posted
I don't remember a Valiant/ Defiant Class arguement in the last couple of years...but I think it was pretty much cleared up when Ezri referred to it as Defiant Class on-screen, no?
posted
There was a Defiant/Valiant debate of sorts back on the old UP1 bulletin board. There was also the great "It's an Akira! It's a Norway! The model was changed! No it wasn't" which ranks right up near the top in terms of forehead-veins popped.
And while this has been bloody in recent terms and Wolf359 went on and on and on (usually rather constructively) the 34 consecutive Defiant length wars are, when taken together, the bloodiest conflict we've ever had, bar none.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Klingon BOP size differences are offensive to me.. i often wake in my sleep screaming about window inconsistencies
I think that there is one small one with a crew of 12 and a huge whale-sized cargo area, and possibly a variant of the same size whithout the whale-sized cargo area, enabling it to operate with a larger crew. And then there is one that is scaled up, but not more that 50 meters that support a crew of 50-100 and look larger a la TNG.. there is no canonical evidence that there is a 'supersized' BOP that supports a crew of 1500.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
posted
Oh dear, let's not reignite the BoP wars, for all our sakes. I personally go with CapMike on it.
As for the ST:III object, looks like a ship to me. It's free-floating, separate from the infrastructure, so I think it's gotta be. Good work Proteus.
For things on Mojo's list:
-USS Melbourne at Wolf 359 has to be Excelsior, as on screen you can clearly identify 'USS Melbourne' on an Excelsior Class starship.
-Defiant length debate: still in the air
-Wolf 359 wreckage identification: Let's reignite that one! Must have missed that debate, or it was before I joined up at Flare. As a friend and site affiliate of Bernd's I go with a lot of his theories and assertions on this subject.
-USS Yamato reg: I Remember this one. I still insist it has to be NCC 1305-E. That's what Riker said, even though I don't like it much.
There was of course one very heated argument not on Mojo's list, The Akiraprise war....
*tip-toes away quietly*
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Anyways, to derail your little metadiscussion, I think that this shadow analysis suggests that this object (ship or not) might have been photographed separately from the wall and only combined with it in the optical printer. I know from reading about how this scene was done that Enterprise, Excelsior, and the interior were all models of different scale photographed separately and combined optically. The analysis suggests that this object might have been intended at some point to move, as would a ship, or else the model builders would have simply attached it to the wall.
Also, the spacedock interior model was, I think, dissasembled or even destroyed after STIII and had to be rebuilt from scratch for STIV. Is any similar object visible in STIV?
posted
A little off topic, but: The award for "Most Pages Gained In a Single Day" goes to the "2 planes just hit the world trade center in new york" thread in the Officer's Lounge. Or, most pages gained in an hour or minute, for that matter, goes to that thread.
What ignorant fools thought the Defiant was Valiant class? It was the first ship off it's class, for god's sake... Oh, wait, this was before the Age of Enlightment about ST ships...
posted
Hey, did you guys ever solve the Akira torpedoe tube and fighter bay question of design sketch vs onscreen consistency? It bugged me so much that I switched my favorite ship from the Akira to the Excelsior.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:-USS Melbourne at Wolf 359 has to be Excelsior, as on screen you can clearly identify 'USS Melbourne' on an Excelsior Class starship...
Ahem
Not that I'd ever be caught dead bringing a floundering thread still further off it's intended topic, but...
All the canonical evidence supports that there were TWO U.S.S. Melbournes NCC-62043 at the battle of Wolf 359. One Nebula and one Excelsior. The Nebula appeared in BOTH 359 eps, (BoBW and Emissary) and was further displayed complete with a named-and-numbered plaque in TNG "Future Imperfect."
There's just no way around it. You can ignore neither the Excelsior nor the Nebbie. They are what they are: two vessels of different classes bearing the same name and registry number, and appearing concurrently in the same scenario. Wild, bizzare, illogical, and as difficult to explain as that is, that's what happened.
Get over it.
-MMoM
P.S.- And the "thingy" in the spacedock is a ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Um.. except that if i cant read it while watching the episode, its not canon, and i couldnt read the plaque in 'Future' and i sure as hell couldnt see half of a Nebula floating in 'BOBW'
Im more than willing to accept helpful pieces of backstory that can be gleaned from what was there when the filmed it (like the USS Liberator shuttle) but if its contradictory, you take the one that you could see, because the version thats more obvious is what you should have seen, and if its something that you have buy a book with behind the scenes pictures to see, obviously its not part of the finished product.
[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
