This is my new project - Constitution Class Intermediate Designs.
First...(WIP) Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Don't agree w/your Sig-Line, but I like your Phase II Connie. Very nicely done. I think your secondary hull actually "flows" a bit better as a sort of bridge between the TOS and Refit hulls than the pics I've seen of the Phase II 'E', as well.
Again, nicely done.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Nice work, Masaki. The only suggestion I would make is that the registry on top of the hull should follow the hull lines a bit more. The slant of the letters should be the same as that of the radial lines coming from the center of the hull.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
I have always wanted to see a Phase II starship that was rendered as well as this one has been. Great job. I can not wait to see more of these intermediary ships. Are you planning on any more views, orthographic?
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
Nice work, Masaki! Though the TMP Enterprise is a massive improvement (and one of my all-time favorite ships), the Phase II design is still cool looking, even if mainly for its unusual appearance.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Excellent work!
The only suggestion I would make would be to underline the registry on the nacelle, put "USS CONSTITUTION" underneath it in a smaller type and move the whole thing to the right of that groove instead of the left. Also what is that oval feature on the underside of the primary hull? If it's meant to be a forward phaser array then I'd move it forward a little more.
Other than that, great job! Keep it up Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
I'm glad to see this new edition to the Starfleet Museum. It would be logical to assume that their were various designs, much like the actual film production, for a refit of the Connie-class. In fact, there was a fan-film made by a UCLA student that proposed that the Yorktown had a similar design as a test-bed for the new linear intermix warp drive. I forgot it's name and have never seen it, but it was mentioned in an issue of Starlog long ago. George Takei was also in it, as he knew the student and did it as a favor.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Middy: Masaki != Masao
Good job, Masaki. Although I don't know where this design fits in the 'real' timeline, it is a nice intermediate design.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I THOUGHT we were the same person!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: I THOUGHT we were the same person!
That happens to me all the time...usually when I forget to take my pills. *twitch* *twitch*
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
quote: Originally posted by Harry: Middy: Masaki != Masao
No,no... Masao is my elder brother! Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
My bad. Seems I've been outta touch for awhile.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I have been out of touch for YEARS.
I am also Masaki's evil twin!
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: The only suggestion I would make would be to underline the registry on the nacelle, put "USS CONSTITUTION" underneath it in a smaller type and move the whole thing to the right of that groove instead of the left.
I think that the registry on the nacelle should choose either a NCC number or a ship's name. Is it better to place a ship's name on the nacelle, since the NCC number is on the engineering hull?
quote:Also what is that oval feature on the underside of the primary hull? If it's meant to be a forward phaser array then I'd move it forward a little more.
I think that the oval hollows on the undersurface of the saucer are the docking bay (or air-lock hatches). Although the same hollow is in the engineering hull, it is written as "Bay 4" here. I am supposed that "Bay 1" to "Bay 3" is on the saucer section.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Although I don't know where this design fits in the 'real' timeline, it is a nice intermediate design.
I assume that the TMP Enterprise is the Constitution class of the phase III. Although the original Enterprise was due to be converted into the phase II, it assumes that it was converted into the newest phase III. In the last six months, the bridge, the officer's lounge, the planetary sensors and the photon torpedoes replaced the further newest thing.
And 1701-A would still be a "Phase III Refit", perhaps "Phase III Refit 2"?
I could live with that. In fact, I could grab that and run, and add it to my little starship guide which will never see the light of the day.
The thrown-together ship from "Booby Trap" looks surprisingly good on that chart. Probably not an intended further development of Constitutions, though, but rather an offshoot design. Those holes in the saucer look too small to be doors, so perhaps they are sensor arrays instead. Heck, the corresponding "portholes" on the real Constitutions could be sensor arrays, too, solving the problem of their odd scaling and placement.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What happened to the one with the 'balls' on the end of the nacelles from TOS?
Was there any TAS differences?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The TAS ship was only supposedly different from the inside. Otherwise, standard TOS production fare - but without the "ball-less end grille" footage problem!
And to solve that problem, I'd just think of the balls as retractable, in the "The Cage", "WNMHGB" and TOS ships alike. They are great for stealthing the warp exhaust, but every now and then you have to ventilate (say, just before you enter planetary orbit, which is why the grillework shows in such shots specifically). The other differences between "WNMHGB" and TOS production ships don't really show up in those shots.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I know my balls retracted when I saw Uhura dancing naked in STV! Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Yikes.
The TAS Enterprise had some new consoles on the bridge, but also it managed to have a secondary turbolift exit on the bridge without any external clues.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Yikes.
The TAS Enterprise had some new consoles on the bridge, but also it managed to have a secondary turbolift exit on the bridge without any external clues.
I think that second door was meant to lead to a stairwell.
As for the inter-changeable nacelle caps; sure it sounds nice, but good luck design a workable, functional or even believable mechanism for that! I just ignore the over use of stock footage and pretend that everything Post-WNMHGB and Pre-TMP stays the same.
Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
Interesting use of blue bussards, kinda leads into the Ent-B and Merced Class. Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
"NCC-1371? gag me.. most of us have come to our senses and realized the Republic shouldn't be a Constitution... here was mine from a few months back"
No, everyone knows that Republic was originally commissioned as an Archon Class Star Cruiser in 2203, and later undewent an extensive refit program to Constitution Class specifications.
Consider the can-o-worms opened anew!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The last three look the same!
What if the balls at the back of the nacelles ARE retractable or - they can be ditched... ION PODS anyone??
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Look closer on the last one, Andrew. The impulse drive is larger, the torpedo bay has a twin aft launcher and the nacelle pylons are thicker and more sturdy. That's as good as the Connie ever got.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
coatlantis, that is ignoring the obvious evidence where the Republic appeared as a Baton Rouge-class cruiser in the Marvel comic series.
Posted by coatlantis1745 (Member # 1034) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: coatlantis, that is ignoring the obvious evidence where the Republic appeared as a Baton Rouge-class cruiser in the Marvel comic series.
I was merely poking fun at your statement but since your going to get technical on me, I wasn't aware of Republic being mentioned in Marvel Comics.
I tend not consider Trek comics as potential source material, but there may be some elements to glean from them.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well, in the hierarchy of canon, the comics were officially licensed by Paramount, and all the stories were approved by lawyers and, when he was around, Gene's office.
SotSF, while i love it, was made by a few fan-guys against paramount's wishes and they were later sued for it. i think that damages the credibility a bit. besides, i dont think its feasible to refit an Archon into a Connie.. its just a ridiculous concept.. there would be no original ship intact..
BTW, on the subject of the TAS ship, it suffered from the same problems as the TOS footage.. a lot of the ship footage was traced from film of TOS.. some shots of the ship show the old pilot bridge, others show the regular series bridge.. im not sure, but i think TAS has a nacelle ball problem too.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: well, in the hierarchy of canon, the comics were officially licensed by Paramount, and all the stories were approved by lawyers and, when he was around, Gene's office.
"Canon" is still defined as anything seen "on-screen". If you want to go with what was officially licensed by Paramount, you have to add a butt-load of stuff which is considered apocryphal by a great many fans: "StarFleet Technical Manual" (which means that you have to consider the Dreadnought, Destroyer, Scout, and Transport/Tug as canon), "Star Trek Blueprints - General Plans Constitution class U.S.S. Enterprise", every TAS episode ever aired, etc... Not a problem for me, as I love those designs, but you'll torque off bunches of other folks.
quote:SotSF, while i love it, was made by a few fan-guys against paramount's wishes and they were later sued for it. i think that damages the credibility a bit. besides, i dont think its feasible to refit an Archon into a Connie.. its just a ridiculous concept.. there would be no original ship intact..
There was a C & D (cease and desist) order issued, but no law suit that I've ever heard of.
I'll agree w/you about refitting an Horizon/Archon or even a Baton Rouge into a Constitution. Just plain silly, IMO. There are also no real world correlations to this that I'm aware of beyond the 20's when a cruiser was "converted" into a "carrier" by adding a platform on the bow of the ship. Not a major "refit", just addition of a flat top.
quote:BTW, on the subject of the TAS ship, it suffered from the same problems as the TOS footage.. a lot of the ship footage was traced from film of TOS.. some shots of the ship show the old pilot bridge, others show the regular series bridge.. im not sure, but i think TAS has a nacelle ball problem too.
