When Matt Jefferies first presented his drawings of the TOS Enterprise to Gene Roddenberry, he did have the saucer section on the bottom with the secondary hull above...
But it was sitting on Genes desk in a pile of other concept art and Gene first saw it upside down and approved it that way.
According to Matt, even though he pointed out the "correct" orientation later, Gene preferred it as he first saw it.
So that was how the model was created for the show.
I know of two sources for this, one is "The Making of Star Trek" book and the other is personal info...
I actually got to ask Mr. Roddenberry in person once, when he came to Union College here in Schenectady,NY to give a lecture about writing for TV and Star Trek back in 1981.
He also showed us the infamous Blooper-Reel, his favorite cut of the first pilot with Jeffery Hunter and answered a ton of questions about the making of The Motion Picture.
He even told us a little bit about what was going on with the second Trek movie.
(it didn't have an Official name yet)
One of the questions I asked him was could he tell us about how he came up with the design for the Enterprise.
He pointed out that the design was actually presented to him by one of the artists working on the show (he didn't mention Jefferies name) but that it was upside down when he first saw it and approved it.
He went on to tell us about how the two models were built and some of the problems they had trying to film them for the show.
It was quite an experience, it was very informal because we had a fairly large snowstorm the day before and even though it was a sold-out event, only about 15 people showed up.
I got his autograph, shook his hand and actually recorded about half of it with an old tape recorder.
It was this 23 year old Sci-Fi geeks, dream come true!
Might want to edit that second quote since it is referring to the other guy not me.
Others have raised a good point. When Cryptic launches a product based on an existing material with hundreds of hours of content - and get something this basic wrong - what does that say about the company in general?
Others have raised a good point. When Cryptic launches a product based on an existing material with hundreds of hours of content - and get something this basic wrong - what does that say about the company in general?
It could mean that they had access to the original concept art and what-not, and thus didn't have to double-check on the show, and its also possible that what we saw on TV was not how it was intended.
And last I saw, the Benthan's didn't have hundreds of hours of content in the show.
Yes, they screwed up. Boohoo. As long as they fix it, no harm done.
And last I saw, the Benthan's didn't have hundreds of hours of content in the show.
Yes, they screwed up. Boohoo. As long as they fix it, no harm done.
Agree
Chuckled a bit over it, posted it in the hopes they fix it to be more accurate, after all I gotz the ship :rolleyes:.
A bit befuddled over some of the defense zealot responses. Save it for a more deserving snafu. Then proceed with all deliberate speed.
Most posters aren't reaching for pitch forks and torches this time, they're just getting a in a few lolz. And so what?! I mean, it IS kinda funny, in a dorky sorta way.
I'm hopin' Someone @ Cryptic will see this, slap themselves on the forehead, chuckle, and just fix the flippin thing. I really doubt that they are so thin skinned they'd take offense to a little ribbing over a dumbass mistake like this.
Everyone's entitled to their dumbass moments.
Some, like myself have more than others.
I agree 100%
I chuckled a bit over it, posted it in the hopes they fix it to be more accurate, after all I gotz the ship :rolleyes:.
A bit befuddled over the brouhaha, in as of zealot responses.
From what I see most aren't reaching for pitch forks and torches over this, they're just getting a in a few lolz. And so what?! I mean, it is kinda funny, in a dorky mistake sorta way.
Again, I'm hopin' Cryptic will see this, slap themselves on the forehead, chuckle over it and fix the flippin thing.
After all, everyone's entitled to a dumbass moment.
Or did they already fix it? I like the school of thought that says that the voyager version is wrong.
But to expect Cryptic to pay attention when everybody else didn't (up until now) is hypocrisy. Even if it's a lockbox ship.
As someone who also does 3D art for games I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to state with authority that it's not hypocritical to jokingly call them out for a slip up. This is what they're paid to do professionally. If I got something like that wrong I would have myself a nice little "... oh balls :-| " moment and then fix it.
Nitpicking is a time-honored tradition of science fiction. Asking your readers not to worry about the "little things" is like asking a dog not to sniff at people's crotches. If there's something that appears to violate natural laws, then you can expect someone's going to point it out. That's just the way things are.
I don't think there is, personally. If it's an easily forgettable ship (even as a lockbox ship), then I really can't fault them for not paying attention.
I hold them to the same kind of standard I hold other players. If the players have to actually go back with a fine-toothed comb to nitpick? Sure, report it and maybe get it altered.
But to expect Cryptic to pay attention when everybody else didn't (up until now) is hypocrisy. Even if it's a lockbox ship.
Well, like I said, everyone else doesn't get *paid* to pay attention, Cryptic does.
All-in-all, the Benthan cruiser is fine; even if it really isn't the front, what's now the front works for me too.
Well, like I said, everyone else doesn't get *paid* to pay attention, Cryptic does.
All-in-all, the Benthan cruiser is fine; even if it really isn't the front, what's now the front works for me too.
But we are supposed to be Star Trek fans. The standard Star Trek fan stereotype is supposed to point out problems with an episode that are missed by the majority of people in a couple of hours not months later.
For all we know, Cryptic decided to reverse the orientation because according to them it looks better and was the ship designers original intention years ago. As far as I recall the Akira was intended to have hangar support according to the ship designer and Cryptic followed the wishes of the ship designer in creating the Heavy Escort Carrier.
Cryptic might have been trying to be diplomatic with the Benthan since by design according to what the ship designer wishes could mean they gain some favor with the ship designer to bring some of their designs. So if Doug Drexler has some ship design that Cryptic would love to get their hands on, then changing the Benthan ship to fit Drexler's intention would be a good start.
As someone who also does 3D art for games I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to state with authority that it's not hypocritical to jokingly call them out for a slip up. This is what they're paid to do professionally. If I got something like that wrong I would have myself a nice little "... oh balls :-| " moment and then fix it.
I have a feeling a fix for this won't be as simple as we would think. I wonder if there will be a special reclaim if it can't be successfully applied to the current ship. Sounds crazy, but this is STO after all. Past ship issues were sometimes resolved by reclaiming ships.
Chris Robert's on SC:
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
I have a feeling a fix for this won't be as simple as we would think. I wonder if there will be a special reclaim if it can't be successfully applied to the current ship. Sounds crazy, but this is STO after all. Past ship issues were sometimes resolved by reclaiming ships.
I'd have to agree. The biggest problem is that ships in STO aren't merely graphical constructs... they are detailed enough to have specific weapons hardpoints depending on what weapon type is equipped and being fired. Swapping the orientation would only be half the job, they'd also have to completely rework the hardpoints for many of the potential payload options. On the plus side, not having access to DHCs/DCs removes one variable. The Impulse Engine trails would be fairly simple to move to the glowey yellow bits... but animating the warp trail for the blue balls might be difficult too, depending on just how wide they make it. Those balls are pretty big compared to standard nacelle glowey bits.
Thank you Benthans, by the way, for giving us a reason to discuss your big blue balls... my inner twelve year old is laughing his aft off.
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
it's not hypocritical to jokingly call them out for a slip up
This is where I point out that there are people who aren't joking, and simply look for a reason to 'stick it to them' wherever and however they can, regardless of what the topic is.
Of course, then people will just say that everything that is ever said with malicious intent on the forums were just said in an insincere, joking manner and I have no sense of humor for pointing out otherwise.
Meh, it's a stupid looking ship no matter what end the engines are supposed to stick out from. And seeing as it's taken until now for people to notice, it's obviously not a big deal.
I'd have to agree. The biggest problem is that ships in STO aren't merely graphical constructs... they are detailed enough to have specific weapons hardpoints depending on what weapon type is equipped and being fired. Swapping the orientation would only be half the job, they'd also have to completely rework the hardpoints for many of the potential payload options. On the plus side, not having access to DHCs/DCs removes one variable. The Impulse Engine trails would be fairly simple to move to the glowey yellow bits... but animating the warp trail for the blue balls might be difficult too, depending on just how wide they make it. Those balls are pretty big compared to standard nacelle glowey bits.
Thank you Benthans, by the way, for giving us a reason to discuss your big blue balls... my inner twelve year old is laughing his aft off.
And here I thought the blue thing was the deflector. :P
Really wasn't nitpicking, or going over anything Cryptic related with a fine toothed comb.
Just watching some Voyager episodes during some unexpected downtime. Discovered that the ship in game, (that I own btw) flies backwards and pointed it out.
At no point did I say that Cryptic doesn't know their TRIBBLE from their elbow.
Don't wanna turn this into another "Poor Cryptic's gettin picked on again." situation, because it's not.
But with a lockbox ship flyin TRIBBLE backwards, they could expect a little Good-natured ribbin. It's actually kinda funny.
I'm hoping they will see the difference between this and a flame post. Unless they are that uptight that they don't like their mistakes pointed out to them.
Not every post requires the activation of the defense force.
I think they have there heads shoved too far up their asses in this case
It isn't unprecedented, it is hilarious. This reminds me by the way, I couple of weeks ago I pulled out my old copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Jem Hadar Battleship was upside down in every shot of it throughout the book.
This is not some indie studio. Having the ship backward is a simply put embarrassing display of poor quality work. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hence my new sig. :P
(honestly I personally don't really care, but to marginalize such a basic error :rolleyes:)
Honestly, don't care much either, either way (pun intended). But paid Devs need to do their homework, prior to creating ships. And then be man enough to rectifty mistakes, should they occur. If, for nothing else, npt doing so makes them subject to ridicule. Again, see my new sig. :P Buauauauaa!
Honestly, don't care much either, either way (pun intended). But paid Devs need to do their homework, prior to creating ships. And then be man enough to rectifty mistakes, should they occur. If, for nothing else, npt doing so makes them subject to ridicule. Again, see my new sig. :P Buauauauaa!
I'm of the opinion that they merely fixed an error. :P
Comments
LOL, Almost missed this post !
Aye Aye Captn ! :P
Might want to edit that second quote since it is referring to the other guy not me.
Others have raised a good point. When Cryptic launches a product based on an existing material with hundreds of hours of content - and get something this basic wrong - what does that say about the company in general?
Or found out that their ships fly better in reverse and look better too.
It could mean that they had access to the original concept art and what-not, and thus didn't have to double-check on the show, and its also possible that what we saw on TV was not how it was intended.
And last I saw, the Benthan's didn't have hundreds of hours of content in the show.
Yes, they screwed up. Boohoo. As long as they fix it, no harm done.
Iconians... that is all.
Agree
Chuckled a bit over it, posted it in the hopes they fix it to be more accurate, after all I gotz the ship :rolleyes:.
A bit befuddled over some of the defense zealot responses. Save it for a more deserving snafu. Then proceed with all deliberate speed.
Most posters aren't reaching for pitch forks and torches this time, they're just getting a in a few lolz. And so what?! I mean, it IS kinda funny, in a dorky sorta way.
I'm hopin' Someone @ Cryptic will see this, slap themselves on the forehead, chuckle, and just fix the flippin thing. I really doubt that they are so thin skinned they'd take offense to a little ribbing over a dumbass mistake like this.
Everyone's entitled to their dumbass moments.
Some, like myself have more than others.
My character Tsin'xing
As someone who also does 3D art for games I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to state with authority that it's not hypocritical to jokingly call them out for a slip up. This is what they're paid to do professionally. If I got something like that wrong I would have myself a nice little "... oh balls :-| " moment and then fix it.
Zing!
Joined January 2009
Well, like I said, everyone else doesn't get *paid* to pay attention, Cryptic does.
All-in-all, the Benthan cruiser is fine; even if it really isn't the front, what's now the front works for me too.
But we are supposed to be Star Trek fans. The standard Star Trek fan stereotype is supposed to point out problems with an episode that are missed by the majority of people in a couple of hours not months later.
For all we know, Cryptic decided to reverse the orientation because according to them it looks better and was the ship designers original intention years ago. As far as I recall the Akira was intended to have hangar support according to the ship designer and Cryptic followed the wishes of the ship designer in creating the Heavy Escort Carrier.
Cryptic might have been trying to be diplomatic with the Benthan since by design according to what the ship designer wishes could mean they gain some favor with the ship designer to bring some of their designs. So if Doug Drexler has some ship design that Cryptic would love to get their hands on, then changing the Benthan ship to fit Drexler's intention would be a good start.
Zing !
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
It certainly seems more interesting this way. Too bad those clips from Voyager are so short.
I'd have to agree. The biggest problem is that ships in STO aren't merely graphical constructs... they are detailed enough to have specific weapons hardpoints depending on what weapon type is equipped and being fired. Swapping the orientation would only be half the job, they'd also have to completely rework the hardpoints for many of the potential payload options. On the plus side, not having access to DHCs/DCs removes one variable. The Impulse Engine trails would be fairly simple to move to the glowey yellow bits... but animating the warp trail for the blue balls might be difficult too, depending on just how wide they make it. Those balls are pretty big compared to standard nacelle glowey bits.
Thank you Benthans, by the way, for giving us a reason to discuss your big blue balls... my inner twelve year old is laughing his aft off.
This is where I point out that there are people who aren't joking, and simply look for a reason to 'stick it to them' wherever and however they can, regardless of what the topic is.
Of course, then people will just say that everything that is ever said with malicious intent on the forums were just said in an insincere, joking manner and I have no sense of humor for pointing out otherwise.
My character Tsin'xing
Too much Eggnog man, too much eggnog.
Too much nutmeg in the egg nog
I think they have there heads shoved too far up their asses in this case
So par the course from cryptic
Hence my new sig. :P
Honestly, don't care much either, either way (pun intended). But paid Devs need to do their homework, prior to creating ships. And then be man enough to rectifty mistakes, should they occur. If, for nothing else, npt doing so makes them subject to ridicule. Again, see my new sig. :P Buauauauaa!
My character Tsin'xing
Same here. The ship just looks wrong with the way Voyager had it.