Do you like the *NEW* NCC-1701? Simple Yes or No.

[judexavier]

Definately yes. I've been waiting a year to finally see this new version.
Madman1701's art, showing different (better) views helped to get an good overall feeling for it.

 

[Chip]

By now we have all seen the Big E.

Not me. I've seen a small avatar of it on posts, but I have yet to see a full size picture.

 

[Chip]

Never mind. Just saw a full size picture. As of right now, I don't particularly like it, but it may grow on me. I'll just wait and see.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I'm sold!
Up until now I had a few reservations.
But I just woke up, saw the ship on my desktop together with the earlier versions and it felt natural.
It is 100% the Enterprise.

Bring on the movie!

 

[Jackson Roykirk]

Yes. It took a while, because I was expecting a ship that looked more or less exactly like the TOS ship. But the new design is really growing on me.

 

[jim hadar]

Voted yes, even though I thought and still think it awkward, at least from the picture. I showed it to my mother, who is one of the older Trek fans I know, and she like it saying that was a real ship, a man's ship, one worthy of an epic movie. The original versions to her looked too fragile, in her words, like the saucer would fly off when it went to warp. Interesting take, and looking at it, one I now agree with. I think it will look better in flight.

 

[milo bloom]

While I voted no, it's only because it came so close without totally making it. It's the proportions of the neck and pylons that throw it off.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

While I voted no, it's only because it came so close without totally making it. It's the proportions of the neck and pylons that throw it off.

The proportions in the image we've seen is decieving.

As I've posted elsewhere, it is likely that the saucer looks unnaturally huge due to the camera Fisheye effect.

 

[cooleddie74]

I mean.... shouldn't we be HAPPY that a *NEW* STAR TREK movie is coming out after being declared dead in space in 2005?

Well, I am. The folks who are dismayed have their own problems; they are not mine.

And I am happy the franchise is still alive and that Paramount still has so much hope and money invested in it. But that doesn't mean we can't nitpick and critique elements of a new movie or show we find weird or objectionable.

 

[milo bloom]

While I voted no, it's only because it came so close without totally making it. It's the proportions of the neck and pylons that throw it off.

The proportions in the image we've seen is decieving.

As I've posted elsewhere, it is likely that the saucer looks unnaturally huge due to the camera Fisheye effect.

Actually, it's not the size of the saucer that bothers me, more like how the neck seems to attach too far back on the engineering hull.

 

[cooleddie74]

While I voted no, it's only because it came so close without totally making it. It's the proportions of the neck and pylons that throw it off.

The proportions in the image we've seen is decieving.

As I've posted elsewhere, it is likely that the saucer looks unnaturally huge due to the camera Fisheye effect.

Actually, it's not the size of the saucer that bothers me, more like how the neck seems to attach too far back on the engineering hull.

And how squashed and flat the engineering hull gets towards the back. It looks like the TMP refit ship and the TNG-era Enterprise-C had a hybrid baby.

 

[Qonos]

I mean.... shouldn't we be HAPPY that a *NEW* STAR TREK movie is coming out after being declared dead in space in 2005?

Well, I am. The folks who are dismayed have their own problems; they are not mine.

And I am happy the franchise is still alive and that Paramount still has so much hope and money invested in it. But that doesn't mean we can't nitpick and critique elements of a new movie or show we find weird or objectionable.

I try not to pick apart what I watch for entertainment too much. It tends to spoil the entertainment portion of it.

 

[cooleddie74]

Well, I am. The folks who are dismayed have their own problems; they are not mine.

And I am happy the franchise is still alive and that Paramount still has so much hope and money invested in it. But that doesn't mean we can't nitpick and critique elements of a new movie or show we find weird or objectionable.

I try not to pick apart what I watch for entertainment too much. It tends to spoil the entertainment portion of it.

Harder to do that with TREK. It has ten other movies, an animated series that many consider canonical as well as 704 live-action TV episodes from five different series spanning four decades. Continuity and nitpicking has been built into the franchise and fanbase for years.

 

[Quark's Lobe]

Yes.

 

[Qonos]

And I am happy the franchise is still alive and that Paramount still has so much hope and money invested in it. But that doesn't mean we can't nitpick and critique elements of a new movie or show we find weird or objectionable.

I try not to pick apart what I watch for entertainment too much. It tends to spoil the entertainment portion of it.

Harder to do that with TREK. It has ten other movies, an animated series that many consider canonical as well as 704 live-action TV episodes from five different series spanning four decades. Continuity and nitpicking has been built into the franchise and fanbase for years.

Only because for some strange reason ST fans are Masochist..

 

[cooleddie74]

I try not to pick apart what I watch for entertainment too much. It tends to spoil the entertainment portion of it.

Harder to do that with TREK. It has ten other movies, an animated series that many consider canonical as well as 704 live-action TV episodes from five different series spanning four decades. Continuity and nitpicking has been built into the franchise and fanbase for years.

Only because for some strange reason ST fans are Masochist..

I like pain during pleasure...yes.

 

[fleetcaptain]

I voted yes because I know the view we have seen of it, is decieving and plus I just saw the new trailer as well. Since they did show the battle scenes just like it was posted all over the net, well I could see that image didn't do justice for the Enterprise. She did look great in battle and does have a resembliance to the 60s verison as well.
I also have to say, the shuttles they keep on showing remind of the Argo. Has anyone else caught that? I mean they look like drop down wings.

 

[Gepard]

I also have to say, the shuttles they keep on showing remind of the Argo. Has anyone else caught that? I mean they look like drop down wings.

People have kept tying to blame the new Enterprise on John Eaves, but I suspect he had more of a hand in those new shuttles. He does seem to be winglet-crazy.

 

[MOSUGOJI]

HATE IT! Hopefully during the course of the movie it gets the crap blasted out of it so bad they have to separate the saucer and get a proper stardrive section at the end.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

And I am happy the franchise is still alive and that Paramount still has so much hope and money invested in it. But that doesn't mean we can't nitpick and critique elements of a new movie or show we find weird or objectionable.

I try not to pick apart what I watch for entertainment too much. It tends to spoil the entertainment portion of it.

Harder to do that with TREK. It has ten other movies, an animated series that many consider canonical as well as 704 live-action TV episodes from five different series spanning four decades. Continuity and nitpicking has been built into the franchise and fanbase for years.

It's easier for me. I just decided to toss everything out but the original 79 episodes, TAS and the first six movies and now this movie. I couldn't care less about established "facts" from all the derivative series. In my mind the only thing Trek 09 has to live up to is Star Trek aka (ugh) TOS. If the worst thing that happens is that a few fictional facts get TOSsed then so be it. Better GOOD TREK with BAD CANON than BAD TREK with GOOD CANON any day of the week. Bad Trek's owned the airwaves and cinemas for more than a decade. Time to usher in the era of Good Trek.