RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,754
Posts: 5,433,557
Members: 24,837
Currently online: 502
Newest member: joiner007

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 25 2013, 04:26 PM   #121
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
"Starship class" is set dressing. It's never been said in such a way as to mean class and not type. "Constitution-class" is canonical,
That's silly. Both appeared on the shows and both are canonical. If it isn't a "big deal", why weigh in?

Edit: Why it's silly: You are picking which class you consider is "canonical" and so is Bob and other posters. Pot and kettle and all that stuff.
Surely what's spoken carries more weight than illegible background screen graphics and the like? I'm not entirely sure about TOS, but during TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT the art department and the writers didn't have the best communication - hence bizarro nonsense like Voyager having two warp cores and two computer cores on it's MSD, which were explictly contradicted in dialogue.

And besides, new canon overwrites old canon, and new canon is decided by whoever rules the franchise. That's how it works - so Picard's "Constitution-class" in TNG's "Naked Now" and "Relics" overwrites anything contrary in TOS, just as "James T. Kirk" overwrote "James R. Kirk" 45 years ago.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 04:26 PM   #122
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Guess what, guys? It's worse than that.

Canon can and does contradict itself.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 04:46 PM   #123
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Surely what's spoken carries more weight than illegible background screen graphics and the like?
In the "Starship Class" plaque case, it's present and readable in all three seasons. And it is not contradicted within it's own series. Only later series attempt to alter that.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
And besides, new canon overwrites old canon, and new canon is decided by whoever rules the franchise. That's how it works - so Picard's "Constitution-class" in TNG's "Naked Now" and "Relics" overwrites anything contrary in TOS, just as "James T. Kirk" overwrote "James R. Kirk" 45 years ago.
And Kirk is still alive in "Relics" but dead in "Generations". Which "Constitution Class" is Picard talking about in "Relics" then?

James R Kirk doesn't become a contradiction until we catch it being used again by another character or graphic. All we have with James R Kirk is that a fallible, wanna-be mutant super being liked ribbing Kirk.

The idea that new canon overwrites old canon no longer works. Star Trek with all it's different productions is in comic book land with the different series not agreeing with each other. It's saving grace is the ever present alternate / multi-universes that is part of all the series. Even the Abrams Star Trek movie taps into that.

Going back to "The Naked Now" - there isn't anything that specifically contradicts the past "Starship Class" designation. Unless you also want to say Kirk was never an Admiral as well?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 06:10 PM   #124
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Going back to "The Naked Now" - there isn't anything that specifically contradicts the past "Starship Class" designation. Unless you also want to say Kirk was never an Admiral as well?
But that isn't what the argument is about. You have someone saying that those that use Constitution-class are somehow spitting on the graves of those who worked on the show and those that are the holy defenders of canon. Even though some of those folks were around and approved of it also being known by that class name as well.

No one made Constitution class up out of thin air to piss off the die-hards.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 09:31 PM   #125
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: The Constellation's registry number

For sake of argument, I could accept "Star Ship Class" as the official starship class nomenclature of the Enterprise and her sister-ships in TOS, but there are a few major hurdles to clear:

1: Kirk said "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" obviously implying starships like the Enterprise.

2: Judging from the list of starship names I compiled upthread, it seems very strange indeed that a Federation of multiple worlds and species would have only a very limited pool of starships, all with Earth-derived names.

3: This TOS-only-cannon approach put TOS in complete isolation. The original Enterprise and her sister-ships would truly be "in the freezer". No Reliant, no Mirandas or other ships loosely related to the Enterprise at all. Just a very small number of "Star Ship Class" vessels and that's it.

4: The only way I can see adhering to this strict orthodoxy of TOS-in-isolation continuity is if you also agree to the strong implication in "Whom Gods Destroy" that the Federation only came into being after the Axanar Peace Mission, in other words, when James T. Kirk was a young man. For a multi-world Federation to have only a dozen or two dozen "Star Ship Class" vessels in her armada, the Federation would still have to be pretty young anyway.

This is a very interesting exercise in fandom imagination, and could occasionally be useful, but purely academic at best. One could very logically argue that from TAS or TMP forward the entire STAR TREK franchise has become an exercise in concept erosion ultimately resulting in the 2009 movie. I'm not a fan of the 2009 remake, and I regard it as more of a light-hearted spin-off of the franchise (for lack of a better term). But I don't think it's necessary to isolate TOS entirely in order to insulate it from the straying effect of Hollyweird. (TOS had plenty of follies and built-in contradictions anyway.)

Any sci fi dramatic franchise is going to have an experimental nature to its content, it's going to stumble from time to time; especially one that pioneered the concept of an hour-long scifi dramatic series on primetime network TV. That's the nature of the beast.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.

