1st New Enterprise Exterior Image

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Apparently, they have finally released the first concept image for what the new U.S.S. Enterprise looks like in the upcoming film. Below is text from the original article at EW Online:

 

JJ Abrams wasn't a huge fan of the original Star Trek TV series as a kid, but he does have one unabashed gee-whiz Star Trek memory: watching the first feature film (1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture) and marveling over the big reveal of the Enterprise during a long sequence in which James T. Kirk takes a slow-boat tour around the iconic starship. "The coolest thing about it—maybe the coolest thing in the movie—was when you flew around the ship, you could see all the different panels that made up the ship," says the director of the forthcoming Trek reboot, slated for a May 8, 2009 release. "It was the first time I had ever seen that level of attention, that love of detail, given to the tangible, practical reality of the ship."

 

Here, in this exclusive first look at Abrams' take on the Enterprise, you not only see his vision of the ship, but his attempt to evoke that sequence from the first film that so captured his imagination. If you're thinking, "Wow! It looks the way the Enterprise has always looked"—well look at the big Spock brain on you! Abrams wanted to take the original TV series Enterprise and the movie franchise Enterprise and fuse them together into a new yet familiar Enterprise. His ambition was a ship that felt very realistic, that could "stand up" to today's f/x standards—and beyond. "If you're going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you're going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?"

 

Fans and other interested parties will get more looks at the new Enterprise when the first trailer arrives this Friday, attached to Quantum of Solace.

 

Last warning....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DrDMatthews 0]

Oh man.....isn't she pretty!!!! :)

[will_marx 0]

That is not the Enterprise I grew up with. Even with the TOS movie version. It barely looks like the McQuarrie design sketches he did for TMP; I'd have accepted a McQuarrie design, but not this. You can't screw with the established design of the ship; the original design Enterprise is as much a star of the series as Bill Shatner or Patrick Stewart. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now...I'm very upset with the direction the retcon is going.

[Kairi 0]

It looks...wierd... :)

[Shane 0]

I want to point something out. If we want Star Trek to survive we need to attract new people to it and a lot of non-Trekkies aren't attracted to a 1960's style starship. Not that the original Enterprise is stupid or anything but if we want Star Trek to continue we need to move on.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

I didn't read the excerpt, I just shot straight to the design image and then read the blurp:

 

1.) The internal Nerd Meter immediately registered the design as in between the original Enterprise and something from TMP or Enterprise the TV show.

 

2.) I can handle the new design.

 

3.) At least the re-imagined Enterprise doesn't have the blocky, patched together, wet looking design of the re-Imagined Battlestar Galactica military cruisers (not a gripe there, btw, just a comparison).

 

4.) I really wasn't expecting the classic Constitution or classic Connie Re-Fit design; each new Trek incarnation had a new ship design.

 

5.) The refit Connie was itself an updated design, so the Original Enterprise was already changed way back in 1979 for TMP.

 

I'm with Doctor Matthews - this re-Imagined Enterprise looks pretty.

[Ezri Max 0]

Was someone on crack when they designed the ship.

[DrDMatthews 0]

I want to point something out. If we want Star Trek to survive we need to attract new people to it and a lot of non-Trekkies aren't attracted to a 1960's style starship. Not that the original Enterprise is stupid or anything but if we want Star Trek to continue we need to move on.

 

 

I would dare say I'm probably one of the "oldest" players in STSF. I was in my teens on September 8, 1966. I vividly recall the premier of Star Trek and was glued to the tube for just about every episode until they moved the show from Thursday to Friday nights.

 

So, it's fair to say I've been a "Trekkie" for the better part of my life and TOS is definitely MY Star Trek.

 

That said, I agree with Shane. It's time to move on.

 

December, 1979....Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I could hardly wait. Same actors recreating the same characters but a lot had changed. For me, the best part of that movie was the big reveal of the Enterprise. And let me tell you....that was NOT the same Enterprise we saw in the TV show. It was familiar yet very different....modern and updated and the detail was mind blowing. (Remember, it was 1979.) I don't know about you guys but I LOVED it and still do.

 

And there were more changes to come. Look what happened to the uniforms in ST II and beyond. That was a change for the better and I don't recall many complaints. We accepted it and moved on.

