# PL TOS Enterprise kit is a POS



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

With all the designing, planning, sculpting, molding, replanning, remolding of the Enterprise refit, you would have concluded that the previous Polar Lights' Star Trek kits would have had much, MUCH more thought and planning into them.

I speak, of course of the TOS Enterprise. Clearly, hardly ANY planning went into this "kit" as indicated by the fit of the nacelles to the pylons. THEY DON'T FIT AND THERE IS NO AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENTS OFFERED BY POLAR LIGHTS OR ANY OTHER COMPANY WHATSOEVER! 

This kit was designed my monkeys. Hell, I, with my extreme lack of mastering a model could have come up with a better mating technique than this retarded method of joining. Whatever happened to "keeping it simple"??? A simple pin and hole or simple tab joining would have done nicely. 

Level 2, my ass!

Everyone seems to want to come out with aftermarket parts for the brigde or deflector or even and ENTIRE saucer but what they really need to be doing is making a much better nacelle and pylon assembly!!!

Let me be plain and simple: This kit *SUCKS! *


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Wow... I didn't have any problem with it. Just in case you haven't tried these, there are two ways to put them on that work well for me. You can put the inside halves on first, then the outside afterwards. The other way is to rotate them inward as you put them onto the tabs.


----------



## jbgroby (Dec 15, 2003)

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel?


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Been trying to rotate "cam" action but the inside structure prevents the clicking into place. I also tried the assembly prior to joining the nacelle halves but got malaligned nacelles. 

You'd think the instructions would show you how to do this...nope. I'd wipe with it but I don't want to get a paper cut!


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Well, if you think you can master a better kit, why not give it a go?


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Yeah, I think I have a few thousand dollars here in my pocket...


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Sorry, but I'm not the slightest bit sympathetic.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Sorry, but I'm not the slightest bit sympathetic.


 Don't let me catch you complaining about trouble with your kits.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Skill Level 2: For ages 10 to adult.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Apparently. Skill 2 still have their problems.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

If you don't like the kit, can I have the large Deflector Dish? (part #8)


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

You could have always had the large dish. There are two. I would have used the smaller one.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

Honestly I had no real problem with the kit. The nacelles/pylon fit was odd, but easily worked around.

If you say you could come up with a better mating technique, then making the current one work should be no problem. Just file here, snip there and glue. No extra cost.

I really don't see what the major flip fest is about here.

Relax and try to work the problem out. If not,I'll take the kit.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

You're right. I just figured that the refit went through so many retoolings or whatever to make it perfect. I wish they would have done the same thing with all the kits. 

Just that every time I make some kind of progress I keep getting stopped at THIS STEP.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I thought* I* was the only one who had trouble with the Nacelle/pylon connection.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

About the dish part #8:

I used the smaller one for all my ships. I need the larger one for a different project.


If anyone has part #8 not being used, send it to me! 

I need a bunch!


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Babaganoosh said:


> Been trying to rotate "cam" action but the inside structure prevents the clicking into place. I also tried the assembly prior to joining the nacelle halves but got malaligned nacelles.


Actually, you're nearly there. The rotating and clicking (and a little forcing) is what pushes the tab on the strut into the correct locked position. It seems like you're going to snap the tab off but it will lock at the correct angle.



Babaganoosh said:


> You'd think the instructions would show you how to do this...nope. I'd wipe with it but I don't want to get a paper cut!


This I'll agree on. If you didn't know what the correct angle of the nacelles were, you wouldn't know to force them into the locked position and the nacelles would keep falling off.

Try sanding the tip of the nacelle strut tab and repeating the rotate and snap motion.

If you're still frustrated, trim about an 1/8th of a inch of the strut tab, insert, rotate and glue.

Remember this is a snap kit that is supposed to stay together without glue. With that in mind, this kit really succeeds.

Jim


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I know that my first go at it resulted in a damaged-warped (!) nascelle. Very frustrating but I got through it. It was, to me, an odd way to get the strut and nascelle together and I had to come here to find out the proper method to get it together. EVERYONE here has had that 1 model that pisses you off, the same one that is someone elses' favorite. I say cut the man some slack and remember we're all friends here.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Thank you for your support. Yeah, I flew off the handle. 

When you try to create something from a melange of parts and it's not working for you because of some design flaw that was over-thought through or not thought through enough, you get mad. At least,_ I_ get mad.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

I had problems with that too....I ended up breaking mine....now its glued.I wouldnt call it A POS though.Its the most accurate model of the TOS E.hang in there BABA you'll get it done just fine


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> About the dish part #8:
> 
> I used the smaller one for all my ships. I need the larger one for a different project.
> 
> ...


 Hey Capt Frank,
You can have my #8, did you need any other parts? I've got a bunch left over. You can put your address up in the thread or send it in an email to me. I'll send it out next week, (when I have enough money to afford a couple of stamps

Steve


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Babaganoosh said:


> Don't let me catch you complaining about trouble with your kits.


 And you won't! 33 years of building models has taught me to overcome _almost_ any problem.

Fortunately, you have HUNDREDS...maybe THOUSANDS of years of collective experience on this subject at your fingertips with these forums.

In reference to this particular kit, it has been nothing but great for me. I test fit everything first before assembly to identify any potential problems. I had ZERO trouble with either of the two I'm working on in my spare time, what little there is these days.

Have you built more than one of these? Also, for 10 bucks it's REALLY a pretty good deal and a far more accurate kit than the classic AMT/ERTLprise.


----------



## ChrisDoll (Sep 2, 1999)

You're smoking dope, Babaganoosh, better put the bong down. I don't recall ever having much trouble putting one of those together. Do you want us to come over there and build it for you?


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Chris, I saw yours...

Yes, please!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

THIS is why you don't drink and post.

Dude, get some modeling skills. ALL kits have their little issues.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Hey Chris, While you're at it could you build mine too? Defiant please.


----------



## fernieo (Mar 22, 2000)

It always amuses me when someone will blame a kit for their own lack of skill


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Let me see if I understand your rant: PL puts out the most accurate plastic kit of our beloved TOS E, complete with options to create 1st pilot, 2nd pilot and series version of the old girl (all for under $15, mind) and you can't handle a little elbow grease? Plus, rather than ask people on these boards for help you decide instead to insult PL and the contracted kit designer. Wow, you really are the Tool of the Day.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I love the way you guys always say:

"This is the most accurate kit ever."

"This is the most accurate kit ever."

"This is the most accurate kit ever."

As though no criticism may ever be voiced because it is the most accurate kit ever produced.

No problems exist because it is the most accurate kit ever produced.

Babaganoosh said nothing against the kits' accuracy.

His message is that a better way to connect the nacelle should have been engineered.

I agree.

I built 6 of these babies. Every one was hard to connect the nacelles.
Sometimes the tabs broke off. Sometimes it wouldn't click, no matter what.
Most often, I had to cut away some plastic, and just glue it.

Should I mention the problem with the laminated/layered pylon nacelle support thingy?


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

CaptFrank - criticism is one thing, but take a look at this post's subject line. Rude & crude.

Modelers can overcome a kit's construction shortcomings far easier than ones stemming from accuracy, in my opinion. Plus, after the last 39 years of living with two kits of the TOS E that were a long way from being accurate, I think we're allowed to go on and on about the PL kit.

As to the laminated pylons, that was on to facilitate lighting, I believe.

Ross


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Bottomline?

The kit is NOT a POS...at least to most of us. Problems with the nacelle supports only require minor corrective action IF that. If every kit had NO problems, then what would be the fun of the hobby? If the goal is to have everything be perfect and have no challenges then we are all nothing more than assemblers.

I agree that there is honest criticism and then there is just frustrated ranting. To Babaganoosh' credit, he did say he overreacted just a tad. Easy to do when one is frustrated. Still! Good lord...it's a _snap kit_...albeit a very nice one, in my opinion!

Also, foibles of joining aside...once this thing is put together, the resulting join is MUCH stronger than a simple slot or tab in groove join would be. The real boggle with the old AMT/ERTLprise WAS that join! Not only did alignment almost ALWAYS suffer, the pylons were none too strong.

( By the way I recommend gluing all snap kits...even IF they are particularly good. )


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Hi RossW.

I don't mind when modelers go on and on about the better kits.

I love that the kits are more accurate! 

I bought 6 1:1000 ENTERPRISES, and 3 D-7's, 2 1:350 NX-01's and of course the REFIT! I was looking at my NX-01 today and marveled at the detail.

Years ago I built the 18" ERTL NCC-1701 as the U.S.S. CONSTELLATION, using after-market graphics. It turned out to be the best one I ever did.
Recently, I compared it to a Polar Lights ENTERPRISE. The CONSTELLATION looked funny. I was surprised at how wrong it was.

I just was trying to point out that the accuracy aspect is used to deflect the focus of the original argument, whatever it may be.

(For reference, I was in a debate about ERTL's kits being total junk. I defended ERTL because the kits were fun to build. The only response I could get was "accuracy!!".)

Yes, the title of this thread is rude, and crude.
I have an alternative:

THE PL TOS ENTERPRISE IS AN EVIL MOUND OF FILTH!

It's a joke! It's a joke!! Relax!!! :tongue:


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Has anyone mentioned this is the most accurate kit ever??  :wave:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Nightsky..

Nah, you weren't alone. I too said it was an accurate kit. I said so because for the price and for what you get, in my not so humble opinion, the PL TOS Enterprise is FAR from a POS.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Nightsky..
> 
> Nah, you weren't alone. I too said it was an accurate kit. I said so because for the price and for what you get, in my not so humble opinion, the PL TOS Enterprise is FAR from a POS.


I edited my previous post.Itook it the wrong way


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Hey Glu....
did I tell you that this is the most accurate kit ever? :wave:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Is it? 

If I could just get those pesky nacelles on right...The red thingies go to the back...don't they? 

I guess so. This kit is THE most accurate! EVER!!!  ( Yuk Yuk...)


----------



## fjimi (Sep 29, 2004)

Maybe this should go in the Star Trek Modeler forum for 10,000 responses


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Is it?
> 
> If I could just get those pesky nacelles on right...The red thingies go to the back...don't they?
> 
> I guess so. This kit is THE most accurate! EVER!!!  ( Yuk Yuk...)


Yes! By the way dont you just love how Accurate this kit is


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

It's SO accurate I swoon!

Plus, it's EASY to put together. Just as long as the red thingies go to the front.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Accurate or not, I still like the kit.
I had a lot-o-fun putting it together.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Hey For 10 bucks you cant beat it!


----------



## 4twntymodels (Jul 9, 2005)

yeah, from my experience, every kit has atleast one thing about putting it together thats a little difficult. Thats the fun in building a kit, if you want something easy go buy the bandi enterprises. If you want something challenging, and rewarding, build this kit. I agree the nacelles were a pain in the rear, but with a little playing around and not getting all worked up about them, I got it to snap into place. 

Besides, its worth all the trouble for how accurate it is.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Sounds like someone hasn't built the "easy" Bandai kits? 
I wanted to punt it a couple of times.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

The-Nightsky said:


> Hey For 10 bucks you cant beat it!


 Shhhhoooot.

And it's quite accurate too! Also, I like all the optional parts and decals. Nice fit on the parts. The mold is crisp and clean. The decals are in-register...

I think the only gripe is that it's not bigger! But 1/1000 scale is very friendly to both my wallet and my display space.

Did I mention the accuracy angle? :devil:


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

The nacelles fit fine (and very well, actually), but there's a snap-twist you have to do as you fit them in place. You're just not doing it right -- give it another go.

Shane


----------



## jay_barnes (Apr 11, 2002)

Actually Shane there is a small problem with the kit - I've built a three of the little Enterprises and two out of the three had one nacelle that wouldn't "roll" and lock into position. What wound up happening is the tab at the top of the nacelle strut finally wound up bending due to my trying over and over again to get it to lock, and never did get them to lock down. It really wasn't a problem though, I just applied model glue and taped the nacelle into position, problem fixed . I can see though how it might be frustrating to deal with, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the kit a POS. With some minor tweaking it makes a fine little Enterprise. What annoys me about it is the decals..the red rectangle under the fantail, the "L" shaped decals on either side of the impulse engine on the top of the saucer, and the curved shapes that go around the nav lights on top of the saucer....those should be outlines only, and they are filled with white....I can't cut out the white because the stripes are too thin. Too bad someone doesn't make replacements for those....:-( .


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

jay_barnes said:


> ....those should be outlines only, and they are filled with white....I can't cut out the white because the stripes are too thin. Too bad someone doesn't make replacements for those....:-( .



I believe they corrected the filled markings on the second production run forward. Amazing they cared enough to fix that! Most model companies could care less...


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Yes.
But is the kit accurate?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

jay_barnes said:


> Actually Shane there is a small problem with the kit - I've built a three of the little Enterprises and two out of the three had one nacelle that wouldn't "roll" and lock into position.


Interesting. I snapped one together and had no problem at all.

Maybe it's something that varies from kit to kit?

Shane


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

jay_barnes said:


> What annoys me about it is the decals..the red rectangle under the fantail, the "L" shaped decals on either side of the impulse engine on the top of the saucer, and the curved shapes that go around the nav lights on top of the saucer....those should be outlines only, and they are filled with white....I can't cut out the white because the stripes are too thin. Too bad someone doesn't make replacements for those....:-( .


 Like Kurok said, those decal errors were addressed in the second run of the kit. If you were to buy a new kit, those decals would be outlines only. There are also replacement decals available from both Thomas Models (PNT) and JT Graphics that have corrected outline-only panels.


----------



## jay_barnes (Apr 11, 2002)

Thanks for the info, I'll check them out!


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Is it accurate to the 5 footer or the 11 footer?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

11 Footer, from what I understand.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

jay_barnes said:


> ...the "L" shaped decals on either side of the impulse engine on the top of the saucer, and the curved shapes that go around the nav lights on top of the saucer....those should be outlines only, and they are filled with white....I can't cut out the white because the stripes are too thin. Too bad someone doesn't make replacements for those....:-( .


I have seen a replacement kit for those on ePay, but not for a while. Maybe a completed items search could turn up who was selling them. :thumbsup:


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Shhhhoooot.
> 
> And it's quite accurate too! Also, I like all the optional parts and decals. Nice fit on the parts. The mold is crisp and clean. The decals are in-register...
> 
> ...


What I really like about this kit is the accuracy :wave:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ I like how the nacelles join the pylons. Pretty accurate too!


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I wanted a kit that was accurate to the 5 footer dang it!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

F91...

Are you joking about the 5 footer?

Is there a difference between the 5 and 11 footer?

What _is _ the difference?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

There was a five-footer?

I know of a three-footer and an eleven-footer...

Shane


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Capt, Are you ready?






One is bigger than the other! 





Course, if their isn't a 5 footer, then it ain't very accurate is it? 






You guys need some help if you want to really screw up a thread......


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Hey, is it accurate to the 289 meter one?


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

Your name's Mike? Is that just a strange coincidence or what?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> There was a five-footer?
> 
> I know of a three-footer and an eleven-footer...
> 
> Shane


I may be wrong on this one, but didn't Greg Jein or somebody make a five-foot TOS-E for the DS9 ep "Trials and Tribble-ations"?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*scotpens* wrote:


> _I may be wrong on this one, but didn't Greg Jein or somebody make a five-foot TOS-E for the DS9 ep "Trials and Tribble-ations"? _


According to *NX01ROB*, that _ENTERPRISE_ was a computer graphic. No real model was made for that episode.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> According to *NX01ROB*, that _ENTERPRISE_ was a computer graphic. No real model was made for that episode.


Are you sure?

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1701StudioModel.html
http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/tribbles.html

Perhaps you were thinking of the Defiant in the recent "Star Trek: Enterprise" Mirror Universe episodes.

Lauren Oliver


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

But was it _accurate_? Do they have fitment problems on CGI models?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Yep. It's hard to get those digital nacelles to snap in place on the digital pylons. :tongue:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

So, it's not REALLY accurate?


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Is "fitment" a real word like "gi-normous"?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Yep...fitment is a real ENG-In-Earing term!


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Skill Level 2: For ages 10 to adult.


A coupel days ago, I cought my 5-year-old with my only un-opened PL tos-enterrpise and he had it almost entirely put together. I didnt' have the heart to get after him for it. Oh yeah, and he didn't have any of the problems that your having Gnoosh, heh heh.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

My 4 year old has been zipping it together since he was 2.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> Are you sure?
> 
> http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1701StudioModel.html
> http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/tribbles.html
> ...


 :drunk: 

Ok. So. I was wrong.


Viewing the episode, the shots looked too detailed, and almost cartoonish, so I thought they were computer graphics.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I think that was just an artifact of seeing the big _E_ filmed with modern cameras, rather than those 60s POSs - I thought the same thing, the first time I saw "Trials and Tribble-ations."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Okayyyy, tnke wnke returns! :freak:

Anyhoo - 

The orginal ship built was a 33" study model, built from Matt jefferies' plans. It was used as the shrunken E we saw in "Requiem for Methuselah." I think it was also used in "The Cage" for the opening and closing montages.

Once that model design was approved, the 11-foot filming miniature was made. Many contours were different, for whatever reason, most notabley the curves of the top and bottom of the saucer.

For "The Doomsday Machine," an AMT model kit was used as the Constellation

For "The Trouble With tribbles," an AMT model kit was used to represent the Enterprise outside the station manager's office window.

For DS9's "Trial and Tribble-ations," Greg Jien built a brand new 5 1/2 -foot model of the Enterprise. It was close to, but not a perfect replica of the 11-footer.

For the mirror universe episode of Enterprise, a CG model of the Constitution-class USS Defiant was made. It was the _first time_ we ever saw a CG TOS Conny on screen.

And those are all the different models of the original E ever seen on Desilu/Paramount/Viacom TV productions.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Who gets to be Tnke?
Side note- The "Trouble with Tribbles" E is at the Scifi Museum in Seattle and it's in very bad shape, terrible looking actually.


----------



## Mike Warshaw (Feb 23, 1999)

John,


You forgot the metal trinket in the paperweight from the ep "Catspaw."

Not a very good reference, but hey, if you want to list them all... 



John P wrote:

>Okayyyy, tnke wnke returns! :freak:

>Anyhoo - 

>The orginal ship built was a 33" study model, built from Matt jefferies' plans. >It was used as the shrunken E we saw in "Requiem for Methuselah." I think it >was also used in "The Cage" for the opening and closing montages.
>
>Once that model design was approved, the 11-foot filming miniature was >made. Many contours were different, for whatever reason, most notabley >the curves of the top and bottom of the saucer.
>
>For "The Doomsday Machine," an AMT model kit was used as the Constellation
>
>For "The Trouble With tribbles," an AMT model kit was used to represent the >Enterprise outside the station manager's office window.
>
>For DS9's "Trial and Tribble-ations," Greg Jien built a brand new 5 1/2 -foot >model of the Enterprise. It was close to, but not a perfect replica of the 11-footer.
>
>For the mirror universe episode of Enterprise, a CG model of the >Constitution-class USS Defiant was made. It was the _first time_ we ever saw >a CG TOS Conny on screen.
>
>And those are all the different models of the original E ever seen on >Desilu/Paramount/Viacom TV productions.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

There was a TOS episode where the E and another Conny were orbiting a planet together, which models were those? It's the only time I ever saw that shot.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

F91 said:


> There was a TOS episode where the E and another Conny were orbiting a planet together, which models were those? It's the only time I ever saw that shot.


I know the episode you're talking about just can't think of the title. Anyway that was a process shot. Stock footage of the E orbitting a planet. Then a new shot of the same model matted in to give us two ships in one shot. Both ships are the 11 footer.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Mike, there were actually two of those silver minis - the one in lucite and the one that was just in the open.


----------



## Ensign Eddie (Nov 25, 1998)

Capt. Krik said:


> I know the episode you're talking about just can't think of the title. Anyway that was a process shot. Stock footage of the E orbitting a planet. Then a new shot of the same model matted in to give us two ships in one shot. Both ships are the 11 footer.


I believe the episode you are thinking about is "The Omega Glory".


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

It would be interesting to see _The Doomsday Machine_ redone, with the CGI model from ENTERPRISE and those aft phasers.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

woozle said:


> It would be interesting to see _The Doomsday Machine_ redone, with the CGI model from ENTERPRISE and those aft phasers.


 







:thumbsup:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

_" Don't you think I know that? There was! But not anymore!! "_

Doomsday Machine is my personal favorite of the Classics. :lol:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Here's a nudder ! :thumbsup:


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I um.. don't mean reaction shots.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

woozle said:


> I um.. don't mean reaction shots.


 Of course you don't.

But the humor went over your head I see. I meant to imply that those are the faces _Decker _ would make in reaction to your suggestion!

To much literal-mindedness around here...or my humor is too subtle.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

silly bugger, I said 'reaction shots' did I not? I laughed when i saw them and would salute your subtle use of sarcastic sight-gags.. if I did that sort of thing. Honest.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I love William Windom's scenery-chewing performance in that episode! Was he trying to out-Shatner Shatner?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

woozle said:


> silly bugger, I said 'reaction shots' did I not? I laughed when i saw them and would salute your subtle use of sarcastic sight-gags.. if I did that sort of thing. Honest.


 :thumbsup::wave:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

scotpens said:


> I love William Windom's scenery-chewing performance in that episode! Was he trying to out-Shatner Shatner?


 I think he succeeded.

" What happened Matt! "

_" They say there's no devil, Jim...but there is! I saw it...I...."_

Yeah...change the starship and planet killer effects _if you must_, but leave Bill Windom as is!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I love _The Doomsday Machine_ just the way it is. I wouldn't change a single thing.

None of the so-called CGI "replacement footage" I've ever seen has looked even remotely convincing compared to the original effects shots, let alone improved on them.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> I love _The Doomsday Machine_ just the way it is. I wouldn't change a single thing.
> 
> None of the so-called CGI "replacement footage" I've ever seen has looked even remotely convincing compared to the original effects shots, let alone improved on them.



Agreed. I know there's great computer effects available now but I think we should leave TOS just the way it is. Just preserve it.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

See what 5 years in space with no bathrooms will do to you?

They had their engineering problems too. 

And no....no TP either.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

:roll: 
I'll never watch "Doomsday" in the same way ever again.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

ALPHAROMEO!!! :lol:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

_" I tried to contact Star Fleet! No one heard our calls for Kleenex. NO ONE! So I tried to sneeze in my hanky...that's what the Captain is supposed to do isn't it? Last man to sneeze? But I couldn't find my hanky...I COULDN'T....!!! "_


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

_" Anakin...help me! I...I can't hold it any longer...I'm too weak! OOO EEE! "_



















" YAAAAAAAAAAAA " !


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

A 1:350 *K'T'inga* kit?!
They called me, they begged me to produce it!
I couldn't! I...I couldn't!!


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

( The sound of gut-laughing )

I think this thread is officially hi-jacked! :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*John P* wrote:


> _Okayyyy, tnke wnke returns!_


 What does that mean?

You're not talking about _me_, are you?


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Ensign Eddie said:


> I believe the episode you are thinking about is "The Omega Glory".


Thank You! 
:thumbsup:


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> *John P* wrote: What does that mean?
> 
> You're not talking about _me_, are you?


 I think he's talking about me. 

Let's try not to lump me in the same universe at that guy just cuz I express an unpopular opinion. 

But, I suppose I know where you're coming from. If I were to done a toothbrush mustaches and a combover, you'd compare me to Marriman.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

Babaganoosh said:


> I think he's talking about me.
> 
> Let's try not to lump me in the same universe at that guy just cuz I express an unpopular opinion.
> 
> But, I suppose I know where you're coming from. If I were to done a toothbrush mustaches and a combover, you'd compare me to Marriman.


 If they are referring to you, I don't think it your opinion that has drawn the comparison. I think it would be more the way it was expressed. 

I also find it a bit odd that in the same breath you're asking not to be lumped in a catagory with someone else, you throw someone else into one yourself.

:freak:


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

confused

I logically concluded that he was talking about me. No one else went off the handle in an emotional outburst except for those kids exclaiming they have more talent or something.

Reminds me of Subspace. Anyone who they kill claim to have less talent than them by calling them a n00b or whatever.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Baba, It's getting to the point where some will really start to get nasty. I think a good number of people have tried to help and even agree about the design. Here on out,some of the guys, well, look for the fingernails to start coming out. Good Luck


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Boys,I can see a lock in the future of this thread.Take your personal disagreements elsewhere please! 

Dave


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Ok, on second thought I guess I should lock this thread.
Upon reviewing it I probably should have closed it several days ago.


----------

