I think this deserves a thread of its own, to spice up a summer spent discussing deathmatches between Winnie the Pooh and Paddington or Siegfried's midget fetish... Thanks for all the sources! Something new Something old Something blue
So it seems the upper nacelles did move a bit from shot to shot (original placement in this new photo, Jein doing a Uri Geller on the port nacelle in the middle photo, and the twisted final version in the screencap). And the lower pylon is quite a bit different from what the Fact Files would have us believe.
Any photo-analysis wizards out there who could use these pics to determine the actual distance between the saucer and the secondary hull? Is there a neck there or not?
Do I see a hint of a ventral phaser strip on the secondary hull, just in front of the hand?
Hmm... Seems we can do a rather definite deck count of the saucer section now.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It looks like what you're seeing as the secondary hull's ventral phaser strip could be shadows from his hand and the hull. It looks a little wide to be a phaser strip, but someone with a keener eye would probably be able to discern more.
Looking at the rows of windows running along the side of the secondary hulls, you can clearly see that the bottom two rows go right up to the damage at the deflector dish area. From this angle, in my opinion, it doesn't look like much of a neck. I'd say maybe a deck or two at most. There may be none at all, but the contour of the secondary hull would put the windows on the upper part of that hull at odd angles with the windows on the lower primary hull (assuming there are any).
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The lower pylon seems to be different from what we thought. It looks more massive, I'd even say it looks like a submarine tower (Challenger). Sternbach used a Typhon and a Los Angeles-class submarine to build the Mars interceptor. If they used the tower of the Typhon to built the Challenger-pylon, maybe the used the other tower for this ship. I should correct my schematic then.
Posted by Just Harry (Member # 265) on :
Doesn't look like there is much of a shuttlebay either. There's very little hull left aft of the pylons.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Which raises the question, "Did this ship possess an aft shuttlebay *before* being battle-damaged or not?"... It would be a bit awkward to squeeze a bay in there, considering that major engineering systems must also be in that general area where the pylons meet. Perhaps the impulse engines were there instead?
I don't think the lower pylon is a submarine kit part - and it's very unlikely it would come from the heap of Sternbach/Okuda leftovers. This labor-intensive model was probably finished before S/O began modifying the Miarecki ships or building their own. Certainly the simple squarish Los Angeles class sail wouldn't fit as such.
In fact, it seems that all the pylons are closer to the original Fact Files image than to Bernd's otherwise corrected picture. The leading edges of the upper pylons seem straight when viewed from the side, instead of curving forward close to the hull. The true curvature is only in the form of a "gullwing" kink that doesn't show up in side profile. And the trailing edges of all pylons could well have those sharp angles to them.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I agree with Amasov - that the lower pylon is quite 'big' compared to the upper two. It's thick and chunky - yeah looks like ??"Challenger Class"?? 'pylony' things.
I don't think I've seen a picture of the PHYSICAL model with those up and down 'thick pylons'.
Andrew
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I agree with Timo that there shouldn't be a shuttlebay at the end of the ship. The upper pylons attach more toward the end of the ship than what was previously believed. And the lower, thicker pylon attaches to the entire length of the "shuttlebay's" bottom. With three separate conduits running through that section of hull, it would be quite foolish to have a shuttlebay there.
What I'd really like to know is why this ship wasn't seen any better than it was. It was certainly worthy of being seen up close, even if the Miarecki models weren't.
Posted by Magenta Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
My guess is that when they build the models, they really have very little idea how they will end up being shot. In other words, they know the model will be seen close enough to need the full detail treatment, but I dount they knew that it would be barely visible in the corner of the screen. For all they knew while building it, the camera was going to do a close fly by of the hull...
Just a thought, but I'm guessing the art department doesn't get the director's specific thoughts as early as the time that the props are being built. Art guys are alwasy supposed to be mind readers...
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Firstly, fascinating. Secondly, where the hell did that new Niagara photo come from!!??
Forgive me, I've been away...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
TNG DVDs.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Looking at this screen cap, I'm thinking that the image of the ship might have been optical stretched. Not only does the hull look circular, but the nacelles look quite a bit thinner than they do on the model.
The the DVD show any other angles, even slightly different, of Princeton?
Posted by USSMillennium74754 (Member # 822) on :
^ Nope. The frame I capped it from was actually just a scan of a still photo, which could explain the stretching. Either that, or my capture software is acting up on me.
None of the other Wolf 359 ships were showcased. Maybe with S4?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, I think he meant that it was stretched when it appeared in the episode. The picture of the guy w/ the model doesn't look stretched. The model looks the way it does in the Jein pic. And the guy doesn't look stretched.
Posted by USSMillennium74754 (Member # 822) on :
Whoops. I've got to stop the posting when I'm half asleep... Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I meant that Princeton, as she appears in the episode, appears stretched to make her appear longer.
So, I assume the new picture is the only one of Princeton on the DVD?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I just pre-ordered Season 4... so I'll go into the behind the scenes first when August 3rd arrives. Anyway, it really seems that the Princeton was a leftover casting of the Ambassador Class from Yesterday's Enterprise with the 4 foot Galaxy Class nacelles left over. The positions of the phaser strips from the Season 3 pic and the scale makes me see that. Look at how big the Ambassador Class filming model was when Greg put fireworks to it and look at the Princeton. They are in scale and in the same general shape.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Isn't that what was always theorized?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Not really because I remember before that people speculated that the saucer was from the 4 foot Galaxy Class with a modified secondary hull from the Ambassador Class.
In theory, Greg had leftover casted pieces of the Enterprise-C, just like he had with the 4 foot Enterprise-D model. So he took one Ambassador saucer and secondary hull and three Galaxy nacelles to make the Princeton. Then he took one Galaxy nacelle and one Ambassador saucer and made the Firebrand.
[ July 26, 2002, 14:02: Message edited by: Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I wish I had the money to buy all the sets. I only have Season 1, then again everything in my room is being butchered by my family on who gets what...
As for the Niagara and Freedom classes, then why does the Ambassador class suacers look different? I know the nacelles are almost the same exact ones as the Galaxy class, but the saucer?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Niagara saucer isn't round, though. So it isn't a leftover E-C saucer. The stuff on top of it might be, but not the saucer itself.
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
However, the Princeton's bridge module is the same as the Ent-C's, only turned around, & modified slightly.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
ECHO.....echo.....echo.....echo....
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Is the consensus the Princeton's primary hull is a cast from the 4-foot Amabassador model? The Ambassador hull is a circle, and I can't convince myself that the pictures of the Princeton model in the workshop show a ship with a circular primary hull. The pictures of the Ambassador model doesn't look like that from any angle.
With the stretched-looking nacelles from the BOBW screen-cap, I think the model used an elliptical Galaxy primary hull and nacelles but that its image was vertically stretched to make the hull look circular.
What we need is a 3-D modeller to try to fit ship parts to those pictures.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Vice Admiral: Whoops, I thought you were just talking about the engineering hull.
Yeah, the saucer is elliptical, not round. The bridge module is the only part of the saucer that's from the Ambassador. I thought the deal was that the rest was a custom-built piece, just like that of the Freedom...
-MMoM Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I hope that we find out what ship is made out of what when Season 4 is released at September...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, the lower pylon is certainly not from a Los Angeles class sub. At first i thought it could be from the typhoon class but if you look at this schematic and then compare it to the shape of the pylon they are not the same. Particularly noticable is the taper of the sub's sail compared to the constant width of the pylon.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe they made the Princeton and ?Firebrand? (Is that a legit name?) from galaxy class saucer sections but cut off the 'flat' part - i.e. the underneath part without the 'flat rim'? Or maybe a cut down top half (although making it nice and neat would be harder with out the 'crease' of the 'rim' to guide cutting.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The new picture serves as kind of a MSD. It's not cut exactly along the keel, but if you squint you can sort of make out that the ventral primary hull is flat on its outer part with a hump in the center.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I noticed the Arboretum windows on the saucer - I'm guessing then it maybe a Galaxy saucer.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Maybe they made the Princeton and ?Firebrand? (Is that a legit name?) from galaxy class saucer sections but cut off the 'flat' part - i.e. the underneath part without the 'flat rim'? Or maybe a cut down top half (although making it nice and neat would be harder with out the 'crease' of the 'rim' to guide cutting.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)