First Look At QMx Star Trek 2009 USS Enterprise Studio-scale Replica |
jump to navigation

First Look At QMx Star Trek 2009 USS Enterprise Studio-scale Replica July 21, 2009

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

Back in May we reported that Quantum Mechanix had picked up the license to make replicas from JJ Abrams Star Trek movie. Today QMx revealed their first replica, a limited-edition studio-scale detailed replica of the new USS Enterprise. QMx will begin taking orders on this replica in September, with the first models (of a total of 500) shipping to customers in October. See below for more details, including how you can customize your Enterprise.


Your very own Enterprise Replica

Probably one of the most talked about elements of JJ Abrams Star Trek movie was the new USS Enterprise, designed by Ryan Church and brought to the screen by the digital artists at Industrial Light and Magic. Combining both classic elements along with new design cues, the new Enterprise personifies the movie itself.

USS Enterprise in JJ Abrams’ "Star Trek" – QMx bringing it home

QMx promises that their U.S.S. Enterprise Artisan Replica is "screen-accurate in every respect" and built to "studio-scale" (which is: 34” long x 15.75” wide x 7.5” high, with a stand that adds 5.25” to the overall height). The replica is based on the ILM digital master files used to create the visual effects in the movie. No detail was spared, from the hand-painted graphics to the tiny shuttlecraft docked in the shuttle bay, as well as many features which could only be barely glimpsed on screen.

QMx Studio Scale USS Enterprise (click to enlarge)

Each Artisan Enterprise is entirely airbrushed by hand with 24 colors of metallic and flat paint, creating the ‘aztecing’ pattern. Like real filming miniatures, there is an automotive base lacquer underneath which primes and protects the replica. In addition, each replica features around 200 lighting effects, both interior and exterior. These include animated effects for the warp and impulse engines, and even details inside the shuttle bay. QMx promises their Star Trek movie USS Enterprise is "the most detailed and accurate replica of a Star Trek starship that’s ever been offered for retail purchase."

QMx Studio Scale USS Enterprise (click to enlarge)

The QMx Artisan Enterprise will come in two editions: standard and SFX. The standard edition is built exactly the same as the SFX edition, but excludes the lighting system (with a cost savings). You can also request additional customization of your replica, including battle damage and a custom engraving for the base (at additional costs). QMx will begin taking orders September 30, 2009. The pricing has not yet set, but will be revealed by August. Each replica is made-to-order by hand, and will take 30-60 days for delivery.

QMx Studio Scale USS Enterprise impulse engine and shuttle bay detail
 (click to enlarge)

More details and pictures of the QMx Artisan USS Enterprise at

See it at Comic Con
Quantum Mechanix will be showing off the first of their new USS Enterprise replicas at San Diego Comic Con later this week. You can see it at the Sideshow Collectibles Booth (#1929).

QMx Studio Scale USS Enterprise base (click to enlarge)

What’s next for QMx –  15" Enterprise & Kelvin
While the studio-scale Enterprise is the ultimate item for fans of the new movie, it is going to be pricey. As noted in our last article, QMx is also working on a smaller (and much more affordable) "Collector’s Scale" version of the USS Enterprise. QMx’s CEO Andy Gore tells TrekMovie they have decided to make the smaller Enterprise 15" long, instead of 10" like their other mid-sized replicas. Gore explains by saying "the Enterprise demanded it." The plan is to have the Collector’s Scale Enterprise available by the holiday season of 2009.

Gore also confirmed that QMx is in early development for both a Studio-scale and a Collector’s scale version of the USS Kelvin, to be released in 2010. They are also looking at other possible replicas from the new Star Trek movie. TrekMovie will provide updates as they become available.

USS Kelvin in JJ Abrams’ "Star Trek" – the next project for QMx



1. moonwalker - July 21, 2009


2. Mr. Fanboy - July 21, 2009

QMx makes really awesome stuff. i wish I could afford it…

3. cpelc - July 21, 2009

cool very cool! wonder how big the shuttles will be in relation to the bay

4. DJT - July 21, 2009

Wooo-hooo! Gotta save up some more cash I see.

So what class is the new girl? The JJ class?

5. Jim Nightshade - July 21, 2009

Sheesh…Looks great good luck to those that can afford it! Its gonna be wayyy outta my league price wise….

6. Matt Wiley - July 21, 2009

Commence drooling.

7. Brian Kirsch - July 21, 2009

Nice toys for the rich boys and girls among us! Yes, I’m jealous! ;-)

Just wondering, what is “studio scale”. Can we get a definitive answer from someone about actual size/scale so we can resolve that? For better or worse……… ;-)

8. Locutus of Alberni - July 21, 2009

This new Enterprise is so cool, even the pictures of the model of it have Lens Flares!!!

Love it!

9. Dave - July 21, 2009

How Much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10. Darth Quixote - July 21, 2009

Studio scale is measured in gigs and megs these days. :)

11. Green-Blooded-Bastard - July 21, 2009

Wow, that is beautiful! I would have preferred to see “…no man has gone before” but seeing as this is the movie replica, even the opening statement has to be exact I suppose.

And yeah, what’s the price points?

12. DavidJ - July 21, 2009

I gotta say, I like their version of the beauty shot SO much better.

The fish eye lense Abrams used just distorted the ship way too much. I bet if we got their version, there would have been a lot less complaining about the ship…

13. Admiral Waugh - July 21, 2009

Looks beautiful but… would still rather have the modified Constitution class……………. ;)

14. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009

4 – According to her dossier on the Star Trek movie website, she’s still a Constitution-class heavy cruiser.

15. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009


I guess I can begin to understand part of why the ILM guys felt compelled to turn this version of the Enterprise into a hulking behemoth the size of an Acclamator-class assault ship after looking at the shuttle bay.

It’s pretty easy to tell from the design of the shuttle bay that the shuttlecraft in this continuity are significantly smaller, compared to the vessel herself, than the original F-type shuttlecraft were compared to the Constitution-class vessels of the Prime reality – if I’m remembering correctly and the shuttles were stored on the sides with their noses facing inward.

