posted
What the fuck has this thread turned into!?! Sheesh, I hope I'm not being included in the 'whining' - cause I've just been trying to piece together in my mind from the verbal discriptions of the ships as to what they might look like - AND I post a bizarre picture from ATTS, and another mystery was solved! What the HELL no. 1 and no. 2 were!
So again, what do we have to do to have a look at these pics? Is it possible they are put on the web, and if we have to PM/E-mail then we can just get the URL - I'm assuming that the size of the pics are quite large - from other posts.
HOW do you PM again - never used it.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The PM function is under the "My Profile" button.
And for what it's worth, I believe that at least some of the misunderstanding/overreaction about all this has been cleared up. When it has been resolved to peoples' satisfaction, I recommend closing the thread and starting another one with level heads.
posted
BTW, just to clarify things about the three-naceller: Even though it has no name or registry, I know that Drexler drew the ship upside-down. The top half of the saucer is actually from the Enterprise-B kit, while the bottom half of the saucer is the standard Excelsior. So the extra impulse engines are where the Excelsior pylons are, making the Connie pylons on the bottom.
Also, the Raging Queen got its namesake from a Saturday Night Live skit, with John Belushi as pirate Captain Ned. "Raging Queen" was the name of his pirate vessel.
As far as I know, the ship was never called or relabeled the Curry, only that the nacelles & pylons were switched w/ more believable looking ones for filming. So "Curry" & the erroneous registry should be stricken from anybody's shiplists.
-------------------- "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
Well I only posted once about the pics, and i never thought I was rude about. I politely asked if Drexler had given his okay for distribution. Still, if i did come off as rude, then I also ask for forgiveness. I would still like to see these pics. I don't think my email address appears in my profile, so whoever has them and can send them to me at [email protected], I would be grateful.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Didn't the Curry name & number come from Okuda?
EDIT: I know what the "small pylons" on the Raging Queen are. They're the corrugated bands on the AMT Danube-class model. Also, on the Yeager, the nacelles are actually "inside-out." The outer grills are really the connection points for the the Voyager pylons.
[ March 11, 2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Shik ]
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
quote:As far as I know, the ship was never called or relabeled the Curry, only that the nacelles & pylons were switched w/ more believable looking ones for filming. So "Curry" & the erroneous registry should be stricken from anybody's shiplists.
Did you ask Drexler about the Genesis/Centaur too?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Sorry, Dukhat. And thanks for your opinion on this. I think it really has gone too far.
I'll leave my signature changed for the next few days until change it to something *normal*.
The model is a bit better than the schematics, IMO. It reminds of some sort of a tug or tender. Imagine a cargo pod attached to the aft greeblies. This ship is not that outrageously ugly, though. The three nacelles are in the same config as the Niagara, and it looks reasonably balanced.
Constitution Variant/ No Name or Rego
Nothing too terribly wrong with this. There probably exists something similar in fandom?
Shelley/Raging Queen NCC-42285
The Constitution nacelles make the ship look really weird. We could assume that they are 'actually' custom nacelles, having nothing in common with the Connie. How is the saucer connected with the rest? I can't see it!
Centaur/ U.S.S. Illegible NCC-42043
I think I like this ship. Are those any nacelles we know of? Constellation perhaps? I like the Constellation-ish details. Perhaps this ship was something of a low budget-Constellation?
Intrepid Meets A-Wing/ U.S.S. Elkins NCC-74121 (I think)
Really awkward ship, this. It does look like it's a sister ship to the Yeager class (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ships we thought were the Yeager, were this thing), and is just as dificult to rationalize. Why would there be Constitution class nacelles on this ship? And why a seemingly brand new Intrepid saucer?
U.S.S. Yeager NCC-65674
Another really strange ship. The blue finish is nice, but hardly makes it any better .
Perhaps the Elkins and Yeager are some sort of Intrepid prototypes? Or they really must be Starfleet kitbashes, although their arses have been ripped from unknown ships
Mark, thank you very much for this! And thanks to Drexler to, for putting up with us. Oh yeah, and thanks to Shik, for beating some sense in this truly historical thread
But what was that about the ASDB?
(edit: teh fooking typos)
[ March 12, 2002, 06:46: Message edited by: Harry ]
The Intrepid/A-wing (Int/Connie from DS9TM) The Yeager (Intrepid/Maquis combo) The Raging Queen (poss. the same as the shelly/curry) The Centaur The wierd double Excelsior saucer/three naceller
so... no "Connie with 1? Nacelle", ?Klingon? (hey it LOOKS Klingon to me) Tug?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
There were schematics of the tug in the last Fact Files issue.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic