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

[Guartho]

As for this new model, it's not really the detail aesthetics that bother me as much as the proportions.

I'm in total agreement. None of the new details bother me at all, not even the racing stripes o' blue energy on the nacelles. It just looks out of balance to me. Hopefully this will be eased when I see other angles and the ship in action.

 

[AmbassadorKosh]

I could see the refit being the TOS Enterprise because of one simple historical fact; have you ever seen the refit battleships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack? The Maryland, Tennessee, West Virginia, et.al. finished the war with a completely different appearance than original constructed. In fact the only thing that looked externally the same was the hull, just as in the case of the refit Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

I haven't seen the battleship refits you mention, but I'd certainly be interested in any before/after pictures that may be out there. You make a good point though.

But, even the hull of the refit Enterprise looks totally different from the TOS ship. The only similarity between the two starships is the basic shape, and even that isn't the same. I'm no expert in this stuff, but it seems that the TOS primary hull is much smaller than the refit, for example.

I don't beleive I can post images yet, but here is a website for the USS West Virginia, with images from the time she was first built to the end of her active career. It shows the changes that naval architects can accomplish with refits. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/48a.htm

 

[Guartho]

I've picked out the first and last pics of the complete ship from Ambassador Kosh's link.

1922
1959

 

[Squiggy]

Don't like it. It's a mess.

The undercut is too severe, the secondary hull too short, the neck goes back too far, the engine pylons connect with the hull to far back and the nacelles' line of sight is blocked by the primary hull. The primary hull itself is fine, but overall?

Blech.

It's not supposed to be a replica.

 

[Captain Robert April]

That's not feasible.

Well then maybe they should just built it in space, the way you'd build a real interplanetary vessel that doesn't need to enter atmospheres.

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

That's why the concept was dropped, probably before Jefferies had ever heard the name "Roddenberry."

Sorry, but JJ's geek cred is dropping fast.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Sorry, but JJ's geek cred is dropping fast.

And what a tragedy that is.

 

[ancient]

Uh...geek cred?

Is that a kind of credit card?

 

[Neopeius]

Something I do like about the aesthetic for the rebooted Enterprise is it looks very 50s. There's a fins and chrome Studebaker look to it which makes sense if the original Enterprise had a 60s aesthetic to it.

The movie looks lame, but this ship looks okay.

 

[trekkerguy]

Still trying to figure out what is so horrendous or even slightly wrong with this design in comparison to the previous versions...

 

[Neopeius]

So does that mean transporter technology isn't going to be depicted in ST:XI? It was, after all, just a cost-cutting measure that GR pulled out of his ass when writing The Cage.

TGT

I predict there will be a transporter on this Enterprise, but it'll be a balky, untested thing so Urban can make comments about molecules and such, and Kirk will use it in an emergency with everyone holding their breath for a moment.

Whee.

 

[Brannigan]

Seeing the three versions of the enterprise like that Trekkerguy, I see the resemblence of Abrahms 1701 more. However, I still feel the nacelles are too large. I wish they'd streamline them down a bit.

 

[shapeshifter]

Emphasis mine.

Just read parts of a review of the German media event for the film. There's reference to the large "industrial" location used for engineering and a huge shuttlebay full of shuttles. Looking at how narrow the part of the ship traditionally housing the shuttlebay looks in the new 1701 pic, this thing must be huge compared to the scale assumed for the original.

I'm also getting the impression that the curves and sight lines in the secondary hull and nacelles will flow together much better in a full profile view. I'll give Mr. Church the benefit of the doubt for now.

Because of Scotty's accident with Porthos shuttle crafts have totally replaced transporters in this timeline.

Just read parts of a review of the German media event for the film. There's reference to the large "industrial" location used for engineering and a huge shuttlebay full of shuttles. Looking at how narrow the part of the ship traditionally housing the shuttlebay looks in the new 1701 pic, this thing must be huge compared to the scale assumed for the original

OK, that's another thing that bothers me. Apparently, they filmed at a brewery for the engineering scenes, which would explain why it just looked like a bunch of pipes and boilers rather than an advanced 23rd century engine room. It really looked out of place, and I hope there's more to it than that, because the ship deserves a cool engineering set.

As for the shuttlebay, the art I saw reminded me very much of the TMP version. Maybe a little wider, longer, and with a second floor...I think. Damn, I wish I had a photographic memory

Sounds like it matches what we saw as the "engines" on TOS, a bunch of pipes. It doesn't make sense for the engine room being the same or similar to TOS but not the ship or bridge.

It is time to accept this ship for what it really is; an abomination caused by time line changes. The question is, will our Heroes succeed in putting things right or will the changes remain permanent? Stay tuned...

 

[trekkerguy]

Seeing the three versions of the enterprise like that Trekkerguy, I see the resemblence of Abrahms 1701 more. However, I still feel the nacelles are too large. I wish they'd streamline them down a bit.

Ok, understandable. But also you are not seeing the full nacelle as in the other two pics, and they may look different from other angles as well.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Still trying to figure out what is so horrendous or even slightly wrong with this design in comparison to the previous versions...

I think it looks fine, and there would be alot less of a problem with it if it were supposed to be a new ship of a new class, not a misrepresentation of an already existing ship. But then again for all we know that could be an alternate timeline Enterprise that gets rebooted.

 

[steveman]

You know, the fact that the neck looks too far forward and the pylons/nacelles look too far back isn't bothering me that much anymore. Safe to say it's growing on me.

 

[hiller_michael]

They should have left the Enterprise as it is.If they change it inside,fine.But outside the shouldn't have touch it.All the die hard fans of the Original Series must think they got screwed

 

[ST-One]

All the die hard fans of the Original Series must think they got screwed

Each and every one who thinks that is an idiot.

 

[Sheridan]

It think it's odd that some of the people here have compared Abrams' Enterprise to the Enterprise C. I see no similarity between the two. Enterprise C was just a combination of the B and D. If anything, Abrams' Enterprise is a combination of the TOS Enterprise(the cylindrical engines), Enterprise A(the blue deflector disk, the extra details), and the Enterprise E(the curviness).

 

[seigezunt]

Uh...geek cred?

Is that a kind of credit card?

 

[Samurai8472]

ya know I hate to throw this card out but...

Paramount decides to make a movie a prequel no less, about Star Trek and what do people do? complain

It could have been ALOT worse. It reminds me of people who complained about Batman Begins suit after a 7 to 8 year break.

Then Superman Returns suit after countless false starts. Then Transformers with "G1 designs won't work in the movie!"

Be happy we get anything at all. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth