quote:IIRC, the TAS dreadnought looked exactly like a Constitution. Someone here made a statement that the episode it was featured in gave the impression that the ship was scaled up ten or twenty times, though. Utter hogwash, of course. That would have made it at least as big as the Enterprise-D, not to mention the inherent problems with upscaling.
The Dreadnought was an inflatable ship (?) created by the Enterprise's computer, while under the influence of some strange nebula. She was a lot bigger: http://www.mainengineering.hispeed.com/tas_pj_11.jpg As to why the Enterprise would be carrying huge inflatable versions of herself, I guess it has something to do with Halloween (one interesting side-note: a novelization of this episode made the Dreadnought into a Federation class...)
quote:Just about everything can be explained, and you can't just say "it isn't canon" because you don't want to put the effort into it. On the whole, it's very un-Trekkie like.
Again, as I said before, in your opinion.
Fabrux was correct when he said that you're just going to have to accept the fact that not everyone here will agree with your sweeping generalizations, no matter how right you think you are, or even that I may think you are.
That's all I will say about this.
-------------------- "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
posted
I would suspect that the nacelle registry was framed out of this shot, and the saucer one certainly cannot be seen. And the shot here does not conclusively show a size difference - we'd need to see the shot where the balloon inflates to catch the registry or the true size. Anybody have those pics available? MainEngineering doesn't, AFAIK, nor does Curt Danhauser's site.
In any case, the Alan Dean Foster novelisations take a few liberties with all the episodes. For example, this dreadnought here is indeed specified to be Federation class in the novelisation, but it is also told to have three nacelles, just like the FJ design.
posted
Belay that. Curt's site does have a picture that apparently comes from a later point of the inflation sequence, and it proves that the saucer of the balloon ship indeed reads "NCC-1701 USS Enterprise". Go and see here.
Oh, and the size of the balloon is still inconclusive. Only episode dialogue would make it clear whether the balloon was bigger than the real ship at all.
posted
So that dummy balloon ship wasn't actually referred to as a dreadnought in the episode, it was only a duplicate of the Enterprise (albeit with a reddish tint instead of the Enterprise's blue)?
So much for on-screen evidence of a dreadnought...
-------------------- "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
-------------------- "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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Ok guys. Mike Okuda's office. Find the tapes he plans to put in the monitors for the backgrounds in Star Trek: Nemesis. Make a tape of Federation-class schematics. Sneak it on the lot of the movie, its get played
We can see a dreadnought behind the [edit]'s head, and boom, We... Are.. CANON!!! *laughs insanely for about twelve minutes before being ejected from the computer lab*
[ST10 spoiler removed -TSN]
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "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
"We can see a dreadnought behind the [edit]'s head, and boom, We... Are.. CANON!!!"
At this point, I am 5 seconds away from screaming very loudly, tracking you down, and beating you to death with a very large stick. You stupid, stupid twat.
[ST10 spoiler removed -TSN]
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Captain Mike: Let me explain what you did, and what TSN did. In your post about trying to make the dreadnought canon, you inadvertently made a comment about something in Star Trek X which is called a "spoiler." Some people here do not want to know any information, rumors or truths, about things Star Trek because they would rather wait and be surprised when they actually watch the show or movie. So TSN edited your comment.
Spoiler warnings: Read it, learn it , live it.
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
