It doesn't look big...
Tough little ship.Lady Washington likes to tour the west coast, I went aboard her a few years back and let me tell you..it's *much smaller* than it looks.
It wasn't supposed to be an even match. That's why they had to scheme. Weren't the Duras sisters disgraced and on the run at this point? Why would they have a shiny new (never even seen before?) ship.
Ah ha! CANON! Nothing they could do!Yeah, it was previously established as their ride in DS9's Past Prologue.
Yup, on Mirror Trek BBS they're complaining that the rebel Duras Sisters' super dreadnought battlecruiser was a clear Canon Violation!Ah ha! CANON! Nothing they could do!
While I agree with your overall assessment - it's known that Star Trek movies is where Shatner and Nimoy made most of their money (I think just their salaries accounted for like 25-30% of the TOS movie budgets) - I bet it was still pretty expensive actually location shooting on the boat, even if the rental itself wasn't outrageous.0.12%? It cost around thirty thousand USD to rent the boat for four days back in 1994. The initial budget for Generations was twenty-five million USD, but it ballooned an extra ten million due to production underestimates and reshoots (it cost five million just to redo an initially rejected famous death scene). Renting the boat didn't break the bank, Kirk did.
Plus the costumes.While I agree with your overall assessment - it's known that Star Trek movies is where Shatner and Nimoy made most of their money (I think just their salaries accounted for like 25-30% of the TOS movie budgets) - I bet it was still pretty expensive actually location shooting on the boat, even if the rental itself wasn't outrageous.
Nah, it was far more expensive to build the stellar cartography set than to rent the boat. Could they have saved money by not bothering with that sequence at all and just have it be a small ceremony in Ten-Forward? Definitely. But it didn't really impact the movie's budget like others things like the aforementioned reshoots did. The problem was that the movie had a small budget to begin with, forcing the producers and other bean-counters to cut corners wherever they could while still trying to make the movie look more than a two-part television episode.While I agree with your overall assessment - it's known that Star Trek movies is where Shatner and Nimoy made most of their money (I think just their salaries accounted for like 25-30% of the TOS movie budgets) - I bet it was still pretty expensive actually location shooting on the boat, even if the rental itself wasn't outrageous.
The problem was that the movie had a small budget to begin with, forcing the producers and other bean-counters to cut corners wherever they could while still trying to make the movie look more than a two-part television episode.
Hopefully they don't use this guy.It's the year 2402. If engineers and detailing teams can't repaint the hull of a starship with a new name and in very rapid time then Starfleet doesn't deserve to be out in deep space.
Well, I love seeing the origin story of the new Enterprise. At the same time, the Titan was such a -- I would be clear to the fans that the Titan name will live on. There will be another ship, the Titan-B, that will go on, and probably be a cool version of a new Luna class out there. But this ship is definitely a Constitution-class throwback, and we wanted it to feel like a scrappy Enterprise. It wasn't as bulky as the E, and it wasn't a battleship like the E or the F. It was an underdog like Kirk's ship was.
The Disco crew were practically drooling when they saw the Enterprise at the beginning of Season 2 of Discovery.What? He's talking out his butt again..
Tos Enterprise wasn't small and scrappy, it was a modern ship of the line that the klingons and others feared. Even by ST 6 time. It was never an underdog. Ugh..
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.