Can't wait for this film to finally come out!

it is good to read about the artistic talent and care involved in creating the visual effects for this new star trek. it seems like everyone involved with the making of this version of star trek did their best to make a truly epic film. congrats to j.j. and his entire crew of artisans!

"We wanted a hot-rod type of vehicle." Assuming they weren't quoted out of context -- honestly, what were they thinking? This version of Kirk may be a hot-rod kind of guy, but the Enterprise isn't personalized to him. IMHO, that seems an inappropriate design guideline for this milieu.

The shortcomings of this design relative to its classic (TV and movie) forebears have been discussed to death elsewhere, such as TrekMovie.com. Objections may be summarized as: "Yes, you need to put your own stamp on it; yes, there are certain modern aesthetic and technological sensibilities you want to incorporate; but why *this many* changes to its major and minor proportions?"

They call the dish on the secondary hull a "collection plate"? I have *never* seen that term used in a technical manual. It sounds like a nickname, i.e., it *looks like* a money-collection plate used in a church. But the idea that it can flex sounds interesting.

The "aztec" hull patterning dates at least to the grey-colored Enterprise of STII, not just the Enterprise-D of TNG.

I love the streamlined look of the new ship. It looks like it's built not just to move, but to really put on some speed.

The problem with the classic show and the first couple of movies was that due to FX limitations, the ship just seemed to be static, even when moving.

Say what you want about the overuse of CGI, but the rendering they are able to do these days makes the movements of ships in space look more natural (by my perspective).

So it's only natural that the design of those ships be made to follow suit.

" I have *never* seen that term used in a technical manual."

Lexomatic, although I had the exact same thought, I think that in the minds of the folks working on the movie, that might be exactly the idea...to get away from the idea that all the Trek answers are already somewhere in a book on the shelf of some obsessive such as myself. I think there's a powerful sense that this distances the franchise from "regular" viewers and makes it a hermetically sealed nerd kingdom.

I'm not saying I agree with that, I just am trying to get in the minds of those involved with this movie.

I'm trying to think of how many now-iconic spaceship designs had moving parts (to, you know, make them "cool").

Nothing comes to mind outside of the X-wing fighter from star wars.

Vic

my dad has the origenal, or one of the origenal blueprints and schamatics for the origenal star trek enterprise with kirk as the captain. ive studied it over and over again, i am anxious to see if they followed the origenal plans

I know everyone is thinking of the Doctor Who episode "Utopia" in which the Doctor's TARDIS is compared to a sports car (he wins the argument in this episode, but loses a similar argument in "Planet of the Ood". Come on! That is what everyone is thinking, right? Doctor Who? The Utopia episode? Anyone? Just because I was the first to mention it doesn't mean I should get all the glory, BUT I'LL TAKE IT ANYWAY!!

Can't wait to experience a ride on the Enterprise. Thanks for putting your mind and design into the consideration of the viewer and connecting what makes sense. We know it's not real, but we want it to feel as real as it can be!

ScreenRant: Don't forget about Star Trek's own Voyager, which had moving warp nacelles, ostensibly to creating a fluctuating, variable warp field to combat the effects of warp travel on subspace, but certainly in part to make it look "cool".

ScreenRant, Sithboy,
Also the puddle jumpers from SGA. i thought the retractable engines gave a better look for a ship designed to enter the gates.

Lets face it, Star Trek the Motion Picture" incorporated a brand new design to the Enterprise because special effects had made huge leaps and bounds and the design on the original Enterprise was extremely dated. This movie was also an introduction to a whole new generation of possible Star trek fans (like myself) that only had old star trek re-runs with sub-standard visual effects to watch. It was this movie as a young manthat made me a fan of Star Trek for life. This was an epic movie (though a little boring) with an epic ship. J.J. and ILM are trying to recreate that magic with another epic ship (and movie) while still honoring the Enterprise by incorporating obvious visual ques taken from the designs of the first two Entrprises. Star Trek needs a new fanbase to stay alive. If the old diehard "fan-boys" can't handle a properly updated Star Trek then don't see the movie. Stay at home and continue to live in the past while the world passes you by. The movie will still be successful and you won't be missed.

Matt Jefferies is rolling in his grave right about now.......

I think this interview sums up everything that is wrong with this movie. The stripping of our fondness for a genre that we love for the sake of "because that will be cool". I am sorry, the direction that star trek has taken in the last 10 years is wrong. Starting with ENTERPRISE, when you explore the past of a show with well over hundred's of hours of continuity. Then change some parts in the past that will not fit for what we know. Then to explain it with the phrase "because that will be cool". Does not work for me. Now we even go further back to change it all. WHY??!! "because, that will be cool" is again there answer.

To give a example, BG (Battlestar Galactica) was revision and it was a huge success. It unfortunately, back in the 70's, had only 1 year to spawn and 6 forgettable episodes in the 80's for continuity. In the scheme of of sci fi shows, hardly a blip in the history of TV. It had a small, but loyal, and loud fan base. (I am one of them). They protested, but to no avail. The producers got away with changing everything. They got a hit and was able to bring many of the protesters around.

The star trek may 8Th movie from what I have read, heard and seen from there own press briefing will do that also. But this revision is different. It slaps the original fans in the face, forget all of the past shows and movies, 45 years of books, magazines and conventions because it is all new, bold, shiny with new incredible effects and most of all (everyone now, shout it with glee) "Because, that will be cool".

If they were smart, they should take a clue from the restart of the series in the 80's. Keep looking to the future, set the story a dozen or so years past the last next generation movie. This worked for many a show and it will work for this. The they can have the parts move and everyone can be amazed about that. Now that will be cool!!!

Why do I get the feeling that Abrams would have done away with the Enterprise completely, if he could have? I also get the feeling we are supposed to be glad it even looks like it does (despite it being visually unbalanced). It looks patently underdesigned.
I always appreciated the Enterprise because it was not a rocket, not a flying saucer, and it did not land on skids or feet. It broke the mold of what we thought a space vehicle should look like or do. Once I understood that, my imagination exploded in a thousand new directions.
The Enterprise was a much an idea given shape as it was a moving vehicle.

Screenrant said...
I'm trying to think of how many now-iconic spaceship designs had moving parts (to, you know, make them "cool").

Nothing comes to mind outside of the X-wing fighter from star wars.

Vic

---------------------------------
Remember Voyager, Imperial Shuttles from Star Wars, The Jupiter II (The stupid looking one) from the movie. Those are just off of the top of my head.

Personally, I do not like the look of the new ship. The old one looked more realistic for a few reasons which they seem to have forgotten.

The basic 2 pylon and nacelle design was to facilitate effecient operation of the warp engines. BUT.... The enterprise is a military vessel. Military vessels are designed to be practical and efficient. The new design is neither. The pylons are too thin and the nacelles are too large. The whole design would lend itself to breaking in 3 parts easily. The saucer section (Primary Hull) looks OK, but the secondary (Engineering Hull) is too thin at the back. This makes for a rather cramped shuttle bay, and again, not really enough support for those oversized pylons.

I doubt Starfleet would design something to be "Cool" and yet impractical.

Another bone of contention. What POSSIBLE advantage would there be to building this monster onplanet. It is NOT really designed for atmospheric travel. It would stress those under-supported nacelles and pylons to the breaking point. Gee what a good idea...

Lets face it folks. These factors are in there just to garner more of the younger audiience which has to have cool toys. There is NO good reason for the bad design of the Earthside construction.. I know one thing. You couldn't pay me enough to ride in it...

(Fanboys may now start the obligatory flaming to make themselves feel superior...)

PS Could someone PLEASE inform SciFi that the darn font they picked tor the captcha window is almost impossible to read for someone with bad eyesight.....

I'm not even gonna read the comments section here, knowing that there are probably more than enough angry, bitchy fan boys complaining about how the warp nacels are wrong or bla bla bla. Shut up you dorks. The new ships looks awesome.

"Come now Mr. Scott. Young minds fresh ideas...be tollerant."

(quote):Goodson: a lot of it was going back to the older ships and drawing inspiration from those to kind of bridge the gap for continuity(unquote)

Continuity? I’d like to know where exactly he sees continuity in this design. Oh wait, It has a saucer shaped primary hull, a dorsal neck, a tubular secondary hull ,two support pylons and two engine nacelles. That’s continuity right?

I do hate the new/old Enterprise design. And I’m sorry WHY exactly does the Enterprise have to have moving parts? Cause it COOL!?

There is a cgi artist named Gabriel Koerner, I’m sure most of you have heard of him. He designed an updated original Enterprise that would have been infinitely better in this movie than the one they used.

He keeps going on about how he tryed to stay true to the original and still bring in the new. Well sorry dude I think you failed to achieve that.

"a collection plate"?
A deflector dish is the complete opposite of a collection plate! It repels/diverts space objects.
I hope the movie looks great in person, but I feel like my raped my childhood for the possibility.

Is anyone a little bit bothered by the fact that the people tasked with building these models didn't know to call the deflector dish a "deflector dish" but instead refer to it as a "collection plate" (?church reference?). That's my first warning sign right there.

There was no way to improve on the design, so it was a waste of time to design this travesty.

Hello again to all the Star Trek fans (and those of you looking forward to the upcoming movie) J.J. Abrams kept saying, 'Make it a bigger movie. Make it a bigger shot,'" "I think that's one thing you see in this film, at least: The stuff I've seen is just everything is big." Above creative director David Nakabayashi said.
A few weeks ago someone from San Francisco mentioned how overly tall the city looked in the movie.
When we see young Kirk looking up at the starship being built It’s at an up angle.
Most of the shot of Nero (Bad Guy) are looking up.
When who ever is skydiving it’s next to that very long shaft thing it must take a while knowing how long you drop for a shoot to open.
The new Nacelles are Overly huge in fact abnormally so.
My point I’m no psychiatrist but I did score enough on my SAT’s to be familiar with some of Sigmund Freud’s Work. If you look at what mega dose of images that we have seen from this “Closed Set” movie I think that you’ll all have to agree that the 5' 7"
Mr. Abrams is compensating! For a lot. Including a bad film.

Really? "Abnormally large nacelles?" What, pray tell, do normal nacelles look like? We don't know because they are FICTITIOUS!!! Jeez.. It's a movie, not a religion...

Personally, I like the redesigned exterior. I've noticed on recent Star Trek ships (and BSG too) that the ships have had much more "practical" parts to them. And more "practical" designs as well. The original Enterprise designs fit the special effects abilities of the times. The new look better fits current abilities. If they'd kept the old "plain Jane" look with cigarette shaped nacelles, jellybean colored buttons, etc. people would be ticked at that too. "Why not make something cooler looking?"

Those that are so upset really aren't giving the movie a chance. It's not even out yet! I'm a Star Trek fan and I'm eager to see the film. It looks very fresh compared to the recent movie offerings. It doesn't look like another 90 minute TV episode like some recent Star Trek movies have. I'm glad, personally, that the movie wasn't made by the same ol' group. Gives fresh eyes and ideas to the franchise. Not the same old fan-boy stuff.

Bigger, bigger, bigger. Louder, louder, louder.

Wow, JJ, what a concept.

That''s what we all expect from the movie.

I will bring earplugs and will long for the days when we could be pretty astonished by some clever design and use of the effects that were available at the time. That was the brilliance of Trek.

I don't resent the fact that Abrams re-designed anything. I resent the fact that Abrams didn't have the balls to present us with his own "hot-rod" outer space movie instead of being handed the keys of a franchise created by his creative superiors

If he did create his own world (and succeeded) then in 40 years he would deserve to have fan-boys of his own.

As it is, Gene is the Godfather of fanboys and JJ is simply taking in a huge paycheck based on somebody elses, more imaginative design.

As a matter of fact, according to the article, Abrams didn't even DO any of the designing. He flew in on his private jet, waved his hands in the air and said "Bigger!" called back his private jet and flew back to La-La Land.

Damn! I want his slacker job. I will see the movie, but I hope JJ, the slacker sees no profit from it.

She's gone from suck to blow! Spaceball 1 had moving parts. Remember Mega Maid?? I'm not looking forward to this Enterprise or to this New Trek in general.

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

Hi

At least the redesign of the Enterprise in TMP was explained away as a "refit"... How do you explain away this Enterprise? Right, they're not, they are kicking all Star Trek fans aside and saying "screw your continuity. Lets totally alienate what made the Star Trek franchise what it is, the fans" I've said this once, I'll say it a hundred times more... This movie looks great... for a NON-Star Trek movie...

Here's what I think... If the Star Trek franchise is dying, LET IT DIE. Don't disgrace it by ruining it's history. I would rather love the Star Trek I grew up with then see it ruined by some person's new "vision" . This show was Gene Roddenberry's vision, not JJ Abrams. I dont care what some souped up popular director's vision of Star Trek is, I want MY Star Trek, Gene's Star Trek, not JJ Abrams.

You can reboot a franchise without destroying the continuity. Maybe someone should have thought of this? Hmmm...

Hear hear SawTrekOriginalonTV! Well Said!

The TOS Enterprise was an ugly, ungainly, eyesore.

It didn't come to life until the first movie. That was an awesome ship.

Here, J.J. took what the movie got right, and made it better.

Whining fanboy need to learn to shut up. Star Trek doesn't belong to just you alone. If you don't like it, then don't watch the new one.

What a bunch of babies

"I'm trying to think of how many now-iconic spaceship designs had moving parts"

The C-57-D Cruiser in "Forbidden Planet" had a rotating thing on the bottom. And of course, when it landed on the planet, it deployed its landing gear.

JJ Abrams can't do anything right. First he hires non-Jewish actors to play Kirk and Spock now he's let someone redesign the Enterprise. May he rot for all eternity in hell while Tribbles tickle his nether regions.

Wow, Authenticator, you have some issues you need to work out. Seriously.

I know it's been said many times before, by me, Justo and others, but I just don't understand why everyone's panties are in such a crusty bunch over this movie, Trek or no Trek. I've been watching Trek since I was little kid, a ways back, actually. I had the "Star Trek Concordance" (remember that, with the front cover wheel that turned as a sort of indes?) all the novels and novelizations, everything I could get my hands on. I loved TNG, liked DS9, occasionally enjoyed Voyager and Enterprise, loved the good movies and still enjoyed the not-so-good ones. But seriously, it's just a movie. It's a chance to see another expression of the Trek universe.

If you hate it that much, without already having seen it, then just pretend it isn't even called Trek; most of you refuse to admit that it is, anyway. But the crazy, venomous diatribes and accusations of nefarious Abrams purpose are just a little nuts. Lighten up, already.

I bet The Roddenberrys would give it a chance. Isn't Majel doing the voice of the computer again? You know what really will be sad? What really will be the end of an era? The first Trek movie without Majel's presence at all. That'll be a sad moment; she was a grand lady.

But I bet she'd want the stories to go on, even without her.

wow

I remember getting a copy of the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology 1980-2188 as a kid and thinking it was just the best book ever. I read it over and over, and loved the images of those spacecraft, especially the (then) new-look Enterprise.

Of course, I realized that the new, movie-version Enterprise was different to what I'd seen in the TV series. Didn't mean I loved it any less.

I don't feel like my childhood memories have in any way been ruined by what has been done for the new film. I think there's room for the old and the new. With new creative teams come new visions - just look at the impact Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett had on Star Trek when they took on what would turn out to be Wrath of Khan - one of the best Trek films ever. Their influence on the movies and TV series that followed was enormous.

I will continue to love the many different versions of the Enterprise that went before this version, and from the looks of it, I'm going to love the new version too. I'm sure there will be many kids out there today who will love it and be inspired to seek out the old Star Trek too.

Captain Calvin Grant, I would also love to see a new TV series. Let's hope the popularity of this new film franchise is enough to encourage studios that it's worth investing their time and money to make it happen.

rkf and Dakalmog, You both want to know what the big deal is. This post might be a little long but please bear with me. I’ll do my best to explain. At least from my own point of view.

You compare this new movie to the Trek TMP and The Wrath of Khan how those movies changed things and were accepted. The difference is those movies portrayed an era that came after the original series. The new Enterprise in the movies was an upgrade from the original which is completely reasonable.
Hardware and vehicles wear out become outdated and need replacing or refurbishing. The same would I assume be true of starships.

But this movie is not a continuation. It is not set in the ‘next’ generation. It is set in the era of kirks youth. This ship we are seeing is not a refurbishment or an upgrade. It is supposed to be the “Original Ship” from that era and it looks nothing like it beyond the basic shape. It looks like something from Treks far future. It does not fit the era it is supposed to occupy.

But we are just supposed to accept that this is the original Enterprise like, ”Oh O K it looks completely different but that’s O K cause well you know this is 2009 and they got all new special affects and stuff.” Almost as if all the Star Trek that has been before was nothing but a dream sequence. Remember Dallas? I’m sorry but I simply cannot sit back and accept it without commenting on the total lack continuity.

Now I did not expect the ship to look exactly like it did in the old TV show. Of course not, on the big screen more details would be needed to match the scale that would be presented.

I mentioned this in my earlier post above but I’ll mention it again. Gabriel Koerner, a CGI artist designed a new/old Enterprise that would have been much more suited for a prequel than the ship they used. Type his name in Youtube and you can see the ship he designed if your not already familiar with it.

This and many other seeming inconsistencies that have been discussed elsewhere are what make this movie for us ”Not Star Trek” and we are told by Abrams writers that all this is explained away by the fact that there is a temporal incursion that changes things?
So, did Nero’s temporal incursion just bump up Star Fleets technology level by five or six decades?

No, to me this is just creative laziness. Like saying ‘Well I don’t really want to try and make this movie fit in with all the Star Trek that’s come before it’s too much work. How can we make things the way WE want them to be? Oh I know, we can create an ALTERNATE Trek timeline by using time travel!” That’s the impression I get. That and it seems as if Abrams wants to turn Trek into HIS baby and be the next Gene Roddenberry, again that is simply my own impressions on this.

All of that aside, I personally just don’t like the new ship design. For reasons others have said. The nacelles look too big. Someone asked “what does a normal nacelle look like since they are fictional?” Well They should be more in proportion with the rest of the ship these are too big in the front and are situated too far back on the pylons which make them look too long. The dorsal neck is also too far back on the secondary hull. But like I said these are simply personal nitpickeries of my own and are purely aesthetical observations.

Some one also said “it’s just a movie!“ well I say it’s NOT just a movie. It’s supposed to be Star Trek and Star Trek means something to a lot of people. More than just entertainment. it’s been a big part of our lives for the last forty three years. Some of it is nostalgia but it’s also more than that. It represents something we all can aspire to. The characters represent the kind of people we’d all like to be and gave a lot of people something to strive for. I’m sure you’ve all heard the stories of people who went into medicine or engineering because of Trek. Or the young females of the sixties who were inspired by Uhura’s character to strive to be more than just nurses or secretaries. So no, It’s not just a movbie and when Abrams comes along and changes so much of it and just seems to brush it all aside by explaining “Well there’s this time incursion see…” I’m sorry but it just doesn’t fly.

Sorry if I have rambled too long but I hope this helps clarify why we “Fan Boys” don’t like this movie.

It's astonishing that some of you guys are actually getting upset over a the redesign of a FICTIONAL SPACESHIP. It's clearly the Enterprise, looks nearly identical to me. Honestly, it's just a space ship, how could anyone in their right mind find issue with this? The changes are all subtle. I could see maybe taking contention with plot details or large character changes (of which there are none that I'm aware of) but when you get this upset over the slight and respectful redesign of spaceship you're just a freak. It's as if you think Star Trek has been pitch perfect for it's entire existence up until this point.

Justo did you even read my post?

Okay Spiff, fair enough, I guess. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, obviously. It just seems an enormous waste of energy to be so negative about anything that can be easily avoided by not going to see it. But, hey, whatevs...

Out of curiosity, though what sort of Trek movie would you have preferred, bearing in mind that it would have to be one with this film's parameters: it would have to deal with the original crew, no "TNG," no "Enterprise," etc. Would you expect a movie to be made using the same ship model, costumes, etc. they used in the '60's? Would you, like some, prefer that the actors hired to play the characters be virtually identical to the actors in the original series? Or are you of the opinion that those characters, those images, those plots and storylines are all just sacrosanct and cannot be touched in the modern era?

If you feel that strongly about it, well, I think it's a bit odd, but I respect it. But why is it so hard just to ignore it? There are a lot of people who are serious fans of the old series, myself included, who are looking forward to the movie. Or are at least curious about it. I'm especially excited for the Nimoy cameo (those always are great) and hearing Majel's voice one last time. That's what sort of frustrates me the most, I guess: the utter lack of curiosity or open-mindedness. You lot have condemned it before you've even seen it. Which is your right of course, but seems oddly opposed to the values supposedly espoused by the original Trek.

Despite all the rumors, spoilers, trailers and pics of the new movie, I really don't think it's fair to judge it before you've actually seen it. It's like tasting a dish before it's been cooked: all the ingredients are there, but it still ain't done.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts in a such a cordial manner. I'm gonna go see the movie and cross my fingers and hope I like it. (Although I do admit the possibility that there may be much suckage.)

Take care...

Quoting Shat: "Get a life!"

Quoting Gene:...I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations...

I've thought of Star Trek as a kind of mythology. In order to be vital or meaningful, myths bust be updated and retold for each generation to make them relevant to that generation. I've been looking forward to this movie since it was announced.

I invented the Authenticator persona and said the outlandish things I have said on some Star Trek related message boards to make fun of the superfans who've been dead set against this movie from the start.

I would define a superfan as those fans obsessed with canon, continuity, and making a movie perfectly inline with Roddenberry's vision. Well not even Roddenberry was as obsessed with continuity as some fans. It's reported that he would change his mind about canon not only from episode to episode but almost shot to shot. In the end, Gene Roddenberry was a TV producer whose job was first and foremost to make an entertaining show. If that meant violating canon and/or continuity he would do that.

Well, as long as it's "cool" and looks like a hot rod... eye roll!
Dumbing down of ST, still think they should call this ST 90210

OK, call me an old school, child of the 60's, TOS purist, but I'm not real sure I want them changing the Enterprise. It's one thing to look more in depth in the characters, Starfleet or the Star Trek universe, but to change a SciFi icon like the Enterprise? No!

Oy.

rkf First of you need a name. rkf is just making me think of letters for bad words. Second What If anything do you believe in? You keep telling fans who like the old show and old ship that they are wrong but you never man up enought to say I like this or that. My question is May 9th the day after you go see the movie if you see it and think That did suck are you going to be a big enough person to get on scifiwire and say "hi i'm rkf and i thought star trek sucked" if so then i'll truly have respect for you. just as i hope you would have for me after i see the film and think " Wow that was great" i'll post it on scifiwire.

Justo, Dude if i ever commit a crime i hope you witness it because you will never be able to i.d. me to the cops. if you cant tell the diffrence between the two ship I'll could get off scott free.

"When I was a kid—when I bought toys or when I built things—I always wanted stuff to move. And one thing that frustrated me about the original Enterprise was that nothing moves on it. It was just a very static thing. ..."

Christ, really? Really? Christ!

I'm sure this'll be a great film, but one wonders if it'll be to Star Trek what Casino Royale and Casino Royale part 2 are to Bond (the answer is No Relation)

Captain Zacary R Wildstar SSD Dexterous, it seems to me you have enough name for any 6 of us. If my handle makes you think of "bad words," that says more about you than me.

I've already admitted the movie might be lousy; I'm not taking any position expect "wait and see." So, yes, I promise you here and now, Captain Zacary R Wildstar SSD Dexterous, that if the movie sucks, I'll do exactly as you request. I honestly swear it. I won't have any problem doing that, because I'm not so emotionally tied up in it as so many people seem to be.

As for what I believe in, please. You needn't suggest that because I don't curse JJ Abrams with every breath and swear to lay down my life defending the integrity of "The Gamesters of Triskelion" I lack faith or belief in anything. That's insulting and sophomoric. I've said repeatedly, and at length (e.g., see above) that I LOVED TOS and TNG, and liked some of the other shows and movies. And I've never said anyone was WRONG for liking the old ship or show; I've said that, in my opinion, it is unfair to judge the new movie before you even see it. I especially don't understand the way so many people seem to REVILE the whole affair. If Abrams were available, and you had pitchforks and torches, well, it'd be over for that poor ba$tard.

As for May 9th, I'm afraid I won't be seeing it right away. One thing I will admit to hating are rude movie audiences these days. I'll wait until things have calmed down a bit before I see it. Although, according to many of you here, there won't be any need to wait. lol But I reiterate my promise: I will be honest in my evaluation and totally admit it if I think it sucks. But I'll be equally honest if I love it, or if I'm just kinda "meh."

@Spaceman Spiff: I don't think you've rambled at all. I actually edited my previous comments because they were getting a bit long too, but here's what I was also going to say:

I understand why many fans are not happy with the change, because - as you say - Star Trek is an important part of their lives. It's part of the popular culture and a very big and influential part of sci-fi culture. Yes, they're just movies and TV shows, and books, and comics and toys, and game cards, etc, etc, but I agree with you: it's something that for many people has been a significant part of their lives. That's why people feel as strongly as they do. We all know that changes to continuity etc. are really important to fans, which is why we debate these issues over and over.

I'm one of those fans who wasn't happy with George Lucas' "special editions" of the Star Wars movies, and I thought the prequels detracted from what I knew Star Wars to be (in a dramatic sense, which has nothing to do with the effects, the cool ships, the battle scenes etc.). I loved those original movies! In the special editions, changing one line of dialogue just so that it suited a "cooler" special effects shot seemed crazy to me, if that line detracted from the dramatic effect.

I guess I'm just saying that I understand where you're coming from, even if my feeling on this one is different.

I personally don't think views like yours should be ignored; those views are just as valid as anyone else's. I just gave my own opinion on why - in this case - I've accepted the change.

Who knows, maybe I'll see it on the big screen and think: "that sucks!" I hope not.

I was just over on the tv guide webpage looking for something to watch. I came across a remastered star tre episode later tonight. and a question came to mind for all who have no problem with the new design of the old enterprise. Why, when they have a new movie coming out did they bother updating the special effect, and why didn't the change the enterprise to coinside with the movie version? The answer is very simple. if they had No one would buy the new DvD sets. Why? Because they skrewed up the enterprise, which basicly is the eight character in the show. I'd be like giving Sulu blonde hair or making Uhura from Germany. don't reply My Opinion is firm. Just Ponder

Spiff, I too would like to say I appreciate the way you have expressed your opinion and while I don't necessarily agree with it I definitely respect it. The ones that grate on my nerves are the juvenile mentalities that attacks anyone that isn't on their side. I am a die hard Star Trek fan, been so for over 30 years. Seen every episode of every series at least twice in many cases multiple times as well as the movies, the good ones and the bad. There was no one more dissapointed than I was when they went ahead and cancelled Enterprise when it finally started getting good but wasn't Enterprise breaking canon as well, seems so but I let it go and enjoyed it anyway. That's what I'm going to do with this new movie, I'm giving it a chance, if it proves itself, it has a fan in me, if not I will do exactly what Mr. Wildstar asks of rkf and state that opinion here and everywhere else. But I'm at least giving it the chance without condemnation with no trial. One thing is certain, if this movie fails we will not see another movie or series titled Star Trek for a long long time.
And btw, the only thing I feel that sucks is sci fi wire's captcha. Most aggravating

If you wanted a real "Hot_Rod" appearance, you need to paint orange and red flames on the nacelles!
Or maybe paint it like that "Lowrider" Tie fighter in Family Guy's Blue Harvest/Star Wars episode.

