Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by swaaye, Mar 16, 2009.
And if you can get them to verify your claim, I will believe you...
This is a rather entertaining post... linking to a reference that was added to that page on March 31, 2009 as a source for a post made on March 20, 2009.
And people wonder why I find Wikis to be such a poor source of facts. Well, at least they have histories so you can check to see when the books were being cooked (and often by who).
Man, if you can get ST 1 and I to agree on anything (that's like watching a hammer fall UP on a 1G planet, to gracenote TOS COURT MARTIAL), you have to reconsider your position here.
None of the CFQs ever mentioned this early CG E-D, and the CONTINUING MISSION book didn't mention this that I recall (and that volume DID have stuff I hadn't seen anywhere before), folks I interviewed about GENERATIONS who would have known and been involved (Ronald Moore, vfx super, not writer, and the guys at Santa Barbara Stusdios) haven't come forward about anything like this either. That's why I suggested calling Drexler, because even if he didn't know, he'd know who to ask.
I'll apologize once you come up with some kind of source, but till then, this is like listening to Rick Berman explain why somebody else's movie had weird colored Klingon blood ... like something pulled from back end of mule.
Dude... I cannot remember the exact source, because it was a long time ago. But I AM right... that's why i say, GO AHEAD, and ask Mike Okuda, or Sternbach... ask anyone you want, who actually worked on the show, and they will confirm it. I would not post anything, unless I know it to be true. If you are so set on calling me out on it, then YOU have to prove that I am wrong. That burden is on you, bro, not me, because I know I'm right. So, until YOU come up with the proof that I am wrong, I'm not. I stand by my post 110%. IF you do prove me wrong, I will apologize. But until then, have fun trying to prove me wrong.
The burden of proof, actually, is on you. Not on any of us.
You made that claim, we (trevanian and I - and we agree on next to nothing) questioned it and now you will have to provide proof.
So has anyone actually asked Rick Sternbach or Mike Okuda? They both post here from time to time, and Doug Drexler's blog seems to be the hive of treknology at the moment. It shouldn't be too hard to clear things up.
The desk model in "Booby Trap" was, in fact, a test shot of the kit from AMT/Ertl, before any of the surface detailing was added. We got a box of smooth styrene model parts in the mail, assembled the ship, and mounted it on a lucite stand built by the prop shop. As I recall, it had no decals, just a basic paint job.
As for the Enterprise in the shot with the other ship, I haven't a clue what that was.
I'm not saying it's impossible that that shot could be early CGI, but what I wonder is WHY it would be CGI in the first place. Was someone testing to see if it would work for the show and then gave up when it didn't? Usually you do test shots and if they're not up to your standards, you don't use them. And, frankly, the nacelle glow looks like neon and not some 1990 CG lighting effect, so I'm skeptical.
It'd be easier to think that if this were a test, it tested (badly) a miniature that used 3m tape for reflective lighting rather than the usual bulbs, something that more and more trek ships used later in TNG.
Separate names with a comma.