Topic: Enterprise from the new Star Trek XI movie Picture

[Pestalence_XC]

Well the Movie version is showing it's head.. here is the screen shot of the Enterprise under construction



looks a lot like Gabe's ship but until we get a full view of her, it may just be and enhanced version of the TOS ship before it's painted the thermal coat Grey.

Here is Gabe's ship from the front.



So what do you guys think so far?

Possible match?

To me the ship from the Teaser Trailer looks more like the CGI Enhanced version of TOS than it does Gabe's ship.. I don't think they changed the shipthat much just maybe added some details.. I believe they stuck mostly Canon concerning the ship. It does have a lot of Gabe's CGI Enterprise influenced on it.

Here is the TOS CGI Enhanced, you can see a lot of Differences (Enterprise from "Who Mourns for Adonais?" remastered)






and here it is from "Dagger of the Mind" remastered.

[Chris Jones]

OK the Joke's over - where's the Real Enterprise?

This XI thing has the wrong font for starters. That alone trashes it for me. JJ, I hear, wants people to refer to this move as 'Star Trek 0' so new fans don't feel like they have to catch up = yea JJ, just forget about the past. Re-boot this! I'll not hijack the thread here with a Star Trek 11 rant - but suffice it to say that I plan to get 'Lost' on the way to the theatre when this gets released.

This Enterprise would be useful for a twisted Mirror Universe story of some type where things go radically different, not for a Trek re-boot. JJ needs a boot.

anyway.. carry on.

[Hexx]

???

Even if they do do a reboot ala BSG- which they're I guess attempting, do you seriously think they'll keep the same font?
They'll be trying to gain NEW viewers, to have new kids look at the Enterprise and say 'It's a cool looking ship"
Anything (including the fonts) that looks like the "old" version (nostalgic as I am) looks really,really, dated.

[I, Mudd.]

Hey Chris ...

For some one who totes the expression, 'the game does not have to remain the same', I'd have thought you'd be more open to such a treatment. You're fussing over a canon font??? To each their own, I guess.

'Star Trek does not have to remain the same'

hm ... seems to fit to me ... IDIC, and all ... lol. Just sayin'.



 

JM.

[Lepton]

Watch this.  If it doesn't get your blood going, then you are Trek old-man stogy fogey.

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/trekreel002.mov

Clearly, Gabe either knew the design and was riffing off it, or he was asked to do the original concept work and someone took it from there.  There is an extra level on the Star Trek XI ship below the bridge area, but we are essentially looking at the same conceptual framework with some tweeks.  I think it is great.  If you look as Gabe's stuff, it is really cool.  It's like a 50's/60's muscle car Enterprise.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

That top image has me psyched.   It's a movie.  To make money.  What did we expect?

This is not life.  It's Star Trek.   I'll now be looking forward to further teasers.

Wonder what they have in store for Klingon and Romulan vessels.  ::rubs hands together::

[Chris Jones]

???

Even if they do do a reboot ala BSG- which they're I guess attempting, do you seriously think they'll keep the same font?
They'll be trying to gain NEW viewers, to have new kids look at the Enterprise and say 'It's a cool looking ship"
Anything (including the fonts) that looks like the "old" version (nostalgic as I am) looks really,really, dated.

Not if they do it right. It would attract new and please the huge older Trek fan base. It can be done. JJ does not care. I'm sure. Too bad it's all about the money.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Thanks for that link Lep.

That was awesome.

[Chris Jones]

Hey Chris ...

For some one who totes the expression, 'the game does not have to remain the same', I'd have thought you'd be more open to such a treatment. You're fussing over a canon font??? To each their own, I guess.

'Star Trek does not have to remain the same'

hm ... seems to fit to me ... IDIC, and all ... lol. Just sayin'.



 

JM.

lol - It's a pet peeve. Example. I based the quality of the original Legacy game on how the TOS Connie looked. It was badly done.

[Lepton]

Just to respond to Chris' comments on the Argus Array re the design of this Enterprise about the font.  Check this:



The font used on the new ship is just the same font that has been on every trek ship since TMP sans the red line and a white border.

[Chris Jones]

Understood - but this is not TMP.

[atheorhaven]

Understood - but this is not TMP.

Agreed.. this new font appears to be something like Eurostyle rather than Amarillo.

And we're seeing a lot of TMP influence here.. aztecing and the TMP style lighting bridge elements.  With the amount of vapor around in the shot, it also looks like they're building in atmosphere.  Which they could theoretically do if they enclosed the drydock with a forcefield and atmosphere, but why go through that much trouble?

I am seeing more new BSG-influence here than I'd like as well.. so while I understand that they're trying to bring in new viewers, I'm along with Chris on this one and am now more expecting to see scenes of the young edgier Kirk having his butt in the air having nookie on a desk in Starfleet Academy.  Don't care for "edgy" interferring in a good story, and if they start going the whole "shakycam" route as well (which is why I can't and won't watch the BSG reboot), I'd probably walk out of the theater.

The thing about the series that they shouldn't forget is that TOS was about a new beginning and humanity taking baby steps into space.  "Seeking out new worlds and new civilizations" is there for a reason, not "Travel the universe, meet new people, kill them all and let God sort them out".  :p

The font is one thing, design elements are another, and wild deviations like building in atmosphere as opposed to vacuum is quite another again.  Just am hopeful that they don't go too far off the mark..

[Age]

Chris is a TNGer all the way but I would rather here more from Pest. on this.

[Pestalence_XC]

Personally, I don't think a ship redesign is necessary for the movie.. they should take the TOS studio model and fix it up a bit, add more hull details deck plating and such, remove the thermal coat grey and have bare skin (then give a reason for the thermal coat grey for the TOS series later in the movie)..

The ship should stay as TOS canon as possible, with maybe Older engines that TOS episode.. You have to remember there were 2 Captains of the Enterprise before Kirk... I know that the movie is going to have Christopher Pike, however they are mot mentioning the Enterprise's first captain.. Robert April.

Robert April had the Enterprise for 3 to 5 years before Pike.. Pike had her for another 5 years.. Kirk was assigned to the Ferragot during his early career after the Academy.. Then he got Command of the Enterprise after Pike got seriously injured near the end of the 5th year.. TOS takes place a few months into Kirks First year on the Enterprise..

So.. I would like them to show continuity to this respect as well as a down graded version of the TOS Enterprise to correctly fit the timeline..

Then all will be well in the Trek universe.

[Panzergranate]

Will they be havong the uniforms and side arms from the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" episode or later.

In the second TOS pilot, with Kirk as Captain, Spock isn't first officer.... Commander Gary Mitchel is. Spock succeeds Comander Gary Mitchel on his death. Spock is still a Lt. Commander well into the TOS series before being promoted, though is still first officer.

Also Pike's helmsman Lt. Kelso is part of Kirk's crew but is later killed by Mitchel at the Delta Vega Lithium Cracking Facility.

So when is the movie supposed to be set?? After or before Mitchel's death??

If it is before then Spock would be second officer.

It is another opportunity for the writers to screw up continubity once again starting with TOS eoisode numero uno!!

 

[CC22]

It looks a beauty - has the lights around the bridge module like the TMP, infact the superstructure looks like a stretched out verstion of TMP, plus the pearlescant pannels and the fonts - ticks all my boxes thats for sure. Some of you guys cannot seriously believe that they'd stick up the original TOS ship for a movie they want to do well in cinema. Don't get so hung up on it - you say you are fans but you kick the franchise all the time even when its down, and moan like hell when they try and relaunch it. Its make believe after all eh.

[Vipre]

Being a fan doesn't mean you have to eat whatever slop they hand out, smile, say thanks pal, and ask for seconds.

I'm excited to see what they've done, I may or may not like it, but I'll wait until I've seen it to decide. Now on to the ship.


Look at the size of the nacelles as compared to the size of the bridge structure. Either the nacelles a half as far from the bridge or they're twice as big as the originals. I'm interested to see which it is.

[Panzergranate]

We're talking about that ship form the Calender and art work book from a few years ago, right??

I'm just saying as I already have these picture in a book I had for my birthday last year. This isn't actually the ship that they're going to use.... damn let the cat oit of the bag...... sorry for ruining the wind up there!!

[Pestalence_XC]

You have to remember, in TOS the engine Nacell pylons are vertical, where TMP Enterprise the Pylons are swept back.. this was part of the refit to relieve stress from the secondary hull.. so yes, the TOS Enterprise, the nacells are closer to the bridge than the TMP Enterprise.. you are comparing TMP to TOS in your above pictures.

[Lepton]

Understood - but this is not TMP.

TOS is the continuity break in the procession from ENT to TMP to TNG and onward.  All the ships depicted in those movies and series share consistent design elements that the original TOS Connie does not possess.  While I love TOS, grew up with it all my life, whether watching it the original reruns, late night on Public Television stations (anyone remember when local PBS stations used to have Star Trek on them??), on the Sci-Fi Trek Marathons, or Star Trek Enhanced/Remastered, it was a single show that ran for all of three seasons while there is over a quarter-century of Trek that came after it such that it far outweighs those three years no matter how good they may have been.  I have no problem with Star Trek 0 recontextualizing or even reimagining some things if for no other reason than to bring things into alignment with the other 25 years + of Trek.

You know, I was not aware enough at the time to know, but I am sure that many a Star Trek fan poo-poo'ed the Ent-D because it looked so different from the original connie and I still think the Ent-D looks like some Cracker Jack box space toy with its red and blue kiddie glowies (Look, Mom, it's glowy).  I further think that the Ent-E was the worst in abominations of Enterprise turned into some silly racing car.  It was the worst example of copying in letter but not in spirit the refit of NCC-1701 that appears in TMP.  The Connie refit is elegant, futuristic, and mature, whereas the Ent-D looks as if it were squeezed out of the slit-like sphincter of some alien that eats phosphorescent algae.  Please don't talk to me about canon.  That's long gone by the wayside.

[Vipre]

You have to remember, in TOS the engine Nacell pylons are vertical, where TMP Enterprise the Pylons are swept back.. this was part of the refit to relieve stress from the secondary hull.. so yes, the TOS Enterprise, the nacells are closer to the bridge than the TMP Enterprise.. you are comparing TMP to TOS in your above pictures.

I picked that picture only because the angles are about the same and they are closer in design style, however you are not correct. The pylons may have been swept back but the nacelle position remained virtually the same. The connection to the nacelle was moved back and the one to the hull forward so that would be possible. As a result their appearence of size in relation to their bridge structures is almost identical.

I will say that I believe they used a somewhat fisheyed lens in that tmp shot that make the nacelles look smaller than they should be.
The reason the nacelles in the trailer pic look so large is probably an optical illusion similar to the one which makes the tmp nacelles look smaller than they should be. I stand by the post. If it's not an optical illusion then either the nacelles are half as far from the bridge or they're twice as big as the originals.

[Chris Jones]

We take TOS to be the original Star Trek  = and if JJ wants to reboot the franchise, keep old fans and attract new ones, he should damn well at least keep close to the original 60s design, and font. Lepton you present a good argument, and yes I am a TNGer all the way, but this ship, as a Kirk ship set in the TOS era, should look like TOS and not some bastardized version of it. Again - this would keep old Trek fans AND attract new ones. Star Trek: Enhanced is a perfect example of this. My son had not seen any TOS until Enhanced. After seeing this ship, he says he'll wait for the DVD. This is not Trek to him.

 Just make it a blockbuster TNG movie and forget all this anyway.   ***ducks***

[Rod ONeal]

OK, now that everyone's got the new enterprise out of their systems... let's talk about the real travesty in this movie. Winona Ryder as Spock's mother? She's only 36.  

[Pestalence_XC]

You have to remember, the movie is suppose to be set when Kirk and Spock are still in Starfleet Academy... Her age is about appropriate.

[Vipre]

Jane Wyatt will always be Amanda Grayson to me. Just as nobody could ever replace Mark Lenard as Sarek.



She made such an impact and with only one appearance to do it.

[Beeblebrox]

There are some additional shots of the new Enterprise along with a glimpse of the interior.  This site also gives up a link to a nifty feature on the official movie site.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/21/star-trek-teaser-trailer-online-now/

[Rod ONeal]

This looks like Gabe's nacelle from the rear to me. If it is, I'm really surprised that they're deviating so far from the original Enterprise.

[Rod ONeal]

You have to remember, the movie is suppose to be set when Kirk and Spock are still in Starfleet Academy... Her age is about appropriate.

I think it would make them more in high school, at the most, rather than SFA.

[TheStressPuppy]

You guys never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think after 40+ years a movie set in the TOS era would use the Enterprise from the TV show? The reason the original enterprise wasnt used in TMP was because the model was just too old, clumsy, and lacked the detailing needed for a full blown big screen movie. This new ship is still clearly Matt Jefferies design. With some nice subtle alterations. I grew up watching Kirk, and company trundle through the galaxy, hookng up with green, and blue females, dodging gotho's, giant hands, blobs amoebas, Styrofoam boulders, etc. etc. We all loved it despite the cheese factor. You guys knew how much of a nut i was about modeling the TOS big-E. However looking at this "new" TOS big-E i must say.. i LIKE it! I think JJ Abrams has the right idea. Instead of modifying the old 1960's TOS model to bring it up to speed for todays standard, He "downgraded" the TMP enterprise to TOS specs, and retained the best parts of the TMP ship. Including the hull font. This is a nice blend of the old, and the new, It also make the "new" TOS connie consistent tech wise with all the other series. JJ said he would stay true to trek lore. He said absolutely nothing about not changing the appearance of the technology.

Chris you of all people i would have least expected to mock this ship.

I think most of the TOS purist wont be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.

To be honest if this Trek is a reboot ala Galactica it may be a good thing. Look at how many old timers protested the new galactica.. Turns out many old school fans. Myself included LIKE the new show. The same could be true with the "new" Trek. We just have to keep an open mind. IDIC.

Now if the Story, Acting, and Plot of the movie sucks. All of this great new artwork will be a waste.

[Beeblebrox]

This looks like Gabe's nacelle from the rear to me. If it is, I'm really surprised that they're deviating so far from the original Enterprise.

See, I would have said that this view was meant to be along the spine of the secondary hull looking out over the fantail.  The "wings" are most likely the hull extensions for taking the nacelle pylons.

[Vipre]

Doubtful. It probably is a view looking forward on the nacelle. I'd rough estimate the distance between the fins at 45-50 feet. If it were the secondary hull I'd expect that to be doubled.

[Beeblebrox]

Taking another look at the last picture and the first one in the thread I'm forced to say you may be right.  Maybe those fins are the pre-TOS version of the warp nacelle intercoolers. 

I was wondering if the guys making this movie will equip the Enterprise with lasers like it had in The Cage.  Of course given the giant dump that seems to have been taken on Star Trek continuity these days they probably won't.   

[atheorhaven]

You guys never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think after 40+ years a movie set in the TOS era would use the Enterprise from the TV show? The reason the original enterprise wasnt used in TMP was because the model was just too old, clumsy, and lacked the detailing needed for a full blown big screen movie. This new ship is still clearly Matt Jefferies design. With some nice subtle alterations. I grew up watching Kirk, and company trundle through the galaxy, hookng up with green, and blue females, dodging gotho's, giant hands, blobs amoebas, Styrofoam boulders, etc. etc. We all loved it despite the cheese factor. You guys knew how much of a nut i was about modeling the TOS big-E. However looking at this "new" TOS big-E i must say.. i LIKE it! I think JJ Abrams has the right idea. Instead of modifying the old 1960's TOS model to bring it up to speed for todays standard, He "downgraded" the TMP enterprise to TOS specs, and retained the best parts of the TMP ship. Including the hull font. This is a nice blend of the old, and the new, It also make the "new" TOS connie consistent tech wise with all the other series. JJ said he would stay true to trek lore. He said absolutely nothing about not changing the appearance of the technology.
Chris you of all people i would have least expected to mock this ship.
I think most of the TOS purist wont be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.
To be honest if this Trek is a reboot ala Galactica it may be a good thing. Look at how many old timers protested the new galactica.. Turns out many old school fans. Myself included LIKE the new show. The same could be true with the "new" Trek. We just have to keep an open mind. IDIC.
Now if the Story, Acting, and Plot of the movie sucks. All of this great new artwork will be a waste.

With respect StressPuppy, to each their own..

I think it'd be a lot more of a challenge for them to go with the original ship in the movie.  Then you approach it with the attitude, "How do we make this fresh and exciting?"  "How do we do things with this classic ship that have never been seen before?"

Even looking at the demos over at Chris' site for Nexus Trek and the Legacy mods, plus ST: New Voyages gives the answer.. the original Trek kept everything 2D because of budget problems.  They don't have that problem with this movie.  You can do things with scale and angles that could never been done before, and go for shots that have never been seen.

We have scenes at a planet?  Fantastic.. how many times have we ever seen the TOS Big E drop out of warp and into orbit?  How many times have we seen it go to warp?  Maybe the reason why we never see the Big E fire rear phasers or a rear torpedo tube may be because of problems experienced during this movie.. a rear torpedo misfire taking out part of the superstructure or a phaser coupling overheating and exploding could require a rethink of that part of the design and shutting down and removing those systems in time for TOS for instance..

This is what I'd go for..

And as a sidenote:  the new BSG may be popular with some, but I literally can't watch it.  The "shakycam" thing makes me physically sick to my stomach to watch it.  So the only way I've been even able to think of how to view it would be to run the show through a program like VirtualDub and then run a stability filter on it focused on the ship/ships that are the center of action, cropping out the rest.  Then maybe I can watch it.  If the new movie does the same, I'll have to walk out of it for the same reason.  And not *everything* has to be sex and violence... I see the direction that BSG went to be the same road that Babylon 5: Crusade was asked to walk down, and JMS shut the show down rather than go there.  I *like* not having all that drek in a story.. it means that they have to actually write something, not script:

[i]13:45 [scene]: Dark hallway with female Cylon and human male.  Camera pans, no one is around.  Female Cylon pushes human male against hallway wall and they start to undress.

14:35 [ad lib talking and kissing]

14:55 - 16:59 [scene pushes R rating]

17:00 fade to commercial.[/i]

Now what is actually accomplished in this sort of scene?  You kill three minutes and fifteen seconds of the fourty two or so minutes to tell your story, and you never get that back.  To be honest, if I wanted to see that sort of story, there's adult entertainment shops where I can rent that, and they don't ever have to pretend to be set in space.

