1st Shot of the Enterprise From New Star Trek Movie

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by Drake, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. Keiichitron

    Keiichitron Not a physicist, dammit

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Posts:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    Ebay:
    quoted for geekiness and truth.

    i'm still not sure i like the whole building the Enterprise on Earth. especially given the structure needed to hold it's odd shape up during construction (like the large overhanging saucer section) would be almost as much material as the ship itself. unless the engines somehow weigh as much as the saucer and balance it out...... i'd rather see it like this
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Razorblaze

    Razorblaze God of Thunder TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Posts:
    424
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Likes:
    +0
    Whoa!! I'm so looking forward to the new Trek.
     
  3. Lock Cade

    Lock Cade Tarn Fangirl

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Posts:
    27,199
    Trophy Points:
    392
    Location:
    Michigan
    Likes:
    +407
    :jawdropper: 

    OMG, that's so freakin' AWESOME!!! Can't wait for the movie to come out! You can bet that I'll be in the movie theatre, with my brother in tow and plenty of :popcorn .
     
  4. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,346
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +688
    Your forgetting that USS Voyager could land on planets, and did so 5 or 6 times. and a lot more of it's mass was in the it's saucer section than 1701 Enterprise. Plus according to TNG (and Enterprise) Star Trek warp engine nacells are hollow.
     
  5. Fit For natalie

    Fit For natalie tfwiki nerd

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Posts:
    7,219
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +19
    Why would they appear to spin? Because It Looks Cool.

    Why would the nacelles glow at all? Why would the warp core pulsate blue? Why does Starfleet run 40,000 volt power conduits through their computer interfaces so they can 'explode' violently during battles?

    Because It Looks Cool!
     
  6. Keiichitron

    Keiichitron Not a physicist, dammit

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Posts:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    Ebay:
    actually, i think the Voyager looks more balanced and not as front heavy (plus i didnt' forget, i just didn't like Voyager, landing on planets or in general). the saucer sits more over the main hull as opposed to out in front of it. plus if the engines were hollow as you say, then the Enterprise would have an even bigger problem with tipping over.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Jarodimus

    Jarodimus the guy with that scan Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Posts:
    9,444
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Likes:
    +17
    This explains why they also, apparently, run steam pipes behind the bridge walls....
     
  8. Hiro Prime

    Hiro Prime Cybertronian Guru Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Posts:
    5,841
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Location:
    In a Transformers Museum
    Likes:
    +117
    Ebay:
    Nope. At least not according to the guys who filmed the model.
     
  9. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,346
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +688
    Look at that Voyager pic you see those yellow blobs near the bottom of the hull (the rear most ones are just above the bussard collector). Those are Voyagers landing struts. Given their position more of the V's mass is hanging in front of them then behind them.

    And yes the engine nacells are hollow. There is an Enterprise season 3 episode (called the Hollow IIRC) where the entire crew of Enterprise hides in the nacells. So it's nacells can hold a little over 40 people each (82 crew, 2 nacells). Plus a season 6 or 7 TNG episode that is mostly set in one nacell. Basically in Treknobabble terms those engines are just conductors of a plasma stream into the bussard collectors which are what create the warp field. The blue line is what moves the ship in the warp field. See I'm such a nerd I LISTEN to the Treknobabble and try and make sense of it. :p 
     
  10. Ops_was_a_truck

    Ops_was_a_truck JOOOLIE ANDREWWWWWS!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Posts:
    11,544
    Trophy Points:
    236
    Likes:
    +7
    Ebay:
    Y'know, I have to drop in here and mention something fundamentally important to remember about Star Trek:

    IT'S FICTION. IT'S FAKE.

    I've been a Star Trek fan since I was like 10 or 11 and I spent the first 6-7 years of being a fan trying to digest as much information as I could on the Star Trek universe and the onus behind why the ships, characters, treknology, etc. work and do what they do. There are frustrating, tiny inconsistencies in the Star Trek chronology. Sometimes, there are direct contradictions in the television show. Occasionally, the characters use the wrong terminology to explain stuff.

    That's because it's a TV show and film series where writers come up with inventive ways for the Star Trek characters to use science or emotion (or some other plot device) to overcome that episode/film's enemy, be it nature, an opposing character/race, or some vague bad thing.

    The writers are occasionably fallible. The directors sometimes want the actors to do things you'd never expect their characters to do.

    ...but at the end of the day, it's a neat show with spaceships and phasers and a positive outlook on the future.

    I mean, I seriously used to worry about this stuff - why the Enterprise-A has more decks in one film than it does in another, why Sulu uses the term "quadrant" as if it's a small variable when, in fact, TNG, uses it to refer to a large 4th of the galaxy, etc. etc. Worrying about this stuff, though, in my opinion, is analagous to worrying about mass-shifting in the Transformers film or "I'll see you in hell!" in Empire Strikes Back...it may seem off, or out of place, but it's nothing to get up in arms about.

    I guess the point I was trying to get at with this is that, yeah, it's fun to note these little differences and inconsistencies, but it's not worth it to get negative about them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2008
  11. Otispq

    Otispq Elocution Onymous

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Posts:
    6,335
    News Credits:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +53
    I love the technobabble debates going on in this thread, awesome. Hope the movie is as good!!
     
  12. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,346
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +688
    Ah ah, when refering to Star Trek it's Treknobabble. ;)  I love it too. Hence whey I participate.
     
  13. Fit For natalie

    Fit For natalie tfwiki nerd

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Posts:
    7,219
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +19
    Or why the Enterprise D kept rocks in the ceiling during Season 3 of TNG.

    Really. Go watch Yesterday's Enterprise for a really good example of this. At one point the tactical console explodes, showering rocks onto Riker (who dies). ROCKS.
     
  14. Witwicky Camaro

    Witwicky Camaro Sabbatical Is Required

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,944
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +6
    What? It looks like the Ship from Star Trek: The Next Generation, only with some added quirks. What's different about it?

    PS: Has anybody seen the supposed entire cast for the New Star Trek film? You know, aside from Sylar of Heros? I saw 'em in Empire Magazine. That's a werid casting, right there. Especially for Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban?). I hear, even Erica Bana's in it? WTF? This is as werid as the Speed Racer Trailer.
     
  15. Greyryder

    Greyryder Kitbashed

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Posts:
    4,585
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +8
    What!? That looks looks nothing like Enterprise D. It's a realistic update to the original 60s Enterprise.
     
  16. cambaprecoz

    cambaprecoz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Posts:
    686
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I don't know what to say but I like it!
     
  17. Witwicky Camaro

    Witwicky Camaro Sabbatical Is Required

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,944
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +6
    Hang on... I'm going to Google this...

    [Intermission]:

    Dude, seriously, my bad! It Really doesn't look like the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B/C). I Wikipedia'ed it. The image and the name got all mixed up in my head. :eek:  :bowdown: 


    Still lookes like. Shiny.
     
  18. Steevy Maximus

    Steevy Maximus Old School Snarkster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Posts:
    2,629
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Likes:
    +5
    My take on it is "this is how they might have done the original E if they had a budget"

    As is, I've found the apparent need to replicated the "look" of the original series ridiculous. Those models and sets were built on shoestring budgets. The interiors look RIDICULOUS IMO, and the whole reason people continue to want that look is "because that's how it is supposed to be", like with the G1 styling and the recent movie.

    I've always loved the look of the movie-era Enterprise (the refit and A models) because it LOOKS like a sophisticated piece of engineering, not a rough prototype. There was depth to the ship and its interiors lacking in the original series.
    So I'm glad they appear to be going with a more "Enterprise A" look to the ship.
     
  19. pinoy78

    pinoy78 Shoji Kawamori having FUN

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Posts:
    6,221
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +727
  20. SunDown

    SunDown Fatty McFatFat

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Posts:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Likes:
    +0
    i like the cast and I can see most of them, if not all, but Kirk / Pine selection buggs me. Im sure im not alone however. I just dont see it