Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Registries... again
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB] [QUOTE]As far as I consider the production errors, Mike Okuda and the in-house art department were always in charge of keeping track of things like the NCCs because they made the markings for the models. [/QUOTE]Wrong. Mike Okuda wasn't in charge of that before 1986. The first guy in charge was Matt Jefferies, who wanted ships of Enterprise's design to be numbered 1701, 1702, etc. Somebody else from the production team decided that the numbers do not follow this system, which is where Bjo Trimble got some of her numbers in the Concordance such as 16xx, which ended up being used by FASA. Then, Franz Joseph came up with his system which labeled all the scouts with numbers such as 5xx or 6xx, which is probably where ILM got its NCC-638 registry number for the Grissom. Only then did Okuda come along and decide on a simple sequential system where older ships have lower registry numbers, and even he thinks that the new Defiant is labeled NX-74205. Of course, ever since the art department no longer needs to do the markings, they've been done by outside CG modellers who seem to think that there is no real system to these numbers. Hence, saying that Okuda was the guy in charge and that only his word should be followed is oversimplifying things quite a bit. [QUOTE] To me, they should still have been the last word on the subject even when the CGI models started to be used. A hired out CGI Effects House shouldn't have the authority to assign those numbers. That's where most of the descrepancies have been. I'll choose the in-house suggestion over one an effects house assigns if there's a conflict. Prometheus being a prime case.[/QUOTE]It would be desirable to have only one person do the numbers all the time, but even that wouldn't help in every case. The reality of the situation is that the numbers have been assigned with different meaning in different times, and that they will never fit in one system. We can either close our eyes to reality and become one narrowsighted circle similar the old Tech Fandom, or we can accept the reality and attempt to figure out a realistic system that explains what's going on in every era. What's completely strange to me is this unfounded assumption that there is one number to every starship and that it lasts forever, whereas that's only true for US ships in the real world, while other ships do not necessarily use this system. In the real world, if your theory doesn't explain even 1% of the cases, you've overlooked something. I think that some people are just so arrogant that they consider their own personal visions more important than research. I'm not seeking a high standard of analysis. It isn't difficult to make a connection between car license plates or pennant numbers and onscreen evidence. All you need do is free yourself from any religiously dogmatic visions of Starfleet and really think for yourself. When Doug Drexler designed the NX-01, he chose not to specify the exterior details because he knew that the VFX people will want to make their own choices. Guess what? He didn't see reality as a mistake, he didn't choose to accept the notion of production errors. He accepted the reality, and was smart enough to ignore over twenty years of convention which had ships littered with details, as though one were shooting a movie where everything could be planned out in advance. He wasn't bound by any convention -- why should we? If we do, then twenty years from now people will look at us as another Tech Fandom refusing to abandon the views of the TNG era. Boris [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3