The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

^ I know we're all just engaged in fun speculation, but I really have to think most everything in that teaser is a one-off for the "under construction" metaphor.

I would say we don't see a massive support framework simply because it would obfuscate what little they're already trying to show us.

 

You left out the part of my quote about bracing and scaffolding...

I don't believe the futuristic material would matter much. Any half-built structure that's shaped like a very narrow letter T would be inherently unstable without extensive bracing, which doesn't seem to appear in the preview. I admit that building the ship on the ground is possible, but I believe the cost and hassle of doing it that way (compared to assembling the prefab units in orbit) would be prohibitive.

OOPS... My bad...

I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.

You may be correct about the lettering being integrated into the hull plating. I was probably thinking about Scotty's Guide To The Enterprise, where they talk about the paint job actually being a paint job.

 

At the time of those images... no. Those numbers are painted over the flight deck surfacing and are periodically repainted along with the rest of the flight deck markings because they become unreadable after as little as a single deployment.

A better question is if the name had been applied to the stern of the ship at that time... and as I recall, yes. The name is actually raised lettering on the stern, so that would have been applied during the construction of that section before assembly.

Anyone curious about how carriers are put together can take a look at this link which has a lot of images of the USS George H W Bush under construction.

 

therealfoxbat said:

I think you're thinking of a different shot.

This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).


I believe that's the back of the secondary hull, not the nacelle... as I was originally thinking. As such, the size is MUCH closer to what it ought to be.

 

You're right. I'm thinking of the shot that TheSeeker posted in Page 2 of this thread on January 18.

 

I think it might be an engine. Given the front view we've seen of them, this seems like it matches up.



I really hope I'm wrong though. I absolutely love Gabe's Enterprise, it's a really awesome and imaginative model. But I don't want to see it in this movie(or anything heavily inspired by/influenced by/coincidentally a lot like it). Give me the original, dammit! (Or Vektor's design without the slanted pylons.)

 

I think that's the aft end of the warp nacelle, looking forward.

 

It’s not inconsistent with the overall larger size of the ship shown in the teaser for that to be one of the nacelles, especially when they are so exaggerated relative to the rest of the ship.

I’m not prepared to rule out the secondary hull but I really think we’re looking at a nacelle. For one thing, if those “wings” are mounting points for the nacelle struts, they would be at a very low angle. We can see what appears to be the port strut in the front view and it is actually at a higher angle than the original version. The edges of the wings where they would join to the struts also appear to be more rounded off than I would expect for a joint between two major components.

The hull beyond the wings also does not look consistent with what the back end of the secondary hull ought to look like. It does look consistent with those huge “Koerner-esque” bulges at the fronts of the nacelles. I think it’s also possible that we’re looking toward the back of a nacelle and what we’re actually seeing is an aft cowling of some sort.

It’s very tempting to look at those wings and think of nacelle strut mounting points, but I’m just not buying it from the other evidence we can see in these images.

 

Well, like I said, I ASSUMED, initially, that this was a big freakin' nacelle, too... but upon further review I've come to the conclusion that I, personally, think I'm seeing the secondary hull instead.

I ASSUMED that those were really bad intercoolers... and that I was seeing the "hoodie"... just like everyone else is. I'm just not as convinced now as I was at first review, that's all.

We'll know, soon enough, anyway, won't we?

 

And here's a blurry image of my Enterprise.


My apologies for the white background... It won't happen again. The lower fuzzy image is of the aft end looking forward with the nacelle struts cropped.

 

I wonder... anyone have a CGI Enterprise with a little "tall guy" who can be posed on the hull at about that position?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

Also... consider that this might be looking in the other direction... and we may be seeing the "dome" on top of the hangar aft, and the shuttlebay with the top not yet closed in. In other words, assume that the camera man is on the dorsal rear, facing aft...

Possible?

 

^ I was thinking the same thing! A tall guy shot in that location would be great

 

Tallguy had one but I haven't seen him post in a while.

