Gabriel Koerner Weighs In On New USS Enterprise | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Gabriel Koerner Weighs In On New USS Enterprise December 13, 2008

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

It has been a month since Paramount released a full image of their new USS Enterprise, sparking much discussion. But for the last two years there have been numerous sightings of a ‘new Enterprise’ which usually turned out to be mistaken reports based on designs from Gabriel Koerner, a Trek fan featured in Trekkies and professional CGI artist. Today Koerner has decided to weigh in on the new ‘real’ Enterprise.

Backstory on the most mistaken Enterprise
Gabriel alerted TrekMovie to his new blog post on MySpace titled, ‘The New Starship Enteprise: Gabe’s Take‘. Korner discusses the history of his ‘Koernerprise’ which started as an entry in a "Ships of the Line" calendar before he posted some updates to it on his own website two years ago. Koerner is genuinely flattered that his design was so often considered good enough to be the offical new ship, noting:

It really, really, really means a lot to me that what I felt was just fan wank was deemed professional enough by many people to be a viable and believable enough to be the "real" Enterprise. Not everyone loved my treatment of her, but I have no gripe with that.


One of the angles of Koerner’s reimagined USS Enterprise

Koerner is such a Trekkie that he is still making tweaks and refinements to this day. He included a new version in his blog, which he calls a ‘more retro, smoother variant’


New ‘retro’ version of Koerner’s Enterprise

Thoughts on the new Enterprise and it’s designer
The new USS Enterprise was designed by veteran artist Ryan Church, who has worked on The Star Wars Prequels, Transformers and the upcoming James Cameron film Avatar. Church even made a comment here at TrekMovie.com about his new design and some of the reaction to it. Koerner notes that he and Ryan ‘threw some similar ideas into the mix’ and he also has a word for critics of Church’s work, saying "no one attack the artistic merits or design abilities of Ryan Church if you do not favor his design." Koerner points out that when working on a major film, final designs are based on what the producers want in the end and "we don’t even know how closely it represents the designer’s own taste."


First promotional image of the USS Enterprise in JJ Abrams "Star Trek"

Regarding the ship itself, Koerner says it is "really, really hard" to critique it because he wanted to be involved personally and he is "not arrogant enough to think that the film is any less" without his contribution. But he does weigh in, with pros and cons.

On the pro side Koerner writes:

I like how clean it is, how uncluttered by greebles and decals while still retaining scale. If anything it adds to the scale. I like that it got away from the VERY RED bussards VERY BLUE BLUE STUFF of TNG era ships (and NX-01). I like the blades on the engine

I like the shapes of the individual components: The turbine-esque nacelles, the reinforced neck, and the nuevo-TMP saucer. But the engines and the saucer look a bit foreign from one another. I like the deflector dish. Its a cleaver way to both be a detached dish with a spike, and pay homage to the TMP blue glowing dish as well.

On the con side he notes:

It’s very front heavy. I see the rationale of putting the mass of the engine hull that much further forward. Ryan pushed the neck back and has it sweep back much further, and by taking the engine hull and squeezing it like a half full tube of toothpaste to put all the weight up front, he’s admittedly got a balance between engine hull and neck that’s a lot sturdier than the classic in its distribution of mass. I just don’t find that balance as aesthetically pleasing. I’m not big on how the struts taper in at the top and that they mount almost at the very front of the engines. And with so much up front, the engine hull has a long skinny tail that makes the engines seem like they’re overwhelming the struts.

But in the end Koerner feels he will "come to like" the ship and buy the model kits as well.


New USS Enterprise  as seen in the trailer

For the full blog, see Koerner’s MySpace.

Comments

1. SteveinSF - December 13, 2008

Such a beautiful shot–that Enterprise over the Earth during a sunset.

2. That One Guy - December 13, 2008

Should I just go to Red Alert now? Or is this one actually going to remain civil?

3. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - December 13, 2008

Nice comments from Koerner. I wasn’t a fan of his version, but I loved aspects of it. seeing his ‘smoother retro look’ is right on track to where I think the E should be.

Having said that, I’m waiting for the movie to come out before I pass judgment on the new E. Got to see her in motion… it’s the only way.

4. Wastedbeerz - December 13, 2008

I like the general design of the new ship… though it does look a bit front-heavy from this angle. I’ll reserve full judgment, though, until I see it from some other angles other than front and this one. So far, so good though. Gabe’s ship is really awesome and would have made a good movie ship, but I like them both equally.

Um, (gulp) first?

5. WannaBeatle - December 13, 2008

I’m somewhat interested in what Andy Probert thinks of the new design. I sent him a link to a pic of it from when the new pic was released not too long ago.

6. danpaine - December 13, 2008

Without seeing the new one in action, it’s not fair to judge it, I agree. However, from the stills, I like Gabe’s a lot better.

7. Sean - December 13, 2008

I like Koerner’s design better than what’s gonna be in the movie, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like the movie design. I just can’t get over those drooping parts underneath the nacelles.

8. Jeffries Tuber - December 13, 2008

When you see his design in traditional lighting and from a classic angle, it has plenty of issues. I do like his nacelles, though, and that sunset shot is a classic of fan art.

9. Will H. - December 13, 2008

Yeah, I agree that the new design looks like the engineering hull has been squeezed forward and I think it does look ugly, as well as being a waste of space. The nacelles them selves I think are too big in the front, but besides that are ok. I’m glad, though, that on the saucer section they flattened out the lower part because the upper curve of the old design pretty much wasted an entire deck of space, one of the two biggest decks of the ship. But yeah, the saucer section looks totally TMP while the rest looks…new, but they dont go together well, at least from what Ive seen.

10. Devon - December 13, 2008

I imagine if they would have compromised a perfect mesh of Koerner’s and Church’s Enterprise, it would have looked very cool.

11. Xplodin' Nacelle - December 13, 2008

Gabe, I love you ship, especially when it’s in motion. Church’s version will probably grow on me after the movies release, but I still wish they’d went w/ yours. Bravo!!!

12. Richard Daystrom - December 13, 2008

Being on this movie is an alternate timeline the question is moot about the look of the Big E compared to the original. If the timeline is different what difference does it make?

13. Anthony Pascale - December 13, 2008

I see no reason to go to ‘red alert’. We ran two polls on the new E and I think after people saw it in the trailer, they warmed up much more.

Having seen more images of it and seeing it in motion at the four scene preview, I certainly like it a lot more than that first image. I really think that the image released by Paramount was a mistake. It is a bad angle of the ship and doesn’t really sell it well, especially as the first image people see of it.

14. That One Guy - December 13, 2008

Sorry Anthony, it’s just that there’s so much…. passion, recently, it’s gotten me rather worried about these sort of threads. I, like most, don’t like seeing the “hate mail” posted against Bob, the creator of the ship, or anyone else. It was out of line to post that. I apologize.

15. SexyAsianGurl - December 13, 2008

STOP THE SPOILERS

Look ppl, if you cant keep spoilers to yourself then dont F***Ing post them matter of factly in every message post here sheesh…….

16. Anthony Pascale - December 13, 2008

^^^
no worries and I agree

There is a difference between “I think the nacelles are too big” and “so and so is $%#@er”

17. The Realist - December 13, 2008

I would rather see Gabesm it reflects more of the TOS and TMP Enterprise than the one that is going to be in the movie, in all honesty I think the new one looks stupid, it is so far out of proportion it is not funny, very very dissapointed.

18. Richard Daystrom - December 13, 2008

15
Sexyasiangurl

Did I post a spoiler? If so I apologize!! It is no secret. Especially of late around here!

19. Stanky McFibberich - December 13, 2008

Other than the saucer, I have complete and utter dislike of it.
Nothing in the preview/trailer made me change this opinion.

20. Ths Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

I like the new Enterprise, both versions.

Let me say this though, and please pass this on to other forums, we have been wanting a new Star Trek film since Nemesis, well J.J. and his crew have made it for us, now we may not like exactly what he is doing, but at least he is doing it. So could we please just wait until May to tar and feather them, after we have seen the film?

21. mojonaut - December 13, 2008

I agree with most, if not all, of what Mr. Koerner has to say. And that head-on view of the new ship from the trailer definitely does look better. But a good design shouldn’t have a “good angle” from which to view it. You wouldn’t have said the same of any of the Enterprise designs up until now. It traditionally looks good no matter where you look at it. And I’ve looked at the rest of Church’s design just there on his website, and he’s got some really amazing stuff on it. So I don’t doubt his skill and talent as an artist and production designer. I just can’t like this new Enterprise.

In saying that, it wouldn’t take much to make the new ship look a lot better. smaller nacelles and the connecting strut between the two hulls being moved forward and you’d have a class looking ship.

22. Enterprise - December 13, 2008

I kinda like the new ENT better than the one in that pic. That one looks a little clunky to me. The Enterprise should be more streamlined.

23. CmdrR - December 13, 2008

What’s a greeble? Do they wobble but not fall down?

I like Gabe’s stuff in the way I liked the artwork on some of the 70′s paperbacks. They offer variations that don’t have to be the final final. I love the new art books on DC superheroes — showing gritty detail we’ve never seen before. I don’t think of these images as the definitive versions… just fun variations. I don’t think of the new film as the final final either. Frankly, the gold standard for TOS era is TWOK, ship (I know, it’s from TMP) but also the sets and especially the unis.

Anyhooo — JJ’s new E is at least OK from the outside. The sets inside look very dated already. I doubt I’ll like them at all in ten years. (I stopped tolerating TMP’s unis long ago and the rec room furniture looks like my parent’s basement.)

24. IcebreakerX - December 13, 2008

Koernerprise > Churcherprise

25. C.S. Lewis - December 13, 2008

Gabe Horner’s design speaks to an age I suppose, although it’s not my ideal since I’m happy with the original.

But iTrek’s “Macinprise” is most certainly the AMC Gremlin of Starfleet:

(Brand Launch Control to Engineering)
High tech? Check.
Bells and Whistles? Check.
Latest ergonomics? Ummm, yeah, sure, check.
Good use of the AMC parts bin (i.e., a modified AMC Hornet)? Check.
Forward looking form-factor (i.e., hatchback subcompact)? Check.
Aerodynamic body? Check.
Good balance of fuel efficiency and power? Check.
Available small block V8? Check.
Built to a market-optimized price point? Check.

Design?

Design?

Design?

Hello, Design, do you copy?

Design?

Ah heck.
Lift-off!

26. Dr. Image - December 13, 2008

#25 CS-
Thank you! Dead on! I could not hope to be as eloquent! LOL!!!!!!
(Design has not responded. We fear the worst…)

Gabe- You got it, bro!

27. Scotty's Nephew - December 13, 2008

…..waiter, a saucer of milk for post #15 please….thanks, I will pick up the tab.

28. So and So - December 13, 2008

#16

What!

29. Third Remata'Klan - December 13, 2008

#20

Amen.

30. Roger - December 13, 2008

I much preferred Gabe’s Enterprise. I think it was the perfect marriage of the traditional design elements of the ship and newer, more “modern” elements. I would have loved to have seen his ship on the big screen. The one that we will actually see may take some time to grow on me.

31. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 13, 2008

#20

I agree. Now..let’s see how long it takes before that advice is completely discarded. It’ s one thing to make objective critical commentary or observations on known facts, but the level of immaturity and spitefullness is staggering at times.

32. Michael Broadhead - December 13, 2008

If Ryan reads this, I want him to know I think his ship is gorgeous.

33. montreal paul - December 13, 2008

I never really liked Gabe’s design. There was always something that bothered me about it and couldn’t pin point it until I saw both designs side by side.

I find the the bussards as well as the saucer section look the same on Gabes and the new one.

I think the thing that always bothered me about Gabe’s was the secondary hull. It looked out of place with therest of the ship. The nacelles and saucer were sleek… the secondary hull was more BSGish. It didn’t really fit with the design of the rest of the ship.

But to each their own. I applaud Gabe for his design skills.. I could never do something like that.

I do like the new Enterprise design.. it really gives you a sense of scale and magnitude. I look forward to seeing it on the big screen.

But my favourite Enterprise has to be the one from the original 6 movies. A true classic.

34. Mark C - December 13, 2008

Not the topic of this thread, but since it’s the most recent article, and a subject we all have an opinion of, and should be read by most of the readers here, I figured I would post it here, too. fwiw, I just saw The Day the Earth Stood Still, and give it a D+. The original is 10 times better.

35. Oh Please - December 13, 2008

Gabes is much better than the one we have ended up with.

Biggest problem I have with the new Enterprise is that the neck sits so far back…it lost some of it’s beauty with that design flaw.

36. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 13, 2008

When compared to the redesigned original Enterprise to the redesigned original Battlestar Galactica, the Enterprise is more faithful to the original 60s exterior look. It looks very realistic and hopefully would inspire a whole new generation of fans looking toward the stars.

37. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 13, 2008

“he’s admittedly got a balance between engine hull and neck that’s a lot sturdier than the classic in its distribution of mass.”

Yes, that’s one of the first things I noticed, and one of the elements that, for me, made more sense. Back when the picture of the new E was first shown, I remarked that the shuttle bay could be more like in the lower part of the neck now, since the engineering hull and the neck are more of a piece now. I wonder if I’ll turn out to be correct on that.

Unlike Koerner, I like the struts and the way they attach to the nacelles.

38. richpit - December 13, 2008

If no one else already answered:

CmdrR – December 13, 2008

What’s a greeble? Do they wobble but not fall down?

“greeblies” are the “stick on” details, non-descript pieces that add detail and dimension, but don’t do anything obvious. Greeblies are often seen on props, such as buttons, dials, other things that are there to make it look interesting.

Does that help?

39. remo - December 13, 2008

I like this new design. I think the neck being further back protects it more giving the Enterprise a tactical advantage in combat. I am looking forward to this movie!

40. YARN - December 13, 2008

So what is difference between a greeble and nurney?

41. OM - December 13, 2008

““greeblies” are the “stick on” details, non-descript pieces that add detail and dimension, but don’t do anything obvious. Greeblies are often seen on props, such as buttons, dials, other things that are there to make it look interesting.”

…And Greeblies on studio models usually consist of parts from model kits for tanks, cars, ships, and planes, along with scrap and sheet plastic cut and/or bent so that when they’re all pasted on the hull, you won’t recognize where the parts originated from.

Unless it’s the original Battlestar Galactica…:-)

42. YARN - December 13, 2008

#39 Pray tell, how does cramming the neck halfway down the 2ndary hull convey any tactical advantage?

43. jeffery wright - December 13, 2008

gabes non-smooth design is pretty spot on, classic connie proportions and interesting details, but those long nacelle end-caps would look better shortened.

i loved the star wars prequels, but i am not a fan of most of church’s work, he has an awkward sense of proportion, see his site here:

http://www.ryanchurch.com/

some of his works are very nice, but others? the hardware he was responsible for in the prequels were often silly, has ralph mcquarrie retired for good?

the connie in the new movie looks awkwardly kitbashed, the primary hull does not belong on that gloppy star-drive section at all, two different designs altogether.

i can get past the absence of the classic concavity of the primary hull, i suppose, but the rest?

high budget fan film, i’m sure it will be a fun watch.

they should have seen what richard hudolin could have come up with for this production.

44. jeffery wright - December 13, 2008

#13 “I really think that the image released by Paramount was a mistake. It is a bad angle of the ship and doesn’t really sell it well”

i have yet to see a bad angle of the original jefferies design, or the trumbull re-fit for tmp. there simply arent any.

thats a constant in traditional ‘fleet design, though the profile of the 1701-e is probably the worst for the sovereign class, too short and too long… still, a fine looking ship.

of course, i’m regarding the 1701-j as a figment of the future and hopefully wont be taken too seriously…

someone mentioned andy probert earlier, it would be interesting to know his impression of the new starship.

45. Bob - December 13, 2008

LOVE Gabe’s version of the Enterprise. I’m making a modification to the Polar Lights TOS Enterprise. I’ll be posting shots of it on starshipmodeler.com soon. (Gabe, if you read these, I’ll be happy to make one for ya!)

46. The Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

#29 and #31

I am glad that some one finally agrees with me, you’d be surprised on how many don’t. I am betting that my advice will be forgotten long before May 8th and that J.J. will be on a BBQ spit soon after.

Anyway, I will say that when I first saw this design for the Big E that I was taken aback, but it has grown on me. To tell the truth, the only part that concerns me is the bridge; it looks like Star Trek by Apple. But, I can live with that. But, to me, the new nacelles look real cool. They look over-sized, so that the smaller ones from TOS look like they could be the next upgrade to starship design. I can also see the neck having to be thicker because the ship was constructed on Earth and it gets smaller as the ship is refitted in the micro-gravity of Earth orbit.

Two additional things:

1. Does anyone know where I can find a larger image of the new ship?

2. Are we completely sure that this film takes place in an alternate timeline?

47. paustin - December 13, 2008

it’s funny I didnt like Koerner’s enterprise at first but seeing the actual enterprise from the film I prefer Koerner’s (not his retro). I’m sure in the end we’ll love this enterprise just as much as we have the others. The major turnoff for me is the nacelles front, I’m sure I’m not alone. I’m sure I’ll get over that. as we see more shots.

48. Admiral Waugh - December 13, 2008

For the record, I do love Gabe’s version as well.

But this one seems like it is all right too. I love how it blends so nicely with the TMP refit, which, I think, to this day is considered by far the most beautiful of Starfleet vessel types on the whole.

I wouldn’t be so concerned about front heavy vs. back heavy. Originally I didn’t like how the neck was so far back but I realized it was like that on the original Constitution class ship and then was moved forward in refit. This is, therefore, basically in keeping with the original design.

Great position of the docking portals, just as in refit Constitution. The closer you can get to that ship, the better.

49. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

46
I have seen some larger pics…but nothing too large…and of course..it escapes me where i have seen them.
regarding your second question…it would seem from Bob Orci’s interview on this site, as well as his input throughout the forum below that interview…yes….at one point (Bob if you are reading this feel free to correct me) that all previous ‘canon’ events of tos, tng, ds9 all of them have to happen before this movie can happen….i.e. those events lead or feed into to this film and its adventures moving forward…..so you have to have them as the back story in a sense….

50. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

46
It has grown on me as well…the main thing for me was the hull and the way it sloped so soon up to the back…but i am used to it…and while I didn’t like the bridge…ok…that’s too harsh….I was shocked by how white and bright it was…and that was offputting…..I am waiting to see it in action…it could be fine, and probably will be .

51. YARN - December 13, 2008

It’s good enough. Not my fav design, but not terrible either.

Gabe is right to caution that what we have is probably not the designer’s pure vision, but the umpteenth revision. If it looks like it was built by a committee, it probably was.

52. The Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

49.

Thank you! I seem to have missed the 2nd and 3rd parts of Mr. Orci’s interview (I have been cut-off from the internet for the past few days due to work). Any way, I also feel that I had seen some medium sized images about a month ago.

I have been thinking that when the first fans of TOS sat in the movie theater and saw the Refit Enterprise for the first time in TMP that they probably had the same concerns and feelings about it that we have about this one. But, as we all know, they eventually got over whatever animosity towards the redesign they had for there to be The Wrath of Khan and on to Nemesis. I really hope I am right and that we will all be happier come May.

53. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

and who knows..once some other shots come out..still and action, and we see it within the context of the story…could work and we will all be just fine with it….

54. Green-Blooded-Bastard - December 13, 2008

After seeing the trailer I liked the new E a little more, but I still love the Koerner ship. To me it has more of an “updated-classic” look and feel. I wish they could have gone with something a little closer to that than what they came up with.

55. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

54
I will have to go with you on that one….overall between the 2 i would have picked Gabe’s…but …ah well……….we have what we have….

56. The Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

50.

I also think that the brightness of the new bridge was what got to me as well. I am also some what concerned at the apparent use of glass on the bridge. As we all know, a torpedo hit causes an explosion which can produce shrapnel. That, to me, would indicate that giant glass panels would be avoided in designs. Now, if it is Transparent Aluminum then maybe…

I am also interested in the USS Kelvin. If you look at a freeze-frame from the end of 2nd Trailer, it looks like there is a window right at the front of the bridge. Now, this could be a really useless light, but if it is a window, it might be a very large flaw tactically.

I will say that the new warp entry looks cool, but it is also a major change from the conventional look. I do agree with Mr. Koerner and am happy we have gotten away from the very red and blue of the TNG era, but aren’t we missing the just the little red from TOS? Has anyone seen it?

57. JusticeBoy - December 13, 2008

Front heavy? Nothing was ever more front heavy than 1701-D!

I never did like the exterior of the Galaxy Class. The Nebula Class, however, was my absolute favorite. Same saucer section, not front heavy at all.

58. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

56
On your first point, I am sure it’s safe to say transparent aluminum or something like it…at least if you asked me and I was a production designer….that’s how I would answer…
:)
on your second pint, I didn’t notice that…

on the 3rd point….I agree…less red and blue = good..but i don’t know that anything showing red is out there (not that it isn’t …I just havent’ seen it)

59. The Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

57.

I am in total agreement that there was nothing more front heavy than the Galaxy-class. However, the thing is that the 1701-D was designed by Andrew Probert and Gene Roddenberry was around to confirm or veto parts of the design.

The “front heaviness” of this design is, to me at least, not as bad as it at first seems. I just feel that the stardrive section is undersized in proportion. But that navigational deflector is cool, as a combination of TOS and TMP dishes it just looks so cool.

60. The Spirit of Truth - December 13, 2008

I know that in the great scheme of things, the design of the Enterprise trumps the design of the Shuttlecraft. But I am interested in how people are viewing these new shuttlecraft with one massive window in the front as opposed to TOS’s shuttlecraft with 3 small windows.

Also, what about the Kelvin in general. Does anyone buy the Intel website’s reason it can function with the single nacelle (warp coils)?

61. Kevin - December 13, 2008

Good for him!

I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Or why I even read this article.

Regardless, the new design is junk.

62. Rudy M Alapag Jr - December 13, 2008

this enterprise looks very future-like inside, and also the outside, i expect it looks like its been polished or made it future-like than the old NCC-1701 Kirk was taking command as captain or admiral? i think its captain. I don’t remember. but when i see STAR TREK XI it will be like something i’ve never seen before.

63. Hetoreyn - December 13, 2008

I though Koerners Enterprise kicked ass .. it’s a shame they didn’t use it. I think i like it much better than what’s been done for the new film. I guess once I see it from other angles I might get to like it .. but for me the TMP Enterprise is ALWAYS the best.

64. Dyson Sphere - December 14, 2008

I tend to agree with Anthony – Paramount did a disservice to post such a flat image of the new ship and should have really put more into showing her off a bit.

I have an idea how the design could change to be more TOS-like but that would involve spoiler material from a previous post and I wouldn’t want to upset the spoiler-sensitive.

65. Ralph - December 14, 2008

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This ship should be designated the USS Ipecac.

66. Ralph - December 14, 2008

I’m referring to the design in the Abrams film, of course.

67. Ralph - December 14, 2008

The big E in Abrams’ film stands for, “Emetic.”

68. Spectre_7 - December 14, 2008

Gabe’s Enterprise was the one to go with, his original and not the retro one tho. It takes a real Trekkie to design today’s starships….

I’ll still probably learn to love the new one since it already grew on me.

69. CarlG - December 14, 2008

I didn’t hate the new Enterprise whe I first saw it, and I’ve definately warmed up to it more since the trailer, but I loved Gabriel Koerner’s Enterprise the second I saw it.

And he knows how to show it off, too. If the first shot of the new Enterprise had been a pic like Koerner’s gorgeous sunset render, the reception might have been a bit warmer.

If you ever read this, Mr. Koerner, thank you for sharing your art with us. I’m working on my portfolio of 3d stuff, and it’s real motivation to see amazing work like yours. Hope your website comes back soon.

70. Thomas Jensen - December 14, 2008

Perhaps they’ll blow it up at some point in a movie and start again.

71. Brett Campbell - December 14, 2008

It’d be nice if the new ship has tennis courts and a pool. Oh, and a rock climbing wall, too. That’ll give Kirk good practice for El Capitan in his near-retirement years.

72. Enterprise - December 14, 2008

Well, the TOS Enterprise supposedly had a bowling alley, but we never saw it.

73. TOY - December 14, 2008

We have to get our heads out of the 60′s, you can’t have a retro looking ship flying around in a movie, it would look even more like a toy on the big screen than it does on the TV.. I still enjoy TOS as I got into Star Trek watching re-runs of the series but even when watching it I excepted the ship looked like it would have bits snap off, but it was such a good show to watch that you didn’t care. But they knew even when TMP came out they could not run with the retro ship (prob why TMP ship is my fav, with all it’s plating effect, you could film the thing up close and get a realistic feel to it, and they had to because this was not on your TV anymore. I am not totally sold on the latest design but I understand where they are going, they are putting this out even on IMAX, this ship will no doubt have some very close up shots and the details on it will have to be so convincing which I hope will come across when we watch it. It’s got nacelle’s, it’s got a bridge, it’s got a sensor thingy, I for one am looking forward to seeing why they have done it the way they have and I think many of us will be very very suprised.

74. The Last Maquis - December 14, 2008

You know, as an Artist myself, I Too have tried to Update the Look of the Original TOS Design. The thing about that Design however is there Really Isn’t Much More you can Do with it to make It Look More Modern. Not if You want to stay close to the Original. So far The Best Incarnation of that Concept would be the TMP Re-fit, or Enterprise-A Version.
Gabe’s isn’t Terrible….but it just Seems Like Things are being tacked on to the Original. The Deal with Ryan’s is it’s a little bit of a departure from the old concept, so you Eventually come to the Conclusion, “Why does it need to be fixed?” the Original is Fine, the Re-fit is Better….that’s it.

when it comes to the Evolution of the Design I do Believe that 1701-E is probably the pinnacle of the line. Cha-eers!!

75. Mr. curtis - December 14, 2008

im not a star trek fan if i can wait til may next year and watch the movie to say something about this new enterprise.

the saucer section with its geometric disc, uniform radius, looks like its from a diferent ship, it contrasts too much from the rest of the ship, especially the nacelles, who looks too alien and organic for a ship made of metal. they,ve change everything else on this new ship, why stop at the saucer. a compromise for me to like this new one is for the saucer section be “re imagined” as well.

to quote gabriel koerner…

“But the engines and the saucer look a bit foreign from one another.”

shouldnt this be on the con side? instead of on the pro?

76. Trekee - December 14, 2008

@72 – I thought Decker showed Ilia round it?

I’m still not sold on the new ship. I like most of it but the secondary hull is plain wrong in my totally personal opinion. I thought Gabe’s ship was too radical a change for the movie initially as well. How wrong can you be?

That shot of it in front of the sunset is just perfect.

77. MrLirpa - December 14, 2008

Never liked the Koerner Enterprise much I agree with the comments of #74 it looks Slightly retro fitted over the original E too many Chunky bits, as for the new design. I have to say that I love it, (although I think that the picture released by Paramount doesn’t do her justice at all).

The new E looks sleek and yet has an agressive kind off bull dog proportions like the bugatti veyron, built for speed. She’s (from what I’ve seen so far) become one of my top favorite Enterprise designs, right up there with the TOS and TMP E’s.

78. CmdrR - December 14, 2008

38 –Yes, actually that does help. Thanks. I just didn’t know the word.

Actually, Brian Johnson did a ton of that in the 70′s and 80′s. I think he said he used the bits from tank models and stuck ‘em all over everything. I agree that the E should look clean, without all the spigots and a.c. outlets showing. For years, I wondered why we ever got away from the clean, smooth hulls of the 1960′s. Sure, they were done that way because it was too expensive to add the tiny detail. On the other hand, they were CLEAN. Now, I’m beginning to posit that by the 23rd century, we’ll have the technology to seal the outer hulls at the molecular level, to maximize unibody construction. Sorta like they do with submarines now… cut a massive hole in the hull to install new engines or other components, then seal the seams so strongly it’s at least as strong as the rest of the hull… and clean.

79. mojonaut - December 14, 2008

According to “The Art of Star Trek” (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Star-Trek-Judith-Reeves-Stevens/dp/0671017764/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229261653&sr=8-1), the clean lines were deliberate, and more than just a cost decision. The idea was that Gene Rodenberry wanted Matt Jefferies to design the ship so that it wouldn’t require a space walk to repair things – all components could be accessed from inside the ship. Hence the birth of the Jefferies Tube. As you quite rightly point out, the newer designs have lost those clean lines – most especially Voyager, with it’s grooves and carbuncles that don’t seem to do anything obvious.

As an aside, the above book is highly recommended.

80. Eduardo Cordeiro - December 14, 2008

Gabe´s Design is wayyyy better than the ´´new´´ one.
Congrats to him for his design.

81. jeffery wright - December 14, 2008

#73

does this look like a toy?:

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/3d-wips/37615-conjectural-trek-xi-enterprise.html

gabes ship is great, but this is the ship that should be on the big screen, a perfect pre-refit connie.

and look ma! no bad angles.

82. Holger - December 14, 2008

In my opinion, neither Gabe Koerner’s nor Ryan Church’s design show enough respect for the wonderful original design.
I see the original as a design masterpiece, and particularly so because it looks convincing and elegant just by arranging simple shapes. It doesn’t need all those superfluous edgy details and aerodynamic lines.

83. cugel the clever - December 14, 2008

If people complain about the “front-heaviness” of the ship for aesthetic reasons, then I understand their point. However, I disagree with people who complain about it for engineering and “balance” reasons. They’re making the same mistake as non-fans who look at the nacelles and think that they perform a propulsion function similar to jet engines or rocket engines – they do not. The nacelles exist only to create the warp field – they do not “push” the rest of the ship. Therefore, “centre of mass” arguments are meaningless. When travelling at sublight speed, the ship uses the impulse engines which provide propulsion thrust and are mounted at the rear of the saucer section – therefore, in this case, the “front-heaviness” of the ship is not problem.

Anyway, the bottom line is that starship science and engineering are a complete fantasy, so arguing about the fine points of the design and using convential engineering theory is pretty absurd.

84. S. John Ross - December 14, 2008

Always nice to see that sunset shot again; one of my favorite Trekkish images of recent years. Bee-yootiful.

I still think the new E is an ugly duckling, but I still don’t much care one way or another … what goes on inside (and outside) the big E will determine whether or not she’s really a swan.

85. Montel - December 14, 2008

Koerner’s version is still the best re-imagined out there. Too bad the powers-that-be didn’t go with that, but I’ll never understand why they felt they had to “update” Jefferies 1701 at all…

86. mojonaut - December 14, 2008

83 – you’re right. It is pretty absurd. All the more reason it should be beautiful rather than functional. And as any race car designer would say: the more beautiful a car is, the better it performs.

87. mojonaut - December 14, 2008

81 – Thanks for posting that! It’s a nice effort alright. Keeping the original design while adding little details to take it into the 21st century and making it suitable for viewing on the big screen.

88. Marian Ciobanu - December 14, 2008

- I like the first version of Koerner’s Enterprise with those beautiful blue lights , but i like more the version of Ryan Church of the Enterprise , even if his ship doesn’t seem to have any real ‘balance’..and i really don’t understand the new form of the deflector shield..it should have the same shape like the front of the engines..

89. Tiberius - December 14, 2008

If you look at the struts supporting the nacelles, they do seem to bow a bit. I am not sure that I like that.

I certainly don’t like the neck being in the middle of secondary hull.

However, I am willing to give it a chance.

The one thing that makes this all the more palpable is the way Orci used quantum time travel theory to explain the differences and changes to some canon.

At least I can enjoy this new film in that context, and know that, somewhere out there in another quantum timeline, my canon still exists.

90. Jeff - December 14, 2008

I was one of the people who was fooled that Koerner’s Enterprise was the ship in the Abram’s movie. I thought it was absolutely gorgeous and it peaked my interest even more in the Abram’s picture.

91. The Invader (In Color) - December 14, 2008

#81 — I love it!!!!

Excellent job on that one!!! Perfect!

92. Thomas Jensen - December 14, 2008

#81 yeah, that works. I’d have rather seen that Enterprise in the movie. It has some added detail, but not overdone.

93. Dr. Image - December 14, 2008

A thought- perhaps JJ’s E utilizes Romulan technology from the future- the post-Nemesis era! After all, doesn’t Nero’s ship attack Kirk’s father’s ship? What happens after that?
Do chunks of Nero’s ship get left behind?

94. BK613 - December 14, 2008

81
Man I love Vektor’s Enterprise

86
Yes function should always take a backseat to form. LOL

89
My thought about the struts of the new ship is that they remind me of a wishbone from the front.
—————–
I Just wish that they had “filmed” this ship like it had scale. The original TOS ship was about 1000 feet long and this ship is supposed to be bigger. None of the shots I have seen though give me the sense that I am looking an object that is 1/5 to 1/4 of a mile long.

95. Captain of the USS Anduril - December 14, 2008

First off, whoever said “no one said anything about ‘bad angles’ on the other Enterprises”….Look at the Enterprise-D. That is the most top-heavy and ill-put together design I’ve ever seen. From some angles, yeah, it’s gorgeous, but for the most part…it’s a goose. A goose in the middle of a family of swans.

I just wish that Paramount would have been SMART and released maybe a second teaser in addition to the full trailer. You start out with a starfield, and then you hear Nimoy giving the famous “Space…the final frontier” speech, and you get a nice long shot of the new Enterprise flying by slowly, allowing us to get a GOOD look at it. Instead, we get one picture, a SMALL picture at that, of the ship from a bad angle even for the original Enterprise, and three shots of the Enterprise in the trailer, one of which is merely the ship under construction, and from the opposite side at the same angle as the first picture, and two front shots of the ship. And Intel’s Trek site has that nice 3D model of the Kelvin…why not the Enterprise?? Who cares about the Kelvin, it’ll probably only last about 10 minutes anyway, if that.

And as much as I love Gabe’s design, I’m glad it’s not the new movie ship. The new Enterprise maintains the smooth, clean look of the classic, while adding a few new details(ie. hull azteching, airlocks, and thrusters) that were missing from the original design thanks to Roddenberry. Anyone who doesn’t know what I mean, you should watch the tribute to Matt Jeffries. He originally wanted more details on the hull and Roddenberry told him no. Oh well.

My final words on the subject…the new E looks beautiful to me, I just wish we could see more of her.

96. steve623 - December 14, 2008

“has ralph mcquarrie retired for good?”

I believe Mr. McQuarrie suffers from Parkinson’s Disease and has thus retired. Needless to say, his talents are *sorely* missed.

Where were you, Andrew Probert, when we needed you? And if you’re reading this, Mr. Sternbach, I miss your work too.

97. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - December 14, 2008

Want to like the new E, trying to find something. Like the new apparently larger size (rumors have it at 3000ft) and the Aztec TMP style plating that reflects colors so well (WHY DID ILM SPRAY FLAT COAT OVER THE MODEL FOR TWOK??? GOONS YOU RUINED Trumbles beautiful pearlescent sheen ) but that’s another story. But I just don’t like it can’t help it. Sorry to offend those you take these things so personally but I also don’t think I am in the minority here. The quickie redesigns by Danny Broadway, Spockboy, ect all looked much better. The engine hull is pushed far too forward to the point of looking unbalanced and the engines do appear to connect right at the end of the pylons and the back of the engineering hull does look like it was carved off with a cleaver, Oh well there are always refits. Basically I like the primary hul and the sensor dish and I loath the entire secondary hull including the engines

98. Kregano - December 14, 2008

I think Koerner’s “retro smooth” Enterprise with the darker coloration of the more greebled version would’ve gotten the green light from producers. But I’m okay with what we’ve got; I just wish we could get to see more of Church’s Enterprise on that Intel website.

99. CarlG - December 14, 2008

Was browsing through Ryan Church’s website, and I must say, all of his work is amazingly well done; I wish I was a tenth that good with my dinky little Wacom tablet. :)

I have to say, though, his landscapes and set designs are way more pleasing than his hardware / spaceships. He’s really great doing these big, sweeping vistas, but his more human-scale vehicles range from “cool” to “meh”. That said, I hope he gets to do some work on alien planets in the new Trek move. A Ryan Church-style Vulcan? Or Romulus? Or Starfleet Command? Hells yeah!

100. SPOCKBOY - December 14, 2008

#81
I agree, Vektor’s ship looks beautiful. Give it the TMP pealescent finish and you have a winner. It looks a lot like the original but more beefy and serious.

I sincerely hope to grow to accept the new one because like it or not, we’re stuck with it.

Until then…

http://tinyurl.com/newent

(shameless plug I know)

; )

101. SPOCKBOY - December 14, 2008

#99
I agree.
A lot of Ryan Church’s work is VERY good.

102. Nikos - December 14, 2008

Kroener’s Enterprise was so much better

103. Scott - December 14, 2008

As someone who is still getting used to the TMP Enterprise re-design, I must agree that the best way to have gone with the design for this movie would have been what Jeffrey Wright posted at #81. It updates a classic design intelligently and beautifully, without alienating anyone but the most ardent “out-with-the-old!” types.

I would be among this movie’s most ardent supporters, instead of the doubting Thomas I have become in the wake of the visual spoilers we’ve had.

Everyone should be grateful that model kits have just about gone the way of the wooly rhinoceros: if you thought “nacelle droop” was bad on the old AMT Enterprise kit, you can only imagine how gravity and Church’s nacelles would get along in styrene form.

Scott B. out.

104. SPOCKBOY - December 14, 2008

-Oh and on Gabe’s design, the silhouette is spot on.
Much more shapely and stylized = futuristic.
The nacelles are brilliant (having 2 fan blades spinning opposite each other) and the inner workings on the top.
I like the darker grey coloring as well. It makes it look a little meaner.
-My only problem is the secondary hull and the struts(which is coincidentally my problem with the Ryan Church version)
Admittedly the original series struts looked equally precarious but the way Gabe’s are bolted at the bottom makes them seem even more hap hazard.
(Church’s swooped TNG struts however look extremely awkward and flimsily placed at the end of the practically non-existent secondary hull)
-I like what Gabe did with the front of the secondary hull with the large circular covering on top that matches the warp nacelles. It gives the ship a uniformity and symmetry that the Church version desperately needs.
The rest of the secondary hull looks a little too busy on the bottom for me.
-Gabes CGI work is outstanding. The texture and plating of the ship are wonderful as is the movement of the ship.
Overall I think Gabe has real talent and should pursue a career in CGI

105. Greg2600 - December 14, 2008

I still like Gabe’s better.

106. CarlG - December 14, 2008

@SPOCKBOY — He has, he did the CGI version of the Enterprise-D for “These are the Voyages” (The only nice part of that episode :P ), he’s worked on Battlestar Galactica, and a bunch of other stuff. Here’s his IMDB entry:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0462933/

By the way, I like the new Enterprise, but your video is hilarious! Love the Doomsday Machine bit at the end!

107. Kregano - December 14, 2008

Re: 104
Gabe worked on Speed Racer and Battlestar Galactica. He’s already got a CGI career.

108. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2008

as the article states “Gabriel Koerner, a Trek fan featured in Trekkies and professional CGI artist.”

Gabe even did some work on Enterprise and most recently has been working at Digital Domain, which happens to be a few blocks from TrekMovie HQ

109. SPOCKBOY - December 14, 2008

my mistake ;)
Gabe should CONTINUE his career in CGI

: )

110. Markus McLaughlin - December 14, 2008

I don’t see ANYTHING wrong with the NEW design, I just hope they plan to upgrade it a little for every film to show that the Enterprise can be upgraded.

May 2009 is coming fast, buy the Countdown Comic and enjoy Star Trek XI!

Live Long and Prosper!

111. Stanky McFibberich - December 14, 2008

re:81. jeffery wright – December 14, 2008

That design makes sense.

112. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 14, 2008

I was totaly for your ship, Gabe

I say pox! Pox and Fie!

The new ship is too weird.

Where do the shuttles come out?

113. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2008

I really like Vektor’s model, but it’s too close to the original ship to fit well in this movie.

114. Scott - December 14, 2008

Re: #113 – Sez you, my friend. :-)

What makes Church’s design any superior to Vektor’s? Because it’s “different” and maybe “more modern?” Feh. The new crew costumes (which I think are a reasonable update) would fit better with Vektor’s design than Church’s (sez I)!

Scott B. out.

115. FSL - December 14, 2008

Re: 81. jeffery wright

Beautiful. Love the texturing and adding very small surface details. I like subtlety when it comes to updating classic icons.

116. thomoz - December 14, 2008

quote from #56:

“I am also interested in the USS Kelvin. If you look at a freeze-frame
from the end of 2nd Trailer, it looks like there is a window right
at the front of the bridge. Now, this could be a really useless light,
but if it is a window, it might be a very large flaw tactically.”

Well, AFAWK all the ships have windows instead of viewscreens.
The promo shot of Spock standing in front of the main viewer
looks more like a window than a tv to me. You can see across
the top of the saucer in that still, and also in the trailer when they
come out of warp into the debris field over Vulcan.

117. mojonaut - December 14, 2008

95 – I have to agree to disagree with you on that one. The Enterprise-D was beautiful from any angle, in my humble opinion.

86 – I’m not advocating that function takes a back seat to form. Quite the contrary. Having worked as a graphic designer for many years, I’m definitely of the opinion function comes before form! However, this is a work of fiction, and as such, aesthetics should take precedent over function. If nothing else, to get more arses on cinema seats. I don’t see many people wanting to put this new Enterprise design on a poster on a wall. Which is a consideration in the commercial success of a movie.

And oftentimes, like I tried to point out earlier, if something is designed to work to it’s best possible function, then the natural form it takes on will automatically be something aesthetically pleasing. The fact that the new Enterprise looks like it will crumble under it’s own weight in anything other than a zero-G setting doesn’t do much to help it’s function any more than it helps it’s form. And the irony is, the thing was built on Earth’s 1g

118. Rachel Farer - December 14, 2008

Koerner’s version is a believable original version of the original Enterprise. Abrams version is the equivalent of doing a movie about the war of 1812 and making the Constitution out of titanium because it looks cooler.

If Abrams admitted up front that this is a complete reimagining, I would not have been as disappointed with his complete disregard for the original series.

~ RF

119. mojonaut - December 14, 2008

“If Abrams admitted up front that this is a complete reimagining, I would not have been as disappointed with his complete disregard for the original series”

Have to echo that sentiment. Call a spade a spade and be done with it instead of concocting some contrived “parallel timeline” Mickey Mouse excuse which, in all probability, won’t even get a mention in the film.

120. Batfink - December 14, 2008

I prefer Koerner’s version, the new movie’s seem out of proportion.

121. Ponn_Far_everyday - December 15, 2008

Gabe’s Design is what the Enterprise would look like if we started from Star Trek: Enterprise…

122. HarryH532 - December 15, 2008

Trekmovie: did Koerner ever comment on the fact that some fans have made suggestions (right here on this very site if I’m not mistaken) to the idea that some elements of Koerner’s design was taken by Church. Not that I’m accusing Mr. Church of this but I would find it interesting Mr. Koerrner’s thoughts on the matter.

123. Sir Cedric - December 15, 2008

Abrams or who ever is paying homage to the Enterprise D not Matt Jefferies’ ship. It has a huge Primary hull and a dinky Secondary hull. The secondary is a half squeezed tube of tooth paste like the “D”. The “D” was top heavy lopsided mess. They should never let some one make a Star Trek movie who says, as Abrams has, “I never really liked Star Trek, or “My movie is for movie lovers not Star Trek fans. Otherwise, we’ll get another Starship Troopers. it’s director never read the book and so the movie was nothing like it. If the movie makers want a new look or a new story, write a new story with a new universe like Joss Weddon did; instead of screwing with something people love like Star Trek. Same goes for BSG. Their all thieving, unimaginative, history changing commies. Wouldn’t be a shame if 50 years from now, they didn’t know Gene Roddennberry created Star Trek.

