New Old Enterprise

Maybe you are not old enough to remember it, but back in the day Coca-Cola decided to update its formula and brought out New Coke. Call it Coke:The Next Generation. Well it failed and they re-released Coca-Cola Classic. Which is now the only Coke on the shelves. So the Old coke came out after new Coke making it the New New Old Coke.

So now with Star Trek coming out and looking like its New Coke will actually be better, we get to see the brand spanking new, old Enterprise!

This image has been floating randomly about the net, so no real source to mention. But I have to say I LOVE the look of the Enterprise. As with everything in this movie, it seems that they are giving an updated version of the old without completely ignoring it.

That is perfect.

I would imagine that if they had the ability to make something that looked this good back in the 60s, they would have.

I have yet to see anything at all about this that bothers me. Breath of Fresh air to a stale and dying franchise. I am actually excited about Star Trek.

And I don’t have to feel dirty for saying it!

I added the Enterprise from the first Star Trek Movie for comparison

76 thoughts on “New Old Enterprise

  1. Well, all I have to say to the “cannon” fans is that if you reference the old comic books you’ll find that this design IS actually cannon. In addition, the adjustment of the time line POST creation of the Enterprise would no doubt change the overall design of the ship from what we’re all used to. It’s completely valid.

    The problem with everyone talking “cannon” is that the original Enterprise (movie) wasn’t a cannon design. NCC-1701 looked nothing like NCC-1701 from the TV show. The design change shouldn’t have come until the “A” variant, but regardless it happened. Consider that before referencing the issues with the “new” design.

  2. Battlestar Galactica was dead. There was NO fanbase there. Hadn’t even been on TV (without cheese factor repeats on late night sci-fi network) for decades.

    Just sayin.

  3. Box,

    I think you need to take into account that what played out on the screen in Transformers had more to do with Michael Bay that it did Orci and Kurtzman. Sure they wrote it but after that they probably had zero control on how it translated to the screen.

    With Trek it will be more of a collaboration between the writers, producers and JJ rather than the ruling iron fist of Michael Bay. I think that Orci and Kurtzman are fine writers and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with Trek.

    I do agree with you that Trek isn’t (or wasn’t) dead. Rodney said that it was before but he’s certainly wrong on that point. If it was dead there would be no bringing it back. Head on over to Trekmovie.com, read the blog and check out the number of comments on each post. Usually way over 100. No movies and no series does not a dead franchise make.

  4. Rodney,
    I don’t think bad of you just because we don’t agree. I would love to have some beers with you and talk trek or movies/pop culture all day long.
    But really, come on now, ever single interview JJ gives he starts off by insulting the fans and talks down about old school trek. If you don’t see that then we must not be reading the same articles. Now think about it, if you were making a movie that was supposed to breath new life into something that hasn’t been a huge money making (key word here) hit in a while, why would you insult the fan base and the previous incarnations of what came before? Seems like a bad idea to me. Not a good way to motivate people to see your film based on something they love.
    The trek franchise may have not had a movie or TV show out in the last few years, but it’s hardly dead. Think about it. I know you know this. There are tons of new toys, comics, books, clothes, and other assorted merchandise coming out all the time that are related to all facets of Trek. Just because there was no new movie coming out or no current TV show does not mean it was dead. Just because the actors aren’t huge on the convention circuit doesn’t mean jack. really. If Shatner or Nimoy showed up at a con, people would flip out
    Star Trek would have lived on forever (and will) in many forms besides new movies and TV shows with out JJ’s new Trek film.
    Now I don’t completely dislike JJ Abrams. I’m a huge Lost fan. I enjoyed Cloverfield. Yes I know he was a producer on that film. I don’t enjoy the other stuff he’s worked on. JJ and others need to stop treating all trek fans like we’re all just like the comic book guy from the Simpsons. It’s a very unfair stereotype that doesn’t really apply to most fans of Sci-fi in this day and age. Sci-fi fans have always been the targets for ridicule just because they are passionate about something they love. Really it’s no different then being a huge sports fan. You know what? Obama is a trek fan and he reads Conan comics. If the president of the USA is a trek fan then maybe it’s time to stop dissing on folks who are passionate about Trek.
    I really didn’t like the writing on the transformers film and I’m worried a lot of the same tone will be thrown in on this film.
    So there you go.

  5. I know that at the very least this new movie will be entertaining. I’m not expecting it to blow my mind or anything. But some Trek purists won’t like it no matter how good it is. And that’s their perogative.

    But I’m on the side that feels like Trek has been a dying franchise (not dead yet Rodney!) and I have a really good feeling that this movie will be able to revive it.

    And Rodney, you said that the fans abandoned Trek long before Enterprise. That may be true to some extent, but the truth is, Enterprise got so bad that I stopped watching, or rather, I only watched if I had nothing better to do. And that’s the creative team’s fault and has nothing to do with the fans. As much as I love Star Trek, I’m not going to watch if it sucks.

  6. And to prove my point Box. All you are doing is shit talking JJ, and in the process trying to shit talk me.

    I’m not “on his dick” and I dont think his vision for the franchise is fucked up at all.

    I also didn’t say this was a guaranteed success, just that everything I have seen so far looks awesome. If it tanks, then it tanks. But so far everything looks great and there has been a LOT of respect for the property to pay tribute to what came before.

    The franchise has not “withstood” 40 years of ups and downs. If it wasnt for this reboot, there would be no franchise. The fans have given up their support, Trek celebrities are not a draw at conventions, and the studios wouldnt take a chance on another movie or TV series until this idea came forward.

    You can shit talk all you want. You wont offend me. Because your assumptions about me are not accurate. See how that works?

  7. Rodney,
    I didn’t have time to respond to you yesterday.
    Just because JJ’s shit talking makes people angry does not make said shit talking true nor does it mean that the people who are offended by it are socially inept. Example: If I said you are a fucking turd with a fucked up way of looking at things, does not mean that it’s true? Of course not. JJ coming out an publicly dissing trek fans and dissing the original show does nothing but make him look like an arrogant dick wad with no respect for a property (and the folks who love it) that has withstood 40+ years of ups and downs with out his retarded ass and his fucking REBOOT! You need to get off JJ’s dick and understand that it’s perfectly fine for trek fans to question JJ’s fucked up vision of what he thinks trek should be. I really hope the movie is good or you both can eat shit and rightly so.

  8. And now you see what its like when someone tries to make a statement based on their own interpretation of what you said.

    You twist the definition of Science Fiction to disqualify shows that don’t meet your tastes, but if someone does it to your words, its not acceptable.

    Classic.

  9. I never said there’s anything wrong with focusing on a story but if people want to twist my words into “witty” sarcasm for their own amusement, work away

  10. This picture is just getting me more excited. Especially, after reading about the 4 scenes released. I think this will be so much more than just another Trek movie, which is important, because Trek movies, in my opinion have a history of being less than spectacular. It would be interesting to see if this does well if they perhaps do another movie in their freshly created universe, or have a spinoff series. I for one loved Enterprise, and if a movie is able to wet the appetites of Sci-Fi lovers out there (however you define it!) than, maybe the show will do better then Enterprise.

  11. And that doesnt mean its NOT science fiction just because it actually has a story and the science part is the setting instead of an episode of Mr Wizards World.

  12. “Battlestar galactica (2003 version) is my favourite tv-show, I Like it but I don’t really think it’s science fiction. It focuses on story way more than science.”

    god forbid a show focus on such silly things as “story.” geez.

  13. Calling a dog a cat doesnt make it true.

    And Asimov doesnt “define” Science Fiction as much as how he PREFERS to play with the genre. Much like any of the others on that list.

    Those are not definitions, those are perceptions. Each and everyone of them does not contradict what qualifies a work as Science Fiction.

    And for the record, I predate the internet as well. I was reading Foundation in grade 8. So please don’t call me “lad”.

  14. Some of those defintions pre-date the internet lad, would you consider your definition more worthy than isaac asimov’s?

    You have irish (we could be related then) and german roots, but some people will say you are from where you were born (which I presume for you is canada). People define things differently, get used to it.

  15. So you found a website that changes the definition from the universally accepted literary and cinematic definition.

    Welcome to the internets.

    And you think mixing genres suddenly cancels out the genre itself? SciFi can be Drama, Comedy can be Horror too. Just because the genre has a defining quality doesn’t mean it cannot also be something else. Doesn’t stop it from being the former.

    I define myself as French but there is some German and Irish in my family line as well. Doesnt mean I am no longer French, just mostly.

  16. Rodeney,

    Battlestar galactica (2003 version) is my favourite tv-show, I Like it but I don’t really think it’s science fiction. It focuses on story way more than science. Genre’s don’t dictate my movie tastes, my perceived quality of the movie does. Labelling a certain genre to it is a trivial matter.

    Look here:
    http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

    plenty of varying dfinitions by the people who make it, some disagree with your definition, some disagree with mine

    Would you class lets say frankenstein as science fiction? it deals with the creation of life with science but is considered to be horror. Every piece of art can have elements of different genres but usually one is more dominant than the rest, and that’s how I define my genre -lisation. I don’t like lumping things into genre’s anyway though because it links them to so many preconceptions especially when it comes to science fiction.

  17. Truth is absolute no matter what perceptions you invent of it. Facts are facts, no matter how you pretend to define them.

    You “look at science fiction” differently doesnt mean that science fiction is defined differently. You can’t claim something isnt science fiction because it doesnt challenge your beliefs strongly enough. That has nothing to do with why it is science fiction. I am not disagreeing with you, I am disagreeing with you changing a definition to suit your mood.

    You enjoy certain types of science fiction… fine. But you cant say something ISN’T science fiction just because you don’t like it.

    I have heard a LOT about this movie so far and nothing has disappointed me or made me think that this will be a bad movie.

    The only fiction is the argument you want to agree to disagree on.

  18. well, I’ll agree to disagree.

    perception is not fact, it’s quite clear I look at science fiction differently than yourself, fair enough to yourself. Consider it similar to the ‘Wall-e for best movie and not best animation’ debate. No need to get self-rightous with ‘green sky’ comments as if everything is black and white because nothing ever is.
    I’m not trying win any arguement here, just stating my opinion on this movie which no one knows really that much about, and in my opinion the facts that are available are very negative. Do I want to be wrong, YES!!!!!!! That means I get to see a good movie and I’ll be pleasantly surprised. But if you’re wrong, you would of hyped up a lackluster movie for no reason when there is plenty of other interesting projects to be telling us about instead….

    relax lad, i’m not trying to have a light saber battle with ya

    Cheers

  19. @Michael, No. I do not see how you can think I was comparing New Coke to Next Generation. I didn’t even bring up Next Generation. The only analogy I made was that the Old Coke was re-released after New Coke making it the New New Coke.

    Just like the Old Enterprise was re-released making it the New Enterprise.

    Nothing at all to do with The Next Generation. Not hinted or implied at all.

    And just because you made up your own definition of Science Fiction doesn’t make it accurate. I can call the sky green all I want, but everyone knows its not and I would look like a fool for changing it just because i felt like it.

    You can’t have a discussion with someone about anything if they want to just change facts to suit their own perceptions and taste at whim. You like to invent things that are not there so you can state whatever whimsy passes by. What is the point in that?

  20. “Coca-Cola decided to update its formula and brought out New Coke. Call it Coke:The Next Generation. Well it failed” – Rodney

    I hope you can see how that analogy can be mistaken for new coke:tng = star trek: tng when you were refering to star trek, I make no apologies for that making that mistake.

    And I’ll hold on to my own definition of science fiction. I’m sure everyone else has their own. As the mighty john says when faced with a real problem , everyone has their own opinion.

    By and by I’ve been a fan of star trek for about fifteen years so I do have a right to get worried when someone who uses gimmicks (sometimes weel, sometimes horribly) instead of a decent takes the helm. Especially when he wasn’t interested in the series anyway.

    I wouldn’t completely say the franchise is dead, it just needed change. I’m just of the persausion that this isn’t exactly the change it needed.

  21. new revolution on Star Trek movies maybe a disaster outcome. Just a courage opinion, as you guys may see, many Hits Movies are now based on old Series, like transformer, comic series; spiderman. However, i can’t agree more some of those released movies are great. Back then, old movies/tv series dont have the same technologies like todays. It might give u the realistic feeling. But how about the plotting? well i think, we have to moderate a little more, not just copying from same series of movies and directly adapted. just my little 2 cent opinion

  22. If the new Star Trek is an abomination like the Transformers live action movie was, then I am fucking excited as hell cause I thoroughly enjoyed Transformers. This coming from a person that grew up on Transformers the cartoon from episode one on. Also grew up on the original Start Trek, Next Generation, and Deep Space 9. I watch Transformers the cartoon today and I am appalled and disgusted at the writing, so I totally get a kick out of people complaining about the writing in the movie and claim the cartoon as great. The writing for the movie is by far no worse than the cartoon. I have tried watching Star Trek (any of them) again now, and I can not get into them. I was never a Trekkie, but since my family watched it so did I. I enjoyed it back then, and now I know longer enjoy those same episodes. I think this reboot is going to be awesome, and I look forward to seeing it probably on day one of release. Love the cast they selected and I got some respect for Abrams. The new Enterprise is pretty sleek, I like it.

  23. From what I’ve read JJ’s Enterprise is HUGE. How it was built by scruffy lookin welders on Earth doesn’t quite jive with me.

    Overall, this movie is gearing up to be another abomination as Transformers was. No surprise as the writers are the same. Check out this link for descriptions of 4 scenes from the new Dawson’s Creek, er I mean Star Trek.

    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39056

  24. I love the new Enterprise design. I may like it even more than the Enterprise E, which is gorgeous.

    Deep Space Nine was the best Trek.

  25. OK OK here it is….it is just a story…..im a big fan of all sci fi , fantasy, video games and etc……but what is funny is how they dont like the new design….wtf it looks almost the exact same……..and plus this shit isnt real science..like rodney said its just for show man techno bable…..dont be a fuking pshyco geek and get all mad and hate on what people think about a dam picture of a fake space ship!

    my thoughts are it looks exactly like the old one with some minor body molding and some of the lines are more worldy …..thumbs up here….not a star trek fan but i have to say i liked the next generation cause of the actors and i think that this movie looks awesome…specially for people who like me are kinda sick of asshole trekkies freaking out at you cause u dont no everything about the series….so like i said its a good way to capture me into it and maybe this can give the franchise a much needed reboot….just my thought though.

    ps i remember the new coke…..it was basically the way for Coke to establish a younger spectrum of demographics……..once the figured that coke classic is what the masses wanted they kept it there and bought other small independant bottling co…..then pepsi came out with pepsi zero to battle against what coke was doing……they failed…and then coppied what pepsi did and started buying other small co.

  26. when our generation dies (gen x) then it will be acceptable for movies to be rebooted with different actors in our favorite movies like star wars and indiana jones.

    or

    when all those actors die as well as the producers and directors.

  27. @The Dude

    Berman/Braga let the fans down over time. The movies were good, the series was good and even the spinoffs were good. They just lost their shine and people stopped caring.

    And only some of it was “reused”. The formula for the command team was an obvious parallel to TOS but with far more episodes and spinoffs the TOS never saw in its meager 3 seasons and movies you would be hard pressed to tell me that the entire thing was not new at all.

    Everyone can say “that failed series would have succeeded with someone different in charge” but it was the fans that stopped caring long before enterprise came out.

  28. @michael-
    i have to agree with rodney. tng tended to get bogged down by the technobabbble. i think that’s why i enjoyed ds9 more. it had to do more with character development because they couldn’t just jet off to a new planet every week. it was also the first in the trek series that threw out (for the most part) the weekly reset button and started utilizing long story arcs.

    as for the pic, and the movie in general, i’m all for a new interpretation. the franchise is dead, jim.

  29. @Rodney

    With Enterprise, I don’t think it was the concept or idea that was bad, rather the execution.

    The problem is that they tried to do the “new ship, new crew” idea with old and overused story lines. There was nothing fresh, new or creative. Just the same old crap that we’ve seen a million time. The Trek creative team (Berman, Bragga) really let us down with that one.

    Had Enterprise been run by a new creative and marketing team from the start things may have turned out differently. People like the Reeves-Stevens team. Berman was not up to speed on the changes in the fan base and did not listen to the fans at all.

  30. I like the new ship, its a great amalgamation of the TV and movie Enterprises with more than a passing nod to the Enterprise C from The Next Generation episode – ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise.’

  31. First off Michael, no one was comparing the Next Gen to New Coke. So right there you are off to a rough start.

    Secondly you might want to look up the definition of Science Fiction, as it is fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Yup, BSG qualifies. Just because you have seen it before doesn’t make it not “proper” science fiction. SF is a setting, not an intention to get you thinking.

    And SF also is not disqualified simply because it is not explained to your satisfaction. Star Wars crosses over SF into Fantasy because it has a lot of SF elements, but also mysticism. Again, you are incorrect that your feelings on the subject should change its classification.

    There is a LOT of fiction in the science of TNG. Everything can be solved by rerouting the current through the collector dish and then inverting the polarity. And you want to cuss about Medichlorians making sense? Nothing explained in Trek “makes sense” its just science talk for the sake of setting.

    You need to reassess your perception of what Science Fiction is before you assume that someone “did it” better or worse.

  32. Not a trekkie myself but I’ve liked the pictures I’ve seen so far. Definitely has potential. Wonder if we’ll see other generations of star trek crews also recast with younger actors in the future.

  33. Can I just say that Star Trek: The next Generation is no way comparable to the ‘new coke’ model. I think it’s probably the standard when it comes to sciene-fiction. There’s a reason why I’m not saying sci-fi here. At the momenet it’s safe to say that the most popular science fiction program on air is battlestar galactica. I do love the show, best thing since sliced bread but can someone tell me where the science element comes in? We may have the odd space battle and robots but they’re nothing new. I like to think that a proper science fiction gets you thinking but has enough focus on the narrative you entertained when all you want to do is sit down and watch tv. By this reasoning, star wars wouldn’t qualify as a science fiction storybecause nothing is ever explained (and it does get explained, it’s fairly lousy i.e. the force and metichlorines WTF!).
    I think the next generation did does combination of story and science perfectly with the help of great acting (will patrick stewart ever age?). I think it really helped to define the genre and paved the way for the explosion of science fiction during the nineties and noughties. It did suceded at what the original star failed at, give science fiction a bit of credibility

  34. Smack talk only upsets the people when what they say is true.

    Otherwise you can just ignore it because its just smacktalk. I can accuse you of feeding on your own feces, but it means nothing and wont upset you unless its true and you are ashamed of it.

    JJ making cracks about socially awkward trek fans was targeted at the socially awkward trek fans.

  35. Quotes from Gene Roddenberry

    “I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I’d love someone to say, ‘Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry’s was nothing!’” – Gene Roddenberry, Starburst magazine

    “…I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow’s things to tomorrow’s generations…” – Gene Roddenberry

    After reading these I calmed down a little bit and I’m going to try to just go with it and hope that’s cool. I still think JJ should not talk smack to the fan base or insult the original show the way he does but what are we going to do? Somebody should just tell him to a positive spin on it and stop jerking the fans around.

  36. They tried with the “new ship and crew” with Enterprise, but the fans had already given up on supporting the franchise and it struggled through 3 seasons.

    This was the way to go. Get fresh blood, reinvigorate the existing fans pining over the old episodes, and bring new life into it with a clean slate.

    Anything similar is just to attract attention. This is a whole new exciting Trek… and they might Next Gen it someday too. New Next Generation??? I am already buzzing.

  37. @Ronsalon “the naysayers who hate it will leave me elbow room at the theatre”

    Na! They’ll be there. If only so they can run home, get online and tell the world how terrible the movie was and how they’ve totally destroyed Roddenberry’s make believe world, because they changed the ship and Kirk had on a black shirt.

  38. There is a big difference between replacing the actor and replacing the character.

    Any actor can be recast, but just because it works for Bond or Batman (where Bond or Batman is an ideal, not a specific personality) doesn’t mean it will work for Indiana Jones or Star Trek.

    They couldnt easily replace Shatner as Kirk without rolling him back to before we knew Kirk. The actor made up the specific character there.

    I still say that ANY role can be recast regardless of how good someone did it before. It may not be accepted, or well recieved, or even work very well at all, but it isn’t impossible.

    However in MOST cases, I say they keep the cast if they do sequels. Going out of their way to replace someone always causes problems, especially with diehard fans which SciFi tends to breed.

  39. @KC

    I’m all for remakes and reboots for the most part. Remake a classic movie or even bring back it’s aging stars like Rambo, Die Hard or Ghostbusters for another sequel suits me just fine.

    But come one, some things should be left alone. I really hope that at some point in the future they start over with a new ship and crew before recasting Star Trek again. I’m sure the new movie and it’s sequels are going to rock but there’s only so much they can do with a new crew. They’ve seen and done it all and saved the universe many times over.

    Make room for a new crew to have new adventures and maybe save the universe a few times.

    And I don’t think anyone other than Harrison Ford should play Indy. Even though the last one sucked I will keep going back as long as Ford’s on board.

  40. I like the new look. If they would have made it the ship from the series it would have looked dated. In the series they had data cards they would plug into a device to read data. Do we really think a couple hundred years into the future we’re going to be using USB?

    I hope Star Trek ends up like bond… that we have new actors playing characters that we enjoy. I hope they do the same with Indy. These are great universes that shouldn’t die just because the actors that play the characters get too old to play them.

    OMG, did you hear they have a new actor playing Othello?

    Live long and prosper.

  41. Ruined the Enterprise… Killed the franchise… Gene Roddenberry would roll over in his grave… Hurt….

    Give me a friggin’ break. People are lame, not because their opinion doesn’t agree with mine, but the new E looks like Star Trek — period. Ooh, the nacelles are bigger or fatter or whatever. Jesus H. Crimeny. Maybe they shouldn’t have made a new movie and then people would have nothing to complain about.

    You know what? You can’t make everyone happy. I think getting upset over important things would be a better use of peoples’ time. I am sure people are being treated horribly somewhere, but people sit on their bums complaining about a make believe space ship’s design. Good grief.

    I can understand why Shatner made the reference, “Get a life.”

    I have been reading, not only on this site but others, and most people like it. However, the naysayers who hate it will leave me elbow room at the theatre as I suspect it goes against their fanboy religion to see a Trek movie with an Enterprise that has large naccelles.

    And as for me… I love it!

  42. @Box, JJ did say it from the start. He got the gig because he presented a story that involved timetravel to change how history plays out effectively rebooting the series while not at the same time.

    That was his plan all along.

  43. Old original Coke was and will always be the best. Pepsi is for pussies. If you buy coke from Mexico it tastes way better. They use real cane sugar where in USA they use the high fructose corn syrup.

  44. Elf shot the food.
    Dogs fucked the Pope. No fault of mine.
    Long live TOS.
    I wish JJ would have just told us he was going to change everything from the very start. I would feel better about it if they would just call it a reboot instead of asking us all to except it as a part of offical trek cannon. Where is the landing bay? Why do the engines look like some car from the 50’s?

  45. @Iain…. sorry man. It’s dead.

    They were doing NOTHING with the series, no plans for a movie, and all actors were released from their obligations. Just because people still like what it used to be doesn’t mean its alive and kicking!

    Yes, there is a following, but it is stuck in the rut of reminiscing and if that is all you have, then it is a relationship with a dead franchise.

    I am a big fan of my Grandmother. Won’t ever change my feelings or devotion to my Nan. I will even look at pictures of her from time to time and remember. But she’s gone.

  46. I wish people would stop calling star trek a “dying” or “dead” franchise. The old episodes and series still have a huge following and are shown on tv daily. This does not make it dead.

    Personally, I feel that remaking, or reimagining, the original is dangerous, and would prefer an entirely new crew and ship.

    Nonetheless, I am amazingly excited to see this film.

  47. If that actually turns out to be the new look, I think it’s pretty cool. It respects the original design while making it look like an actual starship rather than a collection of obtuse cylinders.

  48. @Paul, they didnt mess too badly with proportions. It appears they are modeling this new old Enterprise from the version presented in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Aside from that its just cosmetic changes to update the look, but its pretty close to the original from the film. Besides, with 8 different versions of the Enterprise over the entire franchise, did you really expect them to use the same one?

    @Broly – There is an 11ft model of the Enterprise at Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC that was used in the series if that is what you meant by “real life” otherwise it is listed as 288.6 Meters (approx 950ft) in length and 127.1 Meters in width.

  49. The neck runs all the way to the butt… and that bugs the heck outta me, the secondary hull is just so small, Why’d they F— with the proportions so badly? There was a nice visual balance to the old design, here we have a hodge-podge of the Voyager, and all the Enterprise’s that have appeared in the first 10 movies.

    New Coke may be painfully accurate here… Of course I LIKED New Coke, since I liked Pepsi better… New Coke, was Coke, trying to taste like Pepsi… Clear Pepsi.. I miss that stuff… I miss Mr. Green too. That was Sobe’s Dr. Pepper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *