than any Trek to date.

64. New Enterprise: The Reviews Are In « Weather Station 1 - November 12, 2008

[...] of my favourite websites has a pretty good look at the reaction to the new Enterprise, 24 hours after its first image made it [...]

65. GSA - November 12, 2008

Maybe this is not it. Maybe we have an altered universe where we see this version and by the end we see a more original version.

66. BK613 - November 12, 2008

48
FYI GR was in the US Amy Air Corps. He was never a Navy man.

67. Mark T. - November 12, 2008

Overall, I’m liking the overall design, and the constituent parts. The nacelle struts don’t bother me as much as yesterday. Still difficult to get past how much the front and the dish juts out so much. It’s a proportion thing.

Link got broken above, here’s the larger picture again and I promise to keep quiet:

http://marktedin.com/enterprise579_REVb.jpg

68. Wes - November 12, 2008

I dont care about the bussard collectors or whatever, what I care about it the secondary hull and the engines that are way to far back and the saucer which is positioned back. Also, what about continuity? Why would you go from NX-01 to this? and then this to the Cage 1701 (which had Pike and Spock), and where does the Cage fit in? and then how do you get to this to TOS 1701?

69. Paulaner - November 12, 2008

I love the new nacelles. Still round (I don’t like the flat ones from TMP) but slick and futuristic. Now, we have to see this beauty in motion.

70. Paulaner - November 12, 2008

#68 “how do you get to this to TOS 1701?”

You can’t. That was 60s design, so we have to use some suspension of disbelief.

71. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

I love the Edselprise diagram–awesome work, dude.

However will Paramount make money with 800 people from these boards in straightjackets and a padded cel?

I think the mistake was JJ & Paramount Publicity’s for not giving us one of the classic angles on the ship.

The ship looks great. Most importantly, the lighter load in the secondary hull, closer to TOS, makes it looks fast and agile. The TOS and TMP ships are frieken classics, but I don’t want to see an Enterprise designed with a ruler and a protractor… and I don’t want to see a ship that seems to move like a 19th Century sailing vessel.

But I do want to see the Right Wing Canonistas look like idiots and perhaps dissuade them from showing up the next big Con in Southern California.

Plus, they already tipped their hand and said YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE was an influence. It’s a modified timeline. See my comments and Closettreker’s for further explanation.

72. aries127 - November 12, 2008

I’d just like to say that the criticisms that are soley based on the question “Is it different?” (which a large number of them appear to be) are ridiculous and unfounded. What did you expect? That they’d just put the same graphic from TMP up there and call it a day?

Amazing.

73. fanboy - November 12, 2008

Ryan,

Dude, why , oh why did you have to sucker punch us like that with the TMP style saucer, and then the Quark (the TV Series) style nacelle’s & secondary hull? It’s like some sort of trek mash-up joke design, and though I’ve struggled to find it, there’s just no integrity to the design at all. It just makes me sicker the more I study it, and this view has alwasy been one af the big-E’s best angles. If it doesn’t look good in this view, I don’t see how it can look any better from any other.

Hopefully Nero inflicts some serious warp-core-breaching damage to the secondary hull in this movie so they can perform an emergency hull-separation and marry the saucer up to a TMP-style body in the sequel.

That’s what I’m praying for… over and over and over…

74. Wes - November 12, 2008

So, what was wrong with the TOS Enterprise? Why make these major changes? It is one thing, color, detail, etc. but shape?! What was the rationale behind this?

75. Clinton - November 12, 2008

Yes, I do hope that people are noting that the majority of people voting in the (obviously unscientific) poll here on trekmovie.com are either really liking or somewhat liking the ship. They may not be posting as much or as often, but there appear to be many people willing to give the new E a chance (me included).

76. Yspano - November 12, 2008

This phenomenon is really amazing. Only in a fandom as old as Star Trek can this level scrutiny occur, to such a point that the people involved in production have to defend their work. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

77. silencer - November 12, 2008

I don’t think Abrams will bother responding to our complaints about this by actually replacing the ship in house with a better design…. and the only protest I can make is with my money.

That being said, how many people would be interested in re-rendering and replacing the new “enterprise” shots with the NCC-1701 instead? I suspect it would take a few months, but perhaps we, the fans, can fix this ourselves?

There has to be a way of salvaging this mess…

78. kwja1 - November 12, 2008

in response to someone above, i genuinely don’t think JJ & the team were expecting people to freak out like this.

This is pretty funny from my point of view, because the Enterprise doesn’t look all that different. Sure, there are loads of modifications but most (apart from Nacelle size) are relatively minor. (e.g. nobody will ever mistake this for any ship other than Enterprise). I’m very much into design, so I expected lots of minor modifications; it’s what designers do, otherwise they get accused of doing nothing.

People should remember that there was (IMO) a bigger evolution in design from TOS to TMP enterprises, but the majority of fans were OK about it.

I’m much more worried about the bridge… that’s a complete revolution

79. Paulaner - November 12, 2008

#74 “So, what was wrong with the TOS Enterprise? Why make these major changes? It is one thing, color, detail, etc. but shape?! What was the rationale behind this?”

The TOS Enterprise is an icon and I love it, but it is a stale and old design. It will not work on the big screen in a modern blockbuster movie.

80. Gary - November 12, 2008

Guys we need more PICS OF THE SHIP!!! MAYBE A SCHEMATIC!!!!!!!!

This is FUN!

81. Dr. Image - November 12, 2008

Sorry. I refuse to fall into lockstep on this issue.
It’s almost an insult to pass off this freakish mutation as the Enterprise. I know Mr. Church is a fine artist, it’s just that this particular effort simply doesn’t work.
I mean, come on people!!!
The unabashed TMP style of the saucer (real original, BTW)
clashes horribly with the Galaxy Quest-esque secondary hull and nacelles.
In the “old days,” there were certain good angles to photograph miniatures from. I cannot see any good angles this thing could be capable of. This is largely due to the tapered nacells which give an unwanted forced perspective, evident in this shot.
Oh well. Since it ain’t gonna change, we’ll just have to keep watching- and shaking our heads in disbelief.

82. Lancelot Narayan - November 12, 2008

“there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.”

The beauty of the original design is that the above couldn’t and wouldn’t have happened.

With the TOS Enterprise and TMP Enterprise, no matter WHERE you stuck the camera, the thing looked great. There could be no confusion, because the design was, dare I say it, perfect.

83. aries127 - November 12, 2008

66

If that’s the case, please excuse the Navy Roddenberry reference. However, the show is clearly modeled after Navy ships at sea, and I have read that that aesthetic was central to his vision for these vessels. Not to mention the ranks employed – Ensign, Captain, Admiral, etc.

My point being that I don’t want this ship to move like a Star Wars ship, all agile and quick. The best space battle in Trek is at the end of Khan when the two behemouths gracefully glide in opposition with only their captains’ wits as the deciding edge. It adds a sense of awe and grandeur that I don’t want this new incarnation to lose.

84. Edwin - November 12, 2008

Hopefully this movie will be a one off and then Star Trek will be remade in another 5 years or so for TV by someone who cares about the franchise.

Its one thing to make a movie for moviegoers, not Trek fans, as Mr. Abrams has said, but what he fails to see is that Trek fans are the ‘bread and butter’ during the lean times. Trek fans make up DVD sales and rentals. The general public will probably only see this movie once.

I used to go and see Trek films at least 5 or 6 times when they came out at the movies. Then I rented them when they were released for rental. Then I bought them when they were released on video or DVD. I haven’t done this since Star Trek VI and I cannot but think of all that revenue Paramount has lost from myself and people like me. I was hoping for a film that would loyally update the original Trek and boost my interest but it seems, from the photos and the design of this ship, that this will not be the case.

The first thing that put me off TNG back in 1987 was the Enterprise D and I never warmed to that show. I have had the same reaction at seeing this ‘faux-1701′ and that does not bode well….

85. Windsor Bear - November 12, 2008

Sorry, still not looking any better to me no matter how many times I see it. I still prefer the clean and simple lines of the TV version over the TMP or 2009 versions. Some additional detailing to that model is all that was needed to make it “movie worthy”, especially since the major portion of the new movie timeline takes place BEFORE what has already been established. Here’s a pic that shows just that… http://www.vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/wip_007.jpg

86. Paulaner - November 12, 2008

#84 “what he fails to see is that Trek fans are the ‘bread and butter’ during the lean times.”

I don’t understand this logic. Why should Trek fans avoid a new Trek movie? On the contrary, they should be first in line. I know I will be.

87. Star Trek - November 12, 2008

LOVE the new E’prise design. ‘Star Trek’ has always been about new frontiers, right?

I think this ‘new’ 1701, along w/ the movie look and cast, is just the shot-in-the-arm TREK needs to get back to the top in Science Fiction/Pop Culture/Americana.

Thanks JJ and Co.!

88. Daniel Broadway - November 12, 2008

More like this please….

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/enterprise_redesign.jpg

89. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 12, 2008

Have to agree that the engineering hull looks, well, wrong. It tapers way too severely from the middle to the back – and the struts holding the engines look way too big to be resting on that narrow portion of that lower hull….I keep thinking is ging to look like a flying rickshaw, but granted it is only one picture…

Oh, well, it is what it is, good or bad :)

90. Andy - November 12, 2008

UAAARRRRRGGHGHGHGGGHGG!!!!!

All this bickering, bitching, whining and cussing is going to make the Internet explode!!!!

91. Devon - November 12, 2008

A lot better Daniel!

92. JARED WYNN - November 12, 2008

i freaked out at first but after drawing it out on paper for myself and reading that the pic is in a odd camera angle. i think once we see more of the ship, we’ll get a better idea of the beauty of the new design

93. JR - November 12, 2008

I’m glad they have until May to fix it.

94. kirk's corvette - November 12, 2008

if you look closely, you can see shatner’s face spinning around under the nacelle caps.

this is my favorite e of all. the retro 60′s ‘vette touches send me. brilliant.

95. Sci-Fi Bri - November 12, 2008

according to the poll, 78% of fans either love it, like it, or can fine some positives in it. i’d say the design team succeeded if only 21% of a very conservative fan base is sticking their heads in the sand.

nice work.

i like the design more and more every time i see it.

96. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Boy George Danny boy came thru!!!!

Danny boy you nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Broadway get’s the Lord Garth Gold Star !!!!!!

As does Spockboy and Benjy

97. BK613 - November 12, 2008

72
“What did you expect?”
79
“The TOS Enterprise is an icon and I love it, but it is a stale and old design. It will not work on the big screen in a modern blockbuster movie.”

What did I expect? How about taking the design cues from the 60s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Ford_Mustang_Cabrio_1966.JPG

and updating them for the 21 century, producing another classic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/05MustangGT.jpg

Not this fugly hodge-podge.

98. Aqua - November 12, 2008

I’m glad to see that I got credit for my version, but the three images below mine were based on a mod by dv8pdx who

99. Sci-Fi Bri - November 12, 2008

re: 87

ugly

looks like a 98 dodge caravan.

the “new old” is fine the way it is.

100. mojonaut - November 12, 2008

I don’t know… the two modded images (the latter especially) just present more comfortable proportions of the ship while retaining the elements of the design I actually like. I do like the new elements, but like a lot of people have said, the connecting structure between the primary- and secondary-hulls are too far back from the main deflector, and the nacelle struts are too low down on the secondary hull. The second Photochop illustrates the correct proportions pretty well, in my opinion, and the ship looks kick-ass in that particular image. The nacelles, I can live with, and the gold deflector is not missed, in my book. In fact, I think the ship as a whole looks both modern and classical when composed in this manner. I haven’t read all the comments, but I’m sure a lot of people agree with me. The comparisons would not have been put together in the first place if some people didn’t feel the same way, after all.

101. audiobridge - November 12, 2008

Ryan Church can say whatever he wants about the new ship, it doesn’t change the extreme modifications he’s made to the original design. HEY RYAN, this ship is supposed to at least look similar to TOS ship, but more importantly like a precursor to The Motion Picture 1701, not a contemporary.

I hope for his sake that Abrams drew a ship on a cocktail napkin and said “make it like this”, because this is one of the worst reinterpretations of the old 1701 I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. Now, Church is a professional that I’m sure has done some great things…this isn’t one of them. Gabe Koener’s (spelling?) Enterprise, which many on the internet thought was Abrams’ months ago, looks far better.

While we’re tinkering with icons, let’s make the Millennium Falcon a sphere.

102. Quatlo - November 12, 2008

Reviews for the new 007 movie say it is subpar also. A good match for the trailer, eh.

103. sean - November 12, 2008

Guys, even Rodenberry didn’t think the TOS E would hold up on the silver screen. That was 1979. You expect Abrams & crew to stick it up there 30 years later?? It’s unreasonable.

104. Lou - November 12, 2008

more organic and modern. a nice update. there are some structural issues I’m curious about, but whatever. close enough. :)

105. Aqua - November 12, 2008

In the comparison shot, the top is the original, and the second is my first kitbash attempt, go here for my fifth version.

http://aqua.mysfdb.com/wp-content/gallery/fan-art/fifth_ugly_kitbash.jpg

106. Will - November 12, 2008

The one by Daniel Broadway is my favorite of the modifications. Why oh why couldn’t they have done it like THAT? That I can totally get behind. Frickin A.

107. Xai - November 12, 2008

I said it in the last E thread… you have to look at ALL the angles to judge an object.

That includes ex-starship designers too.

108. Gene Roddenberry's Ghost - November 12, 2008

I actually like the alternate-timeline Enterprise.

The nacelle caps should, however, have been circumcised.

Uhura likes the clean look.

Otherwise, good job, Ryan.

Peace.

Tom

109. Unbel1ever - November 12, 2008

Well, I hope the movie or movies will make enough cash to justify another tv show in maybe 10 years time. Hopefully this show will pick up where Nemesis left us – looking into the future, not into the cash register. While I was not a big fan of Enterprise at first, I enjoyed the 4th season. They should have let them continue. Even Nemesis, despite its sucky story, was at least visually a Star Trek movie. The writing/directing was wrong in that movie. So I expected a Star Trek movie with fresh STORYTELLING. There is nothing wrong with the design as it was. Those mockups by real Trekkies up there, look so much better than that what we got from Paramount. The proportions were a concern to the fans since the first teaser pictures were released earlier this year. It would have been really simple to make the ship look true to Jeffries Design, while incorporating these new flashy elements. Such as it is, it’s just not believable. Abrams and Co. lied to us, saying this would be true to canon, while it’s not in the least. They should have said from the start: “This is our completely independent take on it. It has nothing to do with what you’ve seen before.” I would have accepted that. But I can’t help but feel cheated. For 2 years you hope for a real Star Trek movie and than you get Galaxy Quest. While I don’t mind Galaxy Quest, I would be really angry going to watch a Star Trek movie and get to watch it instead. So please JJ, Bob etc. please give the movie a byline like “A new beginning” or call it iTrek or whatever so it is clear to everyone, that this is not Star Trek, but new Star Trek sponsored by Apple, for a new younger audience. For me dinosaur in my early twenties, there will always be my DVD Collection and thankfully a whole lot of well written new Star Trek novels like the Vanguard series, that tell an exciting story withouth having to throw everything else overboard.

cheers

110. Mikeat5280 - November 12, 2008

I keep waiting for it to grow on me and it just doesn’t. I don’t mean to say it should be hauling garbage. I mean to say it should be hauled away as garbage.

111. Xai - November 12, 2008

102. audiobridge – November 12, 2008
“HEY RYAN, this ship is supposed to at least look similar to TOS ship, but more importantly like a precursor to The Motion Picture 1701, not a contemporary.”

How do you know what it’s supposed to look like? Read the script?

112. Jesustrek - November 12, 2008

Spockboy the next Director of Star trek,,,yessssss ¡¡¡¡

Today in Sapin,,,
‘I have done a movie for the future fans of Star Trek, not for the old’ J.J. Abrams,
-The director and producer was fan in his youth of ‘The Star Wars’ but never he was him of ‘Star Trek’-

OHHH My GOD

113. Resident nEvil - November 12, 2008

I think a lot of people are overestimating Star Trek’s ship designs.

With the exception of the Constitution class and (to a lesser extent) the Galaxy Class, I think they’re all butt-ugly.

Especially the Enterprise B. But ESPECIALLY the Enterprise C.

114. bernie - November 12, 2008

keep the saucer section, bring in the tos secondary hull

115. sean - November 12, 2008

#84

Your dislike of the Enterprise D clearly didn’t hurt TNG (what with 7 years of massive popularity and great ratings). Does that mean you were wrong to dislike it? No, we all have our tastes. But at the same time, think of how silly it sounds to ‘threaten’ the producers of this film with your absence. Whether you personally attend or not will likely have little effect on the film’s success.

116. Xai - November 12, 2008

92. JARED WYNN – November 12, 2008
“i freaked out at first but after drawing it out on paper for myself and reading that the pic is in a odd camera angle. i think once we see more of the ship, we’ll get a better idea of the beauty of the new design.”

BINGO! Someone got the idea.

117. Aqua - November 12, 2008

Unbel1ever, while I agree that the design could have been better (otherwise I wouldn’t have kitbashed it) I think you’re being overly harsh in your evaluation. I’m not fond of the new nacelles at all, but I’ll allow artistic license for that. It just looks off balance as a whole. In my version, I moved the neck to the lip of the engineering hull which did make it better. In retrospect, what really needed to be done is either (1) remove some of the sweep from the back of the neck or (2) stretch the engineering hull a little further to place more room between where the neck and nacelle pylons attach. Something that absolutely is necessary is bulk the engineering hull up and not start the undercut before where the pylons attach.

118. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

I like the desgin. I have The New E on my Screen saveron my work computer at the Car dealership i work at and have had a lot of good coments from a lot of my custermers. Can’t wait to see the Big E in action and this should be great.

119. Al - November 12, 2008

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm

120. Aqua - November 12, 2008

Resident nEvil, the Excelsior was deliberately designed to not be as attractive as the TOS Enterprise – they even mocked it slightly in the movie itself, then the design turned out the be surprisingly popular with fans. The Enterprise C was SUPPOSED to be a clunky extrapolation of how they got from the Excelsior to the Galaxy class.

121. wwiifanatic - November 12, 2008

That last render by Daniel Broadway is just plain full of sex. I’d be having trouble keeping my pants on if it looked that good!! The secondary hull simply does not look right protruding that far ahead of the neck. The saucer in the official render is perfect though.

122. Ed - November 12, 2008

I am now ‘onboard’ with the new E. Love it.

123. Xai - November 12, 2008

82. Lancelot Narayan – November 12, 2008
“there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.”

The beauty of the original design is that the above couldn’t and wouldn’t have happened.

With the TOS Enterprise and TMP Enterprise, no matter WHERE you stuck the camera, the thing looked great. There could be no confusion, because the design was, dare I say it, perfect.”

Sorry, no. No Trek ship, especially TOS 1 was perfect at every ortho. TMP had a gorgeous profile, but no substance to the thin nacelles from above. D’s saucer dwarfed the secondary hull from above.. no balance. TOS 1′s profile just was a plain jane.

124. Elrond L - November 12, 2008

Thank you, Ryan Church, for stopping by. I’m especially intrigued by his comment that the true nacelle profile “may or may not” be represented in the photo. The characters will be evolving through the film, so why not the ship? I can’t wait to see the new E in action.

125. Jayb - November 12, 2008

All due respect to the folks who created this new version, but I don’t care for it. It looks as if the shapes were forced together rather than designed to flow and work with each other. I think Scotty said it best in the TNG episode ‘Relics’……”There comes a time when a man can no longer fall in love….” So those who like the new ship, I’m happy for you. I still don’t like it. But even though I don’t like the design I’ll still go see the movie, so see y’all at the ticket counter!

126. General Order 24 - November 12, 2008

Yeah! Daniel Broadway did the best job. I could buy that rework for sure.

127. Fizzbin - November 12, 2008

#88 love daniels version. I agree it’s a sexy ship.

128. Unbel1ever - November 12, 2008

117 Aqua:
Something that absolutely is necessary is bulk the engineering hull up and not start the undercut before where the pylons attach.

I could not agree more and you said it yourself: It seems necessary to you. My point is: For it to be Star Trek to me, it has to be believable. I have to be able to say: This is the Enterprise ! Otherwise it’s not, what I have come to like over the years. Looking at that ugly ship and the iBridge, it just doesn’t look like Star Trek Design. But visuals are an essential point to making a movie believable. Especially when it’s supposed to play in a well definied universe. It’s like giving James Bond of today the Audi from I Robot. Devil’s in the details. Everybody can tell me, they don’t care. But all those guys out there who have seen every episode of all shows and all the movies, will feel off. Can’t be helped. So I can live with it not being the Star Trek, I grew up with, but something else. Like it was done with BSG. But don’t try to sell it as the same.

129. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 12, 2008

I can’t say I categorically like any of the fan mods any better than Church’s version. They all have something “off” about them. I have my reservations about Church’s designs, but no one seems to have a definitive version, and that is because there is room for interpretation… infinite interpretation.

I find it fascinating to read the back and forth between the pro designers. That is a rare opportunity. Thank you Sternbach, Church & Pascale for this illuminating article.

130. Aqua - November 12, 2008

A thought, pike’s enterprise had doodads that kirk’s enterprise didn’t and they were cleaned up…. perhaps we could get rid of the hoods around the nacelles that way? :)

131. Crusade2267 - November 12, 2008

I think that we need to see the blueprints. Profile, top, and facing us. Some ships just don’t look right in 3/4 view. Look at the first pics of the Enterprise E… made it look a lot shorter and stumpier than it really was.

132. Jordan - November 12, 2008

The new design is growing on me more and more. It’s really just a hybrid of the TOS and TMP 1701, and I can hang with that for sure.

133. NCC-1976 - November 12, 2008

I think it sucks. It’s not the Enterprise from TOS, therefor it doesn’t count, and invalidates the whole movie.

134. Scifij - November 12, 2008

I must admit I didn’t know what to think when I say the new Enterprise design. I hoped it would stay true to the original – and in many ways it does. However it’s just that secondary hull that’s irratating me. It makes the Enterprise look smaller and squeezed in. Ben and Spockboy’s designs work better in my opinion. However we must remember that this is an Enterprise for a new era, and who knows (for those die hard fans out there) maybe she’ll be refitted in future trek films that will resemble the Enterprise we are all familiar with. Afterall, this is still Christopher Pike’s vessel.

135. Chris_Moderato - November 12, 2008

The Star Trek franchise will be destroyed, not by those entrusted to carry on it’s legacy, but by those who claim to be fans, who do nothing but complain, and moan, and demand satisfaction for themselves alone.

If the negative reactions I’ve been reading around here from some people are going to be the status quo until release date, then please, do the rest of us a favor, and stay home. I don’t want my viewing experience ruined by a bunch of belly-aching so-called “fans” of Star Trek.

136. Aqua - November 12, 2008

YAY! Just saw ship from another angle, the comments in the article are correct, the nacelles look far better in proportion with the rest of the ship size-wise.

137. Tim Lade - November 12, 2008

I’ll say it again! This is why we all look nuts! It’s not a real ship!

138. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 12, 2008

Aqua, where did you see it? I want to see another angle….

139. ScreenRant.com - November 12, 2008

Bloody hell, took my idea for TWO posts on my site and combined them into one.

Vic

140. General Order 24 - November 12, 2008

137- Go home a play with your Hot Wheels.

141. SPOCKBOY - November 12, 2008

#43
Thanks buddy.
I just used Sony Vegas to edit and do the effects. All of the ships were just cut-outs except for the TOS Enterprise which is just a Master Replicas 1701 with me flashing a blue LED under it!
The explosions were Art Beats which is a library of videos (ie explosions)
Thanks again for the kind words.
: )
As far as the new ship goes, the only thing that really bothers me is how the nacelles are tacked on at the end of the ship. It makes it look weak and unbalanced like they could snap of at a moments notice. Historically the struts have always looked a bit dodgy, but never to this degree. The color and skin surface is fantastic, and I actually like the stylistic shape of the nacelles, but the curve of the struts seem to go against the flow of the secondary hull. Judging from the creator’s comment about the bussards not being seen in their full glory and his very telling comment: “and that’s all I’m saying” suggests to me that the bussards come out when they go to warp or do something cool that Mr. Church is not at liberty to divulge just yet.
I do think we should give the guy a chance though.

142. Michael Delaney - November 12, 2008

I am a 50 year old attorney in Houston, Texas and a life-long Trekker. I said months ago on this very site that the single most courageous, bold, and desired thing this movie could offer the fans is the one thing we’ve never had the pleasure of seeing: the original, beautiful, Jeffries-designed U.S.S. Enterprise on the big screen, lovingly and faithfully rendered with modern special effects technology and with a budget Rodenbery could have only dreamed about! There could be tweaks, of course, to remind us that this is a movie and not T.V., i.e., more surface detail, actually seeing people moving behind the lit Enterprise windows, etc., but stil definitely the classic Enterprise. Instead, it looks like someone glued the movie-version saucer to some “Phantom Menace” universe secondary hull, struts, and pylons, as flown by Queen Amadella or whatever the hell her name was. Now, I’m reduced to praying that my beloved REAL Enterprise will at least appear in the movie (unlike the REAL and everlasting Captain Kirk) at least in a cameo role…

143. trekmaster - November 12, 2008

To quote Mr. Shatner: “I believe it’s some kind of psychosis going around on here”… ;-)

144. audiobridge - November 12, 2008

111. Xai – November 12, 2008

I didn’t have to read the script, Xai. We know it is set before the events of TOS. So, the ship has to look like a precursor to not only the 1701 of the show, but the 1701 of the movies.

145. Will - November 12, 2008

Wow, really, my comment on liking Daniel Broadway’s design gets deleted? Really?

I say again, why oh why couldn’t it have looked like his tweaks? I could have sooo gotten behind that in a freaking heartbeat.

146. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 12, 2008

Since my main complaint so far has been with the pointy ending of the nacelles, I find Sternbach’s comparison to the Pasteur astute.

This was not covered by the designers, but the slimmer secondary hull makes sense with the beefier neck, and the fan mods’ lengthening and thickening of the secondary hull seem not to take that into account.

147. Robert H. - November 12, 2008

Sternbach is incorrect. The Enterprise’s fuel collectors DO have light of sight, as seen on the first Star Trek trailer. Even on the trailer, the nacelle pylons were at 45 degrees.

Fortunately for me, the only real concerns I have for Enterprise are that I find that the secondary hull is too far forward, and I don’t really like the neck design. But other than that, the ship is a beauty.

But also imagine, for those who were around when they came out, how did you feel about the Enterprise-D when you first saw it, or the completely refurbished Enterprise-1701? How did you feel when the ramscoops where no longer spinners, now are just vents? And that the deflector dish is on this Enterprise still a dish, it just glows blue, how did you feel that they removed the unit for a glowing concave structure?

Besides, when I made the original series Enterprise, even I made some modifications to it, including having a blue glow behind the deflector dish, and totally redid the ramscoops, and added airlocks and thrusters and so forth.

148. Aqua - November 12, 2008

Welcome SpockBoy, enjoyed the animation :)

The nacelle pylon positioning bothered me at first, but if you’ll take a look at my comparison image in the article with the Ent-E and mentally rotate both I think you’ll be ok with it. I’m glad they also bulked up the pylons so they don’t seem stick thin like TOS or overstretched like TMP. The curve strut is leaning forward to get the design more “energy” which I can understand and accept though not a choice I myself would have made.

149. J NELSON - November 12, 2008

I just can’t see this working. They got the uniforms 100% perfect, the cast 100% perfect. I was ecstatic. Then the bridge, dodgy…. but i’ll give it a chance, it has a window instead of a viewscreen, it has the old segmented starcharts at eye-level…
Then I saw this ‘ship’. Please please please let it be a bad angle and there is an enterprise instead of a hack job.
I really hope this trailer proves all us doubters wrong on friday.

I’ll be the first to write if it does.

Fingers crossed (other hand-vulcan salute)

150. James Heaney - Wowbagger - November 12, 2008

Honestly, I’m disappointed. It looks… hunched. My girlfriend’s word was “sorta boxy.”

I look forward to new angles. For now, I’m just shrugging. Bummer. Hope the trailer’s good.

151. BND - November 12, 2008

BND 1: Arrrrrr! I been beatin’ that grotty designer knerk wit’ his own bulbous nacelle!

CGI TECHNICIAN #12: Oooohh… all I did was the pixel shading… help me…

BND 2: Stop that! It’ll be a fine ship on screen, ya’ punter! No need ta’ worry.

BND 1: Oh, scrag up yer’ arse! Look, this weakly-made secondary hull breaks like a million hymens screamin’ oot on prommie night!

CGI TECHNICIAN #12: Oooh! I have a shuttle craft where the sun don’t shine…

BND 2: Look- it’ll be alright. Ye’ didda not think it’d have them glowing nipple caps and pointy gold crotch guard, did ye’? Ten feet high in tha’ cinema and it’ll be a grand new ship indeed.

BND 3: Boys, boys… why fight when we can love?

BND 1: Each other?

BND 2: No, ye’ daft lily-whacker! He means other folk! Women folk!

BND 3: Uhhhh… yes… uh… that be exactly what I… uhhhh… meant… Well, off wit’ us then!

CGI TECHNICIAN #12: Ooooh… a bussard collector was never meant to go there…

Arrrrrrrr…

152. James Heaney - Wowbagger - November 12, 2008

It is worth noting, though, that I checked the link with very high expectations, hoping for both a warm feeling of familiarity and a shocking sense of awesome freshness.

I got bits of the first, none of the second, but I’ve never been in a position to demand that from a ship design before.

153. durhamtrojan64 - November 12, 2008

I’m sure I’m not the first person to make this observation, but isn’t it slightly ironic and bemusing that TPTB on this new project would something look like it predated a 60′s tv show about the future by making it look like it came from the 50′s. That Edselprise mash-up is dead on, that was my honest initial reaction. Also, isn’t the whole reason the nacelle’s are out there away from the body in the first place because they aren’t healthy to be close to constantly. Can someone who’s more technically canon literate help illuminate that point? I still think the film is going to be in the performances, but to that end if Orci does to Star Trek what he did to Transformers he’s going to get a UPS package full of poop!

154. Chris Basken - November 12, 2008

It’s.

a.

reboot.

Don’t try to “explain” this ship in conjunction with the TOS/TMP versions. Don’t let the presence of Nimoy fool you. Spock in the Pike/TOS era didn’t look like Zach Quintos. They’re just throwing in some “alternate time” plot doohickey to handwave around the simple fact that it’s a REBOOT!

155. Alex - November 12, 2008

#119

Bernd’s possible refit process image makes one thing clear: there is no way in hell they could have refitted the E to look like the movie-E. Period. They would have had to replace 95% of the ship. But we still bought it.

Ergo: the movie-E was the first total redesign of the TOS concept, not this baby here– I wasn’t around in ’79, and the internet wasn’t either, but I don’t think there was a similar riot when they got their first movie-E pictures.

You can argue that the thing looks ugly, but you cannot argue that it doesn’t look enough TOS-Enterprise-y, as it looks more like it than the movie-E, and you’re not complaining about her either.

156. Shaun - November 12, 2008

If I can handle The Next Generation’s version of Romulans with forehead ridges, I can certainly survive another interpretation of the Enterprise. All kidding aside, I believe I like this new Enterprise design more today than I did last night when I first saw it. I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since the mid-1970s. And I have always wanted to see Star Trek on the big screen presented with the same sense of majesty and scope as Star Wars. I will, of course, hold my final opinion until I have actually seen the film. But I must say I definitely appreciate the hard work J.J. Abrams has apparently put into this movie.

157. Buddykarl - November 12, 2008

My biggest dislike was how far back the strut between the primary and secondary hulls were. Looking at the design of the new E with this strut brought forward in Aqua’s modding (second one down with the red bussards) made it look far better, IMO. If they had just kept this strut in line with it instead of having the captain’s patio right in front of the torpedo launchers, it would have been a better reaction on my part….still trying to find something to get that odd taste out of my mouth.

I still blame Picard for going back and screwing with the time line…see, he broke all his little models and didn’t know quite how to put them back together so he took bits and pieces from each one and kitbashed them together giving us the 2009 model….;)

158. Aqua - November 12, 2008

something else that should help with proportions, one of the reporters who saw the 20min of video said the engineering hull is ent-d style wider than tall and the neck and the pylons and the rest look better from other angles.

159. NavySupra - November 12, 2008

This new… Enterprise.

First off I will say that I am still willing to accept this new ship, but only after I have seen it on the big screen. That will be the final test.

The point of view is defiantly terrible, but you can still come to some basic conclusions.

This ship, does not flow with the lines of every other Starfleet vessel before or after it. The first time I saw the enterprise D, it was a completely new starship yet it still was obviously from the same ship yards as the original enterprise. The basic flow the nacelle struts, engineering hull, and saucer support have been violated.

The engineering hull does not seem proportionally sized to the saucer, as well as it does not have the symmetrical feeling that the TOS and TMP enterprises have. Please tell me that the paint is not complete in this shot. The engineering hull does not quite look right without the classic Starfleet pin stripes.

Having the struts so far back, must effect the maneuverability within the shuttle bay, and what of the cargo holds? How long are the support beams for the struts extending into the engineering hull? The TOS enterprise had sufficient room for up to half of the strut length to be contained in the engineering hull, while still being within a “meaty” section of the hull.

Tear dropped nacelles? Warp coils are of consistent diameter. I like the new bussard scopes and ‘50ish headlight covers. Where are the long intercooler strips, that glow blue when under load?

The list could go on and on. I’m going to wait and see, to make my final judgement. Thus far I am disappointed with the enterprise. There has been 40 years of trek with which to build on. I think that they really are only about half way there with this enterprise. Just seeing the saucer and the ram scoops in the teaser led me to imagine a far more gorgeous starship. I can understand not getting an exact duplicate of the TOS enterprise. Totally fine with that…

160. Mike - November 12, 2008

#135, I agree completely. I have never seen people crying so much over a movie that isn’t even out yet. This is NOT Roddenberry’s Trek, get over it. I loved every show AND movie from beginning to end and consider myself a true fan. Some of you on this site seem stuck in the past and it’s disgusting. Your acting like it’s the end of the world if everything isn’t EXACT. Well, to be perfectly honest with everyone, if it DID look exactly like it did before, then what’s the point of the remake? People could just throw in DVDs of the original series. Be a little open minded.

I should have expected this craziness though as people were expecting Pine to be wearing contacts while playing Kirk. I mean seriously.

161. Chris Basken - November 12, 2008

155: “Ergo: the movie-E was the first total redesign of the TOS concept, not this baby here– I wasn’t around in ‘79, and the internet wasn’t either, but I don’t think there was a similar riot when they got their first movie-E pictures.”

There was. The debate raged on in fanzines and the letters pages of magazines like Starlog, but there was most certainly a huge outrage at the leaked pics of the TMP Enterprise.

I’d like to see a show of hands of people who hated/disliked the Church Enterprise yesterday but are feeling better about it today.

162. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

163. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 12, 2008

You know, the more I look at this photo, I wonder….is it possible that when this Enterprise goes into warp drive that the engine nacelles do some sort of Transformer motif and extend outward when engaged? Or in some way move or are otherwise animated, and whether the deflector might possibly extend or retract in certain circumstances?

There’s got to be something to explain the proportion issues.

Guess I’m too sentimental, but TMP Enterprise still rules. Most elegant version ever. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was the next-best, and probably the one I want to go into battle with, while TNG Enterprise always looked like someone stepped on a cricket.

Oh, for someone who said they had until May to “fix” it, not hardly; FX are nearing completion. Not gonna unring that bell now.

164. Aqua - November 12, 2008

Chris Basken, my hand is raised, but I still think my kitbash looks better ;)

165. captaingoesdownwithship - November 12, 2008

My first reaction was okay, this is alright. Was numb at first, but then it grew on me and I am a die hard Trek fan. It just takes some time getting used to and I agree if the new was just a couple inches further it would feel more right, but it is looking pretty good that now I adjusted to the new look. Looks very rugged and I’m a 50′s and 60′s lover. Everyones got there own opinion, but don’t knock until you seen it. It’s all got to be a complete package then everyone will know if they like it or not. I feel if it weren’t for JJ literally defibulatin Star Trek, then Dr. McCoy would have said in a couple years. “Jim, he’s dead.” Then all we would have had is the memories.

166. Aqua - November 12, 2008

AoTVNPfF, I did see a single report from an ILM person that the nacelles do rotate when changing directly. Whether or not that person was making it up or telling the truth is something we won’t be really able to judge until the movie comes out or we see multiple trailers of the ship in flight.

167. JL - November 12, 2008

#155

True that.

168. Captain Roy Mustang - November 12, 2008

A little bit better but still need editing

169. rob - November 12, 2008

holy crap…that really is an ugly design…sorry

it reminds me of the episode of the simpsons when homer designed a car

170. Gary - November 12, 2008

That Road Rage video is the LOLZ

171. JL - November 12, 2008

#156

“I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since the mid-1970s. And I have always wanted to see Star Trek on the big screen presented with the same sense of majesty and scope as Star Wars. I will, of course, hold my final opinion until I have actually seen the film. But I must say I definitely appreciate the hard work J.J. Abrams has apparently put into this movie.”

Dude, you speak for me and I’m sure many others when you say this.

172. New Horizon - November 12, 2008

147 – “But also imagine, for those who were around when they came out, how did you feel about the Enterprise-D when you first saw it, or the completely refurbished Enterprise-1701? How did you feel when the ramscoops where no longer spinners, now are just vents? And that the deflector dish is on this Enterprise still a dish, it just glows blue, how did you feel that they removed the unit for a glowing concave structure?”

I loved them both.

The D was a new ship, so that wasn’t a problem. The refurbished 1701 still looked like the class of ship that 1701 was supposed to be, this new ship doesn’t. The proportions are changed, struts sit too far back, the hull is jutting too far forward. It actually does look more like Star Wars than Star Trek.

173. Mike - November 12, 2008

#172, I second that. JJ and his team certainly have put a lot of love into this project and I really think that people are getting too sensitive about the changes.

174. Ensign Ruiter - November 12, 2008

I am sure everyone and their Targ is going to post their version of what the E should look like, but here is a combined shot of Paul, Ben and Broadway’s envisioning. Obviously the texturing is lacking:

http://s418.photobucket.com/albums/pp266/Praxeus/?action=view&current=broadwaybenpaulcombination.jpg

175. Borgy - November 12, 2008

To Ryan Church

Dave Broadway’s mod is my favorite. It looks more like the Enterprise. We’re old enough to accept the new ship. Just a few touches here and there would do. This looks like the A. Too much blue. The decals should be present. The red band across the nacelles and the hull and the starfleet insignia. the redish bussard collectors and deflectors. That’s it. That’s all we really need.

This is the first time that we can experience the characters and the Enterprise in such an epic scale. If this will still be the design, with too much deviations from what we’ve always know, then its going to be an epic fail.

Good Luck
Listen to the people. You’ll make more money that way.

176. Xai - November 12, 2008

144. audiobridge – November 12, 2008
111. Xai – November 12, 2008

“I didn’t have to read the script, Xai. We know it is set before the events of TOS. So, the ship has to look like a precursor to not only the 1701 of the show, but the 1701 of the movies.”

IMO, this is a sequel. ENT-NEM had to happen first, thus we have “Old Spock” The Romulans go back and do enough damage in the timeline and that changes a few things. Think of a Universe A and B. Previous Trek was A and now elements of A (Romulans) have gone backward in Universe A and made changes, thus creating a splinter universe, B. The Enterprise you see here is a result, so is the similar, but not the same, cast and certain changes in events

177. JL - November 12, 2008

#163

“You know, the more I look at this photo, I wonder….is it possible that when this Enterprise goes into warp drive that the engine nacelles do some sort of Transformer motif and extend outward when engaged?”

I was thinking the same thing on my drive home from work.

Also – - the chrome-plated “headlight covers” on the naucelles – - I am wondering if these open up when warp is engaged…

I still say there is much ado about nothing. By and large, it is hard to dismiss the fact that the ship looks like the starship… Enterprise.

178. cagmar - November 12, 2008

Great article Trekmovie! I love the intelligent discussion between the two designers, very smart and very sensible.

As far as this new ship .. well, I’m just right now trying to think of it as a stage of development where they aren’t quite ready to spread the saucer and the nacelles quite as much as in the later refit… sort of a stage between a rocket car, with integrated engines, and later Enterprise we all know. Archer’s NX-01didn’t even have a raised saucer.

Still… I do not like the ship. It might be big trouble unscrunching the thing — but it would probably be worth it.

179. HelloGirls - November 12, 2008

I like it

180. Xai - November 12, 2008

175. Borgy – November 12, 2008
. “That’s it. That’s all we really need.”

We?

181. Third Remata'Klan - November 12, 2008

Bloody heck, one little picture and everybody goes berserk….

She looks FINE! Give her a chance, eh?

182. captain shroom - November 12, 2008

I have to stop participating in these threads…!

Can’t help it.

I seem to remember many years ago someone from ILM commenting on the Enterprise model and how it had to be shot from very specific angles. They found that from certain angles the ship looked odd and disproportionate.

I suspect this may be the case with the released photo. I looks a bit like a fisheye effect which makes the dish seem disproportionally larger than the rest. I could be wrong.

That said, the design has grown on me.

183. James - November 12, 2008

I’m not too impressed with this design. All that I would really need to see on the Enterprise is an HD level of detail on the original design, with deflector grid lines, visible phaser banks, and the torpedo tubes visible on the underside of the saucer. That’s it. No need to redesign. The nacelles look a bit ugly to me. It kinda reminds me of Optimus Prime’s new face in the Transformers movies – redesigned for the sake of redesigning.

I hope that there’s another ‘refit’ of the Enterprise to bring it more in line with TOS.

184. Third Remata'Klan - November 12, 2008

#176 – Xai
“IMO, this is a sequel.”

Hm. Very good point….

185. JL - November 12, 2008

Hey Borgy (#175)

“Just a few touches here and there would do. This looks like the A. Too much blue. The decals should be present. The red band across the nacelles and the hull and the starfleet insignia. the redish bussard collectors and deflectors. That’s it. That’s all we really need.”

No offense but you sound like someone with OCD.

Just a few touches here and there? If it’s just a few touches then why are you saying the film will be an epic fail if they are not addressed? You contradict yourself.

186. COMPASSIONATE GOD - November 12, 2008

The 1st comparison image (Kirky’s) just makes the case against the poor JJ-Trek ship stronger than ever (not that it required additional force). The nacelles share their appearance with 99 cent store TV remotes and shampoo bottles, while the rest of the “Its-new-but-like-half-swiped-from-TMP-and-garage-kits” ship lacks any design sense suggesting a mix of practical needs + strong visual appeal.

The 50′s car image–while said to be tongue in cheek, aslo bears some truth about the JJ-ship.

187. Third Remata'Klan - November 12, 2008

#175 – Borgy

It’s not the Trekkies who are going to make or break this film.
I’m sorry, but we Trekkies need to get off our high horse. We are going to see this movie no matter what happens. They need to real in the regular moviegoing public, or this ship will sink.

Who cares if they redesign the dang ship a bit?
I mean, I care, but it’s such a minor thing….

188. scathe - November 12, 2008

Gotta say… I’m going along with this new design because it probably does fit in with the new aesthetic as a whole, but the Ben and Daniel Broadway mods really do look better.

Which is a little sad.

189. Third Remata'Klan - November 12, 2008

#187

Uh, that’s “reel in”, not “real in”….

190. JL - November 12, 2008

I know I’m not the first to do so, but I’m gonna quote Shatner:

“YOU! HAVE YOU EVEN KISSED A GIRL?!”

191. dav - November 12, 2008

Is it bad to admit that this is the first time I’ve ever heard the word ‘nacelles’. And now I’ve heard it about a hundred times today.

192. JL - November 12, 2008

No Dav, you’re one of the normal ones. : )

193. Drij - November 12, 2008

TOTAL CRAP.

194. sean - November 12, 2008

#120

No one intentionally made the Excelsior unattractive. Nor the Enterprise-C. That’s a load of hooey. The Enterprise-C was merely supposed to be the natural progression from Excelsior to Enterprise-D. I think Rick Sternbach (who was here earlier) would be quite surprised to find out he ‘intentionally’ created a ‘clunky’ ship.

As for Excelsior, according to the script for Trek III she was ‘a super starship. Her lines are similar to Enterprise, but she is clearly bigger, sleeker, and very new. She sits at her mooring like the new Queen of Space.’ That hardly sounds like a deliberate effort to make a bad looking ship. The line from Scotty in the movie was implied jealousy, not an ‘in joke’ about the ship looking crap.

195. Regula One - November 12, 2008

Not just this poll but according to every poll taken on this site, it seems that a consistant 75 – 80% of the people here, like what they see and are looking forward to this movie. As am I.

The other 20% or so…. I could care less. It just means that I don’t have to deal you when I go see the movie.

196. Pokerface - November 12, 2008

Does it have a saucer section? Check.
Does it have an engineering section with a deflector dish? Check.
Does it have 2 nacelles? Check.

That’s all I need, baby.

I think the ship it looks fine. A matter of fact, the general outline/profile of the ship doesn’t look all that different than the original IMO. I don’t get what people are freaking out about. So it doesn’t look exactly like the original 60s model. Big deal. It looks sleek and I’m sure it’ll look good in action.

And even if I didn’t like the design, I’d still go see the movie. The funny thing is that some people here pontificate about how they aren’t going to see the movie because the design of a fictional (and I stress FICTIONAL) starship doesn’t exactly meet their expectations. That’s just silly and petty. I personally wasn’t all that thrilled with the TNG Galaxy class design but I still went to the TNG movies because I loved the spirit of Star Trek, and my enjoyment of them (or lack thereof) had very little to do with the ship design.

Wow, and people haven’t even seen the trailer yet…

197. I left my heart on Rigel 7 - November 12, 2008

I’m a fan of all Trek series even TAS & I gotta tell you people, you sound like a bunch of Ferengi!!
Are we going to let this idiot ruin our show? Or are we going to do what our heros in Starfleet would do & stand up for what we believe in?

I think a major boycott campaign is necessary to let Abrams know how bad this sucks!! If he wants to be the new Grand Jury, let him see what happens when the citizens don’t agree with the law!!

Don’t go see this in the theatre & if you have to see it, sneak in. Rent it on dvd & rip a copy or download it completely & keep as much $$ out of Paramount’s pocket as possible. Keep buying those TOS remastered DVDs, show him which is the real Enterprise in the eyes of the fans!!!!

198. Drij - November 12, 2008

the movie will bomb

199. JL - November 12, 2008

“Wow, and people haven’t even seen the trailer yet…”

Yeah. God help us all.

200. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

I’ll be fine with the different look only if it is explained in the story. Really, how can you have Nimoy go back in time, the uniforms look the same, and the ship doesn’t? That’s bad storytelling, not bad design. But if there is a logical reason for it, then I’ll buy it.

201. JL - November 12, 2008

“…keep as much $$ out of Paramount’s pocket as possible.”

Oh, yeah, THAT oughtta get us more Star Trek.

HOW OLD ARE YOU? DO YOU RIDE THE SHORT BUS?

202. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 12, 2008

Okay, guys, more speculation…..

I remember that, at some point, we’re dealing with time travel in this story, which immediately made me think of the Enterprise from “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” (which ROCKED in my worthless opinion)…when it hit me…could we be in the midst of a rather important sleight-of-hand, here?

This is the release photo of the Enterprise, but from a bad “camera” angle. Are we sure, however, that this is the version of the Enterprise that will persist by the time the movie has resolved itself? That the “camera” angle is purposely “quoted” because the “camera” has as much to do with the time represented in the story as it does the Enterprise itself?

As I thought about that, I came across this little nugget from an old rumor post on TrekWeb, from very early this year:

“While from what we’ve seen so far it seems like they’re being very faithful to the original Enterprise design, in an alternate timeline there will be a significantly different version of the NCC-1701. From what ScreenRant have been told it will be a very kick-ass version – essentially an all-out warship.”

My point is this “the” Enterprise, or just one that evolves from some point in the midst of a time-altered story arc, but changes into a final, more “faithful” form at the end?

If so, this debate could be much ado about nothing, and the designers could be having quite a chuckle at the expense of some folks here…

Just sayin’….

203. KevoG - November 12, 2008

Ok…1st of all, Ryan Church works “for” those in charge of creating the new Trek. He’s a production artist who follows the instructions of his bosses. There’s no doubt that this design evolved along certain visual paths according to their ideas and story points.

So, in my opinion, Mr. Church isn’t to blame. He didn’t determine the final ship as we see it…the producers did.

And…just a crazy idea? But, isn’t this Pike’s Enterprise? Would it be cool if the ship we’ve seen today is an early version, and evolves/undergoes some changes before it’s handed over to Kirk?

204. Bob - November 12, 2008

I remember the first few images that were released of 1701-E. That design is one of my favorites. (It’s almost a tie between that one at 1701-A) When I look back at the first two images that were released of 1701-E, I think to myself, “man that’s one UGLY ship.” But then you see her in action… it’s a fantastic design.
It takes time to find any model’s “sweet spots” or beauty angles. Even the CGI ones. I’ll wait and see what she looks like in action in the trailer before I finalize my thoughts on the new NCC-1701. I’ve not been impressed with the “powers that be” over at Paramount for finding good angles to release for products. After all, one of them back in the early 90s didn’t even realize that an image of a Romulan Bird of Prey that they were about to put on a tie to sell commercially was upside-down!! It took this trek fan to point it out to them!

205. sean - November 12, 2008

#195

Those 20% are an awfully loud bunch, aren’t they?

206. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Cloverfield monster ate the bottom and aft section of the engineering hull

207. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2008

Another reminder on spoilers in comments

Articles, like this one, that does not have a spoiler at the top should not have spoilers from other articles in the comments. There are readers that do try and stay spoiler free

so please nothing about Spock’s early days working as riverboat poker dealer….oops

208. Xai - November 12, 2008

184. Third Remata’Klan – November 12, 2008
#176 – Xai
“IMO, this is a sequel.”

“Hm. Very good point….”

Credit Closettrekker, his idea. I just happen to agree with the thought.

209. Ashley - November 12, 2008

146 – You’re right…the fan mods don’t take a lot into account and make it look uglier (with the exception of a few)… if you increase the length of the secondary hull, you need to increase the length of the neck…and increasing the length of the neck lowers the nacelles, so you need to lengthen the pylons too… plus, thickening the secondary hull too much makes the saucer look smaller which doesn’t work in this case as the saucer is supporting the secondary hull… I think the design works as is, though I’m still iffy on the pylons and how they connect… but I’d have to see other angles and see it in flight as others have suggested before…

210. captain shroom - November 12, 2008

For what it’s worth, I showed the new design to my 15 year old son. His reaction was (wait for it): “cool”

He’s seen the original Enterprise, but to be sure I did a side by side comparison. I mentioned the current uproar, and he said:

“Are you kidding me? This one is 5000 times better.”

’nuff said

211. Xai - November 12, 2008

#204
He might feel the need to kick yours too.

212. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Hey Anthony

You’ve been mum on your opinon on the new design

Honestly paisan

What do you think??

213. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

#202

That’s what I’m wondering. Maybe in this altered timeline Starfleet got a hold of some Romulan technology and incorporated it into the ship design. If that’s the case, then cool.

I really wonder if there’s going to be a lot of sleight of hand in this film. Maybe we have the Romulans show up at first contact instead of the Vulcans? That would explain the new design. It would also be a cool chance to have some Next Generation characters.

From the spoilers I’ve read from the footage being shown, this is being told more as a “new” adventure of the Enterprise and her crew rather than a traditional reboot. If that’s the case, then I’m completely on board with this.

214. richpit - November 12, 2008

I stopped reading around post 106 because I thought my head would explode.

I don’t think most people understand that this ship is not supposed to “fit in” to the established “starship chronology”…this is NEW Star Trek. As of May 8th, 2009, THIS is Kirk’s Enterprise.

No, it doesn’t look like a logical progression from NX-01 or to Pike’s TOS Enterprise, because it wasn’t meant to be that.

215. Chris Basken - November 12, 2008

197: “Don’t go see this in the theatre & if you have to see it, sneak in. Rent it on dvd & rip a copy or download it completely & keep as much $$ out of Paramount’s pocket as possible. Keep buying those TOS remastered DVDs, show him which is the real Enterprise in the eyes of the fans!!!!”

