The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Abramsprise: What's Wrong With It?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-20-2009, 02:25 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

Since I have gotten the model/toy, I like it better. the nacelles still give me pause, the covers look like fenders on an old oldsmobile! The nacelles are to close to the saucer! almost touching it. But, like I said, it's growing on me. I think when we see her flying on her own, on the big screen, my friend, we are going to feel differently. Great thread Zim!!!
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-20-2009, 02:43 PM
Star Trek's Avatar
Star Trek Star Trek is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South FL.
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
...So, out of respect for those who like the design, I thought I'd start a thread about what people don't like about the Abramsprise....
nothing.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-20-2009, 03:19 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking View Post
There are things I like about it and things I don't.

At first I thought the neck was too far back, but then I took a good look at the Jefferies' Enterprise. The neck on that one is also set back pretty far compared to the ST: TMP refit Enterprise, so the new Enterprise doesn't seem that bad to me on this detail.

I'm not a big fan of the secondary hull.

I agree completely about the nacelles not being far enough apart.
No you were right, it is too far back for it's self The Neck IS LARGE as the Secondary hull is tiny. If you compare it to the Jefferies design it's fine but the Jeffereis Design has a larger Secondary hull that can fit that neck and nacelle placement.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-20-2009, 03:24 PM
TNG_Trekman's Avatar
TNG_Trekman TNG_Trekman is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 439
Default

To start off. I love the ship.

BUT

I'd love to willingly take an opposite side to my initial thoughts.

People have said the ship looks to "squished" in terms of the saucer section and engineering section. Come to think of it, it kind of does.

When I first saw the ship (posted on Trekmovie.com) I had to take a double look. It seemed very alien to me.

The nacelle pylons (when not at warp, thanks to new information) look too close for comfort. And yeah, the nacelles themselves (say "nacelles themselves" 5 times REALLY fast ) are big...REALLY big.

Nitpicking can be fun!

But I love the ship. It makes sense.
__________________
"WHERE'S THE KA-BOOM? THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN EARTH SHATTERING KA-BOOM!!!" -- Marvin the Martian
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-20-2009, 03:34 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

An objective moment for a trek fan....fleeting yet....refreshing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-20-2009, 03:44 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

I think the neck is less a neck now and it is actually an extension of the secondary hull. (which is why I think the secondary hull excluding the neck is so tiny). Kinda like how the Enterprise E barely has a neck at all.

That being said I would've rathered the neck be a little smaller and closer to the deflector dish.

I love the saucer and the nacelles though.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-20-2009, 04:08 PM
TNG_Trekman's Avatar
TNG_Trekman TNG_Trekman is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
An objective moment for a trek fan....fleeting yet....refreshing.
I'm going to assume that comment was for me.
__________________
"WHERE'S THE KA-BOOM? THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN EARTH SHATTERING KA-BOOM!!!" -- Marvin the Martian
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-20-2009, 04:18 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Wow! I'm surprised how fast this thread filled up! Thanks for all the comments! And Saint, good to see ya again. Where ya been?

So keep it up. I'm thoroughly enjoying this!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-20-2009, 04:32 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

I know everybody's already seen these, but here are some of my favorite "re-imagined" NCC-1701's.

deg3D_TOS_5_E_GG_1956.jpg1701 new 3.JPGedenfx3.JPGenterprise_v2_painting.JPGvektor enterprise.jpg

Deg, Gabe, EdenFX, Gabe again, Vektor. In that order.

They are all very well executed and not only keep the original design intact, but also make the ship look totally modern and functional.

I still like Deg3d's the best.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-20-2009, 04:38 PM
Magnum Magnum is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Default

Whats wrong with using the ship from the TOS? Its still a very good design.

Abrams Abramsprise consist of a Star Trek Primary hull (from Star Trek 6 which is not the TOS) attached to a Ship from Star Wars.

I watched the last three movies of StarWars and the engines look similar to some I saw in the last three Star Wars films. Also the ideal of a ship built on the ground is used extensivly in Star Wars. one wonders if this is where Abrams got his ideals.

And thats my opinion.
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 10:17 PM.


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.