Enterprise Pic
- Thread starter bdb
- Start date
), I wonder if maybe the 'ribs' on the side of the nacelles aren't just the work lights illuminating the hull, with a high decay rate?
I like it, I like it !![/drool]
All I know is I'd hate to be a seagull sucked into that turbine!
Seriously, though, as a first generation Trekker from the 60's, I am stoked.
Yes it's "updated", I didn't really expect an exact copy of the TOS model.
But it captures the same "feel".
I know it's purely emotional and purely subjective, but the first time I saw the pic I didn't go "yuck".
I just stared slack-jawed at it.
It gave me the same feeling as the first time I saw the refit E in TMP. Updated, but the same overall design and feel.
I'm not bothered by the "beefiness" or "muscular-ness" of it. In fact, I'd hate to be a Romulan or Klingon that came across that thing in a dark alley.
I could definitely see it kicking ass.
I do wonder how they get the thing into orbit.
I recognize that the Making of Star Trek does indicate it was built at the navy yards and then assembled in space.
It just seems inefficient to have to lift that much mass at once into space, having to impart escape velocity to it.
But someone else said that maybe they transport the whole thing using massive transporters or something.
Anyway, I am impressed and can't wait to see her battle the Rommy Ward Bird, which you know she will.
Seriously, though, as a first generation Trekker from the 60's, I am stoked.
Yes it's "updated", I didn't really expect an exact copy of the TOS model.
But it captures the same "feel".
I know it's purely emotional and purely subjective, but the first time I saw the pic I didn't go "yuck".
I just stared slack-jawed at it.
It gave me the same feeling as the first time I saw the refit E in TMP. Updated, but the same overall design and feel.
I'm not bothered by the "beefiness" or "muscular-ness" of it. In fact, I'd hate to be a Romulan or Klingon that came across that thing in a dark alley.
I could definitely see it kicking ass.
I do wonder how they get the thing into orbit.
I recognize that the Making of Star Trek does indicate it was built at the navy yards and then assembled in space.
It just seems inefficient to have to lift that much mass at once into space, having to impart escape velocity to it.
But someone else said that maybe they transport the whole thing using massive transporters or something.
Anyway, I am impressed and can't wait to see her battle the Rommy Ward Bird, which you know she will.
I've done a wallpaper if anyone wants it
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8d672baef8.jpg
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8d672baef8.jpg
trevanian
Rear Admiral
ChristopherPike said:
Faith of the Heart ringtone. Check.
Make that a much larger budget but at the end of the day it's just two hours. Enterprise still has some of the best television CGI, even compared to series running today.
Overreliance of bad CGI contributed to my giving up on the program. Look at that pathetic library at the beginning of 2nd season ENT and can you even think the word 'best' in association with it?
Best vfx on TV Trek would have been mid ds9, maybe some of the end of TNG, when motion control was really a refined process. Once mediocre CG hit, you started getting more shots, but a lot less quality. Still, it makes audiences get used to the painterly (though for me the word would be 'crap') quality of most CG, as opposed to the more difficult to accomplish photorealistic quality of really good CG (like, say SOLARIS.)
The Enterprise in this pic looks like concept art, or a frame from an animatic. l honest to Christ can't figure out why concept art-level work has got so many people excited. If this is actually a final, then it says something about how little visual credibility means to filmgoers. (Unless maybe it looks better in motion? Guess I'll look for the trailer in a couple days and see what the high rez version plays like. Expectation is now low enough that I probably won't spit at the monitor.)
I don't think you'll find anyone saying they are sure there won't be a dry dock scene, just that we don't know for sure that there will be a dry dock scene. Teaser footage often does not appear in a final product. And even if we see a dry dock scene on Earth like this, we might not see the same shots and angles, etc.
I'd like to see that too, but who knows? IIRC, Gabe was commissioned by Paramount to do his ship for the SOL calender, and I'd guess that Paramount owns the rights to Gabe's design (at least as it first appeared in the calender). So the suits may have been well within their rights to hand a copy of Gabe's image to the Trek XI team and say "Make something that resembles this," without Gabe having any knowledge or getting any credit.
Paramount did something similar last year with work that Master Replicas did for their Classic Trek communicator. Baciclly, the company spent major $$ doing R&D for the piece, and Paramount kept the rights to the work MR did. Later, TPTB turned all of MRs molds and research over to a Chinese company so they could produce more-or-less exact copies for a fraction of the cost to sell at Star Trek: The Experience. The folks at MR knew nothing about this, and weren't credited or compensated for their work because Paramount owned the rights to their work.
Not that I'm saying it's exactly like this (and I'm also not comparing Ryan Church's work to a cheap Chinese knock-off..
); it's just that this sort of thing has been known to happen... I guess we'll get a better idea when we see the rest of the ship.
The only one off the top my head is the transformers teaser footage of the mars 2 rover being destroyed(possibly by starscream)
Robert Orci, one of the writers of the movie, has defended the trailer's depiction of the ship being built on the ground- his posts are at Trekmovie.com. In it he offers the explanation that the Enterprise needed to be constructed on the ground to have the effect of gravity etc "tempering" the metal to withstand the stresses of warp speed, space, etc.
Doesn't make much sense to me, but I don't really give a shit where it's built as long as the rest of the story is good.
Simonize and Turtle Wax YOUR starship now! For under 100,000 Federation credits! Contact Admiral Nogura at Starfleet H.Q. in San Francisco now for more details!
Why is it that in the 23rd century ship builders can't find a bunch of panels that look more alike? Why do ships they build end up looking like quilts?
Why is that in the 23rd century ships are built by welding together a bunch of metal panels? That would be like building modern jets using techniques that were used to build ships in the 1700s.
Given the energy output of warp engines and the technology of transporters, starships could be created en masse. No welding, no panelling needed.
What we see of this ship shows that it suffers what most versions of the Enterprise suffer (other than TOS version): it looks more like something built in the 21rst century and less like something built in the 23rd or 24th century.
Why is that in the 23rd century ships are built by welding together a bunch of metal panels? That would be like building modern jets using techniques that were used to build ships in the 1700s.
Given the energy output of warp engines and the technology of transporters, starships could be created en masse. No welding, no panelling needed.
What we see of this ship shows that it suffers what most versions of the Enterprise suffer (other than TOS version): it looks more like something built in the 21rst century and less like something built in the 23rd or 24th century.
mada101 said:
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.
The perspective in The TOS and TMP Enterprises makes their nacelles look awfully close together (seriously).
I'm no expert at camera angles/perspective, but if I shot this ST:XI view of the Big E with the camera far away, then zoomed in, Would I not get something like we see in the middle photo rather than the other old photos? Is there someone here who is an expert in cinematics?
It is my understanding that there will be less perpective distortion for objects that are far from the observer (but close to each other - such is the case with the saucer/nacelles) than there would be if the camera was right in front of the saucer when the "virtual photo" was taken.
I liken this to one of those Speilbergian "zoom in while moving the camera away" shots, where the view of the person in the foreground doesn't move while the background perspective changes (does anyone know what I'm talking about?
)
Why is there assumption this *wouldn't be* how it was done? There need not always be some scifi explanation.
Sharr
^
^^ Arlo -- I completely agree with the "metaphor" aspect of this teaser...
...but JBElliot, what's wrong with welding? It's the most effective and modern way we have today of joining two metals together, and I would think it would continue to be in practice (in some form) 240 years from now.
^^ Arlo -- I completely agree with the "metaphor" aspect of this teaser...
...but JBElliot, what's wrong with welding? It's the most effective and modern way we have today of joining two metals together, and I would think it would continue to be in practice (in some form) 240 years from now.
Since we never saw the Enterprise before Pike took command and "The Cage" we dunno for certain if the original 2245-era nacelles looked like this or not. It's all up in the air and can still fit into established timeline canon.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Jackson_Roykirk said:
mada101 said:
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.
The perspective in The TOS and TMP Enterprises makes their nacelles look awfully close together (seriously).
I'm no expert at camera angles/perspective, but if I shot this ST:XI view of the Big E with the camera far away, then zoomed in, Would I not get something like we see in the middle photo rather than the other old photos? Is there someone here who is an expert in cinematics?
It is my understanding that there will be less perpective distortion for objects that are far from the observer (but close to each other - such is the case with the saucer/nacelles) than there would be if the camera was right in front of the saucer when the "virtual photo" was taken.
Anybody who has taken a basic photography course probably remembers that there is a simple way to tell the lens being used, as long as you know something about the subject. In the case of a person, if you are a ways off and shooting telephoto, you get more of a jug-ear effect, with the person kind of compressed. Whereas if you are in close shooting with a wider lens, you get more of the big nose/ears disappear effect. I think we usually saw the latter with respect to the enterprise in the movies, because of the size of the miniature and how it was shot. That would explain the look of the shot in dock from SFS you use in your post. Those would also make the back end of the nacelles 'bow' inward a bit.
Then again, what do I know? In looking at this picutre, at first it didn't even occur to me that those things were nacelles, I figured they were some kind of lifter unit to grab the saucer and drag it up into orbit so it could be mated to the other components.
Assemblying the whole thing on earth doesn't make any sense to me, and it is an insult to all the planning and thought that has gone into figuring out how to build real interplanetary spacecraft (which is kind of ironic, given that folks have mentioned the NASA/Kennedy audio in the thread), which WILL be built in orbit, out of the gravity well.
Similar threads
