RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,219
Posts: 5,437,918
Members: 24,955
Currently online: 471
Newest member: r.ballman

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 28 2013, 06:06 PM   #121
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
That's what I thought, too, but Matt Jefferies also stated "first bird" and that would include any prototype, IMO
Eh, but NCC-1700 was shown on the status chart on screen. Unless it's the prototype, and unless Mr. Jefferies's comments allowed this out for the prototype, it's hard to reconcile.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Apparently someone had looked up the Probert-authenticated TMP Blueprints which clearly read "new Enterprise Class".
Better than the rationalization I've sometimes seen - such as it being the cadet class from the Enterprise.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I still think it's rather simple to resolve the riddle.

NCC-1601 Constitution (Class) > refit Constitution Class (e.g. NCC-1701-A)

NCC-1701 Enterprise (Class) > refit Enterprise Class (e.g. NCC-1701)

But obviously the conjectural NCC-1700 for the USS Constitution has become such a holy cow, that rather than to sacrifice it on behalf of a credible and easy-to-understand explanation, most fans won't let go and rather pretend the system doesn't make sense.
Forgive me - do you mean to assert then that the TOS version of the ship is the 16th design, and the 17th design is how she appears in the movies? I must be missing something because that doesn't quite work.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Of course, the system didn't make sense since day one when Greg Jein proposed starships like the Enterprise whose registries began with a "16" to belong to a class that started with a "17".
Agreed. I once presupposed that Class 16 was a design that looked almost like the Constitution class - so much so that you almost couldn't tell the difference with a simple swap of the nacelles and a couple other details. All supposition, of course. But ignoring the 16xx registries as Constitutions makes more sense IMO.

You know, the extensive refit of the Enterprise as seen in TMP is kind of an oddball overall. Jefferies presupposed that the engines at least were modular and easily swapped.

We know, of course, the real-world reason for the extensive external refit of the Enterprise... but it's really the only such refit we've seen; one where the ship's exterior changed dramatically. The only remotely similar cases I can think of are the three-nacelled D from "All Good Things" and the Enterprise-E from "Nemesis"... the former being in an anti-time future, the latter being so minute we might just ignore it and assume the ship looked one way or the other all along.

We can presuppose that older designs seen in TNG onward utilized newer tech in a way that is not visually discernible other than the odd random nacelle glow here or there... or maybe they're really not that different internally than the were in the movies era. In any case, the TMP refit seems to be the only case we've seen where, again the design changed externally in a very dramatic way... which makes me lean towards thinking that such refits are uncommon, and the reasons for the Enterprise undergoing one are somewhat obscure.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 08:32 PM   #122
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

^These cases of refit may have been instances of high profile politics trumping practicality. Of course, production wise it was a "have their cake and eat it too" compromise. They wanted it to be the same ship from TOS, but wanted freedom to update the design for the big screen. This idea would have been more credible with the initial Phase II design, but after all the changes by Andy Probert, it became much harder to see as the same ship. Likely the reason we didn't see that concept used much after is that Trek never had such a huge leap in quality and budget for effects as TOS to TMP. And when such changes did happen, they were with different ships or locations. Probably the next closest is probably Nemesis to Star Trek 2009, but we have an alternate reality to explain the differences.

Though internally, we do see lots of the Excelsiors, Oberths, and Mirandas sporting the "TNG" aesthetic inside. And with the warp speed effect using the Q-flash instead of the cartoons streaks suggest substantial changes to their warp systems.

In universe, one might suppose that in both the TMP and TNG timeframe, ENTERPRISE carries so much political weight that starfleet will undertake these impractical overhaul and space frame modifications simply so they can claim it is the same ship on paper. Though it is likely more cost effective (or as close to in a "moneyless" society) to simply build a new ship from ground up. We don't see much of the civilian sphere in TOS and TNG. But having one of those ship save earth from VGER and another save earth from the Borg, may have started a rabid fanaticism on Earth (the likes of which never seen on this website) that, short of her complete destruction, would not allow starfleet to ever retire the Enterprise. For all we know, one of the national holidays is Enterprise Day.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 09:16 PM   #123
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

And with the warp speed effect using the Q-flash instead of the cartoons streaks suggest substantial changes to their warp systems.
...Alas, ENT then shows that the Q flash "always" was part of the warp technology. And then ST:NEM showed that warp engines can have contrails (this time of smoky nature) despite having the flash. And the alternate timeline sort of has the flash, even if it isn't of the exact shape of the Q finger-snap any more.

Perhaps the difference in warp visuals is not a matter of technology (since we've seen Klingon and Jem'Hadar warp from "inside" and "outside", too, and it looks the same as contemporary Federation warp), but of vantage point? Perhaps you see TNG streaks when the camera is at a certain position vs. the warp field, but TOS/TOS-movie stars when it is at another position - and rainbow contrails when it's at standstill and the ship wooshes past, but no contrails when it follows alongside the ship?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 09:35 PM   #124
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Crap -- I forgot about Ent. Hmmm... maybe that an argument that Ent is a alternate future created by First Contact / pick your own point and reason of divergence. And so did the Phoenix in First Contact as I recall.

Or maybe it is purely cosmetic, just a little bit of bling chosen by starfleet as sort of an identifying beacon. Then warp really just looks like it did in TOS, with no particular light or streak effect, and these things are just added. Different styles of flashes and streaks go in and out of style depending on the era. Which could make sense if, you want to have a way to quickly identify yourself as soon as you enter or leave a sector.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 10:30 PM   #125
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Workbee wrote: View Post
Of course, production wise it was a "have their cake and eat it too" compromise. They wanted it to be the same ship from TOS, but wanted freedom to update the design for the big screen. This idea would have been more credible with the initial Phase II design, but after all the changes by Andy Probert, it became much harder to see as the same ship. Likely the reason we didn't see that concept used much after is that Trek never had such a huge leap in quality and budget for effects as TOS to TMP. And when such changes did happen, they were with different ships or locations. Probably the next closest is probably Nemesis to Star Trek 2009, but we have an alternate reality to explain the differences.
This is a very succinct way of describing events more or less just as I've seen them too.

Workbee wrote: View Post
Though internally, we do see lots of the Excelsiors, Oberths, and Mirandas sporting the "TNG" aesthetic inside. And with the warp speed effect using the Q-flash instead of the cartoons streaks suggest substantial changes to their warp systems.
It's interesting, we more or less "know" that swapping a bridge is an easy thing. Warp nacelles look modular, and corridors and room modules, at least according to backstage materials, are probably fairly modular too... OTOH most of what we saw for ship's innards was probably either aesthetic or coincidental. (The fact that the TUC ship interiors resemble the TNG era and the TFF interiors are nearly identical actually helps.) Further, it appears that the Enterprise-A and Excelsior had warp cores rather similar to the Enterprise-D, which may in and of itself be coincidental but may also signal the first appearance of a modern warp core.

Workbee wrote: View Post
In universe, one might suppose that in both the TMP and TNG timeframe, ENTERPRISE carries so much political weight that starfleet will undertake these impractical overhaul and space frame modifications simply so they can claim it is the same ship on paper. Though it is likely more cost effective (or as close to in a "moneyless" society) to simply build a new ship from ground up. We don't see much of the civilian sphere in TOS and TNG. But having one of those ship save earth from VGER and another save earth from the Borg, may have started a rabid fanaticism on Earth (the likes of which never seen on this website) that, short of her complete destruction, would not allow starfleet to ever retire the Enterprise.
I've always leaned towards this notion too. But, let's be open-minded about it; it doesn't have to be the only possibility. Canonically, all we really know is that the Enterprise's appearance changed significantly when she was probably 25 years old, yet ships that are at least this old, on designs that we know to be older, were never seen to have changed so drastically.

The way I see it there are these possibilities, not all of which are mutually exclusive:
  1. The Enterprise was so important, symbolism necessitated her refit/preservation
  2. The refit process as seen on the Enterprise is actually fairly common, and it's a coincidence that we haven't seen it
  3. The refit process is fairly easy, but the Federation generally chooses to simply build new ships instead
  4. Refits like this were once typical in the 23rd century, but technological progress changed somehow so that by the 24th century such drastic changes were rendered unnecessary
Workbee wrote: View Post
For all we know, one of the national holidays is Enterprise Day.
January 17th, of course?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 10:49 PM   #126
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Praetor wrote: View Post

I've always leaned towards this notion too. But, let's be open-minded about it; it doesn't have to be the only possibility. Canonically, all we really know is that the Enterprise's appearance changed significantly when she was probably 25 years old, yet ships that are at least this old, on designs that we know to be older, were never seen to have changed so drastically.

The way I see it there are these possibilities, not all of which are mutually exclusive:
  1. The Enterprise was so important, symbolism necessitated her refit/preservation
  2. The refit process as seen on the Enterprise is actually fairly common, and it's a coincidence that we haven't seen it
  3. The refit process is fairly easy, but the Federation generally chooses to simply build new ships instead
  4. Refits like this were once typical in the 23rd century, but technological progress changed somehow so that by the 24th century such drastic changes were rendered unnecessary
Agree with all these. The fast is, we saw too few of the refit-style constitution type ships in the movies, and know even less about their backstories, to be able to conclude one way or another. Additionally, a problem with the political forces is that up until TMP, the only notable think we know that Enterprise did was make it back intact from the five year mission (not that there aren't some undocumented adventures that equaled or rivaled that feat). The refit happened before the VGER incident.

Though I feel that there was some MAJOR political forces at work in the wake of the Genesis incident that combined with saving Earth in TVH, greatly affected the Federation for many years. Of course, that is just my own personal continuity -- we unfortunately are given comparatively little insight in the political machinations of the federation outside of the areas affecting our intrepid crew.

Last edited by Workbee; August 29 2013 at 06:00 AM. Reason: Correcting an incorrect quote tag
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 11:09 PM   #127
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Since I have to assume that you visited the other two threads I recommended, I now assume that you merely want to test whether I still hold on to my "erroneous" and heretical belief that the TOS Enterprise is not a member of the Constitution Class.

Praetor wrote: View Post
Eh, but NCC-1700 was shown on the status chart on screen. Unless it's the prototype, and unless Mr. Jefferies's comments allowed this out for the prototype, it's hard to reconcile.
We saw it on the starship status chart as the starship the farthest from being "complete"!
Greg Jein himself eventually conceded at the end of his treatise that it might be a starship still under construction (perhaps the Defiant?).

Since it hasn't yet been settled whether the last two digits refer to a construction contract (Jefferies' premise but apparently revised by "NCC-1697") or an arbitrarily assigned contact code, the "00" in "1700" could merely be a placeholder for a yet to be assigned contact number which can turn out to be "00" (Excelsior), "01" (Enterprise), "02" (Oberth) et cetera.

Praetor wrote: View Post
Forgive me - do you mean to assert then that the TOS version of the ship is the 16th design, and the 17th design is how she appears in the movies? I must be missing something because that doesn't quite work.
No, I'm asserting that Greg Jein, Bjo Trimble and Mike Okuda can't have cake and eat it, too. They wanted us to have starships with a prefix beginning with "16" to be members of the Constitution Class and there these go.

As the first bird and the first ship of the 17th series (Matt Jefferies in perfect sync with the statements of Bob Justman and Whitfield/Roddenberry in The Making of Star Trek) the TOS Enterprise therefore is the first ship of its class, the Enterprise Class.

So the whole issue essentially comes down to the question who is the authority deciding such matters for us:

3 fans of which none was ever involved with the actual production of TOS or the 3 men that created Star Trek and the Enterprise?!?!

It still doesn't take a split second for me to decide which side I'm on and to whom I'm listening.

Praetor wrote: View Post
I once presupposed that Class 16 was a design that looked almost like the Constitution class - so much so that you almost couldn't tell the difference with a simple swap of the nacelles and a couple other details. All supposition, of course. But ignoring the 16xx registries as Constitutions makes more sense IMO.
Quite the contrary as I tried to illustrate with the Constitution Class NCC-1701-A in contrast to the Enterprise Class NCC-1701.

