Hi Guys I was just wondering if anybody has seen the new Star Trek: Ships of the Line 2006 Wall Calendar (Calendar) and what ships are in it next year? Just wondering and thanks ;-)
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pwesty: Hi Guys I was just wondering if anybody has seen the new Star Trek: Ships of the Line 2006 Wall Calendar (Calendar) and what ships are in it next year? Just wondering and thanks ;-)
Amazon has it listed, but the front cover image is 2005's November image, so hopefully it's just a placeholder. I seem to remember that at this time last year the front cover had been finalised and it was about to go on sale.
I have already pre-ordered it, but it hasn't been shipped yet. If no one else has gotten it and done a report on it when I get it, I'll give that report.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nice pic on the TOS calander- good drydock shot of the Connie.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
Photoshopped old photo of the drydock with a new 3D image of the 1701 by the looks of things. Nice.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Still not as good as SeanR's Deadalus image in drydock.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Where's that image?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I dont know offhand. Run a google search for Seanr and you'll likely find it though.
I ave it (at home) if you need it I can send it to ya tomorrow (not having online connection at home is really becoming tiresome).
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
There's a copy of it at the Daedalus page of Masao's site. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah- bueatiful shot that.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Still not as good as SeanR's Deadalus image in drydock.
THAT is one of the BEST fan art creations... EVER! Simply brilliant.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Apparently the SotL this year focuses primarily on TOS.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Pressed back and it decided to post again...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A fellow at Trek BBS posted a description in this thread .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Boh: Apparently the SotL this year focuses primarily on TOS.
oh, goody... y'know, they already make a TOS calander every year.
Mabye they'll do some sort of tribute to James Doohan or something....it's kinda odd: the only TOS crew still alive in TNG are the ones that have died in real life. I dont know where I'm going with this line of thought, I'm just sayin' is all.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, it IS the Anniversary. And isn't the TOS calander just pics from the show? Or has that changed since I last bought one?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Usually it's just pics from the show, but really, how many of those can they sell? it's the same stuff over and over...
They could have just upgraded the TOS calander with some original art set in the series.
Fuck TOS. It's the 10th anniversary of DS9 y'know! I want an all-DS9 calander! With ships and battles and schematics and nekked pictures of Kira, Lita, Keiko, both Dax's and all the dabo Girls.
Hey, as long as I'm wishing, I'm going all out. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You're a loony, I say, on account of original series scenes being way cool.
Also, someone needs to tell Leonard Nimoy of the unexpected revision in his status.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Spock was a changling! Yeah! That explains it! Or Nimoy is a zombie....that could work just as well and it is more plausable, after all.
...and it's not that TOS is not cool, but it should not glom every publication every time there is some goofy anniversary. When it's DS9's 20th anniversary, it will be completely overshadowed by TOS's 50th anniversary.
It just aint right!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hang on DS9 started in 1993!! VOYAGER started in 1995. TOS was 1966 TNG 1987 and Enterprise 2001
SO - it's not an anniversary for DS9, VOY or Enterprise.
It'll be the TOS 40th and Enterprise's 5th(bahahah). Or the First anniversary the end of Braga and Berman's Trek fuck-over.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
hmmm...then why is Pocket "Celebrating the ten year anniversary of DS9" on the cover on Unity?
Weird.
Um...it would be Voyager's anniversary this year though, Andrew...and I cant recall seeing anything special about that.
Though, from a calander POV, I guess DS9 wouldn't qualify either way.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Apropos... Any morally corrupt scanner owners ready to shed light on what this NX-1000 looks like?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yes Voyager 10 this year but not for a 2006 calendar.
They at least brought out an updated book - the Companion/Compendium? For the TNG 10th.
It will be 15 years next year since The Undiscovered Country came out... I think.
I can't believe I've been a FULL ON Trek fan for 12+ years!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Apropos... Any morally corrupt scanner owners ready to shed light on what this NX-1000 looks like?
Timo Saloniemi
I dont know of anyone that actually has it yet, but I'm sure I'll buy one regardless and then scan it like I did last year's.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And wrong, since we don't know what happen to Chekov of Uhura. And Spock seems pretty okay.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I get the impression you forgot to read page two before replying.
Chekov is supposed to have a ship named after him, so that might imply he was dead. We also don't know what happened to Sulu.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, You'd think Sulu died some heroic death- he's revered and there is still not another ship named Excelsior that we've seen.
Having a ship named after you does indeed imply it's a memorial sorta thing so I rule Chekov out- even his namesake ship is dead (though I'd have loved to see it in action).
In the novels, Uhura was (dont ask me why they'd recruit her as an S.I. agent starting in her 60's!) head of Starfleet Security- well into Sisko's tenure as Lt J.G., but she's later recalled in the past tense so....(Curzon says something like "She was a great lady.")
In reality, it's... odd having the old crew still creeping around in the DS9 era- the whole point to TNG was to make a clean break from TOS, but theres always the fringe element that wants to see them save the day- even if they're in walkers- it's how those awful "shatenerverse" things keep getting made.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Okay, www.calendars.com had enough spoilers to satisfy me that NX-1000 is UGLY.
Not too implausible as a late 22nd century starship, tho. But there's no way in hell that this could serve as the basis of the Constitution class through some minor tinkering, as classic fanfic is wont to think. Oh, well.
I wonder what the artist's inspiration was. Just doodling with ENT elements? Devising a new hero ship of his liking? Creating something so ugly that everybody would at once understand why Paramount had opted not to place any of its shows in this period of Trek history?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
perhaps: "oops, I goofed up the translate numbers moving my saucer away from the secondary...waitaminute."
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I thought that was the backstory of the "Doubling the Odds" entry?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Ouch. It looks like the unfortunate results of an early (cloaking? subspace folding? transwarp drive? Edsel revival?) Starfleet experiment gone horribly wrong...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Not too implausible as a late 22nd century starship, tho. But there's no way in hell that this could serve as the basis of the Constitution class through some minor tinkering, as classic fanfic is wont to think. Oh, well.
Agreed. IMO the old fan idea that the Constitution could be created from a completely different class by slapping on a secondary hull or some crazy rearranging of the components is woefully uninformed and naive. And the only reason most fans try to think of that in the first place is to explain the Constellation's registry number. And seeing how the producers and effects crew had no idea at all that any major franchise would develop from the show, I figure it's just one of those irreconcilable conflicts.
(Of course, my personal opinion is that the Planet Killer's intense gravity and subspace-dampening fields caused some bizarre optical lensing effects that seemed to rearrange the Constellation's registry number, when its real number is NCC-1710.)
quote:I wonder what the artist's inspiration was. Just doodling with ENT elements? Devising a new hero ship of his liking? Creating something so ugly that everybody would at once understand why Paramount had opted not to place any of its shows in this period of Trek history?
Nah, it's just inspired by the Paris-class light cruiser. Just more proof that Masao was on the right track for early starship design all along. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, if you look at the diferences between the Constitution and the Refit and the official explaination of the DS9 Kitbashes, it seems like this kind of stuff is possible in Star Trek...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by machf: Ouch. It looks like the unfortunate results of an early (cloaking? subspace folding? transwarp drive? Edsel revival?) Starfleet experiment gone horribly wrong...
Please to be telling what you are talking about.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah- the pic on that calander site is a Connie with a Aurora shuttle pacing it towards a K-style starbase. The Enterprise calander looks really cool tough- mabye we'll get some nice ship images from that.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Can't get the SOTL larger pic to open.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
A new theory reagrding that picture: both the ship and the station have been affected by some gravimetric distortion. Which may be the result of an experiment being conducted aboard the station, so we'd be back at the "experiment gone wrong" thing again... Does anyone know what the actual description is?
BTW, regarding the biggest picture (the one labeled "May"), I suppose it relates to "The Ultimate Computer"?
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Well, it turns out this thread at TrekBBS contains descriptions of the calendar pictures. I see my guess about the May picture was right... and seeing that that weird-looking ship corresponds to April, I wonder if it was meant as an April Fools' joke...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Whoa did anyone see the Connie with its saucer seperated? And what about that freak show ship?
Edit: My God I just thought of something; what if that weird ship is the hero ship for the next Trek movie?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I thnk the "weird ship" is supposed to show a design lineage with NX-01/Enterprise J. Same deflector/nose arrangment (though [i]far[/o\ uglier).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yeah, but then why make one for a calendar that comemerates(we need spellcheck) TOS? Why not for the Enterprise calender? I mean is there gonna a be a TMP and TNG version of this thing in future calenders? And what about the saucer seperating Constitution, shouldn't someone hang for that?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
?
That is to say, since when is that a problem? (At least in theory; I haven't seen the image in question.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Yeah, but then why make one for a calendar that comemerates(we need spellcheck) TOS? Why not for the Enterprise calender? I mean is there gonna a be a TMP and TNG version of this thing in future calenders? And what about the saucer seperating Constitution, shouldn't someone hang for that?
I think it's just that the calander is set in the TOS/TMP era (otherwise we'd see nothing but shots of the Connie/Connie Refit and that would be boring as fuck).
The ship looks a lot like the Odanta class though.
...and yes, someone should indeed hang for seperating the Connie Refit. HANG I SAY!
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I thought it could seperate, but needed space-dock to put it back together again.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well there was that novel in which Decker used the saucer only to defend Earth from something or other... I suppose it kinda makes sense they'd take the saucer off to do the refit. The refit's saucer has a bigger diameter, no?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
To be sure, they took off the saucer, the neck, the secondary hull, the pylons and the engines...
I hear they did reuse two of the screws by which the saucer was attached to the neck, though. Those, and the lower left button in the science console (the yellow one).
(Yeah, the TMP saucer was bigger than the TOS one, according to one interpretation. Because we never got exact canonical measurements for either ship, though, it is also eminently possible that the TOS saucer was larger than the TMP one. Or the exact same diameter. It still wouldn't have been the exact same shape, though.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
If I remember correctly, an early draft of TMP had the Enterprise seperating her saucer at the end of the movie.
There are some pic's of the concept drawings floating around the ether which show the saucer detaching from the secondary hull. There is damage to the secondary hull, reminicent of the beating she takes in TWOK.
Think of the beauty shot we get at the start of 'The Search for Spock' without a saucer.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If the TMP saucer was the same size as the TOS one then the rest of the ship would have been smaller. Which is wrong, I think.
Aren't there lines etched onto the interconnecting dorsal showing where the ship would seperate if it did so?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
A last-minute addition by Probert, a curvaceous shape mimicking the fins at the ends of the warp nacelles, seems to dominate the top of the neck. Just below it is a horizontal line where the color of the neck changes a bit, at least in the CGI version. This is the most likely separation line, leaving about one deck's worth of the neck attached to the saucer. There's also a small triangular bit at the forward edge of that line, a latch of sorts that is supposed to slide down during separation as shown in those Probert storyboards for TMP separation.
Of course, we never saw how the ship would really separate: perhaps the "true" separation line lies where the model itself was cut, which would be along the curved upper surface of that late-minute-addition shape.
Also, if the TMP saucer was just 127.1 meters wide like the TOS one reputedly is, rather than 141.7 m, the rest of the ship would indeed be smaller. But since it is larger than the TOS remainder to begin with, this might not be so wrong after all...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: If I remember correctly, an early draft of TMP had the Enterprise seperating her saucer at the end of the movie.
That was never in the script- it was just something the storyboard artist proposed. The whole sequence is in the Art of Star Trek book. The seperation sequence looked cool enough but the reason was lame as hell. The idea was that those klingons that got fried at the movie's start would be re-constituted, attack the Enterprise (why?) nad the mighty saucer section detaches from the damaged secondary hull to kick klingon ass.
Ug.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There was a CGI version of the Enterprise-refit?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In the revised version of The Motion Picture.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There was a revised version of The Motion Picture?
(I kid. With great hilarity. I really should pick that up one of these days. Are there Super Nerdy Sites out there listing what was different/so very very wrong is makes people who wear glasses angry about the CGI Enterprise?)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
From what I hear, the CGI was so spot on that it took all the fun out of that particular game.
The presence or absence of engine glow or deflector glow at given moments of the film is debated, I think, but that's pretty much that. Okay, and perhaps the pearlescent effect of the physical model was not completely faithfully reproduced in the CGI. But perhaps it's just for the better.
I seem to remember hearing this very model was featured in some older calendars?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Is there a comparison site, like those for "Trials and tribble-ations", or the Star Wars Special Editions?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Didn't we have some threads doing just that at the time?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: There was a revised version of The Motion Picture?
(I kid. With great hilarity. I really should pick that up one of these days. Are there Super Nerdy Sites out there listing what was different/so very very wrong is makes people who wear glasses angry about the CGI Enterprise?)
Mabye I'll send it to you for Christmas. I think I've watched the director's cut all of once.
...fuck, I've seen Nemesis more than that! Even the awful deleted scenes with Commander McFly and the GO Go Gadget Seatbelt.
The only real error I noticed the the much-harped-on view from the officer's lounge showing the nacelle(s).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And even that depends on where the =fficers' Lounge really is.
If it's on the saucer aft rim (the windows we mistook for the Recreation Deck), then the nacelle is slightly off. If it's some other vertical window elsewhere on the saucer rim, then it's probably shuttered most of the time since we can't see it from the outside. If it's embedded within the facility aft of bridge, or elsewhere "indoors", then it's a viewscreen rather than a window, and can show any feature at any angle.