 

Truth be told, very few current fans date back to TOS. Most Trek fans today got hooked watching TNG, DS9 or Voyager. And those versions of Trek were far removed from TOS. That's especially true of DS9 and Voyager. As far as Enterprise is concerned, I'm not sure it brought many fans into the fold. The show was canceled very soon after they finally assembled a decent team of writers. I think Enterprise would have become a lot more popular if they'd given those writers another year.

 

The bottom line - the franchise is in big trouble. The fan base is shrinking. We should be down on our knees, thanking God somebody has been given the opportunity to attempt a resurrection. I'm pleased they've chosen to rekindle interest in Trek through a TOS oriented movie. I think the powers in charge of this project have worked hard to maintain a degree of continuity out of respect for us long time fans. But they are also realistic about what is necessary for the movie to succeed.

 

We, the fans.....especially those of us who have been faithful followers for 30 plus years.... have to face facts. The 60s are long gone. So are the 70s and 80s. The only way to attract new fans is to reel them in with the most sophisticated technology available. If that means tweaking the "1701" then I say go for it.

 

Hopefully, millions of people who have never seen Star Trek before will go to this movie. A lot is hanging in the balance. If this flops, we'll probably never see another movie and you can forget about anymore TV shows. We can nitpick until the cows come home but Shane is absolutely right.....new fans won't be attracted by a 1960s style starship....maybe not even a 1980s style starship. Some changes are needed in order to survive. And I want Trek to survive.

 

And I'll shut-up now. ::tosses a couple of coins into the bucket::

Edited November 12, 2008 by DrDMatthews

[Ezri Max 0]

 

This should be the design of the USS Enterprise during the 2010's to get new members.

[Grom 0]

I would dare say I'm probably one of the "oldest" players in STSF. I was in my teens on September 8, 1966. I vividly recall the premier of Star Trek and was glued to the tube for just about every episode until they moved the show from Thursday to Friday nights.

 

Well said! Better than what I was attempting to write this morning. If someone wants to take a crack at reviving the franchise, by all means.

[Atragon9 0]

Well said! Better than what I was attempting to write this morning. If someone wants to take a crack at reviving the franchise, by all means.

Agreed. The ship looks, mostly, like the original. As long as Kirk is believable as Kirk and not just a Hollister model and he doesn't pull out a light saber, I'm in!

 

(Oh and no futuristic dune buggies that still use tires, please, Patrick Stewart already drove that one around.)

[STSF_BluRox 0]

We, the fans.....especially those of us who have been faithful followers for 30 plus years.... have to face facts. The 60s are long gone. So are the 70s and 80s.

 

Oh sure....just burst my bubble......

[STSF_BluRox 0]

 

Note the big bright blue lit area.....so now we know which ship will be next year's Hallmark Ornament.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Note the big bright blue lit area.....so now we know which ship will be next year's Hallmark Ornament.

 

And we all know she's dead on correct with the Hallmark thing.

 

I would dare say I'm probably one of the "oldest" players in STSF. I was in my teens on September 8, 1966. I vividly recall the premier of Star Trek and was glued to the tube for just about every episode until they moved the show from Thursday to Friday nights.

 

So, it's fair to say I've been a "Trekkie" for the better part of my life and TOS is definitely MY Star Trek.

 

I've been a Trek fan since I was in my early teens; the original cast hooked me with ST 5 when it was out in theaters (yes yes, I know Trek 5 is on the low end of popular, but I still love the film. It was my Conversion Factor. w00t!).

 

I'd have to say (if Doctor Matthews allows a youngster into the category :-D) TOS is also "My" Trek, and I agree with the general "Go for it! Take a crack at the franchise!" sentiments expressed here in the thread and started by her and Shane.

[Ezri Max 0]

Gee ... makes me ask what will the NCC 1701 look like in 2309 when they think of Star Trek as history.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Gee ... makes me ask what will the NCC 1701 look like in 2309 when they think of Star Trek as history.

 

Oh, the Historical Documents will contain the historical specifications on the 1701, and the Enterprise will be commanded by Captain Peter Quincy Taggart. By Grapthars Hammer and The Sons of Warbann!

[Samantha_Kent 0]

The same general conversation has been happening on both Trek communities I belong to with every release of every single pixel's worth of information about the movie and I'm going to say now what I've been saying since word of the movie first came out:

 

Let's keep an open mind till we actually see the blasted thing.

 

I am and always have been a twitchy type regarding continuity and consistency and if I were ever to be so exceedingly lucky as to be able to demand that J.J. Abrams make a Star Trek movie entirely for my sake, I would demand as close a visual connection to established canon as I could. However, I understand that this movie is being made in a different era of filmmaking and as such requires a different aesthetic approach to draw more people in. Therefore I'm not going to complain about it.

 

What I am going to do is be very guarded in my approach to the actual movie. Changing the aesthetics is a very different thing from changing the basic content of the franchise -- the characters, the themes, the world. If Abrams manages to do justice to forty years of history in story, content, and theme, then I will definitely forgive a shift to make the Enterprise look a bit more like 21st-century-filmmaking. If, on the other hand, I feel that the movie itself handles like a shuttlecraft with three thrusters out, I will happily nitpick the aesthetics to death along with everything else, but not before.

 

My personal feeling is that whoever is running marketing for this movie is quite possibly very in-tune with the Trek fanbase. They know a lot of us were disillusioned by Enterprise and Nemesis and that some of us might even have been considering not bothering with this movie, at least until it came to DVD. And so they've leaked little bits of it and are now creating an uproar among us, controversy and argument and discussion which otherwise might have remained flat. I know that for me personally it's got me much more interested in seeing the movie just so I can hold my own in the debate I know will follow.

 

Just my two cents.

 

(Also, I think the nacelles look really bulky and off-balance on the front end. :P )

[Grom 0]

Caution: This movie may contain Trek-like substance.

[DrDMatthews 0]

Oh sure....just burst my bubble......

 

 

Sorry, I know it's painful. I just came to terms with this sad fact about a year ago. I still have relapses but I'm doing much better these days. :P

[STSF Precip 0]

I suppose if one can successfully reimagine the Galactica, from "the new" BSG....one can take that example and do the following with the NCC -1701 for the new Star Trek Movie. I suppose.

 

-Precip

"Can't wait till next Summer"

[Kairi 0]

I guess to make a similar comparison, look at the Transformers. When pictures began to float around of the new looks, hardcore fans about had a fit. But they eventually accepted it, and the new movie turned out to be a great success. I guess we can only hope for the same in this case.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Kairi

[Ezri Max 0]

I really do not have a problem with the new design or with whatever happens with the movie.

 

Sure, the movie will have a spin off with a TV show (hopes SCI-FI) and I am not sure having the new Kirk would be a good idea.

 

It would be sweet if the spin off would be the Enterprise - B.

[STSF Jumper 0]

I guess to make a similar comparison, look at the Transformers. When pictures began to float around of the new looks, hardcore fans about had a fit. But they eventually accepted it, and the new movie turned out to be a great success. I guess we can only hope for the same in this case.

 

I'm not a Trans fan, but I will say Starscream *did not* look like Starscream. I agree with and understand the statement/sentiment though - time moves on, and so do the designs, and eventually a fan base conforms. Then again .... the General Lee as a Porsche? Um, no.

 

With regard to the possible new TV spin off series: if there is a continuation of this re-Imagined Trek, and the Franchise Gods start going for the crews we've never seen before, I'd personally like to see the Enterprise C crew and Captain Rachel Garrett. Now she was a cool Captain.

 

Conversely, DS9, VOY, and ENT don't have a snowballs chance of leaping to a big screen film (sorry!), new cast or old, and the other re-Imagined option is the much favored New Frontier book series by literary god Peter David. TNG made it to the big screen because it has the distinction of being the first sequel series, and therefore the most popular.

 

If anything, if one of the screen Treks is the prime candidate for a re-Imagined overhaul to the big screen? That candidate Trek is TOS. If your going to go that rethink route, go for the one that started it all to really start fresh so to speak?

 

Question 1: Do we really want to see the original TOS cast - the surviving ones - reprise their roles?

 

I *am not* being cocky here, but the surviving cast are really up there in age. Example: the man seems to have boundless energy and is all over the place (more power to him), but I don't want to see William Shatner as Kirk in a new film. The 6 films they did throughout the late 70's through 1991 are awesome science fiction, but it's time to move on.

 

Question 2: Would we want to see a CGI animated TOS film with the surviving cast doing their character voices and other competant voice actors brought in to voice Bones and Scotty?

 

Absolutely! I would at least! Even if this were to happen, we'd still complain that the guy voicing Bones sounds way too nasally, or something.

 

Question 3: Is this re-Imagined cast and TOS film *really* all that bad?

 

Actually, guys, no it isn't. If any franchise can pull it off, it's Star Trek.

 

There have been worse. The Knight Rider reunion movie. ::shivers:: KITT as a '57 Chevy? ::brain melt:: 'Nuff said. Yeah, it's been many years and I'm still scarred. :-P

[FredM 0]

Hey there all,

 

Posting a followup article that includes quotes from Rick Sternbach and the new designer of the Enterprise we'll see in the film, Ryan Church:

 

From TrekMovie.com: Big Reaction to New Enterprise - New Designer Responds

The new USS Enterprise released yesterday has spawned dozens if not hundreds of articles across the globe in the mainstream press and the geekosphere. Reaction here at TrekMovie has been running at one comment every 49 seconds for 24 hours straight. In that deluge are a few notables, including former Star Trek designer Rick Sternbach and the designer of the new ship, Ryan Church.

 

Sternbach and Church on the new E

Rick Sternbach was a senior illustrator and designer for the Trek franchise going all the way back to star Trek The Motion Picture, working mostly on the TV series in the TNG era (Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager). He designed dozens of Trek ships and stations, including Deep Space Nine, the Klingon Vor’cha battle cruise, the USS Voyager, and the USS Enterprise C.

I get the distinct impression that to do the nacelles and secondary hull, someone stared at the USS Pasteur for a while. Just a thought. But even the Pasteur’s Bussard collectors had line of sight to open space, which the nacelles on this new ship don’t seem to have. Perhaps the designers didn’t know exactly how the different hardware bits worked (I violated this rule a little here and there, but I knew when I was doing it). Now I’m not being a whiner, just an informed critic. There’s room in this Trek world for healthy design criticism, as well as simply sitting back and enjoying a well made SF film. I -hope- the film is well written and clever and has good proportions of action, humor, tech, etc. but I’m also prepared to analyze the design work to see, perhaps, how far the shapes and colors and functions stray from 40 years of evolved gear.

 

This and the many other comments got the notice of the designer of the new Enterprise, Ryan Church, who has worked on the Star Wars prequels, the Transformers movies and the new James Cameron film Avatar. Church wrote in the TrekMovie comments:

I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.

 

Sternbach replied back, noting that he has since had a chance to see a new angle of the Enterprise (lucky Rick!)

I went back and checked the Bussard clearance, and yeah, it works. I’ve seen a port side ortho[graphic] elevation, and I don’t have a problem with the mechanics of it, it’s the proportions and flows of the basic parts that look odd to me. Granted, no ship ever looks perfect in every ortho view, nor in every perspective view. We who have done this stuff in our sleep know that most vehicle and prop designs have their “best” faces. I’m not going to bore people with excerpts from my classical art and architecture books, though I will probably thumb through them here just to see if I can glean anything relevant. Like I said, I’ll wait to see how the film looks as a whole effort.

 

Which all just goes to show you that even the pros can take different views and even modify their views, especially when given more information. So far we have only two views of the new Enterprise and we have yet to see it in motion, that is worth considering.

 

....

 

The new image released this week of the USS Enterprise is not a shot from the trailer. The Enterprise is seen clearly in the trailer being constructed and also going to warp. It may also be seen briefly in some of the quick cut battle scenes, but the specific shot released yesterday from Paramount is from a different point in the film.

[DrDMatthews 0]

We were deferential to “inviolates” ..........

 

Hmm....."inviolates"........ I really like that word. :(

 

I must tell you, as I read the article Fred so kindly posted (where does you guys get all this stuff?) I found myself giggling.

Honestly, one would think this was.....real. I mean, look at the reaction to one little picture. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were discussing a real space vehicle.

 

Oh...I'm sorry. I momentarily forgot. It IS real, isn't it. Sorry...didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm older now and you know what they say...the memory is the first thing to go. Believe me, it's true. :P

Edited November 13, 2008 by DrDMatthews