posted
Yeah that second ship has too many details in it that it looks cartoony, though there's potential in there somewhere.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually I don't have the Blu-ray. When someone reported to me that on the disk the "USS Mayflower NCC-1621" and "USS Defiant NCC-1764" were of unnamed class I (three nacelles) I thought it was a mix-up. But then came a second guy who claimed the same. So have I been targeted in an evil scheme to discredit me, did they both make the same mistake or is it true?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I own the blu-ray, so you can take my word as gospel. The ship chart (or part of it anyway) is only shown for a few seconds, but both the Mayflower and the Defiant are of the type-III full saucer/two nacelle class of ship. Those guys were either confused or they didn't know what they were talking about.
Also, you can clearly see the registry of the Mayflower's wrecked saucer on the blu-ray, and it is indeed NCC-1621, giving us the only confirmed name/registry of the rescue ships in the movie.
One more thing: your schematic of the type-III ship is a tad bit off. Like the Kelvin, there's a section of upper pylon leading from the rear of the bridge to the end of the saucer, that would have led to the secondary hull if this ship had one. It's on the ship chart schematic; just omit the rollbar and you'd have what the type-III looked like.
BTW (sorry, I just keep coming up with new stuff to say)... there is NO U.S.S. Centaurus. The confusion stems from the sloppy way the actress pronounces the name. She blends in the second "s" in "U.S.S" with the actual name of the ship (Antares), and she also mispronounces Antares as "an-TAHR-is" instead of the proper "an-TAHR-eez."
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Dukhat, there is some evidence for another ship from the concept art in the film. In this pic from trekcore, http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xihd/trekxihd1017.jpg, the registry for the three-nacelled ship can be seen. I am reading NCC-1769 which is the registry for the USS Armstrong. (The bloody link never works; go to Chapter 5, go to page 7, go to picture 17. This shows the Armstrong in front of the Enterprise.)
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
TrekCore doesn't allow linking to individual caps, but this page is the one with the Armstrong.
Earlier in the thread, I linked to screenshots provided by o2 showing the conceptart from the Blu-ray, which indeed shows the Mayflower (and Defiant) as being the two-nacelled type. Whoever said they were the three-nacelled type was mistaken; perhaps this was due to the fact that the profiles look similar with the rollbar in place. (This may be the very reason why they utimately decided to drop the rollbar from the Mayflower-type.)
Here is another one he provided of the exact frame where you can see the final 1 of the Mayflower's registry in the film.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Although I see a *faint* registry number on the saucer, I can't really tell what it says. The last number *looks* like a "9" but I can't be sure.
Now I'm starting to wonder if there was any correlation between what was mentioned in the script as opposed to what was actually printed on the CGI models (i.e. we heard Wolcott, Truman, Antares, et. al, but saw Defiant, Armstrong, Mayflower et. al on the concept art...)
I had another thought too... I wonder if ILM pulled a "First Contact" with us and labeled each type of ship with the same name (i.e. all the two-nacelled/two enginering hulled ships were labeled "Newton," all three Reliant-type ships were labeled "Mayflower," etc.)
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Thans for clearing that up! So the evidence from the DVD is entirely in line with the size chart from the book.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
We know the Mayflower was duplicated. I can confirm this. Check out 1202 and 1208 from TrekCore.
I would say that the Excelsior and the Defiant were backup names, and the ships in the film bore the names Newton, Mayflower, and Armstrong.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
quote:We know the Mayflower was duplicated. I can confirm this. Check out 1202 and 1208 from TrekCore.
While that may be true, the wreckage CGI would be a different model than the intact ship CGI models; however, that wouldn't preclude that they'd have the same names if the same person built both models.
quote:I would say that the Excelsior and the Defiant were backup names, and the ships in the film bore the names Newton, Mayflower, and Armstrong.
For lack of better evidence, I'm starting to agree with that assessment as well. That would explain why the Excelsior and Defiant were different colors on the ship chart. My theory is that the VFX personnel probably felt "Excelsior" and "Defiant" were too ingrained with Star Trek III and Deep Space Nine, and they wanted new names for the ships that hadn't been used previously, along with registry numbers that were subtle nods to the ship names. However, the scriptwriters had their own ship names (without registry numbers) which probably didn't correspond to the VFX guys' models, as Mim speculated. In other words, don't go looking to see which ship was the Antares or the Truman, because they weren't labeled as such.
Either way, I think we can at least state that the three new designs can safely be associated as the "Armstrong-type," the "Newton-type," and the "Mayflower-type" (along with the Kelvin-type and Kobayashi Maru-type).
1. Newton NCC-1727 (year of Newton's death) 2. Mayflower NCC-1621 (a year after the Mayflower reached Plymouth) 3. Armstrong NCC-1769 (1969 being the year of the moon landing; since 1969 would have been too high of a registry number it was changed to 1769)
So Ayel's statement about seven ships was correct per the script, not the names on the CGI models.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
For those whose knickers might be in a twist about 1621 not being an "historically correct" in-joke, and for what it's worth, according to Wikipedia the passengers of the Mayflower didn't actually come ashore until March of 1621, having spent the winter aboard the ship. If the reference was being made by someone whose ancestors were among them, perhaps they were aware of this?
-------------------- 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
posted
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Thans for clearing that up! So the evidence from the DVD is entirely in line with the size chart from the book.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
