Phaser

[Blechroboter]

Now I know why you use the name Phase Pistol . Thanks for your great info.

[dratomic]

And that's why Karl is the king. :) Thanks for the run down!

I think you nailed it, Karl, when you wrote, "One thing I just don't like about the Abrams phaser is the zigzaggy jagged contours. I think if you painted it brown it would look like a Klingon or Cardassian weapon, but it doesn't really fit the "Starfleet" vibe in my opinion."

I agree 100%.

I don't know... I'll always be a fan of the original designs. The original Enterprise, the first generation phasers (and the one from the pilot episode), the original tri-corder, the original communicator... All have an elegance that screams The Future, even if they were somewhat mired in 1960s industrial design (which I happen to like, but that's not the point).

[phase pistol]

Even the original phasers went through an evolutionary process.. when the show began, the phasers had white handles and were painted black everywhere else. Probably these were deemed too hard to see on the TV screen, so the phaser props were given to prop genius Wah Chang to "upgrade" with more metal parts and lighter paint.

The "working" phaser props had complicated clockwork levers and whatnot inside them, for operating the "rising sight" on top, and for lighting up the bulb in front that indicated that the phaser was firing. This light and top sight were rarely used, and the props were fragile and easily damaged, so for most of the bulk of the series, solid "dummy" props with no moving parts were used. These were simpler in design and somewhat smaller.

[Andyman]

I think the problem Mark may be having is he's trying to apply "rules" to design work where rules do not necessarily apply. The original Star Trek series was done on a bare bones (no pun intended) budget. They wanted a weapon that was cheap to make and looked passable on camera. Keep in mind that some of "Bones" McCoy's medical equipment were actually salt shakers. Once the Trekkers came in to being everything had to fit a "timeline". Ergo the (inconsistent) evolution of the phaser. We like the original because of nostalgia. When I was a kid I wanted a real one. But if that design was popped on us today it would most likely get laughed at. We know more about gun physics today and that may spoil our suspension of disbelief.

I liked most of the phaser designs over the years. I don't care if they're practical or not. As I said before, their evolution was inconsistent. The phaser from ST movie 1 & 2 (middle light blue) looks more modern and futuristic than the assault phaser from ST 5 & 6 (lower right black). Design wise I think the assault phaser for 5 & 6 looks badass. The Enterprise phase pistol is a good design and fit properly in the ST timeline. As a collector toy, it is the most fun to play with because of the way it opens for power cell insertion. What's really cool is that the "power cell" lights up like it has been activated when you insert it.

[dratomic]

Andy -- I actually really like the original phaser design, and it's got nothing to do with nostalgia or practicality. (I was never actually a huge fan of Star Trek, either the shows or the movies.) I like it because it's got pleasing lines, balance, and nice proportions. It's simply NICE looking. It's the same reason I love mid-century furniture, a cool looking car, a toy robot, a well executed sculpture, or anything else that's got strong visual appeal. I never take the actual physics or practical elements into consideration.... If I did, I'd be pretty upset over almost everything I collect! :)

Mark -- I think that as someone who works closely with various weapons systems (or has worked closely with them over the years), you're able to see and appreciate -- and decry -- aspects of these phasers that aren't as much of an issue for me. We've actually had this discussion before re: vintage space gun toys. As far as I'm concerned, they're fantasy weapons, and in the fantasy worlds from which they're born, issues like holstering/drawing, sighting, power source, etc., don't matter. They just get the job done -- and look daaaaamn fine doing it. (:)) It's like the lightsaber, perhaps the ultimate fanboy weapon -- there's NOTHING practical about that thing. It's completely impossible from a physics point of view, and it's probably, in the long run, more dangerous to bystanders and the actual user than to anyone else! And yet... dude... It's a friggin' lightsaber! I want one so badly. :D

If you really want somewhat realistic science fiction weapons, I'd say take a look at the blasters from Star Wars. Or the ones from the current Battlestar Galactica series. They're all built around real guns, so they've got a lot of the aspects you're talking about, Mark. However, for me, this is what makes them sort of pedestrian and boring.

[Andyman]

Oh don't get me wrong, Doc. I dig the original phaser as much if not more than the others. I was merely expressing the design mentality behind it's creation. It surely wasn't rocket science. ;)

I still maintain that if there were no original Star Trek and that design came out today in a modern movie, most people wouldn't care for it.

[Eagle]

Andy -- I like it because it's got pleasing lines, balance, and nice proportions. It's simply NICE looking.

By the way, nice job Karl !

I know what doc means ! :D

[Phil R]

Here's a great link for all the weapons in Star Trek. :)

STARK TREK WEAPON LINK

[Tim]

Other than the awful chrome finish, I don't think it helps that the red and blue pieces are in the wrong place (compare the prop parts vs. toy). Someone must have swapped the pieces when they assembled that prototype. I have seen other pictures of the new phaser toy with them in the right places. The chrome goes a long way to make it look cheap, though. That and the ugly back end.

There are some more streamlined TV era phasers for a Trek fans that look quite good: Fan Phaser (not an endorsement or anything).

...It's the same problem I had with the space ships and stuff in the Star Wars prequel -- they all looked way fancier than anything seen in the later movies.

I always thought that was supposed to show how things decayed under the Empire and how rag-tag the Rebellion was.

Tim L.

PS: New Guy! Hi!

PPS: Oh dear, apparently I'm member 666! Which is kind of a coincidence (or conspiracy?) since my name works out to 777. I guess I'm either 111 better or worse than the Antichrist. I'll let you guys decide which ;)

[dratomic]

Hi, Tm. Welcome to the boards!

Your Member No. says you're 858, though... Maybe some sort of reprieve?

[Tim]

Hi, Tm. Welcome to the boards!

Your Member No. says you're 858, though... Maybe some sort of reprieve?

Thanks!

Either a reprieve or I read something wrong :D I'll take a different number either way! ;)

The other thing about this phaser design is that it doesn't look like it belongs with the other redesigned equipment for the film, which look very iPod/anime.

Tim L.

[phase pistol]

Other than the awful chrome finish, I don't think it helps that the red and blue pieces are in the wrong place (compare the prop parts vs. toy). Someone must have swapped the pieces when they assembled that prototype. I have seen other pictures of the new phaser toy with them in the right places.

Actually the barrels swivel around when you change the setting from "stun" to "kill". So by looking at the barrels you can tell how it's set.

The toy has a blue barrel for stun, but the prop seems to just have a metal barrel. Both have the red for Kill, but the prop is less gaudy than the toy.

- k

[Tim]

Actually the barrels swivel around when you change the setting from "stun" to "kill". So by looking at the barrels you can tell how it's set.

Really? That's an......interesting idea :blink:

Tim L.

[Andyman]

So if you shoot a phased ray backwards it will only stun the target? ;)

[Phil R]

Let me understand. The internal barrels swivel around when you change from stun to kill? Is this manual or auto? I'm no weapons designer but isn't this rather a liability? Guess they didn't use stun much! :lol: