I was bored so I made this topic. The question is in the title. The trends thus far go like this.
Trek I: 1 (Constitution refit)
Trek II: 1 (Miranda)
Trek III: 2 (Excelsior and Oberth)
Trek IV: 0
Trek V: 0
Trek VI: 0
Trek VII: 1 (Excelsior refit)
Trek VIII: 5 (Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, Norway, and sovereign)
Trek IX: 2 (Venture and Holoship)
My guess for Trek X is that 2 new classes of ships will be introduced.
Posted by Hunter (Member # 611) on :
Well early spoliers have suggested at least one new ships design. Of course there is the chance that that was for the Romulans.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, there is some information on ships for Star Trek X. Hell, there's a lot of information on Star Trek X considering a script review was posted at AICN last week.
However, I would like to say that ANY information regarding the new Trek movie needs to have spoiler warnings posted in the subject field and in any posts that may contain spoilers. If you need to know what I'm talking about, see The_Tom's recent thread on spoilers in the Incoming Hail forum.
I'm just bringing this up here and now because this thread is going to attract someone who knows something and is going to post something about the Enterprise-G being destroyed by Kazon battleships or something (please note, I'm making this up). Then the Spoiler God is going to come in here and start kicking ass.
So just play it safe with spoilers: when in doubt, don't leave the warnings out.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I hope in Trek X we actually get some frigging CLASS DESIGNATIONS!
But that's just me.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Sod Starfleet, I'd much perfer to have some new romulan ships.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Do new shuttles count?
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
I bet there will be a few new starfleet ships, and a hell of a lot more Romulan ships. Something tells me theres gonna me some major battles going on.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
*SPOILER WARNING* Do not read beyond this point unless you wish to be potentially spoiled for Trek X. *SPOILER WARNING* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S According to rumors, the Shinzon character will have a new warbird twice the size of the Ent-E. Hmm. You'd think that the Romulans would have learned something from the Dominion war...don't built bigger, lunkier ships that make better targets. Build smaller, faster ships that can do more damage.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Siegfried: There already are spoiler warnings. See the words "Trek X" in the thread title? Anyone stupid enough to read a thread about ST10 when they don't want to read spoilers about ST10 deserves to be spoiled.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I know that they're in the title, but it's better to play it safe than be sorry. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Hey, MIB! You forgot for STII the Hermes, Ptolemy, and Saladin classes!
Just thought I'd take the opprtunity...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So it is impossible to talk about the next movie without revealing plot details from it? A thread titled, oh, "What kind of things would you like to see in Trek X" instantly becomes a pro-spoiler zone, even though that isn't the intention of the person who started it?
Nonsense.
(Grumble grumble, silly internet formatting, grumble)
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I'm not saying that all threads with Trek X in the title are going to become spoiler zones, but even the threads like "What do you want to see in Trek X" face the possibility of someone coming in and posting spoilers. That thread and this thread do not need spoiler warnings, in my opinion. But if someone who does know something comes in, he/she may mistakenly post information about Trek X. Then the humble people who were simply discussing their ideas get smacked upside the head with real information.
Posted by Yakaspat The Trekker (Member # 355) on :
If the introduce one more friggin Fed shuttle....
We already have: Type 6 (TNG) Type 7 (TNG) Type 8 (VOY) Type 9 (VOY) Type 9A (from TNG TM) Type 10 (from DS9 TM) Type 11 (ST:FC-the Sovy Shuttle) ...and a bunch of different Shuttlepods.
Why in hell would the Feds need a new shuttle design? I HATED it in FC when they introduced that stupid new shuttle...IMO, the Type 6 made the most sense, and the rest are just plain silly.
I think you mean Insurrection.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Don't forget in Star Trek III, there was the new shuttlepod in Space Dock, not to mention the appearence of one of the 'excelsior try-outs' in the background and that 'cargo ship' seen sitting by one of the spacedock's inside prongs...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Oh yeah!
It wasn't an Excelsior prototype, it was a Constitution prototype. The one from Phase II. (Look in the Art of Star Trek. It was the one on the top, the slightly longer one. Both it and the other one, and a bunch of Excelsior prototypes were later at Wolf 359 and Qualor II.)
And that freighter interests me very much. It would be cool if someone could do a drawing. The thing even has 2 connie-style nacelles visible in this pic from tAoST:
The freighter is in the lower center, below the observation window, between the Ent and the Exc.
