Hi Miss Mess,
I'm curious--what do you mean by biased? Does the author knock some of the characters?
Star Trek: the original series 365- ABRAMS
- Thread starter Miss Mess
- Start date
I'm curious--what do you mean by biased? Does the author knock some of the characters?
See http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=126382
If the initial post is correct, then the writer of this book is obviously an idiot.
If the initial post is correct, then the writer of this book is obviously an idiot.
The initial post is not correct. See comment just posted on that thread.
Then you have my most sincere apology.
No problemo!
Ordered from Amazon. Can't wait to read it.
Tempting to be one of the first to own it by buying it at the local bookstore, but Amazon is half the price, so I'll just have to wait like everyone else (except Miss Mess, to whom I say a big :
).
Tempting to be one of the first to own it by buying it at the local bookstore, but Amazon is half the price, so I'll just have to wait like everyone else (except Miss Mess, to whom I say a big :
).
The initial post is not correct. See comment just posted on that thread.
Ha, A beaker full of death
*owned!* Sorry, I just had to laugh.
Welcome to the party, Paula.
Well, like i said, ive so far read very little- and so will reserve my judgement- but from what i hav read the author seems to be a Spock/Uhura fan. Then again that might just be MY personal bias creeping through, since i was not impressed by J.J. Abrams take on that relationship. No, no. Don't worry. To my knowledge there is no character bashing.
At times it just sort of feels like a fan - one of us say- giving their opinions on certain aspects of the show. But once again, I really havnt read very much. Forgive me, i'm quick to judge...tho ussually wrong lol
I'm still in love with it.
P.S. All countries that arnt Australia...suuuck iiit! haha
Having edited this book, I'm a bit perplexed by the negative reactions to the cover. The front-cover image was created from new photography of the screen-used Enterprise model housed at the Smithsonian Institution. There's nothing distorted or broken about it—that's the model. No CGI. No Photoshop work on the body of the model itself, just the engines. And yet it looks worse than an AMT model-kit boxtop? I may be biased, but I beg to differ.
And Paula's choice regarding the tone of her writing is one that I would defend wholeheartedly - personal and biased, yes, but lively and engaging as well. If she and her coauthor, Terry, had adopted a tone as dry as Memory Alpha (no slight intended), it's hard to imagine any general readers being interested or captivated by the text.
One final note: If anyone's to be bashed for factual errors or garbled citations in the book, please bash me and/or my copyeditor, as we are entirely to blame (and as I am a rather notorious "idiot").
And Paula's choice regarding the tone of her writing is one that I would defend wholeheartedly - personal and biased, yes, but lively and engaging as well. If she and her coauthor, Terry, had adopted a tone as dry as Memory Alpha (no slight intended), it's hard to imagine any general readers being interested or captivated by the text.
One final note: If anyone's to be bashed for factual errors or garbled citations in the book, please bash me and/or my copyeditor, as we are entirely to blame (and as I am a rather notorious "idiot").
The initial post is not correct. See comment just posted on that thread.
Ha, A beaker full of death
Sorry, I just had to laugh.
How do you figure? I had incorrect info from another poster, and made a comment on that basis. I apologized when the information was revealed to be false. I do not believe Ms. Block set out to "own" me, as you term it, and I do not feel particularly "owned." I again admit I should not have assumed the posting was accurate. If that constitutes "ownership", so be it.
And I beg to differ. The image on the cover exhibits pronounced "nacelle droop" as many builders of the old AMT model kit are quite familiar with. It may well indeed be an image of the model in the Smithsonian, but either that model is in worse repair than previously believed or the image has been altered in some way you may not be aware of.
Here's your cover.
Here are two other shots of the model in similar angles.
And if I follow what would be parallel lines receding towards the horizon things don't line up. The longitudinal centrelines of the nacelles don't match with what would be the longitudinal centreline of the saucer. I can see it's not right just by looking at it.
At the angle the nacelles are at in your image we should see very very little of the upper flat surface of the saucer if anything at all. And if one wants the saucer at its presented angle then the nacelles should be angle more upward towards the rear.