Personally I'm in the secondary hull camp. I'll be pretty disappointed if those featureless lumps of metal are sticking out of the nacelles for no reason. Given the subtle details they added to the bridge it wouldn't be consistent to pass up on a perfect place to add detail. If those are the intercoolers they'd just be taking detail away...

 

To help evaluate this a bit more easily, I've clipped out part of the shot (the whole thing is too wide for my monitor at "real resolution" of course at 1080p!)

But this shows what I believe to be the starboard-side engine pylon support base... something that looks kind of like if you took a TMP-style nacelle pylon attachment and used it with a more TOS-ish pylon.

Also, it's VERY clear here that the "step" you see represents a region where the hull is incomplete. I really think that if you looked down through there you'd see the insides of the hangar deck...

Click the thumb to see the high-res version:

 

Sorry, Cary, but I strongly think you are wrong on this one.

This is the back of the starboard nacelle (we can briefly see what appears to be the bridge-dome on the left of the screen).

And, since we see a much larger portion of the port pylon elsewhere in the teaser but not in this shot, it follows that this cannot be the top of the sec-hull...

 

Can you point out where you believe you see the bridge dome? I "scrubbed" through the videos repeatedly and can't find it.

Also, I think you're assuming that the pylons would be built in-place... yet I'm unconvinced that the various components are actually attached in any of the shots we see here. That's also supported... albeit vaguely... in comments by Orci made online, who overtly stated that it's possible for the ship components to be built on earth and assembled elsewhere (as was stated in the original 1960s production documentation). I'm sure that there were "liberties" taken in this trailer to drive home to the audience that they were seeing the "Enterprise" (such as hanging the nacelles in ROUGHLY the correct positions... and in the positions that they "looked right" by someone's judgement... but I'm very skeptical that the ship is actually ASSEMBLED in the situation we're looking at here.

If, as I've always believed, the ship components were built at the San Francisco Naval Yards (a real place), then lifted into orbit for assembly and integration (as stated in The Making of Star Trek as having been the original production-team intent), then the argument being made isn't as well-supported.

Again, I originally assumed that this was a nacelle, but I've become UNCONVINCED of that over time.

We'll see, eventually... doesn't matter what any of us THINK we're seeing, does it?

 

In this shot, on the very edge of the left side of the image... this could be the bridge dome... I could be wrong though...

BTW: We see the port pylon in two shots: the one with the welder and at the end of the teaser when the camera moves from under the saucer up to reveal the name...

 

I've got to check this out on my HD TV. It'll be huge!

I think it's great that we have this teaser to play with, but why the hell can't these people turn on the work lights!? It's so bloody dark here- the workers should go back to 2007 and steal those super white blinding road construction crew light stands!

 

I don't see it. I see a single vertical column near the top left of the screen, but no hint of the "bridge dome." But as you say, I could be wrong, too...

I agree that this first shot is most likely an engine pylon, though it COULD also be the dorsal.

However, on the Enterprise models I have, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if you were viewing the ATTACHED engine pylon from that angle, you'd be able to see the dorsal quite clearly. Yet it's not present... which tells me that it's PROBABLY not there (I s'pose it might be cloaked... )

In the final "reveal" scene, there's only one place where it MIGHT be possible to see a pylon in-place. That's here. But it's far from conclusive... it really looks like it's just part of the scaffolding, though I see the tiny hint of an angled bit on the port side which COULD be a pylon. There's no hint of the dorsal here, or the secondary hull, either...


Finally, you can clearly see the shape of the "intercoolers" here and it just doesn't SEEM to be the same here as in that other shot.


(click the thumbnails to see them full-sized)

 

Well,...

With the right camera settings (zoom, position) you can film that pylon, move and pan the camera without ever getting the dorsal hull in the frame. It is possible.

I'm pretty convinced that it is the port pylon...
Yes, we cannot see the sec-hull, but that is due to the camera angle and position and all that scaffolding blocking the view... (and, maybe, it wasn't modelled yet when the teaser was rendered )

Oh, I think they are the same shape...