The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

I'm not convinced the nacelles are that big, frankly - it looks to me that the focal length of the 'camera' is compressing the perspective of the shot, because the bridge area also looks pretty large in comparison to the leading edge of the saucer.

I'm also not convinced this isn't in space, despite what the synopsis of the trailer may say about it being built 'on' Earth. I don't see any workmen, suited or otherwise, to suggest the environment, but what some interpret as steam 'rising' from the hull could just as easily be gas and smoke spreading outward from a work site into space. The lighting makes it appear, to me, more likely that this is a space shot.

The main thing I don't care for is the high contrast of the aztecing; regardless of whether or not, in the future, we might have advanced construction techniques that would make it possible to build such a structure as a unit, I just find it hard to believe that the hull, presumably made of similar adjacent materials, would have such vast variations of coloring from panel to panel. Maybe some specular variations, sure, but not the actual color. Quality control in the future must get pretty bad! (of course, when you have no currency, what's the incentive to do a good job? )

 

The other thing to consider is this movie is still nearly a year away from release. Special effects are usually done as part of post-production. I'm amazed they're rendering passes on her while principal photography is still taking place. I wonder if this is intended to gauge audience reactions so they can make last minute changes before they have to commit CPU cycles.

I agree with TheSeeker that the strongest whiff of Gabe comes from the engines. The primary hull is different, however, as SonicRanger's links illustrate. Gabe's notion of the engines having big, whirling machinery within seems to be reflected in this design.

I don't mind an update on the ship very much. But I'm hoping the more radical aspects of Gabe's vision ... such as the secondary hull, the navigational deflector, the way the pylons connect, and the dorsal interconnect are toned way down. If, indeed, this is his ship.

And I really, really hope this ship wasn't built on Earth. That just doesn't make much engineering sense to me. A design like the Enterprise begs to be birthed in orbit.

 

Look at the spotlights on the scaffolding at the bow of the ship. They've got a fair amount of atmospheric haze surrounding them. This could be a pressurized spacedock, though, with a very humid atmosphere creating conditions not unlike those found in San Francisco at 4:00am in the morning. On the other hand, a lot of spacedock publicity photos from Trek III added haze to the lights that wasn't actually in the movie, so maybe the atmospherics here aren't final, either.

I also note that there are sections of the hull with very little color variation, so I think the aztec variations are specular. There's so much room for disagreement, though! I can't wait for this film! Hell, I can't wait to go see Cloverfield tonight just so I can have a Trekgasm!

Oh look! Time to take my meds ...

 

LOL!

Not to get too techie, since this is the art forum, but a ship as massive as something like Enterprise is going to have microgravity, maybe even enough to keep a thin atmosphere around it - temporarily, of course - of the gases from any work being done. Kind of the way those Cheerios follow your spoon in a bowl of milk! And one thing I thought would be possible in my Endeavour fanfic was that the ship's gravity wouldn't necessarily stop at the hull, but might continue outward somewhat, tapering off but still creating gravity at the surface of the hull (at least on top, right? ). So maybe one of the last things to fail on a starship - the gravity - is also one of the first to go in; it sure would make working inside the ship a lot easier in many cases; maybe not when there is a lot of major structural work to be done, but at least once it's reached the stage we see in this pic (I guess they prepainted the name on the individual panels before putting them on, since there's a hole right in the end of Enterprise).

 

What i find hillaroius is the fact, that they used the font, that FJ used for the registries in his Tech Manual .

 

I'm super-stoked about that, since that's the font I've used on all my SFB Federation ships.

 

Well, after having a chance to see the trailer now, all I can say is we really need a good quality high res version. There are other shots that give quick glimpses of other parts of the ship. I swear there was a brief glimpse of the top of the secondary hull, between the nycell struts. I also think there was a shot from the end of one of the warp engines looking back at the primary hull/neck/secondary hull. It also looked to me that the were building the whole damn ship, not just parts of it. We need screen caps from a high res version damn-it!!!

I think I moistened myself.....

Q2UnME

 

Aside from the atmospheric effects, I think the biggest thing that makes me think this is "on" Earth is the cables hanging from the cranes and scaffolding. They suggest that this is in a gravity environment.