I think that Star Trek XI will be a success..
At first I had my doubts , big ones about Trek XI, ( I don’t like the new bridge ! ) but eventually I realized that Mr. J.J. Abrams , his team and ILM did an amazing job giving new life to Star Trek.
I mean that from the standpoint of design, ( I'm an industrial designer ), is incredibly difficult to do something different with a concept that has 40 years in our minds.
Make something new and yet be recognized as part of the Trek universe...that's the real challenge....Controversial ?,oh yes .... Not pleasing to everyone ?... That's for sure! But I think it's a fantastic new conception of things...perhaps that is what we needed.
I’m a hardcore TOS fan , but I realized that I will be a Star trek fan no matter what!

If you think carefully ... Mr . J.J. Abrams, his team and ILM ,with this new vison of Star Trek, has gone where no other director has gone before...
... and I'm ready for a new five year mission !!...

Abrams is over-rated anyway. Lost is a completely stupid show. I tried to watch some of the first season and realized quickly how bad the show is. That HERO's thing is just as stupid and not at all entertaining. M.I. 3 was as boring as it's action scenes were unbelievable. Then that horrible terrible completely ignorant monster movie, an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back :-( Now some guy that admittedly hates star trek and it's fans gets to "ReBoot" the franchise and make it into something it is not, popcorn sci-fi. To illustrate how not kosher this movie will be I watched two of the original series episodes with my ten year old son and my 8 year old son. Both enjoyed it and they "GOT" the stories and the meaning of the show. These are kids that are barraged with "COOL" everyday in their multi-media. Then we watched all of the trailers and and a few behind the scenes of the upcoming Star "COOL" Trek. After watching the first trailer, my oldest son said, matter of factly, "Dad, that looks stupid". Special effects and 'Cool' don't mean anything if the story isn't there, and from what I've read and seen, it isn't. Mere children get that. Maybe after Abrams is finished raping every last penny out of the franchises' "Collector's Plate" he will go back to coming up with stupid "IN" jokes like SLUSHO and stop desecrating 40 plus years of history. This new star trek is about the meaning of social ills or the meaning of humanity, it's just about how much money he can steal out of someone else's creativity. I'll save my $40 worth of tickets and skip this one. I'll take the family to see Harry Potter instead. At least that franchise has been raped by opportunists like him yet and is still a fresh vibrant story with deeper meaning of the human condition and, o yeah, Cool effects too.

Wow so many responses.
First let me thank all of you for your kind words. I try not to be inflammatory as it only fosters resentment and does little good. I have been known to get a bit sarcastic if I am particularly irritated but I try not to direct that at the posters but at the content of the article.

First rfk: You ask,
*Out of curiosity though, what sort of trek movie would you have preferred?*

Well first there would be absolutely NO time travel! Star Trek has used time travel very well, (the City on the Edge of Forever, The Voyage Home, DS9‘s Trials and Tribble-ations) and they have done it not so well, (TOS’s Assignment: Earth, TNG’s Time squared, Voyagers Future’s End part I and II and that whole temporal war thing in Enterprise) Time travel stories are very tricky and difficult to do well. As I stated above, it seems to me that this time incursion is a bit of creative laziness and much too convenient a way to change things and make them the way Abrams wants them.

The ship design I covered above. I knew the Enterprise would be changed and I was OK with that. I just did not realize just how MUCH it would be changed.

As far as the cast goes I’m actually quite satisfied with it. I think the thing I was worried about the most, Zachary Quinto as Spock ( I could not get Sylar from Heroes out of my head.) seems to be the best casting they could have made.

*That’s what sort of frustrates me the most, I guess: The utter lack of curiosity or open-mindedness.*

Well I’m only human and I am guilty of my share of closed-mindedness. But believe it or not I am curious about this movie and I do plan on seeing it. I will not see it in the first run theater however, 8 bucks is just too steep for me. I will wait until it comes to my local discount theater.

I was actually very excited about this film when I first heard it announced. But the more details I learned the more discouraged I became. All the opinions I have formed about this movie come from the various trailers and from the articles and interviews I have read with Abrams and his creative team. Which you have to admit is quite a lot of material. It is possible that everything will be explained quite satisfactorily and I will love this film. I’d like to think that I am at least open minded enough to recognize that possibility but what I’ve seen so far simply does not look promising.

I’d also like to address another point that people have made. The fact that all the various permutations of Trek have made changes and violated canon. This is true, that has happened and I did not like many of the things that have appeared. When TNG first started I did not like the Enterprise D and it is still my least favorite version of the ship. It also violated Trek continuity in the very first episode. They revealed that there was a nuclear war in the mid twenty-first century when there was a TOS episode who’s name I forget in which Kirk states plainly that ‘our’ Earth managed to avoid it’s own nuclear conflict. Voyager completely ignored the Eugenics wars in the two part episode Futures end in which the crew is transported to twentieth century Earth in the mid 1990’s. This really pissed me off. The Eugenics wars are a fairly important part of Trek history.
I did not like and still do not like the design of the NX-01 in Enterprise. It also looks too technically advanced for its’ era, at least on the outside.As did the Romulan ships in that series.

I guess this is what some people don’t understand. That we make such a big deal out of these seemingly unimportant details. Well I suppose when you get right down to it they are unimportant, I mean in the long run really I did watch all these versions of Trek, My favorite so far has been DS9.

But there is a saying I very much believe in. “The Devil Is In The Details”
Here’s something, Think of your favorite movie or TV show, even Star Trek if you want. What do you remember the most about it or them? A particular scene? A single line? Or maybe even not a line or even a word. Maybe just a look. Mr. Spock’s raised eyebrow comes to mind. It was certainly not necessary for furthering the plot. The show did not NEED that little quirk. But because Leonard Nimoy could do that we got a very interesting little trick with which Spock could speak volumes without saying a word. “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a Damn” from Gone With the Wind, “Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty APE!” from The Planet of the Apes, Indiana Jones pulling his gun and shooting the guy with the big sword, “I have a bad feeling about this” from every Star Wars movie.

So yea, details are important. Details are what are people remember. I would even say that details can make or break a movie or show. Does anyone remember a show from the 80’s called War of the Worlds? It was a sequel to the classic movie. It didn’t last long and it is my belief that the main reason for that is they neglected the details. In this version no one, I mean NO ONE except the shows main character could remember the alien invasion and he was only 3 at the time. Now I ask you how do people forget world wide invasion? Details guys. They are very important.

Once again I have gone on far too long. For those who hung in with me I thank you.

Clarification to earlier comments by me; star trek HAS been raped by greedy men. Harry Potter franchise HAS NOT been raped as of yet. Sorry for any confusion. It's late and I didn't edited myself as closely as I should have before hitting POST.

what i meant to say was:

This new star trek is NOT about the meaning of social ills or the meaning of humanity, it's just about how much money he can steal out of someone else's creativity. I'll save my $40 worth of tickets and skip this one. I'll take the family to see Harry Potter instead. At least that franchise has NOT been raped by opportunists like him yet and is still a fresh vibrant story with deeper meaning of the human condition and, o yeah, Cool effects too.

fizzben,

While I have doubts of this new movie successfully passing for Trek, I know I'm going to see it at least once, if only as a movie, on the strength that Nimoy's been entertaining me even before ToS and after it whether he's doing Trek or not.

However, I'm not going to wait in line to buy another ticket to see it again and again and again, if it's not Trek. There have been exceptions but Paramount has disappointed me in so many ways over the years I'm not going to throw more money at them just because they slapped STAR TREK on something.

I also disagree with your hypothesis that if this one movie fails then it is the end for Trek. The same was said about NEMESIS. You are just buying into the Paramount suits' mentality that the only way to do decent Trek is to throw tons of corporate money at it.

There's a reason Shakespeare is referenced so much in the words of Trek. The play is its heritage. Perhaps more precisely the teleplay. Plays and their progeny, do not require millions to be spent on sets and props to be successful. Often a compelling story can be told with as sparse a stage as solely a table or a chair.

Now, I come from a time when NBC canceled Trek and fans rallied it back. Then they canceled it again. And Paramount had no faith that it was worth anything. We didn't know it at the time, but there was a certain bliss being ignored by them. They didn't care what we did to keep Trek alive for us. They didn't care that we mimeographed snatches of scripts and had "readings" to keep STAR TREK alive in what had passed for "syndication" for us. The bit of the JOURNEY TO BABEL script that SCHOLASTIC MAGAZINE reprinted was gold to us living in a world without DVDs, other home video formats or Trek in syndication.

Now I'm not foolish enough to equate Trek to the Bard but that's what we had in mind: that its storytelling would evolve into something just as classic. When a troop of actors decide to put on a production of KING LEAR, the newspapers don't get a barrage of protest letters to the editor:

"LEAR?!!! Hasn't that been out on DVD FOREVER?!!!"

"Shakespeare's been dead for 500 years and he took Lear with him."

"What a bunch of idiots! Don't they know no one's going to buy a ticket to a production with an FX budget of only a couple hundred dollars?"

"The Globe Theatre will take all due legal course of action to protect our rights..."

Now, fizzben, maybe what you meant is if this movie fails it'll be the end of "blockbuster" Trek? And as far as I'm concerned if that means the end of BBgun Trek well then I just don't see that as so much of a bad thing.

Maybe I'm hanging my hat on a mere thin sliver of hope, but I've recently had 6 and 7 yos get curious about Trek. Now, I figured as do most here seem that their video gaming would predispose them to the Trek with the better FX. So I tried TNG, the various movies, DS9, and ENTERPRISE. I even tried the so-called "remastered" syndicated ToS. But you know what their "favorite" Trek is? Monophonic unretouched VHS transfers from the faded film of ToS. They say "The stories are better." And the only better FX Trek they like is the DS9 Tribbles episode.

The movies they consider too long. The only one they sat all the way through to the end was TWoK.

And it gave me pause to ponder "Maybe it isn't the lack of sophisticated FX that's killing syndicated ToS but all the original footage Paramount is snipping out to cram in more commercials?"

Well, to get back to my original point: don't try to tell us first viewers that because some stinking corporation is going to drop their support of Trek that it is Trek's end. We've been there, done that and bought the red shirt. Trek isn't over when NBC says it's over. It isn't over when Paramount says it's over. It's over when then fans say it's over.

I'm not sure how much of a *SPOILER* my reasonable speculation might be regarded as I have no advanced knowledge of what elements are introduced in the script and how but as I may put 2 and 2 together in ways that might not seem obvious to others and to that end be forewarned that that may spoil something for you if you absolutely wish to remain unexposed to possible plot twists.

Now as for this ship's design: as long as these changes are just because it's Pike's first ship and it's older primitive tech that hasn't been miniaturized and streamlined yet - I can live with it. But if all this is part of some trumped up reason to get Kirk in the Enterprise command chair far ahead of his time so that he can go head to head in some sort of time war and save the Federation for all time - well, pardon the pun, but that's likely to be a bridge too far.

Guys, seriously, you are writing comments that are way too long (and this is coming from someone who writes fairly longish comments). No one is going to be reading your posts. You need to learn to edit to better convey your thoughts, rather than engaging in 'top of the dome' thought transcription.

Its truly unfortunate that some are so disappointed with a movie they haven't seen yet. Let THAT be what you discuss, what you deal with. And stop being so anal with every little thing said in an interview. The number of posts here that are going off on the word 'cool' makes all fans look bad. I'm mature and open minded enough to wait for the movie to decide.

JJ Does need to remember its the fans who have grown up with show will make or break this new movie. Looking at the new ship, it does look wrong. The first ship became the bases of a lot of design used in the real armed forces so I think it sad its getting the JJ Treatment. It s a case where they should have gotten someone who really know the shows, books and history to created this ship. And the other people are right if they came even give the respect of calling parts of the ship by it proper name then its time to let the old girl go. Look at Doctor Who the right person came on board and brought that old show back to live and made it a global Hit. I don't think this will really work. I really don't have problems with who playing who except for Dr. McCoy this version is just to much of a downer period! I wasn't happy when Enterprise the series killed off 7 million people! that never happened. It's a reason I did not care for it as well. As someone said earlier Star Trek is not just a show, it a part of the human experience and it should get better respect than trying to dig more monies out of people pocket. You can do it right or you can do it wrong and in this case it wrong. This may just kill Star Trek for twenty years before it can be brought back in its true form.

It's an interesting design, and take on the original enterprise. Yes, after all, it's just fiction, but still, to respect the die hard fans out there and the creators of Star Trek, JJ et al. should have used as their starting point the digital model of the enterprise from the TOS remastered. I remember reading once how Matt Jefferies, who, for those non die hard fans out there designed the enterprise, wanted as minimum number of components on the outside of the ship as possible, in order to eliminate the need for personnel to have to go out into space to make repairs, adjustments, etc. Hence, the clean design of the original enterprise. And regarding moving parts, while they may add interesting visual effects, ultimately, from a practical standpoint, the less moving parts the better, after all they're more apt to break. After seeing a few TV trailers I have to say the movie has a Michael Bay look. A humble request to those in charge of this franchise: Inquire if James Cameron or Ridley Scott are interested in directing the next Star Trek movie! Please, it's a great franchise and I hate to see it get lost.

Wow37, obviously people ARE reading the posts, because they are having conversations about them. You don't have to read them of course; that's up to you, but please don't try to tell other people what they can and can't do.

This is just the comments section of SciFi wire, editing is relative, optional and as different as the people posting.

Cheers...

When I was 16 and seeing Star Trek for the first time in 1966 I couldn't have "re-imagined"

anything better than a future of spacefarers wearing skimpy cocktail server costumes. So

more than what the ship looks like and if it has a bulge here or a dent there, the

treatment of women in the future/retro world will be revealing (no pun intended.)

Back on DS9 they did a time travel show where the DS9 gang found themselves in the TOS

world. Enterprise did something similar where they redid the costumes from the
late 60's tv show. On the DS9 they rebuilt the orginal sets and showed more detail without

destroying the idea. But the classic scene was to see Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax) from DS9

in the cocktial server getup from TOS and taking a pose. My life was complete at that

moment.

;-)

If you want to see what this movie could have easily been, go to startreknewvoyages.com or starshipfarragut.com

A dedicated group of fans faithfully recreated the original series production design and tell new, compelling stories against that 40 year old production design.

They've even won awards for their work.

The unnecessary and poorly designed rework of the original TOS production design is awful, and is meant to hide another dismal story about some tiny thing threatening the whole universe.

The universe is SO huge, that if such a small event could threaten it all... it would have happened millions of times and by now, there'd be no universe.

There didn't need to be a threat to the entire universe to tell a good story, and the fan productions show that you don't need to spend $150 million to tell a good story either.

To paraphrase the dismal Lost in Space movie which is proof of concept of the conceit being used in the creation of this movie...

"Let me know when you stop hosing the deck with ego,"

The ONLY things I liked about the LIS movie was the soundtrack and Gary Oldman's performance.

"Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Those who don't learn from the past are going to have to resubmit to captcha.

What really surprises me is there are so many Trek fans who seem to just accept this new ship with no problem.

I mean c;mon this is NOT a new ship. This is NOT a rebuilt or refurbished ship.
This is supposed to be THE original Enterprise that Kirk and crew served on during that first five year mission.

Does it not bother at all you that it has been so completly changed that only the very basic shape remains?

A simple explanation exists for the difference in the Enterprise design and other differences we are seeing. When Nero first atttacked Kirk's fathers ship (which did not happen in TOS universe), the lessons learned from this attack made their way into subtle changes in starship design, and hence, 25 years later, the Enterprise is a bit different then the one in the othe TOS universe. You fanboys may not like this explanation, but is makes a lot of sense -- in all militarys throughout history the ships are primarily designed based on the previous generation of ships experience in warfare.

No offense maj, but I;ve heard this explaination before. I suppose it's going to have to suffice because the movie is finished and there is no changing it.

I feel however that this is either creative laziness or simply a cheap plot device used by Abrams and his team to change whatever they want, including the ship to make it however they want it to be instead of trying to work within the confines of the existing history.

Spiff,

I don't blame you for being confused. Mr. Abrams seems so confused about what exactly it is he's doing with it that it does get difficult to follow or get a sense of it. In fact, I have severe doubts that it's as he's represented but for the record here's my take on what we are supposed to believe:

This is NOT Kirk's Enterprise but the first voyage of a Captain before him, Christopher Pike, on a shipped named Enterprise. THE CAGE/MENAGERIE was not Pike's first voyage per his discussion with his doctor/bartender in the self-same episode which took place about 13 years before Kirk commanded his Enterprise so this supposedly gives J.J. wiggle room to change the design and eventually have it evolve towards something more recognizable.

Now if it was left at that, the parties involved might be able to do a movie about a competent Starfleet Captain, Pike and how he molds and hardens some familiar green cadets to help him and his ship save the day as they battle test it and each other. But we are getting some very confusing signals that just don't add up to that and I don't want to do another spoiler warning so I'm going to just leave it at that.

THey went way to far with the new and didnt keep enough of the old. This is a horrible interpretation of the Enterprise. Why did they feel the need to reinvent the wheel? As a die hard fan Im very disappointed with this new design.

A hot-rod...good grief!!

Excuse me... why did the designers feel the need to make the front of the secondary hull so... well, penile?
Hear me out on this. The whole hull is thrust WAY far out compares to ALL previous versions, and the designers talk about feeling the need to make the "collector whatever" extend, grow, and move around.
Did they really intend to give the Enterprise that "pelvic thrust"? Did they think that it's some reflection on Kirk's "hot rod" personality to dong-ize the Enterprise?
The entire design is a blenderized mishmash, with a wang. Making it "move" is not going to cover up poor design work.

This is not your father's Star Trek.

Well, this is not your father's Enterprise either and this father is NOT ever showing up for this movie, or any movie with the ugly
thing you THINK is the Enterprise in it.

Naaaaaw-- really??
My issue isn't with it not being the "old" Enterprise; my issue is with it being the "Viagra cockthrust" Enterprise.
If you like more schlong in your starships, I'm sure this Enterprise is right up your alley.

Naaa, Its really a redo of the STTMP ship. No one even really considered the classic design. They did not look at the tons of cool remastered shots of the TV ship. Sad because the origional ship is still cool looking with a few detail retoolings.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, doesn't it bother anyone else that in the trailers, we see what looks like the Enterprise being assembled ON LAND? A ship that is never supposed land on a planet and was supposedly originally assembled in orbit?

What everyone seems to miss in the discussions of design changes is that we are not discussing anything rational or logical. We're talking about something some people love. There is no reason or logic where love is involved. If you love something, there is no rational argument that is going to convince you to accept someone else changing it. Any of us that are so enamored with the original, that we can't bear to see a change, should vote with our wallets and not buy a ticket. Or, if you can't wait to rant about how what you love has been altered here, displaying the depths of your love and geekery, to people who either totally agree or will never see it your way... then geek on my brothers & sisters. =)

maj,

I don't think that change is what bothers people. If the Trek community was incapable of assimilating change then there would have been no movie to follow ST:TMP.

***Warning****Speculation that some may regard as spoilage follows.

What's bothering us is that there's no rhyme or reason to it. If Starfleet Intelligence studied their attacker's ship then we'd expect the changes to be influenced by Romulan singularity based TNG technology and bear some resemblance to that. Even so, while young Kirk's Federation has no way to know this: we know that in the future that Nero's ship was built, that warp drive technology is up to the task of taking on his ship and evolves to reign supreme in the Federation of then.

But for me, it isn't the jarring changes in the look that's so disturbing - it's the possibility that the producer's...err..."military" expediency means that this "Enterprise" isn't even a warp drive based starship.

Most disturbing to hear from Mr. Abrams' camp choruses of "FASTER! BIGGER!" because, again from TNG, there are issues in pushing Warp technology "FASTER! BIGGER!". Since we know the Romulan drive isn't up to that dictate that leaves the Roddenberry-disdained "transwarp" which for some would be the greatest sacrilege of all.

I admire the passion that everyone on both sides of the Enterprise redesign and I feel that same passion for something I have followed all my life. I would like to contribute to the discussion by making a comparison with naval history.
First, let's assume that the Enterprise is capital ship with great speed, power and the expectation of a long service life. Consider the U. S. S. Arizona, we have all seen the iconic images of the Arizona superstructure in flames after the attack on Pearl Harbor--yet those superstructure towers were a relatively recent event in the long life of the Arizona. When she was originally constructed during the WWI period she had circular cage masts and a different bow, not to mention she lacked the anti-aircraft guns, radar, float planes and catapults she was fitted out with when she met her tragic end. Someone who served on the Arizona in the twenties would not have believed that the 1941 Arizona could possibly be his old ship. The point here is that the new movie Enterprise is much more akin to the TOS Enterprise than the 1921 Arizona is akin to the 1941 Arizona. Let's assume that the new movie Enterprise is the original design and the TOS era ship is a redesign necessitated by the rigors of her new 5 year mission. What do you think of that idea? If you need more examples form naval history I can provide plenty--the Japanese were especially prone to radical refits of their capital ships. Thanks for your consideration.

Well, Dingy, you're in luck. No one is forcing you to look at it.

duane611,

Your take was my initial take on it. I figured standard Starship mission length of 5 years and thus Pike had 3 five year missions and two refits.

However as more and more is revealed in order to build buzz, it doesn't add up to that. There's more fundamental changes here than just the ship's look. So much so that it seems to be obliterating all that is to supposed to come.

***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***
***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***
***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***

The only Trek that was done before that seems to be left is the series ENTERPRISE and of that this movie may be (Perhaps unintentionally, but then it would be with great Trek ignorance.) building on its weakest part: the "time" war.

Or if you prefer to stick with only movie chronology, the foundation was set in FIRST CONTACT. Either way, we have a early Federation alert and prepared for a "time" war.

When you look at way the ships all got "less clean" as we moved from TOS to NG to Voyager and then to Enterprise, I find it at least refreshing that the new Enterprise at least goes back to its roots as a vey clean design, without a lot of extra "crap" stuck on it all over the place. It is much more in the spirit of design of the original Enterprise then the follow-on series creators came up with. Here is a scary thoght -- can you imagine what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga would have done to the Enterprise if they were in charge right now...

"Note to apologists: we aren't saying you can't construct warp-drive vehicles planetside - after all, it was done in FIRST CONTACT - but why would you risk warping space on the surface of your main planetary seat - not to mention all the other dangerous testing it would take to get a newly constructed starship fully functional - when you have a perfectly serviceable twin on which to do so?" Son, your father and I raised you to be smarter than this. We taught you when you were six years old that the dyliuthium crystals and other HAZMAT that are necessary for warp drive, plus special weapons technology, are not installed on the ship until after it is brought into orbit. The first 95% of the construction occurs on the ground, because it is frankly cheaper, and the starfleet dock workers prefer to work in an atmosphere, not in uncomfortable spaceships. As you know, TOS crew hardly every went out in spacesuits during the five year mission themselves. You are giving you father heart palapations with your posts here, my dear son.

Wife of a Maui Portagee,

Well I don't see why you blame me for being confused about what the production intends? The science of the people involved is so muddled is difficult to discern what they mean:

"The response is that the Enterprise is not, nor has it ever been, a pleasure yacht. It's a ship that's able to warp space around it to several times the weight of gravity. So the idea that it somehow couldn't handle one Earth atmosphere of gravity was not something I think anyone who would board that ship would ever want to contemplate. The rationale for building it into space is when you have flimsy things that never have to be in gravity, but that's not what the starship Enterprise is. " - Orci

I just assumed to achieve these new gravimetrics of "weight of gravity" and "Earth atmosphere of gravity" that the engines had to be fired up.

Thanks for the good-natured response.

PS If they can't get the science in
science-fiction right, then it's no
longer that - it becomes just fiction.

Hey Son of MP, you are really taking the "science -- science fiction" saying to an extreme. Even when the Great Bird of the Galaxy was in charge, we still got episodes like Spock's brain and Catspaw. Catspaw makes me cringe more than seeing the Enterprise built on land. BTW, with antigrav, "suspenders" available, why would Starfleet go to the trouble of assembling these in Earth orbit? I agree with the recent post that working in an atmsophere would certainly be preferable to spacecraft construction workers instead of doing a mult-year build with hundreds of workers in space suites and zero. This is one case where the new developers of ST corrected a likely error in the orgiinal creators' thinking. BTW, if you want to take this to an extreme, we all know that Matt Jeffries was against having an Engine Room in TOS, as he believed the warp engines were standalone modular engines that could be controlled by a panel on the bridge, and simple ejected if they malfunctioned...so should I write off TOS Engine Room because of this?

No one in these postings has mentioned the major improvement of the new ILM design compared to TOS Enterprise. TOS Enterprise always bothered me in that the center of gravity was noticably well below the center-line of the impulus engines. With the bigger warp nacelles and slightly larger saucuer, by my views of the ship so far, it looks like they have corrected this gross error in TOS Enterprise design.

The original Star Trek premiered when I was in eighth grade. I have been a fan all my life. I went on to become an engineer and more and Trek has always been there. I believe that the original ship design is far more elegant and deserves far more credit than many people here have given it.

But putting that whole argument aside, will this really be Star Trek? Will this new film be true to the best of Roddenberry's ideals and intentions or will it be a dumbing down to appeal to a broader audience? That's what all who love Star Trek should be concerned about.

Not following canon, yes, it bothers. But more importantly, will the optimism and hope of the original Star Trek live on in this new incarnation? Will this new film keep the spirit of Star Trek alive? I am quite concerned but will wait and see.

re: MAJ.

You have a point with your comment on Bragga and Berman. They would have allowed all kinds of tiny distracting features to muddle up the big E. While I am not thrilled with the new E's design, I must given Abrams and company credit at least for keeping the design clean, which really is a nice throwback to the 60's before the silly Star Wars models forced everyone to add junk to spacecraft.

I think it's really funny to see how something like this gets all the dorks coming out of the woodwork. get a life!

maj,

You might think there's disparity but not for me. Trek isn't perfect. There's good Trek and bad Trek. Good Trek, (unlike this movie "Trek") kept true to science-fiction by keeping its "science" plausible and especially not throwing plausibility out the window to justify some nonsensical decision one made for its "coolness" factor. Yes, it is an endeavor subject to error and flaw as we humans aren't perfect. But to not come clean and just admit "Look we screwed up. We did it because it felt cool." instead of continually spouting such pseudo science drivel in interview after interview - well, that is the height of haughty hubris. It reveals a lack of respect for that which they claim to also be moving (boldly) forward lovingly.

