How was USS Grissom destroyed so easily?
- Thread starter PhaserLightShow
- Start date
The '625' is correct. Assigned to the USS Phoenix, according to the manual.
While it's possible that the VFX guy who put the registry on the model might have been aware of FJ's work, I would bet money that the only reason why the Grissom had such a low number was because she was supposed to be a small ship, just like how the Excelsior had that super-futuristic "NX-2000" registry, because she was a big ship. I'm sure that was the extent of the logic here.
BTW, I remember reading an interview with one of the ILM VFX guys who worked on STIII & IV, who referred to the Grissom model as a "shuttle." Take that how you will.
Someone was familiar with Joseph's work, because the Enterprise monitors are full of his work. The Saladin and Dreadnought are canon!
I assumed the number came from the script, and there was a copy of the book somewhere on Harve Bennett's desk when he needed to refer to some technobabble, unless he had his own Okuda to ask back then?
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the Grissom's decaller specifically referencing FJ with the registry number.
The number is in the script isn't it, for the caption?
Where'd we see those two at? I've been watching these movies for a long time and never noticed.
The Saladin and the Ptolemy are seen on display screens on the bridge in TWOK and TSFS. The dreadnought is only barely glimpsed as an outline:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm
There are snippets on the round screens on the Enterprise bridge. And of course "Dreadnought Entente, NCC-2120" is clearly audible in TMP radio chatter.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm
That's what I call a response!
Learn something new about Trek, even now after so many years, is very cool. Though I wonder why the Enterprise had diagrams of so many other ships on their bridge displays?
But it was mentioned. Which means it does exist!
Dreadnaught Entente NCC-2120. Tomalak mentioned it above.
A dreadnought was mentioned. We never saw it. No reason to assume that it was FJ's hidous one. I kinda like to think that Constellation was considered a dreadnought at the time. It is pretty massive. Only slightly longer than Connie but almost three times the volume.But it was mentioned. Which means it does exist!
Dreadnaught Entente NCC-2120. Tomalak mentioned it above.
But it was mentioned. Which means it does exist!
Well, to be a super-anally-retentive canonista, only the name, registry number, and the fact that the ship is referred to as a dreadnought is official. Because we did not see the Entente, we don't know what it actually looks like, and could look different from the FJ version.
*edit* Longinus beat me to the punch.
If they were using so many other references to Joseph's work, I think it is safe to assume the ship mentioned is the one from the technical manual. But one is free to believe whatever they want.
Agreed, and I hate the Dreadnought too. So ugly! The difficulty is the significantly higher registry than the Excelsior, though you can just say the Excelsior had been on the drawing board for a long time before she launched. The shape isn't canon, but the existence of the ship is, so in the absence of anything else, we might as well accept FJ's turkey.
I have a soft spot for Joseph's Dreadnaught. Though I'd probably do some fiddling if I was bringing it to life.
If they were using so many other references to Joseph's work, I think it is safe to assume the ship mentioned is the one from the technical manual. But one is free to believe whatever they want.
I actually prefer the ship to look like Boris Vallejo's take on FJ's design:
http://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net/book_images/cvr9780743419802_9780743419802_hr.jpg
Never!
I remember that one, but never really cared for it.
Similar threads
