The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Professor Moriarty]

BIG TIME SPOILERS AHEAD! Stop reading RIGHT NOW if you don't want to see any discussion of the new starship Enterprise from the big-budget Star Trek movie premiering Christmas 2008!













AOL/Moviefone has released an authentic image of the new Enterprise, and here she is in all her full-size (1828x778) glory!

So what do you think of the limited view we have so far? Personally I'm not too crazy about the reshaped command module, but for now I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude. The CGI work certainly looks marvelous, though. One question--why is there steam rising from that open hatch on the left? Is the Enterprise being built on the surface of Earth instead of in orbit??

(p.s. to moderators: This thread is meant to be a discussion of the artistic aesthetics of the new Enterprise model, which is why I've started a separate thread from the one that's underway in the "Star Trek XI" forum. Thanks.)

 

[TheSeeker]

It's hard to tell how much they've changed from that image, but damn! Nice render! I like how you can see the inner workings of the bussard collectors. As for the steam, maybe there's atmosphere leaking.

I'll reserve judgment until I've seen a full shot on the big screen but I like what I'm seeing in terms of quality.

 

[fleetcaptain]

Looks like Gabe's Enterprise design he did awhile back, from what I could make out of that photo.

 

[TheSeeker]

^I think we're just seeing the bussard collectors under construction and will see the famliar swirling colours when it's done.

Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Q2UnME]

According to what I'm hearing here and over at TrekMovie, the Big E's being built on earth. Nothing to say that the major components were not built on the ground and then hauled up into space for final assembly.

The render is awsome and it looks like the still was from the very end of the trailer during the pullback/reveil. Looks like they're vamping on the TMP version of the ship over the 60's TV version. As I said in the other thread, this looks a good deal like Gabe's version of the Big E, right down to the warp engines. I'm liking what I see so far but,..... I need more pictures!

Q2UnME

 

[RedSpar]

She's getting built on the surface (-1 on science, +1 on the dramatic). I think we're going to see some mega-detail in the animation of the bussards from what I see.

I see some of the visual style of Transformers rubbing off on the Enterprise...ie insane detail.

Good to see aztecing is still used on the hull to give it scale.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I really don't see much of Gabe Koerner's design in there. I suspect that this is a matter of people transposing their expectations onto what they're seeing. People who want to see his ship, see his ship, in other words.

Here's what I see.

1) The warp engines are about 50% constructed. We see the "guts" of the bussard collectors, not the final version. We see the skin only on the very forward section... everplace behind that, we're seeing "guts."

We do see the inner surface grillwork being hauled into place... that's why the two rows of lights on the nacelle inside surface aren't straight... they're just being MOUNTED at this point.

We see some structure going to where the intercoolers will go... but it appears to be trusswork and filigree, and thus is probably intended to represent internal workings, not the final exterior detail. Whether that just gets a "skin" overr it, or if that's a part of the inner workings that's entirely inside of the final nacelle housing (but LEADING to the intercoolers)... it's impossible to say from these views.

It's also not clear, by any stretch, that there's a physical structure underneath what we see. I.E, no evidence of a secondary hull, or of a dorsal, or of nacelle pylons. As far as we can tell, it COULD be the complete ship, or it could be three subelements which are, at this point, entirely separate.

You can tell more about the primary hull, though. It clearly has the same general shape, topside... but the A/B/C superstructure is significantly different. For instance, there's no room "inside" of what we all know to be the bridge dome. There's a larger room on the first level of the next tier down (which is two decks high) which I presume is the bridge. There's also what appears to be a single-deck-thick ring below that. So, where the TOS Enterprise has the curve of the saucer going to the B/C deck "teardrop" superstructure, then to the bridge "button" on top, in this case we get the curve of the saucer, then a single-deck-thick "ring" then a two-deck-thick "bridge section" topped with a little button which is visually reminiscent of the original bridge but appears to be nothing but a sensor platform.

We see panel detailing... no big deal there, anyone who didn't expect that was fooling themself. However, it's SUBTLE, which is a very good thing.

And the hull marking font is clearly the TMP hull font... except its not the "BOLD" form... it's Microgramma Extended, not Microgramma BOLD extended, as TMP used. It's not the same font used in TOS, in other words.

As a TEASER... it's great... because it gets us talking, but doesn't really tell us very much!

 

[Stardate]

We cant see that much from this pictures. What we can see is that its look a lot smilier to Gabe Enterprise and TMP and not TOS Enterprise..That is right approach to me.
Big question is how does engineering hull looks like and more importantly the thin neck and pylons. If they don't a least make the neck thicker and more stronger connection to the saucer, i will be bit disappointed however i will wait judgment until i have seen entire ship.

 

[B.J.]

I just figured out what I really like about this pic: It really shows off how MASSIVE this ship actually is!

 

[Vance]

It's kind of funny. On its own merits, it's not bad (though the perspective seems off, too scrunched from front to back) and might look good on the big screen. It does look like it'll be a 'new' TOS enterprise, stuck between ENT and TMP rather than on its own, but that's to be expecting.

What's amusing though, is that on the other hand, this shot probably guarantees that the movie will bomb, for precisely the same reason.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Vance said:
It's kind of funny. On its own merits, it's not bad (though the perspective seems off, too scrunched from front to back) and might look good on the big screen. It does look like it'll be a 'new' TOS enterprise, stuck between ENT and TMP rather than on its own, but that's to be expecting.

What's amusing though, is that on the other hand, this shot probably guarantees that the movie will bomb, for precisely the same reason.

HuH? Please expand on that...

 

[ancient]

Hard to judge the ship, seeing how it seems to be in heavy fog and we can only see the top-front in extreme close-up. Still, it looks pretty good: TOS nacelles, similar font, no TMP phaser banks, no self-illumination (that we can see). The top is a bit different, but nowhere near a total redesign. Either the ship is scaled bigger than the original ~1000 ft estimate, or the bridge is lower in the hull.

Keep in mind that this image was made a while ago. The design may not be 100% the same as what shows up in the film. The font could be a place-holder, for example. (Not that it would bother me if it weren't).

 

[Vance]

HuH? Please expand on that...

Simple, the classic Enterprise is the single most recognized icon of all science-fiction. Only the Death Star even comes close. That's why I've always advocated a much more subtle approach to changing the old girl - the more removed from the design you get, the more unhappy fans and casual fans will be.

It was allowed in TMP because it was 'a whole new Enterprise' and was written that way. The update had a story-driven excuse.

This, however, is a retcon and says 'all that stuff you grew up with is crap, so we're dedoing it'. Coupled with the outright retcon story, I just don't see how this can possibly 'take off' - erm - in the figurative sense.

 

[Arlo]

Vance said:

HuH? Please expand on that...

Simple, the classic Enterprise is the single most recognized icon of all science-fiction.

Says...?

 

[Vance]

Says...?

The Smithsonian.

 

[Arlo]

I know it's sitting in a box in the gift shop basement (seen it many times), but that still seems a rather presumptuous statement...

 

[Vance]

TV Guide made the statement, Starlog made the statement more than once. I mean, kick back, think about, how many OTHER science fiction icons are there that are so definitive? Not that many.. the Death Star, the Falcon.. and.. that's about the list.

But I think that it's telling that, at a time where Trek is seriously floundering and repeated 'reinvision' attempts have failed miserably, that some fans are still of the thought that ditching what started this 40 year old journey is a good idea.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Look, it's a true statement that the Enterprise is a cultural icon. We all know that. Nobody's going to deny that unless they're being intentionally obtuse in order to pick a fight (which has been known to happen on here sometimes!)

But Arlo's comment is also true. You made a statement of fact but as far as I know, nobody's ever done a scientifically valid study of what sci-fi icon is the most well-recognized ever.

You overstated your case a bit, and he's nitpicking the overstatement. Am I wrong on either count?

Now, to MY point... I happen to agree with you, Vance, about how the Enterprise is the single most widely recognized vessel (not just SCIFI vessel, but ANY vessel) in all of fiction. I doubt that you could show a picture of the TOS Enterprise to people in any city in any nation on this planet and have them not recognize it. You might find a few villages in the Andes where nobody'd know it, but those would be few and far between!

BUT... I fail to see the logical connection between the point of "the ship isn't a 100% perfect recreation, just more polished" (which is what I want to see!) and "the movie will be a bomb."

THAT is the part that I'm challenging.

It may irritate the Trek fans a bit... though how much is dependent on how much it deviates and if there's a plausible explanation for how and why... but if it's "very close" (which it seems to be), most audience members won't care... so the success or failure of the movie will be based more upon the quality of the storytelling.

 

[Arlo]

Ok, fine. It just seems such an absolute statement, I wondered if there was actually research backing it up, not just anecdotal claims.

Globally speaking, I suspect the Death Star is a more recognized icon, but that's just me.

 

[Vance]

I'll put it bluntly. Why would people who gave the last four movies and last two television series a complete miss, suddenly come to this one? Would people accept a whole new cast, writing, sets, etc, that's 'original series' just because it says it's 'original series'?

If you're going to base your hopes on the success of this film as being 'the original is back', then it needs to be 'the original' as much as what's feasible. The more you vary (particularly in ways that you don't need to), the more it's going to be 'just another Trek flick from MilkingDeadCowFilms, Inc.'.

And how, exactly, is that going to bring in any butts on seats?