Thought that ya'll might want to see this...http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/17/first-official-picture-of-the-uss-enterprise/

comments in 3...2...1...

Looks good to me.

My first thought upon looking at the highest-resolution image is that it looks like a blend between the TOS ship and the refit -- an idea which works for me.

Qapla'

SSB

big fat nacelles

or is it the perspective?

It's a bit aztec -ey

I will need to see more to generate a yes / no comment

encouraging though...

Not too bad.
And if I'm not mistaken the nacells should be smaller from the very front like that.

Damn, you beat me ! just saw this on the movie phone site

Looks a lot like Koerner’s Enterprise. Look at the front and rear of the nacelles. The rotating egg beaters will go clock and counter clockwise. Something that big would have to be built in a spacedock. Maybe it is in one and we just can't tell.

Primary hull,looks o.k.The lettering looks like the Movie Enterprise.The Warp Nacelles,need to desperatley,take a trip to Jenny Craig,or Weight Watchers

I don't think the nacelles are too big, just too close together

Personally, I like the aztek-y :p

For the dockyard version of a ship that was what, about 20 years old during STOS, it has potential.

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AT THIS POINT IN THE SPACE/TIME CONTINUUM!

I'm not going to complain about it,I meen it could have been worse if they decided to redisine the whole ship.From the little bit i saw of it in the picture,I'll wait to see some better shots before i make a final judgement.I did notice the shipps outer skin is alot like the motion picture Enterprise,So is the lettering. :dude:

Wrong font.

Looks fine so far.

Wrong font.Different font.

(ducks)

One of the posters in the trekmovie commented the font "looks like Microgramma"from The Starfleet Tech Manual. I don't have that in front of me @ the moment...anyone know if this is correct?

Wrong font.
That's what I said.

You WILL like what we give you!

Haven't seen it (clicked on the link but chickened out). I decided that what I'll do is to see the trailer when I check out Cloverfield on Saturday and *then* I'll see what the rest of the ship looks like.

I have a feeling that this is the final shot from the trailer,and that's all we are going to see of the Enterprise until the first real trailer in May. It looks fine to me, closer to the classic Enterprise than the Refit, which is cool. I can't wait to see the trailer on the big screen.

yup, microgramma

The nacelles do look a bit fat, but it may be a bit of a perspective trick. I love all the detail inside the bussards!! Is it just me or is the "sky" a bit blue for space? Doesn't canon say that the saucer was built on Earth & then "took off" for the space dock?

So far, I like it!

I can't see - do the nacelles sag like they do on my ERTL model?

Jim

No, more like the MR version. :lol:

I think it kinda sucks. I hope I am wrong.

Steve

Gaaaahhhh :freak:

The nacelles do look a bit fat, but it may be a bit of a perspective trick. I love all the detail inside the bussards!! Is it just me or is the "sky" a bit blue for space? Doesn't canon say that the saucer was built on Earth & then "took off" for the space dock?

So far, I like it!
IIRC, I think the only canonical reference to its construction is the plaque on the bridge which says it was built at the San Francisco naval yards. And since this is never clearly seen, I don't know if that should be considered canon.

I think it kinda sucks. I hope I am wrong.

Steve

No Steve, it definitely sucks. Interesting that today's date can also be written as 08-17-01 ....

The font looks similar to the NX type font. Hey John*, what are the chances that the lettering font on the E could change from when it was built till when you saw it on Star Trek? Impossible?


*- Generic name used to depict overreacting Trek fans.

The Bridge doesn't appear to be taller.It should be,as it was in the Cage and WNMHGB.It looks like its the standard series bridge,make the ship a bit more appealing for the film,but keep it somewhat accurate to the pilot films.Thats when this film takes place,and earlier.Guy S.

BTW people, it's called Forced Perspective.

Oh,perspective forced

The bridge and the font of the lettering are both wrong for either pilot version. And the lettering is also wrong for the production version as well.

The upper saucer has a totally new profile, none of it is the same as TOS version(s). Take a closer look at the left side profile visible in the photo and you will see three domes stacked on top of each other. The lowest one is low and broad, like a platform. The next one has sloping sides but appears to have a flat top (this one contains the bridge) and it is surmounted by a ribbed re-fit style dome with "hold down" tabs around the edge (4 possibly).

Like all the others that came after TOS, this ship is only "similar" in general configuration.

Yeah, the font looks like the Microgramma/Eurostyle family.

And it's not so much forced perspective as mimicking the effect of a telephoto lens, where background objects appear much bigger than they would at normal focal length.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Wrong font.

I'm not really a Trek purist, but it's not doin' much for me.

...and YES, wrong font. Not because it doesn't match whatever Trek fandom consensus says the font is "supposed to be", but because it looks dorky. Ya, dorky - four years of art conservatory education, and that's what I'm comin' up with. I'm all for putting whatever lettering/text/font works for the design, but that font would better suit the Princess Cruise Ship Enterprise. IMHO of course.

John O.

The intercoolers look different as well. They look like fins that slope aft and blend into the nacelle, kind of like the outboard fins on the refit but rotated 180 degrees.

I'm not too concerned whether something so minor as what font they used on lettering the hull is being used. You have to take into account maybe that was what they used originally and somewhere later during a minor refit upgrade the hull was repainted and re-lettered.

Not sure I like the egg beaters though, it's not how I imagined it being, but I am not the design engineer. My thought it was the predecessor the the in-the-hull intermix chamber and energy conduits. I think the intermix was handled in each engine individually and that's what you were seeing with the matter/antimatter mixture being controlled by magnetic fields in the bussards. Remember when they had to shut the engines down and restart them in the TOS? That's how I saw it.

A second look also shows the bride looking more refit than TOS. You can see the slits at the bottom of the bridge dome where it meets the primary hull and I'll put money on it that they will illuminate the hull just like in the movies.

Damn but we're a critical bunch :) Myself included.

Yupppp!!!!

Damn but we're a critical bunch :) Myself included.

Critical? Whatever.

I'm actually more disappointed to see what looks to be a homogenous blend of everything we’ve seen before, whether it’s intended to soothe the savage fanboy breast or not. I guess I’d be more pleased to see a real ballsy reboot, something that upsets the status quo apple cart the way TNS Galactica did. A little revolution every now and then is a good thing ...and if Trek is to survive, it needs it as badly as Galactica did.

John O.

A little guesswork and spit and baling wire for a hasty and rough idea of what we may be looking at:


http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/medium/1701x.jpg

Bigger:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/1701x.jpg

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Are they in the film too? I'm not surprised!

No disrespect intended,but that made me chuckle.

Are they in the film too? I'm not surprised!

Yes, they play a group of obsessed Star Trek fans who finally go too far and are pummeled into submission by, well, the rest of society. Seems they took their geekdom just a "little" too far.

IIRC, I think the only canonical reference to its construction is the plaque on the bridge which says it was built at the San Francisco naval yards. And since this is never clearly seen, I don't know if that should be considered canon.

I'm pretty sure that the plaque is clearly legible in at least a few episodes.

Wrong font.

Yeah, because it's utterly impossible that the registry was repainted in the 20 years that the Big E was commanded by April and Pike.

Yes, they play a group of obsessed Star Trek fans who finally go too far and are pummeled into submission by, well, the rest of society. Seems they took their geekdom just a "little" too far.

LMAO!!!

I have a feeling that this is the final shot from the trailer, and that's all we are going to see of the Enterprise until the first real trailer in May.Direct hit. From the descriptions of the trailer that I've read online, this is all we're gonna get for now.

Interesting teaser pic....but is the bridge turbolift offset 36 degrees or not?
I need to know!

Interesting teaser pic....but is the bridge turbolift offset 36 degrees or not?

Finally, we get the definitive question! :thumbsup:

is the bridge turbolift offset 36 degrees or not?
I need to know!No way! Because this is a J.J. Abrams project, it is offset 42 or 47 degrees, but never 36.

;)

Qapla'

SSB

IIRC, I think the only canonical reference to its construction is the plaque on the bridge which says it was built at the San Francisco naval yards. And since this is never clearly seen, I don't know if that should be considered canon.The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space.

— The Making of Star Trek, p.171

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.Or, as my Cuban co-worker is fond of saying, "¡Jesús, María, José y el burro!"