quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: So is the Saratoga NCC-1867 or NCC-1937? I still can't tell. Various editions of the Encyclopedia have used either or both. 1867 would be just one digit changed from the previous labeling (Reliant) but then again 1937 is only one digit away from the next (Lantree).
I would say they went from Reliant's 1864 to Saratoga's 1867 to Lantree's 1837, each time switching only one number around. Going from 1864 to 1937 would require them removing the 8, flipping the 6 around, adding a 3, and adding a 7.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: So what ship does the nacelle belong to in the shot where it shows them in the pod in SD?
That is the big question! No markings are visible and even the class is not certain either. Looks like an Constituion-Class starboard nacelle to me (and I'm pretty sure ILM used the Enterprise model for this shot), but it could by also a class that we don't know yet.
It was reported on another site that there is somewhere in the movie a reference to a NCC-1707.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't recall any spoken reference to NCC-1707, though with the HD versions, those big displays at Starfleet Command are suddenly pretty legible, not that, you know, they make any sense. (more here) The nacelle does look like a right-side-up Constitution Class nacelle. I would assume it was that, baring other references. Don't have the novelization (not that it would mention such things).
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There was no spoken reference, but a display in the space dock control both with a kind of escape route for a starship, labeled NCC-1707, out of the space dock. I'm not sure if it is visible on screen at all, but the actual graphic from the art department was sold at the auction from a couple of month ago.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
These screenshots only serve to remind me how freaking awesome the original Excelsior model was. Sulu got one cool ride... Shame it got pimped into something only marginally less cool.
posted
Seriously, and those shots of the inside of Spacedock in STIII are epic, especially when the battle damaged Enterprise and Excelsior first encounter each other.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I always loved that scene. I love those huge windows in that lounge! Very simple but so believeable. That's the thing about Star Trek - well at least the age of the physical model - most of the designs were futuristic but very much believable. You could envisage your self walking on those ships or in those space stations. Standing there watching giant starships come and go. For all it's sweeping lines etc. The 'new' TOS Enterprise from STXI looks... intangible.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I wonder how much of this is owed to TMPs super-indulgent overflight of that gorgeous model. Like A) taking the time out of the movie to do that (it's what, like, 20 minutes? (I know it isn't, but it feels that way!)) and B) putting the effort into the model-building so that it stands up to that much scrutiny. As it was. I felt like the new movie had some pacing issues. Perhaps they should have lingered longer on the new ship. Given the Goldsmith treatment maybe people could have fallen in love with her (and simultaneously we could have watched Kirk fall in love with her).
I do love these spacedock scenes. It really does give you a sense of scale for these vessels, and you're right, Andrew. Trek really does give you the feeling that these ships are real places where people are walking around, doing stuff, looking at stuff, etc. Never really got that from the Star Destroyers. At least not in the same way as watching these huge things lumber past a bay window in space dock, or watching the little shuttles flitting over them. Recall nearly being in tears at the theater when the 1701-A was revealed. Really need to start making some money so I can buy a blu-ray player and re-experience these without having to click through screengrabs.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Conclusion: We have now the picture in HD, but no more information then before.
On the contrary, we now have incontrovertible proof that registries and names on the movie models were changed from STII & III to STIV (we now know that the Reliant NCC-1864 was relabeled as the Saratoga NCC-1867. I'm still unsure about the Grissom being relabeled as the Copernicus since the Spacedock shot still isn't clear, but with my very good eyes I can make out what looks to be "623" which is the Copernicus's registry number).
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Conclusion: We have now the picture in HD, but no more information then before.
On the contrary, we now have incontrovertible proof that registries and names on the movie models were changed from STII & III to STIV (we now know that the Reliant NCC-1864 was relabeled as the Saratoga NCC-1867. I'm still unsure about the Grissom being relabeled as the Copernicus since the Spacedock shot still isn't clear, but with my very good eyes I can make out what looks to be "623" which is the Copernicus's registry number).
I see what you mean about "incontrovertible proof," but really we already knew that. Okuda told us. (I asked him specifically about the Copernicus and he said he'd seen behind the scenes photos that showed the name & registry. I never saw any good reason to doubt him.) And we could always see that the Saratoga wasn't NCC-1864.
[ September 17, 2009, 04:53 PM: 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:Originally posted by bX: Really need to start making some money so I can buy a blu-ray player and re-experience these without having to click through screengrabs.
I was reading that and at first I thought you were going to say that you needed to start making some money so you can start building your own!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: These screenshots only serve to remind me how freaking awesome the original Excelsior model was. Sulu got one cool ride... Shame it got pimped into something only marginally less cool.
Mark
Pimped twice. The "NX" version Excelsior is waaay cooler than the STVI version- and it has a bridge that makes sense! At least that (NX) version was put into service despite the STVI tweaking- the Crazy Horse and Hood were both shot useing the NX version Excelsior (as it was before the STVI mods were made). So just think- assuming that the Excelsior was in service for a while, that would mean that all three version of the Excelsior class served at the same time!
Maybe the "Refit" was a limited run design upgrade?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:I see what you mean about "incontrovertible proof," but really we already knew that. Okuda told us. (I asked him specifically about the Copernicus and he said he'd seen behind the scenes photos that showed the name & registry. I never saw any good reason to doubt him.) And we could always see that the Saratoga wasn't NCC-1864.
If, when you say "we," you really mean "you," then you're right. But speaking for myself, I didn't know anything about what Okuda said. And judging from that standard-def cap of the Saratoga, I'd respectfully disagree that "we could always see that the Saratoga wasn't NCC-1864." I couldn't see shit from that cap, or by watching my DVD of the movie.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I'm still unsure about the Grissom being relabeled as the Copernicus since the Spacedock shot still isn't clear, but with my very good eyes I can make out what looks to be "623" which is the Copernicus's registry number).
I still have my doubts, since I'n not even able to make out the 'NCC-' - and this is something that we all know that it has to be there. Besides, isn't the second number from the right not looking like a '4'?
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
