Watch: Roberto Orci Talks Star Trek Sequel Design Work & Hints At Changes To The Enterprise [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Roberto Orci Talks Star Trek Sequel Design Work & Hints At Changes To The Enterprise [UPDATED] July 22, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

It has been reported before that there has been a "soft prep" going on for the Star Trek sequel including some early design work. In a new video interview from Sand Diego Comic Con, co-writer/producer Roberto Orci goes into more detail about this work, including how the USS Enterprise "might change." Watch it below.  

 

Orci talks Star Trek sequel design work + possible "changes" to Enterprise

The guys at HitFix ran into Bob Orci at San Diego Comic Con and got him to open up on the status of Star Trek. He sounded very enthusiastic about progress and gave more details on what kind of work is going on in the "soft prep."

Transcript of comments on Trek

Orci on the work being done:

JJ [Abrams] did this little side project, Super 8. So he is finally done with that little home movie of his. It was all about making sure he was done with it. We have been developing the a story even while he was working on Super 8 and I think it is going to be what the movie is. I think we really know what the movie is and we are in soft prep. We have designers working on the Enterprise and what could change. We have designers working on the alien planets whatever they may be, I can’t tell you. But we are really on track and we believe we have the idea for the sequel. I think JJ is resting as a result of Super 8, but I think we are going to announce very soon now when things are going to happen. But in terms of the development of the movie and the design of the movie – that has never stopped. We are on track and really like where we are going. If you are a Star Trek fan, we are on the case and I hope you really like it.

On the release date:

We always felt comfortable. By the way for the first movie there was a release date poster before we even began writing it. So we were like "oh it comes out in ’08? I guess we better get started." It is a dance that happens. Paramount we have to give a lot of credit to for being patient with us and betting on us and knowing that they would rather have us all come together then start anew. They get it. Super 8 is a Paramount production so it is not like they can pretend they have no idea what was going on with Super 8, so the delay is a little bit on you guys. They have been great. They want to know what fans want to know: do you have a story and is it coming along and are we going to left holding the bag or not? And I think we have it going on. By the way we have pitched the story to Paramount and they loved it. So a couple of people at Paramount out – [President of Paramount Film Group] Adam Goodman and [President of Production] Marc Evans – know what we are going to do and so you should find them on the street and ask them what is going on.  

Bob also offered this tidbit on Enterprise and designs

Yesterday I was at a meeting with me and Alex [Kurtzman] and JJ and Damon Lindelof, looking at how the Enterprise might change. So yesterday we were with Scott Chambliss, and amazing production designer we worked with on Alias and Cowboys & Aliens and who is back for Star Trek, he did the first Star Trek. So yesterday we were looking at designs of the alien planets that we might be looking at. He had actual cardboard cutouts of the opening sequence with the Enterprise, I can’t tell you where it is, flying over I can’t tell you where. So we are working on it, we are not just laying around.

UPDATE: Changes = new sections

Bob has dropped by the TrekMovie comments and offered the following:

Perhaps i should clarify. We will see new sections of the Enterprise, not necessarily redesigning, though.


Changes coming to the new USS Enterprise

Release Date?

TrekMovie has also clarified with Bob that by saying the team are "comfortable" with the schedule he was saying the team don’t know when the release date will be but  they are "ready for anything." As TrekMovie noted earlier, signs still point to some delay for the Star Trek sequel.

Comments

1. Alec - July 22, 2011

Please, please, change Budgineering. Being able to suspend disbelief is important in any film, but especially Star Trek. The Enterprise is not the Titanic….

2. Jordan - July 22, 2011

Changing engineering is a no-brainer. In fact, you had to be a no-brainer to have it look like that in the first place

3. Reign1701A - July 22, 2011

I think that’s why stuff like the Polar Lights model of the Enterprise, the Qmx Enterprise, etc. haven’t been released yet. Why release a model to the public that will be obsolete soon? How much you wanna bet they’re 1. Shoving the neck/saucer forward 2. widening the space between the nacelles. I’d also bet good money they’re building an actual engineering set.

4. Boris - July 22, 2011

boborci – changes to the ship are fine, but please try to be more specific as well, especially regarding the size and the deck count. Since there is an apparent consensus on your team regarding the length of 2379.75 feet for the Enterprise, we should see unambiguous evidence of that, in order to stop further discussion on the subject. (“No, I don’t buy the size…Personally, I think it’s 1200 feet long…This shot here clearly proves that the ship is only 1000 feet long…”)

5. Alec - July 22, 2011

Re: Jordan.

I know. And that’s what worries me: it might not be changed as JJ, in His infinite wisdom, decided it was a good idea to begin with. To he and his fellow Supreme Court, I say this: if you’re going to give us a vision of the future, with strange aliens and planets, how can we believe any of this if we can’t believe in the Enterprise: the main backdrop and setting of the whole film; the whole adventure. The Enterprise is really an extra character herself. She is just as important.

And there need be no problem with continuity: simply have one line spoken saying that the Ent was refitted after the battle with Nero. The bridge was cracking; so it’s likely that engineering was also damaged and in need of repair…

6. lemrick - July 22, 2011

Couldn’t see Uhura on the final shot of the bridge crew ( before the credits rolled), because of that computerized partition that’s situated behind her. She needs to be as visible as everyone else on the bridge, and especially when engaging shots like that.

7. FACTCHECKER - July 22, 2011

Engineering is a must-change.

Would prefer the exterior lines echoed the original a little more.

And tone down the bridge a touch.

8. Boris - July 22, 2011

5 – but please, PLEASE no “magic refit” as a codeword for total redesign. Matt Jefferies’ Phase II Enterprise was a refit, whereas Probert revised it for TMP as a total redesign, except that the term “refit” was also used in the movie and is now more popular because of the Encyclopedia.

9. FACTCHECKER - July 22, 2011

Please don’t add a jump seat for Scotty’s midget friend.

10. Harry Ballz - July 22, 2011

Please revamp the exterior look to the Enterprise.

It was NOT impressive in the last movie!

11. Alec - July 22, 2011

Re 6:

I agree. I didn’t like the Bridge much either. The old-fashioned viewscreen was an improvement, I concede. But there were too many lights, unnecessary stations with overarching library lamps on them, silly partitions, consoles with barcode-readers on them, etc…I mean…how big is the budget these days!?

My adivce, for pretty much all-things Trek, is just watch TWOK. The ship design, along with everything else, was nigh perfect. Use that as your inspiration…

12. Kenneth Of Borg - July 22, 2011

“Please don’t add a jump seat for Scotty’s midget friend.”

Yes, no Jar Jar Binks please!

13. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 22, 2011

As long as they get rid of the Brewery that is an engine room. The rest I’m ok with.

14. Starbase Britain - July 22, 2011

#10
i agree Harry. I felt that not just the design, but the whole image of the ship felt like a bit of a non event. I still think a fantastic opportunity was missed in the 2009 – we should have seen the Enterprise lanched into space for the first time. That would have been an incredible spectacle.

TMP Enterprise remains (in my humble opinion) the best, most impressive Enterprise yet.

I dare you to do better Mr Orci :o)
cheers
Greg
UK

15. Cameron Downing - July 22, 2011

Would really, really love to see Engineering change as well. Could be cool to see other places on the ship, like the conference room, captain’s quarters, etc.

16. David - July 22, 2011

I wonder if the uniforms will change. when WOK came out, the uniforms were drastically different in comparrison to the motion picture, so imagine some similar will happen again with this movie after all, the last ST movie was our generation’s TMP and so the next one will be our WOK.

17. Kokanee33 - July 22, 2011

Bussard collectors should glow orange/red.

Shrink the deflector dish a bit.

18. jr - July 22, 2011

Changes to the big E…

Nacells, lower/back section… looks too thin!

Interior set of Engineering… not a brewery!

Bridge of Kelvin more cool than Enterprise… so, grunge it up a bit… not so shiney.

19. Alientraveller - July 22, 2011

#14. That was the Enterprise’s maiden flight, and it was still an awesome scene. It’s a cliche but my jaw dropped.

I look forward to seeing more of the ship’s enteriors and hope whatever modifcations made don’t compromise the lovely swan like mental image Ryan Church’s redesign gave me.

20. Shunnabunich - July 22, 2011

“By the way we have pitched the story to Paramount and they loved it.”

Does that scare anyone else? These are movie studio execs we’re talking about.

21. Christopher Roberts - July 22, 2011

I imagine the change in Enterprise scale will be TMP to rest of the films – TWOK thru TUC. The shuttlecraft bay was several orders of size in that first film and a two car driveway later on.

Downscale but the story is so good, you don’t even give it a second thought.

Or you’re watching TFF and…

22. MJ - July 22, 2011

RDR,

This would seem to indicate that the movie will come out well before Summer 2013, wouldn’t you say?

Based on this article, December 2012 sound eminently doable, without rushing…especially if the announcement of formal pre-production comes with a few weeks, as this article seems to indicate.

Bob Orci,

I apologize for my recent lack of faith…the lack of information was really getting to me. And thanks for correcting the Engine Room…wink, wink.

23. 221baker - July 22, 2011

From the outside I love the ’09 Enterprise as it is. I’d prefer there are no changes to it. But please, please change engineering to something believably 23rd century. It looked ridiculous. Totally took me out of the movie. (As did the all the concrete inside the Kelvin shuttle bay).

I love that Nicholas Meyer wanted the interior of the E. to have a realistic ‘used’ and functional look to it in Undiscovered Country. It looked great. I still feel that way about it now for the new Trek, but I want there to be a little Science Fiction in my Science Fiction, not Budweiser equipment.

Looking forward to the movie, whenever it might be ready.

24. Boris - July 22, 2011

11, 16 – are you asking boborci not to be original and forever bow to TWOK and the original movie series? Should Christopher Nolan make his third Batman more campy because that’s what happened with the first generation of movies?! What kind of logic is that?

25. weyoun_9 - July 22, 2011

The external look of the ship didn’t bother me. I have to agree with the look of engineering. I get the “industrial” concept and why JJ and everyone would like that concept, but I think there is a happy medium that can be reached that would be more congruous as a whole ship.

I don’t think the costumes need an overhaul. In fact, I’d like to see fewer changes to what’s set so far (except engineering) and more focus on making the new planets (or old planets), aliens, and other plot relevant special effects that much cooler. Focus on the design that enhances the story.

And engineering.

26. Boris - July 22, 2011

And size.

27. Shunnabunich - July 22, 2011

@18: I don’t think the reason the Kelvin’s bridge put that of the Enterprise to shame was that it was “grungy”. It was simply designed to be the bridge of a starship, not to double as a cosmetics store in case of fashion emergencies. There are many things about ST09’s Enterprise bridge that just plain don’t make sense, such as the overdone lighting, gratuitous glass panels and ludicrous UI design (95% of which consisted of flashy garbage they threw in because they thought it might look cool to ADD-afflicted 12-year-olds). Take those away, and you’d probably have a pretty decent bridge. Or at least a starting point for one you could actually run a ship from.

28. Myriad - July 22, 2011

There are many problems with the redesigned Enterprise. Some of a aforementioned and some I would like to see change:

1. Definitely make engineering look more believable.

2. The scale of the ship is way too large for a ship of its time. 2380 ft? com’on….

3. It’s not as sleek and stylish as the TMP Enterprise. The most beautiful starship to date. Get rid of the “hot rod” look.

4. The shuttlecraft hangar looks like an aircraft carrier deck. Com’on now….

29. Boom Boom - July 22, 2011

Guys…come on now! Why do folks feel qualified to make statements like “the scale of the ship is way too large for a ship of its time”, or talk about the look of the exterior, or the hangar deck? Although I wholeheartedly agree that engineering looked like exactly what it was…a brewery. It’s a new time, a new crew, a new ship. When I saw the movie, of course I had preferences, but my love of Star Trek and the magnificent idea of bringing back the original crew (the best) totally outweighed any small preference I might have. Which is exactly what most of the above comments are…preferences. So lets let the wonderful minds hard at work do their job…continue to bring the best Star Trek experience to the big screen. Wasn’t it Captain Kirk who said, “young minds, fresh ideas…be tolerant”?

30. Scooter - July 22, 2011

I liked what they were going for with engineering in ’09 but it was too industrial. Need a marriage of a high tech engineering set with induatrial influences. Oh, and cut back on the stinkin lense flares.

31. CaptainSMAW - July 22, 2011

I want a better engineering, not the budgineering, I want glowing tubes and glowing mesh panels not brewery kettles. Red/orange bussard collectors would be nice as well. As would a nice gold deflector dish. Crew quarters I want to see as well.

32. Ben - July 22, 2011

boborci,

Know that I absolutely love all things you are doing with the franchise. I understand your reasoning for the changes here and there and actually liked the 2009 Enterprise however since you all are changing some stuff around might I make one small suggestion…

Change the font used on the ship’s hull to be that of the Kelvin or TOS Enterprise. There is something about that classic retro block text that I love and sincerely believe it would just fit the alternative universe Enterprise.

Thanks again for investing time, energy, and spirt back into Trek!

33. TonyD - July 22, 2011

All the Supreme Court needs to do to get away with even the most radical of changes to the Enterprise is to simply begin the movie with the Enterprise primary hull (pretty much the only part of the ship that was perfect) being mated to the new, sleeker stardrive section and voila …. new engineering and hangar deck explained.

And add me to the chorus who absolutely hated the Budgineering set; it was, frankly, ridiculous with its visible valves and turning wheels, as was the scene where Kirk finds Uhura as he’s having that allergic reaction. Those vats visible in the background just took me right out of the moment and instantly killed the feeling that I was on a spaceship.

As for the bridge, it was just too busy and cramped with way too many people, workstations and those unnecessary vertical panels. Sometimes less is more and just cutting back on the amount of hardware and turning down the lights would do wonders.

We saw so little of the transporter room and sickbay that any redesign would be easy to swallow and wouldn’t require any real explanation.

And let’s not forget the props. The phaser, tricorder and communicator were all poor successors to the TOS hardware and a makeover of those devices would be in order as well.

Trek 2009 was a great and entertaining movie but there’s no shame in admitting that the filmmakers missed the mark in some areas. Use that experience and go make it better the second time around.

34. Spock's Uncle - July 22, 2011

front of nacelles: red. Done.

35. Holo J - July 22, 2011

Have the balls to redesign engineering, some football’s back in engineering or soccer balls as you call them in the States ;) I’m sure most of you here know what I mean by that, but if anyone wonders what I’m going on about check out the original series engine room. Scotty himself had a kick about with them between takes :)

36. jas_montreal - July 22, 2011

Make the bridge look more darker and First-Contact’ish.

Saucer Separation anyone ? LOL

37. CanOpener 1256 - July 22, 2011

This just in: enterprise engine room will be upgraded from a brewery to a wine cooler.

38. The Bear - July 22, 2011

Tone down the bridge – it doesn’t look functional like the TOS bridge, etc. This new bridge looks like a mixture of an Ikea store and an Apple store.

Put some believablity in the design of the Phaser, Communicator, Tricorder and McCoy’s medical equipment.

39. Schnotty - July 22, 2011

I want my intermix chamber! You can have grease, tools, crap laying around everywhere, but there better be a big juicy intermix chamber smack in the center, and it better be cool.

40. Schnotty - July 22, 2011

oh yeah, and make the intermix chamber look like something cool is happening inside of it (like TMP) and not like a bunch of daisy-chained neon DAVE’S GOOD FOOD signs lighting in sequence (everything Berman touched)

41. SonOfKirk - July 22, 2011

Why mess with the design of the Enterprise? It’s only just built it and completed it’s first mission/voyage.

Hopefully the ship should now be launched for it’s first Five Year Mission.

Oh and don’t change the uniforms please! Just get rid of the brewery for an engine room.

42. Alec - July 22, 2011

33:

Yes; I’d forgotten the phasers: they should fire a beam not ‘bullets’. It’s not a cowboy film, JJ.

And can we have some innovative ‘new’ technology, please. When TOS came out, wireless communications, even sensor operated automatic doors were novel…TNG had PADs, holodecks, etc. Nothing in Trek 2009 was ‘new’ technology. I don’t want to be too critical: it was their first and so far only Trek film. But perhaps this is something we can have in Trek 2009. Production design was a weakness.

For the next film:

1. A good story that deals with ‘the great themes’, the human condition and morality, a la TWOK, TVH, TUC. Not a get from point A to B to C via explosions X, Y, and C and chance coincidences and random promotions story. Trek has always been for the ‘thinker’. More maturity, too.

2. Linked-in to 1., we need a good vilain (if a traditional story unlike TVH) who is threatening, powerful, complicated, and has a fleshed-out and convincing backstory.

3. We need good music that’s not repetitive and tells the whole story not just music geared for a handful of emotions over and over. And we have so much great Trek music from the past: re-use it (especially Kirk’s theme from TWOK and , if relevant, the Klingon Theme from TMP )

4. We need good production design that is good [i]Star Trek[/i] production design. Not production design from a documentary on the Titanic or from a Star Wars film: in addition to a thematic and musical identity, Star Trek also has a production identity. Just as you can hear a Trek story or Trek music and know that it’s Trek, you can do the same for a bridge or a corridor or…engineering.

5. We need some shots that show off the beauty and wonder of space. Like Meyer’s starfields, planetary shots, etc. The adventure is space. The adventure is made more special when we realise just how beautiful, vast, and wonderous space really is. This is not a journey to France. It’s a journey to infinity.

43. mikephys - July 22, 2011

@17, 34 I agree!!

Bob, please put in a good word for the front of the nacelles to be red/orange/amber! Thanks!

44. AL - July 22, 2011

39 Mr Scott knows it takes 30 minutes to heat cold anti-matter

45. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 22, 2011

I gotta say, Super 8 just missed the “emotional payoff” that should have been the WOW factor towards the end of the movie.

46. Odkin - July 22, 2011

Put aside all the Trek geekery, and make changes that make the ship MORE accessible to regular audiences.

-The brewery engine room is fine
-The outline of the ship should even MORE closely resemble the TOS ship for nostalgia purposes. Do NOT go to the flat sided nacelles a la TMP.
-COLOR. The bridge needs COLOR. Do NOT make it darker or more menacing looking. Get rid of the white-washed sterile look. It needs the Black/Red/Grey/Tan color scheme.
-Nacelle/bussard-whatevers glow swirling RED plasma. Not blue, get it?
-The size of the ship – why on earth should it be some order of magnitude bigger than the TOS ship? A crew size of 430 os believable. What does making it bigger accomplish, unless it’s you know, a psychological thing with Abrams.

47. Peter Loader - July 22, 2011

Don’t change a thing. That’s been problem in nearly every other movie. The ships fine the way it is. Forget the previous versions, their irrelevant for this incarnation of Trek. It’s about the story and that’s all!

48. Jeyl - July 22, 2011

This fine lady deserves sets, not practical grounded locals.

Maybe a bigger waist where the hanger is? Too thin to be supporting two huge warp engines.

49. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 22, 2011

C’mon. Redesign the Alternate Enterprise? Already?

As I recall, from the Cage to TOS, the Enterprise only had minor changes made to the design. Yeah, I know. This is THE MOVIES! But it just does not make sense to rehaul the entire ship. Especially the outer design of the ship. We have (had? I must say that I still see one more flight for the Shuttle ; )) been flying the space shuttle for 30+ years and the design really has not changed in appearance at all. Practically speaking why would it?

Look you changed the ship because it was in an alternate timeline. STICK WITH IT and be proud of the changes you all made. Yeah, its really not the superior Star Trek design, but just go with it. It really did pretty good onscreen.

With the limited time and resources available, more consideration should be paid to the story at this point.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DEVELOP A GREAT, CREATIVE, AWE INSPIRING AND WONDEROUS STORY FIRST!!!!

50. Captain Dan - July 22, 2011

There’s enough suggestions here for the change to Engineering to occur. There were some great sketches in the book ‘The Art of Star Trek’ for how it could have looked.

Exterior, I got used to the new Enterprise so I hope they don’t change too much. I’d probably look for the NCC-1701 to be painted on the underside of the saucer as it looks really bare with nothing on it. As others have mentioned, from the damage sustained against the battle with Nero, some changes could be expected – even though we saw the E warp away at the end of the movie which would have been after any such refit.

Either way, looking forward to this… hopefully not much longer than 12 months to go!

51. dmduncan - July 22, 2011

Everything in this interview sounds really really good, including changes to the Enterprise.

52. Aqua - July 22, 2011

Requested changes for the interior:

The Enterprise was apparently launched early before it was ready due to the crisis. The engineering spaces simply weren’t completed yet and so you saw the guts. In this movie the rest of the ship should have a finished look. Made absolutely no sense that Uhura and other comm workers were sitting along a busy corridor inside engineering. The revised version could have the comm section in the same area but as a finished room, etc.

Requested changes for the exterior:
1) a new deflector area that doesn’t stick out as much
2) a bulked up underside of the engineering hull – extend the forward thick part farther back.

53. Adolescent Nightmare - July 22, 2011

47.

Definitely. Why does every demand from these people involve returning to the past of Star Trek? Make everything the way it used to be! No change allowed! Killing Star Trek once with nothing ever changing wasn’t good enough for them. Now they want to kill it again.

54. Christopher Roberts - July 22, 2011

THE BRIDGE:
I’d probably only keep one of those glass panels used for whatever they’re used for – mapping or course plotting.

Change the white grilled section directly behind the Captain’s chair into a crew station, matching those curved around the other sides. Bring the turbolift door back into the same shot. To feel more like the Original Bridge layout where Kirk would swivel round to face Dr. McCoy entering just off to the right.

There was a production sketch of the bridge that was less blindingly white with twinkling christmas tree lights and more cream and red and darker.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/conceptart/ryanchurch7.jpg

ENGINEERING:
Build a proper set influenced by the TV shows, particularly TOS obviously and the layout in ENT but more advanced. A warp engine that runs horizontally along the length of a few decks. Not vertically as in TNG onwards. No Victorian stop cocks. Visable plumbing in Engineering itself. Pipes go inside bulkheads and are labelled GNDN – goes nowhere does nothing!

Retcon the redressed brewery as coolent replenishment, deuterium storage tanks, water reclamation, auxiliary control because the main room is still being fitted out… ANYTHING but those weren’t Scotty’s bairns we we’re looking at.

55. Thorny - July 22, 2011

47… We saw five Enterprises in ten movies, representing three different eras of Trek history: 1701 and 1701-A in the Kirk prime era, 1701-B for the immediate post-Kirk era, 1701-D and 1701-E in the Next Generation era. But of these, 1701 and 1701-A were indistinguishable, and 1701-B was little more than a cameo appearance. 1701 and 1701-D met their doom on the big screen and were replaced: 1701 by a clone and 1701-D by an all-new starship (which is what 1701-A should have been as well.)

I don’t expect major changes to the Enterprise for Trek ’13, hopefully Mr. Orci and company are just talking about a bonafide Engineering Set and a toned-down less Apple Store-like Bridge.

56. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 22, 2011

#20 – “By the way we have pitched the story to Paramount and they loved it.”
Does that scare anyone else? These are movie studio execs we’re talking about.”

No. I would be more scared if Bob et al had pitched a story to Paramount and they hated it. Perhaps that may have already happened, hence the apparent delay in getting a whole script/story almost done. After all, Paramount owns the Star Trek film franchise and it will be their money (and a lot of money as well) that will be used to make the sequel. If I were them, I’d certainly want to be happy that the team (Bad Robot) I had contracted to make the film series, were planning to make a movie that I could approve of.
Personally what I hope for is that the Paramount execs. have similar tastes to those of my own, then all will be sweet!

I agree about the bridge of the (09) Enterprise being too bright, crowded and cramped. Simplicity is the way to go. I always felt that people could easily collide with one another, even when one is sitting and the other is going for a nature call. However, I don’t want to see bridges as dark as that on TWOK and the other movies. Star Trek TOS got it right. Go back to TOS, Bob… you can’t go wrong.

If you are going to get rid of all the budgineering, at least you could give Scotty a pair of budgies as a momento…:) (Sorry, can’t help it, reading that word always conjures up a vision of chirpy little birds and all my husband thinks is “budgie smugglers”!)

Yes, the worst scene was when Kirk was running, feeling sick and with swollen hands, looking for Uhura down in engineering. (Why would she be in engineering if her focus was communications? Not sure why but that’s a different issue) The look and feel, as on the bridge, was somewhat claustrophobic – there seemed to be way too many people there. However, these aspects can be very easily solved…

Gosh, I feel like I am nitpicking. Perhaps I should see this as making little suggestions as to how improvements could be made, without taking much time or money…

By the way, we only know that the engineering section is actually part of a brewery because the film makers told us in the Special Features on the DVDs. I have never been in a brewery, but I have been in an ice cream factory (Tip Top in Auckland). They look very similar. Anyway, what they showed with Scotty in the water pipe and the subsequent chase was in the Environmental section of the ship. The fact that it was a Budweisers brewery being filmed always gives me a little chuckle because, who knows, behind one of the big vats, there may be a small distillery hidden etc…I often visualise Kirk’s first command to be telling Scotty, McCoy and whoever else to get rid of the distillery, brewing vats etc and he being not too popular as a result…:) I like to be able to put a humourous spin on 23rd century starship engineering “breweries”…

As a poster recently wrote after all, “it’s just a movie”.

Actually, the real question, as it has been for a few months now, will Star Trek be filmed in 3D or 2D (no conversions)?

57. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 22, 2011

Oh Bob Orci. Myself and Harry and AJ and others DEMAND!!!!! That you get Del Trames Name. (British Naval Dude) in the next Trek Movie. ORRRRRRRRRRRR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

58. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 22, 2011

Also, the uniforms look great. No change needed.

(Not that fond of the TWOK style uniforms – too militaristic…)

59. Mel - July 22, 2011

I think the Enterprise looks great from the outside. I wouldn’t change this.

Only the engineering in the Enterprise should be changed. It should look more futuristic. In the last movie it really didn’t look like the bridge and engineering is part of the same ship.

I get that Abrams wanted a big scale engine room. I agree that the engine room should look huge. But it should be possible to make a big scale engine room, which looks futuristic, too. Just use more CGI or build some futuristic sets.

60. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 22, 2011

56. Keachick

“…By the way, we only know that the engineering section is actually part of a brewery …”

Ahhh. The real root of Scotty’s drinking probelm.

61. boborci - July 22, 2011

Perhaps i should clarify. We will see new sections of the Enterprise, not necessarily redesigning, though.

62. MDSHiPMN - July 22, 2011

The Enterprise WAS a missed opportunity in Star Trek.

An exterior design change and interior improvements are needed IMO.

I get such an emotional response every time I see the Enterprise design as seen in the QMx TMP Enterprise Refit Replica, but the new one just doesn’t work for me as I (for the most part) don’t find it pleasing to look at.

It’s really too bad considering it’s what I consider to be one of the few flaws in the latest Star Trek movie.

Seeing those two ships on the same page really drove it home for me.

63. Obsidian - July 22, 2011

I too was put off by the new E at first. But it grew on me. Still. I’d mainly like to see the secondary hull filled out a bit more.

Also, I too would like to see the transparent screens on the bridge dispensed with.

…and of course engineering. I really liked the TMP engineering. If memory serves, that set was used for all 6 TOS movies? Or was it tweaked at some point?

64. MDSHiPMN - July 22, 2011

Actually the new Enterprise design looks good from every angle but the SIDE shot.

I’m too old-school and it just looks like the neck/nacelle placement was done for change-sake and not design fluidity.

But, what do I know? Squat.

65. Anthony Pascale - July 22, 2011

20 re: studio execs
There are certainly many uninspiring studio execs but Bob specifically mentioned Marc Evans. He is unsung hero of Trek. In 2005 when franchise was being written off for dead he was the one guy who started to envision a big return for trek. He helped bring together the “supreme court” and he helped get them the resources to make a big trek film. He is a genuine fan but he is also savvy hollywood guy. So when he likes it, it is actually a good sign.

66. Father Robert Lyons - July 22, 2011

@boborci: I refuse to see the next movie unless you shoot engineering in a brewery that will allow Kirk to stroll into the bridge, click his armrest, and use the following dialogue:

KIRK: “Kirk to engineering.”
SCOTTY: “Scotty here.”
KIRK: “Mr. Scott… it’s Miller time.”

:)

Rob+

67. Mel - July 22, 2011

All in all I like the uniforms. They look much better than all the uniforms in the older Star Trek movies. But they should give women ranks on their uniforms. You can put rank signs on short uniform arms, too. Of course you could also make them longer by some centimeters or more.

Just give the women some ranks signs. How should any Starfleet officer know, if they should obey or command a female officer, if they don’t know the rank of her? The Enterprise is a big ship. Not everyone will know each others ranks at once. And the Enterprise could also interact with other Starfleet personnel from outside of the Enterprise crew.

The very short uniform of Uhura is of course already unrealistic for any kind of military. But I get it that they wanted to have a female sex object on the ship, which shows a lot of skin. TOS put their female actors also into scantily outfits. But putting a rank on Uhura’s and other female uniforms shouldn’t distract from all the nude skin. I am sure it won’t make her less sexy for male viewers, which she is suppose to attract. So there is really no good “Hollywood reason”, why women shouldn’t have rank signs.

68. Father Robert Lyons - July 22, 2011

#63 – The TMP engineering set was used again in Star Trek II. We did not see the Enterprise engineering section in Trek III or IV. In Trek V, all we saw was a framing shot with Scotty, but never saw the actual engineering area. In Trek VI, it was a redress of the TNG enginerring section, down to using the TNG warp core

The TMP ‘core’ was redressed for use in Voyager.

Rob+

69. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 22, 2011

65. Anthony Pascale

That was very reassuring insider info.

Thank you!

70. Adolescent Nightmare - July 22, 2011

61.

Thank you. The quiet majority loved the look of the movie.

71. davidfuchs - July 22, 2011

70.

Not to say I think I’m in the majority about the redesign (aside from interiors, I think the nacelles are too close together, and the engineering hull sticks out too far as the major issues), but you can’t say there’s a “silent majority” that loved it either. There’s even less evidence for that than “fanboys are upset!”

(And I agree that the TMP Enterprise is one of the best, although I concede there are good lines on all the ships, even the C and D.)

72. James - July 22, 2011

Bob do you mean we may see the conference room from the original series?

73. Kev - July 22, 2011

Neck Forward along with the engine pylons, saucer smaller, move the engines further apart and reduce the amount of blue glowy things on it, the engines need to glow red.

and maybe make the paintjob more grey, plus adding the two numbers of the original onto the saucer, then she’ll be worthy of that name rather than the JJprise its been aptly called.

oh and for god sakes remove the red label makers from Sulu’s station on the bridge!

74. boxker - July 22, 2011

People’s concerns about the look of the Enterprise as it pertains to it’s reported size baffles me a bit. Especially when you think about the reported measurements for Enterprise D. When TNG first came out I had always had a problem with the reported size of it, well at least for the secondary hull section. It just never looked like it was so much larger than Kirk’s Enterprise. I’m sure if you were to compare the models used for Enterprise D with the model used for Enterprise (refit) the size difference isn’t much. Look at the first few seasons, or even the very firs episode, it was only slightly larger than the Excelsior class ships that were seen.

It wasn’t until the movie Generations, that the Enterprise D appeared to match the reported size. Compare Enterprise D next to the O’berth class in the episode The Naked Now. with the O’Berth class next to the Farragut (Nebulae class) in Generations. There is a big difference.

I guess it just shocked me that people were up in arms about the specs of the (2009). If they change anything, I hope they just make it appear to be that large. I hope they don’t change the specs to make it smaller. I like the idea of Kirk’s ship being very large.

75. D for me - July 22, 2011

boborci,

Thank you for clarifying for the techno trekkers. Just give it a kick ass story and a real space battle (TWOK). Do that and I and the faithful will still be your friends in the morning.

76. Kev - July 22, 2011

Interior wise make it look more like it did in ST 2, basically more military like with less gloss everywhere and try and go for this look for the bridge which was just the right look for it in the TMP films that they sadly didnt go for with 5 and 6

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/e/ee/Constitution_class_refit_bridge_2.jpg

and I’d love to have the old conference room of TOS back, always kinda missed that in the TMP films,

speaking of which the military rank pieces of ST 2 mixed in with the TOS stuff might be worth looking into as long as they actually mean something like they did there

sorry if it seems like I’m laying into you guys but its with good reason, I miss how great trek used to be before Rick Berman ran it into the ground

and I really want your films to messure up to the best ones in the series and the first step is with the visuals which honestly I had a lot of problems with specifically with the enterprise herself, next is the writing but I think everyones already given you enough trouble about that already and honestly besides the enterprise’s new design I did really like ST09.

its just that when you design the enterprise with a hotrod in mind you should really step back and try and make it more like the orignal tmp design that was much more bird like than hotrod like.

however I did sort of like the engine configuration from certain angles, its just that its too close together, basically if an enemy took out one engine the explosion would take out the other which goes against why the ship was designed like it was in the first place with modulation in mind with the original.

77. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 22, 2011

@ 61. boborci

a new engineering set ?

78. VZX - July 22, 2011

This sounds good. Thanks for the update. I just hope it’s not rushed. I would rather wait another two years or three for great Star Trek than get crappy Trek next year.

79. Enterprise C - July 22, 2011

Bob, can we expect the return of Vulcan in the sequel? A maybe will do!

80. Adam C - July 22, 2011

oh yay a sequel i just a sequel movie.. i just hate the fact that the movie and a couple of games will have to last me for a few YEARS :(

81. NFXstudios - July 22, 2011

It sounds like there won’t be any significant changes to the exterior design of the Enterprise — which is fine, since I personally don’t care for the way key visual elements of a franchise have the tendency to change from installment to installment just be new or “more cool.” Batman’s suit, different in every movie… Iron Man’s suit, etc. The same Enterprise model was used for more than ten years and six movies with little more than a repaint. The Excelsior model was only changed because it was representing a newer version of the older design… and even that change took ten years to come about.

The only thing that really bugged me about the new Enterprise, anyway, was how far the engineering hull sticks forward past the neck. Really liked the new nacelles, and the bowed pylons, and the saucer was a really nice update/amalgamation of the TOS and TMP versions.

My guess, as others have already commented, is that we’ll be seeing some changes to some of the interior design, and possibly some new entirely new interior sets, places we didn’t see in the previous movie — briefing room, or brig, or something along those lines.

82. Harry Ballz - July 22, 2011

61. boborci “We will see new sections of the Enterprise”

Finally, a toilet makes an appearance! About bloody time!

Will it involve Scotty talking into the “big white telephone” after an evening of Scotch?

83. Red Dead Ryan - July 22, 2011

I’m okay with any redesigns to the ship, as long as it isn’t drastic. Keep it simple and consistent. I’d also like to see a better engineering, but I get the sense that J.J Abrams will go back with it for the sequel. Maybe he can dress it up to make it less like a Budweiser beer factory.

#22.

I still think the movie will come out in summer 2013. I think Paramount views the Trek sequel as a summer tentpole, just like the first. But more importantly, a Dec. 2012 release doesn’t allow a lot of time for merchandising and marketing. Paramount saw this as a weakness last time and I think they’ll push the movie into May or June of 2013 to buy extra time to ramp up the hype and anticipation while allowing licensees to develop toys, publish books, print clothing, etc. The problem that licensees had during the TNG movie era was the short time frame to bring out merchandise, in particular Playmates, whose Enterprise E toy was different from the ship we saw in “First Contact”.

A summer 2013 release date also allows for more reshoots, rewrites and re-edits.

84. Red Dead Ryan - July 22, 2011

#81.

Captain Kirk took a seat on a closed toilet in “The Final Frontier”.

85. Cygnus-X1 - July 22, 2011

Alright, now we’re in business!

Summer of 2043 can’t get here soon enough!!

86. Harry Ballz - July 22, 2011

84.

Aw, crap!

87. Cygnus-X1 - July 22, 2011

P.S. Though I initially made a fun of them, I have to admit that I now find myself in the “No Budgineering” camp. Also, like many people, I could do without the little Ewok character as well. Looking forward to seeing more of the rest of the cast, though. Oh, but no fight scenes for John Cho. Some of his moves and facial expressions during the fight scene came across a bit silly. Also looking forward to seeing Bones and Spock antagonize each other.

88. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 22, 2011

@ 78. VZX
“I would rather wait another two years or three for great Star Trek than get crappy Trek”

VZX maybe not another 3 years of a wait pls :P

89. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 22, 2011

87. Cygnus-X1

do you mean the star wars ugnaught?

90. Red Dead Ryan - July 22, 2011

#86.

“Aw, crap!”

I hear that’s what the audience yelled out during TFF at my local theatre in ’89…..and not just about the brig scene!

91. Bryan - July 22, 2011

I realize the idea behind things like the shuttle bays & engineering not matching the ship’s upper decks because they were meant to relate to a more functional/working area than shiny corridors but seriously, Loose the brewery and build a proper engine room with an identifiable warp core of some sort.

92. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - July 22, 2011

#81 In The Dark Knight, Batman’s new suit was to deal with mobility and agility in combat. In Iron Man’s case, Tony Stark is continually improving on the technology, that’s why the suits are different.

93. BaronByng - July 22, 2011

I think the exterior is perfect. I have the Playmates toy ship and, well, while flying it around the house (ahem ;) and simulating camera angles by squinting close to it, the shapes flow really well. The Enterprise always was a kind of a hybrid of “sailing vessel” and “winged horse” when you really look at it, and the new nacelles are lovely wings/sails. It has all of the good angles of both the TOS and TMP Enterprises.

I think the neck and saucer placement are also perfect. That was always a criticism of mine of the Prime designs, in that the necks “looked” top-heavy and awkward. The new neck blends smoothly at both body and saucer ends; it looks more structurally capable of bearing loads, and it seems to move the center of mass towards the middle. It looks more “agile” somehow.

The side profile is really nice too. It’s basically all about giving the new E that sports-car sense of unified forward motion, whereas the old ones had (partly due to the neck angles) competing visual lines flowing forwards and back, up and out.

Where I agree with other commenters; I think Engineering needs to balance realism with believability within the visual context set by other parts of the ship. Pipes and coils and yes, even valves will be part of high-energy physics technology for centuries to come (there’s always got to be a manual shutoff!) But If ST:ENT is still part of the continuity, being pre-2233 Nero timeline incursion, it’s a bit odd that their Engineering deck looked more sophisticated than one built a hundred-odd years later. At the very least, a better central Engineering control area (and/or workshop) would be welcome.

I think the bridge – and many other controls – are interesting. We have a hybrid of actual physical controls, like the “speedboat throttles” on the helm and the big dials/trackballs at various other stations, and then stylus-driven touch surfaces (the helm, the transparent standing displays cribbed from Star Wars) combined with hints that there’s virtual control surfaces as well. Scotty sports an eyepiece at one point, and if you look at the bridge panorama shots on the official site, you’ll notice that the vast flat surface of the helm has no physical controls whatsoever…just a few LED digital counters and then “something” underneath glass. Obviously there’s something there that we can’t see, maybe there are many virtual controls that appear only if you’re sitting at the station? (Bob Orci, was there any official backstory for that?)

But anyway, that’s all nitpicking. It’s all about the characters and story, and I can’t wait to see the next phase of their evolution.

94. Davidj - July 22, 2011

Glad to hear the exterior won’t be changing. Obviously the distorted fish-eye view above wasn’t very flattering, but I think the gorgeous QMS model proves what a badass design it actually is.

95. D D - July 22, 2011

Change one thing: ENGINEERING.

Make it like the original concepts for the film fhat were never used.

See link:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Enterprise_engineering_concept_1.jpg

96. Cygnus-X1 - July 22, 2011

89. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY – July 22, 2011

Yeah, a hybrid of Ugnaught and Ewok.

97. Sean - July 22, 2011

I think people should stop knocking the way Engineering looked in the movie. It is entirely believable that in 300 years, still the most efficient means to drive machinery is through hydraulics…after all, the most advanced Nuclear power stations of today still use the same physical laws as the old Turbines on the titanic. I think its refreshing that there is still a weight towards SCIENCE, in Star trek SCIENCE FICTION….in other words, if its not broke, don’t fix it!

98. MJ - July 22, 2011

@84 “Captain Kirk took a seat on a closed toilet in “The Final Frontier”.”

As I’ve always said, Star Trek V was crap!

99. Quatlo - July 22, 2011

It was obvious in the interview Orci was talking about interior set changes on the Big E. Too bad they seem to be stuck with the Ryan Church Pig E. Hell, they could write a movie around the ship morphing into the STMP design.

100. Phil - July 22, 2011

So, Bob says we are going to see new sections of the Enterprise. Are they adding the Technobabble Lab?

101. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 22, 2011

53. That’s what I said.

And here’s two unsubstantiated rumors from comic-con:

1. Star Trek 2 has been quietly penciled in for 05/03/13. Shooting starts 1/21/12. Formal Announcement 08/27/11.

2. TNG in HD will be four episodes only. Blu-Ray will be pricey.

102. Allen Williams - July 22, 2011

I suspect the Enterprise will be powered by antimatter not beer this time around. I also suspect that the primary lighting system has been overhauled after the entire crew went blind.

103. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 22, 2011

95. D D

Great Sarek’s Ghost D.D. Is that a Beryllium Sphere I see in the background of that pic?

Pass.

.
.
.

NEXT!

104. Buzz Cagney - July 22, 2011

Alien planets! yeah, loving the sound of alien planets!
I deeply suspect it will be the Gorn homeworld. What say you, Harry? ;)

105. dmduncan - July 22, 2011

Engineering should look like it fits within the ship. Not like one of those magic tents in Harry Potter, or the peculiarly spacious interior of Dr. Who’s police box. I know the ship is supposed to be big…but a cavernous engineering would be a conspicuous gaffe.

106. Harry Ballz - July 22, 2011

104.

Gorn homeworld?

Lizard me this…………………….how about a little tail?

107. MJ - July 22, 2011

@103. Well at least is looks like something out the 23rd century versus Budweiser in the 20th Century.

108. dmduncan - July 22, 2011

97. Sean – July 22, 2011

I think people should stop knocking the way Engineering looked in the movie. It is entirely believable that in 300 years, still the most efficient means to drive machinery is through hydraulics…after all, the most advanced Nuclear power stations of today still use the same physical laws as the old Turbines on the titanic.

***

True! Also: In space, no one can hear you steam.

109. Will_H - July 22, 2011

Looks like its already been said a billion times on here but in case any of the supreme court’s paying attention I’ll make it a billion and one. Please, for the love of Kirk, change engineering to something believable. You could just say the old one looked the way it did because the ship wasn’t quite finished or something. But find a reason, any reason, to make it a believable engineering.

110. Anthony Thompson - July 23, 2011

Finally, some real news on the sequel. Bob really opened up with that guy. Very exciting. Now we know that “soft prep” actually means something! BTW, I’ll be happy to see the Enterprise stay as-is (other than Engineering) and maybe a bit more work on sickbay (which didn’t leave much of an impression at all).

111. Basement Blogger - July 23, 2011

It’s going to be very interesting to finally see the next Star Trek film. Everybody is talking about going deeper. And with the talk of planet design, it’s sounds cool. Strange new worlds. Perhaps new life and new civilizations. Looking forward to 2013.

112. Norbert - July 23, 2011

I like breweries. But not inside the Enterprise. Change it please.

113. Phil - July 23, 2011

STAR TREK 12!

114. Buzz Cagney - July 23, 2011

#106 you do have to wonder what the Gorn ‘restrooms’ might look like, never mind the Enterprise’s!

115. REM1701 - July 23, 2011

I have been spoiled by Herman Zimmerman (Next-Gen, DS9, Voy, Ent and Films IV-V) Although Scott Chambliss (ST09) maybe a good designer, the Bridge and Engine-room left alot to be desired. The Brigde look like a giant I-POD and the engine-room was the left over set from “Titanic”. Not a 23rd cenyury starship :-(

116. boborci - July 23, 2011

85. Lol!

117. Chief Engineer - July 23, 2011

I hope the sound effects remain the same from the 09 movie. I thought the sound guys did a great job. Loved the transporter, the phaser fire and also the subtle ‘other-worldly’ atmospheric effects that were reminiscent of TOS. More of that please. Will it be the same team?

118. Adam - July 23, 2011

Thanks for popping by with the updates Bob – best of luck with the rest of the project.

A new stellar cartography might be quite funky, emphasising just how much of the TOS galaxy is still unknown and unexplored. Would also instantly show the casual viewer what an amazing idea and vast area the Federation really represents.

119. Hat Rick - July 23, 2011

I like the large scale of the NuEnterprise. I hope they don’t change that.

120. Russ - July 23, 2011

I like the new Enterprise. I think the interior and exterior are a great change compared to the earlier film versions (except Engineering and Sickbay).

121. Nathan - July 23, 2011

If you make the nacelles red again, I will be content.

Also, bridge and engineering sets might could use a look, perhaps.

Make it so!

122. Commander - July 23, 2011

Only one thing:

REDESIGN ENGINEERING!!!!!!

ADD MORE COMPUTER PANELS
ADD A “REAL” WARPCORE!!!

123. andrés - July 23, 2011

i think it would be no problem to design the engineering…what we’ve seen in the last movie could just have been an extended area of the engineering…so now we could see the real warpcorearea…would be awesome…a huge hightechmachine like the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN…http://www.mpp.mpg.de/veranstaltungen/bilderVeranstaltungen/atlas/web_zoom.jpg
why not just shooting there….?

and i would love to see a reanimation of the tng-phasers…no laserdots flying around, just a nice yellow laserbeam like the kelvin has…had ;)
as well they could show us the sparkling photontorpedos as in the old movies…

124. Star Trek Sequel Fan Already - July 23, 2011

Overall I liked the Enterprise inside and out. I would be more upset if they went drastically changing things like the Bridge or even Engineering because then it wouldn’t look the same as the first….for me it would be almost as bad as another actor played the part of Captain Kirk or Spock or something. I’m always nervous when sequels come out because I still have the first movie imprinted in my mind and accepted as truth…..if there are obvious, drastic changes with no real reason other than change for changes sake, it’s pretty sad.

125. Duane - July 23, 2011

If they don’t change engineering than I personally refuse to see this movie more than 15 times in the cinema : )

126. Robert H. - July 23, 2011

I didn’t have much of a problem with budgeneering, but I hope they can nail down the size of the Enterprise.

127. SoonerDave - July 23, 2011

Fix Engineering. Please. And a pet peeve I have that I realize is probably only my own, but move the florpin’ bridge back to the top of the saucer section where it belongs. The scene where they pan from the Big Picture Window over to the top dome shows they’ve stuck the bridge somewhere around the third (or so) deck. I don’t particularly care for the U.S.S. Dragsterprise, looks a little gangly and awkward in many angles, but that’s an aesthetic preference on my part.

It is completely reasonable to suggest there were interior (and even exterior) changes to the Enterprise following her encounter with the Narada. Heck, if a substantive amount have time is presumed to have passed between ST09 and the new movie (in whatever decade it’s finally released) it would be reasonable for them to have made revisions based on real-world experience.

128. boxker - July 23, 2011

andrés

“and i would love to see a reanimation of the tng-phasers…no laserdots flying around, just a nice yellow laserbeam like the kelvin has…had”

Since you brought that up, I would like see the Enterprise have the phaser fire of the Defiant from DS9, that was wicked.

129. Sam - July 23, 2011

I know some of you are not fans of the new version of the enterprise.

But to say things like I hope they alter the look of the ship on the outside, or, I hope they move the neck forward, or, I hope they put more space between the nacels . . .

That’s just not going to happen. Why would Starfleet basically decide that, well, it’s the most advanced ship in the fleet and it performs well, but let’s go ahead and redesign and reconstruct basically the entire ship.

Not gonna happen. Doing alway with Budgeneering is one thing. Expecting a Enterprise 2009 “refit” is completely unrealistic.

130. Janice - July 23, 2011

I’m waiting for the day when I see at this site that the script is completed, the cast is ready and Pike is there —especially Pike!

Until then, take your time and and pen a great ST sequel.

131. Greenberg - July 23, 2011

They don’t need to change much. Just make it less crappy.

132. Damian - July 23, 2011

I didn’t get a chance to read all 130+ comments so forgive me if I repeat someone.

Re: redesign–Engineering goes without saying. It seems there is a majority at least here that wants a better engineering set (yeah, I know there are exceptions out there). There should be an easily identifiable warp core on the ship. That is the heart of the ship. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see engineering, see the warp core and just know that is the heart, no questions asked. If it has back up cores in the case one fails, that’s fine, but one should be at the center of engineering. It seems that possible JJ has gotten the message about engineering judging by his comments. It would be easy enough to explain in story, just stating it is a more efficient redesign. Make it look like the 23rd century.

Second, I thought sickbay looked a little 20th century like. I thought the redesigned sickbay from TMP and TWOK looked futuristic but obviously a sickbay at the same time. In this case a simple touch up would be enough.

Finally, while I didn’t have any major problems with the bridge (it actually seemed to be a logical progression from the NX-01 to be honest), I still can’t get down with windows on the bridge. I always thought a viewscreen made sense. I can’t help but think that having windows would make it difficult to see all around the ship. The views they put on the “windows” were semi-transparent and not always clear. How do you put an aft view on the windows when you can partially see through it. The windows just did not seem all that practical for a starship that may need a view around the ship or a tactical view, or a computer generated diagram.

133. Capt Crash - July 23, 2011

Maybe it is me – but the whole engineering area was the most believable in my opinion. It was obvious that it was an old Budweiser plant – but it worked – I liked it.

I am curious to discover if the writers will begin a little foreshadowing in the plot/story line for future sequels (or at least the next sequel). This is one aspect that I truly like in the original ST movies – they always found ways to foreshadow certain plot points in the story line.

134. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 23, 2011

How do we know Engineering is even in the story?

135. jim Mower - July 23, 2011

I love the TMP enterprise refit – probably because its the ship I grew up with, I don’t like the ST09 enterprise at all. It looks like an ugly cross of several designs… I also do’nt like the Apple Store bridge or bugineering, however, I do like the new cast and I liked the hell out of the first film – tone, pacing etc… so I’ll be along for the story and just grimace a bit about the sets!

136. Buzz Cagney - July 23, 2011

#130 lol I don’t think they need any encouraging to take their time!
Personally i’d be kicking them up their collective arses to get a move on now!

137. C Mosenko - July 23, 2011

As a fan of the original, I have my oppinions too.. But if they wanted our oppinion they would have hired one of us. Star trek is a business. First, they have to make money, make star trek more likable to more people, maybe they lose a few picky fans along the way. With ST 2009 I had people come up to me who used to run the other when they seen anything star trek. Now they say have you seen the new Star Trek? They really liked it. So they sell more movie tickets, but one thing about all of these new people is they liked the movie but they will not be going out and be buying star trek merchandise for the next 30 years. I think the trade was short term high ticket sales instead of 30 years of nerd filled fun. I hope the next film will be more of a star trek feel then the first one, the friendship of Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to be the focus. Let’s see something like balance of terror. I’d like to see Kirk and the crew vs captain Garth. Remember in the original they go to the insane asylum to see captain Garth. He was a legend who went mad. Let’s see him go mad, and Kirk gets to stop him. Maybe the enterprise can get some serious damage and in the third film the writers can explaine the changes as a refit to repair the damages. We get to see a kick ass villan and kirk Spock and McCoy do what the fans like to see.

138. BCSWowbagger - July 23, 2011

New sections would be great; they always are. (Dare I guess Jefferies Tubes?) However, I do have a wish list I’ve been holding onto since Star Trek ’09 came out, and, since the topic has been broached and the floodgates opened, here’s mine, starting with the most important:

1. REDESIGN ENGINEERING (!). My great fear is that J.J. — who does indeed have a wonderful sense of putting the gritty and the real into sci-fi fantasy lands — is going to ignore this one. The ST09 engineering was a step too far. It broke suspension of disbelief. It was hideous. It was unrecognizable as an engineering bay (what were those warp cores I don’t even). It really, really, really ought to change.

2. TWEAK THE HULL. I’ve really tried to fall in love with the Churcherprise, but it just hasn’t happened. That warp effect is beautiful, the ship itself looks like a choking duck. I’m no designer, so there are many better people who can talk about this, but personally I’d start by moving the ship’s neck forward to be flush with the deflector assembly and downsize those grotesquely disproportionate nacelles. (Disproportionate from an aesthetic standpoint, not a warp physics standpoint.)

3. PROVE IT’S SMALLER. This is not something I expect to happen, because it is an insanely tiny detail only nutty fans like me could possibly care about, but I would still be pleased about it. ILM claims the ship is 700m long. This is ludicrously oversized. I want my 300m 1701 back. Yeah, I’m that kind of a fan.

4. TURN DOWN THE BRIDGE. I wrote in my review that kids would love all the whites and the blinkies, but you know, it’s *really* bright. The 1701 bridge, *should* have an upbeat, optimistic feel, I grant you, and it has that in its current form. But would it hurt to mute the whites with a few other colors? Maybe some of the wonderful pastels used in the original series?

5. RAISE MAJEL BARRET RODDENBERRY FROM THE DEAD, so she can be our computer voice again.

139. Gary Makin - July 23, 2011

They built a particle collider set on the movie Deja Vu, and it looked good.

There’s a CGI particle collider in GI Joe – not so good.

I guess what I’m saying (again) is: the warp core could look like a particle collider.

140. Kirk, James T. - July 23, 2011

@61, thank god, I LOVE the new Enterprise, it’s a fantastic departure from Berman’s fixation on things looking identical in every series of Star Trek no matter what time or place they are in.

I love the interior and would love to see more of it but perhaps something to make sense of using that impressive bud-weiser plant such as a warp core(s)

141. Kirk, James T. - July 23, 2011

at 112: it’s not STAR TREK 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it’s the SECOND STAR TREK IN A NEW MOVIE SERIES

Trek movies with numbers ended with the ORIGINAL SERIES….

142. C Mosenko - July 23, 2011

Look at the original series and modernize the designs.

143. William Kirk - July 23, 2011

I don’ t like the new ship – neither the exterior nor the interior, so a redesign looks as a good idea for me.

144. Harry Ballz - July 23, 2011

114

Buzz, the Gorn have such big claw/hands/mitts, what kind of toilet paper would they use? 10-ply?

145. Tony Whitehead - July 23, 2011

It would be interesting to see the Vulcan colony designs.

146. Dee -lvs moon' surface - July 23, 2011

OK … guys are working in Trek sequel …so I’m happy …LOL

Mr. Bob Orci thanks for the real information … “a bit” …but great!

:-) :-)

147. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - July 23, 2011

LOL

They are not changing the physical look you wackos, they are likely tweaking some sets and building new sets we have not yet seen. We saw only a spec of sickbay so I would imagine that is being fleshed out. We did not see Kirk’s quarters, Rec rec, ect ect and hopefully at least CGI wiping all the early 20th century valves from engineering and interstellar comm

The ship is nearly 800 meters long, there is quite a bit of volume inside for us to see

(personally I would love to see more belly on the secondary hull and to push back the secondary hull along the connecting dorsal line to balance out the asthetics but that ain’t happening)

148. Treleth - July 23, 2011

+1 on the phaser beams rather than pulses!

149. Boris - July 23, 2011

Ignore 138 and prove it’s bigger! Have a hull breach on deck 44!

150. Chadwick - July 23, 2011

I know people say its been over done but I still want to see Alex and Bob’s version of Klingons and its culture with incredible designs Scott Chambliss it would look incredible.

151. P Technobabble - July 23, 2011

If the US defaults on its loans, will that affect the budget of the Trek sequel?

152. Boris - July 23, 2011

150 – Did you read the “Nero” comic? If boborci and team choose to be restricted by the ancillary materials, in order to make the alternate reality more internally consistent than the prime reality, then we already know what the Klingons look like. I won’t spoil it here, though.

153. Gary Makin - July 23, 2011

151 – the US government could print its own debt-free money, instead of borrowing it at interest.

As a conspiracy guy, Bob Orci could tell you this.

154. Red Dead Ryan - July 23, 2011

#153.

If the U.S continues to print money, its dollar will lose value and inflation goes up.

155. Jeff O'Connor - July 23, 2011

*intentionally fails at reading comprehension*

Cardboard cutouts for the opening? Wow, way to go full retro!

156. CmdrR - July 23, 2011

Man, there are certainly some subjects people like to talk about.

Yes, Bob Orci, we want to see more more more of the E. Keep her cool, though. I think what many people (including myself) find dismaying about some of ST09’s valves-out look was that TOS was part magic. Technology was presented as being at a level that it was always reliable and required no grease or steam. It was clean. The TOS E is a beauty. Clean lines, inside and out. So, while it’s absolutely great to see size and detail, please don’t make it look as if someone in 2011 tried to build a starship. Give us some shiny surfaces and flashing lights that we can’t explain.

Oh, and I expect to see Yeoman Rand’s quarters play a prominent role in the next movie.

157. Bruce Banner - July 23, 2011

How about we get a look at one of the SONIC SHOWERS that are mentioned in the novels.

158. Gary Makin - July 23, 2011

154 – Google or Youtube search: The Money Masters or The Secrets of Oz.

No country has to borrow money. It’s a bankster scam.

159. Ironhyde - July 23, 2011

I know Orci said he’s just gonna show us new sections, not necessarily a new Enterprise design… but that’s gotta be just a smoke-screen. There is no way they can continue with the Uglyprise and keep their heads up. It’s been a while and the thing STILL hasn’t grown on me. Some of the shots in the movie were pretty nice, but those same shots would have worked with a better overall design as well. They must redo the exterior.

And I’m one of those guys who went — “what are those? Is this engineering? What part is this?” when the giant beer canisters showed up (not knowing it was shot in a brewery)… And I’d still rather they keep the brewery than keep the exterior. It’s THAT ugly. And while they’re at it, I might suggest fixing the bridge so that you don’t need to shine a flashlight into the camera lens to get the right colour balance hahaha… But fix the exterior. Seriously.

160. sean - July 23, 2011

I’ll break from what appears to be the majority vote here and say I think they should leave the ship alone. One thing that always frustrated me with the original films is they were supposed to be taking place immediately after the previous one (in the case of Trek 3, Trek 4, and Trek 5), yet the sets would drastically change for no apparent reason. The most egregious offenders being the change in the Enterprise-A bridge from Trek 4 to Trek 5, and the Klingon bridge from Trek 3 to Trek 4. Yeah yeah, the Vulcans refitted the ship. Amazing engineers, those Vulcans, they even managed to completely alter the scale! :)

Point being, I wouldn’t mind some consistency. I’m also one of those weirdos that didn’t give two shites about the so-called ‘Budweiser engineering’, but whatever. I wouldn’t mind a warp core, however.

161. James - July 23, 2011

@160 and the budweiser engineering – perhaps they intend to address this issue by introducing us to the intermix chamber etc (perhaps it jusnt wasnt shown in the first one)

Visually it would be nice if we actually saw more of the enterprise instead of fast moving camera shots.

Perhaps also the beginning of the building of Starfleets Spacedock? (from trek 3)

Personally for me what is definitely missing is the red alert klaxon (such an iconic bit of sound from trek)

162. trekker 5 - July 23, 2011

Oh My God!! I knew this place would be on fire with posts about engineering when I saw the story!! #66,LOL man!! Thats gold!! :) Now,for my 2 cents. Lets get this out of the way frist,yes I want a new engineering,ok,thats done. Now,geting to see new parts of the ship,thats exciteing!! :) As far as when it will come out,as long as it’s within the next 5 years,I’m good! :) And last,Bob,where ever you are,you have made me happy with this news,thank-you!!!!! :) :)

163. Jack - July 23, 2011

160. Yes! It even bugged me that the bridge lighting and display graphics changed from Trek 2 to 3. I’d rather have consistency.

159. Yeah. I wasn’t a fan of all I saw (the parts didn’t seem to fit together, but that could have been the angles), but, there weren’t enough shots of the darned thing to get a sense of its lines and scale (it felt more like a model than a big ship full of people, to me… even with that shot of the exterior bridge window, and the shuttle fly in). I’d love to have seen, and to see in the next one, more of the Enterprise (and I’ve thought this for every flick, even, bizarrely, TMP).

Man, I went to see Captain America yesterday (recommended, a fun comic book flick with a solid villain) and the concession guy asked if I was seeing Harry Potter (seen it), and went on to say that until this Potter, Star Trek had been the multiplex theater chain’s number one film, ever (attendance? daily record? I didn’t ask), and the coworkers standing there confirmed it, for what it’s worth.

Not sure if its true, but it surprised me because, heck, 2 Transformers, Avatar, at least one Pirates and a few Harry Potters have been around since then, right?

And these kids (late teens, early 20s, not too geeky) were all “Trek was fantastic, can’t wait for the next one.” That’s amazing to me (and doesn’t necessarily mean Trek 09 was targeted to teens, which gets argued here and which I don’t buy), and a good thing.

So, yeah, I’m hoping they’re working on a great film for fans of film, and not just a Trek movie. The first couple (and best) seasons of TOS weren’t being written for Trek fans.

164. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

If you stay after the credits you will see the preview trailer for The Avengers, and already Thor has a different looking costume. That doesn’t bother me. And it wouldn’t bother me if they changed the Enterprise either, because the thing hurts my eyeballs. Sorry. I really tried to like it. I did. But I’ve come to the conclusion that in this case, the reason why I fail to like the way it looks has less to do with me and more to do with…THE WAY IT LOOKS.

It doesn’t look fast so much as just plain ugly. Most of the problem is in the secondary hull and the neck. It’s just too busy. It’s got too many awkward lines. Like a frakkin Edsel:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657781,00.html

The new Enterprise looks like an Edsel.

165. sean - July 23, 2011

#164

Interesting parallel, since it’s generally agreed that the Edsel was actually ahead of its time, and that the irrational backlash against it had very little to do with the car itself.

166. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 23, 2011

All they have to do is not show so much of the cooling facilities (Budweisers) and show a warp core area.

We were not shown captain’s or crew quarters, recreation deck, much of sickbay and then there are the 23rd century ablution facilities – perhaps they use shells (ref. Demolition Man). They could show these.

On the other ships, there was a hydroponics/arboretum section which I thought was tied into the ship’s air recycling/oxygenation systems. Part of those sections could be part of the Recreation section, providing crew with a more natural, earth like environment for relaxation.

The crew quarters should be similar to those on TOS. Good balance. TNG’s quarters looked overly large in some ways. Maybe ensigns have to share, but only two people to a room and no bunks.

(What we saw on TUC was abominable – boy, that movie took a big slide back in technology, aesthetics and in normal behaviour of the Enterprise crew. Rather dehumanising actually.)

Anyway, I thought the Enterprise exterior looked OK. If Scott Chambliss and co. can easily make some improvements as other posters here feel should be made, then let it be done. However, he shouldn’t make it look so different as then people would complain about a lack of consistency…

I mean, “it’s just a movie”.

167. Jack - July 23, 2011

157. We saw one (and that crazy dresser) back in TMP. But, yeah.

164. The parts don’t quite seem to fit together. I do (kind of) like the late 50s fins and those bulbousy spoiler things on the nacelles, but then the engineering section is so sleek, and then you have that TMP saucer… But, at the same time, it doesn’t quite look like any other ship out there (and I like it better than the TNG Enterprise) and it didn’t look obviously like a CGI model, either.

I missed the trailer? Damn it. Yep. Costume changes can be easily explained. Even more easily than uniform changes. I guess I liked to pretend that it was real and that the ship wouldn’t change between movies (especially movies set close to each other). But heck, there were changes between the pilots and the first episodes, because, well, it’s not real — although the differences helped them place the Cage years earlier…and I guess fans have speculated about an official refit in there somewhere.

168. Jack - July 23, 2011

167. I meant dresser as that thing that put clothes on Ilia, not a chest of drawers.

169. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

165: “Interesting parallel, since it’s generally agreed that the Edsel was actually ahead of its time, and that the irrational backlash against it had very little to do with the car itself.”

Glad to see you can click and read. Translation: It’s still fugly.

170. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

@167: The TNG Enterprise was perhaps the worst looking Enterprise in the franchise. It looks okay as a line drawing on paper, but rendered it looks awful.

The bottom of the new E is scalloped too deeply while the neck connecting the giant saucer to the secondary hull is thick and muscular.

Looking at it without paying attention to the nacelles, it has the physique of a wild boar. Big and heavy up front, skinny in the rear.

171. Tom - July 23, 2011

Bob if you and the “Supreme Court” are reading this, I will give you my 2 cents about the technical nitpicks, speaking as a long time fan and actually knowing quite a bit about Trek starship design. As for the overall story, I trust you to give us a good ride and a deep meaningful allegoric/metaphoric tale that gets people thinking, like the very best Star Trek stories do.

You don’t need to change the exterior of the Enterprise. It looks sleek and fine and a solid homage to Matt Jeffries’ original design.

But please make sure that the size of the ship restored to Ryan Church’s 1,200 foot length. The opening shot of the landing bay was an obvious exaggeration, since when we see it the second time as Pike is leaving in the shuttle, it is back to the same size as the TOS landing bay and is consistent with a 1,200 foot long ship. The over sized landing bay shot, like many other technical mistakes in Trek over the years, we deal with them by ignoring them and substituting in what should be correct with our minds.

Engineering needs to be changed to something more consistent (and as well thought out about how and what everything is and does), with what has been established by previous Treks. If a story device can be constructed to explain why the brewery engine room is now completely different, awesome. If not, then we will just chalk up the brewery as another “error” and substitute in the new look with our imaginations.

Lastly, please try and keep the technical dialog/details accurate and consistent. “Transfer auxiliary power from port nacelles to forward shields” doesn’t ring with what we’ve come to know about starship power grids and just seems a bit sloppy.

Other than that, I don’t have any major issues or complaints about Trek09.

172. Oz - July 23, 2011

Bob is probably deliberately guiding the script away from any scenes in Engineering in order to avoid the whole headache. Anyhow, as has been mentioned before, there was spectacular, official, concept sketches done on what engineering could look like. Why can’t we have that?

Also, never seen this mentioned before…why not bring back that wonderful deep bass hum for the engines from TOS that you could feel in your bones. and screamed POWER when the ship sped up or engines were strained. All I remember from Trek 09 is the Enterprise making a shrill Star Wars-ish whistling sound.

Eagerly awaiting the finished project, whenever that may be. It is in good hands.

173. GG - July 23, 2011

1. BRIEFING ROOM! It was the center of some great scenes and speeches during the original series, but was left out of the original movies for some reason.
2. Engineering. No, you don’t have to change it. You can keep your “beer factory” design, if you want. I was fine with it. Just incorporate something familiar into it, tough. Like, the main station that Scotty always worked at in the original series. Just build some consoles that are reminiscent of that, and set it up in the beer factory. Find a way to blend the two.
3. The bridge and sick bay. Just needs some tweaks. I feel you can still make them look more “familiar” without making it look like the cheesy ones from the original series.

174. MJ - July 23, 2011

@170 “@167: The TNG Enterprise was perhaps the worst looking Enterprise in the franchise. It looks okay as a line drawing on paper, but rendered it looks awful.”

Agreed. The “pregnant guppy” Enterprise on TNG was hands-down the worst looking Enterprise of all time. As a Trek fan, it embarrassed me.

175. MJ - July 23, 2011

@64. Agree with Edsel remark — the new Enterprise is ahead of its time, and will be appreciated long after it is gone…a true classic. Good comparison DM — I like the new Enterprise design as well.

176. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

175. MJ – July 23, 2011

@64. Agree with Edsel remark — the new Enterprise is ahead of its time, and will be appreciated long after it is gone…a true classic. Good comparison DM — I like the new Enterprise design as well.

***

The Corvette that young Jimmy Kirk ran off the cliff? THAT is a classic. Unless by classic you mean “failure,” the Edsel is one fugly car.

177. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

And I’m giving my honest opinion. I wanted to like it. I tried. I have a model of the thing and I gave it the chance to grow on me. But it felt like I was stuck in a shotgun wedding. I’m just not that into it. I think it could be improved. I say that because I do have some design skills so I sketched the changes on paper and yes, I think my lines look better.

JJ is a very talented director, but from a design standpoint I don’t think he “gets” Star Trek, which simply means that as a non fan he doesn’t understand the legacy of functionalism that was the genius of Matt Jefferies and which helped defined the series he is now making into movies.

178. MJ - July 23, 2011

@175. Ah, I guess you meant to criticize the new Enterprise??? Your post had mentioned the Edsel, which was way ahead of it’s time, and is now very highly valued, so you really confused a lot of us here by unintentionally proving that opposite of what you were trying to convey???

179. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

Examples: Matt Jefferies knew the function of every station he put on the bridge. Matt Jefferies’ phasers were extremely well thought out from the beam adjustment on the rotating nozzle, to the reflex system diverting the type 1 phaser beam to the type 2 unit’s nozzle. I wish he were still alive so I could possibly ask him, but several mysterious features on the type 1 and type 2 units, combined, appear to resemble a heads up display targeting system. Which is cool if that’s what he was thinking of.

180. Desstruxion - July 23, 2011

Fix the nacelles. Actual engineering section too please.

181. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

178. MJ – July 23, 2011

@175. Ah, I guess you meant to criticize the new Enterprise??? Your post had mentioned the Edsel, which was way ahead of it’s time, and is now very highly valued, so you really confused a lot of us here by unintentionally proving that opposite of what you were trying to convey???

***

1. You are 175. I am 176. Slow down, take a deep breath.

2. I talk about appearances. You talk about irrelevant features I did not mention and that do not matter to my comparison, such as collector value and speculating on Enterprise futures.

Demonstrating once again that paying a little attention to other people’s posts might be the single biggest improvement that you can make to your own.

182. Elvis Shatner - July 23, 2011

I say refit Engineering and get rid of the brewery, and remove all of the ship-wide ‘lens-flare generators’!!!!

It will improve the ship by orders of magnitude!

183. MJ - July 23, 2011

@181 “Demonstrating once again that paying a little attention to other people’s posts might be the single biggest improvement that you can make to your own.”

