The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Is it the same Enterprise??????
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-21-2008, 11:36 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Possibly as the teaser was created early on, some design elements were altered before the final approval. But generally I think they seem to match.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-21-2008, 12:17 PM
jesustrek's Avatar
jesustrek jesustrek is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 29
Default

pleaseeeeeeee this version is FANTASTIC, don't liked the "Abramprise" is UGLY.

an Preyer so that be, the Original Constitution Class with a naclles Experimental NICE.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-21-2008, 12:32 PM
Hodo Hodo is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 6
Default

its a Constitution class Cruiser..... Other than the flaw that they have the ships name on it before its complete is uh all wrong even today. Ships dont get the name on them till they are NEAR completed. I think the new E, is just a minor variant on the original artist drawing of the E.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-2008, 01:16 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

I'll Take What We Get
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-21-2008, 01:16 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

Seems to be the same ship from the first trailer in the second trailer... as for if it seems anything like the original E from TOS... I'll just post this text I found on another forum... that I agree with:


"Rachel said,
November 19th, 2008

I tend to prefer SW to ST, and I never much liked the original Enterprise. However, the movie version should have at least looked like it could have been modified into the original version. The proportions on the 1701-2.0 are completely wrong.

This was not supposed to be a new model built as a tribute to the original. It was supposed to be the original, or at least a believable original version of the original. I am sure it will look great on screen, but it won’t look like the Enterprise, and I thought that was the point.

I will still see the movie because I like space movies, but what I really wanted to see was a Star Trek movie.

~ RF"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-21-2008, 02:17 PM
matty's Avatar
matty matty is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 184
Default

cant help thinking a little too many TOS blinkers are still on here, it is instantly recognisable as Enterprise, therefore job done? A few design tweaks here and there but the shape and style is there..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-21-2008, 02:25 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

I tend to think more along the lines of it's a recognizable 'Constitution Class' starship... however nothing about it screams Enterprise 1701 to me.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-21-2008, 02:34 PM
matty's Avatar
matty matty is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thypentacle View Post
I tend to think more along the lines of it's a recognizable 'Constitution Class' starship... however nothing about it screams Enterprise 1701 to me.
in what way?

primary hull, nacelles, saucer section, all laid out in the same way with the same general look, just fathead nacelles...its a bit more sleak..how doesnt it scream 1701?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-21-2008, 02:47 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

Like I said, it is easy to see it is the same class ship(form,parts,etc).. but the
proportions are off compared to original Enterprise(see comparison pics of two ships on this forum), it's not important in the look of the new ship parts in and of themselves, so much as how they are connected/sized. In this new form it portrays no sense of balance from front to back/fore to aft... but like I've said many times this is just a small thing with me...

Star Trek is more about the people than the ship.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-21-2008, 02:48 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matty View Post
in what way?

primary hull, nacelles, saucer section, all laid out in the same way with the same general look, just fathead nacelles...its a bit more sleak..how doesnt it scream 1701?
The same way the 1701-B, C, D or E don't. Is this really such a tricky concept? Does anyone here confuse a HMMWV for a Ferrari Enzo? Seats, wheels, hood, trunk, engine, windows -- is it your opinion that those two vehicles are identical as well?
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.