Star Trek: Axanar
- Thread starter Linnear
- Start date
- Status
I honestly do not gush about fan made productions, but WOW - I really want to see both Prelude to Axanar and the actual Axanar fan film these people are making. VERY impressive.
Tobias really good looking vfx. How long did it take to do all of that and what size ships are they in poly count?
Very, very impressive. The production values are excellent, the shots well put-together.
It does feel a little bit like Tony Todd doing an impression of himself, but that's probably unavoidable in a "big speech to an auditorium" moment.
Alec doesn't seem to have much presence as Garth, but this is such a short clip that I'm not too concerned yet. I look forward to seeing more to disabuse myself of or reaffirm that notion.
But again, this was terrific overall. I'm very impressed and eagerly await the final product.
It does feel a little bit like Tony Todd doing an impression of himself, but that's probably unavoidable in a "big speech to an auditorium" moment.
Alec doesn't seem to have much presence as Garth, but this is such a short clip that I'm not too concerned yet. I look forward to seeing more to disabuse myself of or reaffirm that notion.
But again, this was terrific overall. I'm very impressed and eagerly await the final product.
If what we've seen in the teaser is any indication of things to come, Axanar may have just raised the bar for independent Trek films way into the stratosphere. That's no easy feat, considering what's currently being produced.
Enjoyed watching that. I look forward to seeing where this takes us!
Excellent trailer!
Last edited:
Never was into fan projects. My friend shared the trailer to me and my interest immediately shot up once Tony Todd appeared. Then so many of my other favorite character actors popped up. I'm very intrigued by this. You've got my attention, I'm really looking forward to seeing it all.
So far this looks less like other fan films and more like Blood and Chrome. Very nice.
I do like the "historical" story hook.
I've decided I am no longer a fan of starship battles where the ships are only a few hundred feet apart. But it is the way of the world. It's pretty at any rate.
Looking forward to it.
I do like the "historical" story hook.
I've decided I am no longer a fan of starship battles where the ships are only a few hundred feet apart. But it is the way of the world. It's pretty at any rate.
Looking forward to it.
It's pretty but it rarely feels dangerous enough. There are other ways to do it.
Last edited:
It looks interesting. It reminds me of a trailer for an upcoming spacebattle game that is centered around Star Trek using professional actors. Too, I noticed the makeup on Kate Vernon showing her 'aged' was done well.
This.
This.
Last edited:
A question on the ships. Does the USS Ares have aft firing torpedo tubes? If so, where are they? Between the impulse engines? If so that bring up my count of weapon to 8 torpedo tubes, and 30 phaser turrets (14 banks, 7 top and 7 bottom of the saucer, plus two single mounts over the shuttle bay).
The other Federations ships seem to have three different weapon types on them. Nearly all of them have the forward paired phaser banks, a few clusters of pop-up guns forward, and torpedo racks in pods over the hull. Are their aft weapons aside from the aft firing torpedo tubes?
I've been trying to count hatches and weapon mounts but it is difficult with the angles in the still shots. Each ship seems to have two banks of phasers on top and two banks on the bottom of the saucer or half saucers at roughly the 45 and 315 degrees. There are also I guess four groups of three each popup guns forward between the phaser banks. Six on top of the saucer and six below the saucer.
What I'm having trouble with is the number of tubes in the pods. It would normally look like two tubes forward and aft, but it almost looks like it is two pairs of tubes forward and aft on most of the Federation ships. That's eight tubes.
I also see what looks like either other popup gun hatches or single phasers turrets on the saucers of some of the cruisers. Or both. Though it is weird as they seem to be on the starboard side on top of the saucer and not on the port side (though that could be because the port side is in shadows). I can't seen the underside clearly enough. It might be due to the resolution I can see the ships at present.
I'm still stuck in the FASA era of the Four Years' War for naming things. In the 1980s they has the older Federation ships using lasers and accelerator cannons (railguns that fired warheads, possibly nuclear, possibly antimatter) before upgrading to phasers and photon torpedoes. In the 30 years since then and lot has happened. Yet the idea that Star Fleet has old ships with old weapon, new ships with new weapons, and some transition of older ships with new weapons seems to still be in place in Axanar. The question, is....what to call them, and what is the difference (especially in the torpedoes).
The other Federations ships seem to have three different weapon types on them. Nearly all of them have the forward paired phaser banks, a few clusters of pop-up guns forward, and torpedo racks in pods over the hull. Are their aft weapons aside from the aft firing torpedo tubes?
I've been trying to count hatches and weapon mounts but it is difficult with the angles in the still shots. Each ship seems to have two banks of phasers on top and two banks on the bottom of the saucer or half saucers at roughly the 45 and 315 degrees. There are also I guess four groups of three each popup guns forward between the phaser banks. Six on top of the saucer and six below the saucer.
What I'm having trouble with is the number of tubes in the pods. It would normally look like two tubes forward and aft, but it almost looks like it is two pairs of tubes forward and aft on most of the Federation ships. That's eight tubes.
I also see what looks like either other popup gun hatches or single phasers turrets on the saucers of some of the cruisers. Or both. Though it is weird as they seem to be on the starboard side on top of the saucer and not on the port side (though that could be because the port side is in shadows). I can't seen the underside clearly enough. It might be due to the resolution I can see the ships at present.
I'm still stuck in the FASA era of the Four Years' War for naming things. In the 1980s they has the older Federation ships using lasers and accelerator cannons (railguns that fired warheads, possibly nuclear, possibly antimatter) before upgrading to phasers and photon torpedoes. In the 30 years since then and lot has happened. Yet the idea that Star Fleet has old ships with old weapon, new ships with new weapons, and some transition of older ships with new weapons seems to still be in place in Axanar. The question, is....what to call them, and what is the difference (especially in the torpedoes).
That's a very dramatic quote, but what really is the difference between that and a ship that is not a "warship" but still outguns and outperforms vessels that are? For example the Enterprise (pick one) and the various Klingon warships we've seen.
"Hey, your ship can annihilate all life on a planet and it takes three of our best ships to confront it!"
"No, it's OK, it has a science lab and a historical officer!"
Did Earth spend the Romulan wars thinking "Damn, if only we had warships!"
Were they getting carved up at Wolf 359 thinking "Of course resistance is futile! I don't have any warships!"
Nice, very nice.
However, since Tobias got many roses here, think it is time to nitpick a bit.
Tobias, what's it with those aztecs? the ships look soooooooo CG.
I can see it in other projects too.
Just grey aztecs, no coloring, no difference in specularity, just colored like many fanboys do it out there on the net.
Don't you think those aztecs have a meaning?
I don't like the JJprise, but they used colored aztecs, and not just for fun.
However, since Tobias got many roses here, think it is time to nitpick a bit.
Tobias, what's it with those aztecs? the ships look soooooooo CG.
I can see it in other projects too.
Just grey aztecs, no coloring, no difference in specularity, just colored like many fanboys do it out there on the net.
Don't you think those aztecs have a meaning?
I don't like the JJprise, but they used colored aztecs, and not just for fun.
The Constitution class follows the lineage of Exploration. It is a multi-role, extended deployment, robust general mission capability ship. As such, it was a huge success!
Non warships are meant to be lower maintenance, cheaper to operate over the expected lifetime of the vessel. The expected lifetime of the vessel is greater than with a warship, mostly because critical systems are designed to be less stressed. Impulse engines would be one example. Another example would be the warp core. The non warship crew amenities will tend to be considerably less spartan.
An all up warship on the other hand, is built to be far more robust in both Defensive armament, and Offensive capabilities. The systems that make up these capabilities will take up more space per system, and will likely have additional systems that a non-military unit would not have. They will also operate at much higher stress levels, that would destroy a non mil.-spec. system, when they are at battle stations. What good is sparing the operational life expectancy of a system if it causes the loss of the battle, and thus the ship? The failure mode of a military combat system will usually include 'System Failure Containment' as a primary design parameter, rather than as a desirable secondary consideration. These design considerations are harder to execute, and a lot more expensive to build and maintain.
A non warship, Exploration Type Vessel, is certainly not meant to be helpless. That said, they are not a true ship of the line. Conversely, an all up warship would be far less effective as an exploration vessel. All in all, for the Federation ideology, the Constitution Class exploration ship type was a major achievement. It had solid defensive, and offensive capability, while maintaining the true to type Multi-Role extended duration operation.
The Ares class warship, on the other hand, was literally designed to survive, and deliver, a pounding that would destroy a non warship, 'with ease'. Honestly, it was not very good at any other role-type, unlike the Constitution class. Which was genuinely good at most things.
Peace.
Non warships are meant to be lower maintenance, cheaper to operate over the expected lifetime of the vessel. The expected lifetime of the vessel is greater than with a warship, mostly because critical systems are designed to be less stressed. Impulse engines would be one example. Another example would be the warp core. The non warship crew amenities will tend to be considerably less spartan.
An all up warship on the other hand, is built to be far more robust in both Defensive armament, and Offensive capabilities. The systems that make up these capabilities will take up more space per system, and will likely have additional systems that a non-military unit would not have. They will also operate at much higher stress levels, that would destroy a non mil.-spec. system, when they are at battle stations. What good is sparing the operational life expectancy of a system if it causes the loss of the battle, and thus the ship? The failure mode of a military combat system will usually include 'System Failure Containment' as a primary design parameter, rather than as a desirable secondary consideration. These design considerations are harder to execute, and a lot more expensive to build and maintain.
A non warship, Exploration Type Vessel, is certainly not meant to be helpless. That said, they are not a true ship of the line. Conversely, an all up warship would be far less effective as an exploration vessel. All in all, for the Federation ideology, the Constitution Class exploration ship type was a major achievement. It had solid defensive, and offensive capability, while maintaining the true to type Multi-Role extended duration operation.
The Ares class warship, on the other hand, was literally designed to survive, and deliver, a pounding that would destroy a non warship, 'with ease'. Honestly, it was not very good at any other role-type, unlike the Constitution class. Which was genuinely good at most things.
Peace.
@Tallguy,
The Romulan War was *EARTH* and the Romulan Star Empire, not the Federation of Planets Vs. The Romulan Star Empire. Earth at this time was still more than warmongering enough to build all up warships!
As for the Borg: USS Defiant NX-74205
This "tough little ship" was Starfleet's answer to the Borg threat. It is an All Up Warship. All Stop. Gul Dukat described it as "one of the most heavily armed warships in the Quadrant"...
The newly formed Federation was not ready for a war with the Klingons. While the Klingon tech base, and resource base, was generally inferior to that of the Federation, the Klingons themselves were truly hardcore warriors that lived to excel in battle. Death in glorious battle was the ultimate honor for a Klingon warrior. Earth and her Allies were most certainly not prepared for this mindset at the outset of open hostilities.
The Romulan War was *EARTH* and the Romulan Star Empire, not the Federation of Planets Vs. The Romulan Star Empire. Earth at this time was still more than warmongering enough to build all up warships!
As for the Borg: USS Defiant NX-74205
This "tough little ship" was Starfleet's answer to the Borg threat. It is an All Up Warship. All Stop. Gul Dukat described it as "one of the most heavily armed warships in the Quadrant"...
The newly formed Federation was not ready for a war with the Klingons. While the Klingon tech base, and resource base, was generally inferior to that of the Federation, the Klingons themselves were truly hardcore warriors that lived to excel in battle. Death in glorious battle was the ultimate honor for a Klingon warrior. Earth and her Allies were most certainly not prepared for this mindset at the outset of open hostilities.
And to this day, I don't believe that a Defiant class starship can defeat a Sovereign class.
Hell, on spelling alone the Big S can defeat the "Tough Little Ship!"
@Kruezerman,
Both the Defiant, and the Sovereign were designed in response to the Borg incursion.
http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/sovereign.html
Read the 1.4 Construction History...
The Sovereign was a truly impressive ship!
Both the Defiant, and the Sovereign were designed in response to the Borg incursion.
http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/sovereign.html
Read the 1.4 Construction History...
The Sovereign was a truly impressive ship!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
