The Different Versions of the Enterprise

[Devon]

Just wondering what you guys all think. Sorry if this has been talked about as I would have obviously missed it.

Assuming for sure this is a non-linear story, and assuming this shows parts of Pike's Enterprise, up to the studio model, wouldn't it be nice if they did show the different variations that the Enterprise took on? I.E. raised bridge, spikes coming out of the nacelles, etc.

Though they wouldn't be TOO big, but depending on what the Enterprise will even look like, it would be cool if they did that. I would imagine there would be some canon freaks going nuts if they didn't do it and kept it the same throughout, or showed Kirk's enterprise in construction.

Thoughts?

 

[Arlo]

I'm envisioning a scene where Pike's tall bridge module is lifted out and Kirk's is lowered into its place. Now *that* would be the ultimate in fanwank

 

[ancient]

Also, an in-depth explanation of how the bridge fits in the dome.

 

[Arlo]

^ I was *so* not going there....

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Ancient, you just HAD to stir up that dormant hornets' nest, di'nt ya?

Well, I'll play along...

THE BRIDGE VIEWER MUST BE OFF CENTER OR ELSE I'M WALKING OUT OF THE MOVIE!

 

[ancient]

Every time someone says anything they should instantly follow it with fannon exposition:

"We are at warp four, Captain. Which is 390.5 times light speed."

"Continue on course. Using the nacelles to generate a warp field around the ship."

"Well, I'm going down to the Bowling alley. Which is on deck 17."

"The same deck 17 that holds the ship's 26 escape pods?"

"Yep. Right under deck 16, which holds all the cargo bays and the shuttle parts."

Watch as the fans frantically scribble these factiods on their arms with crayon as all the sane people flee the movie in horror!

Cary L. Brown said:
Ancient, you just HAD to stir up that dormant hornets' nest, di'nt ya?

Well, I'll play along...

THE BRIDGE VIEWER MUST BE OFF CENTER OR ELSE I'M WALKING OUT OF THE MOVIE!

Doode, my personal cannnon is SOOO much awesomer than yours. Bigger too.

 

[Arlo]

I want the bridge to be on a hydraulic lift so it can dynamically change its vertical orientation and rotation relative to the saucer to accommodate all manner of turbolift positions.

 

[Garibaldi O'brien]

The bridge had better be configured using MAGNETS or... or... or...

I have started drinking too early!

 

[USS Mariner]

I actually hope we get a unique 1701, not to "update" or "retcon" it, but to establish the timeframe. Ships do receive upgrades over their service life, and with a ship as old as the 1701, it would be more than peculiar to find that it didn't change much in 25 years.

In fact, and I hope they indeed decide to do this, they are perfectly within reason (and canon) to increase the age of the ship, as there are several sources (TMOST in particular) that indicate that the 1701 might have been 40 when Kirk took command, which leaves the possibility of another major refit taking place.

The 2245 date is from the Encyclopedia, and we all know how set-in-stone that is.

 

[Anji]

Speaking of design, who's doing the artwork on this baby?

Who's the production designer, costumes and SPFX. Anybody know?

 

[USS Mariner]

Ryan Church of ROTS, I believe.

 

[Arlo]

Well we do know it will have wings.

 

[ancient]

Don't forget the 'rotating nacelles'

Hmmm...wings. I think the new Enterprise is a Bird-Of-Prey. Kewl.

 

[Arlo]

It would be for the awesum if there was a shuttle named "F. Joseph"

 

[Devon]

Mariner Class said:
Ryan Church of ROTS, I believe.

Yeah I believe he's on the project.

TrekMovie.com also have these listed:

Scott Chambliss Production Designer
Michael Kaplan Costume Designer

 

[FlyingTigress]

Don't forget the 'flame' markings mentioned by one of the writers...

 

[Stag]

Cary L. Brown said:

THE BRIDGE VIEWER MUST BE OFF CENTER OR ELSE I'M WALKING OUT OF THE MOVIE!

Yup...what I would like to see is some explanation of why ... like Robert Aoril looking at the scematics and yelling ...

"NO NO NO!!!! ... the viewer has to be offset to the left on these ships. Remember I told you that I don't want anyone seeing the viewer directly from the turbolift unless they step out of it...too many darned peeping Tom's that'll just ride up to the bridge and see what's going on and never get off the turbolift"

 

[Ezri]

It could be a problem with the version of the NCC - 1701. With TOS version it would look very poor on the screen. If they use the version very much like in the movies, why would it take 2 years in space dock to remodel the ship.

 

[USS Mariner]

Ezri said:
It could be a problem with the version of the NCC - 1701. With TOS version it would look very poor on the screen.

Just because you use the same design doesn't mean it's going to look exactly like the model from the '60s, nor would that preclude additional detailing.

 

[Ezri]

Would not dream they would use the same design of the 1960’s. If you look at the show Enterprise, would have to say it is more modern looking then the ship of the 1960’s even that NX – 01 is a much earlier version of a starship then the NCC – 1701.

There are two clear problems with the NCC – 1701 of the 1960’s, one is the deflector (looks like a satellite dish of the 1980’s), second is the paint job (looks flat without life, looks like flat paint you would get at a hobby craft store) that is flat, as the other ships post TNG looks like high gloss that adds depth.