Playmates Star Trek Movie Toys Revealed | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Playmates Star Trek Movie Toys Revealed January 21, 2009

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

Ready for more toy news from the Star Trek movie? Well it is just pouring in now with the first big reveal of figures, toys and playsets from Playmates. USA Today has an exclusive first look at what kids are going to be playing with this summer, details below.

 

It’s play time

Unlike the Barbie figures shown earlier on Wednesday, the Playmates line of Star Trek movie toys will be extensive, covering ships, role playing toys, figures (in three sizes) and playsets. Today the first images of much of Playmates first wave of Star Trek toys are being revealed at USA Today (again showing how Paramount and CBS Products are trying to market this new Trek and the merchandise to the wider mainstream audience).

So let’s take a look at some of what they are showing off…


12" figures of (L-R) Nimoy Spock, McCoy, Kirk, Spock, and Nero – $30/each
(click to see larger at USAToday)


USS Enterprise -$30
(click to see larger at USAToday)


Starfleet Communicator – $15
(click to see larger at USAToday)


Bridge playset – $25 (3 3/4" figures – $7/each)
(click to see larger at USAToday)

USA Today has more details and images and larger sizes as well as comments from CBS and otherss, so check it out. (While there you may notice some quotes from TrekMovie’s Anthony Pascale and John Tenuto).

In addition to USA Today, Previews Magazine is also showing off an additional small image from Playmates 3 3/4" line (the line used for the play sets).

Pre-order Playmates toys at Entertainment Earth
The first wave of Playmates toys has been available for pre-order at Entertainment Earth for a few months. In some cases the prices and some details are a little different than reported by USA Today, however the info on EE was put up a couple months ago and could be based on outdated information. TrekMovie will attempt to get clarification on this, but there are the pre-order links now available:

 

More to come
What is being shown at USA Today is only part of Playmates full line of Star Trek toys. There is the 6" line, and additional role-playing toys, plus we still don’t have a detailed look at the 3 3/4" figures…so stay tuned to TrekMovie for even more Playmates fun.
 

All images courtesy of USA Today and Playmates

Comments

1. Johnny - January 21, 2009

Ohh nice set…

The bridge set and the set i will definatly buy!

2. KMKProd - January 21, 2009

Wow, that makes the Enterprise’s new design look almost beautiful. And this coming from someone who was put off of the initial picture release a few months ago. The bridge also doesn’t look that bad–a little too big with perhaps a few too many stations, but not that bad if it is accurate.

3. Render - January 21, 2009

I WANT!

4. Quags - January 21, 2009

gigggity gigggity gooo

5. J. Rabbitte - January 21, 2009

I think this not only gives us a great look at the toys (some of which I wish had come around when I was still a wee one), but also by extrapolation the possibilities of the movie. I had not seen any picture showing the communicator fully open, and I definitely felt giddy when I saw that UFP logo on the top there. No matter how good the movie is, these pieces have definitely got me excited, and I think I’ll be picking some up for, um, research. Yeah, that’s the ticket…

6. Kobayashi Maru - January 21, 2009

I wish I was the same age I was when Mego put out there acid dipped playset!!!!

7. Johnny - January 21, 2009

Well the bridge is sold in seperate pieces so hmm… time to get collecting.

The ship i will buy for sure.

8. clavinbot - January 21, 2009

They look awesome and it’s very exciting to see cool toys-it makes it feel like a big event worth caring about like big productions of my youth advertised to kids in a similar fashion.

9. Xai - January 21, 2009

the USA Today pic of the Enterprise is a far better pose than the first look from several weeks ago.

10. anti-matter - January 21, 2009

‘love that ship!

11. CyberViking2000 - January 21, 2009

This looks like what Gene Roddenberry would have done if he had the money, tech, and marketing that exists today. Bring on the movie! :)

12. Elrond L - January 21, 2009

Wow! I just happened to get a Google news alert on this, and was in geek heaven checking out the pictures when what should I find but quotes from TrekMovie.com. Good to see you guys getting some A-list press along with the movie. As for the toys, well … I’m going to be poor again this spring. :-) Love the E, and the bridge set — so the carpeting will be red, then? Very sharp.

13. Matt Wright - January 21, 2009

I’m almost certainly going to get the communicator , tricorder, and phaser toys that will be released. I’m a sucker for the gadgets!

14. Alb - January 21, 2009

Bridge looks neat, but the exterior model just makes me all nervous again.

Why does everything look and feel squished towards the center???

15. Jared Butcher - January 21, 2009

awesomeo!

16. Adam Cohen - January 21, 2009

The sculpts are not that impressive (particularly the 12″ guys). But as Anthony said in the USA Today write-up- these are being made for kids more than collectors. That being said, kids can discern the quality of sculpts very well.

The bridge playset is interesting! But the rest of the stuff looks disappointing.

17. Jared Butcher - January 21, 2009

that bridge is so tight…I WANT!!

18. Joel - January 21, 2009

:D :D

19. Tanner Waterbury (HUGE PINK FLOYD FAN) - January 21, 2009

I already preordered the Enterprise and the trek Tech, so im set, however i do wish i preordered the bridgeset

20. Danny - January 21, 2009

Definitely liking the shot of the new enterprise. The first press shot made me abit nervous but this is looking like a gorgeous starship.

21. I am not Herbert - January 21, 2009

I must say: NOT BAD AT ALL!!! =D

22. Yspano - January 21, 2009

Hey, the Enterprise actually looks nice in this photo.

23. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2009

Adam

My quote to USA Today was mostly about the 3 3/4 and the toys and ship stuff, the mass market stuff. What I love is that we are getting stuff that is meant to played with (as john said to USA Today). For collectors you can choose between the Barbie 12″ figures and the Playmates 12″ figures (which are cheaper but still pricey for kids).

Many of us here can remember playing with Mego toys in the 70s…I can see kids playing with the bridge and transporter sets and with the new toys.

John will have more thoughts and we should have more details on Playmates, but John (who knows more about this than just about anyone) is very thrilled with the new stuff from Playmates, from what has been seen so far.

24. The Spirit of Truth - January 21, 2009

That is a very acceptable Enterprise now…

Although, the Neck is still too big.

25. Imrahil - January 21, 2009

Not a fan of that bridge at ALL. Ugh. What’s with the weirdo blue chairs?

26. THE GOVERNATOR - January 21, 2009

Pure Awesomeness!!!!!!

Bridge looks awesome. Transporter looks awesome. The ship looks really awesome!

27. Shane - January 21, 2009

Honestly, seeing these – and they are only toys of course – really does give me the impression that the creators have taken the original designs and simply updated them to look like, well, what they may have looked like had they had the cash and technology in the 60s. As someone else said, they look like the originals, just modernized, rather than some sort of entirely new creations.

One item I really like is on the transporter room set (available by clicking on the enterprise photo above)…. it looks like it has the old “slider” controls. :)

28. THE GOVERNATOR - January 21, 2009

Oh, and the communicator is really neat too!

29. Sybok's Secret Brother - January 21, 2009

Damn, I did miss the memo…

I think I like the New Old E… Wish I had a toybox big enough for it all!

30. Sean4000 - January 21, 2009

I love the new enterprise toy more than the screengrab from the movie itself! lol.

This alternate timeline is shaping up to be cooler than the Prime line!

I LOVE EVERYTHING!!!!!

Looks like I’m going bankrupt :(

31. Reign1701A - January 21, 2009

Wow, these look great! The bridge looks spectacular!

32. Will - January 21, 2009

I like the Enterprise toy and that’s about it. Not a fan of the bridge or the other stuff. Odd, since I absolutely abhor the Enterprise, but from that angle, it almost looks like a decent ship. Almost.

33. Can't Wait for May 2008 - January 21, 2009

Much better then the 6inch Kirk. I can not wait to add these to my collection

34. Reign1701A - January 21, 2009

Also, the 12″ Spock looks like a ridiculously good likeness of Quinto. The others aren’t quite as great but they’re still good. While I’m not big into collecting action figures anymore, I’ll definitely be picking up the Enterprise and probably a phaser and communicator. Though that bridge set is very tempting..

35. Just a Fan - January 21, 2009

It is like Christmas…i can’t wait to get this stuff for my son and nephew…or maybe I will just keep it.

And what is up with them releasing that horrible image of ‘Kirk in Sweater’ first? DId they really think that was their best foot forward? Maybe it was a head fake, like…here is a crappy thing to lower expections

36. McCoy - January 21, 2009

I agree that this shot of the Ent is a more flattering view of the ship they are selling us than the screen grab.

But, honestly, I just don’t understand how most of these comments are so enthusiastic about wanting or buying these things, especially without knowing the value of the film. I just don’t get it. Maybe it’s because I’m a 43 year old single parent. Maybe because I grew up with the old series. I don’t understand the fan behavior.

And the bridge looks exactly how I would have expected it….yuk-o-ramma.

I think I shall take the hint and leave the site for a while…..I’m flabergasted and clearly in the minority.

37. Just a Fan - January 21, 2009

Is it just me, or does anyone else sense a thawing of the cynical trekkies? These toys are making fans feel like kids again, but are they enough to turn the canonistas?

38. Cranston - January 21, 2009

I’m liking all the red in these set models. I was afraid from the earlier photos that everything would be just gleaming white. The red gives it a nice jolt, while being a nice nod to the original series’s aesthetic.

39. Toothless Grishnar Cat - January 21, 2009

Something that struck me about the chairs on the bridge set was how reminiscent they are of the Pike-era chairs seen in ‘The Cage’…

40. garen - January 21, 2009

oh my. i just hope the “kids” actually want this stuff. For some reason its hard for me to picture children actually playing with Trek figures.

41. garen - January 21, 2009

also..the toy line should put to rest any of the folks who are freaking out about the “breaking of the trinity”

so many folks are worried that the Bones character has been left out of the loop. This proves hes right where he should be!!

42. Devon - January 21, 2009

Okay, in spite of my misgivings about the first full of image of the new Enterprise, THAT looks sweet. To be young again.. will def. be getting these.

43. johnny - January 21, 2009

omg cannon alert, the writing on the big e is different

44. SuperJoker - January 21, 2009

The Ship looks nice and all, But this Enterprise(Except for the Saucer Section on the outside) is not Canon to Me, The Defiant in the final “Mirror Mirror” Enterprise episode was Canon and so was the Bridge inside, Even the Next Generation Enterprise had a Holo Deck for Scotty with the Real Bridge from the NCC-1701 from the 60’s inside and It looked real Good! At least the Uniforms are right.

45. Devon - January 21, 2009

#36 – Maybe it isn’t for you to try to understand. People want to buy what they want to buy, whether you like it or not. Simple.

46. The Angry Klingon - January 21, 2009

I agree that this angle of the enterprise looks much better. My issue now that according to this layout the Engine antimatter/matter ‘tubes’ would connect right through the shuttle deck. It doesnt look well thought out as far as ‘layout’. The nacelle struts literally join the hull on either side of the shuttle bay. At least at this point it doesnt look like the designer took the interior layout in to consideration.

47. Devon - January 21, 2009

#40 – Kids played with them just fine in the past :) I remember getting my first Trek toys when I was 4 or 5!

48. johnny - January 21, 2009

#44 THIS IS AN ALTERNATE TIME LINE THAT IS DIFFERENT THEN THE 60’S

49. Bryan - January 21, 2009

Those 12″ figures are a damn sight more attractive than the six-inch Kirk prototype. I may have been too hasty in criticizing Playmates.

The bridge is quite nice. I’ll be interested to get to the official book of the film to find out why there are fourteen stations to the TOS’ bridge’s seven, but it’s pleasantly ordered to these eyes.

50. ben - January 21, 2009

The bridge makes more sense to me now. I think I can accept it, though that red floor color is just weird.
I’m a little disappointed to hear I have to buy all the characters to get all the bridge pieces. Cause I know when I was a kid, I never got all the characters on my $1/week allowance, but I did get a bridge for Christmas, and that meant I could enjoy it with the characters I had… and make little videos of the characters in action… and build the remaining sets from poster board… (The warp core & ten forward were the hardest. Sickbay actually turned out pretty well. holodeck was a snap…) anyway…

Now that I’m in grad school, I’m on practically the same budget. :)

New Ent.? Well, my ‘supreme court’ is still out on that one. But I’m definitely buying all the toys my $20/weekend discretionary budget can afford.

51. Ralph - January 21, 2009

Congratulations Tony for you and TrekMovie being recognized on a major newspaper USA Today. WooHoooo!!!

52. AJ - January 21, 2009

The Enterprise has thunder-thighs. Or is it calves?

53. Ensign RedShirt - January 21, 2009

It’s funny….but the Kirk figure looks like Shatner to me.

Still not sure if I’m too crazy about the bridge. Those pieces of glass(or holographic projecters) really don’t look right to me. Everything else looks cool though.

54. Bob - January 21, 2009

okay Paramount… now we’ve seen the toy Enterprise… GIVE US A GOOD BEAUTY SHOT OF THE DAMN SHIP ALREADY!!!!

55. THX-1138 - January 21, 2009

OK. Great. Toys that kids can play with. Fine.

But I AM a collector and that Enterprise doesn’t do it for me. It has the typical lack of detail that I expect from Playmates. What about those of us who would like to obtain a collectible type ship? Something that actually looks like an accurate representation of the E.

The communicator looks pretty good, I guess.

But, John and Anthony, and anyone else who might deign to answer my question; what can those of us who want DS/AA type accuracy and quality AND price point expect from this movie and merchandising push?

56. Terpor - January 21, 2009

Canon or not canon, the new bridge does look better than it’s 60’s counterpart

57. Paulaner - January 21, 2009

The Enterprise is very beautiful, and quite reminiscent the classic one. IMO, all the hate was unfair.

58. Quarksbartender - January 21, 2009

I wonder if the enterprise will go along with my other art asylum enterprises, or if there scale with one another ?

59. Cobalt 1354 - January 21, 2009

Finally, a playset with the Big 3: Kirk, Spock and McCoy. She’s a good character and all, but Kirk Spock and Uhura?? I’m glad to see someone got the memo.

60. Commodore Z - January 21, 2009

Why are there metal detectors on the bridge?

61. Sheryl - January 21, 2009

Hm. The 12″ figures are an improvement over the 6″ figures, but I still don’t like them very much.

Everything else we’ve been shown so far, though? DO WANT. Lucky me, my birthday is right around then. I know what I’m getting :>

62. LoyalStarTrekFan - January 21, 2009

I’ve been a trekkie all my life and when I was kid I played with the Playmates First Contact Phaser and many other Playmates items. Since I’ve become an adult I collect the “role-playing” and ship items. These toys look great and have gone a long way to put some of my fears about this film to rest. It is definitely Star Trek and all the toys shown look great. This ship is beautiful, the Communicator looks excellent, the bridge looks awesome and an excellent Trek bridge, and the Transporters look very much as they should. I am very excited about this film, which is now 3 1/2 months away.