Personally, I support the idea that the Rec Deck is aft of the bridge, with plenty of synthetic-view screens, and the group of windows in the saucer aft starboard quarter includes the Officers' Lounge...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If the two rows of rectangular windows on the saucer's aft starboard side is the Officer's Lounge, what is on the other side? I always thought that it was odd to have the standard portholes on the port side.
Throws off (sorta) the visual balance of the design.
Mabye the rectangular windows are to a VIP suite or some specialty environmntal quarters.
The windows/viewscreen in the room Kirk and NcCoy talk to Spock in seem to be the same shape and size as the lounge behind the bridge (B deck?).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, here is the low-down on the alleged TMP gaffe...
This is how the windows were designed and assigned on the model by Probert.
This is what the Rec Deck set and window views looked like in the film.
This is what the "Officer's Lounge" miniature set and window views looked like in the film.
This is what the set and window views of the room where Kirk and McCoy had their chat with Spock looked like in the film. The nacelles were added in the DE.
As you can see, while the script stipulated the last scene to take place in the OL, it was the Rec Deck set (or something very similar) and window views that were used. Therefore, it seems to me that the conversation actually took place in one of the alcoves on the aft upper walkway of the Rec Deck and not in the OL. While the script said "OFFICER'S LOUNGE," that set was only a miniature and thus could not be shot with actors. When they did the DE, they placed a "camera" inside the upper Rec Deck windows of the CGI model and determined the nacelle views from there. This is confirmed by Okuda in the text commentary on the DVD.
So, not really a gaffe, although a departure from the script. And it calls into question the logic of why the officers went all the way down to the Rec Deck instead of the (much closer to the bridge) Lounge. But since the set couldn't possibly depict the OL in the first place, the fault really lies in the original version.
-MMoM Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Of course, the Rec Deck cannot be where Probert placed it, because the concave lower deck of the saucer does not accommodate the volume. Nor would there be decks above or below the Rec Deck, meaning that the two turboshafts would go nowhere!
Relocating it to where the Officers' Lounge is would solve at least two problems:
1) How it can fit within the volume (the saucer is thickest near the bridge) 2) Why there are two vertical turboshafts side by side at one end (these are the immediate continuations of the two lift shafts that can be accessed from the bridge)
This would also free the saucer rim windows for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy get-together scene, which cannot really take place in the Rec Deck (the balconies aren't wide enough, the doorways don't match etc). As for why Kirk went that far... Well, he wasn't exactly busy. For most of the movie, all he did was change clothes, stare at the viewscreen, change clothes, stare some more, and change clothes. Must have been hot in there or something.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
But then the windows don't match.
Trek sets seem to have a problem fitting where they belong. I propose that the larger inside than out technology used in Enterprises's Future Tense was developed earlier than we may think.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I just noticed something I never spotted before in that shot from the DE: you can see the tail of the port nacelle in the window view on the right. Assuming that these are the rec dec view ports, should you be able to see it at all? Judging from the angle, the window behind Kirk has to be almost in line with the nacelle center line; if this is one of the rec deck ports, it would have to be one of the outboard ports. Since the camera is some distance back from the window (and apparently facing dead center of the port), I'm not sure it's physically possible to fit the port nacelle into the field of view.
Then again, with the way the starboard nacelle appears in the shot, the orientation of the room would have to be pretty wacky as well. The engine is essentially in line with the window, meaning the window faces almost directly aft. The walls of the set don't match the curvature of the hull, if that is the room's orientation.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'd say that these inconsistencies are just par for the course when you have a model of a fictional (and impossible) spacecraft and practical standing sets that must be designed and constructed utilizing available techniques and resources and which must satisfy various lighting, sound, and equipment requirements in order to be filmable.
In other words, just ignore the fact that what we see internally usually doesn't match with what we see externally. Hasn't this really been true of most Trek sets?
As Woodside Kid said, the very fact that none of these sets were built with curvatures conforming to their corresponding windows on the model will throw off any views of the outside. But saying "those aren't windows; those are viewscreens" and trying to locate the sets as buried somewhere in the saucer core seems too incongruous with the designers' (both of the model and of the sets) intents.
Suspension of DisbeliefTM, people!
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure, but when the nacelles were CGI'd in to make the scene look cool, it's kinda silly to make their placement wrong just so they can (supposedly) look "cool" in a shot.
If I were to really gripe about sets vs. ship exteriors, I'd point out that we never saw correctly scaled windows on TNG. ...and then there's the windows on DS9's Prominade...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
As to the whole Rec Deck/Officer's Lounge/Observation lounge issue, the fact is no matter what answer your propose, short of viewscreens, none of them make sense because...
a) In the Rec Deck scene you can see the starboard nacelle and the drydock outside the window, thus placing that room where the exterior windows are (despite the issue that the room hight would not necessarily fit).
b) Since we SEE out the windows in the area below the bridge in the scene where Spock's shuttle arrives, and it doesn't match either the Rec Deck of the room Spock meets Kirk and Bones in, that eliminates it as a location for the Rec Deck.
c) The window in the lounge where Kirk drags Spock is left over from the Rec Deck set and matches the shape of that window, and, from the DE's stupid nacelle addition, places it IN the Rec Deck.
In Andy's defense, he and Doug Trumbull tried to get them to reshoot a few shots of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy scene with a bluescreen wall so they could tie the set to the miniature room seen during the shuttle docking, but that was nixed .
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So, I still don't see how my interpretation doesn't work...once you allow for set/model flub factor that, as I mentioned, is not endemic to TMP. Everything is where Probert said it was and the Big Three's conversation took place on the upper Rec Deck level.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: So, I still don't see how my interpretation doesn't work...once you allow for set/model flub factor that, as I mentioned, is not endemic to TMP. Everything is where Probert said it was and the Big Three's conversation took place on the upper Rec Deck level.
EXCEPT that the various angles seen of the room make it clear it's not part of the Rec Deck proper, which means those two meeting room windows don't exist on the ship. My point was simply that there is no way all those rooms fit in the ship in the locations seen unless you assume some of the windows are viewscreens or not visble from the outside.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The easiest fix IMHO still is that the Rec Deck octuplet of window-like things are the viewscreens, while the remaining windows are for real.
This makes sense in terms of the function of the facility, allows it to be placed where it really fits, and does not unduly impinge on other facilities (the aft-of-bridge windowed space can still exist on the upper decks; the postulated auxiliary bridge need not be as large as Shane suggests; etc.).
And the view "aft of the saucer rim" is just the screensaver. Had we lingered on the Rec Deck a bit longer, we'd have seen the view rotate around the entire circumference of the primary hull in a grand panorama. That is, unless a crewman wanted to run Ilia Does Illinois on the upper right screen, or play tic-tac-toe with the four on the left, or something.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I think it's easier to assume the lounge has the viewscreens, since it's silly to think they'd have eight windows on the saucer edge that just happen to match the eight in the Rec Deck and NOT have them connected.
A few other things.
The concave bottom of the saucer is addressed a bit in inthe Rec Deck room design, and you see that the outer area by the windows is lower than the main floor (albeit probably not enough).
The turbolift shafts could be the end of horizontal tubes on the upper deck w/a vertical jog to drop people off on the main deck.
But, let's face it, film sets rarely fit inside the exterior we are shown. This is true from the subjects of this discussion through the corridor outside the Engine Room that would go right out the hull. And outside Star Trek, this holds true in Lost in Space (no room for that lower deck), and even sitcoms (ever notice that the interiors we see almost never match the exterior houses?).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Geez, I actually watched part of my TMP Director's Cut to see those scenes again.
Then I turned it off- man, I'd forgotten how boring that movie is! They tried so hard to capture the feel of "2001" that they completely lost what was cool in TOS. PLus, McCoy's disco-weirdo get-up makes my eyes water.
Getting back to the topic, I checked Barnes & Noble and Borders tonight for the calander, but it's not out here yet.
Anyone get theirs yet?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I rather like the redone Motion Picture, though you're absolutely right about McCoy's choice of civilian clothing. And that medallion.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Andy Probert just emailed me to say he'd updated his web page re the Rec Deck...
quote:Realizing that the Enterprise wasn't as familiar to Hal, as it was to the rest of us,...,I rushed back to Abel's and put together the sketch below, in order to remind Hal what the saucer's cross section was like at the rim, hoping he would see the value in maintaining that level of continuity.....then I just grabbed my gun and shot Hal in the head rather than explain everything over and over....
That's how it went down in my alternate reality, anyway.
I sorta like those lower level rec-deck windows on the saucer, but it would have only a great view of the blue glowy impulse-crystal-thingie.
Might be cool to see a Phase II version with that though. Where's the Red Admiral when we need him to CGI a ship for us?
Mabye that Timo kid could do it in illustrator... Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I think we should all go to a movie with slide rules
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Such as "remove high-heeled shoes first" or "do not take your popcorn with you" or "before leaving the balcony or box, make sure there are no people down below obstructing the passage"?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Pwesty (Member # 1035) on :
Hi Guys I just wondering if any of the artist who put together next years ships of the line calendar have web pages of there own. Thanks
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not that I know of.. For laughs, check out the moron tryng to sell his 2004 SOTL line for $250 on Amazon in "like new" condition!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Nice.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)