posted
Probably has something to do with the quality/type of the original film stock used for filming the miniatures. If memory serves ILM handled all of the VFX shots for 'Farpoint' but the rest of the show was done in-house at Paramount. It shouldn't be surprising that there would be a noticeable dip in technical quality.
posted
Trek Core is posting new pics of the Oberth Class Tsiolkovsky. If you compare those two images, you can find that the ship has now two (sic!) different registries!
Not sure if this is a mistake of the producers (can't validate until next week when the set is available for mortals) or if one of the pics is a hoax.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And I hate to spoil the party, but the registry of the exploding USS Yamato looks like NCC-71804 or 71806 to me, not NCC-71807. I just downloaded the HD trailer and the last digit doesn't look like the first one (a '7'). I was always under the impression that the registry of the USS Yamato is NCC-71807 like it can bee seen on the computer terminal at the beginning of the episode.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by o2: Trek Core is posting new pics of the Oberth Class Tsiolkovsky. If you compare those two images, you can find that the ship has now two (sic!) different registries!
Not sure if this is a mistake of the producers (can't validate until next week when the set is available for mortals) or if one of the pics is a hoax.
Okuda listed the Copernicus's registry as NCC-623 in the Encyclopedia, but presumably that's wrong, as there's no reason why the registry of the Tsiolkovsky would be two different numbers on the same place on the ship's hull. Obviously the registry was digitally changed to 53911 for the establishing shot but accidentally missed in the destruction shot. So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
quote:And I hate to spoil the party, but the registry of the exploding USS Yamato looks like NCC-71804 or 71806 to me, not NCC-71807. I just downloaded the HD trailer and the last digit doesn't look like the first one (a '7'). I was always under the impression that the registry of the USS Yamato is NCC-71807 like it can bee seen on the computer terminal at the beginning of the episode.
-------------------- "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
Obviously the registry was digitally changed to 53911 for the establishing shot but accidentally missed in the destruction shot.
I wonder how they 'accidentally' missed it in the destruction scene since the reg number is now very goood readable. They had rather not changed the number in the first shot. Then the number would be consistend throughout the episode.
quote:
So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
This is because the Oberth model was used before in Star Trek IV?
I'm a little bit disappointed that the blu ray release gives us with the clear picture quality more reason to concern.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
I wonder how they 'accidentally' missed it in the destruction scene since the reg number is now very goood readable. They had rather not changed the number in the first shot. Then the number would be consistend throughout the episode.
Things were probably rushed, and it was overlooked. An understandable mistake. And the number was changed to match the ship's dedication plaque.
quote:This is because the Oberth model was used before in Star Trek IV?
Yes, the model was reused as ship filler in Spacedock before we see the Enterprise-A for the first time.
-------------------- "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
quote:So logically the Copernicus's registry was always NCC-640.
Sorry, but this does not make sense. The registry of the Tsiolkovsky was always NCC-640 since we now have the prove that this number was attached to the model. The fact that the registry was digitally alterd for the blu ray release in some scences does not change this.
The registry of the Copernicus is therefore still unclear since
a) the registry is not visible in ST IV. b) the registry could have been altered at any time after shooting ST IV and before shooting TNG The Naked Now.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
Sorry, but this does not make sense. The registry of the Tsiolkovsky was always NCC-640 since we now have the prove that this number was attached to the model. The fact that the registry was digitally alterd for the blu ray release in some scenes does not change this.
In Encounter at Farpoint, the Hood's registry, printed on the Excelsior model, was NCC-2541. Later in the series, Okudagrams showed that the registry was instead NCC-42296, and has stuck to that throughout the remainder of Trek history. Same goes for stock footage of the Hood that represented various other Starfleet vessels. That stock footage may have had the Hood's name and registry, but it's not the same ship.
It's simply a case of a changed premise, and it happens all the time. The Tsiolkovsky's registry was always meant to be NCC-53911 regardless of what was printed on a model that was reused from a previous production.
quote:The registry of the Copernicus is therefore still unclear since
a) the registry is not visible in ST IV. b) the registry could have been altered at any time after shooting ST IV and before shooting TNG The Naked Now.
While that may be true, why would the registry number have changed between STIV and "The Naked Now?" What would have been the point? And why would the VFX personnel make the ship's registry 640 when they had the plaque information already? It's far more logical to assume that the NCC-640 registry was from the ship's use as background filler in STIV, and that the VFX guys didn't modify the model at all for its use in the episode. Until Okuda says something to the contrary, that's what I believe.
-------------------- "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
I would like to stick to the Tsiolkovsky-issue for just a little bit longer:
You ask 'why would the registry number have changed between STIV and "The Naked Now?'. Well, the number on the Oberth model has changed from NCC-638 to NCC-640 between ST III and TNG. Why is it so unthinable that it had been changed inbetween as well? There was always the romour that the registry of the Copernicus was NCC-623.
But if we now say that the registry on the filming model of the Copericus was indeed NCC-640, then this would implay that the Encyclopedia form Mike Okuda is not as reliable as we thought - and maybe we should stick to the one true source of informaiton we have: The DVDs/Blu Rays.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
No one ever said the Encyclopedia was 100% reliable. It is filled with several mistakes. However, what's not a mistake is the Tsiolkovsky's registry in its dedication plaque. Since IMHO the registry on the model was the Copernicus's unchanged from STIV, then we have to accept that the plaque's info is the correct one.
As for the change in registry: after the model's use as the Copernicus, it's next use was as the Tsiolkovsky. When in between that time would it have needed to be changed again?
-------------------- "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
Yes, the dedication plaque. In the DVD version, it is not possbile to read it at all (besides the ship's name, which is spelled wrong, by the way, by what I was told).
I wonder if the blu ray does reveal any new information.
But in the meantime we can see the NCC-640 in at least two different scenes on the ship's hull. This is a hard fact that we cannot ignore.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:As for the change in registry: after the model's use as the Copernicus, it's next use was as the Tsiolkovsky. When in between that time would it have needed to be changed again?
Exact my point: Since we can't see the registry of the Copernicus in ST IV we cannot say for sure that the registry was already NCC-640. It is possible that the registry was changed for TNG to NCC-640 and that the registry in ST IV was something else (again, where is this NCC-623 comming from?).
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
NCC-623 is what Okuda stated in the Encyclopedia for the registry of the Copernicus. How he got that info is unclear, since he did not work on STIV. His reg info for the STIV Saratoga was likewise wrong. He also got wrong several of the registries of the BoBW kitbashes, a project that he did work on. So his info about the Copernicus's registry should be taken with a grain of salt.
Conversely, he himself made the Tsiolkovsky's plaque, and said plaque has been seen clearly (not in the screencap, but a photo of the plaque from Starlog magazine, IIRC), so unless Okuda wants to redact the reg info on it, that's what I'm sticking with.
The fact that the reg was digitally changed for the establishing shot clearly indicates that Okuda wanted the 53911 reg to be the correct one. The fact that some shots where we can see the old registry were missed, is simply an oversight most likely due to the rushed nature of this project.
-------------------- "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