DISQUS

Adrian · 1 year ago

Eeww,gees, I don't know... agree with you, Vic, have to see her in action. Just not sold all the way on the new look.

Spocks Brain · 1 year ago

I agree...

they raped the poor enterprise...just to make money...

No respect to the original BRILLIANT design... and to heck.. LOGIC!

This ship should not have been designed this way PERIOD!

busy · 1 year ago

im not a star trek fan, so the ship design isnt a big deal to me.

but seriously...what did you guys expect?

you want the same exact ship as the original? its sticking to the classic look while modernizing it.

in my worthless opinion its a huge improvement, the original in that top pic looks like a plastic toy that should be floating in a 5 year old's bath water instead of flying warp speed in outer space

Ryan · 1 year ago

It looks like almost every incarnation of the Enterprise so far: recognizable. I don't see 'ugly' so much as 'appropriate'. Plus, the Enterprise from TNG is a far bigger depart from the original than this one.

Spark · 1 year ago

Yeah I'm not a big Star Trek guy either but the design to me doesn't look too bad. The originals nacelles remind me more of a Y-Wing anyway. It seems like they decided to give the neck and other pieces on the new version a slanty look which could make it really sweet when it is in motion. ...thats jus me tho... but hopefully Abrams redesigning this ship wont be a repeat of Lucas' crappy overly produced Star Wars sequels ...God, I hate that man.

Deadpool · 1 year ago

It's time to give it up Vic. Seems to me like everything JJ is doing is for new fans, to start fresh. To hell with hardcore Trek fans, or fans of the original series. Those fans, myself now included (I started watching the original series again, first time since I was very young), are all very upset with the direction this movie is headed. The new designs of the "bridge," so aptly named by my friend 790 as "the iBridge." The overall design of the ship. The costumes, the look of the actors in all of these promo shots. It makes hardcore fans mad.

But I've noticed, in people that I've talked to who know literally nothing about Star Trek, it seems cool to them. They seem interested, excited, intrigued. To hell with fans of the legendary Shatner and Nemoy! They want to start fresh. I hope this backfires on Mr Abrams

Van Banoovong · 1 year ago

I hope that Enterprise is used under the command of Captain Pike. When Kirk takes command, hopefully the Enterprise will look like the iconic one from the original series.

Ed · 1 year ago

I really was thinking they could do something more original. It looks a lot like a bloated "modernized" version of the old ones, but it also looks like 'a' Star Trek space ship, so it (might) do for Joe film-goer.

My problem I guess is it looks too trekky...

I like your car comparison though.

Patrick · 1 year ago

I like the old design and I'm not a trek fan either. It's the thing I hated about the new Star Wars movies, they made everything in the new star wars look so much more advanced, and sleeker. I mean look at the Naboo fighters compared to the X-Wings. maybe if you get technology to a certain point it starts regressing.

Jim dandy · 1 year ago

The ship doesn't look too bad; ya'll knew that they would "moderize" it for today's empty-headed audiences. The young, cocky-looking crew is what I'm afraid of seeing in action, and hurling over. If they do a great acting job as a group, then the movie will rock, if not, no ship design in the known universe is going to make this turkey any better to see.

David · 1 year ago

Your right Vic, the secondary hull looks... I don't know how to describe it other than out of place or wrong. My first impression was its not finished, there's still work to be done on it! (Please!)

It has the look of cake frosting that has just began to melt and sag. Like it was squished a little bit.

It doesn't look big enough to hold what the Enterprise originally housed in the secondary hull. You know your a trekkie if you have a "Booklet of General Plans" Well I checked mine and there are all sorts of fabrication, storage, and recreation facilities there. Not to mention the shuttlecraft hanger, which takes up a quarter of the secondary hull.

I do however like the new engines. That is the one thing I expected to be considerably different. I'm not disappointed by them, but they do have that rolled piece of clay look with a headlight lens stuck in the end.

I know I'm over analyzing, but as a trekkie I think I'm entitled. Lets hope in the movie She kicks butt and looks super doin' it!

FlameStrike · 1 year ago

It's Transformers all over again.

Ed · 1 year ago

Ah, Galaxy Quest comes to mind.

Interesting considering how JJ says he likes Galaxy Quest more then the Star Trek movies.

Typhon · 1 year ago

Not to be too crude, but this new design looks like the "classic" Enterprise and the "movie" Enterprise had sex and made one ugly baby.

I don't see why it would be so hard to use the classic Enterprise in the film. Just watching it in action after only ever seeing it on the small screen would have been worth admission alone.

Gary · 1 year ago

I think I will see the movie and judge the images in full context.

Daniel · 1 year ago

I am a fan from the beginning, or at least since I was born, of Star Trek. I don't understand whats wrong with the new concept. It looks totally correct from a realistic and physical point of view. It looks like a ship that can handle various forces in the universe, natural or not. That was always a hard sell with the original design. All of those sharp corners everywhere would stress at the sign of any differing gravitational field let alone high speed and you can forget about atmospheric flight. The new one however has a molded design that shows engineering and stability and doesnt need the aid of an "advanced alloy" to explain how the shape and sturdiness is possible.

Bvance · 1 year ago

I like Star Trek, I don't like this.



It feels like this ship should be the Enterprise F or G. How come in all prequels the technology looks/is superior to the future technology. Doesn't make sense to me.

Bvance · 1 year ago

I found where J.J. stole the design from....

From flippin Veggie tales!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zscIbgsbrPg

@ 0:44 seconds.

David · 1 year ago

I agree Vic. The secondary doesn't match the primary.

There are plenty of other closer (to classic) solutions that would have been much better. Personally, I love the STMP Enterprise. I would loved it if they had used a design based on that nut with round narcels.

This ship is ugly, does not feel real and does not make the existing base happy. I'm sorry to say that I will be staying home.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Bvance

I can understand updating a design. I mean the original was ahead of its time when it aired, but it's too plain for a film. I thought the Trek movie ships were beautiful.

But as a couple of folks stated above, this looks both too much like Galaxy Quest and too "organic" a la Star Wars Episodes I-III.

Vic

Rob Keyes · 1 year ago

"iBridge" lol, I love it.

I don't get why the neck of the ship is so out of proportion with everything else...nor do I get the crazy disco warp nacelles. It looks like an entirely different class of ship.

CanuckLou · 1 year ago

Grew up with the original series in its initial network run. Love the look of this. Its a nice amalgamation of TV and movie versions of the ship.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

I think my main beef with the design is the teeny-tiny "butt" on this thing. The back part of the secondary hull is so thin it almost looks like a caricature.

Check out what this guy did and see how much better it looks:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/spockboy...

Vic

Joe of the Mountain · 1 year ago

Sorry JJ. It looks like something out of "Overhauling" or that "We Hire Hung-Over, Low IQ Vo-Tech Graduates to Design Motorcycles" show on Discovery channel.

Sort of bears no connection to a functional design, although I'm sure the kiddies (who know everything about cyberspace but nothing about reality) will love it.

Until the Next Coo-ull Thing comes along and their ADD adled minds forget this hack-job every happened.

Heavy sigh...

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

Check out the photoshopped version of the new ship by "Spockboy" that I've added to the end of the post. That minor change actually makes the ship look 10X better.

The more I look at that skinny "tail" the worse it looks.

Vic

Jack · 1 year ago

I'd agree with Vic on this one. The small tail-end of the ship is way too small. the neck and saucer are also misaligned, if you think about it. if they kept the tail the same, but moved the neck and saucer forward, it wouldn't look so bad. Another thing, if they had used the correct paint schemes and insignia for the hull, as well as a better deflector dish design, the overall design would improve. To me, it looks like a cross between the Star Trek Phase II and Star Trek I-VI models.

joshi · 1 year ago

As an absolute non-Trek fan (don't hate it, just don't have any interest in it, though I will be seeing this movie), I personally don't see this as such a big deal and quite like the ship.

Everyone and their mother knows what the Enterprise looks like (at least the basic design) and this looks like the Enterprise. Hell, not being a fan, had I not known this was a re-design or had any pictures for comparison, I wouldn't have known it was new and would have assumed it was relatively the same as all the others.

Also, you seem to be confusing "ugly" with "different". What you're pointing out are things that are, frankly, different with the "old" designs, but that doesn't make them worse (and granted, may not make them better), just different.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@joshi

You have your opinion, I have mine. Yes, there are things that are different, but some (for example the unbalanced proportions), taken as a whole make the ship look pretty ugly to me.

Vic

joshi · 1 year ago

@vic

That's fair. I just wanted to point out that your opinion is likely based on your comparisons with the old designs and that someone seeing this ship anew with no prior detailed knowledge of the Enterprise probably won't find it to be ugly at all (then again, this is conjecture on my part, but from seeing comments on various other sites about this, it does tend to be true, non-trek fans like it, a lot of trek fans don't mind it and some like yourself hate it, but I guess this was to be expected by all).

And by 'unbalanced proportions' I guess you mean the proportions between the Primary and Lower hull (to use your terminology, though if I'm doing it wrong, I mean the saucer shaped bit and the long lower bit). Well yes, but it's not really something that caught my eye until you pointed it out, which is probably, again, due to the fact that I'm fairly new to this all and had no frame of reference.

I suppose, what this'll all come down to is what people feel when they finally see it in motion (trailer's out soonish yes?). The picture we have here could just be at an odd angle for all we know. ;)

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@joshi

No worries, bud. I made it quite clear in the opening paragraphs that my opinion on this was "As a long time Star Trek fan, whose favorite series is the original."

:-P

And as I also stated, this ship could very well look good on the big screen and as you pointed out, from different angles. I know that the Enterprise-D from "The Next Generation" looked pretty hideously fat from some angles.

It's just that this, combined with the Apple-store-looking bridge has me a bit leery as a fan.

Vic

joshi · 1 year ago

I can understand that entirely, we've all been in this situation where out 'fandoms' get given a "reboot" of some sort and we have our misgivings about certain things. I just felt like giving an outsiders opinion. ;) Glad we could understand one another.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@joshi

Well I *did* want non-fans' opinions so I appreciate your taking the time. :-)

Best,

Vic

Mike · 1 year ago

The design is WRONG.

For whatever reason, everyone that has helmed TREK after Roddenberry has somehow just decided that TOS does not and never did exist. TOS represents, to them, a design abberation.

BS. TOS IS TREK. Making the PRE 1701 look more like the A version simply ignores TOS, and since it is examining the TOS crew the entire thing makes no sense.

Dorks.

gah!

Josh · 1 year ago

I'm a fan of TOS, and I have mixed feelings about this new design. For starters, I think the ship does look very cool, and I can see why Abrams chose this design. It looks enough like the Enterprise to get a pass, and I am fine with the design.