Well, sorry, but I’ll see it opening weekend. If I like it, I may even see it multiple times.

216. Tanner Waterbury - November 12, 2008

You know i was thinking, there SHOULD be Hot Rod flames painted on the hull, i mean it looks more like a hot rod than a starship. I would expect that there would also be some hydraulics located on the underside to give the ship some bounce. Anyways… im starting to accept the design, although i hope in the sequel (which i know there will be one) they can ask Gabe Koerner to use his design as a refit of the ship.

217. Wayne Spitzer - November 12, 2008

So…now that a few heavyweights have offered their insights and comments, is it okay to just voice an opinion again? Or am I in the wrong place? I’ve been wanting to comment for awhile but didn’t want to get piled on. As a supporter of almost everything JJ and crew have done so far, and as someone still excited to see the movie–just a movie, check, I think most of us get that; we’re talking design, right? No foam Spock ears here. Can I say now, very politely, that I don’t like the design? That it isn’t horrendous, that it in fact has enormous potential, that it’s bold enough to perhaps grow on us–but that it represents for me an incredible lost opportunity? That it does appear awkward and ridiculous and that it isn’t a car I’d buy or a woman I’d fall in love with, but, you know, it’s recognizably Enterprise, and that’ll have to do? That I’m fine with a redesign but expected something better? That, seen from a different angle, I might reverse myself completely? But probably won’t because, irrespective of cannon, I just find this thing…ugly? Like one of those tear-drop-shaped, bloated little Hondas at the stoplight, with the ginormous rear spoiler and the undercarriage neon-kit–the automotive equivalent of an over-worked MySpace page–whose driver makes the engine whine and wants to race…or something? Can I say it has all the grace and symmetry of the Cloverfield monster, so maybe I should have seen this coming? Can I repeat that I’ve approved of and often loved everything JJ and crew have come up with so far? That I still can’t wait to see the movie, but need to get over this notion of the starship as an extension and expression of our combined human will and reason–but also our artistry? That okay? I mean, I’m saying it anyway, I just wanted to be real nice and civil about it. It is, after all, just a show, right? But it’s also art, design, aesthetics…and some of us find that interesting.

218. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2008

RE: my review of the new Enterprise
I will be writing about it next week after the four scenes preview with Abrams. I want to see more before issuing my judgment.

I do agree with Rick Sternbach and others above that seeing things at different angles gives different impressions

219. Dr. Image - November 12, 2008

Ryan should have raided CBS-D’s files of the REAL classic Enterprise instead of ILM’s reference photos!!

Alternate timelines??
As I said, I don’t think I can give them that much credit.
This is the E guys, get used to it. (God, I hope I’m wrong…)

220. Borgy - November 12, 2008

okay fine. Im gonna grow up too. This IS a reboot, anyway. So I won’t care anymore Coz they couldn’t give us the one thing that’s important.

154. Chris Basken is right. Don’t let the presence of Nimoy fool you. It is hopelessly a REBOOT

221. sean - November 12, 2008

#197

“Keep buying those TOS remastered DVDs, show him which is the real Enterprise in the eyes of the fans!!!!”

You do realize Paramount still owns TOS, and therefore will make money off of those sales?

222. harris250 - November 12, 2008

163/177
ya, if you watch the teaser again you’ll notice spinners in the nacelles, not the blank chrome in the pic. The chrome might be covers

223. sean - November 12, 2008

#219

As much groaning as I read on this same site over the CBS-D remastered effort, I find it amusing that many are now holding that up as though it were some sort of gold standard.

224. Scott S. - November 12, 2008

Looks like the Enterprise. Looking forward to seeing the movie!!

225. MikeyinOZ - November 12, 2008

My take on the TOS Enterprise-Of course the design is flawed because it is the first generation of warp 9.99 starship and has to be improved through trial and error. Just as the Enterprise became “1701A”. I would hope that the Enterprise would look clunky and rough. It has not been defiled. I have been a Trekkie since the beginning of the series-I was 9 years old when it debuted and I still enjoy all flavors of Trek, no doubt I will enjoy this Trek on its own merits. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Keep on Trekkin’.

226. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Boy Tony

You could run for office with that answer

Come on man, some of us have been here since day one when it was only a handful of us (me, Xai, Spockboy, Dr. Image, Closettrekker, Iowagirl, ect) argueing back and forth about the cgi inconsitencies in the updated Balance of Terror and other crazy stuff that seemed like ages ago now.

Initial gut reaction, for old times sake

227. Mark - November 12, 2008

I think it is kinda tacky of Rick to make negative comments on this. Sounds like sour grapes. If he doesn’t like it, he should do the classy thing and keep quiet for a while.

228. Borgy - November 12, 2008

If the 23rd Century looks like this? I wonder what the 24th would look like.

229. Xai - November 12, 2008

226. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar – November 12, 2008

(sigh…) Good times…..

LOL

230. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

TIme is the fire in which we burn brother Xai

I miss our old core group

231. Xai - November 12, 2008

#229

You could have done that without the 5 adolescent insults.

232. Xai - November 12, 2008

#231 Lord Garth

Wanna call Stanky and argue over red bridge rails like the old days?

233. Borgy - November 12, 2008

Maybe Church was still in Revenge of the Sith mode when he designed this.

Oh damn! I just realized he’s working on Transformers 2. I hope he’s not gonna screw that one up as well

234. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Like I said I miss our little core group. We could be at each others throats one minute and high fiving the next.

Lotta lunies since this site went bigtime…sigh

235. Canadianknight - November 12, 2008

Never before have I seen so many complain about so little.

There’s a little thing in Trek…. called IDIC.

Infinite diversity folks… I think we should all be a little… no…a lot more open minded. I’ll make up my mind when I see the movie, and not before.

I certainly won’t get worked up about the design of the ship. As others said… it has a primary hull, secondary, and two nacelles. It stuns me that Trek fans would refuse to see a movie based on so little info… and on one picture from a bad angle.

I just want a good *meaningful* story, with memorable characters.

236. RED SHIRT #9 - November 12, 2008

Well first the S on his chest is to small…and the red is too dark it’s almost brown…and the blue?? … and the collar on the costume is too high..and whats with the cape….and what’s with the belt buckle? Superman doesn’t….oh wait..wrong forum…

237. Chris Basken - November 12, 2008

220: “154. Chris Basken is right. Don’t let the presence of Nimoy fool you. It is hopelessly a REBOOT”

Not hopeless. It’s the only way the core concepts of Trek could move forward. It’s been so mired in its own history that it couldn’t get out of its own way.

Trek was NEVER about tech minutia. You think Roddenberry cared about that kind of stuff? Gene Coon? No, they had stories to tell and continuity was a fine tool but they weren’t slave to it.

Look at DC Comics. In the 1970s, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc were all trapped in their long histories. People thought of The Superfriends and the Adam West show. In the comics, they wanted to break free of all that but it seemed overwhelming. The thing they finally did was to say “screw it, we’re starting over.” The biggest comic book reboot in history was DC’s Crisis on the Infinite Earths. While it “segued’ the old continuity into the new one, there was no confusion about it. CotIE was unequivocally a reboot of the DC universe. And it was wildly successful. It breathed life into a once-stale mythology by letting the creators break free of the traps they and their predecessors had set.

Trek needs this same thing if it’s going to regain relevance and continue to grow. Believe me, in ten years it will be amazing.

238. snoopytrek - November 12, 2008

Why the freak was Mr Church ‘going all the way back to ILM”…why not go all the way back to 1963, 4, etc. I knew it! After all these years George Lucas would have the final say so for Trek and screw it up like he did by trying to re-invent his own. I know…I’m reaching.

239. FlyingTigress - November 12, 2008

#155

Actually, I recall (sigh) the dust-up about the written description of the ST:Phase II/TMP redesign… “…grafted the Klingon power units (i.e. warp nacelles)…” to describe the new nacelle configuration — and, later when the concept art (for what later was ST: Phase II) was shown in Starlog — and the presser when the movie was announced, similar commentary about how ungainly the big “E” was looking.

Have to admit that the movie-version 1701/1701-A turned out to run a pretty close second to the TOS “E”, in terms of what versions of the “E” I really liked.

Also thought, while I watched “Farpoint”, that they’d messed the pooch with that design… you know, a couple of hundred ports/windows attached to one another with a little bit of hull, a strange looking secondary hull, and a pair of butt-ugly nacelles.

240. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Or the naccles ….. Or the color of the deflector dish…..

Me and Xai and others like Bailey used to have our rows but we always,…ALWAYS respected one anothers opinions and tried to put forth cogent thoughts and arguements behind our opinions

Hope the newbies learn to argue without the infantile goofey rage I see here now.

241. Teyowisonte - November 12, 2008

Ryan Church rules. He’s the best in the industry. His redesign of the Enterprise looks fine to me as a Star Trek purist. If you don’t like it, too bad – it’s the new/old Enterprise and it ain’t changing.

242. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 12, 2008

Well maybe not Bailey… LOL

243. Eponymous - November 12, 2008

I will take this opportunity to say the new film is already bringing me much enjoyment.. Just these discussions are enjoyable. The analysis of the new design all the more so.

In regards to the new image I think we will grow to live with and even like the new design. Its truly no worse then ST:TNG enterprise which I never liked. Give me the original TOS Enterprise or the E.

If we had a choice I’d chose a design less “curvy” then the “JJ-erprise”
I’m much more artistically pleased with Spockboy and Dbroad’s efforts.

Spockboys has a certain simplicity, utilitarianism and function engineering look and feel. The proportions of the hulls, the axis of symmetry and generally the balance between the dimentions has a greater sense of integrity to the original TOS design.
I feel additionally it would be improved in this regard through the use of straighter nacelle pylons or the TMP type per Ben’s remodel.

dbroads version with the TOS style ship skin, and “clad” “heavy” secondary hull, reminds me some what of the Brewster F2A Buffalo, the P-26, P-35 and the “heavy” looking Grumman’s. I like this as it gives the model both a tech and anachronistic feel at the same time. Unfortunately the new nacelle pylon shape fails on this design [As it does on the "JJ-erprise"].

244. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

The modifications done by “Daniel Broadway” are the best so far. That would have been a perfect design!!!!! Awesome work. Ben’s would be a close second. The ship needs to have a big “prowess” on the screen. The “Enterprise” and “Voyager” did not. I like me starships big! This one ain’t big enough for me.

245. Murilo Silva - November 12, 2008

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_dbroad.jpg –> that’s a beauty ship!!!

246. Steveedz - November 12, 2008

You people are insane, nothing matters but the heart of the movie. The characters and the story are all that matters. There’s nothing wrong with die hard fans, but fans that want nothing to change are going against the current of the whole idea of Star Trek. Evolution demands change, optimism demands new eyes and new angles. If you don’t agree with me go back and sleep in the 60′s in your blocked off cube of lucite.

247. Thorny - November 12, 2008

I don’t like the Trek XI Enterprise, at least not from this perspective. Why they couldn’t have simply taken the TMP Enterprise and put retro-nacelles on her, with a few other minor changes, I’ll never know. I know these new guys worked hard, but wow… that secondary hull/connecting dorsal is just plain hideous.

At least, from this angle. Maybe it will look better from others. I’ll keep an open mind, and nothing is going to keep me from seeing the movie in May, but I wish Mr. Abrams & Co. had gotten had asked around to people like Mr. Sternbach, who could have told them, “no matter what you do, don’t do THIS and don’t do THAT.” We might have gotten a ship that’s easier on the eyes than this one.

248. Kerr Avon - November 12, 2008

Comment 204 shows what absolutely ignorant pigs Star Trek fans can be. A disgusting, immature comment by an immature, selfish person. Grow up, son.

Ryan, well done on your hard work. People really do appreciate this gorgeous design. What a beautiful, retro-look you have given to the Enterprise. I love the “art deco” engines and the blue dish. Give yourself a pat on the back. :-)

249. The Angry Klingon - November 12, 2008

Im with Sternbach…This ungainly abomination is no ‘tribute’ to teh E but more then that if it was just a different ship in the movie it would STILL be an ugly disproportionate and ungainly beast.
Im betting that the ’1 in 5′ are probably those of us who are TOS fans all teh way back to the 60′s. It seems somebody decided they wanted to put THEIR stamp on this project by changing the single most iconic ship design in television history. Didnt just want to add some surface detail…nope….had to make it their own and IMHO its a funhouse mirror reflection of the CLEAN lines of the original.
Ill see the movie but I wont buy any merchandise renditions of this beast whether it be model kits, miniatures or MR offerings…this thing is lame.

250. C.S. Lewis - November 12, 2008

The 1950′s analogy was hilarious and possibly closer to the truth than even the designer realizes. But after thinking about this, I’ve decided the 1950s were not the inspiration, but rather the 1970s:

IT’S A PIMPED AMC GREMLIN, Good God!

251. BONES - November 12, 2008

I think D. Broadway’s does a great job at what I perceive to be the biggest, not flaw, but ….obvious difference, the secondary hull is too small and slopes too quickly..D’s brings the weight and even a certain elegance that goes beyond any aerodynamic design that honors the original(s) (TOS &TMP)

252. Xai - November 12, 2008

#242 Lord Garth,

Yea, I’ve really had it with posters coming in, making accusations, threatening JJ or the writers, using profane language or just assuming this movie is bad because they saw a photo or disliked JJ in the third grade. Glad they come to the site, but don’t abuse it or the rest of the users.

#244… LOL

253. By The Book - November 12, 2008

The neck just connects too far back on the secondary hull. Its shape no longer has the lines that imply hurdling forward through space. It looks squat.

254. Oktoberfest - November 12, 2008

The greatest thing about the redesign is that this flood of passionate fan reaction just made Hollywood exec radars light up like a Christmas tree.

Well done, lovers AND haters, and let’s keep it going for another 40 years! :)

PS: Thanks to Anthony for my daily fix.

255. JKP - November 12, 2008

The new Big E looks ok and I have no issues with it. Of course, nothing will ever match the majesty of that TMP Enterprise. What a ship… as close as I’ve ever come to falling in love with an inanimate object. :)

256. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

257 – This is not the WWE. Bad press about upset fans does not help the film. Paramount should have released this movie this Christmas though. There’s such a thing as too long a wait.

257. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

One of the issues here seems to be that a few of us fans of TOS, especially the ones that love it above all other Trek, have both an excitement and trepidation over this movie. At one point we want this movie to rock, yet at the same time are fearful that it will suck.

And I think this is a valid concern. We still have no idea what this new movie is. Is it a re-boot? Is it a continuation? A mix of both? Unfortunately, the more they release, the less I feel I understand this project.

Like I said before, does this Enterprise design have a story reason for being radically different? If so, cool. If it’s a redesign just for the sake of a redesign, then not-so-cool.

JJ Abram’s projects always seem to be muddled in this kind of uncertainty. I just think that we’ll all have to wait till May to get the answers to our questions. How dumb to not release it this winter. There is very little coming out that’s exciting AT ALL.

258. Jeff - November 12, 2008

I’ll reserve judgment until I see the old girl in motion on the big screen (Friday night at Bond!). I can’t decide if there is something that puts me off with the design itself or if it’s just getting used to a new design. I was born in 1979 and the first Trek I remember is renting and watching IV with my dad. I liked it so much we rented II and III, I caught (and taped) TMP on ABC, and the first film I saw in the theater was V. I watched TNG, but it was the films that really captured my imagination. Thus it is the original film design that I really love. To me, that’s the Enterprise. As I’ve found out, it also represented a pinnacle as far as model building. I think I read somewhere they could place the camera an inch away from the model and it would still look real. Incredible amount of detail. So, to be honest, I would have preferred the new film just use that ship. I would like to be assured the the ships in this film will move like they have some mass to them (unlike 1701-E in the last couple of films). It should just turn on a dime, and there’s no need to “bank” in space… just turn and go (see the Enterprise’s movement in TWOK as it is turning to get away from the Reliant as the Genesis device is about to explode). I’m excited about the new film and can’t wait to see the trailer Friday.

259. Jerrad - November 12, 2008

The modified ones with the neck properly situated at the front of the secondary hull, and in particular the one with the warp engine struts reversed like they are in TMP are way, way better.

That looks like the Enterprise, not this….weird mess.

Any chance JJ could have the SFX go back and remake the graphics? ;)

260. Borgy - November 12, 2008

this new USS Enterprise – JJ NCC-90210 iShip design is starting to grow on me. As long as this movie will have a great story and great characters, I might just enjoy this. Maybe after reading everyone’s comments they’ll redesign the ship. Maybe not. In any case, this movie will hopefully be good on its own merits.

261. pinky - November 12, 2008

oOK, i hate this stuff about this ungainly design being an issue of poor camera angle. Why would J.J. Abrams release such a carelessly prepared image of the ship? why can’t we see the end of the nacelles or the saucer? why would he give us such an awkward image? Just curious.

262. Christopher (BEEP! BEEP!) Pike - November 12, 2008

I thought Gabe Koerner’s was nice if they were going to go that way, but they would never do it. If it’s not the TOS Enterprise it’s not Star Trek, right? That’s what J.J. said….

This is not the recognizable to me as the TOS Enterprise. The pylons and their attachment to the secondary hull look really flimsy and poorly engineered – it’s like they used the Galaxy class configuration on a much smaller ship using less robust pylons.

I enjoy the TOS characters but I’m also a big fan of the Matt Jefferies, Wah Chang, and William Ware Theiss. It looks like they have changed the designs of just about everything important that made TOS look like TOS.

I was feeling pretty positive about this film again but the pendulum has swung back the other way. I really doubt this film is going revitalize the Star Trek franchise any better than The Avengers or Wild WIld West films did for their franchises (or I Spy, or Starsky & Hutch or Planet of the Apes or etc.)

Supplemental – Yes Lord Garth I remember the when we were a smaller community. But as the hype builds more people will find their way here. I think I’ve seen enough. I’ll need to retire (again) until the movie opens.

263. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

262 Jeff – The spacefaring Enterprise is not in the trailer, only the shot of it being built.

264. Xai - November 12, 2008

265. pinky – November 12, 2008
” Why would J.J. Abrams release such a carelessly prepared image of the ship? why can’t we see the end of the nacelles or the saucer? why would he give us such an awkward image? Just curious.”

I don’t think it was careless… probably the opposite. This might be the “worst” shot and reactions to it are being gauged. We likely will see more in coming days.. probably after Monday.

265. Stanky McFibberich - November 12, 2008

“Oh, it’s a pretty white plane with a red stripe, curtains at the windows, wheels, and it looks like a big Tylenol”

266. Bones - November 12, 2008

…..I dunno…I mean ……I don’t hate it at all…..iIt’s not a horrible design whatsoever….infact it’s well done….it’s …just gonna take some getting used to as “THE ENTERPRISE” …that being said…I am still really looking forward to this film..

267. Capt Mike from the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

#207. Anthony made a funney. Lol. The Big E looks good and i bet more will like it when they see it on screen and or in different angles.

268. TL - November 12, 2008

What I would do if I was captain of this new designed Enterprise, I would track down Mr Spock and Scotty and activate the main computer tie-in to the bridge and order ship computer the following order……

“Destruct sequence 1, code 1-1 A.”
“Destruct sequence 2, code 1-1 A-2B.”
“Destruct sequence 3, code 1 B-2B-3.”

“Destruct sequence completed and engaged. Awaiting final code for one-minute countdown.

“Code zero zero zero. Destruct. Zero.”

presto, no more JJ Enterprise

269. Daniel Broadway - November 12, 2008

As much as I wish they’d change the design of the Enterprise, I don’t think that will happen. ILM has already finished alot of visual effects shots with the Enterprise, and they aren’t going to redo them. That would cost too much.

This design has ALOT of good going for it. The nacelles and saucer, are awesome. The neck is good in parts, but the huge slope of the neck to the shuttle bay looks odd. The secondary hull, at least in this shot, just looks WAAAY to small and skinny. The ship looks weak, and not like a large mass that is to be reconded with.

270. Wes - November 12, 2008

“The TOS Enterprise is an icon and I love it, but it is a stale and old design. It will not work on the big screen in a modern blockbuster movie.”

Why not?

271. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

One reason for making the ship smaller I suppose is that I think Pike said in The Cage that there were 230 crew members on the Enterprise. That number increased to over 400 under Kirk, of course. BTW, have they ever aired The Cage remastered?

272. Ashley - November 12, 2008

266- O&A fan by any chance? xD

268- I’m glad at least some people are picking up on the retro-futuristic design elements… incorporating some early-to-mid 20th century art-deco and streamline-moderne type designs with some modern extrapolations (inside and out) is pretty much the only way they could go if they wanted to keep it retro but at the same time plausibly futuristic… the 60′s and 70′s futuristic styles are certainly dated, but not all retro looks are quite as telling…

273. section9 - November 12, 2008

Remember, kids. This ship is supposed to be twice as big as the original.

274. Cmdr. Roykirk. - November 12, 2008

Allright, time to add my 2 cents on this.
Personally I don’t like this version of the Enterprise. Will it keep me from seeing the movie, no. Will I nitpick it? yes.
When I first saw the ship my reaction was not “cool” Awsome” or something like that. mine was “What the heck?!” You took the Enterprise, one of the most important and beloved symbols in the histroy of Sci-fi, and made it look like something out of Anime?! Huh??
First thing I noticed is the deflector. The dish itself is blue and the section that mounts it to the rest of the ship looks like they didn’t finish building it.
Then I noticed the Nacelles. They are pretty messup up. Not red, but maybe they aren’t powered up. And they’re too big. And the pylons that support them are too large and the wrong angle, though that could be because of the shot. Sacuer is too big, and look’s like A’s. Neck section is Too big, torpedo tubes go in the saucer, not the neck. And the ship should be silver, not white.
If I knew nothing of star trek I think I’d like it better. In and of itself the new E is a cool looking ship. But she’s supposed to be the Enterprise, a symbol that inspires awe. As nice as she looks, this one does not ispire awe. And you shouldn’t mess with something as iconic as the Enterprise. As Pike would say, I might have some “Strong base emotions” towards Abrams and Co.

275. Mark Glass - November 12, 2008

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_ben.jpg

Ben’s is the best, by far. Ryan, your design has spectacular elements to it – Truly, you are brilliant in your own way for reenvisioning what’s been done countless times. That being said, I don’t think anyone, new fans or old fans, sticklers or neo-wavers, would declare Ben’s design as offensive. It seems to combine all of the elements that would make people happy – The pylons that were so graceful in TMP and the secondary hull that doesn’t look like an underslung torpedo.

My opinion.

276. Odkin - November 12, 2008

238 – Chris Basken

Crisis On Infinite Earths is the LAST model we should hope for. It was a short-term gimmick that ruined every character it touched and for the almost 20 years afterwards has brought nothing but blood, death and despair to the once-bright DC Universe.

I like the ship, bridge, and character stills that I have seen so far. I am realistic about this being a new beginning, or reboot, for our beloved characters and universe, and am not going to get all agitated about cosmetic and story changes that don’t affect the heart and soul of Trek. However if they are going to make it “dark”, “edgy”, snarky, wise-ass, or angst-ridden (all after-effects of COIE) then they are going to alienate everybody. I’m very hopeful that this is not the direction they are going for.

277. Timncc1701 - November 12, 2008

44% don’t like it or have mixed feelings. That would not seem to be an encouraging number to those who have a proprietary interest in the film. They could have at least offered the fans a choice in design or a voice. Disappointing.

278. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#79 – “The TOS Enterprise is an icon and I love it, but it is a stale and old design. It will not work on the big screen in a modern blockbuster movie.”

You’ve got to be joking, right? Stale and old? I don’t think so.

Though I think what some folks might be missing is that if one took that design itself and upgraded the detail level for a modern movie, the result would still look a lot different than how it appeared in TOS. That much would be inevitable.

Regarding Ryan’s design, though, I have to agree that Spockboy Paul’s modifications go a very long way toward rectifying the most jarring aspects of the new design. They’re not a big change from Ryan’s design, but they do make it flow better. IMHO, of course, and it may yet be that my opinion will evolve when I see more views of Ryan’s design.

#88 – Daniel’s version is good, too, but it looks to me like the secondary hull is a little *too* deep. Cut the depth of that hull by about…umm…15%, and I think it’ll be spot-on.

#137 – “I’ll say it again! This is why we all look nuts! It’s not a real ship!”

Well, it’s not a real spacegoing vessel, but it is a real movie spacecraft, and it’s on that basis that most folks seem to be reacting to it.

#202 – “As I thought about that, I came across this little nugget from an old rumor post on TrekWeb, from very early this year:

‘While from what we’ve seen so far it seems like they’re being very faithful to the original Enterprise design, in an alternate timeline there will be a significantly different version of the NCC-1701. From what ScreenRant have been told it will be a very kick-ass version – essentially an all-out warship.’

My point is this “the” Enterprise, or just one that evolves from some point in the midst of a time-altered story arc, but changes into a final, more “faithful” form at the end?”

I gotta admit, that thought had occurred to me. The scene where Pike is telling Kirk about StarFleet also made me think of the possibility that that’s happening in an altered universe, as well.

The scene in the previews that took place at Vulcan also reminded me uncomfortably of a rumor from a year or so back that Vulcan was going to be destroyed in this film. Of course, Vulcan was also destroyed in “Of Gods and Men”, and the altered continuum was restored by the end, so I still have some hope that all will be well when this film is done, too.

279. Rick Sternbach - November 12, 2008

#194 – Oh, I knew by looking at the Ent-C blueprints that the masses were a little chunky; an evolutionary step before the D. I purposely made the nacelles a bit beefier because Starfleet hadn’t gotten some coil layering problem licked, so in order to achieve high warp, the coils had to get bigger and the plasma flow had to get hotter. Didn’t you all get the memo? :) In hindsight, I probably could have made the C nacelles 20% smaller and they still would have worked.

I take guff all the time about my stuff, and it’s fine; sometimes leads to interesting discussions. Voyager looks like a spoon, and the nacelles are too small; everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I’ll admit that Voyager, which I really do like, can be viewed as Ent-D just morphed into a narrower shape. Most of the same surface details are there. I only really evolved some of the Starfleet shapes with Equinox and Prometheus, and maybe Admiral Janeway’s shuttle from “Endgame,” and had a ton of fun doing it. Wish there had been time for more, but there wasn’t. Ah well.

280. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

#279

I think you picked up on something. The ship looks like a cartoon design of the Enterprise, like somebody quickly sketched it out and they made a 3D version of it. Really what does it is the back part of the ship design. They made the whole thing taper in an attempt to make it look sleek, fast, and aggresive, but it just looks kind of silly to me. I’m sure people 30 and under will love it.

281. john doe - November 12, 2008

FORGET THE DAMN 60s LOOK AT THE NEW GT 500 THIS IS THE NICEST SHIP (aside from the originality of tmp) CHIRST SHUT UP

282. Daniel Broadway - November 12, 2008

Rick, I love Voyager, it’s a beautiful ship.

283. Jasmin - November 12, 2008

is there ANY chance that all this outcry by ‘fans’ will actually lead to some kind of design change..or is it just too late? Anyone??

284. Jasmin - November 12, 2008

Rick: your a god..wish they had consulted you on this.

285. Mark Glass - November 12, 2008

Additionally, I think the underbelly of the secondary hull has a graceful curve to it. I wouldn’t change that…so for that reason Daniel’s design would be a no-go for me.

I’m all for making the Enterprise look sleek or at least new-wave with currently mod aesthetics, and for that reason, I do support the overall effort Ryan Church made with his design. That being said, the secondary hull has to be fixed, as well as the pylon-sweeps. I’m personally willing to go along with the nacelles!

If amateurs can mod this design in photoshop, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be difficult to retool the design and rerender scenes. This movie isn’t coming out for awhile so there’s plenty of time to adapt what is already there. Truly, Ryan, consider altering the pylons and the secondary hull…it’s been what has been causing most people grief. Not only that, but the grief has generally been well founded and thought out, friend. Most of the people who are liking how it looks immediately are simply saying “looks good” without actually responding to the legitimate aesthetic concerns people are raising with the current design.

I do 3d modeling and regardless of what FOV or rather “lens” is being simulated here in this shot, there’s only so much that can be “deceiving.” There are more graceful ways of approaching this design with minimal adaptation, which VASTLY improves the sum of the parts for many, many fans. Speaking from a statistical point of view, this forum probably represents a microcosm of the overall fan-base and non fan-base: There’s a difference between people willing to go with something, versus something that would delight everyone. Ben’s or even Daniel’s design (the latter I’m not fond of but it is more proportional with what people can identify with warmly) are superior it seems. Some things to consider.

286. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#238 – “220: “154. Chris Basken is right. Don’t let the presence of Nimoy fool you. It is hopelessly a REBOOT”

Not hopeless. It’s the only way the core concepts of Trek could move forward. It’s been so mired in its own history that it couldn’t get out of its own way.”

For me the word “hopeless” is exactly right. Star Trek’s grand, rich, expansive universe is what makes it special. All those comic book franchises you mentioned… Wanna know why I haven’t paid a dime’s worth of attention to any of ‘em in decades? ’cause they couldn’t stick to their fictional worlds, and had to keep throwing ‘em out and starting over. That happening to Star Trek would be a horrific thing, and if this film does that, then I’ll be proudly sticking with Trekverse Prime.

If that really is the price of getting a new movie, I would just as soon not, thanks. But that’s just MHO.

287. Ashley - November 12, 2008

@I left my heart on Rigel 7

uh, the latter half of TOS was produced by Paramount, and then there’s a little thing called ‘CBS Paramount Television’ >.> …how you come to the conclusion that Paramount had no involvement with TOS is beyond me..

288. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

It’s the Futurama version of the Enterprise.

289. the king in shreds and tatters - November 12, 2008

Seriously, though, Rick–what *are* those doodads on the end of the Mann class?

290. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

HEY, AUDIOBRIDGE — It’s actually not supposed to look like a TOS ship… but that’s beside the point. Oh, wait… that *is* the point. Please familiarize yourself with what the filmmakers are trying to accomplish with this film before making comments like that. The same goes for all of you making similar comments. This is not 1960s Star Trek. The Enterprise, though similar, will not be your Enterprise. Heck, for all intents and purposes, this is not even the Star Trek people have been watching for the last 42 years. This is not TOS or TMP or TNG or DS9, etc. As Abrams, Orci, etc. have said, this is a new Star Trek. You know things are going to be different, so why the heck do you come in here and complain when you see proof of that difference? It makes no sense, and I’m sure you have better things to do with your time. In fact, I have better things to do with my time, too, so I’m ending this now. Buh-bye!

291. Timncc1701 - November 12, 2008

286 I could live with the nacelles if the secondary hull and pylons were fixed. Specifically, pylons need to be swept back a la the A. Secondary hull needs more mass with the deflector dish positioned more aft. Is there no appeal to the supreme court?

292. MI-6 - November 12, 2008

This is no different then a bar at 2 A.M.- have a few shots and the new “E” looks fine…….. :-D

All kidding aside I’ve now gone backed and looked at it at least a dozen times and now it’s looking good. I swear by May I doubt it will be an issue for half of the people who are gripin’ about it……

Cheers

293. Gary - November 12, 2008

Bernd Schneider’s (of Ex Astris Scientia) recation…

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm

294. Balok - November 12, 2008

This E is sooo much better and more futurisitic looking the anything that anyone has come up with:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

295. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

#287

My question is, “Who’s going to see this?”

Are they expecting 18-34 year olds at the expense of Trek fans? That seems to be the case. But if so, why the whole ploy with Nimoy? 18-34 year olds won’t care about Nimoy. Why not just do a full reboot instead? It’s really confusing.

The question remains: Who is this for?

296. Xai - November 12, 2008

275. I left my heart on Rigel 7 – November 12, 2008
#197

CBS own the original series. it’s the only one that Paramount has no involvement with, but thanks for playing…come back when you accidently say something smart!!”

I agree.
(My screen shows you as the author of #197, btw.)

Thanks for playing.

297. Robert - November 12, 2008

With all do respect, all these cut-and-paste “re-envisioneerings” of the original image are so… safe. Just a retreat within the limits of Photoshop to get as close to the TOS version as possible. Thanks, but I’ll leave it to the pros.

298. Robert - November 12, 2008

sorry, “due”, not “do” lol

299. Sonny Bono - November 12, 2008

Fist time post here . . . Thank you Anthony Pasquale for presenting the opportunity for fans like us to post our views and generate debate!

Every person seeing the ship for the first time will see “their” interpretation of the iconic NCC 1701. Sure, there are differences, and articulations that morph the ship to conform to our time (early 2000′s), but for the most part, JJ’s staff has done a remarkable and throught provoking job in portraying The Enterprise in her majestic glory. If there were no differences from the previous versions, then we’d as fans would be let down by the fact that changes weren’t made at all and probably would have uncomplimented the movie in some fashion.

I respect everyone’s view on this posting regarding the ship design, and while I don’t entirely agree with everyone’s take, I find the risk the ship designers took was a bold one to say the least.

After we see the trailer, we’ll undoubtedly debate the changes in charecters and settings. All of this debate will be quite interesting and fun, but in the end, I like all of you anxiously await May 8, 2009 to see what will undoubtedly be one the best if not best Star Trek movie made to date.

This is what we’ve ALL been waiting for!

300. Devon - November 12, 2008

#281 – Hi Rick. I have a question for you, this is off topic but it relates to your field. Apologies to Anthony as well.

Your work with the Enterprise-C and Voyager designs, for instance, spawned the reproductions for collectors like the Playmates Toys, the model kits, the Mirco Machines, etc, etc. I don’t want to ask this as a personal question, so allow me to ask this as a question of this industry in general. Whenever a designer’s work (ships, etc) is put out like that and reproduced, do the designers usually get something out of it similar to royalties for their work? Or do the designers just work under contract and it’s a one time deal?

I hope I make sense in my question, and again, if you wish to answer it, please feel free to answer it in a general sense, not your personal experiences in this field if you don’t wish. Don’t want to be rude or intrusive, but I wouldn’t mind getting into this field myself so just curious! Thanks!

If Daniel or Ryan or anyone else has any input into this I welcome it! If not, please feel free to ignore it.

301. Obama got elected - Woo Hoo! - November 12, 2008

I don’t get it. The purest Star Trek died when Enterprise got the ax. Now it’s being remade into something in the same universe, but new.

I don’t see why this movie has to be an exact replica of what we saw on television. Or, for that matter, why there would be any connection between Star Trek 11 and TOS-R. The point of TOS-R was to update its graphics, not change the Enterprise. Besides, they started that project before the movie, that’s for sure.

Besides, aren’t we looking at a different time line here?

I think it’s safe to say that this isn’t Star Trek 11. This is just the eleventh movie in the franchise, just like James Bond 21 wasn’t James Bond 21.

I think the ship looks great. Frankly, I’m with Ron Moore. Star Trek needs a reboot. And we can’t do that, so we’ve been given a new way. A parallel universe that fits the Star Trek history, but has minor changes. I like that. It beats Rick Berman’s 24th Century (as in VOYAGER, Nemesis) and 22nd Century (as in the stupid Suliban in Enterprise and that related garbage).

302. Odkin - November 12, 2008

This is what I love about Trek fans. We pretend to believe in IDIC, then get wildly indignant about any deviation from our personal obsession with “the way things ought to be”.

We never miss an opportunity for impotent fuming.

303. Jax Maxton - November 12, 2008

Somebody do a poll on which age groups like this and which age groups don’t. I’m thinking you’ll see a decent split between old and young.

304. Dennis Bailey - November 12, 2008

#286:”Speaking from a statistical point of view, this forum probably represents a microcosm of the overall fan-base and non fan-base: ”

Actually, that’s almost certainly not true. Using this forum as a basis violates a basic principle involved in obtaining a representative sample: we are a self-selected group of responders.

Another way of putting it is that people who have a complaint are more likely to be vocal – or to post – about it than people who are satisfied.

Either way, you can’t tell much about the response of the general audience or even “fandom” in general from what you’re reading here.

305. Midnight Oil - November 12, 2008

Oh good grief…

You all are arguing over opinions. You can’t argue opinions; they’re unprovable.

Opinions are like freckles…everyone has a few. Some folks have more than others, and there are some that should stay hidden. ;-)

BTW, it took me a few minutes to get used to it, admittedly, but overall the new Enterprise is just fine by me.

306. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

273. section9 – “Remember, kids. This ship is supposed to be twice as big as the original.”

No it isn’t, nor has that ever been implied. That would be canon-heresy!

284. Jasmin – “Is there ANY chance that all this outcry by ‘fans’ will actually lead to some kind of design change..or is it just too late? Anyone??”

I have no clue, but following the huge backlash at the news that only Nimoy, not Shatner, was in the script, the writers did get to work on trying to write a part for Shatner. That was nearly all on fan reaction. Now the question is, even if it were possible, would they want to be seen as caving in to the fans?

307. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

“it is hopelessly a reboot”

If this were a reboot, that would mean that every single part of this movie — every event, every object and every character — takes place in or originates from a timeline or universe completely unrelated to previous films. Examples: Batman Begins/The Dark Knight; Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace.

Since the Spock in this movie originates from the Trek universe we know of and have been watching since 1966, this movie is not a reboot. Spock’s presence, and the presence of the 24th century-ish Romulans, intricately ties the rest of the elements of this film to all that has come before. Abrams, Nimoy, and the writers have already explained this.

This movie cannot be summed up in one word. Reboot? No. Prequel? Not really. Remake? Not even close. Reimagination? If by that you mean BSG-style reimagining, then no, no, no. If, however, you mean “reimagining” as a fresh take on old characters, ships, etc., then yes, reimagination probably comes closest to describing this movie. “Reinvigoration” is another good one I heard tossed around. But definitely not “reboot,” because elements directly from previous Trek outings are there, meaning that no matter what direction the film goes in, the reset button is never completely pushed in.

Wow, I hope all that made sense…

308. Balok - November 12, 2008

Hey, I’m all for change if it is an improvement, but no design is an improvment over this:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

The only thing one might criticize is the deflector dish… whoops the new E still has one of those…

309. AJ - November 12, 2008

Rick:

Voyager was great. Graceful, and not quite like a Lexus, but she looked beautiful.

ENT-C did seem a bit clunky (and small) as a step between the 1701-B and D. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” didn’t do it justice as a class of ship (though it’s a wonderful ep), and there is no other Trek where her class is vetted.

310. Gigastazio - November 12, 2008

I am SO looking forward to the Family Guy episode that mercilessly makes fun of this whole reaction to the New E.

311. Mike - November 12, 2008

I don’t like it because it doesn’t look like a human ship. The design just reeks of alien to me.

It just looks too curvy for a 23rd century federation ship. They were supposed to be pioneering, clunky, badly designed (to an extent) ships.

312. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#273 – “Remember, kids. This ship is supposed to be twice as big as the original.”

Well, that’s pretty obviously not the case. Between the trailer and this image, it’s pretty clear that this version of the Enterprise is still in the same size range as the original and the refit. Ryan could tell me if I err here, but based on this image, I’d be guessing that the primary hull in the new version is intended to be just about identical in general size to that of the refit-1701. (From the trailer, though, I’m guessing that the superstructure is a bit different in shape/proportion.)

#284 – “is there ANY chance that all this outcry by ‘fans’ will actually lead to some kind of design change..or is it just too late? Anyone??”

I’d not be holding my breath. I think the negative reactions would have to outnumber the positive ones by a much higher ratio than is currently being seen to warrant Paramount spending the money for a redesign of the model and a bunch of new effects renders. There’s time, but I don’t think there’s enough apparent reason for them to spend a few million more dollars on it.

313. NDP - November 12, 2008

No matter how much of a more normal photo we get for the new E; it will always be the retarded stepchild to the TOS series. There is no denying that this new E is out of proportion and extremely ugly!

I hope that the change in release date for the movie was in anticipation by Paramount to have the effects shots fixed where the Enterprise is concerned.

….and another thing…it is one thing to fix the batman or 007 series where there are only a few characters. It is a whole other game when there are 7 main characters and a ship.

Go ahead and bash me all you want!

314. Dr. Image - November 12, 2008

I just have to say it- THIS IS A DISASTER!
(Kinda makes one pine away for the old nacelle cap wars…)

315. Binker - November 12, 2008

Okay, my two cents. First off, I like this new Enterprise. The image posted above with the full view of the released show actually does help. Nuff said. Now, over the years, every time an image of something (redesign, new take, etc and whatever), we are chip in our POV on it. But I’ve learned that if the first, if not just one image, does not “make good” of your thoughts on something, other images will. So if this one image make you cringe on this redesigned Enterprise, or wonder about it, well then most likely it will be the next images that follow that will change your mind and end up accepting it and liking it.

That is basically what I’am going to say. And believe me, this has happen before.

316. TL - November 12, 2008

As both a hobby artis and fan of TOS I think an opportunity was missed in regards to the new design. It is obvious that the final product was approved by someone who doesn’t understand the development of Star Trek design from the 1960s to the present. There are many things that could have been done to keep the style consistant. The TMP Enterprise is a good example of updating a design without disregarding the fundamentals. This design proves to me that JJ should never been in charge of this project, he is more occupied with putting his stamp on Star Trek than trying to capture the look of the original with slight modern updates.

317. aries127 - November 12, 2008

You are all wierdos!

- Sam the Eagle

318. shat hands - November 12, 2008

Shit!

We all know she’s the finest ship in the fleet.

She could have warts and I’d still want to give her a kiss.

I may have to fight a scotsman( ill advised) but I ‘d give it a go

319. TOS - November 12, 2008

Sorry, I’m disapointed…why the hell was he raiding ILM? Why not use the CGI already in place from the remastered TOS? I was so hoping this was a faux image. I’m sorry to offend, but why can’t they use trek fans’ input instead Hollywood, which totally fails in just about everything.

320. P Technobabble - November 12, 2008

First, I gotta say I am always in a bit of awe that we get to hang with so many “insiders,” I’m like a like a little kid shaking hands with my favorite movie star…
I think, looking at the various incarnations of the Enterprise next to each other, this new design is totally in line with what has come before, and I think it is a fine addition to the visions of Enterprise. I didn’t have any specific requirement in mind as to what the Enterprise should look like, but when I got my first look at the picture I immediately thought, “Enterprise.” There wasn’t any question, it wasn’t like remembering the TOS Enterprise and then seeing something that looked like the Jupiter 2. So, I’m really at a bit of a loss reading some of these negative posters, because I simply cannot relate to their problem at all. This ship looks as much like the Enterprise as the TMP Enterprise looked after living with the TOS Enterprise since ’66. If it looked like a Star Wars ship, or a BSG ship, or something else, I’d be right there with ya, saying, “What have you done to the Enterprise?” But I’m afraid the REALITY is, this ship looks like the Enterprise on Star Trek, period. Shrug….

321. Balok - November 12, 2008

I don’t buy the arguments that this would look outdated for a modern movie:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

Anyway, I hope the movie is good…

322. Marvin the Martian - November 12, 2008

They can redesign the Enterprise all they want, but…

If William Conrad isn’t in this movie… it’s NOT CANNON!!!!

323. Mark - November 12, 2008

Oh no, the world is going to end! Hair is going to fall of cats and dogs! Twinkies are going to expire (gasp!)! This new design will mess up the balance of time and space! This design is not exactly what I wanted! Wahh!

324. Cor-El - November 12, 2008

When I saw this design, I thought that it was ok. Its a new movie so I guess we’ll have to bear with it and see how it works. However when I saw THIS image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/enterprise_redesign.jpg

I immediately said, “THAT IS IT.” This put it over the top. It blends the old with the new, taking cues from TOS and TMP yet being completely in its own. I now wish it looked liked that beauty. The yellow deflector the red bussards. Whoever did this hit it RIGHT ON. It evokes all the right memories and is completely fresh and new. Well done. Whoever designed the new ship, nice job, but could you maybe modify it to look like this perhaps (wishful thinking haha)?

325. Balok - November 12, 2008

#320, the remastered TOS CGI looks like a video game…

326. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 12, 2008

Response to Compassionate God from the other thread:

Someone had posted the question as to whether or not Nimoy’s Spock would notice the difference in the ship design. I posted that it very likely would be similar to the switch of actors for Darrin Stevens in “Bewitched” or Saavik.

What I meant by that was not that it wouldn’t be noticed by fans, but that within the context of the story universe, no one would notice. It would be as if the ship always had looked like that.

Hope that makes sense.

I personally think this is the result of the same creative people working on so many projects, that everything starts to look the same. This ship looks like it could morph into a vacuum cleaner. It has a “Transformer” feel to it, and yet it retains many of the traditional Starfleet design elements.

I’m still not liking it. But my opinion (like most everyone else’s) is based on the single static image. Perhaps it will look better within the context of the motion picture.

Anthony, kudos for keeping on top of all this! I can only imagine the time it’s taking…

327. Robert - November 12, 2008

#323 – Post of the night!

328. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 12, 2008

323:

That was a good one.

329. Borgy - November 12, 2008

remake, reboot, retelling reimagination, reinvigoration, resetification, restartification, totallydifferentication, whateveration.

Just watch the movie as a story out of continuation of Star trek.

330. Nivenus - November 12, 2008

It’s a nice enough design on its own. My only problem with it is that it doesn’t really look like the TOS Enterprise. In fact, if anything, it looks more different than the TOS Enterprise than the TMP one – which doesn’t make any sense since the movie is supposed to take place between “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before.”

That said, I’d be entirely cool with the design if the film was a reboot, which in some ways it should have been. And though, continuity-wise, the redesign doesn’t make any sense, it looks pretty nice.

331. LordEdzo - November 12, 2008

Jeez, Paramount people, if you’re going to release a first glimpse of the brand-new Enterprise, then for heaven’s sake, WHY NOT MAKE IT A GOOD ONE??? Blot out that intrusive shuttlecraft, light up those Bussard collectors and PRESENT A BETTER ANGLE!

I know your game … you just wanted to see how bad “bad” could get. Gee, how many of Trek’s “loyal guard” will turn on us if we give them a crappy photo? Nice going, ha-ha, you win. You got us.

Now pony up a perfect pic.

332. Xai - November 12, 2008

320. TOS – November 12, 2008
“Sorry, I’m disapointed…why the hell was he raiding ILM? Why not use the CGI already in place from the remastered TOS? I was so hoping this was a faux image. I’m sorry to offend, but why can’t they use trek fans’ input instead Hollywood, which totally fails in just about everything.”

Couldn’t use the remastered TOS because it wasn’t the quality needed for modern film and there is no consensus option about anything the fans like,

333. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

#320 TOS — As wonderful as the remastered Enterprise looked on TV, it would be pretty laughable on the big screen as part of this particular movie. It just would not have held up, at all. Besides, the remastered Enterprise belongs to CBS Digital, it’s unlikely they would have been able to use it. Also, there’s the fact that, well… using someone else’s pre-existing effects model is pretty lazy. There’s no creativity in it.

334. Kirk's Revenge - November 12, 2008

#289

Well put.
I’d rather have the Planet Express ship in the film than this… whatever this is.
Hopefully, Zapp Brannigan and Kiff will make a cameo.

335. Xplodin' Nacelle - November 12, 2008

I still say that Ben’s is the best fix. Kudos!

336. Baroner - November 12, 2008

What the hell is funnier than the “Edselprise” thing?

337. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

Is this a worse reaction than Kirk gets shot in the back in Generations? They wound up reshooting that………

338. Chingatchkook - November 12, 2008

This new Enterprise is fine by me. If you REALLY want ugly, consider what Paramount was considering for ‘Planet of the Titans’, the first proposed Star Trek movie that was shelved in 1977. This was to be the ‘newly redesigned’ Enterprise:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

Now THAT is butt-ugly!

339. Wayne Spitzer - November 12, 2008

RE: #324

Just before I turn in, I have to ask…what is it, what could it possibly be…with _________ like you? And what does “Hair is going to fall of cats and dogs mean?”

I mean, dude, that is just annoying.

340. AJ - November 12, 2008

This is all degenerating into crap.

I think it’s fairly obvious that most of fandom (assuming we are a valid cross-section) is souring on the new “E” design pretty quickly. Even those, like me, who thought it looked OK yesterday, are starting to wonder why it was changed.

If you look at the Trekmovie side-by-sides of the three Enterprises, Probert’s TMP version simply blows the CBS-D and Trek XI versions out of the water. By leaps and bounds.

If you look at “Blood and Fire” or “In a Mirror Darkly,” the C-Class ships are beautiful, majestic, detailed and large.

Why change something that is considered historic and important? E hangs in the Smithsonian. Why change it?

341. Dr. Image - November 12, 2008

So… were supposed to see old Spock look at THIS Enterprise and say, “yep, that’s my old ship alright!”

There’s something called suspension of disbelief…

342. aries127 - November 12, 2008

337 – “Is this a worse reaction than Kirk gets shot in the back in Generations? They wound up reshooting that………”

No this reaction is not worse because it’s mostly unfounded. It’s just a bunch of people wishing it was 1966.

ALL of the previous 1701 designs (TOS & Refit) were a bit simple and slightly clunky. They look like K-cars compared to the sleek and sturdy design we’ve got now!

343. aries127 - November 12, 2008

338 – Seriously! LOL! Good post. I remember that fugly diving-board ship. Way to put things in perspective!

344. Even more Life Like - November 12, 2008

I’m really digging the naceles actually, They look powerfull.

I wonder if the shuttle hanger is in the same place? To looks kinda cramped back there.

345. Jerrad - November 12, 2008

Ugh, that looks like a Star Destroyer ate the Enterprise.

346. Tripper - November 12, 2008

Here’s that sideview:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa304/CarsonDyle/Picture1-11.jpg

347. Reign1701A - November 12, 2008

342-It’s not just a bunch of people wishing it was 1966. Sure there are a few, but the majority of the “naysayers” just have issues with the proportions and advocate changing it to be more in line with one of the photoshopped renditions. That’s all. It is still astounding how much the photoshopped versions improve the balance, flow, and familiarity of the design. If there is any chance, JJ, Ryan Church…PLEASE go back and fix the proportions. I think if we took a poll, most people would prefer one of the photoshopped versions over the real one. I’d love to see that poll…

348. Wayne Spitzer - November 12, 2008

Oh, man. Sucked in again. Sorry, #324, I meant #323. It’s definitely time for bed.

349. Gene Roddenberry's Ghost - November 12, 2008

@ #249

Hi, Don Gaffney.

You’re a tool.

Onigiri, TonyGeary- whatever appelation you go by now.

Sad, Jheri-curled Klingon. :LOL

Tom

350. Quatlo - November 12, 2008

I’d just like to thank Xai for the steady monitoring here; hope you get a raise.

351. silencer - November 12, 2008

338. Chingatchkook

You are absolutely correct.
I feel EXACTLY like they just announced this as the new enterprise.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

I have had all day to think about this, just found out that the enterprise bridge is radically changed too…. and I am just fed up.

I own film that came out of the original studio cameras. I have backgrounds that came from the animated series. I own the original playmates enterprise and the polar lights version. I made my own enterprise with 50 feet of fiber optic cable and spinning nacelle caps when I was 22.
This movie was not made for me, the fan. It was made for the general public that calls trek “star wars”.
I had really high hopes. I really did.

Paramount has done to trek what Crystal Skull did to Indy.

When JMS was doing Babylon 5 Crusade, the studio wanted changes. He said no. They said ‘do it’. JMS shut the show down, let it die and said “I would rather have 12 shows I am proud of than 22 I am not”.

I want to be proud of Star Trek.
It is time to let it die, because I can’t stand watching it destroyed by people like J.J. Abrams. I just can’t spend money on this project, and won’t.

I think I will send James Crawley $10 instead.

352. AJ - November 12, 2008

333:

C’mon, Charles. You’re being facetious.

You know how often “Trek” has re-used its own footage. And CBS and Paramount are all happily controlled by Viacom. One company.

You also know how great it’d be to see a classic C-class ship on the big-screen. You’d blow a gasket just like I would.

Oh…and if they actually show one, I’ll get a restraining order….

353. Devon - November 12, 2008

340 – “Why change something that is considered historic and important? E hangs in the Smithsonian. Why change it?”

They didn’t. The Enterprise that hangs in the Smithsonian looks the same today as it did yesterday and the day before.

“If you look at “Blood and Fire” or “In a Mirror Darkly,” the C-Class ships are beautiful, majestic, detailed and large. ”

And will not work for the big screen. Hince why there was a “refit” for the big screen.

354. The Vulcanista - November 12, 2008

Ryan Church, I think the new old Enterprise looks pretty damn slick!

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

355. Xai - November 12, 2008

#340 AJ

Most of fandom?

Polls
Thoughts on new Enterprise
Love it! (29%)
Mostly like it (25%)
Mixed feelings (24%)
Don’t like it (20%)
Any change is bad (2%)
Total Votes: 1,113

At the very worst, that’s a tie .

356. Rick Sternbach - November 12, 2008

#300 – No, we didn’t get a cut from ship and prop desings, though some of us got to write books and get royalties. Early on TNG, I had to sign away rights to things like the tricorder and hypospray, etc. because of some trademark or patent thing, in exchange for $1, and I didn’t even get my dollar. :)

357. Tripper - November 12, 2008

Did no one see the orthoview that I posted? It’s the real deal

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa304/CarsonDyle/Picture1-11.jpg

358. Xai - November 12, 2008

350. Quatlo – November 12, 2008
I’d just like to thank Xai for the steady monitoring here; hope you get a raise.

I got bored and needed the bucks.

Pay up.

359. 24th Century Rockstar - November 12, 2008

Yep – Coming back to it – that’s still a pretty clumsy looking ship.

I gotta say it tickles me pink to see a small handful of fans whip up designs that are far more faithful to the source material with just a couple of hours on photoshop (now if only those bloated nacelles could be air-brushed into a diet!).

It kinda makes me wonder when the film-makers were throwing millions of dollars around, why someone couldn’t throw Daniel, Ben, and Spockboy Paul a 50-Spot and a case of beer to give the Big E those last crucial touches needed to truly bring the Church design into it’s own – or at the very least, consult with a few source material experts before committing such an expensive project down a minefield of scrutiny.

They did so with the actors – why not the Enterprise?

How often is the Enterprise referenced to as a character over “just a ship”?

Yes, IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER MOVIE – The Church design would stand on it’s own. The design DOES say “Sci-Fi Spaceship capable of doing was Sci-Fi Spaceships do” – so of course there are going to be plenty of non-Trek viewers that will be sold on it, especially if they’ve never really seen the other films or TV episodes or other source materials.

And that’s what I think upsets the critics the most – the source material – not (god help me) cannon specifics, or demanding to see the exact 1966 Matt Jefferies model floating around out there. With 6 TOS films, 70+ television episodes, animations, countless novels, novel artworks, technical manuals and encyclopedias, all of which are available at any Barnes & Noble or decent bookstore fairly cheap – the best shot the filmmakers could take – in regards to “casting” the Enterprise – after all the effort that went into casting the actors, ends up going a big multi-million dollar wide one.

Call it what you will: reboot, retcon, prequel, or “re-imagining” – no matter how you dice it, the source material must show through, or you run the risk of making a poor or, at best, a shoddy adaptation – which is what I think we may have here (unless there IS some clever plot trick JJ is keeping to himself, in which case he’ll have the last laugh, but I won’t mind!)

I’m not a doom prophet for the project. The film might end up just fine, but if this is the final end-all-be-all JJ-prise, here’s hoping he keeps the magic words: “Source Material” in mind if he’s looking to do another Trek film and finds some in-plot way to plug a more faithful design in there.

Who knows, Romulan disrputors can really chew a ship up – a few 23rd Century Space-Coffee fueled all-nighters by a refit team and little JB weld here and there, and who knows…maaaaaybe we won’t have seen the last of Mr. Jefferies after all, eh? ;)

-24th Century R.S.

360. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

Tripper, I did see your picture, and I’d rather I didn’t :(
Looks like a baby Planet Killer ate the nacelles.

361. New Horizon - November 12, 2008

353. Devon – November 12, 2008
And will not work for the big screen. Hince why there was a “refit” for the big screen.

That’s absolutely not true. Seeing is believing, and I’ve SEEN the original ship on the big screen and it DOES WORK JUST FINE!!!! The ‘DESIGN’ works on the big screen, it’s only the DETAILING that would need fleshing out. I saw the CBS D remastered version of The Menagerie at my local Theatre when they screen it last year, and it looked phenomenal. With the right amount of detail, the original ‘design’ and ‘proportions’ look fantastic.

There is no need to make excuses. It was redesigned for whatever reason, but it wasn’t redesigned because of the design not working. That’s simply ridiculous. Yes, the ship would need heavy detailing…but that is a completely separate issue from proportion and layout/design of the ship.

362. Tripper - November 12, 2008

That’s an early piece of concept art so it could be different to what we are seeing here, but for the most part it’s the same.

363. Xplodin' Nacelle - November 12, 2008

I just rewatched Gabe Koerner’s ship in action on YouTube.

I really wish this is what JJ had gone with. I’m in love with Gabe’s design.

See it for yourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGD6d921Ut4

364. Binker - November 12, 2008

Did anyone read my post? 316?

365. the king in shreds and tatters - November 12, 2008

362. I *hope* that’s the ortho, ’cause I like those lines…*

366. Roy - November 12, 2008

You can get new actors to portray the characters we have come to known and love for 40 plus years, but if their is one thing that is the “Holy Grail” of the Star Trek Universe, that would be the Original U.S.S. Enterprise 1701. You DO NOT change the outer look of that ship!!!

I can see where you would want to update the bridge and other things inside the ship becasue TOS was on a very small budget, but the outer shell SHOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED AT ALL!!!! Whether it’s 1966 or 2008 the Original Enterprise should ALWAYS look the same. Were taking about the MOST recognizable space ship of all time. Even people not that familiar with Star Trek; you show them a picture of the Enterprise and they would know the ship and what if refers to. In my opinion this was a BIG NO-NO to do.

I know the new movie is trying to reach a broader audience, but there is HUGE group of die-hard Star Trek fans across the world that you have to appease also.

367. Devon - November 12, 2008

While I still am not a fan of the new ship.. I have a question for some of the fans that are on their soap box about this being an “Abortion” and whatever other crap they clutch on to.

If this ship was in “The Wrath of Khan,” would it change anything about the movie? Hmm.

I think some people seriously need to chill. The movie is going forward, it will come out May 9, 2009 in the U.S. Just because some of you declare some sort of “ownership” to a franchise as though it is YOURS won’t stop anything. In fact, I think it’s pretty stupid. It shows some people can’t lighten up and have no idea that Star Trek is fictional! So what if they show Kirk meeting Uhura before the Academy. Seriously, on that alone, SO WHAT?

As someone else said, and I have been all about giving the new guys a fair chance, they DO have balls not to play it safe just to appeal to a tiny part of the fanbase. I am not upset about the ship because it doesn’t look like Matt Jefferies. I was actually hoping it didn’t look exactly like it. They got the saucer right, just as I say, I think what they did with the neck/engineering section just takes away from the grace of the ship. I’m not sure what the purpose of pushing forward and shrinking the engineering section, but whatever. I’ll get used to it probably.

I hope some of you that are all about “J.J. is destroying me” never forked over any money for “Where No Man Has Gone Before” or even the rest of the original series on DVD. You know, how the aired series started out with James R. Kirk piloting the Enterprise out of the Galaxy like it was nothing. Falls right into continuity with the rest of the series doesn’t it? Explain that one about your precious franchise that you apparently own!

Seriously, I think what holds experiences down about movies AREN’T the people putting them on, but the fans themselves. There are some at AICN telling “Trekkies” to shut up because they are getting annoyed with a lot of them. I agree.

368. LordEdzo - November 12, 2008

Say, after we’ve finished dissecting this Enterprise for every precious bit of information, let’s display its broken hull in the center of the Romulan capital as a warning to those who would create ripples of disloyalty.

369. AJ - November 12, 2008

355:

Sorry, Xai. I’m over-reacting like many here.

Who knows? Anthony often says that thousands hit this site daily who rarely post.

I voted in the poll yesterday, and I felt OK, but my opinion soured in 24 hours.

I also don’t think the TMC poll numbers are as important as someone like Doug Trumbull from 2001 and TMP weighing in. Or Rick Sternbach, who lived and breathed the ships for two decades.

Looking forward to the trailer.

370. Aggi - November 12, 2008

In my opinion the one from Daniel Broadway looks best, because of the shape of the primary hull, secondary hull and the nacelles with the pylons.

371. Devon - November 12, 2008

#361 – I’m glad you aren’t a movie designer. I suppose Tinfoil U.F.O.s from the 1940s look brilliant on screen as well these days? Didn’t think so. You’re speaking from a bias as a Star Trek fan.

“There is no need to make excuses.”

Then don’t!

“It was redesigned for whatever reason, but it wasn’t redesigned because of the design not working. That’s simply ridiculous.”

Well apparently “The Great Bird” or whatever he was called didn’t think it was ridiculous! You DO realize the Enterprise that was used in “The Motion Picture” on was NOT the original ship right?

>>>Regarding why give the Enterprise a ‘face lift’ Roddenberry said:

“It would have to anyway for this reason. The television version was of course done on a television budget. We did as good a job as we could, but we were having to deal a lot with 2×4s and ply board and that sort of thing and we just didn’t the money for fantastic excursions and all of that. Of course doing a motion picture and particularly doing it on a wide screen where you see everything in so much detail…even if we had the old bridge we would have to redo it to make it more sophisticated and better.”

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/27/roddenberry-considered-tos-prequel-for-tmp/

372. Bob - November 12, 2008

This guy has an ego problem. His new ship sucks. Nuff said.

373. Duo - November 12, 2008

“The TOS Enterprise is an icon and I love it, but it is a stale and old design. It will not work on the big screen in a modern blockbuster movie.”

The fact that needs to be dealt with is what we saw on TOS and then the first six movies, was a Constitution class (and Constitution refit) starship. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was a Constitution class starship. The ship in the released screenshot, while not a terrible design, is NOT a Constitution class starship. It resembles an Ambassador class more than the USS Enterprise NCC-1701.

If I’m going to make a movie about the early days of automotives, I can’t just say “Oh look, this Model T would never look good on screen, I’m going to make it look kewl!” I would have to use the bloody Model T or simply not include it in the film.

Besides, the Constitution refit served quite well for twelve years worth of Star Trek movies. That was the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, while the ship we see in Star Trek XI publicity shots is not.

“presto, no more JJ Enterprise”

Man, the Enterprise must have some crappy luck if they’re already up to the Enterprise-JJ.

374. aries127 - November 12, 2008

The Daniel Broadway and the Gabe Koerner look like the old design. If I saw the old design or something that looked too much like it, THAT’S when I would boycott this movie. It would show me that the creative team is not interested in NEW ideas.

WHY MAKE A NEW MOVIE AND PUT THE SAME SHIP IN IT???

That would seriously suck.

375. Joel1245 - November 12, 2008

How much you wanna bet the designer is sitting here seeing all this and going, “Dammit! They’re modding it!” lol

376. Adam E - November 12, 2008

An interesting tid bit:
I showed the new picture to my borther. He is a Star Trek fan but hasn’t been following the new movie developments as much as I. At first he didn’t really see much difference in this new ship before I sent him a picture of the original E and he compared them.
It’s obvious the differences are there, but it will still be the Enterprise for casual Trek fans and new fans.

377. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#353 – ““If you look at “Blood and Fire” or “In a Mirror Darkly,” the C-Class ships are beautiful, majestic, detailed and large. ”

And will not work for the big screen. Hince why there was a “refit” for the big screen.”

I’ll bite. Except for needing additional surface detail for the big screen, why wouldn’t the traditional Constitution-class work? When I saw it on the big screen a year ago, it worked really well, IMHO, and that was without the extra detailing!

378. Brad - November 12, 2008

“I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.”

Seriously, what else could we expect him to say? “You know, on second thought, you’re right. We could have done better. Sorry about that.” Yeah right.

I don’t like it. I’m trying to, but the proportions are off for me (as well as a number of things, like “let’s make the bussard collectors shiny when they’re powered down…” It smacks to much of change for the sake of change.

Church just went farther than he had to for my tastes. And yes, they’re my tastes. Not saying anyone has to feel the way I do. But, that said, I still think there’s such as thing as “good art” and “bad art.” This has problems from an artistic point of view, at least in this image.

379. Cmdr. Roykirk. - November 12, 2008

Getting sick of the comparisons that this redesign of the Enterprise is like what they did in TMP. Yes, they made the ship look different, but they explained that it was the same ship, just refit. Ok, it’s a streatch to see how the TOS version changed into the TMP version, but I accepted it. I doubt they will do something like half destry the ship and have her be rebuilt into the TV version. At least TMP explained why they did it. This is just being done for the heck of it, it seems. So this new guy can say he desinged the ship, when only Jeffries and his team should take credit for that.
I agree 366, the Enterprise is the most important thing of Star Trek as far as ships, technolgy etc.. goes. And you shouldn’t mess with her.

380. Joel1245 - November 12, 2008

Oh wait. No, he’s going “Damn you Gabe Koerner!!!” lol

381. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

#52 AJ — CBS Digital (and all things CBS) is owned by CBS Corporation. Paramount is owned by the new Viacom. However, both the CBS Corporation and Viacom are controlled by a company called National Amusements, so maybe there won’t be much problem.

As for seeing the classic E on the big screen, I have seen it, and it looks great… in the context of the episode in which I saw it (namely, the Menagerie remastered theatrical release last year). However, in the context of this new movie, it would look pretty ridiculous and heavily outdated and unrealistic, which is the complete opposite of what Abrams is trying to accomplish. :)

382. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

^ that was meant for #352 (AJ), not #52

383. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#374 – “The Daniel Broadway and the Gabe Koerner look like the old design. If I saw the old design or something that looked too much like it, THAT’S when I would boycott this movie. It would show me that the creative team is not interested in NEW ideas.

WHY MAKE A NEW MOVIE AND PUT THE SAME SHIP IN IT???”

Simple. Because the new movie is an established property, with an established look. If one feels the need to put new stuff in just for the sake of doing so, perhaps one should take the time to create a wholly original concept and world, and not work in a pre-existing franchise. If one is going to use a pre-existing property, then one has the responsibility to maintain some fidelity to that property.

384. Brad - November 12, 2008

Perhaps this is just one big ploy to throw us off until movie time or the trailer. You know, J.J. probably said, “Church, that’s an awesome design! I love it! Okay, now I want you to design a quick crappy design that we’ll use to throw the fans off until trailer/movie time! I’m a genius!”

Anyone? Anyone

385. Cmdr. Roykirk. - November 12, 2008

Scotty,… what have… they done… to … my ship?!
I canna say sir, they didn’a run it by me first. I havena even found the engine room yet. I think it’s in the saucer section now”

386. Cmdr. Roykirk. - November 12, 2008

We can only hope 348.

387. Devon - November 12, 2008

“Except for needing additional surface detail for the big screen, why wouldn’t the traditional Constitution-class work? When I saw it on the big screen a year ago, it worked really well, IMHO, and that was without the extra detailing!”

Have you seen it on the big screen yet in the form of a movie?

Exactly. And Charles Trotter explained it pretty well in #377.

388. Cor-El - November 12, 2008

Daniel Broadway

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/enterprise_redesign.jpg

Absolutely Perfect. THAT is the enterprise redesign. That is it. How many agree???

389. Einthoven - November 12, 2008

Isn’t it funny?

“Keep an open mind”, “It looks great”… All comments coming from people who bashed the hell out of ENTERPRISE just 4 years ago.

You have to distinguish here between design and ship.

I like the design. It looks fresh and has something. The ship looks perfect to fit somewhere in the time AFTER the TOS movies and BEFORE TNG.

But as the Enterprise NCC-1701… No. This is not Enterprise. Sorry… but they messed in completely up here.
I wonder why they kept those stupid looking uniforms. It is a reboot for sure, so they could have updated those, too… especially those.

390. tuvok47 - November 12, 2008

I bet the sensor dish slides up into the secondary hull at the same time the bussard collectors fire up. This looks like the scene when Kirk and McCoy are headed to the Enterprise via shuttlecraft right before its launch.

391. Just a Fan - November 12, 2008

I have been visiting this site for a while and been waiting for this day. I have never posted before, I generally dont post on websites. I guess the guy who runs this place said most dont. But after reading some of the posts I felt I had to post to say: well done! It is not what I expected, but I think it is cool and part of me was worried after all the Star Wars talk from Abrams that we had some kind of Star Destroyer headed our way.

I really think there are just a bunch of squeeky wheels getting upset at change here. So I wanted to add my voice to say…thanks for bringing Trek back….bring on the trailer

392. Einthoven - November 12, 2008

Isn’t it funny?

“Keep an open mind”, “It looks great”… All comments coming from people who bashed the hell out of ENTERPRISE just 4 years ago.

You have to distinguish here between design and ship.

I like the design. It looks fresh and has something. The ship looks perfect to fit somewhere in the time AFTER the TOS movies and BEFORE TNG.

But as the Enterprise NCC-1701… No. This is not Enterprise. Sorry… but they messed it completely up here.
I wonder why they kept those stupid looking uniforms. It is a reboot for sure, so they could have updated those, too… especially those.

393. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 12, 2008

294. Balok

Thanks Balok! I LOVE that shot (and the TOS E Especially!)

394. Green-Blooded-Bastard - November 12, 2008

“Ryan Church, who has worked on the Star Wars prequels…”

Explains it all…

395. Charles Trotter - November 12, 2008

#394 Green-Blooded-Bastard

The designs were hardly what was wrong with the Star Wars prequels. :-P

396. Tim Lade - November 12, 2008

#140

Go home and back with my hot wheels huh? Well considering I am 28 I don’t think I will. I also won’t stoop to your level and tell you to move out of your mother’s basement or get a life or any of the mean and spiteful things you “traditionalists” throw around on these boards sometimes.

I am sorry it isn’t 1969 anymore…I really am. The fact is, change happens. That’s life. Either adapt or die. If you hate the movie…don’t watch it…but don’t come down on me because I am not having a love affair with a TV show from the 60s anymore. I didn’t grow up on your show but that doesn’t make my opinion juvinile or unworthy…your attitude however…that’s something to give one pause over.

397. gatetrek - November 12, 2008

Interesting. I do like it, though the nacelles seem way out of proportion. I can live with it though, can’t wait to see it on the silver screen!

398. McCoy - November 12, 2008

LOL.

For everyone that likes the new Enterprise….I can only think that you’re in the group that would have liked ANYTHING! And for that I say look at any of the other submissions above to see how easy it would have been to fix the basic flaws with this thing (in just a matter of hours).

There are really only two groups here…people who really wanted the classic design and people who just have no care either way. There was no group that said there HAD to be change. The compromise design should have been closer to the original or a least closer to TMP (with rounded narcels. Seriously…if you wanted a change from TOS, all you had to do was add rounded narcels to 1701-A. Popularity numbers would have sky-rocketed. Now, was that too hard?

JJ tries to sound like a hero by making sure it still has a saucer section and two narcels…but they have misfired on this design. Will the film get low numbers? Who Knows. These films have a certain guarantee…some breast grabs there and some explosions over here….pocorn and a coke.

399. AJ - November 12, 2008

381/2: Charles:

Thanks.

I for one would love to see the old “E” blown up to huge proportions properly.

Sounds like extenuating circumstances.

Do tell ;-)

400. Steve - November 12, 2008

The design looks Campy, Galaxy Quest crap. All other Enterprises out do it. JJ Fix this awful design.

401. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 12, 2008

293. Gary

I could’nt agree more. Esp. concerning the aesthetics of the “new/alternate” Enterprise.

402. Reign1701A - November 12, 2008

I modified Daniel Broadway’s version so the engineering hull wasn’t quite so deep and bloated. I also brought the deflector back out a bit more.

http://s479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Reign1701A/?action=view&current=enterprise_redesign.jpg

403. AJ - November 12, 2008

In actual fact, I can understand that there is probably a new overall 23rd century aesthetic that Abrams would have to insert his “E” into. No easy feat, for sure.

404. Alex Rosenzweig - November 12, 2008

#387 – Charles described it in the context of *this* movie. And he may be right. That, however, does not alter the fact that, IMHO, the design itself holds up exceedingly well on the big screen, and if it had been detailed to the level of the TMP ship, for example, it would look quite stunning.

It might well not match the production design of Abrams’s film, but if a decision had been made to use a fully-detailed version of the traditional Constitution, I’m sure that choice would have influenced other aspects of the film, and the resulting context would, in that case, have worked fine. As with so much else in the moviemaking business, no one element is created in a vacuum.

405. Reign1701A - November 12, 2008

Sorry this is the link to my tweaked version of Daniel Broadway’s photoshop: http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Reign1701A/enterprise_redesign.jpg

406. Cmdr. Roykirk. - November 12, 2008

You’re right 400, I’ve been trying to decide which era this Enterprise would fit in. TOS, no, TNG, not really, ENT, again no. Would if fit fighting alongside the NSEA Protector, I think so.

407. ksmsscu - November 12, 2008

Fellow Trekkers – IT IS WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

The more Canonistas rave on and on about the ‘Edselprise’, the more the MOVIE will become a national joke. If you haven’t figured it out by now,
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE.

In Europe, film critics are giving the 20 minutes a rousing ovation. For most of us, on May 8th, we will have a fantastic experience — of course it won’t be TOS (we have the shows and movies whenever we want them) — but the franchise and the concept and the dream will endure.

Who knows, maybe at the end, Tinkerbell will appear, we’ll all clap really hard, 1701-A will beam in, and Kirk will say, ‘My friends, we’ve come home.’

And, haters, please STAY home and don’t sit behind me in the theatre, complaining about Bussard collectors and shuttlebay angles. I plan to wear my ‘Risk Is Our Business’ shirt and cheer on our gallant crew.

408. Daniel Broadway - November 12, 2008

#405 Reign1701A

Very nice. I agree my original photoshop was a big bloated. Perhaps a 50/50 split between yours and mine would be ideal.

409. Drew M - November 12, 2008

I mostly like the new ship. Only thing I don’t like is the size of the nacelles. Other than that, I love it. And I love it because it looks so much like the 1701-A (which is my all time favorite design of the ship.) Heck even the window pattern on the edge of the saucer section is identical to the 1701-A.

410. Chris J - November 13, 2008

Move the neck forward a bit, and ‘debulgify’ the nacelles.

Sorted.

411. BillSmith - November 13, 2008

Hello

412. silencer - November 13, 2008

J.J. Abrams hired by god to re-imagine females.
“They were getting a bit dated and old fashioned. But don’t worry we built you a good woman”.
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/127911/002%20Adult%20female%20(anterior%20view).jpg

I just felt snarky and have no talent.

413. Barona - November 13, 2008

Not crazy about. Here’s still hoping for a great movie though!

414. Egghead - November 13, 2008

I am sorry, really think that is looks really bad.
And the bridge… If I had to work in an all white/iPod like workplace I think I would either suffer eye strain or go insane. I think I would go nuts first. Then again an all white room is somewhat reminiscent of a padded room of an insane asylum.
I have to say, if you are going to minimize the secondary hull like that, you might as well as toss it. At least in the REAL Constitution class the secondary hull was for engineering, and quarters (TOS), or cargo (both). If the widest area of the secondary hull is that far from the shuttle bay, then it can’t be used for cargo.
At least Matt Jefferies was a real designer. I can’t say the same about the idiot that designed this.

415. Wes - November 13, 2008

Rick,
I love the ‘C’ it was a logical progression to the ‘D’. I also loved Voy. the prometheus (the separation was awesome!) and Equinox (was Equinox the same ship as Kim’s ship in Endgame?). Janeway’s shuttle from Endgame was interesting, looked like the Voy. shuttles. I have a couple of your books. Did you write one for TMP? When will you write a tell-all book about your years in trek?

416. Ensign Ruiter - November 13, 2008

#362; #296

You guys got me thinking. If CBS owns all things TOS is there a possible copyright infringement legalise reason why the ship was so totally redesigned?

BTW #359 A combination of the three ideas (in concept, certainly not in quality of photoshop skill!) could be the following image I posted earlier:

http://s418.photobucket.com/albums/pp266/Praxeus/?action=view&current=broadwaybenpaulcombination.jpg

I do think Paul’s version is nicely balanced, and I am eating my words for crticising Koerner’s envisioning in retrospect!

417. Yspano - November 13, 2008

@ 394

The mechanical design for the Star Wars prequels is actually quite good.

418. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 13, 2008

I want to see this thing in action. I use this example: the Batmobile or Tumbler from Batman Begins. I hated that thing when I first saw it. But when I saw that thing in action. I loved it. For all this uproar and yelling of canon lets just wait and see how she moves. Remember this is just one picture of her. And also for all the HATERS, you know you are going to watch it.

419. the king in shreds and tatters - November 13, 2008

417.

The machines in EpIII were brilliant… Church’s pedigree in terms of SFX design are impeccable.

420. silencer - November 13, 2008

I think I just found the studio model for the JJ Abrams “enterprise”.
It’s true to form, but has a practical side. It’s not QUITE like the original, but hey, fans will just have to adjust because this film is for the mass market.

http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/1118374368_f2fd875f55.jpg

421. Red-Shirted Monkey - November 13, 2008

I’d like to ask a question of Mr. Church, Mr. Orci, the members of the Supreme Court, and anyone else responsible the new Enterprise’s design or the design’s approval. Quoting character Guy Fleegman of Galaxy Quest, “Did you guys ever WATCH the show?!?”

422. Neftoon - November 13, 2008

I’ve only been a fan of star trek for 16 years, and I have to say the new enterprise looks fantastic to me, it’s reminiscint enough the original however takes the design in a slightly different way for new audiences. I’m so excited for this new movie, everything that has come out for the film in the past couple of weeks and 4 people who have never seen star trek before are going to see it based on the pictures and the scene descriptions, fingers crossed there are many more like that out there.

423. cellojammer - November 13, 2008

422.

I’ve been a fan for quite a bit longer, but I’m happy to report that I share your enthusiasm. I like the ship, I’m feeling optimistic about the movie. And I’m saying all of this for FREE!

424. COMPASSIONATE GOD - November 13, 2008

Re: JWM – November 12, 2008
“…I would argue that most casual fans and the viewing public at large identify more with the film-era design, which was been what the E looked like for 12 years, 4 times as long as the original show existed.”

The original series ran for 13 years before the movie series–first run and in constant syndication combined, making the original 1701′s appearance one of the familar, entertaining hallmarks of the series. Furthermore, the original ship was used frequently in all spin-off material from the Animated Series to the merchandising explosion of the 70′s–with AMT still producing the 1701 model (1st released when the series was on NBC), & a smaller scale version…then, there were other companies, with jewelry, toys, dinnerware, posters, model rockets, die-cast, stills, comic books, novel covers and anything else mass marketed for anyone to see.

If that was not enough, the original 1701 model was first displayed at the Smithsonian during the 70′s, so the TOS ship has been seen by more fans and average people than the movie version,and to this day still enjoys the most exposure and merchandising far and above any other ship named “Enterprise.”

CG:“No, and it s because of the OT having stronger design principals behind the creation of the 1977-83 vehicles…”

JWM: “I respectfully disagree. From 1977-1983, Star Wars was simply the only game in town in a lot of ways, and a lot of people who grew up with it later resented the changes because the world is different and they didn’t want it to be.”

During the 70′s one could enjoy the ships from U.F.O., Space:1999, or SW clone Battlestar Galactica, among other productions–but that–or nostalgia has nothing to do with why the Prequels ships failed to fascinate and stick with the public. The Prequels ships were not groundbreaking, or even interesting displays of reverse-engineering (that is, showing the forerunners of Star Destroyers, X-Wings, etc.). It was all flash, gloss or designs that just looked like fan-film knock-offs more than chronologically earlier versions (much like the case of the last series, Enterprise).

425. Chang's Gang - November 13, 2008

“And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon….”
looks GREAT, time to launch Trek into high gear and grow the franchise again.

426. Chris G - November 13, 2008

I personally hate the design of the new enterprise, I want Gabriel Koerner design instead… As for the rest of movie, can’t wait to see it…

427. Yammer - November 13, 2008

The wailing in here is absolutely mortifying.

To the Matt Jeffries fanatics: would you shoot the original 1964 conference room set? What about Kirk’s bedroom, should it have the purple lights and the spangly room divider? If Kirk does not use the two-foot dropkick in the fight scenes (where the music should be: “daa-daa daa daa daa daa DAH dah-dah-dah”), is this movie a violation of all we hold dear?

Or is it just the current spin on aesthetics?

428. Tanner Waterbury - November 13, 2008

You know i was looking at a still of the Teaser showing the enterprise, and i was looking VERY closely. I seemed to of noticed the nacelles and how they seem to look almost the same as they do now. Its my guess that JJ and everyone involved with making the teaser and movie decided to trick us all into thinking the ship would look just like or similar to Gabe Koerners design. I am guessing that they didnt think we would look closely at the details to notice any difference. I can say for certain i have discovered the ruse. I have to tip my hat off to JJ and the crew for doing that. However, I still dont like the design… much. Please reconsider changing it up for Star Trek XII and make it look similar to Gabe Koerner’s ship. Hell as a matter of fact (with no insult to the CGI artist.) HIRE gabe for the next film.

429. Ashley - November 13, 2008

414- Ever see the ending to ST4: The Voyage Home? The bridge was brighter and whiter than this one is -_-

and supposing they used the original Enterprise, how would the interiors look….the same as they are in this movie or the same as TOS?the former would clash pretty bad, and iif the latter, then it would look very dated and would alienate the casual viewer as it’s the same old star trek that they’re already not into… I’m a fan and even I would be turned off by seeing the same old thing (which probably WOULD be come a parody of itself) in a theater full of salivating idiots wanking themselves and wondering why it failed at the box-office…

people need to stop being so protective and narrow minded about this…YOU’RE KILLING THE FRANCHISE AND DRIVING PEOPLE OFF!!! >.<

430. Devon - November 13, 2008

#398 – McCoy – I think you’re being slightly unfair. If people like the new design more power to them. It doesn’t mean they are careless or will accept anything. Oddly enough, it seems more NON Trek fans like it overall. That isn’t a bad thing.

431. Devon - November 13, 2008

414 – “At least Matt Jefferies was a real designer. I can’t say the same about the idiot that designed this.”

I think this is really uncalled for here.

Can you explain why Matt Almighty’s design called for the Bridge to be one of the easiest targets for an enemy ship? Why the Pylons or the Dorsal could be blown away and separate the ship in no time? Was this part of Matt’s 1000% Brilliance?

I don’t expect you to come back with any answer at all, but it had to be said.

432. sharpied79 - November 13, 2008

Will they stop calling it the bloody dish! It is and has always been the SAUCER section – it’s not a dish! That’s what you serve cake on!

Yes I am a disgruntled Englishman who does know the difference between a dish and a suacer. lol

433. MrAtoz - November 13, 2008

sorry, but worst fears realized

434. MrAtoz - November 13, 2008

And both Matt and Gene are turning in their graves.

435. Iowagirl - November 13, 2008

Thanks to our creative posters for the comparisons.

For me, they just show the difference between the timeless elegance of the original E, and the botched experiment for XI. It’s ok if people are willing to give the new E a chance, but for me the Grand Old Lady from the series will always be the one that captures the idea of beauty and loftiness best.

436. Egghead - November 13, 2008

429 – Yes, I know. I really would go wacko in that bridge.
But to be more serious, one thing that makes Star Trek appealing (for me at least) is that design had form AND FUNCTION. I can honestly say that they should have scrapped the old 60′s uniform and used something more utilitarian. I agree that they should not use 60′s sets, but the Enterprise bridge looks like a stained art museum. I guess modern sci-fi just places crap all over the place just because it looks good, not thinking if the crap can serve a purpose. I know Star Trek uses a lot of crap, but usually (but not always) try to think about it first. I really hope they put as much thought into this as Andrew Probert and co. did in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I know the film sucked, but they designed well.

437. Universal Tim - November 13, 2008

To #427: Ha ha ha! Wow, that made me laugh!
Anyway, I don’t hate this design (at least, not that much) even though it isn’t exactly what I expected (or hoped for, but oh well), but I can accept it.
As for this whole love/hate thing going on, it really interests me on a sociological level. I’m enjoying the way this has polarized fans, and from the lackluster stuff I’ve seen from fans these last 10 years, this is really exciting to see!
It may violate Trek, or it may revitalize it. Either way, it finally got fans moving around again.

438. jmooring - November 13, 2008

Clearly there is a tremendous heritage of design continuity and logic stemming from the original series all the way through to the films and the spin-off series — a balance of style and substance. Folks outside of fan circles really don’t care about things like that, but it provides an important sense of internal consistency to the Trek universe.

What we have here is something of an entirely different order.

This is really all about style. Of course, whether you like or dislike that style is another question, but it’s not the stuff of technical manuals or Franz Joseph blueprints. It’s a ‘hit you over the head’ approach that is simply intended to convey the idea of a sexy space cruiser while echoing the basic symmetry of the Matt Jefferies original. It’s intended to provoke a highly emotional response — and it succeeds brilliantly at doing just that. And only that, really.

I knew when I saw the picture of the bridge that this is where we were headed with all aspects of the production design. Nothing from those set photos really makes much sense either. Yes, Star Trek is essentially starting all over again, but these designs don’t have to project an idea of belonging to any kind of internally consistent universe primarily because they’re rooted in trend and fashion.

Now, let’s just see what they do with next year’s collection of phasers, communicators, and tricorders. That has me really nervous.

439. Dan - November 13, 2008

How about this?
http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enterpriser1mm8.jpg

440. 24th Century Rockstar - November 13, 2008

# 427 “Or is it just the current spin on the aesthetics?”

I think you hit the nail on the head there – as least as far as my arguements go – and I’ve never been one to be a whiny-ass fanboy about ANYTHING.

While no, I don’t think the hardcore 60′s buffs truly expected neon green against purple backlighting and the obligatory flying monkey kicks (check out #359 for my take) I do think a decent number of us were expecting something recognizably closer to the source material.

Some of the posters around here have done some really neat photoshop work with just a little of their time and familiarity with the source material (since Trek been around for a reaaaally long time) – and while none of the fan CG is strictly Jefferies, I’m reading the comments concerning them strongly resonate with the die-hards while not being crazy divergent from the Church design either.

I may be going out on a limb, but from what I’m reading from the die-hards is that the Church design allllllllllmost has it – but not quite – with just a little nip-tuck here and there to ultimately flesh things out that never came.

But the ire is in the fact that now that the fans have had less than 48 hours with it, they’ve already turned out versions that are far more recognizable to the die-hards – that the general public wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference about anyway – and now it may be too late to see some kind of ‘in-film’ middle ground resolution. It feels like we’re stuck with what we got, so now we HAVE to like it – or piss off, and no one really likes feeling forced to make “either-or” calls.

So with millions of film budget dollars, what was stopping JJ’s team from taking those extra steps to reconcile with the fans – or at the very least confer with some Trek design consultants in the first place, you know?

That’s where I think a lot of the venom is coming from.

Then again, who knows? Maybe this IS some kind of publicity activity to gauge fan reactions – if it is I don’t think anyone would mind too much!

- 24 Century R.S.

441. 24th Century Rockstar - November 13, 2008

#427 – And I want to see some styrofoam rocks and some rubber lizard suits or I’m not going! Hahaha! Flying Monkey Kicks….

442. Gary Seven of Nine - November 13, 2008

367, 371, 396, 403, 407, 418, 427 and 429. thanks! you saved many of us a lot of typing!

Boycotts…JJ’s “out to pull one over on us” conspiracy theories…outright name calling…etc. We all understand the passion that goes into being a Trekker, but c’mon, some of this is bordering on an irrational fear of change! What a double standard: The team (no, not just JJ Abrams sitting on a throne making the crew design the film like his cocktail napkin) revamps the ship and many people freak, calling it a “bastard” or “retarded”. But, Gene himself was keen on a new Enterprise for the big screen and a new Enterprise for Phase II, but that can somehow be explained away. To each his own, but some of the ways that people are lashing out at this is unbelievable: dooming the film to failure, calling for redesigns of the ship (based on one photo), etc. BTW – Do you *really* think they’ll re-render all of the VFX shots so that you can feel comfortable? And that’s what it is, isn’t it? The new ship isn’t what you’re familiar with; it’s not in your comfort zone. Too bad. Sometimes, making it in Hollywood is about taking risks, which is what NBC did when they greenlit a “wagon train to the stars” instead of another run of the mill western.

I’m looking at Trek XI as the Harley Davidson V-Rod: die hard Harley fans dreaded the thing when it was officially announced, saying “it’s not a *real* Harley”, etc. However, in the end, the V-Rod was practically credited with saving the company.

I’m also liking the analogy to the new Batmobile: when I first so it, I hated it, but once it was in action, I didn’t have to think twice in order to accept it.

The ship design has grown on me. I’ve even come to think that the forward-set secondary hull may function like a “bulbous bow” design found on many ships.

443. OR Coast Trekkie - November 13, 2008

Hey, we all know what ship it was. It isn’t triangular shaped…

444. helenofpeel - November 13, 2008

OK, I’ve had a couple days to think about it and here’s what I’m seeing… perhaps due to lack of sleep…

The primary hull is very nicely done; between the 1701 and the 1701A. But the secondary hull, including the neck, is much more reminiscent of the 1701D with the clamshell shape and the elongated neck. Lastly, the struts are much more like the 1701E. Now the nacelles are just…. well, it looks like all the nacelles from the 1701 to 1701E thrown together and this is what we have.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this Enterprise is exactly that; a version inspired or drawn from all the Enterprises we’ve seen over the history of the franchise, from TV to movies.

Anyway that’s my take on it.

Perhaps they’re trying to satisfy everyone?? Gawd I hope not.

445. Devon - November 13, 2008

“And both Matt and Gene are turning in their graves.”

Can’t speak for Matt.. but Gene was cremated. And don’t even begin to assume you know what Matt or Gene or whomever would think. That’s just foolishness.

446. Devon - November 13, 2008

432 – “Will they stop calling it the bloody dish! It is and has always been the SAUCER section – it’s not a dish! That’s what you serve cake on!”

You’re talking about something else. They are talking about the Deflector Dish… the golden satellite dish thing with the long spoke that sticks out of the engineering hull and is now radiated in blue? That thing.

447. Kirk, James T. - November 13, 2008

i’ve been looking at it for a while and yeah it’s grown on me a lot – it’s very similar in radical re-design as the Batmobile for Batman Begins – you know the Batmobile is usually this bat-esque american car, but the batmobile on “begins” was a supped up british tank, built from scratch. Yeah i really like this ship now, can’t wait to get the toy of it lol!

448. Ensign Ruiter - November 13, 2008

#442

I get what you are saying and I agree that a fear of change is behind at least part of the cynicism in the new design–part of. The difference of course being that with TMP and even Phase II these redesigns were exactly that–changes in a chronological sequence. When we go back and change the models so that our childhoods are ransacked and or TOS models are rendered obsolete (I don’t own one yet), yes, this kind of change can piss off people with perhaps an understandable reason.

We are discussing change of an original, not change FROM an original. Few here would argue that changes in design over time can and should occur. But should the original be so reworked?

Someone made an interesting point that the new fans and non-diehard, non-canonically minded fans don’t care too much if the ship is reworked. Okay, fine. The diehard fans, the grassroots fans often do care. So if the non-hardcore fans don’t care one way or the other, why not please both by reworking a design that is both original and fresh? I would argue the new design is beyond a refreshening and has risked unnecessarily.

The argument that we will all probably see the film anyway, while perhaps true, is besides the point. I mean, why not throw in some Borg and an Argo for Kirk–it would make a good film, right? Wrong.

449. Trekmonk1971 - November 13, 2008

looks fine to me.if it was in orbit around earth and i got a message on my communicator to beam up – I wouldnt say no stretch the secondary hull,activate buzzard collectors and retract the deflector dish and turn on orange glow.
Id say “Scotty,Beam us up?Now before the echo dies!!:

450. Ashley - November 13, 2008

hmm, I’ve said it a couple times now but I want to reiterate my opinion on the new Enterprise and why I’ve accepted it…

first, you need to stop seeing it as the secondary hull and the neck supporting the saucer and accept that the saucer is the main part of the ship, and that the secondary hull is attached to it much like the warp engine on the Kelvin…and with that, it becomes more of a transitional design from the Kelvin, establishing a lineage of sorts…that’s why I think it’s more thoughtout than just a rash redesign for the sake of redesigning…

so to summarize, the bottom doesn’t hold the top, the top holds the bottom, and the center of mass or movement/maneuvering becomes focused more in the saucer (where the impulse engines and thrusters are)…makes sense enough to me…

451. Ensign Ruiter - November 13, 2008

And you’d say it into your wrist communicator.

452. The Last Maquis - November 13, 2008

Okay Here is a Possible side View that’s not just a Silhouette.

http://the-last-maquis.deviantart.com/art/NEW-ENTERPRISE-PORT-VIEW-103453933

453. 24th Century Rockstar - November 13, 2008

# 448 – “The diehard fans, the grassroots fans often do care. So if the non-hardcore fans don’t care one way or the other, why not please both by reworking a design that is both original and fresh? I would argue the new design is beyond a refreshening and has risked unnecessarily.”

Precisely mate. Pre-effing-cisely. Especially when one considers the amount of financing and care behind casting the actors – why “cast” the Enterprise any differently?

And – for lack of better words – being locked into a “take it or leave it” kind of position is perhaps where most of the die-hard ire comes from.

- 24th CRS!

454. Mark Glass - November 13, 2008

Ashley, the idea of a primary hull comes from the sense that any normalized place of residence for a crew (ie. a living habitat) as well as very machines and equipment required to keep the crew alive, is located in the “saucer” section of a Starfleet ship. The “secondary hull’s” name isn’t in reference to what is attached to what, per se, but rather what function it serves a crew. The first primary need is immediate survival in space and a functioning command and control system (satisfied by a primary hull), and the second is travel and defense (ultimately satisfied by the secondary hull). The general nomenclature of the design philosophy is actually rather utilitarian in an odd way. Even when they collapsed the hull into a singular entity (as they did with the evolution of the 1701-E design), they still refer to the hulls in terms of the functions they serve, and not the “placement,” so to speak.

What it does look like now is an underslung torpedo that has to enormous, bulbous and stumpy nacelles attached to it with awkwardly swept struts. More to the point, it looks like the ship went to warp, with the secondary hull getting horizontally squashed and traveling faster than the saucer can keep up. Sorry. It just looks that way. I guarantee you sticklers would accept the designs that much more progressive critics (like myself) would be willing to go with simply because there is a fundamental disposition that an Enterprise design should invite us to feel – That of an elegant, swept, majestic bird – Not an iRoadster. Those that disagree, I would put forth, couldn’t care less in the end what it looks like anyways and are happy with whatever the “pros” put out. I’m not a fan of the sticklers, any more than I am of accepting whatever the “pros” put out simply because we’re told that we should enjoy the “pros” work.
And by the way, any design of a bridge that incorporates your common run of the mill dated UPC Scanners painted white makes me severely, severely skeptical about the imaginative abilities of an entire art department. No one pointed at the UPC Scanners and said “Really? I mean c’mon guys….Really?”

455. Ashley - November 13, 2008

-454

Mark, you’re missing my point. I know what purposes the primary and secondary hulls serve, and I’m not saying the secondary hull SHOULD be smaller because of the ‘secondary’ bit (not that I think it should necessarily be smaller anyway)… What I’m pointing out is a possible explanation behind WHY they might have made it smaller and positioned the way it is, and why people might be viewing the ship as top-heavy and disproportionate… it just makes a lot more sense to me to look at the saucer as pulling the rest of the ship along with it rather than the rest of the ship holding the saucer up…

456. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

398 McCoy “For everyone that likes the new Enterprise….I can only think that you’re in the group that would have liked ANYTHING!”

448 Ensign Ruiter “The diehard fans, the grassroots fans often do care. So if the non-hardcore fans don’t care one way or the other, why not please both by reworking a design that is both original and fresh?”

453 24th Century Rockstar “And – for lack of better words – being locked into a “take it or leave it” kind of position is perhaps where most of the die-hard ire comes from.”

454 Mark Glass “Those that disagree, I would put forth, couldn’t care less in the end what it looks like anyways and are happy with whatever the “pros” put out.”

All of you are exhibiting a pathetically transparent attempt to elevate yourselves above the rest of the fans, as if you could designate yourselves authorities on a subject many of us are equally or better versed at. This obvious effort to play “Reindeer games” and designate who are the “in” crowd and who are the “out” crowd only singles you out as self-satisfied ego maniacs with tweenager mentalities.

Guess what? I’m as hardcore fan as any of you, I am largely satisfied with the Church design — though I do have my reservations — and I most certainly would *not* have accepted just anything. I have been saying for a while now what I would and would not consider acceptable (like, for example, the Ralph McQuarrie Phase II design that looks like a cross between a Star Destroyer from Star Wars and the TOS Enterprise). It just so happens that the Church design fits a great many of them, and that is why I accept it.

457. Andrew - November 13, 2008

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-reimagined.jpg

458. Mark Glass - November 13, 2008

Ashley, that’s the thing…the saucer really has minimal propulsion – Sublight speeds driven by plasma rockets – Hence the term “impulse” to give an indication as to the sublight inertial drive that rockets provide in its simplicity (given that the plasma is created by a matter/antimatter reactor located in another hull for safety).

The bending of space is created by the nacelles. They don’t “drive” the ship *forward* per se. They aren’t two big rockets sticking out there. They’re used to create fields that ultimately truncate space and allow the ship to *skip* large distances. A “warp drive” isn’t really a “drive” in the sense that a rocket or “impulse engine” would be, but more creates a running treadmill platform the ship walks on top of.

I can appreciate “why” something is done, but it still doesn’t make good sense to do so for the sake of it, given the rationale. The saucer is along for the ride.

4 8 15 16 23 42, your comments borderline on ad hominem attacks: “Pathetic transparent attempt to elevate … above the rest of the fans” who are “Equally or better versed at [this subject]?” Good grief, man. lol Tone the rhetoric down. The irony is funny.

459. Jeffrey S. Nelson - November 13, 2008

Matt Jefferies is turning over in his grave! I feel embarrassed for Ryan Church. And for J.J. Abrams for buying into this reboot rather than living up to the original. Stanky McFibberich was dead on the money over a year ago.

460. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

Mark, have you considered that your rhetoric is offensive to other fans? If you offend your fellow fans, they will get upset. My reaction is proof of that, and there is no irony there, just umbrage.

If I were relying on Ad Hominem attack, then I would be using *your* argument: that since you are of the opposite camp, and your camp is patently uncool, then your arguments are invalid.

We’re all entitled to our opinions about the Church design, including you. You are not, however, entitled to belittle those of us who disagree with your opinion by trying to unfairly dismiss us as ignorant, indifferent fad followers.

461. SOME OTHER GUY - November 13, 2008

I’ll say again, WTF is this monstrosity????

462. Ashley - November 13, 2008

Mark, I certainly hope that your explanations were for the benefit of everyone else reading and not me, as I know VERY well how starships and their propulsion systems ‘work’, and I am very well versed in treklore and treknology… so next time you can skip your explanations of the obvious -_-

I wasn’t necessarily referring to the function, but the design… and my point was more that people seem to be looking at the way the old Enterprise was balanced and not taking into consideration that this ship doesn’t seem to balance the parts the same way…

463. MOSES - November 13, 2008

WTF>???

The nacelles are repolsive!!!!!

WHY DID YOU DESTROYED THE ENGINES BEUTIFULE LINES?

ABRHAM .J.J you have till MAY to FIX it….OR you will lose the Trekies…

464. Hbasm - November 13, 2008

I love the new Enterprise design both the interior and the exterior from what I’ve seen here, and I’m a lifelong Trekker. That means I got onboard during TNG’s original run back in 1990′es and I’ve followed all the series from that point on. I have no reason to criticize this new ship design. I’m a hobbyist 3D modeller myself and I’ve tried to model things ala Star Trek. I love it. I find the new ship design and rendering gorgeous; all the elements seem “right” to the eye. What I don’t have is the technical manual for the Enterprise (the book explaining all the tech). It’s a starship from the future as we’re able to dream about them now. Nothing more. Nothing less. It’s not real science, because when you get into the details this probably isn’t going to work. It’ll be different. The future will be different. But I like Star Trek’s take on the tech, so far. Especially this new Enterprise since it doesn’t look as militaristic as some of the others (in particular the ncc1701E). Kudos to the designers of this new beauty with it’s bright coloured interior, the ship seems to welcome it’s crew. Similary, I find the exterior extremely well done, even though I haven’t seen any closeup’s of the hull yet, but as I said, the main proportions seems perfect to the eye (not necessarely “perfect” as perfection is in the eye of the beholder, but it’s professionally balanced, I’ll say that much) and the ship is catching to the eye, it’s also just enough shiny, but not too much (a thing that often has plagued CG renderings). In short: WELL DONE!

465. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

Hbasm: “It’s a starship from the future as we’re able to dream about them now. Nothing more. Nothing less. It’s not real science, because when you get into the details this probably isn’t going to work. It’ll be different. The future will be different.”

*sigh of relief* Heartening words.

466. Other Clark - November 13, 2008

Personally, I think Gabe Kroener’s E wins over JJ’s.

…But TMP E wins over Kroener’s.

…But TOS E wins over TMP.

467. 24th Century Rockstar - November 13, 2008

#456 – “All of you are exhibiting a pathetically transparent attempt to elevate yourselves above the rest of the fans, as if you could designate yourselves authorities on a subject many of us are equally or better versed at. This obvious effort to play “Reindeer games” and designate who are the “in” crowd and who are the “out” crowd only singles you out as self-satisfied ego maniacs with tweenager mentalities.”

4 8 15 16 23 42 – I promise you I’m not trying to elevate myself anywhere – this is a Star Trek forum, not some upscale neon social club with a cover charge at the door! I’m quite aware that posting here is neither making me money, earning me status, street-cred, or getting me laid. So if I come off that way at all, I straight up apologize to the forum and I assure both you and the rest of the TrekMovie gang that it’s not my intention.

Rather, it IS my intention to try my best to communicate how I’m interpreting many of these fan-reactions and how they relate to me and my own ideas – hence “forum”. If it seems like I’m playing a dirty game, the fault is entirely my own and unintentional.

And as for the statement:

“Guess what? I’m as hardcore fan as any of you, I am largely satisfied with the Church design — though I do have my reservations — and I most certainly would *not* have accepted just anything. I have been saying for a while now what I would and would not consider acceptable (like, for example, the Ralph McQuarrie Phase II design that looks like a cross between a Star Destroyer from Star Wars and the TOS Enterprise). It just so happens that the Church design fits a great many of them, and that is why I accept it.”

Now I don’t recall ever saying you were NOT a fan – in fact, this is the first time I’ve ever addressed you – and if you’re all about the Church design, then don’t worry, I won’t sweat it – in fact – I’m over it already.

All in all if I’m “transparent” – then I don’t have anything to worry about since there isn’t a sinister motive behind posting here – just Trek.

What you read is what you get.

.
..

….
…..
……

Unless you count my dastardly plan to leave as long posts as possible to distract Star Trek fans long enough for my specially trained Ceti Alpha eels – cleverly placed in the homes of every TrekMovie.com forum poster by my unbridled egomaniacal genius – to burrow into the brains of Star Trek fans – thus compelling them to acknowledge me as their master……..if you’re mean THAT plan……..

Dang dude, you’ve totally outed me.

Guess it’s back to work on the telepresence machine….doh!

- 24th CRS!

(will rule you…..someday!)

468. RedShirtWalking - November 13, 2008

You know, when ST:TMP came out in ’79 I *HATED* the refit version of the Enterprise. I wanted to see the Enterprise that was in the television series I’d been watching every weeknight at 6pm. To me, it was the Enterprise, but it wasn’t… I eventually got past it.

In TWOK, I breathed a sigh of relief when “the mains came back on-line.”
In TSFS, I wept when she was destroyed.

I was invested in her.

The new design? Pure aesthetics to me.

This new Enterprise carries some classic hallmarks of the design yet changes things enough to tell you that this is a new film and a new crew. Whether the saucer section meets the secondary hull at the spot or whether the nacelles are pushed back too far is irrelevant. What really matters is the story that’s told and whether this ship and this crew live up to the names “Enterprise” and “Star Trek.”

When the Enterprise-D was unveiled in 1987, I was sick to my stomach. I was an idiot. I love that ship and all her adventures. (Yes, even some of the 1st and 2nd season ones.)

What was it Spock said in TUC? “Nature abhors a vacuum?” Things *must* change. In the grand scheme of things, no…this isn’t the Enterprise I grew up with or the one that adorns my desk here at work. She is, however, very recognizable and I’m willing to be that she’ll deserve to carry the name.

I think that, when all is said and done, there will be a product on the screen that even the most original, die-hard Trekkies can be proud to call Star Trek.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. To me, that’s got to include the design of my starship.

469. S. John Ross - November 13, 2008

I’m not a fan of the new design, but to put that in perspective I loathed the Enterprise-D when Next Gen first aired, and after a while I got used to it, and after a while I got to like it, and when they finally wrecked it, I missed it.

470. Daniel Broadway - November 13, 2008

While EXTREMELY rough, I built a 3D model based off the silhouette sketch, which I believe to have fairly accurate proportions to the Star Trek XI Enterprise. Have a look….

http://vimeo.com/2232195

471. Don - November 13, 2008

I agree with Moses. I’m impressed with how JJ took on this challenge, but I still think Star Trek needs a cooling off period. Look at so many other TV shows that needed a break. ST:ENT, was a bust, because it was just too soon after ST:VOY. Now I know that most people didn’t like VOY, but I loved it. When it first started it was ROUGH! However, as it went on the mood changed. As a military guy I can understand making those hard choices, and still following the rules! Trust me there where times we just wanted to blow that building up, but we didn’t because of collateral damage even if we knew the bad guys where in there. OK bad on subject, anyway I think this movie was wrong in the first place. The ship looks bad! I’m sorry, but what can you do to keep the same style and make it up to date. Sorry, trying to have that open mind. I don’t think this movie will do too well, but I don’t know, I’m not an expert. Sorry long winded hahahhaha

472. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

24th Century Rockstar — “not some upscale neon social club with a cover charge at the door”

Good one. Alright, I got a little under the collar there seeing a spate of “we hardcore fans won’t settle for the Church design, unlike the wannabes and noobs who actually find something to LIKE in it.”

Looks like your Ceti Alpha eels are taking effect already….

#470 — Daniel Broadway, if the nacelles really have a tapering cylindrical (cone) shape like that, I am much happier with the Church design. I see that the 3D model you put up, rotated to the angle the photo is at, gives no indication of the cone shape clearly visible at other angles. And all this time, I thought the photo showed that the end-points of the nacelles are rectangular in cross-section, like the refit Constitution class nacelles.

473. Gary - November 13, 2008

Stop the irrational fear!!!

474. Athos - November 13, 2008

The ship is great. It keeps the spirit of the original. Let’s make a diference, this movie is for trekkers and non trekkers, buy u trekkies, close minded, canon freaks, I hate u guys so much!! DONT GO TO SEE THE MOVIE, is going to be a fun movie, is not for trekkies.

475. Alex - November 13, 2008

I’ve been a fan for over 42 years. I still love to build Star Trek models of all sorts. Hated the TNG Enterprise. Refit was okay. Enterprise E was fine.
The original is still my nostalgic favorite. As far as the new one: well, as far as I’m concerned, the jury is till out. A message to J.J. as far as Enterprises and Star Trek movies–if you build it, they will come.

476. Flake - November 13, 2008

They chose a bad image to release, a bad angle. I am becoming more and more convinced that it will look fine from other views and in motion.

My first impression was that it was pretty ugly, but it is growing on me.

I still have faith!

477. Steeevil - November 13, 2008

The new ship looks great. Still my lap-top background.

478. thebiggfrogg - November 13, 2008

The original is indeed classic. The newbie looks like a plastic bathtub in comparison. I could get behind the last mod, by Daniel Broadway. I could see how we got from there to the original a bit more. Is it too late for ILM to redo the FX?

That said, grudgingly the ungainly new design is growing on me a little. Still I would like more of feeling that there could be some sort of natural evolution between what we see in this flick and what has come before. I honestly think I really creative design team could do an updated mod of the 1960s styles and make them futuristic (by current standards) AND recognizable.

Oh well. . . (maybe I’m just getting old–fan for about 35 years and still love the original E best)!

479. slapping my salami - November 13, 2008

u guys need girlfriends …. i am sure ….. getting bonners over spacecraft lol …
looks like a good film though …

480. sharpied79 - November 13, 2008

Yo #446.. I actually do know what I am talking about, if you read the except from Ryan Church properly…. “For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc …”

Hmmm, clear line of sight over the DISH? He meant the saucer section, believe me, which is what worries me.. The amount of people over the years who have commented on the “dish”?? I mean hello? I am not a complete purist canon follower, but I love trek and it just annoys me when people refer to the saucer section as a dish! It is just plain not a dish…

481. sharpied79 - November 13, 2008

even worse I have to correct myself slightly??? DISC?? WTF?? Who is this guy Ryan Chruch?? Couldn’t they have got Andy Probert to have a go?

482. Avindair - November 13, 2008

I find this statement interesting:

““i freaked out at first but after drawing it out on paper for myself and reading that the pic is in a odd camera angle. i think once we see more of the ship, we’ll get a better idea of the beauty of the new design.”

You know what’s really interesting about the Jefferies and Probert designs? They’re easy to photograph. You can place a camera pretty much anywhere around them, and you’ll get a nice looking image.

My point: I don’t buy the “it’s at an odd angle’ statement for an instant. If you can’t get a good angle on the ship without workingat it (*cough* Galaxy Class *cough*) then it’s not a particularly well-designed model.

I don’t blame Ryan for being a little irked at the reception of his work. After all, his production staff approved his design, and he’s got to be proud of what he produced. Unfortunately, art is a subjective thing. In my opinion, the new design just doesn’t work. It doesn’t have good good proportions, the line-of-action created by the shape works against the frame, and it fails to capture the spirit of the source material.

483. sharpied79 - November 13, 2008

By the way I’m not having a go at Ryan Church, just want to be clear… I quite like the design from what I can see of it and looking forward to the movie…

But for me the best looking of all the Big E’s – Constitution Class Refit as seen in the first six movies.

Big Kudos, of course to Matt Jeffries, but also thanks to Doug Trumball, Mike Minor, Joe Jennings and of course the aforementioned Andy Probert..

Your redesign struck such a chord with me….

484. The Gorn Identity - November 13, 2008

The more people bash the new Enterprise from just this one photo the more I’m starting to like it. How’s that for fan backlash-backlash?

485. Andros - November 13, 2008

This is your ship. We cannot judge it by this single still, yet we do. Its funny how a single picture can magically tell you how the rest of the movie will be. Oh wait, it CAN’T.

Love it or hate it I dare you to be the one rooting against it when Nero attacks. This is our Enterprise now. Live with it or get off because the last thing this movie needs is for the fans of the franchise itself to put it down because of a design choice.

486. Andros - November 13, 2008

Also take a look at the deflector dish, its very inline with the Enterprise from the pilot episode “The Cage”

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-pilot.jpg

It protrudes out, so at this angle it makes the “neck” of the ship seem further back than it really is when in reality its actually where its supposed to be based on the design of the ORIGINAL Enterprise. Eat it canonistas.

487. JL - November 13, 2008

Debate is healthy and very helpful sometimes, but man I wish there were more people projecting positive energy for this film.

I watch my TOS episodes on DVD just as enthusiastically as the next guy and I am in awe over my favorite episodes to this day – - they never bore me, I love them!

I consider myself to be a genuine TOS fan.

And no, I am not 100% super-de-duper thrilled about certain aspects of this project either but I refuse to get upset about it – - because, at least for the immediate future, it’s either THIS TOS TREK or NOTHING AT ALL!

Really – - honestly – - we need to keep an open mind and curtail the harsh commentary (ie; “I’M NOT GONNA GO SEE THIS MOVIE!” stuff) until we see the actual film next year.

How can that not be logical?

488. Steeevil - November 13, 2008

Eh… we’re all big kids, frogg.

489. COMPASSIONATE GOD - November 13, 2008

Re: 429. Ashley – November 13, 2008

“and supposing they used the original Enterprise, how would the interiors look….the same as they are in this movie or the same as TOS?the former would clash pretty bad, and iif the latter, then it would look very dated and would alienate the casual viewer as it’s the same old star trek that they’re already not into”

Like it or not, Trek is a global property already–but it still caters to select crowds; its not the junk/everyman crap like 99% of nighttime TV, which tries to target all (and is forgettable a decade later).

The anti-design of the TOS interiors argument is the weakest of all; on no less than two modern era Trek series–DS9 and Enterprise–we saw how the TOS exterior and interior played with modern production techniques and equipment in addition to the contrast to the two series’ own vehicles, and in both cases, the TOS sets worked! I cannot recall anyone saying otherwise about the DS9 Tribbles episode or ENT Mirror episode in any way suggestive of a criticism of the origial designs. In fact, I encountered nothing except praise about how great the interiors appeared with modern stock & camera, while the same was said of the DS9 1701 miniature and ENT’s CG Defiant.

Why, you might ask? Because the 1966 designs were THAT ahead of their time and retain a visual appeal which crosses the passing of time periods, fads and tastes, the key for the widespread praise for the 1960s look appearing on modern Trek series.

“… I’m a fan and even I would be turned off by seeing the same old thing (which probably WOULD be come a parody of itself) in a theater full of salivating idiots wanking themselves and wondering why it failed at the box-office… ”

If it fails, it will be squarely the fault of people with little knowledge or appreciation for TOS–but seem to love the Berman series, which speaks volumes about what may be around the corner. One never knows, but the two modern Trek series with TOS episodes just so happened to be the most popular for both. What does that tell you about true audience interests?

“people need to stop being so protective and narrow minded about this…YOU’RE KILLING THE FRANCHISE AND DRIVING PEOPLE OFF!!! >.<”

Berman and his cheerleaders destroyed the franchise. Period. If anyone comes along inspired by Berman in their approach to Trek, well….do not expect blockbuster earnings.

490. Scott Gammans - November 13, 2008

OK, Spockboy’s “Space Rage” was a work of pure, warped genius. Love the hapless shuttlecraft crashing into the planet killer. Bravo!!

491. Gary - November 13, 2008

WOW

There more I look at this * Frankenstein* that Abrams is offering us – the more I truly appreciate Star Trek The Motion Picture.

492. Chasco - November 13, 2008

Klingon in bar: “I’m not saying the new Enterprise should be hauling garbage. I’m saying it should be hauled away AS garbage!”
Scotty: “Laddie… pull up a chair and let me buy you a drink!”

Spockboy – fantastic video! Just says it all!

493. BaronByng - November 13, 2008

Ok, purely from an aesthetic perspective, I LIKE IT.

No, it’s not the same as the TOS or TMP Enterprises, and you know what? I’m OK with that. It fits very well with what we’ve seen of the uniforms and the bridge. There is a unified style going on here. It looks contemporary and believable, projecting forward 250 years or so from today’s world of flat-screens, iPhones and cars that would have seemed impossibly futuristic 20 years ago. At the same time there is a nod to 1950s style (and this is ‘trek’s 1940s-1950s’ we’re dealing with, if we take the TOS time period to be ‘the sixties’).

That said, in another thread on another article, Bob Orci alluded to the fact that they ‘don’t bend canon lightly, but one person’s view of canon is not the same as another’s', and that there is a ‘final solution’ related to the time-travel story at the heart of the film. We haven’t seen everything yet.

That said, I do not doubt, based on the reactions to these previews, that it will be a kick-ass film, and indeed, reinvigorate the Trek franchise. It’s going to most likely please and infuriate purists in equal measure, but you know what? They have the original series on DVD, and James Cawley’s purist fan films. I, on the other hand, am gleefully looking forward to see how they creatively reimagine things, not sitting there with a checklist to tick off all the ‘canon’ points that ‘need’ to be mentioned.

494. Decker's Stubble - November 13, 2008

Of all the altered designs above, I like Broadway’s the best. Amazing what fattening the secondary hull, recoloring the Bussard collectors and adding a couple of racing stripes will do for a design.

495. trekboi - November 13, 2008

I WAS A HUGE TRANSFORMERS FAN AND WHEN THEY REDESIGNED THEM TO THE POINT OF BEING UNRECOGNISABLE IT WAS OK WITH ME BECAUSE THEY WERE AMAZING AND ADDED TO THE FRANCHISE
THIS RETARDED STAPCHILD OF A STARSHIP IS AN EMBARASSMENT

ID LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THIS STAR WARS DESIGNER WAS THINKING WHEN HE DESIGNED SUCH A CROWDED UNBALANCED ENGENERING HULL- IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS BEEN COMPACTED AND PUSHED FORWARD

IT WAS SUCH A BEAUTYFULY BALANCED DESIGN- HOW COULD U DO ANYTHING BUT IMPROVE IT/ BUT HE MANAGED TO WARP IT TO THE POINT OF UGLYNESS
IT MUST BE CHANGED- THE FACT THAT SO MANY CANT SEE ITS FAULTS AND FEEL THEY HAVE TO BE NICE AND SAY THEY LIKE IT DOESNT MEAN ITS OK.

AND RICK WHY ARE U BEING SO POLITE- U SPEAK THIS STAR WARS DESIGNERS LANGUAGE- SHOW HIM THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS AND MAYBE IT CAN BE FIXED IN TIME!!!
PLEASE!!!

496. trekboi - November 13, 2008

I HAVE TO SAY I SEE SOME BEAUTY IN THE DESIGN- THE SAUCER AND NICELLES ARE BEAUTYFULL BUT THR ENGENERING SECTION IS REVOLTINGLY ARRANGED

HOW COULD THE DESIGNER GET THE SAUCER AND NICELLES SO RIGHT BUT THE ENGENERING HULL SO WRONG?

497. JL - November 13, 2008

Must say, looking at all three ships at the top of the page, TMP version is extremely beautiful when compared to the others. They nailed it right there. Slender, tapered, balanced, nice lighting, the whole sha-bang.

498. TC - November 13, 2008

THAT…is not the Enterprise. Everything from the neck down/back just looks way off the mark and doesn’t fill the space between Enterprise and TMP.

499. Marcio Henrique - Uberlandia-MG-BRAZIL - November 13, 2008

#491 I AGREE WITH YOU when you said: “..more I truly appreciate Star Trek The Motion Picture.”
I did not like this design. Until now, I was hoping, but really, now ruined everything. Changing the uniform a little fine. But changing the Enterprise … Why not painted it with silver, and ready? I HATED IT!

500. TC - November 13, 2008

The mod by Daniel Broadway looks awesome, imo it’d be a much better ship for the movie…still hating those nacelles though!

501. El Chup - November 13, 2008

#359

I said some similar, of not exactly the same things, in the initial thread. But Bob Orci tells me that he hopes I come to the picture with an open mind. Well Bob, I damn well will be because I am one of the fans who will watch anything with the name Star Trek on it…….but that doesn’t mean that once I have watched it I will approve of it, and don’t you see that we have been taken advantage of before because we have such a loyalty to the property?. Its the lack of understanding of this that dissapoints me the most.

I truly feel that Bob Orci is probably the only one of the “court” who gives a crap about the history. But he is only one of three and he understands that in order for Trek to move forward it needs to be updated. But, what I think is the problem is that perhaps, despite the hours he’s spent online, he’s not completely sensitive to the fan base’s concerns to the extent that there are some changes that just won’t bring the 15 year fan base with you if you are trying to get the mainstream audience with you. This new Enterprise is one of them.

The saddest thing of all is that this new movie will no doubt be a rip roaring success and Bob, JJ & co will make their millions. There will be a sequel. But, after a while, it will fade off and it will fade off quickly. Then the timeless legacy will be dead.

in summary, what I am saying is that Star Trek should never give way to big audience or bell and whistles. That isn’t what it is and big audience and bells and whistles never made it Paramlunt’s jewle in its crown. When someone has the brain cells to realise this maybe Trek will be back on track.

502. j w wright - November 13, 2008

that mod by dan broadway works for me, the proportions are just fine.

why couldnt the abrams team have been able to work that out?

how much was spent on the redesign? can they get a refund?

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_dbroad.jpg

503. j w wright - November 13, 2008

the more i look at the new connie, the more silly it looks.

not nearly as sweet as this excellent re-design:

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/Desktop01.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/Desktop02.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/ToFarHorizons.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/OrthoSide.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/OrthoFrontBack.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/OrthoTop.jpg

vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/OrthoBottom.jpg

504. Bronto Dan - November 13, 2008

I don’t get all the hate that this design gets… I look at it and I think it’s really nice. The only thing that botters me is the deflector dish maybe a little to bright the eyes focus to much on it. THe rest is fine really.

When reading some comments it seems like someone destroyed their house, or if someone destroyed their home, it would be less important then the enterprise.

Just give it a chance poelple, stop the hate. They won’t change a thing anyway.

505. JH - November 13, 2008

I showed the new Enterprise to my girlfriend and she said, “so what’s the difference? It looks the same.” Then I pulled up an old image of the TOS movies Enterprise and showed her side by side. Her response was perfect, “it looks like the difference between an old 1970s car and a brand new one.”

506. Jay El Jay - November 13, 2008

I’ll admit it, when I first saw the new E, I thought, ‘My God!, what the heck have they done?’ However, after 24 hours and after reading this article, im pretty cool about the new design. Its true, we havnt seen the ship from all angles, and it was inevitable that the design was going to be altered. But it still looks pretty much the same and if you look at the difference between the TOS E and the TMP E then I think its safe to say that we are prehaps seeing the first version of the E, it was then altered and refitted for TOS and so on… thats my view anyway.

Another point i’d like to make is that the NX01 looks very futuristic and somewhat similar (to an extent) to this new design, so as far as I see it, no canon problems here :D

507. j w wright - November 13, 2008

#504

how would you react if they cast will smith as jim kirk?

why not?

the enterprise herself, is a very important character in this series.

how she looks is very significant.

why not use this for the new enterprise?:

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/846/846996/eagle-5-spaceballs-001_1201053368.jpg

anything goes, hmmm?

508. Marcus S - November 13, 2008

Please don’t bring gravity into this discussion. Some people critizice the design because the secondary hull isn’t bulky enough to support the saucer.

Come one, no version of the Enterprise could have the nacelles elevated with those thin sticks if gravity had been a factor to reckon with. They would’ve fallen off already in 1962.

509. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

I’ve been looking at it since yesterday too. Still don’t like it.

A Galaxy class ship had it’s way with a Connie and this was the unholy result.

Why Gabe Koerner didn’t get the job I don’t know, or even this guy deg3D who’s been posting his own Connie update on the TOS board at st.com had far better ideas for a ship that at first glance is immediately identifiable as the Enterprise.

JJ said “If you’re going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you’re going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?” So what in Ghu’s name happened?? Or is it just another example of how we were promised something at the onset, and we find out what we’re getting is more akin to some fanboy dream scenario?

By the way, I love that joke someone made up board with Scotty buying Korax a drink for saying the Enterprise should be hauled away AS garbage…something so simple to do shouldn’t have been botched so badly just in the interests of trying to look “cool” for the general public audience they so desperately need for this movie.

510. badboy1230 - November 13, 2008

For what it’s worth, I showed the picture of the 3 Enterprises to a co-worker who is not a sci-fi or Star Trek fan and asked her which one looked to her like it was the latest version of the ship and she pointed to the upcoming movie version. She was surprised when I told her that was supposed to be older than the middle ship. This from someone with no pre-conceived notion about what the Enterprise should look like.

Personally, if the Enterprise shown for the new movie is a “Yesterday’s Enterprise” version of the ship then I have no problem with it. If it’s a reboot version then I can respect that, although I’m not crazy about reboots. But as patient and open minded as I am (I thought they got the look of the NX-01 right), I just can’t see the Trek IX version as an earlier version of the original series ship. (at least not in the one picture that has been released.)

511. JL - November 13, 2008

507, those are extreme, irrational comparisons to what JJ and crew are doing with the film.

I don’t remember anyone saying “anything goes” as in “Space Balls” so stop with the nonsense.

512. JL - November 13, 2008

509 and other haters

IT **DOES** LOOK LIKE THE ENTERPRISE!! MY GOD!!

513. Eric Holloway - November 13, 2008

I really like Daniel Broadway’s version. With the traditional red striping on the new design it makes her complete and gives some hot rod toughness to the nacelles.

The I would have to say Ben’s rendition was a close second, just need to add the red stripes and finally Spockboy’s. His was great too just try turning the nacelle struts upside and let us see what it could have looked like. That old school secondary hull would be better complimented I think.

Still have plenty of time to work on this J.J. It’s not a rush job like TMP. If this is the real timeline E maybe you could tweak it a bit. Just use these examples.

514. j w wright - November 13, 2008

the more i look at broadways revision, the more i can accept this vehicle as the old girl:

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_dbroad.jpg

really, very nice job, well done.

balanced, graceful… a confident looking ship.

its that droopy, bulbous and unsubstantial secondary hull of the abrams 1701 that really detracts from the appearance.

also, it reminds me of another silly looking spacecraft:

http://ufoseries.com/artofufo/interceptorCutaway.jpg

515. giskard - November 13, 2008

All of the negative fan reaction here is just a normal day in Trek fandom – you should see the letters written to Nicholas Meyer when he was “reinventing” Trek, before anyone had seen the movie. They are very much in the vein of these comments, if not even more upset. Now, of course, most fans rate “The Wrath of Khan” as one of the best takes on Star Trek ever.

516. Danpaine - November 13, 2008

For the most part, these last few threads paint a pretty embarassing portrait of Star Trek fans in general. What a bunch of whiny humps.

I’ve been watching ST since the 70′s, and the original cast and ship will always be “home” for me. That said, I’ll still go see the new film, why not? If I don’t like it, I won’t see it again, and won’t buy the DVD when it comes out. I’ll continue to watch my “old school” movies and shows on DVD at home.

It’s just a MOVIE, people. Don’t you have jobs to go to, somewhere other than this to project your venom/passion?

I’m not crazy about the E redesign either, but c’mon now…buck up, little campers.

517. Ralph F - November 13, 2008

My first reaction to the new design was heavy disappointment. I’ll stick with that reaction until I see something that makes me change my mind.

And, keep in mind, to JJ, this still *is* the ENTERPRISE. It’s a saucer, two nacelles, and a secondary hull. To the untrained eye, it’s the same ship.

If anything makes this film outside of the canon — i.e., alternate timeline, alternate reality, whatever — it’s going to be this design.

Will I still go see the film? Of course, that’s a stupid question. Will I enjoy it? Based on everything I’ve seen thus far, undoubtedly. Is it STAR TREK? It should be, it seems to be, it feels like it so far.

But is this the ENTERPRISE that inspired me as a kid, that made me look beyond the characters and the (often ridiculous) stories of the show? That made me study ship design, come up with my own, create and foster my imagination for decades to come? No, it’s not. It’s a cool looking ship, with an interesting mash-up look of old and new, but it’s not “my” ENTERPRISE.

518. Miketrek - November 13, 2008

I have high hopes for this movie. I have supported those who have urged us to keep open minds.
BUT this Enterprise throws out most of the appealing design configurations Matt Jefferies and Andrew Probert have developed over the last 40 or so years.
I was ready for change.
I expected it, and hoped Church and JJ would make good decisions.
But this version of the Enterprise is athetically unpleasing and needs to be fixed. Sorry JJ.

519. Ralph F - November 13, 2008

Ah, I’ve got it — perfect comparison:

Remember how psyched everyone was about the “new” GODZILLA in the ’98 film? That is, everybody meaning those working on the film? And then the film-going fan-base saw the movie and said, wow, that was fun, but it sure wasn’t GODZILLA (meaning, primarily, the look of the big G)?

That’s what this whole thing reminded me of.

520. Scott - November 13, 2008

REMINDING EVERYONE: We don’t know what things looked like after Enterprise and prior to TOS. All we have, as fans, are our own pre-conceived ideas based on non-canon materials. So far, from what I’ve seen, TOS canon is preserved…

521. JL - November 13, 2008

Danpaine, you and I think very much alike.

522. j w wright - November 13, 2008

#516 to other who truly have affection for the series, its not ‘just another movie’ its a continuation of expectations.

the enterprise to some of us, is as important a character as kirk and spock.

this droopy mutant masquerading as the old girl just doesnt do it…

it would be like casting shelley duvall as uhura.

would anyone here stand for that?

the new bond picture is just another movie, that series has no regard for canon or its own history, trek is entirely the opposite.

523. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#402, 405 – That is gorgeous! That could so be the new Enterprise!

I wish I had a few megabucks that i could give to the studio and say, “Hey, guys, let me pay for the re-renders…” Alas…

But good work, both Daniel and Reign1701A!

#407 – “The more Canonistas rave on and on about the ‘Edselprise’, the more the MOVIE will become a national joke. If you haven’t figured it out by now,
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE.”

On the one hand, if the movie can’t stand up to a bit of criticism, then there’s already a bigger problem than some unhappy potential fans. On the other, frankly, if they have to resort to alternate universes and trash continuity to get this story told, then Trek already had its last chance, and it’s already gone on film, and I don’t find myself caring so much whether some faux-Trek succeeds or not. (Again, that’s a big “if”, of course, but there it is.)

#440 – Exceedingly well-said! Bravo! In my case, that’s very much how I feel about the Church design. Real close, nice in a lot of areas, but….

#453 – “And – for lack of better words – being locked into a “take it or leave it” kind of position is perhaps where most of the die-hard ire comes from.”

Well, to be fair, sooner or later, they had to make a design decision and commit to it, and they really couldn’t do the design work with a comittee of thousands. I don’t fault them for that. I just think that the sheer number of 10-minute fixes that keep improving (IMHO of course!) the design, and improving it in just about the same way, show how easy it would have been to get it nearly spot-on, if they’d been willing to get a little closer to the source material.

524. j w wright - November 13, 2008

#520

not at all, this preserves canon, is modern and as sweet as can be:

http://vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/Desktop02.jpg

the dan broadway revision uses the abrams design and makes it a proper starfleet vessel of it:

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_dbroad.jpg

525. Danpaine - November 13, 2008

…if most of this film does (as some have said) take place in an alternative timeline, that fact will make it actually easier for us to ignore this film if it turns out to be…..baaad.

Ignore it, like the ‘improved’ versions of Halloween, The Fog, Lost In Space, The Honeymooners and scores of other re-invented trash are all virtually ignored now.

526. JL - November 13, 2008

519

I see where you’re going with that but I do not agree.

Godzilla – if I recall – looked more like Ridley Scotts Alien, right? That thing was far more removed from the original source material than what JJ has done with the Enterprise. From what I’ve been able to access so far anyway.

The E looks like the E – they did not bastardize it and add major components or delete major components – they did not make it all “chrome” – they just altered certain aesthetics. Hell, they even made it similar to TMP Enterprise in one regard: they have it showing detailed panel work all throughout the saucer section.

You can call it any way you want but the truth is, the form we all know and love remains intact.

527. JL - November 13, 2008

525

“Ignore it, like the ‘improved’ versions of Halloween, The Fog, Lost In Space, The Honeymooners and scores of other re-invented trash are all virtually ignored now.”

EXACTLY.

Some people have a grip at least.

528. Tony - November 13, 2008

To all you people critical of the new Enterprise design – GET OVER IT!!! It’s not the end of the world as you know it. The Trek universe is not imploding in on itself. For freakin crying out loud, sit the freak back, open your minds and enjoy the dang ride!

529. Stan Wingson - November 13, 2008

Rick’s a talented guy and definitely very qualified to comment, but still it’s kinda unprofessional to come out so against a fellow designer’s work before the movie is even released. The conflict of interest/sour grapes factor is prett obvious…

530. Matthew - November 13, 2008

First, they change the Romulans. Second, they changes the bridge. Third, they changed the iconic ship of the whole franchise.

What’s next? Did they change Starfleet Command or Starfleet Academy?

I think the new ship design is not going to go over that well with purests. Star Trek needs a long, long, long hiatus. Paramount should have waited. Trekkers and Trekkies will no doubt go see this movie; however, I think it will be the reaction after the movie is seen that will matter. Spock’s death at the end of Star Trek II drove people to the theaters. Contraversial stuff allways sells, and this will sell tickets as well.

I don’t think they should have messed with the franchise’s iconic roots. I admit that I will see the movie, but its all hindsight as to if I will enjoy the movie.

531. Jasmin - November 13, 2008

529. Stan Wingson: Uh not really? He’s allowed his opinion as much as you are allowed yours. Once its in the public domain all’s fair.

Thank You.

532. Jasmin - November 13, 2008

529. Stan Wingson: Uh not really? He’s allowed his opinion as much as you are allowed yours. Once its in the public domain all’s fair.

Thank You.

533. j w wright - November 13, 2008

open your minds! accept anything! its only a movie! who cares about star trek?

i hope the alternate timeline thing is rubbish, what a cowardly copout if it is so.

would that be enough to sweep the u.s.s. gooneybird under the carpet?

i couldn help but notice that failure to release more images of the 1701 in light of all this bad reaction.

534. toyrobot - November 13, 2008

Sorry, it still doesn’t work for me. No matter how much they want to couch it otherwise, this is still an exercise in style over substance. Flashy shiny light up toys to put on the shelf at Wal Mart, no more no less. It’s too bad. The Enterprise has been an inspiration to me from a design standpoint all my life, functional and beautiful in it’s own way. But this? Lots of shiny aerodynamic crap glued together in a vague enterpisey shape.
Wasted effort.

535. Steve Kelley - November 13, 2008

I agree that while it is different in so many ways, it still is unmistakably the Enterprise. I think there will be a big difference in the reaction over this “possible” new look to what we hear right now based on a couple still images at odd angles to what we will ultimately see of it in action like flying around, going to warp, in space battles, etc.

536. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#487 – “Debate is healthy and very helpful sometimes, but man I wish there were more people projecting positive energy for this film.”

I gotta tell you, in all blunt honesty…

For many, many months I was very much positive. Cautiously, but positive. The point at which I really crossed the line was the point at which I started to disbelieve that they were telling us the truth for all those months that this movie would respect and honor Trek’s continuity, which spining the whole film (and any future ones done by this team) into some alternate universe very much, IMHO, does not.

Now, as I’ve said, I may yet be wrong, and they may resolve it all in the end, turning this back into the TOS origin story I was really hoping to see. I didn’t, and don’t, care so much whether my preconceptions about the backstory of the various characters matched what this team did, and I didn’t, and don’t, demand that the production design match every millimeter of the original sets models, etc. The only thing I cared about, really, was that this film lead us back into all the rest, not some parallel world where what had come before no longer mattered. And when it started making me feel like that wouldn’t happen, I went negative.

I’ll reiterate the promise I made to Bob O. If I’m wrong, and this film works out so that it still fits in (storytelling-wise; I’m not demanding exact visual continuity. What they’ve done is pretty good, IMHO), I will be happy to eat my plate of crow and see the film in the theaters a couple of dozen times. But if I’m right, I’ll be paying for most of my trip to Shore Leave 31 on the money I didn’t give to this film.

I don’t think I can possibly be more fair than that.

537. JL - November 13, 2008

Fair enough Alex, you are being far more rational and even-keeled than some of the haters

538. Shatner - November 13, 2008

Get a life! For crying out loud, it’s just a TV show!!!

539. JL - November 13, 2008

Here, I wanna just say this because I’m in a very good, Star Trekkie mood:

I LOVE TOS

LOVE IT

JUST LOVE IT

And thank you to JJ, Bob Orci and the others who are giving my all-time favorite science fiction franchise another shot at greatness!

Can’t wait the day my butt is in that seat on May 9th!!!

540. Danpaine - November 13, 2008

Alex, JL, see you at the movies – we’re on the same track.

If the film turns out to be crap, we can go out for a beer (or your beverage of choice) afterwards, chalk it up to ten bucks lost, and toast WOK.

541. The friendly capitalist. - November 13, 2008

I am not an intense fan. I do have my fav designs of the Enterprise. I do not like this one as much ,but I will not boycott a film just because of one photo. Let’s enjoy the good comments and revel in the negative criticisms. After this film is in the can we shall see if the corporate gamble worked. This is another artistic spin on a potential franchise. We do not live in a utopian society where the main interest is in improving the human condition. At least I know that if this project does not get the bucks to support its creation ,then well boys and girls the Star Trek label will be put away. No one wants to tether their finances to a loser. I like the whole message of ST. Humanity finally lets go of its darker elements, greed , racism, sexism, intolerance, religious indifference etc. However it is still a marketable commodity and unless it can draw profit it will perish. The message of the future where capital is not the main focus will not have a voice. Lets face it … it has to entertain more than preach to reach the masses. The intellectuals of the fanbase know this. You have to sometimes compromise some integrity to further the ideals. I am not happy with some of the proposed changes, however if it makes Star Trek a profitable enterprise then I guess I will be alright with this deal with the devil. Plus I really want to enjoy a fun space opera. God have you seen any fun positive sci fi lately…I am not going to say that the naysayers are wrong. It is fun seeing that people are so passionate about ST. I also think that the over enthusiastic revelers are cool as well. I hope to hear more debate on the trivial and important details about this film. I also hope it kicks ass in the box office! Then the discourse can start all over again! I love change! Take it easy and keep up the debate. The blogs are more entertaining than the francise itself!

542. Closettrekker - November 13, 2008

#51—”Since only 21% of visitors are totally against this redesign according to the poll, we have to assume the nay voters are far more vocal in the comment sections. It only makes sense, of course, since they’re clearly feeling very passionately about it. But it does give a skewed view of how many fans are crying foul.”

Thankfully, the poll was more representative of the general feelings within the fan community.

And Mr. Church has an excellent point about how different angles may leave viewers with a different perspective.

543. Papa Jim - November 13, 2008

I think it looks bad ass. We all knew it would look different. So, why all the whining? When you make your own Star Trek film you can do it your way. Until then enjoy the ride and don’t pick apart a movie you have not seen, yet.

544. trekologist - November 13, 2008

I’m sorry. If it pleases the masses, then lets call the reboot (YES. its a reboot. Get over it) “New Canon” and draw the distinction between Star Trek and Abrams Trek. I hope the new movie brings in new fans and all that comes with it, but make no mistake, this undoes 40 plus years of history in my opinion. Why did they bother to make the updated TOS episodes? Why was there ANY reference of any kind to the TOS in any of the series’ that came after the TOS (ie. Trials and Tribilations)? I hate to sound like sour grapes here, I really do, but c’mon now…… Part of me wants to see this be successful, but another part of me feels like they finally found a way to put trek to rest forever. ASSASSINS!!! MURDERERS!!! ;)

545. j w wright - November 13, 2008

#542

at any angle that secondary hull will look blobby and wimpy, especially when compared to dan broadways proper revision.

they could have included the fans in the production, with a contest choosing from a number of design sketches for the new 1701.

i doubt the one they came up with would have made the grade.

546. Patricia - November 13, 2008

I think James T Kirk is a is a pretty cool guy, eh shoots the aliens and doesn’t afraid of anything!!

547. JL - November 13, 2008

“ASSASSINS!!! MURDERERS!!!”

haha, 544

548. JL - November 13, 2008

Danpaine, you’ve got a deal.

Since I’m in Cleveland and you’re probably not, we’ll have to meet in some seedy bar in Liberty City, haha

549. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#540, 548 – I’m over here in Central New Jersey. I’d have to travel westward. ;)

550. Tony Villarreal - November 13, 2008

This ship looks nice, but it’s not the Enterprise. The Enterprise is a worldwide historical icon. Ryan Church has self-importantly decided that he is great enough to change a worldwide historical icon.

The creative team of JJ Abrams, repeatedly assured fans that this film was not a reimagining or a reboot, but a reinvigorating of a legacy

The design of this ship confirms that these assurances were a bold -faced lie. JJ Abrams and his team have created a false and deceptive advertising campaign. But now that the veil of lies is lifting, fans are seeing what JJ Abram has really been doing with all that money. And it is not authentic Star Trek, it is a celluloid hoax, a farce.

551. Gorn - November 13, 2008

In light of the (hillarious, but f***ing insane) backlash against this single image, can anyone here honestly say that they will NOT, under any circumstances, see this movie?

Seriously…

552. Phil - November 13, 2008

This undos 40 years of history????? I enjoy the show as much as anyone, but ITS ALL MADE UP, BOYS AND GIRLS!!!!! History is man on the moon, JFK, the Berlin Wall, the Obama presidency……Trek is entertainment, history is what matters to us. If this is the only thing that gives your life meaning, you really need to get out more often….

Good job, JJ.

553. JL - November 13, 2008

“This ship looks nice, but it’s not the Enterprise.”

And what exactly makes it NOT the Enterprise? Other than some aesthetic alterations? It has all of the basic elements joined together, the basic form is intact, it is made of metal, etc etc

I’m starting to believe this is a no-win scenario for JJ and crew when it comes to the fans. No matter WHAT these guys do they are attacked or insulted. Grow up and accept the fact that change is a constant, you little whining babies.

554. Timncc1701 - November 13, 2008

Day 2. Not growing on me yet. . .

555. Gigastazio - November 13, 2008

550: A little perspective, please.

The pyramids are a worlwide historical icon. The Roman Coliseum, Taj Majal, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are worldwide historical icons.

The Enterprise is fictional ship from a fictional universe that has gained the following of a handful Taliban-brand zealots who have have self-importantly decided that they alone should judge what can and cannot be updated, and it’s tiresome for those of us who can apprecaite and embrace new ideas.

556. Gorn - November 13, 2008

552, 553 & 555:

Thank you. I knew there had to be some half-grounded trekkies left out there somewhere.

557. Planet Pandro - November 13, 2008

My 1st post…hopefully not the last…
Let’s think about this for a second. While not the classic design we’ve come to love…its a saucer, secondary hull and 2 nacelles. My big fear when I heard about this movie was that so much would be changed we’d have to struggle to recognize this as trek. I put the new ship up on my computer screen and asked my wife (not a fan, but learning) “hey hun, what’s this?” she said “well duh, that’s the enterprise”. JJ’s assertion that you can’t alter the ship is basically intact, and the average viewer (the demographic they’re going for) will recognize this as the big E. That’s what they’re going for. That’s enough of a comfort to me that it will stil be basically recognizable as the enterprise, even if it isn’t the “classic design”.

558. Phil - November 13, 2008

#553. I doubt that JJ sat up in bed this morning, slapped his head and screamed “what was I thinking”!! It’s not growing on poster 554 yet. Trash it all, start over…..”

Everyoneone who has seen partial screenings are reporting great things. A few fans who have not seen sunlight in years are pissing their pants because it does not look EXACTLY like TOS. Guess who is credible here???

Again, good job, JJ.

559. Obviously - November 13, 2008

Call me an irreconcilable geek. Call me a whiner. Call me whatever you want. I think it looks like crap. The thing looks like a cartoon that somebody who saw Star Trek once in their life slapped together with the basic Enterprise shapes in mind.

560. Gorn - November 13, 2008

Dude…I’m by far the biggest trekkie I know. Hell, I’ve even dressed up like a Kilingon and attended cons and premieres!

It looks like the goddamned Enterprise to me!

This movie is going to kick ass!!!

561. Timncc1701 - November 13, 2008

558 the first part of your post to JJ’s head.

It’s not just me. About half of fanbase is not happy. Deal with it.

562. Andros - November 13, 2008

Just remember:

At least its not the atrocity that would have been one of the Phase II Enterprises.

Anyone remember that ? Exactly. Count your lucky stars.

563. Wes - November 13, 2008

What the hell?

This Enterprise looks approximately 50% smaller than the original TV series version.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the new design but it just looks smaller. I see some of Gabe Koerner’s work in the nacelles.

This movie is going be great!

564. Closettrekker - November 13, 2008

#561—-Not according to the poll. I think you need a mathematics review. Only about 1 out of 5 said they were unhappy. That’s 20%, and not even close to “half”.

You cannot draw such a conclusion accurately based solely upon who is more ‘vocal’ about it.

565. Mike - November 13, 2008

561, half the fan base? Or just the part of the fan base that decides to cry about it online?

Did anyone think that it’s a possibility that this movie is not just aimed at previous Star Trek fans?

566. Cervates - November 13, 2008

Stanky WAS right all along it seems!!!

Okay, I was away for a few days and the-powers-that-be deemed to release a LOT of info.-heavy revelations….as well as the look of their rebooted Big E!

This whole enterprise (pardon the pun) by J.J. and co. initially held huge promise for me, but the whole thing is a reboot / relaunch / re-imagining TOO far, in my own opinion of course.

I’m really sorry to see that the whole look of what was promised to be a reasonably faithful re-imagining / upgrading of certain production design values from the TOS era, has actually been a wholesale RE-INVENTION of the original elements that is far too TNG-looking….

Although I loved the sleekly, elegant upgrade of the overall Enterprise shape in ST:TMP, as a designer myself I had always missed the look of the original’s rounded Warp Nacelles and glowing Nacelle Caps. I had hoped for an impressive upgrading of these to be integrated into this supposed TOS-era Enterprise design this time….

Personally, I think this new shape is FUGLY, and nothing near as good as the one in ST:TMP even. It will still come across as impressive on the big screen, but this is due to the current high state of effects work these days anyway, and a closer-influenced shape to the original would have looked even nicer I reckon.

Between this and the extremely revamped Bridge….and supposed lines such as the English-spoken engineer Olsen saying “Oh yeah, I can’t wait to kick some Romulan arse”….this is a far more radical take, and deviation from the look and feel of the source material than I can take.

It *may* make for a diverting 2 hours or so, but it AIN’T shaping up to be TOS as I think of it, and this whole Star Trek franchise relaunch might have been better as a TOTALLY different era and crew in the making….

This is indeed ‘ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE’ Trek for me now.

Sorry, but I’m just calling it as I see it, and you are welcome to differ.

567. Duo - November 13, 2008

“We don’t know what things looked like after Enterprise and prior to TOS.”

We know what the Enterprise looked like during the time Pike was captain, and we know there were only minor differences by the time Kirk took command. We also know what each rank braid stood for. If you check the first picture we got of the new bridge, you can see McCoy’s rank braid (two solid lines) lists him as a Commander. Through-out TOS, he was a Lieutenant Commander. (one solid line, one broken line) McCoy was only a full Commander during the movie era.

“I modified Daniel Broadway’s version so the engineering hull wasn’t quite so deep and bloated. I also brought the deflector back out a bit more.

http://s479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Reign1701A/?action=view&current=enterprise_redesign.jpg

Now that looks like a good Enterprise. The only other aspects I am not particularly fond of is the Galaxy-class inspired look for the neck and the connection point of the pylons to the nacelles.. The shape of the engineering hull in the original picture is just an ugly beast and doesn’t fit well with a future refit to the TMP version.

I don’t think there would have been much of a reaction had Abrams just been honest and admitted that this is a reboot of Star Trek. (it’s not a dirty word, people) The backlash, I believe, is that he is trying to say that this all part of what came before. It’s clear from spoilers that it’s not simply a “visual update” of Trek and the events seen cannot be seamlessly added into previous Trek lore.

It’s a shame that people with Photoshop can do a better job than paid professionals.

568. Planet Pandro - November 13, 2008

re: 562
Exactly! Class, lets’s all get our “art of star trek” books out…pages 56 and 57…the Ralph McQuarrie/Ken Adam design…at least it isn’t THAT.

569. Balok - November 13, 2008

Its a big shame that they didn’t leave the exterior of the original E alone… but I still plan to see the movie and let my kids decide how good the movie really is…

570. Greg2600 - November 13, 2008

555 – Thanks, I always wanted to be a Taliban. Again, the bottom line is this has nothing to do with canon for me, or how close it looks to the original. I am willing to give them plenty of creative license. The problem I have, and many others do, is that it doesn’t look as good as we hoped or could be. Surely our preconceived image of the Enterprise from the last 40 years plays a part, I’ll grant that. But can we not have a simply opinion that when we look at the ship, it doesn’t look appealing?

571. trekmaster - November 13, 2008

@#567
Yeah, that version looks great! :-)

572. Holger - November 13, 2008

OK, so the proportions are misleading because of perspective. I’ll wait and see if – in right perspective – the engineering hull is not the wrong shape. But I still don’t see how a change of perspective will get the proportions of that engineering hull right. Not to mention the position of the connecting dorsal.

Apart from that: I find the connecting dorsal and the pylon/warp nacelle just overblown and plain ugly. All those pointless streamlined edges and curves which serve no other purpose than making the ship ‘look cool’. I think this is already a problem with the Enterprise E, but at least this ship was not pretending to be the same as a ship we had already seen before.

553: And here are some additional facts about grown-ups you might wish to review:
- They don’t insult everyone who happens to have a different opinion.
- They know that whatever you do, you can’t accommodate everyone, particularly when you are producing art. This is not a no-win scenario (to whine about) this is a fact everyone who produces art has to accept.
- They don’t use over-generalized knock-down slogans like ‘change is a constant’ in arguments. If that alone were a valid argument, one could steal one’s neighbor’s money and justify that by saying ‘change is a constant’.

573. spidertrek - November 13, 2008

Please, bring back the original design and colours. An computer animated original Enterprise looks better than this teapot.

574. Greg2600 - November 13, 2008

563- Wes – You could make a canon argument for the “smaller size,” because in The Cage Pike claimed to be responsible for the lives of 230 people, whereas the Kirk Enterprise of course had 403. That said, the internal structure/skin of the ship would have had to remain unchanged, otherwise it wouldn’t be the same ship. Who knows, perhaps they’ll fit it in with the Starfleet Admiral who said the “Enterprise is 20 years old” during ST:III? That would mean there was a massive refit prior to Kirk’s 5 year mission. That all could work, except that you’d have to basically throw “The Cage” out the window. I could live with that, it wasn’t a good episode anyway.

575. JL - November 13, 2008

557

“My big fear when I heard about this movie was that so much would be changed we’d have to struggle to recognize this as trek.”

This was my #1 fear as well – - – I expected to be shocked and/or apalled at the new E because I thought for SURE they were going to super-streamline it like the Next Generation ship – - – only even MORE so!

But guess what? They DIDN’T!! They honored the very essense of the design! They didn’t turn the sucer section into an orb or an egg, they didn’t stick a third nacelle underneath etc etc

IMO we should be sighing in relief that they didn’t F with this thing – - – it could have gone wrong a million ways to Sunday and it could have turned out practically unrecognizable.

Again, this is my opinion but honestly, can you not say they honored the overall integrity of the ship’s design, the ship’s structure as a whole?

Even as far as other elements in the film – the ones we have seen snapshots of – the uniforms of the crew, the likenesses of the actor’s (mostly), the shuttlecraft, the tech, the Trek universe in general – - – they have kept it largely intact, folks!

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth!!

576. Phil - November 13, 2008

half the fanbase??? You have got to be kidding. Really. If it bothers you that much, stay home…oh wait, you alreay are…..I’ve seen a few of the fan projects, so you all really need to get off of JJ’s back. A word of advice, don’t quit the day job. If you have one.

Keep repeating it everyone….

Good job, JJ

577. Fatman Bruno - November 13, 2008

Got to admit Daniel Broadway’s version is the one that made me smile inside, with a neck like that the body shoud be bulky.
The deflector dish should be gold
and the Enterprise should be beautiful.
If only I had a job at ILM!!!

578. Obviously - November 13, 2008

If you like it good for you, I’m glad. I’m going to still see the movie but it’s my personal opinion that this ship ain’t the Enterprise.

I’ll accept it only as a reboot or an alternate timeline. If you don’t like that, though. It shouldn’t matter to you what I think about it.

579. Gigastazio - November 13, 2008

570:

Oh you’re more than welcome to have your simply opinion, and you’re free to attempt to point to any statement I’ve made that people are not entitled to their simply opionion. Just remember to show an equal amount of respect for my desire to mercilessly make fun of and insult people who completely overreact, make snap judgements and unfounded claims as to the percentage of the fanbase that likes or dislikes somethng.

580. Wes - November 13, 2008

574: Greg2600, you are absolutely correct. The Cage was bullsh*t. But like you said, this new design looks like it could hold approximately 203 people. He said “I’m tired of being responsible for 203 lives” not 230. It’s ok, you made a simple mistake.

With Pike being in command of the ship in this film, the new Enterprise looks like what could have been when Pike was in command.

It’s ok, but I have mixed feelings of this new ship. It will be accepted as canon. What a good fusion of both the original and the TMP Enterprises. Look forward to seeing it in action against Nero and his Romulan cohorts.

581. JL - November 13, 2008

572

“They don’t use over-generalized knock-down slogans like ‘change is a constant’ in arguments. If that alone were a valid argument, one could steal one’s neighbor’s money and justify that by saying ‘change is a constant’.”

Okay, like that is a reasonable comparison to what I stated. Really now.

Maybe I should clarify – I did not intend to insult just anyone who disagrees – - I was addressing the “little whiny babies” who act as if one photograph is the end of the world and that they refuse to go see the movie based on a pinstripe not being included on the side of a spaceship!

582. JL - November 13, 2008

WTF

That ship could hold a THOUSAND people. Look at it

583. LordEdzo - November 13, 2008

As I see it, we have at least three uniquely Star Trek solutions to this problem:

1) Insert Trip Tucker using his shuttlepod to “bump” this bitch back into shape; or …

2) Get Picard to ram it with the Enterprise-E; or …

3) Substitute the remastered Starship Constellation from “The Doomsday Machine” with Church’s dumbo design so that Kirk can REALLY “ram ‘er right down that thing’s throat.”

584. DesiluTrek - November 13, 2008

The best thing that the new powers that be could do right now is to release better pics of the ship, if as Ryan Church said the angle does not do it justice and as Rick Sternbach said he’s seen a side view.

The theory that this is an altered-timeline E is growing on me. It would help explain why the saucer seems close to a dead ringer for the TMP Enterprise’s, down to the rings and window configuration along the rim.

585. thenewK2 - November 13, 2008

“I know engineers. They love to change things”. I remember the mixed feelings I had when I was 11 years old and first saw TMP Enterprise. A feeling of adoration that they had added so much detail and realism to the Enterprise (the multi-tone panels all over the ship, the light-up deflector dish, the separate Photon Torpedo launcher, the swooped back pylons and the marker lights which illuminate the Enterprise in the black of space), and extreme disappointment that they had removed my favorite part of the original ship, the spinning, light-up nacelles. To this day, I have never fully embraced TMP version because of the re-designed nacelles.

I was really hoping that the “new-old” enterprise would not take me down the same mixed emotional path of disappointment and joy, but it has. I’ve stared at it for two days now and I’ve come to the same conclusions I did with TMP version. It’s a “love/hate” thing. I do like that they made it look more like TMP version, but, I agree with some of the commentors, here, it kind of looks too much like the “C”, with 1950′s Air Force jet styled nacelles. I like the extruded light-up navigational deflector a lot, and I don’t think it sticks out too far, the problem is, the secondary hull. It looks like a toothpaste tube that has been squeezed half empty, and that throws the proportions, that we Trek fans are so used to, off.

I’m down with the idea of making Kirk’s Enterprise more up-to-date, so that it fits better (technologically) with the Enterprise that proceeded it (the NX) and TMP version which comes after it, but this is just a little off. It reminds me of some of the artwork of TOS Enterprise on Star Trek toys from the 70′s (The back of the Mego Bridge playset comes to mind). Like someone who only saw the Enterprise once or twice and tried to draw it based on memory…the proportions are off. At least the nacelles are round on the ends, this time around…I just hope they light up and have the spinning fans inside them. I don’t feel betrayed by this design. It is definitely, “THE ENTERPRISE”. But, as a designer and lifelong student of Matt Jeffries work, and as someone who paid $1200 to get a Master Replicas SE Enterprise, seeing this re-done Enterprise is kind of like having my wife come home from a day of shopping with a new face on her head. It’s still her, underneath, but at the same time, it isn’t.

One more comment, if I may; I love Rick and Ryan’s work on ST and SW. True masters. But, why is it that with all the talented people in this country (not to mention the rest of the world), why is it that two guys get to work on everything?! I saw some awesome work done by people who post on this site that were as good, if not better, than this design. Hey, J.J….Hey, George…GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE TO DESIGN YOUR STUFF!

586. YARN - November 13, 2008

If this is it, it’s good enough. What’s going to make or break this film is not the design of the ship (it’s passable), but the story they tell.

And if anything killed “canonical” Trek, it was the slew of terrible movies that preceded this one. The assumption that fans would always return to the trough ended with Nemesis.

587. Timncc1701 - November 13, 2008

564 Come out of the closet. Those who have “mixed feelings” cannot be classified as enthusiastic or as exuberant as yourself. Thus, close to half.

588. CaptainRickover - November 13, 2008

Broadway’s Enterprise-mod is far better than the original Church-design, but I prefer Spockboy’s version a bit more. Combined with Broadway’s golden glowing deflector, the numbering and the red stripes, then I would be really happy with the new E.

589. JL - November 13, 2008

“Hey, J.J….Hey, George…GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE TO DESIGN YOUR STUFF!”

I tend to agree.

With all the $$$$ at stake – at the very least – fly a few of these amazing Trek fan/designers in for an early roundtable brainstorm. How could that hurt? It only has the potential to help by bringing in other perspectives! It seems like such an obvious thing to consider.

590. LordEdzo - November 13, 2008

Allow me to share with JJ’s team a bit of wisdom from the great Montgomery Scott:

“The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.”

Honestly, JJ, stop trying to re-create the wheel.

591. Dr. Image - November 13, 2008

Let’s not forget, this isn’t the first less-than-beautiful Trek ship- Excelsior?(toilet with lid down) Grissom? (simply bizzare) We’ve seen much worse-
but, we’ve come to accept them as part of history- oops! Will THIS one be fitting into THAT history? Methinks not!

BTW, LOVE the video, Spockboy!

#589 JL- I’ll second that. We have some serious talent around here.

592. K. Thatcher - November 13, 2008

Don’t like it, but that’s just me.

Why are there big phasers attached to the hull in place of the warp nacelles?

593. Kev-1 - November 13, 2008

The design itself is interesting, but it lacks the grace the TOS had, especially that jutting front. The nacelles have an “extruded organic” look which clashes with the saucer. To me, anyway. The whole secrecy of this project has worked against it. IMHO. FIrst the writers and now the designer come forward to defend their work. As if there was not 40 years of design and history to work from. That said, I respect their efforts.

594. CarlG - November 13, 2008

I’m liking the new enterprise more each time I see it — it’s really growing on me.
Still want to see it from different angles, though. Each starship always one or two angles where it looks the best (except Enterprise-A — she looks sexy from 99.9% of camera angles).

595. CarlG - November 13, 2008

Actually, the only thing that really bugs me is the industrial-looking shuttlecraft (which I love) don’t really match up with the swoopy, clean-lines of the Enterprise design-wise. It’s like a military jeep parked next to a 57 Chevy.

596. tribble farmer - November 13, 2008

The only thing I’d change is the neck. But otherwise I like it a lot.

Though I love the Daniel Broadway design as far as the implementation of the red from the original goes. That’s very nice.

597. MattTheTrekkie - November 13, 2008

Okay, I love it now. I just needed time to adjust.
This thing probably kicks trash in battle, if you were to fuse 25th century technology with the constitution class? No wonder Nero can’t just blow them all up.

Prime Spock sure gave them a fighting chance ;)

598. Smike van Dyke - November 13, 2008

You know, the more I look at the new Enterprise, the less I miss the old models… it almost feels as if my feelings for the ship are mythically absorbed by the new model…

After 2 or 3 movies with the new Enterprise, she will be the one and only…

599. Odkin - November 13, 2008

Re: the Engineering hull – it looks like the designer is trying to take the same curve from the top of the hull up through the saucer support, and mirror it on the bottom of the hull with that elongated taper. It looks like the saucer support tapers all the way to the rear of the ship. In profile, this may look quite good, we’ll see. Anyone agree that this was the intent?

600. Blowback - November 13, 2008

Any chance we could see the new E from a few more angles? How bout a hi-rez shot or two?

Throw us a bone!!!!!

601. Odkin - November 13, 2008

Two more things – I’ll take her as she is, but if they do tweak it, I want the red strip back!

Second – put yourselves in JJs shoes. If you were him, would you ever want to touch the Trek franchise again after seeing our behavior?

602. Greg2600 - November 13, 2008

579. Gigastazio – I agree the people who come on here, post once that they hate the ship and will not see the film, and leave, are pretty lame. I’ve said, like James Cawley, there are a lot of things I really don’t like that they’ve done. I am still really disappointed that Shatner will not be there with Nimoy. I probably will never get over that, my affection for them is too strong. But I love the casting choices (except John Cho – he’s way too old), the fact that Paramount has finally spent more than chump change on a Trek movie, and that Star Trek geeks may finally have something to stick to Star Wars dorks! That said, I am still very interested, and equally apprehensive about the film. I am not 100% sold on the writers or J.J. himself. I think the film will be good, but I’m not going to start celebrating and bad mouthing all nay-sayers like many have chosen to do.

603. Danpaine - November 13, 2008

JL, we’ll just pick a nerd-friendly bar between Cleveland and Philadelphia.

604. JL - November 13, 2008

Danpaine

Awright!

but hopefully it won’t come to that and the movie will rock.

605. bubba2008 - November 13, 2008

Not meaning to be rude…

but it seems to me that people who are so gung-ho about the future that STAR TREK represents would be a little less closed-minded when it came to actual progress.

Let’s face it, you guys that want the new Enterprise to look like the dozen or so models you have hanging in your bedrooms are more about the good old days and less about what STAR TREK was really about… forward thinking.

606. Bubba2008 - November 13, 2008

To quote Kirk…

“Young minds, fresh ideas… be tolerant.”

607. Peter N - November 13, 2008

I finally got around to watching TMP last night, having been inspired to buy the Director’s Edition DVD last week after reading comments on the TMP trailer and film, and must agree that the Enterprise in this movie is probably my favorite. I do see several connections in a *possible* lineage from this newly-revealed Enterprise design (which pays obvious respects to previous designs and “things which must be” while updating the look) and really love the saucer section. Even the connection to the engineering hull has grown on me, although I would prefer to have the neck moved a little further forward. Still, the engineering hull looks disproportionately small in this shot, and that in combination with the placement of the nacelles leaves little room for an aft shuttlebay – which is supposed to be pretty big, according to the scenes that JJ has been showing. Overall not a bad look to the Enterprise; perhaps more angles will indeed tell us more and decrease the number of skeptics (one hopes).

608. Athos - November 13, 2008

GET A LIFE NERDS!!! You speaks as the nerd of Galaxy Quest. THIS IS A REBOOT!!! A very needy REBOOT. Stop talking about Cannon.. The Motion Picture??? BORING!!! VERY VERY BORRING!!!!. This is the year 2008!! Update yourself or go to a museum.

609. Reign1701A - November 13, 2008

Ok, by now everyone knows how I feel about the design. However here’s something we can all ask ourselves and the designers…where is the “NCC-1701″ markings on the bottom of the saucer? Is there no pinstripping on the side of the engineering hull? It reminds me of a built and painted model that someone forgot to put the decals on. 470-Daniel Broadway…dude, nice work on the 3D rendition. The proportions don’t look that bad from other angles, hopefully the real model looks as good from other angles.

610. JL - November 13, 2008

hey bubba… you are so right.

611. JL - November 13, 2008

608

“This is the year 2008!! Update yourself or go to a museum.”

OMG hilarious

612. JL - November 13, 2008

608 might be the funniest, most truthful thing posted so far (relating to the new Trek)

613. GrandvilleMan - November 13, 2008

543 – Bad ass? Yep, you’re right on the money!

The saucer section is plausible, but her ass? BAD!

I’ll stick with the REAL TOS continuation, aka Star Trek: Phase II!

JL – u mstrb8n mamas boy, go play with ur Barbies!

614. Shaun - November 13, 2008

#605

Excellent point! And an obvious one as well…

615. z1on0101 - November 13, 2008

The new nacelle looks like an olive on a skewer. Why did they have to make them so swollen?

616. LordCheeseCakeBreath - November 13, 2008

It looks so much better with the nacells moved up. Amazing.

modded in secondary hull and TMP struts by Ben

Don’t mind the e changing a little, just don’t make it look weird.

617. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

608 – I have yet to see, in all honesty, a reboot that was remotely necessary.

618. Egghead - November 13, 2008

I am still trying to get used to this design.
Some one mentioned the bulbous bow… I still can’t the idea of “Wave Motion Gun” out of my head from Space Battleship Yamato (Starblazers)…

619. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

512, JL:

It does?

Looks like a Federation starship of some kind to me, but the Enterprise?

No, sorry. Not to me.

620. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

520, Sctt:

Reminder, we know what the Enterprise looked like 13 years before TOS, may I refer you to “The Cage.”

621. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

550, Tony Villarreal:

Right on, dude!

622. Rick Sternbach - November 13, 2008

#585 said “But, why is it that with all the talented people in this country (not to mention the rest of the world), why is it that two guys get to work on everything?!”

I stopped designing ships and props for the franchise in 2001, so you can’t paint me with that brush completely. :) I agree, there are a lot of talented designers out there; some borrow very heavily from existing ship shapes and others go off in related but fresh directions. Some incorporate a really good understanding of Starfleet and Trek alien tech, others put an emphasis on styling. Jason “Vektor” Lee gets it. My Wolfpack pal DakPhoenix (phoenixium.com) really gets it. Getting the job at the studio or VFX house is a mishmash of who you know, union affiliation, experience, and a bunch of other factors. Get you reel or portfolio together, and pound the pavement, so to speak. Get your stuff seen.

623. Phil - November 13, 2008

Finally, the truth is coming out….all these sunlight starved fans are pissed because they were not all personally flown to Hollywood to consult and design. Because as we can all see from the studio quality fan videos that the folks in Hollywood don’t have a clue how to do their jobs, and the true talent lies right here, on the Internet. Keep the day job, guys…

There is a reason all this stuff is on YouTube – you can’t make money on stuuf no one will buy. The worst Trek flick is still better then the best fan video, hands down. Having said that…..

Good job, JJ!!!!

624. colonyearth - November 13, 2008

Ok people come on…it looks fantastic. It is also being shot here with a slightly wide angle lens, throwing areas of it out of proportion. All of the E’s have had a jut out to the front dish…all of them. This on is merely a bit more prominant. I’m with the new E’s designer…wait and see it in action, folks. Let’s not rush to judge.

After all, with Bush leaving office now, those days should be behind us. If I were the new designer…I’d be hurt. He put a lot of effort and thought into this and he’s no newby to design. And you hardliners are ripping him to shreds over one shot of it. You should all be ashamed.

Trek was about openmindedness and the IDIC principle, but you all are acting like children who have to share a toy. Give me a freakin’ break. Grow up and give it a chance.

Someone else pointed out Kirk’s great line in STVI; “People can be very frightened of change.” He was right…but what you’re all “frightened” of is a single shot of a ship redesign and some of you are ready to chuck the whole thing because of it.

If this will stop you from seeing it and supporting what may well be Trek’s last chance if it fails…well then…don’t go see it. Let the rest of us with some sense go and enjoy it over and over.

And some of you major geek boys and girls…jeesh..get over it. Need to see spec designs and such? Give me a break. SF works best when it doesn’t get bogged down in too much tech or explanation. The fact the Trek did for so many years get bogged down in technobabble is part of what killed almost killed it.

Give me great characters again. Give me a great story. Yeah, I want the E to look great and kick ass…and I’m sure it will. Give it time and a chance for chrissakes!

CE

625. Loskene - November 13, 2008

Oh dear whatever god you believe in, what has he done to the ship?
The secondary hull is absolutely revolting, ill-proportioned and looks nothing like it should be. Call me a purist but I would have been happier with the Constitution CGI they used for In A Mirror, Darkly

626. Mikey - November 13, 2008

I had a non-Trekkie friend of mind look at the new design and he said “Looks like the same old Enterprise.” Amen to that. That put things into perspective for me.

627. COMPASSIONATE GOD - November 13, 2008

623. Phil – November 13, 2008
“Finally, the truth is coming out….all these sunlight starved fans are pissed because they were not all personally flown to Hollywood to consult and design. Because as we can all see from the studio quality fan videos that the folks in Hollywood don’t have a clue how to do their jobs, and the true talent lies right here, on the Internet. Keep the day job, guys”

More childish insults. …and just so you know, a studio job does not instantly walk hand in hand with quality or talent.

628. Brian - November 13, 2008

Does look top-heavy and awkward (didn’t Rodenberry put the initial model in a wind tunnel during the design research phase?) but as this is pre-TOS, it was this Enterprise that led to the TOS 1701 (which leds me to wonder what the Starfleet ID of this this ship ought to be 1701-X_)

629. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#623 – “The worst Trek flick is still better then the best fan video, hands down.”

Y’know, I don’t think that’s true anymore. I used to, though. But with “World Enough and Time”, at least, “New Voyages”/”Phase II” jumped well past the lower-rated (on my list) Paramount-produced Trek films. “Of Gods and Men” was competitive with them, too.

IMHO, of course, and others’ mileage may vary.

630. Danpaine - November 13, 2008

#617 – Alex – Exactly.

631. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 13, 2008

Stop modifying the engineering hull, and focus on the neck!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I had photoshop, I could do it myself, but I would make the neck as smooth as the original, yet a bit more thicker.

632. New Horizon - November 13, 2008

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Reign1701A/enterprise_redesign.jpg?t=1226605460

Just saw this revision…even this would have been perfect. It’s the awful way they dealt with the engineering hull that just looks so bad.

633. Matt - November 13, 2008

My god! What a response to one image.

This is why people laugh at us Trek fans!!

634. Phil - November 13, 2008

627….Don’t think I said that everything that comes out of Hollywood is top notch. Don’t see to many people moving out of the amateur ranks to be charged with making a big bucks, blockbuster motion picture.

The further you get into this post, the more people are stepping up to say they could do a better job with Photoshop. If so, why are they not making a living at it? Because they can’t, thats why. This gives them a forum to spout off. Someone posted they wanted to kill JJ over this, yet I”M INSULTING PEOPLE? Go ahead – defend killing someone over this…you can’t , and if that puts you off, well, I’m sorry you don’t get out more.

Say it again…good job, JJ.

635. Zombie - November 13, 2008

I read up above that “there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle” is what might be the problem.

Perhaps TPTB should release more pictures.

To me right now I’m blah on it only because it looks squashed. The secondary hull needs to be longer.

636. King Anthony - November 13, 2008

So, this is the new and improved Enterprise?

Amazing what you can do with 23rd century arc welding and folks who don’t have the slightest clue about what they’re doing, backed up by corporate suits with more money than brains

Well, some folks thought the Edsel and dirigibles full of hydrogen gas were amazing, too…but we all know how they ended up….

I called it months ago, and this proves me right. I can’t wait until next year…

Priceless….

637. JL - November 13, 2008

634

Yeah, hey Phil didn’t someone post that they wanted to kill JJ…? Man what a sad state of affairs.

638. William Kirk - November 13, 2008

Why they wanted to return to the TOS era? TOS was written in the 60ies. We live in the 21. century. If it where evertyhing new, why not. The design is interesting. I don’t like, but I can admit that it is interesting. But please don’t tell me it’s James T. Kirk’s ship….

639. Phil - November 13, 2008

I honestly hope law enforcement is tracking that individual down.. No one deserves the crap that is being spewed here.

Good job, JJ.

640. James Cannon - RUNCORN TREKKER UK - November 13, 2008

To quote Data from Generations: “yes… that is it! I HATE THIS!”

Some of the revisions done by you guys on photoshop look closer to the TOS Enterprise than the monstrosity that has been revealed.

Which begs me to ask; if another Titanic Movie was released… would they have radically altered another ship we are so familiar with? I doubt it.

641. JL - November 13, 2008

640

The Titanic was based on an actual historic even involving real human beings.

The starship Enterprise is 100% fictional in a fantasy world and does not, nor ever did, exist.

642. JL - November 13, 2008

correction above: actual historic event

643. Topaz172 - November 13, 2008

Challenge to Modders….

See if you can create the movie NCC1700.5 from a different angle

we agree it looks a bit odd in this one shot, but can you find an angle where the new design looks good?

644. Matt - November 13, 2008

640

The Titanic was REAL!!! The Enterprise is from a TV show!!

645. James Cannon - RUNCORN TREKKER UK - November 13, 2008

641; fair point.

But what I was trying to say was its something someone INSTANTLY recognises when they say the name.

646. Roddenberry Worshiper - November 13, 2008

“What in bloody blazes is this?” This looks more like the 1701-C from the TNG episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise.” What in the hell are Paramount and Abrams thinking? IMO Star Trek has gotten way off couse from the visions that Gene Roddenberry had back in the 60′s for the franchise. He wanted to get across messages and ideals that mattered to the human spirit (peace, love, hope, harmony, union, etc.). Paramount has basically destroyed the Star Trek franchise. Ever notice since Star Trek VI came out there hasn’t been a decent Trek movie released? Reason being is that Roddenberry was alive up to that point giving his personal OK for each project related to Star Trek. It’s a shame how this franchise has basically gone into the toilet since. New cast members I could agree with. But did they have to put them into a “flea trap” of a ship? Reboot/revamp or not…this is Star Trek for Christ’s sake. You’re dealing with Americana here. I hope and pray after this abomination is released that Paramount either does another TNG era movie OR does an Enterprise era movie…perhaps a “birth of the Federation” storyline since that was poorly introduced in the series. I bet if Gene were still alive Star Trek would be a hell of a lot better than it is now.

647. Donn - November 13, 2008

Some helpful facts for those who aren’t quite getting it:

1. This is the same USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, famously commanded by James T. Kirk on a five year mission to seek out new life, etc.

2. This ship does not somehow get “refit” to look like the original TOS model from the ’60s. Neither does the bridge somehow get redesigned to look like the bridge from TOS. For the purposes of JJ Abrams’ “version” of Star Trek, this is what the ship looks like going forward.

You can hate the design, you can like it, whatever your bag is, but you should know that this design is not somehow going to “change” into what we’ve seen previously.

If it helps, consider it akin to how the bridge changed between every movie, heck, how radically the bridge of the “Bounty” changed between STIII and STIV. I know it is difficult, but for a moment set aside the temptation to come up with a “canon” explanation, and let it sink in that different directors and production designers have different goals, and want to see different things. It’s okay, it doesn’t have to violate the meaning of the stories that have already been told, and the relevance of the new stories. The only one with the power to allow that is YOU.

648. Phil - November 13, 2008

Well, you had better hope that this “abomination” makes a ton of money, because there won’t be any more Trek if it dosent. No TNG movoes, no TOS movies, because most of that cast is DEAD OR REALLY, REALLY OLD, no nothing.

Remember that, all you people who are screaming about how horrible this is SIGHT UNSEEN.

Good job, JJ

649. D.J. - November 13, 2008

I think it looks interesting and is just fine with me. I would have been dumbfounded if it had looked exactly like the version concevied in the early 1960′s!!!!

650. ML31 - November 13, 2008

I expected some change, of course. But this version is a couple of steps too far I think. I’d also like to point out that back in ’79, I LOVED the new TMP Enterprise.

651. TheWon - November 13, 2008

Why didn’t they use Gabe Koerner’s Concept .

652. Commodore Shaggy - November 13, 2008

I don’t know that I can add anything new to the hundreds of comments that have come along but I do find the proportions weird. I’ll just wait to see it in motion before really making a judgment on it but it is a bit different than I expected. But I like those last two renditions at the end of the post better for now.

653. Gorn - November 13, 2008

647: Well said!!

654. JL - November 13, 2008

647

“…let it sink in that different directors and production designers have different goals, and want to see different things.”

“…it doesn’t have to violate the meaning of the stories that have already been told…”

This is a more positive way to look at it. Well said.

It’s not like The Unted States of America has turned into a Communist country and now soldiers are going door-to-door rounding up people to put into slave camps or torture or kill.

It’s fantasy… it’s fun… it’s Star Trek, as told by a fresh new group of individuals with a new vision and new ideas.

And who knows? You might actually like it when you see it! Maybe for different reasons! God forbid, maybe it will be exciting and entertaining! WHOA!!

655. DennyC - November 13, 2008

From reading these comments, it seems as though someone cloned the comic book guy from the Simpsons.

Get a life people. Comparing the Enterprise to the Titanic??? One big difference: THE ENTERPRISE DOESN’T EXIST! Neither does “canon.” As much as I love ST, especially TOS, how can you say that there is an established “canon” when the EXISTING tv series and films blatantly contradict one another, and always have.

JJ could decide to call Spock a “Vulcanian” and he would be as true to canon as if he called him a Vulcan. Maybe we should have Sulu change shirt colors mid-movie in order to respect canon. Sure, there are certain big things that have to stay consistent (i.e., you can’t suddenly decide to name the ship the U.S.S. Lollipop), but when you get into details you’re going to drive yourself nuts.

Some of you apparently already have.

656. greeneya - November 13, 2008

That ship is ugly. Bring back the ”old Enterprise”!!!!!

657. JL - November 13, 2008

655

“Sure, there are certain big things that have to stay consistent (i.e., you can’t suddenly decide to name the ship the U.S.S. Lollipop), but when you get into details you’re going to drive yourself nuts.”

This comment and the other comments you mentioned, made me smile. You have a healthy grip on reasonable expectations. Me, I could not care less whether Sulu is wearing the blue shirt from the pilot episode or the yellow one from the series run. WHO CARES, AS LONG AS THE STORY IS THERE, THE CHARACTERS ARE THERE, THE EXCITEMENT IS THERE, THE CREATIVITY IS THERE, THE TOS “TREKINESS” IS THERE??!! THOSE are the things we need to be worried about, if anything… because if those things aren’t there then this film will suck and not all the canon in the world will save it.

658. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 13, 2008

I have concluded that the E we see above looks a bit different than the E in the teaser.

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-exclusive-more-detailed-look-at-the-enterprise-vic-1269/

659. The Gorn - November 13, 2008

JJ just called! First dork with a copy of photoshop and too much time on their hands to show up at the Paramount lot gets a fat salary to oversee a last-minute refit for the new movie!!! :)

But seriously, I’ve never seen anything like this! I would urge some of these “fans” to crawl out of their basements a little early and get some fresh air! It’s only a movie for Christ’s sake!

This trekkie thinks the new E looks sleek and curvy and can’t wait for a new Star Trek movie! Those of you claiming that fan-made, you-tube productions are superior need to give your heads a shake.

Star Trek is BACK baby!!!

Bring it on JJ!

660. Universal Tim - November 13, 2008

Alright, now I don’t hate this design, in fact I can accept it…no problem. There are things I don’t like about it, but there are things I do like. I can actually say that this intrigues me, and I get used to it everyday. However, I’ll be the first to admit that there seems to be different styles in the design that don’t seem to mesh well together as a whole.
I finally figured out what it reminds me of…that Johnny Cash song “One Piece at a Time” where he talks about stealing a Cadillac one piece at a time for twenty years. When he finally puts it together, it doesn’t fit well, but he makes it work. It’s pretty funny, and this ship kind of resembles that to some degree.
Again, I don’t hate it. It is different, and not exactly what I was expecting or hoping for, but I can accept it.

661. Federelis - November 13, 2008

Well, I guess I read about half of the posts here and in the first forum; my two cents hopefully are not doomed to be repetive.

This will be about percieved design errors, not about J.J. and friends. I love Lost, Alias worked until Season 4 and MI:III found it’s way around Cruise. Well, the movie could and should work even without the Enterprise ever seen. STIV kinda proved that. The Characters have to work and the indications are good.

Naturally, because this is passing judgement on a purely fictional vessel everything about it is subjective, it’s about feelings. So in that sense everyone who in this regard made the “get-over-it” arguments (which are getting pretty stale, too btw) is shockingly right to do so.

I myself been a concept artist for eleven years and in many ways i can picture the developement of this design. I can see the intelectual framework behind it…
…like i can see the thinking behind the iraq war(sorry, getting political). Doesn’t mean it will work.
Looks like the work of people who liked each other more than the product. That’s my kind of hell. Don’t get me started at the lack of coherent visual language and proportions, the sagging Nacelle-Pylons, the utter mindlessness of combining a an almost direct lift of the Refit Primary Hull with the fanboy pseudo-streamlined Secondary Hull… sigh… with the formless something of a belly.
Everything we create has to do exactly one thing first: getting the audience to feel something. Take them on a journey. And in 40+ plus years time the old lady called Enterprise delivered like no other and still does.
Something in the old desgins worked its way through to the D and vanished only with the NX-01(Myself drawing the line here).

So for us out there who lose hope because of a still image, we feel something essential missing with this new design. This new Ship, it somehow never.. gets over itself. It never goes boldly anywhere in its visuals. It gets stuck in formal ideas. It’s a needless shift to nowhere.

I’m all for change. God, i’m happy Obama won. But he won’t paint the White House yellow or streamline it. He will make it work again so people have gain some unifying hope when they see it in the news. In our small world (is it?) that’s what the NCC-1701 should deliver.

Sorry, that’s how i feel…

662. Jonny Boy - November 13, 2008

Hey guys. This is my first post, though I’ve been lurking the site for a long time. I just wanted to chime in with a few words.

I’m 23, and I started with TNG, and with the films. I love the original crew, love the original series, but think it definitely needed to be reimagined for the 21st century in terms of design. I love the Constitution-Class refit from TMP, and I appreciate that the designers of the new Enterprise have thrown in enough of the small details to make this ship seem like a logical predecessor to the Connie-refit.

Having said that, I do have to say that my initial reaction was a WTF moment. I agree that the secondary hull seems a little too far forward, and it gives the ship a slightly awkward shape from that angle. However, I really like the nacelles. For whatever reason, they just seem like they could actually do what they’re supposed to do. The turbochargers under the bussard collector seem a bit weird, but not too bad either. The saucer section is perfect, and I like the look of the deflector dish.

I can now say that I like the design, though I’ll reserve final judgement until I see it in action (and from a better view). Since I was interested in seeing how she might look in profile, I decided to put a silhouette together. (Go easy, I did it in about five minutes. I’m a graphic designer, so I promise I can do better :)

I didn’t bother with the correct shapes for the saucer, since we’ve pretty much seen it. I just wanted to get a better sense of her lines.

http://img371.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newenterprisesillouhettnh9.jpg

I gotta say this doesn’t look bad. Granted, its probably way off, but if the real thing is close to this, I feel really good. As a lifetime Trekkie, I gotta say I’m still really excited about the movie. I wish Bob Orci, Ryan Church, and the rest of J.J.’s Supreme Court the best.

663. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

This could be any number of federation ships, but it’s not TOS era Enterprise by a long shot. Well, all I can say is Spock must be travelling back into an alternate timeline.

If you’re marrying the two realities with original Spock, then there should be a touch more continuity in the iconic design. I didn’t need it to be exact, but I was hoping for something that reflected the design of the original much more closely.

I’m disappointed. Doug L.

664. JL - November 13, 2008

661

Nice job but wow, I hope the nacelles are not THAT huge. They look gigantic.

665. Christine - November 13, 2008

It’s different, yeah, but I’m keeping an open mind about the upcoming 2009 things. Personally, I think the ship looks really cool.

After all, isn’t it practically tradition that Star Trek never goes by exact continunity? Keep in mind, too, that this is the Enterprise when it’s brand-new (at least, newer than it is in TOS). And they’re trying to appeal to.. um… non-Trekkies, too.

Don’t know about you guys, but I’m looking forward to seeing Her in action!

666. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

Wow gotta chime in one more time before i get back to work… It’s not that there is anything wrong with it, but from a simple design standpoint, it doesn’t speak to being more modern… or “cooler” or anything. It’s just different…

What was the point. The interior sets, the bridge and engineering, OF COURSE these need to be updated, they were cheesey cardboard sets with jelly bean lights, but the Enterprise Design itself was cool.

There was no need for such a dramatic change, and personally, I don’t think it’s as elegant a design as the original or TMP Enterprise. Looks a little clunky to me.

Doug L.

667. Jonny Boy - November 13, 2008

663

Yeah, its hard from the angle of the picture to guess their true scale, but I tried to combine the two angles we’ve seen of them to get a relative size. I actually don’t mind them at this size, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are actually deeper than this. If that’s the case, then it might get weird.

668. EA - November 13, 2008

it’s just not right.

669. Harry - November 13, 2008

To be fair, and to my own surprise, I think the modded images actually make it look worse.

Yes, maybe I’m slowly going crazy, but each time I look at the image, it becomes better.

670. JWM - November 13, 2008

424:”The original series ran for 13 years before the movie series–first run and in constant syndication combined,”

Still only as long as the movie Trek. And it still does not address the point that the *casual* fan identifies more with the film-era design. You, as a die-hard fan, have lost perspective.

424: “nostalgia has nothing to do with why the Prequels ships failed to fascinate and stick with the public. ”

The snarky tone of the rest of your post aside, let me address this: name a film that has run for more than 12 months in the theaters without a break. Star Wars did. Why? The market was *bare* for that sort of thing. Now, a successful blockbuster has maybe a two week run at number one before the saturated market provides something that knocks it off. Multi-million dollar FX spectacles are now the norm, not the exception. Even huge hits like The Dark Knight are barely remembered weeks after their run ends. The market is now saturated.

The TV shows you mention as “alternatives” to SW further prove my point: Space 1999 is a forgotten footnote of the era except to sci-fi obsessives. Battlestar Galactica ran for one season (true) and was resurrected as the disastrous Galactica 1980. Further, the ship designs were led by John Dykstra, a key man in the SW FX team, so the ships really were just an extension of that motif.

Your refrain is familiar, because I’ve debated this to death with many people like you. There is no way anyone will ever make a point, nor that you will ever concede one. I’m at peace with that, because I understand where you are coming from. I don’t condemn you, I don’t think less of your opinion (as you so obviously do of others’), I simply suggest politely that you adjust your perception. Your opinions are being distorted by a very nostalgic lens.

671. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 660 Federelis…

Totally agree with you. Nicely said. Doug L.

I’ve got a lot of reading to do when I get home. The Enterprise has always sparked something in my imagination, and I’m curious about all the different points of view.

672. JWM - November 13, 2008

“There was no need for such a dramatic change, and personally, I don’t think it’s as elegant a design as the original or TMP Enterprise. Looks a little clunky to me.”

Another point to address: since it pre-dates the one you love, simply chalk it up as before the first refit. Look, problem solved. :o)

673. JJ staff applicant - November 13, 2008

HANG ON A MINUTE!
first off… it looks ‘like’ the enterprise to me…
secondly… a whole bunch of people have been twisting on saying George Lucas screwed up doing the prequels and this looks to me like we are in for a real treat… these folks have took star trek and give it a good hard shake… it looks like Star Trek’s been reinvigorated yet again.. this time more than ever!

674. Legion, J.G. - November 13, 2008

Thanks for including me in the credits – Aqua somehow forgot to mention me….

Unfortunately he did use the old version; there is a second, better version.

675. thenewK2 - November 13, 2008

#622 Wow, Rick, thanks for responding to my post. I hope you don’t think that I was implying that you (or Ryan) don’t deserve to work on ST or SW. Not at all. I was merely saying that there are some incredible artists and designers out here (I humbly count myself as one) who don’t know anyone in Hollywood that could/would give us a chance. in 2001, I got to design some toys for Star Wars and got to go out to Lucasfilm, see an early version of EPII and even met the Bearded One himself, but that’s as close as I’ve ever gotten…toy designs, based on Ryan and Dougs work. I’d like you to know that your work on ST has been absolutely amazing and continues to be a source of inspiration for me. Ryan, that goes for you too. No disrespect intended. Live long and, well, you know.

676. Ensign Ruiter - November 13, 2008

4 8 15 16 23 42:

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. It was not intended to be a divisive or elitist comment, pitting “dia-hards vs. noobs” in fact quite the contrary.

My point is this: if the majority of fans are not die-hard fans (which stands to reason–I mean the ones without collectables, etc) and this majority does not care–has no opinion– if the ship is redesigned, but a minority group (the die-hards) DOES care, then why not leave it pretty much alone and please both groups.

I was not suggesting that all big fans of Star Trek reject the new design.

The purpose of this forum is to express ideas and opinions.

677. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#648 – “Well, you had better hope that this “abomination” makes a ton of money, because there won’t be any more Trek if it dosent.”

If the best they can come up with is a reboot/alternate universe strategy, the argument could be made that there isn’t any more Trek, anyway. But of course, I’m biased, and for me, Trek is–more than any particular set of characters–its world. That’s why new characters don’t bother me, and why new casts don’t bother me. But if one is walking away from the big picture, well, sorry, but that bothers me.

“Good job, JJ”

For that, I’ll wait ’til I’ve seen the movie.

To be fair, there’s a lot that I’ve seen that I like, and maybe a little that I don’t. And I’ll stipulate to the fact that there’s a lot we still don’t know, and whether or not I can, in the end, say “Good job, JJ” will probably be a factor of what’s still to come. So I will ofer up an open mind until I know the rest of the tale.

Fair enough?

678. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - November 13, 2008

It’s new , it’s different . Would I have chosen this direction? No . However , this IS the ship that we will be going on our next big screen adventure , you can either buck up , and accept it , or you can whine and complain and sit and watch your old DVDs and VHS tapes till you wear them out . That’ll leave room in the lines around the theaters for those of us with open minds this May!

679. JL - November 13, 2008

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHN!!!!!

680. Ken Thomson - November 13, 2008

Well, they can still refit this one to TOS standards, which I still think look better. This has such a retro look that I’d say it’s the LAST of a technological era (the 2250′s) and will be replaced by a more streamlined (2260′s) classic design. This would be a Constellation Class ship, NCC-1017, before upgrade to Constitution Class.

THIS HAS THE BENEFIT OF FIXING A WIERD INCONSISTENCY IN TOS, THAT CONSTELLATION AND REPUBLIC (AND A FEW OTHERS) HAD SHIP NUMBERS THAT WERE LOWER THAN NCC-1700 FOR CONSTITUTION CLASS.

That’s the way I’m going to look at it, even though it’s fudging the canon FOR Abrams’ benefit.

Ken

681. Kirk's Girdle - November 13, 2008

Nice work Daniel Broadway, but it still looks less and less like the Enterprise.

682. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 13, 2008

I showed it to my six-year-old son, who’s been a “Star Trek” fan since he started conducting the TNG theme when he was 6 months old.

His first reaction: “It’s the Enterprise.”
Five seconds later: “Wait. It’s different.” And then he proceeded to point out every little thing that was different. And then he asked me why they changed it.

And when I asked him what he thought about it, he shrugged one shoulder and said, “Well, I guess. It’s cool.”

My best friend says the new E looks like it has “Star Wars” disease – too clean, too streamlined, too snazzy.

I’m still waiting for the clip when it Transforms into a vacuum.

The thing that some people don’t seem to understand is that this ship is something more than just an element in an old TV show. It’s now a cultural icon, in whichever version you think – original Connie, Connie-refit, or 1701-A. The ship has been a constant, despite the changes due to the refit. We all know the USS Enterprise. I mean, this is the ship that restyled the Space Shuttle program.

It’s different from re-styling the “Galactica”. Or creating a new fighter ship from “Buck Rogers”. This is changing something that has worldwide cultural significance. It’s like changing the American flag. Changing baseball. Moving a major sports franchise to a new city and changing the name (the original Colts will always be from Indianapolis to me). It IS Americana, even though it is a piece of fiction.

What some people are so upset about, I think, is not so much the ship has been changed – but HOW and WHY it’s been changed. After so many reassurances to the contrary, we’re starting to see evidence that canon may have been tweaked a bit.

And TITANIC may have taken place on the real, historic ship, but the story never happened. Complete waste of time. But it was worth the price of a ticket just to see her sink.

I’m hanging onto the possibility that this may be an alternate timeline ship. But if it’s not, what are we gonna do? It is what it is.

When my COMET TALES becomes as big as TREK, I hope my fans are as emotionally invested as this…

683. Bob - November 13, 2008

It sucks. PERIOD.

684. Bill Hunt - November 13, 2008

The reveal of the new Enterprise design is, of course, the biggest potential landmine to fan acceptance of the new Trek, and I suspect that JJ and the filmmakers knew it going in. It’s likely why they’ve released the first image now, so we all have time to digest it. I also suspect that once we see a few more images and angles, a lot of this controvery will start to die down. I’ll confess, it’s sorta kinda growing on me a little. We’ll see.

685. Requiem1971 - November 13, 2008

Ok, had to write what I see as an issue that no one else is saying. With the NEW MOVIE coming out and the NEW ENTERPRISE 1701 setting precedence, we see a NEW BEGINNING. SO, wouldn’t successor ships look different now that we know what ship was to begin the line? I mean, take the NEW 1701. It will go on to be upgraded to a new TMP 1701/A. Then on and on and so forth. Makes since to me and I’m all for it. Can you imagine TNG upgraded?

686. Jordan - November 13, 2008

The more I look at it, the more I think this could be a precursor design to the Enterprise from The Cage and TOS. I mean, the ship was commissioned in 2245 and I would imagine it went through tons of design changes. All in all, I’m definitely loving it now!

687. DennyC - November 13, 2008

If you really insist on getting down to minute details, then you run in to this problem. There is NO WAY that the E in TOS and the E in TMP are one and the same ship. It just doesn’t make sense.

JJ’s team simply picked one canon over the other. They started with TMP Enterprise and worked backward, instead of starting with TOS Enterprise and working forward.

688. ARunion - November 13, 2008

I have to say, as someone who has watched, loved and obsessed about Star Trek for most of my 32 years on Earth, I’m at a loss to understand the criticism surrounding the Enterprise design for the forthcoming movie. I think the design accomplishes so many things successfully.

For example, I read, re-read, obsessed about and read again Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise and a lot of Rick Sternbach’s writings on the topic of Starship design. Regarding the science and established rules behind warp theory, etc., the ship holds up to the already established precedents set up before. It certainly adheres far better than the Akira-Class-inspired NX-01 of that crappy Enterprise show.

The design also celebrates the simple and beautiful design of the original. The minor changes seem to be more or less exaggerations of well-loved components of the original design.

Most importantly, the design is beautiful. It gives me those chills of wonder I got the first time I saw the Enterprise on the big screen.

Here’s the bottom line. I would call myself a purist. I criticize minor plot details, continuity issues and the like, but even I can appreciate this ship. I am convinced that the most vocal set of Star Trek fans fall into a category of basement-dwellers who will gripe about this movie over mountain dew and cheetos no matter how good it is.

689. Chris Pike - November 13, 2008

More than a day later, keep having a look and still I want to like it, but it’s still a big no. Please give the job to “Vektor”! so much wasted talent, so many possibilities…

690. M33 - November 13, 2008

I agree; it’s changing it for the sheer point of change. Not necessary. Augmenting is great, but this is ridiculous!

691. DesiluTrek - November 13, 2008

I an really stunned by the mean-spiritedness, arrogance and righteousness of some posters toward those who have objections to this design. You’re welcome to like the design, but you can do so without trying to make those who don’t seem like idiots, fanboy geeks or dinosaurs. Respect the “eye of the beholder.”

Fans have as much right to be upset about the disruption of continuity and/or find the design butt-ugly as those who think a reboot is necessary and/or love the fresh look. IDIC cuts both ways.

692. Balok - November 13, 2008

IMHO…. Star Trek 12 will make it all right… Kirk lives for eternity in the Nexus, he will send an image of himself (he can go anywhere, to any time period) back to save his family, and fix what Nero messes up in the first flick. It will end like STIV:TVH, were Kirk and Company are handed the keys to TOS E with the same musical score!

Then 1/2 the fans that are open minded and like the ST11 E, will vent their dissatisfaction at reviving the old (and far superior) E…

693. JD - November 13, 2008

would someone tell me what was wrong with just adding some surface detail to the original enterprise to make it work for the big screen? Why the radical redesign? There are just some things you dont change….the original starship Enterprise is one of them.

Im worried….very very worried and extremely disappointed. Matt J. is turning over in his grave.

694. Balok - November 13, 2008

IMHO, there would be a lot less griping if they went with this:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

695. Ashley - November 13, 2008

489. COMPASSIONATE GOD – November 13, 2008 & Others…

What a lot of you are ignoring is that Star Trek shouldn’t just be for trekkies, especially if it’s TOS. You think when it first aired it was targeted towards trekkies? Of course not, because at that time it was simply trying to appeal to EVERYONE with the sense of optimism and hope for the future. Sure a certain group latched onto it and laid claim to it, but that doesn’t mean all new trek should be specifically made for a small amount of people. This movie is EXPENSIVE, and with all the criticism of trek by IT’S OWN FANBASE (as clearly evidenced by this thread alone), they know they need to make it appeal to more than just trekkies if they’re going to make any money, or at least break even. Face it, many trekkies are turning on or have turned on the franchise and the rest of the fanbase and are becoming so jaded about it that they’re bringing it down with them. New, professionally made trek films or series aren’t going to be made for free, and aren’t going to be made at all if there’s a risk the established fanbase itself is going to dump all over it. That’s why they’re trying to appeal to both fans and non-fans and I don’t blame them one bit for doing it, because if they didn’t then the franchise would be over with, despite the nostalgia and love that some still have for it. That alone will NOT sustain the franchise.

508. Marcus S – November 13, 2008

“Please don’t bring gravity into this discussion. Some people criticize the design because the secondary hull isn’t bulky enough to support the saucer.”

THANK YOU! That’s exactly it, people are seeing the saucer as resting on top of the neck as in the TOS version, where on this one the secondary hull hangs off the bottom of the neck. People trying to see it the other way just aren’t going to get it.

696. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

Here’s an anecdote: A friend of mine familiar with Star Trek, but not what I’d call a fan, saw the new ship and said it looked cool. Then he watched some episodes from the old Trek and said that he would have LOVED LOVED LOVED to see that ship on the big screen. He said he thought he would even get goosebumps to see the old design.

Is it possible the filmmakers are missing a possibility? How much would JJ have been loved by EVERYONE if he used the original design in a creative way and MADE it work. Even non-fans would have thought how cool, especially because of the collective nostalgia we seem to have in the US today.

697. Peter Lemonjello - November 13, 2008

The fans always get these things right. Just a little bit of basic tweaking and it looks a million times better.

698. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 13, 2008

DennyC:

I think she was referring to the SW prequels, where all of the ships seemed to be prettied-up retcon versions of the “lived in” ships of the first three movies.

———————-

As far as the changes between TOS and TMP, remember what Decker told Kirk: “Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don’t know her a tenth as well as I do.”

That counts for something. In the two and a half years at Earth, the E had to get one or two new appliances, right?

699. M33 - November 13, 2008

I think mainly the over-stylized nacelles and the fact that they are set too far back on the warp-drive section, that and that lower section is too small to properly balance the aesthetics of it. It’s like the took some off the bottom and tried to overcompensate with the nacelles. I think that’s what bothers me most about it. It’s just okay. Not Great, Could Have Been Better.

700. Blowback - November 13, 2008

#698

It was a totally new Enterprise, the one Gene Roddenberry would have constructed if he had a proper budget and fifteen years of experience with a sci-fi franchise back in 1963/1964.

Look, I don’t mean any disrespect to TOS Enterprise as she was my first sci-fi love but to have her show up in this movie is a little batty.

In my mind it’s similar to the first time I saw TMP Enterprise. My first thought was “it changed that much in two years? Really? Just two years?” But then I realized…. They couldn’t use the original design in TMP, it would never translate well to the big screen…

Should JJ and Company have made such a radical change to her for this movie? The jury is still out on that question in my mind. I think they went overboard but I need to see her in action to be certain.

701. Gorn Captain - November 13, 2008

Take a look at this drawing of a profile shot of the new ship that someone drew. Looks pretty cool!

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/658/newenterpriserj3nm6.jpg

702. Blowback - November 13, 2008

701. Gorn Captain

Thrat makes me feel a little better. I think the nacelles are a bit too far back tho….

703. jiat2001 - November 13, 2008

“I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.” Built us a fine ship? BUILT US A FINE SHIP?!!! RYAN CHURCH…..YOU SUCK AS A DESIGNER. Clearly you didn’t do a good job designing the new Enterprise. It’s suppose to be sleek and beautiful not fat and butt ugly. I’m sure you’re gonna get a lot of hate mail so you may want to disable your email ’cause a lot of people are going to blast you for designing a ugly ship. At least Gabriel Koerner knew what he was doing and his design is way better than your’s. I’m sure a lot of people will agree and disagree but hey, this is a free country. I’m expressing my opinion without guilt. Peace.

704. Veteran Commander - November 13, 2008

The new Enterprise looks hideous!!!!! It no longer looks functional(anyone who knows ANYTHING about how warp drive is supposed to work would have problems with the warp nacelles). Why would Abrams and Church need to change her, she was sleek, graceful, and everything made sense…now she looks boxy, and completely out of proportion. Abrams said that he wanted to ‘honor the memory of original Trek’, it’s not looking that way…but, I’ll wait and see how the movie turns out!

705. Blowback - November 13, 2008

#703

Try expressing your opinion without the insults next time. You might get people to take you a little more seriously.

706. spock's ear - November 13, 2008

For those interested in an alternative bridge concept design see:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31487060@N06/

707. Mark - November 13, 2008

Im totaly happy with the new design, looks fantastic!

708. Commander - November 13, 2008

I love the new nacelles. I can’t believe all the critizism here is over the nacelles. I just hope they light up with that lovely blue glow when they go to warp.

My problem is mainly with the secondary hull. It looks like the Enterprise has got a hard on. Lay off the V++gra!

Either that or its going for the Barbra Striesand look. Man does this ship need a nose job.

Seriously, the deflector dish sticks too far out. It does not look like the Enterprise this way.

709. Al Hartman - November 13, 2008

It looks awful. The design is awkward.

I actually like the NX-01 Enterprise MUCH better.

If they had taken the TOS Enterprise, and applied the design touches from the NX-01 to it.. I might have liked it fine.

It would have made more sense than what they did.

The TMP Enterprise is my favorite, with the TOS ship the close second, the Ent-E is my third favorite, and the NX-01 after that.

But this one doesn’t rate…

710. Al Hartman - November 13, 2008

Gabe Koermer designed a fine ship.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and it will appear in a fan film.

711. Hyades - November 13, 2008

They got the saucer section right, but beyond that, it looks really quite goofy. I was really excited about this movie, but I already feel turned off just by looking at this pathetic design. Simply aweful.

I wish it wasn’t too late for them to make some changes, but I know it probably is. I am so very disappointed.

712. T-bird Woods - November 13, 2008

Opon seeing a better shot of the JJA 1701 Big-E, Those nacelles look like their in a tucked position, like a turtle head, when they fire up, they come out and get angry, then they turn over, then shes gone.

713. tman - November 13, 2008

696. JD – November 13, 2008
would someone tell me what was wrong with just adding some surface detail to the original enterprise to make it work for the big screen? Why the radical redesign? There are just some things you dont change….the original starship Enterprise is one of them.

TOS Enterprise looks dated and unrealistic. If you have that ship, you have to make a loving reverent version with original costumes, original parts, very 60′s lighting and design and target die-hards like James Crawleys films and if you do that, you won’t attrack people like me who think only Kirk can play Kirk.

You already have recast the crew. Why not change the ship to make it more plausible.

It looks fast and lithe (Enterprise has to) has a saucer a secondary hull and nacelles.

If it’s a combat vessel, it makes sense to make the structure stronger. If it’s a science vessel, it should utilize space efficiently as well
The neck gets bigger. Bigger neck forces it to connect secondary hull at a point further back.

The nacelle and secondary hull shape are the two things I’m still trying to warm to. The secondary hull looks nice and it looks lithe, but I wish it were not as quick to taper away and since this is a science vessel, having a slightly bigger secondary hull would have made sense. They look too integrated for me– should be something away from the ship out of sense of danger. Still I didn’t mind the motion picture and the engines here are at least round– just wish they were smaller in front and a little less “busy.”

714. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 695 Ashley,

“What a lot of you are ignoring is that Star Trek shouldn’t just be for trekkies, especially if it’s TOS”

Hi Ashley, … this sort of comment is what I don’t get. I’m all for updating Trek, and ready to go see the movie with an open mind and expect it will be good. I’m a fan of JJ…

however – how is the new look any more or less appealing to potential new fans? I’m not sure what redesigning the Enterprise that has to do with bringing in a new fanbase. It’s just upsetting to the old fan base. It’s a different look is all and it’s appeal is entirely subjective.

It could have been just as cool looking 15 different ways including a reworked original that could have held much truer to the original.

Doug L

715. thenewK2 - November 13, 2008

#714 “however – how is the new look any more or less appealing to potential new fans? I’m not sure what redesigning the Enterprise that has to do with bringing in a new fanbase.”

I totally agree. It also kind of makes the millions of dollars they spent on the Remastered Original Series SFX, moot. Not to mention all the places TOS Enterprise appears in the rest of the Trek universe, i.e., the various incarnations of the Enterprise seen in the conference room of the Ent D, the Defiant seen in, “In a Mirror, Darkly” and the Enterprise seen at the end of “These Are The Voyages”, etc.

I’m not opposed to change, just not for change’s sake. There doesn’t seem to be a reason to do this drastic of a re-design. Sigh.

716. Ashley - November 13, 2008

-714

Well Doug, first and foremost, the TOS interior design just wouldn’t work here in the 21st century when we’ve already surpassed a lot of the designs and tech. The look needed to be updated to be plausibly futuristic. That’s just a fact. I won’t pretend to know the rest of the reasons, but I suspect there are quite a few. It’s possible, looking at it all objectively and not through the eyes of some of the more stubborn fanatics, that they wanted to break out of a lot of the stigma that’s been attached to the franchise. I know I KNOW that this will and has upset a lot of fans, but with some of the delusional reactions I’ve read here and elsewhere, I really can’t blame them.

As for why the exterior changed, I suspect it’s because of the interior; to create a continuous design flow from inside to out. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve accomplished this. To force a new interior into a barely updated exterior would be disappointing. Plus, we don’t know a lot about what it’s going to be put through in the movie. Maybe the ship comes under some serious attack so they needed to make the neck realistically large enough to withstand it. Maybe the back is designed a certain way to accommodate the new shuttlebay … There are just so many variables that we don’t know from looking at ONE picture. I think people need to reserve much of their judgment until they know more, and others I would tell to be more open minded but sadly I know some people just aren’t going to accept anything other than the original.

717. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 716 Ashley,

Only talking about the exterior. The interiors have to be redone. I never once complained about the new bridge ;)

Doug L.

718. Blowback - November 13, 2008

Rememer folks, the first director who declined to use TOS Enterprise (“as is” or with “minor tweaks”) was Gene Roddenberry himself. He recognized the challenges with using TOS Enterprise long before 1979.

Note – I am not saying this new Enterprise is the answer, just sharing my thoughts as to why the Big E in all her TOS glory is not going to happen on the silver screen.

719. silencer - November 13, 2008

716. Ashley
“the TOS interior design just wouldn’t work here in the 21st century when we’ve already surpassed a lot of the designs and tech. The look needed to be updated to be plausibly futuristic.”

Wrong.
There was always a reason the enterprise bridge had real switches…. they work. The enterprise is a practical ship, not a ‘technology’ showcase.
If a panel blew, ANYONE could repair it during a firefight.

You people chucking around the word “futuristic” forget one thing: You haven’t seen the bloody future.

I hate to use a Battlestar point, but here it goes: They have wired phones and no networked computers – why?

Because the plot calls for it.
I guess that isn’t futuristic for you folks, but it works.

There is no reason for the enterprise to be “slick and futuristic” – it already is.

720. Yammer - November 13, 2008

The really important question is: when trouble strikes, can the new Enterprise escape by inverting the polarity of the neoduotronic hyperbaric jefferies tube, sending a gigawatt pulse through the beebleplexer phase modulator of the main deflector?

Those are always so thrilling. And original.

721. DmsDyMach - November 13, 2008

Gawd! I loved that video. Thank you Spockboy. I wish you were doing the movie.

Curse you Red Abrams!!! ^_^

722. Ashley - November 13, 2008

717- Doug

Well… like I said, it’s probably about design flow from inside to out, the new technology form/function that they’ve created, the size/shape/function of the new sets, the scale and overall look of the movie, change to set it apart from TOS (cause really people, this is obviously NOT TOS in the same way as Chris Pine is the new Kirk)…I also think this design will be a visible evolution from the Kelvin….and there may be more reasons…like I said, we barely know ANYTHING about the new movie, the plot, and the overal design aesthetic…

723. Ashley - November 13, 2008

719. silencer

So what about 24th century tech? that’s trek too and they have touch panels instead of physical controls… are you saying that everything after the refit is poorly designed in comparison?

And what I meant was that we’ve already surpassed a lot of trek tech and design because star trek has inspired a lot of it… TOS had the handheld communicator when people were still using rotary telephones…now we have touchscreen internet enabled cellphones with accelerometers and all sorts of crazy stuff that would have seemed much more futuristic back then… now they have to come up with futuristic tech and designs from a 21st century viewpoint, and even that will probably be surpassed well before the 23rd century…

724. Punchatz - November 13, 2008

“Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.”

After reading this and careful examination of the picture released I think there is more here than meets the eye. OK we know the enterprise was built on earth in the movie right…I think the nacelles have a protective shell on the top and bottom of the forward section. And when they light up for the first time they shells will come off revealing a more traditional nacelle look. At this point in the movie all the geeks will cheer. Remember JJ likes the surprise…and the misdirect. I just think this is just one of many to come.

The design is starting to grow on me…..its like hearing a new song from your favorite band. Sometimes you just don’t like or get it….then a month down the road its your favorite song.

725. THX-1138 - November 13, 2008

OK, so I just showed the picture of the new Enterprise to my daughter, age 11, and son, age 6. They both like Star Trek. My daughter is a TREMENDOUS TOS fan who constantly watches my episode DVD’s and prefers the TV show to the movies. My 6 year old son just likes space adventures, but he knows who Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty are and can tell you the difference between the Enterprises.

Upon seeing the new E, both knew what it was and declared it awesome. That goes to show you that JJ and the design team are probably on the right path.

I’m still, let’s say on the fence, when it comes to the look of the new Enterprise. My 14 year old didn’t much care for the redesign, but still anxiously awaits the movie. As do I.

726. Tangent - November 13, 2008

I really like the new design, it’s modernised, without completely abandoning the original concept. Some people don’t seem to understand that some things really just need to be updated here.

Although I will admit, the neck being so far back on the hull does look very strange and that bothers me a little.

727. Blowback - November 13, 2008

719. silencer

“Wrong. There was always a reason the enterprise bridge had real switches…. they work. The enterprise is a practical ship, not a ‘technology’ showcase. If a panel blew, ANYONE could repair it during a firefight.”

Silencer, to the best of my knoweldge there is no given reason why the Enterprise used switches. That explanation smacks of apassage from one of the many contradictory novels or as pure conjecture.

Neither of us were there but when the TOS bridge set was originally built but I surmise the designers were going for as much of a future look as their limited budget would permit. They were also making it up as they went as there was not the abundance of “prior art” that current “futuristic” designers now can access..

You make a good point about the retro look of the Galactica but I think that was done on purpose to bust a sci-fi cliche and because Galactic is a very very old ship… 34

Again I will point out the Gene Roddenberry was the first director to realize that TOS Enterprise had served its purpose and it was time to move on to something “grander” (or a least more believable)…

728. meni - November 13, 2008

Just drew up a little doodle of the side view. Did it in a couple of seconds so easy on the critiques.

It’s a great design. The wide angle 3/4 just doesn’t do it justice…..

729. Blowback - November 13, 2008

725. THX-1138

I echo your sentiment…

730. Veteran Commander - November 13, 2008

It’s a starship, it’s not supposed to evolve….people evolve, people grow older, people change, starships don’t! If this was the Enterprise NCC-1701X, I could deal with it, perhaps a predecessor to the more ‘functional’ Enterprise that we all know…and then maybe ‘upgrade’ to the Original Series Enterprise in future movies!

731. M33 - November 13, 2008

The USS GOOFY-PRISE, everyone!

732. Rick Sternbach - November 13, 2008

#675 – It’s okay, I get what you’re saying. When I was on staff at Paramount, I was very, very lucky, and friends and acquaintances alike would say “You’ve got the coolest job in the world!” I understood that, and was grateful to the producers that hired me, especially Bob Justman, who lobbied for me (as well as Andy Probert) to Gene Roddenberry at the beginning of TNG. Bob half-joked that for what they could have paid Syd Mead, they got both me and Andy, and I suspect it was true. Things have a way of working out sometimes.

Anyhow, I did a lot of ships because that’s what I knew, aside from the props and general SF. Some ships were done by guys like Dan Curry, and aside from doing lead “systems integration” on DS9 and the Runabout, guys like Ricardo Delgado and Jim Martin and John Eaves did ships for that show. Some ships were models cobbled together by the VFX guys, sometimes due to cost considerations. Some CGI ships were put together by the VFX guys and CG vendors. I had plenty to do, so it’s not like I was hogging the design work.

Very cool about the toy work, btw.

733. meni - November 13, 2008

Just drew up a little doodle of the side view. Did it in a couple of seconds so easy on the critiques.

It’s a great design. The wide angle 3/4 just doesn’t do it justice…..

Here’s the link:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3610/enterprisedoodleux2.jpg

734. NCC-1976 - November 13, 2008

After having 2 days to think about this, I now hate this ship more than ever. If the film makers don’t come clean and tell us that we will see the original TOS Enterprise design in all her glory in this movie, then I will not waste my money to go see the movie. This abomination of Star Trek should not be allowed to stand and I hope the fans reject this movie big time. THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE ANYTHING FROM TOS, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

735. AJ - November 13, 2008

684: Bill:

I read the “Bits” regularly so it’s great to see you here.

It’s NOT growing on me.

As you say, the malaise will most likely subside when we see her in the film, and the boys must have known they would be subject to a storm upon release of the photo.

First question:

Why did they release a crummy photo? They released it to fans specifically. There’s no sense of grandeur or detail beyond what was already achieved by the original TMP team.

Rick Sternbach yesterday called it an “elephant designed by committee” before coming out with an improved opinion of unreleased images.

Second question:

Why has this reveal resulted in no mainstream news? News organizations are struggling to get news after the elections. I get the impression that Viacom’s recent dismal numbers may have resulted in a cut in marketing staff and funds.

But I have CNN on all the time. Not one story. For two days. The trailer is out at midnight tonight. Nothing yet.

Any intern can exploit an existing Paramount Burger King promotional contract, and have toys produced in, and shipped from, China. No-brainer.

But rather than a Time Magazine article, we have IGN, and other good fan mags putting out the news. In Europe.

JJ & Co are doing a roadshow now in Europe, and it’s typical during corporate downsizing to have this occur outside of real promotion. I am sure outdoor advertising contracts are still being negotiated until pricing hits bottom. They’ll be roadshowing for a while, I reckon.

But, fact is, the Trek marketing “blitz” seems quite non-existent, and what we’ve seen ain’t so great. Thank God it seems like the film itself is terrific, but we need everyone to see it.

736. M33 - November 13, 2008

Again, When they rebooted Doctor Who, they didn’t need to change the exterior to keep the spirit of the show alive! Sure the insides changed and everyone adapted. But to change the outsides beyond its original idea would have KILLED IT COMPLETELY. Why wasn’t this mindset used in this “re-invigoration”?? I wasn’t expecting it to look like the TOS version, but just minor touches would have made it just right.

737. Blowback - November 13, 2008

734. NCC-1976 – November 13, 2008

” THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE ANYTHING FROM TOS, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Then why did Gene Roddenberry ditch it in TMP? Heck, he was playing with new designs even when Phase 2 was in the planning stages…

738. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 723 Ashley,

I hear you. Your rationale is sound, and probably exactly on point.

You know it’s funny maybe some of you all will identify with this. I’ve always been enamored of the original Enterprise from when I first saw it in reruns on WPIX when I was like 9 or 10.

When TMP came out I was 11 and my jaw dropped when they changed my Enterprise that I was chomping at the bits to see.

Now years later along comes remastered Trek. I thought, finally what a cool idea. I’ll finally see some top notch effects featuring the classic Enterprise… I know many of you disagree on this, but I wasn’t a fan of their work…

3rd times the charm! Thought they would update everything, but was convinced that the Enterprise in the new movie would be very faithful to the original. Was ready to see it up on the big screen in screaming cool modern effects!

DENIED again.

I still think the movie is going to be great. I think JJ Abrams understands plot and character development like few others… but damn i want to see the old enterprise done justice!

Peace y’all

Doug L.

739. M33 - November 13, 2008

I had such high hopes… looks like we might have another “Star Wars Prequels” scenario… a real no-win scenario.

740. Hyades - November 13, 2008

After reading more of the intro up top, it turns out the designer who made this jacked up Enterprise design also worked on the Transformers movie, with all it’s jacked up and unrecognizably fugly transformers. I hated the Transformers movie and now I’m beginning to think I’m really going to dislike the new Trek movie. This makes me so sad as I was really looking forward to this. I hope I am wrong. But also wanted to like the Transformers movie and just couldn’t. What a waste.

741. The Gorn - November 13, 2008

You people are un-f***ing-believable. Not one of you will miss this movie!

742. M33 - November 13, 2008

738 – Yeah… I thought that it looked like a “Trek”-Formers toy to me.

743. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 741 Gorn…
“You people are un-f***ing-believable. Not one of you will miss this movie!”

-Yeah… what’s so unbelievable about that, do you not know what blog site you’re on?

Doug L

744. Phil - November 13, 2008

Good job, JJ….

I am reserving judgement until I see the movie. All these folks who are critical, just reminds me of trying to judge a book by ripping a random page out of it, burning the rest, only reading the one page, and then speaking of the entire text like they are some kind of expert.

If I see one more post about how this is all wrong, because anyone who knows anything about designing a warp drive……is still missing the point that this is FICTION. Real scientists pointed out years ago that even if all the gadgets in the good ship Enterprise existed, the ship could not look the way it does because any kind of accelaration would tear it apart. Enjoy the story, and for christ sake, it really dosent matter if the drive runs on anti matter or chocholate milk, because warp drive doesn’t exist.

Good job, JJ

745. NCC-1976 - November 13, 2008

In the TMP onward, we were moving forward. This movie is set in Treks past, during the pre TOS era, therefor it should be made to visually depict what we saw, or should see in that era, not ignore it and re-invent the whole thing. I don’t buy the argument that the 1960′s era Trek designs can’t hold up to a 21st century audience, and I don’t care if anyone else disagrees. What the makers of this movie have done quite frankly, is insult us with this needless “re-imagining.” And I’m reading pretty much the same feelings on about every other Star Trek forum. They are all calling for JJ’s head on a silver platter over this disgrace.

746. Phil - November 13, 2008

Okay, lets recreat the sets from the origional show. By all accounts they looked like crap, but who cares, thats what it looked like, right???

So why should I pay good money to see that, when the internet has tons of crappy fan vid you can sit there and watch all day long?

747. Phil - November 13, 2008

I really need to walk away from this. Just spitting in the wind here. If its a disgrace, don’t watch it. Plain and simple.

748. NCC-1976 - November 13, 2008

I’d rather have no movie at all, than to have a movie where things gets changed, and the past is ignored.

749. Phil - November 13, 2008

This is a story. A peice of fiction. None of this ever will happen. Just like the chocolate milk powered warp drive. TOS screwed with canon all the time, so I really don’t see what you all are so upset about.

750. The Gorn - November 13, 2008

Right on Phil.

751. Green-Blooded-Bastard - November 13, 2008

I can’t stop staring at it, like when there’s an accident on the side of the road and you’re looking for bodies.

Tell JJ Traitor I’ll have the movie on my computer two days after release, and if I like it, I’ll go pay for it the following weekend.

@739. M33 – November 13, 2008

“I had such high hopes… looks like we might have another “Star Wars Prequels” scenario… a real no-win scenario.”

Man, I was thinking the same thing. Sad. Good thing we have until May for them to fix it.

752. Egghead - November 13, 2008

736. M33 makes a great point.
They DID change the exterior TARDIS. But how many of us noticed. Some super uber Doctor Who fans noticed, but the grand majority did not notice. The designers honored the past and made some changes, but they did not screw with the design. Just like the Daleks: they made many changes, but they are still visibly Daleks! Things can be updated, but not screwed with!
Speaking of which… the cybermen are returning… can’t wait….

753. Phil - November 13, 2008

Ah, yes, more criminal activity from the loyal fan base. Why pay for it when you can steal it. Then you can sit there and go blind watching it frame by frame.

754. John Sullivan - November 13, 2008

Rick Sternback knows what kind of fan of his I have always been.

He knows that a decade ago in my own move to produce a movie and TV project I even put a place called “Sternbach Spaceport” on Mars in honor of this very human being. He knows how ticked off I was when Voyager ended when this man, whose designs for Voyager were put through NASA-contracted computerized wind tunnel testing came up with the ONLY ship of the entire Star Trek fleet to survive their engineering tests was cancelled (I jumped up and down in joy when Voyager was cancelled, because it was truly the 5#I… est (you get the picture) show I’ve ever seen in my life led to the decision to not retain him for ENTERPRISE. Turns out I was quite happy with ENTERPRISE by the end so I had to send chocolates and flowers to Doug Drexler and Mike Okuda, despite my strong objections back in 2001 that “The Powers that Be” didn’t pick up Rick Sternbach to help with that show.

He was quite mature and understanding about it all – quite more than I would have ever been. Drex and Okuda turned out to be equally magnanimus and they really did pretty well with ENTERPRISE.

So far as my take about this “picture” of the Starship Enterprise, all I really have to say is that now we know why Roddenberry only chose to show the starboard side of the ship – because the port side was so BFUgly – and now we get to see it at last.

I am personally deeply in dept to Rick Sternback and as proof of his magninimity, not once did he ever say here, “hey, guys – this movie cost $150,000,000 and Probert and I came up with more starship components pixel by pixel than you ever will when we went about creating the designs for ST-TMP. You may send my royalties for my ideas that you ripped off in this film to … ”

Well, he didn’t say that yet, but already I see his work in use with or without his credits in the new film.

He did play a part in the production of Star Trek Nemesis, but honestly that film sucked because of B&B, not because of anything he did.

And if you think I know and love Rick Sternbach – and I do … I can tell you this. Much of the new ship was actually a rip-off of the very earliest but unusued sketches of the developing pre-series U.S.S. Enterprise as drawn by Matt Jefferies, to include the inverted Dorsal and the various lines found in the new ship. What Rick would love to say … and I’ll do it for him, is that while it is fair to say some portions of royalties are duly payable to him, the real target of the Viacom Accounts Payable for this movie needs to be aimed at the Estate of Matt Jefferies.

755. Borgy - November 13, 2008

GABE KROENER’s staying-true-but-updated-kinda-blocky design

-OR-

RYAN CHURCH’s new-and-sleek design

-OR-

REMASTERED CGI-Plasticky-but-original design

———–
If you were given the chance, which would you rather see on screen?

756. fred - November 13, 2008

#4… original TOS design but with TMP style details.

757. John Sullivan - November 13, 2008

PS – his name is Rick Sternbach – not Rick Sternback.

I can count about a dozen e-mails or so when my lixdexic public education made me call Matt Jefferies instead “Matt Jeffries.” He always took the abomination of own hame in stride, but if you mess up Matt’s name … that’s when it gets personal to him.

758. TheWon - November 13, 2008

You guys remember when other TV shows did a Star Trek Parody episode.Remember how the Enterprise had that warp look to it. Like it had down syndrome.
Well there you go. This is a parody of the real Enterprise with exgarrated parts. All we need is Damon Wayans as Louis Farrakhan or Wakko, Yakko, and Dot to show up. I would hate to see him redesign the Millenium Falcon.

759. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#738 – Hi, Doug, from a fellow denizen of the NYC television market! :)

Out of curiosity, what did you think of Kuramura’s Defiant from “In a Mirror, Darkly”?

#746 – “Okay, lets recreat the sets from the origional show. By all accounts they looked like crap, but who cares, thats what it looked like, right???”

Which accounts are those? I think I missed them. ;) Actually, I think that most folks seem to think the sets looked fine, design-wise. We all know that the sets from 1966-69 were never built to be movie sets, and we know they wouldn’t serve as such today. They’d have to be upgraded. But the *design*, at its core, would work just fine. ‘Course, I still think that even if the basic design were kept, the set could very easily be made to look startlingly different, just because of new tech and materials available to Hollywood 40 years later.

#748 – “I’d rather have no movie at all, than to have a movie where things gets changed, and the past is ignored.”

I gotta admit, that thought has occurred to me a lot in the past couple of days, too. Of course, the great gray area becomes, how much change is permissible before they’ve ignored too much of the past? I suspect that that line is different for different people.

#749 – “This is a story. A peice of fiction.”

Yes, Phil, we get it. We really do. But do you understand that some folks place a high premium on internal continuity, even in a fictional world? Or maybe especially in a fictional world? It doesn’t mean folks actually think that world is real; in many ways the very unreality of that world–especially if it’s a fictional world people enjoy as a temporary escape from reality, like much of sci-fi–is what calls out to people for consistency. Simply saying, “It’s fiction” doesn’t mean that the writers have a license to make the fictional world chaotic and inconsistent.

Am I makin’ any sense here?

760. avoidz - November 13, 2008

It’s Star Trek, but not as we know it.

That is one ugly-looking “Enterprise”. The saucer section is OK, but the rest is just all wrong. Even the deflector dish is wrong for this generation.

761. The Gorn - November 13, 2008

743 Doug L:

Evidently, I’m on a blog site for “fans” so hopelessly obsessed that they’ve become slaves to their own narrow idea of what Star Trek is supposed to be and are completely unwilling to allow this franchise to grow any further than 1990.

Stay home and enjoy your half-assed, you-tube crap.

762. Praetor Tal - November 13, 2008

I wonder if we aren’t being used as mine canaries, here. Float a ship design, see if there’s unholy hell raised over it, and then redesign accordingly.

That’s my hope, anyway.

763. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

755 – Can I vote for Kuramura’s Defiant? :)

764. JT - November 13, 2008

^ Give me a break! They do not give a crap what we think!

765. Bring Back Trek! - November 13, 2008

Ummm. Trying very hard to keep an open mind about this design but the old girl is definitely caught up in our early 21st-century zeitgeist.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/ctksatx/Pimped-1.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/ctksatx/pimped.jpg

766. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

676 Ensign Ruiter — It’s true I blew my top a little there. Sorry. Here’s the thing, though: In my experience, it doesn’t have to take a commitment of the highest order to develop attachments to a particular ship design.

It’s true that some people do watch casually and don’t harbor any attachments of the sort — my dad, for example, likes to watch ST now and then but could care less about ship classes and the differences between them. However, I know of many ST fans who don’t own any of the movies or episodes but watch them when the opportunity arises, and they do notice the differences and do not hesitate to opine. I would cite in this regard my current girlfriend and my ex-girlfriend, the latter of whom, for example, strongly dislikes the Voyager design, has reservations about the Galaxy class design, but likes the refit Constitution class and the Sovereign class designs. That’s pretty specific for a casual fan.

When it comes to a fan like me, I may not own collectibles like models and the like, but I own several movies and episodes from all of the series except TAS, and I most certainly do care what the new vision of the Constitution class is going to look like. Going back to when I was 12, 23 years ago and before TNG came along, I have paid close attention to the design of the ships in Star Trek.

I admit, it’s fun to imagine the continuity of design from the NX-01 to the TOS pilot to the Sovereign class. (In this I am also addressing Bernd Schneider of Ex Astris Scientia, whose response to the Church design I read last night as well.) Picturing this fictional line as if it actually will exist like this is entertaining and edifying in a manner akin, to me, of playing a role-playing game or a strategy game, or playing with toys in your imagination. But, as Hbasm notes above in #464, this *is* after all, a fictional work, and when you come down to brass tacks there is nothing really plausible about the ship designs of Star Trek from the point of view of future engineering.

Very often, it is the demands of the fictional work in the context of the real world that take precedence (how the work will be perceived by viewers at large), as opposed to the fictional in-universe constraints (how well fictional details mesh with each other). When it comes to Star Trek XI, redressing TOS vision of the Constitution class will not cut it. The design has to be different enough but not too different, otherwise the franchise will not be seen at large to be progressing forward. Don’t get me wrong, I believe TOS vision of the Constitution class is beautiful, but it was not designed with a view towards what modern CG can achieve in terms of complex shapes & lines, and fine detailing.

It will not be the case that TOS episodes will be retouched to show the Church design. TOS vision of the Constitution class will always shine in its proper element, but a new design needs to take its place for the new material that is being developed. That is the mandate of the fictional work that is Star Trek, if the franchise is to survive at all.

767. BrianOrlando - November 13, 2008

Sorry to say J.J. you really blew it on the design of Enterprise. The main element in Star Trek and you didn’t stay consistent with the era. Big disappointment. I am now starting to worry that the rest of the movie won’t stay true to canon.

768. Mark T. - November 13, 2008

765: Har!!

769. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#764 – I was just responding to Borgy, ’cause Kuramura’s Defiant seemed a lot more detailed and modernized than the Remastered ship. ;) (Soome of that might be a factor of how much time they had to do the effects. TOS-R suffered from time and budget crunches pretty regularly.

As for the rest, really, I don’t think they’re going to change the actual movie ship model, unless the ratio of negative to positive responses is a lot more one-sided.

770. Eponymous - November 13, 2008

In reflection it occurs to me Ryan’s design may incorporate a number of design constraints we have yet to fully consider.

I wonder if the placement of the secondary hull neck makes the ship look better when and if the saucer and the secondary hull separate?

Also based on Ryan’s cryptic comments the nacelles and potentially the pylons as well may have a variable geometry – either form a mechanical change or from a force field or plasma effect???

I just wonder about these things and if the fx’s of the ships warp etc will make an impact on the ships design.

771. Doug L. - November 13, 2008

re 761 Gorn. yes all us narrow minded people will do that. Lighten up, Gorn.

re 759 ALEX,

Loved seeing it, but I wasn’t a huge “Enterprise” fan. I liked that two parter enough though, and seeing the Defiant rendered like that was cool. I’d like to see it again though, I haven’t seen it since it aired.

Doug L.

772. Borgy - November 13, 2008

here’s a visual comparison of three Enterprise

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/vf-1207/Comparison.jpg

GABE KROENER’s staying-true-but-updated-kinda-blocky design

-OR-

REMASTERED CGI-Plasticky-but-original design

-OR-

RYAN CHURCH’s new-and-sleek design

Which one would you really like to see in this movie?

773. TC65 / Trekwebmaster - November 13, 2008

LOL that video was hilarious…but I think I …

I think I…I THINK I LIKE BOTH OF THEM!!!!

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

Trekwebmaster / TC65

774. M33 - November 13, 2008

Cybermen? Heck! I’m waiting for tomorrow’s 7 Doctors for the 2008 children in need special!!

775. silencer - November 13, 2008

Once again i am forced to remind everyone that this “updated design” is 2008 design.
It doesn’t look any more “futuristic’ then the original.

People will look back on this design and laugh because it is so typical for movies of this decade.

Incidentally, I have designed and built things that have been shown on the big screen. I don’t like this, I don’t want it, and I don’t think it was necessary.

If you want to ‘reboot’ the series, then you should have called it ‘galaxy quest 2″ and not pissed off the fan base WITH the money who actually PURCHASES this franchise’s products.
Lots of people are leaving comments slamming fans for not liking this ‘snazzy’ starship – but they are not the ones that generated the revenue for the last 40 years. We are.
We don’t like it.
We don’t want it, and you are running the franchise into the ground.
Paramount – the money you make from this movie is all there will be from now on. You just killed the golden goose.

776. MikeyBay - November 13, 2008

damn right! @775

777. Ashley - November 13, 2008

-775 silencer

this is exactly what I was talking about earlier…half the fanbase is alienating the other…this is why paramount is trying to expand the fanbase…the bickering between both sides alone is enough to drive the franchise into the ground…they don’t trust the fans alone anymore to generate enough revenue in their new star trek productions…

778. meni - November 13, 2008

ANOTHER QUICk & DIRTY SIDE VIEW:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1716/enterprisedoodle02tt2.jpg

779. Egghead - November 13, 2008

774. M33 -
Oh man. that’s right. Children in Need is tomorrow!
I am bummed that David Tennant is leaving Doctor Who in 2010.
Back to Star Trek… they need to look at Doctor Who as an example of classic design!

780. Ryan T. Riddle - November 13, 2008

I don’t hate it, but I don’t love it yet. It’s growing on me the more I look at it, and I’d like to see it from more angles before I make a final call. However, from the picture so far, the nacelles seem too bulky and busy and doesn’t really flow organically with the rest of the ship.

781. RuFFeD_UP - November 13, 2008

You know what, what organisation does that ship belong to there is 0 Starfleet insignia on it. We the fans know but other organisations/races in the film?

782. Borgy - November 13, 2008

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/vf-1207/Comparison.jpg

honestly, although I would like to see the TOS Enterprise, the new ship look better. I would fit in perfectly with the other redesign they made. The Uniforms, the bridge, weapons….etc.

At the same time I wished they used the same color scheme of the Enterprise. The Bussards, The deflector shield, the decals…

Some are saying – it’s just a ship. A fictional ship. But in fact, it is more than that. It is much a character as kirk and Spock and the others. It is the flagship of the Federation. And like the crew that mans it, An ambassador to the rest of the galaxy.

Yes, its just a movie. A story. But its a story that’s raking in the money. Paramount is in the business of making money.

You think the design is not important? it is. I guarantee this article will have a thousand comments before the trailer is released.

Like I said, don’t let the presence of Nimoy fool you. Its a new Star Trek, new story, new designs, new reality.

783. Gary - November 13, 2008

778. meni

If it looks like that on a profile, it’s WONDERFUL!!!

784. Shi Don Yu - November 13, 2008

Message #775-silencer:

Thank you!

Paramount has just let J. J. Abrams jettison over 40 years of Trek continuity out the redesigned photon torpedo tubes!

I have been watching “Star Trek” since the original series first aired way back in 1966. This is NOT the Enterprise! It looks like some drunk, retarded five year olds’ version of the E!

You have “bastardized” Matt Jeffries’ beatiful original design.

If you’re going to tell the origin story, then make it look like the ORIGINAL “Star Trek!”

I hope that this steaming pile of crap film fails so miserably that Paramount will realize that a “reboot” was never the answer.
Then maybe, just maybe, more LOGICAL heads will prevail and put tyhe franchise back in the correct canonical continuity.

I will not contribute a single penny to Paramount and J. J. Abrams’ “folly!”

You truly have driven the final nail into the coffin of your once Golden Goose!

For now, adieu to my dear old friend “Star Trek.”

785. JWM - November 13, 2008

“My best friend says the new E looks like it has “Star Wars” disease – too clean, too streamlined, too snazzy.”

Oh, please. If SW ever had something going for it, it’s the rich designs. If ST ever had a strike against it, it was its unwillingness for a long time to “dirty up” its effects. There have been exceptions, but typically a whole ship had to be destroyed for it to show a mark.

786. reinvigorated, reintroduced, and rebooted hitch1969© - November 13, 2008

re: 778. meni – November 13, 2008
ANOTHER QUICk & DIRTY SIDE VIEW:

WHOA!!!

I told you dudes that the ew thing was just bad picture day for the enterprise. LOOK AT THAT!!

’tis a thing o’beauty!!!

here it is again:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1716/enterprisedoodle02tt2.jpg

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

787. King Anthony - November 13, 2008

678-

Oh, I agree. You needn’t worry. There’ll be plenty of room in and around that “line,” and even more in whatever theater this clunker in waiting manages to backfire into next year while nobody’s looking.

That design’s positively awful…

788. Keiran - November 13, 2008

I personally was hoping it would more closely resemble the illustration on the cover of The Kobayashi Alternative:

http://gaming.trekcore.com/kobayashialternative/images/kobayashicover.jpg

It’s features:
TMP primary hull
TMP connecting dorsal (without torpedo tubes)
TMP secondary hull (with TOS deflector dish)
TOS warp nacelles
TMP warp pylons

It’s a clever combination of TOS and pre-TMP Enterprise IMHO.

I’m eager to see the new ship in action and I will gladly give it a chance. But TMP Enterprise was a thing of pure beauty. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it. I was hoping to have the same experience with the new ship.

Frankly the biggest problem are the warp pylons which scream Galaxy Quest.

789. Borgy - November 13, 2008

star wars is in a “used universe”. Ships and stuff have existed there for a while.

In Star Trek.. Federation Ships have rules and protocols. Starships must be spotless at all times until the ship’s structural integrity in down to 60 percent.

but the same can go for Star wars Nubians, Alderaan, and Curuscant Ships and Places or anywhere else where its relatively peacefull and healthy in trade and commerce.

If paramount had bigger budget for the series, DS9 would be a lot grittier. The delta quadrant would be a lot “used”

790. Weerd1 - November 13, 2008

From the side the new 1701 reminds me of the McQuarrie Enterprise:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/phaseii-study-schematic.gif

791. Garovorkin - November 13, 2008

I just don’t like it.

792. T Drake - November 13, 2008

Frankly I’m disapointed with the ship (bridge too) — a little too far. Bridge looks like it belongs in the lost in space movie.
Ship does not look TOS– more of the movie look— just OFF.

LOVE THE VIDEO!

793. SPOCKBOY - November 13, 2008

#786
nice work Hitch!

794. cdavenport4 - November 13, 2008

There is no since crying about it.. What’s done is done. I’m with some people… I just hope it has a good store line. All-in-all I’m just glad star trek is back in the news. I just possible that this maybe the last Trek movie we ever see if people keep complaining about it.

795. Shi Don Yu - November 13, 2008

Cdavenport4 (#794):

No!
That is exactly what we have to do. Complain! They need fan feedback. Paramount will get wind of this and figure out that they scewed up!

Then, and only then, will they realize that 40+ years of continuity CANNOT be flushed down the crapper!

796. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

Love it! (28%)
Mostly like it (26%)
Mixed feelings (24%)
Don’t like it (21%)
Any change is bad (2%)

Total Votes: 1314

You think Paramount is going to spend money on changing it, when (judging from the poll here alone) a clear majority (54%) is in favor of it, another 24% is lukewarm, and only 23% is dead-set against it?

797. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 13, 2008

And don’t say the 23% that is dead-set against it represents the “true” fan base because if you do, I’ll bite your head off (poetic license hyperbole).

798. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

Why wouldn’t the old designs work “In the 20th century”, or “on the big screen”? What kind of logic is that? Why use the original costumes, then. This would be the chance to change it all, wouldn’t it?

The original Enterprise looks great in the digital SFX upgrades of TOS. All it takes is a render at a higher quality and a little more attention to the details. After all, we’re talking CGI, not models. And even if we were talking about models, the old show was still filmed on 35mm, so it probably looked great on the big screen.

And as to the interior, it looked pretty cool on ST Enterprise. All it took was a little creative lighting design, and boom, modern ship. As to switches…that’s an easy one. Have a scene where Kirk steps on the bridge for the first time, looks around and says, “I heard they were using the Brownian design with the older style switches.” And the reply: “Hey Starfleet R&D says the olde way is the new again. Psychologists think this will make us more efficient, so there you go.”

If the writers can’t figure out these problems, then they are not good writers. I still have the sneaking suspicion, however, that the new design will be explained by the time travel plot.

799. Garovorkin - November 13, 2008

who knows I might end up liking it,. I didn’t initially like the Enterprise D either. but i came around.

800. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#778 – “ANOTHER QUICk & DIRTY SIDE VIEW:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1716/enterprisedoodle02tt2.jpg

Y’know, assuming that’s reasonably accurate, it’s not that bad.

But a slightly fuller secondary hull and the dorsal/primary hull assembly moved forward at the top of the secondary would still be better. :)

801. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

Obviously meant 21st century.

802. Marv - November 13, 2008

About suspending disbelief: There’s a certain level of internal logic that makes every story work. The problem with both trek and wars is that after a while, whether the stories stick to canon, the internal logic must be compounded or diluted. Either or. Sometimes the absurdity works, sometimes only a mathmatical progression of interal “If, Then” can work to resolve a situation.

A major problem with trek has been B&B’s complete disregard of this logic as seen in enterprise and the latter of voyager.

So there is a certain amount of internal logic we expect to see.

That said, ONE PICTURE cannot explain to fans the internal logic of the film. This is time travel, and obviously spock is altering the timeline by ‘giving formulas’ and so forth.

Let’s wait and see if the movie(not the franchises)’s internal logic holds up, as well as design. Knowing JJ, it will. Be patient till May.

803. Blowback - November 13, 2008

798. Jax Maxton

If Gene Roddenberry thought TOS Enterprise was inadequate for the silver screen why should any director since then want to use it? In fact he was working replacing the original design for Phase 2, and that was only supposed to be on television…

804. jiat2001 - November 13, 2008

#775-Silencer: THANK YOU! Thank you for pointing out the details regarding STAR TREK. I too have grow up watching STAR TREK since I was a child. #784-Shi Don Yu: THANK YOU TOO! Where do we sent our complaints to Paramount and to JJ? We definitely need to get the word out that Paramount and JJ made a horrible mistake. Thank you guys once again.

805. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

803. Blowback

Gene Roddenberry is dead. A lot has happened since his death. Audiences today love “What’s old is new again”. Besides, Roddenberry was far from a perfect producer. I’m just saying that the excuses given for not using old designs do not hold weight. A little detail work may be needed, but otherwise I think any of the old designs would work in a modern film. Like I said, if those atrocious uniforms can work, why not any other design ideas?

806. Kirk's Ripped Shirt - November 13, 2008

OK this is y first post on the matter… When i first saw it i wanted to puck and the was some cursing under my breath. but every little while i keep coming back ant taking another look at it. my final verdict…. it is the enterprise it does fit and I do like it. it fits the more modern view of the movie while linking it to the original in an abstract way. as Admiral McCoy said… “its a new ship, but she has the right name

807. Rick - November 13, 2008

I personally like the Daniel Broadway photo. It looks more like a “prototype” of TOS Enterprise.

808. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 13, 2008

I’ve seen several references to Gene Roddenberry’s wish to change the ship for the movies. What’s not being recognized is that the refit is still modeled along the original lines of TOS. Just more detailed, more graceful with the swept-back nacelle struts.

But the overall design remained the same. And it showed a progression of design, as well.

This new design does NOT look like it could precede the technology of the movies as they have been established. So this is either an alternate timeline design, or it’s going to involve a retcon and everyone has to suck it up and accept that this is “how it’s always looked”…

But I’m amazed at the passion in this group. On both sides. Just try to keep it civil and respectful, can ya?

809. reinvigorated, reintroduced, & rebooted h69© - November 13, 2008

is that a deflector dish protruding from your hull, or are you just glad to see me?

boooooooing!

uh huh uh huh. thank you, drive thru.

=h=

810. Blowback - November 13, 2008

805. Jax Maxton

“A little detail work may be needed…”

Yes, I agree. Don’t get me wrong I’m not in love with JJ’s Enterprise but I am mystified by those calling for TOS Enterprise to be used with no modification. That’s crazy talk in my estimation.

811. Gary - November 13, 2008

Guys the original enterprise did appear on a movie, it was called AIRPLANE 2. Give it a rest ;-)

812. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

808. Jason P Hunt – Kansas City Filmmaker

I’m really hoping it’s an alternate timeline design. I can dig it if it’s that. If it’s just a retconned Enterprise, then why bother including Leonard Nimoy?

I’m thinking the Romulans may go back in time further than we think and change something. Like I said before, maybe they make it back before First Contact and land on Earth before the Vulcans or something. How cool would that be?

813. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

One thing I always preferred on TOS Enterprise was the smooth, clean design of the Enterprise hull. All subsequent ships have seams running through the hull breaking up the clean look.

The new Enterprise, while being very cartoonish looking, also has a more aggresive look, like it’s meant for speed and battle. Perhaps some Romulan influence in the new design? Maybe they approached the design from the prospect of, “What if the Romulans helped shape Starfleet technology?”

Or maybe this is a story in the evil alternate universe? Maybe the story of how Spock got his goatee?

814. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#810 – “Don’t get me wrong I’m not in love with JJ’s Enterprise but I am mystified by those calling for TOS Enterprise to be used with no modification. That’s crazy talk in my estimation.”

I see very, very few people arguing for the TOS ship to be used with no modification. Even those who advocated that the same design be used recognize that it would have to be given a whole new level of detail to work on the big screen. I think that alone would make it look similar, yet still strikingly different at the same time.

815. XOHARO - November 13, 2008

This Enterprise is Awesome!!! we’ve had a glimpse of some interior sets as well and I have a lot of confidence in the over-all production design so far. This Enterprise will fit better with the films and the starship lineage. If you look at the original series enterprise and then at the refit or “A” it looks as if there is a hundred years of starship development between them, or at least too long a period for Kirk and crew to have still been in the service to see such a design departure.
Also, Keep in mind Roddenberry was working with a very modest budget and there wasn’t a large pool of Sci-Fi illustrators for him to draw from. The TOS Enterprise isn’t necessarily Roddenberry’s vision, but more likely the best he had to work with. No one can presume to speak for him, but I would wager he would have certainly taken this Enterprise over the original had the option been available to him.
The casting is strong and the wardrobe is great. If this movie has a good story and good dialogue it will be a hit. I was calling for this film ten years ago to revive the franchise and I hope that it will. It need not please us so much as the average moviegoer. We love trek and will be there to boo or applaud. This movie needs to bring in people who like good movies. That and only that will spawn more movies and possibly a new series.

816. boborci - November 13, 2008

I think when everyone sees it from less odd angles in motion, they will thank our brilliant designers for their work in an impossible situation.

817. Yammer - November 13, 2008

So: is Star Trek a period piece or is it speculative fiction?

Clearly “TOS” is a period piece. If you’re going to do it well, you do it with slavish adherence to the 1964 design, like James Cawley et al.

But “Star Trek” is speculative fiction. It’s meant to look “futuristic,” to blow contemporary minds. I think it has to read with a certain wow factor to current viewers here in the 21st century.

Although me and thee would thrill to see an exact TOS ‘Prise (personally, I want a 100% faithful Diane Duane novel — say Wounded Sky), I think that most non-fans would think, so what, I can see that on cable for free anytime.

I think we’re going to get over this, purists. Let’s talk about something REALLY violating canon: the gold command shirt. All real Trekkers who have read Gerrold’s book know that they were green.

818. reinvigorated, reintroduced, & rebooted h69© - November 13, 2008

prior to the reboot, i looked like this:

http://tormentedvhfans.com/feature/2003/09-feature_me2_hitch.jpg

now… you can see the mac in my pants. and that makes all the diff.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

819. The Fringe Element - November 13, 2008

You folks amaze me. I am an Original Trekkie, being of the tender age of 4 when TOS premiered. While I am not sure about this Enterprise, or this movie in general, I am willing to give them a chance. I need to see more of the ship from different angels and in motion before I decide whether I like it or not. I am actually leaning toward the positive on this. What I can NOT frakkin’ deal with is how you people just trash it with one picture. And all this talk of JJ betraying the fans, and even the poster who said something about “real Trekkies” modified pictures were better. Well, as someone who kind of likes the new ship, and is a fan for over 40 years, I just gotta pull out the old “Get a life!” line. How you can trash anything six months before it comes out is just unbelieveable. You act like a bunch of spoiled children who are crying because they didn’t get their way. Get over it and shut up. I gotta say, it has to be better than “Enterprise”.

820. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

817. Yammer

I really believe the problem that people are having in speculating about this film is exactly what you’re asking – what is this film supposed to be? A reboot? A new Star Trek timeline? An odd continuation of the Trek we know and love?

Granted, the filmmakers can’t answer these questions without giving too much away. Unfortunately, it just makes us fans question the project all the more, and have endless debates on things like the ship.

Oh, and in my mind, books are NEVER canon. Trek is a TV/film franchise and the books are just filler.

821. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

Why do people hate on “Enterprise” so much? I think it was better than DS9 and Voyager, and even beat TNG at times. It was a really fun show that took us back a bit to what Star trek began as: humans figuring out how they fit in to a bigger world.

822. The Kirbmaster - November 13, 2008

I will agree that it is a very nice ship.
It looks sleek and cool.
But…..it is not the Enterprise.
Nuff Said

823. Donn - November 13, 2008

Now that I’ve seen (unofficial) sketches of the profile view and a 3d turntable mock-up… I like it even more. There’s no question, ask someone to say the first word that pops into their head, then show them that silhouette, and the word will be “Enterprise.” Well, perhaps “Star Trek,” but you get my point. TPTB have succeeded in maintaining the design continuity that matters, as far as I’m concerned.

I was going to post one of my long diatribes about here’s why the redesign is necessary, given the new take on Star Trek, but I’ll save it. I’m not going to convince anybody who doesn’t already get it. I’ll just say this: it’s not a reboot, it will still respect (meaningful) canon, and it is going to show how the group of people who go on to that five year mission, and the movies, etc. get together. It is NOT going to be like Star Trek you’ve seen before. It’s going to feel different. I am confident it will be a good, fun-to-watch, can’t-wait-to-see-where-this-goes different.

I think I get why so many are sad, and cursing JJ, and lamenting that instead we aren’t seeing another turkey Star Trek movie made from ideas that were born in the ’80s. But we aren’t. This is the movie we are being given, and I think it is going to be good. Certainly it could have been a heck of a lot worse.

824. reinvigorated, reintroduced, & rebooted h69© - November 13, 2008

one thing that i can absolutely say about the backlash…. back in late 86, i think it was.. when tng was being unveiled… doohan and nichelle came to my town about that time – ALL the word on tng was very negative. how can they even think to replace our show?

then i saw the “new” enterprise. OMG, I about died. (with laughter) I hated it, and I (assumed, as I was hearing) that everyone did too. That Enterprise, to me, looked like a normal person standing next to a deformed and retarded person. LIKE they retarded the effing enterprise!!!

Several years later proved me wrong on that one, though. I love that TNG enterprise, I swear, I was sad when they blew the thing up in generations. Got the hallmark ornament and everything.

my initial reaction to the JJprise wasn’t even nearly as severe. And my come around time is record. I love it.

It’s so funny, us with the whole IDIC thing… yet we are SO resistant to any kind of change. at first, i think.

Lets get us all some Trek 11! poste effing haste, por favor!

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

825. Balok - November 13, 2008

#713 and others that say TOS would look dated and unrealistic…

Can you honestly look at this make that claim?:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

I agree the interior could use some re-work and would look out-dated. But seems like the outside was changed just for change sake or to make it look like other ships fom movies or TNG era…

826. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

825. Balok

I’m with you. My problem is the original Enterprise in some ways more futuristic than all the ones following. Yeah, a few tweaks to make it more realistic and some more detail work would be fine. But otherwise that design looks very cool to me, realistic, and very futuristic.

827. Balok - November 13, 2008

Ditto 826… I would like to see:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e1/USS_Enterprise_alongside_the_Botany_Bay.jpg

stacked vs. the new E photo, instead of a comparison to CGI E.

828. XOHARO - November 13, 2008

#825 Balok

Looked at your pics and can say yes. Original Enterprise while a cherished icon, does not look sleek, elegant, or futurisitc when compared to modern designs.
A cigar tube with a light bulb glued to the front passed for a futuristic nacelle in ’67, won’t pass muster in ’09
Some things won’t go anymore. For example, a futuristic communicator that’s three times the size of my cell phone and has no display.

829. Michael Hall - November 13, 2008

Meni,

Actually, I prefer your first sketch–it has the look of John Eaves’ preliminary designs for the E-E about it. Either way, your sketches depict a far more attractive profile for the ship than what is implied in the photograph, and if correct, in spite of my very negative initial reaction to the new design I won’t mind living with it. So I hope you’re right (though you may be overly optimistic, as the shapes seem more crowded together than photographic foreshortening would allow). Guess we’ll find out for certain in the coming days.

830. Egghead - November 13, 2008

828 – Yes, a communicator is larger than a cell phone. But can a cell phone send and receive signals from satellites (or orbiting spacecraft)?

831. Donn - November 13, 2008

817. Yammer: Is Star Trek speculative fiction? What an interesting way to think about it!

Perhaps the reason I am ready to accept the new movie so readily is that I enjoy speculative, modernized versions of historical tales. Ever seen “Knight’s Tale?” It’s the Heath Ledger jousting movie that opens with a Queen song. I own it, and I love it. I’m actually less gung-ho about the recent Pirates movies as some people, but I do enjoy them, and they are waaaaay ridiculous and historically inaccurate. (Well, most pirate movies are.)

BUT… I don’t entirely agree with the premise of treating TOS as “history,” as what actually happened and the way “it” happened, period, the end. It is true that so far other Star Trek productions, such as TNG, DS9 and ENT have referenced the same designs to depict that “history,” as a way of providing continuity. This movie just happens to not be following in those footsteps. Instead, TPTB have chosen to put a different design stamp on the same time period. In generalities, it is really remarkably similar to what we are already familiar with. (The Enterprise, like it or not, is recognizable as such, uniforms, insignia, the bridge layout, reportedly the transporter room, etc.) I certainly feared, when I first heard about the project, that they would just totally wreck it and do their own crazy thing, and keep almost nothing. (The awful Wing Commander movie comes to mind.) Instead, they have kept everything, while updating the designs.

TOS was itself speculative fiction, speculative of the future. That’s really the beauty, isn’t it, that we don’t know?

832. XOHARO - November 13, 2008

830 Egghead
No my cell phone cannot send and receive signals to and from satellites without the aid of towers. But, my cell phone exists long before Kirk and crew, so just imagine what their communicator will look like.
I’m not comparing the functionality of a cell phone to a communicator, I am comparing the look and feel of modern electronics to the communicators from TOS. No one would beleive that the TOS communicator would look anything like that. Maybe in ’67 but not now.
Same for Enterprise. We’ve been exposed to modern movies with modern ship designs and the original E would not work.

833. 833'rd? - November 13, 2008

Am I the only one out here who thinks that this E looks a little bit like a precursor to the E in TOS? It’s like Consitution Class version 0.5 instead of 1.0. It does look archaic compared to the TOS ship, but then the movie version of the Constiution class vessel looks so far ahead of the TOS design that it’s feasible.

What you could be looking at here is the Enterprise as she appeared before the series started and her first refit was done. After all the ship ‘had some history’ behind her before Kirk took over.

834. John Cooley - November 13, 2008

816.
Hi Bob, John here again.
Could you describe just what you mean by an “impossible situation”. It sounds as though there’s great story there that might shed some light on why this design is so polarizing.
Thanks Again!
John

835. Tom Bob - November 13, 2008

Bottom Line: it leaves much to be desired. But I don’t think anybody can complain because of what type of movie this is. It’s a reboot so they can pretty much do whatever they want and get away with it.

The ship appears much like what the movie will be. It will be half for fans and half for a new generation. It’s recognizable as the original enterprise but too different for fans to accept.

The ship seems to be a combination of old, movie and Ent-E and then … something alien thrown in.

One final thought and I’m sure many will agree: Why change something good? New fans aren’t going to care what it looks like anyway. They have no reason to be critical like the fans. Many will see the new movie without ever watching an episode, so why not make the fans happy and leave well enough alone?

836. Boborci - November 13, 2008

834

Nothing you can’t deduce for yourself:

1. Go redesign the Enterprise, shouldn’t be harder than updating the Mona Lisa.

2. Then, make it faithful to the 60′s version but make it feel like it’s really from the 23rd century in a new way for the 21st century. Retro AND futuristic.

3. Don’t let the fact that if you screw up, MILLIONS WILL SUFFER.

837. Boborci - November 13, 2008

Correction:

834 John Cooley – November 13, 2008

Nothing you can’t deduce for yourself:

1. Go redesign the Enterprise, shouldn’t be harder than updating the Mona Lisa.

2. Then, make it faithful to the 60′s version but make it feel like it’s really from the 23rd century in a new way for the 21st century. Retro AND futuristic.

3. Ignore the fact that if you screw up, MILLIONS WILL SUFFER,

838. TheWon - November 13, 2008

You would have a point, but the Enterprise Movie version was a total refit. To the gutted it and took out parts. So their was only one massive refit.

The ship is just real ugly. Move some parts here and there and you might be able to save it.

The most disappointing thing is.This guy got paid a whole alot of money for this crap. Where there are fans who have design something alot better.

839. Jax Maxton - November 13, 2008

835. Tom Bob

Once again, your explanation gives a reason for an explanation behind this new design. The ship looks this way for a story reason. Something in the time travel plot is the reason the ship looks so different. Otherwise, like you said,, why change it?

I can’t believe that they’re just picking and choosing what to change and what not to change at random. They kept the uniforms, but they look less futuristic than the ship! Once again, why have Nimoy and the old uniforms unless there is a reason for it. If it was a flat reboot, there would be no Nimoy. Plus, after BSG, they would do something newer to the uniforms while still paying homage to the old.

There really is a missing link here that we’re not seeing. Something linking Nimoy-Spock to this new ship. I actually wish they would quit releasing these pics because I already know more than I ever wanted to know about this movie.

840. Cmdr. Roykirk - November 13, 2008

And we though the messiging about Takei’s wedding got out of hand.

841. Cmdr. Roykirk - November 13, 2008

I wonder what would happen if say, it 30 years some new group comes along and reboots Star Wars and re-makes all the ships, Death Star and Millennium Falcon look different. What would those fans have to say?

842. ScreenRant.com - November 13, 2008

@boborci

I certainly didn’t envy you guys on this project, you nailed it with your three points above. :-)

Although I don’t like how the ship looks *from that angle* I’m holding out hope that you guys did a great job with the film and it’ll all work out in the end. To me the bridge is also weird, but when I see the attention to detail on the uniforms and how you’ve stuck as closely as possible (down to the mini-skirts) I still have optimism for this film.

Looking forward to the trailer in the morning!

Vic

843. table10 - November 13, 2008

mr. orci:

I can only imagine what goes through your mind reading all these negative hateful posts from the last two days.

Putting the fact that I like it aside, please try to keep in mind as much as possible that the majority of the fans understand that star trek is not make or break on the design of a ship. It is the sum of all parts that has turned it into a beloved franchise for over 40 years.

You have been nothing but patient and available throughout this entire year, and sometimes folks here forget that you are one half of the creative force working for a team that is bringing back their beloved crew to the big screen, which is nothing less than a gift.

Also, your bridge is my favourite version ever. I like the small circular spotlights in the upper walls above the computer consoles. Reminds me of the bridge from ST6, which happens to be my second favourite bridge.

844. Jeremy - November 13, 2008

This ship looks bad. I’m sorry. I am sure a lot of hard work went into it, and the designer is without a doubt, talented. It just looks like an average TNG ship. It lacks the grace of Jefferies’ original, and the extremely beautiful “refit” model of TMP (possibly the greatest movie model ever made).

It gets a D. Sorry…

845. I cannot stomach it - November 14, 2008

I feel the SAME way I did when I saw the “reimagined” Battlestar Galactica. In comparison to the original design, there were similarities.

But it stopped there. The new design stunk.

I don’t have an issue with the warp nacelles or the primary hull. The ship fails with the secondary hull. The elongated section with the dish (altho the dish looks great), the extended neck… UGLY.

Daniel Broadway really nailed it. Rick Sternbach should have been hired as a consultant.

Needless to say, I’ll see the movie. But I WON’T be buying the toys, models, etc. of the ship.

The original design, as presented by Gabe Koerner, was a step in the right direction. Sorry to the new designer: You failed. You failed Trekdom, you failed in upholding the legacy of the most beautiful, well-recognized starship in entertainment history, imho.

846. Tom Bob - November 14, 2008

This film will be as drastic as the new Lost in Space was about ten years ago compared to its original series. I’m afraid a lot of fans will be ‘Lost In Their Seats’ unfortunately, but it will probably bring in newer, younger fans which will be badly needed to make up for true-to-the-original fans that will stay home or watch something else.

The pics I’ve seen are just scary, ‘specially the bridge.

I see the need to make it more grandeur, but if it’s an older Ent than what was in the series it looks too modern for it to work in this film. Perhaps as something after the original movies, except we already have the Ent B.

I still think they’re taking Star Trek in the wrong direction which is why Enterprise failed, that and too many reality TV shows. But maybe for a one off film, it will be fine.

I hope that Star Trek’s fate isn’t held to this movie’s success. With the economic downturn, problems with ratings and alienating fans I don’t know what’s in store for Trek. This could be the end for a long while. Much longer than original series fans had to wait for ST: The Motion Picture and we’ve already matched that time span since the failure of Nemesis.

Every time I see the pictures I can’t help but think of the Lost In Space film, and I’m afraid that’s what’s in store for us in May. I hope more than anything that I’m wrong.

847. Red-Shirted Monkey - November 14, 2008

#837 “3. Ignore the fact that if you screw up, MILLIONS WILL SUFFER,”

If? It’s no longer in doubt. Just start ignoring. Don’t worry; you’ll still get my $10.

848. silencer - November 14, 2008

816. boborci –
…”they will thank our brilliant designers for their work in an impossible situation.”

