This is topic Obsession with canon and other thoughts... in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/200.html
Posted by TerraZ on :
 
Yes! My first post in over a year! In case you don't remember me (which I don't blame you for), I once was on the forum but I didn't post often so I've probably been forgotten by now. Anyway...

I've seen over the last few months a number of heated arguments over what is canon and what isn't. I've been discussing the subject with a friend and I wanted to give you my thoughts on the subject. Remember that it's my personal opinion and I'm not forcing it on anyone.

It's inevitable that over the course of it's life, Star Trek would come up with a number of inconsistencies. What I don't understand is that obsession some of you (I'm not pointing at anyone) seem to have about how everything seen on screen is official. I know there must be a common base of reference but sometimes it just goes too far.

For exemple, there are some here who are compiling lists over lists of starships registries which are 1) mostly unreadable on screen and 2) wrong half of the time. I've heard it's sometimes the fault of the artists who design them. I'm thinking the Prometheus and the FC ships for example. However, even if Okuda himself says it's an error and corrects it in the new encyclopedia, some people simply MUST find an explaination because it was shown on screen, therefore it's official and since it's not possible they just can't sleep at night anymore...

I know I sound a little agressive (it isn't my intent) but I just wonder why they just can't get over it. I know I'm not troubled in the least if the Prometheus's registry is wrong. I would be if the E-E were to suddenly change registry at the beginning of the new movie only to return to normal half-way through the story and even then I would disregard it as a mistake. However I'm sure some of you would try to find a very complex theory about why this would happen to make everything consistent.

All I'm saying, is there's a limit about justification. Personally, when something sounds too stupid in ST (VOY in particular), I simply ignore it, like the episode with the giant space worm where Seven vents anti-matter through the nacelle and it's detonated with a particule beam by the hunter-guy. Anyone care to explain how that is possible?

I like it when the writers respect continuity (which is kind of lacking right now) but I can get by without trying to justify everything. I don't want to start any arguments, I just want to get your opinion on this.

------------------
Red-shirted ensign: Captain, the Borgs are heading toward us! We have to do something!
Captain: *Looking at ensign in a strange way* Indeed we do. Transporter room, beam a couple of red-shirts on that cube. That will keep them occupied...
Red-shirted ensign: Mommy...

 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, I didn't see the ep, but antimatter wouldn't have much w/ which to react in space. A particle beam would change that...

Anyway, this thread should be in General Discussion. So I'm going to put it there. :-)

------------------
"Warning: warp core breach sooner than you think."
-Voyager computer, VOY:"Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy"
 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
Hey, welcome back Terra!

We do get carried away sometimes, well OK, all the time. It's part of the fun for me, reading the post of starship lengths, or regitry numbers. Some of the more creative stuff is in those threads.

The thing with cannon stuff, is that it is supposed to be cannon if it hits the screen. If a mistake is made, then stuff hits the fan and we get a lot of posts. Which is a good thing.


(poster formerly known as The Excalibur, and still is at TNO)

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Canon is defined as the show, only, and in its entirety. If something appears on the show, it is indisputably canon; otherwise I could say the Enterprise is neon green or something. If a mistake does occur, it can be ignored on an individual basis only.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Chimaera on :
 
With so many different people working on so many different series and movies (not to mention the books, etc.), inconsistencies are inevitable. I just ignore them, if I even notice them at all. I aggree, continuity is great (and I hope any future series has more than what we've seen so far), but to examine each episode so closely and nitpick every minor error, in my opinion, takes away from the fun of watching Trek.

------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn



 

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :
 
Welcome (back?) to the Forums, TerraZ.
I applaud your common sense approach.

I was going to post something along a similar vein, but I just couldn't be bothered with the aggro entailed.

Although the obsessions can be fun at times.

------------------
"So, no room for Bender, huh? Well I'll build my own lunar lander, with blackjack, and hookers.
In fact, who needs a lander, or blackjack?
Ah, screw the whole lot o' ya!"
-- Bender, Futurama.


 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
TerraZ: like ourselves, most professional historians write papers on very tiny aspects of the past, such as wooden legs, gas lighting systems, or the role of minister's women in 18th century America. They do not limit their inquiries to a certain general level, as you propose we do. Every little thing furthers our understanding of the Star Trek universe, even differences in spelling (can Starfleet spell?).

There will always be various levels of depth. Some fans may specialize in starships, while others will learn more about the broader Star Trek Universe. Some may choose to write "textbooks", and leave the tiny aspects in the form "it's either 59650 or 74913". (most history textbooks do that, actually, without giving any argument over which one is more likely, eg. early Native Americans either hunted down certain large animals to extinction, or there was a climate change which resulted in the extinction of the same animals).

To conclude, I can only advise people who think that *we* are obsessed with detail to check out Baring-Gould's Sherlock Holmes "biography". The level of analysis and juxtaposition of real history with the fictional character is obsessive, even for my standards.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 19, 1999).]
 

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
What annoys me is the people that are so obsessed with canon that they totally ignore and shun anything non-canon. *pokes Frank* And please, don't lecture about anything in history. This is the future we're talking about. Anything can happen. Nothing is set in stone.

------------------
Fabrux's Starship Page
Now with only 1 popup!


 

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
Three, three, three Fabruxes in one!

Hey, there's nothing wrong with canon-only. At the least, it's easier to keep the facts straight.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
 
I gotta agree.
Besides if their wasn't a canon standard imagine the chaos here as people try to explain off every new book that not only contradicts the series but every other book in existence.
It wouldn't be pretty.
 
Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Fabrux: I think that historiography is the real-world profession which comes closest to our little hobby. The difference being that we are not historians examining real documentary footage and real technical manuals, but rather made-up footage and technical manuals.

We merely need to decide whether we want to treat the two as real, or whether we want to treat them as made-up. I find it more interesting to treat everything as if it were absolutely real, because it makes you think harder and not use the excuse "it's a mistake anyway" when examining a particularily thorny issue such as the Prometheus registry. If there is no challenge in the thinking exercise, it seems pointless to memorize volumes of information about starships and everything else. Too much irrelevant info to warrant the purpose of "fun".

So, what TerraZ is basically suggesting is to examine the issues, but not stress over the details because the footage is fake. Here's a question: let's say the footage is fake, because after all, it is merely an artistic representation of the REAL Star Trek universe (not a documentary about the real Star Trek universe, but a real MOVIE about the same, like James Cameron's Titanic as opposed to old Titanic footage). How would that influence our interpretations?

Boris

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 19, 1999).]
 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
*the mighty Admin steps in and swirls his cloak; hidden by its voluminous folds, two of Fabrux's three posts disappear*
 
Posted by TerraZ on :
 
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with canon, but that there's a limit (which varies from one person to another) to what's canon. For example, how many of you considers VOY "Threshold" (is that the correct spelling?) canon? I sure don't!

I'm a technology and physics freak myself. I'm obsessed with all the details (especially about starships) but I don't care for registries myself. I'm just saying that everyone is free to take or reject whatever they see fit. Of course, like you said, it's fun to try to find an explaination for errors, but when it's too far-fetched, I think it's easier to simply dismiss it.

Glad I didn't offend anyone. Thought I might have struck a nerve or something.

------------------
Red-shirted ensign: Captain, the Borgs are heading toward us! We have to do something!
Captain: *Looking at ensign in a strange way* Indeed we do. Transporter room, beam a couple of red-shirts on that cube. That will keep them occupied...
Red-shirted ensign: Mommy...


 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
I bet the Voyager writters would like to forget "Threshold" too. But then Threshold is one of the eps most open to bashing, which leads to disscusion.

Lets say Paris never hit warp 10. He got so close that, without the proper shielding, the experiance changed his makeup. He's also had the hots for Janeway, ever since she sprung him from stir. So as his mind begings to come down to the size of a lizards, the breeding instinct kicks in, and he kidnaps janeway and exposes her to the same phenomina(sp). she has a faster metabolism, and becomes a lizard at the same time as Paris, they have little lizards, and then return to normal.
When I started I had a point, but it eludes me now, so I'll stop.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
Probably for the best. . . 8P
 
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
I personally find it hard to accept everything we see on-screen as canon. Some of it is obviously contradictory or a outright mistake. Surely the Defiant (and other ships for that matter) can't really change size - but that's what we see in the show.

In the same way that "logic is the begining of wisdom", the screen is the begining of canon (or something like that, anyway)

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
The Defiant never changes sizes. It's always 120m.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
The fact that that is funny, makes Dax's point.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Frank G: as usual, you conveniently forgot about all the 170m scenes I ever pointed out to you. I know you just wanna drive me mad , but it's enough, ok?

Dax: what if I were to say that the ships appear to change sizes because of optical distortions created when light passes through subspace fields? Again, it's a matter of depth.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 20, 1999).]
 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Which scenes? I remember something about a Vor'cha, but I've never scaled the Vor'cha.

Actually, Cardassian ships change sizes. I assume Cardassians use size-changing technology in the same way Starfleet uses mass-changing technology.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by TerraZ on :
 
Or maybe a certain omnipotent being is being it all...

Q: *Grinning* No matter how stupid what I show them is, these fans still accept everything! Oh oh, what fools these mortals be...

Boris: On relation to the Defiant, there's no way to come up with a definite answer if we keep in mind the *what's on screen (no matter how stupid) is canon* law. So I say it's 120m. There, I said it. *goes into hiding before being bombarded* But please, tell me there's at least ONE thing shown on screen you don't consider canon... It's necessary for my sanity...

------------------
-Doctor: We'll defend ourselves! They won't get what they're after!
-Aliens: Huh?
-Doctor: I mean, you won't get what you're after!
ECH to Hierarchy vessel in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"

-Seven: *Kissing the doctor* It was a platonic gesture. Don't espect me to pose for you.
-Doctor: *Embarassed* Understood.
Seven to the Doctor in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"


[This message has been edited by TerraZ (edited October 21, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
The ship size thing was only one of many problems I could mention of what we see/hear in the show(s). A nitpicker could have a field day with the show(s).

Frank: The Defiant appeared much smaller than 120m in "Defiant" (compared to Galor) and "ST:FC" (compared to Ent-E), so there

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
How big is the Galor? As I said, Cardassian ships must have size-changing ability.

As for FC, I guess no one told ILM the proper size. At least it wasn't 170m.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
My favorite scene in FC was the Enterprise came between the Borg cube and the Defiant. There is some contrast for you.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
Well, in "The Way of the Warrior", compared to the Vor'cha (in the shot where the Defiant activates their modulated tractor beam), our little 120-metre wonder was... large.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
 
See what happens when you make an innocnet comment about ship legnths....
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Frank: Why is it that you can ignore the scene in FC, but if anyone else tries to ignore something, you take up your canon battle cry?

------------------
"I think you people have proven something to the world: that a half a million kids can get together and have three days of fun and music� and have nothing but fun and music."
-Max Yasgur; Woodstock, NY; August, 1969
 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
I can ignore the scene, but that doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Ok, we simply cannot have personal judgements here. Nothing should be ignored or accepted without a specific reason. FrankG: you think the Cardassians have size-changing tech; we need to ask ourselves, why give that ability to the Cardassians only and not to everyone, since it seems pointless to assume that the VFX crew would be altering sizes with Cardassian ships only.

Another thing is, you haven't scaled a Vor'Cha, but even David Stipes agrees that the ship is 460-480 meters long. There is, in fact, a greater disagreement on the Miranda, which the VFX crew sometimes scales at 150-170 meters, and yet a 245m Miranda comparison is used in your page. Doesn't matter that the ship reuses a Constitution hull and nacelles, we've seen examples of downscaling-the-identical before. The Constellation Class, in fact, reuses the Constitution nacelles at a lower scale.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 21, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 21, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 21, 1999).]
 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
I don't care what Stipes or anyone else says; I only care about what's on the show.

When has the Miranda been anything but ~245m?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
According to Stipes, the VFX people use a much smaller length on screen. That would make it "what's on the show".

And you must have misunderstood me. Why is it that you feel free to ignore the 50m-Defiant scene in FC, but you won't let anyone else ignore anything?

Oh, and Boris, the Constellation nacelles aren't scaled down. The back ends are chopped off.

------------------
"I think you people have proven something to the world: that a half a million kids can get together and have three days of fun and music� and have nothing but fun and music."
-Max Yasgur; Woodstock, NY; August, 1969
 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Stipes is Stipes, not the show.

People can choose to accept or ignore what they want, but, again, that's just on an individual level.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
TSN: Yesss! I thought I was the only one who believed the Constellation has chopped nacelles The ship is probably slightly shorter than the Ent-A. We need better pics of the real model to be sure, though.

The Miranda is ~245m - I don't care what Stipes says on the matter.

Frank: Here's a capture from "Defiant" which you'll want to ignore Defiant above Galor. 481m is the largest (and most probable) length figure I've seen for the Galor. They might have been using that old 69m Defiant figure here (and in FC).

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited October 22, 1999).]
 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
Please take your ship length arguements to the proper forum. Thank you.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by TerraZ on :
 
And chaos struck... That was just to see how something as innocent as ship size could degenerate in a battlefield. I really think we should stop arguing about this on this forum.

The Shadow: I agree with you. Sure, some things everyone will agree on (Kirk is dead, the Borg are evil, Seven's on the show for her breasts, etc) but the fact is when something like the Defiant has 3 main separate lenghts all equally valid, you have to choose for yourself. No matter how much you want to convince someone the Defiant is X m because you saw it on screen, someone else will say it's really Y m long for the same reason.

------------------
-Doctor: We'll defend ourselves! They won't get what they're after!
-Aliens: Huh?
-Doctor: I mean, you won't get what you're after!
ECH to Hierarchy vessel in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"

-Seven: *Kissing the doctor* It was a platonic gesture. Don't espect me to pose for you.
-Doctor: *Embarassed* Understood.
Seven to the Doctor in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"



 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Dax: I know, I have a similar image. The Galor has been a lot larger than 481m, though, such as in "Pre-emptive Strike" and SoA, where it was several times larger than the Vor'cha.

If you think that the Defiant is really ~60m, fine, but that isn't large enough to fit everything we've seen in the ship.

TerraZ: Well, it depends on what you define to be "valid." As far as I'm concerned, only the show is canon, and so nothing else, no matter how "reliable" the source, is as relevant.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by TerraZ on :
 
The Shadow: I meant that when you see 3 different lenght for the Defiant on screen (which makes them all valid), there is an inconsistency, unless all the Alpha Quadrant powers really do use size-shifting technology. Following what you're saying (it goes for you too Boris), the Defiant really HAS 3 separate lenghts. How is it possible? It's not BUT IT'S CANON!!!

The result? You have to make up your own idea. The show is contradictory, what Paramount and Okuda says is irrelevant because it isn't on screen and finally there's us, the viewer. What I'm basically saying is we're free to accept or refuse what we see on Star Trek. I know you're gonna say that means I'm not a "real" fan if I don't accept it all, but I know I am. Just because I don't agree with a stupid measure doesn't mean I'm a bad guy.

Personally, I prefer common sense and consistency to twisted reasoning when trying to explain production errors. So sue me if that's wrong.

------------------
-Doctor: We'll defend ourselves! They won't get what they're after!
-Aliens: Huh?
-Doctor: I mean, YOU won't get what you're after!
ECH to Hierarchy vessel in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"

-Seven: *Kissing the doctor* It was a platonic gesture. Don't espect me to pose for you.
-Doctor: *Embarassed* Understood.
Seven to the Doctor in VOY "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor Spy"


 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Correct. Personally, if the Defiant appears as ~120m five times, and ~60m once in an unrelated production, I'll take the 120m length. If someone else says that the 60m length is better because ILM is the best VFX company in the world, you would have canon evidence backing you up, although stuff like the shuttlebay wouldn't fit. Of course, if you say the Defiant is 170m because his holiness Stipes (or Sternbach or whoever) said so, I'll begin treating you like First of Two treats creationists.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Don't worry; in Season Two we abandon it for 'I Am A Sock-Puppet!'" - Bob Skir

 

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I try to avoid these ship-length discussions, but I think I'll try to bring some sanity to this one. Does anyone else remember someone suggesting that subspace fields xor shield bubbles might affect the apparent size of a ship? Seems reasonable, simple, and could resolve all the apparent length changes permanantly, if accepted. And didn't someone (Shipmaster?) take a picture of the top view of the Defiant and find a perfect match for the bridge set, then, using an estimated length for said set, come up with a pretty much irrefutable number? Anyone know what that was? The relative appearance doesn't matter to some degree, if you can accept the changing image idea. All you need is something that you can compair to a known internal length (like a bridge set or a shuttlebay) and you should be able to figure out everything else, since the parts of the ship are constant relative to the other parts of the ship.

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Kosh: We may be discussing ship lengths but it's in context with this topic. Try and read between the lines, my friend.

TerraZ: I'm with you here. There are some things we see on screen which we just have to accept as a mistake or, at the least, an inconsistency.

Frank: I do personally think the Defiant is ~120m. There are definately some "canon" scenes that refute that, though. For one (other), the escape pods are rather small even at 120m.

Omega: This subspace field/shield bubble theory is just silly. Why can't we just accept that the producers make mistakes? They are human, too.
The Defiant analysis you're talking about calculated the bridge to be 9m long. It assumed that the MSD depicted the bridge perfectly and then worked out a overall ship length of 76m off that. Unfortunately, it is debatable how accurate the MSD is and/or exactly where the bridge is.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited October 23, 1999).]
 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
Sorry Dax, it's just that the argument has been around the board longer then I have. On a good day, I laugh at it, on a bad day, I post stupid **** like I did above.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin


 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
My first post on these boards a couple of years ago, if I recall correcly, was an argument about why the Defiant has to be 120 meters long. I remember quoting Paradise Lost, and IDCrisis replying by bringing up the 560' size by Rick Sternbach....

And So It Began...

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Boris: I think it probably actually began somewhere right around the time "The Search" first aired... *L*

------------------
"I think you people have proven something to the world: that a half a million kids can get together and have three days of fun and music� and have nothing but fun and music."
-Max Yasgur; Woodstock, NY; August, 1969
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Kosh: Apology sincerely accepted. We all have those days. I'm sure I've posted some crackers.

Boris: I noticed something interesting the other day. 120m is the exact average of the two "official" Defiant figures - (69+171)/2=120. Now, how is that for a coincidence?

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Dax:

OK, if you take a known length within the ship (take the length of the Bridge of the Defiant, for example), then compair the internal length of the bridge to the external location of the bridge, you should be able to come up with an internally consistant length. Assuming, of course, the ratio of one area of a ship to another never changes. So if anyone can get their hands on the official blueprints used to design the Def bridge (or someone that can tell them exactly how long it was), and compair the length to the length of the bridge in a top shot of the Defiant from ANY production, you should be able to come up with a correct, internally consistant length.

Of course, then you have to deal with compairing the lengths of two different ships, which is what causes all this controversy. My suggestion about the subspace field affecting the apparent size is an attempt to reconsile the length problems between multiple ships. So what's wrong with it, anyway? We don't know how a subspace field works. For all we know, it COULD make a ship look larger or smaller, while leaving the physical ship the same size.

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791



 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
Easy in principle, Omeghead, but there's one problem: we don't know what part of the Defiant's superstructure represents the bridge. Don't assume that it's the rounded-ends redtangle you can see on top.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Omeghead. There's a new one. And you have a point, but it would be a logical assumption, as it appears to be the same shape as the bridge, IIRC, and is in the right place for the bridge. If it looks like a duck...

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791



 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Has anyone ever made a close examination of the Valiant interior deck structures, as revealed during the explosion? I played the scene over and over again on a quicktime movie at Maximum Defiant, but the resolution is too low to allow me to discern anything interesting. We *might* be able to observe the number of decks within the forward half of the Defiant which breaks off, but again, a better image is required.

It is also possible to determine the exact scale of the escape pods (compared to the entire vessel) during the explosion scene. If we determine their size using the human figures in the Drexler cutaway, multiply the number by the factor obtained from the onscreen measurements, we might be able to get an overall length.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
If I see any inconsistencies in an episode, it's seldom enough for me to jump to the phone and inform my buddies. I may think about it for a while, but then I remember..."Hey, I'm watching Star Trek, one of my favourite shows"...and then the, like negative waves fade, man.
So my policy is, what you see on the screen is canon Trek. And if it doesn't make sense then at least it's Trek. And I love Trek.

------------------
-You're crazy!!!
-Funny, I thought I was pisces!
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Omega: I've tried lining up a schematic of the bridge with the Drexler Defiant top view, but it doesn't fit very well. The proper location for the bridge is rather ambiguous. Plus, no-one seems to know the actual length of the bridge set, anyway. It's a pity they never showed the shuttle-bay interior.

Boris: I'll go and analyze those explosions...

Nimrod: Yep, even with the inconsistencies, I still love Trek (especially DS9).

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :
 
I knew I was avoiding this thread for some reason.
lol@forum....
60m
"I am right you are wrong"
"yes"
"no"
170m
"I am right you are wrong"
"yes"
"no"
100m
"I am right you are wrong"
"yes"
"no"
200km
"I am right you are wrong"
"yes"
"no"
1m
"I am right you are wrong"
"yes"
"no"
Need I remind the forum that with this thread we are disregarding one of our most sacred rules.
NO DEFIANT LENGTH THREADS!!!!!!!!

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/9268/index.html


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
bear: Why not just continue avoiding the thread? I don't go reading the Star Wars forum and then complain I hate the topic.

Boris: Unfortunately, I didn't get anything deck-wise from the Valiant death scene. It nicely shows where the pods come from, though. Do you think the Defiant pods at 2.3m width would be big enough? If so, we're in luck.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
We will probably never know what the intended scaling of those pods is (*if* there is an intended scaling at all), but in any case, Doug Drexler's 2.3m size is much more likely to be true than Rick Sternbach's 3.6m measurement, which was clearly made using a 560' length as a reference rather than the human figures standing next to the 'boats. We know that Sternbach wasn't getting any other numbers from the Effects.

That being the case, I suspect that the pods were never intended to hold 6-8 people. Defiant's standard complement of 47-50 would allow for 26 two-person pods, but we should probably increase this number a bit, say to four or five to allow for unusual staffings.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
I'd be highly surprised if the Defiant actually has 26 pods. Drexler's plans depict more pods than what the on-screen evidence has proven.

According to the plans there are 3 pods lauched from each of what we've always considered the impulse engines (those red circles). There's other inconsistencies, of course.

Anyway, there seems to only be 12 or maybe 14 pods in reality. Each one is probably meant to carry up to 6 crew, given the hexagonal shape (and ship crew complement).

We should also take into account that the shuttles could be used for abandoning ship.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited October 26, 1999).]
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Dax: we can certainly count only 12 or so pods in the Defiant explosion scene. Valiant explosion only reveals about 5 or 6. Of course, there is no reason for the entire complement of 26 to be released for a crew of 50, and I believe that Valiant held a smaller crew, correct?

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: I think you're missing my point. I was avoiding doing this but I'll explain in more detail.

If we assume that those red dots are really impulse engines we automatically lose 6 pods (leaving 20 in total).

Now, as far as I can tell, the Deck 3 shuttlebay area only has 4 pods in "TCFoE", not 6 (leaving 18 in total).

Those hatches aft of the bridge only have 4 pods in total, not 8. Both "Valiant" and "TCFoE" reveal that. Now we have 14 pods in total.

Whether or not those pods fore of the bridge exist or not is debatable. There is no hatch(es) for them. Minus them we have 12 pods in total - what we see in "TCFoE".

I don't have a problem with the Defiant having 12 6 crew pods at 2.3m each. It'd be crampy but most of the Defiant design is anyway.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
I agree, but the Defiant and the Valiant also show pods in locations that are -not- in the blueprints. We can use the surplus of pods to fill these additional locations.

For example, the shuttlebay pods during the Defiant explosion are closer to the opening than they are in the blueprints, while the two pairs of pods flanking the deflector nose are a bit further forward on the Valiant then they are on the Defiant (or was it the other way around?). We could easily take the six pods from the impulse engines, and put four of them in the shuttlebay area at their onscreen locations. The other two might go to the front to say, the front port side, and serve to explain the inconsistency in positioning of the front pods between the Valiant and the Defiant (i.e. there are actually two sets of -four- front pods each). The front starboard side might then be covered by two pods from the now-crowded shuttlebay area.

The pods in the blueprints that were not seen onscreen, and that do not compromise vital systems such as the impulse engines, could be left alone as merely unused during evacuation.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 28, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Indeed, the Valiant pods near the nose are located just fore of the USS Defiant ones. They come from a different panel/hatch that is right next to the other. It is reasonable to assume that the Defiant-class is equipped with 8 pods near the nose, rather than 4. So going by the "canon" we have a total of 16 escape pods coming from 8 hatches. It is interesting to note that every hatch has two pods each. I personally see Drexler's plans as somewhat apocryphal - it does have some horribly silly mistakes (dare I mention the "targeting sensors" ).

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
Of course, if the ship is really so small by Starfleet standards, they might have a few more pods than the crew can conceivably use. That way no matter where you are aboard the ship, you can get off fast! When a ship that small starts to explode you don't want to run the length of the ship to get out.

The above was pure speculation, but it makes sense, as long as there is room for more pods than have been seen onscreen. Besides, a small ship like that, being of unconventional (and still somewhat experimental) design, might not be quite as standardized from one build to the next, and Starfleet might vary the design slightly from one ship to the next, trying to determine the optimum mix of equipment.

--Baloo

------------------
If you speak and no-one listens, it still counts as long as [i]YOU[/] have learned something.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited October 28, 1999).]
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Run the length of the ship, eh...?

"*running onto the bridge, panting* This ship is too big! If I walked, the movie would be over!" -President Scroob, Spaceballs

------------------
"I think you people have proven something to the world: that a half a million kids can get together and have three days of fun and music� and have nothing but fun and music."
-Max Yasgur; Woodstock, NY; August, 1969
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Baloo: Just how long does it take you to run 100m? A whole 15 seconds?

I do like your idea about the design being slightly varied from ship to ship. The Valiant certainly looks slightly different than the USS Defiant. Maybe those forward escape pods were relocated on the Valiant and there really is only 4 in that area.

I can admit (and hope) that there may be more pods stashed somewhere we haven't seen. It's just a matter of where. I find it hard to believe that those 6 impulse engine pods (from Drexler's plans) exist, though.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
15 seconds is an eternity when something's about to explode! (Hell, even one second is a long time under those circumstances).

The problem is, if the ship's going to explode, just being in a lifepod will not save you. Being in a lifepod that's very far away from the explosions will save you, and it takes time to get to a safe distance. I'd rather spend most of those 15 seconds getting away from the about-to-explode ship than running from one end to another trying to find a lifepod that wasn't full up. After all, if an explosion can destroy the ship, it can just as easily destroy the life pods! After all, they aren't bomb shelters. That's why they don't just pop out of the ship, but scoot away as fast as they can go.

--Baloo

------------------
If you speak and no-one listens, it still counts as long as YOU have learned something.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited October 29, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
You're absolutely right, Baloo. Even so, the Defiant has only so much spare internal room for escape pods. There aren't many other panels that could be hatches, either. There's just so much about this fierce ship that's uncertain
 
Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Dax: I'd be a bit careful about those blueprints...the deck 4 blueprint was canonized and promoted an Okudagram in the final living moments of the ship, not that it really mattered to the poor drawing, but still...Also I'm not sure what to think of those console graphics in the manual - do they *really* show the deck 2 blueprint onscreen?

I agree with Baloo about escape pods. The visible hatches seem a bit too far apart to represent the -only- pods. On the other hand, the ship is only occupied in specific locations during normal operation time. The pattern of these would only change as different quarters are occupied in changing shifts, during alert conditions or other specialized missions (can you think of anything else?)

In other words, some measure of redundancy is necessary, but it need not be much greater than what we see onscreen.

As for the rest of the unknown info: three people hold 90% of it. Jim Martin who designed the ship, Gary Hutzel who supervised not only the visual effects for half the episodes, but also the design process and building of the miniature, and finally, Doug Drexler, who is responsible for much of the Defiant's scenic art. The problem is that we cannot contact Any of these by e-mail.

I'm thinking of sending them snail-mail, but I'm not sure that Hutzel works for Trek any longer (no more DS9), I know Martin was replaced by John Eaves in season 4, while Drexler is now working for Foundation. Perhaps their former companies would be so kind to forward their mail

Boris

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 29, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: Is it just me or did you just become a senior member (congrats)?

I mostly do agree with the plans but some aspects of them are hard to swallow. The Targeting Sensor thing is about the worst. The impulse engine pods doesn't impress me either. There's a few other things I could bitch about, too. Ever tried measuring the length of the bridge? Anyway, the plans do work if taken as a general guide to the ships layout.

Like I've admitted before, there could be more pods than what we've seen. It is a very small ship, though, and under most cases wouldn't have more than 50 crew.

It would certainly be good to get more info from Martin, Hutzel, and Drexler.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Ooops, I didn't notice that member line . I guess it means I have a certain number of posts?

Sure, the blueprints need some explaining. They can be considered misinformation within the context of the manual, but as for those seen onscreen, I really do hope that they have a function of switching between features which can not be viewed simultaneously due to overlap, or presenting customized views of certain systems and not others. This would allow us to add more systems to Drexler's blueprints, but the rest of the details, as well as the presence of different systems in the same absolute location might be more difficult to explain away.

The 'targeting sensor' situation is a testament to the notion that very few DS9 people actually reviewed the book. It's just awful how they missed such an obvious placement. Still, if we go beyond the canon and into production sketches, those triangles are alternatively labeled as "weapons", "weapons modules", and "weapons system". A targeting sensor *could* be considered one of the (swappable?) weapons modules (it's a weapon in a Way...).

*If* these launchers are actually modular, then there probably exist on the Defiant a number of standard forward torpedo launchers, which are used whenever the modules serve a different function. It might explain the situation with the MSD, the two launchers in the deflector nose being an obvious choice.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 30, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: Is there actually two launchers in the nose? The picture shows one tube but the label indicates 2 (4 total minus 2 aft). Oh yeah, are we to believe that there's two aft launchers when the "canon" indicates 1 central aft launcher.

Like you've said, though, it is possible that parts of the ship are swapable or have been modified/moved over time. After all, it is an experimental class.

Side note- since there is no longer an NX ship does that mean the class isn't experimental anymore?

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
 
I think that the defiant was no longer an experimental class once it went into full production. I know many people have come up with elaborate reasons why the original Defian retained its NX registry is because starfleet was too busy conducting a war to worry about trivial little details like X's and C's

------------------
"Stood in firelight, sweltering bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent." -Rorschach
 

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I still say that it makes more sense for NX to mean that it's carrying experimental technology, ala cloaking device.

I just thought of something. Did the Sao Paulo get a cloak when it was renamed the Defiant?

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
It didn't receieve a cloak, at least that we know of.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Dax: I wondered about the (2) until I thought of the possibility of a twin tube, and if you look carefully at the detail, it does look like there's a twin tube in the nose.

And the aft launcher situation is something I wanted to ask you about. I looked at the "Paradise Lost" clip at Maximum Defiant, and the Defiant is facing the camera while firing torpedo, besides the fact that it banks away as it's firing. The actual location seems rather ambiguous, I'm not sure that I could pinpoint it as precisely as you did (but then again, I only have a tiny movie...)

Furthermore, we have two dialogue lines: "aft torpedo, fire" and "we've lost our aft torpedo launcher". The obvious interepretation of the latter is that of a single aft torpedo launcher, but given the rest of evidence, Dax might have simply been careless with her wording. The former line merely indicates that an aft torpedo is to be fired.

As for the cloak, I wouldn't be surprised if it's available in every Defiant nowdays. First we've had a Romulan guarding it, followed by no Romulans in exchange for info, followed by its use in the Alpha Quadrant...I'm sure the writers will have conveniently 'forgotten' about the whole thing by now, just as the Voyager producers have forgotten about the low torpedo and shuttle supply. Starfleet can probably construct further devices, it's only the Treaty of Algeron that forbade it until now.

I did an -entire page- on the Defiant, never worrying about the cloaking situation or mentioning it. Just realized that now. To be added: "First Federation ship with a cloaking device."

As for the NX-situation, I think the intention is to have the NCC- ships be more static in their configuration, and at the same time equipped with systems that had been previously tested on the Defiant. The poor thing was built in only four years (www.ASDB.net people, great pages but you gotta shift those dates back a little, DS9TM's wrong again....), and much of its primary systems probably went untested. What do you think?

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: So Drexler is implying that that circle in the deflector dish is two launch tubes, or maybe one launch tube being shared by two launchers. Unfortunately, in "Starship Down" and "Rejoined" that circle is shown to be the focal point (particle emitter) of the deflector.

We also have the problem of the nose phaser that fires in "Paradise Lost". It's difficult to tell where exactly it comes from in "PL". I remember hearing that that phaser also fired in "Message in a Bottle". Is it possible to pinpoint an exact location in "MiaB"?

Drexler's MSD and plans also shows a tractor emitter in the nose. But, like the torp launchers, it has never been seen used.

Going by my CIC copy of "Paradise Lost", the aft launcher is located somewhere near the centre of that step. It's annoying how the miniature doesn't have any indication where the aft tube(s) should be.

All: I'd be surprised if any but the NX Defiant had a cloak. The Valiant obviously didn't have one. Admittedly, I haven't seen the Sao.

I conjecture that the Defiant originally went into limited production yet remained an experimental class. It's probably now considered a production class, though.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Now here's some news. I watched some more of "Rejoined" and noticed some amazing things.

1. There's a scene where a probe is launched from that hole in the deflector. This proves that Drexler's nose launcher(s) exists.

2. Just after the probe scene there is an explosion that rocks the Defiant (the collapsing artificial wormhole). Jadzia reports that "there's a hull breach on deck 5".

The Defiant deflector must be similar to the BoP and K't'inga ones - deflection and torp launcher integrated into the single same array.

I don't know what to say about the deck 5 quote, other than I know "To the Death" also mentions a deck 5.

Oh yeah, I watched "MiaB". I didn't see either of the Defiants fire from their deflector - only their pulse phaser cannons.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited October 31, 1999).]
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Ok, let's nail this down while we're at it. Great catch.

"The Way of the Warrior" has a hull breach on "decks 2, 3, and 5" which makes three eps. That's pretty conclusive, and I wonder whether the little teeny space below Deck 4 in the MSD is sufficiently high (or even ceiling-less) in some areas, in order to allow Sisko to walk on it.

I rewatched the little clip of "Paradise Lost", and still cannot observe the exact spot of the torpedo's departure (perhaps the frame is missing in the quicktime?). A couple of seconds before the launch, the Defiant fires a phaser from what appears to be our versatile deflector hole, then a full volley of pulse phasers, followed by a quick upside-down turn that allows it to fire the bridge emitter onto the Lakota saucer-top.

Dax: Could you please check whether the first phaser actually comes from the nose or the bridge? Also, where does the fire come from in "Starship Down"? Which episode does the hole-phaser picture on my website come from?

Boris


------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
OK, here we go...

The first phaser blast in "PL" is so quick you'd miss it if you blinked. Anyway, although the ship is far away, it clearly comes from the nose. The exact location is unclear because of the distance from the "camera".

The fire in "Starship Down" comes from the deflector hole. Remember though, this is the deflector modified to act as a phaser emitter - not an emitter by design. This shot only works once and burns out the deflector.

That picture on your website is actually from "Rejoined". It isn't a phaser blast at all. It's a depiction of the deflector being used to emit some sort of special beam. In the ep they are working towards creating an artificial wormhole. That beam is the beginning of the process.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :
 
Well I've got some crappy screencaps I made from an MPG.

copy and paste the links
Paradise Lost http://members.xoom.com/avalonsector/junk/defiantphaser1.jpg http://members.xoom.com/avalonsector/junk/defiantphaser2.jpg

MiaB http://members.xoom.com/avalonsector/junk/defiantphaser3.jpg

------------------
Photon torpedoes, once a finite supply, haven't been a problem since all those Wal-Marts opened up in the Delta Quadrant. -Jim Wright

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited November 01, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
That first link doesn't seem to work, Black Knight. I even tried tacking that 1.jpg onto the end and it still didn't work.

That third pic is gold, though. We see the Defiant-class ship fire a beam that finishes the Warbird off (I'm ashamed I didn't notice this before). The location is extremely difficult to pick (even on the CIC tape) but it appears to be from the bottom and forward half of the ship. Maybe this is that shuttlebay phaser you mention in your site, Boris.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

 

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Hmmmm........ Strange things going on around here.....

Seems the UBB code for URL's seems to be acting up in ways I never expected......

*forwards note to Head honcho*

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited November 01, 1999).]
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Ok, here's what I think we can say on the config so far:

PULSE PHASER EMITTERS: forward (4x)
BEAM PHASER EMITTERS: nose (1x), dorsal (1x), ventral (1x), probably more in unknown locations.

WEAPONS MODULES: forward (2x)
TORPEDO LAUNCHERS: forward (2x), aft (2x)

The doubling of the forward and aft launchers can, in my opinion, be considered a legit interpretation of the canon, since the aft launcher cannot exist on Deck 4 without being split, while the forward launcher should preferably be doubled so as to balance the two aft launchers. The presence of so many launchers in addition to the weapons triangles would only serve to corroborate the modular function of the latter. This arrangement is rather similar to that of the Enterprise-E, which also has a twin forward and aft launcher in addition to a 'novelty-launcher' at the base of the saucer.

The beam phaser emmitters are rarely used, probably in cases where the Defiant's outstanding maneuverability is restricted for some reason, and with it, the direction in which the four pulse cannons can be pointed. Further applications might be in controlled shots intended to merely disable the enemy's vital systems, as well as the cases where a phaser is used for purposes other than combat, drilling, cutting, etc.

Whenever torpedos are fired, it is almost certain that they'll be the quantum type. It makes sense to assume that the weapons module launchers were primarily installed for this purpose, although they have been seen to fire a probe on one occassion.

Further questions: what is the proportion of qtorps and photorps on the Defiant? What are their respective effects? A number of remaining torpedoes was mentioned in a recent episode as well, don't remember what it was.

Also, does anybody keep track of the number of qtorps needed to disable a ship, the number of pulse-phaser shots needed to destroy a BoP, and similar? It might be interesting to have a look at that.

BTW, the SciPubTech Defiant poster was announced in the latest Magazine, and should be out soon. I expect it to be a mere rehashing of the DS9TM blueprints, mixed with a number of inconsistent specifications from the DS9TM text. Our only hope for something more decent lies in the fact that the artists are allowed to access some of the original production materials, and that they started work prior to the release of the DS9TM (that was a while ago, I still remember that 224m Defiant figure they probably delayed it in expectation of the book).

Boris


------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 03, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 03, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: Your take on the weapons config looks good to me.

Novelty-launcher? Good point, though.

I wonder why they didn't use a beam phaser on the comet in "Destiny". Anyway, the dorsal emitter certainly shows its worth in "PL" and those two Mirror Universe episodes.

We have only ever seen photorps fired from the aft launcher(s). This happens in "PL" and "Shattered Mirror". Are there other eps? The probe fired from the module was equipped with a quantorp warhead.

It is questionable how many quantorps those modules can carry. The modules are quite small. The quantorps could theoretically be stored in a nearby part of the ship.

I've never kept track of shots needed, but the qtorps and pulse phasers seem horribly powerful. One volley of direct fire seems to take down anything but the most powerful enemy ship. Those two Breen ships in "TCFoE" comes to mind, as well as that bug in "Favor the Bold".

The SciPubTech poster will likely look good but have inevitable errors. 224m??? From what part of hell did that figure come from? Wasn't 225ft the original intended length?

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
When I talked to them about the subject, months before the publication of the DS9TM, they said that the poster would be based on the standard Drexler MSD, which they received from the latter directly in the form of a file. One of the artists even quoted measurements in inches which gave them the 224m size given a 2m-tall human figure - I remember telling them that they must have gotten one of them slightly wrong, especially since the figure is off by pretty close to a factor of two. Let's see whether they've discovered the mistake by now...

BTW, I didn't know that there is an aft launch visible in the mirror episodes - is this where you get the centerline positioning from?

Also, do the mirror episodes give a more precise location for the bridge emitter? Is it the large circle surrounding the bridge, or the little detail circle on top of it?

Boris
------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
I tried all three of the links, and got a white page with a Xoom add for all three.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf



 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: Like I said (wrote), the only two eps that I can recall seeing an aft torpedo fire is in "Paradise Lost" and "Shattered Mirror". I got the centre location from "PL" - trust me on this. I remember the "SM" torp coming from somewhere else - I'll have to go and watch it...

The dorsal phaser emitter is the small detail on top of the bridge.

Kosh: You have to cut and paste the links. If it still won't work then they're likely not there anymore.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Boris - reguarding your defiant page on page 3 - maybe you should say "First Federation starship with a legal cloaking device.

------------------
"Remove your hand or I will remove your arm!" - 7 of 9
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Yeah...right!!

BTW, regarding your quote, why is everyone making fun of poor Sevun Imagine how she would feel if someone told her about Harry Kim chatting on the bridge "...and then she said, 'Remove your hand or I will remove your arm' (someone else): Ha, ha, ha, ha, thatsa good-one..."

I mean, she isn't Really that mean, as far as I can tell, she's constantly riding the line between Vulcan logic and inset fear. I liked her exchange with Neelix yesterday, about her being forced into change by Janeway. It throws a different light on the crew, in much the same way "Equinox II" did on Janeway.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
If anything, Seven is a far more interesting character than what Kes was. And, no, I'm not just talking about the eye candy factor.

I'm still yet to watch "SM" again. It will happen, though

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
OK, I've watched the battle in "SM". The location of the aft torpedo fire is hard to pinpoint (I'm sure they do it on purpose). If anything, it seems to come from the far rear of the ship ie Drexler's impulse engines.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Well, if the torpedo is actually coming from the centerline, then it's either three aft launchers, or we scrap the whole two-launcher thing and assume that the config is a forward and an aft launcher, plus the two quantum launchers. It's VFX+dialogue against MSD, while in my earlier config it was MSD vs. dialogue.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Well, B. (stop me if I'm getting to Faithesque here) - I just thought the quote was hilarious - so 'Seven'.

Its true - Seven of Nine is just a girl deep down - I mean like - the age she was when she was assimilated.

I loved when in Dark Frontier she retorted to The Queen Borg - "I am Annika Hansen". No one I have talked to on the net has seem to have mentioned this point. That either was VERY tough for her to admit - or it was something deep down for Seven - that has been begging to come out on Voyager but - she - in her mind - has to keep the air of superiority about her - maybe to stay in control of herself!?! - Similar is the "Stop it your hurting me" line in "One" - Some powerful stuff.

------------------
"Remove your hand or I will remove your arm!" - 7 of 9
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Boris: I would tend to go with the VFX+Dialogue. Either way, it doesn't really make any difference to the nose launcher (since there's only one launch location). "Way of the Warrior" certainly supports the single aft launcher theory.

The MSD does have some strange inconsistencies. I've noticed that both the forward and aft tractor emitters are in the wrong place. That torp conveyor running from the body to the nose is also a mystery. Maybe we shouldn't take the MSD so seriously. It could be perceived as a simple engineers aid or something.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Andrew: I think Janeway has exactly the same problem - she's a bit inexperienced when it comes to dealing with people, that's why she keeps clinging to the regulations to help her out.

Dax: yes, that's what it looks like at the moment. BTW, I thought there was only one tractor emitter on the MSD - at the aft. The show indicates an aft, bridge, and shuttlebay emitter, I believe.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 06, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
The MSD has a "fwd tractor beam emitter" in the nose, at the front of deck 4. It's labelled as such (check p123 of the DS9TM).

You're right about the tractors that we've seen in the show. Unfortunately, the bridge tractor comes from the same thing that's the phaser emitter (we see the tractor used in "WotW" on the Vor'cha). How can that thing be both a tractor and phaser emitter?

side note- on p128 of the DS9TM it has a supposed "bridge engineering status display" that shows a registry of NX-74204

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Dax: my first thought on the bridge-circle detail was that of beacon light, as shown in the undocking scene of "Search I", so there you go

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
This picture from the TNG Sketchbook is truly fascinating.
Damaged Defiant

It shows two things that exist on the bottom dome, on the bridge. One is a tractor emitter, and the other is a standard phaser strip! But I've never seen these things on the bridge in the show - not even in First Contact. Yet, the show has depicted the appropriate FX coming from the bridge. Quite the paradox.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Ok, you've convinced me to have a greater look into this. Right now, I have 12 different images of the Defiant's bridge area open in MS Photo Editor: Defiant models, CGI, show, Valiant, schematics, etc, etc. Upon closer examination, I've discovered the following:

In regard to the damaged Defiant model, what is missing from the area is this little lego-piece:

It rather looks like somebody accidentaly chipped it off the model to reveal what you called the tractor emmitter and the phaser array beneath (or was it a part of the FC damage?) As such, they would normally have as much significance as a loose wire or connecting part. Still, one could wildly speculate that Tony Meininger originally built the structures corresponding to the VFX, and that they were later covered up by the usual dome. Gary Hutzel, who helped out with the model would have remembered where the systems were placed when doing the effects.

As far as the Valiant model is concerned, there is a clear difference, and it lies in the fact that the lego piece contains a bigger, pointier teardrop, and that the light-blue rectangular background is now a structure, rather than something which looks painted-on. This is the only other variation that I could observe - everything else, from model photos to schematics (except the FF/AMT ones), to CGI images clearly reproduce the common Defiant bridge structure.

The AMT/FF schems are pretty true to the rest, with the exception of the teardrop which looks a bit swollen to the port and the starboard.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 08, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 08, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 08, 1999).]
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
OK Boris, those two different things on the top of the bridge are exactly like existing things on the dome shuttlebay. The fwd thing is identical to the shuttlebay tractor emitter. The aft strip is identical to those two strips that are just port/starbrd of the shuttlebay opening. My point? Those things were intentionally added and the "lego piece" removed. Have you got the book? The original pic is clearer and'll remove your doubt.

The question remains why they would intentionally modify the ship, only to change it back again. My answer- cost. They probably thought it was a good idea until they relised the stock footage would be useless. I don't know, that FC pic just trips me out.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
Sure, you're probably right. FC probably had extra budget which would allow modifications and improvements, but the model had to go back to DS9 at some point. But why modify these particular areas? Perhaps the phasers and the emmitter were intended to be seen in *up-close* in action at one point, and ILM wasn't too satisfied with beams exiting from nowhere. Anyway, now we're really speculating.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 



© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3