“Could you learn to use the quote function of the board software like everyone else so peeps know when you've replied to them?”
What makes you think I have not in over twenty years on this board “learned” how to use the quote function, you condescending rube? Perhaps
you could learn to adapt to the quaint affectations of a world that does not deign to remake itself to your lazy predilections. I use the quote function when I think a statement is worthy of having attention drawn to it, and not when I think it is only worthy of giving scant attention.
As for your historical ruminations re Matt Jefferies, I call bullshit. The Star Trek production had a history with AMT both through Poe and the shuttlecraft project. It doesn’t matter whether AMT came to them with the idea of doing a Klingon ship
if the concern of Jefferies and the production was to get a filming model. The fact that what they got was the master for the kit is irrelevant in light of all the quotes from Jefferies concerning why he designed it the way he did. If it was going to be just a kit, any kit, he could have given them the
Leif Ericson then and there. That one truly was done for a kit and only for a kit. But instead, Jefferies went to great lengths to make the ship fit what the writers were writing and the needs of the production, as he stated in a contemporary interview:
…"had to design a ship that would be instantly recognizable as an enemy ship, especially for a flash cut. There had to be no way it could be mistaken for our guys. It had to look threatening, even vicious."
"We had already established the essential character of the Klingons, so we had really more to draw on in background than we originally had on the Enterprise. The Klingon character was different and clearly defined in several scripts. We tried to keep some of that character in the design of the ship – cold and, in a sense, vicious. We tried to get into it some of the qualities of a manta ray, shark, or bird of prey, because the Klingons follow that general feeling. Another requirement was that we had to get a feeling their ships were on a par with the starships in equipment, power, size etc. After many, many sketches and many evenings, it finally evolved. Everyone liked it, and that's what we built.
It is only then that he says the line you quote, that “It was strictly an extra-curricular activity on my part.” Because, as the Memory Alpha article goes on to recount, he was hiding the agreement with AMT. Why? Because of the same union requirements that had gotten them in trouble when they used Wah Chang. But again, the fact that agreement existed says nothing about why the Star Trek production wanted that model and were willing to go to the risk. Unless you can pull some quotes out of the air showing how Jefferies and Roddenberry were getting kickbacks from AMT for kits sold, and that that was why they paid for SFX of a Klingon ship, then there is no evidence the Klingon model was not procured for the same reason the shuttlecraft was (or the Romulan bird of prey, for that matter)- for the production. And even if it ends up being shown there were kickbacks, does that somehow remove any chance that what Matt Jefferies recounted was true and that the production was part of the calculus?
Oh, and an aside- for future use note where I use the quote function and where I don’t. It isn’t done to ring a notification bell but rather, for emphasis where I want to show, you know, emphasis.
