posted
Got the book yesterday. Just some quick observations:
1. There's a pic of the CGI of the Kobayashi Maru from ST '09. Its registry number is ECS-1022. (ECS registries are for Earth Cargo ships from ENT.)
2. Neither the Centaur nor the Kelvin have class names in their entries or on the ship list.
3. The U.S.S. Archer from NEM is listed as an Excelsior class ship in the ship listings.
4. The Biko is still erroneously listed as an Olympic class ship even though it's an Oberth on screen.
5. The U.S.S. Copernicus from STIV still has the erroneous registry of NCC-623 instead of 640.
6. The ECS Fortunate's registry is ECS-2801, higher than the more advanced Kobayashi Maru.
7. There's a runabout I've never heard of called the Ganda.
8. The second Grissom, NCC-42857, is still listed as an Oberth for some reason (the first Encyclopedia listed it as an Excelsior).
9. There's an S.S. Kogin, NAR-24016, and S.S. Manoa, NAR-28474, that I've never heard of.
10. The Vengeance from STID is given the class name Dreadnought.
11. There's an S.S. Wisconsin, NAR-50732.
12. There's a side view of the Enterprise-J, but annoyingly, no top view. I'm assuming we'll see that when the Ent-J Eaglemoss model comes out.
13. Not only is the Titan given the NCC-80102 registry (from the novels), it's also shown using the art from one of the novels. I believe this is the first time info from non-canon novels was used in the Encyclopedia (Okuda does mention this, though.)
The book's ok. I'm glad I didn't pay more than $88 for it, though. For an updated edition, they could have done a little more research. There was no attempt like in the past to come up with conjectural names, registries, and classes for any new ships since the last Encyclopedia came out, which was annoying.
-------------------- "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
The Valiant from NEM is listed as Intrepid class.
The Ganda is what we thought we heard as Gander, which was overdubbed from Ganges. Apparently, they actually rendered the runabout model with the name Ganda.
Kogin, Manoa, and Wisconsin were from updated graphics used in the remastering project of TNG.
Still no ship information used in original graphics from early TNG episodes. e.g. Atlantis
Some new nice CGI renders of some of the ships or class for which only a physical model had been used, though some are inaccurate. e.g. Hera or Soyuz class or Excelsior class
A nice render of the Norway class for which the original file had either been lost or corrupted.
Still perpetuating the idea that reboot Enterprise-nil is larger than Galaxy class.
Still using some inaccurate ship graphics from previous edition on some entries. e.g. Brattain
No info from some of the plastic models used on-screen. e.g. Yeager or Elkins
Some registries and class names from some of the ship entries are also still incorrect from previous editions. e.g. Saratoga as 1937 or 1867 or T'Kumbra as a Miranda.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Andru: Thanks for the new info. Is a class name also given for the USS Nova from Nemesis?
It's the prototype for the Nova class, even though it has a higher registry number than the Equinox. Okuda just makes up some bullshit reason why this is so.
quote:Originally posted by Capt. Kaiser: Im wondering whos CGI they used for the Soyuz cus sometimes they like use fan made ones without permission
Not only that, but unless I'm mistaken, the side view of the Enterprise-J is the same as Alice Orban's fan-made art from Bernd's site:
That explains why there's only a side view. I wonder what the policy is for blatantly ripping off someone else's artwork.
The more I look at this book, the more it annoys me. You'd think that in the 15 years since the last edition, they would have at least corrected the old errors, or done a little research other than just add the new info. The blatant ignoring of new ship info is really what pisses me off, as that was the primary reason why I bought the book. They could make a brand-new CGI mesh of the Norway class, but couldn't pull a class name or registry out of their ass for the ENT Intrepid type, the Abrams ships, or any starship past the later seasons of DS9?
-------------------- "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
Bernd replaced Alice's side view of the Enterprise-J some time ago with the proper side-view of the CG model, published by Ben Robinson for the Starships Magazine. The side-view you linked above is the proper CG model and not Alice's side-view. So no harm done here! Also, the Bozeman side-view seems to be from an upcoming edition of the Eaglemoss Magazine as well.
Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
posted
I am in agreement with Dukat. I am hearing a podcast where Mike and Denise Okuda are talking about this book. They had two years to work on the book.
I read Mr. Okuda's comment about the Nova. I find it insulting.
In the entry, it is written,
"To the uninitiated, this might seem to be a mistake on the part of the graphics department, but we are entirely convinced that it's due to a bookkeeping error at the Starfleet DMV, undoubtedly the result of an unexplainable chronometric subspace anomaly."
Mr. Okuda did not update the Woden entry. Instead there is a dorsal view of the DY-100 class ship, with a background note saying, yay, we changed it for the remastered edition and it's of the same class as the Antares (NCC-501). There is as well no entry for the Yorkshire or for the Medusan starship. Yet, we have an entry for the Gorn ship. These inconsistencies irritate me.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
After skimming through the pages I'm really glad about Amazon's return policy.
It seems that they didn't bother to fix a single mistake from the previous 3rd edition. Feels like a quick money grab
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Seems like I'll stick with sites ex-astris-scientia and memory alpha. They seem more accurate and are free to view.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think it was meant to be a blatant money grab. However, I also think that the Okudas and Pocket Books seriously underestimated what the fans really wanted out of this book. I myself only wanted two things: corrections to the mistakes from the previous edition, and updated ship information (registries, class names, obscure background/kitbashed ships, CGI models of the Abramsverse ships, etc.) I got neither of those things.
Again, if I hadn't only paid $88 for the book, I probably would have just returned it.
-------------------- "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
From reading discussions on Memory Alpha, I think a third thing that fans wanted was answers to questions.
Like, for instance, what year did TMP occur in? Was it 2273 or later? Instead, they left TMP in 2271, ignoring the canon, where it was established that the 5-year mission in 2270 (Q2), and not answering the question
I too wanted CGI models of the Kelvin timeline - the starships and the shuttles. This timeline feels to me like it was brushed over. Neither the Narada nor the Knormain ship make an appearance in the 2-page alien ships at the end of the book.
Overall, i feel the glory days of the Encyclopedia are in the past. The world has moved on, and the Encyclopedia is a relic.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "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
