New Enterprise

[baldguy]

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html

Yes or No?

[mainegreen]

1. Why the bling engines?

x(

[Bryan]

16. Why not?

I finally figured out what this Enterprise reminded me of: lowriders. It is a lowrider Enterprise. I like that. I can get behind that.

[JTG of the PRB]

2. I'm willing to accept it.

It looks weird as hell right now, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. I'm REALLY looking forward to the movie!

[Deja Q]

3. It looks great, but why?

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. This is supposed to be from years before the original series, right?

Where things were always frying and falling apart and Scotty had to crawl up the Jeffries tube (hope Jeffries didn't need his tube right then, sorry).

So much for any hope of continuity.

[Orrex]

9. Nope.

You're thinking of the series Star Trek: Enterprise.

The image in the OP is from the forthcoming film, a reboot of the franchise, since all the kids are rebooting their franchises these days.

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. So it has nothing to do with continuity

AND it'll kill Simon Pegg's career... Star Trek Babies...Feh!

[Orrex]

11. There's a sort of low-key effort to work with existing continuity

But even the over-vaunted Roddenberry himself used to piss on continuity every chance he got. He played pretty fast-and-loose with canonicity, so it's hard to say what's gospel and what isn't.

Well, sort of. The books aren't canon, and neither is most of The Animated Series. And at least one episode from one of the series has been formally stricken from the canon.

So where does that leave the upcoming film? Guess we'll have to wait and see. Lots of actors have played Bond and Batman and Heathcliff and Hamlet; there's no reason that someone else can't play Kirk.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. "..there's no reason that someone else can't play Kirk."

The acid test shall come when baby Kirk meets baby Khan.

[fNord]

5. Ahh, the much awaited NCC-90210.....

I still have mixed fealing about this one.......

[pokerfan]

6. Why does it look more modern than NCC-1701?

:shrug:

[Bryan]

7. Because STAR TREK happens in the future!

See, the future hasn't happened yet, so they can't act like the future happened in the Sixties, 'cause if the future happened in the Sixties, then what's gonna happen after what's happening now, you dig?

[pokerfan]

8. You just blew my mind

I'm having an LDS flashback right now.

[geomon666]

12. An LDS flashback?

Are you being attacked by mormons? "Dude...the pamphlets ,the pamphlets!"

[pokerfan]

13. We 23rd century humans are unfamiliar with your vernacular

Double damn ass on you! :hi:

[geomon666]

14. Well do you understand this?

Where are the nuclear wessels? :D

[pokerfan]

15. Alameda Naval Air Station

or they used to be. Now all we need is some transparent aluminum.

[hunter]

18. Here's your transparent aluminum...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

[dropkickpa]

17. Fuckin cool!

Screw anyone who says different! Get off my lawn!

[Tikki]

20. Yes, yes, yes....

Love it...
Tikki

[LanternWaste]

21. Maybe a good Star trek film...?

Maybe (finally) a good Star trek film to ad to the repertoire-of-one other good Star trek film?

High expectations, but very low hopes. Like 'the Watchmen'... :shrug: