View Single Post
Old September 2 2013, 12:30 AM   #170
Robert Comsol
Robert Comsol's Avatar
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

First of all, I seriously think you should sit down, take a stress pill and think things over because your tone serves no constructive purpose. Please.

Timo wrote: View Post
"What was intended" is a concept that simply does not exist for TOS. One episode says one thing, another says something completely different.
It is my understanding that "canon" is all the information we gather from visual or verbal information and remains canon unless contradicted within the same body of work (i.e. TOS).

There is no TOS episode that contradicts the alphabetic class differentiation for vessels proposed in "The Menagerie" which is in perfect sync with the undisputed alphabetic class differentiation for planets.

However, the fact that Bob Justman replied to D.C. Fontana's "Starship Class" reference with "Enterprise Starship Class" could hint a changed premise, possibly inspired by Gene L. Coon's "Constitution Class". But in this case that's something they established in the middle of Season Two and was not changed thereafter until the end of TOS.

In case you refer to the issue of M/AM reactors aboard Enterprise I'd say you just don't consider the possibility that we were discovering new features of the ship as the series proceeded.

If you have irrefutable proof that "one episode says one thing, another says something completely different" please feel free to provide examples.

Timo wrote: View Post
Are you starting to realize that once we sever the conjectural connection between "Constitution Class" and the TOS Enterprise there are more answers and solutions than questions and discrepancies?
Just stop pretending that the people who made TOS intended any of this. It's us who are responsible for such made-up patterns, especially the more pleasing ones.
I provided all the evidence from the creators (i.e. Jefferies, Justman, Roddenberry/Whitfield) and even in this part of the galaxy 1+1+1 equals 3. IMO, this answers more questions than raising new ones and is therefore the only one I can find pleasing.

Timo wrote: View Post
...lack of interest to figure out what the original creators may have intended to tell us.
Now that's again insanity speaking. "May have intended" is not something you can figure out.
Yes, I can. By applying common sense and logic and dispensing the belief in astronomical coincidences:

Deck 12 ("Mudd's Women", "The Enemy Within") - The producers didn't know what they were doing because Kirk's cabin couldn't possibly be on Deck 12 because the saucer has only 11 decks and there's no place for what we saw in the dorsal!

Deck 14 ("Dagger of the Mind") - The producers didn't know what they were doing because the space we saw can't possibly be on Deck 14 because the saucer has only 11 decks and there's no place for what we saw in the dorsal!

Deck 2 ("The Enterprise Incident") - The producers didn't know what they were doing because it would never take a turbo lift that long to travel from the Bridge to the deck below!

The Making of Star Trek
makes a clear distinction between 11 main decks and 16 engineering decks. But to match 16 engineering decks with the exterior windows of the engineering hull and have these have the same height as the studio set requires these to run all the way from the bottom of the engineering hull to the top of the dorsal!

It's therefore a logical conclusion that Engineering Deck 1 starts at the dorsal's top and suddenly all the aforementioned deck location references make perfect sense, and even the angle of the outer wall of Kirk's (provisional) cabin on Engineering Deck 12 matches the angle of the exterior hull.

The creators knew exactly what they were doing. But everybody else assumed Franz Joseph's conjectural deck numbering was correct (why?!?) and started to believe that the creators didn't know what they were doing.

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote