Perhaps one of their lesser known craft, the Klingon D5-class warship popped up in Star Trek: Enterprise to no particular fanfare, appearing first as little more than a tanker in Season 2’s “Marauders.” Subsequent appearances would lose those tanks and give way to a much more streamlined finish.

The D5 has all the hallmarks of the Enterprise-era Klingon ships; a more pointed nose, more angular warp nacelles, a more fierce and deadly finish with more in common to a Romulan Warbird than a Klingon Bird of Prey perhaps.

As always, the Enterprise ships are a fascinating addition to the collection because of their attention to detail — these ships have everything, surface texture differences, precise panelling and subtle variations in paint schemes which make them a die-cast wonder to behold.

That nose has all the signs of the Raptor-class Somrawwith a sharp point and a bird-like appearance. It’s a smooth finish, which is unusual for a Klingon craft, and in this respect the D5 is their most streamlined vessel. That nose looks to be heavily armoured and sweeps majestically back into the neck of the ship.

There’s a touch of aztecing on here, but it’s almost undetectable because of it being such an oddly sleek finish. The joining of this nose “helmet” into the remaining section of the ship is clearly marked out but it all fits together cleanly. The neck, which protrudes back towards the engineering section, is a mass of detail.

There’s the different layers of tech and mechanisms on the hull, plus the distinct 22nd Century Klingon feature of exposed cabling, which runs along either side of the connecting section. These are very cleanly moulded and attached to the model — and while the paint scheme of green doesn’t alter, it’s important to have them there for continuity, though a darker shade might have helped show them to be more heavy duty and less plasticy.

Down the neck and into the rear section once again there’s a familiar Klingon feature in the red slatted/grille section facing to the front. It’s evident on both the Augment ship and the Somraw and has translated across onto this craft too. There are even two distinct “hump” structures either side of it which scream out ‘Bird of Prey’ in regards to its slatted mechanism for moving the wings.

While these don’t have that luxury, you can see where the design has been retroactively slotted into the design journey of the Klingon fleet.

There’s also that impulse engine structure in the centre of the hull, which seems to appear all over the ships of the period: the 22nd Century Bird of Prey, as well as the Somraw, among others.

Eaglemoss have also reproduced the feather-esque paneling detail on the wings creating a more organic and “natural” wing effect, and you can see how this will be “developed” into the more notorious D7 craft of the Original Series. There is an evident kink in the wing, and the way in which it has been formed to meet with the warp nacelle that shows it’s evolution.

I think the wing design from Star Trek veteran John Eaves here is beautiful and nicely finished on the model as well, drawing your eye gradually down from the larger body to its narrower end and then onto the warp nacelles. It’s an incredibly stylish ship for the Klingons with some very sharp angles in that wing structure but the nacelles are something else with their dagger-like poise and open detailing.

To the rear they open up in keeping with other Klingon ships of the era and to the front there’s more exposed tech that is meant to echo the design features of the nacelles on the later D7’s and K’t’inga classes. This does seem the most sleek of Klingon designs from the whole of the franchise and oddly one of the more threatening at the same time. The sharp edges, the dagger-like appearance and the scything warp engines all work massively in its favour.

The metal structure in this one stretches from the nose and then onto the underside of the belly of the D5 via the connecting neck. That underside is extremely detailed including the addition of the double cannon.

There’s also more vent grille work on the underside of the ship and this section is the highest quality section. Lots of hull mechanics, panel detail and also impulse engine exhausts.

It’s a familiar placement for the stand on the D5, with it slipping around the rear of the ship giving the usual “flying” impression. It does look more at home alongside the 22nd Century Klingon ships, as there’s only a few similarities to this and the later D7s.

The magazine continues to emphasise the killer nature of the predatory D5 with reference back to its sporadic appearances in Enterprise, with lots of good tech detail in here about its armament and maneuverability, as well as how it compared to the NX-01.

From reading this I’d forgotten quite a bit about the D5s, and seemed to remember the Somraw and the Bird of Prey from this era much more clearly. Must be time for a flashback and rewatch, I think!

It’s the Vidiians — and I’ve been waiting a long time for this one! The dangerous species were one of Voyager’s genius moments. The concept of the organ harvesters ravaged by the Phage worked on every level, making them Voyager’s creepiest and most unsettling foe, a position I think even the Borg struggled to challenge.

While their makeup was first class as was the backstory, their ships were something of an acquired taste. Admittedly I acquired one for Attack Wing and that seemed pretty big but the latest Eaglemoss version is far superior – as you would expect.

Filling out its packaging more than adequately, the Vidiian Warship is big. Easily as long as it is wide (to paraphrase the mag), you’re getting your money’s worth here. Now for note, the wider end is actually the front and just to reinforce that there’s a very clear bridge module marked out.

The colour scheme on this one is significantly less pink than I was expecting, but there’s still some hints of tonal differences plus some paneled highlights right across the surface of the Warship. These panel details are mirrored left to right, and then there’s the engine colouring which really lifts this ship out of the box.

At the front there’s a reaching pincer-like maw which arcs out and around the bridge module. That two tone paint finish is even evident on these areas of the ship and there’s even small panel colour differences as well as tiny porthole spots on the superstructure.

Along the metal spine there’s raised grille detailing and further aztecing, which stretches continuously to the almost-tapered rear that ends in another yellow engine housing. You do have to strain a little to see the shift in the paint scheme, but it’s definitely there. The Vidiian ship has a certain harshness to its finish with that very heavy frontal position.

It’s unusual for a Star Trek ship not to have a narrower front end — or something that is distinctly a front end — since you could think this flies either way round.

Out into the wings: these contrast materially to the upper hull being a central piece linked to the lower hull and totally plastic. As with the main hull, they feature highlighted sections to give them a more 3D and realistic finish. I love the sharp edges here and the “killer” finish to the design. The overall design is very aggressive, and looks ready to pounce with its forward sweeping wings and pincer maw.

They have a slight kink in them, giving a slight inverted “V” shape as well as having cut-out segments toward the back, and I think the choice of metal here might have been wiser given their width and flexibility. However, I don’t think it’s a massive problem.

The clip-together top and bottom hull segments fit extremely snugly, although it’s not a straight centre-line crease; it notches into the lower half around some of the side detailing. Again, a good choice to ensure those clean lines and markings aren’t broken up with some lazy fixing.

In fact, the top hull section, being metal, fits into the lower plastic hull which spreads out to the wings. The panel lines are more striking on the metal upper section and the yellow engine field grilles, plus the yellow highlights really do stand out proud against the dusty brown of the hull.

The plastic sections – the wings and lower hull – actually appear to be a slightly lighter shade of brown, by perhaps a shade, which is a little odd. I also spotted that on the underside there is zero two-tone when it comes to the base brown coat. It’s a solid shade on the belly, with the segmented panels being in the lighter brown shade.

To finish, we find ourselves tapering to the rear, and what I can only assume is the impulse engine, providing a wedge-like tail to the warship. Nicely, the aztecing continues on this small section of the ship and on both sides even though the bottom of the ship is a single brown shade on the plastic.

As for detail on the flipside, it is a virtual mirror of the top when it comes to the wings and the mechanical beige panelling sectioned out on both sides. The warp engine field grilles do have some slight variation, with yellow highlights, but are otherwise unchanged. Look closely, and you’ll spot that those beige sections are exactly identical to those on the topside.

Into the centre of the hull: as with above, there is more window detail around the central section indicating the overall size of the Vidiian ship. It is perhaps less complex than the more often seen upper section, yet we still have the evidence of panel detail, along with another yellow recessed section which I can only assume is the navigational deflector. It would make more sense for this to be it although it could be an intake of some form.

As for the join lines here, it’s a bit obvious with quite large gaps at the edges of the plastic and metal sections. Interestingly, the plastic bottom isn’t just a flat piece as it cuts around the tips of warp engine field grilles on the wings, as well as around some of the lower hull detail. In fact, it seems on inspection that the two lower halves of the grilles are actually separate pieces to the wings.

When you’re displaying this on its included stand, ignore the positioning suggested by the magazine, and go for the clip position as in the above pics. Going with the magazine position clips around the thinner wing sections, and isn’t very stable, while clipping to the central body gives a much firmer grip and stability.

The magazine recants the numerous encounters with the Vidiians during Voyager‘s early seasons. We get a good mix of images of CG ships, stills from episodes, plus a few of the Vidiians themselves thrown in. The plan views do show off the hull-wide aztecing a lot more than the model, and make the contrasting panels a lot more distinct than on the diecast item.

For my next review, I’ll be taking a look at a couple of Next Generation ships, and one I have waited for since day one: Scotty’s downed passenger ship, the USS Jenolan, from “Relics.” Paired with this Federation transport is the Smuggler’s Ship from “Unification.”

In the meantime, you can pick up the Klingon D5 class and the Vidiian Warship at Eaglemoss’ shop to add to your own alien fleet!

In Eaglemoss’ US store, TrekCore readers can use promo code TREKCORE at checkout for 10% off any ‘Star Trek’ collectible purchase $50 or greater (Starships, Plaques, Binders, Graphic Novels).

  • Dorothy

    Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
    On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    fc123d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineInternationalEasyTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fc123lhhhhh

  • DC Forever

    Never liked this D5 design as there is no way those super small and thin warp nacelles could propel a star-ship of this size. Another bonehead starship design during the Berman era.

    • War Doctor

      At least it’s still a distinctly Klingon ship, unlike what we have now in Discovery…

      • Natalie

        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        fv196:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyConsumerFirstJornalsJobsReport1/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fv196lhh

      • DC Forever

        Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        And those external struts are totally ridiculous as well.

        • Starshipdown

          But it’s not a 23rd century vessel, so why would the standard of 50-110 years later be applicable here?

          • DC Forever

            So they are going to start adding external struts in more advanced starship designs? That makes no engineering sense whatsoever. That would be an engineering regression.

          • Starshipdown

            Huh? The D-5 is a less advanced design from the mid-22nd century, so having the suspension bridge-like cabling is a way to help mark them as less technological in capability than the future D-7, which like its Federation Constitution-class counterpart, is much cleaner and meaner because advancements in the mid-23rd century allow for it.

            You keep fixating on Berman-era, but these kind of reboot changes are nothing at all new. Heck, look at all the greeblings that would have been on the Planet of the Titans Enterprise and other ships had that gone through and then much later, the K’Tingas from The Motion Picture. And that design ethos continues under Roddenbery as well for the first two seasons of TNG and the TOS movies. The Klingon Bird of Prey has it as well, just cleaner than this design. The aztec hull patterning is just variations off of that first used on the refit Enterprise. It became the standard and Roddenberry approved of it then along with that used for the Enterprise-D. The smooth-hull concept was almost strictly a Matt Jefferies fetish that was fought even back in the 1960s as the model makers and Gene Roddenberry wanted *more* detail on the ships to make them look more interesting to audiences and hold up to weekly scrutiny.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            DC is right. As technology advances, ships should get “less busy” and old-tech things like exteriors struts should not, ALL OF A SUDDEN, start reappearing on ships as the future progresses.

            And yes, “going nuts” with the aztec hull tiles during the Berman shows was pretty silly. Are there like different “smokestack style steel mills” on Federation planets that can’t seem to deliver a standard hull panel in the 24th century? Seriously?

            People always make a fair point in complaining about “Bugengineering” in the Kelvin movies, but the Berman/Drexler obsession with the aztec hull tiles is just as silly. It insults my intelligence as a sf fan who also knows a lot about how advanced materials are constructed. Heck, you wont need hull panels 200 years from new — you will have a one piece hull that is created on-site with advanced tec that leaves no seems and weakness points….which happens to be the way the NCC-1701 from TOS looks, BTW.

          • Starshipdown

            But the progression is there. The Klingon ships had some designs that had the cabling (back in the 22nd century) and then progressed to cleaner, less thickly built structures by the mid-23rd. How does that not follow?

            So following the dictates of Roddenberry was a bad thing, then? What is the aztec hull paneling? Actual hull plates or something else? So how can your explanation and his make any sense without any more information than what little we have?

          • DC Forever

            You seem to want to be argumentative just for the sake of continuing this discussion. Hence your cop-out on the Aztec hull panels.

            And of course you conveniently ignore the implausible and inconsistent very small size of the Klingon engine design as well.

            You are another poster who simply can’t let it go on a discussion here.

          • Starshipdown

            No cope out, just you making a bad attempt at a Strawman Fallacy, and attempting to frame the narrative instead of just addressing the issues. The fact remains that we don’t know what or why the aztec hull panelling exists from an in-universe perspective. It was originally meant to be a Super-Kewel way to add detail to the Enterprise in TMP, so don’t get angry with me that I point that out, and others long before Before Berman came along; Roddenberry, Harve Bennett and so on choose to keep that detailing as a distinctive Federation Starfleet look, the examples being the Reliant in Wrath of Khan, the Excelsior in Search for Spock, and then The Enterprise-D in TNG pre-Berman seasons 1 and 2.

            – You failed to address the suspension cable issue which is meant to show how relatively primitive the Klingon ships of the freakin’ mid-22nd century technologically are to ships in the 23rd century. It follows a logical pathway. That is my point. Ships had them, then over time did away with it as they became more advanced.

            – The feathered hull paneling is trademark of the K’Tingas and that is a Roddenberry-era TMP reboot design choice, just like the aztec hull paneling on the refit Enterprise is, and serves to add detail to what would otherwise be a boring ad plain-looking starship on the big screen.

            – I never said anything about the engines. Please stop trying to divert the issue.

            And you seem to want everything to be about you or you don’t want to admit that someone else has an equally valid point, even if you don’t agree with it.

          • DC Forever

            So do you acknowledge that the engines look implausibly small? Yes or no?

          • Starshipdown

            If you want answer. No, not really. The engines aren’t that small, they just look small when view from three-quarter angles because of how sleek the overall design is intended to be. Look at it directly from the top plan view:

            http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/klingon/battlecruiser_d5.jpg

            You can see how large they look. Now compare that to the top views of the D-7/K’Tinga and you’ll see how much of a difference there is:

            http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/klingon/battlecruiser_klolode.jpg

            The D-7’s engines are far smaller proportionately to it than the engines on the D-5 are to it. The D-5 warp engines beging about 45-50% of the length of the ship and the D-7 warp nacelles are only 25%.

            So that just proves my point that you can see a clear technological advancement in structural and warp drive system from the 22nd to the 23rd century.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Nice comparison there. Other than the hollow cutouts in the aft part of the D-5’s nacelles, they really are friggin’ long-ass things compared to the ship’s length. The D-7 does look more advanced in that sense given it is not only a larger ship according to behind-the-scenes sources, but the smaller proportionate nacelles really sells it.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, except it’s “a cheat” because those drawings Starshipdown provided are way off in terms of the schematic dimensions that are canon as shown on Enterprise. Completely misleading.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            EXPLAIN THIS THEN? This clearly shows that the Drexler files drawing has engines that are significantly longer than both the Enterprise schematic and the Eaglemoss D5. On the Drexler diagram, you can clearly see that the Engines go all the way to about the halfway point of the hull connector, while in the Eaglemoss and Enterprise schematic version they only go to about the 25% point down that hull connector. There you go man — case closed.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4918925528faa6e390ef377e5f4f4ca3508f1ca000b16a925e4fd8a9322c5d66.jpg

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            RESPONDING TO MY OWN POST — I find if very interesting that two days later, no one has challenged this presentation of the engine size that I pulled together. I’ll take that as confirmation of my comparison — thanks!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Problem is, your unofficial drawing here is way off. Here below is the actual canon screenshot of the schematic of the D5 as shown on Enterprise. You can clearly see that your non-canon schematic has the engine looking about 3 times as massive as the actual ship schematic shown in Enterprise. This is reinforced by the Eaglemoss model, which shows the small engine profile consistent with the canon Enterprise series schematic and NOT your non-canon drawing. Sorry, but your drawing is just way off in terms of accuracy.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa4934d92e7ae7859ce63aba8ead1e2dfc96b735f5f9f41bd00fc45eca1f6d92.jpg

          • Starshipdown

            Except that the “non-canon” drawings are actually the CGI model built for ENT and therefore is canon and is given via Doug Drexler from his now sadly defunct but excellent Drex Files blog where he shared the models, plus gave great detail on Trek lore and behind the scenes information.

            http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Doug_Drexler#The_Drex_Files

            The wireframe is an okudagram that has lots of errors on it that cannot be reconciled with the actual visual depiction of the ship.

            For example, it calls for the D-5 to only be about 75 meters long but Eden FX depicted it as 155 meters:

            http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D5_class#Background_information

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2×19/judgement_413.jpg

            But if you want a confirmation from an episode canon view of an actual ship, not a wireframe diagram:

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×06/augments_377.jpg
            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×06/augments_378.jpg

            The view from “The Augments” is very consistent with the side view of model I gave from Doug Drexler. Its warp nacelle is 45-50% of the overall length.

            Another excellent close up, confirming the size and showing the inconsistencies between the okudagram and “reality”:

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×06/augments_374.jpg

            Note the inward angled notches that appear here where the “wing” meets the engineering hull and in Drexler’s depiction of the D-5, but is curiously absent in the okudagram. Obviously it’s due to the constraints of the episode; Okuda had to churn out an earlier or modified version of the ship so that something could be used for the live filming on set with the actors and everyone thought it’d be okay because it hopefully wouldn’t be scrutinized (dripping sarcasm here).

            Also note that in three-quarter profile, the nacelles look very small. Please compare to the nearly direct side-view I provided:

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×06/augments_369.jpg

            Same CGI model in use here, but the design of the nacelles and the ship make them suddenly look a lot smaller than they are. No shame in it. It’s a clever trick of the eye.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            It’s been a long, long while since I’ve been able to peruse through the late great Drex Files blog, but I don’t think the CGI model there is a copy of the actual one used for Enterprise. If it is an official one, it was a variant that never got to see the light of day like John Eaves’ D-4.

            That being said, the screencaps from The Augment proves the case. The wireframe images from Judgement is probably off due to it being based off the earlier Klingon deuterium tanker variant CGI model.

            But it’s not surprising either that Oracle got caught by diagram that wasn’t meant to be looked at too hard, Trek is filled with them like these from TOS:

            http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3×02/The_Enterprise_Incident_046.JPG

            http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3×07/dayofdove_156.jpg

            These just don’t quite look like the ships they’re trying to portray.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “But it’s not surprising either that Oracle got caught by diagram that wasn’t meant to be looked at too hard”

            You mean, the actual specifications of this ship that was defined as CANON by showing it on an episodes of series? LOL I really don’t think you guys understand what canon is?

            “but I don’t think the CGI model there is a copy of the actual one used for Enterprise”

            Can’t say I’m surprised that this info offered here is WRONG as well. Thanks

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Except that it doesn’t match what the ship even looks like next to the other ships. You dodged around that the diagrams often don’t look or offer the right proportions or information. We see things we can define the D-5 up against. And if one canon source is very contradicted by another, are saying we should ignore all that preponderance of evidence in favor of the one little one that is barely visible?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I am not dodging around anything. That diagram is canon, period. If you don’t like the information in the canon diagram, well, canon doesn’t really care if you like them are not. They are FACT within the Star Trek universe.

            And the canon diagram shown presents and actual schematics of the ship. That is incontestable, and easily trumps fan opinions on spaceship scenes from angles and perspectives from which measurements are simply subjective opinion.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Bad analogy. If I show you a diagram that says that the Moon is made of green cheese, but I when I look at the Moon and it is clearly made of gray rock, then which is wrong? Direct observation and or testing or the object in question?

            See, I’m noticing a pattern here with you. You can’t admit you are wrong and got caught at it.

            Sorry, but that is the truth. The canon is in serious contradiction here, we can observe, without any optical issues, that the D-5 is much bigger than 75 meters, from multiple different angles. There is no question about this and it is backed up by behind the scenes sources that the size was changed.

            It’s like the examples I showed from TOS. They are wrong about the Constitution-class starship’s configuration because we can compare that to what the thing actually looks like.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “If I show you a diagram that says that the Moon is made of green cheese, but I when I look at the Moon and it is clearly made of gray rock, then which is wrong?”

            That has to be the most inept “back at you” counter example I have ever seen. I am talking about viewing and object and determining it’s size with both a diagram of measurements versus human judgement from seeing it, and my analogy is of course appropriate for that. You are putting forth a straw-man analogy that talks about and objects composition…that is nonsensical analogy to mine. I’d say, ‘nice try,” but it was neither nice and it barely qualifies as a try.

            “Direct observation and or testing or the object in question?”

            Ah, you mean like an engineering plan or schematic generated by Starfleet staff based on intelligence observations and measurements, and then provided on a view-screen of the Enterprise….WHOOPS! LOL

            “The canon is in serious contradiction here, we can observe, without any optical issues, that the D-5 is much bigger than 75 meters, from multiple different angles.”

            No we can’t. We don’t have the software model that would tell us the angles, perspective and the “camera” origin point for the video of the ships and objects around them. So it’s a fan viewer subjective judgment call to come up with some imperfect measurements. And from the scenes that we do have, I could guesstimate this ship being in size from anywhere from about 50 to 125 meters in size…but that’s just my subjective opinion…which is moot, because canon gives us the measurements.

            You can’t get over the fact that canon provided you a simple schematic that showed the dimensions. You are saying that that is all wrong and instead I should just accept some web site photos and your personal judgement about viewing some special effects scenes? Seriously?

            LOL — give me an f’ing break, dude.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Again, it is you that keeps jumping through hoops and providing strawman arguments.

            Even if the diagram in-universe is supposed to be generated “by starfleet” the diagram is still obviously wrong. You cannot get around this. Have you no sense of empirical reason about you? It’s just like the TOS examples that were clearly wrong about the Constitution-class starship configuration, even for the Enterprise herself.

            “You can’t get over the fact that canon provided you a simple schematic that showed the dimensions. You are saying that that is all wrong and instead I should just accept some web site photos and your personal judgement about viewing some special effects scenes? Seriously?”

            Get over it. The canon is in contradiction. You just don’t want to be rational at this juncture and except the preponderance of the evidence here contradicts your one chosen piece. Evidence direct from the episodes via screencaps. Visually the ship is shown to be bigger and we know for a fact that it is because the people who worked for Eden FX on the show even said that they made it bigger than the original specs called for. That’s why the 75 meter number is far too small. You are clinging to one piece of data like a drowning man to a piece of flotsam. We don’t need significant analysis of the visual because any reasonable person can look at them and see that the various D-5’s throughout Enterprise are about 7/10ths or larger of the 225 meter NX-01’s length in size instead of 3/10ths. Go back and look at the images of the D-5 from The Augments, the D-5 is a way off in the background, yet subtends a huge portion of the screen:

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×06/augments_369.jpg

            The D-5 is almost the same length as the NX-01 despite being very far away behind her! Even if we assumed the two ships were scratching paint they were so close, that still is a major contradiction. Another example from Divergence:

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×16/divergence_386.jpg

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×16/divergence_425.jpg

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×16/divergence_426.jpg

            http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4×16/divergence_427.jpg

            The sequence is the NX-01 passing along the D-5’s starboard side, not how big the D-5 is to the NX-01 in the third fourth screencap. The D-5 is at least as big as the Enterprise!

            You have what now? One erroneous bit of throwaway data from from a sketchy looking readout?

          • Nowhereman10

            You’re wasting your time on this washed up geezer. He’s got all the time in the world to spend endlessly typing resistance text in order to wear you down rather than actually address an argument or the evidence. So it’s not too surprising here that he keeps harping on the one single piece of evidence rather than actual screencaps of the ships in question and how big they are next to each other.

            But Oracle will keep right on trying to hit you with the once little bit of iffy-looking diagram and make his Appeal to Authority fallacy rather than just except it’s completely rendered non-canon and contradictory every time the D-5 is next to the well-understood NX-class.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            On the subject of readouts and canon, we have Mike Sussman’s statements regarding that:

            http://www.canonwars.com/

            Which is backed up by this quote:

            “I wouldn’t really consider any of this ‘hard canon,’ so take it all with a grain of salt. Both bios were slapped together hastily and weren’t approved by the exec producers.”

            -Mike Sussman on TrekBBS, April, 30 2005, about the subject of readout displays and canonicity

          • DC Forever

            By that logic, we shouldn’t consider rendered special effects as hard canon either. The have huge time pressures to get that done during series production. The fact that both TOS series and TNG had their special effects improved supports this.

            Answer me this please. Why does the Eaglemoss model look much more like the schematic Oracle provided verse the larger engine version that Starshipdown provided? You gotta admit, the Eaglemoss model’s profile much more like the Enterprise schematic versus that Drexler files drawing. Presumably, Eaglemoss is creating these model based on files that CBS is providing, which to shows that CBS considers the Enterprise schematic version to be the correct canon version for the D5.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            There are cases where special effect are clearly in error; the E-D shooting a phaser from the captain’s yacht in Encounter at Farpoint or from the photon torpedo tube in Darmok, but it is obvious as they do not match what came before or since, and are often one-off issues. Here the intential choice was made by the Eden FX crew to deliberately change the size of the ship to a larger one and you can easily see this in the special effects portrayed in The Augments (as shown in the canon screencaps) and Affliction.

            Also, Sussman said nothing about the fully rendered FX depicting the ships flying through space or scenes like that, only for the readouts and such. If you have a problem, take it up with him.

            As for CBS and the files, I’ve already gone over this in great detail in posts with Oracle. The Eaglemoss model is shown in TrekCore’s photos in the review primarily at three-quarter angles. The first two photos do show almost a full on top and bottom views of the ship as well as complete views of the nacelles and they actually more closely match up with the side view length seen in The Augments.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “There are cases where special effect are clearly in error”

            Like on Enterprise, where they showed the D5 substantially different from the Starfleet schematic…great point…I think you just explained the issue here.

            Thjanks!

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            No, you have everything in reverse, especially in light of Sussman’s declaration on the subject of canon. The diagram *is* the outlier and it is “soft” canon being a diagram or readout not intended to be scrutinized in detail.

            It is a one-time thing that had to be slapped together so that it could be made ready for use on the plasma screens during shooting of the scene with the actors. The others are finalized, full-render special effects made by the FX people as an informed decision (see the Memory Alpha article that was linked to) to change the size of the ship to 155 meters and we see that the ship is consistently that big through all scenes where the NX-01 (a well-defined ship) is next to a D-5. This is multiple points of easily discernible evidence to back up the FX team’s choice.

            The only way for you to be right would be to show where a D-5 in the full-rendered FX is inconsistent with other similar FX. But you can’t. Also, the fact that you are twisting around the concept of canon and my statements shows that you have lost the argument.

          • Starshipdown

            Well said.

            Diagrams and readouts should not take precedence over the way the ship actually is shown and the way that the people working on the staff actually want it to be and is consistent in its portrayal all through the show. There is no contradiction at all when the D-5 is right up near the NX-01 in many instances, the diagram loses because it’s in contradiction. No being subjective at all because we know the approximate size of the NX-01 and we have good scenes where the D-5s are right along side the NX-01. Case closed.

            It really is that simple.

          • DC Forever

            How remarkable that for this 1.5 week old story, this “Brian Brodrick” guy shows up here today and posts across all of the comments here, and every single one backs you up.

            My what a remarkable coincidence! 😉

          • Brian_Brodrick

            However, it’s funny that you bring that up as I see from your history, and other people have commented on it, you always seem to be in lockstep with The Science Fiction Oracle and all of yours backs him up in this thread. Exclusively.

            Oracle upvoted me many times in the past, but that doesn’t mean I’m obligated somehow to support him when I believe he’s dead wrong.

          • Starshipdown

            All right, that does it. You’ve stepped over the line. This is another of your tactics that needs to be mentioned; accusing others of being sockpuppets and then siccing the mods on them to block or shut down the discussion.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Or he’s right.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Jesus, are we really scraping so low for supporting evidence that we have to bring in hack TV producers like Sussman for a lifeline?

          • Brian_Brodrick

            What you just did there. That justifies the complaint that you strawman their statements.

            The scene is not an error, nor the one that follows. If you read the articles that were linked to where the special effects staff made a deliberate choice to change the size of the ship as shown against others, most notably the NX-01. If we had one battle scene where the D-5 was big and another where it clearly matches the 75 meter stat, you’d be right. But no, it is two separate battle scenes with the ship being portrayed consistently twice as large as the stat on the diagram says it should be.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OK, Warrior of Marely….WHOOPS, I MEAN BRIAN BRODRICK of course…lol

            I understand, you say a lot of special effects scenes in Star Trek get it wrong, but you provide exceptions to this statement when you need some special effects scenes to support your internet posts.

            Sure dude, I get it. 😉

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Answer me this please. Why does the Eaglemoss model look much more like the schematic Oracle provided verse the larger engine version that Starshipdown provided?”

            Simple — CBS provided Eaglemoss the canon specs from the diagram that was shown on Enterprise.

            As you said, “Ocaam’s Razor.” For those who don’t understand that reference, this one works as well:

            “LIKE, DUH!”

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Mike Sussman, that’s all you got???

            That dude was a big reason Enterprise was such a failure. He would be the guy who I would use as an example of how not to do Star Trek.

            LOL^2

          • Starshipdown

            See, there you go, attacking people rather than addressing what they say. Sussman turned things around in season 3 and season 4 is widely regarded as very good, but was far too late to save the show. That you don’t like what the guy has to say about canon shows that you can’t deal with someone hitting you back with a quote from the show producer himself for season 4. is all the more reason to ignore you on the matter of canon.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No, no, no. This again is the complete “reinventing of history” crap concerning this supposed turning around of Enterprise in it’s final two seasons.

            Fact 1. Season 3’s ratings were lower than Season 2’s, and Seaon 4’s ratings were lower than Season 3’s.

            Fact 2. During both Season 3 and Season 4, as the season went along, when plotted on a graph, the ratings got progressively worse each weak.

            This is the real story. By Season 3, it’s probable that only hardcore Trek fans were still watching the series, which makes these ratings even more telling — basically, from the first episode of Season 3 to the last episode of Season 4, even those hardcore fans we consistently bailing on the show.

            Any objective person would expect that significant improvements in the quality of show which is still watched by a loyal group of fans would at least result in a stablization of ratings declination. This never happenned with Enterprise, so it’s obvious that the vast majority of Trek fans were not impressed.

            I find that at conventions and on the Internet that the small subset of fans who like Enterprise to this day, and who come up with this counter-intutive bull-crap theories like “Manny Coto had turned the show around,” just happen to be a very much more vocal group of fans that the largely slient vast majory, who view it as the failed show that it was.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            Interesting quote there. As I understand it from the context, the question of readouts being canon or not came from the personal files for Johnathan Archer and Hoshi Sato as seen in “In a Mirror, Darkly”.

            But that does follow that any diagram or similar readout shouldn’t be taken too seriously with all the weird gags and such the show staff threw in, not realizing that people would actually be freeze-framing it to see what was said or shown. In this case the larger size of the ship as it is shown in the various battle scenes AWoM provided is what the FX team want as the size of the ship, it is not an error, as would be the cases cited with the phasers being fired from the wrong spots since those are acknowledged and then later corrected for the remastered releases.

          • DC Forever

            Well, look what the cat dragged in.

            All you ever do here is troll-stalk people you don’t like. I can’t recall you ever offering something constructive or positive here.

            Bah, humbug, Ebenezer. 🙂

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Don’t feed the troll…he is baiting us.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Please don’t throw insults around as they do this sort of thing to provoke a response so that they can call in the TrekCore moderator staff and thus win by default by silencing those in opposition with the initiation of force rather than evidence and argumentation. If you go through their posts you’ll see that is their MO. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your assessment of the situation.

            But it is better to keep showing others the evidence and let them decide for themselves.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Maybe Brian Brodrick will post here to reinforce you. ;-0

          • Starshipdown

            I agree with Warrior, you need to not provoke them as that is indeed their style of “winning” by getting the mods involved. That said, you are dead spot on about the rest.

          • DC Forever

            Seems like you are the one with all of the strawman arguments here. You have a schematic with measurements shown in Enterprise that also looks nearly exactly like the Eaglemoss model with it’s much smaller warp engines.

            So it seems you are saying that both the Enterprise schematic D5 and the Eaglemoss D5 are both misreprentations of the D5? That’s one hell of a leap of faith.

            You ever heard of Ocaam’s Razor, my friend.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Now you’re being pedantic and resorting to strawman arguments. The canon depiction of the ship shows a side-view that gives us the warp nacelles as being rather large or long, if you like and that the small appearance in some angles is due to how they are shaped to give them a sleek appearance.

            Eaglemoss has as even you and your friend have noted are not always accurate in proportions. I have their TOS Enterprise and the nacelles as well as the navigational deflector, among other features are annoyingly off.

            Also, the photos provided in the article depict the Eaglemoss model from three-quarter angles and so the optical effect is in full play here just as the canon screencaps from the episodes show it in The Augments where the D-5 gets rotated around by the Enterprise’s harpoon tow cable. It is interesting in that you really haven’t addressed that the ship the way it *actually looks* in a rare side view in the episode confirms the 45-50% of over all length size and then shows how the shape makes it look smaller as the battlecruiser is rotated around.

            Also, Mike Sussman’s quote is provided here on the “soft canon” nature of readout displays, so you have a non-canon model depiction that may or may not be correct to make judgments by and one iffy diagram that is incorrect on the size of the vessel. I, and others have provided dozens of different examples of how incorrect they are and from canon episodes depicting the D-5. Ocaam’s Razor says We’re right and you’re wrong. It’s that simple.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS HERE HAS BEEN A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

            And, as a Trek fan for nearly 50 years, who has met much of the production teams across all Trek series’, I have never heard of this “soft canon” versus “hard cannon” nonsense before. Someone probably said it, sure, but it is not a term that that has gained any traction inside Star Trek. You pulled it out of some one-off quote to bail yourself out here, and you know it. Canon is what is on-screen, like it or not.

          • Starshipdown

            He cited the quote from Sussman and gave you a link. It’s not his responsibility if you fail to follow it back. The reason you don’t like it is because Sussman, who worked on the show, as a writer and producer, has stated his view on such matters. Otherwise, if there were no soft canon, then we actually would have to accept that for some reason in the Trek verse there are labels that really say things like “don’t pull on Superman’s cape” or that the Enterprise was “on a diplomatic mission to Alderran” or that there is a giant rubber ducky sitting in the middle of the Enterprise-D’s saucer section or other bizarreness because it’s there on the main engineering MSD.

            And you are the one making the strawman arguments, that is to say that you deliberately misrepresent other’s arguments because to address them head on would mean a total loss for you. You lost the argument a good while back, but you’ve been flailing about trying to elevate a funky single diagram above the actual way the ship appears. The FX team decided to make it bigger, this is shown in the episodes where the NX-01 flies by and around it or is close by right beside it. That is what is on-screen and far more often than the diagram made in haste.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “…then we actually would have to accept that for some reason in the Trek verse there are labels that really say things like “don’t pull on Superman’s cape” or that the Enterprise was “on a diplomatic mission to Alderran” or that there is a giant rubber ducky sitting in the middle of the Enterprise-D’s saucer section or other bizarreness because it’s there on the main engineering MSD”

            Sheesh, what a weak strawman defense. We are talking about a Starfleet Intelligence Diagram of a ship, not an Easter Egg or inside production team joke. It’s silly that you are pretending that you don’t understand the difference.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Apparently he hasn’t heard of Ocaam’s Razor, as he ignored that in his straw man-eccentric response to you.

            The simplest solution is that the D5 in the Enterprise schematic and Eaglemoss models is the correct version as they are based on objective visual evidence. His alternate solution is based on subjective viewing of space scenes where you really can’t make accurate measurements — it all crude guesstimates.

            Ocaam had it right.

          • DC Forever

            Well said!

          • Brian_Brodrick

            That is a great sequence there. That is pretty clear cut proof from the canon on-screen that clinches the whole deal for me right there. There’s no ambiguity about the ship being a mere 75 meters long.

            In that first image from Augments, the D-5 is nearly as long as the NX-01’s saucer section is wide or about 136 meters, which is almost twice as big as the diagram, and the Enterprise is clearly a ways in the foreground giving some leeway towards the D-5 being even bigger.

            The second set of images shows that exactly with the Enterprise doing the fly around and exchange of weapon’s fire. Brilliant!

          • DC Forever

            How remarkable that for this 1.5 week old story, you all of a sudden show up here today and posts across all of the comments here, and every single one backs up Warrior of Marley.

            My what a remarkable coincidence! 😉

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Very interesting how yesterday here you brought this up, and ALL OF A SUDDEN we are going no further posts from this dude.

            It certainly seems like Warrior of Marley is using sock-puppets to reinforce his failed positions. That is just so weak and lame.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Dude, these are all 2D scenes in which we have no actual distances between the ships, no information on perspective angles, and don’t know the origin coordinates of the virtual camera. No one can determine sizes based on this — you are just guesstimating this by your own vision and perceptions, which you think is scientific. NO WAY!!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Dude, these are all 2D scenes in which we have no actual distances between the ships, no information on perspective angles, and don’t know the origin coordinates of the virtual camera. No one can determine sizes based on this — you are just guesstimating this by your own vision and perceptions, which you think is scientific. NO WAY!!!

            To illustrate this point, look the moon scene from ET. It looks like the bicycle, which is in motion over the earth at some distance is about 10% of the moons diameter, and the stationary tree looks like it might be half as tall of the moon. In this photo, not only can’t we can’t measure any of the actual sizes of these objects, we can’t measure their relative size difference, nor do we no the origin point of the camera.

            Now, look at the diagram which specifically provides key information in terms of the moon’s size. Now we know the size and orientation of the moon to the earth, which tells us that the bicycle and tree are obviously much closer to the camera than the moon. This is the kind of information you need to determine ship sizes in space. And that is why the schematic diagram of the D5 should be trusted much more than your guesses from 2D special effects scenes on your TV. It’s high school geometry and common sense.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca07a712874b0ea994e2306b3cf04be809bd393fb27df7d14cb63169bc798587.jpg

          • DC Forever

            Agree on Marley’s analogy misrepresentation; that’s a pretty weak strawman.

            The point of the analogy is optics of personal viewing versus an engineering diagram with measurement.

          • Brian_Brodrick

            You know you upvoted yourself? 8)

            But the diagram is clearly wrong. Anybody can see it and it is consistent between the two sets of images. If the diagrams were so inviolable, then ask yourself which wins out, a diagram on on-screen showing the Excelsior-class Enterprise-B looking unmodified in any way shape or form from the original class namer or the view of the Enterprise-B as seen in Star Trek: Generations as we actually saw it?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Except that the “non-canon” drawings are actually the CGI model built for ENT and therefore is canon and is given via Doug Drexler from his now sadly defunct but excellent Drex Files blog where he shared the models, plus gave great detail on Trek lore and behind the scenes information.”

            NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Canon is what is ON-SCREEN….period…exlclamation pooint. Production materials and web site info, even it put up by people involved in the show, are NOT CANON.

            Canon is what is on-screen

          • DC Forever

            Yes, any objective person would trust a schematic set of dimensions much more than a fan looking at his TV and making all kinds of perspective assumptions to guesstimate relative ship sizes. You’d have to be a total dumb-ass to trust those types of personal guesses on relative dimensions.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Ad honiem attacks now. The ship is shown in a side view and then in three-quarters view. That demonstrates the effect of the long nacelles looking shorter. The schematic is clearly wrong as is the dimensions. Anyone with a working brain can tell this.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL, so WHEN IS SUITS YOU, you can claim observational error based on perspective and angles, but WHEN IT DOESN’T SUIT YOU, all of a sudden you can make accurate measurement from a scene in which you have no empirical knowledge of the perspective, angle and location of the virtual camera.

            What a hypocrite! An epic Strawman Scribe you are, dude.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I don’t want to get into this rather negative pissing contest between you two, but your reasoning about Klingon designs being much more primitive in the 22nd century implies that you think that Klingon star ship advancements are following some sort of a parallel timeline to Federation/Earth starship advancements???

            That’s a faulty line of thinking. Klingon starship technology is approximately 600 years old by the time of TOS. And Klingon scientific advancements are more static then the Federation. Thus, it’s just silly to make a Klingon star-ship in the 22nd century look this primitive such that it needs external “old-tech” struts. It just gives me an “oh great, another Berman/Drexler brain-fart” chuckle when I see it.

            Regarding the tiling, it’s weird for you to suggest that they are not hull panels. Yes they are panels. This is supported in canon in ST-2009, as the photo below illustrates. Also, you are correct that TMP first introduced tiling for the hull panels. But that was subtle. What Berman and Drexler did was take it to an extreme and make it just look silly — no vessel in the far future would be expected to be built with production techniques that couldn’t even get a somewhat close spec match on the grade/color of metal used for the hull panels. It’s just lazy, which is a hallmark of much of the ship designs in the Berman-era post-Rodenberry/post-Probert.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1874ed8e93164808e4d10c3a4d142d729d1ada9a2290987445371daa2fb25260.jpg

          • Starshipdown

            That’s funny that you choose that image because during the construction scene there is almost nothing visible in the way of aztec hull panels. A similar thing is true when the shuttle Kirk and McCoy are on lifts off and passes around and behind the still under construction ship in broad daylight:

            http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=441&pid=46316#top_display_media

            But later when the Enterprise is in space the aztec paneling is very visible despite lighting conditions on the port side:

            http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=443&pid=46603#top_display_media

            See, I’m getting tired of you and DC always trying to re-frame everything. You even strawmanned my point.

            We don’t know what or why the hull of some Federation starships are this way (apparently none of the USS Voyager physical and CGI models have it). Is it different colored panels plain and simple? Or is it because there may be an embedded technology, such as some kind of sensor grid, a part of the system that distributes the structural integrity field, a really Kewel paint job that just says “Federation Starfleet baby!” etc.. We don’t know. It’s pure speculation any which way and to claim you are right without any information is being dishonest.

            Just admit that neither you nor anyone else knows what it is or why it’s done on some ships and not others.

          • Nowhereman10

            Now that’s an interesting idea that the aztec hull pattern on Federation ships is another way of providing identification. Why would an spacefaring organization rely on language and symbols only useful to their culture?

          • Brian_Brodrick

            I kinda like the embedded technology as a grid for distributing the SIF.

          • DC Forever

            Sure you do, because I suspect you wrote it. 😉

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            It certainly does appear that Warrior of Marley has sadly resorted to sock-puppeting to back us his failed positions here.

          • DC Forever

            LMFAO, if I buy into this silliness, then I will just say we can explain this disagreement away as the D5 engines have special transformer-like technology that allows them to increase in size given the mission. Call it a “nacelle hard-on” that they implement when the ship needs to move at higher speed.

            I could also apply your ridiculous strawman here to so much in Star Trek. It’s like a “get out of jail free card” for people like you who have trouble admitting to being wrong in the face of very obvious evidence that otherwise would prove you wrong.

            So keep this defense in your hip pocket for future use – you will never need to worry about observational facts ever again. You have created the Ultimate Strawman Defense. HeeHee!

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Your friend brought up how canon works for Star Trek and so I merely pointed out to him how it actually does according to a producer of the show. And I will use it when you and yours try to rules lawyer their way out of a losing argument.

            But I understand overwhelming evidence isn’t easy to deal with.

            Observed fact: The nacelles are that big in side view as shown in a rare side-on view from The Augments. That is canon. You cannot subvert that as that is the actual CGI model as it is intended to be and used in the episode and subsequent episodes, like Divergence. You have what? A maybe accurate model and a low-tier canon diagram against over a dozen images from the episodes of the actual ship in question.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            So, by extension (pun intended), Dilithium Drystals are like nacelle Viagra?

            😉

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            “That’s a faulty line of thinking. Klingon starship technology is approximately 600 years old by the time of TOS. And Klingon scientific advancements are more static then the Federation. Thus, it’s just silly to make a Klingon star-ship in the 22nd century look this primitive such that it needs external “old-tech” struts. It just gives me an “oh great, another Berman/Drexler brain-fart” chuckle when I see it. Justify it however you must, but I find the struts laughable.”

            I for one find it plausible. If Klingon technology is stagnant, then does it not logically follow that they pretty much were making due with what they had always known worked? When Earth and then the Federation gave them a kick in their complacent rears, then the Klingons had to advance. Same with the Romulans.

          • DC Forever

            So why aren’t there primary hull support struts on the canon-defined much older Klingon ships shown in Discovery.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            The only ship that could be made a case for that we know of is the Sarcophagus, However, I’m not aware that any of the other Klingon vessels seen in the visual reboot are D-5s or Raptors, or any of the other 22nd century classes of Klingon ships.

            Do you have any information that indicates such?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            And as he said, none of those have struts. Are you a polilticial by chance? You deflect a direct question by asking other questions.

            DC, I’ll answer the question for your directly and honestly. NO, THERE ARE NO STRUTS ON ANY KLINGON SHIPS SHOWN IN DISCOVERY.

            (see, that wasn’t so hard to simply provide a direct answer to his question)

          • Brian_Brodrick

            Except for AWoM’s gave context with regards to the progression of technology advancement. No one would necessarily expect ships just 10 years prior to TOS to have the cables since those vessels are about 100 years more advanced than those in ENT with the exception of the Sarcophagus which is very unusual all around.

    • Eva

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      fb271d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleInternetAlertCommunityWorkFromHome/make/more ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fb271lhhhh

    • Silvina

      Oh my god, now also visit our chanel can watch and download for example An Ordinary Man HD >>>>>>> MOVIES101HD.BLOGSPOT.COM

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Agree. It looks actually like pre-TOS era, and there is now way those ridiculously small warp nacelles would work.