Star Trek XI - Building the Enterprise

Cookie_Monster

Why the feck is the enterprise built on the ground in the new film

Surely the NX-01 set a precident of being built in a space dock and this is a backwards step, no? I thought we'd be a bit more advanced than still using welding torches too?


Also can anyone tell me, simple yes/no, will the film explain why the enterprise looks totally different to the original. (don't want to ruin film too much:p but if not explained this seems ridiculous)

nyarlothothep

They have a bigger budget and better special effects, I think it would be a seriously bad idea to have the minimalist design of the original in an intended 2009 sci fi blockbuster.

Yeah I thought about that too when I first saw the trailer. I dont know maybe they were just lazy or liked the scenery, or they didn't want aliens to see them building it in space as it wouldn't be a surprise.

Goodshape

nyarlothothep wrote: »

They have a bigger budget and better special effects, I think it would be a seriously bad idea to have the minimalist design of the original in an intended 2009 sci fi blockbuster.

+1.

Like the Klingon head ridges... I cringe everytime I think of that stupid explanation ST:Enterprise tried to come up with.

"Because it's not 1966 anymore" is the only explanation needed tbh.

norrie rugger

well ds9 had worf next to old style klingons. He said that they don't talk about it, so officially brought it into cannon as more than make up differences

User45701

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why the feck is the enterprise built on the ground in the new film

Surely the NX-01 set a precident of being built in a space dock and this is a backwards step, no? I thought we'd be a bit more advanced than still using welding torches too?


Also can anyone tell me, simple yes/no, will the film explain why the enterprise looks totally different to the original. (don't want to ruin film too much:p but if not explained this seems ridiculous)

Its bollox (also it makes it look cool (with a k) but ye your right a load of ****e, i mean i would have loved to see a high budget rendition of the utopia planatia fleet yards at mars)

Goodshape wrote: »

+1.

Like the Klingon head ridges... I cringe everytime I think of that stupid explanation ST:Enterprise tried to come up with.

"Because it's not 1966 anymore" is the only explanation needed tbh.

ENT's explenation made perfect sense

nyarlothothep wrote: »

They have a bigger budget and better special effects, I think it would be a seriously bad idea to have the minimalist design of the original in an intended 2009 sci fi blockbuster.

So "slick" and areo(the choc bar)-dynamic makes it look better? are you telling me if it looked the the orginal ship people would see the trailer and then refuse to watch it based on that?

They ship looks crap - simple as. I can understand them updating the interiror i suppose although they could have just done what ENT did used the orginal TOS set i mean why change the way it looks?

and what really pissed me off is how the inside of the ship looks different, i kindof understand the consoles and computers being different but the size and layout of the bridge being different? i mean i wonder how bad the sickbay and transporter room are going to look....

Goodshape

norrie rugger wrote: »

well ds9 had worf next to old style klingons. He said that they don't talk about it, so officially brought it into cannon as more than make up differences

Always considered that episode, and that comment, to be a bit of a joke (as in a funny joke, not a shameful joke. It's a very good episode).

User45701 wrote: »

...

Rose-tinted specs FTW.

It's not like they've burnt and destroyed the old show. The 1960's version of Star Trek is still there, still as good as ever, still a little bit sparse and 'cardboard cut-out' looking.

I'm not overly thrilled that they've decided to go back and 'redo' the original setting and characters... but it is a redo. Worst thing would be for them to stick too rigidly to a 40 year old vision of what these people, ships and aliens should look like.

Some things obviously can't (or at least shouldn't) be changed... but cheap models and cardboard sets? **** that.

nyarlothothep

User45701 wrote: »

So "slick" and areo(the choc bar)-dynamic makes it look better? are you telling me if it looked the the orginal ship people would see the trailer and then refuse to watch it based on that?

lol, it does look like an aero bar in space ,

but I think the average joe soap (a) doesn't care about historical consistency in trek, and (b) would be unimpressed if they were to stick to the original design which was limited by budget and technical constraints

consider



with




uuurrgghh, those nacelles!!!

Besides as a trek obsessive I like the update, a new ship is something to look forward to in trek movies, its a kind of entrenched legacy by now.

Cookie_Monster

The old ones is better looking IMO

User45701

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm not overly thrilled that they've decided to go back and 'redo' the original setting and characters... but it is a redo. Worst thing would be for them to stick too rigidly to a 40 year old vision of what these people, ships and aliens should look like.

Some things obviously can't (or at least shouldn't) be changed... but cheap models and cardboard sets? **** that.

I see what yoou mean and i dont want cardboard but i also dont like the shape/size of things being changed.

Actually i have been complaining allot about this in allot of threads but i should be the last person doing it because i love BSG. i mean i have never in my life loved a tv show like i love bsg it truly is amazing and that has been changed i mean ive seen the old cylons and the old basestars and it shows how a remake can do so much for a show.

I like lost, i like fringe i just dont think ol JJ can do trek

Johnny Storm

User45701 wrote: »

...I love bsg it truly is amazing ...
and it shows how a remake can do so much for a show.

You're right. BSG is amazing and when I first heard they were going to do a remake I thought it was a really stupid idea. How very wrong I was.
As regards the new Trek IMHO we need to keep our hopes up and our expectations low

User45701

why do you think im finding as many faults as i can

norrie rugger

Goodshape wrote: »

Always considered that episode, and that comment, to be a bit of a joke (as in a funny joke, not a shameful joke. It's a very good episode).

Indeed a very good episode. And yeah it of course was a joke but it also got the writers out of having to make an reasoning for it with Worf there.
I don't think Enterprise could have explained it better TBH.

As for the set, this movie also has to appeal to new fans. Some of whom will never have seen TOS.
Also cop on, it is 2009

Spon Farmer

I love the original Trek. I was very much in favour of restarting the franchise, but appalled at the thought of recasting the original characters (Shatner is the man).
But, of course, they are are going to redesign sets, costumes and props from the '60's. It's ridiculous to expect them not to - I'm impressed by how much they kept.
A bigger concern to me is interfering with with established Trek history. There i s no mention of Finnegin, Mitchell or Piper. The villains are Romulans, thus changing "Balance of Terror".
But, of course, they bound to change things for storytelling effect. Maybe they underestimated how fans would react. Maybe they didn't care. Or maybe Orci and Kurtzman are telling the truth - The movie involves time travel. Someone (the villains, I would imagine) have screwed the timeline and this is not your namby-pamby TNG Trek where everything goes back to normal at the end of each episode. History gets changed forever.
Let's give the movie a chance - except for two things Sulu is Japanese not Korean and Simon Pegg should not get work, let alone in Star Trek (where is that attitude he had to the Star Wars prequels now).

Goodshape

Spon Farmer wrote: »

The movie involves time travel. Someone (the villains, I would imagine) have screwed the timeline and this is not your namby-pamby TNG Trek where everything goes back to normal at the end of each episode. History gets changed forever.

Bingo.

Saruman

Just went on to the official website and i have to say, apart fromt he website being pretty cool (if slow) I just watched the trailers and im pretty impressed. Im not sure who Kirk is played by, well Chris Pine but he is not someone im familiar with, anyway just from the trailers he seems like an interesting choice. I love the choice for Spock.

Even if it does not follow the Star Trek timeline properly, thats fine with me. Seems to be more like a good action flick to me.

I would have liked to see a good Deep space 9 movie set during the Dominion War.

Spon Farmer

DS9 is the only other series I love. It had a war in it.

TNG and Voyager were seven seasons of "stick a pin in his hair make up".

Enterprise was decent but the whole temporal cold war was muck.

See the pattern. No Berman = Good Trek.

Saruman

Hey i loved TNG and while there was plenty not to like about Voyager, i still liked it for the most part and especially when the Borg were involved.