We do not know what actually does constitute a difference to distinct the 16th from the 17th design. As you suggested it might have been different warp nacelles or different internal arrangements.

Since Bjo Trimble, Greg Jein and Mike Okuda (TOS-R) insist we saw starships of the 16th design in TOS I won't rule out the possibility these had more cargo container hatches on the engineering hull than the Enterprise. Such a feature wasn't discernible in the VFX footage but upon close examination it would have become very noticable - in-universe, that is.

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 August 29 2013, 03:00 AM   #128
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Since I have to assume that you visited the other two threads I recommended, I now assume that you merely want to test whether I still hold on to my "erroneous" and heretical belief that the TOS Enterprise is not a member of the Constitution Class.
You know me too well sir. That, and I can't help but play devil's advocate.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
We saw it on the starship status chart as the starship the farthest from being "complete"!

Greg Jein himself eventually conceded at the end of his treatise that it might be a starship still under construction (perhaps the Defiant?).
Ah, but who knows what "complete" means? Complete could mean repairs, refits, or any number of related in-betweens. It doesn't necessarily have to indicate construction status.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Since it hasn't yet been settled whether the last two digits refer to a construction contract (Jefferies' premise but apparently revised by "NCC-1697") or an arbitrarily assigned contact code, the "00" in "1700" could merely be a placeholder for a yet to be assigned contact number which can turn out to be "00" (Excelsior), "01" (Enterprise), "02" (Oberth) et cetera.
Hm, I have to admit, that could indeed be possible.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
No, I'm asserting that Greg Jein, Bjo Trimble and Mike Okuda can't have cake and eat it, too. They wanted us to have starships with a prefix beginning with "16" to be members of the Constitution Class and there these go.

As the first bird and the first ship of the 17th series (Matt Jefferies in perfect sync with the statements of Bob Justman and Whitfield/Roddenberry in The Making of Star Trek) the TOS Enterprise therefore is the first ship of its class, the Enterprise Class.
Reading TMoST, I do have to agree, that's the conclusion I'd draw.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Quite the contrary as I tried to illustrate with the Constitution Class NCC-1701-A in contrast to the Enterprise Class NCC-1701.

We do not know what actually does constitute a difference to distinct the 16th from the 17th design. As you suggested it might have been different warp nacelles or different internal arrangements.

Since Bjo Trimble, Greg Jein and Mike Okuda (TOS-R) insist we saw starships of the 16th design in TOS I won't rule out the possibility these had more cargo container hatches on the engineering hull than the Enterprise. Such a feature wasn't discernible in the VFX footage but upon close examination it would have become very noticable - in-universe, that is.
Ah, now I better understand. I still don't completely agree, but I do understand. If your point is to point out how tenuous the shaky ground connecting Constitution class to NCC-1700, then I do agree, it's shaky. But, Khan (and later Scotty) were both studying schematics for the Constitution class. It could just be coincidence.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 04:35 AM   #129
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Doesn't that also raise the problem of Constellation appearing to be a sister ship of Enterprise despite her 1017 registry?
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 05:09 AM   #130
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Well there are a few variations of the TOS Enterprise-type ships.
1. The TOS Enterprise herself, NCC-1701 as seen in Seasons 1-3.
2. A line drawing of the Enterprise as seen on the displays in "The Enterprise Incident" that had a beveled saucer edge and warp nacelles in a different position. I like to call this the "Pre-(Captain) Pike" version.
3. The USS Constellation, NCC-1017 which was based on the AMT? kit which had slightly different shapes for the hull.

It could very well be that the Constellation is a different class, or the same class but not upgraded, or a variant of the base class, whatever that is.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 06:16 AM   #131
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Or to take a page from history, maybe the Enterprise is a one off of its own class, which was scuttled / revised into another class for additional production. Much like how the recently retired carrier Enterprise CVN-65 is the only of her class, and was so impractical to build and maintain that they developed the Nimetz class. In fact, the carrier was also an Enterprise class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 01:54 PM   #132
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Praetor wrote: View Post
But, Khan (and later Scotty) were both studying schematics for the Constitution class. It could just be coincidence.
Yes, the infamous MK IX/01 long range primary phaser schematic of a "starship" of a "Constitution Class".