[ edited to link huge-ass picture -TSN ]
[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
We've all seen this image many times. We've argued about this "ship" many, many times. And this is the only time I'm going to tell you:
LINK LARGE IMAGES!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Umm, what? That wasn't large enough for ya? Or did you mean to have a DO NOT in there somewhere?
I know the ship has been looked at before, I just wanted to post a pic 'cause the subject came up.
From the quotations around "ship" in your post, am I to glean that you are one of the sad individuals who cannot see that it is one?
If you are not, I apologize, no offense is intended.
MMoM
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
When I say "link large images" I mean to link to them, as in use a little thing called an < a href > tag or a [ URL ] tag, not post it inline.
And I said "ship" because there are some people who think it is a ship, and there are some people who don't. I could go either way. I just didn't want to incite a riot.
[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: Mr. Christopher ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah, I see.
Next time I'll link.
In fact, on second thought, I'll go back and do it now.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well I'll be damned! TSN beat me to it. Sorry, Tim, I was just about to do that.
Posted by Yakaspat The Trekker (Member # 355) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I think you mean Insurrection.
I cropped the original picture and circled the supposed ship in a red-ish oval.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I've showed it to people before, and they've said they can't see the nacelles, but if you look closely, you can see them. They are obviously smaller versions of the Connie refit type, and they protrude from each side near the front. You can see the whole of the portside one, and the tip of the starboard peeking out from behind the front end.
Does anyone have a pic of the Connie prototype ship that was in there, too? (In this pic, the Ent has pulled in front of it already.)
[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Here's the same picture I posted earlier, but I've included an inset of the supposed cargo barge and highlighted the port nacelle.
Gack! You think that's a ship?? I always saw it as part of Spacedock.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, in the actual video, it's not as clear and it's quite hard to tell, but in this publicity still you can see rather well.
Hey Siggy? Can you high light the starboard nacelle as well?
Can anyone draw a schematic? I think there is a sufficient view to extrapolate the overall shape. Someone who likes to draw up that sort of thing?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I wish I could, Mim, but I can't. And that is a ship, Shik, (say it three times fast) but just a ship someone painted on there.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It's really hard to see the starboard nacelle on this ship. I had find it based on the direction of the light source and the shadow that it was casting on the support arm of Spacedock:
According to a release from TrekToday, so far we're looking at the possibility of two new ships. The first is the Shuttlecraft Argo which will be carrying the "Jeep" that the crew uses on the planet. TrekToday describes it as a version of the standard shuttle that is able to carry land-based vehicles.
The other ship will be the U.S.S. Titan, although it's unknown if it will actually be shown or not. The Titan will be the ship that...
SPOILER $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Captain Riker takes command of at the end of the film, and brings his new bride, Deanna Troi, with him.
I personally am hoping they change the name of it, so as not to contradict my Titan Class Starship Design
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The Titan? Oh,no. I sense danger in this ship...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well if recent happenings are any indication, the Titan will probably be a modified Akira.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
No, no, Veers, that's Titanic. You sense much danger in Titanic.
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Hey. I just thought of something. If Trek X does turn out to be the last TNG film like some rumors have suggested, will the Star Trek saga continue with the U.S.S. Titan?
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Aherm. *steps onto his incidental facts and useless information soapbox*
Before the Titanic and her sister ships Olympic and Britannic were constructed, a book of fiction was written which dealt with the terrible disaster of one ocean liner, aptly named the Titan. It was huge, it was luxurious, it was the best ship in the world. This fictional vessel was also supposedly unsinkable. But the Titan struck an iceberg one night during a crossing of the Atlantic and went down with much loss of life, because of the inadequate number of lifeboats.
*steps off of his incidental facts and useless information soapbox* Thank you.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The book was called "Futility," written in 1898 by Morgan Robertson. *gets tarred and feathered by non-caring members*
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
*applauds* Bravo, bravo Veers! I say, what an eclectic bunch we have here. How wonderfully cool! I actually didn't know the title, but came across the story when I was in my "Ocean Liners of the Early Twentieth Century" craze.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Was some of that sarcasm?
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
*blink blink* Huh? No. I don't do sarcasm like that. I thought that was cool!
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Oh. Sorry about accusing you like that. It is cool, isn't it?
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
And damned freaky to boot.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I know about Futility. I had to read part of it for my freshmen composition class in college. I just felt it would be improper from bringing up the name of the best film of the 20th century.