124. mojonaut - December 15, 2008

123 – I agree with some of what you’re saying, but let’s reserve judgement until we see the film, no? I have reservations about Abrams, but it’s unfair to bandy about those things without any REAL evidence to back it up. If the film’s a turkey, then I’ll be the first to say it. Similarly, if they’ve done a good job, I’ll be the first there, too.

And your criticism of BSG is extremely unfair. The re-imagining was with the blessing of the original creator, has outlasted the original series, and, for me anyway as far, far superior. I disagree that they were being unimaginative by taking up the reigns, but rather they took an existing idea and built on it and improved it immeasurably, as well as bringing it into the 21st century.

If you’re so cynical, why would you go out of your way to log onto this site and post such comments? Since you’ve already formed such a powerful opinion I’m guessing you won’t be wasting your money on going to see the film. You should at least TRY to have a more open mind.

125. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@124…

mojo, he must be joking… check this line

// Their all thieving, unimaginative, history changing commies. //

Slåinte!

126. mojonaut - December 15, 2008

Ahh sometimes I’m not sure.

127. BK613 - December 15, 2008

123
“Wouldn’t be a shame if 50 years from now, they didn’t know Gene Roddennberry created Star Trek.”

Kinda like how only fans know that Bob Kane gave us The Batman?

128. karanadon - December 15, 2008

At this point in time, I still think even the “Foolerprise” of last year is better than the new movie one…though maybe it’s just a bad angle. I’ll wait and see.

129. falcon - December 15, 2008

Having looked at Ryan’s portfolio on his website, I must say that his exteriors (vistas, buildings, etc.) and his interior designs are quite nice. His vehicles, however, do lack that certain proportion and balance that makes them believable. It’s OK in Star Wars – you don’t necessarily believe all that stuff anyway, even though the designs of Ralph McQuarrie were much more “real” (even with all the greeblies pasted on).

The new Enterprise looks good from certain angles (most notably forward and aft), but the side angle I’ll reserve judgement on – it was not a good angle, the “lens” used was too wide (IMNSHO) and I don’t think it was lit well. However, you can tell a lot of work went into creating that mesh. I wonder if Ryan works with physical models in order to get a sense of scale for his virtual ones.

130. thorsten - December 15, 2008

“A wise sailor will one time stand upon the shore and watch his ship sail by, that he shall from then on appreciate not being left behind.”

–Robert April

131. Cervantes - December 15, 2008

Really love that new ‘retro’ Enterprise design of Gabe’s!

I would have been so happy to see something like that in this Movie, rather than the design we’ve ended up with….

132. The Real Kobayashi Maru - December 15, 2008

I am pumped about this new movie, love everything ab it, even the different bridge..

Just HATE this new design of the ship.

I know it’ll be explained, and that’s not the prob I have with it…Just think it’s ugly. Gabriel’s would have been a welcomed change.

133. Chadwick - December 15, 2008

Not sure if it was mentioned before but from the front view of the Enterprise you can see the struts for the nacells are slightly curved, bowed outwards and I like that rather then sticking straight out. As a trekker I have no problem with this ship. On screen I think this ship is going to look hardcore, massive, sturdy, and powerful.

134. Cervantes - December 15, 2008

#133 Chadwick

That is something I personally really don’t like. I think they look better straight.

The other thing I really dislike about this Movie’s nacelle struts is the fact that they narrow at the top, rather than widen at the top. If these struts were turned upside down, I think they would look far better.

Beauty is in the eye of each individual beholder I guess, and unluckily for me, I’m none too impressed with this version.

135. Mike - December 15, 2008

Like someone else said, if we’re taking votes, I like Churches version better, but Gabe’s is also really nice. Neither is exactly my ideal, but no design really ever has been.

136. Mixed opinions... - December 15, 2008

I always felt:

* Gabe’s version looks like a Borg-ified TOS Enterprise.
* Gabe kept true to the original design (shape, details, insignias, typography, minor details) while giving a “futuristic” detailing — something indicated by more lines, intricate shaping, etc. that surpasses anything possible by today’s standards.
* Gabe’s beauty shots were exactly that: Beautiful renders. He brought out the best in the ship. The sunrise/sunset image is one of my faves.

With Ryan’s design:

* The primary hull looks too foreign to the secondary hull. (Kinda like the Apollo command module compared to the lunar module!) I really don’t like the shape of the secondary hull. Although the deflector dish is very, very nice.

* It’s understandable that he’s under constraints by the production team. But the design needed more refinement.

* Bravo for keeping to the original design/shape/intent of the 1960s Enterprise model.

* The neck seems to have influences from Gabe’s model… ;-)

* No comment about the nacelles.

All-in-all, I’m not a major fan of the Ryan Church Enterprise. And I wasn’t (initially) a huge fan of Gabe Koerner’s either. But both versions exemplify the familiarity of the ORIGINAL Starship Enterprise.

And I hate to say it: That’s good enough for me.

I was mixed about the TMP-era Enterprise. The design grew on me faster than this one has. Heck, I remember watching the CBS Evening News back in 1979… and seeing the last five minutes of the broadcast dedicated to the spacedock reveal of the ship.

Now ask Gabe about how the Sci-Fi Channel execs wanted to depart from the original Battlestar Galactica designs… and how he and members of Zoic managed to get the original intent preserved in the reimagined show. (Yeah, Gabe – I know you were under marching orders with the Viper redesign, but you guys really did a bang up job. Awesome work.)

And good work, too, Ryan.

137. Mixed opinions... - December 15, 2008

Btw, when I said, “something indicated by more lines, intricate shaping, etc. that surpasses anything possible by today’s standards.” I meant that engineers and designers can only do so much with the resources they have. 23rd century Starfleet Engineers are a different breed than 24th century counterparts, etc. I imagine things get more detailed, more intricate as the years roll on, ie TOS compared to TNG, DS9, VOY, etc.

138. warptek - December 15, 2008

Design is fantastic and all but I am more thinking of why they felt they had to make the ship a new build instead of a ship “with some history” as the original was intended to be. What is going to happen to the back story of April being the first to captain? Then curiously enough, Pike is in the film who was supposed to have had 2/5 year missions with her.

139. Dr. Image - December 15, 2008

#97 Lord Garth- FYI

ILM matte-sprayed the TMP-E because of their reliance on blue screening as their primary matting method. Blue spill=death for them.
Trumbull over at Future General (love the name) used front light/back light matting, which allowed them to shoot stuff with a glossier finish, AND shot in 65mm.
Dykstra over at Apogee pioneered a UV matting system which allowed the same, (used in Firefox) but that’s another story.

BTW- Probert’s original TNG-E design was much more graceful.
ILM had to make structural concessions when they built the 6-footer.

I still say there’s something fishy between the saucer of Ryan’s E and the secondary hull/nacelles.
Was the glaring stylistic mismatch intentional??
I hope so, because it doesn’t work.

140. Paul DAUGHERTY - December 15, 2008

Maybe this is the Pike-era design. Remember the differences way back when – spikes on the bussards, taller bridge section and wider deflector dish? Perhaps in the Kirk-era sequel there will be a refit?

141. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

81. jeffery wright – December 14, 2008
#73

does this look like a toy?:

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/3d-wips/37615-conjectural-trek-xi-enterprise.html

————

Why would’nt you design a starship that way? In any Universe. Perfect.

142. Scott - December 15, 2008

Re: #141 – The sad thing is that even if, at the end of the new movie, all is set “right” with the universe, and we get something close to Vektor’s Enterprise, we still have to look at that … awkward … design of Church’s for the previous two hours. And worse, it’ll be part of the new, improved “canon.”

Sorry, yay-sayers. It just ain’t growing on me. Not at all.

Scott B. out.

143. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - December 15, 2008

Doc Image – Thanks Brother. yes I read that as well in one of my many making of the movies fanzines. And I understand why they did it but I didn’t like the end result at all. In the TMP when the E first enters the cloud the way the various purples and blues played off the pearlescent tiles on the ship was so unbelievably beautiful and to this day looked so much more real to me than any CGI or model work in any Sci Fi film since. I never liked the flat gullgrey star wars look that ILM gave the Trek ships, to me they always lacked the life of Trumbuls paint job. How much more beautiful would the ships have looked in the Regula cloud if they left the paint job and filmed the Trumbull way.

Anyway the one thing, and really only one thing I like about the new E is that they apparently are recapturing that TMP pearl sheen on the ship.

I’d like to see someone take the Vektor design and give it the TMP style skin.

I hand drew something similar, taking the Original, TMP, the newbie and my own ideas and combined them and added a litlte watercolor. I will try to scan the image and put it up when I get back from my business trip.

144. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

143. Lord Garth

You aint all crazy. Please do post that scan.

TMP pearl sheen.

Yes! I like.

145. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - December 15, 2008

Thanks TMMW will try to get it up Wed evening

146. Devon - December 16, 2008

#81 – It looks nice, but looks like something out of the 1960s. Don’t think it even has the scale to work on the big screen. Sorry. The original Enterprise was built for the small screen in the 1960s. We are talking about the big screen in 2009. I don’t care about the technology excuses.. they didnt use it in the Motion Picture in 1979 because it isn’t big screen ready, no matter how much some Trekkies wish to pretend. Some people need to get real here i think.

147. Dr. Image - December 16, 2008

Trumbull’s self-illumination of the TMP-E was genius (if not obvious).
If JJ wanted to make his Trek “real”, he should have given ILM similar directives- ain’t no light in deep space.
Oh well, we’ll see…

And #146- The myth that the TOS-E wouldn’t look good on the big screen is exactly that.
Yes- it COULD (have) WORKED!!

148. Chris J - December 17, 2008

I will forever refer to this new ’09 redesign of the big-E as the ‘Constipation’ Class, rather than our beloved ‘Constitution’.

It *could* be the angle. It *could* just be that it is a bad image, but really… I just don’t like the design. It has none of the aesthetic appeal of the original or TMP refit.

My major concern of mine is that while the Star Trek series showed clear design lineage; i.e you can see how you got from the Connie to the Excelsior, to the Ambassador and so on and so forth. However, apart from the saucer section, there is almost no correlation between the new Enterprise and the USS Kelvin.

Just a little niggle which I think doesn’t do the new Enterprise any favours from a design standpoint.

149. Chris J - December 17, 2008

>gasps<

I apologise humbly for the unintentional grammatical errors. It’s what a bad case of flu can do to your thinking.

150. April Roberts - December 17, 2008

I liked Koerner’s version far better.

Chris J. please Allow me to join you in calling the 1701-09 the “Constipation Class” Thats beautiful. Simply beautiful.

Of course when any so-called TOS fan claims the classic ship is good enough for the screen, it makes me wonder how much a TOS fan they truly are. Sure add a little aztecing and extra detail. But dont flush a classic look down the shitter for the sake of snagging Zima drinking, noseringed, backwards baseball cap wearing kids who say “k3wl”.

The Defiant kicked ass on Enterprise, and a traditional Connie with minor detail added could have kicked ass here too.

151. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - December 17, 2008

Ok Doc Image here’s my stab at it. Pardon my lack of computer animation accumen but I prefer the old fashioned way.

For what it’s worth, Lord Garth’s New Movie Enterprise

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z138/bearsturf/IMG.jpg

152. Alice - December 18, 2008

Addendum to 56;

Windows on a ship be they some impossible to destroy material are a frightening lack of detailed thought. I would worry more about the general brightness of light flooding into such windows blinding the bridge crew. The obvious window on the Kelvin made me RAGE. As for the Enterprise time will tell if it is not just some idiotic idea to place the Bridge viewer on the B decks (d or e if the sacle seen so far holds) so you have the saucer obscuring a lot of important visual information.

As time has gone by only the windows on the bridge (least by what we have seen) and the LOOK AT MY PENOR deflector dish area of the ship put me off. As what has been said all the details on their own are great even brilliant, but put together they clash.

153. Tangent - December 18, 2008

I’m not much of a purest, and I’m all for updating things for the sake of this movie, but I’m really not happy with the new Enterprise. We have only seen it from the one angle, so perhaps it’s just that, but I just don’t like the design.

Koerner’s version is far closer to what I imagined the Enterprise to look like in this movie.

154. Dean - January 7, 2009

Bottom Line: Koerner’s version is a 1000x better and more respectful to the original design. The actual design being used in the movie is terribly ugly and out of proportion. I hope that just this once the filmmakers completely overhaul the design (maybe use Koerner’s). I don’t care if it delays the movie release THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ON SCREEN. Why do producers feel alienating Star Trek fans will bring them into the theater?

155. Robert S. Walker - February 20, 2009

First thing I heard, upon first seeing the Churcherprise, was Kermit the Frog singing, “Rubber ducky, you’re the one…”

The Churcherprise–every bathtub should have one.

156. Matthew - March 12, 2009

If the people employed to make the new movie were Trekkies themselves, our Gabe could have ended up being the guy to design her – alas, I bet they don’t even know who he is. One of the few drawbacks in not signing up committed fans to make your movie. But, in saying that, I think JJ Abrams and his team were still the right people for the job. JJ himself is one of the brightest young things in Hollywood….and I think he’s going to do us a great movie.

I’d just like to say, too, that I think Gabe is a hell of a cool guy. The difference between the 14 year old rather stiff nerd in Trekkies, and the relaxed, cool guy sat there with his girlfriend (wife?) in Trekkies 2 was astonishing. Amazing what a few years does for a man. Now he’s hilariously funny (in the good sense), cool and damn well knows his shit. God love ya, Gabe.

157. Bryan Weber - April 25, 2009

This eyesore is what happens when you take non-Trekkies and let them work on a Star Trek film. It looks like what a five year old might come up with after you showed them a five second clip of the Original Enterprise. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that isn’t how they came up with this insult to the name of Enterprise.

158. Mario Merino - April 28, 2009

Gabe Koerner’s design is so much more aesthetically pleasing. The film version looks like something designed by a non-fan of the show. I wonder how seriously the powers that be thought about this re-design of Star Trek’s most important character. Any 3-view drawings of Gabe’s ship anywhere?

159. Bill - May 9, 2009

I would love to have the shot of the Enterprise ‘rising’ at Saturn from the new movie as my desktop wallpaper. Does anyone know where I can a 1680×1050 version of it? I’m willing to pay for it as well if it’s for sale anywhere.

Thanks,
-Bill

160. Jordan - May 15, 2009

Bill, If you find it can you tell me please, because it was unbeleivable…. The film was outstanding!!!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.