untitled5.bmp
      Dirty Harry’s Place… » The New USS Enterprise

Dirty Harry’s Place…

a conservative look at film, punk

   

The New USS Enterprise

Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

enterprisenewtrek.jpg

The USS Enterprise aka The Meterosexual Mobile aka The Boy Band Van…

Filed in General |

42 Responses to “The New USS Enterprise”

  1. ScottDSon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:12 am 1

    I was hoping it would look more like the ship in the original series but with the detail of the movie version. I’ll get used to it. Apparently, J.J. Abrams previewed four scenes for British journalists recently and after reading the reviews and descriptions, it all sounds like Top Gun. I really hope the movie’s great but if it isn’t, I’ve got plenty of other Trek to hold me over. (Did someone say Wrath of Khan on Blu-Ray in 2009?)

  2. HeartbreakRidgeon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:13 am 2

    I pray to GOD that the movie is better than the 90210-looking cast… Well, I’ll be seeing Quantum of Solace Friday, and word is that the Trek trailer will be with it, so fingers duly crossed.

  3. Bubba, a Happy Warrioron 12 Nov 2008 at 7:28 am 3

    The hell?

    What is this, and what have they done with my Enterprise?

    The saucer looks fine, but the nacelles aren’t an improvement over the original, and the engineering hull is just a shrunken, retarded mess.

    There are no proportions between those three components, which is absolutely necessary for a really good-looking Enterprise — i.e, the original NCC-1701, the near-duplicate 1701-A, and the 1701-E from First Contact.

    Hideous.

    I hate using Internet memes, but this is an epic FAIL.

  4. RufusTon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:29 am 4

    I haven’t paid much attention to the mechanics of the Star Trek universe since I was about 13, but doesn’t the Enterprise and all other star ships of its class dock at space stations? In other words, they never enter a planet’s atmosphere, do they? If so, why do they make them so streamlined, so “aerodynamic?”

    If a society were building a ship of this size smooth lines would be quite an additional expense as opposed to just letting the ends be ends. If a ship is being built to travel in a vacuum why does it need to be aerodynamic?

  5. StevefromMKEon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:36 am 5

    I guess when you take the profit motive out of the future, what’s the point of it all?

  6. Cloudbusteron 12 Nov 2008 at 7:42 am 6

    “If a ship is being built to travel in a vacuum why does it need to be aerodynamic?”

    Clearly, you are of the Borg collective. Phasers on vaporize.

  7. Joe Melnickon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:42 am 7

    I’m afraid this will fall victim to the same problem as Enterprise - not just sucking, but the tech is all so much more advanced than the original series that comes after it on the timeline.

    They should have stuck to a Capt. Pike level of technology like in The Menagerie episode, wasn’t that one of Spock’s first missions? I could google it but really, I should know that stuff off by heart.

    Even better, the whole movie should be in real time and take place entirely within a space station conference room, where the characters can debate the ethical problems of a pre-emptive attack on the Klingons, and come to the conclusion that the Federation is a fascist empire that deserves to be destroyed.

  8. John McClainon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:45 am 8

    Soooo the ships look really cool in the past…then when the Shatner/Nimoy ship comes along it looks like the military had some major budget cuts and then further into the future they are back to cool. They needed to make it look like it was built before the Shatner/Nimoy series. Next the communicators will be more advanced then the ones in the Shatner/Nimoy series. The series Enterprise made the ship look like it was from the past. I really hope the movie is not as bad as it is looks but I am getting used to disappointment.

    Die Hard Fan

  9. pandaxon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:02 am 9

    I really have a problem with the engineering section it’s too small. One of the problems movies like this have is are they going to be sequel to the movie or series or take into account the actual changes in real world tech that have occurred in the years since the show ended. 2010 the sequel to 2001 took the second path and it proved to be it’s undoing.

  10. Opuson 12 Nov 2008 at 8:07 am 10

    I’m a Trek fan but the ship looks crunched up and squat, and please whatever they did I hope they aren’t going to make a 28 year old the captain of the most advanced starship of the time.

  11. Jack Marinoon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:08 am 11

    The ship’s look doesn’t bother me, its the fact that Matt Damon is playing Jamed T. Kirk…. Matt Damon, Matt Damon, Matt Damon, Matt Damon, Matt Damon, Matt Damon…

    They just can’t let Star Trek die and let it go….

  12. John McClainon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:12 am 12

    LOL - Don’t worry folks, he’s just kidding. Matt Damon thinks Star Trek is real.

    Die Hard Fan

  13. nightflyon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:20 am 13

    This prequel bunkum has got to stop.

    I suspect that this Trek would be far more awesome if everyone brought their other characters into it - since Sylar eats braaaaiiins, Simon Pegg can fire a shotgun into him, etc. etc.

  14. edward_mon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:22 am 14

    Ohmygod…..THIS thing is the original series Enterprise???

    The warp nacelles look like tadpoles grafted onto plastic spatula handles, and the engineering section….well, lets put it this way: if its still got a hanger deck in back, then it must be used by poodles, ’cause no shuttle would fit.

    You know, when ‘ST:Enterprise’ hit TV, the fanboys popped a vein ranting about everything from the ship design to the phase pistols as being to ‘modern’ to fit in the ST canon.

    This film is gonna make the TV series seem like Shakespeare.

  15. trzupron 12 Nov 2008 at 8:23 am 15

    “If a ship is being built to travel in a vacuum why does it need to be aerodynamic?”

    It’s a union issue. You got a problem with that - go see Sid in the warehouse. He’ll set you straight.

  16. edward_mon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:25 am 16

    And another thing….why is it that EVERYONE thinks they can design a better Enterprise?

  17. kevin J waldroupon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:27 am 17

    “last, best hope for science fiction baen book “.
    http://www.baen.com

  18. John Drakeon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:30 am 18

    U-G-L-Y

  19. Ronsonicon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:38 am 19

    “This is a franchise that offers hope for unity — and so does Barack Obama,” says Quinto, who has stumped for the Democratic presidential nominee. ”When this movie comes out, and Obama is president, hopefully there will be some parallels.”

    There will be a parallel, twovenerable institutions prostituted and degraded.

  20. edward_mon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:42 am 20

    “There will be a parallel, two venerable institutions prostituted and degraded.”

    Prostituted….oh, I get it: the warp nacelles are supposed to look like SPERM.

    Must mean the saucer is a diaphragm.

  21. Tangoon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:44 am 21

    c’mon, guys…did you really think this film was gonna satisfy any of us? in this climate?!?! I have zero problems with prequels basically because if you have the right script and a cast that will actually have you believing they ARE a younger version of the originals, you got a hit. Well, a guy can dream, cant he?

  22. John McClainon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:45 am 22

    Well they are metrosexuals edward_m.

    Die Hard Fan

  23. edward_mon 12 Nov 2008 at 8:52 am 23

    “Well they are metrosexuals edward_m.”

    You are so right John.

    Any bets that during the big, obligatory space battle, they set phasers to empathy, and photon torpedoes to negotiate?

  24. John McClainon 12 Nov 2008 at 9:00 am 24

    And invite them over for tea, L-grade.

    Die Hard Fan

  25. Stickwick Staperson 12 Nov 2008 at 9:29 am 25

    And invite them over for tea, L-grade.

    Tea, Earl Grey, extra-hot, so they won’t enjoy it. That’ll teach them.

  26. trzupron 12 Nov 2008 at 10:14 am 26

    “…they set phasers to empathy, and photon torpedoes to negotiate”

    That’s a keeper!

  27. Maxtypeon 12 Nov 2008 at 10:15 am 27

    Ug-ly.

    And that ain’t the half of it. I’ve been a Trekkie for 31 years. I cannot stomach “Trek 90210″.

    Please Paramount,if (when?) this one bombs,just let Trek die with whatever dignity she has left. Stop dragging her out of the grave like a Vampire.

  28. Zsuzsaon 12 Nov 2008 at 10:52 am 28

    Just tell me that the Metrosexual Mobile doesn’t have a holodeck, and maybe we can work something out.

  29. Kon 12 Nov 2008 at 10:54 am 29

    If so, why do they make them so streamlined, so “aerodynamic?”

    I attended a panel at SDCC years ago with the guy who designed the original ship for the first TV episode. He was into smooth plastic models and because it looked cool to the producers they went with it.

    Since then there’s been a lot of effort to rationalize it with books and TV programs on “The Science of Trek”.
    Whiich tells you all you need to know about the state of “Science” in the west these days.

  30. Mr Sideouson 12 Nov 2008 at 11:11 am 30

    This enterprise looks like its only cargo would be hair care products. and Toe rings.

  31. Opuson 12 Nov 2008 at 11:16 am 31

    The two greatest Star Trek films ever….Trekkies 1&2, mainly because they showed I’m not a that over the line on trek, there are others who are more extreme.

  32. ScottDSon 12 Nov 2008 at 11:28 am 32

    Opus -

    I dreaded watching Trekkies 1/2 for the longest time because I was too embarrassed. I’m a fan but nowhere in the same universe as some of these people. I saw the second one with some friends and needless to say, there was a lot of laughter in the room especially during the footage of the Klingon fight training (?).

    Of course, ask a cynical Trek fan what the last two great Trek films were and they’ll say Master & Commander and Galaxy Quest. :-)

  33. whiskeyon 12 Nov 2008 at 11:38 am 33

    Set design is probably the least important aspect of a film like this, which IMHO will live and die with it’s characters and storyline.

    I’m not very optimistic about Abrams ability to really emotionally connect with hard core fans and the general public.

    As for the Metrosexual thing, I don’t think long term this is serving Hollywood well. One commenter somewhere else noted nearly all the masculine type guys are well, foreign.

    TV is notorious for having to import foreigners: Simon Baker, Damien Lewis, Anthony LaPaglia, etc. The number of American actors who can have a convincing male lead presence is quite small. That’s a huge problem.

  34. Megon 12 Nov 2008 at 11:39 am 34

    Damn it.

  35. ArchiCrashon 12 Nov 2008 at 11:44 am 35

    Okay, sure, the nacelles are needlessly flamboyant, and the saucer sit way to close to the engineering cylender, but c’mon guys, its not the end of the world! We all survived Voyager, and this can’t be any worse than that, right?

    …Right?

  36. Growltigeron 12 Nov 2008 at 12:22 pm 36

    Illogical.

  37. Jaredon 12 Nov 2008 at 3:09 pm 37

    Set phasers to fabulous!

  38. Major Grahamon 12 Nov 2008 at 7:46 pm 38

    Gotta admit that Karl Urban does look a lot like McCoy though. But the only reason I am going to see this is that Simon Pegg is Scotty. That will be worth the price of admission to me.

  39. Obi-Wandreason 12 Nov 2008 at 8:15 pm 39

    I think the biggest problem with the design is that the secondary hull is so small, it ends up almost looking more like a Freedom class than a Constitution class. It also makes the saucer look overly thick, like a Constellation class. The nacelles themselves end up looking a cross between the tailfins of a 57 Chevy and the planet killer.

    I see they’ve arranged the phasers in the style of the Constitution II, as opposed to the single set of banks in the original Constitution class. The torpedo bays also appear to be in the secondary hull connector as opposed to on the underside of the saucer as on the original Constitution class.

    I don’t see the seam on the saucer for separation (the Constitution class could separate, but required a starbase for reattachment). The nacelles are so close to the back of the saucer that the Bussard collectors could never function properly. All in all, it looks more like the Enterprise drawing from Mad Magazine than anything else.

  40. bvorkaon 12 Nov 2008 at 10:32 pm 40

    My son and I shot some emails back and forth regarding the redesign (I think JJ Abrams should be taken out and flogged). He was trying to be optimistic about the film, until he saw this. I defer to his reaction…

    “I’m pretty sure there is vomit in my throat.”

    I’m just Trekkie enough to say that while the smooth model might have been preferred by the original designer, it was also cheaper to make. Trek cannon says they look so aerodynamic to facilitate the creation and maintenance of the warp field.

    And I am not a cynical Trekkie, and the last two great Trek films are Master and Commander and Galaxy Quest.

    But, yeah, he and I will be in line opening night. Damn, we’re sooo weak…

  41. Leslie Bateson 13 Nov 2008 at 6:28 am 41

    The original Enterprise looked like it was built by a defense contractor. This thing looks like it was designed by the folks who build car stereos for current generation pimpmobiles.

  42. Danon 13 Nov 2008 at 1:30 pm 42

    Hey, does it say “CONAIR” on the side?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply