Some of you may recall the picture that was supposedly from the trailer, showing the Enterprise in front of the giant saucer wreckage with the name Farragut over Vulcan.
This caused a bit of confusion because the same wreckage in another shot was apparently labelled Mayflower.
Well, I was looking at the blu-ray caps from the film and the name Farragut does not appear on the giant saucer at all. Moreover, the name Mayflower is visible on the saucer in that scene. (Look just above the E's bridge. What's more, it's visible in the first image as well if you look just above the E's secondary hull.
It appears to me that some "clever" person modified the image, probably using the well-known closeup pics of the Nebula-class model circa GEN. As for the source of the hoax, Dukkie said he found it on the TrekBBS back in this thread, but I don't really feel inclined to go trudging through their archives in search of the original culprit. Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.
There of course was a U.S.S. Farragut mentioned in the film, and one of the CGI ships may indeed have been labelled as such, but it wasn't the Mayflower wreckage.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Some of you may recall the picture
There's a person floating in space near the hull!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Not my fault.
Looking at that first pic, there is something a little too clean about the letters. But still... it's a pretty good job. Except the part where they forgot to get rid of the E from Mayflower...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The funny thing is, when I found that picture over at the TrekBBS, I later looked at it and realized that the placement of the name "Farragut" was off-center to the registry number (in the pic that isn't artificially brightened). I guess I just never bothered to point it out.
I do hope that we eventually see both the renders for the intact ships and the wreckage CG, so we can see if the names match up with the spoken dialogue.
BTW...I can see "162" but I don't know if there's another number before or after that.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
It apears that we have a registry as well - at least I can make out 162.
Does anybody has more information?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Actually, If I had to guess, I'd bet the Mayflower's registry is NCC-1620, since that's the year the real Mayflower arrived in Plymouth.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Well, that kind of detail was never part of my scholastic education, but, h*ll, it makes sense!
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
It too occurred to me that the name was not aligned to the registry. And the saucer would have to spin very fast from the cap that allows to read parts of the registry to the one with the alleged "Farragut".
Anyway, quite a good hoax that fooled all of us.
But speaking of the registry, I am quite sure it is NCC-1620 (for obvious reasons).
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
in the screen caps of pre-destroyed ships, are the hull numbers visable at all? even with resolution increases? what about looking at the shuttles? any chance of linking shuttle-to-ships? (i mean, if they took the time to pump that scene in Naranda with teasers...?)
and does someone have the link to the the little Jason-like models someone made of those ships? i'm pretty sure i have em on my old laptop, but ive not updated my Portable HD or the new laptop...
and im sick. poopy sick. dehydrated sick. Weeeeeee *cough* flu *goes back to bed, gotta love getting a SIQ chit on a duty day*)
and wouldn't wish this flu on anyone...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm a little iffy about saying the registry is NCC-1620 just based on the idea that it could be an in-joke. We can't see the fourth digit, so we can't say what it is. Can we even say for sure that the fourth digit follows 162 rather than precedes it?
And Bernd, so long as we're on the subject of correcting STXI ship errors, there was no U.S.S. Centaurus. Someone mis-heard U.S.S. Antares, there.
Also, while it perhaps can't be taken without a grain of salt, according to this concept art, the Newton belongs to the class with the underslung double hulls and the Defiant to the class with none. (I say take it with a grain of salt because the latter design doesn't exactly match anything in the film, apparently having been revised to create two separate designs, one with a rollbar and underslung hull and one with no rollbar or underslung hull.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
You may be iffy, but I'm not, because it makes perfect sense. So what if you can't see the fourth digit...why would a ship be labeled the "Mayflower" and have a registry of NCC-162(0) if it wasn't an in-joke? Do we honestly need JJ Abrams to send us a personal memo stating this before we can believe it? I think not. I mean, c'mon, the Kelvin was named after the guy's grandfather for crying out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if the 0514 registry is his gramp's birthday.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
May 14th or May 1914?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I have Centaurus on the notes I took myself. Well, IIRC I made these notes watching the German dubbed movie version, but I didn't think they would change ship names. Maybe I was mistaken?
Regarding the Mayflower, I can read "*-162*", followed by something that could be a "6", "8" or most obviously a "0".
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The trailing 's' sound from U.S.S. blends with the name to make it sound like that, but I'm pretty sure the name is Antares. Don't feel bad, though, you're not the only one who thought it sounded like Centaurus. Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I've done a quick analysis of the hangar bay scene where the cadets are assigned to their posts. This is what I got:
Male dispatcher:
USS Newton USS Odyssey Regular One USS Farragut USS Enterprise USS Wolcott USS Hood
Female dispatcher:
USS Odyssey USS Newton USS Faragut USS Antares
Most of the above given names are on the subtitles, as well.
Later, we can hear Captain Pike calling the USS Truman, and, of course, we have the YFLOWE, which we translate into the USS Mayflower. By the way, I believe that the registry of the Mayflower is NCC-1621 and not NCC-1620. Why is so? You can see the last 'one' on the saucer. The 'one' couldn'd be mistaken for the zero, since we know from the USS Kelvin that the zero has 'rounded' edges, and the 'one' not.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Watched it again Yesterday. Really tried to make out Shuttle 9's name, but its too small, even on BluRay with a 42" TV. BTW, do those 5-digit numbers on the shuttles' hull have any deeper meaning? In the hangar bay scene, one of the shuttles was '1701', which would imply some sort of registry (or at least imply an affiliation to a ship). Since Enterprise is supposed to be Starfleet's newest ship yet the concept sketches show higher regs, we might be back to non-sequential numbering, which *could* mean 5-digit-ship registries. Even though I doubt it.
Here's an idea: We can see the numbers on the shuttles. Galia (the orion girl) is assigned to the Farragut, right? Where does she go? I mean - can we see which shuttle she approaches?
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Wow. Hey. Just noticed something. Mayflower is confirmed for Vulcan, Truman, too. Plus Newton, Odyssey, Farragut, Hood, Wolcott and Antares. That's eight. But the fleet was 7 plus the Enterprise. Which one of those is the fifth Beatle? The small thing still docked when the E leaves? *And* there's still the Defiant from the concept sketches (is it confirmed those are concepts - or are they shots of the real models, possibly low-quality renders or something?)
Edit: This isn't the 90's anymore. Maybe someone should dig out Eaves' email and just ask the man. Would make things a lot easier. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The only way it would work is if either the Truman or the Mayflower were already in orbit of Vulcan (or better yet, already destroyed) when the other 7 ships arrived (remember, Pike only metioned the Truman after they had already reached Vulcan, implying either that the ship was already there, or it was the lead ship in the task force). If that's the case, then I'd prefer it if it was the Mayflower. That way we could have a ship with a Kelvin-style saucer ridiculously scaled up even though no ships at the station were larger than the Enterprise.
Re: Defiant: I don't think they were lo-rez models, I think they were just concept art. Plus, the Defiant had the TOS Connie Defiant's registry number. Also, the Defiant had a rollbar, but the final CGI model didn't. I think it's safe to say there was no Defiant in the fleet.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Doesn't work. First, Pike tried to contact the Truman immediately after Kirk convinced him that it might be a trap, so before their arrival. The fact that he tried to contact the Truman might indicate it was the flagship of the task force. It really wouldn't make sense to randomly pick one ship.
The 7-ships-statement came from Ayel, who informed Nero about their arrival. We can exclude 6 from the list, plus the Truman, if she was the flag ship. Leaves the Mayflower as the wild card. But her debries were among the other ships' debries. If she was destroyed before the task force arrived, their remains would probably be somwhere else, space is big. If she arrived *with* the task force, it would be 8 ships in Ayel's announcement.
The only way this would work is the following scenario: Mayflower at Vulcan, Truman plus 6 others (and Enterprise) leave for Vulcan. Mayflower leaves Vulcan to meet the task force. One of the task force - for whatever reason - doesn't make the trip to Vulcan (we don't know the state of those ships; maybe they were under repair at earth, which would make one of them dropping out for techical reasons plausible). Maybe the one that doesn't make it was the Truman, Pike knew that and tried to contact her to see if they knew anything. Which would also make sense: if Vulcan *was* a trap, the task force would probably be fighting for their lives and have no time to return Pike's call. So contacting the Truman would make sense. If they were close to Vulcan when they dropped out, they might get some sensor readings or something. And the reason they did not respond was either them being in range of the com jammer or their techical difficulties.
The one thing that really made me scratch my head was: why did the whole fleet assemble in the Laurentian system? What the hell was going on out there?
BTW, did someone catch the names of the other Admirals at the hearing? The one to the right (from Kirk's p.o.v.) was Komack. The two on the left were also readable in one short shot shortly before the end of the scene (i can look it up if someone's interested), but what about the rest? I haven't worked my way through all the special features, maybe there's more. And speaking of special features, isn't there one about the ships? Has anyone watched it yet?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The one thing that really made me scratch my head was: why did the whole fleet assemble in the Laurentian system? What the hell was going on out there?
