posted
OK, I get ya. But what is/has been so hard with accepting that they are 7 vintages? I don't get the WOLF 359 example cause there are Galaxy-generation things there... I.e. there is a whole generation that ranges from the mid 5's to the early 7's that are Galaxy-ish. Really the Galaxy is well Nebulae-ish or what ever came before it that was mostly Galaxy-ish.
No one accepts that the USS Yeager starts with an 8 do they? so why does the Thunderchild and the Budapest have to start with 5's and 6's (actually what was the Budapest?)
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
"I believe what Tim is trying to say (and which makes sense, really) is that he doesn't think Starfleet would work in a way that the Enterprises were the only case with suffixed registries."
posted
As far as I consider the production errors, Mike Okuda and the in-house art department were always in charge of keeping track of things like the NCCs because they made the markings for the models. To me, they should still have been the last word on the subject even when the CGI models started to be used. A hired out CGI Effects House shouldn't have the authority to assign those numbers. That's where most of the descrepancies have been. I'll choose the in-house suggestion over one an effects house assigns if there's a conflict. Prometheus being a prime case.
quote:As far as I consider the production errors, Mike Okuda and the in-house art department were always in charge of keeping track of things like the NCCs because they made the markings for the models.
Wrong. Mike Okuda wasn't in charge of that before 1986. The first guy in charge was Matt Jefferies, who wanted ships of Enterprise's design to be numbered 1701, 1702, etc. Somebody else from the production team decided that the numbers do not follow this system, which is where Bjo Trimble got some of her numbers in the Concordance such as 16xx, which ended up being used by FASA.
Then, Franz Joseph came up with his system which labeled all the scouts with numbers such as 5xx or 6xx, which is probably where ILM got its NCC-638 registry number for the Grissom. Only then did Okuda come along and decide on a simple sequential system where older ships have lower registry numbers, and even he thinks that the new Defiant is labeled NX-74205.
Of course, ever since the art department no longer needs to do the markings, they've been done by outside CG modellers who seem to think that there is no real system to these numbers. Hence, saying that Okuda was the guy in charge and that only his word should be followed is oversimplifying things quite a bit.
quote: To me, they should still have been the last word on the subject even when the CGI models started to be used. A hired out CGI Effects House shouldn't have the authority to assign those numbers. That's where most of the descrepancies have been. I'll choose the in-house suggestion over one an effects house assigns if there's a conflict. Prometheus being a prime case.
It would be desirable to have only one person do the numbers all the time, but even that wouldn't help in every case. The reality of the situation is that the numbers have been assigned with different meaning in different times, and that they will never fit in one system. We can either close our eyes to reality and become one narrowsighted circle similar the old Tech Fandom, or we can accept the reality and attempt to figure out a realistic system that explains what's going on in every era.
What's completely strange to me is this unfounded assumption that there is one number to every starship and that it lasts forever, whereas that's only true for US ships in the real world, while other ships do not necessarily use this system.
In the real world, if your theory doesn't explain even 1% of the cases, you've overlooked something.
I think that some people are just so arrogant that they consider their own personal visions more important than research. I'm not seeking a high standard of analysis. It isn't difficult to make a connection between car license plates or pennant numbers and onscreen evidence. All you need do is free yourself from any religiously dogmatic visions of Starfleet and really think for yourself.
When Doug Drexler designed the NX-01, he chose not to specify the exterior details because he knew that the VFX people will want to make their own choices.
Guess what? He didn't see reality as a mistake, he didn't choose to accept the notion of production errors. He accepted the reality, and was smart enough to ignore over twenty years of convention which had ships littered with details, as though one were shooting a movie where everything could be planned out in advance.
He wasn't bound by any convention -- why should we? If we do, then twenty years from now people will look at us as another Tech Fandom refusing to abandon the views of the TNG era.
Boris
[ November 19, 2002, 14:59: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Somebody else from the production team decided that the numbers do not follow this system, which is where Bjo Trimble got some of her numbers in the Concordance such as 16xx, which ended up being used by FASA.
