posted
You should do an image of the D-5 as it appeared in TAS. (Whether you believe TAS is canon or not, the ship from "The Time Trap" has been specifically stated by Ronald D. Moore to be the ship that the line in OMUTB was referring to.)
See this page. It's an easy modification of the D-7 image.
I realize that it was the K't'inga model used in "Prophecy" (VGR), but I don't think you'd be right to ignore the clear identifying dialog. Better to list a D-7 variant which just *happens* to look like the K't'inga. You can have the "Unexpected" (ENT) ship under this category too.
Nice, Bernd! Can we see *Romulans* next?
-MMoM
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Anyone have the TMP novelization? I had it once long ago & I remember it had the names of Amar's brother ships.
I would be very glad to get these names. I would like to include the names in a footnote, or maybe in the official list?
quote:See this page. It's an easy modification of the D-7 image.
Not really that different. But if all Klingon battlecruisers are alike, it could explain the "Prophecy" ship.
quote:I realize that it was the K't'inga model used in "Prophecy" (VGR), but I don't think you'd be right to ignore the clear identifying dialog. Better to list a D-7 variant which just *happens* to look like the K't'inga. You can have the "Unexpected" (ENT) ship under this category too.
Oh yes. That's what I was going to say. The "Unexpected" ship is not a K't'inga but the model was only used because of the low budget and because no one anticipated that they would need a Klingon ship. >:-> The "Prophecy" ship may fall into the same category. I'll see how I can express that.
And Romulans will be done rather fast. I'm thinking of having them on one page with the Cardassians, Jem'Hadar, Ferengi and other races - but maybe I should keep the page length moderate.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Anyone have the TMP novelization? I had it once long ago & I remember it had the names of Amar's brother ships.
Sorry, but the novelization doesn't even mention the name of the Amar, much less the other two ships. This is largely due to the fact that the scene at Epsilon IX featuring the Klingon captain's transmission isn't included in the novel. It does, of course, establish the term "K't'inga."
Incidentally, the Phase II book has the script of "In Thy Image" from when it was to be a television pilot. The three Klingon ships are identified as the Koro class. It seems the change to K't'inga came later, perhaps even when Roddenberry was writing the novelization. Just thought I'd throw that in, since technically K't'inga isn't even canon.
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
posted
I thought Alan Dean Foster "ghost-wrote" the novelization? Could someone do a writing analysis and come to a conclusion? In any case, that's good, since he's credited for the basic story of TMP.
1) Make it clear that we don't know exactly when the K'tinga and the BoPs came into use. It should be "roughly 2270" and "around the 2280s". K'tingas are new according to the TMP novelization, but not the canon. Also remember that the canon dates for the five-year mission are now 2265-2270. Kirk then commanded the Enterprise until 2270. Just striving for perfection
2) Why did you make the freighter 256m long? I thought we agreed that was RS's scaling mistake. Should be 170m. Do you have independent evidence to the contrary?
3) I'd put Negh'Var at the Visual Effects' 686m, because that's the closest we get to the intended size. The DS9TM figure, although close, is still a mistake. BTW, the DS9 Companion makes it clear that the huge size in the mirror universe was intentional, and it would help your page to point this out. Remember those many rows of windows we wondered about a few years back -- they were part of a separate, enlarged section built specifically to scale the ship up. The windows on the regular model would've revealed the old scale.
4) The Voodieh would be in service around 2395 (2370+25).
5) Did the Klingon ships actually cloak in "Flashback"? If so, then this would be inconsistent with Spock's conclusion in Star Trek VI that a cloaked ship could only be a bird-of-prey. Worth mentioning.
posted
I'd also like to mention that the script for "Broken Bow" has a scene that identifies Klaang's shuttle as K'toch class, but it was apparently edited out of the final episode. Take it as you will.
quote:2) Why did you make the freighter 256m long? I thought we agreed that was RS's scaling mistake. Should be 170m. Do you have independent evidence to the contrary?
The freighters in "Sons and Daughters" were a lot bigger than 170m. I just picked the next best figure.
quote:5) Did the Klingon ships actually cloak in "Flashback"? If so, then this would be inconsistent with Spock's conclusion in Star Trek VI that a cloaked ship could only be a bird-of-prey. Worth mentioning.
Must check that. I don't remember them being cloaked.
quote:I'd also like to mention that the script for "Broken Bow" has a scene that identifies Klaang's shuttle as K'toch class, but it was apparently edited out of the final episode. Take it as you will.
Thanks. I didn't know that. It should be as valid as the Voodieh class (although we never see the shuttle).
posted
Could Spock's conclusion also have been drawn from the size limits required of a ship to be able to park underneath the Enterprise in such a way to make both sides think Enterprise fired? Hmmm.
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: I thought Alan Dean Foster "ghost-wrote" the novelization?
Long-standing Trek-myth, but now known to be utterly untrue. Foster did ghost-write the novelization for Star Wars, which is probably where the confusion arose in the first place.
posted
Here are the presumably correct spellings for all the misspelled names from TNG and DS9 (from the Companion CD-ROM final draft scripts, didn't check any other sources -- the script versions are on the right):
I spell-checked every item in your list, and double-checked the spellings I posted here. I used the umanitoba ship list to locate the episodes for these names so that I'd know exactly where to look for the severely misspelled names. Now, it would be good if someone could check if some of the names were changed between the script and the show (the Qevin/Slivin from "Once More unto the Breach" strikes me as particularily odd).
There are no alternative spellings that I could find, with the exception of VORI'NAK in the pronounciation guide (though the pronounciation is Vor-nahk, so it looks like a mistake), SLIVAN (pronounced SLEE-van) (once), Vor'Cha (once), and Negh'var (once).
posted
I think you should just call the "Prophecy" ship a D-7 class variant. An upgrade or refit that occurred concurrently with the commissioning of the K't'inga, or even before? (Sort of like an intermediary step between TOS D-7 and K't'inga, coming sometime after Jein's T&T ship, but before TMP.)
And I still REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYY think you should do a retouch of the D-7 pic to be the TAS D-5. Just add a little nub at the front around the torp tube/sensor and a pair of tubes on towards the back of the neck. C'mon. Do your part to make sure TAS isn't forgotten.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Okay, i know this is really stretching but if you wanted to, you could include this K't'inga variant portrayed in the Fact Files. It's the T'ong from that one TNG ep. Now, obviously the ep just re-used footage of the ship from TMP, but this actually makes sense and the Fact Files are sort of semi-quasi-canonical, so you might want to throw it in to be a complete as possible.
So, here's what we have as far as Klingon ships go:
1.) The ENT "Unexpected" battlecruiser which looks like a K't'inga but may be either a totally unheard of class, or may be a D-7 like the ship in VGR "Prophecy." Rear impulse engines and possibly torp tube. Appearingly smooth hull.
2.) The TOS D-7. No rear impulse engines or torp tube. Smooth hull. Bubble-shaped/ovular bridge module.
3.) The DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" D-7. Identical to above except for subtle added surface detailing on hull. (Seems slightly more advanced, although this wouyld seem odd as T&T takes place before the D-7 was originally introduced in TOS.)
4.) The D-5 from TAS and mentioned in "Once More Unto the Breach" (DS9). Same smooth, impulse engine- and torp tube-free hull and bubble bridge of the D-7, but with protrusion from forward torp tube/sensor port, and small tube-like thingies on neck.
5.) The standard K't'inga introduced in TMP, and seen in all following series. Greebly-encrusted hull, dome-shaped bridge module, rear impulse engines and torp tube. Ds9 showed modified weapons port locations.
6.) Possible IKS T'ong K't'inga sleeper ship variant portrayed in Fact Files. No difference seen onscreen.
7.) VGR "Prophecy" D-7. K't'inga look-alike. Possibly same as ENT "Unexpected" ship.
8.) B'rel-class scout first seen in STIII. Possibly originally a Romulan design. One of three known designs called 'Bird of Prey.'
9.) K'vort-class cruiser from TNG, et al. Identical except in scale to B'rel. Also called 'BoP.'
10.) D-12 class from Generations. Similar in size to K'vort. Third design called 'BoP'.
11.) Vor'Cha class attack cruiser from TNG, et al.
12.) Neg'Var class from DS9.
13.) Possible Neg'var variant from VGR "Endgame." Slightly different underslung pods??
14.) Voodieh from "All Good Things..." (TNG).
15.) Toron-class shuttle from TNG.
16.) K'toch-class from ENT "Broken Bow"
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Why do you know for sure that the Koraga is K'Vort class?
You may want to add that Klingon ship which appeared on the "Siege of AR558"-display. Only 'Lhr was legible but it's probably the Fek'Lhr.
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
