trevanian
Rear Admiral
Is it like a mall's directory? Or, if it moves, is it the precursor to GQ's chompers? (I thought that was aboard EXCELSIOR, myself. Don't they show that right after she takes a hit?)
Forced perspective, painted backdrops and the refit Enterprise
- Thread starter Mytran
- Start date
Is it like a mall's directory? Or, if it moves, is it the precursor to GQ's chompers? (I thought that was aboard EXCELSIOR, myself. Don't they show that right after she takes a hit?)
By the way, the horizontal doors between main engineering and the outer corridor also closed really slowly. Slowly enough for the guy carrying a pad or whatever to squeak through in TMP. (Apologies if already mentioned.)
It's a schematic of the warp core, originally appearing in TNG: "Booby Trap". I think we're supposed to pretend it's holographic glass.Robert Comsol said:
Something very similar (but with a pic of the Enterprise-D) appeared behind the tactical station on one of the "Parallels" Enterprises.
^^ Good catch, thanks. I also just noted that the desk model variation of the refit Enterprise in the foreground looks like a cousin of the Constellation Class (e.g. Stargazer, Hathaway).
Did anyone ever do schematics of this variation?
Bob
Did anyone ever do schematics of this variation?
Bob
They're consistent
I do like the idea that the closing speed is deliberately set to very slow for the door in TWOK. I wonder what it was suppose to protect the crew from? The same horizontal shaft (and it's energy glow) is present in both the main room and the horizontal conduit room so it is unlikely the shaft itself.
Yes: "The breach in the hull sucked air from the engine room".
Unfortunately, with the "fresh air pouring into the depressurized area" they also had "poisonous coolant gas flooding the trainees' area" because of leakage.
Bob
Actually, I believe that was a standard AMT/ERTL Connie refit with flipped warp engines and they forgot to put the window pieces in for some odd reason. I've built more of those kits than I can remember - I'm pretty sure it's nothing more than that.
It's always irritated me how those model builders screw up something so obvious - they work on Star Trek for heaven's sake and they can't get the flippin' Enterprise right!
^No, it's likely that they made those modifications on purpose to suggest a variant class. After all, these are skilled artists, so they want to bring some creativity to their work rather than just slavishly following directions.
The sideways nacelles are odd, yes, but there's precedent in the Constellation class. And the gaps in the saucer rim suggest shuttlebays like those on the Constellation. Maybe this was some sort of Constitution-class refit that was a prototype for the Constellation class.
^^ My thoughts exactly. It looks like they deliberately created a Constellation Class cousin.
The one model kit where they really screwed up assembly, IMHO, was the one in a TNG episode where they put the stern end of the nacelles to the front.
Bob
The one model kit where they really screwed up assembly, IMHO, was the one in a TNG episode where they put the stern end of the nacelles to the front.
Bob
Not everyone working on TNG was a Trek fan or familiar with the ship designs. I suspect someone clueless had an AMT model kit slammed down in front of them and was told to build it in a hurry, hence the 'variants' we saw (and I can tell you from personal experience, those window segments were a bitch to get in place!)
That doesn't mean we can't pretend - at least in the case of the "Booby Trap" version. A saucer converted to cargo spaces (with that undercut you probably couldn't use them as shuttlebays) and horizontal nacelles (echoing the flatter nacelles of TNG) sounds like an interesting sub-class.
That doesn't mean we can't pretend - at least in the case of the "Booby Trap" version. A saucer converted to cargo spaces (with that undercut you probably couldn't use them as shuttlebays) and horizontal nacelles (echoing the flatter nacelles of TNG) sounds like an interesting sub-class.
That's ridiculous. The TNG art department consisted of some of the most devoted Trekkies you'll ever find. The model was probably put together by someone like Rick Sternbach or Greg Jein or Doug Drexler, all of whom are rabid Trek fans and technical experts (and Rick actually contributed to the design of the Connie refit!). So the variations must have been intentional.
I mean, I doubt you can "accidentally" put the nacelles on sideways like that. The slots and tabs were designed to fit together a certain way. So it would probably take some skill at customization to put them on sideways like that.
Besides, consider the context. The model was in the holodeck simulation of Leah Brahms's lab, so it stands to reason that it wasn't just some decorative model of a Connie but represented some kind of experimental design or prototype. Thus it would've been sensible to modify the kit in some way.
With that undercut you shouldn't be able to fit the TMP rec deck in either, but they had it anyway. I just ignore the undercut issue.
Do you also think the "variant" with backwards nacelles we see is intentional? Yes there were lots of people working on TNG who were super-invested in the details of the Trek world, but to assume every one of them revered the show is a stretch I am not willing to make.
No, he's got a point. Please remember that Enterprise model in TNG's Season One "The Neutral Zone" where the back of the nacelles faces forward. Most definitely NOT assembled by Andrew Probert.
I agree, the front of the warp nacelles face forward as they should. The lack of the window modules and the Constellation Class positioning of the nacelles suggest 1 + 1 = 2, IMHO.
The TMP rec deck was originally considered to be in the engineering hull adjacent to the botanical section. Frankly, I'm not aware it ever left that location.
(And try matching the 8 exterior windows on the VFX model with the studio set. Problem is that the windows on the upper deck are way too low. I guess we'd end up with an Enterprise capable to have 78 decks if we wanted to imagine the rec deck in the saucer
)Bob
Last edited:
So you'd rather insult the competence of people you don't know? I think that in the absence of hard evidence, the decent thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you assume the best about them and they fall short, that's on them. But if you assume the worst and they don't deserve it, then you're the one in the wrong.
Dude - have you actually SEEN some of the frankenfleet kitbashes they put together for DS9?? Granted, some of them were really good, but most of them for flat-out horrible! With regard to this "variant", I'm not sure how anyone could espouse an expression of artistic greatness with the flipping of a couple nacelles and the intentional omission of window pieces from one of the most recognizable model ships in science fiction history. If it was more dissimilar, I suppose I could let it pass, but this particular effort lacks any real imagination or talent. Or art. IMO.
Methinks you simply enjoy being a serial contrarian.
Methinks you simply enjoy being a serial contrarian.
I'm not saying it was "artistic greatness," I'm just saying it was an attempt to add a little variety rather than the result of incompetence. The premise that it was incompetence is predicated on the assumption that the only legitimate way to assemble a model kit is exactly per the instructions. Those very kitbashes you mention prove that the art department of the Trek shows did not hold to that assumption.
Besides, everything that goes onscreen has to be approved by the producers and director. Okay, sometimes mistakes get through, but there is a process to catch them. In order for this variant to be a mistake, it would have to be multiple people's mistake, and I think that's an implausible premise. It's immensely more likely that it was an attempt to be creative within the limits of time and budget. I'm not saying it was brilliant, I'm just saying it's unreasonable to assume it was a mistake.
Besides, everything that goes onscreen has to be approved by the producers and director. Okay, sometimes mistakes get through, but there is a process to catch them. In order for this variant to be a mistake, it would have to be multiple people's mistake, and I think that's an implausible premise. It's immensely more likely that it was an attempt to be creative within the limits of time and budget. I'm not saying it was brilliant, I'm just saying it's unreasonable to assume it was a mistake.
Similar threads