Hmm, Sean in post #165 was also misled by your post. Your nemesis, Occum’s Razor, strikes once again, my friend. :-)

184. MickeyMET - July 23, 2011

You know I only have one request. . . I really don’t want to have a 90 minute or longer headache to watch my favorite entertainment franchise! So please, do what you can to make a terrific movie, but don’t mandate it to be released in nothing but 3-D! Those glasses not only make my eyes water, but give me headaches!

185. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 23, 2011

164. dmduncan

“…It doesn’t look fast so much as just plain ugly. Most of the problem is in the secondary hull and the neck. It’s just too busy. It’s got too many awkward lines. Like a frakkin Edsel:”

Sorry to spotlight your post again, dm. But you have to admit that the new E is tied to the new Universe that Nero “created.” You comment on the look of the E has to carry over to the entire timeline being shifted.

The only LOGICAL solution would for the next ST film to “fix” the timeline.

AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO THINKS THAT THE CREW OF THE NEW E DOES NOT HAVE THE GALL TO FIX THINGS??!!!

The old Kirk that I am familiar with had the guile.

Think of it for a second. WHAT TRUE FAN OF STAR TREK DOES NOT WANT THIER BELOVED TIMELINE RESTORED?

186. Green-Blooded-Bastard - July 23, 2011

@ Boborci
Since everyone else here is bombarding you with questions and comments in an effort to be recognized by your Orciness for a minute but gratifying feeling of warmth, I will simply say, without trying to illicit a spoiler or plot detail, that I absolutely LOVE grilled cheese sandwiches and chocolate milkshakes. That is all.

187. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 23, 2011

sorry. typo.

I MUST BE THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO THINKS THAT THE CREW OF THE NEW E DOES HAVE THE GALL TO FIX THINGS!!!

188. MJ - July 23, 2011

@185. Be careful, as you have violated two of Anthony’s rules here with your post — (1) using all-caps to make your point, and (2) saying that your view is the only credible view for “true fans of star trek.”.

189. Jack - July 23, 2011

Wait, isn’t the Edsel valued, partially, because it was unsuccessful (compared to what they’d hoped) and, as a result, there weren’t that many left? The new E looks a little more Lincoln Futura to me (thanks, Google!), with a bit of WWII bomber.

Heck, Jefferies wasn’t a big fan of the TNG Enterprise bridge either, was he — he compared it to a big hilton lobby in space. But, yeah, the cleanness of the prop and set designs (and they did reflect what was happening in commercial design generally then) was pretty incredible. And the lifting out of control panels (to replace or upgrade) and access to circuits, etc. was smart as heck.

I don’t know if this means J.J. doesn’t get Trek, though. That seems to be the answer for everything that’s either different from TOS or the movies, or that some fans don’t like.

By the way, does anyone know what the panel behind the captain’s chair is for?

185. ME!!!

It’s not real, man.

190. MJ - July 23, 2011

@189. “Wait, isn’t the Edsel valued, partially, because it was unsuccessful (compared to what they’d hoped) and, as a result, there weren’t that many left? The new E looks a little more Lincoln Futura to me (thanks, Google!), with a bit of WWII bomber.”

Exactly. I guess DM is not real up on classic cars, their advancements and their long-term value, so we need to cut him some slack on his well meaning but inaccurate comparisons here.

191. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 23, 2011

189. MJ

Noted.

192. Jack - July 23, 2011

190. Me neither. I’m talking out of my anomaly.

193. Phil - July 23, 2011

@185. You presume a lot, that only “true” fans see things the way you do. Been watching Trek for close to 40 years, and I have no issues with the current version.

194. Vultan - July 23, 2011

The Edsel may be highly valued by some today for its rarity and such, but it’s still an ugly car. From the design of the vertical grill—well, I think it’s fair to say it looks like it sucked an extremely sour lemon.

As for the new Enterprise… hmm… what can I say…? I’m sure… uh, it has a nice personality… Maybe some nice Vulcan ship will ask her to the prom…

195. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

183: “Hmm, Sean in post #165 was also misled by your post. Your nemesis, Occum’s Razor, strikes once again, my friend. :-)”

My post was actually very clear. You don’t have to invoke Occam’s Razor to explain what you can understand by simply reading my words without trying to make me say things I didn’t.

Here are some choice quotes:

“But I’ve come to the conclusion that in this case, the reason why I fail to like the way it looks has less to do with me and more to do with…THE WAY IT LOOKS.”

“It doesn’t look fast so much as just plain ugly.”

“The new Enterprise looks like an Edsel.”

Which particular sentence fails to make clear that I am discussing the LOOKS of the Enterprise, MJ? Discussions about the collector’s value of that rare automobile are off the point and irrelevant with regard to the comparison between the respective vehicle’s appearances.

185: “Sorry to spotlight your post again, dm. But you have to admit that the new E is tied to the new Universe that Nero ‘created.’ You comment on the look of the E has to carry over to the entire timeline being shifted.”

Spotlight ‘em all night long if you want!

Between what production art JJ stamped OK and what he or somebody else MIGHT have stamped OK could all be very different and STILL not look like the TOS Enterprise, while being consistent with a universe changed by Nero. Just because Nero changed the timeline doesn’t mean that the different Enterprise we got HAD to look like the piece of art JJ stamped OK to and which ended up on screen. It could have looked better than that without returning all the way back to the design of the TOS Enterprise and still be consistent with the idea of a new universe.

189: “Wait, isn’t the Edsel valued, partially, because it was unsuccessful (compared to what they’d hoped) and, as a result, there weren’t that many left?”

Yes. They are rare cars. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in person myself. But it doesn’t look like a Lincoln Futura at all to me, which is quite a beautiful car. I stand by the Edsel comparison as far as its oddball lines go.

190: “Exactly. I guess DM is not real up on classic cars, their advancements and their long-term value,’

Hahaha! And you’re not “real up on” reading comprehension, my friend.

196. MJ - July 23, 2011

DM, love it when you get all worked up and type 3 pages of stuff. :-)

197. dmduncan - July 23, 2011

@196: Well I’m aiming for legendary status, like Bill Brasky (there’s even a Star Trek reference, so wait for it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NjgPDIeSXA

198. =A= - July 24, 2011

oh yeah change it now!!!

199. Jack - July 24, 2011

195. Yep, just watched it again (Trek, was on a movie channel)… there are a couple of scenes near the end where it looks, er, good (and it looks best from the front, I think) and it doesn’t look like any other movie ship we’ve seen before… but you’re right about the Edsel and its oddball lines (I’d only seen the ’59 Edsel, which was goofy, but not as bulbous). Edsel, it is.

My point about the Edsel being not so popular was, I think, a response to MJ’s comment about the value — that they’re valuable because they’re ugly.

200. Canon Schmanon - July 24, 2011

Hopefully they’re clearing that brewery out of the belly of the ship, and shooting Scotty’s ewok out of an airlock.

201. boborci - July 24, 2011

153.

Preach on, brother!

202. falkan - July 24, 2011

How to make the new Trek better…let’s see…throw out the design of the new Enterprise and use the Enterprise-E instead…it was the best looking trek ship ever to be designed. Also, do away with the cast and bring back the cast of TNG. Set the timeframe of the movie in the original universe somewhere after the battle with Shinzon. Let Data be resurrected from B4’s memory banks and Lore’s disassembled body. That would be a good start in my books.

203. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

Ugh all these silly fans dwelling in their basements in front of their polar-lights refit Enterprise… Stop burying yourself in the past, the new Enterprise is completely BAD-ASS! An amazing ship that holier-than-thou Roddenberry would be proud of.

It’s got amazing lines and for once we have an Enterprise that actually looks like it can handle the stresses of deep space exploration as well as hold its own with an enemy vessel. The refit Enterprise and the Enterprise – E may look good in your toy collections but in the real world, it would never make it out of the neutral zone in one piece.

The nacelles would have to be as large as Abrams Enterprise to accommodate the warp-speeds in which the Enterprise travels at, the engineering section would look like a massive power plant and who knows if what we saw in the first movie was everything – there may indeed be a huge warp core – as I recall, we were actually never in engineering, just the water turbine room which would again look like that.

I thought the Kelvin was STUNNING inside and out, it just looked like a space-ship. ships of the Berman era used to look like reconfigurations on one design and whilst Herman Zimmerman’s production design could stand up on an 80’s TV screen. As the shows went on into the 90’s his designs looked more and more hokey – so please, stand up, get away from your desks where you have your refit Enterprise model sitting, put down the glue and the paints, turn of the desk light, put away the magnifying glass and step outside into the real world – you will soon realise that JJ Abrams Enterprise is a valid and plausible idea for how Spaceships could look like in the future.

by the way, that glowing red thing on the nacelle – wouldn’t happen in real life, it would be exactly how it is on the Enterprise in JJ Abrams movie.

Bob, JJ and the rest, don’t change a thing – it’s an awesome ship, these fans just don’t know it because for 18 years all they’ve come to know and feel comfortable with is a sub-standard linage of ships created by guys who kinda lost their flair for original thinking. The last great Trek ship for its time was the Enterprise – D.

Plus, I’d love to see the lens flare back, it gave Star Trek a unique space-age feel that was really very effective at making this Star Trek feel real and also futuristic.

204. Aurore - July 24, 2011

“Plus, I’d love to see the lens flare back, it gave Star Trek a unique space-age feel that was really very effective at making this Star Trek feel real and also futuristic.”

I loved your post , but that was my favourite part .
You are so going to get praised “left and right”, from then on.

“Love” messages coming through!!!…..Be prepared Captain…..
(Good luck, sir.).

205. falcon - July 24, 2011

Wow, lots of passion for a non-existent ship! :-)

Okay, I’ll admit I’m a big fan of the TOS E from way back (and I’m talking 1966). Clean lines, classic design, projects power and grace simultaneously. The new one – meh, not so much.

I’ve seen drawings and renderings from Tobias Richter of The Light Works (who has done work on Star Trek: Phase II and worked with Gary Hutzel and Doug Drexler on Battlestar Galactica and Caprica which shows the dorsal moved forward and the nacelle struts moved back, to line up more with the original model. It makes it look really, really good. I wish I could find that picture again. Hopefully those are some of the changes they’re making. Since it’s all CGI, it should be easy to do.

Engineering, as well, should be revamped to look more like a 23rd century starship. And the bridge should be toned down a bit – do they really need all those lights? Turn the “window” into a real viewscreen.

Those would be easy changes to make, and I know they’d appeal to the Trek fanbois out there, but also to more casual fans. After all, Trek is supposed to be about where we’re going, but it looks too much like where we’ve already been.

206. Damian - July 24, 2011

203–Just a clarifications. Herman Zimmerman was the production designer for Star Trek V through Nemesis, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. He did the original set designs for the Enterprise-D in 1987. He did not do the rest of TNG or Voyager.

I always thought Zimmerman did good production design work. I thought the work on DS9 was top notch. I also liked his work on Enterprise. He had a tough job with that one. He had to backdate from the original series, yet make it look futuristic from today. I thought by and large, he did a decent job. The NX-01 was much more functional, less aesthetic then the later ships and much more claustrophobic looking. I actually thought the bridge (sans the windows) and corridors on the Kelvin, and later the Enterprise, looked like a logical progression from what was done on Enterprise.

207. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

203. Kirk, James T. – July 24, 2011

BTW, I just have the MPA Enterprise and don’t build, paint, or install lights on models, although I won’t knock those who enjoy that, like you just did, but that was a nice anti nerd rant from a guy whose user name is Kirk, James T, and who then goes on to say silly ubernerdish things like:

“The nacelles would have to be as large as Abrams Enterprise to accommodate the warp-speeds in which the Enterprise travels at”

And

“JJ Abrams Enterprise is a valid and plausible idea for how Spaceships could look like in the future.”

And

“by the way, that glowing red thing on the nacelle – wouldn’t happen in real life, it would be exactly how it is on the Enterprise in JJ Abrams movie.”

Yeah…you sound like a guy who should be lecturing others to put down paints and magnifying glasses to get out into the “real world.”

199: “My point about the Edsel being not so popular was, I think, a response to MJ’s comment about the value — that they’re valuable because they’re ugly.”

That’s certainly part of it. Wouldn’t be the first time MJ unknowingly made my case for me while thinking he was arguing against me, though. ;-)

208. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

Also, the only way the E itself might change is if somebody else directs the sequel. JJ isn’t going to change it because he liked what he okayed the first time. Same with the brewery. He likes the brewery. Why would he change what he likes? And if you want continuity you keep the head guy in charge from movie to movie. JJ Abrams is the head guy in this case. And I also think he’s the best choice to direct the sequel for reasons having nothing to do with respecting continuity, which I am not as fixated on as some fans.

209. Gary Makin - July 24, 2011

I liked the interior of the Kelvin shuttle bay and engine room, but I wish Scott Chambliss had put some metal plating down on the concrete floor (though you only see the floor briefly).

210. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

@ 206,

I liked his production on TNG but I think Enterprise should have been a lot more realistic. I always watch Enterprise and think this would have been so much better had they began with Broken Bow then moved into the Xindi Arc and Season 4 AND had it shot on sets that looked like interiors of slightly futuristic submarines, very small, compact, dark and gritty textures. It would have been far cooler.

This is what I love about JJ Abrams Star Trek – the engine room was a functional space and every bit we saw of the Enterprise, inside and out was so well thought of. I think that the Kelvin’s interiors were what Enterprise: NX-01 should have looked like.

@ dmduncan:

Lets not bitch but I never said i wasn’t a nerd, I’m most definitely a nerd, a geek, a huge, huge Star Trek fan but what I don’t do is nit pick. Picking apart every little detail like we have going on here with fans complaining that the engines are too big and that the bridge looks like an ipod and the engine room looks like a toilet block winge winge moan moan… YAWWWWWWWWWWWN. The new Enterprise looks fantastic, you’ve just been nit-picking far too long to notice…

also…

I don’t like building model ships and I do like sunlight and the outdoors but I have Art Asylum’s Enterprise figures and NX-01, Hasbro’s big Millennium Falcon and AT-AT, Leader Class Transformers, Ultimate Optimus Prime, Darth Vaders Force FX lightsaber, Playmates 2009 Enterprise and all of what QMx have so far done with Star Trek. I’m a big nerd and I love Star Trek – so much so I can look over the poor production values of Trek’s gone by and still enjoy each episode however, where as I can sit and enjoy Star Trek’s from TOS through to Enterprise, when something brilliant comes along, something new and someone else’s approach with Trek like 2009’s “Star Trek” I’m like woah, this is how it should have been done and thats my point – many here, who I’ve stereotyped as basement dwelling nerds, don’t get that this movie was fantastic for many reasons and one of them was that it broke the sterile and stagnant design Star Trek ships and sets had become before it.

As for the opinions on the Enterprise design – it does look better equipped to explore the final frontier at high warp, those engines are massive, their “ample” and it does look more believable inside as well. And that point about the “bustard ramscoops” (nerd alert) was actually on the Blu-Ray Star Trek 2009 set – apparently the stuff that goes into them would glow blue rather than red/orange and would change colour the faster the ship wanted to go.

Scott Chambliss and Ryan Church and all the guys involved with creating the look of the movie in my opinion just took Star Trek to the next level in terms of creativity and ideas.

Shove that up your turbo-lift shaft. :P

What I can’t stand is when fans pick apart every single piece of detail and moan and complain about it.

211. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

@ 206,

I liked his production on TNG but I think Enterprise should have been a lot more realistic. I always watch Enterprise and think this would have been so much better had they began with Broken Bow then moved into the Xindi Arc and Season 4 AND had it shot on sets that looked like interiors of slightly futuristic submarines, very small, compact, dark and gritty textures. It would have been far cooler.

This is what I love about JJ Abrams Star Trek – the engine room was a functional space and every bit we saw of the Enterprise, inside and out was so well thought of. I think that the Kelvin’s interiors were what Enterprise: NX-01 should have looked like.

@ dmduncan:

Lets not bitch but I never said i wasn’t a nerd, I’m most definitely a nerd, a geek, a huge, huge Star Trek fan but what I don’t do is nit pick. Picking apart every little detail like we have going on here with fans complaining that the engines are too big and that the bridge looks like an ipod and the engine room looks like a toilet block winge winge moan moan… YAWWWWWWWWWWWN. The new Enterprise looks fantastic, you’ve just been nit-picking far too long to notice…

also…

I don’t like building model ships and I do like sunlight and the outdoors but I have Art Asylum’s Enterprise figures and NX-01, Hasbro’s big Millennium Falcon and AT-AT, Leader Class Transformers, Ultimate Optimus Prime, Darth Vaders Force FX lightsaber, Playmates 2009 Enterprise and all of what QMx have so far done with Star Trek. I’m a big nerd and I love Star Trek – so much so I can look over the poor production values of Trek’s gone by and still enjoy each episode however, where as I can sit and enjoy Star Trek’s from TOS through to Enterprise, when something brilliant comes along, something new and someone else’s approach with Trek like 2009’s “Star Trek” I’m like woah, this is how it should have been done and thats my point – many here, who I’ve stereotyped as basement dwelling nerds, don’t get that this movie was fantastic for many reasons and one of them was that it broke the sterile and stagnant design Star Trek ships and sets had become before it.

As for the opinions on the Enterprise design – it does look better equipped to explore the final frontier at high warp, those engines are massive, their “ample” and it does look more believable inside as well. And that point about the “bustard ramscoops” (nerd alert) was actually on the Blu-Ray Star Trek 2009 set – apparently the stuff that goes into them would glow blue rather than red/orange and would change colour the faster the ship wanted to go.

Scott Chambliss and Ryan Church and all the guys involved with creating the look of the movie in my opinion just took Star Trek to the next level in terms of creativity and ideas.

Shove that up your turbo-lift shaft. :P

212. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

Also…

I’m just having a look at the new Enterprise and the Enterprise used in the classic movies and theres not a lot of radical changes. The 2009 Enterprise is bulkier and bigger and it’s more organic in shape but besides that the designers of the new Enterprise obviously looked very closely at the movie design as well as the original TV Enterprise.

It’s definitely got its own look but I don’t understand why fans dislike it because it’s simply not all that different from the refit.

213. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

Sorry anthony, can you delete post number 210, seems to have posted twice.

214. Rusty0918 - July 24, 2011

#211:

Not all of us nitpick every single detail about the movie, Kirk James T. But we do have honest grievances. For one I don’t think the JJprise is that bad a design. Nor is the bridge for that matter. (My grievances over the barcode readers was silenced by the fact that other Treks did the same thing, such as DS9 using Rubbermaid Action Packers for weapons lockers).

As with engineering, I said it before. The concept of it looking less pristine and more functional is a plausible idea, except it was poorly executed by filming in a brewery. In fact, I know someone in the military who couldn’t stand the engineering sets, so I stand by his decision.

I don’t give a rat about the bussard ramscoops.

215. Jack - July 24, 2011

214. I like the JJprise too. And yeah, it always bugged me when a prop looked like something I could get at Walmart, Radio Shack, Target or Best Buy (the barcode scanners didn’t seem as obviously barcode scannery on film, compared to those stills — although I’m pretty sure there was a Dyson hand dryer in sickbay).

Heck, it used to bug me on TNG when they used flashlights. The other pet peeve is flashing red and green LEDs…

So yeah, the location sets could be better dressed. And fewer pointless flashing lights and phony circuit boards etched on glass would be welcome. I also griped ad nauseum about the set decorating in the Star Wars prequels.

216. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

211. Kirk, James T. – July 24, 2011

“Lets not bitch but I never said i wasn’t a nerd, I’m most definitely a nerd, a geek, a huge, huge Star Trek fan but what I don’t do is nit pick. Picking apart every little detail like we have going on here with fans complaining that the engines are too big and that the bridge looks like an ipod and the engine room looks like a toilet block winge winge moan moan… YAWWWWWWWWWWWN. The new Enterprise looks fantastic, you’ve just been nit-picking far too long to notice…”

Oh boo hoo crybaby. You don’t like it that I don’t like something that you do? Grow up, do what you have to to coexist with people of different views and tastes and leave me out of your personal problems because I don’t care about them. My role as a fan on this site — as opposed to a fan sitting in a theater and enjoying the movie — is to offer constructive criticism about what I think worked and didn’t work whether it is accepted or rejected. Don’t like what I’m saying? Don’t read it. Want to be snarky? I’ll oblige that too.

“I have Art Asylum’s Enterprise figures and NX-01, Hasbro’s big Millennium Falcon and AT-AT, Leader Class Transformers, Ultimate Optimus Prime, Darth Vaders Force FX lightsaber, Playmates 2009 Enterprise and all of what QMx have so far done with Star Trek.”

Then you are a bigger nerd than I am. But it’s interesting that you know how to use stereotypes against others when you actually fit them more closely than they do.

My comments are about design decisions and how they do NOT compare favorably to the ethos that Matt Jefferies evinced. Matt Jefferies was NOT a Star Trek “fan,” he was a guy tasked to do a job, and he did it while building into it a level of versimilitude that actually was not required. He could have just made things LOOK cool without considering functionality, but he went beyond mere looks and ALSO wanted functionality, not as a Star Trek fan but as a man doing his job extremely well and putting more design thought into it than he had to. Star Trek wouldn’t be today what it is had he not done that. And that is NOT something I see in the production design of Scott Chambliss. I do NOT see that same ethos which gave Star Trek some of the character of hard science fiction. The design choices of ST.09 show a “looks cool only” esthetic that resembles more the sensibility of George Lucas-type thinking than the more hard SF related Matt Jefferies-type thinking that Star Trek is allegedly supposed to be more close to.

“many here, who I’ve stereotyped as basement dwelling nerds, don’t get that this movie was fantastic for many reasons and one of them was that it broke the sterile and stagnant design Star Trek ships and sets had become before it.”

I daresay probably nobody has defended how GOOD the movie was on this site more than I. But I’m no sycophant. Never will be.

If a man can’t honestly state what he thinks didn’t work so well, then you can’t trust the sincerity of his praise either.

So I’ll leave the obsequiousness to others. I don’t do that. You really liked it? Good for you. I didn’t, I know why I didn’t, and I can sketch the solutions. I’m not talking out my arse, friendo.

“And that point about the “bustard ramscoops” (nerd alert) was actually on the Blu-Ray Star Trek 2009 set – apparently the stuff that goes into them would glow blue rather than red/orange and would change colour the faster the ship wanted to go.”

Yeah, I’m familiar with Bussard technology being a huge Larry Niven fan since the age of 16. Only they don’t create FTL speed, and the only “scoop” I see on the new E’s propulsion unit is UNDER the nacelle’s solid domes, which I would think act as a barrier to effectively collecting anything themselves, and nothing glows blue within the scoops. In fact, even if you imagined that it would for some reason be better to have dome shaped permeable membranes instead of open scoops, I’m not clear what Bussard ramjets have to do with warp power at all. Ramjets are rockets, not warp engines.

In any case, a “real” starship that we might be capable of building anytime soon would look nothing like the Enterprise at all.

217. Red Dead Ryan - July 24, 2011

You know, all of this bitching about the NuEnterprise reminds me of the first time that the Defiant made its appearance on “Deep Space Nine”.

When the ship decloaked, I thought to myself “What the hell is that ugly thing?” Clearly, it broke the mold from what we have seen before in starships. It was all one single hull. No outboard appendages. No bridge dome. Few windows. Phaser canons instead of strips.

But when I saw it in action ripping apart Jem’Hadar ships, I thought “Wow! This is awesome! They dared to do something different!”

It didn’t erase what came before. My love for the Defiant didn’t replace what I’d felt for the TOS, TMP, and TNG Enterprises. It was a different ship. With different qualities. Same thing with the NuEnterprise. It aint ever going to replace the original. That is why we have the new timeline.
The NuEnterprise is merely J.J Abrams’ take on the original.

I, like most here, am not a fan of the current engine room. But I get why J.J Abrams went in that direction and I have accepted it. We’re likely stuck with it, though there’s still the possibility that it will be redressed a bit to make it fit more in line with the rest of the ship.

But at the end of the movie, when the Enterprise came in guns blazing and destroyed the Narada, it really established itself as a fine successor to what we’ve seen before. The design is perhaps a bit different from we were hoping for or imagining when the movie was in its infancy. But that’s okay. Because it’s about the ship’s character, and deeds that matter most.

Take for example, the Millenium Falcon. Not a terribly fancy design. In fact it is quite simplistic, with signs of wear and tear. But it is the most popular ship from “Star Wars”, despite the fact that the Star Destroyers were cleaner looking and more powerful. The Millenium Falcon had character, no doubt helped in no small part by its commander, Han Solo. It was the symbol of an underdog who, while no match in terms of firepower, ended up playing a pivotal role in bringing down the Empire.

So, I’ll just leave it at that with this quote from Han Solo:

“She may not look like much on the outside, but she’s got it where it counts, kid”.

218. Christopher Roberts - July 24, 2011

Again with the Star Wars quotes… who’s franchise is this anyway? ;)

219. Christopher Roberts - July 24, 2011

Seriously… Star Trek has its own rich universe. Just stop it with the reverence for George Lucas. I haven’t seen a Wars movie for ages! They’re just not that deep or interesting. I saw them as a kid and on/off while those prequels were in cinema. I’m frankly too busy engrossed with the Trek universe to be honest.

220. John Pearse - July 24, 2011

Considering the ship was tearing apart as it escaped the black hole and Nero’s destruction, it’d make perfect sense for the Enterprise to look slightly different in the next movie.

Wishful thinking I know, but it’d be great for some of the fan criticisms to be addressed. Maybe it was just that people who disliked the design were the ones shouting the loudest, but it did seem that there was a consensus on certain aspects of the design needing improvement.

221. MJ - July 24, 2011

@215 @211

Guys, Rusty is right in that the changes between the motion picture enterprise and this new Enterprise are not very severe. Get over it!

222. MJ - July 24, 2011

@217 “You know, all of this bitching about the NuEnterprise reminds me of the first time that the Defiant made its appearance on “Deep Space Nine”. When the ship decloaked, I thought to myself “What the hell is that ugly thing?” Clearly, it broke the mold from what we have seen before in starships. It was all one single hull. No outboard appendages. No bridge dome. Few windows. Phaser canons instead of strips. But when I saw it in action ripping apart Jem’Hadar ships, I thought “Wow! This is awesome! They dared to do something different!” ”

Good point! It’s value grew over time and it became appreciated. This example is why many of us here were confused with DM’s Edsel remark — it seemed like he was holding that up as an example of how the new Enterprise was more advanced and would be appreciated more over time.

223. WORKforKirk - July 24, 2011

Please FIX Engineering, PLEASE! There was NO suspension of disbelief in that set… plus ASBESTOS FREE stickers are CLEARLY visible in some frames.. it’s nice to know the Enterprise Engineering room is free of asbestos… ReALLY? Please spend money on making a real engineering set, and not shooting in what was clearly a BREWERY..

THANKS!~

224. tom r - July 24, 2011

Well I’d love to see more of the enterprise how ever I feel that it should be changed from what we saw in the last movie. I think it should have even in the 1st film looked more like the original 1701, because that’s the ship the fans love and new comers to the trek universe at first will not care about a new look and will only serve to confuse those that go back and watch TOS.

225. cm1701 - July 24, 2011

Guys, give it a rest!

Argh.

I think Mr. Orci is well aware of how much we don’t care for the Engineering (and other) sections filmed in the Brewery.

I’m sure he gets it- lets move on and assume that new sections will be just that- new for use in the new movie/plot. We’ll just consider the first movie’s engineering section “deep in the bowels” or “unfinished” (as they left Space dock a bit early) and not think about it again.

In fact once could say the JJ Enterprise looks like a Lucas Enterprise. Put those warp engines in a Pod Race on Tatooine, baby.

BUT this matters only slightly– Just like I kinda don’t care that Delta Vega was in the wrong place or whatever-

Lets hope that the script matures our space faring friends a bit while still keeping the humor and wonder of it all.

I don’t know why I liked Trek’ 09 so much- it was a gut thing I guess.

The Franchise as a whole was shown much respect.

226. Crash - July 24, 2011

If they could see their way to changing it completely, it could only be an improvement.
And for God’s sake – you couldn’t you have even made a warp core/engineering in CGI?
I mean they didn’t say “Hmm, well instead of a bridge set, we could have an office and a big TV and instead of a shuttlebay we could have a barn with some tractors in”.
I mean they kept so much stuff the same: – phasers, communicators, viewscreen, shuttlecraft, warpdrive. They only had to go the extra few yards.

227. Christopher Roberts - July 24, 2011

223. Asbestos? Really? In the future?

My Dad died from working in the stuff. Breathed it in the 60’s and was gone four decades later.

I would’ve hoped for more super science risks to the crew’s health – Delta Rays, warped baffle plates, that sort of thing – but not a fire retardant mineral mined out of the ground.

228. Skippy - July 24, 2011

I still think that Gabe Koerner’s reimagined Enterprise should have been the new/old Enterprise: http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kg_gabe-k_1701_019.jpg

229. somethoughts - July 24, 2011

#202

I rather watch paint dry in a retirement home.

Everyone knows the best looking Enterprise was in TMP and Enterprise D

230. SoonerDave - July 24, 2011

@229 Agree completely. TMP Enterprise is a graceful, elegant ship. The new Enterprise is okay, but it just doesn’t “do it” for me. It just looks stuck together from a half-dozen other design ideas, and I disagree with the stated design concept of making it a dragster.

231. jesustrek - July 24, 2011

Orci esperemos ver la sala de juntas del enterprise, asi como el Galileo 7

232. Aurore - July 24, 2011

“Orci esperemos ver la sala de juntas del enterprise, asi como el Galileo 7″

Agreed .
I really look forward to seeing it . ( I think we will).

233. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

We know that what people usually find beautiful has to do with symmetry, proportion, and simplicity. That doesn’t mean there is ONE ideal case of beauty for anything, for example, as if there is one most beautiful face and all others are lesser grades below that ONE. There is extraordinary variety in beauty, equally striking but different permutations of beauty, but they all have those things in common that I mentioned at the start, certain proportions among features, symmetry, and simplicity.

The saucer section looks fine. The trouble starts at the lower end of the neck connecting to the secondary hull. The neck itself doesn’t look bad, but that oddball sharply isolated line at the fore continues into the top of the secondary hull in such way that it makes the top of the secondary hull asymmetrical with the bottom, and that is an esthetic blunder, in my view. The top of the secondary hull looks like it was scalped.

The rest of the trouble has to do with proportions and how they play with each other. The bulbous cowling of the nacelles flowing into the narrow neck of the support struts which then widen again into a delta where they meet the secondary hull creates the opposite visual effect of a sleek sports car where lines blend smoothly together. It’s more jarring, vacillating between esthetic commitments, like the confused concoction of mismatching features you find on the Edsel.

The deep scalloping at the bottom of the ship initially creates the impression of an attempt at symmetry with the slope of the neck leading up to the saucer section, but since it isn’t a real symmetry it just leaves me with the sense of a failed attempt at one. That could be fixed by making the back of the neck less like the slope of a warthog’s back while reducing the depth of the scalloping on the bottom. The new photon torpedo tube down there is a great idea. Keep that for sure.

Unfortunately, the nacelles themselves look like giant tadpoles.

Now, to be sure, none of this matters with respect to my enjoyment of the movie, its story, and its characters. And even though I don’t much like the design, they executed it with a remarkable and amazing verisimilitude that I totally accepted for the world of the movie, and which I will do again if the story is as good as I expect it to be. Not a single one of the things I mention distracts me from enjoying the movie I am watching, nor will JJ Abrams failure to change anything to suit ME prevent me from enjoying and loving the sequel as much as the first movie (if it’s as good or better). BUT, as a fan outside the movie I feel the urge to speak my mind on a more sober level regarding the choices the designers made. And I will continue to do that.

To anyone who likes it fine the way it is, more power to you. I wouldn’t dream of trying to change your mind. But it’s 2011, and I’ve given the design since 2009 to grow on me, and it just hasn’t happened. Sorry to be different, but at least I kinda know why I don’t like it, and it’s not because it isn’t a perfect replica of either the TOS or TMP Enterprise.

234. Aurore - July 24, 2011

“But it’s 2011, and I’ve given the design since 2009 to grow on me, and it just hasn’t happened. Sorry to be different,…”

….Umm…….I….. was….. wondering……has the Spock and Nyota Uhura romance grown on you since 2009?

(Runs as fast as she can.).

:))

235. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

@216:

“Oh boo hoo crybaby. You don’t like it that I don’t like something that you do? Grow up, do what you have to to coexist with people of different views and tastes and leave me out of your personal problems because I don’t care about them. My role as a fan on this site — as opposed to a fan sitting in a theater and enjoying the movie — is to offer constructive criticism about what I think worked and didn’t work whether it is accepted or rejected. Don’t like what I’m saying? Don’t read it. Want to be snarky? I’ll oblige that too.”

Well I’m not sure what makes me a crybaby but whatever man. I don’t really know why you’re making such a fuss. I don’t like nor dislike it that you don’t like or dislike something that I do… I disagree with you and I coexist just fine with people with different points of views but it seems to me your incapable of dealing with someone who disagrees with you. Your “role” on this site is the same as anyone else’s so lets not get all high and mighty. I think that if you were the kind of person to offer constructive criticisms, we wouldn’t be having this irrelevant mêlée and you wouldn’t be telling me not to read something I don’t like… You would also not be reading anything I had posted from the start, since if it’s something you don’t like you wouldn’t read, right? Or are you really just a hypocrite?

You have offered nothing constructive nor anything of any real worth to this conversation, neither have I, but I haven’t said that I would or that I have some kind of established role to play within this site…

Are you keeping up with me so far or don’t you like what I’m saying?

“Then you are a bigger nerd than I am. But it’s interesting that you know how to use stereotypes against others when you actually fit them more closely than they do.”

As I write this at my desk in my basement…

“My comments are about design decisions and how they do NOT compare favorably to the ethos that Matt Jefferies evinced. Matt Jefferies was NOT a Star Trek “fan,” he was a guy tasked to do a job, and he did it while building into it a level of versimilitude that actually was not required. He could have just made things LOOK cool without considering functionality, but he went beyond mere looks and ALSO wanted functionality, not as a Star Trek fan but as a man doing his job extremely well and putting more design thought into it than he had to.”

Matt Jefferies was a guy doing a job, I doubt very much he thought what he designed would be revered by so many 45 years later – had he drawn a stick with wheels on it, it would have still become an icon – obviously he wasn’t going to do that but here’s my point – don’t put him and his design on a pedestal. What he did was fantastic and has stood the test of time but it is now up to the creative minds of today to create something they find appealing. You don’t like it fair enough but lets look at this new Enterprise; by and large the silhouette is the same as it has been for 45 years. The saucer is still where the saucer should be, the bridge is still bridge like, and the engines are where the engines have always been and so on. The differences are that this version is more organic in shape; the proportions are DIFFERENT not wrong and many of the interiors are real locations rather than sets – in fact I’d go on and say that this ship because of the larger budget is far more functional in looks and design than ANY of the other Enterprise ships, including the one Jefferies designed purely down to the matter of budget. If you look at sea-faring aircraft carriers, the similarities between the Enterprise in JJ Abrams movie and the large interiors of real aircraft carriers are there to be seen. Of course we know that they used massive turbines at the Budweiser factory but the sense of scale and getting that feeling of a working ship are there to be seen.

“Star Trek wouldn’t be today what it is had he not done that.”

You know what, I’m sick of people saying this; “Star Trek wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for so and so bla bla”. Star Trek would be here today it would have just looked different. Jefferies could have designed anything and it would have still been an icon today… Star Trek has been remembered and loved for so long because it’s message is still a relevant one, because of the bold, risky issues it dealt with and tackled through likable characters and because it showed a thoroughly optimistic view of the future – a future that mankind built for him and herself through great difficulties and by working together as one planet united under one goal – to reach for the stars…

“And that is NOT something I see in the production design of Scott Chambliss. I do NOT see that same ethos which gave Star Trek some of the character of hard science fiction. The design choices of ST.09 show a “looks cool only” esthetic that resembles more the sensibility of George Lucas-type thinking than the more hard SF related Matt Jefferies-type thinking that Star Trek is allegedly supposed to be more close to.”

I think this is an arrogant, misguided view on what eventually came to be on the big screen. You may not see the same ethos but I don’t know how you cant. The design choices of Star Trek (2009) show that the team working on it took great care in looking at the designs Jefferies and Co. did in the 60’s and 70’s. Abrams Star Trek was completely faithful to what had come before it, it’s designs were grounded in that space-age retro feel from the original series. Everything from the props to the ships (interiors and exteriors) and the costumes completely captured the original series design and updated them for not just today’s audiences who have come to expect that “Star Wars” type of spectacle but also the kinds of budgets Abrams had to play with. I don’t see where you get this notion that all has been lost by making things look cool or like Star Wars – didn’t you look at Star Trek when you first saw it and think wow that’s cool?

And as for the Star Wars thing – what is it with you people? Star Wars was a classic and just like Roddenberry took ideas from things he loved when he was young and put them into Star Trek, so did JJ Abrams, Rob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and the others… This notion that they’ve somehow turned Trek into Wars is ridiculous and based on nothing.

“If a man can’t honestly state what he thinks didn’t work so well, then you can’t trust the sincerity of his praise either.
So I’ll leave the obsequiousness to others. I don’t do that. You really liked it? Good for you. I didn’t, I know why I didn’t, and I can sketch the solutions. I’m not talking out my arse, friendo.”

You know, all you’ve done is tell me you don’t do this or that. You’ve not actually showed me anything to suggest you do anything but argue the toss. I think that you’re misguided in your opinions and seem to have put the Jefferies design on a pedestal never to be toppled. If I’m right, and no one can ever match your high standards then I feel sorry for you. It means that you can’t fully enjoy anything new from Star Trek that is simply different from what has been done before. That’s my opinion, an opinion I think applies to many fans here. I don’t expect you or anyone else to agree, I expect you to live up to your “role” on this site but like I’ve done with your points, I hope my points make you think a little about what it was that didn’t agree with you in the last movie besides the fact that it wasn’t in the Jefferies ethos…

“Yeah, I’m familiar with Bussard technology being a huge Larry Niven fan since the age of 16. Only they don’t create FTL speed, and the only “scoop” I see on the new E’s propulsion unit is UNDER the nacelle’s solid domes, which I would think act as a barrier to effectively collecting anything themselves, and nothing glows blue within the scoops. In fact, even if you imagined that it would for some reason be better to have dome shaped permeable membranes instead of open scoops, I’m not clear what Bussard ramjets have to do with warp power at all. Ramjets are rockets, not warp engines.

In any case, a “real” starship that we might be capable of building anytime soon would look nothing like the Enterprise at all.”

Then I suggest we let the guys left to create the ships, technology, interiors, costumes and alien landscapes of this iteration of Star Trek alone to do their jobs and base our opinions on their efforts rather than judge them against someone else’s vision (Jefferies/Roddenberry/Lucas).

236. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

234. Aurore – July 24, 2011

LOL! You know the answer!

237. MJ - July 24, 2011

@235 “Matt Jefferies was a guy doing a job, I doubt very much he thought what he designed would be revered by so many 45 years later – had he drawn a stick with wheels on it, it would have still become an icon – obviously he wasn’t going to do that but here’s my point – don’t put him and his design on a pedestal. What he did was fantastic and has stood the test of time but it is now up to the creative minds of today to create something they find appealing. You don’t like it fair enough but lets look at this new Enterprise; by and large the silhouette is the same as it has been for 45 years. The saucer is still where the saucer should be, the bridge is still bridge like, and the engines are where the engines have always been and so on. The differences are that this version is more organic in shape; the proportions are DIFFERENT not wrong and many of the interiors are real locations rather than sets – in fact I’d go on and say that this ship because of the larger budget is far more functional in looks and design than ANY of the other Enterprise ships, including the one Jefferies designed purely down to the matter of budget. If you look at sea-faring aircraft carriers, the similarities between the Enterprise in JJ Abrams movie and the large interiors of real aircraft carriers are there to be seen. Of course we know that they used massive turbines at the Budweiser factory but the sense of scale and getting that feeling of a working ship are there to be seen.”

Agree completely — well said!

238. MJ - July 24, 2011

@235 “Well I’m not sure what makes me a crybaby but whatever man. I don’t really know why you’re making such a fuss. I don’t like nor dislike it that you don’t like or dislike something that I do… I disagree with you and I coexist just fine with people with different points of views but it seems to me your incapable of dealing with someone who disagrees with you. Your “role” on this site is the same as anyone else’s so lets not get all high and mighty. I think that if you were the kind of person to offer constructive criticisms, we wouldn’t be having this irrelevant mêlée and you wouldn’t be telling me not to read something I don’t like… You would also not be reading anything I had posted from the start, since if it’s something you don’t like you wouldn’t read, right? Or are you really just a hypocrite?”

I don’t think DM meant anything personally by it, although I agree that the crybaby thing was a teenager argument kind of tactic on this part. Perhaps he felt backed into a corner following the general confusion from many us regarding his ill-fated Edsel comparison? I think he’s just off his game a bit this weekend, so I would recommend just forgiving the guy and moving on.

239. Aurore - July 24, 2011

“LOL! You know the answer!”

Then , *I* forgive you for “being different” (from me , as far as that suh-weet , sweet romance is concerned!).

:))

240. Canon Schmanon - July 24, 2011

235. Kirk, James T. – Mister, you totally made dmduncan your bitch.

241. Kirk, James T. - July 24, 2011

@238

Thats cool, moving on and theres nothing to forgive, we’ve all got our own viewpoints and opinions which makes us the fans we are :)

No hard feelings dmduncan.

242. Phil - July 24, 2011

Well, I see some of us have once again failed to grasp the difference between fan and critic.

243. Phil - July 24, 2011

@234. I’m hoping they have popped out a couple of kids by now. Everyone has to do their bit to re-populate New Vulcan now….

244. Aurore - July 24, 2011

243. Phil .

Renesmee and Giovanna are sparkling in the sunlight and glowing through the lens flares , Phil . And , all that in 3D .

DmDuncan and a few others are SOOOOooooooooo happy about this….
This is truly marvelous.

:))

245. Red Dead Ryan - July 24, 2011

The same people who bemoan the fact that we got the nuEnterprise instead of the TOS or TMP versions are the same people who, if they had gotten their wish, would have whined and complained about how the designers didn’t come up with something new and original.

We should all be grateful that we didn’t wind up with the Nostromo! ;-)

#’s 218 and 219.

The supreme court members decided to add some “Star Wars” to our “Star Trek”. They also keep mentioning how “Star Wars” inspired them. They set the precedent, not me. If you got a problem with that, take it up with them. ;-)

#242.

Some fans feel that simply being fans entitles them to be critics. But there is much more to being a critic then just bitching and complaining.

246. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

235: “Well I’m not sure what makes me a crybaby but whatever man. I don’t really know why you’re making such a fuss.”

Next time don’t start out a conversation insinuating that the person who posted what I posted lived in a basement plugging fiber optics into and painting starship models, never getting any sun, as if THAT fantasy was the explanation for my different opinions, and I won’t point out the irony of a person bitching about bitching. Don’t start none, won’t be none.

“You have offered nothing constructive nor anything of any real worth to this conversation, neither have I, but I haven’t said that I would or that I have some kind of established role to play within this site…”

I decide what my role is in the type of comments that I make just as others decide what their roles are when they troll and flame people or just maliciously express their anger with and directly AT the people who made the movie because it wasn’t what they wanted, none of which describes me. Bob’s presence on these boards gives us a chance, however slight, to affect the Star Trek that we get. And if he wasn’t here, I wouldn’t be here, because then I wouldn’t have ANY chance, however miniscule it may be, to do that.

“You know what, I’m sick of people saying this; ‘Star Trek wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for so and so bla bla’. Star Trek would be here today it would have just looked different.”

Well good for you, but you should take that up with somebody who actually said that. What I actually said was: ““Star Trek wouldn’t be today what it is had he not done that.” I said it wouldn’t be WHAT IT IS, not it wouldn’t BE HERE. Matt Jefferies’ work came from a decidedly functional bias, and it is a historical fact that his work, which was an expression of his unique identity, gave Star Trek some of the hard SF flavor that it had.

“Jefferies could have designed anything and it would have still been an icon today…”

Nope. And we’ve got plenty of production art that didn’t make the grade to prove it, none of which survives to be iconic. Some of it was cool, later to be realized in TNG, and some of it was blah. Everything the man drew was NOT gold, contrary to how you seem intent on portraying what I think of the man.

“I think this is an arrogant, misguided view on what eventually came to be on the big screen. You may not see the same ethos but I don’t know how you cant. The design choices of Star Trek (2009) show that the team working on it took great care in looking at the designs Jefferies and Co. did in the 60’s and 70’s. Abrams Star Trek was completely faithful to what had come before it, it’s designs were grounded in that space-age retro feel from the original series. Everything from the props to the ships (interiors and exteriors) and the costumes completely captured the original series design and updated them for not just today’s audiences who have come to expect that “Star Wars” type of spectacle but also the kinds of budgets Abrams had to play with. I don’t see where you get this notion that all has been lost”

That last phrase, that I think “all has been lost” is your exaggerated impression of what I said and does not reflect anything I actually wrote. You own that, not me.

Yes, Chambliss followed TOS, but the Chambliss designs do not reflect the level of thought toward functionality that Jefferies put into HIS designs. I gave a good example of that with the phasers which Jefferies was very proud of. The bridge was another good example. What do I mean? I mean that Jefferies knew what each station on the bridge was and why it was there. If you know anything about the history of Star Trek you should know that Jefferies tried to design things like he was designing a real functional ship, which the layout of the bridge reflects. Jefferies was even against the need for an engine room because he felt that all engineering functions could be controlled from the bridge, but he was overruled on that.

Now does Chambliss know what each of his stations are, including the extra ones? I don’t think he does. Can anybody tell me what those two podiums are next to the captain’s chair? I asked Bob once and never got an answer. So I don’t think they have an accounted for purpose the way Jefferies’ bridge stations do. I think they are there because somebody said “we need more cool looking stuff on the bridge,” which is the George Lucas mentality, and which is different from how Jefferies approached things, which more resembles how hard SF is put together.

“And as for the Star Wars thing – what is it with you people? Star Wars was a classic”

Who are “you people”? I love Star Wars. But I love it for different reasons than I love Star Trek.

“You know, all you’ve done is tell me you don’t do this or that. You’ve not actually showed me anything to suggest you do anything but argue the toss. I think that you’re misguided in your opinions and seem to have put the Jefferies design on a pedestal never to be toppled.”

Post 233 explains what I mean as near as I can find words to reflect my sketched out solutions. Words aren’t as good, but I can’t show you the sketches. Sorry.

“If I’m right, and no one can ever match your high standards then I feel sorry for you. It means that you can’t fully enjoy anything new from Star Trek that is simply different from what has been done before.”

Addressed in post 233. But the point I made is still valid that JJ Abrams and Scott Chambliss simply seem to have a different attitude that is considerably less hard SF than the attitude Matt Jefferies brought to the original series in his work, which figures in their design choices. It’s also less hard SF than what RICK STERNBACH helped to do on TNG. Those guys put a lot more thought into why things were the way they were than Scott Chambliss seems to have done, and that’s unfortunate because it’s a great part of what Star Trek was, and it wouldn’t be alienating to general audiences to have that generally invisible level of design work, while fans would appreciate and love it. Win win. Nobody loses doing it that way. Nobody. Just takes more time and requires involving more and perhaps additional people.

“Then I suggest we let the guys left to create the ships, technology, interiors, costumes and alien landscapes of this iteration of Star Trek alone to do their jobs”

Ha! AS IF I am bothering JJ or Scott Chambliss and preventing them from doing their jobs with my lowly opinion which they have probably never even heard!!!

We know Bob frequents this site, but I can’t say I know any of those guys do, so as far as I know it’s all up to Bob what he decides to make an issue of in conversations with them based on what he reads here. Bob’s call, and his alone as far as I know.

238: “Perhaps he felt backed into a corner following the general confusion from many us regarding his ill-fated Edsel comparison? I think he’s just off his game a bit this weekend”

LOL! I always know when my examples (like the Edsel) have been SUCCESSFUL, because you respond with used car salesmen tactics to try and distract others from noticing how you mistook what I wrote, and also to convince me that my examples didn’t work. Thanks for the confirmation, MJ! If the sequel has Talosians, maybe you should try out for an extra! ;-)

247. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

240. Canon Schmanon – July 24, 2011

235. Kirk, James T. – Mister, you totally made dmduncan your bitch.

***

Ooh, that comment makes you look far worse than it does me. Glad I don’t have to wish not having said that one! But I do think it’s instructive how some honest criticism of a fictional ship gets Trekkies to remove their masks and froth at the mouth like this.

248. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

244. Aurore – July 24, 2011

You I like! ;-)

249. Desstruxion - July 24, 2011

The Edsel was a turd.

250. Damian - July 24, 2011

I really don’t expect there to be too many design changes to the Enterprise. The only possibility may be engineering mainly because there seems to be more people that loathed it than not (even from fans that otherwise thought the movie was the best thing to come out of Star Trek since the original series). Orci has mentioned he brought it up with Abrams, so it is possible engineering may be cleaned up a bit.

211–We’ll have to agree to disagree about the NX-01 sets. I always thought they had that functional, claustrophobic feel. It seemed there was no fluff on that ship. Everything had a function. Even the mess hall was mostly no frills. For me, I always liked that Rick Sternbach, John Eaves and Herman Zimmerman could always explain why something did what it did on the ships they helped design. While it did not always appear on screen, they obviously put a lot of thought into something before designing a set. As a Trekkie, I always appreciated the attempt to at least add some science to the fiction. I hope that continues into the next film.

251. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

250: “I always liked that Rick Sternbach, John Eaves and Herman Zimmerman could always explain why something did what it did on the ships they helped design. While it did not always appear on screen, they obviously put a lot of thought into something before designing a set. As a Trekkie, I always appreciated the attempt to at least add some science to the fiction.”

Exactly. Some people can still get it. Thank you.

Some of you think you are successfully slamming me for suggesting that Scott Chambliss follow the same ethos that Jefferies, Sternbach, Eaves, and Zimmerman had.

(For those of you who reflexively make reading comprehension errors, notice that I just used the word ETHOS, and did NOT and NEVER did say that Chambliss should DUPLICATE the DESIGNS of Jefferies, Sternbach, Eaves, or Zimmerman.)

252. MJ - July 24, 2011

@247. @251

Don’t worry DM, we all have had bad days on these boards where we are not at the top of our games. I recommend you get a good night’s sleep and start over in the AM.

253. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

252. MJ – July 24, 201l

You can drop the character act now, MJ. The used car salesman routine isn’t as effective as it was now that you’ve been exposed. Though I will applaud you for trying to sell us the Edsel as the best looking car ever made. That was ballsy! Doomed, but ballsy!

254. Harry Ballz - July 24, 2011

“ballsy”

High praise indeed!

255. JP Saylor - July 24, 2011

The only way a new movie would be better for me, is if the 29th Century time traveling Federation went back and fixed this crappy time line from ever happening. Ugg

It feels like someone has taken someone I loved from me, and raped them. All the while, this being perfectly okay with those in charge.

The people who I know who saw the new movie and liked it aren’t Star Trek fans. They haven’t seen one episode of any series. They’ve just been dulled down like everyone else. If it doesn’t have enough action in it, it isn’t good. They’re the people who say Wars after Star all the time.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’d rather have Berman and gang work on the next picture. At least with them you didn’t feel like you were getting f****d 50% of the time.

*sigh*

Venting done. I’m going to go watch the original series now. :P

256. dmduncan - July 24, 2011

235: “it seems to me your incapable of dealing with someone who disagrees with you.”

Oh puhlease, Captain James Kirk. You address me first with a silly attack against me personally when I expressed my point of view about the Enterprise and the apparently different ethos of the new production designer and then like so many self-unreflective people you blame ME for shooting back at that personal attack you launched like what you said was MY fault? Man up, James T. Kirk. I don’t give a damn about what different opinion you have, but if you are going to try and belittle my point of view as if it’s coming from some pasty white not-to-be-taken-seriously starship model-painting basement dweller…then I’m going to stamp that junk mail return to sender on your dime.

“Your ‘role’ on this site is the same as anyone else’s so lets not get all high and mighty.”

You speak for yourself, Captain James Kirk, not for me. I don’t know what your role is, but I know what role I choose to play with the things I say in here and the reasons I visit this place. And that is to be heard by a key member of the group making Star Trek so that maybe — just MAYBE — some of my suggestions are accepted and incorporated. That’s why I’m here. Because it’s my interest as a fan. I don’t hide it. I don’t disguise it. And if there wasn’t that chance, I would lose interest in posting here.

“I think that if you were the kind of person to offer constructive criticisms, we wouldn’t be having this irrelevant mêlée and you wouldn’t be telling me not to read something I don’t like… You would also not be reading anything I had posted from the start, since if it’s something you don’t like you wouldn’t read, right? Or are you really just a hypocrite?”

Wrong on both counts. I do read bunk when it’s addressed to or insinuated at me to fight back at it. But I’m not a dictator, so I neither advocate that everybody adopt my habits nor consider it hypocritical NOT to advocate everybody adopt my habits, which remark reveals something questionable about your own attitudes if you really think it’s hypocritical for me NOT to advocate everybody act exactly the same way as I do. If somebody’s personal views make you launch into personal attacks against them even when they addressed no personal attacks AT you, at least man up to the fact that you got the deep sea snark you were fishing for when I responded.

“You know, all you’ve done is tell me you don’t do this or that. You’ve not actually showed me anything to suggest you do anything but argue the toss.”

The solutions are in the criticism. Aren’t they? Hmm? Think about it. If I say “x is too big” and you know that I am not advocating the elimination of x entirely, then it is reasonable to infer that my solution would be to make x NOT SO BIIIIG! In fact, those reasonable inferences would be correct. So here are my positive statements of what to change, which I already expressed negatively in the criticisms: Return the scalp to the secondary hull from where it was removed. Get rid of the nacelle cowling. Reduce the depth of the scalloping on the underside while sliding the neck and saucer slightly forward. Make the torpedo tube muzzle the same on the neck as it is on the underside as if they are built to the same specs…because why shouldn’t they be??? The differences are slight, but slight differences are all it takes.

I mean, I assume you wash and comb your messed up hair in the morning (if you still have hair) so that you are conscious of making a better impression to others by having a kempt appearance when you go out, even though the difference between messed hair and kempt hair is relatively small, so it shouldn’t be that hard to understand that small differences still matter.

Plus, they aren’t going to take my suggestions on the Enterprise and I know that, but they MAY consider what I’m saying about the ethos. Bob decides whether he’ll bring that up, not me. I just put what I’m willing to share out there for his consideration.

257. MJ - July 25, 2011

Trek Princess versus Captain Nell — The Next Generation
— Starring DM Duncan and Kirk, James T.

:-))

258. Kirk, James T. - July 25, 2011

LOL – I’ve got nothing more to add. I made my point and If you didn’t get it then, you wont ever get it. dmduncan, i pity you.

259. ToMaHaKeR - July 25, 2011

Upgrade the brewery, remove the great metallic tanks from communications room (where Kirk’s hands got bigger), and improve the torpedo launch room – have the automated systems, not people load the torpedoes.

260. John from Cincinnati - July 25, 2011

A redesign of the iBridge would be welcome

261. Damian - July 25, 2011

255–I have to say I am the exception to the rule then. I liked all previous Star Trek (including the much maligned Voyager and Enterprise) and also like Star Trek (2009). I thought the story was creative and unique (one of the few films to be a sequel, prequel and reboot all wrapped up in one). My main complaints about it were more about set design than anything else. I think they are on the right track, though it is likely based on their comments we get 3 movies, tops. I’ve got no beef with the Berman team and enjoyed Star Trek under their watch, but the time had come to move on. Enterprise ended before it’s time (with Manny Coto at the helm, I think they finally were on track and could easily have had a decent 7 years), but otherwise, there wasn’t much ground left for them to cover as a team.

262. Jorg Sacul - July 25, 2011

I only have one small exterior design change request. Please put the red stripes back on the nacelles. I miss those.

Spend the rest of your time making the story the best ever. No pressure. :)

263. chain of command - July 25, 2011

Hate to get on the engineering thing, but yeah, they need to change that up a bit. It kind of “took me out of the movie” when I saw those areas of the ship.

264. Phil - July 25, 2011

A couple of thoughts about the Edsel – several features of the car that were considered impractical are now standard equipment on several of todays cars. Also, the lessons learn from the Edsel were applied to one of Fords most popular brands, the Mustang.

265. MJ - July 25, 2011

@264 “A couple of thoughts about the Edsel – several features of the car that were considered impractical are now standard equipment on several of todays cars. Also, the lessons learn from the Edsel were applied to one of Fords most popular brands, the Mustang.”

Exactly!!!!!

266. MJ - July 25, 2011

@285 “I’ve got nothing more to add. I made my point and If you didn’t get it then, you wont ever get it. dmduncan, i pity you.”

Don’t worry, Kirk, James T, DM, when everybod except DM realizes that he has lost an argument, he retreats into the strategy of massive posts that attack subsets of your ideas…divide and conquer if you will. No worries though, as when you seem him employ this tactic, you can take solace that most of the rest of us here know exactly who’s ideas/arguments were the most credible.

267. dmduncan - July 25, 2011

258: “LOL – I’ve got nothing more to add. I made my point and If you didn’t get it then, you wont ever get it. dmduncan, i pity you.”

Oh save the pity for yourself. It’s totally misapplied to me. You should know better than to use stereotypes as a tactic to dismiss the ideas of those who differ with you. You still don’t have the vaguest idea of where I’m coming from, and you probably still think I live in a basement hating on Star Wars and wanting TOS resurrected exactly down to the last detail. LOL! Let go of those nonsensical stereotypes, Captain James T. Kirk. They aren’t helping you to look intelligent.

266: “when everybod except DM realizes that he has lost an argument, he retreats into the strategy of massive posts that attack subsets of your ideas…divide and conquer if you will. No worries though, as when you seem him employ this tactic, you can take solace that most of the rest of us here know exactly who’s ideas/arguments were the most credible.”

Hahaha! Reminds me of two newlyweds on an airplane in a death spiral consoling each other that everything is going to be alright.

And the only reasons you complain about the length of my posts, when they are that long, is because you have reading comprehension difficulties, as your persistent — and still recurring — misunderstanding of my Edsel comparison (Damn, I’m proud of that one!) proves conclusively, and because you can’t keep up with me.

240: “Kirk, James T. – Mister, you totally made dmduncan your bitch.”

I am nObody’s bitch. You are a chump for making that remark. And I don’t respect you for it. But what’s done is done. I can’t recall anything else you’ve ever posted in here, and I’m sure that in a few more days I won’t recall that little turd either.

Finally, there aren’t enough of you hording chimpanzees attacking me at the same time to shut me up. It feels like I’m being tickled. Ya got nuthin. No moves, no mojo, and you can’t even understand what you read very well.

268. MJ - July 25, 2011

(whisper to all: and in the response above, notice another multi-page treatise from DM in response..see…right on schedule as I predicted)

(queue to Jerry Goldsmith Trek Music)
“The DM Treatise Adventure is Just Beginning…”

:-))

269. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 25, 2011

#240 – “235. Kirk, James T. – Mister, you totally made dmduncan your bitch.”

I am not even sure what that means, but I do know it was a very rude comment to make.

#256 – “but I know what role I choose to play with the things I say in here and the reasons I visit this place. And that is to be heard by a key member of the group making Star Trek so that maybe — just MAYBE — some of my suggestions are accepted and incorporated. That’s why I’m here. Because it’s my interest as a fan. I don’t hide it. I don’t disguise it. And if there wasn’t that chance, I would lose interest in posting here…

Plus, they aren’t going to take my suggestions on the Enterprise and I know that, but they MAY consider what I’m saying about the ethos. Bob decides whether he’ll bring that up, not me. I just put what I’m willing to share out there for his consideration.”

I agree with you. I think we all hope that Bob and co. would consider some of our ideas as being good and valid and even decide to use one or two in the new movie. Anyway, you never know, dmduncan, if Scott Chambliss… perhaps reads your recommendations on how the design of the Enterprise might be improved, he might consider making a model using your ideas to see how it looks and go from there…

At the end of the day, we all want to see a cool next Star Trek movie. If, by listening to a poster’s ideas, they can come up with an ever better design, story, character…, then we all win. Trek 09’s Enterprise was OK. I don’t focus on ship designs, just so long as it looks OK and gets my characters from A to B, but if someone else does notice and can suggest improvements, as dmduncan appears to have done, then all the better. Perhaps it will mean that when I sit down to watch the sequel and the improved Enterprise comes into view, I will be saying, “Wow! That just looks so cool, so beautiful!” without necessarily knowing why or needing to know.

270. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 25, 2011

#255 – “It feels like someone has taken someone I loved from me, and raped them. All the while, this being perfectly okay with those in charge.”

I assume JP Saylor is a male who has never been raped. Again, here is another poster comparing the latest rendering of Star Trek with a serious criminal offence. Nobody raped anybody. Star Trek has not been raped. We are just experiencing being part of the slightly different timeline/universe to the one that we have been used to for 43 years, until the release date of Star Trek 09. That is not rape.

I find your comparison and use of the word “rape” in this context highly offensive.

271. MJ - July 25, 2011

@255. “It feels like someone has taken someone I loved from me, and raped them. All the while, this being perfectly okay with those in charge.”

Actually, despite what you dad said, your mom’s night with me was completely consensual, and after the act we watched Star Trek 9 as we smoked.

272. MJ - July 25, 2011

….we watched Star Trek 2009 as we smoked.

273. stu - July 25, 2011

the Art of Star Trek 2009 has a very nice engineering. This would be way cooler for the next movie

274. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 26, 2011

The exterior and interior of the Enterprise in the 2009 film are poorly rendered. Classic Enterprise blows the redesigns out of the ballpark! Saying Classic Big E wouldn’t look good on the big screen is faulty logic. No ice cream in the rec room tonight.

275. captain_neill - July 26, 2011

Get a proper engine room and turn off the lens flare generator.

276. captain_neill - July 26, 2011

The new movie Enterprise has grown on me but it does not have the beauty of the TMP refit.

277. Anthony Thompson - July 26, 2011

@271.

MJ, you are wicked! LOL!

278. DarthDogg - July 26, 2011

KEACHICK

“Also, the uniforms look great. No change needed.”

Wrong! There is one change that needs to be made. The female uniforms need to display rank.

Starfleet is a military orginization, make no mistake. Anybody who has served in the military will tell you that rank is everything. To display it means to display your position with all the authority and respect that comes with it, because rank is earned. To leave it off the female uniforms says that the women on the ship are not deserving of that respect. I cannot imagine anyone that has served disagreeing with this. There has never been a StarTrek of anykind to make this kind of laps in judgment ontil Trek 09.

279. dmduncan - July 26, 2011

269. Keachick (rose pinenut) – July 25, 2011

Yes! You understand perfectly, rose!

280. Damian - July 26, 2011

270–Agree. If you don’t like Star Trek (2009), that’s fine. You don’t have to watch it. There are 10 other movies and hundreds of hours of TV shows to keep you busy (not to mention hundreds of books). I guess his (or her) issue is that he/she realizes that the Abrams universe is probably the future on screen and he is not going to get anything new he likes.

281. Daystrom - July 26, 2011

Enterprise refit from the Wrath of Khan era is still the best ship. The stardrive and Nacelles from the ’09 ship have to go. Also the Apple Store bridge is rediculous and must go. Viewscreen is OK and can stay. Engine Room is supposed to be an upgrade from the NX series ships. No need to show all the steam pipes, unless you are going to rename the Enterpise the Titanic. Maybe JJ should watch a few of the TOS episodes when Scotty was downstairs doin his thing. Put up a few consoles, then put up a big fence, and everything behind the fence is the warp drive. Upgrade some things, but kick it old school on more of the other things.

282. MJ - July 26, 2011

@281. I love the new bridge — it is very futuristic. Engineering has got to go though — it is opposite of the new bridge and looks like a 20th century beer factory. Would prefer if the front of the nacelles were shrunk slightly, but otherwise the new E is not that different from that past E’s for this crew.

283. captain_neill - July 26, 2011

281

It does say something about how wonderful TOS was when a Engine Room designed in the 60s looks better than a creative decision made to use a brewery for an Engine Room in the current take on Trek.

284. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 26, 2011

#278 – “The female uniforms need to display rank.
Starfleet is a military orginization, make no mistake. Anybody who has served in the military will tell you that rank is everything. To display it means to display your position with all the authority and respect that comes with it, because rank is earned. To leave it off the female uniforms says that the women on the ship are not deserving of that respect. I cannot imagine anyone that has served disagreeing with this.”

People were referring to the colour and style of the uniforms. A poster here was wanting the uniforms to look more like those seen in TWOK. I disagree.

Of course, both male and female uniforms should show the correct designation and rank of the person wearing them. I guess I had not noticed that Uhura’s uniform did not have what people like Sulu had pinned to his uniform. However, Uhura did receive a “field promotion” (to use military terms) by Captain Pike. I doubt there was time to find the correct insignia and pin it onto her uniform. Bear in mind also, that Acting first officer Kirk was still wearing black jersey and pants with no insignias of any kind.

However, her designation and rank should have been clearly seen in the final scene of the movie, when Acting First Officer Kirk was now Captain Kirk and Spock was seen offering himself as First Officer. If her rank and designation were not on her uniform in the final scene, then that is clearly an oversight on the part of the movie production team, but one that is easily corrected.

Gosh, I do wish that some people could ease up on having such a strict military mindset. Ugh.

285. MJ - July 26, 2011

@283 “It does say something about how wonderful TOS was when a Engine Room designed in the 60s looks better than a creative decision made to use a brewery for an Engine Room in the current take on Trek.”

Agreed Captain Nell!

286. MJ - July 26, 2011

@284 “People were referring to the colour and style of the uniforms. A poster here was wanting the uniforms to look more like those seen in TWOK. I disagree.”

Me too, Keachick. Although TWOK uniforms were a breath of fresh air after the “pajamas” they all wore in TMP, those uniforms are so heavy they give the impression that the Enterprise’s heaters must always be on the brink. :-))

287. DarthDogg - July 26, 2011

KeaChick

“Of course, both male and female uniforms should show the correct designation and rank of the person wearing them. I guess I had not noticed that Uhura’s uniform did not have what people like Sulu had pinned to his uniform”

The rank is not something that is pinned, it is the stripes (diferent number and thickness for different ranks), that are around the cuffs of the sleeves. Since the womens uniforms have no sleeves, they do not display the rank. This is consistant with all the women on the ship. As it stands, you would not be able to tell a female captain from an ensign. This is bad design. The stripes could have been mooved from the end of the sleeve to across the shoulder and have been fine.
As for the look of the uniforms themselves, I agree that they are fine as is.

288. Chris Pike - July 27, 2011

For me production design was a weakness in the film, a bit of a hotchpotch, and the E exterior an ugly disappointment. Some things were great with that certain “coolness”, transporter room was an improvement over any previous, so it is possible to do better and I liked the uniforms looking so close to TOS. Engineering was the biggest mistake and just took me out of the film, looking not only earthbound but too contemporary. Anything contemporary has always looked wrong in Trek…it has to look like our future, not the present…after all our present world looks very different from the world in 1750! I find it hard to believe changes in these areas would lessen the impact of the film!!

289. Damian - July 27, 2011

286–I liked the uniforms also. The Motion Picture was always my favorite film, but one weekness was the uniforms. The uniforms from TWOK were good, but they were used from TWOK all the way to Picard’s time on the Stargazer (sans the turtleneck). That was long enough. Besides, TWOK timefram is still about 30 years in the future for this timeline.

290. Glover - July 27, 2011

Bob – ignore all these morons, let them sit at home with their fancy-schmancy DS9 and Voyager sets. What the Enterprise needs is a functioning wooden ship’s wheel in the middle of the bridge. In fact, a lot more timber all round and make all the windows stained glass.

Why do spaceships in TV and movies always have to be made of some sort of metal and have computers in them?

291. NX-01 - July 27, 2011

Tone down the ship interior. It looks like an Apple store gone out of control (look to ST VI/II for inspiration). Redesign engineering to look more in line with something 300 years in the future. I like the idea of making it look ‘mechanical’, but not stone age. And show a warp core ala TMP/Voyager. Loved that effect!

No orange bussard collectors. That’s a TNG thing that I never much cared for. If there is to be a change to the nacelles, make ‘em look like the refit from TMP. Also, the nacelle struts should connect closer to engineering and slant back, not be connected to the shuttle bay.

Change the effects for the phasers (both sidearms, and shipboard variety). It sounded like a bad ripoff of Star Wars, or the sounds that kids make when they make ‘laser sounds’. Very cheesy.

And that’s just if there are to be any changes at all. Overall, I’m fine with the ship the way it was. These are things that *I* would change if *I* were in charge.

292. jiat2001 - July 27, 2011

New sections of the Enterprise? Well, you just lost a loyal fan. I never liked the Enterprise design and I will continue to dislike it until they redesign the entire ship. It’s obvious that a lot of people doesn’t like the overall look of the ship when the movie was released. I still strongly believe that Gabriel Koerner’s design was the best and should have been used in the movie. Until they make some changes, no matter how good of a story or impressive the visuals, I will not see the film. I’m sorry if most of you here disagree with my comments but I won’t blame you either. After all, this is a free country and I stand by my choices. Peace and love.

293. MJ - July 27, 2011

@292. No problem, and in fact the feeling is mutual. We don’t want you in the theater with us.

294. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 28, 2011

#292 Grief. It is just a ship. The people who inhabit it and use it to get from A to B are who really count.

Objectophilia runs rampart among some. It is possible that Scotty may understand you. After all, he was itching to get his hands on those “ample nacelles”.

I love this alt-universe because we have a genius-level repeat offender who makes good and gets to save Earth and the Enterprise, thanks, in part, to another genius-level wacky Scots engineer.

295. kev - July 28, 2011

if scott bakula hadnt ruined it for everybody with enterprise , id be sitting at home enjoying the second series run of the next generation. bring trek back to tv.

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