I should also note that it is appropriate that the individuals working for TrekMovie have been recognized for their efforts by USA Today.

40, I played with Trek figures when I was a kid when I had playsets. The problem is that Trek isn’t regarded as “cool” by most kids today. If this film is a hit, that may change and kids will play with Trek toys again. Maybe employees who work in store toy departments will hear more “beam me up, Scotty” and less “Luke, I am your father” comments.

I agree with people who comment that it appears as if they merely updated 1960’s designs to how they could have looked with money, technology, etc. It does indeed look that way.

36, many fans like collecting Star Trek items. However, when you’ve got tight budget and families to support, the importance of such self indulgence does seem much less important.

63. Iowagirl - January 21, 2009

#11

Thanks for telling us. Now I’m even more grateful he only had the money, tech, and marketing of the 60’s at his disposal. :)

64. thorsten - January 21, 2009

This looks fantastic.
Finally a transporter room again.
How cool is that.

65. thorsten - January 21, 2009

I am just not sure about the NCC on the nacelles…
italic typeface?

66. captain_neill - January 22, 2009

they look cool but I think at the moment I will be continuing with Diamond Select as they are figures of the Star Trek I grew up with. The Kirk and Spock in TMP uniforms is awesome

The bridge set looks great in this set, greatr detail, but it is still one so vastly different from the one I am use to.

Also I am running out of space for figures in my room, I must have around 8 Kirk figures in the house

67. Scott Xavier - January 22, 2009

Whats with the annoying transparent screens?

68. Sean4000 - January 22, 2009

Def. going to pick up the Enterprise, and the Kelvin if they make one.

69. 1 - January 22, 2009

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/startrekmovie.html

70. Jon - January 22, 2009

FANTASTIC.

Though some of the small details on the Enterprise model are obviously a little off or exaggerated (such as the writing and registration) I can only assume the overall shape is correct- and from this angle, being able to see the shuttlebay and the end of the nacelles, the proportions look so much better. Beautiful.

71. Rastaman - January 22, 2009

The 12″ figures look pretty cool, but $30 each seems pricey. I would definitely have enjoyed that Enterprise model as a kid–A+ on that one. The communicator looks like it might be kind of flimsy. I can see those hinges breaking all too easily in the hands of a child.

As for the bridge, the toy looks okay but in general I’m not a big fan of the design. A lot of it is the colors. Red and blue are not colors that mix well in my opinion, and the white does remind me too much of Mac products. Basically, I would HATE to work on that bridge.

I do like some of the innovation like those informational window viewers though. I wish they had innovated some more and darkened down the colors a bit.

72. cagmar - January 22, 2009

The bridge actually doesn’t look nearly as bad as in the promo shots. I sort of get the design now, which is very cool.

But no matter how you slice it, that Enterprise is uggo.

73. Mr Lirpa - January 22, 2009

I’m begining to love the look of the new E, she’s looking very gracefull and sleek, in fact I’m also feeling a little guilty, as though I’m cheating on the Original E’s!!! I could never decide which of the two designs I loved the most now I have a third to add to the anguish!

I’m also loving the new look phaser, it’s a nice combination of old and new elements and also has that streamlined feel I’ve notice on some of the new props.

so far so good for me.

74. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

#69

Thanks, that’s an awesome link.

I can’t say that I like the phaser too much but the tricorder looks cool. Is the tricorder in the movie going to have the word “Tricorder” written on it? Because that’s kind of Adam West era Batman hokey. The communicator is growing on me.

Again I ask, what is there for the collectors?

75. Neil Bradley - January 22, 2009

Interesting that the Phasers have a blue light for these models and a red light for the Phasers with the Barbie dolls.

76. 1 - January 22, 2009

#74

You’re welcome. Although, I posted it for a reason other than enjoyment. Note the picture of the Enterprise here at trekmovie, then look at the one at the link I provided. Notice anything?

77. MattTheTrekkie - January 22, 2009

Holy wow, that first picture if the E that we all saw really did SUCK! That actually made me cry! It looks so much better at other angles.

I feel like the E is in better hands now. Still would have liked something a bit more retro, but hey. I’m not going to continue complaining. This looks good to me :)

78. thorsten - January 22, 2009

@75…

Blue is stun, red is kill, Neil.

79. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

Well the registery on the nacelles is different. Actually, the nacelles are different .

What else?
Other than it’s still not my favorite.

80. Jon - January 22, 2009

What’s different about the nacelles?

81. thorsten - January 22, 2009

@76…

The main deflector…

82. Devon - January 22, 2009

#76 – It looks more proportionate to the old Enterprise. The Neck doesn’t go as far back, and some of the details are missing. Like an early prototype or something?

Thanks for that link though!

83. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 22, 2009

I agree, the new old Enterprise looks more “correct” in this perspective, though I admit I’m also giving the toy leeway (Don’t think the toys are ever *exactly* to spec). At the same time, it definitely looks more to me like a retcon of TMP than an extrapolation from TOS.

84. Jonny Boy - January 22, 2009

I really like the new Enterprise, though I had already been willing to accept it. She definitely looks like a direct predecessor to the refit Constitution. I wish the ship was made by AA/DST, but it looks like Playmates has at least stepped it up a little bit from the debacle that was the Enterprise-E.

85. thorsten - January 22, 2009

I like the new videoconferencing feature in the communicator…

86. Mark Lynch - January 22, 2009

#76

Do you mean in the way that the pennant design on the secondary hull and nacelles on the image at wizard universe is almost exactly as that on the TOS Enterprise and not a glimmer of it on the Enterprise image at Trekmovie?

That is interesting…..

87. Crewman Darnell Of Oregon - January 22, 2009

Once again, from a design standpoint, it’s all about the baby-to-bathwater ratio. If these toys are accurate to the movie sets/props, (as I suspect they are) there’s a lot of empty tub involved in the overall appearance of the movie. I truly wish I could say differently. :-/

88. Mark Lynch - January 22, 2009

Having looked again at the Enterprise omages, there are a number of fairly subtle differences between the two which I do not think can be explained away easily.

In fact I may go further than my previous statement and say that the Enterprise featured at the top of this article may be a TMP era version of the Enterprise in the altered timeline. WTH is going on? :)

Yep, looked again and I am sure they are two different ships
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/wizarduniverse_2039_733825448
and
http://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/2008/l090122_startrek/flash.htm?gid=864&aid=4083 (image 4)

89. Valar1 - January 22, 2009

I am going to buy all of these, eventhough I won’t play with them [honest] and I’m not collecting them, but someday soon I am going to have a child and I am absolutely going to indoctrinate them into Trek. Then one day that child will ask to play Trek and I will pull these babies out and let their imaginations take it from there.

90. 1 - January 22, 2009

#88

Well done Mark, that’s what I was refering to. I do believe we are looking at two different ships kinda sorta.

Either that or one is the sleek prototype meant to sell toys and the other is what comes out of the box.

91. Kirk, James T. - January 22, 2009

I love that Enterprise ship – it looks as though they have spent some time on it and i love the 12 inch collectors line but if i’m honest the rest of it looks poor – even for kids – that phaser looks as though it’s come out of a christmas cracker. :P

that aside, i will be getting the 12 inch line and the Ship – looks awesome, woo finally something i can get from the new movie.

92. Dyson Sphere - January 22, 2009

@85.

You agree then you see that the communicator has a video picture on it ?

Video would be much more modern in a time when RAZRs have more functionality than the 60’s communicator. Maybe if it had holoprojectors or had a 24th century entertainment player it’d be “way out there”.

93. Mark Lynch - January 22, 2009

#90
If that really is two ships, it makes me wonder just how much time jumping is going to be had in this new movie. sounds like it could be fun.

Another thing to have a look for, or rather the absence of, is the photon torpedo launcher at the base of the neck on the wizarduniverse image.

Can all these differences really be explained away as a prototype? Maybe.

You know what? I think I am just going to lighten up a bit and just enjoy what I can from this new interpretation. Ultimately I have the original stuff available when I want it.

94. IcebreakerX - January 22, 2009

The communicator still doesn’t make design sense. I’ll leave final judgement until I see the movie, but right now, it doesn’t scream functionality or practicality like the original.

95. fred - January 22, 2009

I like the props now, but what’s with the four free-standing doorframes on the bridge? Weird….

96. Anthony Pascale - January 22, 2009

Guys….i see that there are discrepancies between images from USAToday and Wizards, i will look into it when people are available to chat. It is always difficult when things break after working hours to get clarification on stuff. Hopefully we will get the latest and best images and more details for a follow up article

97. Mark Lynch - January 22, 2009

#96
Nice one anthony, on the ball as always…
Actually I hope it is really two ships.

98. thorsten - January 22, 2009

@92…

Yes, Dyson, the screen is visible in the upper part of the flipper…
and that crystall ball can be a nice super wideangle… so that the bridge can actually see whats going on with the landing party ;))

99. Ciarán - January 22, 2009

I am very, very pleased with these. I am DEFINITELY getting every single one of them. And my mind has completely changed about the new Enterprise. The view of the toy looks like it’s a very accurate reproduction of the film’s CG model and I am very, very pleased with it. WHEN ARE THEY COMING OUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

100. Gorn81 - January 22, 2009

Looking Good. I’ve already picked out a spot for the Enterprise, I hope we don’t have to wait too long over here in the UK.

101. Daoud - January 22, 2009

A very interesting perspective view of the Punk Universe NCC-1701 bridge.

Now, if only another ship will appear (say NCC-1700 USS Constitution captained by Robert April) that is the “preceding” class that looks like an un-upgraded-in-Riverside-Iowa Prime Universe Connie, then all is well.

Perhaps another retcanon is from changes in the timeline, the destruction of the Kelvin accelerated ship development to respond to the threat, hence the Punk 2260’s see much more advanced ships than the Prime 2260’s saw.

102. Fansince9 - January 22, 2009

My husband’s going to think I’m crazy when I tell him I want toys for Christmas this year…but I’ll be asking anyway. :)

103. NX01 - January 22, 2009

The photo of the toy is a lot better than the first photo we saw.

The proportions are right and the nacelles look cool.

104. Green-Blooded-Bastard - January 22, 2009

Two different Enterprises. Two very distinctly different Enterprises. What’s going on? Am I looking at an altered timeline / corrected timeline set of E’s?

105. Jeff Cope - January 22, 2009

I love Trek and I love 3-3/4″ scale action figures, so I am in hog heaven with this line! Can’t wait. I hope that Playmates really expands on the 3-3/4″ figures in future assortments and gives us lots of background characters, more Romulans (or is Nero the only Romulan in the film?), more aliens, etc.

106. Unbel1ever - January 22, 2009

I still don’t like the Enterprise or the bridge design. I don’t think I’ll buy either one and rather wait for the D from Art Asylum.

107. Jeyl - January 22, 2009

Ooooo! The Playmates Enterprise!

It looks like it has more than one button on it! Yay! Hopefully this means I won’t have to cycle through all the sound effects just to get to the sound of a Torpedo firing.

And here’s hoping that it has the “all lights stay on” feature that the classic Enterprise has from Diamond Select.

108. Star Trackie - January 22, 2009

I’ll definitely pick up the Phaser, tricorder and communicator to display bbeside the original series’ counterparts. The 12″ figures are much more in line with what I would buy, they’re just too much $. I might buy Nimoy/Spock though.

And the bridge is very cool as well, although I don’t like the idea of having to hunt and find certain figures to build the whole thing.

The verdict is still out on the ship…depend on if its this version or the Wizard version. Not to mention they might also release a model kit, in which case I would just build it myself. But thumbs up on the props…I just hope they are 1:1 scale with the props from the movies….the original Playmates TOS tricorder was a disaster.

109. Ben - January 22, 2009

I love these new toys! I highly prefer the the 3 inch versions though. I’ve always been a fan of the new Enterprise and am glad to see it in almost perfect toy form. The other new action figures/toy props look great too.

However the Wizard Enterprise is extremely interesting. I remember along time ago some one had commented about 3 Enterprises in the movie. While that was always treated as a rumor and never a spoiler it will make one wonder.

As someone stated above, I do hope that this is a prototype and not the final product compared to the beautiful ship above.

Blessings!

110. Crusade2267 - January 22, 2009

I sure wish they’d release some pictures of the Enterprise that look a bit less squished. From the front, the thing looks good, but the quarter views theyve been releasing just arent grabbing me.

111. Crusade2267 - January 22, 2009

The 12 inch Kirk looks a bit like Shatner, actually

112. Andrew - January 22, 2009

I really like the ship now. I am getting better faith in Playmates Toys. Ever since they screwed up the E-E from TNG I had lost faith. I am definitely wanting the Enterprise and props. I still can’t wait to see a better Tricorder and Phaser.

113. Will H. - January 22, 2009

Well, now I do like the bridge, in a way reminds me of the ST:V bridge, and I for one loved that layout. As for the ship toy its self, it makes me like the design even less than I already did, putting it pretty low. Its just so pushed forward, and its not even a problem with the stardrive being forward so much, but the back of it is just wayyyy too small and thin, and I hate the warp nacelles even more, they look horrible in the front and seem almost arched. The communicator, still lame looking, as if they designed it as a toy and not something that would communicate through subspace. The action figures…fail, Spock looks fat, Kirk looks like…well Shatner Kirk, and I guess the rest arent too bad.

114. John Gill - January 22, 2009

Finally, the Enterprise looks appealing.

115. » Archivo del weblog » Y más figuras de Star Trek - January 22, 2009

[…] Trekmovie ha tenido acceso a nuevo material de la empresa Playmates. […]

116. Alex Rosenzweig - January 22, 2009

I’m liking the ship more now, though I still think the subtle fixes to the secondary hull that folks on here suggested when we saw the first shot would have made it just about perfect. :) This is definitely an attractive angle of the ship, and she looks like what she should, in many ways.

I also am liking the bridge a bit more. It still seems too big and overdone, but the layout, now that we can see more of it, also looks logical, which could go a long way toward overcoming my stylistic quibbles.

Every time I see more of the uniforms, I like them more. Very, very slick.

I’m also liking the props a lot. The tricorder and phaser looked quite nice, though like some, I was struck by how much the tricorder and, to a certain degree, the phaser, resembled the STIII and STV units.

Overall, what I suspect is that this could mesh very smoothly with the other Classic Trek feature films, both stylistically and perhaps, I wonder, in terms of general continuity.

117. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

All of this looks great! No complaints here about the new Enterprise.