Nothing, really. It was just a plot device to have the rest of the fleet be somewhere else, and not have a lot of thought behind why.
I'd go with the theory that the Mayflower was already in orbit of Vulcan, and for whatever reason, Ayel said seven ships instead of eight, if only because I like the thought that there was a ship even larger than the (*cough*) 700 meter Enterprise.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The fact that they assign cadets to those 7 ships mentioned during the hangar bar scene doesn't imply that all of them have to go to Vulcan. In one case, a cadet was assinged to a space station (Regular One), so its fair to say that they also assign other cadets to ships that will have other tasks.
We never saw a compelte picture of the fleet leaving the Earth space station, but in one scene you can see four ships shortly before they go to warp from the bridge of the Enterprise. When they actually jump to warp, a fifth warp signatur is visible (obviously from a ship that is covered by the Enterprise). So we have a total of five (not seven or eight!) ships excluding the Enterprise that are going to Vulcan.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
We see seven ships docked at the station (not including the Enterprise), and Ayel states that seven ships are on route to Vulcan. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
But this doesn't mean that they are coming from the same point of origin, hence not all ships from the Eart station had to go to Vulcan, and - sorry if I repeat myself - we can onyl can see five ships leaving.
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The location of Starfleet's vessels and fleets has been a mystery to me, not only the "only-ship-in-sector"-device from the movies, but also the large fleets of vessels vs. only single vessels in DS9. It makes sense to have ships out on their own for deep space exploration, but defending borders etc. makes a lot more sense in small groups, while at the same time there is no reason to move around in large fleets because you can easily out-maneuver them (unless you're preparing an immediate attack, which obviously wasn't the case in most situations). The point I'm trying to make is this: Even though it would make sense to scatter the fleet, have ships from different locations meet at Vulcan, and not send all ships stationed at earth to Vulcan, Starfleet rarely acts that way. All (!) other ships in one location (the Laurentian system, for whatever reason) is a clear indicator of that.
Naturally, I would assume that Starfleet had other ships around, patrol craft and so on, plus those at earth plus maybe some at Vulcan (aren't there any starbases or shipyards or whatever at Vulcan?), so a lot ships around to draw to Vulcan. But that's obviously not how Starfleet works. So in Star Trek-terms, having 7 ships (or 8) go from Earth to Vulcan and no other ships around makes more sense. (We could call it the Borg variation of that "only-ship-in-sector"-device, as they did have fleets around - only to wipe them out to make the enemy look more dangerous and have the E arrive just in time to save the day).
By the way: What's up with Vulcan anyway? Don't they have any defense systems? Even Betazed could stand its ground for a couple of hours against the Dominion (okay, I know, you really can't compare a Dominion fleet to a mad Romulan's possibly Borg-enhanced evil planet-killing mining vessel of doom from the future (TM), but, you know: they've got to have *something*. These guys have been travelling the galaxy for hundreds of years and not a century ago seriously kicked some Andorian ass. What happened?)
And off-topic: Did anyone else thik the 10,000-survivors-estimate was somewhat... low? 6 billion people on Vulcan an 10,000 survive? IT's a space-faring civilization, part of an interstellar alliance, with colonies, outposts and starships. Even if not a single Vulcan escaped the planet, there have to be more than 10,000 around. The US has a population of about 300 million. If Nero would wipe it out, and going by that ratio, it would mean that only 500 US citizens would survive (= be outside the US or being able to escape). That's quite unlikely.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've read in a couple of places that the 10,000 figure is supposed to be just the people who made it off the planet during the attack. IOW, there's more overall survivors than that.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Actually, If I had to guess, I'd bet the Mayflower's registry is NCC-1620, since that's the year the real Mayflower arrived in Plymouth.
A documentation on the BluRay is showing a diagram of Starfleet ships including its registries: The Newton, the Defiant and also the Mayflower. The given number is NCC-1621, which is also confirmed by the screenshots of the graveyard scene.
From this diagram we know that the USS Mayflower is of the 'Reliant-Class', which can be seen both docking at the space station and later, shortly before the ships are going to warp.
