I was perusing an article on TVshowsondvd.com regarding the release of TOS Remastered on HD and BluRay DVD, when I came across a mention of a possible Star Trek TNG "remastered" release:
quote: They also revealed that Seasons Two and Three were expected to start production this week. They further revealed that tests had been done for a possible future Star Trek: The Next Generation - Remastered effort.
Well, the earlier episodes could use it... But unfortunately it would mean the loss of footage of some genuinely cool model ships!
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, I'm of the opinion that with TNG, the only thing that needs to be done are the replacement/modification of some of the VFX shots.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And maybe give Picard more hair!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And maybe reshoot the entire first two seasons.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Well, the earlier episodes could use it... But unfortunately it would mean the loss of footage of some genuinely cool model ships!
And that would both solve problems and possibly create more. Let me explain:
1. Didn't all of us supernerds shiver in disgust when TPTB would reuse an alien ship model five or six times to represent other alien ships whose owners couldn't possibly have had the exact same technology? Obviously this was done because the budget didn't permit the building of a brand-new model every single time the episode script called for one. Well, with CGI/Remastered Trek, that problem is solved! But wait a minute...
2. Let's think about TNG seasons 1 & 2. The re-use of movie models such as the Excelsior, the Grissom, the Reliant, the BoP, the Regula 1 station, the (stock footage of the) Spacedock, and (almost) the TMP Enterprise was done for the same reason - they didn't want to spend a bunch of money building new models when they could utilize the movie models instead. But if they remaster TNG the same way they're doing with TOS, all they'll do is replace the Oberths and Excelsiors and BoPs with CGI versions of the same ships. Who gives a shit about that? If they instead, for example, replaced the Grissom version of the Tsiolkovsky in "The Naked Now" with a new science vessel design (a la the Red Dwarf remastering), or replaced all the Enterprise-D/random Excelsior stock footage from at least ten different episodes, then it would be worth it. But if they're going to just use the same ships in a CGI version, what's the point? And most likely they won't change anything, because then it will contradict Okuda's Encyclopedia, which is pretty much the basis of what they're doing with TOS-R.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Rick and Mike would totally have to be involved, as they knew best what ships they wanted to do but couldn't. I don't mind the Excelsiors so much, but a couple do need to be replaced with their intended vessels (such as the Crazy Horse[i] being a [i]Cheyenne). And the Grissom would only show up once, possibly, as the disabled S.S. Vico, with redone markings. The rest of the Oberths should actually be Oberths -- the way Rick designed the class.
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Rick and Mike would totally have to be involved, as they knew best what ships they wanted to do but couldn't.
Yes, I agree. For example, if they show a remastered version of the tachyon fleet from "Redemption Pt. 2" where they actually showed every single ship, then the conjectural classes would need to be designed based on Okuda's registry #'s he gave to them, and the other ships would have to correspond to the classes he gave them in the Encyclopedia.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It wouuld be nice to see the randevous with the ships at Dytallix B....and to replace the GIANT KBOPs in Yesterday's Enterprise with...anything else.
I'm personally all for it- maybe we'll be able to really see some of the W359 ships instead of just blurry images on the viewscreen.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
As long as the Melbourne remains a Nebula...
--Jonah
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
Maybe they'd get around to fixing that phaser bank torpedo launcher from "Darmok".
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Rick and Mike would totally have to be involved, as they knew best what ships they wanted to do but couldn't. I don't mind the Excelsiors so much, but a couple do need to be replaced with their intended vessels (such as the Crazy Horse[i] being a [i]Cheyenne). And the Grissom would only show up once, possibly, as the disabled S.S. Vico, with redone markings. The rest of the Oberths should actually be Oberths -- the way Rick designed the class.
--Jonah
Me commands you to provide links & pics this Rick-Oberth you mentions, yes?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
He auctioned a drawing of it that he created for an engineering display for "The Pegasus", and let some of us have a small scan of it before it went off to the auction house. Bernd has it also, and maybe a couple others from the old ASDB. He didn't want us showing it around, but that was a long time ago. Not sure what to do here...
--Jonah
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Oh, is it the one of the Ambassador-esque design with the underslung nacelles?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, though this doesn't exactly explain the displays in the engineering room allegedly depicting four nacelles...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I never did like that design, primarily for the nacelle placement.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I never did like that design, primarily for the nacelle placement.
Didn't Jason make a model of this design (i know i saved the clip art in my pics. I save everything! Bruhahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahha! *cough, cough*
Still, i'm sure they are discuing it to no end JUST WHAT they could do to a Speculative TNG-R. Certainly, folks would want this (You still get royalties for even a remake/edit/special ed-addition stuff, right?)
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
By the time they made the Pegasus's engine room set, it was supposed to be a Cheyenne.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I think the "Nebularized-Ambassador" would have been a bad idea for two reasons. First, it's way too big a ship to only have had a small crew of mutineers for Riker & Pressman to have escaped from, and second, the Ambassador design (and any variants thereof), would have been outdated even during Riker's time as an ensign. This was supposed to be a prototype ship whose technology was integrated into the GCS.
I also think that the Cheyenne class would have been a bad idea, if only because now we'd have to start calling it a Pegasus-class ship instead of a Cheyenne.
However, both ships above would still have been better than the Grissom model they ended up reusing. I mean, couldn't Greg Jein have just made a quick wrecked model for this one scene? It wouldn't have even needed to be complete, since half the ship would be hidden. He did it before in "BoBW" and "Hero Worship." Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:I also think that the Cheyenne class would have been a bad idea, if only because now we'd have to start calling it a Pegasus-class ship instead of a Cheyenne.
I can think of at least six ways around that one. The most obvious being that there were say 2 or 3 Cheyennes in the prototype phase and the Pegasus was only the 2nd or 3rd one built for the GCS system trials. By the time the trials were over and the class went into production as a ship in it's own right the class was named for the first of the prototypes...or using the name Cheyenne was a part of the political hush-up of the Pegasus incident.
I think using the Cheyenne would be a fine choice, certainly better than the Oberth.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I never did like that design, primarily for the nacelle placement.
Didn't Jason make a model of this design (i know i saved the clip art in my pics. I save everything! Bruhahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahha! *cough, cough*
Still, i'm sure they are discuing it to no end JUST WHAT they could do to a Speculative TNG-R. Certainly, folks would want this (You still get royalties for even a remake/edit/special ed-addition stuff, right?)
Indeed.
As to making this design The Pegasus from this design, it works in that it's a believable testbed for Galaxy technology (moreso than a freakin' Oberth abyway) but the small crew aspect does not fit. I suppose they could have made the loss of the ship a really well-known event where only a few people survived (kinda a Titanic sorta thing).
Mr Sternbach is now a member at SSM and said he likes this model- a BIG feather in my personal hat.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've got the perfect explanation for all the confusion, and why the Pegasus appeared to be such an old, crappy Oberth: perhaps, in addition to the cloaking device, Pressman was also testing out a prototype of the Shipclasschangeatron! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: By the time they made the Pegasus's engine room set, it was supposed to be a Cheyenne.
This is one of those things that has long been and keeps being repeated, but where is the evidence of it? (Aside from the four "nacelles" in the engineering display, I mean.) Where has anyone associated with the show mentioned the name Cheyenne in connection with the Pegasus? I'm not just trying being argumentative, I'd honestly like to know if this is a fanon legend or something more substantive.
-MMoM Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Your right I've never seen any indication of that the Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne besides that display. Furthermore, the Cheyenne was just some kitbashed model used for the Wolf 359 scene. I doubt that they would use any of those models again.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I think what happened was that someone saw that display and
a) first guessed that it represented four nacelles, and
b) assumed that it meant that the ship was supposed to be a Cheyenne class, since that was the only 24th century-era ship to have four nacelles.
Also, the only rationale I can think of for the Grissom-type ship was that Starfleet Intelligence purposely built the ship to look like an old Oberth for camoflauging purposes. I find it hard to believe that Starfleet would still be building Oberths in the late 24th century, no matter what rationale you can think of as to why the class is so long-lived.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Almost immediately after I posted above, I began to develop a sneaking suspicion that I had gone through this in more detail before. So I ran a little search and, sure enough, BINGO!:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
This is only partially correct. It is true that the Crazy Horse, after being mentioned by name only in "Descent, Part I" (TNG), was listed by Okuda as Cheyenne-class and assigned a registry of NCC-50446 in the first Star Trek Encylcopedia and only later appeared as an Excelsior in "The Pegasus" (TNG). It is also true that the Pegasus herself was originally intended to be a new design of ship, but it was not that of the Cheyenne Class. Rather, it was an Ambassador-derived design, as can be seen in this sketch by Rick Sternbach. When this was not allowed by the budget, the Oberth model was used instead.
While it is true that a display on the Pegasus Engineering set appears to show what might be four nacelles, I know of no official record citing a connection between the ship and the Cheyenne design. The display may indeed have been created by Okuda, one of the very few people on staff who would have had any idea what the Cheyenne looked like, (or even that it existed, modelled by Ed Miarecki and named by Okuda himself for use in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" [TNG]) but no other evidence for the oft-repeated fandom tale that the Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne exists AFAIK. No TNG script makes any mention whatsoever of "Cheyenne class" in reference to any ship, nor does any episode's dialogue, although another Okuda-generated display from "Redemption, Part II" (TNG) establishes that the class does exist and that the ship from BoBWII (the Ahwahnee) was of it.
Unless anyone has further evidence in support of the claim, I tend to think that this little urban legend got started through confusion between the established background stories of the Pegasus and Crazy Horse, which both coincidentally culminated in the same episode, perhaps furthering the confusion.
-MMoM
P.S. I forgot to mention that a further point which might have contributed to the Pegasus-as-Cheyenne theory is the fact that her registry number (NCC-53847) is of comparable range to that of the number assigned to the Crazy Horse (NCC-50446) in the Encyclopedia, where (as mentioned) the latter was also listed as a Cheyenne.
-MM
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
My only input at this point is to ask people to stop calling the Grissom the Oberth class. Please. It makes me twitch every time I read it.
--Jonah
P.S. Jason, I love that model.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Why isn't the Grissom an Oberth?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, it is now. What Peregrinus means is that when "The Naked Now" was filmed, Mike Okuda created a dedication plaque for the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky, with the registry of NCC-53911, and the class called the "Oberth," after Hermann Oberth, a famous German rocket scientist. Both Okuda and Sternbach were going under the assumption that the Tsiolkovsky model, once it was built, would be a newer class of ship (but not as new as the Enterprise-D). That's why the registry number was so high.
Unfortunately, in post-production, the decision was made to use the old Grissom model from ST:III, since TPTB didn't want to spend money building a new model. This caused three problems: 1) The registry for the model was now way too high for a ship of that age, 2) "Oberth" was now synonymous with the Grissom model when it was meant to represent another class of ship, and 3) they didn't bother to relabel the model from when it was used as the Grissom, so even though the dedication plaque has a five-digit registry number, the model only had three.
Even worse, as the show went on, Okuda did start to relabel the movie models to represent other ships, and every time the Grissom model was used again, it was relabeled with an insanely high 5XXXX registry number.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Almost immediately after I posted above, I began to develop a sneaking suspicion that I had gone through this in more detail before. So I ran a little search and, sure enough, BINGO!:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
This is only partially correct. It is true that the Crazy Horse, after being mentioned by name only in "Descent, Part I" (TNG), was listed by Okuda as Cheyenne-class and assigned a registry of NCC-50446 in the first Star Trek Encylcopedia and only later appeared as an Excelsior in "The Pegasus" (TNG). It is also true that the Pegasus herself was originally intended to be a new design of ship, but it was not that of the Cheyenne Class. Rather, it was an Ambassador-derived design, as can be seen in this sketch by Rick Sternbach. When this was not allowed by the budget, the Oberth model was used instead.
While it is true that a display on the Pegasus Engineering set appears to show what might be four nacelles, I know of no official record citing a connection between the ship and the Cheyenne design. The display may indeed have been created by Okuda, one of the very few people on staff who would have had any idea what the Cheyenne looked like, (or even that it existed, modelled by Ed Miarecki and named by Okuda himself for use in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" [TNG]) but no other evidence for the oft-repeated fandom tale that the Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne exists AFAIK. No TNG script makes any mention whatsoever of "Cheyenne class" in reference to any ship, nor does any episode's dialogue, although another Okuda-generated display from "Redemption, Part II" (TNG) establishes that the class does exist and that the ship from BoBWII (the Ahwahnee) was of it.
Unless anyone has further evidence in support of the claim, I tend to think that this little urban legend got started through confusion between the established background stories of the Pegasus and Crazy Horse, which both coincidentally culminated in the same episode, perhaps furthering the confusion.
-MMoM
P.S. I forgot to mention that a further point which might have contributed to the Pegasus-as-Cheyenne theory is the fact that her registry number (NCC-53847) is of comparable range to that of the number assigned to the Crazy Horse (NCC-50446) in the Encyclopedia, where (as mentioned) the latter was also listed as a Cheyenne.
-MM
I looked at that display for the Pegasus and the nacelles look nothing like the one's on the Cheyenne. Hell I don't even know if those were nacelles on the display.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Grissom model was mislabeled "Oberth"-class. Assuming a new model was built, we would then find ourselves calling the Grissom model a Grissom-type Starship or just Grissom-class Starship. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I looked at that display for the Pegasus and the nacelles look nothing like the one's on the Cheyenne. Hell I don't even know if those were nacelles on the display.
Obviously not, since Sternbach's design doesn't have four nacelles. Unless that display was supposed to be yet another design of an actual LCARS side-view ship display, which would make the Pegasus's primary hull as flat as a pancake, and the nacelles would be one-on-top-of-the-other, both dorsal and ventral.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I think you misunderstood me. By Cheyenne I meant this ship. I know that Sternbach's ship had only two nacelles. Also, don't you think that those displays could represent some other part of the ship?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
RE: the Oberth issue...
Dukhat, you said that better than I ever could. Yes, I keep the two things distinct. I have no problem using the fandom Gagarin or FASA Sagan names for the Grissom's class -- but for me, an Oberth is something else again.
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
That's why I'm hoping, if a TNG-remastering project does become a reality, that changes like this will be made. But as I said before, if they're just going to update the physical models with CGI of the same ships, I don't see the point.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Obviously, the Oberth-class was meant to look like this.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I can't really argue with that, but somehow I feel like I should...
--Jonah
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Obviously, the Oberth-class was meant to look like this.
Actually I think it was meant to look like this. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Um...what I linked to is actually CALLED Oberth-class, so...um..yeah.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well damn your right.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...but for me, an Oberth is something else again."
So, for you, it doesn't make sense for a single class of ship to have been built over a span of 100 years or so, but it makes perfect sense for two identical classes of ship with different names to have been built at those two times?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think he means that when he watches TNG he imagines that the Oberth is a different design from the Grissom. (Which I think is whacky, personally, but whatever floats one's boat... )
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Why? I just recognise the restrictions (time and money) on the producers of TNG. The folks in the art department wanted things that the VFX people often couldn't deliver on. So when I know a ship or class was intended to be something other than what we ended up with onscreen, I have no problem going with the intention for my own record-keeping purposes. It doesn't happen as often as it seems. The Oberth class was intended to be something other than what we got, and a couple other ships got defaulted to stock footage through the above-mentioned restraints.
