our team of model designers worked feverishly to craft an intricate, screen-accurate 34-inch-long sculpture of the legendary Enterprise, taken directly from the Enterprise 3-D effects files created by Industrial Light & Magic for the film. [EDIT] The QMx version of the model is an exact replica of the Enterprise as seen in the movies, with lighting, decaling and even the Aztec paint pattern taken from orthoscopic renders of the ship and other high-resolution reference supplied by Bad Robot. [EDIT] This replica was created specifically and exclusively for Bad Robot Productions and Paramount Pictures to support the global Star Trek launch event.Okay, so the clipping above makes this amazing Enterprise replica sound like a publicity motivated one-off that'll never be available to the masses. Which…is partially, but not entirely, correct. QMx is currently working to refine their model in anticipation of a retail release. Two versions will be made available - a fancy-schmancy issuance similar to the Serenity seen above, as well as a smaller, more traditionally scaled piece. Here's an exclusive glimpse of the fancy version - which, like Serenity, will be made to order.
April 14, 2010, 1:45 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 1:45 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 1:46 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 1:46 p.m. CST
Or the place to put it.... Everyone who saw it would probably ask what the hell it was and where the hell it was from, and they could borrow my Firefly DVDs and fall for it as I did
April 14, 2010, 1:56 p.m. CST
The propaganda posters are so much fun. Just clip the corners, pop them in a frame, and you're good to go!
April 14, 2010, 1:56 p.m. CST
by Bouncy X
yeah i had to be a nerd sorry. but the enterprise is really great too, if it sells well i wonder if they'll attempt other Enterprises or even federation ships. but i see they're making a smaller scale version too, they should do that for Serenity as well. though lemme guess, those would still be like 400$ or something.
April 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m. CST
I never really cared all that much for the design of the Serenity. It just never really clicked for me. I like various ideas going on with it, and parts of it look cool, but it just doesn't quite come together for me... I don't know why.
April 14, 2010, 2:10 p.m. CST
I just ordered an Atlas of The Verse. Yaaay! ...I was going to say shiny, but bouncy beat me to it.
April 14, 2010, 2:11 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 2:24 p.m. CST
Huh? <p> Cool Serenity model though.
April 14, 2010, 2:24 p.m. CST
Take all those shiny nice pieces and put 'em in a box with great graphics.
April 14, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST
I'm a sucker for models that light up.
April 14, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST
I get it's meant to be a horse and all, but no.
April 14, 2010, 2:27 p.m. CST
But theres no way in hell I can bring myself to spend over 2K for a toy spaceship....even if I had the money. Now if they were to release a smaller,non-electronic version for under $500...that I would probably buy.
April 14, 2010, 2:36 p.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
April 14, 2010, 2:41 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 2:47 p.m. CST
but no money to get them
April 14, 2010, 2:48 p.m. CST
by Bruce of all Trades
That is my new word of the day. <p><p>And DAMN, do those Serenity and Enterprise replicas look badass. They light up, too. Like Christmas lights. CHRISTMAS LIGHTS!
April 14, 2010, 2:51 p.m. CST
Its a real shame that the only licensed Serenity model out there its only for rich people... not really a browncoat way of thinking...
April 14, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST
...of AsimovLives and his response to the above description of Star Trek 2009.
April 14, 2010, 3:29 p.m. CST
Cuz dat' SERENITY REPLICA would be mine like a mutha' fucka'!
April 14, 2010, 3:30 p.m. CST
It makes me want to take up model building...
April 14, 2010, 3:44 p.m. CST
You are a fucking moron. Fact. Oh wait... this was a Merrick article. Of course he wouldn't love Firefly. Fucking moron.
April 14, 2010, 3:55 p.m. CST
Just because the average Firefly fan can't afford the big damn replica, don't hate on it. Be happy something that badass actually exists. Though yeah, I do wish I could afford one... <br><br>I've gotten a lot of their Firefly/Serenity stuff and they're very cool, the 'Verse map and the Dinosaur shirt being some of the most impressive. Cool to see them getting some love.
April 14, 2010, 4:10 p.m. CST
by Hairy Nutsack
As a model and propmaker let me just say that most of those prices are outrageous. I'm so tired of these super expensive limited runs on stuff that the average fan can't afford to buy. Resin doesn't cost that much assholes!<p> Lightspeed ran themselves out of business by doing the same damn thing, overprice a bunch of replicas that were nothing but resin models with fancy paintjobs.<p> Bullshit!
April 14, 2010, 4:11 p.m. CST
... 10 different people came up with a design, and they merged them all into one object. It's design by comitee without any thought on aestetic consistency. It's butt ugly too.
April 14, 2010, 4:12 p.m. CST
... which is kinda the point.
April 14, 2010, 4:13 p.m. CST
It took longer, but it came. I'm happy not to disappoint.
April 14, 2010, 4:14 p.m. CST
This is about the ship, not the movie. A difference there.
April 14, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST
See my BDR & review here: http://www.fireflyshipworks.com/2010/03/guest-editorial-serenity-lands/#more-1110
April 14, 2010, 4:26 p.m. CST
Witness her Majesty! Seriously though, I am an avid model maker and displaying someone elses work does not sit well with me at all. Release them as kits at a fraction of the price please.
April 14, 2010, 4:39 p.m. CST
But I think we were expecting you to comment on the description of the movie, not the quality of the ship design. Still, good on ya.
April 14, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST
Here is a TinyURL to my Serenity BDR uncrating review and pictures: http://tinyurl.com/y2c9x5z
April 14, 2010, 4:52 p.m. CST
You might be a 'model maker' but I doubt you are professional. The amount of hours to sand, epoxy, assemble, seam fill, sand, prime, sand again, more primer, mask, paint, detail work, weathering, protective coat... all by hand to finish. Take those hours done by a professional ILM artist and average payment per hour. Yah, whatever dude.
April 14, 2010, 4:53 p.m. CST
has gone towards cancer research.
April 14, 2010, 4:54 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 4:55 p.m. CST
We understand each other. Which i would say, is most of the time, despiste our differences.
April 14, 2010, 4:57 p.m. CST
I would buy a classic enteprise ship model just for the hell of it, but not for the prices they are. That's just exploitation. I stick to watching the TV shows then.
April 14, 2010, 5:03 p.m. CST
I don't care about hand painting if it's going to add $2000 to the price. These are affordable at $500ish.
April 14, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST
Always thought the old Trek Klingon designs were cool.
April 14, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST
by Adelai Niska
April 14, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST
There's about MAYBE $500 in parts, labor and materials. MAYBE. That's being generous. I like their stuff, but they're overpriced as all hell and honestly, you could buy a high-end resin kit and turn out something equally good or better.
April 14, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe if these were made in a third world country by children and not by talented and trained artists. The 'disposable generation' have absolutely no concept of what quality craftmanship entails.
April 14, 2010, 5:36 p.m. CST
by Bruce of all Trades
Hayley Atwell's the name. And she's a looker, too. <p>What, not worthy enough to report?
April 14, 2010, 5:37 p.m. CST
$500 would imply mass-production or a single mold. The work that goes into the Serenity is worth every bit of the $2500 price tag. So yeah, STFU.
April 14, 2010, 5:38 p.m. CST
For picking up a copy of the Atlas (I wrote & illustrated it). I'd love to hear what you think of it once it comes in, if you want to shoot me a note on Twitter (@benmund).
April 14, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST
April 14, 2010, 5:48 p.m. CST
I liked the show, loved the movie, but the ship is uglier than sin. Even the Millennium Falcon had a kind of grace to it. Serenity? Fucking weird looking.
April 14, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST
SUCH A CLEVER AND SKILLFULLY DONE ALLAGORY I CAN"T BELIEVE HOW FUCKING BADASS THAT CONCEPT IS AND ITS EXECUTED SO MASTERFULLY BY THE GENIUS BEHIND BUFFY
April 14, 2010, 6:05 p.m. CST
If you've got enough cash to blow $2,500 for something like this, then adding $300-$400 on top of it for sales taxes should be no big deal for you.
April 14, 2010, 6:05 p.m. CST
by Hairy Nutsack
They are mass producing these, one of the pictures shows piles and piles of parts. The production run is limited because they choose it to be, don't kid yourselves. Don't get me wrong, they do high quality work, but the prices are still ridiculous.
April 14, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST
by Hairy Nutsack
The theme of the show was cowboys in space, the Serenity is designed to look like a horse. Look at it in profile.<p> I like the design a lot. It contrasts greatly with the Alliance ships.
April 14, 2010, 6:16 p.m. CST
...I want them to model the real Enterprise (any of the seven, or eight depending on how much of a geek you are). Also, the artificial scarcity to inflate prices is a bit of bullshit.
April 14, 2010, 6:19 p.m. CST
In defense of Serenity, when the time of real spaceships arrive, they will look nothing like we imagine spaships to be, and they will all look wierd and even ugly. Becasue spaceships, because they operate IN SPACE, will have their shapes influeced by the praticalities of operating in space, which means they will look compeltly different then what has been done so far for movie and TV show space designs. Even Serenity will look too airplane-like.
April 14, 2010, 6:28 p.m. CST
Eat my fucking ass. Hot Toys managed to put out a 1:6 fucking Tumbler with lights and all that bullshit, it's about twice as big as this and it's between $500 and $700. You see those piles of parts, dipshits? THAT'S MASS PRODUCTION! Those photos are of the fucking studio model. I've seen one of these up close and it's nothing fucking special and it sure as shit isn't worth what they're charging for it. You want to be a couple of fucking idiots and blow that much money on something that's overpriced all to shit, go right ahead. I've been building models for years and I'm not fucking impressed.
April 14, 2010, 6:38 p.m. CST
I'm not going to argue the price point. Everyone has an opinion about it and everyone has their upper limit. I myself saved for two years to buy the BDR. As for the photos, they are not of the studio model but of the actual replica. Take a look at the link I posted and you will see pics of mine. In fact, the only studio model in the movie was of the "crash scene" Serenity, and it wasn't even that accurate. Everything else you see in the movie was CGI and that is what QMx used for the modeling and paint scheme for the BDR. Anyway, I don't regret for a minute that I bought one of these. It is the only time in my life that I rewarded myself with a collectible like this.
April 14, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST
I can understand doing a mild update of the original series' ship (new textures and hi-res detailing, prettied up lighting effects on the nacelles, etc) but even if I liked the crappy reboot, the pointless redesign completely obstructed the goal of creating a nostalgic vibe. Not once in the entire film did I feel like this tacky, whored-up thing was THE Enterprise...it's just another Enterprise-shaped Starfleet vessel, now.<p> Epic Fail.
April 14, 2010, 6:43 p.m. CST
It's a shame that the shaky-cam and weird lighting in JJ's film never let us see the Enterprise properly, despite its cool design.<p> Oh, and it always amuses me when sites allow you to click on an image... only to find one that's marginally larger than the one you clicked on. Nice job, guys.
April 14, 2010, 6:59 p.m. CST
2/3 ok, 1/3 utter shite. And that's way too much shite.
April 14, 2010, 7:01 p.m. CST
Don't get me wrong. It's a nice replica. It's just not worth what they're charging for it. I could see $800 or even $1000, but that's a fucking house payment.
April 14, 2010, 7:12 p.m. CST
...waste money on absolute shit like this?
April 14, 2010, 7:30 p.m. CST
<P>"...when the time of real spaceships arrive, they will look nothing like we imagine spaships to be..."</P> <P>Err, we already have satellites (which I help build in real life), spacecraft (or if you like, spaceships) which have ferried people as far as the moon, and space probes which have "boldly gone where no one has gone before". What, for you, constitutes a real spaceship?</P> <P>You're right though, form does follow function. The design of a spacecraft is driven by both engineering and economic constraints. As for Serenity looking too airplane-like, well, it did have to operate in an atmosphere. This constraint would determine its external configuration, for the most part.</P> <P>As for the Abrams Enterprise, it doesn't work for me: the Engineering Hull is proportionally to small, and the nacelles have those annoying rotating blades (I've never liked the rotating portion on the Original 1701 either). Furthermore, they have what looks like exhausts on the back of the nacelles. It looks like either the designer(s) didn't know how warp is supposed to work (in the Trek Universe) or they decided to add Impulse engines to the back of them. Meh!</P> <P>For myself, the finest looking Enterprise is Classic Kirk's movie Enterprise. Nothing beats the 1701/1701-A!</P>
April 14, 2010, 7:35 p.m. CST
I will definitely do so. Read some reviews of it and it sounds great. Looking forward to learning a bit more about the Verse.
April 14, 2010, 7:57 p.m. CST
by Stunt Vocalist 709
compared to the purchase of a brand new car. You drive it off the lot and it automatically drops at least a third in value. Buy a one owner car that's a year old, buy a BDR, and pocket the rest.
April 14, 2010, 8:05 p.m. CST
by Stunt Vocalist 709
is a term usually reserved for numbers of units in the hundreds of thousands, usually much higher. The hours designing the parts in addtion to the many hours of pain-staking craftsmanship and costs of equipment, business, etc. make (IMHO) this reasonably priced. People who take risks and create things deserve to make a profit, and that encourages them to make more cool stuff.
April 14, 2010, 8:08 p.m. CST
Fucking Chicken. I agree with the earlier posts. That is the ugliest, dumbest looking ship I've ever seen. The movie was lame too!
April 14, 2010, 8:09 p.m. CST
Of course practicality and function will dictate much, I agree there, but I think once we actually have enough experience as a people ( I mean the human race ) where space travel is common... designers will create space ships that are similar to some of the vast array of ships we see in Sci Fi. I think people will create ships out of homage to those ideas, and even retain many " air plane" like features such as elements that resemble wings though they may only be for show ( since there's no resistance in space ) .<BR><BR> Of corse will all the designs we've seen over the last hundred years or so, they'll have to look like *something* :) <BR><BR> You'll always have the ultra rich who will probably try to make an exact replica of the Enterprise, or of a Star Destroyer. <BR><BR> That would be awesome. <BR><BR> Maybe we'll all be flying Battle Beyond the Stars Boob ships!
April 14, 2010, 8:13 p.m. CST
I'm not a Firefly apologiest, but geez...The ship is supposedly to be ugly. It was a fucking cargo ship, and a crappy one at that. The mention this several times in the series. I think that was actually one of the better decisions of the series. If the ship looked like a chrome SR-71 ( oh yes I went there. ) it would never have had the same effect. <BR><BR> Besides we all know the greatest ship ever was The Eagle V from Spaceballs.
April 14, 2010, 8:16 p.m. CST
...to travel in open space. Really, that's all that will matter. If we can travel safely into deep space on manned flights in ships that pay homage to Sci-Fi, I'm sure that will happen. But if they need to be shaped like a pine tree with a dodecahedron orb at the base, that's what we'll do.
April 14, 2010, 8:23 p.m. CST
Before Lucas ass fucked the best movie franchise in history...we had the "cargo" ship called the Millennium Falcon! That ship had some character. It didn't look like a fucking farm animal.
April 14, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Makes the special effects cheaper me thinks and far less dynamic and exciting. The Serenity needs a bad-ass space cannon, it doesn't have to work all the time. I want a Serenity dogfight, it's not a dogfight unless all the ships can shoot.
April 14, 2010, 11:42 p.m. CST
sorry, you're Star Trek hatred is impairing your judgement on that one.
April 15, 2010, 2:02 a.m. CST
by Arcadian Del Sol
and when you press the button, Spock says. "Spock here - Seasons Greetings - Live Long, and Prosper."<p> I could fill my swimming pool with them for the cost of one Serenity.<p> And sorry Ex-ILM staffers, but the home market for studio quality movie props is very, VERY tiny. So instead, I think I'll wait for Revelle to make a "snap-tite" version that doesn't even need any glue and costs about $24.99
April 15, 2010, 2:05 a.m. CST
by Arcadian Del Sol
Thats the sci-fi equivalent of saying "I want to attack Panzer tanks with a Mack truck.<p> Sorry, but Firefly wasn't a fighter - it was a UPS van in outer space.
April 15, 2010, 2:06 a.m. CST
by Arcadian Del Sol
counterpoint: The Space Shuttle
April 15, 2010, 2:13 a.m. CST
ie; the winged flying beetle that glows at night. It being called a "firefly class ship" is a pretty big clue by itself. The entire rear end section of the ship lighting up light the insect, even the same color, even the landing gear look very much like the feet of the insect. Just google search "firefly insect" the similarities are quite striking
April 15, 2010, 2:18 a.m. CST
Sorry Asi, I agree with you on your religious views, but I can't get in league with you on Abrams' Trek.
April 15, 2010, 2:19 a.m. CST
And I'm a TOS fan.
April 15, 2010, 2:27 a.m. CST
April 15, 2010, 2:32 a.m. CST
the Firefly ship is butt ugly. If it was supposed to look like a big, pick something that doesn't look like a bug then.
April 15, 2010, 2:38 a.m. CST
I wouldn't call an artificial stellite a proper spaceship. It doesn't travel in spac,e it just follows an orbit, which as a satellite engeneer, you know it's in fact just a fall toward Earth along the curvature of the Earth. The rocket that puts the satellite in orbit has mroe of a claim to be a spacecraft then the satellite proper, which is payload.<br><br>I wouldn't even call the space shuttles spaceships. They are SPACE SHUTTLES. You can't travel with thembeyond established orbits. Frankly, the only real spaceships mankind has ever produced which merit the name were the Appolo crafts and the various probes we have sent to the moon and other planets in the solar system, of which the most famous are the Voyagers. That's it.<br><br>You are right about oen thing about Serenity i almost forgot, that ship does land on planets and it does help to still have some aerodynamic properties. Good point, friend.
April 15, 2010, 2:39 a.m. CST
The space shuttle IS A SPACE SHUTTLE. Go look up the difference.