By the way, when Alex Yeager was talking in this documentation about the ships of STXI, he was sitting in front of a background of ship diagrams, that seams to be more complete than the one that was actually featured in the documenation. So can someone give him a call and ask for this wallpaper?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
o2, can you take some screenshots of the featurette showing the ships for us?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I saw a neat pic a while ago, someone had done a Rebooted Reliant. Looked good.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: o2, can you take some screenshots of the featurette showing the ships for us?
Just send you an email.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Thanks!
Apparently, if the conceptart is to be believed, the Mayflower is indeed NCC-1621 and not NCC-1620. And unless it was redesigned to match one of the designs seen in the cadets' fleet, it was indeed not among them when they left for Vulcan in the film.
o2's suggestion of contacting Jaegar for clarification seems like a good one, but perhaps we should coordinate on that score so as not to overwhelm the poor fellow...
I believe the Mayflower and Defiant type is the same class as the Type III ship from Bernd's STXI ship page, only the finished CGI model didn't have the rollbar.
Curious, o2...where does it say that the Mayflower is "Reliant class?"
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think he just meant the one that looks like the Reliant, hence the quotation marks.
Yes, it is quite possible the design was simply tweaked to omit the rollbar in its final incarnation. Hopefully further information will come to light, but until such time we should probably abstain from drawing firm conclusions.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I see. The way he worded it was a bit vague. Although since we still don't have a good size estimate for these ships, one might not want to speculate that they were pre-refit versions of any TMP movie-era ships.
One thing I'd like to see is the name for the three-naceller in that diagram. Since it was the only ship of it's class, at least we might be able to pin down which ship it was. However, since we now have nine names for what were only supposed to be seven ships (Antares, Defiant, Newton, Odyssey, Truman, Farragut, Hood, Mayflower, and Wolcott) that might be difficult Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I think he just meant the one that looks like the Reliant, hence the quotation marks.
That's right. The Defiant and the Mayflower look like a ST 2009er version of the Reliant to me, but until know we have no reference to any new class-name, even not to the USS Kelvin or the Enterprise (and please don't tell me it's 'Starship' class *smile*).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:One thing I'd like to see is the name for the three-naceller in that diagram. Since it was the only ship of it's class, at least we might be able to pin down which ship it was. However, since we now have nine names for what were only supposed to be seven ships (Antares, Defiant, Newton, Odyssey, Truman, Farragut, Hood, Mayflower, and Wolcott) that might be difficult
Hey, I can't count. There actually are nine ships docked at the station besides the Enterprise (maybe even ten or eleven too), because I didn't take into account the smaller ships, two of which look like they have a saucer and nacelles, which could be an indication they're Starfleet ships. Perhaps o2's point about not all the ships going to Vulcan was legit.
Also, from what I hear, the new Art of Star Trek book will have this ship diagram. So at least we'll have the name of the three-naceller pinned down.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
That book sure as hell better have ship designs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Alex Jaeger! Can someone ask him about the Norway!?!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Ask him what? What don't we already know about it? It was an unfinished, rather plain CGI model that was accidentally deleted from their files and will never be seen again.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
My opinion is that this is just the concept, and neither the names nor the designs were set in stone at that time.
Some things to note: - The "Excelsior" may be just a placeholder, hence the color. - The Mayflower design probably doesn't have the rollbar (it better shouldn't have one, in order not to be too similar to the Armstrong) - More registry oddities, old-style ships with higher numbers than the Enterprise, although this may be easy to explain away - Perhaps the Mayflower registry was later corrected to NCC-1620 on the model? - If this is all to scale and the Enterprise is 700m, we have a whole fleet of monster ships. - The Mayflower saucer is not bigger than the one of the Enterprise though (how could it, at the stardock the ship of this design looks quite small). - NCC-1727: Newton's year of death, NCC-1769 should have better been NCC-1969...
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
These ships in the concept art used names from the novelization. With the exception of the Newton, which is mentioned in dialog, and the Mayflower, seen as a wrecked CGI model, the other ships (Armstrong, Defiant, Excelsior) are unattested to in the final product.
My hope for class and registry information is fading as I am thinking we have here a similar situation to what occurred in the series Enterprise. With the exception of the titular ship, the other Starfleet ships weren't labeled.
Based on the concept art, the registry is placed on the sides of the nacelles. However, in the finished product, where there should be a registry, there is bare surface.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Speaking of monster ships, this Memory Alpha article has a footnote way down the page stating that the blu-ray featurette lists the Kelvin's length at 1500 feet (457 meters). So yet another one to deal with...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwuser: These ships in the concept art used names from the novelization.
I would think that would more likely be the other way around.
quote:My hope for class and registry information is fading as I am thinking we have here a similar situation to what occurred in the series Enterprise. With the exception of the titular ship, the other Starfleet ships weren't labeled.
No, you can see they are labelled in screenshots, both on their saucers and nacelles.
quote:Based on the concept art, the registry is placed on the sides of the nacelles. However, in the finished product, where there should be a registry, there is bare surface.
Again, incorrect. There are registries on the nacelles but unfortunately (and ironically) they are obscured by the running lights that are supposed to illuminate them.
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: - Perhaps the Mayflower registry was later corrected to NCC-1620 on the model?
- NCC-1727: Newton's year of death, NCC-1769 should have better been NCC-1969...
Wait...are you saying you'd rather have goofy in-joke registries than not? Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I am looking at a photo from this article of the supposed USS Newton. I don't see the registry on the nacelle, and this is one of the clearest shots available of this ship.
Looking at the concept art, the registry would be situated near the aft end of nacelle, just forward of the two projecting ridges.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
As can be seen from the Kelvin model, the nacelle has lights for illuminating the registry, but paradoxically they are arranged such that under the lighting conditions we see the ships under in the film the registry is obscured.
In any case, there are also registries visible (though too indistinctly to make them out) on the saucers of the vessels in the spacedock master shot.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I was reviewing the screencaps for the movie on the TrekCore.Com website to confirm what MoM was saying. I noticed something interesting. In this picture, we can see the registry for one of these ships. I can see 1, 7, and 9. The third number is unreadable. Looking at the concept art, this is either the Armstrong or the Excelsior. Honestly, before this art was released, I wouldn't know what to look for.
From the available screencaps, we have a modified Mayflower-type starship, two Newton-type starships, and one Armstrong/Excelsior-type starship warping to Vulcan.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Amendment to the earlier post:
I think we may be assuming what ships were being sent to Vulcan, and which ships actually were at Vulcan.
What we know for certain: * cadets were assigned to the starships Odyssey, Newton, Antares, Farragut, Hood, Wolcott, Enterprise, and to the station Regula 1 * five ships warped to the Vulcan home system, one was delayed and arrived later. Another ship, not mentioned in the assembling, could be the Armstrong or the Excelsior * Ayel reported to Nero that seven ships were entering the Vulcan home system * one of the ships destroyed was the Mayflower * Pike attempted to contact the Truman which he believed as being near Vulcan
So, of the seven ships, three ships weren't mentioned in Hangar 1 - the Armstrong/Excelsior, the Mayflower, the Truman
So, what happened to the other ships - the Farragut, the Hood, the Antares, the Wolcott, the Odyssey, the Newton? Were they sent to Vulcan, or were they sent to the other system to support the fleet? Or, did some ships stay in the Sol System to defend Earth? And, if there is an emergency call to battle, why is a cadet being assigned to a station? The situation is a mess.
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
They thought it was an emergency, no one ever thought it was an attack. So leaving ships behind to defend earth really doesn't make much sense.
The 450-meters figure for the Kelvin makes perfect sense, given her crew complement (even assuming the E is somewhere in the 300s range and not north of 700 meters). Starfleet seems to have the fetish for monster-sized exploration vessels (see Galaxy-class for example). (Additionally, and regardless of what ILM or anyone else says, in 'in-universe'-terms, even a 700-meter figure for the E and similar numbers for the rest of the fleet would make sense. Starfleet and others seem to have the ability to randomly vary the size of their components to fit their needs. Maybe industrial repicators can do that sort of thing.)
Did anyone read the Art of ST book yet? Mine is underway, as soon as it arrives I'll upload some more material, if there is any.
BTW, did they really say "Regula 1"? Maybe there is a USS Regula in the fleet. Or the officer reading out the list was just nervous and confused...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd:
- Perhaps the Mayflower registry was later corrected to NCC-1620 on the model?
The registry -even the last digit - is visible in one of the scences above Vulcon: It's NCC-1621.
I'm just a little concerned about the fact that the USS Enterprise is passing by the saucer of the USS Mayflower for at least 2 (two!) times.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:
BTW, did they really say "Regula 1"? Maybe there is a USS Regula in the fleet. Or the officer reading out the list was just nervous and confused... [/QB]
The subtitle of the scene on the BD says 'Regular One' (note the 'one', not '1!').
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
If you compare this picture from the documentation with the one given by Bernd, you can see that there has to be another diagram with further starships.
Bernd, mayby your source can provide the missing picture as well?
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The subtitle of the scene on the BD says 'Regular One' (note the 'one', not '1!').
Maybe what he meant was "you're assigned to the regular one" (as in "the one you would have been assigned to anyway")? Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: If you compare this picture from the documentation with the one given by Bernd, you can see that there has to be another diagram with further starships.
Bernd, mayby your source can provide the missing picture as well?
Not sure. Was that in the book as well?
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I went out today, and attempted to peruse a copy of the book from one of three bookstores. I couldn't find one. This is rather surprising as I live in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, and one would think I could obtain a copy. So, now I am dependent on others to tell me what is in the book. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Maybe because it isn't out yet?
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
The book comes out today. I checked the in-store catalog, and it said the book was likely to be in. I was reading on TrekBBS that another person had trouble finding the book. So, this isn't an isolated incident.
I just checked Amazon and Titan, the publisher of the book, and confirmed the release date.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd:
quote:Originally posted by o2: If you compare this picture from the documentation with the one given by Bernd, you can see that there has to be another diagram with further starships.
Bernd, mayby your source can provide the missing picture as well?
Not sure. Was that in the book as well?
Well, the chart shown on the Blu-Ray also shows the U.S.S. Defiant.
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
Amazon delivered today, here'S the facts:
First, there's some awesome (and I mean some really fuckin' awsome) imagery in that book; we never had a SotL-calendar that came close to this stuff. The details:
- Beauty-shot of the Mayflower wreckage (you can read xFLOWx and 16 from the registry) - Some really good material on the Kelvin, even an in-depth analysis of the battle damage; first concept still had the red/yellow arrow-thing on the nacelle, like the original E - A rendering that gives a much better impression of the Kelvin's secondary hull (the shuttle hangar is circular, like a giant tube). Maybe really a colony ship. Shuttle bay is open to space, shuttles accessed via airlock - The Gilliam ist shuttle 2 of the Enterprise - Eaves influenced the armada design (yeah, we noticed...), besides the blue chart (only the one we already have), there's concepts of what looks like a NX01-ish vessel (only one secondary hull thing, and the saucer is missing the middle part of the ring, basically just an outer ring and a bridge-module hanging in it's center) - no name given; concept of a USS Phoenix NCC-11592 - The "bubble" of the spacedock is made of some transparent material, the concepts show ships docked inside and a large botanical section -some good images of Sarek's speederbike from the cut scene -Tons of stuff on the Enterprise design (when the shuttle bay doors open, you get the Starfleet insignia; never noticed...) -The concepts of the bridge look much better than the final design, more classic and not so shiny -The first concept of the drill was some spider-bot vehicle -Several pages of poster concepts that look way better than the final stuff. I would have put about 20 of them on my walls.
...and much more, excellent art, definitely worth my money. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Does it give an in depth look at any of the other ships, besides the Kelvin, Enterprise, and Narada, and the Mayflower wreckage.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
No.
This book is a disappointment. Though the book is two hundred pages of artwork, there is minimal explanation. Minimal as in a short caption for every page. There are no lengthy paragraphs describing the evolution of a design, no storyboard sequences, no script, etc. In other words, this is not a Art of Star Wars book.
Here are some examples I noted:
* the Kobayshi Maru is not shown in detail, in fact, it's not shown at all save in clips from the movie. Instead, there are three or four sketches of the Klingon warbirds.
* in the chapter about Starfleet Academy, there is a film clip of the hangar. This clip shows shuttles not used in the movie. They are identified as military transports, and have hull numbers 72 and 56. There is no explanation for their no-show in the final product.
* finally, in the chapter on the Fleet, the connection between the Phoenix, from Starfleet Armada, and the ships in the fleet is not revealed
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
Well, it's an art book and most of the stuff is self-explanatory. I'm just glad that we got *something*. My last art book was... can remember. The sketchbooks or ST Design? It's been too long. And the quality is really good (of the pictures, I mean)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I believe the last art book was Ships Of The Line, which contained pretty much eveything we'd already seen millions of times before, i.e. Excelsiors, Mirandas, and Birds of Prey.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I feel like the only one in the room who is not getting why the latest girl in the room is hot. I mean she dresses fine and speaks, well, good, but there's no substance there. I suppose she's good for a one-night stand, but if you wanted something more, she couldn't deliver.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The metaphors, man, the METAPHORS!!!
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
Any guess why the Excelsior is copper-colored? Is that the Vulcan commemorative paintjob or something?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So, lert me see if I have this right:
The Newton-type is a dual-nacelle, dual-secondary-hull ship.
The Mayflower-type is a dual-nacelle ship - hell, might as well come out and say it, it's as close as dammit to a canon TOSed Miranda as we'll ever see.
The Armstrong-type is a three-nacelled ship - they all look like nacelles to me, it's not a dual-nacelled/one-secondary config nor is it it a single-nacelle/dual-secondary config (as groovy as that might be)?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Lee: That's 100% correct.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amasov Prime: Any guess why the Excelsior is copper-colored? Is that the Vulcan commemorative paintjob or something?
Can show a picture of it?
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Check page 3.
As I mentioned earlier, I know that one of the ships was labeled with the registry of the Armstrong or the Excelsior. The registry, well, most of it, can be seen in the ship forward of the Enterprise.
As for the other ships, I don't see any evidence that they were labeled on the primary hull. On the nacelles, that's a different story.
Do you think we will see these ship classes in the next movie?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I guess the copper color is to indicate the ship's equipped with transwarp drive
I hope we do get to see these ships again, though considering the events of the first movie, I wouldn't be surprised if Starfleet replenished it ranks with ship designs based on the Enterprise, equipped with similar weapons and technology.
[ November 21, 2009, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Mars Needs Women ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Except for the rest of the fleet that was apparently sitting on their hands out in the Laurentian system.
I suspect that the copper ship is a placeholder for another design not yet completed.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Bernd's site now claims that a special feature on the blu-ray depicts the Mayflower as being of the three-nacelled type rather than the two-nacelled design it's depicted as on the ship charts. Can anyone verify this, preferably by providing a screenshot? Also, is there any more ship info on the blu-ray?
Also, as someone else already pointed out, this business about the registry number being "corrected" to 1620 on the final model is incorrect, as you can just barely see the edge of the final 1 in some of the screencaps of the Enterprise in front of the saucer. It's definitely 1621 in the film.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Bernd's site now claims that a special feature on the blu-ray depicts the Mayflower as being of the three-nacelled type rather than the two-nacelled design it's depicted as on the ship charts. Can anyone verify this, preferably by providing a screenshot? Also, is there any more ship info on the blu-ray?
I think he just made a mistake. Bernd says that both the Mayflower and the Defiant are of the three-nacelled class, but on the Blu-Ray, they're both of the two-nacelled, full-saucer class.
Man, I really wish someone would come out with class names for these ships. It's getting tiring trying to describe them all the time.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I figured that too at first, but I was confused because he specifically wrote:
"On an early comparison chart the unnamed class III is represented by the 'USS Mayflower NCC-1621', here still with a rollbar that is not on the movie model. The year of the Mayflower's journey was 1620, and since it is unquestionably a tip of the hat the registry may have been fixed on the final model. According to the special features of the Blu-ray, on the other hand, the 'USS Mayflower NCC-1621' belongs to unnamed class I. We can't tell at this point which statement is true."
Just looking for clarification.
Regarding descriptive names, in the absence of further information, I'd suggest calling them the Newton-type (two nacelles dorsal, double underslung hulls); Armstrong-type (three nacelles ventral); and Mayflower-type (two nacelles ventral).
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Yeah that second ship has too many details in it that it looks cartoony, though there's potential in there somewhere.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Actually I don't have the Blu-ray. When someone reported to me that on the disk the "USS Mayflower NCC-1621" and "USS Defiant NCC-1764" were of unnamed class I (three nacelles) I thought it was a mix-up. But then came a second guy who claimed the same. So have I been targeted in an evil scheme to discredit me, did they both make the same mistake or is it true?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Bernd,
I own the blu-ray, so you can take my word as gospel. The ship chart (or part of it anyway) is only shown for a few seconds, but both the Mayflower and the Defiant are of the type-III full saucer/two nacelle class of ship. Those guys were either confused or they didn't know what they were talking about.
Also, you can clearly see the registry of the Mayflower's wrecked saucer on the blu-ray, and it is indeed NCC-1621, giving us the only confirmed name/registry of the rescue ships in the movie.
One more thing: your schematic of the type-III ship is a tad bit off. Like the Kelvin, there's a section of upper pylon leading from the rear of the bridge to the end of the saucer, that would have led to the secondary hull if this ship had one. It's on the ship chart schematic; just omit the rollbar and you'd have what the type-III looked like.
