posted
While I can see your point of view Mim, I should point out that quoting from Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise is roughly equivalent to trying to win a court case by turning up naked and pissing on the judge.
Or does the same book that states that the Enterprise-A has transwarp have the painting details on 23rd contury starships correct?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
I agree with Wes and Siegfried. There is virtually no info other than made up stuff (fan wise) as to what the pre TOS universe was like. Its a taste thing. Some will like it, others will have to either get over it or tollerate it because its a done deal now. I personally like the new Enterprise. For those who dont think it looks retro enough I would like to make a few comments. Did anyone scream blody murder when the nacells changed back to having red bussard collectors after they were dropped for TMP? Thats a sep backward in the tech tree isnt it? They no longer looked like they came after TMP because they used the retro bussard design didn't they? Since TNG was set in the future they should have been making steps forward instead of backward. That settles it, since they changed back to the red bussard collectors, im never watching Post ST: TUC ever again. Its just wrong to be that retro. Im goning to ignore the great stories and sulk and wine just because the ships dont look "futuristic" enough for me. Cause in the end its the looks of the show, not the stories and character interactions that make a show great. (END RANT MODE) Sorry to bust my spleen but these "its not retro enough" arguments are wearing on my sanity
-------------------- Jack O'Neal - I like their style. Shoot first, send flowers later.
posted
At the time that Mr. Scott's Guide was published, (Just after Star Trek IV) it had been Paramount's intention that all ships were going to be upgraded w/transwarp. (It wasn't even until TNG and VRG that Transwarp came to equal 'faster than Warp 10.') Paramount at the time had the Excelsior being a success, and a whole slew of other things that were later changed. So, all the info in the book is correct by the standards of the time. In fact, IIRC, the drawings of the E-A's transwarp displays are actually based on the panels seen on the bridge at the end of TVH. So, the E-A was going to have Transwarp, before they later changed that idea in TNG and TUC.
On a side note: What happened with MSGTE is something that should never happen, which is why I get so worried about TPTB ignoring the encyclopedia. I don't want to se the proud Encyc suffer the same sort of invalidation as Shane Johnson's book, or the earlier work of Franz Joseph.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Well, putting aside the flaws with the transwarp drive system, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise has a few other problems with it. One of them is a flawed chart of the rank insignia. Another are the dates used are over half a century off from what they should have been. Franz Joseph's work also had some problems with it, notably his diagrams off the engine room are way off and his diagram of the Constitution class places weapons embankments in the wrong place. If you want further information on that, ask Peregrinus.
On my second point, I highly doubt that the Encyclopedia, Chronology, Technical Manual, etc. are going to suffer the same fate as the Joseph and Johnson works. For one thing, they were both done by people outside of the actual production of Star Trek. In the case of Franz Joseph, he only saw about a handful of the episodes. Mike Okuda, who will probably be the scenic art supervisor for the rest of eternity, is a valued staff member who helped bring a lot of Star Trek to life. And, as I pointed out before, the producers and writers have read the encyclopedia, et al. and they do appreciate the work he has done. And, for the most part, the modern Trek series have adhered to them.
posted
Not to mention that the Encyclopedia is, for the most part, a collection of stuff that's already been onscreen. The only made-up stuff is expressly written as "conjecture", so there isn't really such a problem w/ ignoring it...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to mention that the LCARS panels shown in the book, complete with "transwarp" this and "Megahyperwarp" that, never actually appeared on the Enterprise A.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
Sorry to bust my spleen but these "its not retro enough" arguments are wearing on my sanity 
Printer-friendly view of this topic