I still don’t understand why they just had to redesign the shuttle bay that way. Although I’m very happy with the movie and I sincerely appreciate the fact that the film and its popularity have, in a sense, vindicated us and our fan community in the eyes of the general public, with whom we have always had and continue to have a turbulent love-hate relationship, the design of the shuttlebay and its forcing the alternate continuity version of the starship to be a giant, 760-meter (according to ILM art director Alex Jaeger) behemoth, and the completely unrealistic, almost silly, “barrel-flipping” mechanism of the ST:09 phaser pistol (which hearkens back to the days when science fiction props weren’t designed with any eye toward realism, a big downer compared to the classic phaser, which was far more practical and complicated than most people realize) are the two things that I really wish the designers hadn’t changed so much.

But this is just meaningless nitpicking. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and I wasn’t the one in charge of the art direction. In the end, we were given a package, and although I’m sure none of us liked every aspect of it, we had to take it or leave it – and the movie was a great enough and fulfilling enough experience for me that I’ll take it, any day, changes and nitpicks and all.

And in the end, Church’s Enterprise may look quite a bit different, and some careless shipbuilder must certainly have dumped growth hormone in her plasma coolant, but she’s still beautiful, and I can still see the old girl’s soul alive and well in her. May she fly on into the unknown, warp speed ahead and steady as she goes, and may she always carry our love, pride, hopes and dreams with her.

16. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - July 21, 2009

Where can we go to order the replicas?

17. Capt. of the USS Anduril - July 21, 2009

Wow, I thought their original model was pretty, this is just absolutely jaw dropping. If I could afford it AND had a place to put it, I would certainly be getting this ship come September.

OMG, they have one of these of Serenity too! @#(*%&@!!! I hate being poor and not having places for collectibles. :(

18. DavidJ - July 21, 2009


Okay… so the ship is a lot bigger now.

Don’t really see the problem. After 40+ years, the original and refit Enterprises were starting to look positively CRAMPED.

It’s about time the ship got scaled up a bit.

19. Weerd1 - July 21, 2009

Though gorgeous, I imagine this will be out of my price range, and I spend quite a bit on this stuff. My question is this; when is the Mattel Hot Wheels Church Enterprise hitting shelves? I have all the others, but that one hasn’t shown up anywhere. Another example of poor marketing for this film. Hottest ticket at the Box Office for weeks, and Mattel puts out 20 year old ships while the movie’s in theaters. Where are the card sets in stores? Model kits? Art of and making of books? I can see holding off on mass producing something pricey like this studio scale model, but the fact the only options I had for buying the new Enterprise were the really awful Playmates version or the keychain is pretty substandard.

20. BaronByng - July 21, 2009

I’m not so sure the scale is as oversized as some make out. It seems simply that the Alternate E’s engineering hull has a lot more interior volume than that of the Prime E.

You can judge its size more accurately by the other details like windows, the escape-pod / airlock, and by the scene where they pan out of the bridge window and across the saucer. This indicates the bridge is in the thicker “base” of the dome – presumably the actual bubble on top contains sensors and the like, which is plausibly realistic.

Most bridges being roughly the same in size, it’s clearly not scaled up to Galaxy-class dimensions — it’s just been working out a bit ;)

It seems more plausible that we’ve been mentally underestimating the TOS/TMP-generation Enterprises due to a lack of clear and consistent scale indicators – like the scale of shuttlecraft and the shuttlebay (it looks like a 2-car garage in STV, but it’s a massive warehouse in TMP) and other ships (the ever-changing Bird of Prey).

Plus, consider the fact that our visual memory of the TOS E / TMP E is colored by low-resolution analog TV / VHS and, compared to this movie, the “faded” quality of traditional matte effects shots which, through multiple stages of printing, degrades detail.

21. Tanner Waterbury - July 21, 2009

Im hoping its around 1500 for the fully lit one. if not, then i will have to look about digging into my savings.

22. Trekwebmaster - July 21, 2009

Oh, WOW! QMX sure did the lady proud! Nice beauty-shots here too! Can’t wait to see more about this fine ship!

Nice job, QMX!!!

23. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009


This is more personal preference than anything else, especially since, now that the movie takes place in an Alternate Reality where Starfleet’s spent several years actively studying and reverse-engineering Romulan/Borg hybrid technology from 2387.

The reason I am finding the new Enterprise’s size very difficult to swallow is because it feels less believable to me that we’ll be able to build something that large (we’ve had conflicting reports from a number of “official” sources that suggest anything from 600 to 900 meters) in 249 years – even with the help of over a hundred other races plus the aforementioned technological kickstart.

The original Enterprise was a mere 289 meters long – about the size of your average real-world aircraft carrier. Because of that real-world connection, the 289 meter size feels more realistic, and more plausible, instead of some abhorrently big, arbitrary number dreamt up via artistic conception with no boundaries or grounds in what we could ever hope to realistically achieve within a good 200 to 300 years – we’ve been advancing faster than many of us could ever have expected in the last 200 years alone, but I don’t think we’ve advanced that quickly.

The Ryan Church Enterprise model was originally designed to be about 370 meters long, and if you just look at the model’s proportions, she does look about that size. (It’s also part of why it’s hard to believe she’s so much bigger. That the resizing was arbitrary means that certain landmarks on her hull now look out-of-proportion compared to how big they are claimed to be.) That’s okay, that still feels more realistic and grounded.

But 900 meters? That’s the size of a Star Destroyer – the Victory I Star Destroyer, to be precise. And the Star Destroyer is usually where I draw the line – I love those designs, but their lengths just scream “Mary Sue” to me, and I am an avowed enemy of unrealistic characteristics or Mary Sue-ism in any form, especially in the one large, mainstream science fiction franchise that tries above all others to stay as realistic and grounded in our own world and the pacing of our own accomplishments as it can. It disrupts the feeling that “this could really happen someday” to have the new ship being anywhere from the size of an Acclamator to the size of a Victory Star Destroyer. It makes her feel more out of reach – and that makes me feel a lot more hopeless about our future.

I can get used to it, though. I’m not obsessed enough to the point where I would insist on decoupling fiction from real life, and in the end, canon is canon, even in the alternate reality, so I guess she’ll be as long as the writers, model makers and director want her to be, right?

24. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009

not decoupling* – sorry, my mistake.

25. The Angry Klingon - July 21, 2009

yep and at 34 inches, based on ILMs original given size, that would have put this at 1/350th scale. All that spin control afterwards was transparent BS trying to explain the inconsistencies away. I dont care about the size but I do care when movie folks think youre stupid and they can just sell you a line of BS.
Its a beautiful model but I fear it will be way out of my price range. Looking forward to the PL version…

26. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009

25 – Agreed on the model… there’s no way a money-strapped college brat like me could ever reasonably afford one. I do own the Playmates ship, but it’s still a little big for my liking. I am waiting for the Hot Wheels one to come out – it may be inaccurate and more based on Ryan Church’s original drawing, but it’s the right size to stick on my work desk or my nightstand at home.

Or, better yet, hopefully someday Johnny Lightning or one of those Japanese trading miniature-making companies, like Furuta, Romando or F-Toys, will make their own “micro-machine” versions of the new girl. Those are often smaller than we’d like, and sometimes not even 80% accurate, but they’re certainly portable and affordable!

27. Prologic9 - July 21, 2009

FYI, the hotwheels JJ Enterprise was released. I saw some in a K-mart with the -A and -D back in May. Didn’t realize they were going to be (apparently) so rare.

28. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009

Oh, by the way, the Playmates version may not be all that pretty, but boy, can she take a hit! Mine spent the better part of a month perched precariously atop my PC tower case when I was preparing for my last round of final exams, and then dismantling furniture and setting up to leave my apartment, and as you might expect, she’s accidentally fallen off and hit the ground a few times.

But none of those falls even seemed to dent the shields – even the tumble from the kitchen table that sent her plumetting to the hard linoleum floor instead of the bedroom carpet! I know that I shouldn’t be treating the poor girl so roughly, and it was quite careless of me, but those incidents do make a statement about just how tough the Playmates product can be.

29. Modeler - July 21, 2009

This is a sideshow. Here’s the real deal:

30. NX-2000 - July 21, 2009

27 – Thanks for the heads up! I don’t have a Kmart nearby, but there is a Target. I’ll take a look when I’ve got a day off from work, and if there’s one there, I’ll spare the money to pick her up.

31. Michael Hall - July 21, 2009

NX 2000–

The latest edition of Cinefex magazine quoted an ILM staffer to the effect that the ship was supposed to be around 1200 feet long. Obviously there is a continuing difference of opinion on this issue even amongst those who worked on the film itself, which to me only underscores how sloppy and lazy much of the conceptual thinking behind it really was. :-(

(And no insult to the craftsmen at QM–the model is a very credible realization of Ryan Church’s design–but I would personally much rather own the Master Replicas version of Matt Jeffries’ original. Does anyone know when those will be available for purchase again?)

32. Jerrad - July 22, 2009

Now if they could do the exact same thing with the Enterprise refit (preferably without the A), I’d buy it in a hot second.

33. Iowagirl - July 22, 2009

No matter how detailed you get – this version of the Enterprise is and remains clunky, showily, and inelegant.

34. Phil 123 - July 22, 2009

looks good. probably won’t be buying one, but it us still awesome. can’t wait to see the kelvin, as its a ‘tough little ship’

35. Anthony Thompson - July 22, 2009

Nice! But it’ll cost a King’s Ransom!

36. Anthony Thompson - July 22, 2009

I wonder if it’ll include a detachable hull section so we can see the brewery? : D

37. magnumpc - July 22, 2009

Wow! Simply, Wow!

I know that if I have to ask, “How much?” I can’t afford it.

Still, it’s a gorgeous reproduction!

38. greenappleman7 - July 22, 2009

@37lol me too.

39. TonyD - July 22, 2009

That would make a beautiful companion to my Master Replicas Enterprise (roughly same size as well) if I had the money and space. Given all the detail I shudder to think what the final price will be. Oh well, I’ll be very interested to see what the 15″ version looks like and sells for as well.

40. M@ft&n - July 22, 2009

Oh well…I supposed everything has to end sometime.

41. Jorg Sacul - July 22, 2009

about the “flip barrel” phasers… you forget the socket wratchet laser pistols of The Cage era, with the typewriter keys on them. Hopefully we’ll see something a little more solid-state in the JJ-verse’s future.

42. TonyD - July 22, 2009

#31 – Master Replicas was acquired by another company a few months ago and is in something of a state of limbo. I very much doubt they still have a Star Trek license so I wouldn’t hold my breath that they’ll be making any more Trek replicas, assuming they’re ever heard from again.

In spite of that, there are lots of their TOS Enterprise replicas floating around. I got a brand new one off Ebay a couple of weeks ago, that was still sealed in the original box, for a very good price that was well below Master Replica’s MSRP. That would probably be your best bet if you really want one.

43. Jorg Sacul - July 22, 2009

I didn’t see the bridge front window on the Qmx model… a shame, it would have been cool to look in and see the bridge done with some sort of lenticular slide or something.

44. Holger - July 22, 2009

Look at those windows on the saucer rim. 700 meters… ridiculous! :-)

45. Capt Krunch - July 22, 2009

Lens flares and all!!!…Now that is awesome merchandise…one cool model!! noe bring on Kelvin…in any capacity… love that ship too!!!!!!!!
like I said with the tricorder article…collecting is fun and insane…and I must have this Enterprise like the others…

46. Robert H. - July 22, 2009

First, did they get the scale corrected for a 302 metre long starship instead of a 725 metre long starship?

But loving it, loving it!

And SO cannot wait for the Kelvin!

47. Randy H. - July 22, 2009

#31 is absolutely on point. I am hopeful that later productions will spend more time on concepts behind the execution than on simply getting things that look cool on screen. That has always been the issue with ILM: they create wonderful images but have limited thought behind it – which is why they should be treated as skilled artisans, not creative input.

48. falcon - July 22, 2009

Huh. If the scales between the ship and the shuttles are accurate, you could put two shuttles inside the bridge.

That ain’t right. Long live the Jeffries’ version! At least that one is a little more realistic in terms of scale.

49. Peter - July 22, 2009

I anticipate the price on the 34-incher will be $2500 USD minimum.

50. Mr. curtis - July 22, 2009

somebody watched the abyss when they designed that nacelle.

51. Jeyl - July 22, 2009

So, the stand isn’t going to be attached to a vibrator to simulate the constant camera shaking?

52. Danpaine - July 22, 2009

….#51…for that anticipated price, the thing should be attached to a vibrator. Heyyyy-Oooooo!

