digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at trekmovie.com

First Offical Photo of the Enterprise for "Star Trek" (2008)

trekmovie.com — This is the first official glimpse of the U.S.S. Enterprise under construction for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (2008).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sean_d2345, on 01/18/2008, -13/+235***** Awesome
    • TalkingBanana, on 01/18/2008, -3/+14Well said
    • sean_d2345, on 01/18/2008, -2/+7Works for me
    • Legato, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5its a great trailer thats for sure!
    • OnyaSonya, on 01/18/2008, -8/+2Don't push ya luck, Rupert.
    • chicaneuk, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Amen! I just dribbled a bit when I saw that picture!
    • starkruzr, on 01/18/2008, -6/+2The hell?

      This is really sexy design, but that doesn't look anything like a Constitution-class starship. It's all wrong. What ship is this? Anyone know?
      • Evari, on 01/18/2008, -0/+9have you ever seen a constitution class starship? It looks exactly like it
        • starkruzr, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2What are you talking about? The general design is the same, but it looks like a hybrid of refit Constitution and First Contact-era ship design. Is this not going to be considered part of "normal" Star Trek? That's the only explanation if this is really supposed to be a Constitution-class ship.
          • spudnic, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3Well according to the revised canon content released last year ships designed from the pre First Contact-era CAN be considered legitimate for Constitution-class ships. 17 minutes and 23 seconds into episode ....

            Nah, I can't keep this up, don't know what the ***** I'm on about.

            I'm actually amazed trekkies like you actually exist, I always considered you to be like leprechauns or Santa.
      • kaplanfx, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6you sir are a Nerd.
        • withremote, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1true that.
        • starkruzr, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4I love that I just got called a nerd by a random stranger on the internet.
          • Chompy, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6On a nerd site no less.
            NEWS FLASH: if you are posting comments in a DIGG thread about Star Trek, you are a nerd. Embrace it.
          • Hawkeye05, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2I Love that you make me feel cool
          • kaplanfx, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I love that you love that I enjoy calling random strangers on the internet Nerds.
      • codeyellow, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1calling a star trek fan a nerd.. isn't that kind of redundant?
      • alphaterminus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2I'll tell you for 20 bars of gold latinum... and an ear rub.
    • xlar54, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Want to place bets on how many times the word "canon" is used in this thread?
    • humperdeath, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1All your Enterprise are belong to us!
    • ophello, on 01/19/2008, -2/+3I found a better-quality version of the trailer:

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • Digger1218, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0n
  • dweeb79, on 01/18/2008, -4/+192http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_orbit_10 ...
    • PixelMagic, on 01/18/2008, -6/+55While very cool, that is fan art, and not the real Enterprise from the movie.
      • sean_d2345, on 01/18/2008, -2/+14True but it's still cool
      • psion01, on 01/18/2008, -0/+22Gabe is more than just a fan. He's worked on a number of projects, including the new Battlestar Galactica, and his vision of the Enterprise was published in last year's Ships of the Line calendar. If you look closely at this picture, you'll see it shares a lot of common features with Gabe's ship. Look at those humps above the "bussard collectors" and the way the intercooler fins blend with the nacelles. I won't be at all surprised, after seeing this, if the new ship is indeed his.
        • jordanisj, on 01/18/2008, -16/+5If it ends up looking like that, it's one more in a list of strikes against this movie that started with the scriptwriters.
        • sliny, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2He's more than just a fan who's more than just a fan. He's the kid from Trekkies.
      • Shakermaker, on 01/18/2008, -6/+3Ahhh crap...and I already dugg him up before I read that...
    • Specialist, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5Wait what am I missing here has the trailer not yet been released for star trek? this is the ship that was in the official trailer. I saw a trailer for this movie yesterday and I find it hard to belive a local cinema in Melbourne, Australia was one of the first to air this trailer or was it?
      • lex0nyc, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1It was released with Cloverfield all over the place.
    • Slybri, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Real or not, I just made that my new wallpaper. Thanks!
    • TheTrueAPlus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ There are videos!!!!!!!
    • dbixler, on 01/18/2008, -19/+0Cool pic, but you're missing the letter after 1701... I think they are up to "E" now :).
      • Nowheredan, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?
    • dvdchris, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Gabe Koerner. That was the kid in Trekkies that had 'quibbles' about the uniform a friend made for him.
    • quin55, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0its a good render looks similiar to the XI pix
  • seanthebond, on 01/18/2008, -5/+352So... When is NASA going to build one of these bitches?
    • PixelMagic, on 01/18/2008, -0/+23Not soon enough, I'm afraid.
      • saleem, on 01/18/2008, -0/+14When you give them more than 0.0005% of the budget..
    • GhostSniper, on 01/18/2008, -1/+68Some time after 2063.
      • nelsonscheung, on 01/18/2008, -14/+4Well...actually Zefram Cochrane built the first human warp capable vessel and the NX-01 don't come until the mid 22th century.
        • smacksaw, on 01/18/2008, -3/+20Please don't talk about fictional events from the future like that.
        • nebion, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6...and 2063 would be the year Zephram Cochrane first launched that vessel, so the parent was entirely correct. Mid-22nd century certainly is after that.

          Additionally, I'm assuming that the original post wasn't referring to NX-01 (or necessarily even the Enterprise in the picture which would be almost a century later), but any warp-capable vessels, of which there probably were quite a few between Zephram Cochrane's initial test flight (and first contact with the Vulcans) and the warp 5-project.
    • overridemymind, on 01/18/2008, -1/+15They already are. We got a drydock hiding on the dark side o the moon.
    • Ortheos, on 01/18/2008, -1/+64When China lends them the money.
    • knuckles, on 01/18/2008, -2/+43I'd think they need to solve a few pesky issues first:

      1) anti-gravity
      2) warp speed
      3) anti-subspace-radiation
      4) phasers for killin' klingons we know are out there
      5) every single apple G4 laptop computer ever made (melt them down for their titanium casings)

      There's loads more, but that's the short list.
      • dsmx, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11gravity plating, teleporters, small shuttles, shields, radiation shielding, deflector sheilds, fast anti matter manufacturing......
        • bulkhater, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10 joebarone,

          Please, PLEASE let's just forget the Holodecks. Nothing good ever came of them.
          • BoneheadFarker, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Nothing good ever came of Holodecks??? Hello...Quark's erotic holo-adventures? I want me a piece of holo-ass...
          • Logicexe, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3How many holodeck programs have to achieve sentience before they shut that god forsaken machine off!
        • mike81890, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4You don't NEED teleporters. Just look at the NX-01
          • Nitesmoke, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4It began using its teleporter often toward the end of the show's run.
          • moskaudancer, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2That's because it's a very convenient plot device; not quite a "deus ex machina", but pretty close.
      • frosted, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3It's actually cosmic radiation shielding that we need badly.
      • Tetraca, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1We need to figure out how to exploit special relativity and shield radiation. After that comes, we should be set to build a prototype.
      • ophello, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1excuse me...but...apple uses aluminum...
    • NeoCortex, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10Well, they already made one Enterprise. Maybe the next model will have the warp nacelles installed.
    • tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2When we figure out how to make a hyperdrive. Oh, and we need to find a mine for dilithium crystals. We won't be getting very far without those.
      • bkemper, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6"Warp" engines. Get it right.
      • tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Sorry, i'm getting my Star Wars mixed up with my Star Trek. I love both, i'm not hardcore about either of them.
        • akgunkel, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3I call *****. If you can get them mixed up, you love neither. Leave the commenting to the real nerds. You probably watch sports on TV too. Jock.
          • tgc1, on 01/19/2008, -2/+0What the *****? Dude, get out of the basement once in a while okay? Geez. What, I can't like Star Wars and Star Trek unless I know every intricate detail and suck both Lucas and Roddenbery's dick like some of these ***** crazy lunatic fans they have? Get a grip. I'm not trying to bash you either, don't take offense, but sometimes this whole hardcore nerd thing pisses me off. Same with the Jobs fans. Jesus. Give it a rest.
      • m0neybags, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7Let's use Foldgers crystals for now and see if anyone notices the difference.
        • gettophilosophr, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1"Foldgers: nothing comes closer to warp"
    • TxAggie08, on 01/18/2008, -9/+6We won't even be able to get to our own space station if Obama gets elected. :(
      • cwright213, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2maybe NASA should keep their hands in their pockets and do something to keep people interested. I have been seeing the same old space shuttle since i was 3.
        • carpespasm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3mostly because they still work (most of the time) and NASA's budget has been slashed like it's got jack the ripper on staff.
        • Ramble, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1it costs a small bit of dough to redesign something like that.
      • TxAggie08, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5The Shuttle is slated to be retired in 2010, its replacement, the crew exploration vehicle, will be gutted under Obama's plan. This will leave us begging for rides with the Russians, and without a real space program.
      • groovychk, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Yes. Sad. I was shocked to see Obama embrace such a completely disastrous space policy. Especially from someone trying to promote growth and vision. Fail.
    • habbofresh, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6TUESDAY.
    • Kohaxx, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6NASA is too busy investigating strange noises picked up near Saturn...
      • Newmaniese, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Are they coming from Uranus?

