Enterprise Pic

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by bdb, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    The only thing the past shows us about the future is how dramatically different it will be. We do have nearly fully automatic kitchens. Robots that scrub the floors, microwaves that can prepare pre-packed meals in seconds, ovens that can refrigerate food, then use pre-programmed instructions to have your meal cooked and ready to eat when you get home, and refrigerators that have a link to a world wide web of information, including the means of having your groceries delivered to you based on electronic tagging that tells your refrigerator when you've used up your milk!.

    The future? That will be unrecognizable. Arthur Clarke told me so. ;)
     
  2. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    Funny no one's home I've been in can in any truthful sense of the word be defined as automatic there is still a huge human element involved in all of those things you mention. The microwave hasn't been "futuristic" for decades and even premade food is a product of the past not some ultra new innovation.

    No one I know owns a cleaning robot, see them advertised on tv all the time - not sure how well they work and their function seems highly limited at best.

    Our present really isn't so alien from our past. But how one defines that I guess is what lens we're looking through. Humans still behave well human... and getting from here to there involves expending some energy, cars still use combustion engines and go ahead on blacktop.

    Sharr
     
  3. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    This is really turning into a Promethean vs Luddite argument, and I don't think anything you or me or anybody else says is going to sway him (don't let that stop you from continuing, though, I love the way you write as much as I like the content.)
     
  4. Holytomato

    Holytomato Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    "Well, most of your ordinary engines only go up to [Warp] 10. But ours go up to "11""

    This was stolen from Spinal Tap!

    No! Doctor Who! It's not O R I G I N A L :mad: :scream: :censored: :brickwall:

    :guffaw:

    The 1964 Cage pre production Enterprise was the TMP Refit with the nacelles, and pylons that were given to the Enterprise -E.

    Star Trek XI: The way it was always meant to be.
     
  5. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    That has got to be one of the funnier and goofier things I've read on this forum filled with some pretty damned funny and goofy things. :guffaw:
     
  6. scotthm

    scotthm Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    I suppose directors and production designers who are being paid to design movies feel they need to leave their mark.

    ---------------
     
  7. BolianAuthor

    BolianAuthor Writer, Battlestar Urantia Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Torrance, California
    Okay, the BolianAdmiral was bound to post in this thread, but bear with me... what I am going to say is N O T a put-down of the trailer... it is an explanation of my feelings towards it, and why I feel that way.

    Firstly, regarding the welding... welding DOES exist... even up to the time of ships such as the 1701-D and the Voyager... the ST:TNG Technical Manual refers to an updated form of welding, called "gamma-welding"... so there CAN be welders in a Trek construction yard.

    Now for my general thoughts on this whole thing...

    The ship being built on ground... 75% of me hates it... 25% of me loves it... allow me to explain...

    Why I hate it... I hate it from a logistical standpoint. There is NO reason for the 1701 to be built on land, when ships even OLDER that it were built in orbit... the NX-01, and that "Venture Star"-looking ship in the opening credits of ENT. Why would a ship MORE advanced, need to be built on a surface? Even IF it were feasable to build a ship as massive as a Constitution-Class on land... with Trek's technology... why would you? All you would be doing, is assembling major components, only to have to devote (waste) even MORE time, manpower, and energy (and cost), to then transport all those massive components into space... expenditures that would have been totally avoided, by building the whole shebang in orbit from the get-go. That's what bothered me most about this whole trailer... the shot of the saucer under construction, on its platform, as part of one of the pylons is also visible... that shot reminded me of the Jupiter II, from "Lost In Space"... and the LIS universe has less advanced tech than TOS Star Trek. The last thing I don't like about the scene, is the look... I LIKE the fact that they are making it so realistic... THAT element I do like... very much... but it is clear they are going for a darker feel, more in line with the new BSG kind of look. If Trek has shown us anything, it's that TOS was light, colorful, and "happy", for lack of a better term. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty all joked around with each other, and were genuine friends... I hope they keep that element, and don't make this a dark and moody film... that is not at all what TOS was.

    I absolutely hate the corridors... just hate them. That's all I'll say on that.

    The design of the ship itself... all I'll say is I saw this coming from the very first moment I laid eyes on Gabe's Enterprise... so I was in no way surprised. Again, this is all I'll say on that.

    Okay... now what I DO like about the ship being built on Earth...

    One phrase... the imagination of a child. I'll explain. As Trekkers, we have all at one point wondered with the innocence of a child, just what it would be like, if the Earth governments of today were to band together, and jointly build a starship Enterprise, with what we have. I am convinced this trailer is what such an endeavor would look like... so on that merit... I REALLY like it a whole lot.

    Just my two cents.
     
  8. Vektor

    Vektor Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Location:
    Spokane, WA, USA
    I really don’t understand why some people have such a hard time with the concept of building a starship on the ground. Sure, I’ll grant that it is counterintuitive and downright implausible when viewed from our own 21st century frame of reference where gravity is the main impediment to our conquest of space, but we already know that gravity is basically a non-issue in Trek from at least the 23rd century on. Trek starships routinely zip around solar systems with little or no regard to gravitational influences or acceleration stresses that would make lifting off from the Earth’s surface no more consequential than a minor course adjustment. Just because Starfleet doesn’t include surface landings and takeoffs in their mission profiles doesn’t mean they are too fragile to support themselves or don’t have enough power to go pretty much anywhere they damn well please short of close approaches to neutron stars and black holes.

    As has already been mentioned by me as well as others, in just one episode of TOS, Tomorrow is Yesterday, it was clearly established that the Enterprise is quite capable of descending to within a few miles of the Earth’s surface, hovering at speeds slow enough for a 1960s jet aircraft to catch up with it, and then climbing back out again with no more ill effects than a slightly sluggish helm.

    As to why older ships like the NX-01 would have been built in orbit, well, that actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. The technology for getting big ships off the surface and into space didn’t always exist any more than it does today, it had to be developed along with everything else. For all we know, the NX-01 and its sister ships may have been the last to be built in orbit, largely because the infrastructure was already in place. But then somebody figured out that you could build an entire starship, or at least the parts and pieces of one, in a shirtsleeve, normal gravity environment without having to worry about pressurization, solar and cosmic radiation, micro meteors and all the other hazards that go along with human beings trying to build something in space. You don’t need travel pods or transporters just to get your workers to the job site. You don’t need work pods or thruster packs to maneuver components and hold things in place, just good old fashioned cranes, conveyor belts and scaffolding. And when you’re done, you just power up the engines and fly it into space, or you neutralize its mass and pull it up with tractor beams, or you attach anti-grav tugs to it and do the same thing, or any of a dozen other equally plausible methods given the technology at your disposal.

    Once you take the logistics of getting into orbit out of the equation, the question is not what reason is there to build the ship on land, the question is what reason is there to build it in space? Probably there would still be a few good reasons, but would they outweigh the advantages of an Earth-normal construction environment? Arguably not.

    I wouldn’t read too much into the atmosphere of the teaser. It was only “darker” inasmuch as it was shown to us at night. The darkness makes the ship’s details harder to discern and adds a sense of mystery and portent, the expectant twilight before the dawn as it were. It also makes all the work lights and welding sparks much more visually dramatic than they would be in the daytime. It makes no sense to conclude from this that they are gearing the whole film toward a BSG aesthetic.

    I’m reserving judgment until we have something better to go by than a grainy, “Webcam” image of a corridor that may still be under construction or the equivalent of a Jeffries tube. It’s not what I would expect for a main crew corridor either but there are many circumstances under which I could happily accept it.

    That’s an interesting way of looking at it and I agree wholeheartedly.
     
  9. Holytomato

    Holytomato Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    "The ship being built on ground... 75% of me hates it."

    The Galaxy Class's parts were shown being built on the ground.

    Remember, "San Fransisco Navy Yards" on the Enterprise's plaque?

    Navy construction is done at night.

    :thumbsup:
     
  10. BolianAuthor

    BolianAuthor Writer, Battlestar Urantia Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Torrance, California
    That's just the point... there ARE NO logistics to building this thing on the ground... not when a ship OLDER than the Connie has been shown to be built into orbit... plus, you're just not seeing my point on this... it makes NO sense, from a practicality standpoint... WHY should they go to all the trouble to build the components on the surface, somehow transport them up into space, and then do all the extra work to RE-assemble them, when the technology already exsists to just build the whole thing in space to begin with? Why waste all that extra time, energy, and maybe even cost? It is just not practical, in terms of manufacturing, technology, or economics.

    Are you telling me that if you are the boss of the company that had a contract to build something like that, that YOU would want to spend the extra money and resources, manpower and energy to do all that extra crap? If so, you're company won't be making much money, with that philosophy. If you can do it cheaper and faster, with the same output quality, you will.

    In regards to the sections of Galaxy-Class hull being built on the surface of Mars... yes, that is true... however... I did not say I agreed with that or liked it, did i? :D
     
  11. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    But it never actually was being shown built in space - The only thing we know for sure they were putting the paint on the NX-01 in a drydock. We have no certain idea if its parts and pieces weren't built first on Earth.

    But we do know that Galaxy-Class ships (a great deal larger then the NX-01 at that) get constructed first on Mar's surface...

    There's no problem here.

    Sharr
     
  12. Arlo

    Arlo Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    I love how people are jumping to absolutist conclusions of how things will appear in a movie that is a year away based on some grainy little videos and quick flashes of obscured details in the teaser.

    Amazing.
     
  13. BolianAuthor

    BolianAuthor Writer, Battlestar Urantia Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Torrance, California
    ^

    Don't you dare look at me with that assumption... I merely posted my feelings and explained them, and when someone challenged my remark, I just came back and defended my position.
     
  14. rideop1

    rideop1 Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    If this is the way it will look, that isn't bad. However I stand by this opinion. I would hope that Abrams won’t make the same mistakes that Berman made. The reason Star Trek has lasted so long is the loyalty of it’s fans and staying true (for the most part) to Gene Roddenberry’s concept. Changing the ENTERPRISE for TMP was a an upgrade not a re-imagining, We are talking about the Grand Old Lady Now, Don’t F&*K with the Original Enterprise. Doing so is like Ignoring the Prime Directive. I understand today’s audiences want more realism, and such. well show the Old Girl the way Roddenberry wanted. Show her the way she looks in the Smithsonian. The lighting in the 60’s washed out all her texturing etc. With CGI, they can make her look the way she was supposed to. Accent details, don’t Change her design. People always say that Ron Moore's New design of the Galactica was well received. Not by the fans I have spoken to. Moore's interpretation of the show was good, but Frankly the Galactica and the Pegasus new look SUCKED! But this is Star Trek, A higher standard is expected, and owed to the Loyal fans. VEKTOR's Conceptual photos were very good, However Gabe Koerner went to far, he seems to have just added bulk wherever it would fit. As for Interior Sets………the changing of sets on TOS were over time, gradual and subtle as well as the Motion Picture Sets. if this is supposed to be Kirk’s 1st or earlier missions fine, subtle accentuation on set design will work, but you can’t make supposed older designs to be changed so drastically. Alot of you say, who cares about Canon, or Canon has nothing to do with the Ship itself and set design. You're all either just plain Nuts, or not the devoted fans you think you are. There is such a thing as consistency. Are you non-purists and the movie makers willing to piss off and alienate the loyal fans of decades just to bring in some new viewers? Star Trek is Star Trek, I sincerely doubt that many non-fans will flood into theaters to see it. Unfortunately Non-Fans have a preconceived notion that it is silly and campy. some may come out of curiosity, but that is all. And furthermore, if they are new viewers to the franchise, they won’t know that things weren't changed anyway. The set design could use some subtle embellishment for realism and detail. Roddenberry's original wish that the still photos on the bridge above duty stations be smaller working view screens as seen on "Enterprise", would be a good start. I'm talking about SUBTLE accentuation to the original design. Modern audiences have already seen how the Original Enterprise bridge should appear, from "RELICS"-TNG, "TRIALS & TRIBBLATIONS"-DS9, and "IN A MIRROR DARKLY"-Enterprise. So stick with what works and has worked for 40 years. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! Berman totally screwed up the franchise. Examples - RESURRECTION/NEMESIS, and he needed to go, he ruined ENTERPRISE, with all that Xindi bullshit, when he should have filled all the gaps and answered the questions brought up in the original series, as was attempted in the 4th season, but it was too late to save the show from cancellation. Good Riddens Rick Berman. Let’s hope Abrams doesn’t make the same Mistakes.
    I think a fantastic openning scene would be Jonathon Archer witnessing the Launch of 1701. They could even show her in "THE CAGE" version, with the Larger Deflector Dish, and Taller Bridge Dome, and nacelle spikes. Then when Kirk & Spock appear show her as she is in the Smithsonian, accentuating her Texture, and Detail. Archer’s Bio says he lived to see the construction and launch of the ENTERPRISE-1701, and died of natural causes shortly after. I think that would make a great scene. then fade out and bring it up to the time of Kirk. similar things have been done before, and worked well. EXAMPLE - Dr. McCoy walking with DATA after touring the Enterprise D in the TNG Pilot.
    In Closing, Star Trek Canon exists for a reason. DON’T F&*K WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! The Loyal Fans of TOS should be the 1st demographic Abrams should wish to please. 40 years folks, It has worked for 40 years, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.
     