If you don't believe science-fiction is an important part of Trek's pedigree checkout some of the authors of the best ToS episodes and you will find they were science-fiction writers. The vast majority of the first fans of Trek came from science-fiction fandom and with respect to that we wouldn't even be here discussing this if science-fiction wasn't a component of ToS. In fact, it is a major distinction between STAR WARS and STAR TREK. But I sincerely doubt Mr. Abrams and most that answer to him in his camp understand this.

Meanwhile I continue to quote Mr. Orci:

"The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well." - Roberto Orci, trekmovie.com

PS Trek science was never
sufficiently advanced beyond
ours to be indistinguishable
from magic - but apparently
Paramount is working on it.

maj,

Re:Science of Trek.

One of the greatest difficulties in broaching this topic is that most confuse the "science"-fiction of Trek with its design, Treknology and canon as if they all were the exact same thing. They are not.

In your example, Matt Jeffries explanation is plausible, i.e. good science-fiction. However, that any room exists on a ship is partly a matter of design and that involves art. That the warp engines weren't the only engines that Enterprise had is canon. That these other engines (impulse for one) and power plants might need a central location would be a matter of Treknology and how it "works" especially in regards to power distribution.

For Enterprise to have an "engine" room in spite of its "designer's" objection that it may be unnecessarily redundant is not a violation of plausible science so it's viable science-fiction. Especially if they still design by committee in the future.

Also, somehow you got the mistaken idea that I was a construct-it-all-in-spacedock only advocate. No, I was advocating that their reasoning is an argument to build it in the "atmosphere" of a lunar city (preferably on the far side) which is probably already "calibrated" to the Earth norm of The Federation and would pose less of a risk to the seat of same. It also would make it easier to vacuum test it without actually having to put it in orbit first. They could even construct in the cornfields of New Riverside on the moon - if they really have to have that "cool" shot.

Son of MP, you said:

"Also, somehow you got the mistaken idea that I was a construct-it-all-in-spacedock only advocate. No, I was advocating that their reasoning is an argument to build it in the "atmosphere" of a lunar city (preferably on the far side) which is probably already "calibrated" to the Earth norm of The Federation and would pose less of a risk to the seat of same. It also would make it easier to vacuum test it without actually having to put it in orbit first. They could even construct in the cornfields of New Riverside on the moon - if they really have to have that "cool" shot."

We agree on someting. This would make more sense then both the in-orbit construction and the on-earh construction. You also said:

"But to not come clean and just admit "Look we screwed up. We did it because it felt cool." instead of continually spouting such pseudo science drivel in interview after interview - well, that is the height of haughty hubris. It reveals a lack of respect for that which they claim to also be moving (boldly) forward lovingly."

I have a problem with this, because although Abrams gave direction to ILM to make it look cooler/hotroddish, I still think that the ILM did a reasonable job on it that is conistent with both trek and science fiction. We could go back and forth on the reasons why we differ on this and never come to an agreement, but neither you or I can claim:

1. That we really know what a real warp engine will look like, and

2. That the warp engines in the movie arent really that much of a departure from the warp engines seen throughout the trek seried of show, and

3. That the ILM design was the first Enterprise since TPM versiion to have a clean design, and

4. That it is reasonable that major attacks by a ship as advanced as the Nirada 25 years before Trek2009 would not impact starship design, and

5. As "Trek Dynasty" noticed, the new ILM design actually corrects a glaring center of gravity issue with TOS impulse engines, and

6. That the differences in the look of the new Enterprise are no more severe then the diffreences of appearance of the characters from the original show (e.g. Spock shrunk and Kirk grew tall, etc. etc)

DC940 said:

"I think it's really funny to see how something like this gets all the dorks coming out of the woodwork. get a life!"

DC, you had to read 50 messages to get to this point in the discussion. Sounds like you need to look in the mirror regarding your "get a life" comment. :-)

maj you said,

"We agree on someting."

We agree on more than you think. I have been saying I don't have a problem with the "look" of the ship so much as with what passes for "science" reasoning in explaining the changes and how it "works" from Mr. Abrams' camp.

Robert Orci, is a major contributor to the script. For him to display such a fundamental lack of comprehension of the basic science of gravity and atmospheric pressure is appalling. Even more so because when you decide to dip from the well of "time" for a Trek story that demands that your "science", and storytelling in general, be sharper (as say a Harlan Ellison) and not duller.

The implication is Orci's scientific approach to concepts such as "transwarp" and "time travel" has to be so far "off" from plausible that he is reduced to treating it all as if it all were "magic." And that never bodes well for a Trek story.

Bad science fundamentals in the script is not liable to be something that the editor, director or ILM will be able correct in post.

I was too lazy to read the many comments here, but could these guys interviewed have gotten any more terminology or technology or historical references wrong than they did? What a difference between them and someone like MIchael Okuda who actually studies and thinks before he designs. I thought this interview was a joke until 2/3s through it (maybe it is, and I'm just too protective of something as beautiful as TOS to get it). Are these guys still in 6th grade, because that's how they come off ("In technical terms, it's called the...cigar shape thingy, you know, the one just below that big plate thing."). I could list all the incredible mistakes they managed to compress into their comments, but I'm sure anyone over 20 who likes Star Trek already knows what they are. And golly that new ship is ugly. I can hardly stand to look at it. It's so hideous I feel actual pain when I see it. I Maybe we just live in a culture devoid of magnificence. Maybe I'm getting old.

I have to agree with many of those above who wonder what Mr. Abrams has against the older fans of the franchise. It seems to me that even little inconsequential details were changed to suit his fancy. One example of many, the Bussard collectors at the front of the warp nacelles have almost always been red. How is changing them to blue affect the story in any way other than to stick a big middle finger up to the old fans.
As a fan of TOS, I have to say that in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the original design of the Enterprise. Having seen many of the “re-mastered” episodes of the original series, as well as the top of the line effects in the many fan made web based series as proof. Matt Jefferies was brilliant, and well versed in the design of naval vessels and aircraft. After attending the premiere of Star Trek the Motion Picture, he never saw any of the other movies, remarking that they had turned his Navy-esque bridge into "the lobby of the Hilton. I am sure he is spinning in his grave as we speak.
That being said, I do hope the movie is good and does well. I guess it all boils down to the story. One of the coolest things about almost every episode of TOS, as well as the series that followed, you can listen to them without seeing the visuals and it is still a good story that you can follow.

JamesH: I won't argue that some of the comments made were stupid regarding the Abrams crew...but calling the new E ugly.....give me a break....whether they got the science and trek engineering lore wrong or right is up for debate, but the new ship looks magnficent. TMP version of the E will always be my favorite, but this is a close 2nd, wtih TOS E third.

Agree with maj -- the new Enterprise looks majestic regardless of the issues with Orci and others interview remarks. And i think we all can agree that the NextGen Enterprise was the most ugliest startship ever built. Whether the designer or morons or not, we have ended up with a good looking ship this is close to the form and cleaness of the original Enterprise design, and I think that has been lost in all of your postings here.

maj: It's interesting to me that others really like this new design. I asked myself, why am I so repulsed by it? For me, the new design is a creative let down. If it was just 'another ship in the fleet,' fine. But it's the Enterprise. Take for example TMP Enterprise: they brought a lot of thought to it, such as the aztec pattern, the self-lighting, the new nacelles design. Creative success! But for the ship in question, I do not think they brought any new ideas to the table. They shifted elements around (secondary hull forward), and weight around (secondary hull squished, engines hot rodded), reconfigured elements (fat-base engine pylons), and added new design lines and curves to the nacelles. It's not *all* bad, I like the blue "collection plate" (although I won't be putting an offering into it--haha). So really they just brought a new aesthetic to the design. Again, fine. But for me personally, seeing the new design was like seeing an old friend whose face I know well, but with her nose suddenly above her eyes and her mouth sideways on her face. Yuck! If some new element or inspiration (other than 'hot rod it') had been brought to the design, this rearrangement might be easier to handle, less distracting. Desirable, even. I suppose I've seen too much trek to let go of that old design.

To Closetgeek67: Yes, there is something wrong with the original Enterprise -- the inpulse engines were not centered along the ships center of gravity. This has been fixed now. I'd rather have working impulse engines that don't send the whole cartwheeling versus worry about missing out on the pretty red color of the bussard collectors.

JamesH -- fair enough, I get your view. I would have actually been really happy if they had just went with TMP enterprise. However, TOS enterprise I'm just not at all crazy about, and a lot of posts seem to want to go back to that rather primative design from the 60's. Aslo, aren't you at least happy that the didn't "Beman it Up" by putting a lot of small crap and needless features all over the ship? Can you at least appreciate a return to a "clean design" here after "TNG" and "Enterprise" ships?

"the NextGen Enterprise was the most ugliest startship ever built"

AGREED!!! And the new Enterprise Rocks! You all need to wait and see it on the bigscreen as I did in Austin, especially the warp effects and the lighting. You will be converted when you see it, believe me!!!

Hey folks, I think we may be all jumping to conclusions here based on that hotrod comment by Abrams and Orci getting carried away with the technobabble defense. In the article here the ILM guy says:

"Even though this technology is all fictitious, we spend a lot of time talking about it and trying to make sense out it so that when you're doing something on the ship, like putting a door in or something like that, it sort of makes sense. We'll spend a lot of time going around and around looking at it and trying to work out what you would expect to see. Even though it's all fictitious, what would you really want to see?"

Based on this, I am going to walk into the theater on May 8th with an open mind on the new Enterprise.

UHURA, you are right. How can both sides on this board claim ya or na on this issue without having seen the flick. That one dude from Houston saw it, and said the BIG E rocked. So far, that seems to be the only person posting here who really has the ability to comment on this! LLAP

>>Whether the designer or morons or not, we have ended up with a good looking ship this is close to the form and cleaness of the original Enterprise design

WELL PUT !!!!!

As for the aesthetics of this particular design, it leaves me neutral. If I go with the pretense that it had to be constructed on the surface of the Earth I suppose I give ILM kudos for making it look like indeed it was so constructed. The only thing about it that comes close to "disturbing" is the nacelles and that only because it looks like they couldn't decide whether to use the flat ones of TMP or the cylinders of the original. So they decided to mash them both together and hoped to distract from their indecision by giving them hot rod touches. Perhaps they thought they'd cleverly come up with a way to please both the motion picture and series camps?

If it is indeed "ugly" as some surmise there may be some military expediency to that if indeed the ship's design is intended as a response to the Romulans. Humans have a long history of trying to make their attacking ships look as frightening as possible in order to gain a psychological advantage.

The only other disturbing quality of the hot rod motif is that it suggests that young Kirk may have had some contribution in the design of Pike's ship and that's apocryphal.

STAR TREK may or may not be a great many things. But it has continuously served as an advocate of the scientific method in approaching new things.

These contentions that people can not collect evidence, analyze or hypothesize about the new movie until it is "experienced" is the sort of illogical nonsense that launched thousands of bad trips in the decade of Trek's inception.

You do not have to down a bottle of rocking great-tasting poison in order to determine that it might not be beneficial to your well-being to consume it by swallowing it whole.

okay then, stay home and bi+ch about it. Whatever. You don't know it's poison, because you haven't tasted it. I don't think it's "scientific" to dismiss something because of your prejudices, but fine. You hate it. We get it.

rkf,

You are misreading my advocacy. I advocate keeping the yea or nay discussion going until the movie becomes available to view.

If I've prejudicially made my mind up about anything with regards to this film it is that it is just another ZOMBIES OF THE STRATOSPHERE Nimoy B-movie and I'm liable to see it, and enjoy it, as just that. I'm just not going to tax myself mercilessly trying to see it on opening day/weekend if I rationally determine that it isn't serviceable STAR TREK from all the evidence that I collect up till then. I can tell you which way the tricorder blows at this moment but I intend to keep my mind open to being convinced by my fellow Trekologists with evidence to the contrary.

My point was merely to point out that irrational people have through the ages continually tried to shutdown scientific discourse by themselves claiming it is irrational to talk about things that can't be directly experienced.

It's jarring to see such feeble reasoning put forth on technology the gives proof to the folly of that.

Make that:

It's jarring to see such feeble reasoning put forth using technology that gives proof to the folly of that.

Apologies, then, that I misread your post. Whether it turns out to be Zombies or Trek for you, I hope you enjoy it.

I NEVER see a movie opening week anymore, no matter what it is. I'm slowly turning into a "you kids get offa my lawn" type and can't stand cinema audiences. In fact, unless I'm convinced it needs to be big-screened, I wait for the DVD. My TV is plenty big enough.

rkf,

Acknowledged. And you remind me of something that could very well lead me to not see this picture at all:

I wish Abrams would say which version of his film is the "definitive" one, i.e. what he had in his mind's eye while filming it:

1. 35mm Film

2. 75mm IMAX

3. 35mm IMAX

4. 2k Digital

5. 4k Digital

Or his he planning to fix it all it in the Blu-ray remaster?

tribble hater,

There's been scuttle that when J.J. ran off the first 35mm film print for distribution he was so proud of how it looked on that media that that's what they brought for you to see in Austin. Do you know which version you saw?

Son of MP,

"My point was merely to point out that irrational people have through the ages continually tried to shutdown scientific discourse by themselves claiming it is irrational to talk about things that can't be directly experienced."

I would be the first to admit that you have made some good points in your postings and got me to consider a couple of different points that I had initially dismissed. That being said, this response of yours to rkf is not your finest moment...your point here is a real stretch my friend....

rkf said: "I NEVER see a movie opening week anymore, no matter what it is. I'm slowly turning into a "you kids get offa my lawn" type and can't stand cinema audiences. In fact, unless I'm convinced it needs to be big-screened, I wait for the DVD. My TV is plenty big enough."

I agree, but will see Trek on the 8th. In general, I miss a lot of movies now at the theater and wait for the blu-ray release. I have a 1080P LCD project with 100 inch screen and 7-speaker system...this technology is at the point now where watching blu-rays movies with my system is actually a higher picture and sound then 99% of theaters. I too seem to get more irritated with people at movies these days -- people make too much noise and could care less about disturbing others. I guess I am old school -- my kids have been trained by me to be quiet and behave at movies, but I seem to be on the few dads who gives a crap about my kids behaving at movies.

Ah, to be 16 again... December 79 to Feb 80 -- saw TMP 14 times in the theater!

"35mm film print for distribution "

My understanding was that the Austin moviet was at a "cinema and drafthouse" type of establishment. I suspect they brought the best solution print based on what that establishments projector could handle. It is probably not a state of the art movie theater (more of a fund place to drink beer while watching a movie -- they had one of those in Arlington VA when I lived there years ago)

Trek Dynasty said:

"the new Enterprise looks majestic regardless of the issues with Orci and others interview remarks. And i think we all can agree that the NextGen Enterprise was the most ugliest startship ever built. Whether the designer or morons or not, we have ended up with a good looking ship this is close to the form and cleaness of the original Enterprise design, and I think that has been lost in all of your postings here."

I am in full agreement. When I first saw the premeire of the TNG back in 87 I couldn't belive how awful that ship looked. It was a complete disaster of a design in my opinion -- the ugliest and most distubing Enterprise in the Trek timelines. Throw in the ridiculous holodeck, and...well you can see I am not a bid NextGen fans. Seasons 3 and 4 were somewhat watchable at best. DS9 is the only of the follow-on series that I really liked.

Really, despite all the postings back and forth, when you look at the new Enterprise, it is not like it is a major departure from TOS or TMP Enterprises...it has a few tucks here, a few stretches there, but is basicallly the same format and same clean look. It is nothing like that abortion of and Enterprise that they came up with for TNG....and if anyone here defends the TNG Enterprise, well, they are in for a fight with me. :-)

maj said "...your point here is a real stretch my friend...."

OH, I'd have to agree there's some serious digression there, in that Trek to some degree is art and art often has an irrational component to it. But science-fiction as a sub-genre tries to not wallow in it, and perhaps that better states my point.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Perhaps too, I am influenced by the fact that as science-fiction goes Trek is likely the most analyzed and peer-reviewed section of it with regards to actual papers published?

RE: MAJ (When I first saw the premeire of the TNG back in 87 I couldn't belive how awful that ship looked. It was a complete disaster of a design in my opinion -- the ugliest and most distubing Enterprise in the Trek timelines.)

I could not agree more. That was and Enterprise only a mother (i.e. John Eaves) could love.

maj said.

"Ah, to be 16 again... December 79 to Feb 80 -- saw TMP 14 times in the theater!"

Ah, you had to go and remind me. There were exactly 2 times in my life when I gazed upon the visage of a Federation Starhip in jaw-dropping awe. One was at a convention put on by Bjo Trimble in the 'tween time twixt STAR TREKS's NBC cancellation and TMP when Paramount let her show the filmed 16mm episodes projected on a BIG screen. I popped my head into the screening room and there in a scene from THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME with the whole Enterprise occupying the entire frame. The other was TMP first showing on opening day. The local theater had upgraded everything because they were determined not to be caught with their pants down as they had for STAR WARS - and of course, you guessed it: nothing worked. But they hobbled things together enough to see that majestic visage leaving spacedock before handing out passes to come back later and see the movie in its all together.

You might think from the state of things now in the present that there must have been a riot with every seat in the theater occupied, but we were good-natured about it and perhaps a little drunk with the power that we had to get it onscreen there saving Trek, once again.

Maybe in the next movie it will transform into a giant robot! Wouldn't that be "cool"?

Wait, no it wouldn't.

The need to keep this new design in the dark as much as possible.
This is the ugliest thing Ive seen in a long time!
Who was responsible for this ? And who approved it?
Holly crap!
Otherwise I'm really looking forward to this movie. I just hope all the other design work isnt this lame.

The new Enterprise is hands-down the best looking starship ever designed in the Trek universe. Well done ILM! I can't wait to see the movie!

"Maybe in the next movie it will transform into a giant robot! Wouldn't that be "cool"?"

Huh? Too much Sarian Brandy, eh Allan? :-)

SYSQUACK said,
"This is the ugliest thing Ive seen in a long time!
Who was responsible for this ? And who approved it?
Holly crap!"

I assume you are talking about your sister or your girfriend, right? (just kidding, don't freak out plesae) :-)

Seriously, the new Enterprise really isn't that much of a departure fromt TMP enterprise -- it is about 75% the same design -- still has all the same parts, same components, same basic shape, same clean appearance. So really, we get that you don't like it, but please don't insult our intelligence by overkilling your slamming it here...unless you admit that would you hated the TMP Enterprise as well (then I could buy your absolute hatred of the new Enterprise). Bring some intelligence to your critique as well please -- just ranting about it makes you look like a petulant little child having a tantrum over it...wah, wha...mommy, I hate the new Enterprise! :-)

Agree with Uhura.

V'ger (i.e. Sysquack) is a child. I suggest we treat it like one.

"Maybe in the next movie it will transform into a giant robot! Wouldn't that be "cool"?"

I don't get this either???

Maybe it is not Sysquack's faul. Maybe he and his little friends think that they want Kirk and the Enterprise to take him to Marcus XII, but in reality poor little Sysquack is being manipulated by the evil alien force called Gorgan. Little Sysquack sings:

"Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me."

Poor little Sysquack! :-)) :-))

Re: AllenM and Sysquack

Why don't you both try explaing what you are trying to convey in your posts? AllenN, no one seems to understand what your joke (?) means? Sysquack, can you elaborate futher with some intelligent reasoning to back up your "slamming" ILM?

Thanks!

Trek Forever said:

"The new Enterprise is hands-down the best looking starship ever designed in the Trek universe. Well done ILM! I can't wait to see the movie!"

I would not go quite that far, but I commend your enthusiasm. It is a handsome re-design. Of all the Enterprises in the ST universe, this new ILM version is my second favorite. TMP Enterprise is my favorite.

Uhura said:

"Seriously, the new Enterprise really isn't that much of a departure fromt TMP enterprise -- it is about 75% the same design -- still has all the same parts, same components, same basic shape, same clean appearance. "

Exactly. This is the point I have been trying to make on my posts here. If we can ignore our emotions regarding the motivations behind the design changes by Abrams and Company, the end product here is a ship with pretty much exactly the same components of the TOS and TPM Enterprise ships. You look at it and you instant recognize it as and Enterprise-class starship fromt the 23rd Century.

Be glad folks that Rick Berman and Brannon Bragga weren't in charge of this -- they would have given us something more aking to Enterprise meets Millienium Falcon -- i.e. an unclean design again!

Whethe you all like the new Entrerprise or not, I hope we can all agree that it is nice that they went back to the CLEAN DESIGN again after the last 20 years of the Berman-era starship design wasteland!

maj,

AllanM is referring to what the Spaceballs' spaceship turned into near the end of the movie with the same name.

sysquack may be issuing a command to the Red Dwarf's main computer the end result of which it is best not to contemplate other than to note that it is liable to end with someone on board exclaiming "SMEG!"

RE: MAJ

"If we can ignore our emotions regarding the motivations behind the design changes by Abrams and Company, the end product here is a ship with pretty much exactly the same components of the TOS and TPM Enterprise ships. You look at it and you instantly recognize it as and Enterprise-class starship fromt the 23rd Century. Be glad folks that Rick Berman and Brannon Bragga weren't in charge of this -- they would have given us something more aking to Enterprise meets Millienium Falcon -- i.e. an unclean design again! Whether you all like the new Entrerprise or not, I hope we can all agree that it is nice that they went back to the CLEAN DESIGN again after the last 20 years of the Berman-era starship design wasteland!"

I could not agree me. The detractors on this board I guess were hoping against all hopes that the TOS Enterprise would magically appear on the silver screen. With these unreaslist expectations, it is little surprise that they are nitpicking the new E. And get over the fact that JJ Abrahams made the hot rod comment -- as MAJ said, the E still is essentially the same starship, with nearly the exact same components and design. Get over it regarding the nacelles people -- for whatever reason, in every incarnation of ST series for the last 30 years shows mess with the nacelles on ST starships...it will happen again in the future as well...DEAL WITH IT AN MOVE ON!!!

Let’s look at the basics of this discussion.
The newly designed Enterprise, which in this reboot of the franchise is the original Enterprise that pike commanded and eventually Kirk will command on his first five year mission, looks nothing like the original Enterprise from the old series.

Real life reasons:
*Special effects technology has progressed quite a bit since the late sixties.
Fair enough, I expected changes I really did.
*This is the big screen and a ship designed for TV just won’t cut it on the big screen.
Also true, However The original design could have been spruced up I think. Detailed out for the big screen.
*Most of the audience for this movie are going to be younger people who grew up with whiz bang tech and won’t watch a clunky old ship from the OLD days of TV.
That’s called being spoiled.
*This is a reboot of the series. A re-imaging and recharging of the franchise for a new generation. They will want something new and flashy and since they did not grow up with the original it won’t make any difference.
Well I suppose if you think the series needed a reboot, I personally don’t. A simple sequel would have been preferable.

“In Universe” reason:
*The villain travels back in time creating a temporal incursion in an attempt to exact revenge presumably on James Kirk and in the process creates an alternate timeline that is similar but different from the original. Giving Starfleet technology a boost in the process.
I’ve said this before and I’ll probably say it again. Creative laziness. A cheap plot device used by Abrams to change things to the way he wanted them.
So what is the verdict? Well I guess it depends on your point of view. If you don’t mind being told, “Hey this IS the original, it’s just a new and improved original.” or if you feel that it’s “Just a movie.“ Then I guess it’s ok.

But if like me, you feel a little insulted by the whole idea that we are just supposed to except this as if nothing is changed, (as far as I know Abrams hasn’t given any kind of reasonable explanation except for the “This movie wasn’t made for trekkies.” statement) Or if Star Trek means a little something other than just being a movie, and by this statement I don’t mean being an Uber-Geek who lives in your parents basement and knows every little detail of Trek trivia. I mean appreciating what Trek was and not liking seeing it butchered for the sake of ‘rebooting’ the franchise so a few studio suits can keep lining their pockets.

Then it’s not ok.

2nd captcha try
3rd captcha try

Spaceman Stiff said:

"The newly designed Enterprise, which in this reboot of the franchise is the original Enterprise that pike commanded and eventually Kirk will command on his first five year mission, looks nothing like the original Enterprise from the old series."

I think a lot of us have a fundamental disagreement with this. It it really "looked nothing like" the TOS E, then why does it still have a saucer section, a secondary hull, two warp nacelles, a shuttle bay, a deflector shield plate, a bridge on top of the sacucer, etc. etc. etc. I would say that this ship has 75% of the common design characteristics of TOS Enterprise and I am not backing down from that.

maj said:
==I think a lot of us have a fundamental disagreement with this. It it really "looked nothing like" the TOS E, then why does it still have a saucer section, a secondary hull, two warp nacelles, a shuttle bay, a deflector shield plate, a bridge on top of the sacucer, etc. etc. etc. I would say that this ship has 75% of the common design characteristics of TOS Enterprise and I am not backing down from that.==

Yes it does have all those things.
But so did all the versions of the enterprise.
The motion picture Refit
A B C D and E
Voyager
The Excelsior
But, beyond those basic design elements,
I’d say those ships bear little resemblance to each other.
It looks more like a ship that would have been constructed
in the next generation era.

The point is and I have mentioned this in other posts.
This is NOT a refit, or a refurbishment. Or a new ship.
It is supposed to be, The SAME ship that Kirk and crew
served their first mission in. The same ship from the original series.
And no one can truthfully say that it looks even close to that.

When I wrote sequel above I meant to write prequel.

captcha #1
captcha #2

"It looks more like a ship that would have been constructed
in the next generation era."

Not even close. The new E looks pretty much like the TMP Enterprise with a slightly entended secondary hull, slightly larger saucer, and large engines (which is the only major difference). Saying it looks like a NG era ship is ridiculous -- the E of NG bears no resemblence whatsover to this Enterprise. Moreover, this ship is a "clean design", and we have not seen a clean design in ST since TMP Enterprise, which was the TOS Era.

"But if like me, you feel a little insulted by the whole idea that we are just supposed to except this as if nothing is changed, (as far as I know Abrams hasn’t given any kind of reasonable explanation except for the “This movie wasn’t made for trekkies.” statement) Or if Star Trek means a little something other than just being a movie, and by this statement I don’t mean being an Uber-Geek who lives in your parents basement and knows every little detail of Trek trivia. I mean appreciating what Trek was and not liking seeing it butchered for the sake of ‘rebooting’ the franchise so a few studio suits can keep lining their pockets."

I completely disagree. Lost is my favorite TV show these days, and TOS trek was my favorite TV show in yesterday. I can think of NO ON I would rather have re-booting Trek than JJ Abrahams.

"A simple sequel would have been preferable."

You have got to be kidding me? Two of the TOS cast members are dead, and the rest are in their 70's.

Spaceman Spiff said: "It looks more like a ship that would have been constructed
in the next generation era."

That is laughable. Look at the Enterprise E and other NG-era ships and you will see a clear difference compared to TOS era regarding the ration of the size of the nacelles to the overall ship. The Enterprise E nacelles are tiny compared to the overall ship, whereas TOS Enterprises and the reboot Enterprise all have large nacelles as compared to the overall ship size. Also, the new E has a retro "clean design" that harkend back to TMP and TOS Enterprise's. We may choose to disagree on wheter you like the new E or not, but please don't try to defend this ridiculous claim that it belongs in the NG era...pleassssseee!

I did not say that the new/old Enterprise looks like either the Enterprise D or E.

What I said was it looks like a ship that would have been constructed in the next generation era and I stick by that. They did not all have the same nacelle design.

‘Trek Dynasty’ said:
The new E looks pretty much like TMP Enterprise-
Does that make it better than looking like a NG era ship?

Also:
Slightly entended (Extended?) secondary hull, slightly larger saucer, slightly large engines (Which is the only major difference)-
Really? The only major difference!? Have you looked at them? They are completely different. Saying that the new ship and the old ship look the same because they both have a saucer, a secondary hull and two warp nacelles is like saying that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy look the same because they both have a head, two arms, two legs and a torso.

But as I said, my main problem with the whole thing is that Abrams just changed everything and expects us all to just accept it without any kind of decent explanation. And I’m sorry but a temporal incursion creating an alternate timeline is not a decent explanation. It’s like he didn’t think we would notice or something.

It’s all opinions I guess and my opinion is I don’t like it.

Trek Dynasty:
In the post before my last post I corrected the ‘sequel comment’ I meant to say prequel.

And by prequel I mean simply the story of how Kirk went to the academy and became captain of the Enterprise. No time travel, no threats from the future, no ‘reboot’ or re-imagining.

And for the record I did not like the Enterprise D or the NX-01 either.
In a purely aesthetical vein, the ships in order of preference as far as I’m concerned are;

1-The original series Enterprise
2-The Enterprise E
3-The Enterprise A
4-The B
5-The C
6-The D
7-The NX-01
8-The new/old Enterprise

captcha #1
captcha # 2

I don't want to get bogged down in this look thing. Probably because I built the AMT models. I've always known that from THE CAGE, to WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, and to the rest of ToS that the ship hap 3 different looks. And then with TMP it just became accepted by me that the ship changes over time.

However, I suspect there are far more changes to Enterprise in this movie than what can be seen internally or externally by the movie viewing eye. And they are far more profound than a look.

The Enterprise is important (Why else all the concern for this one's obvious visual changes?) in STAR TREK because it is the stage upon which a Trek tale is told. And it has always been a stage built on a Warp drive foundation.

From listening to Abrams, et al, talk I don't think their Enterprise could at all be Warp drive based. Think about it. What better way to blunt fans' protest about building it on the surface of the Earth than to have it use a new different technology which represents an essentially blank slate as far as on screen canon construction is concerned?

Now I think they'd pick something that still will allow them to throw the familiar warp word around. There's a reason some can detect an Excelsior hue in its look. It's transwarp.

Since the new Enterprise re-creation is this awesome, I hope the movie does fantastic! Just imagine if these guys did their version of the Wrath of Khan and what the USS Reliant will look like and act like!!!!!

==Since the new Enterprise re-creation is this awesome, I hope the movie does fantastic! Just imagine if these guys did their version of the Wrath of Khan and what the USS Reliant will look like and act like!!!!!==

DEAR GOD Spare us!
===================================
Worm's SciFi Haven

FWIW, a couple of nights back on JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE! Mr Abrams explained how he solved his engine room dilemma for his Enterprise by filming on location at the Budweiser factory. Yes, The Engine Room is a Budweiser brewing plant.

Which reminds me what's the various opinions on taking young children to see this flick? I've noticed that instead of the subtle product placement of the previous films that there's some really hard Budweiser promotion in some scenes. And how far does the Kirk bedding go? How bad a boy is young aimless Kirk in this?

You can say what you want about the first 6 films but on the most they were family "friendly". Is Abrams aiming for teen and up?

Just added to the ST website: “A lot of trek movies have a stylized approach to lighting, but early on we decided we wanted to capture a more realistic quality – more reminiscent of the photographs taken from the Apollo missions, for example. JJ really wanted to take it in this direction. The whole idea is that when you see the Enterprise flying through space, you believe that it is something that will really exist in the near future"

Thank goodness. When I look at TOS Enterprise design on the show, they never explained how the ship was always brightly lit all the time. This was a huge design error by Matt Jeffries and Rodenberry in not providing an engineering description of how the E "lit up" all the time in space. I'm glad to see Abrams and ILM correct this ridiculous design error for the new movie with a ship that provides its own lighting.

Son of MP said: "And how far does the Kirk bedding go? How bad a boy is young aimless Kirk in this?...You can say what you want about the first 6 films but on the most they were family "friendly". Is Abrams aiming for teen and up?"

Dude, did you ever watch the original series at all? Complain all you want about the E design, but don't try to tell us that Kirk was getting laid several times each season with women who were not his wife and hanging around with girls in underwear/bikinis every 5th episode or so.

I recommend you keep you arguments focused on the types of nacelles that we find on starships.... :-)

MovieMan said: "Since the new Enterprise re-creation is this awesome, I hope the movie does fantastic! Just imagine if these guys did their version of the Wrath of Khan and what the USS Reliant will look like and act like!!!!!"

Fun to think about -- I agree with your excitement on what ILM has done here with the new designs of the starships!!!

Spaceman Spiff said: "In a purely aesthetical vein, the ships in order of preference as far as I’m concerned are; 1-The original series Enterprise; 2-The Enterprise E; 3-The Enterprise A; 4-The B; 5-The C; 6-The D; 7-The NX-01; 8-The new/old Enterprise."

Interesting that you rate the E version so high. It occurs to me that the reason we got the E was that the D version looked so bad on the big screen that they decided to destroy it and all of sudden revert back to a starship design that more closely resembled TMP/TOS enterprise...i.e., I can picture Rick Berman saying: "make it cool so we can kick some Borg ass."

And following the design of these ships further, how come all of a suddent after years of engine improvements that resulted in the engines being relatively small in proportion to the overall ship size in the NG universe Enterprise D, all of a suddent the engines get much bigger in proportion to the ship on the Enterprise E?

I find it hypocritial that you have complained about the larger engine proportions on the new ILM Enterprise as compared to TOS Engterprise, but yet with the Enterprise E, which is one of your favorite ships in ST, we have the exact same situation in which the producers pretty much decided to make the engines bigger because they would look cooler on the big screen!

Uhura said: "Look at the Enterprise E and other NG-era ships and you will see a clear difference compared to TOS era regarding the ration of the size of the nacelles to the overall ship. The Enterprise E nacelles are tiny compared to the overall ship, whereas TOS Enterprises and the reboot Enterprise all have large nacelles as compared to the overall ship size. Also, the new E has a retro "clean design" that harkend back to TMP and TOS Enterprise's. We may choose to disagree on wheter you like the new E or not, but please don't try to defend this ridiculous claim that it belongs in the NG era...pleassssseee!"

Well said! I could not agree more!

maj,

I think you are confused. I wasn't arguing the point. I was genuinely asking how explicit the bed scenes/action/language were in this picture as the ads hint they may be more intense than in the first seven.

I didn't mention the series. But as you did it might help for you to realize that was actually censored by NBC's standards and practices.

If I was close to criticizing anything it was that the movies after ST 7 became too intense overall (not just the sex) for children and weren't as family friendly as the first seven because of that. But I didn't mean that as a specific slam against Abrams movie per se - just an acknowledgment that that's where the productions went, i.e more adult .

I genuinely am interested to hear how people think the various age groups will be able to handle this flick?

Kirk's mores don't bother me per se as I understand the movie is exploring it. I'm just wondering how intense it all gets and if anything is left to the imagination?

Let me put it another way, maj. If I brought a 6yo to the premier and he/she sat next to you, what do you think is the likelihood that the style of this new movie's exposition is liable to cause said child to do something that will subtract from your experience of the film? I would like to spare you that if I could by gauging your's and others' assessments of this potential.

You also seem to have me confused with someone else: my comments on the "E" that could be regarded as criticism extends to the exposition on how the engines function in Abrams movie and that it takes Budweiser dipped dilithium crystals to do it. For the most part I am neutral about the external look. I like that the new bridge has a Kinoshita feel that makes it seem like it it is technology that could only have come from the future and indeed serves its function.

I found the answer to Mr. Abrams mind's eye, 35mm film 2.35:1 anamorphic :

“I wanted this movie to feel real. I’m not saying you can’t be real with digital. But with film, for me, there was such a familiarity and comfort to it, a real warmth. We wanted to avoid coldness and any unnatural sense of perfection. [Mindel] is such a brilliant DP, I’m sure we could have achieved this look either way, but we felt it would take longer if we shot digital. Given our desire to avoid greenscreen as much as possible, to have the movie look as real as possible, and given that we would already have a large portion of it created digitally anyway [more than 1,000 visual-effects shots], I just felt we would be better balanced shooting on film and embracing that familiarity—that beautiful imperfection that comes with film. I know anamorphic lenses on a 35mm film camera real well. I know what that looks like, and I’m in love with that.” - J. J. Abrams

digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/star_trek_abrams_0420/index1.html

Son of a Maui Portagee -- thanks for the link to the outstsanding artcile on how ILM and Abrams made this movie. Here is on quote from this article which really pleased me:

“In early years, if you blew something up in space, you just composite in the elements and that’s it, like any other explosion,” Guyett says. “But we wanted more reality, more pyro-type effects to simulate the physics of the way things explode in space. We studied and argued at length about how things would behave if you don’t have gravity. ILM has done so many explosions for so many years that we knew how to do a lot of physically based volumetric explosions.”

Finally, after years of seeing poorly designed space explosions and battles that are not physically realistis, we are finally going to have some realism here. TOS was perhaps the worst offender in providing us with physically non-realistics space battles with ships that moved like slow submarines, etc. It will be good to see TOS design flaws involving Enterprise movements and space battles corrected for this movie! Thanks JJ

In responding to maj's post regarding his/her response to Spaceman Spiff's love affair with the Enterprise E, maj concluded with:

"I find it hypocritial that you have complained about the larger engine proportions on the new ILM Enterprise as compared to TOS Engterprise, but yet with the Enterprise E, which is one of your favorite ships in ST, we have the exact same situation in which the producers pretty much decided to make the engines bigger because they would look cooler on the big screen!"

Agreed. Spaceman Spiff can't have it both ways. i.e. bitching about the large engines on the new ILM Enterprise while at the same time showing his love for the NG-ear Enterprise-E which likewise has engines that are oversized for its time period.

Spaceman Spiff, how do you like your crow served? :-)

The Enterprise E design departures from the NG-era starship design trends were much more drastic then what Abrams and company have done to the TOS Enterprise. How could engines possible get so much bigger again in the NG era after the advancements in the Enterprise D class ships, which needed much smaller engines and could still do warp 9?

In my humble opinon, anyone who professes admiration for the Enterprise E should certainly not be considered to have standing to make complaints about the engine design of the new ILM Enterprise.

Re: the posts above. I agree, you can't say you love the E version and then take potshots at the design of the ILM version. The E version completely reversed NG starship engine design trends of that era. Spiffy, you have dug yourself a deep hole here -- the equivalent of a trek-geek public relations nightmare!

also, regarding the new design, there is no way I would place "the look" of the new Enterprise as from the NG era. It is a clean design that we only see in Trek in in TMP/TOS era; it looks pretty much like a streamlined/stretched version of the TMP Enterprise with different engines; and the larger engines clearly place it earlier in Trek history versus later, when the engines generall get smaller in proportion to the size of the ship. I think any independent group of people asked to make this assessment would agree with me on this -- take the emotion/anger from the "hot rod" Abrams comment away, and any objective person would place this ship in the TOS/TMP trek time period.

"Re: the posts above. I agree, you can't say you love the E version and then take potshots at the design of the ILM version. The E version completely reversed NG starship engine design trends of that era. Spiffy, you have dug yourself a deep hole here -- the equivalent of a trek-geek public relations nightmare!"

WELL PUT !!!!!

"I think any independent group of people asked to make this assessment would agree with me on this -- take the emotion/anger from the "hot rod" Abrams comment away, and any objective person would place this ship in the TOS/TMP trek time period."

I completely agree. Trek fans like Spiffy who were irriated by the "make it like a hot rod" remark are letting it cloud their judgement here regarding an outstanding but reverent update to the design of the Enterprise.

Agree with all the posts here that the E version of the Enterprise looks like a TMP/TOS series type of ship, not a NG era ship. Also agree that this Spacy Spiffer guy should not be taking potshots at the new ILM enterprise given he likes the Enterprise E...it is hypocritical given the Enterprise-E has a similar design issue with bigger than expected engines for that era.

Son of MP -- OK, I understand better where you are coming from with you comments on how much sex may or may not be shown in the new movie. Won't have a response for you until I see the new movie. There better not be much more then people in their underwear kissing (as in the trailer), or my wife is going to kill me, as I'm taking my whole family on opening day, including my 12 year old, 8 year old and 7 year old.

"All, a couple of observations from recent posts. First, it looks like we have a groundswell of consensus here that the Enterprise E looks more like it belongs in TMP/TOS era versus the NG era. Secondly, we seem to have a consensus emerging that anyone who claims that they like the design of the Enterprise E has no business being critical of the new engines on the new ILM Enterprise."

