posted
Am I invisible? Because I'm pretty sure that I presented an opinion on the problem regarding the connection of corridors/pipes/tubes/etc. between sections.
And my point is that there don't have to be that many connections. Take the Yeager Class, for example. The saucer section holds the crew facilities and everything else, like weapons. The Maquis-style hull holds the engines. All you REALLY need between the two sections is the power feeds and a couple of hallways.
But if the insides of one hull (whichever one) have ALREADY been GUTTED to make way for the retrofitted equipment, then it should be no big deal to install some custom corridors.
Also remember that these ships are essentially EMPTY. They're flying hulls with weapons strapped on, and a few crew quarters for the skeleton crew assigned to fly the thing. THAT'S ALL.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
The Shelley class unlike the other "shipbashes" in the DS9:TM appears to consist entirely of Excelcior class components (with the exception of the nacelles). If this is so then why move the saucer section if it is one of those ships that was quickly knocked up from whatever was lying around during the war? I believe that the mods must have been made for a specific reason and so the Shelley should be a pre-war purpose designed ship.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Exactly. Or then it wasn't a ship at all - just the remains of a number of half-destroyed ships welded nonfunctionally together for the duration of the journey home. None of the windows were lit, there were no floodlights on the registries, and the deflector dish didn't glow. Perhaps this was just a heap of junk duranium?
Admittedly, there was what seemed like the usual blue warp glow on the nacelle grilles... So perhaps that should be amended to "a functional pre-war-built ship consisting of the saucer and the nacelles, towing home a heap of junk duranium that included the secondary hull of an Excelsior class starship"?
posted
But why would Starfleet purposely build such a monstrosity BEFORE the war? When all ships (with very few exceptions) are all designed on their own as original vessels, why would Starfleet resort to such an ugly kitbash?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Rogue Starship
Ex-Member
posted
[/QUOTE]That sounds like an excellent idea! I nominate Rogue Starship to call the "dick heads" to get the answer. (If we don't hear from him a the call, we know that the "dick heads" sent in the Jem'Hadar.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
My appoligies if I offended anyone by my snide remark. I am sorry.
Ok, What really bugs me is that we have seen On-screen evidence that the Shelley exists. If we had'nt than I would have said sent the DS9:TM to hell, it's full of BS. But the pictures are nice to look at anyway.
IP: Logged
So say you. Personally, I don't have any problem w/ the Curry, and especially not the Centaur. Granted, some of the ones that were invisible on screen were pretty bad, but that's assuming the diagrams are accurate, which I doubt.
Besides, there are people who call the Freedom and Niagara "ugly kitbashes", but no-one's claiming that those were anything but actual SF classes.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm really getting sick of seeing this thread title spelled wrong. RS or someone should fix it.
A lot of these designs I dont consider so bad.. If an experienced CGI artist got to work on them, I bet they could make them look like acceptable ST ships by tweaking details a little and giving them a little character.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with TSN. The Curry and the Centaur are not "Ugly Kitbashes." Their designs are likely functional to what their missions are. That's why I came up with the theory that they were the Mediterranean & Rennaissance classes, respectively. Just because they share similar parts to the Excelsior, in a re-arranged configuration, does that make them any more "ugly-kitbashed" than the Miranda class or Constellation class is to the Constitution?
Also, what if we had seen the Curry before we had seen the Excelsior? We wouldn't even be having this discussion.
-------------------- "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
If the Curry is towing a knocked out Excelcior secondary hull what's with the shuttle bay on the front? I don't think that it's very likely to be a repair; I can't see much damage below the bay on my tape and I think a hit would probably cause more damage. Also where would they get it from? Finally I can't see any tractor beam so it must be a physical connection; either a docking/ latching system or it's part of the same ship.
PS: I actually rather like the Curry and Centaur.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I actually like the Centaur design. That's close enough to a "clean" design to look good to me.
However, the Curry is butt-ugly. The parts are rearranged in a nonsensical jumble -- literally the only difference in components is the warp nacelles, which are supposedly Constitution-refit-type instead of Excelsior-native. I can see absolutely no benefit from this design, and it seems structurally very weak. I don't like how the neck has been reattached to the aft end of the secondary hull, or the nacelles attached directly to the saucer. Compared to the vast majority of the starships that we've seen Starfleet use, it's ugly and illogical.
Yes, there have been "kitbash" starships before, some of which look quite good -- like the Nebula, New Orleans, Cheyenne, even the Niagra (which I like as well). But when you get to such random reconfigurations merely for the sake of redesign, that is very weak, artistically. And even weaker from an engineering standpoint.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
In the VFX department's defense, I doubt they were thinking much of engineering standpoints. They were thinking, "we need damaged ships...what's the cheapest way of providing some? Well, we can buy model kits to build & destroy, and while we're at it, let's make some new designs."
Keep in mind that these ships were made by the VFX guys, not someone like Rick Sternbach. He himself told me that he hated the designs, and kitbashing in general.
-------------------- "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
quote:Originally posted by Rogue Starship: My appoligies if I offended anyone by my snide remark. I am sorry.
Ok, What really bugs me is that we have seen On-screen evidence that the Shelley exists. If we had'nt than I would have said sent the DS9:TM to hell, it's full of BS. But the pictures are nice to look at anyway.
Snide?
Rogue Starship - you miss understand me. I didn't take offence. I was joking. I was winding you up! Geeez! And I thought that I was travelling in reverse at high warp!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
Rogue Starship
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: I'm really getting sick of seeing this thread title spelled wrong. RS or someone should fix it.
A lot of these designs I dont consider so bad.. If an experienced CGI artist got to work on them, I bet they could make them look like acceptable ST ships by tweaking details a little and giving them a little character.
How, I would do it in a moment if I new if how to.
Yes they are stupid doped up Sons of Guns...if only they knew the crap they started...I would fire them...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
