What do you out there in Trekland think the Enterprise XI ship features will have? Post Archer, but pre Piccard. (Older style bridge design, no holodecks yet, look of the deflector dish, warp core design, etc.) 
Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TNG?
- Thread starter Larris of Metropi
- Start date
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
First off... there is no reason to believe that this film will be set on the Enterprise, in part or in whole. All we've been told is that you'll SEE the Enterprise, NCC-1701, in the film at some point. Whether or not it's the "hero ship" or is just seen in a background shot is wholly a matter of speculation.
That said... we know that the 1701 will be seen. I believe that what we'll see will be unchanged in any significant way from what was seen on TOS, but "more finely polished" (see Darren Dochterman's version, or Scott Gaman's version, or even something as "different" as Dennis Bailey's version... but nothing any further away from what we've seen before than that.)
We know EXACTLY what that ship should look like, and what features it has (or doesn't have). We have 79 episodes worth of reference material (plus some animated shows, and a whole lotta novels, etc, which, while not formally "canon" are still reasonably consistent and could be considered as references).
It might be fun for people to try to reinvent the wheel with regards to that ship, or with regards to the technology level of that era, but unless there's a COMPELLING REASON, necessitated by the story not being able to be told otherwise, I don't expect to see anything deviate much from what we've seen before. There's just no PAYOFF for doing so, and there is a cost to doing so...
So, if we see the Enterprise, we shouldn't even notice the differences except when we go back and freeze-frame on high-def and nitpick it to death (which, of course, is INEVITABLY going to happen!)
On the other hand, other ships from this era, while necessarily consistent TECHNOLOGICALLY, may look dramatically different without there being any "cost" to doing so.
First off... there is no reason to believe that this film will be set on the Enterprise, in part or in whole. All we've been told is that you'll SEE the Enterprise, NCC-1701, in the film at some point. Whether or not it's the "hero ship" or is just seen in a background shot is wholly a matter of speculation.
That said... we know that the 1701 will be seen. I believe that what we'll see will be unchanged in any significant way from what was seen on TOS, but "more finely polished" (see Darren Dochterman's version, or Scott Gaman's version, or even something as "different" as Dennis Bailey's version... but nothing any further away from what we've seen before than that.)
We know EXACTLY what that ship should look like, and what features it has (or doesn't have). We have 79 episodes worth of reference material (plus some animated shows, and a whole lotta novels, etc, which, while not formally "canon" are still reasonably consistent and could be considered as references).
It might be fun for people to try to reinvent the wheel with regards to that ship, or with regards to the technology level of that era, but unless there's a COMPELLING REASON, necessitated by the story not being able to be told otherwise, I don't expect to see anything deviate much from what we've seen before. There's just no PAYOFF for doing so, and there is a cost to doing so...
So, if we see the Enterprise, we shouldn't even notice the differences except when we go back and freeze-frame on high-def and nitpick it to death (which, of course, is INEVITABLY going to happen!)
On the other hand, other ships from this era, while necessarily consistent TECHNOLOGICALLY, may look dramatically different without there being any "cost" to doing so.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Personally, I don't really care -- they don't even have to explain the design modifications to the ends of the nacelles that happened at some stage -- as long as they include a scene where they test out the NCC-1701's phasers to completely obliterate a derelict NX-01 from history.
Personally, I don't really care -- they don't even have to explain the design modifications to the ends of the nacelles that happened at some stage -- as long as they include a scene where they test out the NCC-1701's phasers to completely obliterate a derelict NX-01 from history.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
That wouldn't be a bad idea, as it would be an acknowledgment of "Star Trek Enterprise" and reinforce the already canonical factoid that the NX-01 was the first Enterprise of Earth's Starfleet.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, as it would be an acknowledgment of "Star Trek Enterprise" and reinforce the already canonical factoid that the NX-01 was the first Enterprise of Earth's Starfleet.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Where does it say that the E doesn't have a holodeck? It wasn't mentioned in the regular series, but the ship did have one in the (not very canon) animated series.
But more to the point, the design of the various sets (bridge, engineering etc) and props (from phasers to the ship itself) should be derived from the way things looked in the original series. The designers shouldn't bother themselves with how thing look in relation to picard's or archer's eras (That's the job of us anal fans...).
larris said:
What do you out there in Trekland think the Enterprise XI ship features will have? Post Archer, but pre Piccard. (Older style bridge design,no holodecks yet , look of the deflector dish, warp core design, etc.)
Where does it say that the E doesn't have a holodeck? It wasn't mentioned in the regular series, but the ship did have one in the (not very canon) animated series.
But more to the point, the design of the various sets (bridge, engineering etc) and props (from phasers to the ship itself) should be derived from the way things looked in the original series. The designers shouldn't bother themselves with how thing look in relation to picard's or archer's eras (That's the job of us anal fans...).
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Heh. The "abortive" TNG era lasted nearly twenty years in active weekly production, made and continues to make Paramount more money than TOS and turned "Star Trek" into the Franchise that Paramount thinks is worth reviving. If you imagine that they're through with it simply because they're using TOS to revive the movies, you're in for a rude disappointment.
Heh. The "abortive" TNG era lasted nearly twenty years in active weekly production, made and continues to make Paramount more money than TOS and turned "Star Trek" into the Franchise that Paramount thinks is worth reviving. If you imagine that they're through with it simply because they're using TOS to revive the movies, you're in for a rude disappointment.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
I say just use the 'new' Enterprise model from the Remastered TOS series. It looks just like the original one, only better.
It shouldn't have any new features that weren't already spec'd in the original show, nor anything taken away.
The insides of the ship need to be updated for the logical technical progression between Enterprise and TNG as we see it today. Actual levers and buttons are fine, just as long as it doesn't look like there are vacuum tubes and Xmas lights inside everyting.
I say just use the 'new' Enterprise model from the Remastered TOS series. It looks just like the original one, only better.
It shouldn't have any new features that weren't already spec'd in the original show, nor anything taken away.
The insides of the ship need to be updated for the logical technical progression between Enterprise and TNG as we see it today. Actual levers and buttons are fine, just as long as it doesn't look like there are vacuum tubes and Xmas lights inside everyting.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
KISS... "keep it simple, stupid"... one of the most important of all engineering principles.
To be fair, I never saw anything remotely resembling a vacuum tube in TOS. Just lots of color-coded plug-in components, which actually makes more sense than the "glass wafer" approach used on TNG, if you ask me. I mean... seriously... if you're working on a component, would you rather have to scan the glass microscope slide with a hand-scanner to identify which one you want... or just pop in the purple block?
KISS... "keep it simple, stupid"... one of the most important of all engineering principles.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
why the need or desire to turn to the TOS to bring back the dead franchise? Why not make another *yawn* NG movie, then? Because JJ wants it? Why is it so compelling to JJ?
Perhaps "abortive" was a poor choice of word. Moribund or soporific, then.
UWC Defiance said:
Heh. The "abortive" TNG era lasted nearly twenty years in active weekly production, made and continues to make Paramount more money than TOS and turned "Star Trek" into the Franchise that Paramount thinks is worth reviving. If you imagine that they're through with it simply because they're using TOS to revive the movies, you're in for a rude disappointment.
why the need or desire to turn to the TOS to bring back the dead franchise? Why not make another *yawn* NG movie, then? Because JJ wants it? Why is it so compelling to JJ?
Perhaps "abortive" was a poor choice of word. Moribund or soporific, then.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
See, it's not about the ERA for him, so much. He didn't say, back then, that it was about "shooting on the original ship" or anything like that. He said (and I wish I could find the quote, but I can't recall where it came from... but I DEFINITELY remember reading this and suddenly having real HOPE for the franchise... "someone who has a STORY TO TELL" instead of "someone who has boxes to check off on a checklist" like most recent Trek works have been.
That was when I started feeling positive about this film... when I saw that Abrams had "A STORY" that he'd been carrying around inside his head for most of his life, and that he wanted to tell that SPECIFIC STORY.
This film is not about "going back to the TOS era" or "continuing the adventures of Kirk and Spock." It's about telling a story, with a real beginning, a real middle, and a real end, to it.
What the story is which Abrams has wanted to tell for his whole life... we'll all find that out next year (unless any of us have already seen a draft script, in which case I hope those people will avoid talking too much about it!). But we know this much... at least for him, this is not about "restarting a franchise" or "playing in an era." It's about telling a story that has compelled him for most of his life.
That, by itself, is exciting to me. Let the story drive the film and let the set-dressing stand only as it's necessary to support the story.
That's how GOOD MOVIES are made.
Here's the problem. I remember when it was first announced that there was going to be a new Trek movie, and that JJ Abrams was going to do it. It came out that he had been approached by Paramount, and that he stated as one of his conditions that he get to make a Star Trek movie. And that he had a story in mind which he had always wanted to tell.
See, it's not about the ERA for him, so much. He didn't say, back then, that it was about "shooting on the original ship" or anything like that. He said (and I wish I could find the quote, but I can't recall where it came from... but I DEFINITELY remember reading this and suddenly having real HOPE for the franchise... "someone who has a STORY TO TELL" instead of "someone who has boxes to check off on a checklist" like most recent Trek works have been.
That was when I started feeling positive about this film... when I saw that Abrams had "A STORY" that he'd been carrying around inside his head for most of his life, and that he wanted to tell that SPECIFIC STORY.
This film is not about "going back to the TOS era" or "continuing the adventures of Kirk and Spock." It's about telling a story, with a real beginning, a real middle, and a real end, to it.
