Star Trek 11 - New Enterprise sneek peek

Gemini1999 · January 17th, 2008, 12:10 PM

Okay folks -

This was on the AOL movies page. Make of it what you will:

*See Attachment*

Looks famliar....

Bryan

Lee · January 17th, 2008, 08:25 PM

Thats Gabe's Ent refit ain't it...

Gemini1999 · January 17th, 2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Ravensburg

Thats Gabe's Ent refit ain't it...

I wasn't too sure at first, but the nacelle design looked kinda familiar. I went to his website and he has a page of files of stuff with very recent dates on it. It almost makes me wonder if Gabe's design isn't the actual design to begin with.

Bryan

evil_genius_180 · January 17th, 2008, 09:06 PM

Somebody sure had fun. Too bad it's most likely in no way official.

gmd3d · January 18th, 2008, 01:25 AM

looked and it has not taken my breath away .. but until I see the over all view .. I keep my peace

January 18th, 2008, 05:49 AM

The picture itself is pretty awesome, but I seriously hope that those aren't the actual nacelles. I really hope they don't change the ship too much...change anything else in Trek but the Enterprise has to at least stay mostly the same.

EDIT: After looking at it closer I wonder if they're not going with something like this, especially with those chunky looking nacelles.

It's definitely different looking but...

evil_genius_180 · January 18th, 2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakaze

EDIT: After looking at it closer I wonder if they're not going with something like this, especially with those chunky looking nacelles.

Actually, Gemini and LR seem to think it is that very ship (that's what they meant by "Gabe's ship") but I don't think it is either. The bridge looks wrong for Gabe's ship, as do the nacelles. It looks like some kind of TOS/ENT hybrid to me.

evil_genius_180 · January 18th, 2008, 11:07 AM

Holy hell, that thing actually is official. I just read at http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ that it's from the trailer for the new movie. When I'd heard they were going to do something "similar to the original" I had a bad feeling they were gonna screw it up.

Gemini1999 · January 18th, 2008, 11:32 AM

Here's the official trailer on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllSZW_YLk8

Bryan

evil_genius_180 · January 18th, 2008, 11:50 AM

But why do that when you can see the trailer with Cloverfield? (note: extreme sarcasm here. Even the promise of a ST trailer won't get me to shell out over $10 to see a B movie.)

I'd heard that the movie was halted because of the strike, but I also thought they had their script done well before that. But if they're showing trailers and the official website (you can find the link on the front page of www.startrek.com) is showing a release date of December 25, 2008, I'd say that confirms the "script done before" theory.

February 18th, 2008, 01:07 PM

Interesting link... hadn't seen any of the trailers before (OK I admit I hadn't been looking very hard...)

evil_genius_180 · February 18th, 2008, 11:03 PM

You might want to keep not looking. I've seen spoilers on the plot for this thing and it looks like it's gonna blow chunks, not be the big revitalization of ST they were hoping for.

Lee · February 19th, 2008, 09:41 AM

yep... another big let down for Trekkies everywhere...

evil_genius_180 · February 19th, 2008, 10:23 AM

I haven't felt all that let-down by what they've done before because I like Nemesis and the other TNG movies. Granted, they're not as good as some of the older ones (except First Contact, it's awesome) but they're good. I also like Enterprise. But this new movie is messing with TOS, my favorite Trek, and the plot looks totally stupid.

Thomas P · February 19th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Time travel - any plot with time travel pretty much nails the coffin for me.

J.J is trying to go beyond his 15 minutes.

evil_genius_180 · February 20th, 2008, 12:18 AM

Yeah, they never to time travel right on Star Trek. Plus the movie plot seems very Terminator-esque to me.

March 2nd, 2008, 01:02 PM

I was looking forward to a new Star Trek movie. Oh well, at least if it flops the studio will take a monetary hit. That's a sort of revenge fans can have on Paramount for messing with a scifi icon.

evil_genius_180 · March 2nd, 2008, 11:21 PM

Yeah, I was looking forward to it also. I say we true ST fans should make a movie, not some TV producer who claims to be a ST fan and then proceeds to make a movie that will quite possibly be the worst of the bunch.

jaguarry3 · March 13th, 2008, 02:58 PM

Cann't wait to see more

March 23rd, 2008, 11:19 PM

We all know that this movie will flop... all the odd numbered Star Trek movies flopped...
Also thanks for the links, but I'm going to be taking this film with a pinch of salt.

evil_genius_180 · March 23rd, 2008, 11:33 PM

That and it's a movie the studio is using as a "filler" movie. It's not that they wanted to do another ST movie, they just needed something that was guaranteed to put fans in the seats (and buying tickets.) Otherwise, they wouldn't be using a plot that's been kicked around the studio since the '70s and has never really been approved before. Add to that a first-time ST director who insisted on bringing his own production staff, who have also never done ST and it just spells STINKER.

They should've had Manny Coto (the guy who was executive producer of season 4 of Enterprise after they canned Rick Berman) come aboard as the producer, possibly even the director. Then at least they'd have a ST veteran at the helm. Season 4 of Enterprise was by far the best and really went well as a prequel to TOS (better than the first 3 seasons.)

May 13th, 2008, 06:04 PM

but the enterprise is build in space! san francisco fleetyard drydock!
not in earth!

evil_genius_180 · May 13th, 2008, 10:38 PM

Well, that's debatable. There is actually no canon evidence that the orbital drydock from the first movie is in fact the San Francisco Fleet Yards. First, it's a single structure, which begs the question of why it's called Fleet Yards (implies more than one structure.) Some believe the actual San Francisco Fleet Yards are on Earth and the orbital drydock structure is just a systems checking/integration structure. The only "official" source that claims the orbital drydock is in fact the San Francisco Fleet Yards is The Star Trek Encyclopedia. However, I don't know why Mike and Denise Okuda bothered to include that, since that whole assumption is based on the fact that the Enterprise is seen in that structure at the beginning of TMP, which is 26 years after it was built. We have no canon proof that the ship was built in that structure 26 years earlier or that said structure even existed 26 years earlier.

alt1701 · May 14th, 2008, 02:01 PM

might be a metaphor while constructing the movie

DrMcQuark · May 19th, 2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alt1701

might be a metaphor while constructing the movie

I have to agree. Abrams is very aware of the legacy he has to carry on but he needs to be given some leeway in order to bring new fans into the fold.

I am encouraged that the re-mastered Trek is appealing to some kids. I work in a comics store on the weekend and there have been a number of kids coming in and mentioning how much they liked the show and are eagerly awaiting this new movie.

I'll keep my hopes up.

August 19th, 2008, 09:10 PM

Did anyone notice in the trailer that the underside of the saucer section had the same sensor structure as the TMP Enterprise?? When I saw that, I was like - "Oh, NNNNooooo!!!!" Being a diehard fan - and having to let TNG grow on me after the first six or so first season re-write of TOS episodes, TNG became a much loved show. I just hope J.J. and crew don't screw this up any more, as to change ANYthing on the Original Enterprise's look from Series to this movie, would be a very grave mistake. But, I will hold out that as an "escapism" type of movie, it will be fairly okay.
I mean - when I read the TMP novel back in 1979 before getting to see the movie, I thought - what a great movie this will be. But of course, the original release movie was a drag to me - as it spent way too much time on the special effects rather than on the story. Only in the final director's cut version some 30 years later, has TMP finally become the movie it needed to be.
So maybe J.J. and Co. still has a glimmer of hope. They should screen what they have now - and maybe delay the opening longer to make some necessary changes.

evil_genius_180 · August 19th, 2008, 11:08 PM

From what I hear, there's supposed to be a significant amount of time travel in this movie (and alternate histories due to changes in the timeline.) So, there are actually supposed to be a number of Enterprises in the movie, including one that's supposed to be close to the real ship.

September 16th, 2008, 01:35 PM

Hmmmm. I was hoping it would kind of look like, uh, the Enterprise. The way they did it in the re-mastered TOS episodes would be fine with me. I don't care for the glossy, glitzy look. My understanding was that the original Enterprise looked pretty much the same from its launching until they did the refit for ST:TMP. I like that version (and NCC-1701A), but for TOS...please don't mess with it.

As for the story...I'll just hold my breath and hope for the best - and hope I don't turn blue.

gmd3d · September 17th, 2008, 06:40 AM

trekker ..I think thats the concerns that many have for the Enterprise .. I have never really liked Gabes design for the Enterprise.. another ship yes fine . the design of the Enterprise will make or brake these new rebirth? thats my thinking

evil_genius_180 · October 16th, 2008, 10:46 AM

Has anybody else seen this crap?

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/15...rprise-bridge/

I'm really disappointed by that bridge. To me it looks like a bridge from a bad ST spoof.