118. Planet Pandro - January 22, 2009

that’s more like it! I was somewhat mystified by the pic of the 6-inch Kirk…despite many comments I’ve seen in various related threads, I always thought that the playmates 90’s era figures always had great, recognizable likenesses, whereas DST can be a hit or miss. So I was worried for a little bit, but these new images really have me excited about the new toys! NICE.

the only question is…where am I going to put it all???

119. CmdrR - January 22, 2009

Decent price-points. NICE detail. Where were these when I was a kid? Jeez.

120. CmdrR - January 22, 2009

Good to know you haven’t invested too many credits in your shiny new phaser when you smash it to bits doing a Shat-tastic two-legged flying kick.

121. Warren - January 22, 2009

The communicator has the modern Starfleet logo as defined in TNG. Nice. I always thought the old one from TOS was really dinky.

122. They call me Stasiu - January 22, 2009

I give my vote of confidence to Playmates after seeing the stuff above. Everything’s lookin’ sharp!

123. cpelc - January 22, 2009

wasn’t there a story about different versions of the E in the movie…like one that was going to be a “warship” version. For some reason I remember Anton Yelchin spilling something about that a long time ago.

Perhaps this is the difference? Or simply toys aren’t always exactly like official versions?

124. Al Hartman - January 22, 2009

There are also two different communicators pictured, one with a lenticular screen and the other with a UFP logo in the top lid.

Enterprise: hate it
USS Kelvin: like it with minor quibbles.
Phaser: hate it (looks like a Galaxy Quest Nebulizer)
Communicator: Hate it
Tricorder: hate it – looks too much like TNG
Transporter room: hate the toy, no comment on the real set till I see it.
Bridge: It’s ok as a bridge goes, but not as nice as the TOS classic design. Look at Phase II to show how that design could be modernized without trashing the design.
12″ Figures look well done, better than the Barbies
The new uniforms aren’t bad, but I could do without the delta pattern printed on the cloth.

125. Scotty's Mustache - January 22, 2009

121-

“..I always thought the old one fro TOS was really dinky”

BLASPHEMY!!!!! HERETIC!!!!

j/k of course….

126. Duncan MacLeod - January 22, 2009

121 – “The communicator has the modern Starfleet logo as defined in TNG. Nice. I always thought the old one from TOS was really dinky.”

If I am not mistaken that is the UFP logo not Starfleet. But your point is well taken nonetheless, that was always my favorite too.

127. frederick - January 22, 2009

Yeah, sometimes the toy versions deviate. The one I bought of the Ent D from First Contact had very different engines from the movie version.

128. Steve J. - January 22, 2009

I’m assuming the toy ship is built in China and not in Iowa…

129. frederick - January 22, 2009

And by D I meant E.

130. steveII - January 22, 2009

Love the ship. Preordered it a month ago.

131. Boone - January 22, 2009

So what you’re saying #19 is that your *not* set…?

;-)

132. steveII - January 22, 2009

What is up with the transporter? Does it have multiple “cells” for transportation?? Does Rank ensure a safe transport?

133. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - January 22, 2009

totally kewl.

=h=

134. Gary - January 22, 2009

Phaser is fugly. And I miss the rails that were on the original bridge.

135. Star Trackie - January 22, 2009

121 “The communicator has the modern Starfleet logo as defined in TNG. Nice.”

Actually a viewscreen will be in that position with lenticular images of Kirk and Spock. This must be an early version.

136. steveII - January 22, 2009

And I miss the rails that were on the original bridge.


I agree in a way. It set up areas of importance. Also gave the actors something to “react” against when under fire.

137. The Angry Klingon - January 22, 2009

#128
Bwahahahaha….nice…new Enterprise is built in China not Iowa (or San Fran)
That made me laugh.
My earlier comment about the warp pylons was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I actually like this new angle of the Enterpise. Its still not my fave by a long shot but I dont hate it as much.
For you guys that havent seen the wizard pics of the new phaser it is a vacuum metalized 99 cent store abomination of horrendous proportions. Not thrilled with the tric (told you that pepper mill wasnt the tric) or teh comm but dont hate them either. They lack he ‘character’ of the classic props but the new pahser is just awful.
I maintain the new bridge is cluttered and poorly designed and teh new transporter room ALSO lacks ‘character’ and looks like they stole the design out of Gold Key Comics. Come to think of it most of teh sets and props look like they came from the Gold Key comics ESPECIALLY the props.
Think about it….

138. I'm Captain Kirk... I'M CAPTAIN KIRK! - January 22, 2009

Wow, after looking at the toys… Wow. Nerdgasm. The Trek tech and ship replica will be added to the other ships of the line adorning my entertainment space, The Federation emblem on the communicator flip = pure awesomeness. As for the figs… Well, let’s just say that hopefully they look more attractive in person. Quinto’s Spock looks laughable. I wish Art Asylum was doing them, their facial sculpts are/were so much better and actually look like their characters.

139. K Greene - January 22, 2009

All of the Ryan Church Enterprise haters? Stand DOWN.

140. Greekchief - January 22, 2009

go here more images and Tricorder, Phaser, and Narada.

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/startrekmovie.html

141. Greekchief - January 22, 2009

the Tricorder looks great. but the phaser I am not sold on yet. And that looks like a prototype of the Enterprise. the E only looks good from certain angles. and that is not one of them.

142. Holger - January 22, 2009

I can’t get over the new Enterprise. The more I see of it, the less I like it.

The Enterprise toy looks very well made, though.

143. Unbel1ever - January 22, 2009

141. Greekchief – January 22, 2009

Yeah, saw these earlier. Anyone else notice that the Enterprise looks different ?

144. Greekchief - January 22, 2009

yeah, I bet its a prototype of the toy. what we see on USA-today is hopefully closer to the production model.

145. Gary - January 22, 2009

137. You hit the nail right on the head. I agree 100%.

146. BrF - January 22, 2009

I’m enjoying the Barbie doll/action figure divide here. What if we got them all together? Would they get along?

147. Poizen_Prince - January 22, 2009

Re. The be-tentacled design of the Narada; yet another Lovecraftian-horror-esque Big-Bad I see, JJ.

http://www.4oh4.net/archive/cthulhu.JPG

148. Joe Cocolo - January 22, 2009

I’m beginning to like it. I think I’ll keep it as a conversation piece.

149. bdrcarter - January 22, 2009

Regarding the two different Enterprise replicas….first of all, at this stage I’m sure we’re looking at prototypes. There are bound to be some changes in the final product. But as I understand it…the new movie takes place over a long period of time (24th century back to Spock and Kirk’s births to the Academy to first postings, etc.). Is it possible the Enterprise we’ll see under the command of Pike will be at least a little different from the one we see as they launch the 5-year mission under Kirk? I’m sure the ship will take a pounding throughtout the main portoin of the movie. It’s possible there would be some refit work done before starting out on a new, multi-year voyage…at least a new fresh coat of paint? Could be why one versoin of the replica has the familiar red trim on the nacelles and the other doesn’t. (Or they’re prototypes.)

150. Shatner_Fan_Prime - January 22, 2009

Yesss!!! I’m a big action figure geek and I need me those 12″ figures – especially Nimoy Spock – badly!!! Whahoo!!!

151. Chris Doohan - January 22, 2009

Of course, I pre-ordered all the toys. Love the Transporter room.

152. The Angry Klingon - January 22, 2009

The Narada…hmmmm….I didnt know that was teh name of Sarris’ shi…I mean NERO’S ship….another homage to GQ and a little B5 too….

153. Kaiser The Great - January 22, 2009

It all looks cool, but I still find myself not completely enthusiastic. Why not just commit to a revamp if you’re going to make all these changes? Why change things that looked modern in the first place (aka the Enterprise exterior) but keep vintage things that should probably be updated (aka the pajama uniforms)? Why do I feel like General Grievious would feel right at home on that bridge? Despite the press and publicity (which is awesome), I still feel like this might not be the wrong direction. Maybe I’m just burnt out on prequels and retro.

154. Beck - January 22, 2009

I want that communicator. And I shall have it.

155. konar - January 22, 2009

94 — I just got it when I saw the image that shows a viewscreen on the inside of the cover — the “HAL” eye is almost exactly that — a multi angle camera lens. Now it makes sense!

Sorry if someone pointed this out already, but I didn’t see it anywhere.

156. DEvon Richards - January 22, 2009

Everybody was bitching about the bridge, but up til now no one has seen the color scheme of the deck.
It looks really good.

157. Gary - January 22, 2009

The Narada would look great…on Babylon 5

158. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#149 – The straight-on port elevation view of the ship with the blue pylon base at Wizard *might* indicate some type of articulated protective covers over the Bussard collectors. The scale of that replica seems to be smaller than the one on the USAToday feature, but that might just be due to the different image sizes online. I’d be very interested to hear if any of the traditional injection kit manufacturers (Revell-Monogram, Polar Lights/Moebius) are going to do anything with this movie, or if the replicas are only coming out from toy makers.

159. thorsten - January 22, 2009

@155… 98.

@151…

LOL, Chris. How cool is that!
Cheers!

160. Captain Roy Mustang - January 22, 2009

I would buy the new enterprise the texture look spot on like omg an i will buy the new bridge

161. JP Saylor - January 22, 2009

Now I’m a little upset (again) about the design of the enterprise

162. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

The more I see the new phaser, the more I think of Buck Rogers. What is the deal with the red and blue clear plastic? Can’t say that’s my favorite design idea. Hopefully it’s just a bit of typical Playmates toy interpretation cheeze.

And I still say that the Enterprise lacks the detail that a collector would want. Fine for a toy, but I’m not going to buy a toy. Any word on what the collector’s might look forward to? Hopefully something priced in this same range. Diamond Select/ Art Asylum prices their “toys” in this range. Maybe somebody can give us some news on if Polar Lights or Revell Germany might be making models of the film’s ships?

163. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

Cool. Is Rick Sternbach a styrene geek?

164. Kelvington - January 22, 2009

The more I see, the more I like. That bridge actually looks good, no too ipodish. The communicator will be interesting. So far so good.

165. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#163 – You betcha. The Playmates stuff was fine for the kiddies, but a truly crisp, detailed styrene or resin kit is a joy only real builders can appreciate. :)

No shake-‘em-out-of-the-box prebuilts in this house (well, maybe just a couple).

166. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

#165-Well if that don’t beat all!

Have to totally agree. I did pin some hopes on Playmates but I knew I should reserve my anticipation in light of the lack of detail on their previous Trek effort. Not that they were bad toys, mind you. I just didn’t want to put them up on a mantle or anything. And that is as it should be.

But there is something quite satisfying about getting out the paints and glue and really poring over a kit for hours, days, weeks or sometimes months. I had to explain to my son that the building was oftentimes more enjoyable than the finished product. But nifty finished ships are cool.

Which is why I wish BSG had been given Revell’s or PolarLights’ attention. The resin models are pricey and kinda small.

But I digress.

167. sean - January 22, 2009

I think these look great. This is definitely a more flattering view of the Enterprise, though I didn’t have a major problem with the other one. As far as prices, heck, these are more reasonable than half the stuff I bought 15 years ago from Playmates.

168. Charles H. Root, III - January 22, 2009

Wow… Something to finally replace my old Major Matt Mason collection! I agree with the other folks who mentioned the doorframe/transparent screen/metal detector looking thingees. I think they are supposed to represent those goofy exposed printed circuit board on plexiglass devices in the bridge movie photos.

169. richpit - January 22, 2009

I’ll definitely be buying the role play toys. I just hope that Playmates gets the size right this time, like they almost never did with the previous stuff.

Make them actual size!!

170. 1 - January 22, 2009

#165 & 166

Round 2 is trying to secure the rights to this film but Paramount is saying they want to hold off. Take that how you will.

171. SuperJoker - January 22, 2009

@ #124: I totally agree, She sucks.

172. OneBuckFilms - January 22, 2009

This gives us a much better look at things seen in the movie.

Phaser: Interesting, kind of a cross between the TOS Phaser and the Trek VI phaser, with a shiny finish and an interesting swivel between Stun and Kill.

Communicator: Functionally very similar to the TOS version, with some visual capabilities and a very iPod-based appearance. I like it.

Tricorder: Like a slightly more compact TMP tricorder, but with a functional arrangement similar to TOS. Pretty good.

The Enterprise: Interesting to see her from Bow to Stern. The design seems better than the “fisheye” first image, which was not the most flattering shot. Also great to see the top side of that saucer, and to see something more TOS like with the long pipe thingy leading up to the impulse engines from the back of the Bridge module. Those nacelles are HUGE though, but in a way, that reminds me of Koener’s interpretation. Altogether, much better than it first appeared.

Transporter Room: Although it’s a toy, and doesn’t really show much, it looks as though it’s far closer to the Original Series than the Bridge. The red floors and the backing panels are definately remeniscent of TOS. I like.

Bridge: It’s interesting to get a more complete picture of the Bridge’s layout, and it is actually closer to TOS that the publicity shots would have one believe. On the toy, the viewer reminds me of the TMP Bridge viewer, though with an iPod twist and a Window Simulation with HUD thing going.

Overall:
This really does look like TOS with a Steve Jobs/Art Deco combination going.

The Enterprise looks a little bit of a mishmash of prior ideas, but works well enough combined, and looks to me like it could evolve into the TMP Enterprise.

If the Enterprise’s construction is delayed by events in the film, this is a plausible result for her being built later.

173. Steven - January 22, 2009

I may buy the communicator and bridge set, but I’m definitely getting the Enterprise! It looks incredible!

God bless!

174. William Kirk - January 22, 2009

It must have taken a lot of time to find an acceptable angle for the JJ-prise :-P

175. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

More good news to wash the whole Whoopie thing out of my mouth!!!!

Still strongly dislke the scrunched up ship but with everything else I’m feelin it brotha

Now on to engineering I have heard troubling rumors of a Steampunk turn of the century Titanic boiler room type set. As much as I love Steampunk. Please get the Engineroom right!!! Personally I’m hoping for an exact duplicate of the original TMP engineering set with some TOS red colors.

176. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

And the Naranda was definately built by the Vorlons.

177. Steamblade - January 22, 2009

You have Whoopi issues? Color me unsurprised.

178. Lucas - January 22, 2009

STOP-POSTING-COMMENT-SPOILERS-JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ

179. SnakeDoctor - January 22, 2009

Looking at the pictures on the Wizard site … the 6″ figures don’t look as bad as the Kirk made me think they might. That picture was from a weird angle, and I think it gave a distorted view of the figures. The other figures are shown in head-on pictures, and they look pretty good.

Also, I’m betting the texturing of the shirt will look better in person than it does in a blown-up photograph.