I watch science fiction because I want to see a science fiction story, and that means that there has to be a story to watch.  Guess that puts me into the camp that prefers TOS styling, good story telling, and has at least a nodding respect for its fans... as opposed to the beheading and execution of a good story and show in order to make time in the show for soft porn.  And I *hope* that they don't walk down this road..

[Chris Jones]

Yes I do expect JJ Bonehead to pay some attention to how the ship should look - this is TOS - not some (repeating) bastardized (/end repeat) twisted version of it. TMP was moving forward. This is a 're-boot'. How about giving JJ the Boot. The only way I will take this movie seriously is if the ship itself looks, at the very least, like Star Trek Enhanced. Not this freaking absurd abomination with Jet Engines for Warp Nacelles. I am about change, but leave TOS alone, in Star Trek: Enhanced. Gotta Disagree with you Stress, although I love your work.

I don't think I've ever gone off on anything Trek related in all my years of Modding until this crap.

TNG 20.

You guys never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think after 40+ years a movie set in the TOS era would use the Enterprise from the TV show? The reason the original enterprise wasnt used in TMP was because the model was just too old, clumsy, and lacked the detailing needed for a full blown big screen movie. This new ship is still clearly Matt Jefferies design. With some nice subtle alterations. I grew up watching Kirk, and company trundle through the galaxy, hookng up with green, and blue females, dodging gotho's, giant hands, blobs amoebas, Styrofoam boulders, etc. etc. We all loved it despite the cheese factor. You guys knew how much of a nut i was about modeling the TOS big-E. However looking at this "new" TOS big-E i must say.. i LIKE it! I think JJ Abrams has the right idea. Instead of modifying the old 1960's TOS model to bring it up to speed for todays standard, He "downgraded" the TMP enterprise to TOS specs, and retained the best parts of the TMP ship. Including the hull font. This is a nice blend of the old, and the new, It also make the "new" TOS connie consistent tech wise with all the other series. JJ said he would stay true to trek lore. He said absolutely nothing about not changing the appearance of the technology.

Chris you of all people i would have least expected to mock this ship.

I think most of the TOS purist wont be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.

To be honest if this Trek is a reboot ala Galactica it may be a good thing. Look at how many old timers protested the new galactica.. Turns out many old school fans. Myself included LIKE the new show. The same could be true with the "new" Trek. We just have to keep an open mind. IDIC.

Now if the Story, Acting, and Plot of the movie sucks. All of this great new artwork will be a waste.

[Age]

You guys never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think after 40+ years a movie set in the TOS era would use the Enterprise from the TV show? The reason the original enterprise wasnt used in TMP was because the model was just too old, clumsy, and lacked the detailing needed for a full blown big screen movie. This new ship is still clearly Matt Jefferies design. With some nice subtle alterations. I grew up watching Kirk, and company trundle through the galaxy, hookng up with green, and blue females, dodging gotho's, giant hands, blobs amoebas, Styrofoam boulders, etc. etc. We all loved it despite the cheese factor. You guys knew how much of a nut i was about modeling the TOS big-E. However looking at this "new" TOS big-E i must say.. i LIKE it! I think JJ Abrams has the right idea. Instead of modifying the old 1960's TOS model to bring it up to speed for todays standard, He "downgraded" the TMP enterprise to TOS specs, and retained the best parts of the TMP ship. Including the hull font. This is a nice blend of the old, and the new, It also make the "new" TOS connie consistent tech wise with all the other series. JJ said he would stay true to trek lore. He said absolutely nothing about not changing the appearance of the technology.
Chris you of all people i would have least expected to mock this ship.
I think most of the TOS purist wont be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.
To be honest if this Trek is a reboot ala Galactica it may be a good thing. Look at how many old timers protested the new galactica.. Turns out many old school fans. Myself included LIKE the new show. The same could be true with the "new" Trek. We just have to keep an open mind. IDIC.
Now if the Story, Acting, and Plot of the movie sucks. All of this great new artwork will be a waste.

With respect StressPuppy, to each their own..

I think it'd be a lot more of a challenge for them to go with the original ship in the movie.  Then you approach it with the attitude, "How do we make this fresh and exciting?"  "How do we do things with this classic ship that have never been seen before?"

Even looking at the demos over at Chris' site for Nexus Trek and the Legacy mods, plus ST: New Voyages gives the answer.. the original Trek kept everything 2D because of budget problems.  They don't have that problem with this movie.  You can do things with scale and angles that could never been done before, and go for shots that have never been seen.

We have scenes at a planet?  Fantastic.. how many times have we ever seen the TOS Big E drop out of warp and into orbit?  How many times have we seen it go to warp?  Maybe the reason why we never see the Big E fire rear phasers or a rear torpedo tube may be because of problems experienced during this movie.. a rear torpedo misfire taking out part of the superstructure or a phaser coupling overheating and exploding could require a rethink of that part of the design and shutting down and removing those systems in time for TOS for instance..

This is what I'd go for..

And as a sidenote:  the new BSG may be popular with some, but I literally can't watch it.  The "shakycam" thing makes me physically sick to my stomach to watch it.  So the only way I've been even able to think of how to view it would be to run the show through a program like VirtualDub and then run a stability filter on it focused on the ship/ships that are the center of action, cropping out the rest.  Then maybe I can watch it.  If the new movie does the same, I'll have to walk out of it for the same reason.  And not *everything* has to be sex and violence... I see the direction that BSG went to be the same road that Babylon 5: Crusade was asked to walk down, and JMS shut the show down rather than go there.  I *like* not having all that drek in a story.. it means that they have to actually write something, not script:

[i]13:45 [scene]: Dark hallway with female Cylon and human male.  Camera pans, no one is around.  Female Cylon pushes human male against hallway wall and they start to undress.

14:35 [ad lib talking and kissing]

14:55 - 16:59 [scene pushes R rating]

17:00 fade to commercial.[/i]

Now what is actually accomplished in this sort of scene?  You kill three minutes and fifteen seconds of the fourty two or so minutes to tell your story, and you never get that back.  To be honest, if I wanted to see that sort of story, there's adult entertainment shops where I can rent that, and they don't ever have to pretend to be set in space.

I watch science fiction because I want to see a science fiction story, and that means that there has to be a story to watch.  Guess that puts me into the camp that prefers TOS styling, good story telling, and has at least a nodding respect for its fans... as opposed to the beheading and execution of a good story and show in order to make time in the show for soft porn.  And I *hope* that they don't walk down this road..

There were no rear firing photons on the Original 1701 as well as possibly phasers only TMP version has rear firing phasers.There are no photons as well in 1701-A only -B would have that being based off of the Excelsior.I will say this that JJ is doing a better jop than Bermon and Braga did with the TNG movies.First Cotact was the only movie which did well not great but well compared to all TMP movies.Why JJ is a big screen producer where as Bermon and Braga aren't.

[Pestalence_XC]

You guys never cease to amaze me. Do you honestly think after 40+ years a movie set in the TOS era would use the Enterprise from the TV show? The reason the original enterprise wasnt used in TMP was because the model was just too old, clumsy, and lacked the detailing needed for a full blown big screen movie. This new ship is still clearly Matt Jefferies design. With some nice subtle alterations. I grew up watching Kirk, and company trundle through the galaxy, hookng up with green, and blue females, dodging gotho's, giant hands, blobs amoebas, Styrofoam boulders, etc. etc. We all loved it despite the cheese factor. You guys knew how much of a nut i was about modeling the TOS big-E. However looking at this "new" TOS big-E i must say.. i LIKE it! I think JJ Abrams has the right idea. Instead of modifying the old 1960's TOS model to bring it up to speed for todays standard, He "downgraded" the TMP enterprise to TOS specs, and retained the best parts of the TMP ship. Including the hull font. This is a nice blend of the old, and the new, It also make the "new" TOS connie consistent tech wise with all the other series. JJ said he would stay true to trek lore. He said absolutely nothing about not changing the appearance of the technology.
Chris you of all people i would have least expected to mock this ship.
I think most of the TOS purist wont be happy no matter what. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.
To be honest if this Trek is a reboot ala Galactica it may be a good thing. Look at how many old timers protested the new galactica.. Turns out many old school fans. Myself included LIKE the new show. The same could be true with the "new" Trek. We just have to keep an open mind. IDIC.
Now if the Story, Acting, and Plot of the movie sucks. All of this great new artwork will be a waste.

With respect StressPuppy, to each their own..

I think it'd be a lot more of a challenge for them to go with the original ship in the movie. Then you approach it with the attitude, "How do we make this fresh and exciting?" "How do we do things with this classic ship that have never been seen before?"

Even looking at the demos over at Chris' site for Nexus Trek and the Legacy mods, plus ST: New Voyages gives the answer.. the original Trek kept everything 2D because of budget problems. They don't have that problem with this movie. You can do things with scale and angles that could never been done before, and go for shots that have never been seen.

We have scenes at a planet? Fantastic.. how many times have we ever seen the TOS Big E drop out of warp and into orbit? How many times have we seen it go to warp? Maybe the reason why we never see the Big E fire rear phasers or a rear torpedo tube may be because of problems experienced during this movie.. a rear torpedo misfire taking out part of the superstructure or a phaser coupling overheating and exploding could require a rethink of that part of the design and shutting down and removing those systems in time for TOS for instance..