Last edited by Wingsley; February 25 2013 at 09:33 PM. Reason: typo
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 09:35 PM   #126
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: The Constellation's registry number

I don't see any reason why the Defiant has to be one of the twelve like the Enterprise, referred to in Tomorrow Is Yesterday. Defiant could have been finished after the events of that episode, and at another shipyard.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 09:51 PM   #127
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: The Constellation's registry number

[QUOTE=blssdwlf;7730143]
King Daniel wrote: View Post
And Kirk is still alive in "Relics" but dead in "Generations". Which "Constitution Class" is Picard talking about in "Relics" then?
Scotty's mind was still in a fog after being re-assembled after being in a transporter buffer for 70+ years. he had some selective amnesia.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 11:15 PM   #128
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

BillJ wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Going back to "The Naked Now" - there isn't anything that specifically contradicts the past "Starship Class" designation. Unless you also want to say Kirk was never an Admiral as well?
But that isn't what the argument is about. You have someone saying that those that use Constitution-class are somehow spitting on the graves of those who worked on the show and those that are the holy defenders of canon. Even though some of those folks were around and approved of it also being known by that class name as well.

No one made Constitution class up out of thin air to piss off the die-hards.
When you frame it that way, then yes their argument is on the extreme end and I do not agree with that.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 11:28 PM   #129
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Wingsley wrote: View Post
1: Kirk said "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" obviously implying starships like the Enterprise.
Well, let's explore that a little.

Kirk's statement is just that, "there are only twelve like it in the fleet". That doesn't mean only twelve starships in the fleet, just twelve like it.

Now what about the other ships?

We know from the diagrams visible in "The Enterprise Incident" (and perhaps one other episode) of a version where the saucer lower edge is beveled, secondary hull is rounder and the nacelles offset differently and thus not like the Enterprise. I like to call this the pre-Captain Pike ship, or what the Enterprise looked like when she first rolled off the assembly line.

So now you have 12 ships, like the Enterprise and a number of ships not like the Enterprise, yet still sporting a similar configuration.

And if we got nit-picky, a third version exists, the USS Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" since the model kit from AMT is not built or shaped exactly like the Enterprise or the pre-Captain Pike ships.

That's only just using exclusively TOS info
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 11:30 PM   #130
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Wingsley wrote: View Post
For sake of argument, I could accept "Star Ship Class" as the official starship class nomenclature of the Enterprise and her sister-ships in TOS, but there are a few major hurdles to clear:

1: Kirk said "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" obviously implying starships like the Enterprise.
While "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is the second time in TOS the United Earth Space Probe Agency is mentioned, Kirk may have been cautious and referred only to the 12 starships of the 17th design to which the Enterprise belongs.
And he didn't say "there are only twelve starships".

Wingsley wrote: View Post
2: Judging from the list of starship names I compiled upthread, it seems very strange indeed that a Federation of multiple worlds and species would have only a very limited pool of starships, all with Earth-derived names.
The list may not be complete as we are only aware of the 16th and 17th design (and one 18th design) starships that were on the starship status list (only candidates requiring upgrades?) in "Court-Martial".

I believe the biggest TOS argument against "12 starships only" comes from "The Doomsday-Machine". Commodore Decker comments that the maw of the planet killer could swallow a dozen (= 12) starships. Why didn't he just say it could swallow all the starships of Starfleet, if that were the case?

Wingsley wrote: View Post
3: This TOS-only-canon approach put TOS in complete isolation. The original Enterprise and her sister-ships would truly be "in the freezer". No Reliant, no Mirandas or other ships loosely related to the Enterprise at all. Just a very small number of "Star Ship Class" vessels and that's it.
Not necessarily for the aforementioned reasons.

Wingsley wrote: View Post
4: The only way I can see adhering to this strict orthodoxy of TOS-in-isolation continuity is if you also agree to the strong implication in "Whom Gods Destroy" that the Federation only came into being after the Axanar Peace Mission, in other words, when James T. Kirk was a young man. For a multi-world Federation to have only a dozen or two dozen "Star Ship Class" vessels in her armada, the Federation would still have to be pretty young anyway.
Hmm...the "Vulcan expedition" remark in "Court-Martial" implies the same, but back in the 1970's the "USS" prefix for some older ships had been accepted to indicate a UFP at least 100 years old by the time of Kirk and company.

Wingsley wrote: View Post
This is a very interesting exercise in fandom imagination, and could occasionally be useful, but purely academic at best. One could very logically argue that from TAS or TMP forward the entire STAR TREK franchise has become an exercise in concept erosion ultimately resulting in the 2009 movie.
A beautiful and concise summary, IMHO.

Wingsley wrote: View Post
TOS had plenty of follies and built-in contradictions anyway.
Rewatching TOS I was rather amazed of the internal consistency and how many episodes referred to events in previous episodes (e.g. Kirk explicitly asked Spock in "By Any Other Name" to perform the same mind meld through the wall he did in "A Taste of Armageddon").

Some of the "contradictions", the way I see it and will continue to promote, are the result of retcon revisionism because later productions (e.g. movies) didn't do proper research (e.g. the Klingon-Romulan attribute chaos in the simulator room in ST II). Sorry, I can't reward bad research at the expense of the original producers ("They didn't know what they were doing") by accepting it as "canon".