But I can't get over the belly of the ship. I don't like how front-heavy it looks, and I don't like how the engines connect to it. Overall, as a spaceship, its very cool. As the enterprise, its acceptable at best.

Bc · 1 year ago

Is it just me, or does this "redesign" look like it might have been based on the Enterprise C from TNG?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:USS_Enter...

Um, not my favorite design, but I suppose we'll get used to it.

Chris Johnston · 1 year ago

Yeah, the secondary hull and pylons look too "NURMy".
Totally agree with you, Vic, about the "tiny butt". That area where they join up needs to be more robust.

Here's a good discussion thread from the 3D modelers over at Sci-Fi Meshes...
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/general-disc...

hicks99206 · 1 year ago

being the somewhat avid fan of star trek(star wars wins barley)
the redesign did catch me off guard at first but i agree with joshi on many of his points and as far as the ibridge goes, in todays modern society with phones that can do all but wipe your ass(someone should work on that) you can't present a movie about the"future" unless it looks like the future which means more advances in tech, so bones can not go around with a tri-corder the size of a boxing glove when we have similar tech at smaller sizes in todays life, and as far as the star wars references about the different tech between the prequels and original trilogy is this as all star wars fans should know the AT-AT,AT-ST, and other designs were designs that palpatine took form ancient sith desings which would explain the apparent step back in their look, and as far as the comparison between the naboo fighter and the x-wing thats like comparing a sedan and a sports car and if you look at the ARC-170S in episode III that is the predecessor of the x-wing and when looked at from that persecutive you can see that the x-wing is a much smaller and streamlined version of the ARC-170S

CanuckLou · 1 year ago

I prefer JJ's version to Spockboy's. His looks too much like a compromise between JJ's version and the original. The fatness of the bottom does not flow with the rest of the ship lines.

CanuckLou · 1 year ago

There is a strong influence from the Enterprise C from The Next Generation episode - 'Yesterday's Enterprise.'

Might want to throw an image of that one up for comparison purposes too, Vic.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@hicks

Here's the deal (and my logic): They could have made the bridge look hyper-modern but have kept a color scheme with at least a passing resemblance to TOS and TNG. I mean when have we EVER seen a blazing white bridge on a Federation ship? Ever? Hell, take the same damn one they have, transparent panels and all but change the colors to the blacks/reds/tans of the original and I would have been as happy as a pig at the trough.

As to the size of tricorders, communicators, etc. I believe that's a straw man argument. I would counter that the devices can do so MUCH that they by design have to be a bit larger.

Everyone says "blah blah cell phones tiny blah blah." Fine. Could your cell phone, WITHOUT cell towers, contact a ship in orbit? Do you think maybe we could excuse a Communicator not being the size of a pack of matches because it needs to be able to do what it does? Same goes for the Tricorder - it has such vast capabilities that to me it's silly if they make it too small.

Vic

Mark · 1 year ago

I am as hardcore a Star Trek fan as you will find. I didn't finish DS9 or Enterprise (This due to not having TV for a few years), but otherwise loved all the different shows and movies (except I, V, and VII). I personally love the new design. I think it pays homage to the original while at the same time making it look like technology that COULD exist in the future, rather than something that looks like it was designed for the future in the 60s or even the 80s.

David · 1 year ago

There was something else that bothered me about the new look that I couldn't put a finger on till I saw spockboy's fix!

The engines, support pylons (and where they connect top & bottom), and the tail of the secondary hull all look jammed forward. Was space dock too short?

When I saw his fix, it hit me: Animated series come to life! Very cool!

Nice touch spockboy!

Mark · 1 year ago

Vic, I bet you didn't like the design of the Enterprise-E when it was debuted in First Contact. If that's so, I think I can understand your feelings a bit. It was so different than any other design as it was stretched out for a wide-screen format. I personally liked it the most out of the designs up to that point, but people who didn't like that one tend not to like anything other than the perfectly round saucer, barrel-shaped secondary hull, and straw-shaped warp nacelle designs.

David · 1 year ago

I just had a non fan (there is one in my house) tell me that she likes JJ's look better than spockboy's touch-up. She specifically likes the shape of the secondary hull. liking the subtle curve on the bottom. She thinks it looks sexy!

Oh! The shame of it!! ;)

Ian Randal Strock · 1 year ago

It is modern car design: they squashed in the engineering hull, and pushed the nacelles foward to give it that tiny car "sure, we're really hip (except they're not)" look. The Enterprise isn't a sports car, not from any era: she's a heavy cruiser. She's a big, badass ship you don't want to mess with (one of the early novels described her from a Romulan point of view: a war shield and two clubs [or was it spears]). This new thing inspires fear or awe in no one. Bummer.

David · 1 year ago

Hey Vic did I miss something?

I don't recall seeing any of the devices in the pictures released so far. But I agree with you, plus the things need to be big enough to operate in less than ideal conditions I would think.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@David

No we haven't seen those things, but in Star Trek: Enterprise they made everything smaller than in the original show.

@Mark

I *still* don't like the Enterprise-E.

Vic

Lee-Unit · 1 year ago

I should start by saying that I consider myself to be a lifelong Star Trek fan even though I'm only 21.

I actually caught my first glimpse of this design last night and my first reaction was, "Why'd they do that?". I didn't like that they pushed the neck so far aft that it was nearly on top of the shuttlebay. And it seemed like the nacells were nearly touching the rear of the saucer section.

However, I looked at the design again later and thought, "that still does look like the NCC-1701". I think I do need to give Mr. Abrams some amount of credit. JJ, I can easily recognize this as the original Enterprise even though you've changed a lot of the body lines and resized some of it. And wasn't that the goal?

I loved the look of every Enterprise. Each was unique and set itself apart from other iterations. This one is easily recognizable as the original; (I direct your attention to the frontal lobes of the nacells as well as the exterior mounted deflector dish.) No it's not exactly the same as TOS Enterprise, but what'd you expect.

This design satisfies the hardcores who wanted this to the NCC-1701 and the 'new fans' Abrams wants to bring to the base with an updated design with realistic design cues. Plus, we can't see the whole thing with this one photo. Let's see the whole thing in motion before we pass judgement. Bottom line; I can deal with it.

We had to know Abrams would re-engineer some things for the movie. And as Dr. McCoy once famously said, "I know engineers, they love to change things."

790 · 1 year ago

Looks like the body of the Enterprise E, and the saucer section of a Starfleet Ambassador class ship, with a touch of the NSEA Protector thrown in for laughs...

Hey Vic the "NX Prometheus" in the Star Trek Voyager episode,"Message in Bottle" had a uber-white bridge but even that wasn't as high tech as this new/old one...

I have a feeling that JJ's attempt at making this film something "non-fans" can enjoy, could have been his biggest mistake!

I'm betting theres a Omega 13 reference in the film somewhere... :-)

Mario Augusto · 1 year ago

To me, its Star Trek DEGENERATIONS.
I hate JJ Abrams, Paramount e Mr Nimoy for this!!!

WAR-MACHINE · 1 year ago

HONESTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE jj Blended the 2.
being that the one frome the original & from the old star trek films.
it'l grow on ya.
a ton of people hated voyger at first but after a while. people loved it.
so this new ship rendistion will hopefully grow on us.

Mat · 1 year ago

I'll need to see it in 3d before I can form an opinion.

J · 1 year ago

Well, from a design standpoint, the article's author has a point. It is an inconsistent design. An analysis of the ship's new look reveals an obvious incongruity between the primary hull and the engineering hull. If the artists that designed the ship had added details to the saucer section to bring it in line with the look of the engineering section, there would be no problem. However, as it is the ship looks like a hodge podge of the TMP Enterprise saucer with the Reboot engineering hull. This much can be argued, other than that the ship looks not so bad given that it is an original design based on the Enterprise and Constitution classes.

Spocks Brain · 1 year ago

There was no reason to change the original design too much... Well there WAS a reason. If they didnt make it different enough they would not sell new toys to kids....

Its all about franchise... and to hell with canon, or logic. The problem is that the guys who are workiing on this films are not super duper trek fans.
The guy made the horrific Tranformers for goodness sake! lol What do you expect? No... it was a bad choice.. given to a team will little or no understanding of the spirit of Trek.... and you will see that the bad ship design is only the tip of the iceberg... they will have stuff in the movie that will leave millions that know what TOS was scratching their heads...

I started to understand this from small details over the months that I have been following closely all the updates on trekmovie.com but now that the bad photos of the crew, the iBridge and now the Big-E is out, there is no doubt that these guys should be tarred and feathered for sacrilege of TOS. Like so many remakes or reboots (YES GUYS THAS WHAT IT IS), this one will be worse than the original.. simply becuase they have all the technology and money for effects and new designs.. but they lack the deep knowhow on how to make something GREAT. Thats what I admire about the people who put together TOS: They didnt have a lot of money, nor computers to design, but what they had was RAW POWERFUL TALENT and the KNOWHOW based on REAL artistic knowlage, something that has been lost in the new schools of art, like design or film. As a designer first trained to DRAW in a classical manner and THEN learned how to use computers to design, I understand how important this was for me. Just take a look at the TOS original scenes and compare them with the "REMASTERED" ones... Oh god.. they are HORRIBLE in color, lighting and more importantly COMPOSITION! LOL these guys have all the toys to make cool things, but what the lack is deep understanding of really the BASICS of making a thing good. And this stupid new enterprise is HORRIBLE .... its a disgrace .. bad design - bad design... period!

avoidz · 1 year ago

Like FlameStrike said, "It's Transformers all over again."

Yep, that's one ugly starship design (with the exception of the Motion Picture saucer section).

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Spocks Brain

Well I was FULLY prepared for an updated look. What bothers me is that it seems like for some design aspects, where they could have turned right to make it more similar to the original they turned left instead.

Like I've said about the bridge, fine, keep the new design - just make it in tans, reds and blacks. It would still look cool for new viewers but would have (probably) satisfied the fans. As far as the ship, as demonstrated by the fan-tweaked versions over at TrekMovie, there are subtle changes that could have been made that would have been less "offensive" to TOS fans and quite frankly just would have made the ship look better.

I'm still holding out hope for this.

Vic

JonnoBock · 1 year ago

I've got to agree that the back end of the engineering hull just plain looks squashed, and with the deflector dish that far ahead of the neck it looks front heavy.

I suppose there's something to be said for giving something new fans can enjoy, but I don't see what was wrong with the old design. Enterprise proved (in one of its best episodes, "In a Mirror Darkly") that the old style Constitution class can be spruced up very nicely for the current generation. Model the ship to bring out more details, and you can make the old designs look excellent. You can also improve the materials of the old bridge sets to make it look more modern while still having it look like it always did.

I wasn't around for the first run of TOS. Wasn't around for the first couple seasons of TNG, either. Still, I can't see why they felt the need to modify the design to this extreme.

Then again, as I've learned more about this movie my catch phrase has become, "I'm not impressed." Not that my opinion amounts to much, I know, but there's my two cents, regardless.

Jon · 1 year ago

790 and I were talking about this at MOVIEGUYS, and he brought up a really good point.

If time travel is part of the plot, while highly unlikely it is possible that there are multiple versions of the Enterprise, and what we've seen so far might not be all that is in the movie.

I know it seems far fetched, but it's hope none the less.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Jon

This is pure speculation but that is entirely possible. From the lips of Robert Orci in the comments over at TrekMovie.com:

"If you see the movie, you will either agree with our final solution, or you won’t. But it’s too early to tell right."

Final solution... sure sounds like they have something interesting up their sleeves...

Vic

790 · 1 year ago

Yeah Vic I found out some stuff yesterday, but I can't tell cause it would be too much of a spoiler...

Its gonna be a grand film, if they can pull it off... Still too early to tell if the hardcore fans will like it.
That's something we won't know until next year.

8-)

FlameStrike · 1 year ago

“If you see the movie, you will either agree with our final solution, or you won’t. But it’s too early to tell right.”

Yeah, I've heard that one from Orci before. It just reinforces my above comment.

jimmy · 1 year ago

meh, ill wait for the movie but it doesn't make any sense why the ship would be a different ship..if its the same ship

how is this better?

790 · 1 year ago

Who says this is the only Enterprise in the film ???
8-)

John "Kahless" Taylor · 1 year ago

I agree that the new design could have used more....Trekenuity :-) . But this is just a picture on a computer screen. From everything I have seen and read about the new movie, I still believe it will appeal to the hardcore Trekkers (like me) and the non-Trekkers. One thing though...what the heck are those things right behind the deflector dish protruding from the side?

790 · 1 year ago

Nobody seems to be upset by the radical new Shuttle craft design ,;, hmmmm
8-)

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

Ok. The new Star Trek trailer was freaking AWESOME.

I don't like the white interior and I'm waiting to see how the ship looks in the movie (and whether it's the only version - I have a feeling there will be another), but the new trailer made it look like this movie is going WORK.

Vic

D · 1 year ago

i havent really looked or read everyones post on here but it seems to me that no-one has said anything along the line of the new enterprise looks like a combination of the original enterprise of shatner and nemoy (saucer section) and the enterprise the series of Scott Bakula (lower section) just bolted together is it just me?
im no treky either but i do watch tng voyager and some of the later movies so im just interested in how this one will pan out.
cant wait for the film or to see zacary quinto and simon pegg in the roles of spock and scotty

Ben · 1 year ago

Ugh, i equate this new enterprise design to being a kid and looking at the model you just built and realizing you skipped steps 4 and 13...

I cannot find the logic in Abram's
decision to make this the new E.

KEL · 1 year ago

I love it. I think it looks great. This movie is gonna be awesome, I'm so happy they're doing it with the original characters (my fave). :D

Lee-Unit · 1 year ago

Vic;

Yeah, the trailer was AWESOME. It looked like an action packed movie and just by watching it, I got the feeling that this IS Star Trek in the most original yet true representation. If the movie is as good as the trailer was, we're in for quite a treat.

Jon · 1 year ago

OK, I'm sold. The trailer was awesome! This looks like it may be better than I thought it would be

Joseph · 1 year ago

As a young 5 year old watching TOS Star Trek with his daddy, I was always amazed with the original series programs. The USS Enterprise was a ship I fell in love with. Every phaser fire, or launch of a torpedo was excitement to me. In the late 70's, when the Motion Picture was introduced, I was not too thrilled. But when I saw it, and the glorious appearance of the refit Enterprise, it was love at first sight. I was severely crushed when the Enterprise was set ablaze as it burned up on the Genesis planet. But none was more excited than me when the USS Enterprise returned in Star Trek IV, in honor of Captain Kirk (Demonted from Admiral).

It's about the autombile to me. We love our cars; it's look, drive, appeal, and excitement. That's how I view the USS Enterprise, both TOS and Motion Picture. Both are still very attractive.

Having said that, this new design does nothing. There's no beauty, and it's certainly NOT love at first sight. I personally hate this design all-together. No, it's not because it doesn't look like the original, or the Motion picture (except the primary hull), but because it reminds me too much of that floppy movie 2001 Space Odyssey. 2010 Space Odyssey set to clear things up, and was a dramatic improvement to those of us who could not understand the first one (2001), which seemed as though it was designed to fit those high on drugs; it made absolutely no sense.

JJ Abrams, I hate to say this, but this design of yours seems to attract an audience that knows nothing about Trek. If that's your goal, then I bid you God Speed and the best of luck. But trust me. Most of those anti-Trek fans will not, and cannot be won over. Their minds are not accustomed to dreaming, which is what made our Country great. The real kicker is if the Enterprise was real, these anti-treks would be the first to enlist in the new military, to be in that sharp looking car, and that fast ship with kewl guns. Thus, until this becomes reality, the only reality they will embrace is what they acheive on Friday nights.

In conclusion, I hate this new design because it has no appeal, might be fast, but is nothing more than just flat out weird. It is NOT love at first sight.

Long live the USS Enterprise....no A, B, C, D, or E.

Joseph

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Joseph

"JJ Abrams, I hate to say this, but this design of yours seems to attract an audience that knows nothing about Trek."

That IS the goal, bro. Because based on the last few movies and the last TV series the existing fanbase is obviously NOT enough to make Star Trek movies a very profitable venture.

Since you mention automobiles, you might be interested in this post I did a while back comparing the Enterprise redesign to the new trend of doing updated retro versions of classic cars:

http://screenrant.com/classic-enterprise-update...

Vic (another TOS fan)

Gary · 1 year ago

I strongly suspect this version of the Enterprise will be what the Mach 1 was to Iron Man .
I am sure to many non fans ,
the Mach 1 appeared ugly and clunky.
and by the end of the film The Mach 1 was gone,
replaced by a version of Tonys Armor that we recognize .

Joseph · 1 year ago

Gary said,
November 16th, 2008
I strongly suspect this version of the Enterprise will be what the Mach 1 was to Iron Man .
"I am sure to many non fans ,
the Mach 1 appeared ugly and clunky.
and by the end of the film The Mach 1 was gone,
replaced by a version of Tonys Armor that we recognize..."


Hello Gary. You know, I hope you're right, because that was what I was thinking yesterday. I thought perhaps JJ was trying to tease us. But when James Cawley stated in his article that this was the same ship he saw, I then realized that this was no spoof, unless he too is being spoofed.

I'll give it a chance, but I just don't see this movie being successful. Anti-Treks will never jump on board because they think it's too nerdy, or dorky. Yet they themselves would be the first to jump on board if Trek was a reality. It's ironic that these very same non-dreamers who redicule those of us who continue to dream, contribute nearly nothing to society. It's the dreamers who embark on scientific study, to make lives better and easier for mankind. It was dreamers who enabled the Apollo missions to set man on the moon, while the hippies celebrated in orgies and cocaine. *Laughs* Isn't it wonderful how the so called "geeks" contribute so much to scientific discoveries. Look at Bill Gates, who is the richest "GEEK" in the world, and look at who depends on his software to govern their lives.

It won't happen in my life time, but I'm certain that one day in the future, Trek will become a reality, where mankind will be able to travel to the stars, explore new worlds, even if it's not on the beloved USS Enterprise....after all, there's nothing wrong with dreaming.

Joseph

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

"Anti-Treks will never jump on board because they think it’s too nerdy, or dorky"

I think you're way wrong on that point. There was nothing "nerdy or dorky" about that trailer and I think that's the whole reason Abrams was brought in - to get Star Trek away from that reputation.

Vic

790 · 1 year ago

Hey Vic, with all this positive buzz, I'm betting Paramount is regretting pushing the film to 2009.
It looks like if they had originally released it in December they would have O compatish.

Joseph · 1 year ago

You're probably right Vic, and I apprecate JJ with trying to make Trek attractive to non-Treks, but Star Wars was the most fabulous science fiction movie ever filmed, yet it too died because of our modern day movie fans. They are just not in to this kind of film. And pervertin star trek to meet their desires is not the answer. If JJ does try to make a film based on their desires (nudity, hip-hop, profanity, etc) it just won't work, nor would it even be considered a Trek.

You and I understand that Trek isn't dorky, but even adults are governed by peer-pressure and accuse fans like me to be dorky. I showed my highly detailed models to a few friends of mine who wanted to see them, and one of my friends, "Joe I didn't know you were a Dork!" *Laughs*

In some ways, Trek fans are considered Dorks by tradition, and not by truth. Peer-pressure has a lot to do with that.

Any form of science fiction will be considered dorky by non-treks, or even non-star wars folks. I just accept it.

I love Trek because I love it, and not because someone told me I was cool for liking it. Probably like you, I am not governed by peer-pressure, or a popularity contest.

Now I haven't seen this new trailer yet, but I do feel that this new Enterprise just doesn't do it for me. It's very ugly, and has no appeal. Sure the movie might be good, but the design is just unattractive. I'm sorry guys, but that's how I feel. It's flat out ugly.

Joseph

Gary · 1 year ago

Joseph ,
Nobody is Perverting Trek.
A new approach is being attempted to Save Trek.
what I saw in that trailer yesterday
was an honest effort To focus on a Character based aventure story.
Paramount spent a lot of money marketing Iron Man to a public that was mostly Unaware of the character.
I trust they will do the same here.
Trek isnt doomed .
It may very well be on the verge of being reborn.

Kirk, James T · 1 year ago

I've been a Star Trek fan since the early seventies. The original series being by favorite. I like this design and I can't wait for this movie!!! The problem I see is the stagnation of a generation that can't look ahead. Everybody is whining because it looks different. That's the point!!!! It's a modern day look at the possible near future. To quote William Shatner himself: 'Get a life'!

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Joseph

Well we'll have the trailer for you tomorrow, Monday morning. :-)

Vic

Jon · 1 year ago

Kirk, James T
I live to criticize, it's what I do. While many of us complain to no end about how much we dislike all sorts of things about this movie, I seriously doubt anyone here is losing any sleep over this! :)

Seriously though I can't wait to see the trailer in glorious HD and up close. I think I might just spend some time pausing, rewinding and trying to fully soak in all the info the trailer offers us. And if you haven't seen it on the big screen, you don't really know what you are missing. It completely changed my perception of the film!

avoidz · 1 year ago

Kind of like that awesome Phantom Menace trailer all those years ago...

Jon · 1 year ago

The original Enterprise is a beautiful design, and while the original model may be a bit lacking in detail such as hull plating and the like, it is the most believable spacecraft design out of any of the Star Trek shows. Look at the old Apollo-era spacecraft--I think the original Enterprise captures that spirit: Functionally designed, beautiful in its simplicity. The refit is pretty, but not as realistic. Everything after that is pure garbage. As for the movie itself, I definitley think they have lost the spirit of Star Trek. The original show was about the bold spirit of exploration captured in the speeches of John F. Kennedy. It was about an intelligent exploration of what deep space travel means to humanity--NOT about things that go boom! If J.J. Abrams wants to make yet another stupid popcorn action movie, that's fine... but please don't rape Star Trek in the process!

Joseph · 1 year ago

I agree with Jon. There was nothing wrong with the Enterprise, and we don't need a new one; you don't fix what wasn't broken. Changing the model or design isn't going to bring in new fans, merely because its a new ship carrying the legionary name.

Regarding William Shatner's "Get a life" quote. Come now, how reasonable is that? I have a wonderful life. I serve my country well in the USAF, and I am near retirement. I have a great family, with three kids, although one is on her way to college, and my other two are straight "A" students. I'd say my life is quite awesome, although not without its negative moments, as is to be expected with all families.

Therefore, telling someone to "get a life" merely because we love Star Trek doesn't mean we don't have a life. In fact, using past legionary names to bring about a new life in Star Trek, ISN'T A LIFE AT ALL! For someone to rant and rave how much he wasn't a fan of Star Trek, yet bragged so much about the Refit design of the Motion Picture, is kind of selfish, to say the least.

Here's an honest question. What makes any of you pro-new-trek folks think that this new design is going to win over a new crowd? Name one single ship that won a crowd over merely because of a ships design. You and I can name every single science fiction movie ever produced, but what non-science fiction movie critic ever became a pro-SC/FI lover? Not a single one.

The 70's and 80's were good to the SC/FI base. But today, it's all about hip-hop, thongs, and cell phones. That's not to say that some Star Trek fans never listen to Hip-Hop, but most of the fans that I know (of Star Trek) are based from the original series era, with a few fans of TNG.

If JJ Abrams wants to introduce a new Trek to please the non-treks, then more power to him. But any new Trek outside of Trek Canon, or history, IS NOT Trek at all, but merely another movie.

Look at what they did to James Bond! How popular is that movie? It's not popular at all. Batman isn't popular either. But what about Spiderman? That move is popular. But why is spiderman popular? Because they didn't change the character, or the story line. Sure they've added some new thrills, but the story line is the same, as is the character. Could you imagine what would have happened to spiderman if JJ Abrams made a Spiderman film, and decided to change his uniform? *Laughs*

I'll give some of you credit. You're certainly hopeful. But Trek is not as dead as you seem to think. Just look at the millions of fans who are enjoying non-profit films by James Cawley. Look at the TOS characters volunteering to participate in making some of his films.

How many stars, except Nemoy, are assisting JJ Abrams with his production. I've wondered why Nemoy would participate in this, and to be honest, he's the only reason why I'm going to see the movie.

I'll make my judgments when I see the trailer, but the FAKE ENTERPRISE is not an enterprise. It violates the tradition of Trek, and doesn't match anything of the sort, and will cause traditional Trek canon to be wiped out; This movie seeks to destroy Trek Canon, and history. You can't give rebirth to a legion by destroying it with its new splendor.

Joe

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Joseph

Bringing up the new James Bond in defense of your article = bad idea. Quantum of Solace made the most money of any Bond movie EVER on opening weekend, by far. :-P

Vic

Joseph · 1 year ago

You'd be surprised how many opening shows generate money, but then later falls flat. Many opening shows generate so much plublicity, that millions flock to see it. Afterwards, when rumor spreads how much it stinks, the attendance dies down. The same thing happened to Clover Field (Film by JJ Abrams). It was thought to be a smash hit movie, but quickly died.

Trek fans are the kind who go back more than once, to absorb as much as they can. I watched Star Trek the wrath of Kahn six times while it was in theater. I watched Star Trek III (Search for Spock) almost 10 times, and nearly the same for Star Trek IV. After Star Trek IV, William Shatner did a terrible job with number V. The last one was okay, but did not have the same Trek feel.

Now looking at the Next Generation episodes, which ones were the most popular? You'll find it was those few episodes that contained elements of TOS. The same applies to DS9 and Enterprise. You'll find clips all over youtube with folks searching for traces of the original series.

In conclusion, Star Trek the original series continues to have the strongest base and support EXCEPT by paramount. I'm glad that they are giving JJ a healthy budget for his film, but with all of that money, I'm certain a better design could have been used. Here's one that I believe would have fit nicely:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/Phoenix_56...

That redesigned Enterprise would have been better than the one JJ is trying to introduce.

Joe

Joseph · 1 year ago

You might also want to consider the amount of fans generated by James Cawley. What about them?

Joe

Gary · 1 year ago

I am PRO TREK!
I believe that a good faith effort is being made to revive the franchise .
And I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt,
At least until I see the finished product.
I dont think Abrams is shutting out Trek fans in favor of new ones.
But he is trying to expand the Fanbase ,
and that MUST HAPPEN IF Trek is to survive.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

New trailer is up:

http://screenrant.com/official-hd-new-star-trek...

Plus I address the old vs. new Trek controversies.

Vic

Kirk, James T · 1 year ago

Joe, (and others)
Star Trek is classic. The original series is my favorite. It was also at times very campy but I love it anyway. The fact that J.J Abrams is trying to make Trek accessable to more people does not mean he is going to destroy it. The new design is needed. It looks more believable as a futuristic spacecraft. If a new movie was made using the old model, I truely believe it would be laughed at. I like the design. The changes to me are cosmetic. I'm more interested in the story that will be told. That's not something you can determine by a redesigned model or a two minute trailer. If Abrams respects the source material and keeps the spirit of Trek then this will be a good movie.
That is my hope.

avoidz · 1 year ago

@Kirk, James T - Firstly, using the old model doesn't have to look dated; look here: http://vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gall...

Secondly, this Trek's screenplay is by the two writers of Transformers and Mission: Impossible III... I think we've already seen some of the quip-heavy footage in the trailer - not a good sign.

I'll wait for the reviews, though, before beaming aboard this one.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@avoidz

That's a damn nice render of the original Enterprise.

Vic

Gavin Monty · 1 year ago

I am star trek fan and have been for a long time, loved it from the original, but im sorry, for the 21st Century it needs to change! whats wrong with creating a new style to it. JJ Abrams is trying to re-invent star trek to bring in new fans of the series. Star Trek is unfortunately not popular compared to star wars because it has seemed "geeky or gorky" to quote an early msg. Please stop holding on to the past and welcome change. Thats the only way star trek will survive! :D

Arthur · 1 year ago

so I am a big Star Trek fan and the thing the bugs me is what about all the Star trek time line stuff that has been built up from the original series to TNG to DS9 and to Voyager where do all those fit in now? JJ Abrams has alot of guts trying to re-write the whole history of Star Trek and honestly I am somewhat excited about the movie but also pissed off im confused

Bradford · 1 year ago

The prequel Enterprise would have been less sophisticated than the refit Enterprise of TOS and the movies. New technology, miniaturization, and automation could have reduced the size and need for the prequel's bulkier look resulting in the sleeker look of the TOS and movie Enterprise . Less equipment bulk reduces ship mass and could have allowed refits to add more deck space so the TOS version would have a larger secondary hull for increased storage space and operational range. If you stop thinking in terms of beautiful form and think in terms of aerospace engineering, then the differences in the appearance of the ships,(with the exception of the slender engine pylons of TOS), are logical. I see the prequel version as the Mark I Constitutional class heavy cruiser and it doesn't hurt my vision of the Star Trek world. By the way, Gene Roddenberry didn't like the idea of a starship that had equipment and instruments on the outside of the hull. As a former bomber pilot his opinion was based on the streamlined needs of craft flying through an atmosphere.

Nick · 1 year ago

Maby it will turn out to be like the reimaged Battlestar Galactica (but not so depressing)were it is diffrent and new but still kind of the same. But what will this new movie do as far as Trek cannon?

Joseph · 1 year ago

I love it when non-trek fans start accusing Trek fans of being geeky, nerdy, dorky, or what ever negative pronoun they toss in our direction. Talk about tradition! Most only do so out of tradition, and are extremely terrified of associating themselves with Trek, even though some in secret actually love it. The secret Trek fans are merely afraid of being “CAUGHT” watching Trek programs, because they’re afraid of being picked on, or teased. THAT'S CALLED PEER-PRESSURE!

I never thought that older people today would still be controlled by "PEER-PRESSURE". When it comes to music, movies, and television shows, I was never the person governed by PEER-PRESSURE, as though others dictated what I enjoy. If I liked the music, then I liked the music. If I liked the movie, then I liked the movie. What I like has little to do with what others like. That’s what makes me, and fans like me, faithful to Star Trek, even to the point of being persecuted, and/or ridiculed by those governed by PEER-PRESSURE.

How does this make fans like us better than future fans? Because we didn’t need someone to change a movie with its reputation of being geeky, dorky, boring, or stupid! We loved Star Trek for what it is, was, and ever shall be, no matter what the non-trekkies think. That, I’d say with great pride (as should the rest of you who feel as I do), makes us dependable fans of a 40 year tradition, despite the displeasure of the apparent main-stream populace, otherwise known to be anti-trekkies, the JJ Abrams and his Klan of followers who need to be won over! To HECK WITH THAT! We loyal Trek fans don't need Trek to change to suite our needs, as some appear to want! That will only end up as a temporary fad!

Some have mentioned JJ Abrams past failures, such as LOST and Cloverfield (I know that I mentioned Cloverfield), but my dislikes with LOST or Cloverfield have nothing to do with my dislike of his current Trek film. It has to do with his deceptive tactics used to keep Trek fans in suspense. At the beginning, advertisements stated, “TREK IS BACK!” and “WE WATCHED THEIR JOURNEY! LEARN HOW IT ALL BEGAN!” We were led to believe that JJ Abrams was taking us back to the beginning to tell the TRUE story of how it all happened. Instead, this movie is telling a completely different story, which will lead to a new establishment of Trek canon (no, not really).

Do I think this is a bad thing? I do for personal reasons, but that doesn’t mean I want JJ Abrams to fail. New generations have different tastes (some more perverted than others), and there’s nothing wrong with that. But knowing the history of Trek provides me enough evidence that a new style of Trek doesn’t necessarily equate to a new fan base. Today’s young generation thrives on a different movie style. They love mindless comedy, lots of blood and sick gore, thong scenes, neon lights, and a great deal of Hip-Hop. So unless Trek gets “Hip” and “Bloody”, JJ Abrams version of Trek will be nothing more than a temporary fad. So in my strongest opinion, we loyal Trek Fans have absolutely nothing to fear. Any so called new Trek Fans will disappear once the newness wears off. Why? Because the same old prostitute isn’t good enough for them; they’ve got to have something new every single time. WE, my friends, are the PROVEN, FAITHFUL, and BELOVED of the so called “GEEKY, DORKY, QUIRKY” Trek base.

What’s my prediction? This will be an average action film with some elements of Trek, but completely separated from Trek, that will die out completely. Mark my words fellow faithful fans. Within a year or two after all the chaff and wind have finished their course, the non-treks will continue to be non-treks, and the ones punching us with personal pronouns will continue to hurl insults at us. Why do I believe this? Because their beloved JJ Abrams and his Trek movie will have gone the way of decomposed feces, while we continue to revel in traditional Trek’s glory! In short, they’ll forget all about it, while the loyal Trek fans enjoy other Trek-based films…..James Cawley, dude, you are my hero!

I AM A STAR TREK FAN, AND I AM NOT AFRAID! We don't need change; Parmount is the one who screwed up, which caused the reduced ratings within the past 10 years. It's not our fault they put out flaky Trek films, but we still supported them.

790 · 1 year ago

I've found that most people that dis Trekkies are ppl that don't have a sense of humor and a sense of open mindedness toward alien life...

Same time they're playing "World of Warcraft" under the covers,,, :-O

dracose · 1 year ago

First, I've been a Trek fan since 1987, and after having seen all shows and movies many times over the years, I'm GLAD THEY ARE MAKING MORE... some Trek is good, some Trek is bad... but I'm ok with them being made no matter what just to get a bit of a fix and some fresh material.

With that being said, on the ship look in the new movie, if indeed this is the one... I just don't get how everyone thinks this is so streamlined... the way the saucer is pushed back makes the navigational dish part look like it's sticking out like an uber beer gut! Cept for that GLARING TO ME flaw... I LIKE the design... if you pushed forward the saucer part a bit, including the bit that connects the saucer to the engineering hull, it would be just about perfect in my eyes. However, the way it is now, I'm sure I will laugh in my head every time I see it on screen just a little, but it's better than nothing I suppose. Still, it makes me wonder if they ran into a wall at warp and we are looking at it before insurance fixes the damaged 'pushed back' saucer part.

Cap'n Stevo · 1 year ago

Ten seconds into the trailer, the hardcores will howl,(citing "A Piece of the Action") "But Kirk can't drive!"
I think I know what just went down though, (besides the 'Vette)
Welcome to the new time line.
Romulans from the future attack the Kelvin, Kirk Sr. dies over a decade earlier than he would have. Little Jimmy grows up undisciplined with nobody to keep him away from the Old Barn where the Red Barchetta lies waiting.

Meanwhile the Federation, believing the temporal interloper to be current Romulan tech, goes into full panic mode. They triple Star Fleet's budget and embark on a crash R&D program to close the gap. Working from the Kelvin's sensor logs an the accounts of the survivors they develop a line of ships that, while not as elegant as the Constitution class that would have been, are a great deal faster, more powerful, and advanced.

To crew these ships and bolster the fleet, they must recruit younger, train shorter, and promote faster.

Actually a good Idea to start them out young, because a successful Trek series can have a real long run and look pretty ridiculous toward the end if you don't

Much like the "change" promised by our President-elect, I am hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

What the geek callers fail to realize is that every time they boot up that PC, whip out that cell phone, or drool over that cool new electric car powered by lithium-ion batteries, there was a Trek fan behind it.

We are the ones who dream the dreams, crunch the numbers, draw the plans, fabricate the prototypes and make it real.

If Paramount doesn't give us what we want; A sense of optimism, a cerebral edge, and just the right touch of humor to leaven the bread, We will produce the GD thing ourselves. We have the technology, we MADE the technology.

We may not get it right at first, but we will not give up until we do. Thats the Star Trek way, that's the American way.

Rachel · 1 year ago

I tend to prefer SW to ST, and I never much liked the original Enterprise. However, the movie version should have at least looked like it could have been modified into the original version. The proportions on the 1701-2.0 are completely wrong.

This was not supposed to be a new model built as a tribute to the original. It was supposed to be the original, or at least a believable original version of the original. I am sure it will look great on screen, but it won't look like the Enterprise, and I thought that was the point.

I will still see the movie because I like space movies, but what I really wanted to see was a Star Trek movie.

~ RF

Spencer · 1 year ago

I really think that the new model is..."different" but I think you should give it a chance. you haven't seen it fly yet. sure maybe it should have a little more bulk and a few other things should be changed....but all I'm sayin is give it a shot.

Jake · 1 year ago

This new design works for me, as does the equally criticized NX-01, and here's why. Since "First Contact", everything that should have been has been tampered with. How many of Cochrane's team would go on to design the Daedalus Class Starship? (The Daedalus being the true predecessor of the Constitution Class) Now how many of those guys were blown up by the Borg? Lilly was also an engineer, and she spent a considerable amount of time on the 1701-E. In addition, she saw Picard destroy several starship models spanning over 100 years of ST cannon. Now considering that one of the founders of Warp capable ships viewed designs that were 300 years ahead of her time, it's safe to assume that her future work would have been impacted by her experience. You can also blame the design changes to the 1701 on several other Time Paradoxes. Remember Scotty giving a 1980's engineer the formula for a very strong 1" glass? How about the U.S.S. Voyager flying over a 1999 LA? I won't even get into every time paradox that Archer created. In any event, there's no doubt that some watchdog group from the 29th century is looking at pics of this new old Enterprise and asking themselves, "WTF"?

In any event, the new movie looks awesome. I have to admit that I chuckle everytime I read the "ibridge" reference though.

Bradford · 1 year ago

I have heard many fans blame everybody from Paramount, to George Bush for the decline of Star Trek. In reality, the very same hard core fans that gave it life in syndication are the ones to blame. These loyal "purist" fans have taken what they loved and put it in a small jar with no air holes in their attempt to keep and hold something on a shelf where they can marvel at a beauty that is only at its best when free. Unfortunately, after a time an antenna falls off, then a leg or a wing. Pretty soon all they have left is a dusty carcass. Star Trek needs to be free. It needs to have the space to be creative, fresh, and new. Star Trek is a modern day legend and most legends that survive do so because the story changes with the retelling and stays fresh and RELEVANT to the times. Look at some of the comic book characters whose stories have been drastically updated or renewed over the years. The Star Trek legend will not survive the passing of the baby boomer generation without a major overhaul because the generations to follow will just not be interested. It's time to let the child grow up, make it's own choices about right and wrong and live with their consequences. You might be surprised how it turns out.

Kel · 1 year ago

I am a trek fan been since next gens premier but I am not going to nitpick every little part of a inital pic paramount released and also JJ's vision of the ship looks great from what I see and it was stated on a website don't remember which, that this shot doesn't do it a lot of justice and you need to wait to see it in action or 3d shots as some have stated, also just seen on youtube shatner saying he likes the new ship and looks like the original check on trektoday.com.
I cannot see using the old 1701 on the big screen it could never stand up to the detail, and also that bridge from the original series did look like a cardboard set. I just can not see knocking something till I have seen it, for the rest of ya the choice is up to you if you want to nitpick every last detail hopefully it wont scare off the people that are not in to trek and want to give this movie a chance and see it

Kel · 1 year ago

just continuing from my previous post, all the bashing about this movie and blaming abrahms and everyone else, I really do not want to be associated with the trekkers trekkies its embarrassing to be associated with this. I have never ever seen a bunch of people whining bo-hooing about small insignificant stuff, remember its not real life its sci-fi its not going to hurt you if things are different ITS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
if this affects in such a way guess what dont pay to see it may 8th when it releases.

I am not trying to be an ass but this is getting to be annoying with all this complaining

Joseph · 1 year ago

As a 35 year Star Trek fan, I must say that this movie is growing on me. I know I mentioned a few negative things about JJ Abrams, but after careful considering, I do believe I owe him an apology.

Star Trek is about space travel and exploration. It shouldn't matter about the details, canon, or its history. After all, this is a reboot, and I think in order for Star Trek to continue to amaze those of us who dream about space travel, then it would do us all a great deal if we would refrain from futher complaints, and just accept it.

Here's a fresh idea for us all. Space exploration is about experiencing different worlds. Let us true Trek fans consider this Reboot of the most popular franchise in American history as such. It's a new world, with a new beginning. I still don't agree with using TOS characters, or the glorious name "Enterprise". JJ Abrams could have avoided much of this had he developed an entirely new Trek, instead of robbing and changing it. At the same time, we get to watch new adventures, even if it means altering the canon.

Let's face it my fellow Trek fans. Star Trek was fading, even though there are millions of loyal fans. But today's generation needs a different approach to being inspired by Star Trek; and that to me is what Star Trek was; an inspiration.

Therefore, I'd like to offer JJ Abrams and his staff a personal apology, and I wish him the greatest success.

This new Star Trek movie does look exciting, and I for one cannot wait until May 2009 to see this magnificant event. I'll still forever be a fan of the Original Series, and I look forward to James Crawley producing more Phase II Trek films. At the same time, quoting from James, "There's nothing wrong with liking both...."

Let's go Trek Fans! It's time for a revival!

Joseph

Cap'n Stevo · 1 year ago

Man, just when you think you're the biggest Trek Geek out there, along comes an even bigger one.

Nice piece of speculation there Jake, The "First Contact factor" would help explain a lot. "This is no time to talk about the time line, we don't have the time!"

What Cochrane and Lilly saw would definitely eliminate the Daedelus class as well as that ring-tailed Enterprise from the ST 1. "Thanks for the suggestion Mr Vulcan, but we feel that this layout has more potential."

Could it have led to the development of a more compact anti-matter tank, intermix chamber, and converter assembly as we saw on the NX-01 engineering "pod", which in turn leads to a smaller engineering hull on this new ship? Very likely.

Humanity would also be made aware of the reality of time travel and temporal warfare, as well as the existence of a hostile alien race that was definitely not Swedish.

A new time line would keep the new crew from having to re-visit the same worlds and re-live the same situations. It also gives the fan producers access to all the toys from the "original" all though no longer "official" universe, while the merchandising boys get to make their new line of toys.

An elegant solution, with plenty of canonical backing and win for everybody.

I have no problem with more sex and action. The stodgy political correctness of NextGen won't be missed. Just as long as they realize to stimulate the brain and the heart as well.



An elegant solution

DJ BBS · 1 year ago

I'm actually up and down on this new design. There are some things I do like and some things I don't. The Nacelles and the pylonsare one thing I don't like. I kinda wish they had kept them the same to a degree. The only other things is the positioning of the dorsal section. Too far back. Doesn't look right. But other than that, from the new trailor and looks of the corridor and bridge I think I will like the new movie. It looks like it's gonna be awesome. Have to judge things then.

Markus_D · 1 year ago

"I have always thought this is not a movie for ‘Star Trek’ fans - it’s a movie for movie fans." I agree completely.

I have read fans and non-fans comments about the new "rebooted" Star Trek movie. I am a fan of Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY). Not Enterprise for obvious reasons. Each series and movies were reincarnations of the original that started it all. And each have different crews and different stories to tell.

Most of these stories told in these reincarnations stayed true to the essence of the universe that Star Trek is … action, adventure and imagination…

In the hands of writers like Gene Roddenberry, D.C. Fontana, Harlan Ellison, Larry Niven, Herve Bennett, David Gerrold, Alan Dean Foster, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and even Johnathan Frakes.

These writer and producers “making it up as they went along” give us their best and worst efforts to keep the universe of Star Trek alive. They adding to the Trek Universe and in return, they earned the fans support.

Is Star Trek…dead no nor is it dying. Not in the hearts and minds of it’s true fans. But.. The reason why so many fans have left is because…

Paramount keeps insulting the intelligence of its fan base. By giving $150 million dollar budget to a person who is considered the new “it” boy. And tells him to do “whatever he wants.” and he did not do the other important thing… “Research”. That is why this reboot will not get a huge box office…$70 million maybe? My prediction and that is being very generous.

That is the reasons why I became a writer. Because, I believe in the power of imagination. Not CGI to tell and support my stories. Nor will I be so arrogant to take someone else’s work (in this case Gene Roddenberry’s) and call it my own “rebooted” revision.

My script would honor those of the past to invite the future to come and play and I could make a profit. (If it sounds like a challenge. That’s because it is.)

I would take into consideration fans complains and input. I would not lie to them or give them a brain fart about being concerned about their support. This is what JJ Abrams did on some of the Trek fan sites. This movie will go by way of “Nemesis.” The names Berman and Braga come to mind.

By the way, Dr. Who reincarnated(which I am also a fan of) is the longest running sci-fi series in TV History and originated in England… Star Trek is second… and we also have a place in the Webster’s Dictionary :).

JImBoB · 1 year ago

I found this on Amazon I am maybe thinking its true in a lot of ways... LOL

Would you like to become a brooding, cynical, pseudo-intellectual, "Star Trek malcontent"?? It's easy, and it's sooooo en vogue!

See, typical sci-fi fans have become so embittered with the ammount of heckling and ridicule they receive when they go out in public dressed like a Horta, that they have come to develop this cruel, self-loathing, love / hate relationship with their cruel mistress: The Star Trek franchise!!

So, in order to be "hip" and "with it", I'm sure you, the casual Trek fan is wondering "hey, just how in the heck can I be a cool anti-fan!!??" Well, it's difficult, because it requires that you abandon any sense of fun or suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy sci-fi in the first place. It also requires you to expect epic and grand stories from a franchise that has always been campy and "popcorn" material to begin with. But, most importantly, it demands a nit-picking eye that can only be held by the most rabid, insane, "Star Trek Encyclopedia" memorizing fan! See, that's the irony of the whole thing...it's the biggest "fans" who are the biggest critics and problems of the franchise. If you want to be a member of the pseudo-intellectual "in crowd", you must begin to enjoy hating and nit-picking the stories MORE than just actually watching them! You've got to be one of those guys who think that books like The Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers, Vol. 2 were written out of spite, and not fun!

Anyway, here's how you get it done:

1. Continue to watch EVERY episode of Enterprise, no matter how much you complain about it. Be certain to hate the opening music. Have a copy of your The Star Trek Encyclopedia next to you, and at every commercial break, look up different references and immediately blow a gasket if a reference in the show does not match the established "Trek lore". You may also need a copy of Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future because, after all, this IS a prequil!!

2. Cite inane opinions like "they could have done SO MUCH MORE"...but fail to define what "more" could have been done. Expect a "Laurence of Arabia" epic that is three hours long and contains some of the most amazing cinemetography ever attempted. Forget the fact that you and other fans like you have been crying "why can't they make a movie like "Wrath of Khan" again???", and critique the film because of it's similarities to this classic. Gripe about non-issues like "We never get to see Riker's ship, The Titan!" (all Trek malcontents are concerned about geeky things like this). Feel personally slited by the filmmakers because they killed of Data, and plot your revenge for having your feelings hurt by telling everyone that this movie stunk.

3. Hate Rick Berman and Brannon Braga like they are Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin-Laden themselves! Feel personal hatred toward these men for "ruining everything Gene Roddenberry stood for", even though by 1969, all Roddenberry "stood for" was making a buck and getting the heck outta Dodge! Let your hatred grow to the point that you will accept NO Star Trek product under their names, no matter how good it may be (see above on "Star Trek Nemesis").

4. Frequent as many Star Trek message boards as you can and bad-mouth everything (remembering to bash the Enterprise theme music whenever the going gets rough or anything coming out related to trek! This is the DEFINITIVE stand-by for all Trek Malcontents). Start arguments with the blissfully "ignorant" fans who are happy just being entertained and allowing themselves a few hours of escapeism. Say things like "well, maybe YOU don't care...but Star Trek is so much MORE to those of us who TRULY understand!!!" Pretend that you are from the 60's and that this is a great movement, and that your voice MUST be heard. Since you are probably a useless loser in real life...this will make you feel good and important. Is is particularaly important never to let anyone know who you really are, however...because you'll otherwise end up beaten up by people who think you're pathetic.

5. Always talk about the "good ole days" and what "Gene would have wanted". Ignore the fact that Gene was a money-hungry producer, just like everyone else in Hollywood. Ignore the fact that he lost control of his own franchise becuase, in the 70's, the "ideals" became more important than making a good story! Ignore that the Original Series was more flawed than anything that's come out in modern times. Brush over the fact that many of the things you will complain about (continuity violations, mindless action, cheesy dialogue, etc) were present in ABUNDANCE in the Original Series and Films. If you can do this, you are well on your way!

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@JimBob

Ouch. 8-)

Actually you're not far off on Roddenberry. Two stories come to mind: Adding lyrics to to the opening credit music because for some reason that made it qualify for residuals (or some such thing) and the design/creation of the IDIC medallion and inclusion in an episode so he could have knock-offs manufactured and sold as Star Trek jewelry.

Vic

JImBoB · 1 year ago

@vic
what your doing on this site must be lot of work and i congratulate ya.

My only concern with all these mssg boards with the fans complaining non-stop about little useless things is starting to make me think anyone who is not a fan might end up skipping the movie.... how should I put it... "the non fans will see all the negativity and think the hell with this movie.", I do like trek but I wont go to the point of nit-picking every last little bit of details on the ships ect... I just dont see the sense in it as it is sci-fi not real life and the way the fans are acting makes me think they have O.C.D or some other disorder that they can not differentiate the sci-fi from there real world.

I liked TNG when it came out, but now I do look back it was entertaining but at the same time to political, DS9 I never really got into it till Season 4 as the producers writers ect.. went onto doing different things straying from what trek was always playing it safe and not crossing what it should not have been.. I love the action and sci-fi intertwined , and also Enterprise daring to do something different often called "Modern Day Trek" doing something that no one had done with trek going with a prequel straying from the canon trek but unfortunately with B&B in charge it was already to late for trek to ever recover, the re-hashing of stories a.k.a series to series same stories different casts and by season 4 it was actually getting on track but to late again treks fate was sealed and destined to dye.

Now we have a new bunch of writers, producers, ect... and fans are not even giving it a chance without bashing it and it hasn't even hit the big screen yet... now what I want to know how can someone try undermining something before hand just from pics and trailers ect... some fans are accepting of the change and can't wait others are so opposed to anything straying from what they have seen in trek-lore ... now for them wow all i can say you have to let the past remain the past and if you cannot live with diffrence in trek fine stay home watch you ols trek on tape disc whatever

JImBoB · 1 year ago

@vic
What your doing on this site must be lot of work and I congratulate you.

My only concern with all these mssg boards with the fans complaining non-stop about little useless things is starting to make me think anyone who is not a fan might end up skipping the movie.... how should I put it... "the non fans will see all the negativity and think the hell with this movie.", I do like trek but I wont go to the point of nit-picking every last little bit of details on the ships ect... I just don't see the sense in it as it is sci-fi not real life and the way the fans are acting makes me think they have O.C.D or some other disorder that they can not differentiate the sci-fi from there real world.

I liked TNG when it came out, but now I do look back it was entertaining but at the same time to political staying safe, DS9 I never really got into it till Season 4 as the producers writers ect.. went onto doing different things straying from what trek was always playing it safe and not crossing what it should not have been.. I love the action and sci-fi intertwined , and also Enterprise daring to do something different often called "Contemporary Trek" doing something that no one had done with trek going with a prequel straying from the canon trek but unfortunately with B&B in charge it was already to late for trek to ever recover, the re-hashing of stories a.k.a series to series same stories different casts and by season 4 it was actually getting on track but to late again treks fate was sealed and destined to dye.

Now we have a new bunch of writers, producers, ect... and fans are not even giving it a chance without nit-picking it and it hasn't even hit the big screen yet... now what I want to know how can someone try undermining something before hand just from pics and trailers ect... Some fans are accepting of the change and can't wait others are so opposed to anything straying from what they have seen in trek-lore ... now for them wow all I can say you have to let the past remain the past and if you cannot live with difference in trek fine stay home watch you old trek on tape disc whatever and stay out of the forums as there will be to much negativity going around about the film...please read my post above vic's post and I bet that will be you.

Anyway the new film at lest from what I have seen looks great, I will stay away from the theater till a week after it releases as I don't like being crowded and all you hear is crunch of pop-corn and bags rattling now that's annoying and no one ever shuts-up and you cannot hear the film, Big mistake opening night of ST-First Contact, I actually got up and left managed to exchange my ticket for the 6th day after it opened.

JImBoB · 1 year ago

Just a thought I just wanted to add from my last post... J.J has said its not a reboot of the franchise he has said a re-imaging of the original which means things are going to be different and as he also stated and I have seen on the boards on this site to, it is going to be movie for "movie fans not trek fans" he is trying to reach the general audiences

As for the fans of past trek. Trek will keep going on in whatever way the new directors, writers, producers choose and it will go on without you and have a new generation of fan followers possibly,

But it all comes down to one thing Trek is Paramount's cash cow and there looking at other ways to milk more cash out of the franchise till it's bled dry, just like anything else any studio will do if they think it's financially viable to cash in on.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

I think most fans are open to this and it's a small minority that is not.

To me reboot and re-imagining are pretty much interchangeable terms.

Vic

JImBoB · 1 year ago

@vic i agree

Andrew Weiss · 1 year ago

"I mean when have we EVER seen a blazing white bridge on a Federation ship? Ever? Hell, take the same damn one they have, transparent panels and all but change the colors to the blacks/reds/tans of the original and I would have been as happy as a pig at the trough."

Well if you go to the NCC-1701-A bridge from the end of Star Trek IV (re-designed for V and VI), the walls and look are completely white. This was a neat look for Enterprise A. As a fan of all Star Trek, this is the first time that Star Trek is taking a completely wrong turn. Even NX-01 got the nacelles right. This Enterprise is structurally wrong and implausible as a pre-cursor to the TOS/Movie design. The nacelles look like uncircumcised "you know whats". I'd expect a precursor Enterprise to be a nicely skinned 1968 ship... nothing less. The deflector dish should not glow blue.

bauer · 1 year ago

yes...we will all go see it.

we'll pay the over priced jack to see our beloved 1701.

but the big que$tion i$ will we go twice?

-change the enterprise and you win the jefferies plague, imo.

you don't fix what isn't broken.

she wasn't broken...people are.

they are broken and will accept just about anything put in front of their wal-mart loving mouthes.

i won't be going twice.

get it right next time...with a trekker at the helm!

Larry · 1 year ago

I've been a Star Trek fan since I was a little kid and liked both the original and new generation series for reasons that appeal to it's intended audiences.

However, the franchise had become very stagnant and as much as those fans of the original series don't want change, the reality is there's not enough of you to buy tickets to any feature films that would keep this franchise alive. It would be a serious tragedy for Star Trek to become some obscure old series that exists only on certian websites or blogs with a very small cult following.

Honestly, when I saw the new design, I had to adjust my thinking a little bit (it looked like the old but not quite). However, it grew on me.

The original Star Trek series will always be a classic and retain it's status in the universe of sci fi (that's for us older generation to always treasure). However, this new take on the original series should be viewed as just that "New". And, I look forward to seeing the new picture in 2009 and its impact on a new generation of fans.

"To boldly go where no man has gone before" was the core of the shows existence. I always took those words to imply risk. Why not risk a different concept on an original. You never know, you just might be inspired in a whole new way.

Vic Holtreman · 1 year ago

@Larry

I echo your thoughts completely. As long as this version is done WELL, I will accept it as a "re-birth" of Trek.

Vic

JimBob · 1 year ago

I fully agree with what you have stated, its a re-imagining re-birth of the final frontier and it has a new beginning for a new generation of fans to follow it is as we have followed all the previous incarnations of trek's past.
A lot of fans refused to follow Enterprise which is I guess classified in its own right as contemporary trek because there was a song for the opening theme, because the ship looked like a flipped upside down akira class looked more advanced technology wise but hey that is the 2001 it was produced in not 1960's, in a way I can agree with trek had run it's course by 2001 I followed the show on and off and was put off with this temporal cold war going on and on and on and well you get my point, then season 4 came along and finally the stories of the UFP coming together, I really liked the story of the Klingon forehead ridges being explained, but the way the finale story was I would say it was a big F**K Y*U to the fans and there's Berman and his cronies, oh its a swan song and valentines gift to the fans, the only gift I got from it was the ending with the 3 enterprises signing off.

But the new movie has fresh faces writers stories like a clean slate to start from, I think it is promising from what I have seen so far.
I don't think there's much to worry about canon ect what use would it be for J.J to say it was sticking with canon story wise if it wasn't going to be, that would just make him look bad the world over.

Joseph · 1 year ago

I've come to accept the new movie, and as I stated in an earlier post, I'm pretty excited about the upcoming JJ Abrams film.

However, whether you are a Trek Fan, or just a movie watcher, none of you can honestly tell me that you find that design attractive. I know some of you on here have stated that you like it. Personally (not that it matters) I don't believe you, and I think you're lying. *Laughs*

Look! When the new Camaro came out, how many in here went, "OMG! That's one bad &SS car!" Okay, yes I thought it was attractive, but it just isn't a Camaro. It's an over-priced futuristic design that isn't affordable to the traditional Camaro lover. The new Camaro is a target for the rich boys....as if they don't already have enough. They already have Porche, Corvette, Dodge Viper, Lamb., Farari., etc.

This new design Enterprise doesn't have to look like TOS. [As much as I'd love seeing TOS model on the silver screen} But I just don't see a large support for this new design. I see a lot of so called Trek Fans trying to build support for this....but the fact you're trying to build support, proves to me that you're not a Trek Fan.

Traditionally, Trek Fans don't require someone else's approval. They're picked on, and teased, yet they keep going, and going, and going. Their loyalty is based on internal passion, and NOT the main stream society, if you want to call them that. Therefore, if main stream soceity has to convince me that this new design is awesome, then good for them. But how many times will they come back? Name a single movie that's ever been supported by the main stream society that rarely watches any SCI film?

My point is simple! I'm a Trek Fan, and I love the Original Series design, the Motion Picture design (My favorite), and the Enterprise-E design. With every ounce of me internally, this new design is the funniest looking, high on drugs design I've ever seen. It has too much Star Wars taste in it, and the only two crafts I liked from Star Wars was the Millennium Falcon and the X-Wing fighter. The rest I didn't care about.

My point is simle folks, and it's up to anyone how they react. We're accustomed to the Trek universe changing, but the changes are why Trek was sliding down the hill. Change the universe, and you might get a gradule increase of those who will accept it (such as myself). But you keep screwing with the Enterprise, you're only making more enemies.

The Enterprise already has a well established history (40 years). This new design deserves a new name. Let them use their imagination to come up with that.

LEAVE THE ENTERPRISE ALONE!

Rob Steen · 1 year ago

I am a die-hard Trek fan and have a problem with this new design. It looks slapped together. They took the saucer section from Star Trek the Motion Picture and slapped in onto this awful secondary hull. I understand the need to update the Trek universe, as the technology today is advancing far more then Roddenberry first imagined back in the 1960's. It was certainly tough when the designers had to come up with the NX-01 for the Enterprise series, but I felt they pulled it off farily well. I was hoping that with this new movie they would have tried to blend the NX-01 design with the original series Enterprise. That would have at least made some sense. However Star Trek has always been about the idea of a better universe and Roddenberry's vision of that. It was the stories that made the series and hopefully this new one will at least live up to that.

Dean · 11 months ago

That design is UGLY. COME ON! Any one with paper and crayons could scribble a better design that that ridiculous crap. It's totally out of proportion. The design looks newer than the Enterprise(s) used in Star Trek 1-6. The ship should look more like the original design. Fan-made designs looks better. Just like Superman Returns with the maroon and navy costume, small symbol and leather cape I am disappointed. The one thing you don't screw around with is the ENTERPRISE you SOB.

Dave · 11 months ago

Wow... that is one ugly ship. Looks like they took Picard's enterprise(1701D) and tried to give it a retro look. That ship was ugly in its own right, this one looks like she fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, and then was beat with the limbs that it knocked off on its trip to the ground.
I just pray this is not a sign that Paramount is in the process of taking another dump in a paper bag and then writing "Star Trek" on it to sell it...

WAR-MACHINE · 11 months ago

i think that J.J. is try'in to Pull an X3.
where as he's trying 2 adapt the original for a younger audance, and by doing that he is straying way away from the original mythos of what trekies learned 2 love.
but either way i will see it. and depending on the film i will erither praise it or B*tcH about it.

Troy · 11 months ago

I still don't understand the design of the nacelles and secondary hull.

The saucer looks pretty good and has the detail/updates I would expect but the rest looks like it could come from TNG. Hell it looks more advanced than the 1701A, it just doesn't make sense.

Jake · 11 months ago

Come on guys, it's J.J. Abrams on board writing about a time travel story. J.J. is great at telling stories about time travel. Hasn't anyone seen "Lost"? Er...ummm....

We're in trouble aren't we?

Troy · 11 months ago

Well Abrams isn't responsible for the writing of Lost and I actually like Lost--although the compiling of question upon question in Lost is a little ridiculous this far out into the series.

That said I also loved MI:3 or whatever it was called but I'm not happy with this ship design--hell even the mod with the more tube-like secondary hull is a major improvement IMO. This thing shouldn't look like the Enterprise D at all.

Joe · 11 months ago

I gave it some time, and my position has not budged. This ship is extremely ugly, and too retarded to be called a "design". I feel sorry for the poor guy who designed this thing. I'd like to believe it was nothing more than a joke, and JJ Abrams chose it purposely just to piss off the True Trek fans. Then again, his move Clover Field sucked, so I don't expect much from this new movie which he's calling Star Trek. Actually, as another website puts it, it should be called Star Wreck! I think Paramount made a huge mistake picking a Star Wars fan to direct a Trek film. It's not as though the last few Star Wars movies did very well. In fact, more women seemed to watch Episodes 2 and 3 just because of the romance scenes.

Good luck JJ....Their's still plenty of openings in the unemployment line! *Laughs*

Spencer · 11 months ago

So, what happens if the movie works out...then you guys are gonna look like a bunch of idiots...I'm a treky, but I'm giving him a chance, and personally, I liked cloverfield.

Scott · 11 months ago

My vote: C-
Obviously they needed to alter the Enterprise styling a bit. To give it a modern retro look. A cross-over styling to satisfy the old timers plus something fresh to capture the younger newbie crowd. But the designer really didn't have a feeling for it. And it shows. Its doesn't flow as a complete design. Amateurish. This will disappoint Trek fans like myself but I must reserve final judgement until I see the ship in context. It may fit within the revamped world they have created quite well. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this movie. It had better not do what Quantum of Solace did to James Bond... rip the soul right out of the franchise. But on a positive note, I can hardly wait till May. Finally, another Star Trek Movie!
PS: If you have a chance to see either of the 2 traveling ST exhibits do it. Saw the one at the San Diego Air and Space Museum just before it moved on. Fantastic. Sitting in Captains Kirks chair on the bridge of the Enterprise telling my wife to "Fire Phasers!" was priceless. Hint: Don't go on a weekend.

fistofsouth · 11 months ago

I remember all the vitriol directed at TNG by "real" Trek fans. It was similar to the hate being directed at JJ's project and in the end will probably ring just as hollow. If you think the JJ Enterprise is a radical departure then just look at the 1701D vis a vis the 1701 and 1701A. With TNG many TOS fans swore it would be crap and most of them changed their tune somewhere around season 4 when it was obvious that TNG would be more successful than TOS ever was.

The trailer makes it obvious that this is a character driven story instead of simply being a tech fest for chief engineer wanabes. Don’t get me wrong cool SE is always a draw, but only for those already interested in the Sci-Fi genre, which is to say not the group needed to revitalize Trek. People like me, my wife and my children were going to see Trek anyway because we dig Sci-Fi, but the franchise needs to draw in new fans. One way to do that with a brand that is seen as dry and inaccessible as Star Trek is to reboot the series with action and human drama being accentuated over Trek Canon. Already my mother and one of my sisters have shown an interest in this film and they are far from Trekkies; those are some of the fans that Paramount is trying to draw into the Trek Universe with this film.

Abrams said this is a reboot, set in an alternate branch of the Trek Universe, which was borne out of Romulans screwing with the time-line. This allows Kink, Spock and company (including the ship) to have slight differences while still maintaining their core values. It also allows a new story that fits within existing canon and one that follows rules long established in Trek lore. This probably the best way to make new adventures involving Kirk and Company unless someone develops an actual time machine to retrieve Shatner, Nimoy and the rest from the mid sixties.

For those concerned that this is going to turn out like the Star Wars prequels I will provide two glimmers of hope:

1. Thus far here is no sign of any character as annoying as Jar Jar in any of the Star Trek Trailers.

2. JJ Abrams is not (post Empire Strikes Back) George Lucas and unlike Lucas has proven capable of telling a story in recent years.

The Moderator · 11 months ago

As a fan of ST:TNG, I know how the TOS fanboys feel about the redesign of their Enterprise.

I am certain that I feel for the 1701-D as you feel about the original and the A. When I first saw the 1701-E, I just about puked. I still can't stand that ship.

Now to see this mish-mash of porpoise-like nacelles stuck on half of Black Manta's head leads me back to those initial feelings of the Enterprise E.

The elements are there, but they have gone too far in reinterpreting an iconic design.

Then again, maybe the kids won't care like we do.

Vic Holtreman · 11 months ago

I agree with your assessment of the 1701-E. I hate that thing with its dark panels and ginormous size. As if the 1701-D weren't huge enough they had to go and make the next one even bigger.

Vic

Sean · 11 months ago

I have to agree with you as well Vic.

This interpretation of the valiant NCC-1701 is really odd. I looks as though starfleet contracted out the primary and secondary hulls to two seperate design teams.

I admit to being a trekker, trekkie, geek or whatever but I am pretty accepting of a lot of things. I have no problem with the cast especially after the trailer was released and I'm on board with a new hyper action Trek movie. It wil definatley work for a broader audience. It looks like what the Enterprise series aspired to be but didn't deliver until the final season.

On that note, I am in my early thirties and have been a fan of Trek my entire life, but Voyager happens to be my favorite of the tv series. Also could you people lay of the Star Wars prequels. Just admit you aren't really Star Wars fans. You are merely fans of the nostalgia you feel when watching the OT. I'm sorry your inner children died but it's not George's fault. None of the six movies are flawless exercises in filmaking...except maybe ESB, I'll give You Jar jar but come on...ewoks?

Just had to get that out since every prequel hater feels the need to rip on Lucas at every opportunity.

As for the "new" "old" enterprise. I really feel it did not need to be so overly redesigned. They could have taken the classic and tricked it out with more hull detail and minor alterations in it's sleekness and new audience members would have been fine and so would most of the hardcore fans.

'nuff said.

DJ Kusanagi · 10 months ago

I've read most if not all of the posts here. Not entirely impressed by you nay sayers. To those of you, vic included, who have grown and changed your minds somewhat, ain't it fun being human.

I'm a 25 year-old Trekker. I proudly admit it in public. I value the story and the core principles above all else. I've been a Trekker since I first saw The Voyage Home, and to this day still use the phrase, "double dumb@$$ on you," and ever since. I've even debated on whether the Probe from TVH could actually cripple a Borg cube with another Trekker. I've seen as much Trek as I could get my hands on, which is basically everything some TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and Enterprise. I'm starting to watch TOS online, though I have seen some episodes and screencaps of the ship. The trailer sold me that this was a Star Trek movie and I'm happy. However, this isn't what this message board is about.

I LIKE THE DESIGN!!! If it were a woman I'd rate her as a 9.8. She has meat in all the right places and has curves. I'm more of a fan of the classic Shelby GT500 than the new one by the way. This design looks more functional. The primary hull is for habitation and the secondary hull is engineering. The secondary reminds me of a submarine, especially with the positioning of the neck that joins it to the primary hull. I always had issues with such a bloated secondary hull and such a tiny connective neck. This reimagined design corrects that. For what they're supposed to do the nacelles look meaty, like they can generate a large field that is supposed to warp space/time to promote faster-than-light travel. And from a functional standpoint instead of cosmetic, they look like ENGINES. The only detail I would have change was the spacing between the nacelles themselves. It could have been wider but I can adapt to it. But functionally, and believe me, I love nitpicking functionality, it sells me. If I look at it artistically, the saucer actually stands out more with the engineering section being this small also, which actually draws my attention to the primary haul as where the majority of the action is, as far as the ship is concerned.

On to the bridge. All white? I have the trailer up on my computer right now and it is most definitely NOT all white. It IS brightly lit however and the sheen off of the panels may give the appearance of whiteness. However, what's wrong with a white interior? The Space Shuttle's cockpit is almost all white. That's been the way long before Apple Stores existed.

Scratch the 9.8. Saw it from a different angle and it pleased me. It's a 10.

So yeah, my humble opinion and observations. Take them or leave them.

DJ Kusanagi · 10 months ago

Oh yeah, I thought the 1701-E was purely aesthetic and not very interesting. It looked more like a sports car than the flagship of the Federation.

alex · 10 months ago

It's kind of ugly. Its secondary hull lacks the aft warp undercut beneath the shuttlebay, which if i recall actually had funtion. the secondary hull also looks like it was squished, and doesn't have enough substance. yet the saucer section is almost identical to the E-A? It makes no sense. He should've kept it a little more original. You're not generally supposed to mess with the ship. In THIS movie, the ship is a bigger star than its cast is, save the TOS actors.

PMCF1412 · 10 months ago

I have to marvel once again at the incredibly long list of ridiculous comments from some people. I am a fan of both Star Trek and science fiction in general. I was also an architectural technician and a student of design. All of the versions of the Enterprise have had elements of design that I liked and some that I didn't. All of them look extremely good in some pictures and not so nice in others. It all comes down to personal taste not 'Lore' or 'Canon' or any of the other ridiculous words used by some to describe a fictional set of stories for gods sake. People in this blog actually say that this new ship design just wouldn't work. It's not real! Others have said its not the Enterprise or its not Star Trek. It appears to have a Primary saucer shaped hull attached to a secondary hull by a pylon and then 2 warp nacelles protruding from the seconday hull on struts. Sounds like a Federation starship to me! If you are narrow minded enough to be posting comments on here complaining that the choices of the new films witers/directors/designers and producers are not the original ideas chosen by a group of people in the sixties then you fail to understand the vision of those responsible for writing those stories in the first place and consequently you are not worthy to be called a science fiction fan. As a genre it's about embracing both new ideas and fresh takes on existing ones but above all else its about being open minded. JJ Abrams is a talented individual with some interesting and creative ideas. If you enjoy his vision for Star Trek that's great. If you actually watch the film in May 2009 and don't enjoy it then you can say so but only if you judged it on it's own merit. Until then please stop complaining.

Joseph · 10 months ago

[Quote]I have to marvel once again at the incredibly long list of ridiculous comments from some people. I am a fan of both Star Trek and science fiction in general. I was also an architectural technician and a student of design. All of the versions of the Enterprise have had elements of design that I liked and some that I didn’t. All of them look extremely good in some pictures and not so nice in others. It all comes down to personal taste not ‘Lore’ or ‘Canon’ or any of the other ridiculous words used by some to describe a fictional set of stories for gods sake. People in this blog actually say that this new ship design just wouldn’t work. It’s not real! Others have said its not the Enterprise or its not Star Trek. It appears to have a Primary saucer shaped hull attached to a secondary hull by a pylon and then 2 warp nacelles protruding from the seconday hull on struts. Sounds like a Federation starship to me! If you are narrow minded enough to be posting comments on here complaining that the choices of the new films witers/directors/designers and producers are not the original ideas chosen by a group of people in the sixties then you fail to understand the vision of those responsible for writing those stories in the first place and consequently you are not worthy to be called a science fiction fan. As a genre it’s about embracing both new ideas and fresh takes on existing ones but above all else its about being open minded. JJ Abrams is a talented individual with some interesting and creative ideas. If you enjoy his vision for Star Trek that’s great. If you actually watch the film in May 2009 and don’t enjoy it then you can say so but only if you judged it on it’s own merit. Until then please stop complaining.[Quote]

You first! Who are you to judge anyone on our opinions, or anyone else's opinion. What? Are you the kind of guy that cooks a steak medium well, when the customer asked for Medium Rare, and you merely roll your eyes as if to say, "Just eat the steak! It's still a steak no matter how it's cooked!"

That is exactly what you're suggesting to those of us who flat out hate the weird design of this thing.

You can't honestly tell me that JJ Abrams viewed dozens of model designs for the upcoming film, and for some odd reason, stared long and hard at this photo, and said, "oh yea! That's the one! It'll be great!"

When James Cawley saw it, he doesn't exactly admit it, but by the response JJ Abrams had, I'm pretty sure JJ Abrams was displeased that James Cawley may not have liked the design.

It's simple! If you want to please Trek fans, then you'll listen to them. But if you're merely trying to produce new tastes and flavors, then keep it at that! NEW! That's my entire point!

JJ Abrams cheated by borrowing a 40 year successful franchise that did quite well with its honest, loyal, and awesome fan base.....even during persecution and insults from the non-fans. That shows the loyalty of the fans who love it, and always will. But here comes a man who wasn't that successful with Clover Field, and yet a few of you are bending your backs as though he's some sort of spectacular movie producer! I wasn't impressed with any of his programs.

Here's a man who knows nothing about Star Trek, and you expect all the customers to consume a well done steak when as asked for medium rare....and why? Because it was cooked by JJ Abrams?

All I'm saying is don't be so hard on the nay sayers; you have to take the good with the bad....even when it hurts. Trust me....Trek fans are quite used to taking bad, while holding on to what we like.

Joseph