EW.com reveals new Enterprise

[Jon]

Bigger image, and this one at least looks less plastic-y. The description (scroll down) says it's got light effects, so I *hope* that's what the transparent coloured plastic is for.

and this is the actual prop;

[Alyeska]

To me that looks like they scrapped the idea of the twisting emitter. Good.

[Knife]

To me that looks like they scrapped the idea of the twisting emitter. Good.

nah, you can see the duel emitter in that.

I don't know. I get why different directors and producers want to put their own spin on things...yet what exists already is awesome enough. Why they can't just take the basic premise of Trek and along with it the basic designs of trek and go with it. It would be both easy and a wink and a nod to do a ST V or VI phaser and reuse it as an early Kirk-trek design. You could take the refit Enterpirse, which is popular anyways, and put it in the movie. Or you could take the original and put a spin on it, like they did with the refit, and go with it.

The more they modernize it, the more they change the least the hard core fans like it. And while we're on the issue, if you want it sooooo different, be ballsy enough to do a restart and not a half ass restart. As my post mortum, esteemed Grandfather always said, shit or get off the pot.

[Anguirus]

Or you could take the original and put a spin on it, like they did with the refit, and go with it.

It's too late. They already did.

[Alyeska]

To me that looks like they scrapped the idea of the twisting emitter. Good.

nah, you can see the duel emitter in that.

I can see what looks like it used to be a dual emitter that was then painted.

[Sidewinder]

I can see what looks like it used to be a dual emitter that was then painted.

I hope you're right and the damn thing does NOT have opposing muzzles, one of which is POINTED AT THE USER.

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK were the designers thinking when they decided to give the phaser (laser?) pistol two emitters that rotated? Have these people NEVER handled a firearm before? No trigger guards, NO VISIBLE TRIGGER... How the hell do you fire it? Is there a neural sensor that detects when your brain is ordering your trigger finger to move? What if you're so angry at someone, you think about shooting them when you're not supposed to, e.g., when a Vorta prisoner insults you and tries to get killed before military intelligence officers can interrogate him?

Then there's the delicate-looking moving parts that require EXTREME precision to maintain boresight, or there's no guarantee the phaser (laser?) beam will still hit what you're aiming at after you switch emitters. There's a reason dual muzzle weapons (double barrel shotguns, derringers, combination weapons like an M4 carbine with a M203 grenade launcher under the barrel) have BOTH MUZZLES pointing in THE SAME DAMN DIRECTION. What if damage or malfunctions make the other muzzle, the one POINTED AT YOU, fire instead of the one pointed at the enemy?

[Tsyroc]

From looking at the actual prop picture it looks to me like the trigger for the phaser is that button around about where a person's thump might rest when gripping the handle.

I don't mind the swiveling emitters on the prop. The different colors on the toy make it look really cheesy while, for some reason, the prop looks kind of realistic. The presumably manually swiveled emitters make me think of some of the first multi-barreled pistols where the barrel had to be manually twisted to get to the next shot. This also seems like a more technologically simple way to get two settings out of a hand held energy weapon. Set one way it steps down the power output while the other way it amplifies it.

Not the most logical or user friendly design but if they are determined to get away from guns and have a non-lethal setting they also might be willing to accept limitations that would be unacceptable to a firearm user in the 21st century.


Anyway, I kind of like the prop. The toy is a little too bright but as a kid I would have liked it. It actually seems somewhat similar to some old spark and water guns I had when I was little.

[Sidewinder]

The presumably manually swiveled emitters make me think of some of the first multi-barreled pistols where the barrel had to be manually twisted to get to the next shot.

You mean pepperbox revolvers? Those also have the muzzles pointing in the SAME DIRECTION, so a malfunction is less likely to send a bullet into the person holding the gun.

Not the most logical or user friendly design but if they are determined to get away from guns and have a non-lethal setting they also might be willing to accept limitations that would be unacceptable to a firearm user in the 21st century.

I believe Mr. Wong repeatedly mentioned design and engineering as compromising, e.g., sacrificing one quality to preserve or improve another. In the phaser (laser?) pistol's case, the designers chose to sacrifice Starfleet personnel's lives. Even if the pistol's safety insures the weapon won't send a beam back at the person holding it, the precision demanded to make sure it always work will likely increase costs and time to manufacture, meaning fewer pistols can be issued as self-defense weapons.

[Bounty]

Wow, Sidewinder, where did you get the technical manual that explained in detail how the phaser pistol works? Because you of course have some sort of solid proof that the beam originates in the rotating section of the pistol and not, say, the pistol itself, before passing through the muzzle? Like Tsyroc's very elegant and, let's face it, infinitely more likely idea?

[VF5SS]

I don't know. I get why different directors and producers want to put their own spin on things...yet what exists already is awesome enough. Why they can't just take the basic premise of Trek and along with it the basic designs of trek and go with it.

Because the sponsors need new material to market. It's the reason why all prequels are full of new "old" stuff. They aren't going to re-package the same designs that they've been using for over 20 years when a new movie can have all new designs for merchandising.

[Sidewinder]

Wow, Sidewinder, where did you get the technical manual that explained in detail how the phaser pistol works? Because you of course have some sort of solid proof that the beam originates in the rotating section of the pistol and not, say, the pistol itself, before passing through the muzzle? Like Tsyroc's very elegant and, let's face it, infinitely more likely idea?

You highlighted the problem yourself.

before passing through the muzzle

Assuming those responsible did NOT decide, "It's a stupid idea to have a pistol with two muzzles on opposite ends of each other, just so the redshirts can spin it around," the pistol still has TWO MUZZLES. So assuming the cast & crew do NOT just glue it in place, the phaser (laser?) beam MUST pass through the rotating section to reach the emitter. Does it pass through one muzzle-turned-breech to go through the other end? What if something knocks the rotating section so it's at an angle to the pistol frame, e.g., a top-down view resembles a "T" instead of an "I"? The energy has no muzzle to vent it, so it goes in all directions, like gunpowder exploding when there's no gun barrel to force it in one direction, i.e., the business end? The safety prevents the weapon from firing in this condition, in which case it becomes USELESS in close quarters, giving enemies with sturdier weapons (firearms, clubs, knives, hands and feet) a chance to deliver the first blow?

[Bounty]

What if something knocks the rotating section so it's at an angle to the pistol frame, e.g., a top-down view resembles a "T" instead of an "I"?

I have here a lens designed in 1932. It can be rotated. "Oh my, what an engineering quandary!", squeals Sidewinder, "how can we possible prevent it from turning when it's not supposed to turn?"

Oh wait, it's got a lock. Never mind.

The energy has no muzzle to vent it, so it goes in all directions, like gunpowder exploding when there's no gun barrel to force it in one direction, i.e., the business end?

Did you know guns are really unsafe when you stuff something down the barrel? Yeah, who knew, improperly handling a device is bad. If only people would figure out some way to lock parts in place and halt the device if it is not secured.

The safety prevents the weapon from firing in this condition, in which case it becomes USELESS in close quarters, giving enemies with sturdier weapons (firearms, clubs, knives, hands and feet) a chance to deliver the first blow?

Yes, I suppose it is a problem when you stand still while your enemy wanders over, examines, your weapon, sabotages it, wanders back, and then say "Ok go". In most non-retarded situations, however, I don't see how this is any more of a problem than you'd have with a conventional firearm.

[Jon]

The energy has no muzzle to vent it, so it goes in all directions, like gunpowder exploding when there's no gun barrel to force it in one direction, i.e., the business end?

Unless the trigger can't be pulled unless the muzzle is properly secured in place, or some kind of tech in the device prevents the energy discharge if the muzzle is not aligned perfectly, etc etc.

[Sidewinder]

What if something knocks the rotating section so it's at an angle to the pistol frame, e.g., a top-down view resembles a "T" instead of an "I"?

I have here a lens designed in 1932. It can be rotated. "Oh my, what an engineering quandary!", squeals Sidewinder, "how can we possible prevent it from turning when it's not supposed to turn?"

Oh wait, it's got a lock. Never mind.

These lens are mounted on something that's NOT a weapon, right? So if you're marching through a forest with this device in your hand, you trip on a root and fall hard enough to actually damage the lock, the device will NOT blow your arm off when you try to use it, right?

The safety prevents the weapon from firing in this condition, in which case it becomes USELESS in close quarters, giving enemies with sturdier weapons (firearms, clubs, knives, hands and feet) a chance to deliver the first blow?

Yes, I suppose it is a problem when you stand still while your enemy wanders over, examines, your weapon, sabotages it, wanders back, and then say "Ok go". In most non-retarded situations, however, I don't see how this is any more of a problem than you'd have with a conventional firearm.

And what about situations where you do NOT see the enemy before you're attacked? What if you're marching through a forest, e.g., on a search-and-rescue mission, you push your way through some shrubs and find yourself face-to-face with a bear, who instinctively and immediately claws at you to protect her cubs? What if you're patrolling a city street, and a guerilla jumps out of an alley and tries to wrestle you to the ground? If you're quick enough to avoid serious injury after the enemy's first blow, but not enough to prevent a lucky hit from knocking the weapon into a "T" instead of an "I", do you say, "Time out! I need to fix this thing"?

Don't say that's impossible; assuming the cast & crew did NOT decide to glue the rotating section in place (in which case, this argument is moot), the section MUST rotate so the redshirt can switch between modes.

[Crayz9000]

For the record, I consider the ST5/6 Assault Phaser to be the best phaser they ever used. It has military feel all over. Textured grip, good ergonomics, very functional design.

... Except for the fact that you can't sight down the top of the gun due to the curve.

That said, any gun is better than the TNG "dustbuster".

[Bounty]

These lens are mounted on something that's NOT a weapon, right?

They're also mounted on something that's not a mahogany dresser. Your point?

Don't say that's impossible; assuming the cast & crew did NOT decide to glue the rotating section in place (in which case, this argument is moot), the section MUST rotate so the redshirt can switch between modes.

There shouldn't even be a response to this, since you're still bleating about a point that was addressed - turns out engineers have over the years found ways of locking moving parts in place. I hear they use some of this advanced knowledge on modern-day guns, too. Still, humouring you: how is your bear-getting-startled-while-shitting-in-the-woods example any different from any of the moving parts of a conventional gun getting knocked out of whack? If you can prove the force needed to dislocate the barrel of a phaser is equal to or less than the force needed to operate any of the controls of a modern firearms, why aren't you posting the evidence?

I will concede that getting punched by a bear might impair a redshirt's ability to fight back. It'll be from massive internal trauma and getting his face ripped off, but impaired nonetheless.

[Anguirus]

I don't know. I get why different directors and producers want to put their own spin on things...yet what exists already is awesome enough. Why they can't just take the basic premise of Trek and along with it the basic designs of trek and go with it.

Because the sponsors need new material to market. It's the reason why all prequels are full of new "old" stuff. They aren't going to re-package the same designs that they've been using for over 20 years when a new movie can have all new designs for merchandising.

It's also because you don't hire a production designer and then tell him "oh by the way, you have to use these designs instead because we'd rather please a few fanboys than have a consistent aesthetic."

You also don't reboot your franchise by digging through 20 year old prop closets.

[Jon]

Some shots of a replica of the new USS Enterprise that was commissioned by the studio, gives some nice angles;

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... 1236552490

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... Image6.jpg

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... mage10.jpg

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... mage17.jpg

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... Image9.jpg

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... mage15.jpg

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv25 ... Image4.jpg

[Bounty]

Pretty. Looks like the refit's torpedo bay and observation lounge were kept. The scale's a bit puzzling though, there's two rows of windows in the saucer rim as on the original but the lounge at the back of the saucer makes those look out-of-scale.

And boo for not having the arboretum windows

[Anguirus]

Hmm. I thought until recently that the fronts of the nacelles would still glow red when active. Guess it's all blue...not sure how I feel about that. I liked the red on the classic Enterprise.

[bobnik]

I know the original ones had it on the top of the saucer. You can see the rego no. on the nacelles and possibly the bottom the the secondary hull, at the front.

[bobnik]

Eep, sorry about that. Please disregard last post.

[Bounty]

An interesting bit of trivia:

Reports from the early screenings say that the interior look of the Enterprise isn't all Apple Store. The bridge is shiny and sparkly, the medical bay and transporter room are functional, and the guts of the ship - hangars, engineering spaces - are very industrial and mechanical.

Well, if you want a sneak peek at the engineering set, the scenes that take place in it were filmed at a redressed section of the Anheuser-Busch brewery at Van Nuys, previously of V fame. So no carpets for Scotty, and confirmation that the Enterprise runs on beer.

[Crayz9000]

Ah. I've been to that plant, now suddenly the engineering scenes make sense.

[Skylon]

Well, if you want a sneak peek at the engineering set, the scenes that take place in it were filmed at a redressed section of the Anheuser-Busch brewery at Van Nuys, previously of V fame. So no carpets for Scotty, and confirmation that the Enterprise runs on beer.

This would be great news, except this means it runs on Budweiser.