SnakeDoc

180. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#175 – I suspect it’s not so much Steampunk with therivet strips and handwheels, but one insider has likened it to “a Schlitz brewery” in terms of tanks and piping, which seems to be a huge contrast with the slick “futuristic” bridge and corridors.

181. Anthony Pascale - January 22, 2009

Guys

I am still working on an update, but it appears that when there is a difference between what is seen at Wizard and USA Today, the USA Today image trumps. The images released to USA Today are the ONLY officially sanctioned images for release. We will have a detailed update later

182. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

I would gladly buy these toys for my sons…if they wanted them.

My 11 year old is the one most looking forward to the movie, and he doesn’t play with toys anymore (unless video games, footballs, baseballs, and basketballs are considered toys).

My 6 year old does, and if he wants them—they’re his, at least until my one-year old starts playing with them!

I wish I had toys like these 30 years ago.

183. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#179—“…one insider has likened it to “a Schlitz brewery” in terms of tanks and piping, which seems to be a huge contrast with the slick “futuristic” bridge and corridors”.

I suppose I like the idea of a stark contrast between the feel of the bridge and the “bowels of the ship”.

It seems more realistic to me, and may afford a better feeling of actual ‘functionality’, which is a stated goal of this creative team.

184. thenewK2 - January 22, 2009

The toys look really good. I’m really glad that Playmates went for the 3 3/4″ size for the main line of figures, so they could make a detailed and accurately scaled bridge playset. I’m also very pleased that they spent the money to make the 3 3/4″ figures super poseable. There’s nothing worse than figures that can’t sit down in their chairs. The Enterprise looks pretty good, for a toy, but I agree with Rick Sternbach, I’ll wait for the model kit. Hopefully Bandai will do a kit of the new Enterprise with light up windows. I just hope that we aren’t all standing in bread lines before this movie come out…

185. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

Rick why does it have to be the Schlitz brewery can’t it least be Stella??? Or Heini. If that is the case I think I’d much prefer Steampunk and everyone in engineering gets to wear stove pipe hats, specticles, soot covered overcoats, and bushy mullet chop sideburns. Kidding aside though Engineering sounds troublesome to me

Poopeyface – I think it’s terrific your kids would rather play with baseballs and footballs than dollies. Sound like great kids

186. OneBuckFilms - January 22, 2009

My must buys (Playmates):

– Phaser
– Communicator
– Tricorder

My must buys (other companies):

– DVD/BluRay (depending on my system at the time of purchase. I hope it has a LOT of good special features)
– Soundtrack (even if, against expectations, it sucks, I want my Trek score collection as complete as possible)
– Countdown Comics (already have part 1, rest on pre-order)
– Captain’s Costume (Deluxe if available from Rubies. Goes with Phaser, etc. for Convention Costume)
– Movie Tickets (Opening Night. If great, other nights as well. Just a little item for the list)
– Making Of/Art Of Books (I want the gory production details and thinking. Depends on the books themselves)

I have no interest in figures or toys, or any other oddities beyond what I’ve listed here, but these items are what I’m eyeing up.

187. OneBuckFilms - January 22, 2009

180 – Thanks for the work you’re doing. And this probably isn’t even your Day Job :-)

188. cpelc - January 22, 2009

Anyone else notice that they have Spock “Prime” on the bridge of that playset?

Could be marketing but still…..I wonder if Spock doesn’t end up stepping aboard at some point.

189. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

#174:”t must have taken a lot of time to find an acceptable angle for the JJ-prise ”

Naw – so far they’ve only released one image which is a *little* bad. :)

190. Daniel Broadway - January 22, 2009

Rick, what do you think of the Enterprise design now, having seen this top angle of the toy? I’m still on the fence about it. I like parts of it, but I am still having difficulty accepting the secondary hull.

191. Planet Pandro - January 22, 2009

#184.- A Stella brewery onboard a starship??? Lord Garth, now there we go! These are the things dreams are made of!!!!

192. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#183 – Unfortunately, Bandai didn’t fare as well as they had hoped with the last group of snap-plus-lighting kits. They were terrific, but somewhat expensive and were not mass market items. With the model kit business soooo radically changed from days of yore, you’re not going to see great sales numbers from even the best made kits. This may be why we’re not hearing exciting news from the other injection kit companies; it’s too big of a risk.

193. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

Danny Broadway and Rich sternbach this one’s for you two (and Spockboy and Bailey too)

Lord Garth’s take on the new E design

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

I think it flows much better and does not have the chopper look of the official new design but then again I am tremendously arrogant and master of the known universe

Please discuss and please be kind

194. Quatlo - January 22, 2009

New Big E: I keep thinking of the phrase, “Well.. it looked good on paper.”

195. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#189 – It’s a better view, sure, but I still have trouble accepting the nacelles and the pylons, especially the root attach planes near the shuttlebay. Structurally (23rd century future bogus structural science), it still looks fragile and not at all where I’d like to route the matter/antimatter streams or hot plasma (depending on the actual method used). As an overall shape, the new photo gives it some more chops as a slick, Lamborghini kind of style. Not exactly my kind of Star Trek, but then I’m not running the zoo. :)

196. Rick Sternbach - January 22, 2009

#192 – Changes, yes, but not too radical. I like it. I’ve always been a fan of evolving a design in slower, recognizable steps, and this seems to be a good blend.

197. Balok - January 22, 2009

The new E continues to look worse with every pic…

198. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

Lord Garth, that’s nice. Wish we were getting that one.

199. Dr. Image - January 22, 2009

It even becomes more apparent that there is a horrible stylistic mismatch between the primary and secondary hulls.
Church’s secondary hull seems “his own,” but the saucer is FAR to derivative of the TMP dish.
Such a mish-mash.
As long as the props are1:1, I’ll probably pick them up.

200. Unbel1ever - January 22, 2009

The main issue I have with the new E is: If I’d wanted to do a parody of Star Trek, my E would look exactly like this one.

201. Mark McCrary - January 22, 2009

As I’ve said before, friends– this is the way things are. We can either accept it, like it or grow to like it, or choose not to support it and loose any new Star Trek for another 10-15 years.

I for one am excite. I think one of the problems is we have all made Star Trek our own in some ways. Therefore, if it changes, it ought to change the way *we* think is should change. But, as Sternbach said above, we aren’t running the zoo.

I think a lot of our feelings will change when we see all of this stuff in action. Here’s hoping this is the revival.

202. Loskene - January 22, 2009

As much as I hated the new Enterprise on seeing it at first, I do want that model. Badly.

203. CMX54 - January 22, 2009

#192: Very nice work. Especially since the photo of the new Enterprise toy still makes it look rather ungainly.

As for the other toy photos, if I were still 10 years old I’m sure I would want copies of everything. Except for that god-awful bridge playset.

204. Lucas - January 22, 2009

I dont get why they have those HUGE frames to support the HUD glass..surely 23rd century holotechnology can project it into a thinner piece of material thats still strong..the huge frames jut out to me

205. Lucas - January 22, 2009

Does anyone here HAVE a 10 YO they can show these too..whats their reactions LOL

206. Captain Roy Mustang - January 22, 2009

When i first saw the new enterprise i was in shock the top part was fine an the secondary hull wasn’t tht good i though they going to refix it till i saw the toy version the side of the ship an it was damn good an very well done.

207. Rhett Coates - January 22, 2009

132. steveII – January 22, 2009 “What is up with the transporter? ….. Does Rank ensure a safe transport?”

No, only the color of your uniform’s shirt. (Don’t wear red….)

208. SOS - 1 - January 22, 2009

I read that article on the USA Today gallery link, and reading the text that came with it, it gave the distinct impression that the bridge will come in pieces, but in”Galaxy Collection Figure Packs”. Tell me that is’nt true, cos it could be a hell of a job (not to mention a costly one) to get all the figures just to recreate the whole Bridge.

209. tribble farmer - January 22, 2009

Bones figure has the sonic eyebrow :D I love it.

210. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

On the subject of Enterprise engineering and breweries…

Way back in February of 2008 this was posted on a blog publicly identifying the Budweiser brewery near Van Nuys as a filming location for “Star Trek:”

http://brianfinifter.com/2008/02/11/star-trek-stormtrooper-and-scientology/

Now, you may notice that the word “scientology” does appear in the title there, but don’t anybody panic – if you do read the entry there’s no insidious mind-control opinioneering or anything, and the mention of Trek filming at Budweiser is in the very first paragraph.

Turns out that the brewery in question has been used for a number of TV and film productions over the years, including the “V” miniseries back in the 1980s:

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/V/v62.jpg

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/V/v14.jpg

211. Weerd1 - January 22, 2009

I am actually pretty pleased.

212. AR - January 22, 2009

The bridge is *hideous*.

Thank you.

213. Steve From NY - January 22, 2009

I saw on one of the message boards the images of the Phaser, Tricorder, and another, yes there’s TWO Enterprises!. The phaser looks a bit cheesy, the tricorder looks pretty much what I expected, but the two “E”‘s, One is the one above, with the more “moviesque” Nomenclature, etc. The other one that is not shown here, is taken from a different angle, and clearly shows the markings from the original series. It also may have other slight differences, but it’s hard to tell in the pictures.

Personally, I like the new E now that I have seen the toy. I still have some issues with it, but there is no doubt when seeing her, that it is the Enterprise.

214. thenewK2 - January 22, 2009

Rick said: “They were terrific, but somewhat expensive and were not mass market items.”

Very true. The (low) numbers of kit builders today doesn’t justify to costs of producing such detailed kits. Which doesn’t leave much hope that we’re gonna see a high end kit of this ship. Although, Polar Lights did a nice job with the retool of the Classic AMT Enterprise, so, maybe if the film does well, they’ll splurge for the tool and molds.

So many kits today are snap together with pre-painted parts to appeal to a middle of the road audience…which is good and bad. I’m not sure if it’s a model anymore if you don’t glue it and paint it…it’s like they got lazy during the assembly process at the factory and decided to charge us more for the hassle of assembling the thing ourselves vs. having it come assembled and painted.

Not sure I’d spend what Bandai was asking for this new design…it still hasn’t won me over…but my 4 years son loves it. Kids! What do they know!

215. Kuvagh - January 22, 2009

Much more attractive image of the Enterprise!

The cool thing about CGI is that you can create perspective which shows what a huge starship would look like from a certain vantage point. This toy, on the other hand, is more akin to the photographic miniatures we’re all accustomed to.

Am I the only one who thinks that nearly the entire original ship design could be tucked away inside of the Ryan Church Enterprise, actually making it a more plausible refit than the TMP/Ent-A ship? Even the original corridors could be in there, with the new rounded panels added.

It’s even possible that the original neck fits in there. After all, the enlarged saucer actually protrudes aft of the neck here. The pylons could be the only discarded parts, and they’re the first thing anybody tosses out in a redesign — even big fans. The angle of the “undercut” probably means that at least a little bit of the original engineering cylinder has been pulled off, but I’m not certain about that.

I’m hoping that the story has the original Enterprise brought down to Iowa for a refit, rather than having it be a totally new build. Doing this so close to Kirk’s home town would be quite a coincidence, but what if somebody at Starfleet noticed a suitable site while attending memorial services for George Kirk…?

Of course, none of this matters as much as whether or not the themes and messages ring true. Will the characters behave maturely, at least by the end? Does might make right, or will there be a greater wisdom?

(Rick, any thoughts on the possibility of most of the Jefferies design hiding inside of that thing?)

216. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 22, 2009

Seeing the full bridge makes me like it more.

I particularly like the floor. Though I do want my bright red railing back, I’ll live without it. And it looks like they’ve got the lift in the right place.

217. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#185—“Poopeyface – I think it’s terrific your kids would rather play with baseballs and footballs than dollies. Sound like great kids.”

Thanks. I like to think so!

218. TrekTwenty - January 22, 2009

if they made a cell phone that looked like the communicator, i’d buy it..

219. Planet Pandro - January 22, 2009

All I can hope is if I were serving aboard a starship, my battlestations position would be in the brewery. “We’re under attack! To the brewery!”

I did have higher hopes for the bridge playset, I remember my TNG set from playmates and it was great. It had, you know, um…walls. I have to confess, my 1st thought at seeing the bridge playset was: “There’s that Son’a command ship bridge playset I always never wanted!”

But you what? I’m sure I’ll still buy one, and all the figures, and role-playing items, and ships, and then have a good time playing with…I mean displaying them. Yeah.

220. Kuvagh - January 22, 2009

Bridge:

I wonder why they got rid of the ergonomic controls concept. I mean, that was one of the most forward-looking aspects of the original bridge, and something which the general public actually has some exposure to these days. I guess you don’t need to worry about carpal tunnel with Dr. McCoy around, but hey.

221. Steve From NY - January 22, 2009

BTW here’s the link to those other pics i was telling you all about. If you haven’t seen them yet :

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5265&page=2

222. ben - January 22, 2009

192
That’s unfortunate. I wish I could still find the fiber optic Ent-A & D for sale. I think I finally have the expertise to get them to work. (So much more skill than when I was 14!)

195
I’m glad to know that if any agrees with me it’s Rick Sternbach.
The three copies of ST:TNG Technical Manual (2 worn out from use), 14 models of ST ships, Ent-D Blueprints, are all smiling.
The ships of Star Trek inspired me to go in to aerospace engineering, this new one ain’t doin’ it for me.

201
“But, as Sternbach said above, we aren’t running the zoo.”

Correction: We are the zoo.

223. Capt Mike Of Federation. - January 22, 2009

Ok. Im 40 and i will be getting the Big E. Ok im a Kid at hart what can i say. Now if i can just get these in the Style of the Terran Empire. Then Ill be truly Happy. Oh and Great Work Anthony. You are a Gem. Live long and prosper. Or. Long live the Terran Empire.

224. Ensign Ricky - January 22, 2009

What? Still only one turbolift!

225. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

So is the concensus here that the phaser looks good? Because, man, that clear blue and red plastic bugs me. And gleaming chrome weaponry isn’t exactly stealthy. Of course, neither are red shirts on your security personell. Maybe that’s one reason they got offed so easily.

226. T.U.M. - January 22, 2009

The 12″ Kirk sort of looks like Scott Bukula.

227. CMX54 - January 22, 2009

#221

The “Narada” pic looks like a nest built by a drunk bird, or a big bug splattered all over a car windshield.

228. Will - January 22, 2009

I finally figured out why I’m not digging the communicator. It looks incredibly generic, like a bootleg toy you’d find in China that had Trek emblems stuck on after the fact… or, alternately, like something that was rejected from Power Rangers.

229. Weerd1 - January 22, 2009

I think when I put my bridge together I am going to leave the window/workscreens off. The more I look at it, the more they bug me. Seems like they would get in the way, clear or not. Does remind me a little of CIC from Galactica… I think I would rather see grey carpets instead of the earthtones too. I am still overall pleased. The Tricorder reminds me of the cassette player toy tricorder from the 70’s.

230. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

And once again for those late to the game here’s your beloved Lord Garth’s take on the new Enterprise

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

Enjoy or bitch

231. LoyalStarTrekFan - January 22, 2009

I think that the Phaser image from WizardUniverse is probably a early model photographed under bad lighting. Just my thought. I look forward to a better image of the Phaser. I’m looking forward to these items being released.

232. bdrcarter - January 22, 2009

Why are so many Trekkers resistant to change? Seems to go against the principles of the show.

Aren’t you glad we have a movie coming out soon and Paramount is actually spending money on it? That they’re trying for a wider audience? That they’re trying to show the rest of the world what we’ve known all along…just how amazing Star Trek is in the era of Kirk and Spock? But c’mon…it can’t be done with an exact replica of the sets/props/costumes from the 1960s and all the baggage that would come with it. IMHO…I think we’re getting the best of both worlds aesthetically. They’re honoring the original concepts but updating them for a 21st century audience. How many young people will be seeing Star Trek for the first time and becoming lifelong fans? It gives me chills just thinking about it. But trust me…if Chris Pine pulls out an exact replica of a TOS phaser…game over. The audience would laugh and it would be Galaxy Quest.

Give the director/producers/writers/actors the benefit of the doubt. They didn’t just fall off of the turnip truck and win their positions in a lottery. They earned the right to be calling the shots on this movie. I think they know what they’re doing.

233. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

I’ll “bitch” or something – I do prefer Church’s version.

234. Al Hartman - January 22, 2009

Bones: Jim! He’s dead Jim!

Kirk: Who’s dead Bones?

Bones: Scotty is dead… He fell into one of the brewery vats and drowned!

Kirk: Oh my…. Bones! Did he suffer much?

Bones: We don’t think so… he climbed out three times to pee!

235. SPOCKBOY - January 22, 2009

#230,
Good work.
: )

236. IcebreakerX - January 22, 2009

155: What I mean is that stuff like the antenna having a cutout (why NOT protect the screen?), the antenna not appearing to have any sort of function other than to flip (at least with brass you KNOW it’s an antenna), and the control surface (?) looks like it’s from the “Star Wars” movies (not to be confused with the Star Wars movies).

Again, maybe some ILM makes it look cooler, but as a device design, you could tell me it’s a 23rd century bento box and I couldn’t tell the difference.

237. Weerd1 - January 22, 2009

232-
I can’t speak for all Canonites, but I will speak for me. I am not resistant to change. I am fond of the new designs, but as far as your question “aren’t you glad they are going for a wider audience?”…
Well. No. I’m not. I like Star Trek because it is SMARTER than the vast majority of televised media. Unfortunately, most intelligent entertainment falls into a niche market. Most successful entertainment appeals to the lowest common denominator audience. There are exceptions which capitalize on other aspects- Star Wars used mythological memes to get mass appeal; we all recognize Darth Vader as the Black Knight, etc. However, I don’t think anyone would argue Star Wars was intellectually challenging. The best Star Trek is intellectually challenging- the most popular Star Trek fim to date (STIV, and please someone check my numbers) adjusted for inflation was fun, but not really an intellectual challenge.

It is my hope the writers of this film managed to make it entertaining, fun, AND SMART. If they did, I am on board. If they made it for a mass audience and left out the brains… then I will stick to my old DVDs.

(Please someone respond with “Brain, Brain, what is Brain?”)

238. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

Thanks Bailey I knew I could count on you for some poopoo (LOL)

Thanks Paul (Spockboy to all you newbies) now if I can talk you, Broadway or even the erstwhile Bailey into do a CG version my life would be complete!!!

239. Planet Pandro - January 22, 2009

#232-Good points. Amidst all the changes, perhaps we should not be looking at it in terms of all the differences, but instead, how much of TOS was actually retained. From this perspective, although different, the communicator still looks like a communicator, the phaser still resembles a phaser, the bridge is still circular w/ captains chair and helm console, the ship is still called enterprise and has a saucer, 2 nacelles and secondary hull, everyone’s the same gender as was in TOS, romulans, klingons, turbolifts, shuttles, uniforms, transporters, sickbay, starfleet academy…the list goes on and on. In the face of an all out reboot that would bear no likeness to Trek except in name, I’d like to think we’re getting quite a treat!

240. THX-1138 - January 22, 2009

To all those who cannot understand that some of us may not like the new E design:

Why is it so important that we must all just love this new Enterprise? It ‘aint my favorite, that’s it. I, personally, haven’t asked for an exact replica of everything from the 60’s. But I also haven’t asked for what I’ve seen either. I will reserve final judgement until I see the movie, of course. But do you expect that nobody can have a dissenting opinion til May? Does the thought of someone not seeing things exactly as you do cause undue distress?

Some guys like skinny girls. Others prefer more ample ladies. And some don’t like women at all but are attracted to men. It’s called a preference. Or personal taste. Or just how you are.

And #234

That’s friggin’ funny!

241. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

#238: “Thanks Bailey I knew I could count on you for some poopoo (LOL)”

Well, come on – we can’t *always* only comment on the work of people who aren’t here. LOL

242. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

Hey Bailey Boy. I just realized I have the V series on DVD. Thanks for reminding me I bought it last year and never watched it. All i recall of it is Marc Singer and Michale Ironside.

On the Church design I must say I prefer my warp engines circumcized

243. Kev - January 22, 2009

it looks like a modernized, bobslied version of the enterprise

244. Spock with a Crowbar - January 22, 2009

Man, everything looks fine except… the phaser! It looks like a toy you’d get from the Dollar Store!

Just read Countdown #1….sooo short.

245. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - January 22, 2009

Anthony here’s a link to the new Trek Blu Ray art courtesy of our firend Bill Hunt and digital bits

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

246. Thomas - January 22, 2009

210. Dennis Bailey,
I wish I had seen that article sooner, as I live less than half a mile from the brewery. I might have tried to get over there. I also live a couple of miles from CSUN, where they filmed the Starfleet Academy scenes, so I could’ve at least gotten a view of something if I had tried (or known about them, for that matter).

247. Dr. Image - January 22, 2009

#232 dbrcarter– “Why are so many Trekkers resistant to change?”

Because change without constructive purpose is illogical and goes against 40 years of history.
And change for the sake of change is asinine.
(I love how the buzzword “change” has somehow now become a cure-all
among the half-educated.)

“But trust me…if Chris Pine pulls out an exact replica of a TOS phaser…game over. The audience would laugh and it would be Galaxy Quest.”

?????????? I’m almost speechless………..
If you knew anything about the complexity of construction and design philosophy of Jefferies’ TOS phaser, you wouldn’t think so.
And, after seeing that silver abomination they’re calling a phaser, I’m convinced you’ve got it backwards.
That thing looks like something STRAIGHT out of GQ!!!

248. Kev - January 22, 2009

it looks like a modernized, bobsled version of the enterprise. if the neck and saucer we’re moved forward and the engines a little further out it would be perfect, that being said it’s1000 times better than the nx 01

249. Lu-Wan (JE) - January 22, 2009

Here’s an idea, lets change everything and make the tech look more advanced than the predecessor.

Sound familiar? If this is Enterprise all over again, I may have to find a new sci-fi. I refuse to go back to Star Wars and I’m already a Galactica fan so I guess I’ll have to look into… Stargate

250. Lucas - January 22, 2009

247: Well if the props are a deal breaker for you, then I guess you wont be seeing the new movie.

Buh bye?

251. KMKProd - January 22, 2009

The more I look at the new toy pics of the E, the more I think the pic released by Paramount had a “Fisheye Lens” effect to it. The toy shots look pretty good, but that one at wizarduniverse–with its differences–makes me very curious.

252. Tiberius - January 22, 2009

Although the toy of the Enterprise looks better than the image from the film, I still think the ship looks wonky. The whole thing is too compact and close together, making the front look lopsided. The neck going so far back erases any semblance of sleekness.

I’ll still see the film. I buy into the alternate timeline explanation, but I can’t get into that ship. The designer should be shot. I only hope the ship changes form by the end of the film.

But then, I hope they are able to slip us back into a more familiar timeline once they defeat Nero.

253. SPOCKBOY - January 22, 2009

Not to beat a dead horse but I took the new nacelles and put it on the TMP Enterprise and the result is surprisingly good.
This is more what I was hoping for….

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/spockboy/PERFECTENTERPRISE.jpg

horse officially dead now.

: )

254. OneBuckFilms - January 22, 2009

You know, all these complaints about the design of the Phaser.

I might be in the minority, but I actually like it.

255. Capt. of the USS Anduril - January 22, 2009

I love the new Enterprise, so I will buy it. I just hope that Playmates has evolved over the years and has abandoned the stickers for the name and registry, etc.

256. SPOCKBOY - January 22, 2009

I like the phaser too.

257. bdrcarter - January 22, 2009

237…

I’m absolutely with you on “smart.” It is synonymous with Star Trek…in most cases. (Brain, brain…what is brain!) I guess I’ve made the assumption that it will be. I hope I wasn’t too generous with that assumption.

If it’s a good Star Trek story first and foremost…wouldn’t it be great that a wider audience embraces it. Even better if the Star Wars contingent (new trilogy) reacts with something like…”ohhhhh, it can look pretty AND actually tell a substantial story.”

258. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

#246:”210. Dennis Bailey,
I wish I had seen that article sooner, as I live less than half a mile from the brewery. I might have tried to get over there. ”

Yeah, I didn’t find the article until shortly after the November trailer came out and someone who intimated that they worked on the movie made a remark about Engineering and a brewery on TrekBBS. So I went Googling and came up with that.

259. Mark - January 22, 2009

Spockboy,

Thant looks good. But then again, I’m alright with the new ship.

260. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

#252:”Not to beat a dead horse but I took the new nacelles and put it on the TMP Enterprise and the result is surprisingly good.”

That looks *great!*

I like these nacelles better than the ones on the ST:TMP version of the ship – but I always did prefer the TOS cylindrical nacelles to those.

261. ben - January 22, 2009

239
“Amidst all the changes, perhaps we should not be looking at it in terms of all the differences, but instead, how much of TOS was actually retained”
• gogo-boots
• mini skirts
• pajama uniforms
• an ungainly, impractical-looking starship that will have to be tweaked to become truly beautiful
• and if we’re really unlucky, the prime directive..

247
“The audience would laugh and it would be Galaxy Quest”
• Tribbles
• “warp particles”
• Klingon zits
• a spaceship that comes looking for whales…
Sorry, were you looking for some dignity to protect?

249
“I may have to find a new sci-fi”
Battlestar Galactica: Cancelled
Stargate SG-1: Cancelled
Stargate Atlantis: Cancelled
Stargate Universe = Stargate Atlantis does ST: Voyager with Sliders
we’ll see how long that lasts…

262. Dennis Bailey - January 22, 2009

#247:”If you knew anything about the complexity of construction and design philosophy of Jefferies’ TOS phaser, you wouldn’t think so.”

I have a pretty fair idea of all of that, and I agree with him.

263. SPOCKBOY - January 22, 2009

#257

Thanks.
I’m actually glad people are accepting the new ship. I’m not sure if I can, but I am still extremely excited about the new movie. I like the saucer and the nacelles, does that count? ; )

By they way did anyone else notice that on the toy Enterprise the NCC-1701 isn’t at the edge of the saucer but more like the original?

: )

264. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - January 22, 2009

Toys look Kool. Must have them. Must have a Terran Empire of them as well.

265. bdrcarter - January 22, 2009

247…

Have to disagree. This change (my half-education aside for the moment) is absolutely required. Despite the intricacies of the original prop construction, they were still cobbled together from whatever they could get their hands on…including garden hose fasteners. Irrespective of their ingenuity, the fact is that the design aesthetic of the mid-60’s will look horribly dated on a big screen in the 21st century. What may be canon to you and I will come across as charming at best…laughable at worst…to the majority of modern film audiences.

And before we get too exclusionary about the IQ requirements to be Trekkers, let’s think for a minute about economics; if this movie isn’t a huge financial success (in excess of $250mm in domestic box office), Star Trek will be put into mothballs for a long, long time. I’d much rather give the production team of Star Trek 2009 some latitude in their judgement for what “will sell” to today’s audiences than see our beloved universe and characters fade into obscurity…kept alive only in the fading memories of the faithful and dust covered DVD packages. (Especially since they have made such an effort to retain the spirit of the original source material!)

I hope this new incarnation will allow our passion for the vision of Gene Roddenberry, and the original cast and crew, to be shared with a much broader fan base.

266. Charlie - January 22, 2009

SMOKIN’ HOT BETTER THAN THE PLAYSETS I HAD AS A KID!!!

Although, the committee is still out on the communicator. I’ll have to see it in action before it can be considered for acceptance.

I hope I don’t have to “spin” the Transporter like I did as a kid. My guys kept falling out and “jammin’ the bloody thing!”

267. bdrcarter - January 22, 2009

239…

I reach Brother Pandro!

268. Gelpack78 - January 22, 2009

I have to be honest here. IM kinda upset that the only way that we get to see the new Enterprise in another view is with a toy. It’s cool, but toys are never really that accurate. I would love to just be able to see more of the real thing that’s all. Just in case I spoiled all the fun, IM very sorry.

269. Kirk's Girdle - January 22, 2009

Jeez, there’s seating for 17 people on that bridge (and 2 standing)

270. DmsDyMach - January 22, 2009

Want to like these but cannot do it.
Enterprise still looks like someone viewing it through Coke Bottles. Spockboy’s image vastly superior.

Bridge…overdone and too busy. Doesn’t need those useless glass panels.
Transporter…not bad.

Phaser…Meh!
Communicator…Bleah!!

If this is the future of Trek, then it’s time for the franchise to go far, far away for a very long, long time.

271. Lucas - January 22, 2009

270: The way it was going before this movie came along, Trek would never have come back. I guess you miss the days of klingon Zits..

272. C.S. Lewis - January 22, 2009

I’m terribly sorry, but these designs, at least as shown above, are busy, somewhat chaotic, and certainly not iconic. Actually, they are forgettable if I may say it plainly.

Perhaps this necessarily that follows 100 years of filmed science fiction, which is to say, Star Trek had fertile, passably virgin ground to plow whereas this movie is trodding the path oft taken. Expecting design excellence merely asks too much under the circumstances. But then, Why mess with a good thing?

Change for the sake of change? It is the mantra of the peasantry!

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

273. Chris M - January 22, 2009

Awesome! Finally a look at the toys for the new movie!

274. THE GOVERNATOR - January 22, 2009

The people in this chatroom make me laugh histerically.

#247: Dr. Image,
Jeffries’ TOS phaser more real than the new one? What are you smokin’. That thing was made out of cardboard/plastic. Change for the sake of change? It seems pretty necessary to me. You obviously don’t give a damn about the survival of this franchise, because if you did, you would not be asking the questions you are asking now.

If you ask me, It’s all great. I like and will always like the original, but hey, this looks pretty good too.

275. THE GOVERNATOR - January 22, 2009

#271: C.S. Lewis

You continue to perplex me.

276. Scotty's Mustache - January 22, 2009

247
as are your conclusions.

277. Stanky McFibberich - January 22, 2009

I will put this as diplomatically as I can.
That bridge design makes me want to vomit.

278. Stanky McFibberich - January 22, 2009

re:265
“if this movie isn’t a huge financial success (in excess of $250mm in domestic box office), Star Trek will be put into mothballs for a long, long time. I’d much rather give the production team of Star Trek 2009 some latitude in their judgement for what “will sell” to today’s audiences than see our beloved universe and characters fade into obscurity”

It seems the latitude has been overstepped.

279. trekboi - January 22, 2009

so dissapointed by the “PLAYSET” its not a PLAY SET its a F#$%ING floorplan with furniture- iS it too much to ask for a original enterprise bridge playset with walls and complete console stations- everything else looks ok…

280. Yammer - January 22, 2009

Nooo!!! The walls are not plain grey, illuminated by bright circles of pink and purple gels!!! Change is wrong!!! Clearly, Paramount has forgotten that Star Trek is real and actually happened, and therefore cannot possibly look slightly different!!!

281. barrydancer - January 22, 2009

The new Enterprise still isn’t growing on me. I think it’s the saucer. It’s too far back on the neck, and it’s design clashes with the rest of the ship. Like they tried to shoehorn two different design aesthetics together.

282. Aragorn189 - January 22, 2009

Phaser- good update, althought the upper cowling above the emitter makes it look like the phaser could be cocked like a automatic handgun

Tricorder- good, but I miss the straps.

Communicator- Update is good, but I miss the gold that was in the original.

Ship- still looks good

bridge- Looks very good according the floor plan. Can’t wait to see it in the film

transporter- can’t wait to see it in action in the film. Aesthetic is good.

Good update overall. We’ll have to wait for the toys to come out to answer some of the discrepancies between images and the film to see them in action. Can May get here any faster?

283. Captain Crawford - January 22, 2009

Minor disappointment that they’re going with 3.75″ figures instead of 4″. Hopefully, those bridge and transporter playsets will still be compatible with my TOS figures. I am definitely getting that Enterprise.

284. Mark - January 22, 2009

#278
Your opinion; I think the feeling by most is all this is acceptable if the movie delivers.

285. XXX STAR TREK - January 22, 2009

What the hell is with those stupid mats? What ever happened to the cool complete bridge playsets of yesteryear? And did you read that it said that the bridge only comes with helm, chair, and a couple of consoles, but, that you have to get the extra pieces from the action figs?

286. FSL - January 22, 2009

A much better look at the enterprise. Kinda feels like they Wing Commander-rised it a little, especially the nacelles. Still thinks it’s a little cramped with the nacelles so close to the saucer. But this is a better angle for the ship.

Love the phaser and tricorder. They seem to retain the most from TOS design. The communicator though… still look like a Moto to me…

287. FSL - January 22, 2009

Is it just me? Or does the bridge looks like a Voyager’s bridge on Red Alert?

288. Dirty D - January 22, 2009

Sweet, can’t wait to pick up most of this stuff. April 19th is going to be fun. And if the wife catches how much i am spending, in the famous words of Worf. “Maybe today is a good day to die.” but hopefully she will let me live to see the movie.

289. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 22, 2009

69. 1

Thanks for the Wizard link.

The E is still missing the mark for me. Interesting indeed. But I still prefer the original and TMPs over that. Although I must say the new design looks good moving around onscreen.

Lord Garth, nice render. But again, I am still bugged by the new E. Even with the “lighted” nacelles.

The new Phaser and Comunicator miss mark.

The Phaser looks like a combination of STII’s phaser and a Klingon Disruptor.

The Communicator looks silly too. How many times in the original did the crew have thier equipment stolen? Now they know where Kirk and company are really from. Lookee, a nice little map underneath. And the big “eye” on top? Again, silly. This year major electronic manufacturers are comming out with new tiny cameras on phones that you can barley see. They are even embedding them within the laptop’s screens, within the center of the display itself. To have a bulbous camera that size is really streching it for me. Unless it also has a fully functioning holographic projector built in. Now would’nt that make sense?

Also the phasers should always be able to “sense” who the owner is biometricly, before firing. I think we will see that technology very soon in our current day side-arms. It just makes sense, so that an opponent would not be able to fire your own weapon.

Sorry, but if I had the choice, I would always choose this one version.

http://www.phasers.net/2260/p2-ck08.jpg

The girl, although crazy, does it for me too! ; )

290. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 22, 2009

Sorry, edit.

The Phaser looks like a combination of “STIII’s phaser and a Eminiaran Disruptor.”

291. DJT - January 22, 2009

How long before this movie comes out?

I need to start saving up now for my movie ticket.

292. Mr. "There are always possibilities." - January 22, 2009

“This is an alternative timeline.”

“Leonard Nimoy and Majel Rodenberry are in it.”

“It is being done with love and affection”

If I keep saying those things over and over, then maybe I’ll be over my perception that a hot shot hollywood director has come in and imposed his “divine wil and vision” on us lowlies who can’t understand the “big picture” by the time the movie comes out.

Personally I like the set from that KFC commercial better than I like the toy now official bridge.

Maybe this movie will be great. Maybe all of my worries will be for naught. After all, “there are always possibilities”.

293. Adam Cohen - January 22, 2009

#260 Dennis

Sacrilege! TMP refit is the greatest ship design of any Starship named “Enterprise.” Those nacelles on her… gorgeous non-cylindrical beauties. Cylinders are to wide-tab collars what refit engines are to Armani suits.

294. Dr. Image - January 22, 2009

Ok, ok. Nothing matters…NO details matter… as long as the movie makes money….yeah… blah, blah, blah.
To all who have flamed me, notice I’m not the only one who has problems with all this stuff.
Or are you all to busy breathing each other’s fumes to notice?
How can I put this? “Buh bye!”

295. Mark - January 22, 2009

Hope to see you again after May 8th, Dr.

296. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 22, 2009

287 FSL — “Is it just me? Or does the bridge looks like a Voyager’s bridge on Red Alert?”

I second that.

297. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 22, 2009

293 — Adam Cohen — “#260 Dennis — Sacrilege! TMP refit is the greatest ship design of any Starship named ‘Enterprise.’ Those nacelles on her… gorgeous non-cylindrical beauties. Cylinders are to wide-tab collars what refit engines are to Armani suits.”

Couldn’t disagree with you more. To paraphrase Sin City, the TMP nacelles “look like electric razors”.

In truth, I do like the TMP nacelles, but I was really looking forward to the cylindrical design coming back for this movie. I like the fact that they are fluted a bit, so that they are slightly cone-shaped instead of perfectly cylindrical… that’s a compromise that still honors the original look, IMO.

298. New Horizon - January 22, 2009

289. TrekMadeMeWonder – January 22, 2009
The E is still missing the mark for me. Interesting indeed. But I still prefer the original and TMPs over that. Although I must say the new design looks good moving around onscreen.

Are you basing that on the few seconds we caught in the trailer? I would need to see more to really know if it looks good on screen.

299. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 22, 2009

294. Dr. Image

I share your reservations with almost ALL of the art direction on this movie. Sorry, my opinion. A dissenting opinion is not a bad thing when accompanied by logic. Stick around and try to keep an open mind about seeing the Trek XI.

The story should carry the movie. Hopefully.

But will we ever again see the pre/TOS Federation and Kirk and company as they “should appear” on the big screen?

I doubt it.

300. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 22, 2009

Wait a minute.

What I’d really like to see is our ol’ familiar TOS crew (and ship) back together again “on the small screen.” Telling us new morality stories for all the masses and all the ages.

301. CarlG - January 22, 2009

@294: So, see you next week then Dr. Image?

302. THE GOVERNATOR - January 22, 2009

Well Dr. Image, you are not alone, but you are in a minority. Oh, and I would be most interested to see what you think of the movie after you’ve actually seen it, like all of us. My suspicion is, however, that even if it is the best movie ever created, you still won’t like it. But hey, I’ve been wrong before.

303. CarlG - January 22, 2009

@302: Well, I’m sure he’ll need to watch it at 10-15 time to properly evaluate its awfulness. And maybe a few times in IMAX to be on the safe side. ;)

304. AdmNaismith - January 22, 2009

The Enterprise looks like an ugly kit-bash.
Objectively, none of the basic design elements match, and they are all out of proportion with each other.
Subjectively, it has none of the grace or stateliness of the refitted TMP Enterprise.
I admit bias, the TMP Enterprise is my favorite Sci-Fi spaceship design, but there is still a lot of design weirdness going on (and the Bridge looks over-designed).
The Transporter Room looks cool.

305. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 22, 2009

Hmmm. the art direction debate continues.

Interesting.

306. MacKenzie Calhoun - January 22, 2009

If these previews are any indication, I will probably love the story and most of the casting, but HATE the production design.

Sorry, but the Enterprise redesign just isn’t good! TMP Enterprise is still the best version. Shame they couldn’t come up with something better, but they clearly didn’t!

The Bridge is WAY TOO busy, bright, and silly looking. It’s looks like an Apple store, and I keep looking around the bridge for the Genius Bar!

The Props are no improvement. The Phaser looks like something from a 50’s sci-fi flick. This isn’t the kind of prop fanboys will drool over. It’s no Han Solo blaster, or Original phaser. It’s just lame! The Communicator looks more retro than the original, which is just weird, but true! The Tricorder is okay, but that’s because it seems closest to the original design. Too bad they didn’t follow that design ideal with the Phasers and Communcators.

307. Devon - January 23, 2009

“Sorry, but the Enterprise redesign just isn’t good! TMP Enterprise is still the best version. Shame they couldn’t come up with something better, but they clearly didn’t!”

Yet, the positive response in this talkback section says otherwise.. odd.

“The Bridge is WAY TOO busy, bright, and silly looking. It’s looks like an Apple store, and I keep looking around the bridge for the Genius Bar!”

Im curious where these Apple Stores are that resemble starship bridges? If so, Id like to know so I can go make some visits.

308. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 23, 2009

Sounds like MacKenzie Calhoun is giving us his own impression of the new designs, Devon. I would not take it so litterally, but I get your point.

309. Mark Lynch - January 23, 2009

Although I have never been great at making model kits I have always enjoyed those that I have done. Mainly Star Trek I might add!

If you want to see a great model maker at work, go to http://www.nemvia.com/ and click on the links which show his Polar Lights Enterprise and Dry Dock projects.

This gentleman has modded the heck out of a Polar Lights Enterprise and then scratch built the Dry Dock around it. The Enterprise actually looks as if it floats there.

Check it out and see a (IMO) truly great model maker at work.

I do hope they bring out some accurate model kits of at least the ships from the new movie. Who knows, I might even have a go at building them.

310. bdrcarter - January 23, 2009

278…

Only time will tell.

311. Star Trek Daily Pic » Archive » Daily Pic # 341, New Movie Toys! - January 23, 2009

[…] Images have been released of some of the new toys coming from Playmates for the new “Star Trek” movie.  Here you see most of the new cast/crew and a bridge set.  Looking pretty snazzy to me!  Learn more HERE. […]

312. Browncoat aka Space Cowboy - January 23, 2009

I don’t have too much faith in Playmates’ distribution in Canada….outside of Stinking Toronto….I doubt if the entire line will be available again or sufficient quantities, meaning I’ll be left out again.

313. AdamTrek - January 23, 2009

All I want to know is if the Enterprise has a warp core that will be shown on screen. I’m not too keen on this brewery-for-an-engine-room business.

All of this talk about pipes and valves, etc. sounds too mid 20-century for me. Not a 23rd century technological marvel that is made up of mostly technobabble.

=A=

314. Mark - January 23, 2009

#306

Ahh, the Apple store comment… again… How original…

315. The Angry Klingon - January 23, 2009

A friend of mine is in the movie in the brewery…err…engine room. He said it was very surreal
A. Being in a Star Trek Movie
B. Pretending that this Brewery was part of the Enterprise.
Again, youd think with a budget like this one they couldve come up with something a little better. Pepper Mills, Breweries. Bar code Scanners…the set designs sound more like TGIFridays then Trek. It will be interesting to see how much ‘flair’ the crew is required to wear.
Keep your eyes peeled on the bridge for a red stapler….

316. Al Hartman - January 23, 2009

Why are people saying that the tricorder looks the closest to the original design?

Are you folks blind?

It looks NOTHING like the origional design.

Geez! Get some fricken glasses!

Carry on…

317. Mark - January 23, 2009

I’ll say this: now that the cat is out of the bag on the designs of many of these things, I think it would be a wise move for Abrams and crew to start letting out better pics of the ship, phasers, sets, etc.

I have little doubt the actual designs will look better than toys, folks. But, proof would be nice, JJ.

318. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2009

#293: “Sacrilege! TMP refit is the greatest ship design of any Starship named “Enterprise.” Those nacelles on her… gorgeous non-cylindrical beauties. Cylinders are to wide-tab collars what refit engines are to Armani suits.”

No, actually those engines kind of suck. I notice that they were the biggest of the design refinements for the TMP ship that didn’t stick around into the 24th or 22nd century…

As for the tricorder – yeah, it’s pretty close to the original in some surprising respects. The hinged door on the front and the top cover which rotates open are two obvious ones.

319. kye - January 23, 2009

I absolutely love these! I have been a fan of trek for 35 years and i welcome the new look! I will definately be hunting these bad boys down when they come out. Also the pics of the ships , one looks like a prototype and the other looks like the finished design. I just love the new Es look. I think that gene would have also agreed with this new look because as was stated earlier back in the 60s they didnt really have the technology and the budget.
I think that the movie is going to do extremely well and the toys will definetly sell…well maybe all except the 12inch spock (younger).

320. Ray D - January 23, 2009

I just saw a new pic that TREKNEWS.COM added of the Enterprise and yes just like I feared, Playmates once again ruined the toy line.
Enterprise looks just as cheesy as the ships did in the 90’s. Paramount should of left the licensing with Art Asylum for the ships since
They make a better product. I have all the toys from Playmates from 1992 to the end, I was hoping to see better toys from Playmates..
I hope Art Asylum will be able to do the new Enterprise in the future. I was gonna get it but not now. No way.

