Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
TNG in HD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] NCC-2541 was the original registry of the [i]Hood[/i], the one the model was labeled with for "Encounter At Farpoint" (TNG). So shots that are re-used from that episode (or recomposited from the same elements) would have 2541, while those from "The Child" would have 2544. BTW, in spite of Okuda's statement quoted on Memory Alpha regarding the [i]Tsiolkovsky[/i]'s NCC-640 registry being left over from the [i]Copernicus[/i], I'm still inclined to believe that the latter ship's registry is NCC-623 (as previously reported by Okuda in the <u>Encyclopedia</u>, and which he once stated to me to have come from a behind the scenes photo of the model during filming of STIV) and that the model was in fact relabeled for its appearance in "The Naked Now" (TNG) as seems to have been the practice from the beginning. (The [i]Hood[/i] establishes a precedent both for this and for the fact that one number might be put on the model while another was used on set dressing.) It will indeed be interesting to see if the registry is visible in a future transfer of "Emissary" (DS9). The model was relabeled as the [i]Yosemite[/i] for "Realm Of Fear" (TNG) as seen from a behind the scenes [URL=http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/646/yosemite_model.jpg]photo[/URL] from the DS9 episode and confirmed in the remastered TNG episode, but we don't know if it might have been relabeled after the photo was taken. Let's remember that there were TWO [i]Oberth[/i]-class ships in the episode, and according to the <u>Encyclopedia</u>, the one destroyed in the opening battle sequence was the [i]U.S.S. Bonestell[/i] NCC-31600. We can't see this in the episode, nor the names and registries of the other ships apart from the [i]Saratoga[/i] and [i]Melbourne[/i], but we know from behind the scenes photos that they were all in fact relabeled with the names and numbers reported for them in the same source. (Query: Do we think the [i]Bonestell[/i] was represented by the same filming model or a separate one? It kind of got blown up, and I seem to recall that in the case of the [i]Saratoga[/i]'s destruction they used a special "stunt" model.) I've never examined all the instances of the various starship mission assignment lists to confirm that their chronology bears this out, but for whatever it's worth to the conversation, Okuda also once told me that the reason he changed the [i]Trieste[/i]'s registry from [i]Yosemite[/i] to [i]Merced[/i] was because of the name [i]Yosemite[/i] being used for the ship in "Realm Of Fear," so I suppose that if something so small as that was noticed and "fixed," then it isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility that they'd take the destroyed vessel's signage off the model for its next appearance. (Am I remembering correctly that the [i]Yosemite[/i] was destroyed?) It also occurs to me that we're aware of a few examples which seem to indicate that by this point there was sometimes a practice of relabeling only the surfaces of the models that were thought likely to be seen on camera in a particular episode, whilst leaving old labels elsewhere on them. (I can think of the [i]Yamaguchi[/i]/[i]Excalibur[/i] and [i]Farragut[/i]/[i]Leeds[/i] off the top of my head, and it seems to me there was at least one other instance that escapes me at the moment.) Is it possible that some part of the model retained the [i]Cochrane[/i]'s number even after being relabeled? It seems unlikely, given that between the behind the scenes photo and the remastered episode we can see both sides of the hull and saucer, and they all seem to bear the [i]Yosemite[/i]'s number. (However, I have personally never seen a high-enough resolution version of the photo to be able to tell for certain what the number on the ventral saucer is. Someone in possession of the original source might speak more definitively.) Lastly, I will reiterate my previously stated view that it is useless and counterproductive to ignore facts known from behind the scenes sources simply because they cannot be definitely confirmed onscreen, and that it is moreover [i]worse[/i] to then draw conclusions from the resultingly incomplete data and impose them where they directly contravene the actual intent. If your inferences can be made only through arbitrarily choosing not to look at all the data, deliberately excluding from consideration the points that go against them, they are bad inferences. That the number NCC-59318 belongs to the [i]Biko[/i] is such an inference. [/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