Yep, that pretty much sums things up. Not a good day for the Spacy Spifster! :-)

In reading the recent posts, I agree with the criticisms of the Spacemen Spiff comments regarding the Enterprise E. The Enterprise E has just as many design flaws and trend reversals in the NG universe as the new ILM Enterprise has in TMP/TOS universe. It is hypocritical to say you love the E version but then criticize the new ILM version -- you can't have it both ways!

OK everyone, enough with the 'piling on" regarding Spaceman Spiff's inadvised comments. He is entitled to his opinon, and I think you have all "torn him a new one" at this point. He is probably just a teenage kid who didn't reason things out cleary enough before he hit the enter button on his post regarding the Enterprise E. We have all made dumb statements on the Internet that later on we realized, "whoops, that we dumb, I doo look like a hypocrite." Let's move on with other topics now...enough is enough regarding slamming poor spiffy!

"He [Spaceman Spiff] is probably just a teenage kid who didn't reason things out cleary enough before he hit the enter button on his post regarding the Enterprise E"

Hey Spiffy, maybe you should cal on Gorgan to help defend you on your lame posts:

Little Spiffy sings:

"Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me."

:-)) :-))

I don't think even Gorgan could help improve on Spaceman Spiff's illogical posts!

"I don't think even Gorgan could help improve on Spaceman Spiff's illogical posts!"

AGREED !!!

Looks like Spaceman Spiff is not going to defend his position here??? Score a WIN here for the fans of the ILM Enterprise!!!!!

The truth is this JJ Abrams will not be the one who destroys Star Trek, It will be the fans that cry and wine lke babies because the hand rail on the bridge is silver and not red. Star Fleet, Captain Kirk are part of a movie or t.v show, they are not REAL!! Enjoy others imaginations. to hell with the ship looks like! Its a piece of plastic or cgi rendered, IT IS NOT REAL!! So are you guys wining need to untie your panties. I grew up watching TOS and i love that series, but IT is OLD. let Abrams and paramount give it a facelift. I think you honor star trek that way.

Wow the fan bashers must be having a party. All sitting at the same terminal maybe, urging each other on, seeing who can out do the other?

Did everyone just skip over the phrase ‘Aesthetical vein’?
It means in case you can’t be bothered to pick up a dictionary,
That I like the way it looks. It’s a personal opinion. You know
“Opinion” like assholes, we all have one and everybody else’s stinks?

I’m not talking about the size of the nacelles, I’m talking about the design. The way the ship looks. I like the way the Enterprise E looks. I do not like the way Abrams Enterprise looks. So yes, I CAN have it both ways.

Size is about the only thing the two nacelle designs have in common. The E’s nacelles are well proportioned for their size while Abrams nacelles are huge and fat at the front and skinny at the back giving them an unbalanced look.

Once again let me make sure you all understand I am talking about LOOKS here. Not design history or one generation of ship verses another.

Regarding that. I said that the new/old enterprise looks like something that comes from Treks future. And it does. I will concede that it looks like it belongs more in TMP era than TNG era but it in no way looks like it belongs in TOS era. It still looks wrong for the era it’s in.

As far as the argument that The E went backwards in it’s nacelle design? Well any kind of argument can be created to support the new design. Maybe they are more efficient at traveling at warp nine that the D’s were. Maybe they are more Warp dynamic. Maybe they have new features that the old ones didn’t.
OR maybe, just maybe, They LOOK better.

AGAIN and again I have said this and again no one seems to bother reading it. My main problem with this whole thing is that this is supposed to be the original Enterprise and it looks nothing like the original Enterprise BEYOND the basic shape. And we are
just supposed to accept this?

And now we delve down into the sewer of personal attacks.
When you can’t get some one to change their mind and agree with you is this what you resort to? .

maj, Trek Dynasty, Locking Phasers, Simon Pegg, K7, Neil Armstrong and Uhura all called me a hypocrite. You will note that no where in any of my posts have I lowered myself to calling anyone any kind of name. You are all entitled to your opinion, I happen to disagree with that opinion.

Trek Dynasty: I assure you NO one has ‘Torn me a new one.’ Sorry to disappoint you.

Locking Phasers says:
==Hey Spiffy, maybe you should cal on Gorgan to help defend you on your lame posts:
Little Spiffy sings:
"Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me."==

That kind of childishness doesn’t even deserve a response.

As for my age, well you’ll just have to wonder about that. Cause it’s none of your business.

As for why I have not responded to all this until now, I do have a life, You know family, job, other hobbies that I partake in. I haven’t even looked at this page for two or three weeks. Arguing with you people about this is way down on my to do list.

So: to sum it all up. None of you has convinced me to change my opinion. I still do not like Abrams Enterprise. I still DO like the Enterprise E. And if this post is too long for you to take the time to read then keep you diatribe to yourself.

1st try-FAIL
2nd try

Hey Spaceman Spiff, here is what I said:

" find it hypocritial that you have complained about the larger engine proportions on the new ILM Enterprise as compared to TOS Engterprise, but yet with the Enterprise E, which is one of your favorite ships in ST, we have the exact same situation in which the producers pretty much decided to make the engines bigger because they would look cooler on the big screen!"

I think it a stretch to say that I was name calling you a hypocrite here? Please don't confuse me with these other bozos who really did name call you...although I think we could both chuckle over that lame "And the Children Shall Lead" reference.

I think everyone on this board needs to lighten up a little bit!

Spaceman Spiff said:

"==Hey Spiffy, maybe you should cal on Gorgan to help defend you on your lame posts:
Little Spiffy sings:
"Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me."==

"That kind of childishness doesn’t even deserve a response.'

Ah, I agreee...the childishness here is exactly my point....like the childishness commanding my posts here...you know, like: "AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Locking Phasers,
Your last post makes absolutely no sense.

Maj:
Sorry if I misquoted you or took your statements the wrong way but this whole discussion seems to have taken a downward turn.

Regarding what you did say. Well you are certainly intitled to think I'm being hypocriticle but I really don't see how that is justifiable when we're talking about opinions.

Yes the new enterprise has larger engines just like the E had larger engines. The difference is I don't like the new Enterprise engine design. I think they are ugly. They are out of proportion not only with themselves(From front to back) but with therest of the ship. I do like the design of the E's engines. they simply look better.

And that is all I was saying.

1st try-FAIL
2nd try

I hate the blue bussard collector glow. I like the design of the ship for the most part. But those blue domes just leave me cold. Try again ILM.

I think that all the debate regarding whether or not the design of the ship is true to previous designs, and whether or not the film follows established canon is completely moot. I am a die hard Trek fan, and I cannot wait to see this film. The franchise has been in dire need of a refit for years, and I am perfectly happy to let a smart and savvy group of talented individuals take it in the direction it needs to go. The past is the past, fun as it is, and Star Trek needs to be pushed into the future. If you don't think you'll like it, stay home.

This Paramount site's getting hammered:

www.experience-the-enterprise.com/

but if you can get in, supposedly you can a 3-D tour of the new E.

Hi All, I am a 46 yo Star Trek fan and have been following ST since I was very young back at the end of the 60s and early 70s. While I have a fair collections of models, CGI models, books, biographies, autobiographes, video tapes, DVDs, ST technical manuals and memorabilia I do not profess to have the in depth knowledge of the engineering parameters of Enterprise as some have in the comments above.
What I can say is that I believe that the new movie Enterprise does hold true to the design concepts created by Matt Jefferies and that the movie holds to the characters and ideas put forward by Gene Roddenberry that in the future there is equality, compassion, acceptance of others and their beliefs, and a bright future of adventure for the human spirit.
I have loved the Enterprise in all her incarnations - and there have been a few now - some more than others. I can accept that some will hate the new ship, while others (myself included) will like her. Keep in mind that given that there are many engineering advancement both in materials (i.e. Transparent aluminium) the comments about the ship breaking up may have been covered by engineering methods currently unknown to us.
Arguing about whether the ILM guy used the wrong term for the deflector dish is really pretty moot as I can remember similar discussions as each of the new designs came out and new terms and names were give to previously unheard of or unused ship part and physics concepts etc were introduced. ("Chrono paricals" and "temporal rifts" as examples)
Keep in mind that while there is a human asthetic involved and some physics/engineering concepts - most are fictional - at least at this present time.
Folks - please try and keep in mind what Gene Roddenbery was trying to tell us about humanity - the Enterprise as beautiful as she is - is really just the most globally recognisable symbol of that star Trek belief.
Please accept that we all have diverse opinions on her various designs and move on.
As the Vulcans say - IDIC - "Infinite Diversity in Infinte Combination" - and lets try and accept each others views without "flaming" each other.
I for one am just very glad to see that Star Trek is not dead and in fact looks like having a very bright and ongoing future.
Thank you for reading this and "Live Long and Prosper".

Looks like it has goiter

I want to redesign the Millenium Falcon to look more like a bulbous tumor

The scale is so OFF that the hanger bay is either too small for use (a standard size shuttle is larger than the opening, or judging by the windows, Kirk is 19 feet tall if you fix it by upscaling the whole thing.

What you all need to remember is that this version of star trek is set in an alternate reality, a parallel universe!!!
so who cares if it looks different or the hanger bay is too small or whatever. GET A LIFE

Perhaps it would be more enlightening to consider that some find it an excellent use of their valuable time to read through 100 and some odd messages just to state the obvious and recite, without attribution, what is by now a trite Robert Smigel cliche that was an even more trite valley-girl cliche when he originally spun it towards Trek fans, instead of heeding those self-same cited words.

We've come to expect some semblence of realism and of what makes sense,
regarding a large exploration space craft of the future. But I was completely
thrown when I noted

* The Bridge was completely overlit everywhere - even under the floors (?).
That amount of light would seem to washout the workstation screens. And
along the back wall, a line of bare ' lightbulbs ' (!), very much like a beauty-salon !!

The Bridge is in an oval shape, which makes it difficult for bridge officers
to confer with each other, one end to the other. However, the simulator's
bridge was round (Even US Navy ships' bridges are circular).

* The wide forward viewscreen presented views that were inexplicably stretched
out horizontally. And showed the stars moving left to right, instead of heading
toward the ship (or away from it in a reverse/departure angle).

* I was never able to figure ship dimensions. Advised that it's length is 2500
feet - it's 2 and a half times longer than the 5000-crew, 90 aircraft, 100K ton
USS Nimitz aircraft carrier !!

* The ship's exterior has to be on the screen long enough in space scenes
to give a feel for realististic mass and rock-steady solidity as it moves. That was
never established with the high amount of editing (watch Forbidden Planets'
Cruiser C-57D as it arcs right to left - also, the stars are way in the distance,
not appearing to be closer at all).

* The engineering deck unaccountably consisted of just yellow non-descript high
walls with no nomenclature - pipes going in every direction - and no workstations
or screens of any sort. And no engineering crew noted.
. . . And So It Goes

PF SWARP`

you are absolutely right. WTF was up with that engine room? It's design made absolutley no sense.It looked exactly like what it was, a brewery! A beer powered starship! No wonder every one wants to be assigned to the Enterprise.

There was as you said no workstations, no office for the chief engineer. No main control panel. Where the heck was the containment unit?

The engineering deck on TOS may have been cheesy and cheap looking with it's sliding panels for lights and plywood walls but at least it's layout made sense. There was some rhyme and reason to it's design.

@Spaceman Spiff & PFSWARP

There is no explanation that can be woven out of the story's "science " to make sense of it.

However, the production itself went over budget and couldn't afford to build the planned engineering set. So Mr. Abrams thought it would be a "brilliant" solution to substitute one of the production's product placement advertisers' brewery plants for the missing set.

Which only adds to my contention that inspite of the gobs of money sunk into the production, it maintains a B-movie ambience throughout and even adopts that style of filmmaking approach to telling its story,

What I find troubling is I can think of several B-movies with actual B-movie budgets that made better choices for location shooting of an engine room than that.

Ha I'd like to know what those movies are Son. Sounds like THEY might be woth watching.

I always liked that movie. The sets may have been an old aircraft carrier but the design of the 'park' ships fit with that overall utilitarian design.

And BTW I thought the use of amputies for the robots was sheer genius. It avoided the typical tin can look old movie robots inveriably had.

the Enterprise however is supposed to be a much more eligant ship. Abrams destroyed that. The shuttle bay looked like an old iron foundry and the engine room was a brewery.

In interview after interview Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman say they have tried to stay true to Treks history and kept in mind the hardcore fans and tried to pay homoge to the original series. Well you certainly can't tell it from this movie.

the only thing they did right in my opinion was to give Capt. Christopher Pike a large roll.

@Spaceman Spiff,

I think we are on the same page but just to be sure I want to note that when I used epitome I meant that SILENT RUNNING was the BEST example of having to make that compromise and making the substitute for building a set, work and fit the design.

ST09's E engine room "set" is the WORST example of the attempts to make the compromise because it fails to fit and is utterly incongruous.

And I'll say this again: it is a clear example of how the budget came up short that they couldn't afford to use rudimentary CGI to cleanup some of its most glaring deficiencies.

Ah Ok I guess I misinturpreted that Son.
Wew do agree.
Sorry.

TOS used a few real locations a few times didn't it?

@Spaceman Spiff, "TOS used a few real locations a few times didn't it?"

Oh for certain, for planet surfaces and actual buildings in the story. But I have absolutely no recollections of actual building interiors serving as ship interiors in ToS.

ToS episode making the most use of "real" buildings as opposed to back-lot facades was where we first met Kirk's brother, Sam, in OPERATION: ANNIHILATE!