Robert Comsol wrote:
First of all, I seriously think you should sit down, take a stress pill and think things over because your tone serves no constructive purpose. Please.
, I actually agree with Robert
on this. While the two of us share different opinions, and I think (with no disrespect, Robert
) that some of his ideas are applied a bit too narrowly, I appreciate that he's been civil throughout this discussion. I'd like to keep it that way even if not everyone agrees with some of his ideas.
If you have irrefutable proof that "one episode says one thing, another says something completely different" please feel free to provide examples.
Spock was referred to early on as a "Vulcanian" and this was soon shortened to "Vulcan" and has been consistently used ever since. Kirk's middle initial is given as R in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then became T. I think Timo
are right that the production staff put a lot of thought and creativity into the series, that they definitely had some concepts they wanted to use, but they were also flexible enough to change things as needed. That's not the same as arguing that they were clueless and didn't know what they were doing. Nobody here has made or inferred that claim, aside from you.
The creators knew exactly what they were doing. But everybody else assumed Franz Joseph's conjectural deck numbering was correct (why?!?) and started to believe that the creators didn't know what they were doing.
Maybe many fans simply liked the effort that FJ put into it and his attempts to make the deck plans sensible, even if they didn't match perfectly with what's onscreen. My understanding is that if Gene or anybody else insisted it match perfectly, FJ would have complied and not been bothered by it. I sort of feel the same way about Matt Jeffries' registry scheme. I think the whole concept of class digits_ship digits is good in theory and would have liked to see it used more consistently, but since it wasn't used consistently and it has some potential problems as well, I choose to regard it as not the best system for handling registries.
Star Trek is rather notorious for having a lot of small details that either don't make sense or are very inconsistently handled. Look at the Defiant for DS9. It's one of the cooler designs ever developed (IMO anyway
) and it's very popular with fans, and yet things like the proper dimensions, weapons loadout etc. have never been portrayed with any consistency. The DS9 Technical Manual, which is the closest we'll get to something reasonably canonical, has a number of problems with how the Defiant's systems are described in relation to the details on the model.
That doesn't mean the production staff was clueless or just didn't care, because they did. It just means that, with the reality of production pressures and so forth, they didn't worry too much about a lot of those little details. They worried about the big details, making sure the model existed and most of its SFX were portrayed consistently.