View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dan Ibekwe Commander
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 453 Location: Manchester UK
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:52 pm Post subject: I didn't think you could do that |
|
|
I noticed that a certain well-known Federation heavy cruiser was namechecked in John Sickel's excellent story in CL43.
Has an equally well-known motion-picture company had a change of mind? _________________ We are Hydrans! NO ONE LIKES US! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dal Downing Commander
Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 651 Location: Western Wisconsin
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
No there seems to be a clause for its use if its omission would be glaring obvious. Also notice it was mentioned by others relating to a specific event.
What that means is it better be a kicking story set during a specific plot point and then no part of the story can takes place aboard it or involves it crew. _________________ -Dal
"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cole Site Admin
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 3832
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right. We can mention the enterprise but not use it, and mention it when it's omission would be glaring, such as a ship name list, or a story that takes place on the same day as a trek episode. _________________ The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Burning Chrome Lieutenant SG
Joined: 04 Feb 2011 Posts: 118 Location: Michigan
|
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fact the NCC-1701 was mentioned added much to the story in CL43 and even enhanced the classic episode.
Makes more sense that "Outposts 2, 3, and 4 are gone" was the due to the efforts of other Romulan ships.
Nice touch. _________________ Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.-- Mark Twain |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|