Star Trek: Starships Model/Magazine Subscription
- Thread starter trekker670
- Start date
My seat is loose and rattling around in my Landing Pod. 
this thing is ridiculous:
it's a beautifully detailed model, but it's huge. the box it came in was massive (and wasteful), and the little prongs are gonna break.
I dunno. It would look cool in an aquarium.
Speaking of cool pods, I would love to have a replica of the pods used in Burton's Planet of the Apes. Those travel at warp speeds, traversing our solar system in mere minutes...
full of that styrofoam packing for the foils, that stuff isn’t great.
I got the Cardassian weapon platform model. It's perfect. (A XL model with the pylons being moveable would be great)
Yeah, well, if we never got a Voyager model from them that has moving nacelles, I wouldn't bet on it.
I'm perturbed they seem to have kept the "NCC-1701" sans "J" as the registry of the XL E-J. It was always one of their more questionable decisions, but one that could be ignored on the standard scale piece.
It just seems worse on a bigger model. Which, IMO, is kinda my take on the XL line in general. They really are just blown up versions of the 4" line, as such the minor blemishes get blown up into obvious warts.
It just seems worse on a bigger model. Which, IMO, is kinda my take on the XL line in general. They really are just blown up versions of the 4" line, as such the minor blemishes get blown up into obvious warts.
I don’t think that’s a statement that can apply to each model. The refit definitely wasn’t the same. Despite all the oddities it had in the small size, due to its early production run, they pale in comparison to the botched primary hull of the XL, which is demonstrably different. The XL Reliant and Akira are also both far superior to their smaller counterparts in every measurable way.
And, unlike the other times where they fixed missing names or fonts or registries, they did jack here. Which was a bad decision.
I mean, does anyone (anyone?) out there prefer the lack of a J solely because a CG model (only seen on screen once as blurred gel with an unreadable registy on a cheap set wall) is like that? Does that really up your authenticity?
The model was actually made by Drexler for the show but was never used.
Given how much obsession there is over "Screen Accuracy or BUST" from some quarters, it's refreshing to see the other side occasionally.
Technically, ships like the Stargazer, Enterprise-C, Jenolan, Equinox, and the Wolf 359 ships were never seen on screen in pristine condition, but I'd gladly taken the models as they are rather than some "battle damaged" nonsense that other lines occasionally did. (And technically, a truly accurate Jenolan model would have to be call the "Jenolin").
That said, I'd love a Prometheus that had a registry in the 749XX range, like the ship's plaque had, rather than the ridiculously low 59XXX we got on the hull.
Every Enterprise from NCC-1701-A onwards has been a reincarnation of Kirk's ship. I could see Starfleet eventually ending the tradition of lettering each incarnation and simply have all future Enterprise's just have the NCC-1701 registry, plain and simple. In such a scenario, every Enterprise that has carried the NCC-1701 registry could now be considered the same ship, regardless if she was a Constitution-class at one point and a Sovereign-class at another.
Well, it's explicitly called out as the "Enterprise-J". That reference makes zero sense without a J in the registry. Unless English has really evolved and the ship is actually called the Enterprisej.
Reusing registry numbers, while not unheard of in the real world, is not something we've really seen on screen outside of the cheap reuse of NX Defiant graphics for Sao Paulo Defiant.
Although you can't reincarnate a ship...it was never alive in the first place. You *honor* a previous ship.
Reusing registry numbers, while not unheard of in the real world, is not something we've really seen on screen outside of the cheap reuse of NX Defiant graphics for Sao Paulo Defiant.
Although you can't reincarnate a ship...it was never alive in the first place. You *honor* a previous ship.
Last edited:
It really irks me that a lot of times there's no full set of orthographic renders in the magazines. The D4 I just bought only has the front view and a top view on the back cover; other magazines include the same view twice but are missing one or more of the others. How hard could it be to show the same 5 views - front, rear, top, bottom, and side - in every magazine?
Last edited:
Similar threads
