Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Well, it's an art book and most of the stuff is self-explanatory. I'm just glad that we got *something*. My last art book was... can remember. The sketchbooks or ST Design? It's been too long. And the quality is really good (of the pictures, I mean)
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe the last art book was Ships Of The Line, which contained pretty much eveything we'd already seen millions of times before, i.e. Excelsiors, Mirandas, and Birds of Prey.
-------------------- "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 feel like the only one in the room who is not getting why the latest girl in the room is hot. I mean she dresses fine and speaks, well, good, but there's no substance there. I suppose she's good for a one-night stand, but if you wanted something more, she couldn't deliver.
Registered: Nov 2009
| 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
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Any guess why the Excelsior is copper-colored? Is that the Vulcan commemorative paintjob or something?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
The Newton-type is a dual-nacelle, dual-secondary-hull ship.
The Mayflower-type is a dual-nacelle ship - hell, might as well come out and say it, it's as close as dammit to a canon TOSed Miranda as we'll ever see.
The Armstrong-type is a three-nacelled ship - they all look like nacelles to me, it's not a dual-nacelled/one-secondary config nor is it it a single-nacelle/dual-secondary config (as groovy as that might be)?
As I mentioned earlier, I know that one of the ships was labeled with the registry of the Armstrong or the Excelsior. The registry, well, most of it, can be seen in the ship forward of the Enterprise.
As for the other ships, I don't see any evidence that they were labeled on the primary hull. On the nacelles, that's a different story.
Do you think we will see these ship classes in the next movie?
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess the copper color is to indicate the ship's equipped with transwarp drive
I hope we do get to see these ships again, though considering the events of the first movie, I wouldn't be surprised if Starfleet replenished it ranks with ship designs based on the Enterprise, equipped with similar weapons and technology.
[ November 21, 2009, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Mars Needs Women ]
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Except for the rest of the fleet that was apparently sitting on their hands out in the Laurentian system.
I suspect that the copper ship is a placeholder for another design not yet completed.
-------------------- “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
Bernd's site now claims that a special feature on the blu-ray depicts the Mayflower as being of the three-nacelled type rather than the two-nacelled design it's depicted as on the ship charts. Can anyone verify this, preferably by providing a screenshot? Also, is there any more ship info on the blu-ray?
Also, as someone else already pointed out, this business about the registry number being "corrected" to 1620 on the final model is incorrect, as you can just barely see the edge of the final 1 in some of the screencaps of the Enterprise in front of the saucer. It's definitely 1621 in the film.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Bernd's site now claims that a special feature on the blu-ray depicts the Mayflower as being of the three-nacelled type rather than the two-nacelled design it's depicted as on the ship charts. Can anyone verify this, preferably by providing a screenshot? Also, is there any more ship info on the blu-ray?
I think he just made a mistake. Bernd says that both the Mayflower and the Defiant are of the three-nacelled class, but on the Blu-Ray, they're both of the two-nacelled, full-saucer class.
Man, I really wish someone would come out with class names for these ships. It's getting tiring trying to describe them all the time.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I figured that too at first, but I was confused because he specifically wrote:
"On an early comparison chart the unnamed class III is represented by the 'USS Mayflower NCC-1621', here still with a rollbar that is not on the movie model. The year of the Mayflower's journey was 1620, and since it is unquestionably a tip of the hat the registry may have been fixed on the final model. According to the special features of the Blu-ray, on the other hand, the 'USS Mayflower NCC-1621' belongs to unnamed class I. We can't tell at this point which statement is true."
Just looking for clarification.
Regarding descriptive names, in the absence of further information, I'd suggest calling them the Newton-type (two nacelles dorsal, double underslung hulls); Armstrong-type (three nacelles ventral); and Mayflower-type (two nacelles ventral).
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