53. Michael Hall - July 22, 2009


Word, Iowagirl. The good news is that it’s still basically the Enterprise, with an impressive LOD. The bad news is that the changes (I’d really hesitate even to call them a ‘modernization’) are mostly not for the better. Kind of a visual metaphor for the film itself, if you ask me.


Thanks for the tip. The site has been advertising the Master Replicas ship for months now, but the release date keeps getting pushed back. I’m still hoping they’ll come through eventually, but in the meantime I’ll check out Ebay, though I’m a little leery of dealing with a private party on such a high-ticket item.


Thanks, but these thoughts about Trek 2009’s design esthetic are hardly unique to me. Check out the blogs of Doug Drexler and Daren Dochterman–these are guys who do visual FX (and Trek) for a living. . . and neither was very impressed by much of what they saw on 05/08. It would be nice to think that their views would be heeded somewhere, but a $250 million domestic gross has probably made the Abrams take on the ST universe bulletproof, and in any case, the ship is a done deal (though I hope they at least leave the brewery behind next time out). Best just to enjoy it for what it is, I suppose.

54. rogue_alice - July 22, 2009


34” long?

I thought it was 733 meters long. GRIN

55. Weerd1 - July 22, 2009

So the Hot Wheels version has been seen? Confound it, they are being sneaky, even Entertainment Earth doesn’t have it for order yet.

I have always appreciated Mr. Drexler and Mr. Eaves’ work (I am on Drex files all the time), however the circular primary hull was always my preference, and even since the D we have gotten away with that (The NX-01 being the obvious exception). This design has grown on me a lot, and I think is a worthy addition to the gallery.

Now, I would prefer the 366M version to 700- not because I think the engineering is ridiculous, but I don’t think the scans gathered by the Kelvin would have advanced Federation science enough for so drastic an increase in size. Since the film’s visual evidence can go either way, I really wish the studio would claim 366. Boborci! Help me out here!

If we DO have to accept 700+ I would like a definitive number. Regardless, I see no issues with launching from Earth either size. Assuming she’s 366 meters long, and engineered even like the TOS Enterprise, that ship was able to survive hitting a black hole at warp 8 (Tomorrow is Yesterday) and then did a slingshot around the sun. Surely warp speed breakaway is more structurally stressful than making escape velocity in 1 G. If she IS 700+ meters, then the science has to be at least equivalent to the 1701D, which according to the tech-manual was designed to have the saucer land, and was contemporary with the Voyager which could land AND TAKE OFF from a planet.

The brewery and water works however, can be left in Iowa next time they take off- build a set based on Church’s concept drawing for engineering, it was fantastic.

56. Hiatas - July 22, 2009

Cool! It comes with its own lens flares!

57. DavidJ - July 22, 2009


No offense to those two, but just like most TOS purists, they probably wouldn’t have liked ANY updating of the design.

I’m sure if you wanted to, you could find an equal number of knowledgeable artists or designers who LOVE the movie’s design aesthetic.

58. Dr. Image - July 22, 2009

Why couldn’t they just have let Eaves or Drexler design it?
At very least, it would have made some engineering sense.
Nevertheless, the QmX looks great, and no doubt devoid of all the QC issues the MR TOS E had.

59. DavidJ - July 22, 2009


Scale scmale.

I don’t know about you guys, but my enjoyment of Trek isn’t dependent on knowing the exact dimensions of the Enterprise. All I’ve ever cared about, is that it’s a BIG, GIANT SHIP. That’s true whether it’s 300 meters or 700 meters.

And enough about the windows. The original model (and refit) had window ports underneath the saucer which would have been on the freakin FLOOR of the deck, or at such a severe angle they would have served no useful purpose to anybody.

How much sense did THAT make? lol

60. Spockish - July 22, 2009

I use to be good at building models, but since my head injury my dexterity at best is Quarter inch, not 1/100’s an inch. So I have to buy all ready constructed kits. That also means even though I once won the Colorado High School Architectural Home drafting contest. My drafting would look like chicken scratches (the same for my hand writing, I use to be left handed but that arm is semi-paralyzed.

I though would love the 2009 version model of the Enterprise, and with fiber optic lights in the windows and structural guide lights.

61. Weerd1 - July 22, 2009

Hit the local K-Mart. No joy.

62. J_schinderlin56 - July 22, 2009

I want a Galaxy Class version of this.

63. THX-1138 - July 22, 2009

That model sure is a beaut’, but no way I am ever going to be able to afford it. I probably don’t even have the scratch for the alleged “bargain” that will be offered for the 15″ version. No love for the middle income family dudes who love the ships.

And BTW, there is no way on earth that the Enterprise, that Enterprise right up there, the model, is scaled to be 760 meters long. No way at all.

I said it again.

64. jdp13 - July 22, 2009

Looks great, but I’m still biased towards the TMP refit Enterprise. Anyone know of any plans to do a studio scale version of that ship? I wonder who would even have the rights to do that kind of replica. That one I’d really be willing to pay for.

#31 – Master Replicas was sold, but they just manufactured a new batch of TOS Enterprises that are now for sale. I just received mine and couldn’t be happier with it. I’d really recommend it.

65. Boris - July 22, 2009

The latest news is that Round 2 (which plans release the licensed 11.5″ model kit) confirms Gizmodo’s 2379.75 feet, having themselves obtained it from the licensor. See here:

Assuming the 2379.75-foot figure was provided to Quantum Mechanix likewise, we obtain 2379.75 feet / 34 inches = 69,99264706 feet to an inch (or 70 if we take into account significant digits).

I think this is too close to be a coincidence, but I’d appreciate it if someone from Quantum Mechanix would confirm it.

66. I'm dead Jim - July 22, 2009

Beautiful piece of work but I’ll have to wait for the “collectors scale” if I can even afford that. I like the new E but maybe I should wait for the Kelvin.

67. Hurm - July 22, 2009

So the flying, warp-speed spaceship with transporting beams and death rays is more realisitc at 300 meters and less realistic and 750+ meters?

Uh. Okay.

68. CarlG - July 22, 2009

@67: Exactly. :D

The replica is amazing, but I’d rather hold out for the model kits of the Enterprise and Kelvin; they’re more in my price range (hopefully), and I like process of putting stuff together more than having something pre-fabbed for me. No offense to QMX, of course; they did an incredible job.