If I took my 1967 camaro in for detailing and updating the stereo, speakers, new seat covers and updated uv-tint glass, trusting you at YOUR WORD that you would respect the car, then found out you cut the cargo area off of the car, widened the b-pillars and put the drivers seat in the back seat area, what do you think I would say to you?
Would I thank you for your ‘brilliant design” and apologize for putting YOU in the impossible situation of “updating” my car?

Don’t start blaming us for this train wreck.

849. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 14, 2008

841 Cmdr. Roykirk — “I wonder what would happen if say, it 30 years some new group comes along and reboots Star Wars and re-makes all the ships, Death Star and Millennium Falcon look different. What would those fans have to say?”

As a Star Wars as well as Star Trek fan, I can tell you that I, for one, would be okay – even excited – by that prospect. In fact, I think it will take something as drastic as George Lucas dying or just letting the whole franchise go into someone else’s hands for Star Wars to achieve greatness again — it is already the case that several Star Wars video games (e.g. Knights of the Old Republic & Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast) have better plots than some of the movies (e.g. Phantom Menace).

850. Reign1701A - November 14, 2008

Hey guys I just got back from seeing the trailer and Quantum of Solace! The trailer is amazing. As others have reported, this movie just feels so epic. The special fx look amazing. There are a few quick shots of the Enterprise: one with its back turned to the camera zipping to warp…the other with the Enterprise rushing towards the camera front-on. From those angles, it looks like TOS Enterprise except with much larger nacelles, though its still very much familiar. The shot of the Enterprise under construction is of a similar angle to the photo released. Still looks a bit awkward, but I like it better after seeing it from different angles. The cuts were very very quick and I can’t wait til it’s released on the internet so I can freeze-frame.

851. Boborci - November 14, 2008

848

All I’m saying is, if you’re like most normal people, and you look at a dozen pictures of yourself from different angles, you can probably only find one that you really like. Know what I mean?

852. silencer - November 14, 2008

851. Boborci

with the exception of the NCC-1701. That looked beautiful from every angle.
I spent hours with the original. On set Bruce Jones and I spoke at length about how that ship meant so much to so many people.

It doesn’t matter what angle the enterprise is shot from – it looks great.
Those lines stand up to 2008 expectations. What I don’t like is faddish designs of this year being passed off as being ‘the future’ look.

Some people won’t notice the change. Some people won’t care, others will love it, many obviously think it looks and feels “wrong”…. but a great deal of people think the very logic for redesign was faulty.

Had you put Spock’s ears on Kirk you would get this same fan reaction.

853. silencer - November 14, 2008

Well folks, I have said all I want to say.
Thanks for letting me vent, all.
Cheers.

854. I cannot stomach it - November 14, 2008

Bob –

Thanks for taking the time to chime in. Your feedback/comments are dearly appreciated. It adds something (literally) to “the Human Adventure.”

Many of us imagine Paramount demanded changes to the original design. I presume it was a non-negotiable item for this production. You couldn’t slap a new coat of paint, or more prominent aztec-paneling on the hull. The design had to be updated.

I wish you and other Trek production crew would use the analogy of “You’re seeing the original TV series in high-definition now.” Something to emphasize that what we’ve seen before (despite the remastering efforts of CBS) was fuzzy/blurry compared to seeing a crystal-clear, incredibly high-def version of what we knew.

That’s how I’m accepting this new production. I expect things to change; I know they’re changing. What was—well, it isn’t exactly the same. But it’s improved in some ways, stayed the same in others, and will take some getting used to. For long-time Trekkies/Trekkers, anyways.

I still don’t like the new design. But I look forward to seeing the movie.

855. spock's ear - November 14, 2008

an older school bridge update:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31487060@N06/

856. Yammer - November 14, 2008

Redesign = no choice

You guys are on the new Trek team like they had a choice. IMO, they would be crazy to adhere exactly to the look of over forty years ago. Audiences can see TOS on TV for free.

Instead, you keep the key elements, trying to replicate the impact.

Have you guys not read Making Of Star Trek? The prevalent studio opinion in 1964 was “c’mon Gene, you get a cigar shape, slap some windows on it.” Instead, audiences got a radical vision, way ahead of its time.

I would argue that TOS design is, in fact, “better” in that flat battleship grey panels IS probably both more practical and less Star Warsy (i.e. kitbashed niggly bits added to the Death Star surface to increase the depth of the image). However, it will not read as 23rd Century. Let alone what they’re trying to do here: Retro Future.

Hence, the whiter-than-white bridge, rotating ray guns, etc.

Think of ST as Shakespeare. You got your Zefferelli Hamlet, your Olivier Hamlet, your, um, Bob Orci Hamlet.

857. cellojammer - November 14, 2008

Damn, there’s some rude and angry people here.

Mr. Orci, some of us are open minded enough to accept a new vision for Trek. It doesn’t make us less ‘real’ as Trekkers, but it does make us more realistic ones. I have a good feeling you guys did your homework and it’ll show.

I anxiously await the chance to see your take on the franchise with a certain optimism that it will be a worthy addition to the saga we’ve grown to love over the years.

858. Red-Shirted Monkey - November 14, 2008

#856

Yeah, as is the new ship design, Hamlet was a tragedy.

859. John Cooley - November 14, 2008

851. Boborci

It just truly seems that from the officially released picture above, and descriptions of the official clips of the film released to the press, and comments made by JJ, and the stars of STAR TREK, that this is in NO way OUR beloved Star Trek converted to the big screen. We’re not going to see Jim Kirk as we knew him to be. By this, I mean that if (and just please bear with me here for a second) we are the sum of our experiences growing up, than this Kirk is different. No longer the straight-laced student, but now a kind of hot headed Maverick rehash from Top Gun. The new ship, the description of Kirk in the 20 minutes of film shown in Germany, and the new direction of this film all point to a fundamental change to STAR TREK. And that is NOT what Bad Robot has been telling the fans over the last year. What the picture of the Enterprise really represents is the tip of the iceberg that may well sink the whole “Enterprise” for many years to come. Please make no mistake, I wish the entire production staff of STAR TREK success on opening day (and I’ll be there), but did we really have to Michael Bay STAR TREK down to the lowest common denominator to make a successful film? I have grown tired over the last few years of films and TV that caters to the great dummed down masses of Americans that keep reality shows and American Idol on the air when clever intelligent shows like Arrested Development die a quick death (no matter how many Emmy’s it won). STAR TREK always rose above the pack in both story, visual impact, and moral substance. This new venture seams to go down the same path Hollywood has been taking us down for many years now. IDIOCRACY indeed.

860. Daniel Broadway - November 14, 2008

Slightly unrelated, but here are new images of the Kelvin…

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/STAR%20TREk/1600x1200_uss_kelvin_wallpaper_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/STAR%20TREk/1600x1200_uss_kelvin_wallpaper_2.jpg

861. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 14, 2008

D. Broadway, thanks. I wonder if the nacelles will look backlit like in wallpaper_2.jpg on the Church Enterprise, when she’s going to warp.

862. Gary - November 14, 2008

Guys for those who want your oldschool secondary hull, check those Kelvin images, there it is.

863. thorsten - November 14, 2008

[861] The bussards gleam red while in flight… the wings at the back of the nacelles can split up and emit blue gleaming like in the front segment… at least was an image with this in the Slide show in Cologne…

[859] John, I am trekker since forever, as a kid I went down to the basement to build Phasers and Communicators from wood and scrap copper in my fathers workshop, I used polaroids I shot from the TV screen as reference to get as close as possible etc.

But still, what I saw from Trek this week was the best that happened top the franchise for ages.

864. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#725, THX-1138:

No offense, but I’m glad your kids like the ship. JJ and Co. will be glad to collect your money when you take them all to see the movie.

Those of us who grew up from the beginning with Star Trek don’t all quite see it the same way…when I 6, it was 1969 and my favorite thing to draw pictures of was the Enterprise…some of my earliest memories are of watching TOS with my brother and sister when it was originally on.

They haven’t literally grown up with Star Trek like some of us have. It’s a whole different view from one age to another.

865. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#745, NCC-1976

Word, man. You said it.

866. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#760, Avoidz:

Ironically, keep in mind the movie takes place around the era of “The Cage”…the oversized sensor dish is about the only thing the USS Abomination has correct on it…

867. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#770, Eponymous:

Oh Great Ghu, you mean the worst nightmare is true and Church made the ship a Transformer????

868. Robby F - November 14, 2008

Jesus, the more I look at it the uglier it gets. Why would you change a classic that drastically? We’re talking about a universally designed shape that that is recognizable by (perhaps) billions of people that is several decades old.

Its not something that should have a double take – people should know its the Enterprise instantly. It needed updating, not BUTCHERING.

FFS…

869. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2008

#855 – Holy crap, that’s gorgeous! See, now there’s a 2008 update to the bridge that still echoes the original to great effect. Beautiful job!

#860 – Those Kelvin pics are pretty… :) Looks like my initial thought was wrong, and it’s the nacelle below and secondary hull above.

I like!

870. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#777, Ashley:

Yeah, that’s why they want to make Star Trek more like Star Wars and draw in a general public who couldn’t care either way and get their money.

Remember, this movie isn’t for us…

871. YARN - November 14, 2008

If you haven’t looked at the thing upside down, it’s worth a peek.

What struck me is how much the nacelles (upside down) remind me of the warp nacelles off of the Vulcan Shuttle in ST:TMP. That and how big they are in proportion to the ship.

Still don’t like the neck of the ship sitting in the middle of the secondary hull.

872. Jax Maxton - November 14, 2008

846. Tom Bob

You and I are on the same page.

The only thing that could be good about this is if it does what Superman Returns did. That movie made a lot of money but was deemed a wrong direction for a Superman movie. I could see Paramount viewing Star Trek in the same way. It will probably make a lot of money, which will show Paramount that there’s a market for Trek still, but they may not like the new direction.

Look, when the latest “it” boy of JJ Abrams shows interest in a bog time franchise like this, no studio is going to turn them down. Look at Brian Singer on Superman. No way was Warner Bros. going to say no to a Superman movie by the successful director of X-Men. The real truth here is that the guys behind the new Trek are soon going to be seen for what they are: really good makes of TV shows that shouldn’t be making movies. Alias, Lost, Fringe…they are all spectacular works of entertainment. But Cloverfield? Mission Impossible 3? Transformers? Those works are, shall we say, less than stellar.

And the fact that JJ is not a Trek fan just blows my mind. I hope that somebody is looking over his shoulder making sure he doesn’t deviate from what Trek is meant to be. So far, I’m not sure he’s getting it.

873. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#819, The Fringe Element:

You’re only a year older than me, but as a fellow original Trekker, I don’t like it at all. And I will not just “put up and shut up” when something I’ve loved since childhood is being treated in such a seemingly careless way.

874. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#828, XOHARO:

So how can you be so sure a warp nacelle in the 23rd Century wouldn’t look like a “cigar tube with a light glued on the front”?

Is it not possible that something in the future could be done so simply? Or is it just not “cool” enough for you?

875. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#833, 833′rd:

No, not really, especially when the movie has scenes set around the time of “The Cage’ and this thing has design elements in it that wouldn’t be incorporated for another two decades in Trek time…

The ship had some history because in accepted fanon the ship was first captained by Robert April before Captain Pike…but there’s been no mention made of April so far. So they probably even screwed up the age of the ship too.

876. doubting thomas - November 14, 2008

the original design was efficient and realistic, bearing a lot of resemblance to nasa rockets

this one is just flash gordon art-deco crap. they are parodying star trek by emphasising and exaggerating the dated parts instead of removing or updating them.

877. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#836, Boborci:

See you have the problem in your first line. “Go redesign the Enterprise, shouldn’t be harder than updating the Mona Lisa” talks about two different operations.

Redesigning and updating aren’t necessarily the same thing.

The Enterprise didn’t need redesigning. Like the bridge and the rest of the original sets, the basic design was sound as it was. Nothing needed the wholesale changes we’ve been seeing. If all that was wanted to make things “cool” and “flashy” and make uninitiated audiences say “wow” then you’ve succeeded. But as a fan you know Star Trek is more than just visuals and being “cool” and “flahy” just to wow people, right?

All everything needed was updating. Look at Gabe Koerner’s Enterprise designs, outside of his scalloped secondary hull, you look at it and say, hey, that’s the Enterprise. Deg3D on the TOS board at startrek.com stays even simpler and more subtle in his updating, and his work is beautiful.

In the efforts to be “new” and “modern” IMHO it was taken a little too far. Star Trek doesn’t need to go too far. It just needs to be good.

878. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#848, Silencer:

Amen, bro (good to see you, BTW)…

Most already know that if the film fails, the first that will be blamed will be the fans, just as the fans were blamed for the poor performance of Nemesis…but we already have our out, because JJ already told us the movie wasn’t being made for us.

879. SH Cone - November 14, 2008

Mr. Church, if you see this:

Ignore these people. With exceptions like Mr. Sternbach, these are mostly fanboys who were just looking for another reason to get angry because Shatner’s not eating up space in a new Trek movie.

What they don’t get is that for Trek to endure, the characters and ideas must be able to be re-imagined, re-worked and changed over. If James Kirk is truly as iconic as they claim, then he must survive apart from Bill Shatner. Otherwise, it was Shatner who was iconic, not Kirk.

The Enterprise is the same. I believe the new E is the same lady in a slightly different dress. Her soul is there. If she seduces Kirk, she will seduce us in time. Just a new actress reinventing an old part. She is either iconic and will endure, or she isn’t as iconic as we think.

So don’t pay attention to people who aren’t designers, writers or filmmakers. Don’t pay attention to people who lack proper objectivity. I found Mr. Sternbach’s comments helpful because of his experience and ultimate objectivity as a designer. But so many of these guys are just angry for no really apparent reason.

Good work. I saw the new E and I smiled. I recognized her across the crowded room, as I’m sure the character’s soul of Kirk will in the movie. That’s what matters.

I’m looking forward to the movie. And looking forward to seeing her move.

880. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#859, John Cooley:

*STANDING OVATION*

I think what’s being lost is Star Trek, especially TOS, aimed at a higher level of intelligence, and since Insurrection the barrel of the rifle has been dipping more and more.

We were told the movie would respect canon and fit the established timeline, but more and more it appears that’s just not true.

Mr. Orci talks of an “impossible position,” if it was impossible why did they go for it instead of putting their heads together, doing what they get paid the big money for and BE CREATIVE AND ORIGINAL and instead of messing with the TOS era, come up with a whole NEW Star Trek for the 21st Century that the whole fan base could have gotten behind as well as the general public?

Either that or just given the fan base the honesty from the start and say the movie would not have much to do with the history we know of outside of character names and locations…

881. SH Cone - November 14, 2008

A couple things:

I said something poorly above. Pay attention to fans and moviegoers too. But disregard negativity from people who are going to be negative no matter what.

NOW:

Those of you claiming that the movie doesn’t respect canon are talking out of your hindquarters.

You know nothing about the plot. It’s deeply arrogant of you to claim that a movie or story will or will not do something when you haven’t seen it yet. You’ve either not read the reports or read them poorly, as the idea of how these changes could have happened is fairly apparent to me from the snippets of interviews and statements.

If Leonard Nimoy, someone who has been more intimately involved with the franchise than most people here for longer says it comes out respectful, and you’re still second-guessing it to death…. you’re just looking for a reason to hate.

Stay objective. Enjoy the movie. Have fun.

882. Steeevil - November 14, 2008

CANON SCHMANON.

883. Jax Maxton - November 14, 2008

879. SH Cone

Brilliant. Ignore the fans that have invested 40 years in the franchise in favor of 18-24 year olds who don’t really care.

Franchise in movies means that there is a loyal base of hardcore fans that will support the films through thick and thin. But saying ridiculous things like “This isn’t for the fans” is a short-sighted, idiotic business move. Instead, say this is for EVERYBODY, fans and newbies alike.

Once again, the argument is that, if this ISN’T for the fans, then why is Nimoy in it? Non fans won’t care about Nimoy. Sure, a lot of people know that he’s the original Spock (or will by the time this comes out), but I can definitely imagine an 18 year old in the audience wondering who the old dude is.

Is it just me, or has the entire media push on this thing lately been a bit weird? It’s almost as if Paramount is trying to mess with the fans by releasing enough bits and pieces to piss us off. And maybe that’s the plan. Look at the response the few pictures that have been released are getting. In any case, I think Paramount might want to watch how the tread in the next few months and maybe reign in JJ a bit. They could make a lot of money with this thing, so why not make the fan base happy instead of pissing us all off?

884. Jason P Hunt - Kansas City Filmmaker - November 14, 2008

I forgot to mention that when my six-year-old really noticed the changes, the first thing he said was about the forward part of the nacelle: “That’s supposed to be red and flashing!”

————————

To Bob Orci:
I also appreciate your time and patience and willingness to put up with all of the vast array of comments about the ship design. While I agree that updating is quite different from redisigning, and while I think it was completely unneccessary, I also recognize that this picture is not worth a thousand words. There’s no way anyone here can intuit the whole of the story from just one photograph. If you say there’s a “canon” explanation, then I’ll have to take you at your word.

But if this movie erases forty years of TREK, then you will have quite a few fans very upset. Of course, if that’s offset by all of the NEW fans, and the gobs of money in Paramount’s coffers…

Anyway, I still wish you great success with the movie, and I still plan to be there for a ticket.

“Risk is our business.” -jtk

885. Jax Maxton - November 14, 2008

881. SH Cone

On your last point, I will agree. We really don’t know enough about the story to make any real opinions. But then why release these kind of pictures? Surely they know that in the modern, internet fanboy obsessed world in which we live that the new design would raise an ire. But, of course, maybe that’s the point. Like showing the Hulk early this time instead of waiting to release the film. If the fanboys can get it off there chest in the next few months, then maybe it will all die out by then.

And it’s not arrogance that makes people question this project. It’s the mixed signals we’re getting from the main participants. While Nimoy says it’s respectful to the franchise, JJ is saying that it’s not for the fans. And what was that whole JJ vs Shatner thing? Why did that happen at all? All very strange.

886. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#879, SH Cone:

Reworking something iconic like Star Trek does not mean one has to go overboard doing it. And things don’t have to be drastically changed for Trek to endure.

Shatner notwithstanding, what was so wrong with Kirk’s character that he could not still be what we knew him to be, “a stack of books with legs” in his Academy days? It’s not “cool” enough, so he has to be made into a delinquent and a thrill seeker?

What was so wrong with the original design of the Enterprise that some detailing and updating wouldn’t have fixed? Not “flashy” enough? Not enough gadgets on the hull so it can’t possibly be a 23rd century starship?

As I’ve said, change that is necessary is one thing, change for change’s sake is something else.

887. Bill Peters - November 14, 2008

and I thought I was a picky trek fan…guess not…the ship is OK by me…I like some of the stuff the fans made as well…here to hoping the best for the Trailer and Movie!

888. CaptainRickover - November 14, 2008

For Mr. Orci

It’s clear and understandable that you have to defend Ryan’s design and perhaps from a perspetive it will look a bit better. But it is not the perspektive that make it an awful design, it’s the composition of the elements. I can’t imagine how a different perspective could make the secondary hull look better.

It shouldn’t have so difficult to do the thing right: Keep the original dimensions and the mainframe and update the exterior like Gabe Koerner have done.

To Mr. Orci: You really should have hired Gabe as designer for the new Enterprise, IMO. Perhaps for the next movie?

889. Jax Maxton - November 14, 2008

886. starbase63

Unfortunately, this movie is aimed right at the 18-24 demographic, ignoring the 40 years of fans that have come on board since its inception. One day Hollywood will realize that there is much wider audience than young adults. Then maybe we’ll get some good movies.

890. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#889, Jay Maxton:

And not just that, as Abrams himself said, “this movie is not being made for fans of Star Trek, it’s being made for fans of movies.”

891. Charles Apple » Blog Archive » Time for another geekazoid Friday-palooza - November 14, 2008

[...] In fact, Rick Sternbach, a former illustrator and ship designer for the Star Trek TV shows and movies, got into the act, critiquing the new Enterprise. Which elicited a response from Ryan Church, the guy who designed the new ship. Read more about that catfight here. [...]

892. Star Trackie - November 14, 2008

BOy oh boy. There sure are a lot of people yammering on and on about how the old ship has been converted. I love the old ship. It REMAINS my favorite design of all…sleek, simple and practical.

However, it is NOT lost on me that this movie takes place in an alternate time line. Therefore we have a different ship…a different bridge, slight differences in uniforms etc….all possible, and more importantly, all TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE due to that very fact. This is not a historic bio of TOS…it is a new take on TOS brought to us via an alternate timeline which has been jacked around by the romulans. These changes are not a problem people and are to be expected.

And the bottom line is this…can you strip away ALL the eye candy…ALL the glitz and bling and have the same charm and great characters and great story that was the hallmark of TOS?

THAT is the challenge. And the jury on that is out and will remain out until MAy 2009.

893. CaptainRickover - November 14, 2008

# 881 SH Cohen

Nothing against Nimoy, I really love him and his work.

But Nimoy is a very progressive man, he is not like J.R.R. Tolkien was (very protectice about the continuity of his universe, that’s why he never agreed with any screenplay based on his books he had seen). I could very well imagine that he will aproof to certain changes, if the message is not altered or twisted. And why he should not? He’s an artist and a creator and a creator have to be looking for something new. in fact, Nimoy’s involvement says nothing about continuity, especially the visual continuity.

894. CaptainRickover - November 14, 2008

I love Star Trek not only for it’s message (a better, envolving humanity, optimistic future etc.) but also for what it looks. And I’m a fan of fictional universes and their continuity. As long as the story taking place one after another, I have no problem. I could even accept an Enterprise from the 30th century looking like a globe. But if you go back into an era, that’s already explored, then this era should recognized as such. I totally agree with starbase63 and Alex Rosenzweig about how that could be managed without looking outdated.

The fact, that uniforms, phasers, communicators, tricorders, the bridge and everthing else from the interior changend with nearly every new season of tv-Trek orevery new movie (TWOK in comparsion to TSFS), a new bridge, new phasers or new communicators could allways be explained – and without violating canon!). But such a different exterior for the Enterprise could not. How should that work? The new movie-Enterprise build on earth, then refitted into the Cage-design, again refitted somewhere after the episode back to the new movie-Enterprise and then, shortly before the 5-year-mission, they build the entire ship back again on it’s original-stage – just with new nacelle-caps? That’s ridiculous!

So, there have to be an alternate-timeline or an alternate reality, created by Nero. When the crew fixed the timeline, everything should change back to TOS-state. But I doubt that will happen. The new Movie-Enterprise will survive the final and so, the original universe will be whiped out. TOS will never happen and reduced to dust. Ironically that changes might have no influence on the older movies, because the TMP-Enterprise stll could be a refit from the new movie-Enterprise and so, TNG could happen, DSN as well and even Voyager. The only thing, that’s really terminated is TOS.

Someone could see that as an attack against the very heart of Star Trek…

But this alternate-timeline-twist is just speculation so far. But the new Enterprise is a fact. If they not remaster the scenes they’ve allready completed with a new CGi-model (what they won’t of course) then this new Enterprise becomes reality. Paramount will declare the entire movie as canon, then there are only two possibilites left:

A: Paramount and the TPTB cast TOS out of canon or
B: We accept the movie as an adventure from a second Star Trek-universe and hope, they will return one day into the prime-universe.

895. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 14, 2008

I VOTE B!

896. Jon B - November 14, 2008

The nacelles are a little big, but other than that the ship looks great. I can’t wait for the movie.

897. JonnyQ - November 14, 2008

I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it’s difficult… An “open mind” can allow one to embrace the TMP refit over the TOS version, but this new version truly looks like a bastardized version of somewhere in between… It looks like a class that a half-ass combination of the two… No doubt the heart was there, but there’s something to be said for well-enough alone…

898. Holger - November 14, 2008

816, 837 boborci: I’m sorry, but this looks to me a bit like immunizing against criticism.
If this forum is in any way representative of Trek fans, it seems about a quarter of them dislike the new ship. I don’t see why it should have been impossible to design one which, say, 95% like? (It was done in TMP.)
Of course it’s impossible to get 100% approval, but that’s not the issue, is it?

899. VladdyTrout - November 14, 2008

I like the new Enterprise. It is designed to reflect the old but with some new twists.

Much better than the Enterprise (I know it wasn’t THE Enterprise) designed for that disaster Enterprise TV show…

The new Enterprise is nice. Good show.

900. EvilCraig - November 14, 2008

The “new” Enterprise looks like a K-Mart telephone.

Even though the STTMP revision was appealing, I still like the original Enterprise 1701 design the best. Never cared for the TNG era Enterprises either. They look like silicone ships that someone sat on and squished.

This “new” one isn’t much better. Sorry, two thumbs down.

901. Captain Crawford - November 14, 2008

All things considered, I like the new look for the Enterprise. The only thing I’d change are the colors on the deflector dish and bussard collectors, more akin the Daniel Broadway mod. Who knows if this look is permanent or not? One of the main plot details of this movie is time travel. Somebody from the future goes back in time and screws everything up. Maybe once things are set right, the Enterprise might be a bit more recognizable.

902. The Gorn - November 14, 2008

I was only 2 years old when TMP was released. Any of the older trekkies remember this type of backlash against the re-designed Klingons (Taking into account of course, Trek was still relatively new and there was no internet)?

903. SH Cone - November 14, 2008

Jax- If you’ll go a little lower you’ll see that I self-corrected due to poor wording and said to NOT ignore the fans, but to ignore those who are going to be negative no matter what.

General other replies:

Lets be honest, folks. I dig the original Enterprise quite a bit, but it was designed on a shoestring budget. For television. In the 60′s. Some of the decisions that went into it were need based as much as design based.

The big screen is good for identifying flaws. That’s why it needed to be redone for TMP. And the TMP upgrade was a pretty spectacular way to respect the original and bring it into a new era.

There are other factors here also: We dont’ know if Nero has messed with the technology levels of the new timeline. He very well may have. What ideas of a temporal cold war from ENT have been employed?

Holding new ideas hostage to designs from a bygone era on a bygone budget doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Especially not when the story just might explain the changes pretty well for us.

What I find arrogant is complaining when we have evidence that there might very well be an explanation for the changes.

What I find annoying is an inability to let Trek move forward based on a refusal to let go of a 60′s aesthetic. If you love the franchise, you have to let it be re-imagined and pushed to new places, as long as the *soul* of it is right. It’s given the Bond franchise a 20+ film longevity and a lifespan pretty close to Trek’s. Otherwise, Trek will die. Don’t tell me it won’t, it’s already started to. The last couple of movies didn’t do well, ENT flared out and there was a period of no new material.

It’s a strange obsession with an *aesthetic* at the end of the day. And one that might well be explained by story. We have clues that the story might do this by the nature of it being a time travel story – and by the nature of Trek already allowing for alternate realities (they’re some of our favorite episodes!). And by hints dropped in interviews.

Stop judging it before its finished. Before its been watched.

904. The Gorn - November 14, 2008

903: Damn straight! But I (for one) don’t need some convoluted and contrived alternate timeline story arc to explain the appearance of the new Enterprise. It’s new and looks different ’cause it’s a new movie and it’s 2009!

Good enough. Enjoy the ride.

905. CaptainRickover - November 14, 2008

# 903 SH Cohen

I’m not against a total reboot. I’m not against going forward with Star Trek. I think, only the minority here is. Okay, there allways haters, but they are just few. What makes the people going upset is the fact, that they beloves Star Trek will be twistet. With a reboot, minds could be kept much cooler. In a reboot you could do everything you like. Bend canon, twist continuity and change every design you like. Ron Moore, once one of my favorite Trek-writers, pledged since years for a total reboot of the franchise.

BUT: It were the Paramount bosses and (as far as I know) JJ Abrams who not want to go forward. They decided to go backwards. Every time you hear them, they deny it’s a reboot. This Trek will set in the same universe as all other tv-shows and the existing 10 movies. That’s the problem. They’ll tell a story from the past, but twist nearly every design we learned to know and love. Perhaps there might be a canon-explanation (the cheap trick of an alternate timeline, some people here guessing), but I don’t think they’ll fix the timeline in to the correct state of TOS.

Because if this “alternate timeline” will be fixed at the end, everything that happend in the movie will be meaningless – it don’t happen in the prime-universe. So, that “origin story” won’t be any longer an origin story and they’ll have to tell the right story in the next movie. But think over that: Will that ever happen? I say no. That leaves only the fact, that – whatever happen in the movie – the prime-universe will be twisted and TOS becomes meaningless, the very heart of Star Trek.

If this is true (what I think is very likley, but I could be wrong), Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindeloff und Burke cloaks their franchise-reboot as a canon-story. That would be a very poor and cheap trick, IMO. Then better be honest and say: “Okay, it’s a reboot.” I could life with that and still enjoy the upcoming movie AND knowning the prime-universe – especially TOS – is untouched.

906. Mark T. - November 14, 2008

It’s secondary hull smackdown!!!

907. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2008

#903 – “Lets be honest, folks. I dig the original Enterprise quite a bit, but it was designed on a shoestring budget. For television. In the 60’s. Some of the decisions that went into it were need based as much as design based.”

I’ll agree with all of this *except* the shoestring budget part. I realize that it’s very common to look at the original effects through today’s eyes and think, “Oh, that must have been dirt-cheap….”, but it just ain’t so. TOS was a very expensive show for its time. There were still limitations, just because of the available technology, but not because it was on a tiny budget.

I just want to try to get that urban legend out of folks’ minds. :)

“The big screen is good for identifying flaws. That’s why it needed to be redone for TMP. And the TMP upgrade was a pretty spectacular way to respect the original and bring it into a new era.”

With this I agree. But, again, even the TMP refit retained the same basic lines and explained the difference in-universe as a change that StarFleet engineers spent 18 months making.

“Holding new ideas hostage to designs from a bygone era on a bygone budget doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Especially not when the story just might explain the changes pretty well for us.”

Of course, much depends on the explanation. Honestly, I’d've been willing to accept some difference as a new and modern production decision much more readily if I knew that the continuity and integrity of the fictional world was being respected.

“What I find arrogant is complaining when we have evidence that there might very well be an explanation for the changes.”

Why is it arrogant for folks to express an opinion about the aesthetics of the design? I’ll agree that those who attack Ryan Church or the other members of the design team personally go too far. But to say that someone dislikes the design? I don’t see arrogance there.

For myself, I’ll stick to what I said before. I want to see more before I render a judgment. Seeing only one angle is an incomplete picture.

“What I find annoying is an inability to let Trek move forward based on a refusal to let go of a 60’s aesthetic. If you love the franchise, you have to let it be re-imagined and pushed to new places, as long as the *soul* of it is right.”

I think there should be some flexibility in accepting visual evolution, but I see no justification for throwing out the storytelling. But even visually, I can empathize with the disappointment. No one’s ever seen the original ship upgraded for a feature film, but some of the modern renders have been pretty spectacular. I’m not seeing a basis to say that it couldn’t work.

“It’s given the Bond franchise a 20+ film longevity and a lifespan pretty close to Trek’s. Otherwise, Trek will die. Don’t tell me it won’t, it’s already started to. The last couple of movies didn’t do well, ENT flared out and there was a period of no new material.”

Actually, there hasn’t been a period with no new Trek for over 20 years. Oh, not all of it’s been *on film*, but film is only one part of the story.

As far as the so-called death of Trek, m’thinks it’s been greatly exaggerated. name me any show that didn’t run down after a period of time. If one looks at it from a general public point of view, the various Trek series ran together, so in effect, it was 25 seasons of essentially one show, and viewers just got bored. The break probably did it good, overall. (Ironically, the final season of ENT was one of the best-received, including by many people who weren’t watching at the time and later found it, and it had benefitted by having some new blood in the lead roles. It was also one of the seasons most true to the mythos, a key point whcih bears note.)

“It’s a strange obsession with an *aesthetic* at the end of the day. And one that might well be explained by story. We have clues that the story might do this by the nature of it being a time travel story – and by the nature of Trek already allowing for alternate realities (they’re some of our favorite episodes!). And by hints dropped in interviews.”

Sure. Explaining the aesthetic evolution is easy. Justifying the need to create alternate universes and discontinuities in the overall storytelling is hard. Nobody’s managed it yet, in fact.

“Stop judging it before its finished. Before its been watched.”

And with that, I’ll agree. There are hints of a real, possibly suitable, resolution yet to be revealed, and I’ll be happy to give this team every chance to get it right.

908. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2008

#905 – ” In a reboot you could do everything you like. ”

Except the preservation of the fictional world, with reasonable consistency, as has occurred over hundreds of episodes and ten feature films to date, covering over two centuries of fictional time and 4 decades of real time.

Show me a reboot that preserves *that*, and I’d be on-board.

909. Jax Maxton - November 14, 2008

905. CaptainRickover

You make some nice points.

I saw the new trailer, and, no spoilers, and my concern now is that this is just going to be heartless action movie from the writers of “Transformers”. The trailer just makes it look like a big budget action movie, which was never what the show or the movies really were. They were usually character tales with action. The lone exception is Star Trek V, and we all know how well that one worked out.

But, now that I’ve seen the trailer I’m ready to take a wait-and-see attitude.

910. Lico - November 14, 2008

It’s official: Star Trek hardcore fans are the most annoying creatures ever to live in this world. Open your minds and wait for the movie… or at least go outside and get some sun.

911. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#898, Holger:

It’s more than a quarter against at some forums…

912. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

#910, Lico:

Been outside. Regularly.

Married and have a family too. Still a hardcore fan.

And I’m not confident in the movie at all.

913. TomBot99/4A - November 14, 2008

Still looks like Poo. The mod illustrations only make it more noticeable. People can get as defensive or reactive as they want, but it won’t change my OPINION, my gut reaction just says it looks wrong. Weird angle, fish eye lenses, whatnot. I’m sure hard work went into it. I’m sure great thought went into it. But still, that doesn’t change(and it won’t) my honest impression of the thing. Bring on new angles, views, lit bussards, etc. I just doubt it’ll morph that funked up secondary hull much. I sure wish they would have released this movie this December like originally planned, so we can get the whole thing over with, good or bad.

914. YARN - November 14, 2008

#879

“What they don’t get is that for Trek to endure, the characters and ideas must be able to be re-imagined, re-worked and changed over. If James Kirk is truly as iconic as they claim, then he must survive apart from Bill Shatner. Otherwise, it was Shatner who was iconic, not Kirk.”

If casting didn’t matter, you could have anyone play any character – as you say it is the iconocity of the character that matters.

Also, your argument fails to track properly. You begin by talking about how the character is written, and justify character changes based on the premise that Shanter is not all there is to Kirk. That is, you justify changes in writing on the ground of choice of actors.

“The Enterprise is the same. I believe the new E is the same lady in a slightly different dress. Her soul is there.”

I agree that the ship is identifiable as the Enterprise, but I have no idea where the soul of the ship is located. Perhaps Horatio Hornblower’s “Indefatigable” has the same soul as the Enterprise (Nick Meyer’s has stated that 60′s Trek was Hornblower in space).

Wax poetic all you want – fans have the Constitutional right to freak out, rebel, defend, and adjust to changes in whatever realm of geekery they stake out for themselves.

I think the ship looks OK (still don’t like the neck sitting so far back, but whatever), but people have the right to gripe and moan as well as heap praise.

I am amazed at how dissent is not tolerated around here.

915. Dark_Lord_Prime - November 14, 2008

As a lifetime Trek fan (born in ’73, seen every movie and episode of every series), I can honestly say that I don’t hate this new design.

The saucer looks perfect, and I can live with the weird nacelles and slightly elongated secondary hull.

My only real criticism is that the neck sits way too far back on the secondary hull. Move that (and the saucer, obviously) forward, as well as flipping the nacelle struts and moving those slightly forward, and it would be perfect.

916. The Invader (In Color) - November 14, 2008

I don’t know…

I’ll have to see it in the film. The nacelles look wonky to me…the saucer looks more detailed than the rest of the ship…

I…just don’t know.

Don’t hate it…don’t love it.

Meh.

917. The Invader (In Color) - November 14, 2008

Kelvin looks cool though! I like it.

918. The Invader (In Color) - November 14, 2008

So, does CBS need to go back and remaster those TOS episodes with this wonky new ship?

919. Jeffries Tuber - November 14, 2008

I just want to say that Gabe Korner’s redesigned E looks lousy. I’ve seen so many casual references to it that someone had to step up and speak the gospel truth: there’s nothing creative about GK’s design, it’s just lipsick on a pig. By that I mean, it’s the TMP design with a couple of meaningless mods here and there. I think it’s too chunky in parts and looks like the kind of E that any old motion picture director would have churned out.

Imagine if Roddenberry, Jeffries and everyone else involved backin ’65-66 had taken that same path of least resistance. The Enterprise would have turned out looking like an airplane or a submarine.

I bought one of those Franklin Mint Enterprises in the late 80s and the nacelles drooped down due to metal fatigue in a few months and the deflector dish broke off. The connector between the primary and secondary hulls was always too small and thin. And it’s never made sense, long before CAD programs, that a 23rd Century spaceship would be designed with a protractor and a ruler.

Anyway, the Korner design is only cool because of the lighting effects. Put that design in a classic angle against stars and it’ll be just as easy to criticize as Ryan Church’s and a lot harder to defend.

920. SH Cone - November 14, 2008

“If casting didn’t matter, you could have anyone play any character – as you say it is the iconocity of the character that matters.”

Not true at all. Casting does matter. I’m saying that for Trek to live it must endure new people taking it on. It does matter who is cast to play Kirk – the actor chosen will hopefully get it. Not every actor is suited to any part. But Kirk must exist and thrive apart from Shatner if Trek is to achieve further longevity. If Trek is as mythic as it is claimed to be, it can and will survive a reworking. That is the magic of mythic endurance: the ability to manifest differently and contain its core.

Rosenweig-

Thank you for correcting me on the budget issue.

I don’t mind objectively disliking it, or even wishing it were closer to a particular aesthetic. But I do find it arrogant to say the movie will fail, or bomb or be horrible or won’t explain things that need to be explained *without having seen it*. Based purely on a hardline *need* for it to look a certain way. It’s… bizarrely obsessive to me.

I just don’t think it’s healthy or wise to trash the movie or give up on the idea for the reasons many do. Sure. everyone has a constitutional right to say what they like, but that doesn’t make it intelligent, thoughtful or objective. I have just as much of a right to take on that kind of bad judgment and criticism. I don’t think it’ll really stop the people who are just determined to hate the thing, but I’d rather put the notion into the discussion to try and balance them out for those who are a little more objective.

That said, thanks for discussing!

921. jpd13 - November 14, 2008

I’m trying to be open minded here, but this new ship design is going to take a lot of getting used to. My favorite by far is the redesigned original from the first movies. This one just isn’t giving me that same feeling.

Definately a little disappointed.

922. Phil - November 14, 2008

Well, gone for a bit, and the s***storm continues. Props to Mr. Orci for venturing his opinion, all though there seems to nothing that can be said that the quality of what was presentable in 1960′s era TV would look horrible on the big screen, which, as I recall was a driving force behind the redesign for TMP.

I reserve judgement until I see it. Everything has been good up to this point, though.

Good job, JJ.Just tune out the background noise.

923. Alex Rosenzweig - November 14, 2008

#922 – “Props to Mr. Orci for venturing his opinion, all though there seems to nothing that can be said that the quality of what was presentable in 1960’s era TV would look horrible on the big screen, which, as I recall was a driving force behind the redesign for TMP.”

I really and truly don’t think anyone is suggesting that what was presentable in 1960s TV be applied to a major motion picture. But what many have suggested is that, beyond the limitations of special effects, the basic design of the ship holds up well, thus why the TMP redesign stayed with it, as opposed to going with, say, the McQuarrie-prise. And when we’ve seen it presented with modern VFX, e.g., in “In a Mirror, Darkly”, the posit that the design is sound seems to be well-supported.

924. G - November 14, 2008

*** RED ALERT ***

Okay, I JUST noticed something! If you pause the trailer on one of the scenes where you see the Enterprise, you will definitely see that we may be seeing more than one version of the ship. Tell me if I’m going crazy, but if you look closely at the struts for the warp nacelles, they are straight, just like on Enterprise we’re used to seeing (as opposed the the bent/curved struts on the pic of the new ‘retro’ Enterprise we’ve been looking at the past couple days.

Anyone else agree with me on that analysis??

925. Curt - November 14, 2008

Shennanigans!

I can understand how the Original Series Enterprise may not be slick enough to fill the seats with non-trekkies.

However, if JJ’s going to use an established franchise to make a buck, he has to adhere to cannon. I’m not a real fan on how he’s treated Transformers, Lost has been on for three seasons too long, and Fringe is unwatchable.

It seems like the only way JJ can make a buck is to capitalize on an established series. If he’s gonna do that, he has to stay true to it.

I can’t see how this Enterprise would find it’s way to it’s life as the Original Series E through a refit… that’s just too radical an unbelievable.

The motion picture Enterprise showed class and maturity. This one is just goofy. I’ve tried to let it grown on me… but it’s no good.

926. celticarchie - November 14, 2008

The more I see of Abram’s Trek the less I like, every “leaked” piece of information about it, from Abram’s first involvement to this re-imagined ship, has turn me away from the whole idea.

927. G1701P - November 14, 2008

SPOLIER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have had the pleasure of attending one of the road shows and have seen the 4 clips. There is a scene when Kirk, Sulu and Olsen “skydive” from the shuttle craft. As they decend, you see a sillohette of the Enterprise above. The silloette is our Enterprise. You feel that that ship is the same one that took care of and will take care of our heros in the future. Its shape is perfect and you get a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Also, there is a scene where the Pike takes the suttlecraft out of the shuttle bay. The shuttle bay is right where it should be. The door is clamshell shaped and perfect.

I saw these elements in the movie BEFORE I actually saw the full shot of the enterprise on screen. As for the Enterprise herself, there is one image in the trailer , with the Enterprise coming right at the screen that should dispell any concerns.

I have been an Original Star Trek fan for 30 years. The new design works!
I am more a TMP fan of the design which is really why I like the new design. Once seen in motion and from different angles, you may feel differently/

I commend everyone involved in the Project. The fact that there is a primary and secondary hull, warp nacelles and brussards should be sign enough that the right choices were made. Is it perfect. No. That would be impossible and unoriginal.

Ryan, thanks for being bold enough to make some changes, yet keep it looking like the ship I love.

928. Doug L. - November 14, 2008

You know… Klingons can change, the Bridge can change, the actors can change, the canon can change, communicators can change etc etc etc…

What many people fail to understand (and what some do understand nicely) is that the ship itself is an icon and when everything else around it HAS to change because of the day and age… the ship should have been the anchor (along with Leonard Nimoy).

You might just as soon call someone in to modernize the exterior of the empire state building. You can gussy up the offices all you want, but the exterior is an icon.

We can get the statue of liberty out of those old robes and into some low rise jeans while we’re at it.

While I expect to really enjoy this movie, i think they miss the mark on the ship. It’s not a big deal in the larger scheme of things, but I don’t think a bunch of ten year olds are going to be drawn to it like kids were to X-Wing fighters. It’s not different enough or cool enough.

They should have left the Exterior of the Enterprise relatively intact.

Doug L.

929. AmericanSoldier - November 14, 2008

Sorry – I don’t care for the new look Enterprise. I don’t waste hours with this stuff, and I have a life with my Wife and two teenage Sons.

Still, the original model Enterprise would have been fine, with the newest special effects. They’ve changed the Bridge, too???

No…you don’t have to bring EVERYTHING into 2008 to make it successful. I’m sure the movie will be ok…even fine.

Still, you should pay a little tribute to those who created and made Star Trek famous. Be true to the characters, too.

Pike gets killed in this – - Is that true??? So…let’s just mess up the story lines from the past as well. Again, where’s the consistency???

Jury will be out on this for me…until I see it.

930. Rick Sternbach - November 14, 2008

This thread is getting a bit long in the tooth, but I’ll cap off my comments with something I posted on another site in response to a question of my being disappointed about the new Enterprise. Perhaps this will clarify things a little:

Yes, I was slightly disappointed in the initial viewing of the design, what with the elements of the Refit and what to me are odd-looking nacelles and pylons and the proportions of the engineering hull. In a question of pure mechanics, yes, I was puzzled by what appeared to be an incorrect placement of the nacelles so that the Bussard collectors didn’t see open space, but that turned out to be an illusion, and I did get to see an ortho view of a port side elevation that confirmed it. Yes, I used a colorful metaphor related to elephants and committees, in the sense that the major assemblies did not look like they all came from the same “foundry,” so to speak.

All that said, however, I do think that the new Enterprise design fits the rest of what appears in the trailer, so for me, it’s the entire aesthetic that is skewed. Will it all work as a film? Probably. Does it feel like it fits with the rest of the 40-some years of the franchise? No, but that’s just my opinion. Will I see the movie? Sure. Will I debate design points? Sure again; it’s good to study and critique and exchange ideas but without trampling on the people who created the designs in a personal way. I’m sure Ryan Church and the other designers are okay folks; I just don’t respond as positively to their concepts the way some others have, or feel that Star Trek needs to be radically updated or made more hip and cool for another new generation of filmgoers. Anyhow, May 09 will come soon enough, and we’ll all have fun going to the flicks.

931. Scotty's Ashes - November 14, 2008

MY EYES!

Please let this be some sort of sick joke.

The TOS Constitution Class Starship was a thing of beauty.

The Constitution Refit was even more beautiful and streamlined.

THIS is awful, and not in a good way.

If I’m going to judge the entire movie by this “Updated” version of the Enterprise, I’ll wait for the movie to come on HBO.

932. Scotty's Ashes - November 14, 2008

So Abram’s is trying a “reboot”? Didn’t anybody learn from the dismal failure known as “Star Trek: Enterprise” that messing around with cannon is a risky thing. Bevis and Butthead destroyed ST: ENT because they hated the Star Trek universe and tried to make their own. Only when Manny Coto, a true Trekkie and producer who respected the audience, came aboard did ST: ENT actually have any watchable episodes.

This may do well initially but i rather doubt if anything from the “Updated Trek” universe will have any “Staying Power”

933. trekboi - November 15, 2008

IM ALL FOR STAR TREK CHANGING AND GROWING BUT ONLY IF IT IMPROVES- THIS DESIGN IS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL- ALONF WITH THE TURTLE NECK & SHORT SLEVED FEMALE UNIFORMS ITS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT AND SUGGESTS A MORE INCONSIDERATE RE-BOOT/RE-IMAGENING THAN WE WERE PROMISED

IF THESE ARE JUST SUPERFICIAL WEAKNESSES AND LIMITED TO THE COSTUMES AND ENTERPRISE THE FILM WILL BE OK- IF NOT NEMISIS WILL MOVE UP ON THE LIST OF RANKED TREK FILMS

934. I am not Herbert - November 15, 2008

There was a bit of shock and awe for me initially, but I like it!
We should consider the possibility that we are seeing it through a FISHEYE view here. IMHO:

The nacelles/pylons are better than TMP/WOK (Enterprise A) nacelles/pylons, and ALL of the CLUNKINESS of the TOS Enterprise is fixed!

Ryan’s design is WAY better than the weird aircraft-carrier-looking Enterprise B!! and probably better than Enterprise C as well.

The longer secondary hull will allow a longer shuttle hangar bay, and it’s going to look pretty good with the saucer separated.

So, I agree: She IS a fine ship! Long Live Enterprise!

935. Holger - November 15, 2008

911 starbase63: I’m so conservative ;-)

936. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 15, 2008

Watch the trailer, see the Enterprise in motion. Yes, it’s official, all doubts over the design of the Enterprise have been dispelled.

937. Holger - November 15, 2008

910 Lico: Wow, and that’s official, too: You’re quite the masochist, reading through so many posts by the most annoying people on earth.

938. Talos IV - November 15, 2008

As others have said we need to see other prespectives but from this one the taper on the star drive section appears to start too close to the deflector dish and similarly the taper on the nacelles appears to start too close to the bussard collectors. The result is that both the star drive and nacelles appear to be too ‘fat’ at the front. Thus, I conclude, it must be the perspective that’s giving a ‘distorted’ view.

I hope the film works. Great to see something close to the original uniforms. The big worry here is that the on-screen chemistry of the original cast can’t possibly be reproduced.

939. clippie - November 15, 2008

This is totally fascinating to me. I love this #@%$#@. I am 53 and have been with star trek from the very beginning, having seen every episode produced except for a few season 4 Enterprises. I am especially interested in starship design and purchased the numerous tech manuals and downloaded thousands of jpegs off the net. That being said I found the XI Enterprise initially ugly on the basis of a disproportionally small secondary hull but it has grown on me. In terms of canon, has anyone considered that a starship’s identity is based on the name given to the primary (saucer) hull and that the drive sections, nacelles etc are changed out in the course of the ship’s career. This Enterprise externally becomes the TOS verson when a TOS drive section is attached at some future point in time and ultimately the TMP verson when it receives another drive section.

940. SciFiMetalGirl - November 15, 2008

Well, I am totally shocked and dismayed about my totally hilarious post never showing here, even after posting it on three separate occasions…

Am I being censored or banned, Anthony? I been good, honest!

*pouting*

941. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 15, 2008

940. SciFiMetalGirl

Funny how we see this message.

Try a fresh boot. Or, go to a local WI-FI hotspot like I used too (in my banned time.) ; )

942. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 15, 2008

Funny. No comments on how the TOS E appeared in ST IV without complaint on the design looking too dated.

943. Mr. Yuck - November 15, 2008

………..

944. Mr. Yuck - November 15, 2008

After starting at it for days now, it still looks just as ugly as it did when I first saw it.

I don’t think there’s enough alcohol in the world to get me drunk enough to make it look better to me. You can fix broke, but you can’t fix ugly.

The rest of the ship DOES NOT match the saucer section. It looks out of place compared to the rest of the ship.

I saw the trailer last night, and it’s even worse than this picture shows, the freaking pylons are bent INWARDS like someone grabbed the nacelles and warped the pylons by trying to force them closer together to one another.

WTF?

945. The Invader (In Color) - November 15, 2008

Exactly, Yuck –

The saucer doesn’t match. In fact, it looks a lot like the Excelsior saucer section. I would have gone with a saucer that was as streamlined as the rest of the ship… maybe gotten rid of the rim on the saucer and made the two halves come to a point rather than have the rim…something more elegant — like the rest of it.

I don’t like the pylons on this still image…they look short!

946. SciFiMetalGirl - November 15, 2008

@ 941 – I was thinking the same thing. Actually, that was a test of sorts. Perhaps there is some secret to posting a link to a pic here that I am not aware of?

Makes me wonder…

947. Alex Rosenzweig - November 15, 2008

#944 – “I saw the trailer last night, and it’s even worse than this picture shows, the freaking pylons are bent INWARDS like someone grabbed the nacelles and warped the pylons by trying to force them closer together to one another.

WTF?”

and

#924 – “Okay, I JUST noticed something! If you pause the trailer on one of the scenes where you see the Enterprise, you will definitely see that we may be seeing more than one version of the ship.”

I haven’t seen the trailer yet, but haven’t we been hearing for some time now the rumor that part of the complexity of this film will be that we’d be seeing a few different timelines, including one in which the Enterprise is an outright warship?

It may very well be that we’re seeing different versions of the ship. e.g., what Mr. Yuck is referring to may be a different version than what’s been pictured so far, which I could imagine, since perspective or no, the pylons on the pictured version don’t look inward bent at all.

948. Mr. Yuck - November 15, 2008

947 :

Look VERY carefully at the pylons in the picture and you can see the curvature that they have.

949. The Invader (In Color) - November 15, 2008

Those short and stubby engine pylons really bother me.

While the trailer looks great, so far I just can’t get into this new Enterprise design.

950. mikee - November 15, 2008

I understand some people need to see Star Trek re-invented, but why the need to go back and ruin the great characters already well established? If you argue that the old fan base is getting older then fine, leave them be! Why not invent something new? Why the need to ruin what the older fans love so much? This is typical Hollywood egotism folks, they need to show you how their version of your favorite would be “better” because of their “Genius flair” for marketing agenda. Sadly they just want to milk the cash cow, but why would someone kill the cash cow before trying to milk it??

951. Cyberbeagle - November 15, 2008

“there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here”

Nope, that’s no illusion, it really does look that badly designed!!! ;)

Disappointed, again in today’s world everything has to be curved, redesigned, reinvented. Look at the horrible ships in the prequel Star Wars trilogy – not a patch on the originals! No-one gives two-hoots about design continuity, or using those old tried-and-tested design rules.

Andrew Probert’s movie version of Matt Jeffries original was a design classic, and if I’d been Church I’d be going “Hmmm… how can I make Probert’s design look more like the TV version?” In which case I’d come up with this (fraid I’m no 3D designer to render it! Anyone fancy it?):

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5813/enterprisethatshouldhavhd5.gif

952. Matt - November 15, 2008

What is it with Trekies and technobabble?

953. Talos IV - November 15, 2008

Aye, ‘stubby’ is the word I was looking for. The nacelles in particular have to appear long and sleek and the star drive has to marry the piece together and hold her in balance.

954. CaptainRickover - November 15, 2008

# 908 Alex Rosenzweig

You missed my point. I was not speaking of that “not-a-reboot” Abrams & Co had made, I was speaking of an entire and complete reboot (ignoring everything that have come before). Not that I want to see one, but I would be not so angry about that, because it wouldn’t touch the old Star Trek universe.

Of course I never will give a total reboot a nice place in my heart, but I think I would watch it and could have fun for one evening if it’s good. But now I see the beloved prime-universe in danger and especially TOS attacked and given the out-of-canon-treatment.

# 939
A nice idea, but what’s with the saucer? The TOS-saucer is much smaller than the TMP-saucer. And one logical fact is still ridiculous: We will see the Enterprise beeing build in it’s new design – then (if we take The Cage as canon) it would be changend into the all known an beloved Enterprise, later (the new movie era) it would be redbuild to it’s “original” configuration and then – a few years later – completley refitted to the TOS-design and five years later – they attached the new movie-saucer back on an entire new secondary hull. Huh?????

No, I don’t like the new design. I think it’s very bad done, because they simply attached the TMP-saucer to an twisted TMP-sencondary hull and two very terrible looking nacelles.

955. Hugger - November 15, 2008

I think they should have a contest and let people design what they think a new TOS Enterprise should look like. Then let fan’s pick the new design.

956. Federelis - November 15, 2008

Here is a Bootleg Trailer. It’s difficult to impossible to see the Enterprise, but all in all I’m underwhelmed by what I’m seeing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WNPb8R-40&fmt=18

Youu really wanna sell that much popcorn with a Star Trek Movie?

957. The Invader (In Color) - November 15, 2008

#955

Too late. They aren’t going to redo any effects at this point and even if they did it wouldn’t be because the fans didn’t like something.

Sad, but true.

958. Mr. Yuck - November 15, 2008

Last post in here and I’m done.

Too much has been changed just for the sake of change and this movie is clearly for the under 30 crowd.

I feel like I’ve had my childhood raped, sodomized, and, adding insult to injury, pooped upon for nothing more than the almighty dollar. I would rather they had left Star Trek alone than for it to have to suffer the indignity of this abomination.

I tried to keep and open mind this whole time (Up until the pic of the U.S.S. UGLYPRISE came out and I saw the trailer), but this is not something that I can support.

I truly hope with all my heart that this movie tanks if for no other reason than for them to never touch the TOS time line again.

959. Einar Wollweber - November 15, 2008

AAARRGGHHH!!! What’s that??? This is not the Enterprise NCC 1701 – this is a mutation of a Starship and a ’64 Buick.
And what kind of bridge design ist that? Much to futuristic! Keep in mind that this is still the beginning of the Enterprise story. The design would be better placed in a time after TNG. (To the designer: Don’t missunderstood me – it looks very good, but this is not “my” Starship Enterprise, it feels wrong.)

960. Alex Rosenzweig - November 16, 2008

#948 – Yeah, I see the curvature. It just doesn’t look like it’s curving inward toward the ship’s centerline, is what I mean. Now that I’ve seen the trailer, though, I tend to agree that all the shots of the Enterprise are looking like the same ship, just from different angles.

#954 – “You missed my point. I was not speaking of that “not-a-reboot” Abrams & Co had made, I was speaking of an entire and complete reboot (ignoring everything that have come before).”

Oh, no, I got that fine. I simply object to it on a very basic level. ;)

“Not that I want to see one, but I would be not so angry about that, because it wouldn’t touch the old Star Trek universe.”

Ironically, I’m actually better with what they seem to have done, because that way, as Closettrekker likes to point out, the Trekverse as we’ve known it has to exist in this story to set up the situation that begins the chain of events, so it doesn’t pretend that everything we’d known before never took place at all. In this sense, it’s somewhat more like “Back to the Future”, where we follow our key characters (Nero and Spock) into the new universe.

But either way, whether it’s an outright rewriting or a backdoor reboot using time travel and alternate universes, anyone who cared about Trek’s huge fictional world that has endured for so long (and, no, not absolutely perfectly, but pretty darn well considering how many people have been involved with it) is–assuming the movie doesn’t largely correct the discontinuities–being given the finger by TPTB. they are told that their support and loyalty do not matter, and it is that that I find…well…offensive.

#957 – “Too late. They aren’t going to redo any effects at this point and even if they did it wouldn’t be because the fans didn’t like something.”

Moreover, even if they’d be willing to consider it, I think that there’d have to be a much closer to unanimous negative reaction. And we just haven’t seen that. Much as I, personally, would have preferred a different approach, if I were sitting in a Paramount executive’s chair, I’d be looking at all this and saying, “Well, about 30% of the audience really doesn’t like the design, and many, if not most, of them say they’ll go to the movie anyway. All the rest like or love it. So what’s my rationale for spending millions of dollars to change it, again?”

961. I AM KIROK!!! - November 16, 2008

#942 – Funny. No comments on how the TOS E appeared in ST IV without complaint on the design looking too dated.

Huh?!?!? The TOS Connie was never shown in ST IV.

962. I AM KIROK!!! - November 16, 2008

BTW I must chime in after looking at this ship for a couple of days now and I ust say this: Blech! It looks like a big ol’ kitbash! Throw a Excelsior lookin saucer on a squashed enginnering hull and give some over large nacelles and voila! Heres a NEW E. Also the ship just looks too big. Look closely on the docking ports for the shuttle pods. They really small. This looks to be the size of an Ambassador class to me.

963. CaptainRickover - November 16, 2008

# 961
Indee it was. When Spock made his test on the computer (on Vulcan), you could see the TOS-Enterprise for a few seconds. Don’t remember the line the computervoice said, because that damn thing talking so fast. But the Connie was there.

964. I AM KIROK!!! - November 16, 2008

#963 Ah yes I stand corrected!!!!!

965. Federelis - November 16, 2008

Well, having seen the trailer and having freeze framed it at the rare instances where it even featured the Enterprise I now know for sure that the pylons BENd inwards. Who thought that’s a good idea?

It would seem to late for changes, they even should have the toys already in production. But a small part of me hopes there’s a reason to publish a picture of the E four days sooner and then have the Enterprise in the trailer for about five frames, all counted besides the half occluded shipyard. Maybe someone’s in the production isn’t all too sure about the design, hopefully someone with enough veto power to spend a few bucks more just to get the design less clonky and not bent for bendings sake.

I can dream…

966. Alex Sahounov - November 16, 2008

For all of you at home not interested in reading through all the comments, let’s summarize what we’ve learned.

1) The nacelles are too far back.
2) The deflector dish is too far out.
3) The secondary hull is too thin.

To these three points, I say SO. WHAT.

The ship looks fine. It gives me that sense of grandeur that seeing the Enterprise-E for the first time in Star Trek: First Contact had on me.

98% of the people who go see this film will not care about minor design deviations. It’s a multi-million dollar visual upgrade. There was no way that the design of the flagship would be slavish to the 60′s version. You don’t put $200 million dollars into a feature film project and use the exact same design from the original series. Not when the Paramount executives are footing the bill.

Some of the material in the trailer gives me pause (especially the
“My name is James Tiberius Kirk” line). This film will live or die on its own merits. It won’t depend on the aging Trek fanbase that has come from TOS and TNG. The success of the film will be based on its connection to the general public. No more, no less.

967. Federelis - November 16, 2008

#966

Alex, exactly because of it being a 200 million dollars “enterprise” one wonders why they couldn’t update it more straight.

It’s not the need to do it, it’s the uselessness of this particular result.

968. Federelis - November 16, 2008

Did I just “gaybash” the new E? Maybe. ;)

969. The Gorn - November 16, 2008

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/ocd.html

970. Alex Sahounov - November 16, 2008

@967

“Exactly because of it being a 200 million dollars “enterprise”, one wonders why they couldn’t update it more straight.”

What, you’d have the designers create a near-perfect replica of a ship from the 60′s? To spend a ton of money and not take any chances with the design?

It’s the same train of thought that’s made the Batman Begins/The Dark Knight franchise so successful. The creators took characters wholesale and imported them into the film, but changed a couple core values to appeal to today’s audiences. People bitched and complained about the Joker’s lack of permawhite and Batman’s suit “puffiness”, but after TDK came out, the fanbase started mocking those detractors. The ship is a character, and they’ve made changes that (I think) look much better and fit with the role of a flagship.

I used to be one of the biggest proponents of Star Trek continuity and canon. Hell, I debated that crap on the ST.com message boards for years before I left. The thing is, the franchise definitely needs a change. All you have to do is look at the dismal ratings slide of Enterprise to see that. Star Trek needs to be more than fan-conventions and tie-in books. It has to reinvent itself, or it will die.

It’s not a useless endeavor. If it appeals to a wider audience, then the film will have done its job.

971. Talos IV - November 16, 2008

#966 – I totally agree with you on the fims merits determining whether the film will live or die and I too felt a sense of grandeur when I first saw the Enterprise-E in ST:FC, so much so in fact that I was dissapointed we didn’t get to see more of her.

However, I really didn’t get any sense of grandeur – and still don’t – when looking at the new ship. The nacelles are too, well, Babylon 5 cgi. Maybe I’ll get used to them though – I do recall being mightily upset when I saw the nacelles in ST:TMP but I grew to love the new styling.

Maybe I just have an issue with cgi.

972. Federelis - November 16, 2008

#970
Alex, if you like the Cesar Romero Rememberance Look for Heath Ledger that’s of course alright. We’re speaking of a (then) living superior actor underneath all that L’Oreal. But it would be a bad camparison, too.

It’s not a tougher design choice, it’s a softer one. This Design disneyfies the Enterprise.

And, to clarify: I think this E doesn’t tell on a visual level a clear language, there’s tons of ways to do it better…
… do it more exciting.

973. Alex Sahounov - November 16, 2008

@973:

“This Design disneyfies the Enterprise. And, to clarify: I think this E doesn’t tell on a visual level a clear language, there’s tons of ways to do it better…
… do it more exciting.”

I don’t think it “Disneyfies” it at all. If I were handling the design of that ship, I’d make damn sure that it had a facelift. The picture of the new ship (and the footage in the trailer) make the ship look fast and maneuverable. I didn’t get that sense with the original ship in TOS.

As I said before, the film will live or die on its own merits. Some of the material I’ve been seeing and reading about gives me pause, though (the car chase over canyon scene, the description of Sulu using a retractable sword to duel a Romulan while Kirk hangs off the edge).

If it’s crap, it’s crap, but I’m not going to base my entire opinion of a film off six or seven pictures and a two-minute trailer. That’s just stupid.

974. Federelis - November 16, 2008

#973
Alex, no need to keep exactly the TOS Enterprise. You don’t read what I’m writing. It had to be better than Jeffries or Church’s Design. There are ways to come to edgier, more modern look.
And Uncle Walt would love this Duck-Prise, sorry for pointing that out.

975. sarpok - November 16, 2008

Star Trek was created in the 1960s. Since then Gene Roddenberry, and most of the producers, and a lot of the fans tried very hard for continuity and a consistent history.

Until now.

I think a few years ago some misguided young person said of the most recent incarnation of Star Trek that “this is not your father’s Star Trek.” Well, unfortunately, that person was right. I have been a fan since 1966, and my personal fandom ends this year.

Before I saw the new ship the possibility of my seeing the film was under 50%. After seeing the new ship, it is now zero.

For me Star Trek is gone.

I have no doubt the film may succeed, and the spirit of Star Trek may go on, but the new guys have lost me. Not that I will be missed, but something that Star Trek had has been lost. I would say what has been lost is it’s past, it’s history.

Having said all that, I think the new design is lopsided, overdone and damn ugly from an artistic stand point.

Live long and Prosper.

Unfortunately, as far as Star Trek is concerned, I will not.

976. Windsor Bear - November 16, 2008

#975 – Sarpok – “Before I saw the new ship the possibility of my seeing the film was under 50%. After seeing the new ship, it is now zero.”

You sound like me. I know where I WON’T be on opening night! But that’s fine… they have continuously said that this new movie is NOT for the old fans that have supported “Star Trek” since the 60′s, so I get the feeling that they prefer we stay home anyway. This is the NEW “Star Trek” for the NEW generation. So they can have it… Edselprise and all. If Paramount no longer wants my money, I’m sure I can find something else to spend it on.

977. othersidesounds - November 16, 2008

what a pack of loosers… I feel ashamed to say Im a trek fan knowing so many of you are so damn over critical and closed minded that you sound like a bunch of cry babies over ridiculous details…my goodness the shot is a wide angle cam lens, lets way to see the full proportions of it in a less wide lens feel pic before you go freaking the fuk out over the stubyness of the engineering section or what not…. cant you be open minded enough to see the beauty in this design as well?… looks great to me, I love the feel of it.. I think its perfect…. at some point you have to use your head and realize were in a different time frame right now, the 1701 refit looks so old right now, imagine the first connie…that thing looks like a fridge in space now…

Great job

Im a Trek fan from day one!

978. G1701P - November 16, 2008

I’ve painfully read through a good deal of this thread. Everyone is entittled to their opinions, as am I. Here’s mine: I pitty those who say they will not see the movie based on what has been released to the general public to date. Shame on you. A 2.03 minute trailer and a still of the Enterprise has got some upset? Boo hoo.

I am a strict constructionist, similar to James Crawley. Yet he and I (and other positive thinkers) seem to see the forest through the trees. A different Star Trek, is not a bad Star Trek. And if this movie creates a new generation of children worshiping Captain Kirk, dreaming of sitting in the captains chair and helming the star ship enterprise, then it is a success.

If you want to make uninformed, nasty opinions. Make them on May 9.

Im enjoying the ride.

979. The True Kirk - November 16, 2008

I completely hate this new design. That is the entire point! There should be no ‘New’ design in a movie that takes place before the five year mission.
It’s the Enterprise! It should look just like it did in the old series, not this new funky design! There needs to be a dish out front on the secondary hull, not a movie-version glowing navigational array! (Hasn’t been advanced to that point as yet!)
Also, there should be “Spikes” extending from the front of the warp engines – as they were in ‘The Cage’. I am somewhat of a STOS historian of sorts, being a fan for many years – and once again, for the sake of making more money, they ruin history of the series, right down to the ‘Next Generation’ type consoles…I’m not even sure I want to go see this movie now, might wait for it when it comes out on Dvd, when I go pick up my usual lousy ‘B’ movies for a rainy day.

980. VOYAGER'sWARPENGINE - November 16, 2008

I thought I’d comment on one of Rick Sternbach’s initial criticisms of the new Enterprise design. He mentioned that it didn’t look like the engine nacelles had a direct line of sight with open space over the saucer section (which it appears they do in the trailers). If this is necessary for the bussard collectors then why do the USS Voyager’s (and all Intrepid class starships’) warp engines, which are normally in a horizontal position giving them that line of sight with open space, tilt up while at warp (which blocks this line of sight of open space)? This would seem to be one of those case he mentioned where he violated that rule.

981. Windsor Bear - November 16, 2008

977 – “what a pack of loosers”

Not at all… and not only do I know how to spell, but I also know how to show my approval or disapproval of something by using my wallet. I don’t need to see multiple angles of the new ship to determine whether or not I like it. The uncircumcised nacelles alone speak volumes about what the overall ship looks like. I’ve seen the still and I’ve seen the trailer. Both were released by Paramount to be indicative of what the movie is about. As such, I’ve determined that the new “Star Trek” movie was not made for me. Some others on this board have determined the same thing. I don’t see how our refusal to pay money to see something that we have determined that we have no interest in seeing makes us “loosers” or even “losers” for that matter. But then again, there are those out there that would give a month’s salary to see a stone thrown through the air as long as it had the word “Enterprise” painted on it. Sorry, but I am NOT Borg; resistance is NOT futile and I will NOT be assimilated.

982. Windsor Bear - November 16, 2008

978 – “I pitty those who say they will not see the movie based on what has been released to the general public to date.”

I thought that was what stills and trailers were for… to let the public see what the movie is about so that they can then make the decision if the movie is something they would be interested in seeing. If not, then what is the purpose of the stills and trailers??? Oh… I get it… I’m supposed to support and see ANYTHING that says “Star Trek” on it just because I’m a “Star Trek” fan. Hmmm… New Line Cinema tried that on me 10 years ago just because I’m also a “Lost In Space” fan. It didn’t work on me 10 years ago, and it ain’t gonna work on me now either.

983. ex treker - November 16, 2008

I will try to be logical about this.

I hate the new ship, I hate the new ship, it is UGLY..

Does EVERY modern day hero have to have one time been a juvenile delinquent?

Does every new uniform have to have the logo woven into the fabric?

Does every new film have to reinvent the past and deliberately snub old fans?

Sorry.

Have no doubt the film may succeed and a lot of people will love it.

It will, however, have to succeed without me.

984. Saavik - November 16, 2008

Ruined Transformers
Ruined Star Wars

Ruined Star Trek

Next…

985. William Kirk - November 17, 2008

981/982 – very well said. I see it in the same way. If I don’t agree with what I have seen, I have only one possibillity – not to pay for it. It is the same thing with other films: I like the photos and the trailer, so I go to see the film. I don’t like it, so I don’t go to the cinema to support it. And I don’t like the new ship and I was not impressed by the trailer. And as you said, resistence is not futile :-).

986. Alex Rosenzweig - November 17, 2008

#975 – “Before I saw the new ship the possibility of my seeing the film was under 50%. After seeing the new ship, it is now zero.

For me Star Trek is gone.”

I don’t think I could go that far. I’m not too happy with a lot of what I’ve heard in the past week, but I’ll give the film a chance. If I don’t like it, Star Trek won’t be gone for me, but this movie might. ;)

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of hours of filmed Trek, hundreds more novels, hundreds *more* comic book stories. If Abrams and co. couldn’t do the basics to stay consistent with even just the filmed stuff (allowing them some slack for resolving the points where TOS contradicted itself), it isn’t all the rest of Trek that you should abandon, it’s this film.

But until the finale occurs, and the credits roll, there’s still the chance that they’ll have a way to correct things and make them right. I’ll give them at least that much.

987. DennyC - November 17, 2008

Lemme see . . .

Inviolable canon: Unless you are willing to travel six days into the past by doing an implosion, you have to wait 30 minutes for the engines to start up.

ST III: Scotty flips a switch and the engines come on.

* * *

Inviolable canon: Vulcan has no moon.

ST TMP: Vulcan has a BIG moon.

* * *

Inviolable canon: James T. Kirk

WNMHGB: James R. Kirk

* * *

Inviolable canon: Jim Kirk’s brother was killed by a flying fried egg. He stayed dead.

ST V: “I lost a brother once, I was lucky I got him back.”

* * *

Inviolable canon: Enterprise is over 40 years old.

ST III: Enterprise is 20 years old.

* * *

Inviolable canon: Enterprise reaches warp 13.

ST Voyager: Warp 10 = infinite velocity (what’s faster than that?)

etc.

Lighten up guys. There is no canon.

988. Avery - November 17, 2008

The picture titled: “another secondary hull and nacelle mod by Daniel Broadway” see:

Is actually the way it probably should have looked. To stay consistant with canonical literature. Also, I don’t know why the developers decided to make the main bridge look like and Apple Ipod store, but whatever.

Way to go Holywood and screwing it up again!

-Avery

989. Balsavor - November 17, 2008

Quick. Somebody get JJ Abrams to sickbay. he’s obvioulsy delusional. He thinks that this new Enterprise looks great.
Yeah right.
IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, really? I guess it takes a man who knows nothing of Trek to royally screw it up. Here we go. “Star shit XI. Voyage to the shittiest Trek of all.”

990. SGCSG1 - November 17, 2008

I just want to see the Goddamn movie.

OK?

And I’ll go opening weekend, because if this movie FAILS TO MAKE MONEY then TREK is DEAD FOREVER.

Got it????

991. Leave Trek Alone If You Can't Do It Right!! - November 17, 2008

990 :

Yeah we get it, you’ll eat up anything that they put in front of you as long as it says “Star Trek” in the title.

Good for you. But for me, and others who feel the same way, that just sends the wrong signal to Paramount by saying we’ll see anything they put out, no matter how crappy it is.

To me, that only guarantees a continuing diet of bad Trek. No thanks. I’d rather it died and stayed that way and remain a franchise that I loved for the most part rather than it turning into something I’m ashamed of.

992. exfirechief47 - November 17, 2008

Wow! As susual with Hollywood productions — it is about Ego and $$$. Paramount wants money, JJ and crew desire both.

Personally I do NOT like the trailer. This is just a blatant and overt attempt to capture some youth market attention.

Zach Quinto looks great a a new young Spock!

Why does the new Kirk remind me of a blonde-haired Leonardo DiCaprio?

The young Kirk needs enunciation lessons. When he says James Tiberius Kirk he elides the words so it sounds like James Siberius Kirk! LOL

The nacelles of the new enterprise seem to resemble the original Buck Rogers’ ™ Ray guns in a way … They also remid one of the bumbers and fins on large US cars of some makes in the 50s and 60s.

The suacer section is reminiscient of the original; the deflector dish is too prominent IMO, but that is small potatoes.

Bringing in a robo-cop and the young Kirk ‘vette scen is just gratuitous and is a time waster to any possible Star Trek plot. They reportedly cut out a Klinbgon subplot BUT added this appendix of a scene! UGH!

It is high time that Hollywood gets the message that the movie public wishes real creativity NOT a reality-show ripoff! Then again, Hollywwod is the “HAS-BEEN” entertainment capital of the world … now easily being surpassed by quality filmmaking and tV Programming almost everywhere else on the planet!

Again it is about $$$ and personality-cult egos!

For the sake of Star Trek in general, the movie had better gross about $400 million; likewise the whole of Viacom is in trouble during this recent financial crisis.

Well, if Hollywood fails — perhaps the world can see a better entertainment future if such were to happen.

One last point: some sites haev reported raves of teh long trailer in Spain. I received an email from a Spanish Trekkie and the word is that they do not like the new USS Enterprise very much.

Unfortunately the trailers playing at the official link are just short ones NOT the 25 minute preview.

In my local area the cost for a theater ticket is about $10 plus any refreshments. What I have been able to see and learn ,plus reading about 200 of the comments here on Trekmovie, have NOT convinced me it is worth my $10 as yet!

993. SaQ - November 17, 2008

It’s still ugly…still poorly designed…but I don’t care.
I won’t connect this movie with the Trek I know…It was clearly never meant to.
It’s a re vision of Trek…I’m watching for the story…not the ship.

994. MegaBearsFan - November 17, 2008

The U.S.S. Enterprise is quite possibly THE MOST recognizeable and iconic image in all of modern science fiction. There was nothing wrong with the original 60′s design, it is beautiful and elegant, and in my opinion, changing it at all is a mistake.

995. MegaBearsFan - November 17, 2008

Danny C: “Inviolable canon” comments:

DennyC: “ST III: Scotty flips a switch and the engines come on”

My respons: The engines were not off, they were in standby. Scotty, Kirk, and gang had been prepping the ship for a while, possibly even days. Scotty even says that he had to program a system of automations into the ship’s computer so that a ship that is normally manned by 400 could be operated by half a dozen people.

DennyC: “ST: TMP: Vulcan has a BIG moon”

My response: This could simply be an error in the film. That happens. It has also been suggested that Vulcan has a sister planet, which could be what we saw. Also, in the Director’s Cut of TMP, I believe that moon/planet was completely removed.

DennyC: “WNMHGB: James R Kirk”

My response: Could be explained as an error on Gary Mitchel’s part, who was quite fallible.

DennyC: ” Jim Kirk’s brother was killed by a flying fried egg. He stayed dead.

ST V: “I lost a brother once, I was lucky I got him back.” ”

The “brother” that Kirk is referring to here is Spock, who died in ST II and was resurrected in ST III

DennyC: “Inviolable canon: Enterprise reaches warp 13.

ST Voyager: Warp 10 = infinite velocity (what’s faster than that?)”

My response: Between the original series and the Next Generation, the warp chart was recalibrated to an exponential (rather than polynomial) curve with “warp 10″ being the asymptote where the curve reaches infinity. Warp chart recalibrations were not uncommon, as in “All Good Things. . . ” Riker orders the 3-nacelled Enterprise-D to go to warp 13, implying that in that alternate future, the warp curve had been changed again. Also, the episode of Voyager “Threshold” in which Tom Paris travels at warp 10 has been unofficially struck from canon by the writers and producers of Star Trek Voyager, and no references to the episode have been made in any subsequent episodes.

Sorry, I just couldn’t let these statements go without at least some criticism. . .

996. MegaBearsFan - November 18, 2008

Sorry to put three posts in a row like this:

Maybe the idea that they will have to redesign the Enterprise is a big part of the reason for delaying the movie till summer. Perhaps seeing the outrage from fans when images of “Star Trek: Reborn”‘s Enterprise started hitting the web as rumored XI redisigns got them worried that their model would not possibly be accepted.

There is still 6 months left till the movies release, assuming no more delays. That is plenty of time to tweak the design. Or perhaps, this Enterprise will be revealed to be an early prototype of the Original ship, and at the very end of the movie, we will be treated to the completed starship as it was seen in the original series.

997. The Sci-Fi Cast · - November 18, 2008

[...] The new Starship Enterprise [...]

998. John - November 18, 2008

I get it some people love it some don’t, I hate it and I am confused why do that and anger half of us, did anyone really hate the original? If you did you weren’t going to watch the movie anyway. So was kill the Enterprise like that? All they needed to do was clean of the old design as a texture here and there, a nice fresh paint coat to the old girl and we all would have been happy.

999. NCC-73515 - November 19, 2008

It doesn’t have the antennae on the nacelle caps :P
Perhaps there’ll be a saucer separation and the rest id destroyed… then everything but the saucer has to be rebuilt ;)
999th, by the way O_O

1000. Lorax - November 20, 2008

The TMP Enterprise has always been my favorite design. But. This should not be the TMP Enterprise at the start of the five year mission.

CBS has shown that the original Constitution class design can be made to look really nice, even on a high-def screen.

I’m upset and discouraged, because I know there’s nothing that can be done at this stage.

1001. InSaint - November 20, 2008

Suposing that the Enterprise in the new movie would be refited to become the one from TOS. I used the TOS Enterprise and changed it with the elements of the one from the new movie. Ofcourse i “tweaked” a little the new design to stay more true to TOS and Star Trek in general.

http://hotimg17.fotki.com/a/80_72/76_68/Enterprise.jpg

1002. Simon Martin - November 20, 2008

Just my two penny-worth from across the pond…

As a ship in its own right, I like the design. But it could have been any ship from the TMP era to TNG and it would probably have fitted as a different class, again in its own right.

My biggest criticism is that all of the Enterprises, 1701 and A through to J, have been sleek – they have a grace of line that comes from everything being in proportion to everything else. This ship is not sleek – it is NOT ugly, not beautiful either, but it just isn’t well proportioned in comparison to its predesscors.

I don’t hate it, I just don’t feel like this is a USS Enterprise. ‘Feel’ is not something anyone can quantify, sadly, but if it doesn’t ‘feel’ like a USS Enterprise, then it’s not really accomplished its main objective.

1003. Dan.Hall - November 21, 2008

I personally think all you crying whiney fanboys need to get a life….

I’ve been a fan of Trek since before i can remember.

And i’m fully aware JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is evisioned as a total ‘reimagining’ of a franchise that was all-but killed off by a crappy, badly cast prequel TV series and the misguided, dissapointing Star Trek Nemesis.

In this new movie, they could have done ANYTHING to the ship. Turned it into a cube, trapezoid, space rocket, flying saucer.
But instead, they create something VERY faithful to the original series Enterprise, which also incorporates elements of the Motion Picture version of the same ship.

Instead of being HAPPY about this, you guys are complaining that the saucer section is slightly too large, or the engineering hull is out of proportion, or the warp engines dont look quite right.

It LOOKs like the Starship Enterprise
And its a better, more faithful-to-the-original design than i’ve seen in ANY incarnation of STAR TREK since the original movies wrapped in 1991.

So please SHUT UP

1004. InSaint - November 21, 2008

Sure, sure. And LADA is a VERY faithful to FIAT and Moskvich is VERY faithfull to BMW.

1005. Leave Trek Alone If You Can't Do It Right!! - November 21, 2008

#1003:

“its a better, more faithful-to-the-original design than i’ve seen in ANY incarnation of STAR TREK since the original movies wrapped in 1991.”

You’re smoking crack.

“So please SHUT UP”

No, YOU SHUT UP, until you’re ready to put the crack pipe down.

1006. Windsor Bear - November 21, 2008

1003 – Dan Hall…

“In this new movie, they could have done ANYTHING to the ship. Turned it into a cube, trapezoid, space rocket, flying saucer.”

No they couldn’t. If I remember correctly, it was stated somewhere that Paramount had dictated to JJ that the Enterprise would maintain the familiar shape; so in essence, he had no choice but to keep a saucer, engineering section, pylons and nacelles.

“But instead, they create something VERY faithful to the original series Enterprise, which also incorporates elements of the Motion Picture version of the same ship.”

If this movie had not been going back in time to BEFORE the original series, but instead going forward, then YES, the ship design would make sense, and there would be no problems at all. But it is too hard to swallow that this ship design predates the ship of the original series… unless you want to PRETEND that what we saw in the 79 episodes of TOS was not as presented. And I refuse to do that for Star Trek or any other series or movies that attempt to insult my intelligence or memory.

“It LOOKs like the Starship Enterprise”

No it doesn’t. It looks likes like someone landed a refit Constitution saucer section on top of an experimental engineering section with BORG designed nacelles.

“And its a better, more faithful-to-the-original design than i’ve seen in ANY incarnation of STAR TREK since the original movies wrapped in 1991.”

I AGREE WITH THAT!!!! But all those movies were set in TOS’ FUTURE… NOT PAST!!! That’s the whole gripe here people. While this movie is set in Star Trek’s PAST, we’re being asked to disregard visual continuity. And while some people obviously have no problem with this at all, some of us DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT since the TOS series and all the movies following it have followed a progressive timeline that respected each other. ENTERPRISE was the first “Star TreK’ that did not visually respect the timeline. And now the new movie will be the first movie that does not visually respect the timeline. If the movies and series were not connected, then there would be no problem. People accepted the differences between the Batman TV series of the 60′s and the Batman movies of the 80′s and beyond because they were not connected. There was never anything implied that they were connected. It was a clean break and re-telling. If JJ had told us this was what he wanted to do with Star Trek, then that would have been fine. But instead, he is trying to keep with an overall continuity, but disregard the visual continuity, and that just doesn’t work. If they manage to explain all of this as being changed due to the time travel influence, then that’s just an easy way out of trying to appease those of us that have issues with it, and I don’t buy it.

“So please SHUT UP”

Only if you will. I’m just as tired of reading your pro-movie fanboy rants as you are of reading my non-pro-movie fanboy rants. Get over it.

-=WB=-

1007. David Anderson - November 24, 2008

Nerdlings spent 28 years trying to “explain” how the TOS ship became the TMP “refit”; they never could, really, they just decided that they liked it. Me too.

Well … guess what. You are either going to like this new Trek, and the new 1701, or you are going to hate it. Go figure. Besides … you can like the old 1701 design all you like. You are NEVER going to see it on the silver screen again.

Think of all the opportunities Paramount had to “slip” a TOS E-type ship into TMP or TNG! NEVER HAPPENED. We got MAYBE a shot of a wrecked TMP Constitution class secondary hull ONE TIME …

1008. gahhhhh - November 24, 2008

Double talk.

“No, this is not a reboot it’s a continuation.”

In a pig’s eye.

We all know what the original Starship Enterprise looks like. It has looked like that for 40 years.

Now Abrams says it looks like THIS?

If someone made a movie about 1966, a 1966 Mustang would look like a 1966 Mustang.

Unless of course Abrams made it. Then it would look like Supercar.

No wonder so many people are upset.

If you can’t understand why people are upset, you are just insensitive AND and idiot.

1009. Lfugate - November 25, 2008

To Mr. Anderson –

I guess you never saw DS9′s “Trials and Tribbleations”, which featured a fully CGI TOS Enterprise, or “Thru a Mirror Darkly” from Enterprise, which featured an even better CGI TOS-era Defiant.

LArry

1010. Windsor Bear - November 25, 2008

1007: “Besides … you can like the old 1701 design all you like. You are NEVER going to see it on the silver screen again. ”

Really Nostradamus? Your psychic abilities are astounding!

1011. JTrek - November 25, 2008

My POV is this. I think…and this is just MY opinion, so all the fantards can just calm down…that, yes…its kinda ugly…OK…its really ugly. Like…its Wilford Brimley in a lepard print bikini UGLY…but…I think that the way we have to view this film is simply as a sci-fi flick for the masses. Its barely even a Star Trek movie. They just created a ship that looks like the Enterprise’ retarded southern cousin, went to the gap and hired the new bridge crew, and shot the exterior scenes at Glamis and the interiors at the Apple store…so what?….Everything being said and shown about it kinda hints that its made to be a summer blockbuster, and nothing more. So all the bros and their GFs and the Star Wars mouth breathers, and the families who wanna get outa the heat will go see it. They will not care what the ship looks like…if the crew acts this way or that, or if it makes sense in the ST universe. It wasnt made for the fans of ST…that much is clear.
Plus…I’m 27…and I grew up on TNG and the subsequent shows and movies. I loved the TOS movies, but find TOS itself almost unwatchable accept for a few episodes…so this may play into many of the younger Trek fans that have very little insight on Kirk and company. This whole thing is a simple plan to wring more money out of the franchise and to breath “new life” back into it. I would have preffered an all knew cast, ship, and mission, but it seems the Prequal is king these days.
A great science fiction movie, maybe. A truly “STAR TREK” film…no. If we keep that in mind…then the fact that this new version of the Enterprise looks like pig vomit wont bother you so much.

1012. Greg Chin - November 26, 2008

As a ship design expert, I don’t really like the new design. The secondary hull needs to be scooted back, a little more, under the dorsal neck.
They should have maximized the volume of the Engineering Hull, and made it bigger. (Like in the “doctored-up” fan version, that was done).
Also, in this new design (reminiscent of one of Ralph McQuarrie’s – USS Enterprise design for ST-TMP in 1978), there’s no room in the stern for the hangar bay area. I doubt that the hnager bay should go anywhere else, except, at the stern of the secoundary hull.

I must also say the Gabe Horner’s version of the ship, looked like it had plenty of potential, except there were too many negative spaces, in the sides of the secondary hull that could have been “enclosed, and pressurized”. Otherwise, it’s wasted hull space.
When building a space vessel, you want to bring as much habitable internal area as you can.
Also, the “plated structures over the Gabe’s bussard ramscoops must go. It’s just dead weight, and space debris “traps”, where dust and space debris would just gather underneath. Like food inbetween the teeth.

1013. Steve Whitting - November 27, 2008

I think some people are taking this issue waaaaaay too seriously. This is a science fiction movie – NOT an historical documentary. More to the point, it is a 21st century movie version of a 1960s television show.

Would I want to see the 1960s Batmobile in a new Batman movie? No, it would look horribly dated. For the same reason, why would I want to see a “faithfully reproduced” CGI version of the (technologically dated) 1960s Enterprise in a new supposedly cutting-edge Star Trek movie? I wouldn’t. When I watched Star Trek on my family’s “big” 27-inch color television back in the 1960s, the Enterprise looked futuristic – and believable – to me. I want this new Star Trek to look and feel futuristic again, so I believe an updating of ship and crew is in order. The future is a steadily moving target, and the 23rd Century doesn’t look the same to me now as it did back in 1967.

1014. Windsor Bear - November 27, 2008

I’m sorry, but adding a few more bumps, curves, lights, and vintage headlight covers does not make something look more futuristic to me. I always felt that spaceships of the future would have sleek subtle lines with hidden features (keeps them from being blown off in battle). Because of this, I always found the TOS Enterprise more believable as something Earth would actually construct in the near future than any other ship they ever came out with in any of the other Star Trek series or movies.

Everybody is going to have their own opinion about this. Some are delighted by the new ship. Some are disappointed. I’m one of the disappointed. So be it.

1015. JTrek - December 1, 2008

Okay…I know everyone is saying that they dont wanna see the old 6 foot model hauled out and propped up for this film. I agree. They want to see what a 2009 movie can make that generation of Trek look like, with all the latest and greatest. I agree with that as well. Is this supposed to follow the TOS lines exactluy without deviation…NO…its good that they added some flair to it and such…
BUT!!!!>…..
The problem is they made it UGLY!!!
In my world, new doesnt always equal ugly. Just because its new, doesnt make it a great looking ship. Its ugly…plain and simple. Thats my point to be made. Im not arguing that they should keep it exactly as it was…but they could have done a MUCH better job than what they gave us.
Has anyone connected the fact that the stardrive of this thing looks EXACTLY like some of the study models made for STAR TREK Phase II and for the Motion Picture? Look it up online for those study models…some of which were used in TNG as “Boneyard” vessels.
Then you will see where this design came from…an OLD concept from the early 70s.

1016. Vernon Wilmer - December 11, 2008

This goofy looking POS makes me weep – I’m sure Matt Jeffries is rolling in his grave, and Andy Probert is probably asking why he wasn’t called.
I really hope now that the new movie will be an “Indiana Jones and the Mystery of the Blues” esque flashback story from Nimoy’s point of view – then we can blame how F’d up everything in this re-imagined, Chekov-including tripe is on Spock’s failing 200 year old memory.
If you have a lick of talent, you can do a modern Trek with good-old, canon approved Constitution class ships like Enterprise and still make it contemporary – like in “Trials & Tribble-ations” or “In a Mirror Darkly”. Respect the canon!
If it’s not broken, don’t f*cking fix it – especially if you couldn’t design your way out of a sh*thouse! Where’s the outrage??? I love “Lost”. Big fan. Stick to that.

1017. Captain J. G. - December 13, 2008

As a 2nd generation Star Trek fan born in 1978 and saw my first episode of the classic TOS in 1984, I absolutely LOVE this new design. While the original design was revolutionary for its time, Star Trek has to re-invent itself to remain relevant in a changing landscape. Just look at the reinvigorated Batman franchise. I wasn’t too crazy about the Tumbler and other elements. But the movie as a whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

This new Enterprise makes the old one look like an “A bucket of bolts.” It was a great design for 1964 when Matt Jefferies designed it. However, we were dealing with the limits of 1964. The Remastered Enterprise looks great, but its still limited to 1964. Its the end of 2008. Things change and Spock always said, “There are always possibilities.” Going with that infinite wisdom and logic, I choose to approach this film with an open mind. I choose to embrace IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Lets see the whole film before we cast full judgment.

Even my father who is a proud 1st generation “Trekkie”, absolutely loves this new design and he is glad to see Star Trek shake that old design. Lets be honest here. Since Star Trek IV, the movies haven’t had much pop cultural relevant. Star Trek’s V-X sucked. I’m sorry to say but they did. First Contact was decent but they bombed the rest.

Its time to shake up the old franchise, rebuild it sticking as much to established history. What was the vision of the future in 1964, is not the vision of the future now. The original pilot was filmed in 1964 along with the basic design elements of Trek. Its time for this 40 year old franchise to “grow up” and join us in the 21st century.

1018. Jesse - December 14, 2008

I like the OLD Enterprise just the way it is.

1019. CJ - December 24, 2008

FTL and sucking up interstellar hydrogen like a jetski is an incompatible mix because FTL _can only work_ if you alter the principles of mass and energy by isolating the hull within a bubble of it’s own reality and slipping the physics driven limits of this universe.

Admit that this is the real technology booboo of the entire series and all the problems with the armor plated 50′s fast car nacelles go right away.

Because they shouldn’t be there.

OTOH, the problem with the original E-ships was that they used (obviously) glass covers (specular highlights) over what should be an INTAKE, covered by, at most, some kind of sticky-plasma force screen to attract the magnetically polarized hydrogen. Going from that angle, every trek ship, powered down, should have nacelles that look like a cigar tube with the endcap off. And they never do.

Having said that, my biggest problems are in fact with the soap operatic Dawson Does Dreck Treck atmosphere and the overall look of the actors as believable story line. I would never want a 20 or even 30 something idiot in charge of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and indeed, even in the 60s Kirk look like he belonged as ‘somewhere north of 35′.

As is, I look at the worthless brat defying physics to trash a beautiful classic corvette (‘get the message, we don’t care about your world’ wink-wink, nod-nod) and it makes me wish the car had hung on and the little prejuvie delinquent had gone over the cliff.

/When/ will America and particularly Hollywierd get past the attitude of aggrandizing youth as spoiled young fools that need to be pandered to so that _their parents_ can pay for more tickets?

Let Trek be an adult show like it was in the 60s and even 80s. And by that I don’t mean sex in every stateroom. Or grand theft starship design as justified by a moronic blonde boyul’s desire to be a criminal ‘young blood’ hothead outsider looking for an in to the military (which would crush his sorry a$$ psyche flat).

What’s shown here is just not how it is in real life. And fiction should still tell a moral story as much as a technical one. Kirk may not have been a boy scout. But he was not a double-y hyper aggressive bully twit either.

Send the kid to a summer camp with bars on the windows. Dump the ‘looks like our world, with CGI speeder bikes’ vision of humdrum meets drugdream.

And stop fooling about with what ain’t broken aesthetically so much as in violation of basic physics and engineering in ship design.

Jeep

1020. Deglanaqua - January 13, 2009

The new ship is utter crap why would anyone mess with what has already been. The ship should have been left allone as well as the bridge and for that matter the rest of the ship and crew. They should have kept moving forward or chosen another point in time to make a movie not screw up what should have been left be. Those responsible should be drawn and quartered for the betterment of all.

1021. RA - January 25, 2009

My version:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u292/rogueangyl/enterprise579_l800a.jpg

I lengthened the neck and pylons, moved back the deflector dish, gave the engineering hull a bit more body, lengthened the starboard nacelle, got rid of much of that chin-like-intake-looking scoop under the bussard collector, and shrunk the size of the nacelles 12.5% in comparison to the rest of the ship.

1022. Troy - January 26, 2009

I could have lived with something like this:

http://www.inobambino.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/enterprise_orbit_1080.jpg

My biggest beef with the design is that it looks more sleek and advanced than The Motion Picture version. I mean adding detail and lights and refreshing things is one thing but giving it a sleeker secondary hull and nacelles that look like they could belong to TNG era Trek is ludicrous.

1023. DATA - March 18, 2009

LOL i am just sick and disgusted with the star trek fanbase’s reaction the the new design ok lol the new Enteprise is good BUT what people dont ralise that this is set in an early time period and no those that are voting against the new enteprise are a bunch of blooody whinging crybabys ok no offence to those fans of Gabe Korner’s ship but this is just startin to irritate me to breaking point

1024. Rikaelus - March 23, 2009

The thing I’ve always kept in the back of my mind is that Star Trek was designed to always reflect our vision of the future at the moment.

In the 60′s big glowing buttons seemed futuristic and the Klingons symbolized the Russians. In the 80s we were given TNG and a slew of different looking ships, uniforms, etc. Then we had Enterprise which had an obvious leap in perception of the future when compared to the TOS ship that would come in the show’s “future”.

Now it’s nearly 2010 and they’re looking to reboot the franchise.

Of course the ship will look different. Our vision of the future has changed. Those who cling to the ship designs of 40 years ago as a means to bash the look of this version are, in my opinion, violating the very spirit of Star Trek. The franchise is suppose to mature as our perception of the future matures.

I think we should all take a step back and be thankful that through the decades the Enterprise has always retained as much of its original look as it has. Sure the details change, the proportions change. But when I look at this ship I still think “Enterprise”. And I think it will serve a new generation of actors and fans nicely.

1025. Shalebridge - March 24, 2009

Nope don’t like the new design at all.

1026. MARK - March 30, 2009

Ugliest, most off-balanced, top-heavy, disproportionate piece of junk I’ve ever seen. Now the world REALLY will make fun of Star Trek. That thing would NEVER be built, and would be assigned “Garbage Skow” duties if it were. If the guy that designed it spent so much time “studying it at ILM”, why the heck would he disfigure it so badly.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Abrams and his cronies have STOLEN Star Trek, and RUINED IT.

1027. Mario Merino - May 1, 2009

As a 3D artist, born in 1961, I absolutely hate the new design. I know its “only a movie”, but if you are going to re-imagine something as familiar and “sacred” as the USS Enterprise from Star Trek you better do your homework, and do it right. These guys obviously didn’t, and we are stuck with a thick version of the TMP Enterprise saucer primary hull mated to a secondary hull and warp nacelles that look almost as afterthoughts.

I wish it looked more like Koerner’s design…Hey, maybe in an alternate time line?

1028. WaltStartrekforever - May 5, 2009

I’ve have looked at all of these points of view and would to add my own.
Many keep calling it “The Big E” when it is not. The Enterpise in this movie
looks almost nothing like ” The Big E”. The Enterpise was one of a kind. There was one show of the Star Trek group to do her right and that was Deep Space Nine, if you’re a fan you know the story.

How can you call this a remake of the original when almost nothing of the original is there, oh, theres a few names and thats about it. This is Star Trek 2009 not the TOS and not never will be.The (so-called ) film makers will make back their money and its be number 1 for a while, and a classic will have passed away, replaced by this.

Nothing of them remembering what the original Enterpise looked like or what Star Trek was about. To them a classic means nothing. In my heart
I will remember my Star Trek and leave you children to your Star Trek and hope you will fine it has much fan as I found mine.

1029. Doutel - May 7, 2009

I cannot accept a concept when a ship before TOS timeline looks more advanced that the 1701-A. There’s a substantial difference between better graphic resolution and new design. The fan’s concept is correct. The movie’s is something fantastic, but it seems to open a new door, the door to rewrie Star Trek at all. The TOS and all series will be the heretic in the Abrams’ New Order. As we saw afte the DC Comics carachters, The Crise, ererything will change now. The collateral damage had began till the last minute of the past will be over. The Abrams’ Star Trek Walsh / Wipe. Great movie. Excellent prodyction, very expensive. But.. .is it really Star Trek Movie? Pre-TOS story?
No, it’s the begining of a new age, the New Star Trek. They will remake everything. I hope the Gene Roddenberry ghost will appear everynite, Abrams’ infinite nightmares, dreams full of naked ferengi running after him.
Menawhile, the fans will be splitted in trekkers and neotrekkers.

1030. Jamison Long - May 9, 2009

The New E is a bit appaling to me, as a movie it is an ok movie a c or B on my grades. But the E drives me nuts, the connection point of the nacells is all wrong, and the thig pylons also look stupid, like they flipped the A’s pylons upside down. I acdept it as an alternate time line, as Doc Brown points out now you have parallel time lines heading to new futures. But ugh I though i hated the D, this one is ugllier and makes me wish to have the D back.

1031. Kev - May 16, 2009

jesus 1030 postings on the new enterprise alone

after seeing the film and the ship in action I have this to say about it:

personally if they redid the skin color to match the kelvin, moved the neck closer to the deflector dish, just a little closer than it was on the tmp.

Moved the engines about 15% further down and the pylons about 5% down and a little further out and thicker at the top where it connects and redid the impulse engines to be closer to the tos one I’d say its perfect,

and I’m amazed that they remebered where the aft torpedo launchers we’re supposed to be and maximized the space used in the shuttle bay, to me its not ugly it just needs a little rebalancing and a new paint job

atleast it didn’t look like this
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/akiraprise/nx-01-john.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/enterprise_design_comment.htm&h=837&w=675&sz=58&tbnid=_sJpr7DFcPZWXM::&tbnh=144&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnx%2B01&hl=en&usg=__bkjQh7ZyB9jrxQI7ytTN2-Iiesc=&ei=rKwOSp_hI4yMtgeZhJSMCA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image

or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enterprise_NX-01.jpg

1032. John - August 3, 2009

A GRAPHIC DESIGNER/ILLUSTRATOR’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE ENTERPRISE

All I can do is tell you what I see. Feel free to agree or disagree. If someone tasked me with professionally remaking the TOS Enterprise that existed in the “prequal” years leading up to TMP but to also update the look for 2009, I guarantee you it would look fairly similar to what JJ and company did. Why? Because I see the design process in the new ship (with a few other influences too).

I would start with setting the TOS and TMP Enterprises side by side (just like the photo given here) and mesh the best parts of those ships together in a number of different “permutations.” You want both ships to influence the new ship not only to synch with the “timeline” and Star Trek tradition but also for familiarity to the fans. Obviously, they couldn’t possibly reach a consensus through polling the fan base as evident by the completely different reactions posted on all these sites. Enterprise would be grounded on the artboard forever.

Individually, I see the TOS ship primarily in the bussards (the nacelle fronts) and the fact that the deflector dish protrudes forward unprotected. I see the TMP ship in the saucer rim, the neck and body and the color choices. The saucer section looks to be an equal meld of both. I would think most people would agree that those are where the basis of each element comes from and it is a good mix to begin with.

That just leaves the nacelles, which to me have always been the most weakly designed elements of any Enterprise and is clearly the most maligned feature in the new one. Here is where JJ and crew took the boldest step in upgrading the look and made some really smart design decisions in my humble opinion. If you look at the new ship in a sideways still shot, I grant you the nacelles look heavy. But this is a 3D motion picture we’re talking about. The ship has to look good in motion and look good at all various odd angles. So why did they make the nacelles so big? Believe it or not, balance.

On previous Enterprise iterations, The nacelles have always looked a bit neglected or undersized in capability when compared to the rest of the ship. Now, they look like serious pieces of machinery that actually belong on a hard-working starship. Besides, when is she ever going to be subjected to a side shot in the movie. Think about it. Side scrolling shots are pretty much a thing of the past (think of the old black and white serials now cheesy in comparison) unless you’re doing a closeup to emphasize the scale of the ship. But in that case you’re usually not looking at the whole, you’re only looking at the part being focused on.

So she’s well proportioned now which is crucial to making great shots, something they surely learned from Enterprise D, where photographers lamented her difficult proportions and unfriendly camera angles. They can’t afford unfriendly camera angles when the camera is flying wildly all around the ship now. I also think they shifted away from the sideways design in a bit more favor of the ship’s front view. Those big nacelles make a beautiful triangular symmetry with the deflector dish when viewed from the front. But as they are further away from the camera, they had to be enlarged to create this symmetry. Some of the best and most memorable shots in this movie are of Enterprise approaching head on, point being that the nacelles work in favor of the ship’s design now instead of against it.

That just leaves the updating. Look at cars today. Look at modern office buildings and architecture. Look at simple household appliances. Curves are in again. Again? Yes. Someone mentioned it earlier, 50′s and 60′s auto design. Remember how boxy 70′s and 80′s designs were until becoming increasingly curvier with the advent of vector design and manufacturing that began to proliferate at the turn of the millennium? Design preference come full cycle. Curves in the 60′s, curves in 2009. They’d have been flat stupid to update the new Enterprise any other way. Not to mention it ties nicely into the scene earlier in the film. Jim Kirk’s ride…Jim Kirk’s ship.

Personally, I think the ship is a considerate, well-planned and vastly improved design. My thanks to JJ on a brilliant job well done!

1033. john - August 13, 2009

Now that I’ve read a lot of this page. I see I actually need to send a lot of thanks to Ryan Church, Also thanks to Spockboy for the hilarious video. I know it’s tough to watch when someone takes a great shot at your design work, Mr. Church but what can you do besides laugh as well? C’est la vie.

1034. Gilbert Orgill - October 27, 2010

There are a lot of times where the romanticism wholly not there and center on their manga domain. There will be a lot of time skip too so school life essentially not central, you will no longer view the school after few episodes. The romance a great deal functioned as back stories, a plot role for Mashiro to continue on moving, though there are distinct developments but they are not worrying a lot to the primary plot.

1035. Jesse - December 14, 2011

Well! I finally got the last word.

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