April 15, 2010, 3:40 a.m. CST
It was only lookin at the pictures from the movie and the toy models i actually mananged to get a look of how the Enterprise in the Abrams movie looked like. Becasue in the movie you never once get a good look at it. Everytime she's shown, it's always in shaky-o-cam or in very fast edits. not even in the supposedly big reveal when Kirk and Bones first board her we get a good glimpse of it. We must don't see her very well. But we did get a very good look at her brewry, i mean, her engine room, and her spa lobby, i mean, her command bridge.
April 15, 2010, 3:55 a.m. CST
Gives me the horn
April 15, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST
I know you hate Abrams Trek, and you are entitled to that opinion, I personally thought it was great but thats not the point. <P> In all seriousness, if you had been in the position to remake Star Trek, what exactly would you have done? <P> Just curious.
April 15, 2010, 6:13 a.m. CST
That's what i dig about you. Always ready for a quip.
April 15, 2010, 6:59 a.m. CST
Since this is about the Enterprise and not the movie proper, i tell you what i would had done about the ship. For starters, i only had given the design of the ship to one person only. Secondly, i would hark back to the original design from TOS, and believe it or not, i would streamlined the ship even futher. The ship would look like made from one piece, as if it had been made by a glassblower or a jeweler. No nooks and cranks in the design, just straight and curved lines, natural lines. And taking the great idea from STAR TREK THE MOTION PCITURE, i would have it had it's own ilumination, so to make her visible in deep space without there being some unnatural source of light which wouldn't be there in the first place. I might scale up the ship a big, as in, make it a bit bigger then the Entreprise of the TOS. As i envision the Enterprise for a remake, i would compare it to the battlecruisers of WWI and WWII. Battlecruisers were ships which were a mix of a cruiser and a battlership. they were as big as battelships, but they had the speed and armour of cruisers. This allowed them to be faster the the usual battleships with the same armament, but sacrificing armour. Since the Enterprise seesm to be a ship designed for long travels, for exploration duties and a fast ship ready for emergency duties, i'd say she would be the kind of ship which mostly needed speed above all else. And a great capacity for long range travel and to be pretty autonomous for a long perido of time without the need to constant resupply.<br><br>Another inspiration would be the portuguese caravels and caracks of the 16th century, as they were ships which had a mix nature of blue waters exploration, traders and combat. I'm not saying that the Enterprise shoud look like those, far from it, but that operational phisolophy should be in the mind of the designer.
April 15, 2010, 7:08 a.m. CST
The docking door situated behind the bridge, as seen in STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE when Spock's shuttle arrives and docks. As far i can reember, it's the only time in the entire TOS movies series where it's used. But i like it, it's as if a special docking bay only for special shuttles, like carrying dignitary and such.
April 15, 2010, 7:09 a.m. CST
When will there be an edit buttom, when?
April 15, 2010, 7:14 a.m. CST
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-F). F for fail.
April 15, 2010, 7:21 a.m. CST
<P>Well, we refer to the our satellites as "spacecraft" out on the production floor (they are launched by rockets, but have their own thrusters for orbit raising and on-station attitude adjustment) but what's in a name?</P> <P>It's true that satellites and space shuttle's orbit the earth (its a little more complicated than that, for the curious, google "barycenter" for more info), but Apollo was also in a transfer orbit between the earth and moon (I don't believe it achieved or exceeded escape velocity from earth, which is around 11 km/sec).</P> <P>It is true that Voyager, etc are interstellar probes (i.e. not orbiting the sun), but they are still bound gravitationally to the galaxy, and can still be said to orbit the center of the galaxy.</P> <P>Not arguing with your definition of spacecraft, I'm simply pointing a few things out. (for more information: Google search terms: "Trans Lunar Injection", "Escape Velocity", "Center of Mass"</P> <P>Drsambeckett1984: "if you had been in the position to remake Star Trek, what exactly would you have done? " I know you were asking AsimovLives, but can anybody enter this contest?</P>
April 15, 2010, 8:02 a.m. CST
No that was open to anyone.
April 15, 2010, 8:07 a.m. CST
I have issues with this Enterpise too, and I loved the film, the nacelles are just two big and clunky looking and are not in keeping with the rest of the ship. <P> The saucer is hard to fault as it is pretty similar to other versions. <P> But my main gripe was always the interior. main engineering to be specific, it was just awful, where was the warp core? It was just tubes and pipes, hardly in keeping with the iBridge.
April 15, 2010, 9:54 a.m. CST
I think I disagree with you on the 'Browncoat sentiment' re pricetag. Browncoats would think you are free to buy it or sell it. The Serenity crew would take a job to raise the money to buy it, or gladly steal it in order to resell it to somebody willing to pay crazy money for it. <p> As for Flanders' VAT argument. To paraphrase Malcolm "That's what the government is for: to get in a man's way [of selling overpriced models]." <p> I'd think they will release the model kit for individual assembly once their custom build job-requests cease. But as long as people are willing to pay crazy money to model-builders, good on them to offer the service. I'd like to own a Serenity replica, but I have NO desire or time to build a model. <p> And while I never cared for the SG-1 Death Glider, I always liked the F302 that was reverse engineered from the DG (and looks it). The willingness to embrace and use recovered alien technology in defense of Earth was one of the aspects I've always enjoyed most about the Stargate series.
April 15, 2010, 11:10 a.m. CST
by Arcadian Del Sol
They explained the ship pretty nicely visa-vis the whole 'aliens from the future tinker with the natural timeline' device. In the original and pure timeline, mankind builds spaceships with this naive innocence about what they expect to find in outer space. When the Romulans interrupt that timeline with a healthy dose of good old fashioned violence and mayhem, humanity pauses and says to itself, "wow - outer space can be kinda creepy and dangerous. We should integrate these concerns into our ship designs."<p> And thus, the Enterprise is no longer a sleek cruiser designed to explore and study, but is a hardened PT boat designed to seek, study, and defend itself against all manner of dangers.<p> Try watching the movie, tardsauce.
April 15, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST
I demand it.
April 15, 2010, 12:14 p.m. CST
For my sins i did watched the movie. It's the people who praise the movie that makes me think they haven't.<br><br>And that "it's from a paralel universe created by Nero" thing doesn't cut it. That's not a panaceia answer to justify all the wrong thinking going on in the movie. i mean, by that argument, the single fact that ONE SINGLE SPACESHIP was destryed means that EVERYTHING about the Federation is changed? One ships is destroyed and the Federation reverts to 21th century capitalism and the brands Buweiser and nokia ressurect with a vengence? One ship is destroyed and the Federation stops being a place for personal excelence and everybody starts acting like dumb teens? The whole cathalist and the whole reason de etre of the movie is the paralele universe created by Nero's actions and his timetravel back to the past, whihc destroys the USS Kelvin. And that single destroytion of this one sigle ship is reason enough to justify the whole differences from TOS? Nonsense! The paralel universe i tackled in quite an unelegant and clumsy way.<br><br>"When the Romulans interrupt that timeline with a healthy dose of good old fashioned violence and mayhem, humanity pauses and says to itself, "wow - outer space can be kinda creepy and dangerous. We should integrate these concerns into our ship designs.""<br><br>Wha,t ship engeneers will design ships due to their emotions instead of praticability? "Who, space is so dangerous, i'm going to design a spaceship that reflects my emotions" What is this? Spaceship design becames spulture now? That does not compute. But in a way, spaceships as emoticons is quite apt to that emo nonsense that is the Abrams movie.
April 15, 2010, 12:40 p.m. CST
that caused the drastic changes. Who knows, maybe some of the people who WOULD'VE been ship designers were killed on the Kelvin :). I don't read as much into it as everyone else, as the REAL excuse was simply to recreate the Trek universe. I don't mind them fucking with Trek, because I've always found the Trek universe a bit ridiculous to begin with. (Why does every alien resemble a human with some dents on their forehead?)
April 15, 2010, 1:58 p.m. CST
Still, that doesn't hold water. You know why? Watch TOS and you will notice that the history of the Federation and men in space is fileld with disasters, destruction, ships missing, people getting killed. All thoughout the history of federation. and none of those events created a huge cause and effect ripple effect that would compeltly change the Federation beyond all possible recognition. The destruction of ONE SINGLE SHIP as it happens in the beginign of Abrams' movie is very small potatoes compared to the events that had regulary happened in TOS, past and present.<br><br>You know, you ever wondered why the Federation in TOS is such a strict meritocracy? Well, in such a universe where dangers lurks everywhere in the galaxy, and every mission to the stars can be the crews' last, ti makes sense that the Federation would incite in the people living their to live up to their very best abilities, to excel themselves, to be the best they can be. A very dangerous world would invite people being at the top of their abilities. A meritocracy, to face the dangers they would face regulary.<br><br>To try to explain the stuff in Abrams's movie has all being the result of single ship being destroyed, it means those Federation people in Abram's version are very complacent lemings who never once faced a real danger in their whole history. For the destruction of a single ship to cause such a huge effect, this is some Federation there nothing of very improtance ever happened at all in it's whole history. So, really, that argument holds no water whatsoever.<br><br>And Abrasmprise is ugly as sin.
April 15, 2010, 2:05 p.m. CST
Even in TOS there's an explanation for why all intelligent races are humanoids. It all destils to one word: PANSPERMIA. In the ST univers,e all races are descent, or influenced, by a race that lived millions of years ago and spread out throughout the galaxy, tempering with spieces which showed promise. In oenepisode, which i now forgot it's title, Spock and McCoy have a conversation about how fantastic it is that most inteligent races are humanoids. Spock talks about the panspermia of an older race whoch created all races they know about, in different worlds. It's also the explnation why so many alien spieces can progreate and have mixed race offsprings, of which Spock is one of them, being half-human and haldf vulcan.<br><br>Really, you should rewatch TOS again. you would understand why it's still so loved even today, and why in comparison Abrams's movie looks like the retard piece of shit that it is. there's mor eideas in any one minut of any peisode of TOS then the entire run of Abram's movie.<br><br>As for the so-called cheesiness of TOS, it's not cheese. It's TV low budget. Had that show been made using top of the art filming technology of today, there wouldn't be one single cheese you would find in it. Not a single one. If people can't stop looking at TOS as cheese, then it's their lack of the imagination to blame, not the show.
April 15, 2010, 2:49 p.m. CST
...space traveling vessel. Since we haven't achieved the latter as a reality (yet) science fiction movies, books, comics, etc. have free reign to make them look however they want. The Space Shuttle is designed the way it is because it's meant to re-enter Earth atmosphere and land on a runway. Gemini and Apollo capsules were designed to splash down in the ocean, so they looked like a bottom heavy vase. What will be needed to make manned journeys into deep space will likely look completely different from either of those. But until then, creators have the freedom to theorize and daydream to their hearts content. <P>One of the things I love about Star Trek is that when you actually start digging (which is to say, reading the books), taking into account the hundreds of years of Starfleet, the Federation and it's member planets and the other races they've encountered, is that "spaceship" design is pretty near endless. Literally hundreds of designs have been created using every type of power source you could imagine. It's very likely that not ONE of them is how long range space travel will really happen. But it does give scientists some interesting things to consider (and probably laugh at, most of the time). <P>Of all the things I hate about Trek 2009, the Enterprise is pretty far down the list. Although I completely agree with the things mentioned about Engineering. Complete crap, that.
April 15, 2010, 2:56 p.m. CST
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations (the Vulcan IDIC) combined with natural selection and evolution. What works best is what's going to work best for all species dealing with similar life situations. Then you take into account the affects of their individual ecosystems, lifestyles, predators, etc. and make minor changes. That's why there are so many bipedal, two-eyed, nose breathing aliens. However, that's another one of those things that's not exactly the same in the books. A lot more "alien" aliens in the books where you mind is allowed to envision and imagine freely.
April 15, 2010, 3:05 p.m. CST
...read the Star Trek Titan books. That's Riker's ship. It's the most alien crew that ever been assembled on a Federation vessel. Crazy diverse crew on that ship. And the books, so far, have all been stellar. Should have been (still could be) the new ST tv series.
April 15, 2010, 4:23 p.m. CST
You explained above that you would have made it bigger, but it is bigger. The old E is 288 meters, while Abrams' E is 725.35 meters, which is a little larger than the Battlestar Galactica. <p>http://tinyurl.com/p932bu
April 15, 2010, 6:28 p.m. CST
You know, I used to actually CARE when the Enterprise from the TOS films got blasted. I worried about it when it got blasted by Khan. I actually wept when it blew up and crashed in Search for Spock. And I could barely contain my elation when the Enterprise-A was introduced. Now that was a BEAUTIFUL ship!<br><br> This new ship... Isn't the Enterprise. And I actually HOPE it gets blasted and destroyed in the next movie. Good riddance!<br><br> Note to JJ: Next time, hire someone to design a ship that has some AESTHETICS skills!
April 16, 2010, 2:28 a.m. CST
Thing is, the Abramsprise doesn't look bigger. It looks smaller. It's shape is so busy, with all those nooks and cranks, it makes it lose scale. And it's the least elegant design i ever seen in a ST show dealing with the old girl. Those nacelles, for instance, they look like hairblowers. Spaceship parts that look like hairblowers,that's the stuff one expects from BLAKE 7, not Star Trek. specially, not one which had a budget of 150 millions. And what's the deal with the brewry, man? Even the made on the cheap St hsows and movies mananged to build a stylishtic futuristic looking engine room, in Abramsprise it's a brewry?? What the hell!
April 16, 2010, 2:38 a.m. CST
Indeed. When i first saw THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK and saw the destruction of the Enterprise (SPOILER!), i just couldn't believe! The gall to do that! And it was emotional like hell! Seeing the old girl going down, it was... well, the Enterprise IS a character in the ST stories. Charismatic, interesting, one of the boys really. People piss and moan about STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, but that movie treats the Enterprise as a rock star. And it also points out, as it should, the special relationship that a captain can have with his own ship. This is such a common occurence to many ship commander. It's small wonder that in the english language, ships are treated as a person, they are not called IT, they are called SHE. for anybody who has any interest and knowledge about naval subjects, you will see how important ships are. Not just as a vessel, they are treated as something more then just an object.<br><br>Something that's completly missing in the Abrams movie. There's some token shots of the old girl, but it's just for the picture. The enterpise is never treated as anything mroe then just soem new hotrod which Uhura wants to get on because all the cool kids are in it too. Nonsense. Gene Roddenberry and the people who made the TOS mvoies understood the navy milieu very well. Abrams' can't understand the difference between the military and a high school. And it shows. And he dosn't really care much about ships and the naval mentality. And it shows. And he doesn't like and has no respect for Star Trek. And it shows. Filmmakers do not need to be uber-geeks about a established franchise to make a good movie out of it, just look at Christopher Nolan and his Batman movies. But Abrams has nothing but desinterest. But he sure really loves Star Wars.
April 16, 2010, 3:29 a.m. CST
But I do love the way the Enterprise is treated (near idolized) in that film. Especially the director's cut.
April 16, 2010, 10:23 a.m. CST
...but from a design standpoint it was a huge disappointment. Abrams seems to have no eye at all for that kind of stuff. The Enterprise design is marred by the nacelles, which are far too big and look like they belong on another ship. Pity is, if you watch the supplements on the blu-ray, you see some pretty cool conceptual artwork for what some of the Enterprise interiors (like engineering) could have looked like...but instead Abrams decided to shoot engineering in a brewery in Michigan or something. I wouldn't be surprised if there were reams of great designs for ships, sets, etc., that never made it into the film. Again, I actually liked the film overall (the casting was spot-on), but the only thing that looked good in the movie was Zoe Saldana.
April 16, 2010, 1:09 p.m. CST
Indeed. The engine room was shot in a Budweiser brewry. It's as if it's a metaphor for the whole approach to the Enterprise and the moie in general. An iconic piece of SF is shot in the brewry of a cheap tasteless piss beer. Really, as a metaphor, it's perfect.<br><br>I can't stress this enough, the Abramsprise is a ship designed by too many people, by comitee, and as a final joke,. the movie barely shows it. Any ST movie that does not linger on and portaits the Enterprise as a rock star and one of the boys is not doing it's job. It does not know what is doing, it doesn't minimaly understand Star Trek, even on a undedicated amateur level.
April 16, 2010, 2:34 p.m. CST
Yeah, the "Let's shoot on real locations!" philosophy that Abrams followed is all well-and-good...if you're shooting an episode of 'Felicity' or 'Alias.' But this is a space epic, for Christ's sake. Build sets! That's part of the fun of making this kind of tentpole movie, one would think. Maybe he was trying to save money...but why? You'd think he saved enough money on the mostly unknown (or kinda known) cast. It's a mega-million dollar franchise reboot, JJ! Go crazy! Let talented people design and build stuff! As for the Abramsprise, I also noticed that they didn't really showcase it properly, but given the weirdness of the design, this may be a good thing. Say what you want about Robert Wise and TMP, but when you got re-introduced to the Enterprise in that movie...now that is how you do that (greatly aided and abetted by Jerry Goldsmith, of course). Maybe I'm a crotchety old fuck (scratch that, I know I'm a crotchety old fuck), but when I was a kid, people knew how to design and shoot spaceships in movies. Where's Ralph McQuarrie or Syd Mead when you need them?
April 17, 2010, 3:05 p.m. CST
I know you hate the film and the design of the ship Asimov, but there were many great shots in the movie where the ship was showcased. Under construction, the approach by Jim and Bones (which I agree wasn't as long as it could have been), the warp into the debris field (which is one of the single greatest sequences in a TOS film), the hero shot rising out of Saturn's ring and the sudden appearance with guns blazing to save Spock. Plus I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. I love the Enterprise design more than anyone, and would have liked to have seen a little more, but it was treated with respect and admiration in Abrams' film.