Enterprise was for the most part, muck and i missed out on the last season. Im currently watching re-runs on Virgin so eventually will catch up with were i left off.
The temporal thing is rubbish, in fact for the most part i hate star trek episodes involving time travel. The only good one was the DS9 ep were they went back to the days of Kirk.

Spon Farmer

Got to disagree with you about the Borg in Voyager, Saruman.

In "Q Who" and "The Best Of Both Worlds" they were class villains. But after that they just turned run-of-the-mill. It was laziness, as though the writers thought just putting the Borg on screen every now and again was enough.
The Queen was a terrible idea too.
Still, Frakes managed to put together a decent movie that is head and shoulders above the other three TNG movies (although that doesn't say alot. does it)

norrie rugger

borg post tng are weak shells of what they were.
Come on, an intrepid able to hold its own against numerous encounters.

1 cube decimates the fleet at
wolf 359 (admittedly an aged fleet) and another gets to earth in first contact, taking out akira anti-borg ships and the defiant. Voyager actually plans attacks on tactical cubes! Come on!!

As for first contact? Good movie but with massive plot holes and logic gaps.

Cookie_Monster

So the "new" enterprise is just an update for the film and not in any way story related. Why does it look so ****ing stupid then

Saruman

Well in fairness, Voyager had the advantage of en Ex borg on board so in the same way Picard knew the weakness of a Cube in first contact after only a few weeks of being a Borg, 7 of 9 had 20 odd years of knowledge. Once picard arrived in first contact it did not take very long to destroy the cube.

Was that tactical cube not damaged anyway? Voyager took advantage of species 8472 weakening the Borg.

Spon Farmer

Ever notice how the Borg never came near Deep Space Nine?

Because Sisko would've baitin' da livin' daylights out of them. On his own. In an EVA suit.

And Abrams Enterprise isn't all that different to the original. Plus the alterations are story related because of what happens to the USS Kelvin.

Goodshape

Here's the three ships (TOS, Movies, New Movie) side by side for comparison :
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09ent2_compare.jpg

Not much to be getting upset about if you ask me. The nacelles are a little clunky but aside from that it's near enough the exact same ship - and unmistakably the Enterprise.

the_syco

nyarlothothep wrote: »

OOOOOOH! Shiny! The old one reminded me of a toy I used to have that would spit out orange discs from the front of it:D

=-=

Loved DS9, as Quark, and the tailor Garak helped the plots not goto plan, like happy-happy Voyager and TNG.

Spon Farmer

the_syco wrote: »

OOOOOOH! Shiny! The old one reminded me of a toy I used to have that would spit out orange discs from the front of it:D

=-=

Loved DS9, as Quark, and the tailor Garak helped the plots not goto plan, like happy-happy Voyager and TNG.

I still have that toy in the attic, minus the disc, plus it's not in not in one piece. nuts.

the_syco

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I still have that toy in the attic, minus the disc, plus it's not in not in one piece. nuts.

LOL, aye. Took it apart more than once to figure out how it worked, and to unstick the pennies.

Cookie_Monster

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Plus the alterations are story related because of what happens to the USS Kelvin.

That may be acceptable then:p

Goodshape wrote: »

The nacelles look ridiculous, the main hull is far to heavy looking at the front and extends to far forward of the neck and the tapering of the hull looks terrible. No name/registery on the underside the saucer either.
It just looks "wrong" IMO

It's kinda like making Spock black or asian, essentially it would be the same but it just wouldn't work:pac:

nyarlothothep

another problem is that the angle of the hull in relation to the saucer section is a bit off and this is compounded by the angle of the deflector dish which looks slightly out of alignment with the hull. The nacelles are great in their own unique way imo but they are way too close to the saucer section.

GunScope

I like the look of the new one, its all shiny and new .... yay for the 21st century effects artists

Spon Farmer

I think it looks great.

You know if you you guys had worked a little harder in life, you could have been over in Hollywood designing this new Enterprise for Abrams or even directing it instead of him!!! :rolleyes:

I'm mulling over my response to the comment that only a white guy could play Spock.

norrie rugger

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I think it looks great.

You know if you you guys had worked a little harder in life, you could have been over in Hollywood designing this new Enterprise for Abrams or even directing it instead of him!!! :rolleyes:

I'm mulling over my response to the comment that only a white guy could play Spock.

Some people want the old one only.
I imagine that they threw the same hissy fits for the refitted Enterprise of the movies.

Yes let us all call for 60's effects and production quality. That way only "true" fans, who were there maaaan, will appreciate it and have trek get no new fans (who are used to proper effects).
that was Trek can finally die and only be the ground of nerds drooling over "Randy" Yeoman Rand

Cookie_Monster

norrie rugger wrote: »

Some people want the old one only.
I imagine that they threw the same hissy fits for the refitted Enterprise of the movies.

Yeah but at least that makes sense. Upgraded/ replaced the ship. The whole time moving forward thing:D:D


At least when they made Enterprise there was an effort to make the tech look closer to today and less advanced then TOS. Granted the computer screen etc were more up to date but I think it was attempted quite well in general.

Spon Farmer

And to hell with Chris Nolan's "character driven" Batman while we are at it, eh.
Only Adam West is the true Batman. :P

Guys, they are breathing new life into a franchise that has been poo'd on for years (except DS9 - which escaped because it was generally ignored) by its producers.

The old designs do not work for a modern movie. It's not a comment on the the original series, it's a fact. The original series is the only one that still picks up new fans to this day. Not TNG, whose endless repeats are only watched by it's fans.

As much as I was against the idea of recasting the original characters, it makes sense. It's the only series that has real respect outside of the fans. Yes, it gets mocked for cheesy sets and the Kirk sex thing, but people know it. That's what will draw a new audience. Sure, Patrick Stewart is a great thespian, but movie goers didn't give a toss.

They've changed the ship slightly. So what. I see no complaints that Kirk is now two inches taller, Sulu is not Japanese and Scotty's is nearly bald.

Anyway none of it matters because ALIENS VS. MONSTERS 3D will own 2009.

Goodshape

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Just looking at this -- I don't think the above is an actual picture of the new Enterprise. It's close but there are differences to the one I posted above (which I nabbed from TrekMovie.com and is definitely an official picture).

Look at the bottom of the secondary hull and the position of the nacelle struts.


Anyway... back to the picture I posted... one of the guys who worked on the design responded to some criticism (I think the article is on TrekMovie somewhere) by saying the angle and perspective of the shot makes the nacelles appear closer to the saucer section than they actually are. It's the same in the TOS and movie ship images I posted -- similar perspective and the nacelles look too close in all of them.

His point being, that the nacelles do clear the saucer section on the 'new' ship, just like they always have (it's in the Trek spaceship design 'bible' that they always clear the saucer section for fairly obvious safety reasons... the new guys haven't broken that rule, despite what the image appears to show).

User45701

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Anyway none of it matters because ALIENS VS. MONSTERS 3D will own 2009.

im torn between wanting the movie to fail and wanting it to do well. if i think its ****e then i want it to fail badly because if it does well id expect JJ to do another and it to be just as bad. If the movie is in good taste then i hope they keep going and revive the franchise

Saruman

I like this rendering someone did.

nyarlothothep

its incredibly good, although I don't like the industrial aesthetic of it but thats just down to taste.

What was it rendered on? Lightwave, MAYA?

Saruman

No idea, i just found it on google. Looks better than the images (screenshots) shown though.

norrie rugger

That is totally friggin awesome!!

Goodshape

Very nice but again -- and I don't mean to be pedantic -- I don't think that's the new ship.

Same as before, the secondary hull, nacelle struts, neck and more are different. Image I posted has a much smoother (less 'industrial') look to it.

norrie rugger

Saruman wrote: »

Well in fairness, Voyager had the advantage of en Ex borg on board so in the same way Picard knew the weakness of a Cube in first contact after only a few weeks of being a Borg, 7 of 9 had 20 odd years of knowledge. Once picard arrived in first contact it did not take very long to destroy the cube.

