posted
An understanding of TV production is tremendously important, because if you have a choice between several theories, the one that takes into account behind-the-scenes will probably last the longest. This knowledge is also a big part of the difference between fans and fanboys.
The other important thing is believability. It occured to me that the guys who wrote the first tech manual, the TOS writers' guide, had nothing to be consistent with, so everything had to be invented with respect to the real world. Even the TNG tech manual sometimes ignores consistency with TOS in favor of believability with respect to the space program and the state of science. The Franz Joseph manual became popular because it was professionally done, not because it was consistent with the details of TOS. That's also the reason some fandom publications out there are valued.
So the best course of action is probably a believable theory that takes into account the established details as much as possible and suits the nature of television production.
(It looks like I'm bound to write a textbook on this someday...)
[ February 27, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
People who like the NX-59XXX number versus the NX-749XX number state that it's because that number is seen more clearly. However, how many of you state that we should accept USS Brittain instead of Brattain. Brittain was a LOT clearer than Brattain (seen as a little label behind the captain's chair). The name Brittain was seen in several shots. Why do you accept Brattain, then? Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
As to my belief? I don't really care about that ship. It seems too fanboyish for me, and it shot a Nebula class (yes, I'm strange ).
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ace: People who like the NX-59XXX number versus the NX-749XX number state that it's because that number is seen more clearly. However, how many of you state that we should accept USS Brittain instead of Brattain. Brittain was a LOT clearer than Brattain (seen as a little label behind the captain's chair). The name Brittain was seen in several shots. Why do you accept Brattain, then? Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
As to my belief? I don't really care about that ship. It seems too fanboyish for me, and it shot a Nebula class (yes, I'm strange ).
And it's not the only one. From small errors (Pasteur, Ahawahnee) to large larger mistakes (Hood bearing Lakota-registry, Jenolan/en/in)) - but everyone should decide which one he accepts. I take the 74xxx because it's from the guys who know how to do it, and it makes a lot more sense.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There's a difference here. First, with the Brattain, you're also dealing with dialogue as well as visual evidence. (Nobody ever said "Brittain"...)
quote:Because it was an error you say. So why not NX-749XX?
Because it's not an error. Why do you insist NX-59650 is an error? Why is the VFX number somehow more dismissable to you than the Art Dept's? Just because Okuda came up with NX-74913, why does that make that number "more correct" than the one that came from FI? Both numbers were just made up. AFAIK, the Art Dept doesn't have any kind of seniority over the VFX Dept. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the other way 'round.) There's no reason to count the 7xxxx number over the 5xxxx one, other than your bias towards wanting a bigger number. There's nothing blatantly erroneous about NX-59650.
You must also consider the secondary literature. Every single reference source uses NX-59650, including the Encyclopedia, authored by the man who came up with the other number in the first place: Mike Okuda. Even he concedes that 74913 is the the one that can be more easily let go of. You simply can't say "oh, let's ignore the big-ass registry on the hull."
-MMoM
[ February 27, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:You simply can't say "oh, let's ignore the big-ass registry on the hull."
I do and it works fine for me.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Zhukov's "big-ass registry on the hull" was 62136. Yet Okuda, the Encyclopedia, and all other references to the ship ignore it, and list it as 26136. So yes, people make mistakes. And one mistake was to give the Prometheus a 5XXXX registry on the hull.
Still nothing from Drexler, I'm afraid. Maybe I'm just being a little impatient, but I really thought I'd hear something by now. Even a "sorry, couldn't find anything" reply. But no such luck.
[ February 27, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, how do you define big-ass? What's big-ass to you is not big-ass to me. Are we looking towards some kind of a consensus on what's big and signficant, and what's small and in the background? This is shaky ground.
Same thing with the Defiant. Maybe I happen to remember the shots of the Defiant docked at DS9 next to the Nebula, or the infinitely tall Jefferies tubes from "The Adversary", or the unusual distance between the bridge and the engineering. To someone who's just seen those shows, the Defiant feels big. Someone else might remember those of the ship next to a huge Galor. Other people might be influenced too much by the MSD and consensus, having seen none of the Defiant episodes in recent times. If, on the other hand, we accept everything onscreen as true and explain the problems, we've already achieved a more objective standard.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by a monkey with a keyboard: Why do you insist NX-59650 is an error?
Mainly because it's already been admitted that the NX-59650 number is in fact an error! I don't remember the exact quote, but Okuda said something to the extent that the effects company did not use the number that he picked out.
Also, that number is totally inconsistent with the rest of the Starfleet armadas that we've seen. There's no arguing that all new-era ships (launched in late-TNG and beyond) begin with NCC-7xxxx. The only ways to address the 5xxxx number is through a convoluted explanation that involves long production delays or some other such bull -- or to acknowledge that the hull number was an error.
Let's take a similar situation -- the infamous turbolift scene in "Star Trek V." The sign on the way CLEARLY said "Deck 73" or some other unreasonably high number. And yet, every Treknologist worth his Trek videotapes knows that that was a blatant ERROR... and therefore IGNORES it.
Why can't we do the same with the Prometheus's erroneous hull number?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
"Let's take a similar situation -- the infamous turbolift scene in 'Star Trek V.' The sign on the way CLEARLY said 'Deck 73' or some other unreasonably high number. And yet, every Treknologist worth his Trek videotapes knows that that was a blatant ERROR... and therefore IGNORES it."
Well, to be fair, that's partly because ST5 itself was a blatant error and we ignore it. :-)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, but the E-A doesn't have 75 decks either...nor could it go from earth to the neutral zone then on to the center of the galaxy and back in anything less than a few decades if not a century.
There are some good things in ST:V that are firsts, one being as you say the shuttle craft & hanger bay but there are some technical errors and plot holes so big that you could comfortably fly a Borg cube through, with room to spare.
[ February 28, 2002, 15:53: Message edited by: Reverend ]
posted
OK guys, I need some advice here. It's been almost two weeks, & I haven't heard a peep out of Drexler. I normally wouldn't be making such a big fuss out of this, but when I originally contacted him, he replied to me in a matter of minutes in a very cordial & helpful way. He certainly didn't seem like he wasn't interested, and if he thought I was just another annoying fanboy, it's not like he even had to reply to my email. But he did reply, & from what I gathered, he probably had some pics on his hard drive that he could just email to me. Unfortunately, he either a) hasn't found anything but is still looking and has every intention of contacting me; b) hasn't found anything, & has stopped looking but has neglected to tell me; or c) has just plain forgot.
I'd like to send him another email soon, but I want to word it so that he doesn't think I'm being too pushy. I even considered telling him that I'd pay him a reasonable amount for his trouble, but then I realized that I didn't want to see the photos THAT bad.
Any suggestions?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It's possible that he's fallen under a load of work. The Art Department's presumably in the heat of prepping stuff for May Sweeps, and I'd like nothing better than to believe he's so busy designing new stuff that he can't dig up the photos.
A really-gently-worded nudge would be OK, I guess. Maybe wait another week, and keep it pleasant but short. The money thing is all-round stupid.
[ March 04, 2002, 13:07: 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
posted
I'd say give him a gentle reminder, ending it with something like "I do realize you are a busy man and I apologize for pressing you if you just haven't had a chance to look...thanks..."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic