• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dustbuster phaser appreciation thread

RapidNadion

RapidNadion

Commander
Red Shirt
Okay, folks. This is perhaps the most hated phaser in all of Trek history (on the BBS, at least), but I wanted to come out and say that I loved it when I was a kid watching TNG, and I love it now. Wanted to know if any BBS members were fellow appreciators, or even owned one of these props.

Here's the YouTube video of the Federation Surplus model, which is just gorgeous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npp9ZgxBsSE

I really liked the TNG design aesthetic that bridged the type 1 and dustbuster phasers - the simple intensity/beam/trigger controls, green power indicator, and - best of all - the red "firing ringlight" around the emitter. Put there so the post-production people knew when to insert the phaser beam, and explained away as "photon spill ports" in the TNG Tech Manual. :)

But there was something about the design of the dustbuster phaser in particular that I enjoyed. Its black dish-like emitter looked mean and powerful, whereas the whole of the unit itself seemed to say "I'm a tool, but can also be a weapon." it's a damn shame Playmates or Galoob never churned out one of these for the masses.

Who else has thoughts on this design? Haters welcome, too - just wanna talk dustbuster.
 
I liked the idea of a gun not really looking anything like a gun. I don't hate the dustbuster, but I prefer the redesigned version with the narrow beam emitter.
RapidNadion said:
it's a damn shame Playmates or Galoob never churned out one of these for the masses.
Click to expand...
I thought they did. My brother owned a toy phaser with accurate phaser sound FX, but maybe it was the later version.
 
Galoob did a P1, so did Playmates, but theirs was about six inches long.

I still think it's a cool design, but the props look terrible on screen. The later DS9 phasers were probably the best all-round design.
 
I just snapped up a Galoob phaser type-1 at a convention, still in packaging. I had one when I was a kid and absolutely loved it. I bought some Triple-A batts to put in it, but I'm hesitant to take it out of the packaging.

The Playmates cobrahead type 2 was another childhood favorite, but like the Galoob type 1, it certainly won't win any awards for authenticity. Had the Playmates type 1 too, and like the Galoob, it was huge.

I just wish Playmates had had the Trek toy contract when the dustbuster was still in use, because I'd love to have one without paying $600 to Federation Surplus.

Anyone think Art Asylum will do one, or does this thing appeal to an even smaller market than the All Good Things Enterprise-D?
 
Can't see Art Asylum doing one - it takes them so long to produce their toys that they are unlikely to "waste" development time on probably the least popular phaser of all time.
 
It always looked awkward and uncomfortable to use - id hate that to be the only weapon available to me on the battle field.
 
I always liked it. It nicely followed the design schemes for the rest of early TNG, with smooth curves. I guess it is a little more awkward to hold it than one with a perpendicular handle, like the original series' phasers. But then the TNG phaser would be easier to attach to your uniform.

I didn't like the later incarnations. They added unnecessary hard edges.

Doug
 
I don't mind it as a phaser design, but I preferred the later, more angular design better. It's personal taste, though. Whereas Doug Otte dislikes them because of the hard edges, I prefer the hard edges to the curves.

Of all the phaser designs through the years, though, I think the phaser pistol from TOS is the most realistic. I know TNG was trying to appear less militaristic and make the design less "gun like," but there is a reason that handgun design has remained essentially unchanged since the handgun was invented -- it works well. It's a good design for the human hand to hold where you can get a good grip and not fear it slipping out of your hand or accidentally being fired.

The Type I phasers, both from TOS and TNG, were ridiculous. If those were real, people would be accidentally firing them all the time.
 
Weren't they supposed to have some measure of artificial intelligence, so they would know where to shoot? Admittedly this was just to explain those awful fx shots in the likes of Arsenal of Freedom, but if you accept that, then they might also have known when you wanted to fire them.
 
^ Was that artificial intelligence thing actually seriously said at any point? If I'm remembering correctly, I thought it was one of those gag references in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, not meant to be taken seriously.

In any event, yeah, some of those shots were awful. I'm not sure why it's so hard for the actors to actually point the weapon at the target they're supposed to be aiming at. :) The only forgivable instance I've seen is from "The Vengence Factor" when Riker fires his phaser at the end. He clearly has it aimed at the woman, but the beam would hit her head if it came straight out. Probably wanting to avoid another exploding head scenario, they angled it down. :)
 
I seem to recall some mention in some sources (perhaps the TNG TM?) that the phasers were designed to have an interface with the ship's computer system, so that someone couldn't just steal a phaser and go around vaporizing things. The interface would limit the default power level available to the phaser and would also track its location on the ship, and the user would have to disable it to get around such limitations. According to at least one TNG novel (Reunion), that sort of disabling isn't easy without engineering or security experience.
 
^ Wouldn't it be simpler to just build security measures into the phaser itself instead of having it interface with the ship's computer? That would also have the added benefit of being able to "lock" the phaser when you are planetside and away from the ship.
 
That might be what I'm thinking of; I know it's something along those lines. :lol: My brain is tired from work, so I'm not sure if I'm recalling it correctly.
 
It would be pretty strange if this gun didn't have some sort of targeting systems for hitting things even they are off-boresight. That's definitely something I'd want in my futuro-gun. Say, a feature that allows me to tag a target without firing, so that at any later timepoint I may press the trigger and the beam finds the target, even if it's moving erratically. Or a feature that tags the target for me - say, a button that selects all the warm bodies in front of me as targets, without me needing to as much as point the gun at them, and then does the multi-beam trick we see in VOY if I choose to press the trigger.

Accidental firing would probably not be a problem, then. A regular trigger push would only tag the target, and you'd need, say, a lot of force or a double-click to actually fire the thing. Or, more probably, a steady grip where you press two areas at the same time. Much better than one of today's trigger guards that helps zip if the user keeps his finger on the trigger.

Perhaps the later sidearms of the TNG era are smaller because the auto-targeting hardware has been omitted from them?

Timo Saloniemi
 
ltme.jpg


:evil:
 
CoveTom said:
The Type I phasers, both from TOS and TNG, were ridiculous. If those were real, people would be accidentally firing them all the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's bad enough that I "butt dial" when my env2 is in my back pocket (even with the lock mechanism, I still manage to do it), but imagine if you accidentally vaporized somebody when you sat down!

Doug
 
And how the heck do you aim those damn things? It's like trying to get a laser-pointer exactly on target with the first try - only lives are at stake!
 
Artificial Intelligence, at least one that aim's for you, I think is both lame and would realistically be an unacceptable risk. Think of all the lawsuits, rofl. Or the "it wasn't me, it was the A.I." defense at murder trials.

A better solution is that the phaser's aim is calculated using the trajectory of the users eyes. So, within a given range, one need only look at their target for precise accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top