More specifically, I was watching the bonus features of the TNGS2DVD set, which includes a walk through the Paramount warehouses that contained all the no-longer-used props from all of Trek. It's amazing what they keep there, including stuff as far back as the original ST3 mushroom and the larger models of the parts of the Reliant that they blew up in ST2. Seeing as most of this stuff will likely NEVER be used again, on wonders why they bother keeping it around instead of selling it off or something. Anyway, the 3-foot Excelsior model orginally created for VOY "Flashback" was there, labeled as the Fredrickson as she showed up in DS9 "A Time to Stand".
Where am I going with this? Well, between the two episodes above there's about one year where the model is used - and as such, it must have been relabeled as the USS Malinche from DS9 "For the Uniform". There's also one or two new stock shots of DS9 with an Excelsior class ship hanging from it that showed up around this time. Given that models too small to have the decals seen are often not changed for stock shots, assuming the Excelsior in these stock shots are not CGI (which is likely at this time in the series), the Excelsior could just be labeled the Malinche. Or if I'm mistaken and the stock shot shows up afterwards, the Excelsior would therefore be labeled the Fredrickson!
So there.
Mark
[ May 10, 2002, 20:49: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
posted
Well, considering the vast multitude of possibilities any particular bit of Star Trek presents ("Quick, we need half of an old movie style nacelle for reference!"), I imagine it is in Paramount's best interest to keep as much stuff stored as possible.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I thought Malinche was E-B-style, but I could be wrong.
We never saw anything labeled 'Malinche', the only shot we had was the ship floating dead in space, and you can neither see a registry nor a name. So maybe they didn't even bother to relabel it.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
In other words, the 3-foot model from "Flashback". And it's true we didn't see a reg number or name (we only had one shot of her, from the aft-ventral angle). However, in physical model days they do tend to relabel stuff for the simple reason that they won't know whether or not the reg number will be seen or not until they actually shoot the model - take the lantree as an example. I'm fairly certain that they would have relabeled it...
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I just realized that 'LANTREE' may have been named such simply to avoid having to make any more letters than the ones already contained in the word 'RELIANT' of the ships original labels.. or is that a coincidence..?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
y'know, I can't believe than in the past decade I'd never noticed that...
-------------------- "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
i hadnt ever realized it until tonight, thanhks to me being mercilessly stoned... same thinkg goes for rearranging the 'VOYAGER' models labels for the 'YEAGER'.. both sets of names are rearranged letters with an added 'e'
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
wow, i never noticed that either. i'm sure that you are completely correct about that, captainmike. the question now, though, is that if they could add an "E" to the names of ships in modern times, why couldn't they have added a simple extra number to the registry of a certain constitution class ship in TOS (i'm well aware of the fact of this being beaten to death, so no flamage)?
posted
Re: Lantree, I don't think it's a case of them wanting to save model money. While it's the first appearance of the Reliant model on TNG, they'd previously done the Constellation model in full decals... I doubt that they'd had a problem with fonts then.
For the TOS Constelation, I figger they could have just as easily put 1710 and the fans could have cared less - at the time.
When doing research for her concordance, Bjo Trimble examined a lot of scripts and production notes. There, she found a lot of those registry numbers, including 1764, 1657 and others that weren't on the Court Martial chart. Those numbers ended up in the pre-Joseph Concordance, then in FASA's books, then in the Encyclopedia.
It is true that she hasn't confirmed that these numbers were actually *assigned* to the ship names at the time, as opposed to being merely listed somewhere. However, we know full well that the official list of "twelve like her" freely included the Republic, the Constellation, the Enterprise, and even the Valiant.
Hence, it is not at all certain that 1017 was a mistake. Another option is that people aside from Jefferies used a simple linear system by which the oldest of the Starship Class (40 years old) would have low numbers, while the most current would have higher numbers.
posted
We do? Whitfield made a lot of other bonehead errors in "The Making of Star Trek", so given that his list inludes "the following names ... established for starships: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, and Intrepid, I would like to point out that the Republic and Valiant show up nowhere in the memos being tossed back and forth, and that neither they nor Whitfield's list include the Defiant. I always advocate anyone using that book as anything other than a guide to mid-60s TV production should take whatever material they glean from it with several solar masses of sodium chloride...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As for Bjo's research -- I believe her. I just want to know which scripts and production materials. I want to see everything in context, so I can have a better idea of what was going on around these numbers that are otherwise just floating around waiting for anyone to assign any meanig to them whatsoever.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Seeing as most of this stuff will likely NEVER be used again, on wonders why they bother keeping it around instead of selling it off or something.
IIRC, they used the destroyed Ent-Nil saucer from STII in "The Jem'Hadar" to simulate the destruction of the Odyssey's saucer (and of course it was also used in BoBW...).
Mark, did you happen to see the registry number on the Fredrickson's saucer?
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
