quote:Originally posted by vwuser: They didn't change the registry of the Excelsior model to NCC-2544. I know the Repulse is NCC-2544, because that is what one of its shuttles says and what the starship mission status says. When I visited "The Child" (HD) on Trekcore, I go to the first page. The nacelles have a four-digit number. The last digit was 1.
I looked at the bluray screencaps at Trekcore. Even in HD I can't make out the number on the nacelles at all; it's just a smudge. Do you have a better shot of it?
quote:The issue with the Lantree stock shot is that it is of the Enterprise coming to the Lantree. The shot in "Fistfuls of Data" required a ship to come to the Enterprise.
Other than the planet (which was added to the Cochrane stock footage later anyway), how is this different from this? In both of these scenes, both ships were shown stationary.
quote:I have seen the "Emissary". The registry on the ventral saucer is NCC-19002.
Again, I'd like to see your proof of this, as I can't make out anything printed on that ship in "Emissary." (I'm not saying you're wrong; as a matter of fact I agree with you, I just want to see some proof.)
-------------------- "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:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: BTW, in spite of Okuda's statement quoted on Memory Alpha regarding the Tsiolkovsky's NCC-640 registry being left over from the Copernicus, I'm still inclined to believe that the latter ship's registry is NCC-623 (as previously reported by Okuda in the Encyclopedia, and which he once stated to me to have come from a behind the scenes photo of the model during filming of STIV) and that the model was in fact relabeled for its appearance in "The Naked Now" (TNG) as seems to have been the practice from the beginning. (The Hood establishes a precedent both for this and for the fact that one number might be put on the model while another was used on set dressing.)
I used to have the same feeling about the Copernicus having the 623 registry until I read this from Okuda:
"I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen."
So Okuda himself stated that he didn't relabel the model, which to me means that it was labeled "U.S.S. Copernicus NCC-640" when it was filmed as the Tsiolkovsky. Remember, the VFX guys were separate from the Art Department and the scriptwriters. Their job was just to film the model. It was Okuda's job to relabel the models, which he clearly states here that he didn't do.
quote:It will indeed be interesting to see if the registry is visible in a future transfer of "Emissary" (DS9). The model was relabeled as the Yosemite for "Realm Of Fear" (TNG) as seen from a behind the scenes photo from the DS9 episode and confirmed in the remastered TNG episode, but we don't know if it might have been relabeled after the photo was taken.
Let's remember that there were TWO Oberth-class ships in the episode, and according to the Encyclopedia, the one destroyed in the opening battle sequence was the U.S.S. Bonestell NCC-31600. We can't see this in the episode, nor the names and registries of the other ships apart from the Saratoga and Melbourne, but we know from behind the scenes photos that they were all in fact relabeled with the names and numbers reported for them in the same source.
You bring up an excellent point. All the models used were relabeled even though they weren't at all clearly seen in the shots. So logically, this would mean that that Oberth, even though it was on screen for only half a second, could very well have been labeled "Bonestell" with the accompanying registry change. But does that mean that it was still labeled as the Bonestell when the model is next filmed bringing Dax and Bashir to the station? It's been commonly believed to have been the Cochrane, but by chronological use of the model, it should have been labeled as "Yosemite" by then (and vwuser claims to be able to see the Yosemite's registry, which I cannot). If the model was relabeled Bonestell, would it still have that name in the second shot? I suppose it would depend on when the VFX shots were originally done.
quote:(Query: Do we think the Bonestell was represented by the same filming model or a separate one? It kind of got blown up, and I seem to recall that in the case of the Saratoga's destruction they used a special "stunt" model.)
I believe that the intact model was replaced with the damaged Vico model for that shot, but I could be wrong.
quote:I've never examined all the instances of the various starship mission assignment lists to confirm that their chronology bears this out, but for whatever it's worth to the conversation, Okuda also once told me that the reason he changed the Trieste's registry from Yosemite to Merced was because of the name Yosemite being used for the ship in "Realm Of Fear," so I suppose that if something so small as that was noticed and "fixed," then it isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility that they'd take the destroyed vessel's signage off the model for its next appearance. (Am I remembering correctly that the Yosemite was destroyed?)
No, the Yosemite was not shown to be destroyed by the end of the episode.
quote:Lastly, I will reiterate my previously stated view that it is useless and counterproductive to ignore facts known from behind the scenes sources simply because they cannot be definitely confirmed onscreen, and that it is moreover worse to then draw conclusions from the resultingly incomplete data and impose them where they directly contravene the actual intent. If your inferences can be made only through arbitrarily choosing not to look at all the data, deliberately excluding from consideration the points that go against them, they are bad inferences. That the number NCC-59318 belongs to the Biko is such an inference.
Agreed (since this is what I basically said to o2).
-------------------- "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:Originally posted by Dukhat: I used to have the same feeling about the Copernicus having the 623 registry until I read this from Okuda:
"I seem to recall that Grissom may have been relabeled to serve as another ship in Star Trek III or IV. I didn't try to relabel the model for 'The Naked Now,' partly because we realized that the existing registry would not be legible in standard-def video, but also because we were all so insanely busy at the time that no one could take on an additional project that wasn't likely to be seen on the screen."
So Okuda himself stated that he didn't relabel the model, which to me means that it was labeled "U.S.S. Copernicus NCC-640" when it was filmed as the Tsiolkovsky. Remember, the VFX guys were separate from the Art Department and the scriptwriters. Their job was just to film the model. It was Okuda's job to relabel the models, which he clearly states here that he didn't do.
Yes, that is the statement to which I referred as being quoted on Memory Alpha. It might help to seek some further clarification from him on this point, as it seems to conflict somewhat with previous statements he's made separately on the matter, namely the Encyclopedia starship list compiled from his own notes and his response to a query of mine specifically regarding the Copernicus' name and registry, which I also quoted somewhere earlier in this thread...
Me, on 5 May 2003:
"Also, where did you get the name and registry of the Oberth-class ship in Spacedock at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? According to the Encyclopedia, it's the Copernicus NCC-623, but what is the source of this information?"
Okuda, on 28 May 2003:
"If I recall the name and registry number of the Copernicus came from a photo from ILM that showed the Grissom model as it was used in the end of ST4."
It seems to me that BOTH statements are qualified as being based on his recollection, which I'm sure is no more infallible than anyone's. I do not mean to attack his credibility, but I hesitate to unquestioningly assume that the more recent one—which was no doubt given in response to someone asking specifically for an explanation of the registry discrepancy in the remastered TNG episode—is the more accurate of the two. The Encyclopedia reference was likely drawn from notes rather than recollection, but of course those demonstrably aren't infallible either.
This discussion has actually made me quite curious as to exactly how the job of labeling models was delegated early on, and if it always remained consistent, because from day one it seems that the Excelsior model was relabeled as the Hood NCC-2541, and then this was either forgotten about or deliberately retconned, but to my knowledge Okuda has never indicated any awareness of this. Also there were instances such as the misspelling of the Brattain's name on its model (but not on set dressing) that it seems unlikely Okuda himself would have been responsible for. Anyway, being unable to speak certainly in the absence of more information, I wonder if much the same could not have happened in this case, and personally I regard the situation as a bit muddy and inconclusive. We are, after all, talking about events that transpired nearly three decades ago.
I've thought about respectfully querying him further as to just how confident he is in the firmness of either recollection, and particularly as to whether he thinks it possible or plausible that the model might have actually been relabeled without his knowledge and/or recollection. I'm not sure I still have his e-mail address though. Does he still frequent the TrekBBS? What channels are people generally using to ask him stuff about the remastered TNG project?
[ July 12, 2014, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Me, on 5 May 2003:
"Also, where did you get the name and registry of the Oberth-class ship in Spacedock at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? According to the Encyclopedia, it's the Copernicus NCC-623, but what is the source of this information?"
Okuda, on 28 May 2003:
"If I recall the name and registry number of the Copernicus came from a photo from ILM that showed the Grissom model as it was used in the end of ST4."
In your email conversation here, Okuda never comes out and says that 623 was the ship's registry. That was something you pointed out to him based on what he wrote in the Encyclopedia, and he was just agreeing that he saw a photo of the model with a different registry than the Grissom's.
Based on what we actually saw printed on the model for its first use in TNG (640), and also based on Okuda's comment I quoted, it seems to me that in this instance, he or his old notes were just wrong. He was also wrong with the registries of several of the BoBW kitbashes, not to mention info from Okudagrams that he himself created and yet the Encyclopedia entries are different. It's a lot of information to keep track of over the years (and he probably never thought that he'd be writing a Trek encyclopedia years after the fact), so it's understandable that he wouldn't get everything right (and quite frankly, what he did get right is pretty amazing in itself).
quote:I've thought about respectfully querying him further as to just how confident he is in the firmness of either recollection, and particularly as to whether he thinks it possible or plausible that the model might have actually been relabeled without his knowledge and/or recollection. I'm not sure I still have his e-mail address though. Does he still frequent the TrekBBS? What channels are people generally using to ask him stuff about the remastered TNG project?
Personally, there's no way in hell that I'd ever bother him about something like this now. He's a super-nice guy, but I wouldn't try to hold him accountable about what he thought he saw in some photo almost 30 years ago.
-------------------- "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:Originally posted by Dukhat: Based on what we actually saw printed on the model for its first use in TNG (640), and also based on Okuda's comment I quoted, it seems to me that in this instance, he or his old notes were just wrong. He was also wrong with the registries of several of the BoBW kitbashes, not to mention info from Okudagrams that he himself created and yet the Encyclopedia entries are different. It's a lot of information to keep track of over the years (and he probably never thought that he'd be writing a Trek encyclopedia years after the fact), so it's understandable that he wouldn't get everything right (and quite frankly, what he did get right is pretty amazing in itself).
Thank you Dukhat for pointed that out. It is my impression too that some information about starships, its names or its registries are coming from sources that have not been documented properly. This is the reason why I tend to rely on the best source of information we could have: The Star Trek episodes on DVD and Bluray.
But I have to accept that there are other schools of thought.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
Really, I quite agree. The points you raise are in fact the same ones that I myself have attempted to raise. I do indeed believe he was simply taking the question as asked and responding to the best of his recollection, so it should be interpreted in that context. And doesn't the very same apply equally to his more recent statement? What question was he asked in that case, and how might it have led him to answer in the way he did?
I just want to make sure that the whole of the available record continues to be documented and that we don't prematurely "close the books" on questions that haven't really been definitively answered, and can't necessarily be from the available information, despite some information being available. As I'm sure you're well aware, deductive reasoning is only reliable if the data relied upon in the deduction are both accurate and complete.
This seems to be the chain of reasoning you are following:
1. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 2. Okuda doesn't recall relabeling it for that episode Therefore, 3. The model bore NCC-640 in STIV
But I question whether Okuda would have been the only one who could have relabeled the model, and also how reliably he might recall having done so thirty years after the fact. In other words, I question whether the data being used to draw the conclusion are accurate AND complete.
If I cited the Encyclopedia and Concordance and added a point, I might be led to a different conclusion:
1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
And you—completely validly—question whether the book references aren't simply mistaken. In other words, you question whether the data being used to draw the conclusion are complete AND accurate.
(Not trying to be patronizing here, sorry if it reads that way.)
Obviously if an actual photo of the model during STIV ever comes to light, we'll know the real answer. Until such time I remain wary of discrediting information that might yet prove to be reliable, while you and others remain wary of crediting information that you feel is already indicated to be unreliable, based on the above reasoning.
I don't really intend on making it any kind of priority to pursue this in any way with Okuda, and even if I did, it wouldn't be to "hold him accountable" for anything. It would only be to look for any additional insight that might afford a better answer to a question we seem to periodically find ourselves expending some amount of time and effort in discussing, even as it mainly leads us around in circles!
@o2
The fact remains that there are many instances where what can be seen on screen can only be made sense of by putting it in the context of behind the scenes information.
Why? Because as much fun as it can be for some to pretend that they are, the episodes are not documents of some internally-consistent reality or universe. Nor are they "the best source we could have" for starship names and registries. If I have a screenshot of a display where it's not clear what the middle three digits of a number are, and a photograph taken on the set or a reproduction of the same display where those numbers are readable, the latter is in fact a better source.
And while it's certainly nice to have sources properly documented, the source of something not being properly documented should not necessarily be taken to mean that there is no source or that the information is wrong. Likewise, having a source documented for something doesn't necessarily mean that it is accurate.
[ July 12, 2014, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: If I cited the Encyclopedia and Concordance and added a point, I might be led to a different conclusion:
1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
[/QOUTE]
Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie? Even in the HD version of the movie is the registry of the Oberth not readable. For me it looks like the registry was overexposed on purpose so nobody can see that it still wears the number NCC-638.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that when it came to the matter of registries that there was a great deal of miscommunication.
Let's look at the Yamato. In "Where Silence Has Lease", the registry is NCC-1305-E. In this case, the writer was not on the same page as Michael Okuda who wanted a higher number.
In "The Measure of a Man", there is an okudagram that has the Yamato with a registry of NCC-24383. Did Okuda forget that the Yamato was a Galaxy-class starship?
In "Contagion", we have two more registries for the Yamato - NCC-71807 in the Okudagram and NCC-71806 on the model. If Okuda is directing the labeling, how did this error occur?
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
Mim: You're not being patronizing at all. This is what I love about Flare: We're all starship experts to some degree or another
quote: 1. The model bore NCC-623 in STIV 2. The model bore NCC-640 in "The Naked Now" 3. Okuda doesn't recall having relabeled it Therefore, 4. Someone other than Okuda relabeled the model, or alternatively Okuda's recollection is inaccurate.
Let's analyze this, shall we? First, the model was labeled Grissom NCC-638. The ship gets destroyed, but in the next film it's used as filler in Spacedock. It wasn't until Okuda wrote the Encyclopedia that we even knew that there was a possibility that the model was relabeled and re-regged as Copernicus NCC-623. When you inquired to Okuda about the name and number, he mentioned that he saw a photo ILM took of the model. Whether his memory was faulty or not isn't important right now: what's important is that he did in fact see said photo showing changes made to the model.
quote:Originally posted by o2: Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie?
Simple: Because someone told ILM to do it. Someone knew that the Grissom was destroyed in the previous film and didn't want the ship labeled the same as that ill-fated vessel. But that person didn't know how ILM was going to arrange the shot. ILM just happened to film the model in such a way that the name and reg changes weren't at all clear.
So now the question is: What registry number did ILM use, 623 or 640? I think it was always 640. Mim thinks that it was 623 and then was changed to 640 during filming for "The Naked Now." Okuda pretty much clears the air about this when he said that production on the episode was too rushed for anyone to have changed the info on the model. And if the VFX guys would have had the time, why wouldn't they have relabeled the registry to match the dedication plaque that Okuda made? Why "640?"
Would it be worth emailing Okuda with this esoteric question that in all likelihood he won't remember anyway? Even if he says something like "Yeah, I thought it said 623 but I must have been mistaken, since this screencap clearly shows 640," that's hardly a definitive answer. The only real way to know is to uncover this mysterious photo of the Copernicus Okuda saw, and that's pretty much impossible.
-------------------- "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:Originally posted by vwuser: I think that when it came to the matter of registries that there was a great deal of miscommunication.
Let's look at the Yamato. In "Where Silence Has Lease", the registry is NCC-1305-E. In this case, the writer was not on the same page as Michael Okuda who wanted a higher number.
In "The Measure of a Man", there is an okudagram that has the Yamato with a registry of NCC-24383. Did Okuda forget that the Yamato was a Galaxy-class starship?
