The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Larger toy pics - phaser not a prototype
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-24-2009, 07:50 AM
Lord Tribble's Avatar
Lord Tribble Lord Tribble is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: K7
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thypentacle View Post
I kinda like the Enterprise ship toy... may buy that after all maybe... but, those T shaped things on the saucer part... are those landing pads like they are on the refit TMP one? If so.. they seem to have only half of them... if they try to land after emerg. sep. one side will be held up and one side won't.

and where are the saucer impulse engines???? This ship not have impulse? Or is the impulse drive gone and replaced by those scoops under the bussard collectors on the main engines? Some kinda new drive engine there? Star Wars Ion drive maybe? lol

P.S. Communicator and Tricorder also seem OK, but the Phaser still blows.
She has impulse engines in the normal place
http://www.ncc1701shipyard.com/images/warp.jpg
__________________
Tribbles. The cause of, and solution to all lifes problems.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-24-2009, 07:53 AM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

Ah.. ok thanks for that screen cap.. guess they are more imbedded in the saucer... no big bulge sticking out for them... or the toy isn't very accurate (big shock), in any case, works for me.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-24-2009, 03:24 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Ya know, it's funny to me that most detractors to the Original Jeffries design point out the "smothness" and lack of detail of the hull on the original model as one of the reasons it wouldn't have worked on the big screen. If the toy is even the slightest bit accruate in its details, you will notice that the warp nacelles, struts, dorsal, and secondary hull are almost completely smooth. The only detail is apparently on the saucer. So does that mean that this model would not work on the screen either due to its apparent "smoothness"? Just making a point.

Unfortunately, however, I have to admit that the picture of the toy does look halfway decent. However, it is still not the Enterprise as it should be by any stretch of the imagination. In my humble personal opinion, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-24-2009, 04:09 PM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
For anyone who would have prefered laser instead of phasers an explanation for why particle beams are superior to lasers, understandable to laymen like myself. Roddenberry knew what he did in the second pilot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0AV5aY7HYAk

Great stuff! Liked the "New School" Galactica clips inserted in the video!
Great physics lesson.
(Cue NBC music)
...And that's "One to Grow On!"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-24-2009, 04:19 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thypentacle View Post
those T shaped things on the saucer part... are those landing pads like they are on the refit TMP one? If so.. they seem to have only half of them... if they try to land after emerg. sep. one side will be held up and one side won't.
The TOS version had those landing pads as well (and so did the 1701-E). But they only make sense on the ventral side
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-24-2009, 06:52 PM
Lady Vaako's Avatar
Lady Vaako Lady Vaako is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: William Shatner's birthplace (seriously)
Posts: 878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
However, it is still not the Enterprise as it should be by any stretch of the imagination. In my humble personal opinion, of course.
Wow... And what does this say about those of us long-time fans who still totally recognize her in this new design? What worries me are the words "by any stretch of the imagination"... I just don't get it. To me, it's as though you're talking about a completely different type of ship when it's really not the case here. In my humble personal opinion of course...
__________________
Uhura - "And here I thought you were just some dumb hick who only had sex with farm animals."
Kirk -
"Well... not only..."

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-24-2009, 07:26 PM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 424
Default

Why do people hate the phaser? The canonists must be happy it takes its rotating phaser design from the TOS prequel 'The Cage' Is that not double standards?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-24-2009, 10:00 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
The TOS version had those landing pads as well (and so did the 1701-E). But they only make sense on the ventral side
True I of course did really mean the question to be about the two on the underside of the saucer... though they are on top also so I guess they either are not landing pads... or the designer of the new ship didn't know the function of them and what they are actually to be used for but thought they looked 'cool' so he put two on top and two on underside...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy View Post
Why do people hate the phaser? The canonists must be happy it takes its rotating phaser design from the TOS prequel 'The Cage' Is that not double standards?
I never considered 'The Cage' canon and I hate the 'Laser guns', but this assumes I give a crap about canon in the first place, which I don't... but if I did... an 'un-aired' pilot I don't think I'd count, anymore than I'd count a fan made production. All my gripes are purely based on how good or bad I think something looks all on its own.

Last edited by thypentacle : 01-24-2009 at 10:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:49 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy View Post
Why do people hate the phaser? The canonists must be happy it takes its rotating phaser design from the TOS prequel 'The Cage' Is that not double standards?
The Cage weapon rolled. This new one yaws.
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-25-2009, 07:59 AM
Star Trek's Avatar
Star Trek Star Trek is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South FL.
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
The Cage weapon rolled. This new one yaws.
But it doesn't make for yawning...

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:46 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.