321. THX-1138 - January 23, 2009

You know, just because I like to throw gas on a fire………….

Has anyone ever noticed that very, very rarely has any one of the detractors of the new E design made an attack such as name calling or questioning of “fanhood” of those who support the changes? Bur it seems to happen with some frequency the other way around?

Curious.

322. Mark - January 23, 2009

THX-1138

Well, have you noticed that many of the detractors of the new E design make the implication that those of us who are willing to give it a chance are not real fans of the original show like them, and that we are not as “smart” or that we are somehow just drinking the Kool-aid?

Curious.

323. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#321 & #322

Everybody’s entitled to his/her own opinion and sense of taste. So why argue about it ?

I think it’s one of the ugliest ships ever to come out of Star Trek. Even the Kelvin, with only one nacelle and a new layout looks more like a fed ship.
I actually have the Kelvin as my desktop background on my computer at the university. Several colleagues have asked me, what universe it belongs to. When I answered “Star Trek”, they didn’t believe me until I showed it to them in the trailer. The production design of this movie seriously messes up the established “corporate identity” of Star Trek. Basically: Sleek ships with a saucer and TWO nacelles. My gf had a similar reaction, but then she was probably influenced by me.

Another point is what Rick Sternbach has mentioned several times. The design doesn’t make any sense in terms of plausibilty in fake 23rd century tech. I mean look at it: The pylons are attached to the sides of the main shuttlebay ?

My biggest fear is, that it’ll be seen as a parody. Look at this parody of Voyager: http://memory-alpha.org/de/wiki/Bild:Parodie_Surprise.jpg
It was in a German SciFi comedy a few years back. What has been done here is to make the design more round and cramped. Now apply the same principles to the original Enterprise… and you get… well that ship above.

Change is good, but only change that makes sense. Jeffries put thought i nto his Enterprise. This Enterprise is an artistically distorted view on the original design. There’s no engineering approach. It’s just not believable

324. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 23, 2009

309 – Mark Lynch – I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but wow! that guy ain’t kidding around. That model work is movie-worthy….

325. Mark - January 23, 2009

Listen,I’ve got a degree in engineering, but I also realize this is in a MAKE BELIEVE universe. So what if the pylons attach to the side of the shuttlebay? You are trying to justify the engineering of a ship in the 23rd century by our knowledge of engineering in the 20th?

If we want to try to play the silly game that this ought to be understandable and make sense, then I can just as easily assume that the structural supports for the secondary hull and the pylons are reinforced in some way that 23rd century engineering allows, or with some new alloy. It really isn’t that complicated unless you just don’t like it. I mean, I could make the same argument with people in the 16th century saying there would be no way to make a modern day skyscraper– but, we make them, don’t we? With their understanding they could not, but with our understanding we can. So, why not apply that to the engineering of the new Trek?

And that is what it comes down to– whether you are disposed to like it or not. If you don’t like it, then just say so and leave it at that. That’s fine, and we can all get along and sing Kumbiya with one another. Like the movie or don’t like it. I’ll give it a chance. But, let’s not appeal to “the design isn’t good engineering” garbage. We are going to get upset about this but not worry about the real life likelihood of phasers, transporters, warp drive or time travel? Please.

This is FICTION. But, if these ships were designed in real life, I don’t think they would be designed with thin strips of metal — easily destroyed– and corridors joining the saucer section, secondary hull and pylons together.

Again, if you don’t like it, hey, that’s cool. If I see you on the street, I’ll still love you as a human being. But, don’t hold ship designs to our understanding of it.

326. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2009

#321, post #322 has it exactly right.

One “side” is not less fair or nastier than the other, here – it’s just that the preferred accusations are different from one group to the other. I cannot count the number of times I’ve been accused of being “easily satisfied” by “any old thing the name ‘Star Trek’ is slapped on” because I don’t agree with the crankiest of the self-professed “TOS purists” here.

They also often like to make the generalization that this film is acceptable only to “youngsters” who are somehow not as clever or discriminating in their tastes as Baby Boomers (now there’s a concept) and who are derided as “the ADHD/kewl/MTV generation.”

Odd that, since MTV stopped being a useful generational touchstone about ten years ago.

As someone who was twelve years old when NBC premiered “Star Trek” I tend to notice this nonsense. Let’s not go pretending that the TOS-Onlies here are any better in their approach to argument than anyone else – they’re definitely not.

327. McCoy - January 23, 2009

I think those of who sometimes indicate the changes will only appeal to youngsters are only trying to grasp “why” those changes were made at all. We’re not seeing the improvement. A valid reason for altering anything would be to “update” the look and make it feel more like the future.

From the big E all the way to the bridge, the phaser, communicator and tricorder, I’m not seeing the future here, just changes.

I don’t think there is a valid argument for changing anything beyond upgrading textures and apparent quality unless you are targeting a more futuristic feeling. What we have here is “different retro”.

328. Peter - January 23, 2009

Will this stuff be available via amazon.com?

329. Katarian Eggs - January 23, 2009

Hideous.
The toys look as terrible as the screen shots and the designs reflect a total lack of imagination & respect for the history of this franchise.
Pure drivel…everything I see about this movie makes me more & more loathsome of it’s production.
It’s official, Star Trek is over!

330. Al Hartman - January 23, 2009

#318 – Nope, it looks nothing like a TOS Tricorder. Not in the least.

You need glasses.

Having an opening door and a top cover doesn’t mean it resembles a TOS Tricorder.

I build props. I own two TOS Tricorder replicas. I know the difference.

331. I am Kurok! - January 23, 2009

The Big E looks sharp: Movie-style saucer, beefy retro-looking engines. I think that once we grow accustomed it, eventually the TOS Enterprise will look “underpowered”

Okay, now we get a full view of the bridge: seems little cramped. It looks about 30% larger than the TOS one, has almost twice the crew (I always thought that six or seven crewmen seemed a little “light” to fly and manage a spaceship longer than a football field.)

What’s up with the glass screens? When the big E is getting hit with disruptors photorps or whatever, and you are being tossed around (still no seatbelts!) do you really want plate glass around you?

Sarcasm aside, It still looks fantastic! They did a GREAT job!

I have no doubt that the Big E will undergo refits for future movies (there were three or four in the movies, I think) I look forward to see how “the future of the past” will take shape.

332. THX-1138 - January 23, 2009

Dennis and Mark.

I’m not talking about anything other than the Enterprise design. That’s why I worded it that way. I didn’t say anything about this movie being for youngsters. And I am not a TOS purist or a TOS only person. I really love TNG, too. I also haven’t seen a post here that mentions that a pro new design person was of less intelligence or less of a fan. I have seen a lot of posts that refer to people who don’t care much for this design as whiners. Actually, quite often.

I am disagreeing with a point of view, but I don’t think I have stepped over to the whining just yet. Speaking for myself, I still want to see this movie. But I also can understand if someone decides not to go to this movie based on what they have seen so far. And I have also seen a bunch of other posters pile on them and accuse them of not being honest about it; saying that said person will probably go see it 10 or 15 times. Basically calling the person a liar.

And I don’t think it’s “kewl”.

333. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#325

I assume, you are refering to my post earlier.
I know it’s all make believe. That’s the point. Something is all the more believable when it doesn’t fall apart as soon as you scratch the surface.
Why is Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings or Rowling’s Harry Potter such a big success ? The answer is simple, the deliver a universe/world/whatever that is in itself consistent. Tolkien created everything around his stories in minute detail. The LotR 2 movie is worst in the parts that were changed by Jackson e.g. the warg attack. In fantasy even more than in SciFi, it is of outmost importance to build a bridge between the audience and the world – that’s why even in CGI Wars most aliens are humanoid. We need something we can relate to, so it’s quite important to think about the present. In fact Abrams claims he wants to do that by building the Enterprise with welders on the hull etc.. So why not give life to the illusion ? Make it as believable as possible ? The original design rules laid out 40 years ago and continuously refined still work, why not adhere to them an build a sleek, convincing beauty instead of a ugly duck ?

334. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2009

#332: “I’m not talking about anything other than the Enterprise design. That’s why I worded it that way. I didn’t say anything about this movie being for youngsters.”

And I didn’t say that *you* did. I was replying to your suggestion that “Has anyone ever noticed that very, very rarely has any one of the detractors of the new E design made an attack such as name calling…”

In fact, baiting and namecalling are no rarer among the folks who don’t like what they’re seeing of this movie – Enterprise, props and all – than among those who do. A claim that one side behaves better than the other just doesn’t hold up to examination.

335. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#331

“I always thought that six or seven crewmen seemed a little “light” to fly and manage a spaceship longer than a football field.”

Even today the largest cruiseliners like the Queen Mary 2 or the Freedom of the seas can be controlled just by a single person using a panel of small joysticks. I assume this trend of automation will continue in the future.

336. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2009

#330: “#318 – Nope, it looks nothing like a TOS Tricorder. Not in the least.

You need glasses. ”

Yes, it does. No, I don’t.

“Having an opening door and a top cover doesn’t mean it resembles a TOS Tricorder.”

Among other details, it does. You know the difference between “resembles” and “is identical?”

“I build props. I own two TOS Tricorder replicas. I know the difference.”

Yeah, me too. The new tricorder resembles the TOS tricorder in several ways that the TMP, TSFS or TNG/Voyager tricorders do not. :-)

337. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

“I guess you miss the days of klingon Zits..”

Lmao!!!!

Not one of Trek’s finer moments.

When I first saw “Playmates Star Trek Movie Toys Revealed” as the title of the article above, I thought I might be in store for naughty pictures of beautiful women in Star Trek garb, revealed to be doing equally naughty things with Star Trek toys…silly me, but—-damnit Jim, I’m still disappointed!

338. Mark - January 23, 2009

THX-1138

Hey, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, as are we all. People get spirited here, and the anonymity of such a forum invites people to be a little bolder in their proclamations than civil in them.

It is interesting we are reading the same post from two different perspectives. I think the “I don’t like this stuff” crowd is being nasty, and you think the “I like this stuff crowd” is being nasty. I would admit that since *it seems* the “I don’t like this stuff” crowd is in the minority, it would seem they are being dumped on more. My point is *everyone* is dumping over something we have no control over, fellas. The movie is what it is and will have the look it has. Let’s just relax and have fun with it and this whole made up world that means a lot to us all. I want to see kids playing with Trek toys again. I want to see Trek toys next to Star Wars toys in Walmart. I want to see them playing Kirk and Spock again. I want to optimism of Star Trek to be back. If JJ does that, then I’ll sacrifice my personal dislike of some things to get it. If he doesn’t do that, then I’ll hold on to what I’ve got.

To quote the chick from Survivor years ago, “Be nice to each other.” I apologize for any time I’ve come across the wrong way. Long live TREK!

339. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

What I really would like to see is a 360° view of the Enterprise like the one Intel did for the Kelvin.

340. Juan Martinez - January 23, 2009

I just want to see a Kelvin toy in the same size as the Enterprise. I wonder how well the new one will look next the the DST TOS or TMP style Enterprise. The TOS Enterprise is just over 15 inchs, TMP is alittle over 16 inchs with this new one at 14.75 inchs

341. Al Hartman - January 23, 2009

#336 – You need glasses, there is NO resemblence. NONE.

It looks like a light meter.

342. screaming satellite - January 23, 2009

New toy phaser?? (plus new view on toy ENT, old spock etc)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zathrasknowz/3217017613/in/photostream/

343. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#342

Check out post #140 :)

I prefer the angle of the E in those pictures (you can make believe that the pylons are straight).

344. istewart - January 23, 2009

The Enterprise seems like it was designed specifically to be toyetic. The swoopy, curvy shape looks very appealing to children who will see it in the toy aisle, I’m sure. But there’s no way that design could evolve into Probert’s movie Enterprise, which is a timeless design that still looks very futuristic 30 years later. By contrast, this Enterprise will look very dated in just a few short years.

345. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - January 23, 2009

I know that this is an “alternate reality” Trek, so any changes are easily explained by that.

But I never asked for an “alternate reality” take on TOS. I never wanted an “alternate reality” version of TOS. All I want to see is Star Trek, IN THE FORM I BECAME A FAN OF IT. I don’t care about other versions, I don’t want to see it reimagined and redesigned, because that’s not what I became a fan of.

I just want Star Trek, TOS, plain-and-simple, dammit!!

346. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#341—” You need glasses, there is NO resemblence. NONE.

It looks like a light meter.”

I totally disagree. If I saw a light meter that looked like that I would have to stop and ask myself if it might have been designed to look like a tricorder!

I agree with Dennis. While it is not identical, there is plenty of ‘resemblance’.

I had absolutely no trouble seeing the resemblance. And ‘my’ vision is 20/10, as of last month!

You seem to have trouble distinguishing something which is quite subjective from something which can be called an absolute. And using all caps in the manner in which you do (and asserting that other posters need glasses) suggests to me that you are taking this far too seriously!

It’s supposed to be fun!

347. Rick Sternbach - January 23, 2009

#342 – Hmm…looks like there are two beam emitters mounted on a swivel. Like for stun vs. kill? Now that’s something I never considered when doing weaps for the franchise. But it does remind me of a squirt gun I had as a kid where the nozzle could pivot and you could nail somebody to your immediate left or right. :)

348. BaronByng - January 23, 2009

347. Rick, I think they STILL make water pistols like that, only in the Super Soaker variety. I’m presuming there’ll be a more accurate collector’s toy before they go to market…interesting that the communicator has this lenticular image under the flip-top, is that to imply that it’s a videophone? And also interesting that another image just had a UFP crest there.

The new Enterprise toy looks good…can’t wait for a more detailed collector’s piece though. It seems clear that the Wizards image represents a prototype more than a finished version — interesting how the curves on the nacelle struts really resemble Gabe Koerner’s reimagined E, along with the nacelle ‘caps’. I second the thoughts about the italicized font on the nacelles, that’s likely an error that should be corrected before they go to production.

349. THX-1138 - January 23, 2009

It’s pretty easy to see that it’s a tricorder. It says so right on top like it’s from Batman in the 60’s. Of course TOS used to put labels and signs on everything too.

I wonder if there will be signs on everything?

“Main Viewscreen”
“Toilet”
“Transporter pad”
“Blinking yellow light that GNDN”
“Scotty’s scotch”
“Captain Kirk’s funny excercise tights with matching undies”
“Swedish salt shakers…errr….Medical Thingys”

350. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#345—That’s solved easily enough. Just don’t see it.

351. bdrcarter - January 23, 2009

#345—yeah, and don’t hold your breath waiting for an exact interpretatoin of a 1960’s TV series to become a new movie or TV series any time soon. Not gonna happen. I’m afraid all you have to look forward to is re-runs/DVDs of the original 79 episodes. And the occasional New Voyages/Phase 2 work.

I really think you ought to keep an open mind and join the party on May 8th.

352. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 23, 2009

It’s obvious that the production design is not for everyone. Does this spell big trouble in little Trekdom. I say, unequivicably, YES.

Funny, asside from a few details (docking ports and photon ports), the orginal E has held up perfectly. There was no need to change it so drastically.

There are plenty of online renderings of the old E. IMO, its hard to EVER get a bad angle on that ship. Not so with the new model.

And how about “Yesterdays Enterprise.” The Ep that has been referenced for this movie. No big redesigns of the Enterprise D there. And it’s never beeen an issue. You would think that with so much time left, something could or would be done.

Of course, I reserve final judgement until after I have seen the movie 2 or 3 times ; )

353. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#352–“It’s obvious that the production design is not for everyone. Does this spell big trouble in little Trekdom. I say, unequivicably, YES.”

I think that it will probably result in “Trekdom” becoming something which isn’t so “little” anymore. I guess that equates to “trouble” for some folks.

354. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#353

“I think that it will probably result in “Trekdom” becoming something which isn’t so “little” anymore. I guess that equates to “trouble” for some folks.”

You mean “Mirroruniversedom”. I don’t see many people who didn’t get into Trek before this movie, getting into the old stuff afterwards. Especially since they are based in a different universe, have been around for 40 years and have nothing to do with the new sexy version save the name. Think about it: Did “The Dark Knight” make you want to watch any old Batman movies ? It certainly didn’t for me.

355. Capt. of the USS Anduril - January 23, 2009

Okay guys really. This debate over the design of the show is getting ridiculous. If you like it, go see the movie. If you don’t like it, don’t go see the movie. More Trek for the rest of us. There’s no sense in bashing something you can’t change. Instead, do what every Trekkie does when something doesn’t make logical sense in the show. Blame it on a temporal anomaly or some kind of spatial displacement field or something. And make up new “Treknology” to explain the Enterprise, like the engines have large coolant intakes or something like that. But come on guys. It’s Star Trek. It doesn’t have to make complete sense. It never has. It’s about the message.

IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

356. bdrcarter - January 23, 2009

Bravo Captain!

357. Unbel1ever - January 23, 2009

#355

If you don’t want to discuss, don’t read the comments :)

358. BaronByng - January 23, 2009

Well, The Powers That Be saw fit to change the Enterprise pretty radically back in 1979 (oh, if there had been blogs back then, they’d-a-been-a-BURNIN’, I tells ye), and a lot of people didn’t accept the 1701-D either in 1987…And, owning a model of it, I can certainly say there’s plenty of bad angles on the D and, less so on the E, but still.

I like this ship, it’s exciting! I like the bridge design — it’s logical. The semi-transparent displays make sense because, from the captain’s chair, you get an extra “layer” of data as you look through them to those larger, widescreen status monitors over each station — which, in turn, have to be for the captain or other bridge crew to see, to be able to assess what other departments are doing…I always wondered why there weren’t more data overlays on the main viewer either, and now, we have some sensible ones like current warp factor, ship’s time, etc. as well as the running blinkies.

Also, I don’t know if any of you have noticed from the production stills released so far, but it looks like there’s a lot of graphics tablet-style interfaces on the STXI Enterprise, because you can see Chekov and Uhura both holding styluses (Styli?) at their posts. (Don’t drop your pen during battle!)

359. MacKenzie Calhoun - January 24, 2009

BaronByng, I like your ideas about the Bridge design, but I doubt any real thought went into it. If they had, we wouldn’t see retail laser scanners all over the APPLE STORE bridge! Got to have those scanners handy when someone wants to buy one of those funky new 3rd generation iPhones everyone is mistaking for communicators!

Yeah, it does look like an Apple store. Everything is shiny and white and brightly lit. The Apple store near me may not be round, but otherwise the description fits! Yeah, it’s been said before, but deal with it. If the shoe fits!

I believe the real reason they put glass paneled stand alone screens around the bridge, is because someone thought they would look cool shattering during the big battle scene!

360. Unbel1ever - January 24, 2009

359. MacKenzie Calhoun – January 24, 2009

“I believe the real reason they put glass paneled stand alone screens around the bridge, is because someone thought they would look cool shattering during the big battle scene!”

Exactly my thoughts, when I first saw them.

361. Closettrekker - January 24, 2009

#354—That isn’t what I meant at all.

STXI (or anything going forward) will be no less a part of “Trekdom” than any of its predecessors.

I never cared for TNG or its 24th Century brethren, but I still acknowledge that it and its fans are part of “Trekdom”. I just don’t go out of my way to watch it myself.

I don’t see the difference.

362. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 24, 2009

#363.

My advice all along was to “Keep it Simple.”

Adding new multiverses and timelines and new unfamiliar wacky set designs is not going to bring in the crowds. What is going to sell tickets is an engaging storyline and good acting and then the production design. And IMO redesigning “the whole known Star Trek universe” is not the answer.

Look, admitidly Star Trek needs new life breathed into the franchise. But that is only because we have received alot of half baked crap for the last 5 movies and a better portion of all the spinoff series.

If they could have just kept it simple, then this debate would not be occuring. You might want to pop out of your Closettrekker lifestyle for a moment and realize that Trek really had a singular consistent position in Sci-Fi for the past 40 years. Due mostly to TOS and the great work they accomplished 40 years ago. IMO, its all been going steadily downhill since then, And a good percentage of Trek’s overly loyal fans have been wanting and wanning since then too.

That’s why I (and probably alot of others too) was so excited when I learned they were going to recast the big three. But since that time there have been a steady supply of dissapointing, and bewildering developments. Sad, but true.

It’s just too bad that there was not more attention paid to the little details that made the original such a success. The only thing I saw that the original was missing would be a story arc that is more discernable throughout the series and movies. Say what you want about TOS’s set designs being too simplistic, made of wood, or whatever. But at least they were all original and consistent. A simple upgrade to some diplays would have suficed. IMO JJ has steered the franchise into a wormhole, instead of reinvigorating the franchise.

$160-170 million for this pic, huh? I wonder if Nick Meyer is going to be called in “to fix it again,” at 10% of the budget, when this flick goes over everyones heads.

Ever wonder why we have not seen the Engineering set yet? Probably because IT DOES look like a brewery. Now that is really going to be hard to overlook as I watch. Hopefully I am wrong in my overall low expectations for this movie, but I have given it alot of thought and I think I am being realistic in my concern. I am not going to be silent about my opinion here either. I’ll be kind, I’ll debate it, but alot of things really bug me with this movie already. That concerns me.

My two cents worth – and I still hold out alot of hope that this movie will be a great success and not all a Quantum mix-up by the end. That’s the difference Closettrekker. Alot of us really appreciate Trek’s singlular universe.

363. BaronByng - January 24, 2009

362.

Yes, an engaging storyline and good acting and production design will bring in the crowds. But we here in the cyber-peanut gallery aren’t the ones who have made this movie, it’s JJ Abrams & Co, working under contract from Paramount. It’s his team’s ideas, and we know these people to be thoughtful creators of popular fiction. I don’t see them as people who change things “merely for the sake of change,” neither are they people who gloss over details. (Isn’t Lost *all* details?)

I don’t know how you can say TOS’ set designs were consistent — consistent with what exactly? Between the TV series and TMP the bridge changed a *great* deal, and so did the corridors and interiors. Those sets were recycled for most of the TOS movies and then re-purposed for bits of TNG (and vice versa — notice the TNG Engineering room in Star Trek VI).

We moved from seemingly random blinking lights and physical switches to slightly less random blinking lights and physical switches, now with oval TV monitors instead of flat pictures intended to represent screens. And from that, to yet another revised bridge on the 1701-A, which changed itself yet again by ST:TUC to an all-touchscreen-controls environment.

The only thing that has been consistent is the concept of a bridge with a central command chair, ops and conn, with other stations surrounding the central area, facing a main viewscreen. This has now become the archetype for nearly *every* bridge seen in popular science fiction. (It was neat to see the command deck of a Jem’Hadar ship, which was totally the opposite – inward-facing stand-up consoles and virtual heads-up display eyepieces).

I honestly don’t think the Powers That Be, after the original series, gave much thought to bridge design. They probably tweaked it now and then to create a certain look or to refresh things, but they weren’t sitting around thinking “now how do we make a Bridge set and general art direction that will satisfy viewers forever”! They were busy making a weekly TV series and often making it up as they went along, within guidelines, but still!

This bridge looks like a Star Trek bridge to me. I’m sitting in front of a thin aluminum MacBook Pro attached to a 24″ widescreen, typing on an ultra-thin aluminum keyboard as I write this — my home desk is already “more advanced” than any TOS workstation. Enterprise NX-01 looked like a plausible jump to 143 years into our future, and the ST’09 bridge looks like a plausible jump to 250 years into our future.

No doubt as real-world technology outstrips sci-fi, another generation 20 years from now will re-invent Trek to represent 300 years into their future as well. That’s the beauty of it.

We’ve seen Buck Rogers reinvented several times (predating Trek by 20 years at least on film), but the core characters and premises have remained the same. This is maybe just the first time we’re seeing this with Trek, but we’re going to have to get used to it.

Also, just as an aside, there is an entire generation that has grown up quite possibly never having seen the Original Series because it wasn’t broadcast in their area, or was out of syndication on a certain network, etc. For them, the first Trek they may have seen was TNG or DS9. Are they any less ‘fans’ because they don’t have some sort of attachment or emotional investment in TOS? I say no.

364. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 24, 2009

Regarding the consistency of TOS. I simly meant that they were all original designs and concepts, and that most sets were in a simalar style. The E’s Bridge, Sickbay and Engineering and other sets all matched a similar design style.

I have read here that the new sets will not be as consistent. My main concern is the Engineering sets. The Brewery location, as a main Engineering set will not do it for me.

Hopefully I am wrong in my estimate of that set design. But again, why no images of Engineering. But my main point was the the original was very sucessfull with it’s producion design.

365. DEMODE - January 24, 2009

Still not totally sold on the secondary hull… but they can always blow it up and give the ship a new secondary hull in a future film… lol…. One sure way to sell more toys! :)

366. MacKenzie Calhoun - January 24, 2009

If they used a industrial location for the Engineering set, they really jumped the shark! I really hope this “Brewery” rumor is wrong! If not, then the fan series “Phase Two” will be the only real Trek series left for real fans. The acting may suck, but at least they seem to respect the fan base and have a real love for the show.

367. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 25, 2009

I am sure the new movie will be fine. Perhaps Brilliant! Hopefully.

I guess I tend to be a little old school when it comes to Star Trek.

368. BaronByng - January 25, 2009

Depending on how they dress up this industrial location, it might look quite good. I don’t think it’s going to look like a Victorian steamship with cast-iron boilers and copper kettles…I live around the corner from a modern brew-pub and their facility is full of shiny silver pipes, catwalks etc. It might as well be a pharmaceutical factory. With CG set extensions it’ll probably look very different, anyway. I would rather that the engine room look like a heavy-duty, industrial-grade facility where Unthinkable Energies Are Harnessed™, like the inside of the Large Hadron Collider, rather than a carpeted modular office from Steelcase (TNG engine room)…

369. Closettrekker - January 27, 2009

#362—“What is going to sell tickets is an engaging storyline and good acting and then the production design.”

Agreed.

“You might want to pop out of your Closettrekker lifestyle for a moment and realize that Trek really had a singular consistent position in Sci-Fi for the past 40 years.”

We may disagree about that “consistency”, but I agree with the basic premise that Star Trek has had a devoted fanbase over the last 40 years. The truth is, Star Trek was at the pinnacle of its public viability in the mid-80’s. It has had some peaks and valleys since, but overall, its status has been diminished, and preconceived notions about anything with that label on it are abound in the mainstream moviegoing audience (whom the film’s budget dictates this creative team must attract to the theater).

“Ever wonder why we have not seen the Engineering set yet? Probably because IT DOES look like a brewery. ”

I have no problem with the engineering set being in stark contrast to the look of the bridge, but I really don’t wonder why we haven’t seen it, to be honest. It seems pretty clear to me that Bad Robot is not known for giving much away in advance.

” Alot of us really appreciate Trek’s singlular universe.”

And that universe of which you speak reamins intact as part of Star Trek’s broader mythos, especially since this story relies upon the continuity of that “singular universe” in order to progress to this point. Many of us do not feel that this mythos should be or must be confined by such restraints. The possibility (of the creation of an alternate timeline) has been there from the beginning, and many would argue that it has already been done, with entries like “Yesteryear”, First Contact, and ENT.

Why should Trek ‘canon’ be confined to only what transpires within the confines of strict linear time passage? Merely because it has always done so (at least at a glance)?

If Trek fans enjoy the film, they will reconcile those notions. I have no doubt of that.

370. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 27, 2009

Love your style Closettrekker!

I was watching the trailer again on YouTube.

At 1:14 is that the Hangar deck. Hopefully not.
At 1:26 is that Engineering? I wonder.

The new movie seems to make many promises. I hope they fulfill them all.
Bob O. seems to think so. I almost can’t wait until May to see this
$200 million dolar major motion picture. I wonder how much it has cost Paramount just to “ice it” untill Spring (i.e. Security, marketing etc.).

The wait is tough though. It’s hard not to get too focused on the
BadRobot tidbits.

Let’s all fasten our safetybelts until then, Closettreker. By the way, does the bridge have “safety belts,” again?

371. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 27, 2009

What no link?

youtube.com/watch?v=puXPozd-kuc

372. Joe Sena (EMCE Toys) - February 1, 2009

Wow! It’s like Playmates picked up exactly where they left off in the Trek heyday of the ’90s. Awesome attention to detail and playability. Really hope the kids these are meant for do indeed play with them because we need a return to imaginative activity like this. Toys of late seem to stop at toddler and jump to collector, with videogames filling the gap in between. This is what toys are meant to be. Welcome back, Playmates!

373. TWEENTREKFAN - May 17, 2009

How long will It Take me to save for transporter room and Bridge if I get $10 every week? Lets See…

374. Alacrity Fitzhugh - May 10, 2010

Playmates dropped the ball on this issue. The 3 3/4″ figures are quite cheap compared to earlier issues of figures, in fact, even the stands are cheap plastic as well.

I speak as a collector of these figures, having about 140 different figures in total of the 3 3/4″ scale. I open them however, and make them available to my kids as well.

You can tell the difference. So can everyone else. I picked up the whole bridge crew in the bargin bin at Wal-Mart at $3 a piece and thought I got a deal.

Not so sure anymore.

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