I like that shot from the aft; the sweep of the nacelle pylons and the neck into the engineering hull looks rather elegant. Should have kept the shuttlebay doors shut, though; I forsee scale griping ad nauseum.

69. THX-1138 - July 22, 2009


Nobody used the word “realistic”. (Did they? Maybe they did.)

Plausible, maybe. Believable, perhaps. And to me, preferable. You see, this argument really boils down to where one’s tastes lie. And on information that we have been given for the past few decades. I understand how this seems like a bunch of foolishness to someone who didn’t really care about this aspect of Star Trek. But there are some of us who look at this ship and see many design cues that match the original Enterprise as well as the refit. And to me it looks like they redesigned the ship and then arbitrarily scaled things up without taking into account that what was once documented as say, a window is now way too large to be a window. And so I disregard their version of fictional reality and instead substitute my own.

And really, who am I harming?

70. DD - July 22, 2009

#18 Well said!!!

71. Jordan - July 22, 2009

Stunningly gorgeous model!!! This I must own.

72. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - July 22, 2009


I’d love to see this new behemoth wipe out a Galaxy Class ship
And then take on some Star Destroyers too
All in short order so Kirk has time to pick up some broads on the way back.

Vive Galcticaprise!!!

73. rogue_alice - July 22, 2009

#48 – “The original model (and refit) had window ports underneath the saucer which would have been on the freakin FLOOR of the deck, or at such a severe angle they would have served no useful purpose to anybody.”


So true. I am 3D modeling the TOS version and a few of those windows under the saucer are odd. As if I’d have to shimmy up to them from the floor and lie upon them to look out. Or, stand back so far (on a solid deck) to make them useless as a portal. It IS all for asthetic value anyway.

She’s a beauty in any iteration.

74. Yammer - July 22, 2009

Size matters!

Cinefex quotes ILM as saying that the new Prise is 1200 feet long, up from around 950.

So it’s bigger, but not twice as big.

75. Trey - July 22, 2009


76. The Gorn Ultimatum - July 22, 2009

CRAP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

77. DavidJ - July 22, 2009


Well for what it’s worth, I don’t think we saw anyone actually look OUT one of those windows in the movie, so who knows how big they are.

Considering how few and far between they are (compared to, say, the ever-present windows on the Ent-D), they could easily just be giant bay windows in various recreation decks around the ship.

78. BringBackTrek - July 22, 2009

Sorry, I enjoyed the movie despite having to endure the inanities of the ship’s construction and design (interior and exterior). I understand the dramatic license of having such a massive vessel built in the midst of cornfields but it was a bit too much for me. It only got worse when I saw this ungainly clunker with nacelles that looked like they were about to fall off with the very front of the nacelles being connected to attaching pylons positioned as far back on the ship as possible. Then seeing ship interiors that looked like the inside of a steam plant. Ugh! Again dramatic license so that we could chuckle at Scotty beaming into a water pipe but what the hell was Uhura doing at a work station next to some massive tanks? With all these large open areas, it looks like a few well-placed hull breaches would take out most of the crew. And don’t get me started on the new Apple store…

79. Boris - July 22, 2009

I’m content to let future evidence clearly swing the size one way or the other, regardless of prime universe precedent. There is nothing to stop JJ and Co. from making the Enterprise work at 2379.75 feet by canonizing an appropriate interior (which was vague in this movie), but it could also turn out that the larger size was just a one-off shuttlebay decision and that there is no way to make the remaining interior fit properly. Evidence so far points to the larger size, however; the Cinefex article is vague because it doesn’t tell us exactly what size was determined based on the shuttlebay. It is more likely that the ship was 1200 feet long before the upscaling mentioned by Jaeger.

80. THX-1138 - July 22, 2009


Actually, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy look out the observation windows in the officer’s lounge (or whatever it was) at Sha Ka Ree in Trek V.

81. Lt. Bailey - July 22, 2009

I have to agree with Iowagirl # 33 in that this ship does not have the elegant lines of the Constitution class ships. Be it the simple ship ot TOS or the re-fit as seen from the 1979 film on through ST VI. That is model to have….

The best I have seen was on display in Las Vegas at ST:TE in the Admiral Collection shop. It was about 35″ long but priced about $1,500 if I remember correctly. So I can imagine what these will cost.

While they did a good job on the new ship for this years film, I still think the nacelles look like the Doomsday Machine.

82. C.S. Lewis - July 22, 2009

Greetings from the Ft McHenry and Francis Scott Key’s immortal soul.

It has been several months since seeing this motion picture, in Imax no less, and I must tell you I have little lasting impression of it one way or the other. It was certainly an experience, but there is no “take away”, not least being this new design which leaves me unmoved.

I grant perspective is everything and young viewers, who live in a world of moral ambiguity and selfishness, might very well have a more emotional connexion to ST09.

However, as (barely) a first generation fan who mostly saw reruns (on WCCO and WPIX), the experience was middling all around.

C.S. Lewis
TDY Inner Harbor

83. BrF - July 22, 2009

Beautiful model, astonishing detail. But the glowing “to boldly go…” on the base is incredibly cheesy and not well placed. A clean, understated stand that lets the model show itself off without distractions is what this thing wants. We don’t need to be told the tag line. We know it.

84. Weerd1 - July 22, 2009

82- I am sorry to hear that CS; as someone who really became aware of Trek as a young child in the mid 70s watching reruns and animated Trek, th emovie took back to that experience, and I was and am enthralled every time I have seen it.

No starship design will ever match the TMP Enterprise, but I think this one is worthy of recognition. If TNPTB (the NEW powers that be) decide it’s 700+ meters, it will not spoil my overall enjoyment, but will always hold an “asterisk” if you will in my Trekkieness, not unlike a baseball player on steroids gets an asterisk next to his record. Insofar, the size of the ship has not affected the story for me, but it does take away from the reconciliation of new Trek with Old, which I have otherwise found pretty easy. I also enjoy “First Contact” despite the visual evidence that the Defiant is about 30 feet long; DS9 despite the everchanging size of the station; the design of the Klingon Bird of Prey, despite it’s repeated size shifts; and Voyager, despite the Delta Flyer being larger than the shuttle bay… OK, not Voyager, bad example ;)

85. 16309A - July 22, 2009

#31 As stated above, they are avaliable again. I have one from the first run. If you (or anyone out there) has the funds to get one, do it! I have had mine for two years now and it is still just as exciting to own today as it was the day I first got it!

86. dmduncan - July 22, 2009

I like the new Enterprise better than the refit version, but there are still some features that are hard to get used to and just do not work harmoniously together: The bulges at the front of the nacelles, the length of the engines themselves, the length of the front of the secondary hull, the much longer and deeper slope at the bottom of the secondary hull conflicts with the slope and shape of the neck of the ship above, and what happened to the landing strut bays on the primary hull?

I’ve gotten used to it more, but it is not, at first sight, a beautiful design, and from some angles it looks homely. It looks like a preliminary design rather than a finished one, something I never would have ok’d in that shape.

In short, it looks like a Pontiac.

And one of the very first things I would have done is have someone figure out the exact scale, figure out exactly where the sets fit inside the hull to scale and made sure there were no conflicts between set positions within the hull and relative to the ship itself so that no hallways or structures we see in the movie would have theoretically led outside the ship.

I would have had the Enterprise designed on paper both inside and out.

87. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - July 22, 2009


C.S. Lewis
TDY Inner Harbor”

TDY? C. S. Lewis is a military man? I notice the little things…

Fellow sort-of first generationer as well (b. 1963). WPIX at 6pm everynight. Then years later at midnight, after the Honeymooners.

Enjoyed the new movie, but tend to agree with you. It can never resonate fully with me (us). We are too old for it to feel new. It worked best for me when it recalled glimpses of what made the show great. It disappointed in the little things; ship redesign, shallow character development/exposition, and my pet peeve of changing “no man” for “no one”. But I am the lone voice of sanity on that lost cause.

Oh, and it is nice to see proper use of “feet” instead of the tedious “meter”.

88. S. John Ross - July 22, 2009

The use of the phrase “studio scale” is strangely ironic, but I guess it gets the idea across. :)

89. sean - July 22, 2009


300 years from now we’ll more than likely be using ‘meter’, given the fact that we’re the only industrialized nation that doesn’t use the metric system (and most of our scientists use it despite the general public’s reluctance). I always winced a bit when someone would use ‘miles’ or ‘feet’ in Trek.

90. dmduncan - July 22, 2009

Another thing that bugs me is that the pylons look like they’re upside down. I like the new curved shape, but the wide end looks like it should be attached to the nacelle not the hull. It’s really an odd looking bird.

91. kmart - July 22, 2009

The base sez, ‘where no ONE has gone before’ … ? WTF

This is supposed to be TOS, right, when it was ‘where no MAN … ‘

Well I guess they messed up the ship, the characters, the universe, the scale, and even the promo line, that’s batting a thousand.

92. S. John Ross - July 22, 2009

#89: In fairness, as a _nation_ we legally adopted metric many years ago (… although technically the whole planet has abandoned metric in favor of the basically-the-same-thing-but-now-based-on-wavelengths-and-crap S.I.). One of the amusing bits of trivia I enjoy is that our Americanized more-or-less imperial measurements were re-scaled to more cleanly convert to metric, decades ago. We actually abandoned our original inch for what is, essentially, the metric inch (and so on).

And that’s just loopy, but there you go. :)

93. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - July 22, 2009

89 Wince away. As for being the only industrialized nation that doesn’t use it, who cares? They’ll come back to their senses one day. As for the smart scientists using it, fine. But the fact that the public never took to it warms my heart. Stickin’ it to the man!

94. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - July 22, 2009

92 With all due respect, “a question”. What is a metric inch? 25.4mm=an inch. I know it is sometimes rounded down to 25mm, but that is still pretty much an inch.

Anyway, I remember when I was in High School, President Carter (bless his benighted heart) decreed that the US was going metric. We summarily ignored him.

95. S. John Ross - July 22, 2009

#94: That’s correct; the modern U.S. inch is precisely 25.4mm or 2.54cm. That _is_ the “metric” inch, the inch that converts more cleanly.

It wasn’t always that neat ;) The conversion took place in 1959.

The actual change was made to the foot (that’s the difference between the “survey foot” and “international foot” … “international” is the correct term for the revised measurements, but the colloquial “metric inch” gets the idea across more evocatively, and more to the truthful point, since the idea of the international system was to define units to more cleanly convert to SI/metric).

Some agencies still use the old survey foot (and by extension, the old 1/12 of a survey foot inch), which is slightly longer (the international foot is smaller by 2 parts in one million … a ridiculously tiny amount, but there you go).

The foot was actually devalued, one might say ;)

96. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - July 22, 2009

95 Outstanding! Mighty oaks from tiny 2 parts per million grow!

97. RD - July 22, 2009

#86. dmduncan wrote: “And one of the very first things I would have done is have someone figure out the exact scale, figure out exactly where the sets fit inside the hull to scale and made sure there were no conflicts between set positions within the hull and relative to the ship itself so that no hallways or structures we see in the movie would have theoretically led outside the ship.
I would have had the Enterprise designed on paper both inside and out.”

LOL, Since the original series didn’t do that, I’d say the movie is in pretty good company.

Besides, that’s the kind of nit-picky stuff that only the TNG era shows obsessed over – which practically killed the franchise by taking the focus off the characters and the stories and put it on the technical details.

98. NX-2000 - July 22, 2009

79 – In the end… perhaps, that’s all we can do!

99. Boris - July 22, 2009

The imperial units are canon because of TOS, although they fell out of use by the time of TNG. I use feet or miles whenever the size was originally established in such units. For example, Andrew Probert wanted the Enterprise refit to be 1000 feet long exactly, which would not be as obvious to the reader if I used 304.8 meters or 305 meters. The NX-01, on the other hand, was always 225 meters long according to Doug Drexler, so the imperial units are irrelevant here. The “170m” Defiant was actually precisely 560 feet long.

(Yes, it is unrealistic that the ship lengths would end up at nice, round numbers of feet or meters, but rounding errors or metric conversions are certainly not the way to make them look more realistic.)

100. Michael Schinke - July 22, 2009

I can’t get past it; I do not like this design. It just looks bulgy and awkward. Everything about this movie looks like Star Trek filtered through a retro 1950’s “sci-fi” futuristic approach. None of it seems as if it takes a realistic look at where we might be in 200 years. This ship design looks like a lot of the goofy hot rod drawings that came out of the 50’s and 60’s, with huge engines and wheels and the body lurched forward. It doesn’t look fast; the Enterprise-E LOOKS fast. It looks as if the idea is just to have the saucer and nacelles floating on the surface of the ocean with the secondary hull submerged.

There is nothing; NOTHING about this movie I like.

101. Pyork - July 22, 2009

I want one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

102. S. John Ross - July 23, 2009

#100 says “There is nothing; NOTHING about this movie I like.”

Dude. Not even Zoe Saldana in go-go boots? I mean, geez. I think the movie’s dumber than a sack of hammers (and about as moral as stealing candy from a baby, eating half of it, coating it in poison, giving it back and then kicking the baby in the face) … but … Zoe Saldana in go-go boots, right?

I mean, it’s sad when the summer’s dumb-drunk comedy about guys in Vegas is cleverer, more insightful of the human condition, more affirming of friendship, morality and heroism, and more tightly plotted than the Star Trek movie. But you know what that movie DID NOT have? Zoe Saldana. In go-go boots.

I mean … just … c’mon!

103. Dom - July 23, 2009

Disappointed with the ‘Where no one . . .’

Who insisted that the TOS line be changed for the new film? Was it the studio or the writers?

I’m intrigued, because I’d assumed that that sort of 1980s PC had gone by now.

104. Tanner Waterbury - July 23, 2009

You know, if one does buy one of these, they should not look at it as a collectible, but more of an investment. I have a strong feeling that sometime down the road, this model is going to increase in value. So if anyone ever decides to sell their Enterprise, they can ask for a very good price on it. (or maybe even the company might buy it back?)

105. TonyD - July 23, 2009

#91, #103 – You can have any inscription engraved into the base for an extra fee since each model will be custom built to order. After all, if you can afford what this ship will probably cost, you can also afford to have your own phrase. Personally, I’d prefer no phrase at all, but you can definitely get “where no man has gone before” if you like.

#104 – Personally, I take the opposite view. You should NEVER buy something like this as an investment because its equally likely that it will decrease in value over the years, especially when it has such an initially hight pricepoint (The MR Enterprises, for example, are currently selling well below MSRP on Ebay these days).

Collecting should really be about having a passion for the subject matter; my brother and I have a fairly extensive genre collection (and I don’t even want to think about what we’ve spent over the years) but every single piece we’ve bought, we got because we liked it and wanted to have it for ourselves, not because of its potential resale value.

106. RD - July 23, 2009

102. S. John Ross wrote: I mean, it’s sad when the summer’s dumb-drunk comedy about guys in Vegas is cleverer, more insightful of the human condition, more affirming of friendship, morality and heroism, and more tightly plotted than the Star Trek movie.

LOL, I just saw “The Hangover” and was a little let down because it wasn’t as good as I was expecting considering the US box office revenue of almost $240M and climbing. But you are absolutely right, despite the very adult language and jokes, it has a very moral and honest center. I now feel a little better about all the pre-teens that were in attendance the Sunday afternoon I went. No wonder this film is doing so well – most Americans think this is a “family film”.

If it makes you feel any better, it will pass Trek at the box office in about two weeks and likely even do a bit better. As impressive as Trek’s “legs” have been, The Hangover is equally if not more impressive considering it is an “R” rated comedy. Audiences have spoken, The Hangover is much more popular than Trek, especially when you consider most of The Hangover’s tickets are one-time purchases and not the multiple repeat viewings by most of Trek’s fans returning to size up the nacelles and “watch the left half of the screen only this time”. I would bet at least 1/3, if not 1/2 of Trek’s box-office is from multiple repeat viewings by the same people.

107. JessIAm - July 23, 2009

Great replica, but will it get me chicks?

108. Michael Schinke - July 23, 2009

#102 – Ya know what, she isn’t really anything special. She’s not unattractive by any stretch, but I wouldn’t cross the plasma field inside a warp nacelle to reach her.

109. sean - July 23, 2009


Hmmm, a movie that views women as either heartless, demanding shrews or brainless hookers with hearts of gold is somehow more ‘moral’ than Star Trek. Interesting :)

110. trexxx - July 23, 2009

– A new trek show with many -many beautiful skinny girls is something more suitable for the present time…isn’t it ?!?

111. Michael Schinke - July 23, 2009

#110 – Not if it means that the essential intellectual and philosophical underpinnings give way to pandering to the lowest common denominator by promoting worthless and meaningless sex that relates to and effects nothing in the major thematic narrative. Voyager, Enterprise – I’m looking at you here.

112. Michael Schinke - July 23, 2009

#97 – Besides, that’s the kind of nit-picky stuff that only the TNG era shows obsessed over – which practically killed the franchise by taking the focus off the characters and the stories and put it on the technical details.

There is nothing wrong with having some kind of consistency to your technology. What the TNG era shows did that TOS did not was attempt to build a living, breathing and credible world within which to tell their stories. True they were essentially making it up as they went along, but at least they were making it up with some consistency. I’m not taking anything away from TOS by any stretch, but I noticed that they didn’t even attempt to build a larger universe outside the Enterprise until STIII. And no, the occasional planet scape or remote outpost does not count as universe building.

I always thought many peoples problem withe the TNG era shows were their scope was too large for them to be able to relate to. That’s not a negative; just an observation.

113. Troubled Tribble - July 23, 2009


Shouldn’t that be

USS Enterprise
1701 – JJ

114. Michael Hall - July 23, 2009

#102, Mr. John Ross, that was classic. :-)

115. Canadianknight - July 23, 2009

Damn… that looks amazing.

…and expensive. Wish I could afford! (I just couldn’t buy the edition that doesn’t have the lighting… it would feel incomplete.)

116. S. John Ross - July 23, 2009

#104: “You know, if one does buy one of these, they should not look at it as a collectible, but more of an investment.”

What you need is a hot bath and a rental of Toy Story 2. :)

117. Michael - July 24, 2009

Nice model. About the size issue…

The new Enterprise was clearly NOT designed to be much larger than the first. Just look at the windows, as others have said.

I understand that JJ (or whoever) imposed the size change at the last minute, after the design was completed and that they likely lacked both the time and the money to rescale it.

But it’s still painfully obvious that this ship is not meant be that big.

Hopefully, they have a “refit” for the next film that updates the model to whatever size they decide it is now.

