NCC = Not Constitution Class?

[GSchnitzer]

I thought I'd take a peek at the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture written by Gene Roddenberry himself. Folks may remember that as the movie opens, the V'Ger cloud attacks a bunch of Klingon ships. In the novelization, Kirk is actually able to "see" this happening. (An emergency signal was transmitted directly to an implant in Kirk's brain--a sort of emergency communication device.)

"Kirk found himself seeing three Klingon cruisers which appeared to be moving at warp velocity and in battle formation. The images became more detailed, increasingly real--he could begin thinking about them consciously. The Klingon vessels were big, dangerous looking--undoubtedly their new K't'inga-class heavy cruisers which some Admiralty tacticians feared might prove faster and more powerful than Starfleet's First Line Constitution-Class starships."

Whatever Gene Roddenberry's original intent might have been, it looks like that by 1979, he intended the top-of-the-line starships to be Constitution-class.

[Mysterion]

NCC = No Canon Connotation.

[Maurice]

My Latin is rusty, but NCC= Non Compus Compreheno

[Lance]

I know the reason the USS Constellation was branded NCC 1017 was because it was a 'quick and easy' way to apply a different registry to the vessel by simply rearranging the numbers. It's always bugged me though, why they couldn't have just branded it "NCC-1710", which would at least have been consistent with the established numbering scheme. Maybe they thought simply switching the two last numbers made it a bit too obvious?

[Robert Comsol]

GSchnitzer wrote:

---

"Whatever Gene Roddenberry's original intent might have been, it looks like that by 1979, he intended the top-of-the-line starships to be Constitution-class."

The quote is correct but I seriously doubt that it had actually been Gene Roddenberry who wrote the TMP novelization (possibly Alan Dean Foster acting as the ghost writer just like he did for the novelization of Star Wars).

I also doubt this is an expression for Gene Roddenberry's "intention".
I think at this point he simply didn't mind any more as conjectural fan speculation - published in form of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance and the Franz Joseph publications (despite their different numbering for the sister ships of the Enterprise, the "Constitution Class" is apparently one issue they both agreed upon) - had made "Constitution Class" abundantly popular.

Bob

[Lance]

Unless I'm mistaken ISTR the phrase "Enterprise Class" floating around in a few reference books as late as 1986. Though this seemed to be being used as a kind of descriptive term to distinguish the refit ship from the TOS original, rather than being something unique in itself.

[Unicron]

IIRC, the concept of having the crew be given a completely new ship (with an 1800 series number) was one of the things under consideration when TMP was being worked on, and Gene eventually nixed the idea and insisted it was still a Constitution class ship because he thought fans might get attached to a new design and "forget" the original vessel. I'm tempted to say Andrew Probert might have had a hand in coming up with the Enterprise class moniker for distinguishing purposes, but I could be wrong on that.

[GSchnitzer]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I think at this point he simply didn't mind any more as conjectural fan speculation - published in form of Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance and the Franz Joseph publications....

Well, I think you would agree that "BASIC SPECIFICATIONS, CONSTITUTION CLASS STAR SHIP" and "BASIC PROPULSION SYSTEMS, CONSTITUTION CLASS STAR SHIP" in the "Space Seed" script probably transcend "conjectural fan speculation."

[nightwind1]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

The quote is correct but I seriously doubt that it had actually been Gene Roddenberry who wrote the TMP novelization (possibly Alan Dean Foster acting as the ghost writer just like he did for the novelization of Star Wars).

Doubt all you want, but it's been pretty much positively established that GR actually WAS the author of the TMP novelization.

[Robert Comsol]

GSchnitzer wrote:

---

"Well, I think you would agree that "BASIC SPECIFICATIONS, CONSTITUTION CLASS STAR SHIP" and "BASIC PROPULSION SYSTEMS, CONSTITUTION CLASS STAR SHIP" in the "Space Seed" script probably transcend "conjectural fan speculation."

Looks like we are stuck in an orbit like Enterprise and Reliant in ST II.

Picture yourself to be back in 1966 and on the set. The writers guide has established the Enterprise to be a member of the Starship Class, and if anybody has forgotten a quick glance at the dedication plaque of the bridge set will read "STARSHIP CLASS".

Then comes a script talking about a "Constitution Class Star Ship". Now, the actors and producers may remember that it had been established in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" that the Enterprise has twelve sister ships but everybody will ask "What the heck is a Constitution Class Star Ship?"

If Khan is supposed to be looking at basic schematics of the Enterprise why doesn't the screenplay just say so? Anything else - from a production's point of view - is redundant or confusing or trivial technobabble.

To cut this long story short - again - the Making of Star Trek from 1968 makes no reference whatsoever to a "Constitution Class" but instead explicitly to the well known "Starship Class" and an "Enterprise Class". To me that's the ultimate account of what the producers / creators obviously intended.

Apparently, the cosmic consciousness is not without a sense of humor:
If I understand correctly, the first space shuttle built was supposed to be named Constitution but partially because of Trek intervention the name was changed to Enterprise.
"In-universe", however, we seem to have a mirrored situation where many prefer the first ship not to be the Enterprise but rather the Constitution.

Bob

[Unicron]

Why, exactly, do you consider TMoST to be the end all source for TOS? I'm asking more from my own curiosity than anything else, and I would agree it's a very interesting reference and insight into the development of the show (I have a copy myself). But I'm also aware that it was published while the show was still in production, meaning some things referenced either didn't come to pass or changed over the course of time. It may be true that no specific reference to the Enterprise being a Constitution class ship had been created at that point, but that doesn't inherently prove later associations to be wrong.

I think the whole "starship class" thing is perhaps being taken too literally, and within a narrow context. In the context of the production, when it was not very clear what other ship categories would exist besides that of the Enterprise (or indeed if it were possible to even see other ships occasionally, owing to budget issues), then it makes total sense to use "starship class" as a vague descriptor of what makes Enterprise unique for storytelling purposes. It would be like if I were in a naval movie, and I referred to an Arleigh Burke as a destroyer class for a general reference. If the script required it, I could actually say "Arleigh Burke class" or mention that it's a guided missile destroyer, but that doesn't inherently matter unless it fits into the story somehow.

[GSchnitzer]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Picture yourself to be back in 1966 and on the set. The writers guide has established the Enterprise to be a member of the Starship Class, and if anybody has forgotten a quick glance at the dedication plaque of the bridge set will read "STARSHIP CLASS".

I don't think a comment about a Constitution-Class starship would have been all that confusing. Certainly, the actors wouldn't care: it's not in dialogue. Only the maker of the screen insert would worry about it.

I think having Khan reading a screen that says "Important Features to Know That Would Enable Someone to Capture the Enterprise" would be a little too "Chekhov's Gun." I can see the writers assuming that the viewing audience wouldn't be that dumb. The audience would be able to put two and two together.

I know that the initial story outline for "Space Seed" is dated August 29, 1966 while the initial story outline for "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is dated October 3, 1966. I wonder which actually came first--the Constitution-Class comment or the "twelve like her in the fleet" comment--not that it really matters.

Also, remember that the Third Revision to the "Star Trek Writer's Guide" is dated April 17, 1967--after "Space Seed" was already written. It would be interesting to see what, if any, comments there were in the original version and the Second Revision. And I doubt that all scriptwriters got to see the dedication plaque that was on the set (as if the producers couldn't have changed their minds after the set was made.)

[Ronald Held]

Who on the TOS production crew is still alive and can provide additional insights?

[GSchnitzer]

Ronald Held wrote:

---

Who on the TOS production crew is still alive and can provide additional insights?

It's probably easy enoughto use the interwebs to find out who's around and who isn't. Deciding who constitutes the "production crew" is probably more difficult. (Are story writers "production?") Lastly, it's probably difficult to determine exactly who actually has "insignt" into this. I just figure what the writers actually wrote is probably insight enough. I suppose it would be like trying to find "the guy" who could speak informatively and offer additional authoritative insight as to what the Bilble actually means.

[Maurice]

nightwind1 wrote:

---

Doubt all you want, but it's been pretty much positively established that GR actually WAS the author of the TMP novelization.

Having read several teleplays and a feature film draft by Roddenberry, I can say the novel reeks of his writing style.