What is it about Trek ships, designs, registry numbers, histories and so on that so enthralls and occupies the spare time of your average Trekkie?
There are many cinematic, television and even literary "universes" (with a small u) that have defined a frame of reference for their technology and applied these in a consistent manner to the design of spacecraft and other machines. There are just as many fictional organisations that are in many ways analogous or similar to Starfleet as well.
Why is it that Star Trek appears to generate twice the interest of it's next nearest rival among individuals whom I shall loosely term sci-fi-ship-spotting-anoraks?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Because.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Star Trek universe starships are MACs while other universe's ships are PCs. Granted I don't like MACs, but that's how I feel.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Because Matt Jeffries hit one out of the park with his design for the Enterprise, and we technogeeks want to explore every facet of that ship. No other universe that I know of has quite the same combination of elements. I love the Yamato and the SDF-1, but there isn't as much of the hint of a larger fleet structure to grok in either of those properties. Star Wars has a lot of neat ships, but the approach is more haphazard and random, which implies a lot more work if you want to wring consistency out of it. If more Star Destroyers were explicitly named and numbered, we might have a contest on here to see who could finish a full ship registry first.
--Jonah
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Star Destroyers Registry:
Vassal 1 Vassal 2 Vassal 3
etc.
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
What is "grok"?
So essentially, it's the notion of a larger overall governing structure which is left sufficiently vague to tease our imaginations and whet our appetites for seeing more, whilst providing just enough information for the fans to have fun daydreaming how it might all work because we are all armchair admirals at heart; the ship design is intriguing and counter-intuitive whilst clearly still embodying some sort of technical rationale rather than being weird for weirds sake; the whole registry aspect appeals to the control freak train-spotter in us, a facet of our personalities that is intrinsically linked to a sort of obsessive preoccupation with teasing out the meaningless minutiae of a subject.
Good answer, Peregrinus.
I like the Apple Mac analogy too! Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, "Brain & brain..what is BRAIN?!?"
:::blinks::: Are you writing a psych paper? Are we your test elements? YOU'RE USING US!!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And we have a lot more Star Destroyer names than that: Avenger, Devastator, Executor, Accuser, Judicator, Imperator, Guardian, Lusankya...
But there was no hint of something like "ISD-6691" to give us specific holes to fill in.
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"He's worse than dead... His brain is gone!"
--Jonah
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: No, "Brain & brain..what is BRAIN?!?"
:::blinks::: Are you writing a psych paper? Are we your test elements? YOU'RE USING US!!
Calm down. You'll skew the results!
If you cause any statistical outliers I will be forced to cull you from the population.
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Wiki exists for a reason. Grok it.
Yes. In my experience, it exists to propagate fiction as fact.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: But there was no hint of something like "ISD-6691" to give us specific holes to fill in. --Jonah
Ah! The heart of the matter! By the simple inclusion of a made-up number, the creators imply the existence of a historical context and associated stories as yet untold, giving the story instant depth!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Something like that. That and other references to a structured fleet lurking off-camera. Especially the seven other Constitutions we saw in TOS. They all had some dramatic reason to be there, so we started wondering about the rest.
The only real hints in, say, Star Wars are behind-the-scenes. I can't remember where the first reference to Vader's fleet in Empire being dubbed the "Death Squadron" was, but it definitely wasn't the movie. And the implications of a score of Star Destroyers and an Executor-class Command Ship being a squadron are kind of scary...
--Jonah
P.S. Oh, and Wiki got it right in this case.
Posted by Treknophile (Member # 1869) on :
As I see it, Star Trek has (to date) created the most complete and internally self-consistant technological base/worlds/society seen in fiction. A true fan can not only immerse himself (through the power of suspended dis-belief), he can go a step farther and create new works within this framework called the Star Trek Universe, and if he was paying attention it will ring true.
That's how I create my stuff, anyways.
Grok: Heinlein novels exist for a reason.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, but the idea of that technological base has only really taken hold fairly recently. It developed very slowly. . .
First, you had TOS. Very little expansion on what Starfleet was actually like - just that they had maybe twelve Constitution-class ships, and, seemingly, little else.
Second, during the 70's interregnum, you had all the Franz Josef/FASA bollocks which elaborated on the idea of Starfleet. But apart from slightly influencing things at the start of the TNG era. it had little to do with what actually then developed, and was largely ignored by the non-ultra-hardcore fans.
Third, you then had the TNG era, which was almost a combination of the first two - ships seen were existing (film-era) models - Oberths, Mirandas, Excelsiors - plus a lot of mentioned-but-not-seen-onscreen other ship classes a la FASA.
It was really only First Contact that brought us to where we've been ever since. This board we're posted on evolved from one that got a lot of members who wanted to know what all those new ships we saw were. The impact of those few minutes packed with new ships (probably enhanced by our memories of the recycled-stock-footage ships of the movie trailer) should never be ignored.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Don't forget Wolf 359, that also contributed to starship interest.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophile: As I see it, Star Trek has (to date) created the most complete and internally self-consistant technological base/worlds/society seen in fiction. A true fan can not only immerse himself (through the power of suspended dis-belief), he can go a step farther and create new works within this framework called the Star Trek Universe, and if he was paying attention it will ring true.
I think the being mad keen on Trek ships is a direct offshoot of this very point.
Star Trek was the first series to create a cohesive universe. No other show or series up to the point of Star Trek created such a universe that made sense, was consistent and worked well with the rest of the whole. Most other series were set on present-day earth and the few science fiction series (that weren't anthologies) didn't pay attention to the details for a back-story or a rest of the universe (Lost in Space, for example).
TOS was the first series to inspire imagination along the lines of "I wonder what the rest of their universe is like. Surely there must be other star ships, etc..."
I was drawing other Star Trek ships besides the Enterprise when I was a kid. At that time I only had TOS and the first two movies to go by.
STII was the first Star Trek to introduce a new design. After that, I came to expect a new designed starship with each movie (Grissom, Excelsior, etc...)
Throw in the Internet in the late 90s and the explosion of art and CGI software now available and it's no wonder we've reached this point where we're all so gaga over cool starships. Technology has finally reached a point where we can draw and design cool starships with ease, and then spread those designs all over the world.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Our lust for sexy ships is a result of modern media, the internet, advanced affordable computers and software and our desire to fill in the tapestry of the Star Trek universe.
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
Interesting answers and ideas. Cheers. I am a little bit more enlightened Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I swear, I feel like you're studying us under a microscope... Nagillum? Is that you?
--Jonah
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
I am preparing my next question which will be in the form of an experiment. This experiment shouldn't take more than a third of the forum members. Maybe half Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Okay as long as none of the main characters are killed. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lurker Emeritus: Why is it that Star Trek appears to generate twice the interest of it's next nearest rival among individuals whom I shall loosely term sci-fi-ship-spotting-anoraks?
I think it is because Trek ships actually LOOK and FEEL like they could be real ships that one could board and touch and travel and explore in!
Andrew
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lurker Emeritus: What is it about Trek ships, designs, registry numbers, histories and so on that so enthralls and occupies the spare time of your average Trekkie?
Maybe it's some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder?
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Because Matt Jeffries hit one out of the park with his design for the Enterprise, and we technogeeks want to explore every facet of that ship. No other universe that I know of has quite the same combination of elements. I love the Yamato and the SDF-1, but there isn't as much of the hint of a larger fleet structure to grok in either of those properties. Star Wars has a lot of neat ships, but the approach is more haphazard and random, which implies a lot more work if you want to wring consistency out of it. If more Star Destroyers were explicitly named and numbered, we might have a contest on here to see who could finish a full ship registry first.
Now there's a chickenshit non-canon fanboy list if ever there was one!
I loves the effort though! Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
How is it a fanboy list to document all the Star Destroyers named in the various SW print media over the years? A fanboy list -- at least in my book -- would be if he made up a whole bunch of macho names himself.
Now, granted, a lot of the authors of those various print media made up a bunch of macho names themselves, but Curtis Saxon didn't add or edit. And he definitely didn't do the "aw, come ON!!" approach I took when weeding out the stupider names various SW authors have some up with over the years.
--Jonah
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Stupider names like what?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, Tim Zahn and Kevin Anderson kinda irked me with their Terran mythological references (Chimaera, Gorgon, etc.) -- not to mention the sheer idiocy of the four Star Destroyers in Admiral Daala's detachment being called a "fleet", when the Executor and the twenty or so Star Destroyers with it were merely a "squadron"... And the New Republic getting all scared about that "fleet", too.
But a lot of games and comics and whatnot gave us a lot of Star Destroyer names that were, like... "We r TeH EmPyUr! We R Teh EeeeViL11!!!1". Names like Avarice, Corruptor, Virulence, Malice, Assassin...
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Okay, it's not...exactly a "fanboy" list, but (as pointed out) a LOT of SW print stuff is...dreck.
Worse still- many true fanboys are bouyed by the notion that (somehow) all of it is canon and "real" in the SW universe (even the "double-decker" ISD from the Marvel comics). I've even seen nonsense declaring that a Star Destroyer can, in fact, destroy a star. Riiight.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I always took that as melodramatic herperbole on the part of the Empire's propeganda department.
--Jonah
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Although there must be something in it - a beurocratic organisation like the Empire must have a trade description act.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Yeah, look at what they named that big space station of theirs...
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I've even seen nonsense declaring that a Star Destroyer can, in fact, destroy a star."
In much the same way, I expect, as a theoretical "star cruiser" can cruise a star. Or a theoretical "star frigate" can do to stars whatever it is that frigates do.
"Names like Avarice, Corruptor, Virulence, Malice, Assassin..."
They really should have stuck with the probate theme they began with "Executor". They could have had "Administrator", "Inheritor", "Testator"...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: In much the same way, I expect, as a theoretical "star cruiser" can cruise a star. Or a theoretical "star frigate" can do to stars whatever it is that frigates do.
They can frig it, presumably.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And if it's a lot of stars, does it become a cluster frig?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
ooooh, messy.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: They really should have stuck with the probate theme they began with "Executor". They could have had "Administrator", "Inheritor", "Testator"...
Don't forget Contestor...crewed solely by people who think they deserve a better posting.
Posted by Lurker Emeritus (Member # 1888) on :
Oh god what has happened to my poor innocent little thread?
This experiment has gone out of control. I'm hitting the big red button!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
If you do that, I'll blow up the ship...
--Jonah
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
As long as he doesn't touch the Mysterious Red Button, we're OK.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: As long as he doesn't touch the Mysterious Red Button, we're OK.
Ooh... Whatsit do?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I think it's several things:
Rules, specifically laid out by Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry.
Also, the fact that the ships from Trek are by and large miniscule compared to Star Wars capital ships makes it easier to go crazy on the Trek ones. When was the last time you saw a fan-produced set of deck plans for a Star Destroyer?
Finally, it's our galaxy, our future. We can use our imaginations to connect the ever-changing world of today with the future world of Trek. It's easier to invest onesself in a world one knows.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Uh huh... I swear to god if someone goes and actually builds the USS Enterprise, I'll kill him, his family, and his little dog too...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well didn't that guy build a space plane and call the VSS Enterprise?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wank.
--Jonah
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Oh what is with you and that word?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)