posted
How annoying that Okuda likes to draw on merely ONE arbitrary website for info. Why doesn't he ask the experts....US?!
I'll define "canon" as suits my whimsy! TV, fair enough. Tech manuals, unless they contradict or make no sense. Novels, no way! Okuda-endorsed websites, In his dreams...
------------------ "I AM THE SPIDER!!!!" - Vic Reeves
posted
If I were Okuda I would also choose D. J. Creighton's site as main source. After all, he has the largest number of original on-screen sightings listed, and this is what eventually counts. And so far he mostly had a strict definition of what is included to his list. There are, however, those frequent flaws, where it would have been better to be a bit more flexible and just deny or ignore contradicting or questionable things like the Antares class raider . As I said above, lately he seems to accept more information from third parties as well.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
As far as the novels by Jeri Taylor are concerned, there is no reason to give them less consideration than we would to the official tech manuals. After all, there exists an equal (if not higher) likelyhood that these sources will be used by the writers on the show.
Registered: Apr 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, I would put Taylor's books on the same level as Sternbach's newsgroup postings etc. It's interesting info, and does come from people who work or worked on the show, but it was never actually on screen and so it's irrelevant.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
posted
I do not like J. Creighton's web site. Bernd says that J. Creighton is a careful observer of the episodes. I disagree. First, he includes ships that never existed- -the USS Discovery ("Squire of Gothos") -the Copernicus ("The Galileo Seven") How do I know these ships never existed? I have seen the episodes repeatedly and I have read the adaptions of both episodes written in the 1960's. - Karemma ("Starship Down") There is no Karemma. I base my conclusion on the episode and the close captioning. (I know the close captioning can be in error-the USS Gander fiasco. However, if you understand the process behind close captioning, this isn't really an issue.) Second, he ignores the spoken mentions of ships. Two examples- Shuttlepod 1 ("Devil's Due") USS Saratoga ("Wrongs Darker Then Death or Night") For those who didn't catch the reference, you have no excuse. The ship was 'captured' in the dialogue and the closed captioning. Thirdly, even worse since Mr. Okuda uses his site, he fails to include entries from the encyclopedia Two examples- Galileo ("All Good Things...") Hawking (Generations)
His site is not to update. Where are the ships from the DS9 TM in his list of Federation ships?
Last, I believe that he gets lost in the counting of starships. Since so much of Star Trek is reshot footage, for J. Creighton counting the number of starships, is like a gardener counting the same number of plants in a flower bed over and over.
posted
The Discovery is the result of a misspoken line, perptuated by stubborn people, like TSN.
The Karemma is the race of the Dominion merchants that were in that episode.
I can't find the new Saratoga. Where is it in the ep?
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
posted
The episode begins. In Quark's Bar, Major Kira Nerys and Jadzia Daz are talking. Major Kira Nerys mentions that a week after her birthday, the USS Saratoga is due to arrive at the station. Does this help Frank?
IP: Logged
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
posted
I know I have heard the shuttlecraft Copernicus mentioned in at LEAST one TOS episode, so it does exist. I don't quite recall if it was in "Galileo Seven," and am unwilling at 11:15 PM to dig out my tape of the SF Channel uncut edition and find out for sure.
They say "The Karrema" a lot when in that episode, and it's impossible to be certain whether they are always referring to the political body, or sometimes to the ship name. Since many nations have named ships after their own country, (isn't there - or hasn't there been - a USS United States?) this cannot be completely discounted as a possibility.
posted
Trinculo: Lately, I have the impression that actually you do watch the episodes most closely. However, taking into account that D. J. Creighton maintains and updates his list for a long time and that obviously all references are checked by himself, there is some degree of reliability. This, however, includes a certain portion of stubbornness.
The Discovery: I'm not sure, I don't have a tape of it.
posted
One other point-when I was younger, i read the sanhedrin (a talmudic text). I learned a very valuable lesson-every word is important. when i watch an episode or film, i listen to every word. another point-a good list maker is flexible. in my list of ships, i consider all possible options. i never close my mind to suggestions. however, i do find that obsessing over technical matters, like soyuz class phasers or kit bash ships, borders on unhealthiness. i do have my limit and i know when to back off, do something else. how many of you can say that?
IP: Logged
posted
Close watching and close listening is essential, considering the episodes are the primary canon sources. But please read what this forum is about: Trek Tech. Real technology and Treknology, in my opinion, can be an additional criterium, even if a discussion is only about ship names and numbers. This is not to make your observations useless, but to give them some (potential) background. And I think it's not as obsessive as you fear.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
I am very concrete-i can understand real technology. the technology of trek shifts like the sands of the sahara-to the whims of the producers and writers, and star trek followers become needlessly concerned about the twisting of the sand. Why does the sand move this way and not this way? The simple answer is the wind. however, there are star trek followers who will not accept this explanation. the wind is discounted and other ideas are thrown forth. in another thread, bernd, you spoke of mike wong. this is a very strong point from mike wong-star trek followers will attempt to explain everything in star trek. you can't for any ideas you have now will be blown away with the next thrust of the wind. the most important lesson i am learning from this forum is to avoid developing hypothesises about any aspect of star trek. when i say an opinion, my opinion is judged by the "experts" of the forum to be naive, misunderstanding of star trek, and not fully comprehending the mysteriesa and wonders of star trek. i may be naive, i may have bad memory, i may not have all the source material; however, i have the wisdom to admit "i don't know" and move on. this is my battle line-cross the battleline and we are at war.
[This message was edited by Trinculo on April 22, 1999.]
. As I said above, lately he seems to accept more information from third parties as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