Of course, I also agree with TheSeeker that it looks like a guy in a spacesuit on the leading edge of the saucer.

 

I was thinking that that splash of yellow-orange sparks in the middle of the picture was coming from a worker welding something on the hull.

 

Again John Eaves worked on this new Enterprise, and he worked on Enterprise. Do you think that he took elements from the NX-01 and used it on this "TOS" Enterprise? Maybe thats why it has the TMP look to it.

 

I've done a wallpaper if anyone wants it:
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8d672baef8.jpg

 

Hate it. Probably won't even go to see Cloverfield, so I don't have to see that abomination of a trailer again.

 

Did Eaves work on the Enterprise? I know that he's one of the artists working on the movie.

Loved the trailer. Also loved "Cloverfield."

We do get a pretty clear look at the lower surface of the saucer as well. It looks as much like the TMP saucer as does the top surface (has the lighting coves around the lower sensor dome, for example). Those big honkin' engines are the greatest departure so far from the familiar design.

Generally speaking, Kirk's new Enterprise looks pretty good so far. :thumbsup:

 

Not "Trek enough" for you, no starfield or anything. Good that's the point.

Sharr

 

If the subject image of this thread is actually derived from the upcoming movie, and not a fake, I would say that's a major strike against the movie. I doubt I would waste ten bucks on a movie ticket and popcorn.

1: The registry lettering on the hull does not match the block-lettering style used in TOS. (For sake of argument, I am including "The Menagerie"/"The Cage" as part of TOS here.)

2: Ptrope is dead-on-target about the aztecing of the saucer hull. This also does not match what we saw in TOS. I would hedge this remark by saying I don't have a problem with retconning some hull surface detail that wasn't canon in TOS, providing it doesn't look blatant.

3: The image, if genuine, seems to suggest that the Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701, is in its original construction phase here. I understand that this movie is supposed to include a young James T. Kirk and Spock. I already have a problem with Kirk and Spock just happening to meet for the first time in a TREK movie that far predates TOS; the content of TOS always seemed to indicate they had known each other for a while, but not for most if not all of Kirk's Starfleet career. I really have a HUGE problem with Kirk and Spock's first acquaintance and also have the construction of the Enterprise going on as well. That makes the TREK Universe go from small to cramped! Disagree with me if you like, it's a free country and and even freer web; but I understood the NCC-1701 starship to be built years before Kirk even entered Starfleet Academy. Kirk was a lieutenant on the Farragut 11 years before Year 2 of TOS (presumably 2267) so that would place his service aboard the ill-fated Farragut in 2256, within a couple years of Pike's adventure on Talos IV. I had understood that NCC-1701 was built in 2245, or perhaps before. If this is the case, then Kirk could not have been a Kennedyesque thirtysomething, maybe 40, during TOS. Just doesn't fit.

4: I have a hard time accepting that the bridge module would be open like that. I understood, for a long time now, that the bridge module is almost like a separate vessel, that you build it by itself and fit it onto the completed, or nearly completed, starship. I understood the difference in the shape of the bridge module between the times of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and Year 1 of TOS could be explained by an obvious refit of the Enterprise, including the fitting of a new bridge atop the saucer.

5: The shape of the saucer overall, from what we see of it, does not look like TOS.


Some folks may not care about continuity, but for me I don't see the point of so blatantly ignoring continuity after the folks who remastered TOS thus far have done an arguably decent job of preserving it. Why bother remastering TOS if you don't respect its content?

There is one small trap-door that Paramount's people could try to escape through: they could say that the Enterprise we're seeing here isn't being constructed, but refit after already being in service for years. The doesn't explain the open bridge or the lettering on the hull, but it would make sense from an historical perspective if the NCC-1701 had been built before 2245, making the ship significantly older. I have no problem with Kirk's Enterprise having already been in service for several decades.

 

^ "Open bridge"? It's *under construction*. As in not completed. As in the outer skin hasn't been put on yet.

 

sigh. fandom does as much to ruin star trek as it does to help it.

 

They're not trying to escape; they're not confined.

 

Is this new movie a Ronald D. Moore-style re-imagining of STAR TREK, setting aside canon and just coming up with a whole new universe, or is this supposed to be part of canon, such as it has been for 40 years?