How Was U.S.S. Hood Damaged?-The Ulimate Computer
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
I see you probably never watched a 13" TV in the 1960ies with all the snow and using rabbit ears. You must remeber the time the episode was made.
I have no problem with Constellation being NCC-1017, or having an extensive refit history, for that matter. Nothing wrong at all with some heretofore unnamed class of Federation starships that were structurally similar to, but predating, the Constitution, having been refit to the newer Constitution specs over the years.
OTOH, let's not write off the possibility of Constellation being registered NCC-1777.
OTOH, let's not write off the possibility of Constellation being registered NCC-1777.
We're straying a bit off-topic here, but I'd just like to point out that "The Doomsday Machine" was first aired on NBC on Oct. 20, 1967. With the introduction of color to NTSC-spec televisions still a new thing back then, the picture quality took a nosedive. Picture tube size and transmission quality back then were also much lower than they have been in the last ten years. It was not ridiculous to suggest that the markings on a Federation starship would be considerably harder for viewers to read back then.
You are completely missing the point. Go back and re-read my last several posts.
aridas sofia said: "I think the concern had nothing to do with the decal. It was a concern that Constellation, if it had any number that in any way resembled "1701," would be mistaken for Enterprise."
He/She is trying to say that if they used 1710 or something similar (instead of 1017) then the audience would get it confused with the Enterprise. I said that's ridiculous considering that "USS CONSTELLATION" is displayed. That alone is enough to distinguish it from the Enterprise. It wouldn't matter what number they used in the registry.
Ah, but if you're a viewer in October of '67 and you're eagerly watching "The Doomsday Machine" for the first time, on a brand-new color TV set ("it's the first on the block!") and you and the rest of the family just aligned the antenna so you got the best signal (for back then, mind you; cable had yet to penetrate into the bulk of American households) you could possibly get from your local NBC affiliate, the picture quality would still be noticeably poorer than it has been in the last 10-20 years.
There would be an odds-on chance that the family might not be able to read the name "Constellation" as clearly as we take for granted with modern sets, plus enhanced reception from cable or satellite today. In fact, I daresay that the broken hull of the saucer might be as important to the viewer in distinguising the starship Constellation as the markings.
Having grown up in rural America, and having more experience with unaided TV in the pre-cable, pre-satellite era than I care to remember, I'd say it's quite possible millions of viewers could've missed the details fans now take for granted.
There would be an odds-on chance that the family might not be able to read the name "Constellation" as clearly as we take for granted with modern sets, plus enhanced reception from cable or satellite today. In fact, I daresay that the broken hull of the saucer might be as important to the viewer in distinguising the starship Constellation as the markings.
Having grown up in rural America, and having more experience with unaided TV in the pre-cable, pre-satellite era than I care to remember, I'd say it's quite possible millions of viewers could've missed the details fans now take for granted.
NiteTrek said:
Irrelevant. If "snow and rabbit ears" on a 13" TV somehow masked the huge lettering of "USS CONSTELLATION" then I seriously doubt that "1710" or whatever number they used would show clearly. Sorry but your explanation is ludicrous.
"Nonsense," "irrelevant," and "ludicrous" do not constitute an argument, nor does a
substitute for reasoning. All stink of empty hyperbole substituting for information. The "U.S.S. Constellation" decal on the AMT model is considerably smaller than even the 22 point size type on the original decal sheet spelling out "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" above the 50 point "NCC-1701". Do you have any idea of the impact even a two point difference in type size can have on legibility, not to mention a greater than 2:1 difference? Studies attempting to ascertain the impact of letter size on legibility and readability confirm the strong and commonsense relationship between the two. Many of the shots of Constellation were from a distance -- in the opening on the Enterprise's approach, when Constellation was being towed, etc. See for yourself, but paste the URL:http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/doomsday.jpg
There definitely would have been concern for avoiding confusion between the externally nearly-identical ships. The small relative size of the ship name versus its large primary registry would not be enough in distant shots to avoid confusion over which ship might now have suffered damage. So the registry would need to be as different as possible, since the name would afford little in the way of help in those shots.
"Nonsense," "irrelevant," and "ludicrous" be damned.
I don't know about you guys, but my family didn't have cable until around 1980, and I was usually watching TV in my bedroom on a black & white television from 1977 to 1985. So for most of my early viewings of Doomsday Machine I got something similar to this...
In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, television/video production had some pretty straight forward rules about readable text on screen. Like below a certain size, don't expect the audience to be able to read it, and stay away from the outer frame of the picture because on some TVs that part of the image may end up being cut off.
So yeah, there was no expectation that anyone but those with the best TVs with the best reception would be able to read USS Constellation on the model.
In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, television/video production had some pretty straight forward rules about readable text on screen. Like below a certain size, don't expect the audience to be able to read it, and stay away from the outer frame of the picture because on some TVs that part of the image may end up being cut off.
So yeah, there was no expectation that anyone but those with the best TVs with the best reception would be able to read USS Constellation on the model.
I don't really see how either the name or the registry could be relevant as identifying factors if the image were as shitty as suggested.
In those shots where it was necessary to convey the fact that the guest starship rather than the hero starship was shown, the identification came from one of two facts: dialogue cues, or the damaged looks (physical damage, darkened and off-kilter portrayal of the model). Whatever was written on the hull was just icing on the cake. And I can never forgive them for the use of over-ripened asparagus paste instead of whipped cream for that icing.
So yeah, I heartily second the "nonsense", "irrelevant" and the "ludicrous" here. If TPTB did have those good intentions, they were disastrously misplaced.
Timo Saloniemi
In those shots where it was necessary to convey the fact that the guest starship rather than the hero starship was shown, the identification came from one of two facts: dialogue cues, or the damaged looks (physical damage, darkened and off-kilter portrayal of the model). Whatever was written on the hull was just icing on the cake. And I can never forgive them for the use of over-ripened asparagus paste instead of whipped cream for that icing.
So yeah, I heartily second the "nonsense", "irrelevant" and the "ludicrous" here. If TPTB did have those good intentions, they were disastrously misplaced.
Timo Saloniemi
Suggested?
Am I to gather that no one here (beyond maybe aridas sofia, Captain Robert April and myself) actually watched Star Trek in the 60s, 70s and 80s? That you guys are completely unaware of the realities of broadcast television in those decades?
So were you guys thinking that Star Trek fans of the 70's were of a lower standard because we followed the Franz Joseph Manual and BluePrints? Or because we accepted models and toys with major inaccuracies? Think about it guys... we had poor broadcast quality TV, some of us were still watching in black & white, and most of us wouldn't have a VCR until the 80's.
Staticy pictures from low quality reruns that would pop up maybe once a week at odd hours was Star Trek for most of us... and when comparing that stuff to most of what we were given in the way of books and merchandise, it all looked pretty close.
I also have to wonder if kids today even have any idea what television was like in the 60s and 70s? For one thing, in the places I lived, we had five TV stations... an ABC affiliate, an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, a PBS station and an independent station. Most of those were off the air by 12:30 or so (right after Johnny Carson) and didn't start broadcasting again until 5:30 or 6 the next morning. And when we first got cable and HBO, it was only showing movies in the evening hours.
But television in the early morning hours for most of us was this...
Bright colors weren't used because of camp, and neither was the heavy make-up... both of those were to off set the loss of color saturation due to the film grain effect of having the shows projected into a television camera to broadcast them in the 60s. We see bright colors today, but back then those colors appeared muted even on the best color televisions of the day.
And yeah, I had to walk up hill (both ways) in a foot of snow to go to school, all the grades were in a single room and we had to use an outhouse that was more than a quarter mile away in the blistering hot sun! And we had to do all our school work on a small piece of slate with chalk. Computers in my day were called abacuses, and there weren't many (good) games for them! Sure, by the time I made it to college we had such advances as number 2 pencils, paper and slide-rules (which had fewer games than abacuses), but it was nothing like today!
And I lived in San Diego... there were other places in this country back then that had it much worse!
You kids of today, you have no idea how easy you have it! 
Shaw said:
Suggested?
Am I to gather that no one here (beyond maybe aridas sofia, Captain Robert April and myself) actually watched Star Trek in the 60s, 70s and 80s? That you guys are completely unaware of the realities of broadcast television in those decades?
So were you guys thinking that Star Trek fans of the 70's were of a lower standard because we followed the Franz Joseph Manual and BluePrints? Or because we accepted models and toys with major inaccuracies? Think about it guys... we had poor broadcast quality TV, some of us were still watching in black & white, and most of us wouldn't have a VCR until the 80's.
Staticy pictures from low quality reruns that would pop up maybe once a week at odd hours was Star Trek for most of us... and when comparing that stuff to most of what we were given in the way of books and merchandise, it all looked pretty close.
I also have to wonder if kids today even have any idea what television was like in the 60s and 70s? For one thing, in the places I lived, we had five TV stations... an ABC affiliate, an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, a PBS station and an independent station. Most of those were off the air by 12:30 or so (right after Johnny Carson) and didn't start broadcasting again until 5:30 or 6 the next morning. And when we first got cable and HBO, it was only showing movies in the evening hours.
But television in the early morning hours for most of us was this...
Bright colors weren't used because of camp, and neither was the heavy make-up... both of those were to off set the loss of color saturation due to the film grain effect of having the shows projected into a television camera to broadcast them in the 60s. We see bright colors today, but back then those colors appeared muted even on the best color televisions of the day.
And yeah, I had to walk up hill (both ways) in a foot of snow to go to school, all the grades were in a single room and we had to use an outhouse that was more than a quarter mile away in the blistering hot sun! And we had to do all our school work on a small piece of slate with chalk. Computers in my day were called abacuses, and there weren't many (good) games for them! Sure, by the time I made it to college we had such advances as number 2 pencils, paper and slide-rules (which had fewer games than abacuses), but it was nothing like today!
And I lived in San Diego... there were other places in this country back then that had it much worse!
Hey, from 1969 to 1975, I watched Star Trek on a rabbit-eared black and white 13" TV with bad verticle and horizontal hold (I replaced the tubes twice). I often had to 'bang' it in a cetain spot of the right side for years to get the horizontal hold back in synch; and adjust the rabbits ears DURING episodes.
Kids from about 1985 on don't really understand what 'old school' TV was like judging from some of their comments in this thread. (Believe me, I'd like to be younger again, turning 45 this year.
)
To those who are too young to remember either the first-run of STAR TREK on NBC or the early days of reruns in syndication in the 1970's:
To this day, I do not own any DVDs (HD or otherwise) of any of the STAR TREK franchise. Around 1988-1992, though, I did buy some of Paramount's VHS cassettes of some choice TOS episodes. Playing them in my VCR, I was pleasantly surprised at some of the details I discovered that I had not noticed before. Some we no doubt because of syndication cuts, so seeing the "uncut" versions were a treat. But "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Ultimate Computer" were also special because you got to SEE the eps more clearly. Even though I enjoyed cable for years before that, seeing those VHS cassettes was still a treat because I was in control and watching it on a 20-inch color TV for the first time.
To this day, I do not own any DVDs (HD or otherwise) of any of the STAR TREK franchise. Around 1988-1992, though, I did buy some of Paramount's VHS cassettes of some choice TOS episodes. Playing them in my VCR, I was pleasantly surprised at some of the details I discovered that I had not noticed before. Some we no doubt because of syndication cuts, so seeing the "uncut" versions were a treat. But "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Ultimate Computer" were also special because you got to SEE the eps more clearly. Even though I enjoyed cable for years before that, seeing those VHS cassettes was still a treat because I was in control and watching it on a 20-inch color TV for the first time.
So, there really was no reason to make the registry "1017," even though we know that:
1) Jefferies has told us in his interview with the BBC that he specifically chose the numbers "1", "0" and "7" because they were easily readable, and not easily confused with other numbers,
2) The AMT model was 18" long, compared to the 11 foot filming miniature, thus making the readability issue about eight times as significant as with the 11 foot miniature Jefferies was originally expressing concerns about,
3) During the course of this story, Enterprise will be commanded by Decker, and Constellation commanded by Kirk,
4) When planning began for Star Trek in 1964, only 3.1 percent of television households in the U.S. had a color set. Furthermore, television signals were being transmitted via land-based transmitters resulting in quality of reception that varied greatly, dependent in large part on the location and type of receiving antenna.
AND YET, we are to believe there was no concern that the audience, viewing on black and white televisions of questionable reception, in an episode with someone else commanding Enterprise and Kirk commanding another ship -- that just so happened to look like Enterprise -- might be a tad confused? That someone might just wonder how Enterprise looked so beaten up at one point and later looked fine? That every effort would need to be made to distinguish the ships, and that within the constraints of the "1", "0" and "7" limitation, would necessitate some combination that didn't begin with "17"?
T'Bonz probably remembers Paleozoic Trek: The Multicelled Generation.
cooleddie74 said:
T'Bonz probably remembers Paleozoic Trek: The Multicelled Generation.
^^^^
You mean Captain Video?
Include me on the list. I was 6 when "The Man Trap" premired and I remember it to this day including it was on a small black and white. We didn't get a bigger color TV until about '71 and it was like rediscovering Star Trek ALL over again. I just remember noticing so much more detail on that TV.
Jesus Noname Given you're bringing back some ancient memories. I remember developing an extremely light touch on the horizontal control to try to coax the %#@$%^ picture back into place. I even attached wires to the rabbit ears to try to improve reception. Boy that was so long ago.
Robert
Similar threads