Personally, I hope it stays big. I always thought it was kinda tiny.

I liked the movie regardless.

118. Drew - July 24, 2009

It’s ”Where No Man Has Gone Before”. Get it right you fools.

119. Capt. of the USS Anduril - July 24, 2009

You know, even Gene Roddenberry realized how sexist “Where no man has gone before” could be interpreted, that’s why it was changed for STTNG…

Why does everyone keep saying to look at the windows to see that the size is the same? I look at the TMP’s windows, and they were always on and whited out. We have no idea how big they actually were, and we have no idea how big the JJ-Enterprise windows actually were. Leave the size issue alone.

120. The Angry Klingon - July 25, 2009

We DO have an established scale for windows on the refit. we had the rec deck windows in TMP and we have K/S/M looking out the officers lounge window in TMP and again in STV. We also base scale in TMP from the Drydock shuttle. We have Kirk and Scotty in the window so we know their relative size to the shuttle pod and we know the pods size compared to the docking ring on the refit. The problem with the new poorly thought out scale of the NEW E is that the (various) scales dont match up. We see Kirk and Spock in the window of the Bridge on the new ship. It doesnt match up. We see Kirk’s pod ejected from that airlock and we its size relative to the airlock and then we see the pods size relative to kirk on Delta Vega. The naysayers seem reluctant to admit that the production crew quite simply didnt communicate or didnt care. The ship was never intended to be 2500 plus feet long. They screwed up and are trying to spin it like it was intended. Again, I dont care how big the ship is but what I do care about is the lack of detail orientedness on the production crews part. That same sort of nonsense was one of the things that made Trek 5 so laughable.

121. Chris Knight - July 26, 2009

I’d tap that.

122. kmart - July 28, 2009

119, There’s another excellent size reference on TMP, the guy staring out the porthole (actually modelmaker Mark Stetson, now a vfx supervisor) as Scotty backs the pod in.

Plus, and I’m not sure how visible they are on blu-ray, but hope springs eternal, there ARE images behind most of the windows, they just don’t read well. Stetson confirmed that for me a week or so back. He worked on the little deck T garden section in the engineering hull as well as the little lounge under the bridge (which you CAN see as the refit pulls away on impulse after leaving dock.)

I just wish I could see what details are there in the rec deck window area of the model …

123. Rocket Scientist - July 28, 2009

86. dmduncan

I would have had the Enterprise designed on paper both inside and out.


Absolutely! I very much enjoyed this movie and look forward to the sequels, but yes. I feel that this is the sort of attention to detail that should have been paid. I can’t imagine it would take a talented artist/designer more than a couple of days to lock down some essential elements, and it would mean so much to fans like ourselves. It would make this Star Trek universe seem that much more real.

And NO MORE BREWERIES! Having recently toured one, I can confirm that it did NOT give me the feeling that I was aboard a starship.

124. Bedroom Decorating – Are You Forgetting Something? « Wicked Blogging - July 31, 2009

[…] First Look At QMx Star Trek 2009 USS Enterprise Studio-scale … […]

125. plazztrek - September 5, 2009

the next generation enterprise bridge is on display at the franklin institute in philadelphia until sept 20th 2009 also the engine room and also the small craft that picard and data stole to crash their way out (in star trek nemisis) and get back to the enterprise

126. James Random - September 19, 2009

If you look at the videos here

You’ll find that the bussard ramscoops also rotate when the enterprise is switched on. Unfortunately, there are no current plans to release a retail version.

127. Eddie. - December 6, 2009

Hey! Guys.
Where can I buy a model just like this one?

Bing Fan.


128. j - August 14, 2010

Looks very very ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

129. Cowcharge - August 16, 2010

Sorry, but it’s a stupid-looking ship, and glaring errors like trying to claim it’s half a mile long without changing the windows is just plain lazy. This is what you get when your director is more interested in stuff “looking cool” than he is in respecting the history (too bad it only looks cool to the short-attention-span, “look-at-the-big-shiny-thing” Transformer generation). “It should have stuff that moves on it!” What a ridiculous, slapped-together way to make a movie. The director of any series movie should already be a fan, and be dedicated to upholding the standards of that series, and not be primarily interested in putting his own mark on it.
Lose the stupid lens flares, and buy a friggin’ camera dolly, will ya? It looks like my 89 year-old father shot this with a hand-held. If I’m paying $10 to see a movie, I don’t want the director doing everything in his power to keep me from seeing anything. And I’m sorry, but you CANNOT make a space movie without a nice long, slow flyby shot. Ya just can’t. And ya can’t drive something that big like it’s a Mini. Ya cannae change the laws o’ physics.
There were some good things… Most of the acting was ok, I thought Bones was good, and Scotty was pretty funny, Spock was ok, and they did make some effort to hold to their original relationships. I can accept the cast, no problem. But did anyone else think it was ludicrous to promote a fugitive, stowaway graduate/ensign to captain solely on the basis of Spock being pissed off at his world being destroyed (like any captain would keep his equanimity in that situation)? And if a bit of mourning is enough to can a captain, in a crew of however many thousands it takes to run a ship that absurdly big, there were no experienced officers? I mean sure, this is a fictional crew in a fictional ship in a fictional universe, so getting TOO worked up over things like the brewery or the scale or the unrealistic military aspects is silly, but you still have to have “suspension of disbelief” for a movie to be anything more than a cartoon. Audiences are much more tech-savvy than they were during TOS, so attention to details is more important now than it was in the 60s.
Contrast with Bond, for example. Although Bond has had his very, very silly moments, mostly with Roger Moore’s last couple of films, there is still a certain consistency throughout, even if the tone has shifted from less to more to less tongue-in-cheek over the years. In every Bond movie, you can still accept the universe without much trouble, thanks to consistent things like Q and Moneypenny (ok, a big asterisk next to Moonraker). You can even accept Remington Steele (barely), if you’re stoned enough.
Would anyone accept a 6-foot Hobbit, just because it was too hard to film them at their “real” height?
The net result, for me, of Abrams’ screwing things up? I’ll watch all the future Trek movies, but I’m done paying to see them in the theater, I’ll just wait and get them off Frostwire. The theater “experience” pretty much sucks these days anyway, and I know they’ll never miss my money.
$1000+ for a model? Never. If I want one that big, I’ll build it myself for $200. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.