quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The Kelvin's registry is indeed NCC-0514.
A small gripe. Of all the potential things to be rebooty/prequelly weird on, though, a "leading zero problem" was not something I'd have ever expected to have to worry about.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I'm curious . . . maybe it's just me, but having the registry number in huge text on the flat front of the saucer near the rim just makes the ship look like a cheap small toy.
Is it that this appearance has some objective truth to it, or am I poisoned by the fact that small cheap Star Trek toys usually had the registry number too big and on the rim?
Just a thought.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I'm guessing a deflector pod akin to some fan ship we've seen over the years. a full-size nacelle trails below the saucer as in the FJ classics.
posted
Ahhhhnyway, what's the straw pole here? Good, bad, indifferent? I'm currently on "AHHHHHH! My eyes! THEY BURN!!!"
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Sort of indifferent at the moment. I just don't want to over-spoil myself like I did with other Trek movies - to the point of ruining the movie.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't hate the ship design outright, but I hate the rendering of it, and the decisions with the details. The 'rocket/pulse pods' are lifted from NuBSG, the lettering makes the ship look like a bad toy, and the panel texturing is straight out of a PS1 game.
Sadly, this has been confirmed as a 'final'. Ugh.
And, I'll disagree on one big thing. "New Trek" could suck so bad that it could guarantee "No Trek". I really don't think Abrams, who disliked Trek and is a Warsie, was a wise move. But, we'll see I guess.
posted
I love it. I love everything about it. I love everything I've seen and heard so far about it. I haven't been this excited since 1987, when I heard Star Trek was coming back to TV again as Star Trek: The Next Generation.
If you all just think like I do, you'll all be a lot happier. Trust me. I know what I'm talking about.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic