posted
Damn. Shame that this never made its way into TNG for real. As much as I like the workbee, there's room for another utility ship.
The Sphinx was designed during the first season of TNG by Andrew Probert, about the same time he designed the Type 7, hence the similar lines. (Someone else named it Sphinx, though, based on its obvious appearance.) I wonder what an actual physical model would've looked like...
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: One word: Hopper.
Mark
Apparently Probert did supply Mojo with a design for the Hopper, based on the same look as the Sphinx. Only time will tell whether or not a mesh was made before Unseen Frontiers went the way of the Dodo.
posted
Of course, if the information is spread across more than seven magazine issues, you're paying more. And, even then, those seven magazines probably wouldn't contain as much as the book would.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: One word: Hopper.
Mark
Apparently Probert did supply Mojo with a design for the Hopper, based on the same look as the Sphinx. Only time will tell whether or not a mesh was made before Unseen Frontiers went the way of the Dodo.
That's pretty much what I meant...
BTW, Mojo confirms that this model is indeed his work and not Ed's, based on the stuff Probert gave him for UF. Presumably, with suitable modifications (like a camper attachemnt on the back for troops and stuff), this model would be used to represent the hopper for scenes he planned to composite with new live-action material he wanted to shoot.
posted
The reason why it's in the Fact Files is because they are not a primary publication but take all the technical information from the Encyclopedia, the TNGTM and the DS9TM which are regarded as canon (the CGI, of course, is new).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Bernd: although these books are, as you say, regarded as canonical by some people, they really are not canonical according to Ron D. Moore, John Ordover, and the startrek.com website.
The TNGTM, DS9TM and the Encyclopedia are official books based on the writers' technical guides, the show, and other production information. They hold the status of publications such as DS9 Series Bible Season One, Voyager Technical Guide 1.0, TNG Technical Guide Season 3, or anything Rick Sternbach or Mike Okuda post online or say to the writers.
Still, because they're based on writers' guides and continue to function as such following their publication, they must be regarded higher than other official books. However, just as anything from a series bible can be ignored, so can this information.
quote:I'll say it again, there must be a way we can save this book!?! I do NOT want to see Mojo's work got to waste in some rediculous rags.
I'll second and third that. It was the only book this year I was looking forward to more than the Star Charts one.
I'd rather buy 1 50-dollar complete book than a couple dozen 5-dollar magazines.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: However, just as anything from a series bible can be ignored, so can this information.
Well sure, it can. But, as a general rule of thumb, it isn't. When you really get down to it, TPTB can ignore just about anything they want. But, it doesn't seem to be an issue with these books. Writer's bibles, etc, are generally written in such a format that they lay out only the most basic principles of the show, so that writers will be free to expand on characters and concepts. But they are for the most part adhered to. That's the whole point. And these tech books merely clarify what is already established or intended in the show. There's a few extras thrown in, but nothing that breaches the limits of what can be followed by the show. I'd say that the shows have adhered to these books more closely than they've adhered to TOS...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
true but the series bibles are filled with flawed ideas that are eventually dropped, and usually are either shown only in the pilot and then fade slowly as the show's writers gain strength with the characters.
By season 2, they bear little resemblance to the show thats being created.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mark: You're right, the official canon definition doesn't specify what the writers *really* love and use in their shows, and nobody from Paramount claims it does. It merely specifies what they cannot simply ignore, and we've seen the writers adhere to it.
I did say that these books hold an extraordinary status, but they're not canonical. Whereas the writers routinely say, "The manuals aren't canon, don't bother me with it," they tend to at least attempt a rationalization with other materials that are considered canonical. Otherwise, Braga could've simply said "TOS and TNG aren't canon; although they are an important inspiration, I don't need to bother with the details" Would've saved him a lot of time.
It's also pointless to try to define what the writers can use, because they can use Plato's Republic as far as anyone is concerned. The reason such definitions are in place is to protect Paramount property, the integrity of established Star Trek, not to prevent it from expanding. For our analytical purposes, the definition simply makes the canon sources automatically more reliable than any others (otherwise, how would we know that Todd Guenther's books aren't the real Star Trek -- from what I hear, they're more consistent with naval practices and reality in general, which, as is the case in the real world, is the only other standard that sources can be subjected to -- how closely do they hold up to laws of physics/established practices?).
It's also fortunate that TNGTM and DS9TM aren't by default more valid than other official books, for it allows us to sometimes hold certain other official books in higher regard than the TNGTM/DS9TM. For example, TOS has adhered more to "The Making of Star Trek" than TNG or these books. The movies have adhered more to the Star Fleet Technical Manual than these books or TNG, and are fairly consistent with Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (ok, the former has some copyright problems, but the latter is still Copyright Paramount Pictures). And yet, I somehow miss these materials in our discussions, although they clearly rank higher than the TNGTM in an analysis of the TOS and movie eras.
Because some people falsely see the TNGTM/DS9TM/Encyclopedia as canon/semicanon, the TNGTM and other books are being nonsensically applied to all the eras. Does this make any sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Star Fleet Technical Manual to easily explain Grissom's NCC-638 (science ship -> lower number, like the Columbia and the Revere?) After all, the writers of that time used these books as their guides.
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 16:11: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
