Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » The Eaglemoss thread (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: The Eaglemoss thread
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess it's personal choice how granular you want to be. If you're going to get into differing models, well, where does it end? You get the Cage Null, the TOS Null, the DSC Null - and the SNW Null. And the FC/INS E and the Nem E. And frankly? Life's too short! All these are meant to represet the exact same ship, the differences are cosmetic rather than fundamental; it's easy however to exempt the TOS Movie/Null Refit from that, however, because there was a second, identical ship then introduced, the A. So even if you get dogmatic and say the Refit can't be included because "it's the 'same' ship as the Null," then it still stays in the list - as the A.

Here's a thought: if they were making TVH today, do you think the A would have been another Constitution-refit? It would probably be a new design instead...

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think a lot of that would depend on how much budget they had, and if they had enough to build a new model, and possibly a new bridge set (although of course they could use it for the Saratoga and Yorktown scenes).

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Shik
There's a million things I haven't done, but just you wait
Member # 343

 - posted      Profile for Shik     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mean, it was only that way because of the nostalgia factor & the stupid-poor test audience response to the original ending of Kirk & co. being put on Excelsior.

--------------------
"I never agreed with Jefferson once—we have fought on like seventy-five different fronts. But when all is said & all is done...Jefferson HAS beliefs; Burr has none."

Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? I’ve never seen that stated anywhere..?

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

 - posted      Profile for TSN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Am I the only one whose favorite is the C...?
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kirk and company on the Excelsior with a DS9-esque "special dispensation" to rename it Enterprise might've worked.

--------------------
. . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or just a newly-built as-yet-I commissioned (or hastily re-named and thus re-commissioned) Excelsior-class. Though I guess there wouldn’t have been any yet, given ST4 is set about three months after ST3 - when the Excelsior was just the Great Experiment and not yet a class ship.

Ha! Imagine if the A had been a Miranda… or an Oberth!

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
If you're going to get into differing models, well, where does it end? {...} All these are meant to represet the exact same ship, the differences are cosmetic rather than fundamental;

I was working on a blog post about this already, actually, after recent research on the C-type Galaxy, a.k.a. the "War Galaxy", the dark-neck one seen in "Favor the Bold" and, as I'd long ago caught here, "Image in the Sand". The post isn't done but here's some of the research, including pretty pictures:

https://forums.scifi-meshes.com/discussion/10000948/captain-nikolayev-s-frontier

Given that the B-type (Venture) was only ever seen represented by the four-footer with leftover AGT blisters (Blistered Bulldog?), then yeah, the Enterprise-D is always supposed to be the same despite model variations, but this need not be so for the B and C types.

(There's also the more obvious Excelsior vs. Enterprise-B differences, which (along with Picard's "B-type Warbird" line) is what long ago led me to refer to subclass variations by type designation. Of course, I started with the flared and be-boxed Enterprise-B as the "B-type Excelsior", missing at that point the fact that the NX style Excelsior and the NCC style Excelsior models had both represented later ships, suggesting both variations continued to be built. Fortunately, the variations are small enough I can use the USAF "block" terminology as a sub-type designation.)

As for cosmetics . . . given how different the cosmetics can be between certain models, and since we were talking subjective favorites based on aesthetics, I think the distinction is fine.

--------------------
. . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, yeah, obviously there are subtypes of ship, just as there were of Supermarine Spitfires, or F-15 Eagles. And that’s fine. If someone wants to say “My favourite Trek ship is the Ambassador-class” then nobody’ll find fault with that. And if they say that but then follow up with “… but specifically the Yamaguchi variant with the lowered nacelles (due to the shorter pylons”) then that’s fine too.

But is that relevant to what we were talking about - ranking our favourite Enterprises? Does it matter if two empirically different models were used to represent the same ship (during the same time period)?

Trek has a reasonable degree of internal consistency. To an extent. Ultimately it comes down to how much you can put up with. Personally I couldn’t tell you the difference between the 4ft D and the 6ft D without looking it up. So I ignore it! Same with ship scaling which we all know is all over the shop…

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My favorite Mustang is the P51D!

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Shrug)

To me, the six and the four are so wildly different (and not "one-off" level guest models like the two-foot) that it makes a huge difference, even if they're both meant to represent 1701-D. That they're roughly equal in representing the ship makes it notable.

(One guy literally constructed and textured an entirely new 3D CG mesh of the Galaxy for game mod use just to capture the flavor of the Bulldog better, even after an amazing Svelterprise-D existed.

https://www.gamefront.com/games/bridge-commander/file/dj-galaxy-class )

If they're close enough for you, then that's fine, but there's enough difference for me to more than justify the distinction.

--------------------
. . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3