USS Antares Question (ATTN: Okuda?)

[aridas sofia]

Shaw said:

There were four models that portrayed the Enterprise on screen in the original series, and one of those was the AMT model (the four include the three inch model from Catspaw). Not trying to be a well informed bully that wears his knowledge on his sleeve for all to see and praise , just being a stickler for detail like you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AMT model was used to represent the Enterprise in one episode -- "The Trouble With Tribbles". It was used for distant shots of the ship orbiting K-7, as seen from the interior of the station. It was so small in those shots that the differences between it and the other models used to represent the ship are not noticable and irrelevant.

As for the "Catspaw" piece of jewelry, that was intended to be a facsimile, not the ship itself.

OTOH, the numerous instances of three-foot and eleven-foot model changing places in the course of a moment leave one to ponder the possibility that the Enterprise was a Transformer. Maybe it can be explained as "archive" footage of the ship being interspersed with "actual" footage, much like Hollywood has used Vietnam era naval film to represet ship actions from WW2 .

 

[T'Bonz]

Shaw said:
Not trying to be a well informed bully that wears his knowledge on his sleeve for all to see and praise , just being a stickler for detail like you.

I strongly suggest that this stops now. I see what is going on.

Any discussion, PM me. But this stops now.

And note the lack of taunting graemlins in my response.

 

[Vance]

I, for one, miss the taunting graemlins.

 

[Shaw]

aridas sofia said:
It was so small in those shots that the differences between it and the other models used to represent the ship are not noticable and irrelevant.

So why is it that this argument (the differences between it and the other models used to represent the ship are not noticable and irrelevant) okay for the Enterprise but not the Constellation? Specially when it is most likely the exact same argument used by the effects department in both cases.

Further, the same AMT model that represented the Constellation was also used in Ultimate Computer, where all four ships of the attack fleet were also represented using the 11 foot model of the Enterprise.

And more to the point, things like this that wouldn't have been visible on 1960s era televisions should hardly be used against what was intended to be conveyed. If we were to follow your logic, then in a number of episodes where (today) Kirk is quite visibly not being portrayed by Shatner should also be given similar explanations. And the differences between the AMT kit of the Enterprise and the 11 foot or 3 foot models are no greater than say the differences between Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis, both of whom portrayed Saavik.

Frankly, no matter how different these elements are from each other, the only thing that should matter is how they were intended to be understood within the story. After all, these are episodes from a weekly television series of the sixties and not historical documents from the 23rd century. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if people of today lacked the ability to suspend their disbelief long enough to get the actual story from these episodes... and more than technical details, Star Trek was about stories.

What you are attempting here is to rewrite the story to fit details which were supposed to be not noticable and irrelevant.

As for the "Catspaw" piece of jewelry, that was intended to be a facsimile, not the ship itself.

It was to represent a recognizable form of the Enterprise, and it was used in the production of the original series. So as much as the 11 foot, 3 foot and AMT 18 inch models, it should be given it's place.

While a stickler for details, I can divorce that obsession from my enjoyment of a story (until plot inconsistencies become to great, but that it a different topic). When I think of the Enterprise I am thinking of the 11 foot model, even when the 3 foot or 18 inch models are on screen. When I think of Kirk I am thinking of Shatner, even when one of his stunt doubles is obviously on screen.

But it is discussions like this that make me wonder if some people have lost the ability to enjoy the stories. And while I think it is important to be as technically consistent as possible in Trek productions, what killed off the franchise was following this to the exclusion of story line.

Take a step back and enjoy the Constellation for what it was intended to be.

 

[aridas sofia]

So why is it that this argument (the differences between it and the other models used to represent the ship are not noticeable and irrelevant) okay for the Enterprise but not the Constellation?

Further, the same AMT model that represented the Constellation was also used in Ultimate Computer, where all four ships of the attack fleet were also represented using the 11 foot model of the Enterprise.

Because, on the Constellation the differences are noticeable, since much attention is given to that model. In "Trouble With Tribbles" (and in that reused long shot in "Ultimate Computer" taken from "Doomsday Machine" ) they are not. If the differences are not noticeable, they are irrelevant.

Take a step back and enjoy the Constellation for what it was intended to be.

Yes. An older, slightly-less capable ship.

Or maybe not.

 

[Vance]

Well, if the registry of the Constellation was NCC-1710, this argument wouldn't even exist. We would all chalk it up to the use of a rushed model and have done with it... it's that oddball registry that's the kicker.

 

[NCC621]

Vance said:
Well, the Constellation was a rush job, and the numbers were chosen because they were already part of the model sheet. The use of the registry was a bone of contention even back then.

But, an 'exception' for Constellation can be explained easily. Having all the registries just randomly thrown together (ala Okuda and Jein) is darn nigh impossible.

Yes, an "exception" can be made. But NCc-1017 was clearly seen in several shots.

In real life, registry numbers, part numbers, and licence plate numbers frequently jump around in a manner that could appear random to an outside observer. Numerous real-world events often cause serial numbers to be applied out of sequence (reserved numbers, end-of-fiscal year, differing registry offices, changes in policy, retroactive changes, not to mention mistakes). Why would Starfleet's numbering be any different?

 

[Vance]

In real life, naval registry numbers do not jump all over the place. When something is out of order, there's an appropriations reason, generally.

Also, license plate numbers are actually in encoding of where your GOT your license plate.. each has a purpose.

The NCC-1017 as an 'exception' was that the registry itself was an exception to the Constitution class schema, for whatever reason.

But, when you have the majority of known Constitution class vessels with earlier registries than the class ship, and the man who gave them their 'canon' number saying that they're numbered chronologically, it all kinda breaks down, don't it.

 

[Unicron]

* shrugs * I just take the Constellation's registry as what it is: a real-life example of there being no set registry scheme when the series was made. I'd prefer a more clear and better organized registry scheme as much as anyone, but little things like this don't bother me. It's interesting that Bjo Trimble refers to the Enterprise as being "Constellation Class" in her Star Trek Concordance, under the assumption that the Constellation's registry meant it was built earlier.

 

[SeerSGB]

Unicron said:
* shrugs * I just take the Constellation's registry as what it is: a real-life example of there being no set registry scheme when the series was made. I'd prefer a more clear and better organized registry scheme as much as anyone, but little things like this don't bother me. It's interesting that Bjo Trimble refers to the Enterprise as being "Constellation Class" in her Star Trek Concordance, under the assumption that the Constellation's registry meant it was built earlier.

Well that would be on solution for the number being off: Constellation Class with the Enterprise and her sisters being "Contistution Subclass".

 

[NCC621]

Vance said:
In real life, naval registry numbers do not jump all over the place. When something is out of order, there's an appropriations reason, generally.

Also, license plate numbers are actually in encoding of where your GOT your license plate.. each has a purpose.

The NCC-1017 as an 'exception' was that the registry itself was an exception to the Constitution class schema, for whatever reason.

But, when you have the majority of known Constitution class vessels with earlier registries than the class ship, and the man who gave them their 'canon' number saying that they're numbered chronologically, it all kinda breaks down, don't it.

My point exactly. I have no problem imagining that Starfleet has similar factors such as appropriations issues or differing registry offices that you, as a viewer, don't necessarily understand.

And Matt Jefferies presumably also approved the use of the "1017" registry number that was seen on screen, so I guess you can pick the contradiction that works best for you.

 

[Vance]

Jefferies pointedly did NOT approve of it, but there wasn't time (they were in constant crunch) to change anything after the model was 'done'.

 

[NCC621]

I wasn't aware that Mr. Jefferies was on record of having disapproved of the number. But even if he was, it was very clearly visible on screen in several shots. You seem to have no problem ignoring this particular data point. Which is, I suppose, your right.

 

[Vance]

At this point, I have to wonder if you're deliberately misreading and misinterpreting what I've been saying... Though the Constellation's registry is out of whack with what MJ had desired, a plausible explanation could be made for that single case.

That's different than suddenly assuming that nearly every single other Constitution class vessel known has registries less than the class ship, however, particularly when THAT is at odds with Okuda's own stated reasoning.

A single, or few, exceptions are reasonable. 80 percent of 'exceptions' is pointless.

 

[NCC621]

What was the registry number of the Starship Republic? You know, the one listed as a Constitution-class ship in "The Making of Star Trek"?

 

[skylark]

NCC621 said:
What was the registry number of the Starship Republic? You know, the one listed as a Constitution-class ship in "The Making of Star Trek"?

Indeed. Another case of different fans choosing different logical absurdities from different sources to embrace or ignore. Each to his own.

 

[Nebusj]

Vance said:
In real life, naval registry numbers do not jump all over the place. When something is out of order, there's an appropriations reason, generally.

'Course, we could take a moment to look at the serial numbers for the Apollo Command/Service Modules, and compare that to the order in which they were launched, and that includes vehicles 011-A, 105-AV, and 115-A, and that's not even counting the really mysterious entries. And that's for a product with one production line and a short period of actual use ...

Not to mention the US Navy submarine SS 19 1/2, or other submarines with the number 1. And in production lines there's just try to figure out how the various United States armed forces numbered their airplanes.

As for the sequel suffixes: Yes, if Enterprise can rate 1701-D, then Yamato should rate 1305-E. It's called ``there actually exists someone in the entire Star Trek universe who isn't on Kirk's ship that isn't a barely animate lump of putty''.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Vance said:
At this point, I have to wonder if you're deliberately misreading and misinterpreting what I've been saying... Though the Constellation's registry is out of whack with what MJ had desired, a plausible explanation could be made for that single case.

Why didn't they use 1710? That would have fit better than 1017 did.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Or sprung for a second kit and had 1711? Or 1717?

 

[Outpost4]

Probably because they thought nobody would care? Just a guess...