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I do understand where you're coming from, and I didn't mean to be critical. It's just that a basic tenet of my method of looking at the Star Trek universe is that what ultimately ends up onscreen (budget restrictions, warts, and all) is what counts. Period.
As I said, whatever floats one's boat...
-MMoM Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Whereas I recognise that what we see on-screen is an imperfect reflection of what's "really" happening. I choose purity of intention over rationalisation of shortfall.
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:It's just that a basic tenet of my method of looking at the Star Trek universe is that what ultimately ends up onscreen (budget restrictions, warts, and all) is what counts. Period.
Which returns us to the original topic of this thread: TNG remastered. Let's say that they make a new CGI design for the Tsiolkovsky, one that was more in line with what Okuda & Sternbach imagined the ship to look like. Or even better, have multiple new CGI designs for each episode where the Grissom was used. Obviously, this change will now invalidate what was "formerly" canon and official, i.e. the Oberth class being a new design, multiple changes in the Encyclopedia (if a new one ever comes out, which is unlikely) and the Grissom-type ship now being relegated to just Star Trek III.
So what's canon now?
Obviously the answer to this question will ultimately rest with the individual viewer. But I personally think the whole point is moot, because I doubt they'll make changes like what I've just described.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Well, it is now. What Peregrinus means is that when "The Naked Now" was filmed, Mike Okuda created a dedication plaque for the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky, with the registry of NCC-53911, and the class called the "Oberth," after Hermann Oberth, a famous German rocket scientist. Both Okuda and Sternbach were going under the assumption that the Tsiolkovsky model, once it was built, would be a newer class of ship (but not as new as the Enterprise-D). That's why the registry number was so high.
EDIT: After looking at the Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque again, I found another interesting thing: the ship was launched only a year before the Enterprise-D was launched. So really, whatever model Okuda thought they were going to use should have looked extremely similar to a GCS. At this early point in the series, Okuda probably meant for new ships to have a 5XXXX registry, and only later did that number get upped to 7XXXX. But instead, thanks to the budget, we now have a Grissom-type ship built in 2363. Talk about long-lasting...
What sucks even more is that the budget restrictions necessitated the use of the Grissom model, but two episodes later they built a brand new alien ship model for "Haven." So a one-off alien ship took precedence over a new Starfleet ship that would most likely get reused again??? (Yes, I realize that the Tarellian ship got reused as well, but that's not the point).
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Well, it is now. What Peregrinus means is that when "The Naked Now" was filmed, Mike Okuda created a dedication plaque for the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky, with the registry of NCC-53911, and the class called the "Oberth," after Hermann Oberth, a famous German rocket scientist. Both Okuda and Sternbach were going under the assumption that the Tsiolkovsky model, once it was built, would be a newer class of ship (but not as new as the Enterprise-D). That's why the registry number was so high.
EDIT: After looking at the Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque again, I found another interesting thing: the ship was launched only a year before the Enterprise-D was launched. So really, whatever model Okuda thought they were going to use should have looked extremely similar to a GCS. At this early point in the series, Okuda probably meant for new ships to have a 5XXXX registry, and only later did that number get upped to 7XXXX. But instead, thanks to the budget, we now have a Grissom-type ship built in 2363. Talk about long-lasting...
What sucks even more is that the budget restrictions necessitated the use of the Grissom model, but two episodes later they built a brand new alien ship model for "Haven." So a one-off alien ship took precedence over a new Starfleet ship that would most likely get reused again??? (Yes, I realize that the Tarellian ship got reused as well, but that's not the point).
perhaps there's more to this. Lets think about the climate of the set, too. How much was the Art folks allowed to do, as far as making stuff? During the first two seasons was the FJ arguement and 2 Nassle law was placed. certain GR was putting a lot of lip into the TNG vision.
I think one of the things to ask is that where there honest attempts at making new designs or were they told NOT too... and why?
BOBW's ships were no made until GR was dead or no longer a active... well... hinderance?
I actually feel bad saying that, that way...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Gene Roddenberry had nothing to do with building new ship studio models. The only input he ever had in this department was his stupid "Starship design rules," which Okuda followed only because he didn't know any better.
No, the final say about model-building came from the show's producers, the same guys who had the budget sheets practically glued to their hands and would nix building a new model whenever they could. They got away with it with the Hood and the Tsiolkovsky, and almost got away with it with the Stargazer and even the Enterprise-C. Rick Sternbach has even said that the producers weren't happy that a new model would have to be built. If they had had their way, I'm sure they would have just re-used the Excelsior model with a bunch of add-on parts to make it a "new" class. That exact same thing would have happened in "All Good Things.." with the future Klingon ships had they not built the Negh'var class.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, to be fair, AGT had a lot of new ships for an episode- dont forget the USS Pastur was also introduced (though never used again, sadly). I recall hearing that each episode had it's own budget to spread the SFX money around (lest the first four or five episodes drain all that budget from the rest of the season). Other factors, like guest-stars and number of extras probably impacted a given episode's budget as well. Like in Conspiracy, the parasite creature effects nixed any chance of showing the starship meeting (even if the models existed at that point).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote: Well, to be fair, AGT had a lot of new ships for an episode- dont forget the USS Pastur was also introduced (though never used again, sadly).
Actually, the model was built by Bill George on his own, even before the series ended. He just built it for fun, but when AGT was being filmed, he was asked if they could use the model to represent Beverly's medical ship. If he hadn't built it, they probably would have just re-used the Nebula class model.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, but why did they never show that cool ship again? It sure would've been nicer than the re-used scene of an Oberth docking at the station (or "upside-down Sydney" for that matter). It would've been better than the USS Curry too...
Maybe Bill George just kept it after AGT- a nice living-room topic starter.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, yes. That's just what Dukkie was saying: the model was his. He built it as a personal project and they just asked to borrow it for use in the show.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I would assume that if the shows were remastered, then the new versions are what would be canon, just like the Star Wars special editions. And then some people would bitch and refuse to recognise them. And so it goes.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well that's the dilemma with TOS remastered. "Spock's Brain" remastered showed a new version of the Ion Ship so now it remains to be seen if this version takes precedence over the original Ion Ship.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I just saw the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode again last nite and realized how lame the whole battle sequence was. My FIRST thought was "Why are the Bird of Prey's wings in cruise mode and not in battle mode?" The whole battle was like some poor high school play walk through.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
They were in cruise mode because they were supposed to represent a far larger type of ship than the normal BoP scout. They didn't have a new Klingon battlecruiser model built by that time, so they had to improvise. It would be quite ridiculous for a huge battleship to have folding wings.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
And yet there was the Scimitar.
Not to mention Voyager.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The Scimitar only unfolded when it was at a stop. And Voyager didn't have "wings' per se, they were just the engines.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yet there was also Rascals where two K'vort BOPs disabled the Ent-D, commanded by Ferengi no less. I find that episode to be the worse in Trek history, even worse than Threshold. Maybe they could remaster it by burning all the footage.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: I just saw the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode again last nite and realized how lame the whole battle sequence was. My FIRST thought was "Why are the Bird of Prey's wings in cruise mode and not in battle mode?"
Of course, only about 0.00001% of the original viewing audience were bothered about the wing placement on BOPs, so I can't imagine that they lose that much sleep over it.
I do seem to remember a story where the motor mechanism on the BOP model got stuck. Weren't all BOPs from that point onwards seen with their wings stuck up (at least until the CGI model was introduced)?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I dont think so: the ones in WOTW were still (parly anyway) filmed from the model and they had the wings down. That oft-reused shot of the KBOP docking at the docking ring is the model (I'm pretty sure anyhow).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've posted my reply in a new thread, because in addition to answering a couple of the questions here, I have a few more questions about the BOP's wings in general. I didn't feel like sidetracking this discussion entirely, even though this is Flare.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)