posted
I guess this time TPTB can justify their cost saving ship recycling with Starfleet not having the resources to build new ships after the Burn.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Two of the type 5 and 8 ships also have a name and registry, but unfortunately they’re too small to make out. Hopefully Eaglemoss will release pics of the CGI models soon.
-------------------- "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
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
How they gonna do models with detached nacelles tho?
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I’m guessing they’ll use clear plastic pylons. Unless they’ve discovered a way to bypass the laws of physics.
-------------------- "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
Type 5 had a name almost visible. A short name, 3-4 letters max with the last a S or G. In fact it looks like it could be USS Nog. It might have been the first ship so labelled, only for them to then use the name on a more prominent ship.
Type 8 has a visible registry but indistinct name. Longish, 9-10 characters - or maybe 5 hyphen 4. Another T’plana-Hath?
Worst of all is that the unnamed “Constitution-class” (the same as the Armstrong) appears to have the registry NCC-1864-M. Which can FUCK OFF FOREVER.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I’m guessing they’ll use clear plastic pylons. Unless they’ve discovered a way to bypass the laws of physics.
First off, it's transparent aluminum, which is an old technology developed in San Francisco during the 80s... you remember that year, some Commie boarded a US aircraft carrier and whalers reported a bizarre UFO.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Worst of all is that the unnamed “Constitution-class” (the same as the Armstrong) appears to have the registry NCC-1864-M.
That was the ship, Owo was refering to as "new Constitution", wasn't it? So I guess she didn't mean "is that a new USS Constitution?" (which is kind of a dumb question anyhow) but rather is that the successor of the Constitution-class design lineage.
Not sure what the Reliant did to warrant this honour.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think she did indeed read the name on the ship before making her statement. The fact that the actual CGI model had the registry of NCC-1864-M is meaningless, as it wasn’t meant to be seen up close, and probably had nothing to do with what the script said anyway. It was just an Easter egg.
-------------------- "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
The Type 5 is precisely the sort of way-out-there design that one would expect of a Federation 800 years out from early TNG. I'm reminded of the ST magazine blurb from 1987 about the smooth, graceful six-foot Enterprise-D model, something about aesthetics surpassing technology and producing machines man would be proud to fly.
In reality, of course, that blurb never made much sense and could only have come from an artist. However, that graceful, strangely beautiful form evokes the memory, and for a fleeting moment I can almost feel Trek the way I did so long ago.
Naturally, then, they f*** it all up with totally different ugly things right alongside a bunch of retreads of their anti-chronological 2250's-meets-First-Contact mish-mash horsecrap designs that look like they're from 2400, at best, but would've been shown as old ships from 2200 anyway.
Ugh.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
-------------------- Blaze da finest weed in da shire... I shake my trekbbs at flare.solareclipse.net
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
These are all just plain lazy as fuck. Also, always trying to connect ship name to class name bothers me. Same with reusing Intrepid as a class name; I hate that, even when real-world wet navies do it.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