This is what I'd go for..

And as a sidenote: the new BSG may be popular with some, but I literally can't watch it. The "shakycam" thing makes me physically sick to my stomach to watch it. So the only way I've been even able to think of how to view it would be to run the show through a program like VirtualDub and then run a stability filter on it focused on the ship/ships that are the center of action, cropping out the rest. Then maybe I can watch it. If the new movie does the same, I'll have to walk out of it for the same reason. And not *everything* has to be sex and violence... I see the direction that BSG went to be the same road that Babylon 5: Crusade was asked to walk down, and JMS shut the show down rather than go there. I *like* not having all that drek in a story.. it means that they have to actually write something, not script:

[i]13:45 [scene]: Dark hallway with female Cylon and human male. Camera pans, no one is around. Female Cylon pushes human male against hallway wall and they start to undress.

14:35 [ad lib talking and kissing]

14:55 - 16:59 [scene pushes R rating]

17:00 fade to commercial.[/i]

Now what is actually accomplished in this sort of scene? You kill three minutes and fifteen seconds of the fourty two or so minutes to tell your story, and you never get that back. To be honest, if I wanted to see that sort of story, there's adult entertainment shops where I can rent that, and they don't ever have to pretend to be set in space.

I watch science fiction because I want to see a science fiction story, and that means that there has to be a story to watch. Guess that puts me into the camp that prefers TOS styling, good story telling, and has at least a nodding respect for its fans... as opposed to the beheading and execution of a good story and show in order to make time in the show for soft porn. And I *hope* that they don't walk down this road..

There were no rear firing photons on the Original 1701 as well as possibly phasers only TMP version has rear firing phasers.There are no photons as well in 1701-A only -B would have that being based off of the Excelsior.I will say this that JJ is doing a better jop than Bermon and Braga did with the TNG movies.First Cotact was the only movie which did well not great but well compared to all TMP movies.Why JJ is a big screen producer where as Bermon and Braga aren't.

Age, did you not see Enterprise when the Defiant broke out of the Tholian compound? she fired rear torps and phasers..

In TOS, the effects budget did not allow for those effects.. however I agree in the TOS series, Enterprise did not have rear firing torps.. but phasers were quite possible (though never shown).. I just take it as Kirk liking to face his opponent instead of hit and run tactics.

[Panzergranate]

Interestingly enough, planets were done better and more realistically on Gerry Anderson's Space 1999 than in the original TOS.

Also the film techniques for ship movements and explosions were developed here and later used for Star Wars. Seeings as Space 1999 (1974) was only a few years after Star Trek TOS ended in 1971, it was 500% better in special effects and the portrayal of space at that time. It also had a more 3D feel to it compared to TOS's 2D feel of space and planets.

OK I know that the budget was higher and it was British, so had two huge advantages over TOS's special effects, but TOS people did the best with what they had available to them at the time.

Perhaps if Gerry Anderson had been in charge of the special effects on TOS then it would have been a lot better, as even the hand laser projected better beams that TOS's hand phasers.

Actually, perhaps they should ask Gerry to do the next ST movie special effects.

Also did anyone out there spot that some of the TNG episodes nicked story lines from SPace 1999??

[Vipre]

In TOS, the effects budget did not allow for those effects.. however I agree in the TOS series, Enterprise did not have rear firing torps.. but phasers were quite possible (though never shown).. I just take it as Kirk liking to face his opponent instead of hit and run tactics.

One shot of rear phasers and one of a torpedo, then replay over and over as needed. I don't buy for a second that they didn't have the money for two shots. The new BSG repeats the same shot of Vipers landing over and over as well for the same reason. The ship didn't have rear phasers or torpedoes because they didn't want it to simple as that. The writers of "In a Mirror Darkly" needed the ship to fire in the rear arc so it did again simple as that. It's one thing to take a ship from one episode of TOS and show things that weren't in TOS, it'd be another to retcon rear arc weapons to the original series E because of IaMD.

As for the movie RA phasers are almost a certainty torpedoes would be pushing it.

[Chris Jones]

One would have to assume that TOS ships in Kirk's time had rear firing weapons. In the original series we never saw such a thing because of effects budgets, etc. IF ST:XI is to be TOS, which unfortunately is the case, then I would want to see weapon arcs such as 'In a Mirror Darkly' had. The Enterprise had them as well, just not shown in the 60s, but to some degree they were seen in Enhanced. The TOS Enterprise should have the arcs shown in the one Ent episode - but the ship itself should not look like JJ has depicted it - no way no how - it should look like Enhanced. Period.

TNG 20

[Panzergranate]

As the torpedoes always fired from either side of the under saucer dome, in TOS, and in the ENT episode the Defiant fires the aft torpedoes from somewhere well forward of the neck, if you look closely, as they pass either sade of it when fired rearwards. I checled and measured the scale models of the Enterprise and the torpedoes would clear the neck if fired from the TOS lower dome position.

Also is the Defiant one of the 12 Constitution Class starships or another class buult on the same hull?? If so, ths would explain hy the Enterprise never fires aft torpedoes in TOS.

As for the aft phaser.... how many times doe you here the disjoined voice report, "Aft Phaser ready!!" everytme the Enterprise went to red alert.

Also the Constellation actually fires from the upper right Phaser bank at the Doomsday Machine, not the normal lower front always depicted with the Enterprise.

Just because they never have cause to fire the aft torpedoes or some other weaponry, it doesn't mean that it isn't supposed to be on the ship. Using the priciple that because it wasn't seen used in TOS the Enterprise didn;t have it, could mean that the ship also has no toilets, as nobdy is seen taking a dump!!

The Enterprse also carries 4 shuttle craft (number stated in "The Omega Glory") with the other four craft being presumably work pods. We only ever see two of the shuttle craft, but assume that the others must also be present.

There are possible way in which continuity can be maintained with TOS by maybe describing the "weird" Enterprise as failed refit experiment that was abandoned by the time TOS came about.

The ship was launched in 2245, the cage in 2252 and TOS was set in 2266, so a lot could have happened to the ship between these periods.

[Vipre]

Lets not go through the whole retcon thing again, there's already a thread out there on the topic where it's all been said already.

To repeat...

One shot of rear phasers and one of a torpedo, then replay over and over as needed. I don't buy for a second that they didn't have the money for two shots.

The TOS ship didn't have rear phasers or torpedoes because they didn't want it to simple as that. The writers of "In a Mirror Darkly" needed the Defiant to fire in the rear arc so it did again simple as that.

"They must have always been there because they were there in that one episode of a completely different series on a different ship." is weak. Not enough cash for two shots in 79 episodes is weaker still.

[Pestalence_XC]

OK.. going back to canon..

the NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise was not a "Constitution Class" starship.. It was a "Starship Class" Space Ship as cited in TOS The Cage and by the registration plaque located next to the turbolift door.

the only Enterprise listed as a "Constitution Class" was the NCC-1701-A as seen on the ships blueprints in Scotty's hand.

The NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise after the initial refit for TMP was christened "Enterprise Class" as shown on the Kobiashi Maru test simulator door which used the Enterprise and the base design.

Going by what Gene Roddenberry stated about Trek.. Each ship was designed to fill a specific duty roll.. as such, the "Starship Class" could fill many Duty rolls.. Defiant may have been on the Romulan front lines, thus needing more firepower. Enterprise was designed for deep exploration, thus more labs, shields and fewer weapons.

Both ships are of the same hull design, but different duty rolls..

First of line ship designations did not come about until Enterprise was refit from Starship Class to Enterprise Class.

the NCC-1700 Constitution was not the First of Line ship for the Starship Class.. there are hull registries older than NCC-1700.. there were 12 NCC-17xx ships launched on 5 year missions, the Enterprise was the only one to come home relatively intact.

as such, going back to topic, the Enterprise not showing weapons does not mean she did not have them, however, according to Gene Roddenberry, what is shown on screen is canon, in books it's fan made.

If Kirk did not have the ability to use Rear Arc Torpedos, then most likely the ship was not built with them.. however the phaser banks are Omni Directional turrents.. thus RA phasers is reasonable to assume accurate.

[Panzergranate]

The thing is that the aft Phaser is canon as it is heard reporting as ready in TOS episodes, though it is never seen firing, usually because the plot usually has the Enterprise standing down from red alert.

Remeber that we seem to be assuming that the armament of the Enterprise is as in the Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph apparently, which had the torpedoes firing form under the bridge and not from where they fired in TOS episodes, which was from either side of the under saucer dome.
 
From where the torpedoes fire in TOS they could have also fired aft past the neck, which is what the Defiant is seen to do.

I've never been blind enough to see the problem with this.

If you take the Star Fleet Technical Manual's line, the Defiant was an "Achanar" Class warship variant of the Constitution Class, going by the registry number.

Also, taking the registry number into account, the Defiant was several decades younger than the Enterprise, so is more likely not of the same class, or build to a different specification.

[Pestalence_XC]

The thing is that the aft Phaser is canon as it is heard reporting as ready in TOS episodes, though it is never seen firing, usually because the plot usually has the Enterprise standing down from red alert.

Remeber that we seem to be assuming that the armament of the Enterprise is as in the Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph apparently, which had the torpedoes firing form under the bridge and not from where they fired in TOS episodes, which was from either side of the under saucer dome.
 
From where the torpedoes fire in TOS they could have also fired aft past the neck, which is what the Defiant is seen to do.

I've never been blind enough to see the problem with this.

If you take the Star Fleet Technical Manual's line, the Defiant was an "Achanar" Class warship variant of the Constitution Class, going by the registry number.

Also, taking the registry number into account, the Defiant was several decades younger than the Enterprise, so is more likely not of the same class, or build to a different specification.

The point you are missing is that Gene Roddenberry, the Creator of Trek, stated Franz Joseph's work is NOT canon for Trek, only what is seen on screen. The book did not follow what Gene stated the properties for Federation Tech should be.

On screen, the Torpedos fire only forward, and going by what Gene stated, that means the Torpedo Launchers on the Enterprise only fired in the FA, not the RA... by Gene's definition, Enterprise did not have RA torpedos.. however that does not mean all the Starship Class did not have RA Torpedos...

There were no Name Class ships in TOS, there were only Duty ships.. Achanar and Constitution Class did not exist in Kirk's era.. The first Constitution Class ship is a Refit from the Enterprise Class to incorporate new Trans Warp Drive engines as Scotty stated in ST V and ST VI...

TNG made an error or an adjustment to canon at the Dysonsphere when Scotty ws in the Holodeck and Piccard referred to it as a Constitution Class ship.. however, Gene stated in an interview, confirmed by his wife Majel Barrett before he died, that it was to comemorate the 11 Deep Space Starship Class Ships that were lost, not to change Canon. Basically the Constitution Class designation was technically a footnote that supposedly stuck to the hull design in the Starfleet Academy (to appease RW the fan base)...

Everyone now calls the hull Constitution Class, when in fact the Dedication plaque, "The Cage", and "The Magerie" (sp) clearly showed that the ship was not a "Constitution Class" but a "Starship Class" Space Ship  .. watch an Enhanced DVD of TOS and pause, take a screen shot when the Plaque is visable, section out the plaque in Photoshop or Paintshop, zoom in and read it.. it is right there in bold text letters.

The Movie has not yet broke canon concerning the Enterprise from what is available.. the ship shown is still at least 9 to 11 years before Kirk gets her per canon.. First Captain Robert April, then Captain Christopher Pike, then Captain James T. Kirk...

There is pleanty of timeline there to show the early stage of the Enterprise's life before TOS takes place at the end of Pikes career as Captain and the beginning of Kirk's as Captain.. There is no mention of how many refits the ship underwent before TOS occurred.. and you have to remember, the Movie is suppose to have Old Spock talking to Young Spock at the Starfleet Academy, as such, Spock has not yet been qualified for a command post, nor is he assigned to a ship, and from the movie preview, the Enterprise is not yet built and Robert April has not yet taken command..

Anyhow, there are too many variables to consider before anyone condems the ship.. as as stated earlier in this thread, maybe some design flaws necessitated the ships refits / retrofits to make her into the TOS Enterprise we all love.

[Panzergranate]

That is what I was pointing out.... that folks take the Star Fleet Technical Manual as the spec for the Enterprise.

Also the Defiant isn't the Enterprise but a different ship.... so when folks say the Enterprise diesn't have aft torpedoes, then it doesn't.

The Defiant, however, is a different ship and maybe a different class. It is llost after being sent to investigate the previous loses of other vessels. I would think that Star Fleet would send a warship to investigate such events.

The Enterprrise, being the next nearest ship, is sent o investigate both the Defiant and the other loses.

The ship could be the original ship that Robert April takes command of for a 5 year mission. The ship would need refitting after this and perhaps new technology has come into existance by the time April returns, requiring a refit.

The ship is refitted when Pike completes one of his five year missions as the crew capacity is boosted from 203 to 428.

The TMP Enterprise had standard Warp Drive, though of a slightly improved type. Only the Excelsior is stated to have Trans Warp Drive, as it is the "Great Experiment" which subsiquently fails to deliver.

The assumption that the Enterprise is armed with lasers is because of the suggestion, in the cage episode, that they use one of the ship's lasers to blast a way into the mountain.

The laser could have been simply a point defence weapon and the ship carry phaser banks as main armament. As it appears to be an artillery sized weapon and not the size of the massive Phaser banks expected on the ship, this is most likely.

It is like saying that is a US Navy destroyer takes one of its 20mm. cannons ashore to blast at something point blank, then that is the only weapon type the ship is armed with.

As the Klingons are shown to use missiles (Drnes) in the episode "Errand Of Mercy" and maybe a few other unseen races supposedly out there, Pike's Eneterprise would have needed light laser type weapons to take them out.

The biggest argument in Trekdom is the SS Valiant and how such a Warp Drive vessel could travel to the edge of the Galaxy?? The simple fact is the Galaxy is not map flat but in 3D and no matter where you are in it, simple travelling a short distance up or down, against the gravitaional plane, will take you to the edge of it, just like heading up or down will take you straight out of our solar system.

The SS Valiant would only have to be swept less than 50 lightyears uup or down to reach the edge of the Galaxy.

If the writers are skillful enough they can keep the new model Enterprise in continuity with TOS without too much difficulty.

Hipefully they've learnt from the ENT experience.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Having recently rewatched a load of TOS I do distinctly remember one of the guys, during a red alert, clearly reporting that "midship phasers" were ready, right after reporting forward phasers as ready.  That puts me in mind of the CAI with the standard three phaser banks on the saucer and one 360 degree bank on the engineering section.  Frankly it doesn't make sense to have a starship with no rear-firing weapons. 

Given that the Enterprise was built sometime before 2245 I don't have a problem with minor differences between the XI ship and the TOS ship.  I'm just hoping they don't try to make it "super-duper" and add a wad of anachronistic technology like they did on the Enterprise series.  I will be very interested to see how they manage to make the military grey and powder blue color scheme of the pre-Kirk bridge look visually tantalising on the big screen.

[Beeblebrox]

The Defiant, however, is a different ship and maybe a different class. It is llost after being sent to investigate the previous loses of other vessels. I would think that Star Fleet would send a warship to investigate such events.

This isn't as outlandish idea as it may sound at first.  Even in today's wet Navy it is extremely common for ships of the same class to be outfitted differently from one another.  This can be due to special mission needs or even being behind or ahead of others of the ship class in the schedule rotation for refits.  It can also come about because of construction time tables--i.e. The 42 Type in the Royal Navy was composed of 14 ships constructed in 3 separate batches, each with differing engines, weapons/defense capabilities and even lengths.

[Czar Mohab]

  Even in today's wet Navy it is extremely common for ships of the same class to be outfitted differently from one another.

Just take a peek at the SSGN/SSBN in the US Navy (Ohio class).

Or 688/688i boats (Los Angeles class).

Its about fitting in new technologies and altering the ships for new missions as the battlefront constantly changes.

Personally, a new view of the big E is fine. The construction techniques kinda bug me, but its ok, too. Really. It shouldn't be about canon and non canon. Its about Trek, plain and simple. If/when JJ F*'s up, I'm pretty sure we'll let him have it.

Probably my favorite Sci-Fi movie of all time said it best, "Things change, they always do".

Czar "Now if there was a logical explination of why the name's on the hull before the work is done, I'll be set" Mohab[/color]

[Pestalence_XC]

The TMP Enterprise had standard Warp Drive, though of a slightly improved type. Only the Excelsior is stated to have Trans Warp Drive, as it is the "Great Experiment" which subsiquently fails to deliver.

ST III the Excelcior had Transwarp engines, however, they did not fail, they were sabotaged by Scotty.

ST V and ST VI, if you look at the Warp Power console, you clearly see Trans Warp on the screen, the blue prints if you can magnify and clean up also show Trans Warp..

Trans Warp and the Bridge layout are the only 2 main objects of Refit.. that and rapid fire torpedo tubes (not as rapid as Excelcior's though).. those are the refits from Enterprise Class to Constitution Class.




Beeblebrox

That is what we are both saying... the ships were built for their duty cycle, not for different classes..

all hulls like the Enterprise TOS version is "Starship Class", but their duties may have been very different.. Defiant for the Romulan War, Enterprise for Exploration, Yorktown for First Contact, Lexington for Emergency Response, etc...

they were all Starship Class, but their "Normal" duties may have been quite different, requiring different refits of the hull..

Enterprise with More labs and shielding, thus sacrifacing extra weapons for space for labs and shield regen.

Lexington and Yorktown with more luxury in the quarters, more shielding, simple weapon compliment to accomodate refugees / ambassadors / delegations / meetings, etc..

Defiant with thicker hull, more weapons, fewer labs, sacrificing extra shielding for power for the weapons, a decent war machine..

so i think we are all saying the same thing, just in different ways..

Anyhow, I for one am going to see this movie and reserve bashing it until after it's premier (or trailers) that show a break in canon..

As for the ship itself, it is hard to be critical on it given that the ship is several years away from "The Cage".. anything in that time span could happen..

however, here are some Startrek.com out takes on the captains..

Reference TAS (The Animated Series)

Robert T. April
Played by James Doohan (voice)
Episode: ANI 22023 - The Counter-Clock Incident - 2245


A rugged, heroic-looking human male born in the year 2195, Captain Robert April was the first commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 when it was launched in 2245 for its initial five-year mission. He was succeeded by Captain Christopher Pike.
On stardate 6770.3 (2270), April was a senior Starfleet commodore on his way to the Babel planetoid where his formal retirement ceremonies were to be held, per Starfleet regulations mandating that human officers retire at the age of 75. Because of their already advanced ages, Commodore April and his wife Sarah weren't debilitated by the reversed time-flow of the parallel antimatter universe in which the Enterprise became temporarily trapped during the voyage to Babel; instead, they were returned to the prime of their lives. The heroic manner in which the Aprils took command of the starship to get the vessel safely home after all other personnel aboard had grown too young to handle the controls motivated Starfleet to review its mandatory retirement rules, and to keep Commodore April on as the Federation's ambassador-at-large. Because neither Robert nor Sarah April harbored any regrets over how they had spent their lives, they opted to use the Enterprise's transporter to return them to their normal ages following their return from the antimatter universe.


Reference TOS "The Cage", "The Menagerie"

Captain Christopher Pike
Played by Jeffrey Hunter
Episode: TOS 016 - The Menagerie, Part I- 2266


Best known as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, just prior to James Kirk, Pike counted the top-secret first contact with the natives of Talos IV amid his long Starfleet career. Later in life, as a fleet captain aboard the training ship U.S.S. Republic, Pike suffered massive radiation damage after saving several cadets when a baffle plate ruptured in the ship's reactor. Thanks to the unorthodox methods of his former science officer, Spock, in 2266, Pike was returned to Talos IV to live out his life without the debilitating lifestyle he had endured, even with a self-propelled, life-support wheelchair.


Reference TOS the series

James Tiberious Kirk

James T. Kirk
Played by William Shatner
Episode: TOS 002 - Where No Man Has Gone Before


Starfleet Career Summary

2250 — As a first-year Academy student with ensign rank, assigned to U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (another Starship Class hull)

2254 — Upon graduation, promoted to lieutenant and posted to U.S.S. Farragut under Capt. Garrovick

2264 — Promoted to captain, in command of U.S.S. Enterprise for five-year mission

2266 — Exonerated in wrongful death charge of Ben Finney, first captain ever to stand trial

2269 — Returned from five-year mission; promoted to admiral in charge of fleet operations at Earth


OK so we have a long time before the Enterprise from movie XI to TOS to change the way she looks..

she was launched under Captain Robert April in 2245 and then Captain Kirk got her in 2264 That is 19 Years for refits and changes.. that is a long time...  So I won't be surprised if the Movie Enterprise looks different from the TOS Enterprise.

Hope this helps

[atheorhaven]

Czar "Now if there was a logical explination of why the name's on the hull before the work is done, I'll be set" Mohab

Raised lettering... welded in place. 

[Age]

I don't remember that episode Pestalence but I could of seen it and I don't own all 3 seasons of ToS only TMP on VHS.I still don't have dvd player yet.This might help out Enterprise StarShip Class look at the Depiction.

[Vipre]

I've always seen the lack of rear arc firing in TOS as part of the E's character. Here was this powerful beauty but she wasn't some super-ship, she had a weak spot. Then comes the refit in TMP and that weakness is fixed and it feels like the character has grown, as if the ship gained experience as well during that five year mission and learned how important covering her pretty little rear was.

The reboot for Trek has pretty much already occurred. If you start with ST: Enterprise and then go straight to ST: XI then go hopefully into a spinoff series from the movie and just look at all three as separate entities from TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY. Those four comprise "Trek 1.0", Enterprise and XI make up "Trek 2.0". Just ignore the Riker cameo in the last episode of ENT and it should work pretty well as it allows everyone to free themselves of the inconsistencies with ENT and previous shows.

IaMD's Defiant would be from "Trek 2.0" canon and not "1.0" and then all the RA issues vanish.

[Beeblebrox]

"Now if there was a logical explination of why the name's on the hull before the work is done, I'll be set"

How else would the Irish builders know which starship to install the screen doors on?

[Panzergranate]

"Dropping out of Warp Captain and switching to Paddy Power!!"

[Beeblebrox]

"Dropping out of Warp Captain and switching to Paddy Power!!"

"Cap'n, the Gui--<hic>...the Guin--<hic>...the Guiness cryssssssals will never take the load!"

[Panzergranate]

There is no such thing as "Scynthahol" on an Irish crewed starship!!

"Space.... the final frontier.... these are the voyages of the Irish Starship "Paddyprise".... it's 5 year mission to explore strange new worlds, to meet new civilisations, to discover strange new bars, drink too much and create diplomatic problems for the Federation...."

They might have Father Dougal Maguire as the science officer.... 

[Beeblebrox]

There is no such thing as "Scynthahol" on an Irish crewed starship!!

Actually there is but it's used to make the toilets flush and drown teetotalers.

[Panzergranate]

All the helmets in the space suit locker have "This to the front" markings and arrows on them and the boots all have "L" and "R" on them.

Every deck has a rec room and bar, for emergencies.

[Roychipoqua_Mace]

Hey, did either of you see the episode where Scotty drunk an alien under the table? It was hilarious!! I believe it's in "By Any Other Name." Scotty goes through a century old, dusty bottle of scotch, and a drink that he can only describe as "green," before he passes out on the floor (after the alien is out cold).

I'm very optimistic about this next movie. TOS is awesome; I hope the prequel does the series justice. I like how the Enterprise is still the same classic ship, it isn't made too futuristic and fancy, just a little more realistic and grungy- like how you can see the panels that put it together. Great detail.

[Panzergranate]

The ship is only regressed slightly from the TOS episodes. The Enterpriise was already 20 years old by the time the TOS period is reached.

The saucer is still the same, if you look, and the aft secondary hull hangar half of the ship. Only the Warp Engines and Deflector/Sensor array are regressed.

If you check out some of the fandom stuff, the SFB F-CC "Endeavor Class" Command Cruiser run SCNN engines and this ship just happens to have exactly the same support pylons, I' noticed. I already have it in a book from last year as an artwork. Obviously J.J.Abram saw this and like it.

Now if I take the Endeavor model I downloaded a while back, take the SCNN engines off and attach these engines to the pylons instead, do the work around the front of the secondary hull, I could have the new old Enterprise.

[Beeblebrox]

I don't remember that episode Pestalence but I could of seen it and I don't own all 3 seasons of ToS only TMP on VHS.I still don't have dvd player yet.This might help out Enterprise StarShip Class look at the Depiction.

Beeblebrox to the rescue!  All 78 TOS episodes for your viewing pleasure.


http://www.fancast.com/videos/star%20trek

All the helmets in the space suit locker have "This to the front" markings and arrows on them and the boots all have "L" and "R" on them.

The boots also have "This Side Up" arrows on them.  Oh, and instructions for pouring water out of a boot are printed on the heel.

[Panzergranate]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

There was an instance on the Paddyprise where the artificial gravity shut down but everyone was too drunk to notice!!

The shuttlecraft have a strange resemblance to wheelbarrows....

10 Forward is run by Mrs Doyle (from Father Ted) and not Guinan!!

"Ah, will you be after a nice cup of tea Captain??..... oh go wan, go wan, go wan, go wan...."

[Beeblebrox]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

Really?  Damnation!  Maybe it's something Comcast offers just to its customers. 

"Ah, will you be after a nice cup of tea Captain??..... oh go wan, go wan, go wan, go wan...."

"And what do you say to a nice cup?"

"FICK OFF, COP!!"

[Vipre]

I tried the site and everything kept coming up with "Unavailable".... bugger!!

Really?  Damnation!  Maybe it's something Comcast offers just to its customers.

I have Embarq DSL and I was able to watch the videos.

[marstone]

The shows fired up no problem for me.  Cable modem over wireless.

[Panzergranate]

I have all my favourite episodes of TOS video anyway.

They've been seen on TV so many times, for the past 40 years that I'm probally more word perfect with the script then the cast was during filming back then!!

Kirk never says, "Beam me up, Scotty!!"

Scotty never actually say, "I canna change the laws of physics!!" but actually, "I cannot change the laws of physics.... it'll take an hour t restart the engines!!"

Nobody is seen to use a toilet despite several situations where you'd expect a queue to form outside the corridor.

And howcome, even in TNG, nobody ever catches an alien virus that causes diaroiea, eh??!!

Aw, come on, someone eats an alien food stuff and only has a headache or coma??!!

[Beeblebrox]

Nobody is seen to use a toilet despite several situations where you'd expect a queue to form outside the corridor.

And howcome, even in TNG, nobody ever catches an alien virus that causes diaroiea, eh??!!

Aw, come on, someone eats an alien food stuff and only has a headache or coma??!!

You must not have been paying attention for the last 40 years or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQcfz4gATWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QnvoOd3WQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4PRaA5y48

[Panzergranate]

Hmm, you may have a point there.... farts and Klingons do sometimes seem to occur together, especially with those wet, shrapnelly farts....

I wonder if Star Fleet has considered filling a torpedo case with compressed fart gas and calling it a "Farton Torpedo"!!

[Beeblebrox]

Hmm, you may have a point there.... farts and Klingons do sometimes seem to occur together, especially with those wet, shrapnelly farts....

Only the TNG Klingons have that problem and I put it down to all the prune juice.  Real, TOS, Klingons drank liquor distilled from butterflies.

[knightstorm]

Sorry for dragging this thread out again, but I just saw the trailer on the cloverfield DVD, and got really ticked off again.  Look at how these @#$holes defend their decision to show the Enterprise being built planetside.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/interview-orci-answers-questions-about-new-trek-trailer/

why would they build it in space?  Maybe because its more energy efficient to build something that large in a zero g environment.  Maybe because they don't want to be installing matter/antimatter reactors on the surface of a populated planet.  Also that whole garbage about only frail things being built in space is idiotic.  The only thing we've built in space so far is the ISS, and its appearance is largely based on the fact that its the best we can produce with existing infrastructure.  This would not be the case 300 years from now.  Also, how is earth's gravity necessary to "calibrate everything."  I have to assume that by the time they have instruments that need calibrating the artificial gravity will already be online.  Finally, why the (*&^ is earth's gravity needed to "balance the warp nacelles."  1, the ship is probably designed on computer and all the necessary calculations would already be made, and the instrumentation would be accurate enough in the 23rd century to be able to handle it.  Second since the ship is not going to operate in earth's gravity how is that relevant to the placement of the warp nacelles?  The truth is that the new film is being made by a bunch of %^*$ who have never seen an episode of Star Trek.  And before anyone says this is a supposed to be a re-imagining its not.  They issued statements saying that it wouldn't be.

Also, I got a closer look at the nacelles.  Tailfins?

[Lieutenant_Q]

I have to think that the teaser trailer is just to throw us.

It is impossible to buy his explanation that a gravitational field is neccessary to balance Warp Nacelles.  First off, even if it were the case, a terrestrial gravitational field is the worst possible place to do it.  The Nacelles would have to be constructed at the exact same place, oriented the exact same way because a terrestrial gravitational field is not uniform.  You move even a meter, and due to the density of the ground and its composition beneath you, the gravitational field changes.  Even if the change is only a slight deviation, its enough to throw the delicate balance of a Warp Nacelle tandem out of whack.

But the more I read about ST: XI the more I don't like it.  And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

[Vipre]

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

I don't know, I'd put it more on the shoulders of those who are incapable of separating the series in their minds. The ones who watch TOS-R and can't help themselves but rewrite the history of Trek "canon" rather than just enjoy it as a separate entity. The makers of the movie seem to have done their best to keep "Star Trek" and previous Trek works separate, going as far as intentionally choosing to not add "XI" to the title but "fans" just won't let it go and keep shoving the movie together with everything else.

[knightstorm]

I have to think that the teaser trailer is just to throw us.

I don't think he would have given that sort of interview if that was the case.

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

In defense of BSG, they made the decision to re-imagine very early in development, and never led us to believe it would be anything other than that.  In this case, we were specifically told that it would not be a re-imagining, and would be respectful to the cannon, and then they show us this.

[knightstorm]

And we can lay the thanks for this squarely on the shoulders of those who thought the New "BattleStar:Galactica" was a valid "re-image".

I don't know, I'd put it more on the shoulders of those who are incapable of separating the series in their minds. The ones who watch TOS-R and can't help themselves but rewrite the history of Trek "canon" rather than just enjoy it as a separate entity. The makers of the movie seem to have done their best to keep "Star Trek" and previous Trek works separate, going as far as intentionally choosing to not add "XI" to the title but "fans" just won't let it go and keep shoving the movie together with everything else.

They stated that this film was a prequel and thus in the cannon.  Also, no Trek film has had a number in the official name since Star Trek VI.  They specifically promised to treat the established "cannon" with respect.  This monstrosity of a trailer is evidence that they llied.  Then this )(*& has the nerve to shovel this steaming pile of (*^% in front of me to justify it.

[Panzergranate]

Didn't the maker's plate on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise say that it was built in San Fransico shipyards??

Fandom always had it built in sections and assembled in space orbit.

However, even in TOS the Enterprise was demostrated to be capable of atmospheric flight when it travelled back in time to 1969 and was intercepted by a USAAF Starfighter jet.

As for the gravitational field nachelle thing, it might be a plot device to later explain why the weird looking nacelles being used on the Movie Enterprise are abandoned by the TOS era. Perhaps these engines are prototypes and the writers need a valid excuse to keep continuity between the appearenceof the TOS-R Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

[Vipre]

The interview explained it very well...

That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

Respect for "canon" and adhering to what someone is convinced is the only true "canon" are two different things. No one can say how the Enterprise was built or what it originally looked like when launched because it's never been shown before so it's ridiculous to go around saying "They're doing it all wrong!"

Now if they do the building of the Enterprise D and show it on land then they are doing it wrong because it was shown being built in orbit of Mars.

[Panzergranate]

The only canon "fact" is that the Enterprise was built in San Fransico, according to the maker's plate.

The writer's have to carefully slot TOS-R into the Star Trek timeline and avoid the lashup that was done in ENT.

[knightstorm]

Didn't the maker's plate on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise say that it was built in San Fransico shipyards??

Fandom always had it built in sections and assembled in space orbit.

However, even in TOS the Enterprise was demostrated to be capable of atmospheric flight when it travelled back in time to 1969 and was intercepted by a USAAF Starfighter jet.

As for the gravitational field nachelle thing, it might be a plot device to later explain why the weird looking nacelles being used on the Movie Enterprise are abandoned by the TOS era. Perhaps these engines are prototypes and the writers need a valid excuse to keep continuity between the appearenceof the TOS-R Enterprise and the TOS Enterprise.

San Francisco Fleet Yards could mean its in geosychronis orbit over San Francisco.  Also, every depiction of every Enterprise from NX-01 to NCC-1701D has the ship being built in an orbital drydock.  Also, One episode of TNG, Homecoming I think features the Enterprise docking at McKinley fleetyards.  Also while the ship has entered the atmosphere at times, it hasn't stayed there.  Based on the shape of the Enterprise ie. Long pylons with Saucers and Nacells attached, it would probably require antigravs to remain stable during its long assembly period.  It would be far easier to just assemble the ship in a zero g environment.

The interview explained it very well...

That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

Respect for "canon" and adhering to what someone is convinced is the only true "canon" are two different things. No one can say how the Enterprise was built or what it originally looked like when launched because it's never been shown before so it's ridiculous to go around saying "They're doing it all wrong!"

Now if they do the building of the Enterprise D and show it on land then they are doing it wrong because it was shown being built in orbit of Mars.

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

[Vipre]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Implied" to be "canon" is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Building it on the surface doesn't "contradict" canon because there is no canon on it to contradict.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon.  When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit.  When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

[Vipre]

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Not one of those things is a "fact". Calling the first one "common sense", making a claim on the second and using a ceremony as the third transforms none of them into "canon" fact. It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending",  an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

[knightstorm]

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Not one of those things is a "fact". Calling the first one "common sense", making a claim on the second and using a ceremony as the third transforms none of them into "canon" fact. It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending",  an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space. 

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.  Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.  I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

[Vipre]

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space.

Didn't say you couldn't call it common sense I said doing so doesn't make it a "fact" of how it was "fictionally" done or not done.

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.

On terrestrial naval ships that is the ceremony. But the B was already constructed at the start of the film so there is no "canon" on how or where it was built just the implication. They could just as easily have built it on the surface, tractored it into space and had it's "launching" ceremony there. It would not contradict one ounce of "canon" if that were the case.

Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.

There is no established anything with regard to the construction of the TOS Enterprise, there is no "canon" to ignore because there is no "canon" on the subject. Point out one "rule" which says all ships are or must be built in space.

I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

You're arguing about a fictional ship's construction process, not just that but you're upset that people making a movie aren't building it "correctly" and you want to "step outside" because I call discussing the pretend process of building a pretend ship and the pretend rules it functions under pretending. You don't find that at all "extreme".

[Pestalence_XC]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

[knightstorm]

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space.

Didn't say you couldn't call it common sense I said doing so doesn't make it a "fact" of how it was "fictionally" done or not done.

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.

On terrestrial naval ships that is the ceremony. But the B was already constructed at the start of the film so there is no "canon" on how or where it was built just the implication. They could just as easily have built it on the surface, tractored it into space and had it's "launching" ceremony there. It would not contradict one ounce of "canon" if that were the case.

Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.

There is no established anything with regard to the construction of the TOS Enterprise, there is no "canon" to ignore because there is no "canon" on the subject. Point out one "rule" which says all ships are or must be built in space.

I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

You're arguing about a fictional ship's construction process, not just that but you're upset that people making a movie aren't building it "correctly" and you want to "step outside" because I call discussing the pretend process of building a pretend ship and the pretend rules it functions under pretending. You don't find that at all "extreme".

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently.  If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid.  Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings.  That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon.  I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me.  I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon.  I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning.  That is why I am not an extremist.  I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence.  I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit.  So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century?  I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there.   Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

[Vipre]

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently. If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid. Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings. That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon. I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me. I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon. I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning. That is why I am not an extremist. I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence. I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

1:That you consider the "fictional" process stupid is irrelevant. It's not violating anything, there is no canon on the structural assembly of the ship to violate as Pestalence and I both pointed out.
2: There were only two statements made on missing components for the B. The first was it's missing tractor beam emitter and that it hadn't had it's load of torpedoes delivered. Neither a major component, construction of the ship itself was complete.
3: In fact it's not just never explicitly stated, it's never stated at all, hence no canon to violate.
4: As pointed out multiple times there is no canon to violate so it's impossible to be upset over them "suddenly ignoring" something that doesn't exist. If you have no problem with them changing things which were not supported by onscreen cannon you're in luck, the construction of the hull of the Enterprise has never been shown onscreen.

I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending", an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

[knightstorm]

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently. If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid. Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings. That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon. I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me. I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon. I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning. That is why I am not an extremist. I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence. I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

1:That you consider the "fictional" process stupid is irrelevant. It's not violating anything, there is no canon on the structural assembly of the ship to violate as Pestalence and I both pointed out.
2: There were only two statements made on missing components for the B. The first was it's missing tractor beam emitter and that it hadn't had it's load of torpedoes delivered. Neither a major component, construction of the ship itself was complete.
3: In fact it's not just never explicitly stated, it's never stated at all, hence no canon to violate.
4: As pointed out multiple times there is no canon to violate so it's impossible to be upset over them "suddenly ignoring" something that doesn't exist. If you have no problem with them changing things which were not supported by onscreen cannon you're in luck, the construction of the hull of the Enterprise has never been shown onscreen.

I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending", an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

1. I was making a tongue and cheek remark about how ^*(backward suddenly depicting them building the ship on the surface seemed.
2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.
3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

[Vipre]

2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.

The two have a "canon" son, that the two had sexual intercourse is in fact not canon only implied. That being the case, if down the line someone wanted to make it canon that he was conceived through some form of In vitro fertilization they wouldn't be violating canon either.

3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

Again quote the "rule". Being implied does not make it a "rule". Name just one time the entire construction process has been shown onscreen. Not in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or any of the movies was it shown, the ships were all already built. In addition transporters can be used at warp and the original E had "tailfins" too.

The ABC's of it is "Implied does not equal canon no matter how strongly implied."

[Pestalence_XC]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit. So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century? I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there. Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

Being built in space can be constituted as assembly of the parts. However the parts have to be made some where.. It would be more cost effective to build the parts on Earth and then transport large pieces into orbit for assembly, thus being built in space.

If the whole ship was being built in space, there would be massive traffic to and from the facility and the transport lanes would get congested fast since material replicators at that time did not exist.

The NX-01, if you consider it a canon ship,
(See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the Enterprise XVC-330, the ship before the NCC-1701.. NX-01 is not a canon ship according to Roddenberry's time line and was used as a ratings grabber by B&B .. It only gets canon credit for being on screen since B&B's budget was small, they took the Akira class ship and flipped the secondary hull upside down and painted it golden brown instead of sticking with previously established canon) ,
could have been built on the ground piece by piece, and then built in space from the pieces that they made on Earth. Same thing goes for the NCC-1701 .. the NCC-1701 was a complete refit done in space.. but the parts were built on the ground and the saucer was complete rebuilt on the ground (Reference the book 'Flag Full Of Stars') and then flown by Kirk to be attached to the secondary hull at Starbase001.

There has to be a starting point.. like the super structure.. I can see it now.. 0 G environment and trying to weld the structure together and someone sneezes and bumps the beam.. how it takes an hour to reposition the piece when on earth, Gravity would work as an anchor point on one end and allow control over the structure to be more precise.

Think about the efficiency of the project in a time before replicators and huge transporter complexes .. Assembly would be 100 times more efficient on Earth during the time when the NCC-1701 was being built than it would be in space.. Where in TNG, Technology advanced 110 years and they have a hullava lot better transporters, and now matter replicators, precision point tractors, etc which would make building a ship from scratch in space much more feasible than it would have been when Kirk was a teenager during the time that the Enterprise was being built.

Just like people don't realize that Pike was not the first captain of the Big E, Robert April was (reference Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek : The Animated Adventures), then Pike, then Kirk.. There was 19 to 20 years from when the big E launched to where Kirk took command of her.. That means when the Enterprise first launched, kirk was between the ages of 13 to 16 (can't remember off the top of my head) and had not yet entered Starfleet.

So if you are going back that far, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Enterprise was built on Earth and then assembeled in space, which would be the most cost efficient way to do it at that time.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit. So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century? I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there. Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

Being built in space can be constituted as assembly of the parts. However the parts have to be made some where.. It would be more cost effective to build the parts on Earth and then transport large pieces into orbit for assembly, thus being built in space.

If the whole ship was being built in space, there would be massive traffic to and from the facility and the transport lanes would get congested fast since material replicators at that time did not exist.

The NX-01, if you consider it a canon ship,
(See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the Enterprise XVC-330, the ship before the NCC-1701.. NX-01 is not a canon ship according to Roddenberry's time line and was used as a ratings grabber by B&B .. It only gets canon credit for being on screen since B&B's budget was small, they took the Akira class ship and flipped the secondary hull upside down and painted it golden brown instead of sticking with previously established canon) ,
could have been built on the ground piece by piece, and then built in space from the pieces that they made on Earth. Same thing goes for the NCC-1701 .. the NCC-1701 was a complete refit done in space.. but the parts were built on the ground and the saucer was complete rebuilt on the ground (Reference the book 'Flag Full Of Stars') and then flown by Kirk to be attached to the secondary hull at Starbase001.

There has to be a starting point.. like the super structure.. I can see it now.. 0 G environment and trying to weld the structure together and someone sneezes and bumps the beam.. how it takes an hour to reposition the piece when on earth, Gravity would work as an anchor point on one end and allow control over the structure to be more precise.

Think about the efficiency of the project in a time before replicators and huge transporter complexes .. Assembly would be 100 times more efficient on Earth during the time when the NCC-1701 was being built than it would be in space.. Where in TNG, Technology advanced 110 years and they have a hullava lot better transporters, and now matter replicators, precision point tractors, etc which would make building a ship from scratch in space much more feasible than it would have been when Kirk was a teenager during the time that the Enterprise was being built.

Just like people don't realize that Pike was not the first captain of the Big E, Robert April was (reference Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek : The Animated Adventures), then Pike, then Kirk.. There was 19 to 20 years from when the big E launched to where Kirk took command of her.. That means when the Enterprise first launched, kirk was between the ages of 13 to 16 (can't remember off the top of my head) and had not yet entered Starfleet.

So if you are going back that far, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Enterprise was built on Earth and then assembeled in space, which would be the most cost efficient way to do it at that time.

As I stated previously, I do agree that in 40 years its okay to retcon some small elements of cannon, ie. a set of conjectural drawings shown in TMP, at a time when noone ever concieved that they might want to do a Star Trek prequel spinoff.  Even then you could argue that Enterprise is not a retcon because only one carrier is pictured.  How accurate could that chart be if they left out the most decorated American warship from WWII, or the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier.  While its conciveable that elements of the structure might have been built on earth, and then assembled in space, that's not what's depicted here.  Furthermore, while zero g construction in Kirk's day may not have been as advanced as it is in TNG, its going to be alot more advanced than it is today.

2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.

The two have a "canon" son, that the two had sexual intercourse is in fact not canon only implied. That being the case, if down the line someone wanted to make it canon that he was conceived through some form of In vitro fertilization they wouldn't be violating canon either.

3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

Again quote the "rule". Being implied does not make it a "rule". Name just one time the entire construction process has been shown onscreen. Not in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or any of the movies was it shown, the ships were all already built. In addition transporters can be used at warp and the original E had "tailfins" too.

The ABC's of it is "Implied does not equal canon no matter how strongly implied."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether strong implication is cannon.  As for no transporters at warp, that was one example of the types of cannon changes I don't object to.  I believe that the first episode they changed it in was the best of both worlds.  Initially the new rule was that both ships had to be moving at the same speed, they changed this again in Star Trek voyager.  As for ships structures being built in space.  In Enterprise we see the half finished NX-02 in spacedock.  At the end of Nemesis, we see the Enterprise in space dock while work begins rebuilding the large section of the saucer that was destroyed when Picard rammed the Scimitar.  Also, the "tailfins" on the original enterprise are really a pair of brackets.  The ones depicted here appear to be actual tailfins.  Now all we need is to see the strings.

[Panzergranate]

Was the NX being built in orbit or more probally, assembled in orbit??

Items such as Warp Nachelles, major hull parts, etc. would be easier to manufacture on a planet than in the weightlessness of space.

The International Space Station is pre-fabricated on Earth and assembled in space simply because it is less problamatic that way.

[knightstorm]

Was the NX being built in orbit or more probally, assembled in orbit??

Items such as Warp Nachelles, major hull parts, etc. would be easier to manufacture on a planet than in the weightlessness of space.

The International Space Station is pre-fabricated on Earth and assembled in space simply because it is less problamatic that way.

The Nacelles could have been prefabed, but the hull appears to be built in space.  One thing that you should consider when using the ISS as an example is that the only infrastructure we have for this type of work are two cranes with Canada written on them in big bold letters*.  That is not the case in Archer's time, and is certainly not the case in Kirk's.

*This is not an anti-Canadian statement, I just always found that amusing.