Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

[Tyson]

Showed it to my daughter, who puts up with Trek because I love it. She said-"it's the same ship"

I think most casual observers will say the same-meaning JJ's done his job, making it Star Trek, and yet not so focused on the little stuff. The "broad strokes" of Trek-still recognizable, but translated and updated for a new audience.

I can't wait! It's going to be different, but it will still be Trek!

MRE

Hehe, that's right! Every tom dick and harry will watch this movie thinking it's shit-hot because of the witty one liners and totally kewl spaceships, brah!

I shut my brain off for Transformers, I don't think I can do that for Star Trek. Have fun, guys.

 

[M'Sharak]

Definately another form over function hollywood design. Too bad.

I'd say actually the more compact design of the nacelles and 'neck' is more functional looking than the original fairly spindly spread out design on the Connie.

I also like that there seems to be a center line running through the structure from the juncture of the warp pylons to the center of the saucer, tying it together and making it more of a functional unit than a collection of shapes stuck onto or hanging off of other shapes.

A quick bash at what I mean:

 

[section9]

I hate the nacelles.

Otherwise, it's beautiful.

I have a feeling that the whole idea behind the nacelles is to see the E maneuver like a jet fighter in space.

Yes, the nacelles are a bit ass, but on the whole, I hope Gabe Koerner is getting a huge check for this. This is his Enterprise. Period. If he doesn't get a royalty check from Paramount he should sue until the cows come home.

Watch and see a lawsuit come out of this.

 

[Qonos]

Definately another form over function hollywood design. Too bad.

I'd say actually the more compact design of the nacelles and 'neck' is more functional looking than the original fairly spindly spread out design on the Connie.

I get where your coming from, there are aspects of every Star Trek design that can be scrutinized and the original connie is no different. To me however this, and the E-E to an extent, just scream "I was designed to look uber cool" and nothing else. I'm just one of those people who prefers a more functional design. To each thier own.

Did you even look at my comparison picture. This is by far a way more function design. And those who say the ship looks back heavy it actually looks way more balanced with the neck back farther like that seeing as the saucer section is actually a bit bigger in diamater. SO they had to do something to move the ships center of gravity (yes I know it's a space ship but it's still important as they pass by gravity wells with each celestial body they pass.) The ship looks far more sturdy and much more manuverable, in case it gets into a fight. The nacelles also look more supported by the pylons which have are much thicker than the "Ruler" style ones on the TOS version. Deffinately a blend of the TOS and Movie refit 1701. It's growing on me.

 

[cultcross]

Definately another form over function hollywood design. Too bad.

I'd say actually the more compact design of the nacelles and 'neck' is more functional looking than the original fairly spindly spread out design on the Connie.

I get where your coming from, there are aspects of every Star Trek design that can be scrutinized and the original connie is no different. To me however this, and the E-E to an extent, just scream "I was designed to look uber cool" and nothing else. I'm just one of those people who prefers a more functional design. To each thier own.

To the E-E I agree - it was clearly designed solely on a visual basis, with little regard to exactly why a spaceship needs to be a streamlined racing car. But this design, I can't agree with you. I see the opposite here, in fact, function over form, a more sensible form for a starship, a more, dare i use the word, 'realistic' approach to the big E while maintaining the basis of the familiar silhouette.

 

[Rivas_Jakarta]

That thing is FUGLY!!!! It should be hauled away as garbage. Hopefully the rest of the movie makes up for this.

 

[section9]

Definately another form over function hollywood design. Too bad.

I'd say actually the more compact design of the nacelles and 'neck' is more functional looking than the original fairly spindly spread out design on the Connie.

I also like that there seems to be a center line running through the structure from the juncture of the warp pylons to the center of the saucer, tying it together and making it more of a functional unit than a collection of shapes stuck onto or hanging off of other shapes.

A quick bash at what I mean:

When they designed the ship, they had some idea of aeronautical architecture. The ship is designed to hold up under stress.

I like it, basically. Funny how it's more advanced than the Refit. I don't know anyone who liked the refit Nacelles.

 

[Roshi]

Showed it to my daughter, who puts up with Trek because I love it. She said-"it's the same ship"

I think most casual observers will say the same.

BINGO! The movie has been targeted for general audiences from the get-go. Paramount does not care about bitchy trekkies who spend time online bickering about the shape of a starship. They laugh at us! We're a joke. They don't count on us to make that movie a success.

 

[payndz201]

Like others, the thing that really bugs me about it is the positioning of the secondary hull. It's as if a VFX nerd's hand slipped on the mouse literally moments before JJ arrived to approve the design, and he didn't have time to slide the engineering section back into the proper position.

The rest of it looks fine. The saucer is spot-on, the nacelles are... odd, but I can live with them (though I'm not so keen on the fat pylons) - it's just the change in the ship's proportions that I dislike.

 

[Jon1701]

Yeah, I like this.

I was expecting something a little closer to the original, but I like the cut of her jib.

Nacelles are different, but i'll get used to them.

Overall, as others have said - I like it, but don't love it....yet.

 

[Qonos]

Showed it to my daughter, who puts up with Trek because I love it. She said-"it's the same ship"

I think most casual observers will say the same-meaning JJ's done his job, making it Star Trek, and yet not so focused on the little stuff. The "broad strokes" of Trek-still recognizable, but translated and updated for a new audience.

I can't wait! It's going to be different, but it will still be Trek!

MRE

Hehe, that's right! Every tom dick and harry will watch this movie thinking it's shit-hot because of the witty one liners and totally kewl spaceships, brah!

I shut my brain off for Transformers, I don't think I can do that for Star Trek. Have fun, guys.

I can't believe anyone who says stuff like this has ever seen any of TOS or any of the movies.

One liners in Star Trek are part of the status Quo.. Are you out of your VULCAN MIND? I'm a doctor not a (Insert crap here)

 

[DredZed]

Engineering hull moved back a bit:

 

[SchwEnt]

That's it?? Are you f***ing kidding me?

THAT'S supposed to be the beautiful beloved original TOS Enterprise?
"Re-imagined" or whatever. God almighty.

It's like some kind of wire-hanger abortion done on a defective
TOS/TMP Enterprise fetus.

I'm glad Matt Jefferies didn't live to see this.

 

[Qonos]

That's it?? Are you f***ing kidding me?

THAT'S supposed to be the beautiful beloved original TOS Enterprise?
"Re-imagined" or whatever. God almighty.

It's like some kind of wire-hanger abortion done on a defective
TOS/TMP Enterprise fetus.

I'm glad Matt Jefferies didn't live to see this.

Yeah cause those "Ruler" Nacelle pylons he designed were really practical...

Hmm Given the choice between which version I'd feel safe traveling in... Looking at it now I'd have to give it up to Abram's Enterprise.

 

[Plum]

Thought I'd try to get the shuttle outta the way. Just a quickie PS mash.

Oh, and here I've shown it flipped too.

 

[theARE]

Based on the angle of the secondary hull and the placement of the pylons, the shuttle bay must be small to non-existent.

Just cant see how it can possibly fit.

 

[section9]

There's also something else: E is supposed to be HUGE

Rumor has it that the Big is supposed to be at least 2K feet long. That's what makes the narrow Stardrive section acceptable.

Apparently, in JJ's remake, the notion of a 940 foot long ship was simply too small for a 21st Century Movie. We're all thinking 940 feet. I'm hearing that this thing is a monster. If so, than the center stardrive section is fine.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I love it, all the snippets of info i have seen from this movie have just been right for a update to TOS universe........the only sad part of all this is that i will have to wait another 2/3 years before we see TOS universe again after this movie is released.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm glad Matt Jefferies didn't live to see this.

Now we're getting warmed up.

 

[DeafPoet]

I'm glad Matt Jefferies didn't live to see this.

Matt Jeffries designed some shit that was way more abhorrent than this on his way to the classic design.

I'd like to think that as a designer first, and the designer of the Enterprise second, he would appreciate the delicate balance you need to strike between something that looks cool and something that would please the fans. So even if he wouldn't love it, I'm sure he'd get it.

Then again, speculating on what he would think is neither here nor there anyway