posted
According the the fact files, the USS Akira is NCC-62497. Not that I disagree that this and the rest of the Akiras from the FF are bum-pulled-out-of, but take a looksee at this image from the Magazine, from Hobbes' Site (Wicked-Good resource, man.):
Jaeger recognizably wrote NCC-2497 for the USS Akira. While the number on the sketch is terrible, maybe the people at the FF aren't as turnipy as first percieved, and someone paid attention to something.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
OK, they did this one right, but there's still the awful 'Sabre-class'-error. They accepted the obvious error that the DS9TM just copied the Norway-sizes which makes the Sabre as large as the Norway. Furthermore, there are some other 'controverse' sizes on their plans. Maybe they take it a bit too serious. 'Given by the official sources' is not 'right'. They all make errors from time to time, but the FactFiles consequently ignore this. Maybe Jaeger did a drawing of the Akira and listed the Rabin and Spector and Akira as 'possible names'. Look at the Zandura-drawing. The upper left corner says 'Name' and 'Class' and such. There could have been a similar Akira-schematic.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You mean in the same way that the NCC-1701 proves a non-chronological registry system because a single look at any of the movies clearly shows that the ship is too "new" and "advanced" to have been launched in 2245?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm still all for chronological. Some fans just can't accept their beloved Akira and it's 15 photon torpz launchers and type-XXXIVIIIX phazors is older than the Galaxy-class. So what do they do, decide it's not chronological despite every new ship we see having a higher registry than the last.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm still all for chronological. Some fans just can't accept their beloved Akira and it's 15 photon torpz launchers and type-XXXIVIIIX phazors is older than the Galaxy-class. So what do they do, decide it's not chronological despite every new ship we see having a higher registry than the last.
We'll see you in your grave first, you damn stripped jungle kitten. No damn way we're gonna accept any Starfleet ship with 15 torpedoe tubes, and there's more going against the reg code chronology than for it.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
All I know is every new ship we see has a higher registry than the last. That's proof enough for me. And while I don't like the idea of 15 tubes, that's what the artist says so maybe he did draw it with 15.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The cgi studio model has 15 torp tubes. Get used to it.
And there's no fucking way the Akira is an older ship. Same goes with the Saber, Norway, and Steamrunner.
No I am not an Akira-fanboy. I don't even particularly like the Akira design. I just face facts. The FC ships are just one of the many cases where the chronologicality of registry numbers was ignored, whether out of true ignorance or out of simply not caring. It doesn't really matter. The fact is, these are newly-designed ships.
Get...over...it.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ahem, doesn't the USS Equinox look newer then the USS Voyager, yet the Equinox has a lower registry?
It is incredibly easy to explain why the Akira, Sabers, Norways, and Steamrunners look the way they do. Refit. All the designs are nearly 20 years old according to their registry.
That, or just because they look "new" to you doesn't mean that they are really all that new.
Take for instance a Dodge Viper. I assume you know what one looks like. Modern day American supercar. Too bad the car was designed in 1989, making her nearly a dozen years old now. It was designed to look futuristic for its time.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
MMoM/Proteus.. do we need to have this discussion again? I'm tired of people saying "it looks 'newer' to me therefore it has to be newer."
And the ship doesn't have 15 torpedo tubes. The CGI model has 15 nondescript indentations on it which Jaegar says are torpedo tubes. Some of which shot torpedoes in FC, most of which didn't.
-------------------- "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
I'm not sure if the point of this was to get into another one of these Akira-age debates. It was merely to show that maybe, just maybe there are people who are somewhat slightly less than comatosely observant at the FF office, and that their fresh bum-pickin' might not be as offbase as we all done thought, ma.
It seems to me that there are two types of Trek fans. The ones who accept what they see (for the most part), and the ones who don't accept what they see, and try to morph it into some personal, masturbatory fanboy fantasy, where they're the Admiral (TEH FLLEET ADMIRMAL OF TEH OMEGA SQAUEDRAAN!! IN TEH BIGGMEST SHIP!!), and their favorite ship is the coolest, and they recieve the handjobs from their first officer, Seven of T'Pol.
Now while there's a lack of those latter fans around here, there's still a whole bunch o' fans who've their own theories about things they don't think work in their version of Star Trek. This is good. This leads to stimulating discussion. Unless it's retread. And the whole Akira = New, Akira != New argument is retread^1000.
Fans are the reason that we have a Series V, with a Movie X coming this November, but some of them are becoming pains in the ass, who care more about whether a class of Starship was developed in 2373 or 2363 or whatever.
I do have the answer though. It was conclusively developed in the 1995/1996 era by a Special Effects house artist for a fictional TV show. Apart from that, who cares? I bought a toaster last week, and it looks like a pod of sorts. I don't care if it's from 2002 of 2202. It makes me some good toast.
Okay, so the FF people got the Akira from this sketch, and the Spector NCC from the mislabelled diagram from the Encyclopedia. Where did they say the Rabin was from?
It could be named after the famed YES! guitarist-turned Media Ventures member.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