I think another "in-universe" clue to allow distinction between the "Enterprise Class" (17th design) and the "Constitution Class" (16th design) might have been hinted earlier in this discussion.

The USS Defiant (NCC-1764) in "The Tholian Web" had the identical kind of dedication plaque as the Enterprise (I will argue that there was no need to cover it up, as the plaque did contain the essential "Enterprise Starship Class" information ).

In contrast the USS Exeter (NCC-1672) did not have this kind of dedication plaque in "The Omega Glory". One could take this as a clue, that dedication plaques were only granted to starships of the 17th design and beyond.

Bob
__________________
"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
Old February 25 2013, 11:38 PM   #131
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Constellation's registry number

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
So now you have 12 ships, like the Enterprise and a number of ships not like the Enterprise, yet still sporting a similar configuration.
This is exactly why both Starship-class and Constitution-class both work in regards to the Enterprise.

They started with the twelve Starship-class vessels in the late-2230's/early-2240's. But as they built more and new technology was integrated, they began using sub-class names to describe the differences between vessels.

The Enterprise starts her life as a Starship-class vessel and at some point is upgraded to Constitution-class specifications. Either Pike or Kirk kept the original dedication plaque as a reminder of where the ship came from.

EDIT: We have to gloss over the fact that the Enterprise didn't have a visible dedication plaque in "The Cage".
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 11:44 PM   #132
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

BillJ wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
So now you have 12 ships, like the Enterprise and a number of ships not like the Enterprise, yet still sporting a similar configuration.
This is exactly why both Starship-class and Constitution-class both work in regards to the Enterprise.

They started with the twelve Starship-class vessels in the late-2230's/early-2240's. But as they built more and new technology was integrated, they began using sub-class names to describe the differences between vessels.

The Enterprise starts her life as a Starship-class vessel and at some point is upgraded to Constitution- class specifications. Either Pike or Kirk kept the original dedication plaque as a reminder of where the ship came from.
I can buy into that although my alternative thinking was that the Enterprise started off as a Constitution Class and another starship, the USS Starship, got upgraded into it's own subclass and brought the Enterprise and ten other ships over. When the Enterprise got upgraded in TMP, it spawned the Enterprise Class. Starfleet got tired of tracking them by subclasses and brought them all back under the Constitution Class near the end of their service. All future references thus only refer to the Enterprise as Constitution Class. It parallels the USS Boston in real life
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 12:25 AM   #133
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: The Constellation's registry number

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Yeah, I seem to recall at least some non-canon sources referring to the Enterprise-class refit.
I think FASA originally came up with that terminology for their RPG, in which the Enterprise was the only one of the original Constitutions to survive its missions intact and Scotty's ideas for refitting and improving the ship after five years required more extensive modifications than originally thought. Hence why the ship wound up looking so different in TMP. The actual FASA rosters are a little hazier, as more than a few names were copied directly from the Constitution list to the Enterprise list without a "II" designation (USS Eagle II, for example; only the Enterprise would have been allowed letters) to suggest they were newer builds carrying the older names.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 08:00 AM   #134
CrazyMatt
Commander
 
CrazyMatt's Avatar
 
Location: Paradise
Re: The Constellation's registry number

Wingsley wrote: View Post
This TOS-only-cannon approach put TOS in complete isolation. The original Enterprise and her sister-ships would truly be "in the freezer". No Reliant, no Mirandas or other ships loosely related to the Enterprise at all. Just a very small number of "Star Ship Class" vessels and that's it.
I remember first hearing Chekov dictate the "Starship Reliant log" when I first saw TWOK and thinking, "Starship? That's not a starship!"
CrazyMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 09:35 AM   #135
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Constellation's registry number

But the ancient Archon was also a starship...

I think that there's a major hurdle in terms of, well, mental aesthetics for any attempt to pin a "Starship class" identity exclusively on ships identical to Kirk's. Sure, there may be hundreds of classes of starship of which only one is named Starship class, but it's somewhat unlikely and unsatisfactory. Except of course if there once was a ship named Starship that gave rise to an entire category of spacecraft, much like there once was a ship named Dreadnought that transformed naval terminology. But clearly that ship would not have been the first of the design that Kirk currently flies, but rather a far more ancient vessel.

Much more fruitful IMHO to insist, even in the exclusive TOS context, that "Starship class" is a supercategory that covers a great number of designs from a long period of history, just like in the dialogue of TOS (c.f. the Archon). Beyond that, it's a free-for-all: perhaps Kirk's specific ship was of Bonhomme Richard class during TOS, Enterprise class during TMP, then Constitution class again during ST2/3, the ship staying the same but the class leader changing with each refit as different ships would have spearheaded different refits. Back in TOS, such fleeting things would not have been mentioned in the dedication plaque... But later on, new plaques would be bolted on at the conclusion of major refits, specifying the nature of that refit by spelling out the new class name.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.