        ...I couldn't resist
        • DubbedOver, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry, Newmaniese, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
        • reflux83, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1It's now called Urectum
      • johnmatias, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1Space Farts?
    • Chahrlie5, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7When NASA gets as much funding as Iraq and environmental campaigns
      • rheaume, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Agree on Iraq but the environmental bs? If there is one thing more important than space explorations, its making sure our little home here is not filled with chemicals.
    • rheaume, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6I'd think they need to solve a few pesky issues first:

      1.Spending a trillion dollars on a ***** war
      2..

      Or maybe not, just the one
    • Latent7, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0NASA will never have the funding. But, some global Entrepreneur or large private corporation will be paving the way for space exploration.
    • rurounikengyrl, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1stardate 4235.5
    • passedoutghost, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Nasa already has. Unfortunately it's made of plastic, hollow and is 1:500 in size.
  • whiteknives, on 01/18/2008, -30/+9If Megan Fox told me she wanted to make out with me - yeah, it's that sort of feeling I've got right now.
    • brownspank, on 01/18/2008, -14/+8Trekkies are going to beat me up with their communicators and Vulcan death grips for saying this, but...

      Megan Fox > USS Enterprise.
    • bigtmac68, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3Despite being a trekker from the age of 8 ( now 40) Im going to have to go with megan fox, maybe jessica alba, but any other chick can get in line before my real lady love -- The Enterprise...
      • Shakermaker, on 01/18/2008, -0/+17Probably the geekiest thing I have read so far today - and I'm not even halfway down the thread yet.
      • roodammy44, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3I find it funny you say "trekker" and not "trekkie" because it's too geeky.
        They're both just as geeky, might as well just say "trekkie" so everyone knows it's not about walking in the mountains
  • rephil513, on 01/18/2008, -5/+28The warp nacels look like propellers. This isn't Star Trek: Underwater, right? Otherwise, digg...
    • khellendros1984, on 01/18/2008, -0/+21The ship is only partially constructed. I'm guessing those are the things that give it a "pinwheel" kind of look when the red light comes from behind them.
    • sockpuppets, on 01/18/2008, -4/+161Digga please. Those are spinners.
      • koft, on 01/18/2008, -3/+18Best comment all week!
      • TrendyTim, on 01/18/2008, -8/+3I wish i could give more than one dig to that comment, Digg + 10000000
      • SilasTomorrow, on 01/18/2008, -0/+11'Digga please' will easily be the most repeated and overused comment this year. I plan on using it today!
        • cmdrNacho, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Digga Please... I have already used it today
      • MixMastaKooz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7On the next episode of "Pimp My Enterprise..."
    • Kronos6948, on 01/18/2008, -1/+12Remember in TOS, how the lights spun behind the Bussard collectors? Well, that's what made them spin.
      • khellendros1984, on 01/18/2008, -3/+11Bussard collectors...pinwheely things...whatever =p
      • Kronos6948, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5Believe me, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Wanted to give rephil513 the low down on what it was.
    • anonatron, on 01/18/2008, -3/+4Star Lab 2021
    • wild, on 01/18/2008, -0/+23I am glad I am not THAT into Star Trek. Only because I won't be watching the movie and think "that guys part is on the wrong side of his head. This is inconsistent! I hate this movie!!!"

      I can just enjoy it for what it will be.
    • mchance27, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1That would be aqua trek.
      • fishbert, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Aqua Trek Hunger Force
        "Damnit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a milkshake!"
        • moskaudancer, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1This comment will make no sense at all to anyone over twenty-five.
          • fishbert, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I'm over 25, and I wrote it.
            You've gotta be old enough to get the TOS and young enough to get the ATHF.
    • bjs3171, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1well...it is a prequel. water is much closer to earth than space is.
    • nebion, on 01/18/2008, -2/+0Those look way too big to be the nacelles, anyway, I was thinking it was some kind of temporary construction-time enclosure...

