Star Trek (2009 J.J. Abrams movie) Phaser Defined Thread!

I was right about the top being chromed. I took a dab of acetone to it and it took the paint off and left the chrome shining through.

Other than being silver, I don't see the similarities to the Nebulizer (is that what the thing was called?) This thing actually looks like a hybrid of several different phasers. The GQ guns looks more organic look to their design.

Also, I think the whole front of the handle is the trigger on the prop.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it doesn't scream Galaxy Quest to me either.
Aside from the fact that they're both silver, I can't really see any design similarities. This is closer to the TOS phaser than I could have ever hoped. It's even got the rear "vents."
 
phasernebcomp.jpg


They look nothing alike really. :lol
 
nickytea said:
Yeah, it doesn't scream Galaxy Quest to me either.
Aside from the fact that they're both silver, I can't really see any design similarities. This is closer to the TOS phaser than I could have ever hoped. It's even got the rear "vents."
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind the Galaxy Quest sets, props and costumes were inspired by Trek. It would be more fair to say the Nebulizer looks like a Trek phaser and the new phaser was "inspired" by the phasers that came before.
 
Apparently I was being too obtuse...my point was this phaser doesnt look anything more like a TOS phaser then the nebulizer does and both the nebulizer and this thing have the all silver finish...they both share the general outine and thats about it.
The funny thing is JJ said the look of this film was inspried by Galaxy Quest and that clearly shows. If they felt the need to redesign the phaser I wish they would have included a trigger guard :) Phasers have always been an accident waiting to happen.
 
It looks nothing like a phaser should in the timeline (barring some alternate universe happenstance :sick), that's all that should have mattered. Anything else is marketing.
 
I disagree. I can see infuences from both the TOS phaser and the ENT phase pistol. It might not be a perfect fit into continuity but I don't think it's a bad one either.
 
DrStranglove said:
Would you guys have been happier had they used an exact copy of the TOS Phaser?
Click to expand...

Uh... yeeeeeah.... :lol

Or at least something that wasn't chrome and red and had weird angles on it. :rolleyes

I happen to like the Trek III phaser, they could have even used that one. :lol
 
I wonder if the movie had used the same sets, costumes, and props from TOS but had completely changed the dynamic of Kirk/Spock/and McCoy, would the naysayers be pleased?

I'm beginning to think that the sum total of all the "stuff" in Trek is more important to them than the things that make it truly special and wholly original.
 
No, and I think you missed the point. JJ said he was going to tell the 'origin' story of how the crew we loved got together. Well, he isnt. He's telling the story of how people that are no longer the same because of yet another contrived time travel story that share our characters names got together.
We didnt get our sets OR our characters.
It would not have been hard to take the set designs and make them work and the same could have been done with the ships and props.
So, in the end we got NEITHER.
Some of the changes this new movie makes means that several key points in the original series will never happen and these were key character developing stories.
JJ isnt giving us our crews origin story he is giving characters, who he calls Kirk, Spock etc, an origin story woefully different then those of our characters. He has created new characters and props and sets that are almost unrecognizable as our originals , slapped the original names on them and called it Star Trek with Paramounts blessings.
So, not only didnt we get OUR props and sets we didnt get OUR characters either...we got 'Angry Reboot' productions versions of our characters with completely revamped and altered backgrounds in a revamped and altered universe with revamped and altered sets and props.
I wouldnt be as upset if we HAD gotten OUR characters origin stories but we're NOT. This is JJ ABRAMS movie loosely 'inspired' by classic Trek with a contrived time travel story (again) to justify it to the fans and a cameo by Nimoy to 'legitimize' it. The story was further contrived to get all of the classic crew together in this origin story all at one time up to and including a 17 year old wunderkind Chekov/Wesley Crusher on the bridge.
My guess is when the 'ooohs and ahhhs' of the special effects and lens flares fade and critical analysis kicks in TOS fans will feel cheated...but thats OK because JJ said he didnt make this film for us...




nickytea said:
I wonder if the movie had used the same sets, costumes, and props from TOS but had completely changed the dynamic of Kirk/Spock/and McCoy, would the naysayers be pleased?

I'm beginning to think that the sum total of all the "stuff" in Trek is more important to them than the things that make it truly special and wholly original.
Click to expand...
 
This perfectly illustrates my point.
Your priority is with the raw specifics of the character's back stories than with the actual dynamic between them.

Filling in character history is not character development, and never has been. Raw fact about a character, or raw screen time, does not necessarily guarantee a connection between them or a connection with the audience.

Regardless of "time meddling", I'm pretty sure this film focuses on the inevitability of these character's pairing. Then again, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie. I'm open to being wrong.

My point is that simply the fact of these character's histories being different does not preclude the characters from being any less effective or compelling than they were before, and in the same way that they were before.

And lets be honest ... were the character's back stories ever really consistent or even necessary to the immediate development of the characters?
 
You perfectly illustrate MY point. Yes, the backstories are important. It seems all you are interested in is characters with the names, Kirk, Spock and McCoy without regard to how those characters WE knew developed.
If youre going to change the backstory so dramatically then why call them Kirk, Spock and McCoy? Why not try something ORIGINAL with NEW characters instead of parasitically leeching off of established characters.
The backstory is VERY important to me and many things that made those characters who they were will now be precluded in this new universe. Some major TOS stories...The Menagerie/Cage, Amok Time, etc...cant happen now and yeah, Id say thats importnat to me AND the development of the characters.
This is NOT our characters origin story...this is characters who share that name but exist in a different universe under different circumstances using (once again) a BS time travel story to justify it.
I had no desire to see an 'alternate universe' Trek. At least BSG didnt try to hide behind some BS about it all being connected.
BSG was HONEST about being a reboot.
This is nothing more then a 'What if' story like Yesterday's Enterprise but instead of being an interesting premise for a single episode it is now the contrived launch pad for a new JJverse Franchise that subsequent Trek films will be pigeon holed in to following UNLESS yet another 'contrivance' is used to extricate them from this new 'timeline'.
Sorry if Im not ready to drink the Kool Aid just yet.



nickytea said:
This perfectly illustrates my point.
Your priority is with the raw specifics of the character's back stories than with the actual dynamic between them.

Filling in character history is not character development, and never has been. Raw fact about a character, or raw screen time, does not necessarily guarantee a connection between them or a connection with the audience.

Regardless of "time meddling", I'm pretty sure this film focuses on the inevitability of these character's pairing. Then again, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie. I'm open to being wrong.

My point is that simply the fact of these character's histories being different does not preclude the characters from being any less effective or compelling than they were before, and in the same way that they were before.

And lets be honest ... were the character's back stories ever really consistent or even necessary to the immediate development of the characters?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Star Trek Voyager Endgame future phaser prop references
Replies
1
Views
1,037
Osoltwist
Osoltwist
TopgunTech2
Star Fleet Research Startup & Phaser Prototype (TOS)
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
7,843
Gregatron
G
masterjedi322
Factory Entertainment - SDCC 2024 booth preview - Phaser Rifles, Time Circuits, and more!
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6,724
Treadwell
Treadwell
TOS Phaser
TOS Phaser Prop Report: B&W Hero P1s filmed in different B&W Hero P2s
Replies
9
Views
1,439
AJK001
A
Sparklejinx
ST:TOS Mid-Grade Type-1 Phaser from the collection of Greg Jein
Replies
1
Views
1,746
Captain Dunsel
Captain Dunsel
Back
Top