quote:I looked at that display for the Pegasus and the nacelles look nothing like the one's on the Cheyenne. Hell I don't even know if those were nacelles on the display.
Obviously not, since Sternbach's design doesn't have four nacelles. Unless that display was supposed to be yet another design of an actual LCARS side-view ship display, which would make the Pegasus's primary hull as flat as a pancake, and the nacelles would be one-on-top-of-the-other, both dorsal and ventral.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think you misunderstood me. By Cheyenne I meant this ship. I know that Sternbach's ship had only two nacelles. Also, don't you think that those displays could represent some other part of the ship?
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Dukhat, you said that better than I ever could. Yes, I keep the two things distinct. I have no problem using the fandom Gagarin or FASA Sagan names for the Grissom's class -- but for me, an Oberth is something else again.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That's why I'm hoping, if a TNG-remastering project does become a reality, that changes like this will be made. But as I said before, if they're just going to update the physical models with CGI of the same ships, I don't see the point.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Obviously, the Oberth-class was meant to look like this.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
"...but for me, an Oberth is something else again."
So, for you, it doesn't make sense for a single class of ship to have been built over a span of 100 years or so, but it makes perfect sense for two identical classes of ship with different names to have been built at those two times?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think he means that when he watches TNG he imagines that the Oberth is a different design from the Grissom. (Which I think is whacky, personally, but whatever floats one's boat... )
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why? I just recognise the restrictions (time and money) on the producers of TNG. The folks in the art department wanted things that the VFX people often couldn't deliver on. So when I know a ship or class was intended to be something other than what we ended up with onscreen, I have no problem going with the intention for my own record-keeping purposes. It doesn't happen as often as it seems. The Oberth class was intended to be something other than what we got, and a couple other ships got defaulted to stock footage through the above-mentioned restraints.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I do understand where you're coming from, and I didn't mean to be critical. It's just that a basic tenet of my method of looking at the Star Trek universe is that what ultimately ends up onscreen (budget restrictions, warts, and all) is what counts. Period.
As I said, whatever floats one's boat...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Whereas I recognise that what we see on-screen is an imperfect reflection of what's "really" happening. I choose purity of intention over rationalisation of shortfall.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:It's just that a basic tenet of my method of looking at the Star Trek universe is that what ultimately ends up onscreen (budget restrictions, warts, and all) is what counts. Period.
Which returns us to the original topic of this thread: TNG remastered. Let's say that they make a new CGI design for the Tsiolkovsky, one that was more in line with what Okuda & Sternbach imagined the ship to look like. Or even better, have multiple new CGI designs for each episode where the Grissom was used. Obviously, this change will now invalidate what was "formerly" canon and official, i.e. the Oberth class being a new design, multiple changes in the Encyclopedia (if a new one ever comes out, which is unlikely) and the Grissom-type ship now being relegated to just Star Trek III.
So what's canon now?
Obviously the answer to this question will ultimately rest with the individual viewer. But I personally think the whole point is moot, because I doubt they'll make changes like what I've just described.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