BTW (sorry, I just keep coming up with new stuff to say)... there is NO U.S.S. Centaurus. The confusion stems from the sloppy way the actress pronounces the name. She blends in the second "s" in "U.S.S" with the actual name of the ship (Antares), and she also mispronounces Antares as "an-TAHR-is" instead of the proper "an-TAHR-eez."
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Dukhat, there is some evidence for another ship from the concept art in the film. In this pic from trekcore, http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xihd/trekxihd1017.jpg, the registry for the three-nacelled ship can be seen. I am reading NCC-1769 which is the registry for the USS Armstrong. (The bloody link never works; go to Chapter 5, go to page 7, go to picture 17. This shows the Armstrong in front of the Enterprise.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
TrekCore doesn't allow linking to individual caps, but this page is the one with the Armstrong.
Earlier in the thread, I linked to screenshots provided by o2 showing the conceptart from the Blu-ray, which indeed shows the Mayflower (and Defiant) as being the two-nacelled type. Whoever said they were the three-nacelled type was mistaken; perhaps this was due to the fact that the profiles look similar with the rollbar in place. (This may be the very reason why they utimately decided to drop the rollbar from the Mayflower-type.)
Here is another one he provided of the exact frame where you can see the final 1 of the Mayflower's registry in the film.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Although I see a *faint* registry number on the saucer, I can't really tell what it says. The last number *looks* like a "9" but I can't be sure.
Now I'm starting to wonder if there was any correlation between what was mentioned in the script as opposed to what was actually printed on the CGI models (i.e. we heard Wolcott, Truman, Antares, et. al, but saw Defiant, Armstrong, Mayflower et. al on the concept art...)
I had another thought too... I wonder if ILM pulled a "First Contact" with us and labeled each type of ship with the same name (i.e. all the two-nacelled/two enginering hulled ships were labeled "Newton," all three Reliant-type ships were labeled "Mayflower," etc.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Is your browser displaying the pics at full size? I can actually see the registry pretty clearly in caps #1019 and #1022. 1-7-6-9.
I wouldn't be surprised if the VFX guys were not fully coordinated with the screenwriters. It wouldn't be the first time.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Thans for clearing that up! So the evidence from the DVD is entirely in line with the size chart from the book.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
From what we can see of it, yes. You're welcome!
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Dukhat,
We know the Mayflower was duplicated. I can confirm this. Check out 1202 and 1208 from TrekCore.
I would say that the Excelsior and the Defiant were backup names, and the ships in the film bore the names Newton, Mayflower, and Armstrong.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:We know the Mayflower was duplicated. I can confirm this. Check out 1202 and 1208 from TrekCore.
While that may be true, the wreckage CGI would be a different model than the intact ship CGI models; however, that wouldn't preclude that they'd have the same names if the same person built both models.
quote:I would say that the Excelsior and the Defiant were backup names, and the ships in the film bore the names Newton, Mayflower, and Armstrong.
For lack of better evidence, I'm starting to agree with that assessment as well. That would explain why the Excelsior and Defiant were different colors on the ship chart. My theory is that the VFX personnel probably felt "Excelsior" and "Defiant" were too ingrained with Star Trek III and Deep Space Nine, and they wanted new names for the ships that hadn't been used previously, along with registry numbers that were subtle nods to the ship names. However, the scriptwriters had their own ship names (without registry numbers) which probably didn't correspond to the VFX guys' models, as Mim speculated. In other words, don't go looking to see which ship was the Antares or the Truman, because they weren't labeled as such.
Either way, I think we can at least state that the three new designs can safely be associated as the "Armstrong-type," the "Newton-type," and the "Mayflower-type" (along with the Kelvin-type and Kobayashi Maru-type).
1. Newton NCC-1727 (year of Newton's death) 2. Mayflower NCC-1621 (a year after the Mayflower reached Plymouth) 3. Armstrong NCC-1769 (1969 being the year of the moon landing; since 1969 would have been too high of a registry number it was changed to 1769)
So Ayel's statement about seven ships was correct per the script, not the names on the CGI models.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
For those whose knickers might be in a twist about 1621 not being an "historically correct" in-joke, and for what it's worth, according to Wikipedia the passengers of the Mayflower didn't actually come ashore until March of 1621, having spent the winter aboard the ship. If the reference was being made by someone whose ancestors were among them, perhaps they were aware of this?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Thans for clearing that up! So the evidence from the DVD is entirely in line with the size chart from the book.
something else that our newton looks like. could it be a lineage realative? (for that matter, what later ships look like the NX-Ent?)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)