Let's just go steampunk with the Enterprise and get it over with.
It will make that more sense when Scotty says, "She's gonna blow!"
It will make that more sense when Scotty says, "She's gonna blow!"
New Enterprise May Have Nacelles That...
- Thread starter STARTREK11
- Start date
- Status
OK, I didn't want to ruin it for you guys, but I have an unamed source that works for an unnamed sfx house affiliated with the movie and she told me the following:
She also said that:
Finally:
Oh and has anyone complained about the nacelles swirly bits not looking right? Can I be the first...the glowy front ends of the nacelles just don't look right...too cartoooney!!
"...the production designers are going for a more organic look and taking their inspiration from nature..."
She also said that:
"...the nacelles will be inspired by cow utters or teets and will hang in a cluster of five from the bottom of the secondary hull..."
Finally:
"...that if you believe any of this you are a silly goose."
Oh and has anyone complained about the nacelles swirly bits not looking right? Can I be the first...the glowy front ends of the nacelles just don't look right...too cartoooney!!
As far as I can recall, saucer seperation was never even mentioned onscreen before "Farpoint", and for that reason I don't believe Constitution-class ships doing it is either canon or the case. I do remember seeing it in one of the books (possibly "The Making of Star Trek" or the "Star Fleet Technical Manual") but the books are not canon.
Back on topic. I hope they leave the ship alone. If this story takes place between "The Cage" and WNMHGTB it would be difficult (if not impossible) to explain drastic changes.
As I said above, it was alluded to in "The Apple."
One thing I've learned as a Trek novelist -- it's rarely impossible to explain any continuity discrepancy.
But as I said, I don't see the filmmakers departing too much from the classic silhouette and style of the Big E. It's as integral a character as Kirk and Spock, and they haven't departed too much from the originals there. I just don't see any reason to expect drastic changes -- that would go against everything we know about the philosophy and goals of the people making this movie.Sorry, I didn't see your "Apple" reference. Do you remember how it was alluded to?
EDIT: Nevermind, I see it now. That's a bit of a stretch....
EDIT: Nevermind, I see it now. That's a bit of a stretch....
I heard that the nacelles can now spin so fast that the Enterprise can enter planetary orbit and fly around like a helicopter.
I think my friend who works for ILM killed your friend who worked for ILM.
I think you owe me a new keyboard. 
Stranger things have happened. And believe it or not some people do have friends who work for ILM.
ILM has plenty of experience crafting artsy and retro creative designs; so campy twirling nacelles is not that ridiculous really. It's actually quite intriguing and delightful...almost suggests steam power or something conveying "oldness" in a quick visual way.
It just sounds fun; and it seems a lot of trek fans fight against fun every time; which is why Trek was cancelled and George Lucas and J.J. Abrams now control the property. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same person who created General Grievous or the Republic gunship for Star Wars; now-"Twirling Nacelles!" Sounds like a fun toy!
ILM has plenty of experience crafting artsy and retro creative designs; so campy twirling nacelles is not that ridiculous really. It's actually quite intriguing and delightful...almost suggests steam power or something conveying "oldness" in a quick visual way.
It just sounds fun; and it seems a lot of trek fans fight against fun every time; which is why Trek was cancelled and George Lucas and J.J. Abrams now control the property. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same person who created General Grievous or the Republic gunship for Star Wars; now-"Twirling Nacelles!" Sounds like a fun toy!
I've been lurking around this place far too long to think that stories should be about the tech!
My point was that, with the separation feature being played so prominently in the pilot, it looked like the writers were setting up as a Major New Feature, in order to open up possibilities for new kinds of stories--e.g. ,how will the crew recast if the ship is separated and one part breaks down, or is captured in battle, etc.? (Ok, not very good examples, but you get the idea.)Actually, my reference to the four-footer was still about the TNG ship, when they built a new model after season three. Sorry for the confusion.
So the nacelles could rotate so they're not parallel to each other?
That sounds like it would look pretty silly.I was imagining something like a pylon jointed both at the body and at the nacelle, which could tilt back and forth so the pylon would be either perpendicular with the hull--a la pre-refit enterprise--or angle a la post-refit, while keeping the nacelles parallel the whole time.
Okay, let's think about this for a moment...
One thing that the original production crew was ADAMANT about avoiding was the idea that the ship was a "rocketship"... so they intentionally avoided any indication of any of the stereotypical "rocket" telltales.
The engines in the nacelles were, even then, considered to be purely "field effect" engines, totally non-newtonian.
SO... supposing that there was a HINT of truth to this, it would mean that the ship we're being given is intentionally contradicting original design intentions behind the original design, AND embracing something that even the "crude 1960s" guys recognized as utterly CHEESY AND CHEAP LOOKING.
No... I don't believe it at all. Not even a tiny bit.
I think that this is a joke being passed around as a reference to the idea that Trek is being done by the "transformers" guys.
C'mon... am I the ONLY ONE who sees the obviousness of that point?
The Enterprise with "rotating shoulders???"
If your "friend" is really at ILM, he's either bullshitting you to make fun of you, or someone there is bullshitting HIM to make fun of him.
Take your pick.
One thing that the original production crew was ADAMANT about avoiding was the idea that the ship was a "rocketship"... so they intentionally avoided any indication of any of the stereotypical "rocket" telltales.
The engines in the nacelles were, even then, considered to be purely "field effect" engines, totally non-newtonian.
SO... supposing that there was a HINT of truth to this, it would mean that the ship we're being given is intentionally contradicting original design intentions behind the original design, AND embracing something that even the "crude 1960s" guys recognized as utterly CHEESY AND CHEAP LOOKING.
No... I don't believe it at all. Not even a tiny bit.
I think that this is a joke being passed around as a reference to the idea that Trek is being done by the "transformers" guys.
C'mon... am I the ONLY ONE who sees the obviousness of that point?
The Enterprise with "rotating shoulders???"
If your "friend" is really at ILM, he's either bullshitting you to make fun of you, or someone there is bullshitting HIM to make fun of him.
Take your pick.
The Enterprise's nacelles will not be moving around. 
Oh how I love the Internet and it's random B.S.
Oh how I love the Internet and it's random B.S.
My fingers are crossed...
I have a friend working on the movie who said that the Enterprise will have...
He also mentioned that first Zachary Quinto-Spock scene will be...
30" ostrich leather chrome rims with G-Unit spinners.
He also mentioned that first Zachary Quinto-Spock scene will be...
Spock pon-farring a pair of Vulcan blondes played by Kristen Bell and Hayden Panetierre with his forked penis.
- Status
Similar threads