Khan told Lt. McGivers that he had been studying "manuals" (i.e. more than one) of Federation starships. Apparently and to grasp the technological evolution that lead to the 17th starship design he also studied previous manuals and one did feature an older "Constitution Class".

Scotty studied the same schematic in "The Trouble With Tribbles" as part of a technical journal (and not the Enterprise's manual!), but did not participate in any social rec room activities.
If he's looking at the primary phaser of the Enterprise then I have to wonder why?
Because it's like a teenager staring at a centerfold, while the real thing is down in the basement waiting to be examined!

But that's the essential fact: The whole assumption that the TOS Enterprise is a starship of the Constitution Class is based on a screen excerpt and a phaser schematic (indiscernible to read in the TOS footage) with no evidence that this phaser actually belongs to the Enterprise.
While every ship of the Constitution Class is obviously a starship, not every starship is automatically one that belongs to the Constitution Class.

@ Nob Akimoto

The Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" could just have been named and numbered to honor the achievements of a previous starship with that name and number, not too dissimilar what happened to the starship that became the Enterprise-A.

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 August 29 2013, 09:43 PM   #133
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

.
The Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" could just have been named and numbered to honor the achievements of a previous starship with that name and number, not too dissimilar what happened to the starship that became the Enterprise-A.
Well, rather fundamentally dissimilar - the E-A had a registry unique to that starship, as far as we can tell. Bureaucrats wouldn't allow for it being impossible to tell apart the Constellation from the Constellation!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 11:14 PM   #134
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
If he's looking at the primary phaser of the Enterprise then I have to wonder why?

Because it's like a teenager staring at a centerfold, while the real thing is down in the basement waiting to be examined!
Or, it's a schematic of the refit phaser bank that he's managed to get his hands on...

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
But that's the essential fact: The whole assumption that the TOS Enterprise is a starship of the Constitution Class is based on a screen excerpt and a phaser schematic (indiscernible to read in the TOS footage) with no evidence that this phaser actually belongs to the Enterprise.

While every ship of the Constitution Class is obviously a starship, not every starship is automatically one that belongs to the Constitution Class.
Generally agreed.

It provokes, though, a sort of philosophical discussion, not directed at you but just a general observation. Later Trek productions have assumed, at least as far as background materials are concerned, that the Enterprise was Constitution class, and as such it has crept into the production in various forms. This is similar to other assumptions, ranging from the time in which TMP was set to a ship called Yorktown being renamed Enterprise.

I guess the ultimate question is this: if an assumption with a false premise is used to create visuals and other such materials which may later make the premise appear true, which conclusion should we draw? If the false premise has been validated by later evidence, even if we know it to originally be false, even if the evidence of truth stems from the false assumption, does that in fact make it true?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 11:49 PM   #135
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Timo wrote: View Post
Bureaucrats wouldn't allow for it being impossible to tell apart the Constellation from the Constellation!
Tell us something we don't know! If the original Constellation was a starship of the 10th (and therefore older) design, chances are high that the ship was lost in action, decommissioned, donated to the Starfleet museum or whatever.
Chances are high that by the time Matt Decker's Constellation is on active duty (16th or 17th design?) the original one no longer is.

@ Praetor

You are finally the second (as far as I've been able to learn) who understands the essential, philosophical and ethical purpose of the debate!

My viewpoint is clear: Not to acknowledge he original intentions of the creators would be an act of ingratitude and disrespect, to acknowledge the retcon revisions of the subsequent producers would be like rewarding them for bad behaviour (i.e. inaccurate and lackluster research).

The worst offender here is undoubtedly the bridge plaque of the USS Defiant in "In a Mirror, Darkly". The producers knew that it said "Starship Class" on the original bridge plaque in "The Tholian Web" (in a manner of reading "... Enterprise Starship Class"). To have that altered into "Constitution Class" was clearly an act of arrogance and disrespect at the expense of the original producers.

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
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 12:32 PM.

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