RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,888
Posts: 5,386,719
Members: 24,715
Currently online: 439
Newest member: Noga74

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 18 2008, 09:56 AM   #241
Aragorn
Admiral
 
Aragorn's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Dayton Ward said:
Aragorn said:
No, I mean the James Horner seafarer-type music from Star Trek II and III.
::: does Jedi Master finger wave :::

No, you mean Jerry Goldsmith.

::: does Jedi Master finger wave again :::


Yeah, keep that up and I'll start declaring Cliff Eidelman or Leonard Rosenman as the ultimate Trek composer.
Aragorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 11:26 AM   #242
Uptightgirl
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

ancient said:
I did some brightness/contrast manipulation and erased the big boom out of the background. Then I traced over it. The layers below are the result.

[image]http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9260/00newentqx1.png[/image]

Looks like those things under the bridge are staying.
Could you post more pictures in which the color and brightness/contrast and gamma have been adjusted?

This could reveal more detail.
Uptightgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 12:54 PM   #243
Stardate
Fleet Captain
 
Stardate's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Here are some comparison shots that i ,, borrowed,, from other ST site.
__________________
Star Trek change everything, and aren't this convention wonderful: William Shatner
Stardate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 01:00 PM   #244
TrekkieMonster
Commodore
 
TrekkieMonster's Avatar
 
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Re: Enterprise Pic

SeamusShameless said:
The synopsis of the teaser says that the ship is being constructed planetside.
Ah, gotcha. I've been purposely steering clear of info about the trailer until I can see it. Thanks for the additional info.

Manticore said:
TrekkieMonster said:
I know the conversation has gone well beyone this by now, but after getting home from work and looking at the pic on my own monitor I felt I needed to note that, now, I too can see a definite Gabe influence.

You're all definitely right about the "bulginess" of the forward end of the nacelles, just behind the bussards. Just about identical. Likewise the general shape of the saucer, itself, down to what someone up-thread described as a "step" below the traditional B/C deck teardrop construct.
Actually, the 'steps' are quite different. On Gabe's, it's a difference in the gradiant, but it still flows from the saucer. On the Abramprise, it's at a sharp angle and has a sharper chamfer. Also, it's inset so that it's lying on a flat surface.

The only real similarities that I see to Gabe's version is the nacelle's and the slightly more solid intercooler (though Gabe's doesn't flow into the hull nearly so much). Of course, this is based off of saying maybe 20% of the ship; who knows, the secondary hull might be completely different!
Sorry if I wasn't clearer in my earlier post. When I said "general shape of the saucer", I meant that to also apply to my comments about the "step". I'm not saying it's identical to Gabe's, but the fact that it exists at all is reminiscent of Gabe's design, as is the cowling behind the bussards. Again, it may not be identical, but the only place I, for one, have previously seen these particular design elements is on Gabe's model some months ago.
__________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind -- Theodore Geisel (a.k.a. "Dr. Seuss")
TrekkieMonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 02:05 PM   #245
mada101
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Scott Hayden said:
Here are some comparison shots that i ,, borrowed,, from other ST site.

This picture only further cements my beliefs into the 'Its A Reboot' camp. I just can't buy the new look fitting in before the TOS one. It looks more like a stage in between TOS and TMP.
mada101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 02:35 PM   #246
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

After seeing the nacelles on the new 1701, I'm starting to see why Gabe K's version made the SotL calender. What better way to gage fan reaction to the new design than to hide it (or elements anyway) in plain sight. Looks like Gabe's may have been a bit of a "pathfinder" to soften us up a little.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 02:45 PM   #247
Mutenroshi
Vice Admiral
 
Mutenroshi's Avatar
 
Location: Mutenroshi
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Mutenroshi
Re: Enterprise Pic

^Gabe's designs of the Big E were made waaay before JJ's coup to get the gig...
__________________
Let There Be Rock!

Jack Beauregard: "You shine like the door of a whorehouse!"
Nobody: "I like folks to see me."
Mutenroshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 02:46 PM   #248
FordSVT
Vice Admiral
 
FordSVT's Avatar
 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Re: Enterprise Pic

Dale Hoppert said:
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.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, that's all speculation. It may or may not have anything to do with a scene in the movie.

The early TF teaser with the Mars Rover had everyone scratching their heads, and everyone assumed it wouldn't have anything to do with the movie. But it did end up appearing in a limited fashion.

So you might see the E under construction, you might not. Might be in space, might be on the ground. We'll have to see. From the sounds of the trailer description I've read, the camera angles and focus of the trailer doesn't lend itself very well to the actual movie, but that doesn't mean we couldn't see similar construction shots in the movie. It's all anyone's guess.
__________________
-FordSVT-
FordSVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 03:13 PM   #249
FordSVT
Vice Admiral
 
FordSVT's Avatar
 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Re: Enterprise Pic

decompiler said:

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.
The Enterprise isn't that big, especially the original. Even downtown San Francisco covers many square miles, check out the fan-pic earlier in the thread of the Enterprise in a dry dock, it's accurate. In fact, the comparison in length between the star ship and a modern super carrier is a pretty good one, just under 1000 ft (280-290 m). CVN-65 is actually 1100 feet long. You could put 10 Constellation class ships into just Golden Gate Park quite easily, and almost fly one clear under G.G. Bridge at low tide.

Now the Galaxy class is a pretty big ship, you could basically fit the CVN-65 into one of it's engine nacelles. Twenty five times the volume of the original.
__________________
-FordSVT-
FordSVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 03:19 PM   #250
TeutonicNights
Commander
 
TeutonicNights's Avatar
 
Location: Non-isotropic cosmos
Re: Enterprise Pic

damn, those nacelles are HUGE.
TeutonicNights is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 03:39 PM   #251
FlyingTigress
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

Not to ruffle feathers, but is it possible that the apparent size of the nacelles in the 'classic E' shot is being influenced by the camera lenses that were used in the 1960's filming of physical models -- creating a distortion of the proportions of the nacelles...

and that the nacelles of the new "E" are the same diameter?
FlyingTigress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 03:45 PM   #252
I Grok Spock
Fleet Captain
 
I Grok Spock's Avatar
 
Location: Tooling around in my Jupiter 8...
Re: Enterprise Pic

Hmm...are they fattys or blunts?
__________________
"Die quick and rot." - Mirror Universe Spock
I Grok Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 05:32 PM   #253
Mutenroshi
Vice Admiral
 
Mutenroshi's Avatar
 
Location: Mutenroshi
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Mutenroshi
Re: Enterprise Pic

^nope, they're shrooms. Dilithium shrooms.
__________________
Let There Be Rock!

Jack Beauregard: "You shine like the door of a whorehouse!"
Nobody: "I like folks to see me."
Mutenroshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 05:42 PM   #254
Samurai8472
Vice Admiral
 
Samurai8472's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise Pic

I keep staring at it and thinking

"this is what "Enterprise" should have had"

I know the movie has a larger budget than "Enterprise" and it shows. The first shots of the NX-01 pale in comparison to what can be done on the big screen
__________________
"Inception" is a layer cake.
Samurai8472 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2008, 05:46 PM   #255
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Enterprise Pic

In the gamma-adjusted images, it's clear that these nacelles DO resemble Gabe's. They aren't Gabe's however. The "guts" on the inside of the bussards are totally different, and the topside "window" on his nacelles aren't present.

However, the "hoodie" on the top, over the bussards... that is virtually identical to his work. And since he is the FIRST person I ever saw who did that, I sure hope he gets at least a small credit for that.

Honestly, I'm not really taken by these nacelles. I was hoping that, in the dark view we were able to see on the screen, that we were seeing them partially completed. But that's not really true... they're MOSTLY completed, it seems.

Ah, well... the nacelles WERE designed to be virtually "hot-swappable" so as long as what we're seeing isn't intended to be the Enterprise as commanded by Kirk, I can deal with it. Hell, I have no major problem having this be the Enterprise as it was FIRST commanded by Pike. Or the Enterprise in an altered timeline... or whatever.

It's easy to explain away that part, so far. The short form is this... someone took Gabe's "nacelle hoodie" and is using it, but those aren't Gabe's nacelles as he showed us here.

That's also not Gabe's primary hull. Not even close. One thing that stood out about Gabe's primary hull, TOPSIDE at least, was that he was really pretty faithful to the original up there. What we see here is far LESS faithful than Gabe's work, up there, was. Granted, he did a lot of what I considered to be pointless "graphics art" stuff up there... color variations and so forth... but overall, it was VERY reminiscent of the original.

I'm not thrilled by the replacement of the nomenclature or the font (go ahead, rip into me over that one... but I'm just having a hard time seeing what's being gained by changing that stuff). Of course, as has been pointed out, it's not hard to strip off paint and put new paint on, so perhaps the "FJ Font" is supposed to represent what was originally done, the "Machine Extended" font used in TOS was put on later (maybe the 1701 wasn't refit to "Cage/WNMHGB" status at SFNY, but at some other starbase, and they used different stencils there?). It's not hard to explain, just hard to justify... ya know?

The A/B/C-deck superstructure is... troubling. Because if this is representative of what's going to be seen on-screen (and honestly, that's still not KNOWN, though it's definitely being implied here)... they've kept "general appearance" but abandoned FUNCTIONAL elements that we've all known for the past 40+ years. It's... troubling. Not because it will make for a bad movie, but rather... it begs the question of "why make this change?" I can't see how it would make for a better, or a worse, movie, in and of itself. Can any of you?

SO... if things are being changed "just because we can" without any real logic behind them, THAT would concern me. We can all live with changes... and we all know that SOME changes are inevitable. But if they don't add something to the mix... if they're just being done because someone wants to change stuff to "make it my own," that doesn't bode well.

I like how it looks, from a purely artistics standpoint. If this weren't clearly portrayed as the ENTERPRISE, I'd be perfectly happy with it. But I'm somewhat MORE concerned now than I was before, because it reflects changes that add nothing to the mix other than "well, we COULD, so we DID."
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.