Interest Star Trek The Next Generation - 'Hotel Royale' Novel

Jintosh said:
That is NOT the right cover for "the royale" …. so does it have a correct story in it, instead?
Click to expand...

Not the right cover, that's true. But at least we have a text for the back now, so I can complete the cover. ;)

By the way: What's a natharius lathrio?

lf.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd guess that phrase is meant to read "notorious Lothario" -- it's certainly not the only flub on those covers :)

edit: Dialog from the episode indicates that the phrase is actually "nefarious Lothario"
 
Last edited:
Roland said:
;)

By the way: What's a natharius lathrio?
Click to expand...
E Williams said:
I'd guess that phrase is meant to read "notorious Lothario" -- it's certainly not the only flub on those covers :)
Click to expand...

Noun[edit]

Lothario (plural Lotharios)


  1. A man whose chief interest is seducing, usually women. quotations ▼Synonyms: ladykiller, Casanova, Romeo; see also Thesaurus:ppromiscuous man, Thesaurus:libertine Coordinate term: Romeo
****************************

Yes, Please use "notorious Lothario" in the back cover text. :D
 
Jintosh said:
Yes, Please use "notorious Lothario" in the back cover text. :D
Click to expand...

The auction description says "All three books were used as set dressing in Captain Picard's quarters."

Maybe the prop department copied the text from the original book that was used in the "Royale" episode and the original one has the same mistake? In this case we shouldn't correct the mistake. What do you think, Daniel, "natharius lathrio" or "notorious lothario"?
 
I’m not sure there’s any connection between those three faux books and the prop from The Royale - the one in question even spells the author’s name differently, with only one T.

Do we know if they were actually used on the show? Or were they set decoration in the movies? The auction description as written cannot be correct.
 
Last edited:
Roland said:
The auction description says "All three books were used as set dressing in Captain Picard's quarters."

Maybe the prop department copied the text from the original book that was used in the "Royale" episode and the original one has the same mistake? In this case we shouldn't correct the mistake. What do you think, Daniel, "natharius lathrio" or "notorious lothario"?
Click to expand...

He should use "notorious Lothario" <<<< make sure and capitalize Lothario, it's the name of a Character from a famous play. The point of this book Replica, is that it should seem like a real book, in every way. No REAL book would have so many misspellings in it. They would get edited and corrected before print.

----edit from other post------

nefarious Lothario
 
Last edited:
Jintosh said:
DEFINITELY, use "notorious Lothario" <<<< make sure and capitalize Lothario, it's the name of a Character from a famous play. The point of this book Replica, is that it should seem like a real book, in every way. No REAL book would have so many misspellings in it. They would get edited and corrected before print.
Click to expand...

Is it actually a book replica Daniel wants to make? I thought it's a prop replica. If it's a prop replica, we should replicate the mistakes, too.

Daniel has the final say. It's his prop. ;)
 
Last edited:
Right, if you were replicating those later books, I'd say keep the mistakes. But since the back cover of the TV prop itself is barely visible in the episode, and only enough to guess that there might be a back cover synopsis, anything you add to your replica is only a guess. A good amount of the blurb from the back of the later book is taken directly from Data's dialog:

"Captain, this is the story of a group of compulsive gamblers caught up in a web of crime, corruption and deceit. It is told by nefarious Lothario Mickey D, who appears only at the climax to carry out the cold-blooded murder of the hotel bellboy. There is also a subplot about an older man conspiring with a younger woman to murder her husband. She is squandering her inheritance."

In which case nefarious, rather than notorious should be used.

Again, I doubt the later book and its choice of verbiage has any relation to the prop from the episode given the misspelling of Matthews... Using a similar synopsis would be a cool easter egg, but I don't think you should be beholden to the later one when replicating the earlier one.
 
E Williams said:
Right, if you were replicating those later books, I'd say keep the mistakes. But since the back cover of the TV prop itself is barely visible in the episode, and only enough to guess that there might be a back cover synopsis, anything you add to your replica is only a guess. A good amount of the blurb from the back of the later book is taken directly from Data's dialog:

"Captain, this is the story of a group of compulsive gamblers caught up in a web of crime, corruption and deceit. It is told by nefarious Lothario Mickey D, who appears only at the climax to carry out the cold-blooded murder of the hotel bellboy. There is also a subplot about an older man conspiring with a younger woman to murder her husband. She is squandering her inheritance."

In which case nefarious, rather than notorious should be used.

Again, I doubt the later book and its choice of verbiage has any relation to the prop from the episode given the misspelling of Matthews... Using a similar synopsis would be a cool easter egg, but I don't think you should be beholden to the later one when replicating the earlier one.
Click to expand...

I thought Data had said something to that effect, but didn't have the episode to check.
I agree with nefarious, then, since that's the word Data used. As I recall, Data flipped quickly through the book and literally read it in seconds. If Data said nefarious, then he would probably have READ nefarious. He's very literal.

nefarious Lothario is my vote.
 
DB537 said:
I have seen these, but I think they were made later for one of the movies as set dressing. The book from the episode doesn't look the same.
Click to expand...

We know. But we're talking about the text on the back. ;) What's your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know it's not the same book. I just thought people might be interested if they also wanted to create replicas of these books too, since the images were so high-res.
 
Roland said:
We know. But we're talking about the text on the back. ;) What's your opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would work for a replica of the original version, because much of it is copied almost exactly from Data's dialogue after he read the book. It seemed that he was giving his own summary of the plot, not repeating the back cover text. I wouldn't mind it personally, but I feel that others might have an issue with it because of that. Your version works for me as long as it's fine with everyone else.

Edit: I missed a couple of the replies above that say the same thing. 'Nefarious Lothario' is also my preference since it's what they intended.
 
Last edited:
Well, since both versions of the book were used, they would both be screen accurate. Maybe the second Hotel Royale was a second printing or updated version. You know, in verse?
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Jameel Ur
Unlimited Run Star Trek Enterprise S-1 Excursion Quilted Leather Jacket!
2
Replies
23
Views
847
peter1701
P
Jameel Ur
Interest Star Trek: Picard-3 William Riker Uniform jacket!
Replies
2
Views
350
peter1701
P
Nakai
Limited Run Star trek s2 wrap wool shirt costume kirk
Replies
12
Views
547
Nakai
Nakai
Nakai
Limited Run Star trek tos utility belt
2
Replies
24
Views
1,525
Nakai
Nakai
Nakai
Limited Run star trek bomber jacket build completed
2
Replies
23
Views
1,660
Nakai
Nakai
Back
Top