The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Arlo]

^ I know we're all just engaged in fun speculation, but I really have to think most everything in that teaser is a one-off for the "under construction" metaphor.

I would say we don't see a massive support framework simply because it would obfuscate what little they're already trying to show us.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Santaman said:

therealfoxbat said:
The big thing is the stress on the partially assembled framework. Something shaped like the Enterprise would collapse under its own weight *snip snip*

Why assume this? they're NOT building it out of steel or out of any other material we can use/think off today.

You left out the part of my quote about bracing and scaffolding...

I don't believe the futuristic material would matter much. Any half-built structure that's shaped like a very narrow letter T would be inherently unstable without extensive bracing, which doesn't seem to appear in the preview. I admit that building the ship on the ground is possible, but I believe the cost and hassle of doing it that way (compared to assembling the prefab units in orbit) would be prohibitive.

aridas sofia said:
The lines were there on the 11 foot model, drawn in pencil on the painted surface. They were purposely drawn very faintly, and are only visible in certain shots (like the two-shot with the Constellation in "The Doomsday machine").

Forbin said:
Incorrect. The radial and concentric panel lines were on the original model from the very beginning. They were pencilled on lightly so as to be realistically inconspicuous. They're visible in most shots that show a closeup of the top of the saucer section. Franz Joseph didn't event them. The AMT model exaggerated them severely however.

And the AMT model was released during the run of Star Trek in the 1960s, while the Franz Joseph tech manual was released in 1975, so I kinda doubt the model was based on the TM, ya know?

OOPS... My bad...

Cary L. Brown said:
You're largely correct in your thinking, I think. I don't believe (and this trailer doesn't SHOW) that the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED on the ground. We see some components, but it seems fairly evident (or at least, it seems evident to ME) that these components aren't attached to each other in their "final positions." In par4ticular, I reference what appears to be the primary hull dorsal... or perhaps one of the nacelle pylons?... being constructed at a distance, and orientation which is completely "wrong" compared to where it SHOULD be, relative to the saucer we can see in that same scene.

I've also become convinced that what I originally believed was the backside of a nacelle is much more likely the top of the secondary hull. I assumed it was a nacelle because I could see no evidence of a dorsal or of a saucer... but the scale, and the visible detailing, is nearly "right" for the secondary hull but totally "wrong" (IMHO) for a nacelle, if you accept that the dorsal hasn't been attached and it's sitting somewhere else other than "right under" the primary hull.

They're building it in chunks, then lifting those chunks into space for final assembly, system-integration, etc.

As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."

However, if, say, the outer surface of the hull is composite... and some laminated construction at that... they may well have ceramic materials and so forth laminated on top of hull metal on those plates. If so, it might well be that the non-metallic portions of the hull plating are best applied in smaller areas. I mean, if we were really talking about just putting paint on top of bare metal, you'd probably be right. But think about the "printing" on the buttons on your cell phone keypad, where there are actually two colors of plastic, one molded right around the other one. Maybe THAT's what they're doing.

I don't have a big problem with what I'm seeing here, except that it's not the original (and thus I'll never be able to "suspend my disbelief" that this is the Enterprise... "I KNOW the Enterprise, I've grown up with the Enterprise, and sir, YOU ARE NO ENTERPRISE!" )

I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.

You may be correct about the lettering being integrated into the hull plating. I was probably thinking about Scotty's Guide To The Enterprise, where they talk about the paint job actually being a paint job.

 

[Shaw]

Captain Robert April said:
Since they also had to install all those lights for the number, in that case it only makes sense for the number to be painted on at the same time.

The big question is was the number on the flight deck painted on at this time?

At the time of those images... no. Those numbers are painted over the flight deck surfacing and are periodically repainted along with the rest of the flight deck markings because they become unreadable after as little as a single deployment.

A better question is if the name had been applied to the stern of the ship at that time... and as I recall, yes. The name is actually raised lettering on the stern, so that would have been applied during the construction of that section before assembly.

Anyone curious about how carriers are put together can take a look at this link which has a lot of images of the USS George H W Bush under construction.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

therealfoxbat said:

I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.

I think you're thinking of a different shot.

This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).


I believe that's the back of the secondary hull, not the nacelle... as I was originally thinking. As such, the size is MUCH closer to what it ought to be.

 

[therealfoxbat]

You're right. I'm thinking of the shot that TheSeeker posted in Page 2 of this thread on January 18.

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

I think it might be an engine. Given the front view we've seen of them, this seems like it matches up.

I really hope I'm wrong though. I absolutely love Gabe's Enterprise, it's a really awesome and imaginative model. But I don't want to see it in this movie(or anything heavily inspired by/influenced by/coincidentally a lot like it). Give me the original, dammit! (Or Vektor's design without the slanted pylons.)

 

[Data Holmes]

Cary L. Brown said:
therealfoxbat said:

I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.

I think you're thinking of a different shot.

This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).


I believe that's the back of the secondary hull, not the nacelle... as I was originally thinking. As such, the size is MUCH closer to what it ought to be.

I think that's the aft end of the warp nacelle, looking forward.

 

[Vektor]

Cary L. Brown said:
This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).


I believe that's the back of the secondary hull, not the nacelle... as I was originally thinking. As such, the size is MUCH closer to what it ought to be.

It’s not inconsistent with the overall larger size of the ship shown in the teaser for that to be one of the nacelles, especially when they are so exaggerated relative to the rest of the ship.

I’m not prepared to rule out the secondary hull but I really think we’re looking at a nacelle. For one thing, if those “wings” are mounting points for the nacelle struts, they would be at a very low angle. We can see what appears to be the port strut in the front view and it is actually at a higher angle than the original version. The edges of the wings where they would join to the struts also appear to be more rounded off than I would expect for a joint between two major components.

The hull beyond the wings also does not look consistent with what the back end of the secondary hull ought to look like. It does look consistent with those huge “Koerner-esque” bulges at the fronts of the nacelles. I think it’s also possible that we’re looking toward the back of a nacelle and what we’re actually seeing is an aft cowling of some sort.

It’s very tempting to look at those wings and think of nacelle strut mounting points, but I’m just not buying it from the other evidence we can see in these images.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, like I said, I ASSUMED, initially, that this was a big freakin' nacelle, too... but upon further review I've come to the conclusion that I, personally, think I'm seeing the secondary hull instead.

I ASSUMED that those were really bad intercoolers... and that I was seeing the "hoodie"... just like everyone else is. I'm just not as convinced now as I was at first review, that's all.

We'll know, soon enough, anyway, won't we?

 

[Patrickivan]

And here's a blurry image of my Enterprise.

My apologies for the white background... It won't happen again. The lower fuzzy image is of the aft end looking forward with the nacelle struts cropped.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I wonder... anyone have a CGI Enterprise with a little "tall guy" who can be posed on the hull at about that position?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

Also... consider that this might be looking in the other direction... and we may be seeing the "dome" on top of the hangar aft, and the shuttlebay with the top not yet closed in. In other words, assume that the camera man is on the dorsal rear, facing aft...

Possible?

 

[Arlo]

^ I was thinking the same thing! A tall guy shot in that location would be great

 

[ThomastheCat]

Tallguy had one but I haven't seen him post in a while.

Personally I'm in the secondary hull camp. I'll be pretty disappointed if those featureless lumps of metal are sticking out of the nacelles for no reason. Given the subtle details they added to the bridge it wouldn't be consistent to pass up on a perfect place to add detail. If those are the intercoolers they'd just be taking detail away...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

To help evaluate this a bit more easily, I've clipped out part of the shot (the whole thing is too wide for my monitor at "real resolution" of course at 1080p!)

But this shows what I believe to be the starboard-side engine pylon support base... something that looks kind of like if you took a TMP-style nacelle pylon attachment and used it with a more TOS-ish pylon.

Also, it's VERY clear here that the "step" you see represents a region where the hull is incomplete. I really think that if you looked down through there you'd see the insides of the hangar deck...

Click the thumb to see the high-res version:

 

[ST-One]

Sorry, Cary, but I strongly think you are wrong on this one.

This is the back of the starboard nacelle (we can briefly see what appears to be the bridge-dome on the left of the screen).

And, since we see a much larger portion of the port pylon elsewhere in the teaser but not in this shot, it follows that this cannot be the top of the sec-hull...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

ST-One said:
Sorry, Cary, but I strongly think you are wrong on this one.

This is the back of the starboard nacelle (we can briefly see what appears to be the bridge-dome on the left of the screen).

And, since we see a much larger portion of the port pylon elsewhere in the teaser but not in this shot, it follows that this cannot be the top of the sec-hull...

Can you point out where you believe you see the bridge dome? I "scrubbed" through the videos repeatedly and can't find it.

Also, I think you're assuming that the pylons would be built in-place... yet I'm unconvinced that the various components are actually attached in any of the shots we see here. That's also supported... albeit vaguely... in comments by Orci made online, who overtly stated that it's possible for the ship components to be built on earth and assembled elsewhere (as was stated in the original 1960s production documentation). I'm sure that there were "liberties" taken in this trailer to drive home to the audience that they were seeing the "Enterprise" (such as hanging the nacelles in ROUGHLY the correct positions... and in the positions that they "looked right" by someone's judgement... but I'm very skeptical that the ship is actually ASSEMBLED in the situation we're looking at here.

If, as I've always believed, the ship components were built at the San Francisco Naval Yards (a real place), then lifted into orbit for assembly and integration (as stated in The Making of Star Trek as having been the original production-team intent), then the argument being made isn't as well-supported.

Again, I originally assumed that this was a nacelle, but I've become UNCONVINCED of that over time.

We'll see, eventually... doesn't matter what any of us THINK we're seeing, does it?

 

[ST-One]

Cary L. Brown said:
This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).

In this shot, on the very edge of the left side of the image... this could be the bridge dome... I could be wrong though...

BTW: We see the port pylon in two shots: the one with the welder and at the end of the teaser when the camera moves from under the saucer up to reveal the name...

 

[Patrickivan]

I've got to check this out on my HD TV. It'll be huge!

I think it's great that we have this teaser to play with, but why the hell can't these people turn on the work lights!? It's so bloody dark here- the workers should go back to 2007 and steal those super white blinding road construction crew light stands!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

ST-One said:In this shot, on the very edge of the left side of the image... this could be the bridge dome... I could be wrong though...

I don't see it. I see a single vertical column near the top left of the screen, but no hint of the "bridge dome." But as you say, I could be wrong, too...

BTW: We see the port pylon in two shots: the one with the welder and at the end of the teaser when the camera moves from under the saucer up to reveal the name...

I agree that this first shot is most likely an engine pylon, though it COULD also be the dorsal.

However, on the Enterprise models I have, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if you were viewing the ATTACHED engine pylon from that angle, you'd be able to see the dorsal quite clearly. Yet it's not present... which tells me that it's PROBABLY not there (I s'pose it might be cloaked... )

In the final "reveal" scene, there's only one place where it MIGHT be possible to see a pylon in-place. That's here. But it's far from conclusive... it really looks like it's just part of the scaffolding, though I see the tiny hint of an angled bit on the port side which COULD be a pylon. There's no hint of the dorsal here, or the secondary hull, either...


Finally, you can clearly see the shape of the "intercoolers" here and it just doesn't SEEM to be the same here as in that other shot.


(click the thumbnails to see them full-sized)

 

[ST-One]

Cary L. Brown said:

ST-One said:In this shot, on the very edge of the left side of the image... this could be the bridge dome... I could be wrong though...

I don't see it. I see a single vertical column near the top left of the screen, but no hint of the "bridge dome." But as you say, I could be wrong, too...

Well,...

Cary L. Brown said:

BTW: We see the port pylon in two shots: the one with the welder and at the end of the teaser when the camera moves from under the saucer up to reveal the name...

I agree that this first shot is most likely an engine pylon, though it COULD also be the dorsal.

However, on the Enterprise models I have, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if you were viewing the ATTACHED engine pylon from that angle, you'd be able to see the dorsal quite clearly. Yet it's not present... which tells me that it's PROBABLY not there (I s'pose it might be cloaked... )

With the right camera settings (zoom, position) you can film that pylon, move and pan the camera without ever getting the dorsal hull in the frame. It is possible.

Cary L. Brown said:
In the final "reveal" scene, there's only one place where it MIGHT be possible to see a pylon in-place. That's here. But it's far from conclusive... it really looks like it's just part of the scaffolding, though I see the tiny hint of an angled bit on the port side which COULD be a pylon. There's no hint of the dorsal here, or the secondary hull, either...

I'm pretty convinced that it is the port pylon...
Yes, we cannot see the sec-hull, but that is due to the camera angle and position and all that scaffolding blocking the view... (and, maybe, it wasn't modelled yet when the teaser was rendered )

Cary L. Brown said:
Finally, you can clearly see the shape of the "intercoolers" here and it just doesn't SEEM to be the same here as in that other shot.


(click the thumbnails to see them full-sized)

Oh, I think they are the same shape...