What the story is which Abrams has wanted to tell for his whole life... we'll all find that out next year (unless any of us have already seen a draft script, in which case I hope those people will avoid talking too much about it!). But we know this much... at least for him, this is not about "restarting a franchise" or "playing in an era." It's about telling a story that has compelled him for most of his life.
That, by itself, is exciting to me. Let the story drive the film and let the set-dressing stand only as it's necessary to support the story.
That's how GOOD MOVIES are made.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Well, you can apply those to the whole of "Star Trek" right now. Perhaps the new movie will undo a bit of that.
Well, you can apply those to the whole of "Star Trek" right now. Perhaps the new movie will undo a bit of that.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Agreed.
Sorry if I get a little torqued up about that sometimes. I liked TNG, I really did, towards the end. But I saw a definite downcreep with its cancellation and the development of Voyager, and it all often seemed just a pales imitation of the OS.
Agreed.
Sorry if I get a little torqued up about that sometimes. I liked TNG, I really did, towards the end. But I saw a definite downcreep with its cancellation and the development of Voyager, and it all often seemed just a pales imitation of the OS.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
That is the most encouraging part of this whole venture, although I imagine if he had said "I have this story I've wanted to tell for my entire life, and it just so happens to fit into the Archer context better than any of the other series" people would not be so excited.
Nonetheless, point taken and I'm encouraged for the same reason.
Cary L. Brown said:
Here's the problem. I remember when it was first announced that there was going to be a new Trek movie, and that JJ Abrams was going to do it. It came out that he had been approached by Paramount, and that he stated as one of his conditions that he get to make a Star Trek movie. And that he had a story in mind which he had always wanted to tell.
See, it's not about the ERA for him, so much. He didn't say, back then, that it was about "shooting on the original ship" or anything like that. He said (and I wish I could find the quote, but I can't recall where it came from... but I DEFINITELY remember reading this and suddenly having real HOPE for the franchise... "someone who has a STORY TO TELL" instead of "someone who has boxes to check off on a checklist" like most recent Trek works have been.
That was when I started feeling positive about this film... when I saw that Abrams had "A STORY" that he'd been carrying around inside his head for most of his life, and that he wanted to tell that SPECIFIC STORY.
This film is not about "going back to the TOS era" or "continuing the adventures of Kirk and Spock." It's about telling a story, with a real beginning, a real middle, and a real end, to it.
What the story is which Abrams has wanted to tell for his whole life... we'll all find that out next year (unless any of us have already seen a draft script, in which case I hope those people will avoid talking too much about it!). But we know this much... at least for him, this is not about "restarting a franchise" or "playing in an era." It's about telling a story that has compelled him for most of his life.
That, by itself, is exciting to me. Let the story drive the film and let the set-dressing stand only as it's necessary to support the story.
That's how GOOD MOVIES are made.
That is the most encouraging part of this whole venture, although I imagine if he had said "I have this story I've wanted to tell for my entire life, and it just so happens to fit into the Archer context better than any of the other series" people would not be so excited.
Nonetheless, point taken and I'm encouraged for the same reason.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
I believe technically speaking (by network and hollywood speak) whenever a show ends it is canceled...
Sharr
I believe technically speaking (by network and hollywood speak) whenever a show ends it is canceled...
Sharr
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
I guess I always figured a show was cancelled if production was stopped due to the network bailing on the contract or refusing to buy new episodes or to renew the show after the contract was up.
If I remember correctly, all the TNG era shows had a five year contract with a two year extension. They knew it would end after the two year contracts were up in each of the series and were able to wrap things up neatly. I really don't consider those to be cancelled. Rather, they ran their course through to completion.
I guess I always figured a show was cancelled if production was stopped due to the network bailing on the contract or refusing to buy new episodes or to renew the show after the contract was up.
If I remember correctly, all the TNG era shows had a five year contract with a two year extension. They knew it would end after the two year contracts were up in each of the series and were able to wrap things up neatly. I really don't consider those to be cancelled. Rather, they ran their course through to completion.
Re: Enterprise XI ship features, more than TOS, less than TN
Just going by something JMS once remarked, when there were rumors about certain members of the B5 cast complaining about the end and being asked to leave the set once their parts were wrapped.
He surely used the term to mean the "end of a shows run" and not its "abrupt end" like most tend to use it to mean here...
Canceled is rarely...
There they even reference "Cheers" despite it long run as being cancelled.
Sharr
Just going by something JMS once remarked, when there were rumors about certain members of the B5 cast complaining about the end and being asked to leave the set once their parts were wrapped.
He surely used the term to mean the "end of a shows run" and not its "abrupt end" like most tend to use it to mean here...
Canceled is rarely...
There they even reference "Cheers" despite it long run as being cancelled.
Sharr
Similar threads
