”From a medium shot, John’s retro ship is not that distinguishable from the TOS ship. The model that was used in ‘Unexpecte’d (and hey, how about that outstanding Xyrillian ship?) was neither exactly like the TMP or the TOS ship although much closer to TOS, obviously. I personally was thrilled to see that old configuration again,” Drexler continues."
Is he wrong, or was the model slightly modified? Or is he referring to superficial differences between the CGIed K't'inga and the physical model?
Also, his real-world comparison only rationalizes the slight changes in the -first- hundred years of the ship's existence.
[ April 02, 2002, 13:49: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
What could he mean by "neither exactly like the TMP or the TOS ship although much closer to TOS, obviously"? The only obvious is that the ship (as we could see it) was the same as the model that was in use in Voyager: "Prophesy" and DS9: "What You Leave Behind". Even the plasma color (cyan) is the same as in these last two occurences, as opposed to every previous sighting.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Aaron Morse
Ex-Member
posted
I would love to see the Conestoga anybody got a real good picture?
IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
OK I haven't read the interview, I haven't read that so-called 'script' and I don't want to know what the movie is really about - cause I know I enjoyed Insurrection MUCH more after knowing basically NOTHING about it. A friend of mine had read about the plot twist that the Son'a were really Bak'u - and he said he didn't enjoy the movie as much, knowing this from the beginning. Let's hope that Nemesis doesn't rely on such a plot twist to make this movie an interesting movie. It doesn't lend Insurrection very well to too many extra viewings when the whole movie comes down to a simple scan by Beverly.
Anyway... "The Device"!?! I know they were tyrying to recapture the feel of TWOK... but this seems a little... worrying! And I think it doesn't seem to work when they try to 'capture the feel' of any previous movie. They kept going on about Insurrection being TNG's "The Voyage Home" and now they are going on about "Nemesis" being TNG's "Wrath of Kahn". First Contact was a movie where they DIDN'T try to do this.
Andrew Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I don't know if you want to hear this much, but...
The comparison to ST2 is very apt. The "device" plays no greater or lesser role in the alleged "Nemesis" story than Genesis did in ST2. Replace it with just about any technobabble and you retain the story. Remove it and you actually *improve* the story, but you lose a very cool visual effect.
This is a very generic thing in American movies, it seems (and 007 belongs to that category, no matter how hard Brosnan tries to roll his R's)... The heroes are superheroes and the villains are supervillains thanks to a piece of technology associated with them. In a sci-fi movie, this seems like unwarranted redundancy. Couldn't we just once have a Trek movie that has a villain but doesn't have a supervillain? (Umm, we did in ST3, didn't we? More Klingon movies, please!)
posted
I always thought they were going to do a Q movie... maybe where he comes back and is more 'nasty' not so much the Buffoon he was on Voyager or DS9.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
