posted
Dare I ask why this is really relevant? I mean, it would be a harmless enough question if you could get it answered in casual conversation at the dentist's office, but can't we come up with, I dunno, better questions to email busy people about? Like perhaps ones they stand a hope in hell of remembering without actually digging out the model in four pieces from a crate somewhere?
No matter how many platitudes you slap onto the email to whoever, the very fact that you want someone to stop and look up something that bloody inane is pretty damn disrespectful. Remember the good ol' days, when we couldn't email Okuda at the drop of the hat and ask him who made which typographical mistake on which Okudagram? We got by. IMHO a lot of people are taking the good will that Okuda & co. have shown for granted.
The above aside, isn't what's written on the saucer pretty irrelevant, seeing as it was never shown onscreen and the ship was given a pretty bloody obvious name in dialogue?
Sorry to keep on being the wet blanket and all, but I think this is going a bit too far.
[ March 22, 2002, 17:59: 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 think The_Tom is right unless this question leads to a lot of pointless discussion/SWDAO, in which case it makes sense to either stop arguing about it or simply ask.
It's always better to post questions online and let the people involved answer at their convenience. Some of the producers have separate mailboxes for these kinds of questions already (I'm sure Mike Okuda does), in which case it's not really a problem.
Here's an idea: open up threads called "Questions For Doug Drexler", or "Questions For Gary Hutzel" and use them to post questions intended for that person, with a polite note that these are the things we'd really like to know, and that their input would be much appreciated. If the producers feel like it, they can always come in and answer a few questions at a time.
If not, at least we'll have a list ready the next time they do a chat or an interview -- they'll also know what kinds of things to do a Magazine article on, for instance.
[ March 22, 2002, 19:21: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Apparently, Ronald B. Moore was a visual effects supervisor on TNG, VOY, and Generations. So says the Encyclopedia-2, anyway.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A VFX Supervisor, as far as I can tell, is basically responsible for the composition of a VFX shot, although there are assistants working out the details.
In the motion control days, it meant working with the actual models on a motion control rig, with perhaps a few motion control assistants. In the CGI days, it probably means sketching out and overseeing the work of the CGI companies, which sometimes have their own, internal supervisors. Even if the work is no longer hands-on, somebody with a lot of experience has to have the final say (all of the VFX supervisors have been around since Season 1 of TNG, with the exception of only Stipes who joined in late TNG, and MAYBE also Voyager's other supervisor, I don't recall...)
[ March 23, 2002, 20:09: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It's as relevant as trying to track down the name of any model...
It's another name for the shiplists.
It's also specifically relevant to anyone who has been trying to say the Centaur is not an unique vessel.
-MMoM
-------------------- 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
I fail to see how the one existing version of the ship having two names would significantly add any logical recourse to any canonical argument about how many Centaurs 'fleet might have built. Its still one ship with two names. Youre reaching.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I would say the model represents two ships. The U.S.S. Whatever, NCC-42043, and the U.S.S. Centaur (NCC unknown). Doesn't this make more sense?
-------------------- 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
quote:We should make inqiries to find out what the Centaur model was named.
No, you should. If you're the one who really cares about this, then you should make the effort to contact people, just like I did.
The names on those ships were jokes. They were never meant to be seen or taken seriously. The script said "Centaur." One of these ships was randomly chosen to represent the Centaur. Didn't matter what label was on it, they could just as easily have chosen the Elkins or the unnamed Connie variant. It's no differnt from TPTB reusing the Excelsior stock footage to represent other ships.
And The_Tom is right. Bothering people about little piddly things like this is how Trekkies like us get a bad reputation. I'm just happy I got what I got. It was much, much more than I thought I'd get, & I'm satisfied. If you're not, then you should deal with it.
[ March 25, 2002, 12:29: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
[ March 25, 2002, 12:12: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
You should never, ever be happy with what you've got. Seek out alternative sources. Learn the names of everyone working on Star Trek -- maybe someone else can provide more specific information? Wade through age-old magazines and newsgroup postings for that one little elusive detail. You'd be surprised how many answers lie dormant, yet are easily accessible.
"Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." -- Michelangelo.
In this case, my question is whether the Centaur's registry has been identified onscreen? I found an old post by Mark Nguyen saying he did such an examination. Some people think it hasn't been seen -- Mark, can you clarify? If yes, then the Centaur NCC-42043 is canon and the other name is irrelevant (I personally think it's Duckats).
Otherwise, there's still the slight possibility that the model was relabeled after the episode was shot, and that the Fact Files simply took whatever registry was there. In this case I suggest NOT assuming that the Centaur had this registry. Assuming this will only spread the info throughout the Internet and make it more difficult to correct later.
[ March 25, 2002, 15:45: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Dukkie, I would very much like to do it myself, but I have no access to anyone-of-consequence's e-mail addresses, and wouldn't know the first thing about finding them out. That's the reason why I posted, in order to find out if anyone else does. I'm asking for help.
And I agree totally with you about how the ship "became" the Centaur. They just used the model without oparticularly caring what was written on it. Which is why I say the model was built to represent one ship, and then just happened to be used for the Centaur as well. SO there are two ships. The first is whatever ship the model was labeled as, and the other is the Centaur.
BTW, I am not ashamed or embarressed to seek answers to whatever questions I may have, no matter how pointless they might seem to you. I'm not asking them because I'm trying to be annoying, I'm asking them because I want to know. It's obvious that the name can't be deciphered by peering and squinting at the photo, so we/I/whoever-wants-to-know should simply ask. It's a simple, direct, ordinary method of obtaining information.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