In "Contagion", we have two more registries for the Yamato - NCC-71807 in the Okudagram and NCC-71806 on the model. If Okuda is directing the labeling, how did this error occur?
It happened again with the Prometheus. Okudagrams on the bridge called it NX-74913, but the CG model had it as NX-59650.
And IIRC, several of the DS9 frankenfleet members also had wonky names and registries - can't remember exactly which at the moment, though.
Seems to have been a regular occurrence.
Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
posted
Going loopy, we have the NCC-1864 which fought in the Dominion Wars. Is this an alternate timeline Reliant that somehow managed to end up in the prime universe?
Loopier still, we have a pair of three ships from the first season of TNG that had the same registry.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by o2: Did anybody ever asked the question why the production staff went into the extra work of relableing the Grissom from ST III when this effort is not visible in the movie?
Simple: Because someone told ILM to do it. Someone knew that the Grissom was destroyed in the previous film and didn't want the ship labeled the same as that ill-fated vessel. But that person didn't know how ILM was going to arrange the shot. ILM just happened to film the model in such a way that the name and reg changes weren't at all clear.
With all due respect, but that's pure speculation. Or is there any relevant evidence for such a statement?
I think it is very likly that the number is in the range of six hundred (and this would include 623, 638 and 640), but from what we know for sure it could be any number.
quote:And if the VFX guys would have had the time, why wouldn't they have relabeled the registry to match the dedication plaque that Okuda made? Why "640?"
The '640' would only require to change two digits on the model, hence reducing time & effort. The number vom Mr. Okuda is a little bit longer (5 digits), resulting in more work. We saw this pattern a few times, e.g. with the Reliant, the Saratoga and the Lantree (NCC-1864, NCC-1887 and NCC-1837).
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^Yes, it's my speculation, because no one here has any proof of anything. I thought that in the absence of proof, that was what we were doing here...speculating?
And evidence? Let's see...It was ILM's job to relabel the Enterprise from NCC-1701 to NCC-1701-A. It was their job to relabel the Reliant NCC-1864 to Saratoga NCC-1887 (which we didn't see clearly in the film either, just like the Grissom, but they did it anyway). It was their job to relabel the Excelsior from NX-2000 to NCC-2000. So having them relabel the Grissom NCC-638 to Copernicus NCC-640 would just have been another day at the office for them.
-------------------- "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:The Copernicus was not identified by name on screen, but was identified by production sources. ILM's Model Shop Supervisor Jeff Mann has stated, "We had an incident in the beginning of the film, where we needed a Reliant-class [sic.], so we put a new paint job on the old Reliant model, changed a small shuttle called the Grissom to the Copernicus and we added a back half to the shuttlecraft that Scotty flew around in Star Trek: The Motion Picture." (The Making of the Trek Films, 3rd ed., p. 68)
By "putting a new paint job" on the Reliant, I'm assuming he means that he changed the name and registry. He definitely changed the "small shuttle's" name to Copernicus, but says nothing about what new number he gave it (and, like the Saratoga, he probably didn't remember anyway).
-------------------- "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
And it bears repeating that, notwithstanding the numerous available examples of discrepancies between dedication plaques/computer displays/set dressing/artwork and filming miniatures insofar as ship names and registries are concerned, there are also examples of the reference books getting these things wrong, including the other ship relabeled for the same film! Both of two different registries (NCC-1867 and NCC-1937) given in the Encyclopedia for the U.S.S. Saratoga differ from that on the model (NCC-1887). It is entirely possible that the same is true for the Copernicus. I am feeling less and less inclination to argue otherwise.
Dukkie, I know you have been a regular poster on the TrekBBS; have you ever thought of starting a thread asking people to go through their collections of old magazines (etc.) that would have featured Trek/ILM stuff, in an effort to unearth such photographs of miniatures (etc.) that haven't yet made it onto the internet? If Okuda is still around there, he might have some ideas about where to look, to boot! It might be a long shot, but who knows...maybe in the process you'll turn up the Trinculo!
-------------------- 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)
Printer-friendly view of this topic