I believe you're correct. Still haven't pulled out my VHS tapes of TAS to verify, tho. I do seem to remember remarking to the room about that observation last time I watched the tapes, tho.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
ok, first off, fuck canon.. i dont give a shit.
by hierarchy, i mean that there is canon: that which was on-screen or intended by TPTB.. below that there is license: that which was granted the rights to use the ST name by Paramount.. below that is fan-publications.. and below that are unpublished fanfics.. in that hierarchy, i give a little more credence to a licensed work than to a fandom work.. luckily, there is little to discredit the things i DO like about SotSF like the Decatur/Belknap, Akyazi, etc. I'm just saying their timeline and their 'refit' theory are complete and utter bullshit.
I have 20 of the 22 TAS eps on my harddrive now.. i just checked, most of the shots from behind are modeled off the WNMHGB shost with the grille nacelle ends.. and the upswoop shot zooming in on the bridge (traced from "The Cage"s opening scene) show the large cage bridge (and the Cage registry font i believe.. ill have to check later)
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Alrighty, then....
The universally accepted form of canon is that which is seen on-screen and ain't got crap to do with "what's intended". After all, you have to have a basic standard for everone to use, and that's what most folks use: what's seen/heard on-screen. Don't like it? Don't deal with anyone else, then....
I'm with you on how you layer it, believe me. I'd much prefer a world in which we could have everything ever produced w/the approval of Paramount. I think there's plenty of room for the Pre-TNG ships and registry system, personally. Why cause yourself an aneurysm trying to figure it all out...? Just let it be. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
canon has everything to do with whats intended.. but like i said, fuck it, its not important.. i accept all trek, regardless of approval.. but i rate it on where it stands in my hierarchy.. if its a ridiculous idea, its wrong.. if its a novel thats contradicted by a show, its wrong.. if its a comic thats contradicted by a novel, its wrong.. if its a fanboy published funbook that contradicted by everything we know about common sense, its wrong.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
OK, then! Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I agree that the E-nil->E-nil-plus refit was beyond ridiculous and a Horizon->Connie or BR->Connie would be two steps beyond *that*. But 1920s did not spell the end of major refitting and role-changing of warships. Changing of gun cruisers or even battleships to carriers went on throughout WWII. Special purpose vessels were created out of vanilla warships long after the war. Even today, we see conversions, such as old amphibious assault ships becoming floating command posts.
I'm still a bit hesitant to declare all the half-finished Jeffries or Probert drawings as legitimate Constitution variants. Some of those could have been, you know, *drawings*. Even if from the fictional desk of the ASDB. I'm willing to buy what Todd Guenther is selling, mainly because most of his ships are backed by Franz Joseph's name and registry listing. But anything beyond that gets rather bothersome.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Alrighty, then....
The universally accepted form of canon is that which is seen on-screen and ain't got crap to do with "what's intended". After all, you have to have a basic standard for everone to use, and that's what most folks use: what's seen/heard on-screen. Don't like it? Don't deal with anyone else, then....
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Jeri Taylor's novels and their canonicity?
According to startrek.com:
quote:As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Personally, I consider them canon, as I like the whole Bonestell thing, but it seems that many people don't...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think that Mosaic and Pathways (most definately this book) is a key canon source - because the Voyager writing team did everything they could NOT to give the characters a back-story. Jeri was a Producer and helped create these characters. Also because it is a damn-fine book.
And it's true about the character development thing - I remember an article by Berman at the start of Voyager stating that there would be no referencing any of the character's lives before they entered the Delta Quadrant. That meant no family nothing. How stupid was that decision - the way to understand a character is through their past. We were denied this on Voyager. The only character that really worked was The Doctor because he HAD no history before The Delta Quadrant. They really stuffed up in this department. Oh, Seven of Nine ALSO worked - 1. because HER life did essentially start when she was disconnected from the Borg and by that time - or for that character they were willing to make an exception about seeing back into a character's past.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I agree that the E-nil->E-nil-plus refit was beyond ridiculous and a Horizon->Connie or BR->Connie would be two steps beyond *that*. But 1920s did not spell the end of major refitting and role-changing of warships. Changing of gun cruisers or even battleships to carriers went on throughout WWII. Special purpose vessels were created out of vanilla warships long after the war. Even today, we see conversions, such as old amphibious assault ships becoming floating command posts.
My example was of specific US Navy changes in vessels that I'm aware of. I have heard of no USN vessels being changed from a cruiser/battleship to a carrier during WWII. Even then, however, the vessel was likely reclassified as something other than cruiser or battleship, yes? That's the point I'm trying to make, for the most part. If a major refit occurs, the vessel ceases to be a part of that named class, which is how things should have gone for Enterprise after her refit in ST:TMP. At least, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Jeri Taylor's novels and their canonicity?
According to startrek.com:
[QUOTE]As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Personally, I consider them canon, as I like the whole Bonestell thing, but it seems that many people don't...
I wasn't aware of the comment at StarTrek.com that changes their definition of "canon". Honestly, given all the mistakes I've seen there, I haven't even bother w/the site for quite some time.
And no, I don't consider the novels canon, regardless who wrote them or how nicely done they were. Again, most of the fans I've ever dealt with go by a very narrow definition of canon: that which is seen or heard onscreen - only. I've never read "Mosaic" or "Pathways", tho have heard they're very good books. I respect Jeri Taylor for her work on VOY, even tho I didn't like the show. I marked a definite decline in the quality of the show after she left in, what was it, third season?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the whole Bonestall thing", tho.
Anyhow, all I'm trying to say is that for a common denominator of communication to be capble between different people, you must have some common ground. Allowing only that which is seen/heard onscreen as canon is what most people accept. Now, what they prefer is a completely different beast and that must be agreed on by all parties involved to keep misunderstandings from happening.
Think of it as a sort of universal translator for Trek history. Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Well technically the definition of canon would be something along the lines of "what Paramount considers to be true", and as startrek.com is a Paramount site I am willing to believe it on matters of policy. (I consider their statement on this, which is in the FAQs, to be far more authoritative than their databases, for instance, which were clearly compiled by some underling to pad out the site, rather than as an official statement.)
The "whole Bonestell thing" is that Pathways says that Captain Janeway commanded the Oberth Class USS Bonestell earlier in her career (presumably before it was destroyed at Wolf 359), and so a) must have been promoted very quickly (Ensign to Captain in no more than 8 years) b) probably commanded another ship between Bonestell and Voyager.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
just for the record, you _can_ command a ship without holding the rank of captain.. a lot of our navy's smaller ships are commanded by Commanders and Lieutenant Commanders, who are captain in title only, not in rank.. possibly Janeway commanded the small science vessel as a junior Commander, before she was promoted to captain.. this would explain it.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: just for the record, you _can_ command a ship without holding the rank of captain.. a lot of our navy's smaller ships are commanded by Commanders and Lieutenant Commanders, who are captain in title only, not in rank.. possibly Janeway commanded the small science vessel as a junior Commander, before she was promoted to captain.. this would explain it.
I'm pretty sure her rank was mentioned in the book.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The "whole Bonestell thing" is that Pathways says that Captain Janeway commanded the Oberth Class USS Bonestell earlier in her career (presumably before it was destroyed at Wolf 359),
Well, it would've been a little hard for her to command it after...
quote: a) must have been promoted very quickly (Ensign to Captain in no more than 8 years)
Was she just called captain by another character or was it actually stated she held the rank of Captain? 8 years isn't too bad for Ensign to Lt Cdr which is all I'd imagine is needed for an Oberth!
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Well, it would've been a little hard for her to command it after...
That was the point.
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Was she just called captain by another character or was it actually stated she held the rank of Captain? 8 years isn't too bad for Ensign to Lt Cdr which is all I'd imagine is needed for an Oberth!
It's been a long time since I've read it, but I think it was stated explicitly. I'll have to dig out the book when I get home.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
even if she was referred to as 'captain' or as 'the captain of' this would still hold with naval (and Starfleet) parlance.. any officer that is in command of a commissioned vessel has the right to be called captain, regardless of their rank.
Lieutenant Commander Janeway would be referred to as 'Captain Janeway', or as 'the captain of the Bonestell' even though she was nowhere near the captain's rank.. its a title of position, not of rank.. unless they specifically say 'she reached the rank of captain' then its not necessarily the case
BTW, didnt the book's chronology place her Bonestell command a few years after W359? i believe that it was necessary to assume she commanded a different ship than the one destroyed in 2367
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: even if she was referred to as 'captain' or as 'the captain of' this would still hold with naval (and Starfleet) parlance.. any officer that is in command of a commissioned vessel has the right to be called captain, regardless of their rank.
Lieutenant Commander Janeway would be referred to as 'Captain Janeway', or as 'the captain of the Bonestell' even though she was nowhere near the captain's rank.. its a title of position, not of rank.. unless they specifically say 'she reached the rank of captain' then its not necessarily the case
I'm pretty sure that (in the Royal Navy at least) COs of ships are only called "Captain" either: a) on their ship, or b) by their crew when off the ship.
An Admiral on shore would call the CO "Commander", or whatever their rank was.
As Janeway had a performance review in the book (which now I think about it could have been Mosaic, not that it makes much of a difference), it seems likely that she was called Captain by whoever conducted that.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: BTW, didnt the book's chronology place her Bonestell command a few years after W359? i believe that it was necessary to assume she commanded a different ship than the one destroyed in 2367
I don't remember, sorry. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I gotta ask: why is it that her making the rank of captain never made a big deal of, then? I mean, neither Kirk nor Picard made Captain that fast, tho both made it pretty quickly. You'd think it would have been important enough to have been stated somewhere on-screen. I just don't buy it....
If she had made the rank of captain so quickly, it would have been mentioned in the series at some point. Plus, 8 years from what would be, in modern US Navy Parlance, going from O-1 to O-6 in so short a time is unheard of. There are generally time-in-grade requirements which must be meant, which is to ensure that you have a competent, experienced officer in certain positions. Command of a starship would be one of those. This is why I don't consider any of the novels as being canon - they make no common sense.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Yes, but Janeway's on first name terms with the Admirals!
And we have no evidence to show that Starfleet has minimum time requirements.
And Pathways and Mosaic are canon. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: And Pathways and Mosaic are canon.
OK, then!
Whatever you want to use for your own version of Canon, then. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah! all the Admirald Picard was on first name basis with were either killed, possesed by parasites or complete assholes.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Whatever you want to use for your own version of Canon, then.
I believe the whole point about canon is that it's determined by Paramount, not us. If they say it's canon, it is.
That doesn't mean we have to include it in our own personal interpretations of Star Trek, though. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I'm planning on another views(top, fore, rear...etc) and another Intermediate Constitution class ship.
Good renderings! I'm curious on what you based the profile. Did you work off the drawings of the ship in the Phase II book?
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: In fact, there was a fan-film made by a UCLA student that proposed that the Yorktown had a similar design as a test-bed for the new linear intermix warp drive. I forgot it's name and have never seen it, but it was mentioned in an issue of Starlog long ago. George Takei was also in it, as he knew the student and did it as a favor.
Yorktown II made by Stan Woo.
Andrew Probert did the design work for the Yorktown and a Klingon shuttle.
I've never seen it - only read about it in the same issue of Starlog - but I'd love to see what the Yorktown looked like.
Anyone here know how to contact Mr Probert, maybe see if he'd provide an image?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim NCC1701A: Yorktown II made by Stan Woo.
Andrew Probert did the design work for the Yorktown and a Klingon shuttle.
[snip]
Anyone here know how to contact Mr Probert, maybe see if he'd provide an image?
I talk to Andy Probert all the time...but what are you referring to? The Yorktown and Klingon shuttles from what?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think he meant from the fanfilm...
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I think he meant from the fanfilm...
Indeed. That is probably what he meant.
I wonder if there is a copy of that film running around somewhere... it'd be interesting to watch.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: well, in the hierarchy of canon, the comics were officially licensed by Paramount, and all the stories were approved by lawyers and, when he was around, Gene's office.
SotSF, while i love it, was made by a few fan-guys against paramount's wishes and they were later sued for it. i think that damages the credibility a bit. besides, i dont think its feasible to refit an Archon into a Connie.. its just a ridiculous concept.. there would be no original ship intact..
BTW, on the subject of the TAS ship, it suffered from the same problems as the TOS footage.. a lot of the ship footage was traced from film of TOS.. some shots of the ship show the old pilot bridge, others show the regular series bridge.. im not sure, but i think TAS has a nacelle ball problem too.
I was one of the "fan guys", and no one was sued by Paramount. That is a ridiculous claim, and you shouldn't throw around claims like that without verifying them. It is also ridiculous since Todd Guenther, the author, went on to do the 1701-D blueprints for Paramount along with Rick Sternbach (I wrote the introduction to SotSF, did the color plates in the back, and contributed several ship designs)
As for the contention I made in the USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, which are referenced in SotSF, that the Horizon/Archon class was used as a test bed for the Constitution class design, let me explain. Of course the idea was born of necessity, being that the Republic and Constellation registries were so far off. But I was the one that decided to use Jefferies old spherical primary hulled design for Horizon. I could have used something much closer to Constitution if I wanted to. But we had a conception of very futuristic starship construction that allowed the fantastic reworking of one shape into another. We said that the hull components were broken down into their basic elements and reused. The spaceframe was adapted as needed. The hull was then "spun" back over the frame in layers.
Republic and Constellation would not have looked as much like the Constitution at first. More like the Pytheas in my Federation Starship Recognition Chart. (This was also derived from an old Jefferies concept for Enterprise -- one of his first stabs at a saucer shaped primary hull.)
Later refits would bring the two testbed starships up to an approximation of the Constellation. But they would always be different -- notice the fact that the AMT model used for Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" has significant differences from the 1701 shooting miniature. You could assume most of the differences would be internal though, an artifact of the adapted spaceframe.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I think he meant from the fanfilm...
Indeed. That is probably what he meant.
I wonder if there is a copy of that film running around somewhere... it'd be interesting to watch.
Yup, that's what I meant Specifically, Probert's design for the Yorktown.
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim NCC1701A:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I think he meant from the fanfilm...
Indeed. That is probably what he meant.
I wonder if there is a copy of that film running around somewhere... it'd be interesting to watch.
Yup, that's what I meant Specifically, Probert's design for the Yorktown.
I'm still waiting to hear what this Yorktown is... as I'm not understanding it from the previous messages.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Seems to me that what's been said is that a UCLA student by the name of Stan Woo made a fanfilm called Yorktown II in which George Takei appeared and which also featured a Constitution-class variant designated as the Yorktown as well as a Klingon shuttle, both of which were designed by Mr. Probert...
...right?
quote:Originally posted by Jim NCC1701A:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: In fact, there was a fan-film made by a UCLA student that proposed that the Yorktown had a similar design as a test-bed for the new linear intermix warp drive. I forgot it's name and have never seen it, but it was mentioned in an issue of Starlog long ago. George Takei was also in it, as he knew the student and did it as a favor.
Yorktown II made by Stan Woo.
Andrew Probert did the design work for the Yorktown and a Klingon shuttle.
I've never seen it - only read about it in the same issue of Starlog - but I'd love to see what the Yorktown looked like.
Anyone here know how to contact Mr Probert, maybe see if he'd provide an image?
-MMoM Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
^"Right, Spock?"
"Check."
"Right."
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Seems to me that what's been said is that a UCLA student by the name of Stan Woo made a fanfilm called Yorktown II in which George Takei appeared and which also featured a Constitution-class variant designated as the Yorktown as well as a Klingon shuttle, both of which were designed by Mr. Probert...
...right?
Yeap, you've pretty much got it surrounded.
Give me some time to dig out that old Starlog and I'll post the drawing of the Klingon shuttle.
Cheers!
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
Here's the pic (no apologies for the 16 year old magazine)
I can find nothing on a Stan Woo, Ron Lennstrom, "Yorktown II: A Time To Heal" or any relation of any of the above to George Takei in the Internet Movie Database, unfortunately. Would love to get my hands on a copy of this and Stan Woo's other fan produced film mentioned in the article above. I wonder if this is something that Paramount went out and nailed w/C&D orders. Bastards....
Thanks for posting that, Jim. Much appreciated!
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Jim,
Do you mind if I use your link over at TrekBBS to pose a request for additional information on this movie? I have a theory that it was either never completed or that ParaBorg swept down before the movie could ever see the inside of a Trek Con, since there seems to be ZERO information on it's existance that I can find beyond the StarLog snippet that you show us. What issue is that, anyhow?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I scanned the layout drawings of the Phase II ship from the Star Trek Phase II book.
Possibly a more accurate basis for drawings of the ship than some others.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Jim,
Do you mind if I use your link over at TrekBBS to pose a request for additional information on this movie? I have a theory that it was either never completed or that ParaBorg swept down before the movie could ever see the inside of a Trek Con, since there seems to be ZERO information on it's existance that I can find beyond the StarLog snippet that you show us. What issue is that, anyhow?
Go for it Jeff - my link is your link I'd love to learn more about this flick too. The Starlog issue is #119. I'd tried the IMDB search too. Even looked up all the email addies for "Stan Woo" and tried asking them. 2 got bounced back, and I never got a reply from any of the others
I also emailed Andrew Probert about the design, waaay back in '98.
quote:In a message dated 8/8/98 4:43:54 AM, you wrote:
>I read an article in a "Starlog" magazine, sometime in the mid 80's, about >an unofficial 'Star Trek' film (I think it was called 'Yorktown II') that >you were said to be providing some designs for.
Yep.
>The article included a drawing of a Klingon scout-ship, and credited you >with designing the "Yorktown", which was described as being a mixture of >the Original Series and Movie Era type starship.
Yes, well, it would be more of an intermediate design.
>I don't know if the movie was ever completed or screened , but I was wondering >if you might still have some drawings or photographs of the "Yorktown", and if I >might be able to obtain a copy of them?
Sorry, I can't lie to you, I do have them somewhere, but we just moved and I'd rather not dig for them through all the boxes, just now.
>If that isn't possible, could you tell me if the "Yorktown" design is >anything like the "Enterprise" model that was being built for 'Star Trek - >Phase II'
No. A friend built that model from parts of plastic hobby kits.
If memory serves I tried emailing him again a few months later (after he'd settled in from moving house) but never got a reply. So I'm reluctant to try again.
Cheers!
Jim.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim NCC1701A: I also emailed Andrew Probert about the design, waaay back in '98.
[snip]
If memory serves I tried emailing him again a few months later (after he'd settled in from moving house) but never got a reply. So I'm reluctant to try again.
As a friend of Andy's I can tell you that he gets a lot of requests for stuff like this; and having been to his home (back when he lived in the SF Bay Area), I know that a lot of it IS packed away and not always easy to get to (I was lucky enough to get to go through his sketchbooks for the GCS design so I've seen virutally every drawing of that baby's development...so turn green with envy mere mortals! ).
That said, I asked him about this film in an email today. I'll let you know if he says anything illuminating.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Hopefully, someone will have heard of this and can point us in the right direction....
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thanks for looking into this. I remember seeing that article many years ago and wondering whatever happened to this project. Sulu has always been one of my favorites and I was looking forward to seeing this.
My thinking has been that the legal department at Paramount shot it down, threatened lawsuits to the participants, or confiscated all work and materials.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Sure thing. I'm intensely curious to know about this, as well. After some thought, I do recall reading that Starlog article, tho don't have it in my limited collection of backissues.
Still no information in the thread over at TrekBBS. You'd think that out of the thousand or so posts a day that place gets that someone out of the several thousand members would know something about this fan-produced movie!
Parabastards and TIIC almost had to have gotten this flick canned, IMO....
(TIIC = The Idiots In Charge)
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
re Yorktown II:
ME: Did you actually work on this, or did they just take some of your work to use?
ANDY PROBERT: Yeah, many years ago, I agreed to help this guy out. It was kinda fun and it gave me a chance to come up with some alternate Trek designs. I never saw the final result.
So, he doesn't know if it was finished or not, either.
Speaking of Fan Flix, I see the Starship Exeter guys are going to make more episodes...I wonder how long it'll be before they get a C&D from Paramount?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Kewel. Thanks for asking the question and posting the answer, MrNeutron. Appreciate it, even if it doesn't really give us anything.
I haven't seen the "Starship Exeter" mini-movies/episodes/whatever. I've heard about them, but had problems viewing them way back when I got the link. Haven't tried to view them for some time. Have a link for their stuff? Background info on their previous work(s)?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Kewel. Thanks for asking the question and posting the answer, MrNeutron. Appreciate it, even if it doesn't really give us anything.
No problem. I've been talking to Andy a lot lately and we're discussing my doing a REALLY extensive interview with him where we'll get into a lot of stuff he never gets asked about. If that happens, I'll solicit possible questions here.
quote:I haven't seen the "Starship Exeter" mini-movies/episodes/whatever. I've heard about them, but had problems viewing them way back when I got the link. Haven't tried to view them for some time. Have a link for their stuff? Background info on their previous work(s)?
I watched the Exeter film and it's...well, a fan film. It's impressive how much work they put into it, but it's too bad the script is so weak (and let's not get into the acting). They have new scripts on their Exeter Studios Website, and the one I read part of was not good (too much pointless bickering masquerading as characterization).
Back on topic, I captured some images from a video I have where the Phase II model appears, but I'm still sorting through the images to see if I can determine which are the Brick Price Phase II model and which are of the TMP ship under construction.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
To comment on the Exter movie, the sets are amazing, costumes are very good, SFX are ok, acting is average, and script is awful
To comment on Constitution... briliant. Simply briliant Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
Well, someone over on TrekBBS claims to have seen "a 20 second clips from a fan site a long time ago". Doesn't really help us though - no link to or name of the website, and no idea if it was from the finished film.
"I hate mysteries. They give me a belly-ache, and I've got a beauty." Captain Kirk in The Man Trap Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: To comment on the Exter movie, the sets are amazing, costumes are very good, SFX are ok, acting is average, and script is awful
The sets would be amazing if the bridge wasn't a cheap model chromakeyed behind the actors. The costumes are very good. The SFX are weak...the movement is choppy and the lighting choices are bad. The acting is is average for local theater. The script is putrid.
Part of the problem is that the guys writing the scripts don't have a grasp on story construction, dramatic arcs, or even basic plotting. Their script for "The Mighty Galvanaut" is worse than the episode already made. In short, a lot happens, but nothing happens. In other words, there are a lot of scenes, but there's no point, and the scenes don't build up to anything. Worse, the characters bicker and tease like high school students, and this is all that passes for characterization.
What I think is funny is they plan to do a "series" about this Galvanaut character...so they're going to use their 2nd or 3rd Exeter film to make a "pilot"! haha
Don't get me wrong: I admire their enthusiasm and StickToIt-iveness, but they really need better scripts.
Actually, I was toying with offering them my services on a script, just for giggles. (I wrote several spec TNG scripts and submitted them in 1989-90...didn't sell any of them, but one of them is amongst the best things I've ever written...but I submitted it to TNG right at the time they produced "Sins of the Father", and my story was a Klingon episode that took a different tack...ah well!)
quote:To comment on Constitution... briliant. Simply briliant
And just what is this "Constituion" you say is brilliant?
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
I don't know what "Constituion" is but I meant to say that I like Masaki's work. Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Speaking of the adventures of the starship Exeter, there is another TOS-venture in the realm of indie (or fan) flix.
Check out the "New Voyages" of the starship Enterprise at:
The folks of Starship Exeter did some test footage on the bridge built for this new TOS adventure.
Some of the Phase II costume designs are also being used for this project. Alas, they aren't using the Phase II ship design.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: Speaking of the adventures of the starship Exeter, there is another TOS-venture in the realm of indie (or fan) flix.
Check out the "New Voyages" of the starship Enterprise at:
The folks of Starship Exeter did some test footage on the bridge built for this new TOS adventure.
Some of the Phase II costume designs are also being used for this project. Alas, they aren't using the Phase II ship design.
These guys have to be REALLY careful, because even if it's technically "non-profit" they're getting into Trademark violation issues just by using the name Star Trek, and Trademarked character names, etc. That's why many unauthorized books about Star Trek can't bear the Star Trek name. I think both these groups are bound to get a rude Cease & Desist from Paramount. The "New Voyages" group in particular.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: Speaking of the adventures of the starship Exeter, there is another TOS-venture in the realm of indie (or fan) flix.
Check out the "New Voyages" of the starship Enterprise at:
The folks of Starship Exeter did some test footage on the bridge built for this new TOS adventure.
Some of the Phase II costume designs are also being used for this project. Alas, they aren't using the Phase II ship design.
These guys have to be REALLY careful, because even if it's technically "non-profit" they're getting into Trademark violation issues just by using the name Star Trek, and Trademarked character names, etc. That's why many unauthorized books about Star Trek can't bear the Star Trek name. I think both these groups are bound to get a rude Cease & Desist from Paramount. The "New Voyages" group in particular.
No doubt, Neutron, they are all threading thin ice. Also, they plan on adapting some of the novels, which gets into even sticker rights issues.
It would be more logical, especially if they want to do their version of Trek, that they relay more on original work based upon the Trek characters and universe.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)