IIRC, the 16xx registries didn't come from any "official" source before the Okuda works in the 90s. They came from Greg Jein and some fandom magazine (coincidentally the same year that FJ published the SFTM), based on the ludicrous assumption that every ship on the wall chart from "Court Martial" was a Constitution. (The logic of that still, to this day, eludes me.) Even then, FASA deviated on some counts.
FJ's system still makes the most sense, but that's IMHO, of course.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The Concordance included some registries that were neither on the Court Martial list nor were invented by Jein (NCC-1764 of the Defiant and NCC-1647 of the Farragut, among others). Trimble told me they originated from either the old TOS production lists or scripts that she was given access to, and that this was one reason Mike Okuda chose to use them.
posted
Ok, but what's wrong with those two numbers? 1764 seems to be fitting for a Constitution-class vessel and as we don't know the Farragut's class, 1647 is ok too.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, one thing that's definitely wrong is the number 1764, which under the Jefferies system would be the 64th starship of the Enterprise type. The TOS production people, on the other hand, agreed on there being around twelve of such ships.
quote:Well, one thing that's definitely wrong is the number 1764, which under the Jefferies system would be the 64th starship of the Enterprise type.
Luckily the number wasn't shown onscreen, was it?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I never said that these numbers were canon. The point was to show that there was more than one offscreen system, and that because of that, Okuda's intention doesn't apply to the entire history of Star Trek.
Anybody care to attack my actual argument, or are we going to keep circling around the issue? Do you completely disagree with the idea of art by accident? Do you think that the only valid interpretation is that of the people who made the show? If so, how do you deal with the fact that some production people's errors are other production people's creative choices (i.e. the original 171m Defiant size)? If it's about making up your own mind, why not do it in a rational manner where you can support your choices with argument, as opposed to a whimsical fan-fiction-like manner where you don't need to give explanations?
Here's an example of the sort of proof I'm looking for.
The number 59650 is canonical and overrides the non-canonical 74913. It's not an error because we've seen similar out-of-Okuda's-system numbers for new ships in the past, and they were production errors only from Okuda's point of view, which by definition isn't canonical and cannot override the actual show. If they contradicted all of the valid naval systems or similar real world systems, they would possibly qualify as errors, but they don't.
Hence, because those numbers are valid, there's no reason to discount this one in favor of an offscreen number. If anything, both numbers were in use at the same or at different times.
Boris
[ November 19, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, Boris, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that the canon overides that which we otherwise know to be an error.
As an example, does that mean that the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" is none other than a K't'inga-class and that the class was in service as a frontline vessel for >225 years?
Canon is not always logical or consistent with reality and, as such, we can't just take everything at face value. If we know something is an error, such as the 1305-E Yamato rego, I don't see why we can't just accept it was error and move on.
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, Boris, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that the canon overides that which we otherwise know to be an error.
I'm not saying that the canon overrides actual errors -- what I'm doing is questioning your definition of an error. I'm arguing that the only errors are obvious technical bloopers which cannot possibly be explained (and if someone does succeed, they no longer are errors). Aside from the boom mikes and bubblegum cameraman reflections, the similarities between Admiral Cartwright and Ben Sisko's father are an error -- Starfleet doesn't believe in cloning, and they're not twins.
Registry numbers, on the other hand, are more like stardates -- they're random because the producers, with the exception of Okuda, don't really care about them being perfectly consistent. That doesn't mean that the stardates are in error, that we should be inventing new stardates or reordering episodes based on them. The apparent randomness is in their very nature, and can be explained by saying that the value of a stardate is closely linked to a specific point in space, kind of like time zones. Move a little, and it would seem that the stardate rate changes. Move even more, and the stardate goes slightly backwards. Go to another planet, and the stardate REALLY goes backwards or forwards.
Likewise, registry numbers can be easily explained by referring to real-world systems such as pennant numbers or personalized license plates. This is nowhere near the category of a visible boom mike, or the bubblegum cameraman reflection.
quote:As an example, does that mean that the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" is none other than a K't'inga-class and that the class was in service as a frontline vessel for >225 years?
First, we really don't know how long these designs (as opposed to actual hulls) can last, except from non-canonical technical manuals. Star Trek technology is nothing like we use today -- how can we even attempt to apply what we know about the lifespans of our designs?
