Star Trek: Starships Model/Magazine Subscription
- Thread starter trekker670
- Start date
Or it may not be the final product.
The Facebook group poster said the mold is usually final once we see it. No changes.
I saw, I don't post in their often, but I've seen him post and he comes across as a bit of a self important knob really.
This is so weird. It's a really nice looking model, but they really seem to be having serious accuracy and quality control problems. They were probably counting on the fact that the KM was such a little-known ship that nobody would notice. The recent freak show that is the XL E-A primary hull only exacerbates the issue. They clearly don't understand the OCD propensoty of their clientele. 
Really hoping they don't continue to make a habit of this lack of proper research. Model accuracy was the only thing really going for the line. Customer service surely hasn't been their strong suit. If the model quality goes to shit too, that will be the end of it.
Really hoping they don't continue to make a habit of this lack of proper research. Model accuracy was the only thing really going for the line. Customer service surely hasn't been their strong suit. If the model quality goes to shit too, that will be the end of it.
Yep. I remember that. I've seen that in other magazines on occasion. Can't remember which ones. Several have duplicate captions too, which make no sense out of context. Lots more errors in general recently. Kinda sad, really.
Ugghhh, the Enterprise-B magazine is also messed up, with Enterprise D stuff.
Also, I know these are written in England and vulgarity here isn't necessarily vulgarity there, but I'm pretty sure gangbang is the same on both sides of the pond. Very surprised to see it written that the writing staff gangbanged the script for Yesterday's Enterprise in the C magazine.
I don't see an issue with that and wouldn't consider it vulgar in the slightest given the context is pretty obvious.
I'm sure I've read that anecdote in the US, though I'm not sure I saw it referred to by that term until the 50 Year Mission, which wasn't shy about language IIRC.
I disagree. I'm no prude with regards to language, my favourite TV show is Deadwood and my favourite twitter account is @swear_trek, but this seemed the wrong place for gangbang. They're models of ships from a PG program - I wouldn't want to be explaining that term to my kid reading the magazine. It's not even a quotation.
It almost sounded like someone had thought it might be an amusing use of the word that has otherwise generally negative connotations. I'm personally not offended by it, but I understand how many folks easily could and it was a bit of a tone-deaf choice of words. If they used, say, the words "hammered on" or "attacked" the script, it could have inferred the same context without treading danger-close into something a little more uncomfortably distasteful.
Ron Moore has used that word to describe the process, but always qualifies it with "this is a terrible word to use and I apologise for using it".
Hammered or attacked don't get the point across that gang-bang does. (ie: Everyone joined in.) But it does amuse me that violent terms are okay but sexual ones aren't.
Why not? "What's that mean?" "It means that a bunch of people all worked on the ship." "Oh, okay."
... gangbang is both a violent and sexual term. Just because it can be engaged in consensually doesn't change that the term itself implies violence. Like rape play. You can have consensual rape play, but you're not seeing anyone in a PG program using it as a positive euphemism. Would you still be good if Eaglemoss wrote they raped that script?
"Tosk, this is the principal. Your son has been telling other students they are going to gangbang together."
That said, this one example of one word in Eaglemoss magazines is getting a lot more response than I thought. It was just one more item of weirdness I was pointing out, along with the wrong captions and pages.
"Tosk, this is the principal. Your son has been telling other students they are going to gangbang together."
That said, this one example of one word in Eaglemoss magazines is getting a lot more response than I thought. It was just one more item of weirdness I was pointing out, along with the wrong captions and pages.
Similar threads
