RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,743
Posts: 5,433,063
Members: 24,836
Currently online: 460
Newest member: crazycornuts

TrekToday headlines

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

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 30 2013, 12:16 AM   #136
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I think it's largely a matter of perspective. I don't think it's fair to say that the premise followed by later producers in order to flesh out the series, namely deciding that the TOS Enterprise is specifically a Constitution class cruiser, was done because of disrespect or inadequate research. No more than the fact that the Klingon culture in TNG was shown to have a concept of honor (which they didn't always follow, just like humans ) is inherently at odds (or has to be at odds) with the entry given when TMoST was published. That's why the Defiant plaque was changed when "In A Mirror Darkly" was made, because the franchise had evolved since then and it didn't make sense to use "Starship class" in the vein that might have been contemplated in the 1960s. That's my two cents anyway.
__________________

"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 August 30 2013, 02:13 AM   #137
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Eh, I kinda agree with both of you. I disliked the change to the plaque, primarily because it was inconsistent with TOS. But, I can see where Bob is coming from by calling it disrespectful, too.

I guess where I come from is trying to use all the clues provided to interpret a realistic look at a fictional universe, warts and all. There are some things that are hard to explain and some things that are annoying.

I have often wondered how fans (including myself) would have reacted had the TOS-R team changed the Constellation's registry to NCC-1710. I don't think I'd have minded. OTOH, I disliked that they showed the Intrepid's registry in "Court Martial" and in some ways I disliked that they so clearly showed Mudd's stolen ship. In the TNG vein, the differences between the six-foot and four-foot Enterprise models but me... yet I can accept they're the same ship. Then there's the changing scale of the Defiant.

I suppose what really bothers me more than anything else is inconsistency - but I also agree that respecting creative intent is rather paramount. I suppose, though, the fact that some of these false assumptions have been taken and ran with means, though, that if we're to take a hollistic look at the Trekverse, we do indeed have to accept those annoying warts, 1017 and all
__________________
"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 30 2013, 02:54 AM   #138
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I think the question is whether the Relics or Trial and Tribulations dedication plaque has this revision as well. It is one thing to fill in the blanks retroactively with what is now known, but if those three depictions of the plaque are not consistent, its problematic to make conclusion from IAMD. I suspect they say "Starship Class" but I cannot find a clear enough picture. Anyone have insight on this?
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 03:30 AM   #139
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I much prefer 'starship' as TYPE rather than class. I always just viewed a ship's class as the name of the first ship of that design to be built. Thus I couldn't shake the feeling that "Starship class" would require a USS Starship.

This may be revisionism, but it's one I can live with. Constitution CLASS; Starship TYPE. No biggie.

And why is it a problem to show registry numbers for ships like the Intrepid? Those were never given numbers onscreen in the original broadcasts. So giving them some now is hardly earth shattering. Just filling in details we didn't previously know.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 03:36 AM   #140
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Timo wrote: View Post
.
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!
That would make sense. I think the only "exception" is with the Sao Paolo being renamed to the Defiant in DS9. Although the dialogue doesn't specify it, the later FX show the new Defiant with her old registry number.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 03:39 AM   #141
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

^ They only did that (reuse the number NX-74205 onscreen) because of the 'stock footage' problem.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 04:08 AM   #142
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Sure. The question would be would they change it in future video releases? If not, then the new Defiant kept her old registry.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 04:18 AM   #143
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I'd imagine if they ever do DS9-R like they might alter it. Though seeing as how they kept a lot of the problematic registry stuff in TOS-R I'm not convinced.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:33 AM   #144
Avro Arrow
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Unicron wrote: View Post
That's why the Defiant plaque was changed when "In A Mirror Darkly" was made, because the franchise had evolved since then and it didn't make sense to use "Starship class" in the vein that might have been contemplated in the 1960s. That's my two cents anyway.
In-universe, I would think that there were a number of years between the commissioning of the Enterprise and of the Defiant, and in the interim Starfleet decided to use the specific class name, rather than the generic "Starship Class". I personally had no problem with the Defiant's plaque reading "Constitution Class".

Praetor wrote: View Post
Eh, I kinda agree with both of you. I disliked the change to the plaque, primarily because it was inconsistent with TOS. But, I can see where Bob is coming from by calling it disrespectful, too.
I would hazard a guess that no disrespect was intended.

Praetor wrote: View Post
I have often wondered how fans (including myself) would have reacted had the TOS-R team changed the Constellation's registry to NCC-1710. I don't think I'd have minded.
Personally, I've always thought of the Constellation of a different, earlier class, since the use of the AMT model meant there were some differences between it and the Enterprise. And we didn't see many sets, but wasn't Constellation's auxiliary control different from Enterprise's as well? I was actually disappointed that the TOS-R team didn't play up the differences and make Constellation more visibly different, and instead just made her a standard Constitution class.

(OT: pre-TNG, I used to refer to this as other class as Constellation class, since many of the early novels accidentally used this name when they meant Constitution. But then "The Battle" went and messed that up! )

Besides, I would have mourned the loss of the Kongo...

Praetor wrote: View Post
OTOH, I disliked that they showed the Intrepid's registry in "Court Martial"
It completely bugged me that they used those stupid Jein numbers. If you're weren't going to use FJ, at least make new ones up that started with 17.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
That would make sense. I think the only "exception" is with the Sao Paolo being renamed to the Defiant in DS9. Although the dialogue doesn't specify it, the later FX show the new Defiant with her old registry number.
Yeah, that was just dumb. It was unfortunate they didn't create any new footage for the final episode. I would think in-universe that the new Defiant was actually NCC-75633. Sadly the post-finale novel covers stuck with NX-74205 too.
Avro Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 01:58 PM   #145
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
OTOH, I disliked that they showed the Intrepid's registry in "Court Martial"
It completely bugged me that they used those stupid Jein numbers.
They're just numbers. What's so stupid about them?

If you're weren't going to use FJ, at least make new ones up that started with 17.
Why is that important? Franz Joseph was no more canon than any other printed work - that is to say, none. Why are his numbers suddenly more gospel than anything else?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 03:44 PM   #146
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I much prefer 'starship' as TYPE rather than class. I always just viewed a ship's class as the name of the first ship of that design to be built. Thus I couldn't shake the feeling that "Starship class" would require a USS Starship.

This may be revisionism, but it's one I can live with. Constitution CLASS; Starship TYPE. No biggie.
I agree, and I'm not saying we should call her Starship Class. I'm saying that the plaque showed Starship Class, so unless you want to foist one interpretation of a vague topic on the whole audience, it's kind of silly, and more importantly, inconsistent, to change it.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
And why is it a problem to show registry numbers for ships like the Intrepid? Those were never given numbers onscreen in the original broadcasts. So giving them some now is hardly earth shattering. Just filling in details we didn't previously know.
That's precisely why it's a problem to my mind. TOS was a totally different animal to modern-day Trek, leaving a lot of room for filling-in-the blanks. Just because fans working in production have chosen to interpret things one way and fill in the blanks as they see fit, doesn't make it correct. The fact that we didn't see it is all the more reason to not show it (needlessly in the case of Intrepid, I might add) now.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
In-universe, I would think that there were a number of years between the commissioning of the Enterprise and of the Defiant, and in the interim Starfleet decided to use the specific class name, rather than the generic "Starship Class". I personally had no problem with the Defiant's plaque reading "Constitution Class".
That's how I rationalize it too.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
I would hazard a guess that no disrespect was intended.
Not very hazardous, I'm sure you're probably right.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Personally, I've always thought of the Constellation of a different, earlier class, since the use of the AMT model meant there were some differences between it and the Enterprise. And we didn't see many sets, but wasn't Constellation's auxiliary control different from Enterprise's as well? I was actually disappointed that the TOS-R team didn't play up the differences and make Constellation more visibly different, and instead just made her a standard Constitution class.
I'm not sure about the control room, but yeah, that would have been interesting - at least make her a different color, maybe some different detailing on the sensor dish and nacelle caps.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
(OT: pre-TNG, I used to refer to this as other class as Constellation class, since many of the early novels accidentally used this name when they meant Constitution. But then "The Battle" went and messed that up! )
Eh, was it accidental? If the earliest number resembling the configuration was called Constellation, given the low registry, then indeed Constellation class may be more correct.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
It completely bugged me that they used those stupid Jein numbers. If you're weren't going to use FJ, at least make new ones up that started with 17.
My whole problem with that isn't anything relating to FJ... it's simply that the Jein numbering scheme doesn't make sense because it's built on false premises. The thought that all Constitution class ships would be shown on a repair chart for a particular starbase is just silly. And, on top of that, there was no reason to show the Intrepid so clearly as far as the plot went. Just show another sihp of the class orbiting further back. And, again, it wasn't established in TOS, so it's just a few people interpreting events as they see fit.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Yeah, that was just dumb. It was unfortunate they didn't create any new footage for the final episode. I would think in-universe that the new Defiant was actually NCC-75633. Sadly the post-finale novel covers stuck with NX-74205 too.
I think they kind of ran their FX budget into the ground there at the end.
__________________
"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 30 2013, 04:09 PM   #147
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Well, as I've said in another thread, "Starship Class" should go the way of self-decanonization like "Vulcanians" and "Time Warp Drive". If people stop referring to it, it loses its influence over common perception and the more solidly established canon ("Constitution Class", "Vulcans", "Warp Drive") will fully assert themselves, permanently.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 04:20 PM   #148
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Agreed...but I think it is already naturally happening.

To me, changing the Defiant's plaque is just another way of calling attention to it, though.
__________________
"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 30 2013, 07:43 PM   #149
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Unicron wrote: View Post
I don't think it's fair to say that the premise followed by later producers in order to flesh out the series, namely deciding that the TOS Enterprise is specifically a Constitution class cruiser, was done because of disrespect or inadequate research.
Is it fair or is not? Here are the facts and after appropriate examination everyone can make up his or her mind.

Right from the very start Gene Roddenberry made it abundantly clear and insisted that USS stands for “United Space Ship” and not “United States Ship”. His vision was that of an international crew and to give his words gravity, he approved Matt Jefferies mixing Soviet naval designations into the registry number (“NCC”) and changed the ship’s name from “Yorktown” (definitely an American name) into “Enterprise” (a more suitable name for a multi-ethnic ship).
What we could have concluded (had we seriously wanted it) from the actual onscreen dialogue is that alphabetic letters, much the way the Soviets did that, were used to differentiate what type of starship we are looking at (“The Menagerie”: “J-Class starship” and “F-Class shuttlecraft”, just as the series didn’t feature “Earth Class” or “Vulcan Class” planets).

And then Gene L. Coon joined the production team. I don’t know the political agenda he had but obviously the Klingons became an analogy for totalitarian Stalinists and apparently he wanted to see traditional American name classes established for Starfleet vessels (e.g. “Constitution Class” in “Space Seed” script) instead of these Commy alphabetic distinctions.
But “Constitution Class” remained a footnote of a monitor display (!) and this shouldn’t come as a surprise. It would have constituted (pun) a contradiction to what Gene Roddenberry, Matt Jefferies (and Bob Justman?) had intended from the beginning on. Sounds like a wild guess but that doesn’t really seem to be the case:

On August 8, 1967, Dorotha Fontana suggests to establish the names for the 12 ships of the Starship Class and provides a list with suggestions (Constitution is not on it). The next day ‘chief nitpicker’ Bob Justman responded, considered some of the proposed names, added a few of his own and insisted to have a Japanese name (at least we know where Kongo came from). And still the Constitution is not on his list…but Bob Justman refers to “Enterprise Starship Class”.
How this correspondence continued we do not learn from The Making of Star Trek, but at some point the Constitution was established to be among those 12 ships, too.

Fast forward to 1975 and Greg Jein’s influential treatise “The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship”. Greg Jein, just a Star Trek fan, then, published a theory how to match the official starship names with the numbers of the starship status display featured in “Court Martial”.

And he concluded from a passage in The Making of Star Trek that the Valiant mentioned among the 12 names, couldn’t refer to the USS Valiant (Oberth Class?) from “A Taste of Armageddon” because that had happened 50 years before TOS while the ships like the Enterprise were no older than 40 years. Now where did he get that from?

“The Enterprise-class starships have been in existence for about forty years…”

It is impossible that Mr. Jein missed “Enterprise Class Starship”. And, of course, it stands to reason that the “01” of Enterprise’s NCC registry indicated her to be the first ship of her class and therefore the name giver (equally suggested by Matt Jefferies).

But of course, this didn’t work for his weird theory, and rather than to make a theory based on facts, he “twisted” the facts to fit his theory and therefore didn’t even mention the “Enterprise Starship Class” reference/s.
In doing so he disrespected the apparent intentions of the series’ creators, especially since he didn’t even bother to discuss what the creators could have meant with “Enterprise Starship Class” to try finding an excuse.

In the case of Franz Joseph Schnaubelt and considering how much he obviously based his work on The Making of Star Trek we cannot exclude the possibility that he missed those two “Enterprise Starship Class” references but this is highly improbable. It may or may not have been an act of disrespect, but it was definitely inadequate research.

Greg Jein’s weird theory was then adopted by (his friend) Bjo Trimble for her Star Trek Concordance and subsequently for Mike Okuda for his Star Trek Encyclopedia. Here I have to be blunt: If you remotely consider yourself to be some kind of Star Trek TOS expert, the reading of The Making of Star Trek is mandatory, IMO.

If you do not or don’t pay attention the result is (and has been) inadequate research. And as a result of that we’re still stuck with this conjectural and/or erroneous “Constitution Class” for the TOS Enterprise.

And here is a fresh thought coming out of my writing as an effort to appease the “Starship Class” haters.

The bridge plaque aboard the TOS Enterprise correctly indicates “(USS) Enterprise - Starship Class” (i.e. the name giver and a starship of the Enterprise Class).
The correct bridge plaque of the USS Miranda would have read “USS Miranda - Starship Class” while for the Reliant it would have probably read “USS Reliant - Miranda Class” or “USS Reliant - Miranda Starship Class”
And Defiant’s (NCC-1764) would have been “USS Defiant – Enterprise Class” or “USS Defiant – Enterprise Starship Class”

In simpler words: A person of the 23rd Century would immediately understand that she or he is on the bridge of an Enterprise Class Starship because all it says is “USS Enterprise – Starship Class” and not “USS Enterprise – Enterprise Starship Class” (the latter one sounds redundant and odd, doesn’t it?)

So contrary to some claims I had to read in some posts here the producers, again, probably exactly knew what they were doing, but we were simply to blind and biased (myself included) not to consider this option.

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 30 2013, 08:12 PM   #150
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

So you see a master plan in one episode using letter-coded class names and fail to notice that no other episode ever used them?

You're just being delusional again. There's no master plan. There's no agreement between the people who worked on Star Trek on what various things mean, if anything. The people who wrote Star Trek did not read TMoST. The people who wrote Star Trek did no listen to Matt Jeffries. Hell, the people who wrote TMoST didn't listen to Matt Jeffries!

All we can do is make lemonade of rather thoroughly rotten apples. And since most of the rot is due to people believing they can divine the intentions of people who never put those intentions to action, that's the first thing that ought to go.

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 07:09 AM.

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