Second, we don't know if it is the K't'inga class, because we've seen examples of outwardly identical designs having different class names and possibly interior configurations. Finally, "Enterprise" makes it obvious that everybody had essentially the technology of 200 years later, except in its earlier stages. The Enterprise itself has features of ships from 200 years later.
Also, we cannot prove from merely the onscreen evidence that this ship is 100% identical to the Voyager version.
quote:Canon is not always logical or consistent with reality and, as such, we can't just take everything at face value. If we know something is an error, such as the 1305-E Yamato rego, I don't see why we can't just accept it was error and move on.
I've just argued why the canon in this case is consistent with reality (pennant numbers). I've also argued that an error from Okuda's POV need not be an error from the CG person's point of view, the TNG writer's point of view, or the point of view of Paramount which declares the shows canon, not the individual views of people who contributed towards them.
"I think that some people are just so arrogant that they consider their own personal visions more important than research. I'm not seeking a high standard of analysis. It isn't difficult to make a connection between car license plates or pennant numbers and onscreen evidence. All you need do is free yourself from any religiously dogmatic visions of Starfleet and really think for yourself. "
FUCK BORIS... seesh - I see that aimed at me. I'm not being arrogant. I've given thought and EVIDENCE to back up my theories.
What I don't get is why some people can accept the 'production error' or inconsistancy for one thing and not another?
It's not a personal vision... it is trying to make the First Contact ships FIT with what we have CHRONOLOGICALLY seen (with the evidence known) over the years.
If people want to get into this whole 'well we only know like 1% of what is really in Starfleet - then forget about EVERYTHING here - because baby, everything we talk about IS from what we see on screen - and that is probably LESS than 1% of Starfleet.
Everyone was cool on the idea that the higher the number the more modern the vessel - except for the suffixed ships. Then along comes FC information and - as mentioned stuffed up because of some effects guys who had no idea.
LOOK at the First Contact ships - they fit with the era of Defiant, Voyager and Sovereign - not Cheyenne, Nebula and New Orleans.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
FUCK BORIS... seesh - I see that aimed at me. I'm not being arrogant. I've given thought and EVIDENCE to back up my theories.
I directly responded to people I wished to argue with, so I wasn't exactly hiding who I disagreed with. It wasn't aimed at anybody specific, and I didn't have anybody like you in mind because you were actually trying to explain the perceived errors.
quote: What I don't get is why some people can accept the 'production error' or inconsistancy for one thing and not another?
Because one thing can be explained by referencing other examples inside the show as well as the real world, while another thing cannot. Is 59650 as bad as the boom mike?
quote: It's not a personal vision... it is trying to make the First Contact ships FIT with what we have CHRONOLOGICALLY seen (with the evidence known) over the years.
I wasn't discussing the FC ships, never said that your argument was your personal vision. I also never said that registry numbers have absolutely no system to them -- I merely said that there are exceptions. Consequently, the FC ships may or may not be that old; if you include evidence from the official sources, they're not that old, especially given their looks.
quote: If people want to get into this whole 'well we only know like 1% of what is really in Starfleet - then forget about EVERYTHING here - because baby, everything we talk about IS from what we see on screen - and that is probably LESS than 1% of Starfleet.
Exactly. That's precisely why we shouldn't assume that any apparent deviations are errors. We don't assume that the Wolf 359 ships or the DS9TM kitbashes are errors, despite the fact that they severely deviate from the norm, that Rick Sternbach really doesn't treat the DS9TM kitbashes seriously (inflatable decoy baloons was his most recent theory), and that they aren't covered in the Encyclopedia to the extent of all the other ships, meaning that Okuda doesn't exactly like them. Why? They can be explained, at least until we get into the whole kitbashing with rescaling issue.
Coincidentally, the Wolf 359 research would be my example of Flare analysis at its height.
quote: Everyone was cool on the idea that the higher the number the more modern the vessel - except for the suffixed ships. Then along comes FC information and - as mentioned stuffed up because of some effects guys who had no idea.
LOOK at the First Contact ships - they fit with the era of Defiant, Voyager and Sovereign - not Cheyenne, Nebula and New Orleans. [/QB]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