    • Slybri, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0Actually, that would be Seaquest with roy Scheider.
    • nicolasavru, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1Those would be the bussard collectors (aka ramscoop). They are usually used to collect deuterium, but can be reconfigured for various gasses/interstellar particles, and can also be used to release various particles. All Federation starships have them on the forward ends of the nacelles.

      The reason that the nacelles are (almost) never on the same horizontal plain as the saucer is so that optimal particle intake can occur. The most notable exception to this rule is the Excelsior class. It has been suggested that that is a design flaw of the Excelsior class.
  • zerosaber8, on 01/18/2008, -1/+52I can almost *hear* the geekgasm
    • Spoomeister, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Does it sound kinda like Peter Griffin? 'Cause that's what I heard.
    • Turambar, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2real geeks dread this movie. so much ***** will be wrong it really isn't funny. Star Trek has been doing Star Wars prequel-level stuff since Roddenberry died.
      • diggzaphod, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1So very very true. time they got some real sci fi writers to come up with some stories, and some real scientists to give them help on the tech side of the story. Sort of like what the Great Bird did originally.
  • LimeParrot, on 01/18/2008, -25/+10I don't even like Star Trek and I think that looks cool. I especially like what they did with the big powerful turbines (did the original one have turbines?).
    • CravenTwain, on 01/18/2008, -0/+13Those "turbines" were hidden behind big orange domes on the TV series version. They probably will be in the movie too.
    • rpj101288, on 01/18/2008, -0/+9There was some kind of spinning fan blade movement in the lights under the nacelle domes in the original. I suspect that they haven't been put in place yet in this picture, allowing us a glimpse into the engines.
      • nogami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4I kinda prefer it the way it is now. More retro / industrial looking.

        It would be great if the movie was based on the book "Star Trek - The Final Frontier" by Diane Carey. I've always thought that was a book that would translate extremely well to a movie. Even pondered doing a screenplay of it just for fun.
    • Kronos6948, on 01/18/2008, -1/+19Those are the inner workings of the Bussard collectors.
      • mbrindam, on 01/18/2008, -4/+8Your mom must be so proud.
        • bulkhater, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5 mbrindam,

          Considering he / she probably has a technology related job and a six figure salary, yeah, she probably is.
          • mbrindam, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1Well, so do I, and mine is... and I like trek as much as the next guy, but there's a line that I didn't cross....
          • Logicexe, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2What line? Is there something wrong with knowing a lot about something that interests you? You are aware that you can be a fan of Star Trek, be very knowledgeable about the show and still have a life right?
      • glasnostic, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5judging from some of the comments.. i sure hope the film team did their homework. they should have at least two Trekkies on set at all time simply to point out "obvious" mistakes.
  • GodIsntReal, on 01/18/2008, -122/+9Star Trek is the single worst television show i have ever seen in my entire life.
    • GhostSniper, on 01/18/2008, -2/+32Americas Next Top Model.
    • JGent, on 01/18/2008, -0/+14Why make a comment then, you could have jsut passed the topic........Or did you just feel the need to post :]
    • shiftclick, on 01/18/2008, -2/+20Have you seen "The Surreal Life"? Dumbass. God's gonna smite you anyway! *SMITE* *SMITE*
    • wrongonce, on 01/18/2008, -2/+8BJ & the Bear
      http://groups.msn.com/BJandTheBearFanClub
    • iLemon, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8I didn't know you could get a TV and power underneath a bridge. What do you do when it rains?
    • Wholekernalcorn, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Sorry...the worst ever was "Cop Rock"

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098772/
      • derkmerkin, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1hahaha my parents loved that show
    • lamul, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7'If I were human I believe my response would be "go to hell."


      ...If I were human.'
    • arcangelgabriel, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7"They have a cave troll". - Boromir
    • SzaszMan, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3STFU!
    • alphaterminus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3You are wrong, sir. If a show has hot women in spandex, or mini-skirts, it is never the worst show on television. Star Trek has always followed the rules for sci-fi females: 1.Smart, 2. Spandex (may substitute mini-skirts), 3. Big racks. (Janeway didn't qualify but she was more than made up for by Seven of Nine.)
    • holygram, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Are you just trying to see how far down you can get buried? I agree with your comment, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna say anything about it.

      C'mon, man...this is digg.
    • rurounikengyrl, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1you were really asking for it.
    • ophello, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1*cough* BSGFTW *cough*
  • krystofr, on 01/18/2008, -21/+38It could use some racing stripes and a spoiler. The Klingons need to know that these guys are "too fast, too furious"!!!
    • jrak, on 01/18/2008, -3/+2Come on diggers... that was funny!
    • BlazinEurasian, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3GTFO!
    • Seng, on 01/18/2008, -3/+2Logged in just to bury the comment... I can't stand the crap with kids putting glow effects and 12" fins on the back of their Ford Tempos!
    • SpongeBad, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5Speed holes. It needs speed holes.
    • JohnnyMexico, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Well it's sporting some pretty bad ass spinner rims on the engines.
    • alphaterminus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Icy Hot Trekkas
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I'm not an expert, but isn't it usual to wait until after the main construction of ships to paint them? I'm just drawing this idea form the fact that ocean-liners aren't painted with their finished coating until they're totally done.
      • diggzaphod, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I was wondering about that myself
  • feacesface, on 01/18/2008, -74/+3YO yo yo yo yo check dis out....Star trek need naked wimmin like on Enterprize the tV show yo....more naked bitches = better science friction yo
    • shiftclick, on 01/18/2008, -1/+12Thank you for posting Ali G. Didn't you say you weren't going to do Borat or Ali G. anymore?
    • manicleek, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1you could have narrowed it down to faecesmouth
  • Yupp, on 01/18/2008, -2/+50First official hard on for a trek film,
    in about FOREVER
  • iSimon, on 01/18/2008, -7/+8Whoa. That thing is hawt.
  • jordanisj, on 01/18/2008, -15/+7I don't think I like the look of the nacelles. Even if it looks cool, it doesn't change that the writers previous works are all cheesy action TV and giant explosion action movies. I smell a death by bad writing.
    • arcangelgabriel, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Like Batman Begins to the previous Batman silliness? You can always overcome.
  • Llandrix, on 01/18/2008, -6/+1Down already?! Damn it.
  • karnage42, on 01/18/2008, -1/+58i went to the midnight showing of cloverfield solely to watch this trailer
    • Hoogs, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11How was it (both the trailer and the movie)?
    • asurroca, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I'm going to see it tonight just for the trailer, too...

      I think this might describe at least 30% of viewers....
      • jordanlgta, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Then you'll be in shock when Cloverfield is amazing. I'm going to see it a second time tonight.
  • palehorse864, on 01/18/2008, -5/+3*checks pic* This is why we can't have nice things.
  • oscarolim, on 01/18/2008, -18/+4I dint understand something: The last Star Trek franchise (named Star Trek, with Captain Jonathan Archer), already had Warp 4.5 engines, fully working transporters, no fear of transporting humanoid life. In star trek TOS , the Enterprise is uglier, the ship also felled technologically inferior. Now this one, which should be after Star Trek, has turbines as engines? WTF?
    • scankia, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11The warp 4.5 engines were experimental and exclusive to the enterprise because they used at the time borrowed non human tech, the transporter ***** up numerous times, and people were scared ***** less the first 2 seasons of using it. The aesthetics and perceived technological inferiority were more than likely changed in general design philosophy moving from our current era which Archers Enterprise was closer to into the far off future of TOS that we would have more trouble relating with now.
    • Kronos6948, on 01/18/2008, -0/+21They're not turbine engines. This movie is supposed to be TOS all over again. It's under construction. The Bussard collectors haven't been added to the nacelles yet. The show with Archer is called Enterprise, and if you watched the series, transporters were new technology, and they were afraid of using them in the first couple of seasons. Another thing you have to understand is that TOS was made in the 1960s, so the tech is going to look kinda inferior, although in Enterprise, there were some throwbacks.
      • zephc, on 01/18/2008, -0/+10I tend to think of the '60s look in TOS of just a trend that was around in the 23rd century, which coincidentally happened to look like the 1960s - trends repeating and all that.
    • Balanced, on 01/18/2008, -7/+6Also, Enterprise was a bad series.
    • proliance, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5They are *space* turbines. If you were from the future you would understand.
    • kovu159, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Well, Enterprise had warp 5 engines by the 3rd season, once they worked out the bugs in seasons 1 and 2. The reason that enterprise looked so much more advancedis simply that monitors and greem-screening worked and looked good in the 2000's, instead of flashing lights and blank walls in the 60's. Actually specs-wise, the engines, wepons, scanners, and all other tech was actually more advanced in TOS, but the makers had no way to express this except through words.
    • holygram, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1sometimes, i wish digg wasn't so nerdy.
  • WestEast, on 01/18/2008, -22/+2This has the same feeling as the awful "Enterprise" Tv series.......think they have lost there way in the Star Trek world.
    • feacesface, on 01/18/2008, -13/+0No you don't understand. Boobies, not storyline, will save the day. More naked chicks = better sci fi.
    • joshuabowers, on 01/18/2008, -7/+3To each and every his or her own, but I feel that Enterprise was a much better Star Trek than the original series was.
      • WestEast, on 01/18/2008, -4/+0And it got cancelled ....right?

        I think they are bringing it back to early, Paramount made it clear after Enterpirse that they where going to leave the whole star trek thing and bring it back much later, its too soft.
        • joshuabowers, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1So did the original series. Which only lasted for 3 seasons, as opposed to Enterprise's four.
    • DeucesWild, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3I just hope it doesn't have as horrible an opening song as that last Enterprise series. No Trek should have singing in the opening. I shudder just thinking of that opening.
    • alphaterminus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Enterprise's theme song and that of Greatest American Hero really were not that different. GAH didn't even last a full season.
  • alienman, on 01/18/2008, -4/+17WOOT! Sylar plays Spock :D
    • bjs3171, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6and SIMON PEGG PLAYS SCOTTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      that makes me cum a little every time i say it.
    • rheaume, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Welcome to last year!

      No, seriously, that news came out last year
  • jambaphil, on 01/18/2008, -0/+39Here's a larger version of the photo:
    http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek- ...
  • Derelict267, on 01/18/2008, -1/+16I just got back from the Cloverfield midnight showing and they showed the teaser for this. I'm not a Star Trek fan but I have to say I was pretty impressed even though it was a tiny teaser it makes me want to see it. J.J. Abrams always does a great job.

    Also Cloverfield was a ***** awesome movie :)
  • ICasualty, on 01/18/2008, -0/+16Actually at the premier of Cloverfield, they showed a preview of the movie and yes that is a picture from the actual trailer played.
    • beelz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3yep they did i just got back from the midnight premier
  • Latent7, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3It's going to definitely be a reinterpretation of the original, so I think there are bound to be disappointments. Being a long time fan of all of the Star Trek series, and films, I am going to reserve my judgment until I see the actual film. I think there is definitely going to be some backlash from the "Trekkers", similar to what happened with the latter Star Wars trilogy.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2As long as JJ Abrams doesn't stomp all over my childhood and then piss on it for good measure while lighting a cigar with a $100 bill, I'll like it...
      • Amazetbm, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2You sound like a Transformers G1 Zealot. LOL
    • bjs3171, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2i'm an enormous star trek fan. as big as you can be without ever having put on pointy ears and gone to conventions.

      i feel the franchise really needs a bit of a reinterpretation. they can do that without ***** up details, and that's what they should do. it's partly why i liked Firefly so much, it was like star trek, but more human. also, when they fought, they actually moved, as opposed to a star trek phaser fight where it reminds me more of a knock hockey match than an actual fight.
  • craighoxton, on 01/18/2008, -2/+17I'll probably cry in the movie theatre when I watch this scene
  • marcus1060, on 01/18/2008, -15/+4Am I the only one the realizes turbines will do nothing in space!
    • lordmolotov, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4No, you're absolutely right. Although....I'm pretty sure that's just eye candy, the little plasma thingies are going over that...
    • bkemper, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5Those are warp field generators or something. They only look like turbines to you because of your early 21st century point of view. A couple of centuries earlier, someone might say they look like windmills.
  • motiontomove, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6The full trailer should be online monday.

    At least, that's what Paramount's promised.
  • jambaphil, on 01/18/2008, -15/+2MORE PICS!!! Go fast before the genius webmaster realizes he didnt block the parent directory!!

    http://digg.com/movies/Secret_Pics_from_Star_Trek_ ...
    • guytoronto, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Fake. Using the Enterprises insignia for Starfleet? It wasn't adopted Starfleet wide until AFTER Kirk's five year mission.
  • humboldt79, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3I too saw this image as part of the teaser before Cloverfield tonight. The first shot is of a guy with a welding torch, but no space suit. It didn't look like they were building it in space.
    • marillion, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2That and the "smoke" from the welding appears to be drifting as if floating in an atmosphere. Particulate debris from welding would most likely drift in a linear, constant direction in space.
      If I recall, the Enterprise as originally imagined could land on and take off from the surface of a planet. The transporters where devised later as a cost saving measure - that visual effect was cheaper than trying to land the starship. As such, it would not be out of line or violate "canon" if it took off from a ground based shipyard.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/18/2008, -25/+2the same in different lighting.

    trek must lose the militarism extremism.

    "yes sir" this, and "yes sir" that. ***** off, join a military academy if you so like the killing machine.
    • gquaglia, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Star Fleet is essentially a military organization. True its main function is exploration and science, but when needed, its the protection arm of the Federation. I guess you really don't know much about ST do you.
    • alphaterminus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Who's gonna fight the ***** Borg? I don't want to be assimilated. Resistance isn't futile, bitch!
  • trueinfinite, on 01/18/2008, -1/+28jj abrams is boldy going where... wait.. everyone's gone there before..
    • jordanlgta, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Not if he reinvents it as Nolan did Batman...
  • AltEfFour, on 01/18/2008, -3/+6I'm not really a star trek fan, but I've gotta admit that thing is ***** sexy.
  • Vaelkar, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1Has anyone been able to post the trailer on the interwebz yet? I can't see Cloverfield till monday. =(
  • richiestang78, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8Looks promising, hopefully they dont get carried away with "extra" graphics.
  • mrkrabs1, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1I can't wait to see that. Looks great!!
  • Lanefair, on 01/18/2008, -6/+8So is this the Enterprise under construction IN the movie, or FOR the movie?
    • spyd3rweb, on 01/18/2008, -2/+44Yes I'm sure they build CGI models with scaffolding and cranes.
    • Wholekernalcorn, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3They could...but it wouldn't have Warp Engines....Gravity Plates....Photon Torpedo's......Replicators.....Transporters......Impulse Engines (well sorta not)....Tractor Beams....
    • Lanefair, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7A nerd can dream can't he? A nerd can dream.....
  • scouser84, on 01/18/2008, -6/+2I'm not going to sleep untill i see this trailer! damn you dig for posting this!!!
  • mikasaur, on 01/18/2008, -3/+17They made it so.
    • jonjo, on 01/18/2008, -3/+1noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - engage
  • kyouteki, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16I need video, now.
  • airtonix, on 01/18/2008, -5/+5looks suspiciously like a pimped out hovercraft.
    • babar77, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1That's exactly what I thought. I'm not impressed really. I wasn't impressed with what they did with transformers. Jazz was a deception?!?! WTF. Megatron was just a big robot.. nothing special.

      I'm starting to get the feeling that they may do to the enterprise what the movie wing commander did to the ships from the game wing commander. I really hope not.
  • libhatefulhead, on 01/18/2008, -14/+6Where does Tom Cruise sit?
  • namuh, on 01/18/2008, -9/+3Wow, I just busted a huge trekgasm in my pants. I can't wait.
  • davecor, on 01/18/2008, -3/+11Will there be a 12 minute fly-around sequence like there was in "Star Trek:The Motionless Picture- Where NOMAD Has Gone Before"?.
    • Hermiod, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4If the Enterprise looks as cool in the movie as it does here it can be a 30 minute fly around sequence and I'll still be happy.
    • dahlek, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4That bit was awesome. Trek1 is a damn good scifi movie, underrated IMO. It kept the best parts of the TOS, but added a brainy-layer that made it something approaching hard-sf in some sense.
      • regeya, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1If you watch the director's cut, it's awesome. Takes itself way too seriously, but it's awesome. The original cut, and the ABC cut, suck.
        Never a good idea to just rush something like this out the door just to get it out at Christmas. Paramount, are you listening? If J.J. needs more time, allot more time.
        • Hermiod, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1They're not exactly rushing this. It was announced in April 2006, but commentaries on the DVDs for JJ's TV show Alias suggest he was involved a lot earlier than that as various members of the cast and production staff make not-so-subtle requests for jobs on the film. This movie is not being just slapped together. It's not Nemesis.
    • StarlessKnight, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5Given the success of "2001: A Space Odyssey," could you blame them for trying to incorporate some of those film elements?
    • evaughen, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Best comment and insight I have read in a long time... thx
  • albrown123, on 01/18/2008, -11/+1And the fin blades are for what, propulsion?
    • doctordbx, on 01/18/2008, -3/+1You might think so, but actually its for impulsion... it is not being pushed forward through space, rather it is pulling space toward it. The ship stays perfectly still, it's the entire universe that moves.
    • zetec, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1They help manipulate warp-field geometry.
      Seriously.

      It's sad that I know that, isn't it?
  • Zippo, on 01/18/2008, -3/+12Set your Internets to stun.
  • nonrate, on 01/18/2008, -15/+4What does god need... with a starship.... that has jet turbines to propel itself at warp speed through a vacuum?
    • Jastor00, on 01/18/2008, -0/+11They're not turbines, unless something's changed. They're Bussard collectors, designed to pull in interstellar hydrogen to use for fuel.
  • bawheid, on 01/18/2008, -8/+1I thought the icy cold vacuum of the infinite void was designated a 'no smoking' area. And yet I see smoke. Space doobies on Hanger Deck 1 or is someone taking liberties with physics?
    • korvan504521, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3the icy cold vacuum can have escaping argon gas the welders working on the hull plating.
    • zetec, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Could be various gasses venting. Or ice boiling off into space as the nacelles warm up, assuming there's some flow of energy going through the warp coils, although that's somewhat doubtful since the broussard collectors aren't complete yet. Still, they could be being powered by the matter/antimatter reactor, or possibly even the fusion cores for a short while. Considering it's in drydock, that's a distinct possibility.

      I'm going to go never get laid ever again now.
  • Zampa, on 01/18/2008, -9/+14It may be a geeky, nit-picky thing to notice, but was anyone else bothered by the fact that this image was made into a .GIF when it probably should have been a .JPG?

    I think I've been optimizing web graphics for too long...
    • Numbski, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7It *is* a jpeg. It's just named .gif. Don't ask me why, but Firefox gives it away - calls it a jpeg.
      • Zampa, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Ah... good hunting. Still odd to be named incorrectly
    • mithrasinvictus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6they could have, at least, made it a PNG.
    • asurroca, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Nah, bugged me too. Don't worry Zampa, I'm sure at least half of us Dugg users are web developers...
  • alphabetagaga, on 01/18/2008, -7/+2I think I just wet my pants a little.
  • Wholekernalcorn, on 01/18/2008, -4/+5Let's hope the actors can act and the producers of the movie have written a good script. ST Enterprise was good at the beginning three shows but it soon became evident that some of the actors were awful....and I mean awful bad. The worse was Linda Park who played Ensign Hoshi Sato. Monotonal....The second was worse was John Billingsley as the ships doctor....Horrible.
    • kurfu, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6I actually liked the guy that played the doctor - I thought he was a pretty decent actor.

      The one that I absolutely *hated* was the guy that played Ensign Merrywhether(sp?) - the black dude. He was a horrible actor. Thankfully, as the show continued, the writers gave him significantly fewer lines, if any at all..
      • Wholekernalcorn, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4It could have been a good show all the way through. I like the fact that STE gave new actors a chance but they could have "killed" the characters off when it became apparent the actors weren't working out. I really think the producers should have polled the fans to find out what they liked about the cast during production.
    • BevansDesign, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8I agree that Hoshi and Mayweather were usually pretty lousy, but Phlox was always awesome. Possibly the best actor on the show.
      • conrail, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Phlox is my favorite Star Trek doctor, even counting Bones.
    • postalblowfish7, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5nothing like the magic of the next generation set. the interactions between those characters from meeting each other on episode 1, to facing the end of humanity by the last episode - just wow. amazing chemistry.
      • gquaglia, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4TNG was the best Trek ever. I like them better then TOS.
    • Akairenn, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Phlox ruled, but then, I kept envisioning him as Winchester from MASH. Think it was the hair, to be honest. Once my demented mind made that connection (and a tenuous connection it was), I couldn't help but love that character. I actually found myself surprised by Bakula, too. Less whiny Picard/Sisco/Janeway, more hillarious Kirk-like antics. The rest though, meh. Then again, Star Trek's never been the series to watch for epic character development and good acting.
  • JamesDean59, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/
    http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/trekreel002.mov
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.