It's prevalent among some to refer to the 'new generation' of ships seen in Trek (those introduced in First Contact, the Defiant, and to some extent Voyager) as Borg Busters.
Partially because they seem as powerful or more powerful than their contemporaries and ships much larger than they. It seems that the people with the power decided to give Trek a new, more aggressive and 'cool' look.
However, for all the new ships introduced in First Contact, there's so little known about them. Is there anything you can tell us that we might not know? Not about the models, but about the 'ships' themselves, and perhaps the designer's intent when making them.
Ex: Would be the Akira debate. Looks vs NCC in age.
Specifically, I'm interested in the Norway Class, since there's been some spreads already on the other four ships in the ST: Mag I believe.
posted
Mojo, that sparked a question - easier to answer - what happened to the Norway class in Voyager? Did you have access to the model from ?ILM? I guess it belongs to 'Trek'... There were rumours it was damaged - how do you damage a computer model? Like a corrupted file? This would be a nice ship to feature in Unseen frontiers... I've always been curious as to what the underside of it looks like?
Will the Norway/Has the Norway become the 'Ambassador Class' of the CGI world? I.e. damaged and never bothered to be used again?
Speaking of the Ambassador Class... was that ever considered to be turned into CGI??
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I thought that the idea was that the Norway was the least detailed of the new models Jaeger ILM slapped together fro First Contact. Combine that with the limited time the Voyager/DS9 effects people have to put visuals together, and the Norway can understandably become a casualty of production.
posted
It may also have something to do w/ the fact that a large number of people consider it to be one of the ugliest ships that's ever been on screen.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
According to the DS9TM the Akira and Norway have the same weaponry. IMHO the Akira looks soooooo kewl compared to the Norway. Based on the facts the Akira wins - same weaponry but smarter image. In Star Trek, the officials probably decided that the Akira was preferable to Norway as it was probably better built/stronger than the other . . . who knows . . . say anyone know somebody in Paramount who could answer the question?
Oh yeah - the Akira is classed as a "Heavy Cruiser" while the Norway is only a "Medium Cruiser". Given the choice, anyone would go for "Heavy" rather than "Medium".
[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The "heavy cruiser" designation doesn't really mean anything when picking superior ships. The Defiant isn't a heavy cruiser, but I know many like it over the Akira (or Norway).
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Less detail - fine - but most of the work of building the model would have been done... why not just spruce it up a little. It would have been easier than doing some of those other ships from scratch that were only seen for 10 seconds.
And when it comes to what the ships can and can not do in fleet scene etc. I don't think the producers etc. would really worry about such a thing. Its only people here and on other similar boards that worry about such things.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
