It’s sounding more and more like the original starship USS Enterprise – NCC-1701 has indeed been redesigned for Star Trek (11).
First came a report from IESB a month ago stating that the ship will have a new design in the movie. Now TrekWeb points us to a post over at the Star Trek New Voyages forum where James Cawley claims that he has seen the new starship Enterprise NCC-1701. Cawley is producer of the New Voyages fan-made Star Trek series and plays Captain Kirk as well.
He was not pleased with the new look of the iconic NCC-1701.
|
|
On the forum, Cawley makes clear that he wants the film to succeed:
“I understand the reboot thing, it is simply business and a way to hopefully sell many more new action figures and toys based on new designs, it always comes down to the money to be made. I just don’t agree with changing such iconic designs that are so ingrained in pop culture, it is really needless.”
“I would be a hypocrite if I did not believe in recasting these iconic roles, I do in fact support it. I just don’t want the production design radically changed. I see Matt Jeffries’ designs as ‘TIMELESS’ and as ‘Pure Science Fiction’, I feel the Big E as designed by Matt deserves it’s day on the big screen.”
There’s no doubt that Cawley is a huge Star Trek fan as evidenced by the fact that he has put together enough money, people and resources to have created multiple “webisodes” of a series with very impressive sets and production values (they even had George Takei guest star in one episode). There’s no doubt that’s pretty hard core, but I think from his statements that he’s at least open to the concept of rebooting the series, even if he’s not totally in favor of it.
As to his specific thoughts on the redesigned Enterprise:
“Yes, I have seen the New REBOOTED Enterprise… at any rate, I don’t like it. It is supposed to be NCC-1701, no bloody A,B,C,D or E! and it sure does not look like the 1701 I grew up with!”
“I have seen what was purported to be the final design of the New Enterprise, and I don’t like the changes. Period.”
And what does it look like, exactly?
“…all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from ‘Contemporary Trek.’”
From his comments it sounds like the ship will retain it’s overall saucer, main hull and twin nacelle configuration but within the confines of those elements you can still have a design that is very different from the original.
For reference purposes, here is a history of the design of the USS Enterprise on TV and in the movies:
This was the first Enterprise designed for the screen. The image above is from the newly remastered version of The Original Series and is a new CGI model. Notice how they avoided the temptation to “upgrade” it in any way. It’s completely faithful to the original.
This was the upgraded version used in the six films starring the original cast.
This ship was highlighted briefly in the awful Star Trek: Generations. It was on it’s inaugural journey and was the ship on which Captain Kirk was supposedly killed.
This ship was highlighted in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Yesterday’s Enterprise where it traveled through time to the future to meet Captain Picard and crew. You can see that it has more in common with the original ship and the 1701-A than it does with the 1701-B. That’s because it was designed in 1990 while the 1701-B was designed in 1994.
This is the ship that came about 100 years after Kirk’s era. It is monstrously huge and I was always torn regarding the look of it – from some angles it looks great but from others I always thought it look very ungainly.
This is the version that followed the destruction of the 1701-D. In my opinion it’s ugly as sin and I believe that it is supposed to be even larger than the already huge “D.”
Finally, here is the prime example of a new take on what is supposed to be a ship built 100 years before the NCC-1701:
Long time Trek fans went nuts when they first saw this design for the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise. It was obviously based on a flipped over version of an Akira-class ship from the Next Generation era of Star Trek, therefore looking much more advanced than the original Enterprise. This, despite the fact that it was supposed to have been built and designed 100 years before the NCC-1701.
Now granted, there is a brand new production team working on the new film. As far as I know no one associated with the old production is on this including any of the art/design team that defined the look of Star Trek for so long. Still, I think they may go a little bit overboard on the Enterprise redesign in order to make it more suitable for the big screen. I would have been ok with them using the same ship as the frame but adding a bit more detail to the exterior, but I get the feeling that they’re going to fiddle with the core look of the ship.
It will be interesting to finally see what they come up with, but personally I’m nervous about it. Star Trek is almost as much about the Enterprise as it is about it’s crew.
[UPDATE: Here it is, the brand new USS Enterprise]
Oh, and finally… here is one fan’s interpretation of what a redesigned NCC-1701 should look like (I think I would have preferred this over what they came up with):
Source: Star Trek New Voyages forum (registration required) and images from Memory Alpha
Loading ...
169 Comments
I have to admit that I read Genesis, and then I skipped to the end and read Revelations.
Jeff, it’s too bad there aren’t really time machines so we could jump ahead and see how things turn out, eh?
Vic
“Jeff, it’s too bad there aren’t really time machines so we could jump ahead and see how things turn out, eh?
”
__________________________________________________
Yeah, it sure would.
__________________________________________________
“I have to admit that I read Genesis, and then I skipped to the end and read Revelations.
”
__________________________________________________
Don’t feel bad. I know some Preists that have said much the same thing. I do have my favorite parts of the bible though.
But anyway, getting back to the blog I wrote back on 05/24/08, which started all this. Whether or not you all agree with me, do you at least understand the problem I was having with ENTERPRISE? About the Vulcan influence on humanity and all? I’m just hoping that I explained it well enough so you can all see where I was comming from.
Well Jeff,
Did Gene ever state that we DIDN’T have any help reaching out to the stars?
I mean, I don’t remember. If he somewhere said that Humans got off there feet after a nuclear war (by themselves), made peace, got rid of moneyand then decided to explore space….?
If he did, then yeah I could see your problems with Berman and Enterprise.
Personally (IMO) the radical changes (peace between races, no money) are examples of an alien exposure of some kind.
I have no problems with the Vulcans, if their out there they can stay at my place.
>;-|
IMO, Berman needed to ground the series with the Vulcans and the Klingons, since everything else was completly different looking in that timeline. Berman used the First Contact event (Vulcans) to connect the show with TNG timeline so its a natural fit.
Yeah the acting was somewhat emotional but it wasn’t the biggest mistake on that show. Everywhere you looked was a problem in the first season.
There were only 3 episode I like to rewatch at this point.
But seasons 2,3 and especally 4, were some of not just Trek but the best Tv I’ve seen in years.
Sheeesh almost every episode was a 3 part mini series.
Anyway that’s my take on it.
My problem with ‘Enterprise’ is that it didn’t deliver on the promise of showing the fledgling steps of the creation of Starfleet and the Federation. Like morons, B&B sent the crew to some far corner of known space instead of spending time showing us the early years of the TOS universe we all came to love.
Manny Coto was trying to turn the proverbial ship in that direction, but it would take longer than the one season they gave him. I would have loved to have seen a fifth season of the show under his management.
Vic
Manny did a great Job!!
I guess Gene never specifically explained how humans managed to find their way. I always assumed that his original concept didn’t really have the Vulcans in mind as being the guiders to our enlightenment. If you re-watch the television interviews on Gene and some of the DVD extras where Gene is talking, I get the impression that he was really trying to impress on us that humanity would wake up on it’s own and Vulcans would be one of the first races we’d encounter in our travels. I didn’t really expect STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT to show us that Vulcans discovered us. I always assumed it was the other way around. And if you think about it, it sort of works better that way because you wouldn’t have to ask yourself why the Vulcans would help a race of people who were bent on killing each other. I’m not saying that Vulcans shouldn’t have had an important part in the creation of the Federation, but in the pre-Fed era, they would have been largely unknown until Earth people started venturing out into deep space. My friends and I always assumed that that was how it started. But since Gene never set down specific’s I guess others felt it was all open for interpretation. I just didn’t like how they were interpreting it.
Well I think people should stand up and demand change but I don’t see it happening.
There’s just enough to keep us busy with paying bills and entertaining ourselves that most don’t have time or care.
Alot of people just give up and ask for space aliens to help, personally I view this as a weakness.
(I hate aliens, let me make that clear). The ones that are around now are scum and must be driven out of our realm.
I agree Jeff that we should clean our own room….
But keep in perspective that we are talking about a tv show not real life… Maybe we can turn it around,,,,?
But keep in perspective that we are talking about a tv show not real life… Maybe we can turn it around,,,,?”
__________________________________________________
I could say the that the bible is just a book but a lot of people learn from it and try to take whats good in it and make it a reality. Sure Star Trek is just a TV show, but today’s medium is just a little different than a book. Just because its on a television set or a movie screen doesn’t degrade the idea and/or the meesage. Whe just have to make sure that the message stays consistant otherwise the integrity of the show is lost.
With that being said Jeff, I think Gene would be proud of the work Rick Berman did…
“With that being said Jeff, I think Gene would be proud of the work Rick Berman did…”
__________________________________________________
Unfortunatly, that’s an opinion I, and many others, don’t share. As I said before I don’t think Rick held to Gene’s vision all that well, at least toward the end. That’s why Star Trek is where it is today. Hopefully, someone else someday will do a better job.
I hate to say it, but humanity will not move forward until, countries, borders, different governments and religions cease to exist. It’s gonna have to get so bad that humanity will have no choice but join in force to survive. But before that happens there has to be a lot of death and destruction.
“I hate to say it, but humanity will not move forward until, countries, borders, different governments and religions cease to exist. It’s gonna have to get so bad that humanity will have no choice but join in force to survive. But before that happens there has to be a lot of death and destruction.”
__________________________________________________
I agree to a point. I don’t think religions need to be erased in order for humanity to move on. I think people need to learn to be more tolerant of differences if we are to even label ourselves as evolved. If we can do that, there would be no need to get rid of any religion.
I also think that countries and boarders will change in size, but not be totally eliminated in years to come. I think having these nations, in whatever form, gives people a sense of origon that is important to us. I do think more wars will happen before things will change for the better.
… I was reading this, and it was interesting to see a discussion about the NCC-1701’s design turn into a discussion about the future of Star Trek, which then turned into a noticably liberal discussion about religion, humanity as a whole, and ugly politics.
The Enterprise “E” is, in fact, not larger than the “D.” It is longer, true, but holds the same crew compliment as the Enterprise “B” (750). The E was designed with combat, not families, in mind. The primary saucer is much smaller than a Galaxy class vessel and it’s top speed is actually a bit lower due to the power requirements of the new combat systems.
Actually, Enterprise B was not designed in 1994…but around 1983, as Excelsior… So it predates E-C’s design…
NCC-1701-A
“This was the upgraded version used in the six films starring the original cast.”
Actually, Enterprise-A only appears in 3 movies.
Doh! You’re right as far as designation, but the “A” was identical to the original film version, and that’s why I said that.
Vic
I have nothing against a redesign of the ship as long as they maintain the gracefulnes of the orginal design. My problem is the whole concept of reworking the Star Trek concept. Star Trek has lasted for 40 plus years, that says something. If they wanted to reimage Star Trek for a new generation, the they should have created a whole new crew and persona for the show. Paramount has shown their true colors, when it comes to Star Trek. Profit over I place my money on Star Trek and not Abrams who?
Just so you know, the Enterprise B was not designed in 1994. The ship was a refit Excelsior Class, the basis of which first appeared in Star Trek III. They had already figured that the Enterprise B would be based on the Excelsior Class when they began designing the Enterprise C (Ambassador Class). Andrew Probert came up with the original concept work for the Ambassador Class, and he took his design cues from a cross between the Enterprise D and the Excelsior. http://www.starshipdatalink.net/art/1701-c.html
personally i’d prefer a mini series based on the Lost era novels or the Klingon Empire
I don’t mind the movie, but let’s cut the junk. This is a brand new take on Star Trek. It will only approximate the original. This re-designed Enterprise says it all. The fans of the original series and movies (at least 1-3), and getting flipped the proverbial bird with this one. This movie will not be as good as everyone thinks. It will come across as confused and muddled.
What bugs me most about the new design is that the proportions look a bit off. The Enterprise was NEVER just a flying saucer with something attached. It has definitive lines and angles that made it look balanced. I’m all for making SOME radical changes, but when they basically take the look of the Enterprise-A’s Saucer section and stick it on a new stardrive design… it looks like they took what they wanted and left the rest. It still has a stardrive, but it’s so close to the saucer section. The saucer looks huge compared to the rest of the ship. and the nacelles are going to be almost completely blocked from most forward viewing angles. (Unless they can move like Voyager’s Nacelles… doubt it.) The “neck” of the enterprise just looks too short. It’s like they took a little from the Enterprise-D’s neck design and stuck the Enterprise-A’s Saucer on it. It’s hilarious looking. I think the trailer looks good for the movie, but then again, they only show the enterprise for a split second… maybe that’s for a reason. Why not put it in the commercial? Why release a still? It’s weird if you ask me. JJ Abrams doesn’t really care about the little details that made Star Trek great… like the fact that it’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, laid down the law when it comes to Star Trek… one of those “rules” was that every starship must have at least two warp nacelles. What does JJ Abrams do? He thunbs his nose up at Gene and Star Trek fans. I mean come on. I’m all for the Battlestar Galactica remake. I’m all for a Star Trek remake. Just please stop with the ships with ONE nacelle… what’s next? No handheld phasers? What, are you gonna give Spock a Glock? lol… I really don’t care… I just wish they would do it all from scratch… that saucer LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ENTERPRISE-A’s dish. It even has the phaser banks in the same spots… lol Get an imagination.
@Joe
Actually I believe that in the original Star Trek Technical manual there IS a starship with a single nacelle. Also, there will most definitely be hand phasers in the film – I’ve read the description of them.
That’s not to say I disagree with a lot of what you said.
Vic
Just a follow-up comment… It’s the new ship called the Kelvin theat has only one warp nacelle… what’s up with that?
lol Didn’t Gene Roddenberry say that all starships MUST have at least two warp nacelles? JJ Abrams most certainly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Gene Roddenberry’s legacy and his original vision. I hope this movie tanks. lol If it does well, it’ll be the fault of the mindless masses that have two-second attention spans and watch realty television. Paramount picked the wrong guy to save the Star Trek franchise. His show, Alias, couldn’t even maintain a coherent story arc. When someone kills his own shows, you know they not good for a long-running franchise like Star Trek, but then again… everything’s fleeting in Hollywood. It’s all about the almighty dollar. Star trek inspires as much as it entertains… it’s supposed to have substance as much as flash… to make a Star Trek movie for non-Star Trek fans or the broader audience is like making a Sex and the City movie with blood, guts and decapitations. You just can’t appeal to everyone. Star Trek got lost, not just when they over-saturated the market, but when they strayed from the formula. I just hope that this new movie at least has some decent character developement. Then again, you’d have to make a five hour movie to bring non-Star Trek fans really up to speed on what is a rich past of characters, technology, and the politics of the Star Trek universe. Sorry for the rant. I guess I’ll be one Star Trek fan who will wait for it to come out on DVD and then I’ll rent it…
lol
I don’t know. I mean, I know this subject isn’t worth getting all worked up over. But, still, do all of my wonderful Star Trek TOS memories have to be dragged behind a Hollywood back studio lot and shot in the head?
People say we are “lucky” to be getting this film; to keep Trek alive. Is this alive? Really?
Here’s an idea. Let Star Trek be (except you can remaster TOS digitally!!), and come up with something new. Really. Hollywood. Can be done. Star Wars came out eight years AFTER TOS ended.
And, yes, I realize I’m being presumptuous, not having seen the movie and all. But..
A. It’s what I do best
B. Have you seen that…that THING at the top of the page that goes that by some oversight was given the name Enterprise?
They rebooted James Bond. I noticed they did not redesign the Aston Martin DB5.
That would obviously be stupid- a DB5 is a DB5
An NCC-1701 is an NCC-1701.
End of argument.
Unless they are changing the number too…
@bob
Uh, your Casino Royale analogy isn’t very good. They didn’t use a 1960s Aston Martin in the film, did they? They used a 2008 model, which is an updated version of the original.
Vic
Hey Vic,
I don’t have a problem per say with the one nacelle design of the USS Kelvin in Star Trek XI and I own most of the technical manuals. Those technical manuals were considered non-cannon, because of certain rules Gene had laid out for his various production teams over the years. I’m never certain about anything when it comes to Trek, because there will always be a fan who knows more than I do. I won’t stake my life on this, but there wasn’t one Star Fleet ship with just one Nacelle ever featured on any of the shows or even in any of the movies shot previously to Star Trek XI. I may be wrong. Gene had theories about how things worked with warp technology and probably favored symmetrical designs. He just had certain rules that were to be followed when it came to his baby. Star Trek was Gene’s life-long creation. He saw it through four decades as both a producer and consultant. I wish he were still around. He’d definitely have something to say about Star Trek’s current situation. I just think that it’s a cheap shot at Gene Rodenberry and his vision to take what you want and leave the rest. It’s ok to change some things. The new movie will probably succeed in it’s own right, but what will it say about Star Trek in general? Is the original Star Trek timeless because of it’s designs, technology, ideology, or is it something else? Many Trek fans turned their noses up at Star Trek The Next Generation. Some didn’t want a Trek without the original series’cast. Gene even brought in DeForest Kelley for the premiere of TNG to try and tie the two series together. How are they going to do the same with Leonard Nimoy and Star Trek XI or “Star Trek” as they’ve plainly named it. It’s clear from just the title that they are indeed rebooting the franchise. Not for the current Star Trek fans, but for the younger generation. Maybe they should have named the movie Star Trek: Recycled for the Next (Younger) Generation. Sex and special FX sell. I just hope this new movie isn’t as empty and cold as Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman’s script for Transformers. Oh, and Vic… I was just being sarcastic about the use of bullet-firing guns instead of phasers… it’s something they did with the remake of Battlestar Galactica to give it a more visceral feel. Sci-fi, it seems, now has to appeal to the first-person shooter fans who are anesthetized to blood and extreme violence… meaning more directors wanting CGI decapitations and dismemberment. By the way, did you notice how big that damn saucer section looks in proportion to the rest of the ship? It’s hideous!! lol …and they say they used reference materials from previous Trek to come up with this hodgpodge. Oy vey!
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!