|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 28, 2005 13:01:19 GMT -5
What can I say? It's like a light coming on inside my consciousness.
|
|
Bernard Guignard
Commodore
TreknoGraphx Cad Schematics are our Speciality
Posts: 342
|
Post by Bernard Guignard on Feb 28, 2005 15:49:16 GMT -5
if you thought that was good wait until you see" In The Mirror Darkly"
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 28, 2005 16:06:51 GMT -5
I hope we'll be able to read the registry number of the Defiant....my money's on NCC-1764.
|
|
CptSavage
Commodore
I'll take The Rapist for $200
Posts: 341
|
Post by CptSavage on Feb 28, 2005 17:14:43 GMT -5
Mine too.
I keep missing enterprise too....damn it.
At least from what I've heard, the Explanation for the KHP is actually Plausible Trek-Wise...
|
|
|
Post by CaptainPierce on Feb 28, 2005 18:06:16 GMT -5
I haven't yet seen the second part, but I've heard it's not as good as the first... and I wasn't particularly thrilled with the first, although it's always good to see John Schuuck getting work. [glow=red,2,300]SPOILER WARNING!![/glow] Read the rest of this post at your own peril... I just don't buy the virus instantly dissolving the bone structure of the forehead ridges like that. I also don't buy (and maybe this is explained in the second part somehow, I dunno yet) that the "Klingon Augments" wouldn't just all have had a bunch of plastic surgery and got them back... Never mind the fact that this virus seems to have not only dissolved the forehead ridges in real time, but also modified their DNA at the same time to have several generations of Klingons not have ridges? All in all, my opinion is that Manny Coto bit off more than he can chew with this one... and I'm guessing I'll wind up saying the same about the Mirror eps...
|
|
|
Post by USS Mariner on Feb 28, 2005 18:09:30 GMT -5
I hope we'll be able to read the registry number of the Defiant....my money's on NCC-1764. Mike Sussman said that's going to be the "official" number, and I happen to like it rather than the 1717 Defiance (merely a typo by FJ's secretary.) It gets annoying seeing 17(insert random low number here.)
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 1, 2005 4:27:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure about that being a "typo" by someone, because Franz' list shows the ships that were "lost or destroyed in the line of duty" with two asterisks beside the name, and he gets all the ships from "The Ultimate Computer", "The Doomsday Machine", and whatever else there were, but the "Defiance" is still not listed as lost or destroyed, which is kind of hard to miss after watching "The Tholian Web".
Imo, it looks like he was working form some rudimentary unpublished list possibly with a lot of it done by Matt himself, and the rest he may have filled in (or not). I say this because long after "The Tholian Web" aired, and in the 1970's when Franz was compiling his manual, you'd expect that episode to have been rerun enough times for the Defiant to be listed in Franz's list as well as it being labelled as lost or destroyed.
But, when compiling his manual, if he was working not from memories of the episodes but rather from info from the producers, like Matt himself, then you can expect a mistake like that to come up. Possibly something along the lines of Matt origianlly called it Defiance, but when the episode was made they changed it to Defiant, possibly because it was easier to pronounce.
|
|
|
Post by StressPuppy on Mar 1, 2005 6:21:56 GMT -5
My bet is 1764 for the new "old" defiant. The ENT fx guys are prolly using the same resources we are for reference. I wouldnt be surprised if they looked up ex astris for the reg number LOL.
Of course they are gonna hold off posting "beauty" shots of this ship till the LAST minute. Holding me up on my last texture version of my connie lol. I want to see if they stay true to the Jefferies/Jien style (Classic Connie) or veer off and go TMP detail nuts with it.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 1, 2005 7:09:17 GMT -5
If they try to TMP-it then they deserve to go off air! Hisssss
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 1, 2005 8:13:13 GMT -5
Hey.....who do you all think the "captain's woman" will be? My money's on Hoshi!
...Or maybe Reed! LOL
Seriously though, the idea that a captain would have a close personal assistant is an idea that should be explored more in Trek. There was Yeoman Rand for Kirk...She tended to his personal needs, like getting him his food (she offered to bring him his meal and in one episode even took coffe to the bridge) and took care of official functions like log entries, etc. Somehow having a woman support the captain like that would give the captain moral support through difficult times. They may be simple duties, but if the result is the captain is taken care of, they're damned important dutires.
|
|
|
Post by USS Mariner on Apr 2, 2005 19:36:53 GMT -5
|
|
CptSavage
Commodore
I'll take The Rapist for $200
Posts: 341
|
Post by CptSavage on Apr 2, 2005 19:59:28 GMT -5
I like it. It's a cool Emblem.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Apr 3, 2005 8:37:14 GMT -5
Excellent! It looks like we get to see the internal schematics of the Constitution class starship, which will probably settle the arguments that fans have been having over its internal arrangement. Also, I bet they are based on the Captains Chair CD / Official Poster / Cutaway Model Kit, which I believe to be the most believable. I've seen fans trying to re-do the internal plans for to their own taste, and I usually look at those with a lot of private disdain because they invariably make a lot of assumptions that are not logical, or assumptions that conveniently ignore or alter other details. A solution that incorporates the entirety of known facts about something is the one that requires the most thought and consideration, and so far the official Paramount diagram is the only one I've seen that fits that bill.
|
|
Bernard Guignard
Commodore
TreknoGraphx Cad Schematics are our Speciality
Posts: 342
|
Post by Bernard Guignard on Apr 3, 2005 8:47:47 GMT -5
I really hope that if the cross-section is based on the Captain's chair one, that they fixed the error in the saucer cross-section. You realize that they are missing the concave section that is at the bottom of the saucer that is on the exterior of the model.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Apr 3, 2005 8:56:52 GMT -5
That may have been done on purpose though, because even on cutaway diagrams done by fans they feel compelled to include the "rim" of the saucer to complete the profile sillhouette of the ship. The Paramount diagram shows greeblies to be there, so it still doesn't conflict with the actual deck layout.
What I find ridiculous is people placing the bridge in what is essentially deck 2, all for the sake of straightening the bridge out so that it faces directly forward, and that because they can't bring themselves to believe that the inertial systems of the ship would find it hard to compensate for an angled room. <--- If that isn't faulty logic, I don't know what is.
|
|