TrekWeb and Entertainment Weekly have a sneak peek at the new Enterprise in the upcoming JJ Abrams Star Trek movie.
 |
Shiny! And very, very cool.
I’ll add that the biggest difference is in the warp nacelles… but then, we knew something was up with them.
Credit: Industrial Light and Magic.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
November 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Off topic, but, what the hell? Why are the creationists sites buzzing about the dishonest creationist Forrest Mims being honored by Discover Magazine? The only thing I could google was a mention you made to the nut in 2006.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Star Trek is crap!
What’s this human need to make up so much fictitious nonsense about the Universe anyway, as if it weren’t interesting enough?
November 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I’m looking forward to the Hallmark ornament.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
undercover is the one that is full of crap! It dose not relies that what we use now was once science fiction, wild inventions, just what iss that thing talking about
November 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
undercover, a better question would be why you would come to my blog and post your opinion in such a rude way when it’s clear I am actually a fan of the show. Please read my comments policy linked in the blogroll. It’s simple, and simple to follow. Larry, you too.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I posted this in an earler Star Trek topic, but I really like this rendition. I know it’s not identical to the ship from the tv series, but this is much more credible as the predecessor to the ship that we see in the first six movies.
I have never thought that it was believable that the 60s TV ship and the ship we see in the first three movies were one and the same, no “refit” would have been that extensive. Especially when they establish that the refit took less than two years.
THIS ship I can see being refitted into the classic movie Enterprise.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@Mike
They seem to be referring to the print version of the magazine (December 2008, p. 43). One site noted that it was not online yet.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
> @Mike
> They seem to be referring to the print version of the magazine (December > 2008, p. 43). One site noted that it was not online yet.
If true its a very bad move by Discover Magazine. The creationism campaign seriously disrupts science education, and is making much stronger gains in the class room than is generally realized. The situation is serious, and Discover’s support for creationism is not going to be overlooked.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I prefer Star Wars (if you couldn’t tell from my handle), but I also enjoy a good Star Trek movie / episode. And I like this Enterprise. I’ve already read blogs from “purists” who don’t like it though, and I’m not sure why. Do they want the 60′s plastic model floating around on the string? Anyhoo…
It still would become a puff of smoke and radiation against a Star Destroyer.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I like it from a design standpoint but on the other, I don’t see what was so wrong with Matt Jeffry’s original design that they felt the need to so radically change the basic shape. I’m referring to the shortening of the secondary hull and pushing the primary hull support pylon so far back.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I enjoy the Star Trek films. I liked some of the TV shows. I even like the look of the new Enterprise. But the first thing that went through my mind when I saw the Entertainment Weekly cover featuring Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine in costume was that they looked like little kids dressed up for Halloween.
I hope that Abrams’ film follows the example of Batman Begins by establishing a new canon rather than trying to fit into the old one. Otherwise I fear that this new Trek (and any sequels) will be hamstrung by what we all know happens in the future, a la The Phantom Menace.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sorry, I have to vote against it. I really like the original (TOS) Enterprise, and this looks more like an Apple product than a functional starship to me. It also doesn’t feel like it fits in the evolutionary chart as starships go from clunky to swooshy. I’d gladly put it as a future post-TNG Enterprise, but it doesn’t look the the precursor to the old beloved un-appendixed Enterprise.
And as long as I’m dorking out, I may as well go full-dork and complain that it violates the Technical Manual I’ve had on my shelf since I was 12.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
@ Darth Curt
Sure, but the Galactica (new series) would paste that Star Destroyer.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
As an almost-crotchety-purist for nigh on two decades (has it really been that long for me?), I’m a bit ambivalent about the design. I’m delighted that they chose the Saucer section design from the first Star Trek film. But I’m ambivalent about the almost-anaemic Engineering section and the nacelles. The overall feel is the Enterprise if it had been designed by Apple – y’know, the NCC-1701 iPod Touch.
To be fair, I wasn’t all that impressed with Optimus Prime or the Tumbler either, and I rather like them after seeing their respective films. So I’ll give this new rendition a chance too. I have very very low expectations for this new film, so if it’s even half-decent I’ll be extraordinarily happy.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
@ Library Guy
Touche!
November 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Love that pic! I’m starting to get quite enthusiastic about the movie and suspect it will be the best Star Trek since DS9 ended.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I don’t think it looks at all like an Apple product. Too much bling and blinkenlights. With all the flowing shapes and stuff, maybe it’s a Colani Design leftover?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
@Undercover: Trek isn’t about the universe. It’s about people in the universe. At heart, Star Trek is a character-driven ensemble work. Sure, it takes place in an imagined future, but all fiction takes place in an imagined past, present, or future.
About the Enterprise image: A number, frankly, an annoying number, of Trek fans seem to be taking offense at this image because it shows an Enterprise that is not a faithful replica of the little thing that hung from wires in the original series more than 40 years ago. As usual, a lot of them are swearing off seeing the new film because of such heresies. Most, I assume, were born at last 20 years after the original series ended.
No reason why a 21st century studio would willingly handcuff itself into using last centuries special effects techniques. This is what the Enterprise would have looked like if Roddenberry had had the same tools.
At its core, Trek is about the fulfillment of a commitment to science and rationality. That’s a very good thing.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I like it a lot…I wish it were more in line with the one in STMP, but, oh well, can’t have everything. It does look very, very cool taken by itself.
I do hope they pay attention to continuity (I can’t use the silly word “canon.”); ignoring it (as they did on Enterprise) makes it hard to maintain that willing suspension of disbelief.
Fingers crossed…I am looking forward to this movie very much.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Very nice! The nacelles do have a retro kind of look about them. The original Enterprise would totally fall flat on the big screen, IMHO.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
This just makes me want to cry. Why does he have to piss all over everything Star Trek was?
November 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I love the new Enterprise, but the actors look badly miscast besides Zachary Quinto. And I will literally refuse to see the movie ever if it’s a reboot. Besides Battlestar Galactica, in which the new one is far better than the original, I despise continuity reboots. What’s wrong with just continuing and developing upon the old canon, like in Doctor Who?
November 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
undercover, it is exactly this type of movie that may get more people interested in the real universe. Only may get them interested though; you never can predict people with any kind of certainty.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
All the shiny chromy bits and the little row of holes on the nacelles kind of reminds me of my Mom and Dad’s 1957 Buick when I was a kid.
I would have preferred a more original series look, but I have to agree with Michael L in that it would not have made the transition to the big screen.
And, Simon Pegg as Scotty? We won’t be taking this movie TOO seriously, will we?
November 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Tough line to follow…between the now-campy-looking 60′s feel of the show and later updates.
Looks OK to me. Hope to get the chance to see the movie in the theater.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I wondered when you’d get the news on the new look of the Big E, Phil!
I somehow get a feeling that this is probably how the Enterprise would look if designed by NASA.
When I first saw it I thought “Wow, they changed it!”
Then as I looked at it more, I then thought “This is actually kinda cool.”
I’ve seen many complaints on how the look is not canon, how “wrong” it is, ect.
Reminds me of Kirk’s line in the sixth film; “People can be frightened of change.”
I feel that “Star Trek” needs a revamp. The Batman franchise benifited from such a revamp big time. Why not “Star Trek”?
I can hardly wait to see the new Big E in action.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I don’t get the “it looks like Apple designed it” comments. Apple tends to go for simple and functional, while this ship model has curves and angles sticking out all over.
It looks more like a 1950s car with the chrome and tailfins.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Should have gone with Gabe Koerner’s design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXa0cfaTlfk
Hearty, solid, and believably evolved from the original TV ship.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
And just to annoy everyone by jumping on the geek bandwagon, I gotta say, darn what an ugly bee-hind that ship’s got. They trying to make that ship as ugly as the “D”? (TNG was cool, but sorry, the Enterprise itself wasn’t)
Nothing wrong with Matt Jeffries’s original design; I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t try using strings again to film it today. There’s a reason why classic Star Trek works and if one strays too far from the fan’s expectations, it tends to um… not work. Still, effects don’t make the movie, so will this new bunch of actors be able to match up to the old crew? Well, probably not, but will they be able to pull it off? Depends on the story. Only time will tell…
So’ WI’ Chu!
November 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Phil -
You sent us back to a previous post about an online skirmish with Wil, and I noticed that you said “frak and feldergarb”. It was “felgerkarb”. While I’m not certain of the spelling, but I AM of the pronunciation.
Oh, yeah… I am waiting breathlessly for the movie!
November 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I’m no Trek purist or anything, but I don’t really like the new Enterprise design very much. There’s no really cohesive theme to it – the saucer doesn’t look like it matches with anything else, for example, and the nacelle pylons look extremely flimsy. Also, the deflector dish looks like some sort of tricked-out ricemobile accessory.
The new nacelles are basically the only part I like.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
fluffy nails what it is I don’t like about the new ‘old’ Enterprise, although I think the nacelles would look more at home on a 1950′s-era car than on a starship. I guess that’s appropriate, though, since 1950′s-era cars werre trying to emulate spaceships in their ‘rocket fin’ designs. On another forum, someone else described this new ‘old’ Enterprise as the Enterprise interpreted by Salvador Dali.
For all you naysayers who claim that the TOS Enterprise wouldn’t look good on the big screen, have any of you seen what they’ve done with the Star Trek Remastered version of the original series? The old E doesn’t look all that bad. Oh, and for the record, the original wasn’t a plastic model hanging from a flimsy wire; it was rather large and supported from underneath by a large stand. (Hey, if others can get geeky, so can I!)
My biggest beef with the whole new ‘old’ movie is that they aren’t just calling it a reboot/re-imagining. It’s clearly NOT fitting into the established chronology, so why pretend that it is SUPPOSED to? For that matter, then, why even stick with TOS characters? Why not just make something new, with new characters that the actors can make their OWN?
Oh, well. Seems most people want stuff that looks cool these days, so if the new film does that, it’ll be deemed a success.
And if anyone doesn’t like people dissing the new film before it’s out, I’d point out that a lot of people are praising the film as well… before it’s out. Works both ways, you know.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
One thing is kinda interesting: they already updated TOS Enterprise with the new special effects edited into the old shows. Have you seen them? Pretty spectacular. The original ship looked great in the new shots, I have to say.
Oh, well.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Hmmmm…. Fed X Cruiser?
(All those Star Fleet Battles geeks out there will know what I’m talking about.)
November 13th, 2008 at 6:34 am
I think the Enterprise Refit/Enterprise-A design looks much better than this, more modern, and more like the original Enterprise design. This just seems awkwardly off balance to me. Maybe it’s just a bad angle for this ship.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I keep seeing Gabe Koerner’s design creeping up in these discussions. And while, yes, it’s closer to the original in basic shape….it’s also incredibly ugly, in my opinion. Greebled to death. With the possible exception of the Buick nacelles, at least the surfaces of the new Enterprise look good, even if one doesn’t agree with some of the shapes.
I also see people saying this is a ripoff of Koerner’s design, but the only similarity (excluding the overall Constitution-like shape) I see is that the nacelles have that shell on top of the Bussard collectors, yielding some similarity in an outline, but not much when the details are compared side by side.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Seeing this design, I can accept it. While it is a bit different, this movie takes place a few years before TOS, and it could have been refitted to the TOS form.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I am kind of sad to see the inexplicable red glowy bits gone from the nacelles (or maybe they are just not turned on!). Still, this is quite obviously the Enterprise, “no bloody A, B, C or D.”
November 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
November 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
No, no, a thousand times no. We already know what the Enterprise looked like a few years before the original series. In fact, we know what it looked like a DECADE before the original series took place. And what did it look like?
Almost exactly the same as it did in the original series.
“If you’re going to do Star Trek, there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you’re going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?” — J.J. Abrams
I don’t know, Mr. Abrams. What ARE you doing?
November 14th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Just once, can they put one nacelle in full Warp 9 forward and the other in full Warp 9 reverse, and spin all the Klingons off? Of course, they would need to install seat belts first …