It's one of the great unanswered questions of phaserology (I just made that word up - I rule) - does the Type-II phaser pistol seen in Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country (and also Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier, however Krenim informs me there was no ST5, it never happened, it's all my imagination) feature a Type-I hand phaser at all? Well, someone's just sent me an image that seems to indicate it does:
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
gotta love those prop builders, always full of surprises.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I always thought that TOS, TOS Movie-era type-II phasers depended greatly on the type-I inside them...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The earlier ones seemed to need one in place to fire, but there wasn't even a hint of one hiding inside this pistol before.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
that could just be a replaceable thingamajinga. i like the idea of the removable type 1, though.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
In TNG, Type 1's fitted into Type 2's and both fitted into type 3's no? Then what about the phaser banks on a starship... Type 8 say... it has type 1-->7 as part of it's make-up?
Hmm.
Andrew
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i don't believe that TNG phasers were like that. type 1's were totally separate from Type II's which were totally separate from Type III's, IIRC.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, and it is odd to think otherwise.
I do recall seeing some Sternbach concept drawings for a TNG "riot gun" which would involve slotting the II into a sort of rifle stock, vaguely similar to the Klingon disruptors.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Cool. As an aside I think this has to be my favourite phaser design.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Something I don't get is why no starfleet person ever "waved" the bem when firing, like a garden hose. I mean, take TUC for example, when the initial salvo was fired into the klingon ambassador, no more beam was necessary in that hole, it was just air now, so why keep the finger on the trigger for another second? Why not turn it from side to side and sever the body?
One person with two of those phasers could hold a corridor for a long time with that capability. Shoot and wave, shoot and wave.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Well done, Poet!
I'm curious, though . . . what's the trigger supposed to be? I would imagine the red and green thing are control buttons, with the trigger being the little silver round thing on top.
In any event, that's a teeny-tiny phaser . . . it makes the TNG cricket look positively large. I can't imagine it was capable of too much mayhem.
What I found more interesting about that pic, though, was the fact that there's silver grill-work on the back reminiscent of the TOS-phaser. That was a nice touch.
The only question is, was that an actual prop, or is that a fan-mod?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Something I don't get is why no starfleet person ever "waved" the bem when firing, like a garden hose.
Well, it might be kind of wasteful of phaser energy. Worf's rapid suppression-fire of the TNG type-II in "The Vengeance Factor" has a similar effect to the waving. We did see Yar adjust her aim by dragging the beam over to the target in the ep with the Echo Papa drones.
And, of course, when you need to hose a room or corridor in a hurry, there's always wide-beam, but it will be similarly wasteful.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It's one of my fave designs too.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Would you believe a twelve year-old kid sent me this image? Truly, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings are we delivered. Which actually sounds really dodgy, so let's move on.
I concur with G2K that the trigger can only logically (given the only view we have) be the round circle on top; however, the trigger on the TOS-era Type-I was a small button on the underside, so I'd hesitate to say for certain one way or the other.
There was indeed a Sternbach concept for a TNG riot-gun, I'm uploading it now. . . Here.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i hope that "riot gun" has some kind of inertial dampening. otherwise, the recoil is gonna make a .700 Holland and Holland double rifle feel like a squirt gun.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Since when do phasers have recoil?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: There was indeed a Sternbach concept for a TNG riot-gun, I'm uploading it now. . . Here.
(drools)
I'm not sure how that thing shoots plasma . . . that's another phaser oddity. So far, they seem to shoot something EM (based on the "EM bands" from BoBW), something nadionic, and now they can do plasma, too (though maybe that's just nadion soup, but still).
Phasers make my head hurt.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
At this point I'm not sure how much thought Sternbach and company had given to just what it was the phasers were firing, but presumably the plasma would be coming from the attachment, with the phaser acting more or less as the power source for it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm not going to put a lot of stock in that little bit of text, except my take on it is merely it was indicating that this weapon would fire bolts instead of beams, which would set it apart given it was developed at a time when all the Starfleet weapons we saw were beam-based.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'm with Wraith... this is definitely my favorite of the movie era phaser designs. It looks mean, man.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Aha, nevermind.
[ September 24, 2002, 03:26: Message edited by: Nimpim ]
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Anybody noticed that Sternbach wrote "BorgS"?
I thought the plural had always been "the Borg".
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
WE MUST CHANGE ALL CONTINUITY BECAUSE STERNBACH'S NOTEBOOK IS AUTHORITAVE SOURCE OF CANON INFORMATION!
THEY ARENOW ALWAYS CALLED BORGS
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
On a side note, the Finnish translations always treat "Borg" as a singular, as if there only was one Borg - namely, the Borg Collective. "The Borg has entered our system." "We are the Borg. The Borg is dedicated to the improvement of your quality of life". It sounds way cool that way.
Yeah, I dig the ST6 phaser. I don't view any of the TOS era type 2 units as "pistols", really. They are more like submachine guns, just single-handed...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
I was being facetious.
It's the same way in English. And rightly so. There is only one Borg.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: On a side note, the Finnish translations always treat "Borg" as a singular, as if there only was one Borg - namely, the Borg Collective. "The Borg has entered our system." "We are the Borg. The Borg is dedicated to the improvement of your quality of life". It sounds way cool that way.
In the English version of "Parallels"[TNG], the way the Borg are referred to made for a nice little story element.
For instance, "Borg" is both singular and plural . . . "The Borg is" and "The Borg are". For the Borg themselves, though, there would probably be only the singular. It's just those crazy Earthlings who insist on a plural.
But, the Riker that was in charge of one of the alternate-universe ships said "The Borg is everywhere!" Not only had the Federation been conquered, but so, it would seem, had Riker, at least in a certain sense.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
@Capped: I don't give a sh** whether it's Borg or Borgs. I just thought it was an interesting thing to note. Of course they use a collective singular.
By the way - resistance is irrelevant...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It just doesn't sound quite right to the ear, though. Anyway, I suspect our primitive pronoun structure is one of the first things that needs updating to Collective standards.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
singular.