The other possibility is the photographer used some odd lens that makes the image look distorted.
Last edited:
Why is it that some guys always get so hung up on nacelle droop? Sometimes a nacelle is just a nacelle.
Assuming this is the original model used to film Star Trek (I take PronounTrouble at his word about that) and this is the way it looks at the Smithsonian today (I accept that too), does it really matter that it doesn't quite match up with Warped9's rigid interpretation of how the ship must look? When the Smithsonian repaired the shooting model, which we've all heard they did, perhaps they, like the Talosians, didn't quite have Warped9's supernormal ability to judge angle/perspective/etc.to the nth degree and the ship wound up, at least in one person's mind, looking like Vina. Me, I think it's a cool picture, and seeing as it's obviously at a perspective some people aren't accustomed to, it's a definite rarity. I'm buying the book anyway!
Assuming this is the original model used to film Star Trek (I take PronounTrouble at his word about that) and this is the way it looks at the Smithsonian today (I accept that too), does it really matter that it doesn't quite match up with Warped9's rigid interpretation of how the ship must look? When the Smithsonian repaired the shooting model, which we've all heard they did, perhaps they, like the Talosians, didn't quite have Warped9's supernormal ability to judge angle/perspective/etc.to the nth degree and the ship wound up, at least in one person's mind, looking like Vina. Me, I think it's a cool picture, and seeing as it's obviously at a perspective some people aren't accustomed to, it's a definite rarity. I'm buying the book anyway!
I simply pointed out something obvious. It doesn't look right and there's nothing rigid thinking about that. It wouldn't keep me from buying the book, but I do find it disappointing.
If your car had an obvious dent or two appear on it one day would you just shrug it off and say no problem, who's gonna notice? You'd notice wouldn't you?
If your car had an obvious dent or two appear on it one day would you just shrug it off and say no problem, who's gonna notice? You'd notice wouldn't you?
Once again, sorry everyone...that was my bad. Mustve been one of my wee hours of the morning posts. In my defense, you're all partially to blame for keeping me up so late, to the point were i no longer have any idea what i'm talking about lolThe initial post is not correct. See comment just posted on that thread.
Ha, A beaker full of death
Sorry, I just had to laugh.
How do you figure? I had incorrect info from another poster, and made a comment on that basis. I apologized when the information was revealed to be false. I do not believe Ms. Block set out to "own" me, as you term it, and I do not feel particularly "owned." I again admit I should not have assumed the posting was accurate. If that constitutes "ownership", so be it.
On reassessment, I must take back my initial comments, or at least tone down my judgement, regarding this publication.
I really do love it, and feel extremely privileged - and not gonna lie, a little smug- to be one of the first to own it. Despite some, in retrospect, minor complaints, it really is a great- and in my opinion necessary- item to add to any Trekkers collection.
Great photos!
And hey, what Trekker is ever entirely satisfied with any peice of star trek merchandise...admittadely we're picky bastards, myself included ;P
Once again, sorry everyone...that was my bad. Mustve been one of my wee hours of the morning posts. In my defense, you're all partially to blame for keeping me up so late, to the point were i no longer have any idea what i'm talking about lolHa, A beaker full of death
Sorry, I just had to laugh.
How do you figure? I had incorrect info from another poster, and made a comment on that basis. I apologized when the information was revealed to be false. I do not believe Ms. Block set out to "own" me, as you term it, and I do not feel particularly "owned." I again admit I should not have assumed the posting was accurate. If that constitutes "ownership", so be it.
On reassessment, I must take back my initial comments, or at least tone down my judgement, regarding this publication.
I really do love it, and feel extremely privileged - and not gonna lie, a little smug- to be one of the first to own it. Despite some, in retrospect, minor complaints, it really is a great- and in my opinion necessary- item to add to any Trekkers collection.
Great photos!
And hey, what Trekker is ever entirely satisfied with any peice of star trek merchandise...admittadely we're picky bastards, myself included ;P
LOL! You are correct, Miss Mess, and I'm as picky as they come. And if there were no debates about the quality of ST stuff, where would all the bbs's about ST be? I thank you heartily for buying the book and being among the first to discuss it!
I'm reluctant to harp on this point, but I guess I can't help myself (and please accept my sincere apologies for having been snarky earlier; I try to edit all the books that I work on with a very close touch and a hands-on approach, and this can often lead to my being, admittedly, a bit too defensive about the finished product). I do promise that this will be my last word on the subject of the front cover, though:
The image on our front cover simply shows an angle on the model and a lighting set-up that no one is used to seeing onscreen; in fact, this angle has never been shown onscreen. Neither the Smithsonian's model nor our front-cover image suffer, however, from a "droopy" nacelle.
The top left and top right images below are both completely unaltered shots from the photography sessions at the SI. Same room, same model, same photographer. The image at top left uses a different lighting set-up, a different focal length, and has the internal displays on the model turned off; it was also shot at a "hero angle" (top left) as opposed to straight-on (top right). The image at bottom left is the model as it hangs in the Institution; the image at bottom right is the one that you posted previously for comparison. Note that the "droop" isn't evident on the two shots of the model (top right and bottom left) that closely mirror the angle on the reference shot that you posted.
We could have easily composited and re-touched the image at top right for our front cover, which does feel much more familiar, but that image also, in the opinion of our designer and me, is very flat and boring—exactly what we've all seen over and over again on the show, on and in other books, etc. Instead, we went with the more dramatic choice, even if it varies from the angle that we're all used to (but still is, I contend again, technically accurate).
Of course, I wouldn't want to deny anyone their opinions or judge them based on it—if you don't like the cover, you don't like the cover, end of story, and if you think that it's off-model or hideous-looking that's your right—and I respect anyone's opinion as such. It does sting a bit, though, to be accused of sloppy or thoughtless or amateur work when it was, in my opinion, anything but.
At the end of the day? A minor issue. I hope, at the very least, this look behind the scenes of the publishing process and at the kinds of decisions that are made on the levels of cover design and image selection is of some interest to the boards here.
The image on our front cover simply shows an angle on the model and a lighting set-up that no one is used to seeing onscreen; in fact, this angle has never been shown onscreen. Neither the Smithsonian's model nor our front-cover image suffer, however, from a "droopy" nacelle.
The top left and top right images below are both completely unaltered shots from the photography sessions at the SI. Same room, same model, same photographer. The image at top left uses a different lighting set-up, a different focal length, and has the internal displays on the model turned off; it was also shot at a "hero angle" (top left) as opposed to straight-on (top right). The image at bottom left is the model as it hangs in the Institution; the image at bottom right is the one that you posted previously for comparison. Note that the "droop" isn't evident on the two shots of the model (top right and bottom left) that closely mirror the angle on the reference shot that you posted.
We could have easily composited and re-touched the image at top right for our front cover, which does feel much more familiar, but that image also, in the opinion of our designer and me, is very flat and boring—exactly what we've all seen over and over again on the show, on and in other books, etc. Instead, we went with the more dramatic choice, even if it varies from the angle that we're all used to (but still is, I contend again, technically accurate).
Of course, I wouldn't want to deny anyone their opinions or judge them based on it—if you don't like the cover, you don't like the cover, end of story, and if you think that it's off-model or hideous-looking that's your right—and I respect anyone's opinion as such. It does sting a bit, though, to be accused of sloppy or thoughtless or amateur work when it was, in my opinion, anything but.
At the end of the day? A minor issue. I hope, at the very least, this look behind the scenes of the publishing process and at the kinds of decisions that are made on the levels of cover design and image selection is of some interest to the boards here.
^^ As I said if I like the contents of the book then the cover won't keep me from buying it. I will simply close by saying I have a model of the TOS E, with all parts perfectly aligned, and I simply cannot reproduce the image on your cover no matter what way I look at it. If the cover image hasn't been manipulated then I'm wondering how that shot was done.
But in the end it doesn't matter.
But in the end it doesn't matter.
Similar threads