Was that tactical cube not damaged anyway? Voyager took advantage of species 8472 weakening the Borg.

1 ex Borg versus Billions of actual Borg

hmmmmm

the Borg Cube in FC had over 60% damage to its hull (or something)
and needed a concerted attack from a fleet of modern starships to destroy it.

Voyager should have been ASSimiliated so bloody often

Cookie_Monster

norrie rugger wrote: »

Voyager should have been ASSimiliated so bloody often

+1

Saruman wrote: »

Pic

/right click
set as background

chamlis

Every time I see pictures of the new ship I always think
"Hmmm, miniature Enterprise C...."

User45701

Saruman wrote: »

Well in fairness, Voyager had the advantage of en Ex borg on board so in the same way Picard knew the weakness of a Cube in first contact after only a few weeks of being a Borg, 7 of 9 had 20 odd years of knowledge. Once picard arrived in first contact it did not take very long to destroy the cube.

Was that tactical cube not damaged anyway? Voyager took advantage of species 8472 weakening the Borg.

The cube in FC had "Sustained heavy damage to its outer hull with flucatations in her power grid"

The tatical cube in VOY was undamaged when voyager attacked (it should have just used its holding beam and beam cutter which seemed to have vanished after TNG)

You might be thinking of when VOY attacked a sphere that been crippled by an ion storm

norrie rugger

User45701 wrote: »

The cube in FC had "Sustained heavy damage to its outer hull with flucatations in her power grid"

The tatical cube in VOY was undamaged when voyager attacked (it should have just used its holding beam and beam cutter which seemed to have vanished after TNG)

You might be thinking of when VOY attacked a sphere that been crippled by an ion storm

QFT

Also FC was in the middle of the Dominion War?
So the cube had to fight its way through a very prepared, armed, experienced and battle hardened alpha quadrent.

Also how many fleets would it have had to go through to reach Earth?
On top of that, Sol would be one of the most heavily defended systems in the Federation (if not the most)

So one normal cube does that much damage and Voyager can take on the collective at any time they wish??
Come on.

The Borg were the most watered down force in Trek.

Back on original topic?
Was it ever mentioned that capital ships were created in space based ship yards?
We already know tha the Enterprise was capable of atmospheric flight

User45701

Yes but the uss constutation was constructed at mars and it was the first ship of its class, they mention the numberi think enterprise was the 3rd or 4th with only a total of less than 10 of that class in early TOS.

also unknown to most the above ship CAN seperate its saucer section although there is no advance control or manovering it would be essentially dead in space but it would allow the crew to survive a warp core breech

Cookie_Monster

User45701 wrote: »

also unknown to most the above ship CAN seperate its saucer section although there is no advance control or manovering it would be essentially dead in space but it would allow the crew to survive a warp core breech

Seperate as in blow charges situated in the "neck" wasn't it? Irreversible. Also I heard somewhere that the "neck" was mainly one big water storage tank at that stage, dunno if that's right though.

nyarlothothep

dunno about that but heres some trivia, in the 80s they were originally going to have water tanks with dolphins in them on the tng enterprise to act as "navigation." Dolphins were popular in the late 80s and early 90s. They couldn't go through with it due to budget constraints.

norrie rugger

nyarlothothep wrote: »

dunno about that but heres some trivia, in the 80s they were originally going to have water tanks with dolphins in them on the tng enterprise to act as "navigation." Dolphins were popular in the late 80s and early 90s. They couldn't go through with it due to budget constraints.

That was a terrible idea, as proven by SeaQuest

nyarlothothep

norrie rugger wrote: »

That was a terrible idea, as proven by SeaQuest

absolutely! I think the budget constraints were a blessing in disguise, the borg as insectoid robots, no way.

Cookie_Monster

norrie rugger wrote: »

That was a terrible idea, as proven by SeaQuest

Ha ha, I remember that, it was Shoite