Review: QMx Star Trek Movie Phaser Replica | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Review: QMx Star Trek Movie Phaser Replica June 30, 2011

by Jeff Bond , Filed under: Replicas,Review,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Quantum Mechanix has released their new USS Enterprise Metal-Plated Phaser Replica from the 2009 Star Trek movie. QMx has kept the price affordable on this new replica by focusing on recreating the look and feel of the phasers while leaving the lights and sounds for a future (more expensive) offering. The results are pretty impressive. More details in our review below.

 

REVIEW: QMX Star Trek Movie Phaser Replica

Star Trek (2009) USS Enterprise Metal-Plated Phaser Replica
By: Quantum Mechanix
Price: $49.95 (at QMx store)

Since Master Replicas ceased operations a few years ago collectors and cosplayers have been limited to Diamond Select’s line of role play Star Trek prop replicas on the lower side of the cost spectrum (with phaser replicas selling for $25-$30) and Roddenberry.com (where a phaser will set you back about $700). Up until now, fans seeking prop replicas form the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie have had to settle for the defunct Playmates line of toys, which are probably still clogging up remainder bins at Toys R Us somewhere. Toy lines have come a long way as far as screen accuracy goes, even since Playmates’ original line of Star Trek toys from the early ’90s. But they’re still toys; they feel like the lightweight plastic that they are and their lines are usually marred by giant screw holes that don’t exactly scream “23rd century technology.” If you want something remotely like what you see in the movies and TV shows, you need to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege.

DSC00523
Packaging for QMx’s new Star Trek  Phaser Replica

QMX is attempting to find a middle ground with this “stunt phaser” prop reproduction—and it’s actually pretty dazzling. Based on the digital files used to create the actual screen prop, this collectible is made of polystone, the same material most high-end collectible figure statues are made out of, but it’s plated in real metal that gives it a highly realistic weight (one pound) and finish. There are no “beauty shots” of the prop in the film so a lot of the initial impressions of the 2009 Trek phaser were made by the Playmates toy. Playmates attempted to reproduce the multi-hued finish of the actual prop with their toy, but the results just looked like chromed plastic and they added to a bum rap about the new phasers—that they looked gaudy and “toy-like.”

DSC00517
QMX phaser (top) and Playmates phaser (bottom)–the Playmates toy is actually close to the size of the real prop.

The QMX reproduction should help to rehabilitate the new phaser a bit—with the mixture of gunmetal, steel, brushed aluminum and chromed metal finishes and the slightly increased size over the Playmates toy, the QMX phaser looks and feels business-like, sleek and imposing. The piece comes with a smoked clear Lucite display stand that is unobtrusive and attractive in its own right. Since it’s based on the “stunt phasers” used in the film there are no moving parts, and the decision to have the red-painted “kill” barrel facing forward (as opposed to the metal-finished and more blunt “stun” barrel) may frustrate some. However if you’re determined to overcome that problem, I’ve seen at least one collector successfully break the top half of the upper, gunmetal-painted cowl off, free the rotating barrel piece and, after sanding and filling the barrel, sticking a piece of rubber over the rotating piece to hold it in place, allowing you to position the spinning piece the way you want. Good luck with that!

DSC00514
QMx Phaser with display stand

The replica reveals some interesting details. With the Playmates toy, there was a standard index finger trigger at the top of the gun handle. However, this trigger is missing from the QMx replica because it was actually not part of the original hero prop. The actual Star Trek movie phaser (and this replica) has buttons on both sides of the handle (see below). The button on the right side is to spin the barrel, and the button on the left (for your thumb) is the trigger. So apparently in the future, all humans and Vulcans are right-handed. Star Trek’s new barrel spinning setting approach is visually interesting, but what happens if you have to reset from stun to kill while firing down a really narrow crack in a wall or something? Nomenclature on the sides of the phaser read “UFP-PH T-1” (United Federation of Planets Phaser Type 1?) and T-1 BATT ONLY. R/B. Arrows on either side also seem to indicate that the upper cowl is designed to be lifted, so it’ll be interesting to see all the things this prop is actually supposed to do
when we get a “fully functional” version from QMX (which is expected to cost much more).

DSC00522
Arrows show the upper cowl is supposed to lift of be removable.

DSC00521
More details on left side of phaser

At $49.95, the QMX phaser competes very favorably with resin prop kits and high-end replicas that normally run anywhere from $100-$900. Cosplay enthusiasts may have to try to recreate the movie’s equipment belt, since there’s no other way to attach the phaser to clothing. With the weight of this replica, Velcro or string isn’t going to cut it.

5870584471_ab69548612_b
Star Trek 2009′s Neil S. Bulk (He can be seen just behind Kirk’s head in the scene where Kirk is promoted) models the new phaser at Vasquez Rocks.

5871144520_7275ae9c86_b
Here’s how the phaser looks against plaid

The Star Trek 2009 USS Enterprise Metal-Plated Phaser Replica is available now and you buy pick one up at the QMXOnline for $49.95.

More photos:

DSC00520 DSC00519 DSC00518 DSC00515 DSC00513

QMx also offers additional Star Trek 2009 movie items, including badge replicas and posters. They also offer replicas, posters, shirts and more for Batlestar Galactica, Warehouse 13, Doctor Who, Firefly, and more. Find out more at QMXOnline.com.

Jeff Bond is the author of “The Music of Star Trek” and “Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton“; he covers film music for The Hollywood Reporter.

 

Comments

1. Khan was Framed! - June 30, 2011

Love the fact that they are seeking to get a low cost Phaser replica on the market for collectors, rather than kids.

This isn’t a phaser, however; it’s a blaster as clearly defined by the way it fires rounds not beams.

Maybe team JJ will get it right for part two.

2. richpit - June 30, 2011

I’ve had this phaser for a month or so and it is very nice. An amazing replica at this price point. I wish I could afford the “hero” version when it comes out, but I’m sure that’s going to be in the $500 range at least…well out of my price range for something like this.

Anyway, this “stunt replica” is very nic and well worth getting.

3. Valenti - June 30, 2011

Looks slick. I want one, or two.

4. dmduncan - June 30, 2011

It looks cool, but the spinning barrel is ludicrous gimmickry and shows a lack of understanding of how well thought out the design features of the original already were. They reinvented the wheel on this one…and made it square.

5. spock - June 30, 2011

Worst phaser in any movie

6. N - June 30, 2011

#1 definately, they made it a lame star wars weapon…

give me the cobra model phasers any day

7. Vultan - June 30, 2011

Does it have Skittles inside?

8. The Bear - June 30, 2011

Nice review. I may just have to get one of these.

9. DavidJ - June 30, 2011

Funny that Playmates was able to engineer the spinning barrel into their cheap little toy, but this company apparently couldn’t.

I really wanted to get this too, but the red tip just doesn’t look NEARLY as cool as the silver one.

10. rm10019 - June 30, 2011

Btw, the design is just ok but the prop replica itslef is great. I hope they do the Kelvin gear as well, that stuff really captured the esthetic of TOS.

11. Neil - June 30, 2011

For those interested, I’m really visible at the end when Kirk gets promoted (although I’m also in the trial scene, in the “Spock section” as Zachary Quinto called it). At the end I’m in the front row of the cadets, behind the senior officers and in the same row as McCoy, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu (he chews Dentyne Ice). That day was a total thrill for all of us because that’s the day Nimoy was on the set!

12. Jeff Bond - June 30, 2011

If you watch “The Man Trap,” the very first time the phaser is fired on Star Trek (when it’s used to stun Professor Crater) it also fires a “round” rather than a beam. Therefore according to canon the phaser has always been a blaster, not a phaser.

13. Shatoupee - June 30, 2011

Nice work on the location shots at Vasquez.

14. Rocket Scientist - June 30, 2011

The pointy fin at the back end makes running with this phaser almost as dangerous as running with scissors!

15. Red Dead Ryan - June 30, 2011

I don’t really mind that the new phaser is more like a blaster. I think it brings in a much needed “Star Wars” type of energy, which no doubt helped the film at the box office. J.J Abrams decided to do something different, and for that he deserves props. The days of seeing beams shooting out from phasers are over folks, so you might as well just accept it.

J.J Abrams doesn’t have the “technical manual functionality” mindset that most fans exhibit. All he’s concerned about is making a great movie that entertains. He prefers to focus on story and character, rather than on how “accurate” make believe weapon should “function” in a movie.

16. SPOCKBOY - June 30, 2011

@12.
Actually it doesn’t.
What it fires is a beem that pulsates.
The same thing happens later when McCoy blasts the Salt Vampire.
If the beem actually stopped for even a second you would be right, but it never cuts off.
I know, I studied it frame by frame to try and animate a phaser myself.

Pretty sad huh?
:)

17. SPOCKBOY - June 30, 2011

Oh and nice replica to be sure, but it looks like a Flash Gordon ray gun.

Amazing, and a bit suspect, that 40 years later it actually looks more cheesy 1950′s zap gun then it did in the 60′s. That phaser looked like it could actually do things.

:)

18. Jim Nightshade - June 30, 2011

I admire the low price point for collectors also since many of us could not afford the pricier replicas-that being said-2009 trek phaser gun not exactly a very exciting prop–tos has it beaten hands down–heck i like my hallmark ornament phaser better–speakin of which isnt it almost hallmark ornament time? Wheres our preview?

19. Keeg - June 30, 2011

I’d rather have the assault phaser from (gag) STV:TFF. Hated the movie, loved the prop.

20. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - July 1, 2011

Off topic: Netflix came through! All Star Trek series are available streaming!!

21. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - July 1, 2011

^ Oh wait, not DS9 or TAS

22. Mark Lynch - July 1, 2011

You know this phaser would not be so bad if it did not have the daft twirly thing…

23. Christopher Roberts - July 1, 2011

Phasers that go PEW-PEW. I really hated that.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the 24th Century to ensure Nero never gets born.

24. James T. West - July 1, 2011

Wasn’t a big fan of the ’09 phaser…sorry…too shiny! And what was up with the clunky holsters/utility belts???!!! Like the role-play stuff we had in the 70s…

Master Replicas AND Playmates are both belly-up?? Damn recession!

25. mynameschris - July 1, 2011

I didnt mind the new Phaser effect and the spinning barrel may be a little cheese but didnt really put me off. Do those of you who dislike the bolt instead of a beam also dislike the First Contact Phaser Rifle for the same reason? The Phasers of the TOS movies did not fire exactly in ‘beams’ either.

26. Chris Pike - July 1, 2011

17 Agreed, it just doesn’t work for me either…looks a little, er, “silly” rather than functional…

27. Andy Patterson - July 1, 2011

I still love the original. Genius design and can’t be improved upon. Would have killed for one when I was a kid.

28. Bob - July 1, 2011

@12 – The audio people in post production also added a ricochet sound from the phaser blast too. Kinda funny in retrospect…

29. rm10019 - July 1, 2011

I have a few of these on their way to me, I’m considering doing a mod to make it more TOS-ish. I will post pictures when I’m done!

30. Michael Hall - July 1, 2011

“Star Trek’s new barrel spinning setting approach is visually interesting, but what happens if you have to reset from stun to kill while firing down a really narrow crack in a wall or something?”

Heh. You may as well ask why you would build a massive starship on the ground when the technology exists to do it much more safely (and conveniently) in orbit, or why the turbolift on the Kelvin goes down when the shuttlebay is up, or why a military organization would promote a cadet on the verge of expulsion to captain its newest flagship. Some things, Man was just not meant to know.

The replica itself is impeccable, and actually looks better than in the movie or still photos of the actual prop. The artisans at QMx are wonderful; I root for their success, and just wish they had better designs to work with. Thank goodness I acquired my Master Replicas Enterprise while the getting was good.

31. CmdrR - July 1, 2011

Nice to see it clearly enough to see the color variation. On screen, it looks like a chrome-plated toy. I’d still prefer to see something close to the TOS original, with some nice new detail. Face it, the TOS phaser is yet another great icon in a show loaded with them.

32. Jeff - July 1, 2011

Why does an energy weapon need to have any moving parts, other than a button to change the mode, or a way to open it and replace the battery?!

33. Randy H. - July 1, 2011

On the spinning barrel, this is actually reasonable from a canon point of view. In the Pike-era version of the weapon (laser/phaser) in “The Cage/Menagerie”, a front piece was physically *turned* to line up a different firing emitter depending on the setting. This mechanical flip in the 2009 phaser could easily be seen as an alternative design path based on the earlier Pike version.

34. Andy Patterson - July 1, 2011

@29

That I’d like to see.

35. Jonboc - July 1, 2011

Just because we never saw a steady beam from the 09 movie phaser doesn’t mean it is incapable of doing it. And being a phaser isn’t dictated by the way the beams come from the barrel…it’s the nature of beam. A phaser beam “phases” and disrupts molecules…according to The Making of Star Trek, it’s not an energy weapon…That’s why Roddenberry switched to phaser instead of laser after The Cage. An as far as the replica goes, it’s pretty sweet…just wish the barrel did spin, I dug it!

36. Deflector Dish Guy - July 1, 2011

Its still a stupid looking design…

37. FlyingWok - July 1, 2011

I still think the TOS phaser looked the best and had a really neat design.

The handle for the gun is actually the power pack, and you could remove the smaller Type 1 “cricket” phaser from the larger Type 2 pistol and use it on its own.

The rationale for the existence of the detachable smaller phaser from the pistol was that in the 23rd century, electronics and batteries would be miniaturized enough that the tiny cricket phaser would pack more than enough punch for most situations. Also, its small size allowed it to be easily concealed and was less threatening, which would be useful for first contact and diplomatic missions.

It was a really well thought out and practical design.

I don’t mind too much about the JJTrek phasers firing bolts (though I do miss the beams), but I think the spinning barrel is just too gimmicky and toy-like and takes away a lot from the believability of the tech.

That said, my least favourite phaser was the big “Dustbuster” hand-vacuums in season 1 – 2 of TNG. That thing was just hideous! :D

38. Kev -1 - July 1, 2011

Good price for such a nice replica.

39. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

Remember too, that the Defiant from “Deep Space Nine” had rapid fire pulse phaser canons. And the phaser rifles from “First Contact” fired pulses as well. So I kind of find it funny how everybody is getting upset about J.J Abrams not sticking with the phaser beam.

40. Vultan - July 1, 2011

#39

I give you JJ Abrams’ mother, everyone.

41. et - July 1, 2011

@39 – Good point.
@40 – Smart-@ss. (Only Star Wars fans think “blaster” is a real word. ;) )

It’s a very nice piece of work, I must say.

I hate to say it, but the red-nozzle-forward aspect may actually keep me from buying it.

Maybe they’ll introduce a variant in the next production run. If there is a next production run.

42. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011

to clarify, Playmates is still in business. It is their STAR TREK line that stopped before doing the 2nd wave. They will likely be back for the 2012 sequel

43. Michael Hall - July 1, 2011

“They will likely be back for the 2012 sequel.”

Only if the sequel is back for the sequel.

44. Nelson - July 1, 2011

Nice review, thanks!

But I’ll take a TOS phaser anyday! Much better design.

But I may get one of these because the cost is reasonable and they did a nice job on the replica.

I’m a designer and I understand why this new phaser is designed this way, for visual effect on the big screen and to create a new design language for this alternate universe. But designwise, can’t beat Jeffries original. Next best design was the Star Trek 5 assault phaser.

45. AL - July 1, 2011

I really prefer the Playmates, which actually seems the right size too – this replica is too long and too big

46. AL - July 1, 2011

I really prefer the Playmates, which actually seems the right size too – this replica is too long and too big

47. J.C. England, formerly Another Q - July 1, 2011

I agree with Al. I prefer the Playmates (the only toy
of theirs that I do, bleckk!) The spinning barrel
is too cool to pass up and at a price between $10
and $20, it really can’t be beat.

Maybe if Diamond / Entertainment Earth could
make one…. They’re pretty accurate with all their
Trek stuff.

48. TonyD - July 1, 2011

Sorry but this is a sad reproduction of a sad prop based on a sad design. The look of the original prop was gaudy and unwieldly and utterly inferior in every way to the elegant design of the original phaser (ditto for the communicators and tricorder). The notion of the rotating stun/kill barrel was just silly and the finish, even when dulled up a bit, just looked too shiny and silvery for a realistic weapon.

Also, I find it amazing that QMX couldn’t put in some working lights, sounds or moving parts when toy manufacturers are capable of just that on replicas costing half as much.

Hopefully the next Star Trek film will feature some improved prop designs and Paramount will give the license to some good companies that can make replicas that do the actual props some justice.

49. Khan was Framed! - July 1, 2011

#15 -”J.J Abrams doesn’t have the “technical manual functionality” mindset that most fans exhibit. All he’s concerned about is making a great movie that entertains. He prefers to focus on story and character, rather than on how “accurate” make believe weapon should “function” in a movie.”

I agree that he doesn’t care about the details; all he cares about is trying to outdo his idol George Lucas, the worst director in Hollywood.

Watch his comments in last years ILM documentary if you don’t think so. He is quite open about feeling that all the good ideas had been done by Lucas & was insecure about how to top them.

What Abrams is missing is the love for the small details that ultimately shape the Star Trek universe & give it it’s own unique feel.

Instead of enriching his film with them & using new technology to bring them to audiences, he would rather turn it into a franchise he does understand by emulating the logistics of Star Wars.

What can I say? Right director, wrong franchise.

Combining that with Orci & Kurtzman’s track record for sequels & I’m not optimistic about the strength of the next movie.

50. Khan was Framed! - July 1, 2011

@42. Anthony Pascale – “to clarify, Playmates is still in business. It is their STAR TREK line that stopped before doing the 2nd wave. They will likely be back for the 2012 sequel”

That’s terrible news, Anthony.

I’m sorry to hear they will once again be given the chance to tarnish the merchandising for Star Trek.

51. MC1 Doug - July 1, 2011

I don’t mean this replica… but I think the phaser from the movie looks like a toy. I just don’t think JJ’s TREK improved upon TOS much.

52. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

#43.

“They will likely be back for the 2012 sequel”

Aye. If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon!

#51.

“I just don’t think JJ’s Trek improved upon TOS much.”

It wasn’t supposed to because it could never top TOS. What the new movie did was reintroduce the TOS characters with new, younger actors and to create new stories around them without touching the classic series. Same goes for the phasers. The TOS ones are classic. J.J Abrams wasn’t going to rehash those because that would come off as cheesy. He went in a bit of a different direction.

53. CarlG - July 2, 2011

I don’t see what the problem is re: the phaser shooting “blasts”. Defiant had pule phasers in DS9, so it’s all good.

Lovely replica, still a bit steep for my wallet…. for now.

@19: Ooh, yeah that was a badass weapon. It showed up in STVI, so it got partially rehabilitated. There’s replicas you can buy, but holy hell are they pricey.

54. CarlG - July 2, 2011

@50: What was wrong with Playmates? They make toys, not replicas. 8-year old me was perfectly happy running around the backyard with my (wildly inaccurate) TNG phaser and tricorder.

55. the Dogfaced Boy - July 2, 2011

Complaints, complaints, complaints.

So the blasters didn’t fire a steady beam.

It was still pretty cool when Han and Anakin bungied down to the deathstar, wasn’t it. You didn’t see that in Star Wars.

56. Starbase Britain - July 2, 2011

There was absolutely no need to change the original series phaser. its a timeless masterpiece. Hated the updated one.

Greg UK

57. Khan was Framed! - July 2, 2011

@56 – Here, here I could agree more.

I feel that way about most of the TOS designs, in general. They are brilliant futurist designs that still hold up for the most part.

Sure the communicator can be scaled down to the size of a flip phone & maybe you could add a lit digital display to the sight on the TOS phaser, but that’s really all that was necessary.

There was no need for most of the changes made in ST’09, just a desire to change them from a director who admits he’s not really a Star Trek fan.

@54: You said it Carl! Wildly inaccurate. & you’re right Playmates do make them for kids. Unfortunately, kids don’t buy Star Trek, adults do.

58. Starbase Britain - July 2, 2011

#57 Khan was framed
Thanks. Yes i tend to agree. I understand they wanted to bring it all into the new era/age but a lot of these new designs were not needed.

TBH, i didnt like the changes they made in any of the Trek films. The Tricorder, the phaser and communicator from TOS could have graced all those films. Instead they had ‘zap guns’. I think they would have fitted in beautifully into STAR TREK 2009. The beam down sequence in the movies were pretty dismal.

I dont mind change but sometimes its done for no apparent reason. Just to prove im not a stick in the mud about change, i did rather like the new transporter sequence in 2009. different and a nice twist.
There, ive said it!!

Greg UK

59. T'Cal - July 3, 2011

My kids got me one of these for Father’s Day. Very, very cool. It has the right heft, look, and feel. I’m looking forward to one of each kind of phaser from this manufacturer all with a similar styled display and in the same scale as this one. That $49.95 price point is important and offering hero models at more money is very smart.

Sure I prefer TOS’s phaser and TNG’s cobra head, but this one isn’t bad at all.

60. T'Cal - July 3, 2011

Starbase Britain – July 2, 2011
“There was absolutely no need to change the original series phaser. its a timeless masterpiece.”

As it was said in BSG: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
I miss that show, too

61. dmduncan - July 3, 2011

I think it’s a good solid design, but the barrel makes no sense. The two sided flipping barrel seems to imply that all the components necessary for the kill and stun functions are contained within the barrel itself whereas in the original the differences were deeper in the phaser.

Also, the barrel on the original phaser could be rotated to move the emitter in or out, I presume to change the output from tight beam to wide angle coverage. And the handle was also a replaceable power pack.

So the new design, while cool looking, definitely seems to be a huge step down in functionality and capability from the original.

Clearly the change was made simply because a flipping barrel looks more dramatic, and so a style over substance choice was made here.

62. CarlG - July 3, 2011

@57: Don’t be too sure; kids clamor for their parents to buy them Star Trek stuff. I had like 5 shelves worth of model kits, toys and novels that proves I speak truth! :)

To be honest, I like the overall shape of the new phaser, but (and this is coming from someone who knows nothing about guns, either real or imaginary) the flippy barrel just looks like something that could break easily.
And then the poor redshirt is left to fend off the horde of angry Klingons with a phaser-shaped club….

63. dmduncan - July 3, 2011

62. CarlG – July 3, 2011

Well I do know guns, real AND imaginary, and the idea of having two barrels, one of which is always pointing toward the shooter is kind of funny. Imagine what hilarious malfunctions could take place. It’s a handsome design otherwise.

64. Rocket Scientist - July 4, 2011

The overall shape is a nice homage to the TOS phaser, but it’s too ‘busy’. Too many protruding, jagged doohickies and angles on it. On the other side of the coin, the TMP/TWOK phaser was too clean!

TOS was perfect. Functional and neat. And neat-o!

65. I am not Herbert - July 4, 2011

crappiest… phaser… ever…

rotating barrel indeed… =P

66. dmduncan - July 4, 2011

I imagine the fins would be a heatsink, and they existed on the original phaser as well. So the chromed bottom of the pistol with the tail part is a good idea for arm protection. The two barrels are mounted to what looks like another heatsink as well. But the flipping barrel is an awful idea. If they wanted something visually dramatic like that they should have followed the idea of the pistols from The Cage which had a rotating turret. That would have made more sense. Each time you press a button a different barrel rotates into position. At no time does any barrel ever face the shooter.

67. CarlG - July 4, 2011

@66: Ooh, yeah, that would have been a cool idea, and a neat homage. And to keep the visual flair, they could have some kind of light strip on the barrel that changes color when you go from stun to kill.

68. Lt. Bailey - July 5, 2011

Not a real phaser as far as I am concerned since it shoots a light bullet and not a beam of light. Maybe they get away with it under the alternate time line thing.

69. COMPASSIONATE GOD - July 14, 2011

Re: #53 CarlG – July 2, 2011
“I don’t see what the problem is re: the phaser shooting “blasts”. Defiant had pule phasers in DS9, so it’s all good.”

The Defiant’s weapons are the odd weapon out in franchise history, since most hand and ship weapons produced the beam, not a pulse, or bolt. That kind of faux six-shooter stuff is best left with Star Wars and its clones.

70. Setforkill - September 1, 2011

I hate it when the ‘kids’ say they liked JJ’s movie better than the other Star Trek movies.It is in no way better.
I like Star Trek the way it was meant to be.Stop messin’ it up!
If you want Star Wars,go rent Star Wars.
Oh,BTW,I do like the blaster and will probably get one :-)Got to,right?
Sorry for this but I didnt start it.
A true Star Trek fan.

71. groutboy - September 17, 2011

I recently picked up one of these stunt phasers (at a good price too). I want to give a shoutout to Qmx for creating an affordable, and solid, star trek prop (outside of the expensive Roddenberry.com site…300.-500. for prop phasers…way out of reach of common man or woman who like to collect…)as for the design of this *type 2 phaser pistol*.I think the designers combined some of the elements of the classic star trek weapon, some of star trek 3 style, some of the undiscovered countries *assault phaser* size, as well as playing homage to the rotating barrel design of the *laser-type weapons* of The Cage episode…Now I disagree with the complaints about the blaster style bolts…remember this is an *alternate reality/timeline*,with some advancements, and difference in military technology …such as most of the* star fleet ships* have been wisely upscaled( original TOS ships 289-300 meters vs J.J. Trek ships 400-800 meters…power to size ratio…J.J. trek enemy ship 7 by 5 miles in size..) There doesn’t appear to be to much of a difference in Star Trek canon…since, most of the previous Treks had both *compression based ( constant beam type), and pulsed based (rapid beam, bolt, or bullet.),of the mythical type of nadion phaser partical weapons … It just made sense for them to make it that way to keep the hand to hand fast and furious…

72. groutboy - September 17, 2011

Remember, this was supposed to be a Trek movie for the masses…so, it didn’t receive the dreaded *DORK PATROL* Label that the *TNG/Bergman universe* stigmatized…By relying heavily on *TNG//Bergman* technobabble..Than a good story,or faster paced action…But don’t get me wrong,I liked to *Geek-out* with the TNG tech. stuff.It gave some reasonable explanations about some of Star Treks’ advancements… Like I said, action wise,faster pacing,&if anyone noticed…The *Steven Spellberg/Saving private ryan style*surrealism injection…To make it more believable…The only other canon* Trek Tech.*issue would be to see if the J.J. phaser can vaporize a humanoid target on max setting…

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.