# Concept Art For Trek XI Enterprise



## Darrin Drader (Apr 2, 2007)

Well, it's a bit different, but they are re-imagining the series, and.... well.... I like it. I think it'll look very cool on the big screen.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 2, 2007)

Hmm...

I imagine that any concept art we see this early in the process will be further subject to major changes, and quite possibly entire redesigns.

That said, I too rather like this, in an odd sort of way. I don't think it's spot on, but I think it's a solid place to work from.

Assuming, of course, that this isn't more April foolery...


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 2, 2007)

"Battleship-style" phaser turrets?!?!!!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 2, 2007)

Reimagining is not what Trek needs. What it needs are executive producers that can recognize a good script when they see one.  There are still plenty of stories that can be told without reimaginging things.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 2, 2007)

They were starting to get it right in the last season of ST:Enterprise, build on the Star Trek myth don't re-invent the wheel.  You have your perfect bad guys, the Klingons.  Yea, you can make the Enterprise cooler but keep to the myth!


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 2, 2007)

Mmmm. Turrets.
I'm of the 'gun turrets make everything look cooler' design philosophy myself.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 2, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Mmmm. Turrets.
> I'm of the 'gun turrets make everything look cooler' design philosophy myself.



Plus, you get firing archs!


----------



## Wolf72 (Apr 3, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Plus, you get firing archs!




ARCS even!!!


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 3, 2007)

Aaaaand just so it will be on the record, this is a april fool's joke.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 3, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Mmmm. Turrets.
> I'm of the 'gun turrets make everything look cooler' design philosophy myself.



Sorry, but they look too big. I'm glad this is a joke.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 3, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> "Battleship-style" phaser turrets?!?!!!



It makes a lot more sense than having just one or two gun emplacements on a huge ship.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 3, 2007)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> ARCS even!!!



OOPS...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 3, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sorry, but they look too big. I'm glad this is a joke.



Gun Turrets arent gun turrets if they arent obviously noticeable. These are actually small compared to most turret style spaceship designs. 

In any case, I thought it was a pretty decent design, except for the pointy bit in front of the nacelles.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 3, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> In any case, I thought it was a pretty decent design, except for the pointy bit in front of the nacelles.



The pointy bit was part of the original _Enterprise_ in the first season.

Not that I have changed my mind on this design. "Battleship-style" turrets?!?!!!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not that I have changed my mind on this design. "Battleship-style" turrets?!?!!!




Out of curiosity, why is that a problem for you?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, why is that a problem for you?



It is so not right.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It is so not right.




Based on what?

The fact that the original ship didn't have them? This (had it been real) was intended for a reboot.

The turret is one of the most effective designs for a ship-mounted weapon. The _Enterprise_ has weapons. Other than purely personal taste--which is certainly valid, but I'd like to hear you say that's where your objection comes from--I don't see anything "not right" about it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Based on what?
> 
> The fact that the original ship didn't have them? This (had it been real) was intended for a reboot.
> 
> The turret is one of the most effective designs for a ship-mounted weapon. The _Enterprise_ has weapons. Other than purely personal taste--which is certainly valid, but I'd like to hear you say that's where your objection comes from--I don't see anything "not right" about it.



Well, I prefer the phaser weapon placements to be more outward, as in the perimeter of the saucer section. Way too many BIG turrets too close to the middle of the saucer. One or two banks is enough to cover the dorsal side of the saucer.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 4, 2007)

Ah, but the simple rules of geometry would point out that if the phaser banks are nearer the _center_ of the saucer, they can cover a wider arc with greater speed, because they need not turn as far to cover the area. They just need to be mounted on some sort of mobile platform (be it a turret or something else).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 4, 2007)

Alright, not to hijack my own thread here, but as long as we're talking about fake Trek here, let's talk about Star Trek New Voyages http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/

I downloaded them expecting it to suck mightily, but the truth of the matter is that it's really quite good. Actually I'd go so far as to say that it's exceptional for a fan production. While the actors portraying the classic characters are on the young side, and aren't exactly dead ringers for their roles, they are good within those roles. Not perfect, but passable, which is as much as I'm hoping for with Trek XI. I'm also impressed by the people who have worked on Trek professionally getting involved. So far they've got D. C. Fontana (one of the original Trek writers), Walter Koenig, George Takei, and they'll soon have Nichelle Nichols. Episode II has a surprise ending, which leaves me scratching my head, but wanting more and wondering how they're going to resolve it - since I'm sure they don't intend to challenge the continuity of the series.

I'd like to get other people's opinions.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 4, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'd like to get other people's opinions.



I dunno. Are their ships using "battleship-style" phaser turrets?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 4, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I dunno. Are their ships using "battleship-style" phaser turrets?




No, but in their early episodes, the ships do barrel rolls.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 5, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> No, but in their early episodes, the ships do barrel rolls.



Now THAT's _Star Trek._


----------



## Meloncov (Apr 5, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It makes a lot more sense than having just one or two gun emplacements on a huge ship.




Not necesarily. Navel battleships have been steadily moving towards a smaller number of larger guns.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 5, 2007)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Not necesarily. Navel battleships have been steadily moving towards a smaller number of larger guns.



They were until aircraft began to dominate, at which point battleships started to bristle with guns albeit of much smaller caliber then their main battery.


----------



## Villano (Apr 5, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Reimagining is not what Trek needs. What it needs are executive producers that can recognize a good script when they see one.  There are still plenty of stories that can be told without reimaginging things.




True.  What I don't understand is why they are going backwards.  First, Enterprise and now this.  Why not take the Next Gen route?  If they can't do any stories set in the same time frame as Next Gen/Voyager/DS9, why not jump ahead 100 years?  If they want to tell deifferent stories, why not start with a real blank canvas instead of painting over everything that came before?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> True.  What I don't understand is why they are going backwards.  First, Enterprise and now this.  Why not take the Next Gen route?  If they can't do any stories set in the same time frame as Next Gen/Voyager/DS9, why not jump ahead 100 years?  If they want to tell deifferent stories, why not start with a real blank canvas instead of painting over everything that came before?




Well, this is roughly the same question as - why do Trek at all?  Rather than jump ahead 100 years, why not do a completely new series, set in a new universe that nobody's seen before? 

I think old names are seen as a bit easier to sell to the public, and the financial backers.  Same thing drives so many remakes and sequel movies, I expect.  It isn't that they really need to tell a story in that setting, as that there's a proven market for stories in that setting.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 5, 2007)

It might also be question of the association we all have with Startrek and all its cool stuff.

Transporters, Shields, Warp Engines, Vulcans [logical minded people], Klingons [warrior race]

If you made a entirely new series set in a different Universe, but wanted to use several of the base ideas of Startrek, it would feel strange. People might call it a rip-off and dislike it just because it "steals" ideas from Startrek. 

It's the same question as with Battlestar Galactica TNS - why do a re-imagination and not set new show They could have called the show "Exodus" and made it about a group of human colonies being overrun by a robotic army and fleeing to find Earth - but who wouldn't have noticed that it's the same basic plot of the original series? 

Maybe it would actually be a good idea to re-imagine Startrek, instead of making prequels and having to worry about not messing with the timeline or messing the timeline and getting fans angry, but in the end, no solution is optimal.

Maybe it's time we lose our focus on having only one original version of a universe or show - It worked in other areas (comics reboot, plays are played with different actors or different locations, songs are interpreted by different musicians...) Maybe one reason why it is so hard is because we invest so much more in a series/universe then we do in a single book, play or song...


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 5, 2007)

Honestly I think that all this talk of reimagining things is just a bunch of hype. Sure, I think the sets should be updated so they look better than the old 1960s budget sets, and I wouldn't mind it if the Enterprise gets a little bit of a facelift - maybe bridge the gap between where it as at in the series and where it was at in the movies. I mean let's face it, the original ship design was a little on the boring/slightly awkward side. The deflector dish looks so much cooler as a space flashlight than it does a regular looking satellite dish. The warp nacelles were kind of clunky, being perfectly round and all. 

Personally what I would like to see is for the new movie and any possible sequels to pick up where the series left off and finish off the five-year mission. I'm not interested in starfleet acedemy, or a Kirk - Spock prequel. I really don't even care if they use Shatner (though I certainly wouldn't mind at all if they make it official that Kirk wasn't killed like a punk in Generations. 

I'm really looking forward to this movie and I have every confidence that JJ Abrams will do a good job with it.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time we lose our focus on having only one original version of a universe or show - It worked in other areas (comics reboot, plays are played with different actors or different locations, songs are interpreted by different musicians...) Maybe one reason why it is so hard is because we invest so much more in a series/universe then we do in a single book, play or song...




Another reason is fan lifetimes.

Comic books turn over readership quickly - your average comic book reader follows a line for a handful of years (a few years in Jr. High and High School), and then stops reading.  There are some diehards, but the bulk of sales is to folk who you know won't be reading three years from now.

If you reboot only well outside the lifetime of the typical fan, you won't meet much resistance - the people who are invested in the old version are no longer your customers, and you don't need to meet their expectations.

Genre TV fans, however, are longer lasting and rather rabid.  We will follow a show for three, or five, or seven years.  And the industry continues to trade on the fandom well outside the lifetime of the show on the air with conventions, print fiction, and so on.  The fandom lifetime is thus rather long - decades.  So, you need to go a long, long time in order to reboot.  Given the original series movies, we are _still within_ the lifetime of TOS fandom - it isn't time to reboot yet.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Apr 5, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Reimagining is not what Trek needs. What it needs are executive producers that can recognize a good script when they see one.  There are still plenty of stories that can be told without reimaginging things.




I agree. I have no interest in a rebooted Kirk & co.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I agree. I have no interest in a rebooted Kirk & co.




Need I mention how incredibly sad I am that Manny Coto wasn't given the reins for Enterprise from the start, or at least much sooner?  That's got to be the #1 missed opportunity in recent genre TV.  Followed close behind by the cancellation of Firefly, and then having Kevin Sorbo have too much control over Andromeda....


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 5, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> True.  What I don't understand is why they are going backwards.  First, Enterprise and now this.



To defend _Enterprise,_ the fourth and final season was the best of all previous three seasons (under the mantle of Braga & Berman). It's no wonder why Manny Coto is part of the production staff at _24._



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> Why not take the Next Gen route?



The cast is getting old.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> If they can't do any stories set in the same time frame as Next Gen/Voyager/DS9, why not jump ahead 100 years?



Because in 100 years, they'll be making timeships ... and I don't like temporal-themed stories. Only _The Voyage Home_ I can stomach as far as time-travel stories go.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 6, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> They were until aircraft began to dominate, at which point battleships started to bristle with guns albeit of much smaller caliber then their main battery.




And, strictly speaking, there are no battleships in service with today's navies.

Personally, I'm surprised they don't slap some VLS photon torpedo cells on the back of the saucer.  Higher potential rates of fire, and you can still have the magazine-fed version for longer fights.

Brad


----------



## Villano (Apr 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> To defend _Enterprise,_ the fourth and final season was the best of all previous three seasons (under the mantle of Braga & Berman). It's no wonder why Manny Coto is part of the production staff at _24._




I wasn't commenting on the quality of the show, just that it was set in the past.  I've only ever seen a few episodes.  A couple were okay, but they were all ruined by the finale.  Wow.  I heard people complain about it, but I couldn't imagine it was as bad as they said.  It turned out to be worse!   




> The cast is getting old.




No. No.  I meant doing like Next Gen did and jump ahead a generation.




> Because in 100 years, they'll be making timeships ... and I don't like temporal-themed stories.




The irony being that Enterprise was set in the past, but a major part of it was the "Temporal Cold War".


----------



## Umbran (Apr 6, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> I wasn't commenting on the quality of the show, just that it was set in the past.




That the show was set in the past didn't bug me at all.  There were lots of stories that could have been told in there, about how the Federation came to be.  And the actors had the chops, too.  And Manny Coto proved that it could be done well.

Unfortunatley, Mr. Coto didn't do the finale.  That was more B&B bungling.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 7, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> I wasn't commenting on the quality of the show, just that it was set in the past.  I've only ever seen a few episodes.  A couple were okay, but they were all ruined by the finale.  Wow.  I heard people complain about it, but I couldn't imagine it was as bad as they said.  It turned out to be worse!



For the record, Manny Coto didn't do the series finale. It has Berman's & Braga's (Manny's bosses) handprints all over it.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> No. No.  I meant doing like Next Gen did and jump ahead a generation.



Too big a gamble. Never had _Star Trek_ new cast of main characters ever debut on film. Only on new TV series.




			
				Villano said:
			
		

> The irony being that Enterprise was set in the past, but a major part of it was the "Temporal Cold War".



And I re-iterate, I never like temporal-themed stories.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 7, 2007)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Not necesarily. Navel battleships have been steadily moving towards a smaller number of larger guns.



Fear my mighty bellybutton gun! I'm like a giant Japanese robot!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Apr 7, 2007)

I want to know where the wave-motion gun is?

I've been looking over this image and looking over this image and I don't see it anywhere? Where is the wave motion gun, blast it!


----------



## Azlan (Apr 7, 2007)

I _lo-ooove_ the "battleship style" phaser turrents!


----------



## Azlan (Apr 7, 2007)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> Aaaaand just so it will be on the record, this is a april fool's joke.
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/



Oh! You _tease_, you!


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 7, 2007)

Azlan said:
			
		

> I _lo-ooove_ the "battleship style" phaser turrents!



Not on my _Star Trek._ Put them on your favorite show, _Hoopty in Space._


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 7, 2007)

You know, if I ever run a Star Trek style game this just might be the ship the PCs get....

The Auld Grump, is he being honest, or being evilly humorous? Time alone will tell....


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 7, 2007)

Azlan said:
			
		

> Oh! You _tease_, you!




Hey, he made it sound like I would intentionally propagate falsehoods. He stains my honor. I demand.... satisfaction!


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 7, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The Auld Grump, is he being honest, or being evilly humorous? Time alone-



*interrupts*

Evilly humorous! A rare phenomenon for *TheAuldGrump.*


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 7, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Hey, he made it sound like I would intentionally propagate falsehoods. He stains my honor. I demand.... satisfaction!



*looks down*

More like he stains your leg.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 9, 2007)

Azlan said:
			
		

> I _lo-ooove_ the "battleship style" phaser turrents!



I've said it before, I'll say it again. Gun turrets make any spaceship cooler.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 10, 2007)

For the record Federation Constitution Class Starships were Heavy Frigates *not* Battleships.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 10, 2007)

I would kill for a DS9 reunion movie, even if it was just made for TV.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 10, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Hey, he made it sound like I would intentionally propagate falsehoods. He stains my honor. I demand.... satisfaction!



Rubbish.

I bought it too.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> For the record Federation Constitution Class Starships were Heavy Frigates *not* Battleships.



For the record, the note said Battleship STYLE turrets, meaning stylistically they resembled those found on 'modern' naval turrets.  Not that they were battleship class turrets.

And I thought the Constitution class were supposed to be heavy cruisers? (Did Wikipedia lie to me?  )


----------



## Umbran (Apr 10, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> And I thought the Constitution class were supposed to be heavy cruisers? (Did Wikipedia lie to me?  )




Wikipedia did not lie.  My original series tech manual calls the "Heavy Cruisers".


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 10, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I would kill for a DS9 reunion movie, even if it was just made for TV.



I hear that. I've been watching my Sesaon 3 DVDs lately and started thinking about the finale....I'd really love to see a firm conclusion.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 10, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Wikipedia did not lie.  My original series tech manual calls the "Heavy Cruisers".




Heh mines boxed up in the basement but I was sure it wasn't a battleship. /wipes egg off face.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 12, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Wikipedia did not lie.  My original series tech manual calls the "Heavy Cruisers".




Yep.  IIRC, the old FASA game mentioned battleships and dreadnoughts, as well as smaller combatants...none of which, of course, ever appeared on the show.

Brad


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 12, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Yep.  IIRC, the old FASA game mentioned battleships and dreadnoughts, as well as smaller combatants...none of which, of course, ever appeared on the show.
> 
> Brad



IIRC, FASA mentioned that the _Excelsior_ was the first Federation Battleship.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 12, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> IIRC, FASA mentioned that the _Excelsior_ was the first Federation Battleship.




The pedant in me would point out that _Excelsior_ was only seen in the movies.  

However, I had forgotten about it completely, now that you point it out, I *think* I remember the reference (from the half-read stuff a friend had).

Brad


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 12, 2007)

I know this is a joke and all, but I have one question:

What's with the warp nipples?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Yep.  IIRC, the old FASA game mentioned battleships and dreadnoughts, as well as smaller combatants...none of which, of course, ever appeared on the show.




The dreadnought appeared in the TOS tech manual, as the _Federation_ class.  There's a destroyer class as well, but no "battleship", per se.  Not that the tech manuals are canon, but what the hey.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I know this is a joke and all, but I have one question:
> 
> What's with the warp nipples?



The pointy nipple is to cap off the swollen orange bussard areola?

Probably an homage, or for continuity's sake, to the old _Enterprise_ design (See "The Cage" pilot episode starring Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Pike).


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 13, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The dreadnought appeared in the TOS tech manual, as the _Federation_ class.  There's a destroyer class as well, but no "battleship", per se.  Not that the tech manuals are canon, but what the hey.



We _trek_ fans consider TM as semi-canon. After all, the _TNG_ TM got it wrong about the next-gen starship (it wasn't the _Andromeda,_ but the _Sovereign_ on _FIRST CONTACT_).


----------

