This echoes my thoughts almost exactly. It doesn't look like a dinky Christmas tree ornament-sized model...it looks like it has mass *and* volume
If I don't see at least one appearance by my beloved Mugatu, I am writing effing Jesse Jackson and demanding that he lead a boycott on Paramount. No Mugatu, No Peace!
And I have a bad feeling about what the substance on the floor of the auditorium might actually be -- and it isn't soft drinks from the concession stand.
Hopefully, replacement registry numbers and ship's name isn't like the original AMT model decals -- cuz that one would be a bitch to set on a full-sized primary hull. Late breaking news: Someone has posted the teaser on YouTube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y39gHihP74 (humor alert)
Movie theater floors are specifically exempted from that rule. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and... well, more scum. We must be beyond cautious.
One thing I am surprised no one seems to have noticed... The lettering: "N.C.C.-1701"... Dot's between the c's!!! Were the ".'s" there in the original!? BLASPHEMEY!? No, BUT SERIOUSLY...if you look closely at the bridge area, we are *obviously* NOT seeing the saucer from head on, but from slightly to the side. At an angle.(You can see part of the turbolift housing behind the bridge area.) So that lettering in not where it would normally be, on the front of the saucer, facing "forward", but off to one side. And that would look really really weird on the finished ship. I think that is just because the lettering is there for the sake of giving the *teaser* audience something to help identify this more as the Enterprise. I'm sure in the actual movie shots, it will be in the right place, and who knows, maybe with a different font. Or not a different font, who knows. And as for ships being build in space, or on a planet and then lifted there...there's a pic floating around here lately...a grainy screencap from TNG, that shows the components of a Galaxy class being build on the surface of Mars. Also in TNG, in the Lea Brahms holograph episode, we saw teh 171-D only partially build in a spacedock like facility. In Voyager, I think we saw a flashback to Utopia Planitia's space-based yards, and ships in various forms of completion. But in Enterprise, we saw the Colombia apparently built in space. (NOTE: Or was that a cap from it being *RE-BUILT* in space after the Xindi attack? Anyone know...???) So there is evidence for BOTH forms of construction in Trek. It's may just depend on the ship. In ENT's time, maybe they had no big anti-gravy lifters, and it was easier to build a small, single body ship like that all in orbit. In TOS's time, they had lifters. And they had spacedocks. Plus the ships had more parts. So maybe they used "shirt sleeve environment" spacedocks AND surface yards to build ships. BOTH. (Maybe they were experimenting with space and planet based building systems, to see which had the greater advantages and disadvantages? Some things would be easier in zero G and safer, but some things harder, and more difficult.) maybe they did part the work on a planet, part in space? Obviously, a least for a multi-hull ship like the post ENT ships, they final assembly would take place in space. (Although the DS9 Defiant and Voyager could have been build entirely on a planet, easily.) Or maybe those Galaxy parts we saw on Mars in TNG were just test mock up's. Like how NASA fires rockets horizontally to test hem in the desert? Who knows, I'd rather see Her build in space, but who knows, again, we've seen evidence for both forms of ship construction.
I don't know, I think it's straight on. There's a similar dip on the other side, and there's a beam of light in there to make it look a little odd.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the periods in the registry number. I recall that the "USS" didn't have periods (she's a post-menopausal ship, perhaps, by the time of TOS ) but, I do see them in the "U.S.S." on this photo.
Methinks you've spent too much time staring at this pic today. That's not a dot after the second C, it's a dark bit of hull plating. And this is a dead-on view of the ship... the seam up the middle of the saucer is centered. As for the "Where was she built?" controversy... this is not a scene from the movie, It's non-canonical. It's all there just to have the play on words "Under Construction" and it's set on earth so we won't see any spacesuits which would be a dead giveaway that it was a spaceship they're constructing. It's an elaborate visual joke. This teaser is meant for an uninitiated audience who won't even consider such issues as "Why are they building her on the ground?" This is a good tell for the general look of the redesigned ship, but the "plot" of this teaser reveals nothing about the movie.
I always kind of thought that if the Enterprise 9was built in San Francisco, that it was built in the sky on some kind of floating dry dock. I can see the ship being kept aloft on repulsor gantrys. Let's say there are 3 ships are being built at any one time in San Francisco. If the ships were built on ground, wouldn't 3 ships cover an area the size of San Francisco itself? That's why I see floating ship yards. Something just short of orbital dry docks.
^^ I gave up, over there. I was half-expecting a post that someone's head had exploded in rage over the "canon-violation" of (the potential of) a ground-based shipyard.
I think it looks neat. Judging from the trailer, one could make the claim that the 1701 had two major refits (from its as built appearence in the movie into the Cage variant, and from TOS to the TMP variant) and two minor refits (from the Cage version to the WNMHB version and from the WNMHGB version to the series version). It will be interesting to see the full version in the movie to make a more thorough assesment of the Enterprise's history.
I doubt they'll bother with that minutiae. I think this film will hew to the basic outlines of Trek and even some of its more notable lore but I doubt it will try very hard to conform to what we've been watching for the last 40 years. And that's... okay. The way I see it, regardless of what Abrams says, this new Trek is no more related to TOS than the Batman of DC Comics is related to Tim Burton's or Chris Nolan's or Paul Dini's. Looked at that way, I'm happy they restrained themselves as much as they did. In short: Aye, she's a bonny lass but she is [/i]not[/i] the Enterprise as commanded by Kirk as played by a young William Shatner any more than the Tumbler is the Batmobile driven by Adam West.
As I've been insisting since the description of the teaser came out, it doesn't mean that the Enterprise was built on the ground. It's an artistic re-introduction for Joe Six-Pack to the Star Trek universe; something that gradually transitions from the familiar (construction, welding, that sort of thing), adding some equally familiar space exploration ambiance (voices of NASA, JFK, Neal Armstrong) as it transitions into something the general public might not be all that familiar with (Spock's voice, the Enterprise). It has no bearing on the final product as everyone and their cousin involved with the film insist that the teaser was specially-made and doesn't use anything JJ Abrams and company have shot for the movie. These people flipping out over the Enterprise allegedly not being built in space need to seriously chill out before they give themselves an aneurysm.
A metaphor is how I choose to interpret it, albeit it a very literal metaphor. Anyway, building her on earth--while silly, imao--is not technically a canon violation since it was never said on screen where she was built. It is a lore violation since GR said over and over and over again that she was built (read: her major components assembled) in space.