• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

U.S.S. Kelvin pic! (and more -- large images)

Interesting. Looks like a single-nacelle-er. Definitley gives an idea of what the Enterprise will probably look like.
 
Interesting. Looks like a single-nacelle-er. Definitley gives an idea of what the Enterprise will probably look like.

I hope it's not a single-nacelle ship! I hope it has two warp nacelles. I hope that eyeball is the deflector dish.

God, I hope a lot of things now that I'm seeing pictures of the movie! Like, I hope the story is decent! Because the visuals aren't completely pleasing to me...
 
Interesting. Looks like a single-nacelle-er. Definitley gives an idea of what the Enterprise will probably look like.

I hope it's not a single-nacelle ship! I hope it has two warp nacelles. I hope that eyeball is the deflector dish.

God, I hope a lot of things now that I'm seeing pictures of the movie! Like, I hope the story is decent! Because the visuals aren't completely pleasing to me...

You can see what looks like a bussard collector peeking out below the saucer.
 
Finally, they throw us a bone!

I love the new bridge. It looks better being brightly lit like this.

I'm liking the uniforms, too.

Can't wait to see the full trailer.

Sean
 
You can see what looks like a bussard collector peeking out below the saucer.

I'm not convinced that's a bussard collector. Looks more golden to me, like the TOS Enterprise deflector dish. Which makes me wonder about the eyeball. Most likely the deflector dish, but I don't know.

I hope there are two nacelles, perhaps symmetric vertically, above and below the saucer. I hope.
 
Oh - here's something else:

2945158321_3e41ed1192.jpg

I SEE BLUE!!!!!!! :eek:
 
Why does there have to be 2? We've seen ships with 1, 3, 4 and even no nacelles. As long as it is recongizable Starfleet, (which it is) why should the number of nacelles matter, besides Roddenberry being mad at whats-hi-face (Franz Joseph?).
 
It all looks so very Phase II. (not the fanfilm, the old Syd Mead renderings from the 70s) Anyone else getting that vibe?
Actually, it reminds me rather of the Mego Star Trek: TMP playset from years ago, just with a little more color: http://www.megomuseum.com/startrek/sttmp.html

The uniforms look pretty good as approximations of the series proper, though the rank stripes being silver is garish and, strangely enough, the solid stripe system and layered look/pronounced shoulder seams also remind me of the Mego interpretation of Trek: http://www.megomuseum.com/startrek/index.html

None of the actors so strongly resemble their original counterparts that I immediately feel simpatico--Pine, for instance, seems to have the shrunken head of a gymnast, and are his eyes blue on the EW cover?--but I think I can adjust. Too bad the Kelvin looks more like a prototype for the movies than anything from the original series. Bana looks tough and villainous.

Final grade" for interest? B-. It looks shiny and expensive but is a weird melding of 60s uniforms and 80s technology. I can understand now why Paramount was reluctant to release images sooner. I'll defer to seeing the images in action, though, because what looks odd in stills sometimes looks great in motion (and vice versa).
 
Why does there have to be 2? We've seen ships with 1, 3, 4 and even no nacelles. As long as it is recongizable Starfleet, (which it is) why should the number of nacelles matter, besides Roddenberry being mad at whats-hi-face (Franz Joseph?).

Well, I don't recall ever seeing a single-nacelle ship onscreen ever. I'd rather this movie stick to even-numbered nacelles on ships. Personal preference, given my understanding of "warp physics" in-universe. Frankly, it's not a deal breaker - I'll see the movie regardless - but I'd have to wonder how the single-nacelle manages to propel the ship without a neighboring nacelle to with which to interact and form an asymmetric field.
 
Why does there have to be 2? We've seen ships with 1, 3, 4 and even no nacelles. As long as it is recongizable Starfleet, (which it is) why should the number of nacelles matter, besides Roddenberry being mad at whats-hi-face (Franz Joseph?).

Well, I don't recall ever seeing a single-nacelle ship onscreen ever. I'd rather this movie stick to even-numbered nacelles on ships. Personal preference, given my understanding of "warp physics" in-universe. Frankly, it's not a deal breaker - I'll see the movie regardless - but I'd have to wonder how the single-nacelle manages to propel the ship without a neighboring nacelle to with which to interact and form an asymmetric field.

If we see a 1-nacelle ship onscreen, then the more secondary tech manual is overwritten in canon, since onscreen canon holds more authority.
 
If we see a 1-nacelle ship onscreen, then the more secondary tech manual is overwritten in canon, since onscreen canon holds more authority.

Well, yeah. I mean, I like the supplemental materials, but onscreen trumps all.

Of course, we would have to accept what we see in this movie as part of the overall canon and not a separate continuity. It remains to be seen where this movie will land in that regard.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top