  15. Arlo

    Arlo Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    I was referring to many comments here, yours just set it off. There are people who are *freaking out* about welders, and building on earth, and the height of decks, you name it. I mean, It's fun to Zapruder all this stuff, I do it to, but people are treating this slightest bits of teaser material as if its the final locked print shipping to theaters.
     
  16. scotthm

    scotthm Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    Wouldn't it really depend on where the bulk of the raw materials came from? If from Earth, then easier to build components on Earth. If from space, then easier to build the whole thing in space.

    Enterprise was apparently largely built from Earthbound materials.

    ---------------
     
  17. Thomas Riker

    Thomas Riker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ahem, TOS: "The Naked Time", TNG: "Relics", TNG: "Time Squared", TNG: "Cause and Effect", VOY: "Scientific Method", VOY: "Real Life", VOY: "The Void", ENT: "Anomaly", Star Trek Generations, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ....

    are all examples of when Federation and even non-federation starships have encountered gravitational influences and had major problems as a result. Its safe to say that even in the 23rd, 24th Century they still haven't mastered it.
     
  18. JBElliott

    JBElliott Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Glad you like it. In this case, we do know the look of the future, at least the future in the Star Trek Universe. I'm not going to argue on the basis of "make things look like the did on TOS" rather I'm going to argue based on a few of the "fixed points" of the future that Kirk and Spock inhabit.

    In that future there is faster than light travel based on "warp drive", energy from matter-antimatter reactions, matter to energy to matter conversions so perfect that people use it as a mode of transportation. Now then, given those technologies, welding just wouldn't be done since any item could be beamed into existence whole.

    Of course, there could be some "made up" reason why welding would be used in construction and panelling would be necessary, but those types of reasons are not more valid that the idea of construction via the transporter and are less valid since the above "fixed points" in future technology are a given in Star Trek.

    If SciFi is only about extrapolating and taking its cues from the NOW, the read stuff by Aurther C. Clarke. I do and I think is work is great. But if you want Star Trek, then you have to swallow all the technological "fixed points" listed above and their logical consequences.

    What really can we look at in today's technology that can be extrapolated to a faster than light warp drive starship? Nothing. Not the Apollo space crafts, not the space shuttle, not aircraft carriers, nothing.
     
  19. Holytomato

    Holytomato Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    The "TRIALS & TRIBBLATIONS"-DS9" version is the way it looked in the series before it was addeded to the space scenes via blue screen.

    The ""IN A MIRROR DARKLY"-Enterprise." design is way the model looks in the Smith (added vertical lines on the secondary hull, and nacelles) with added azetecing and the impulse engines glowing blue.

    What about the TOS-R version? Originally it was the DS9 design but now its slowly being brought closer to the Smith's.

    So which is it?

    "In Closing, Star Trek Canon exists for a reason. DON’T F&*K WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! The Loyal Fans of TOS should be the 1st demographic Abrams should wish to please. 40 years folks, It has worked for 40 years, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken."

    Nemesis bombed. Enterprise was cancelled. Thank goodness JJ is not paying attention to hardcore fans.

    Will Spock be an emotionally red skinned Martian? Will James Kirk's middle inintal be an R?

    Oh wait...

    Star Trek must die with us!!!!!!! Anyone remember William Shakes-speare? Does anyone remember that Edward de Vere wrote under that alias?

    No.

    Why?

    His friends, and fans knew if they cared about him and his work that they should show it by destroying his works. :thumbsup:
     
  20. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    Star Trek canon exists so Paramount can say what is and is not Trek (which is whatever they choose to label as such). Its not some holy unchangeable writ sent down by god.

    And "Fans" there aren't enough of them that would make it worthwhile for Paramount to please - plus usually what the fans want is dumb.

    Sharr