RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,101
Posts: 5,432,529
Members: 24,931
Currently online: 498
Newest member: emogs

TrekToday headlines

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

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 September 1 2013, 03:37 PM   #166
yenny
Captain
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Lance wrote: View Post
This is the kind of thing I was thinking about:

Yorktown bridge (unaltered):

http://imageshack.us/f/137/trek4bridgesw0.jpg/

The bridge module used in the next two movies is obviously different, but if we accept that Enterprise-A is a reconditioned Yorktown then the change of bridge modules makes some degree of sense, as Mister Scott and his team have been welding new components over the top of the old ones. The ship seen in TFF is a 'new' ship... from a certain point-of-view.
Wouldn't all Constitution starships have the same bridge design?
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
yenny wrote: View Post
These are the class and type of ships that were seen and mention on the small and large screen.
What small and large screens would these please be (except for the more obvious ones beginning at "17")?

Bob
Why ask such a dumb question? Being a Star Trek fan, you should already knew the answer.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 05:28 PM   #167
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Being a Trek fan all my life, I've never heard of some of your choices. Why be a jerk? Cite 'em for Bob, since he asked first. I did notice that not all of your choices were from the same universe.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 05:40 PM   #168
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

yenny wrote: View Post
Lance wrote: View Post
This is the kind of thing I was thinking about:

Yorktown bridge (unaltered):

http://imageshack.us/f/137/trek4bridgesw0.jpg/

The bridge module used in the next two movies is obviously different, but if we accept that Enterprise-A is a reconditioned Yorktown then the change of bridge modules makes some degree of sense, as Mister Scott and his team have been welding new components over the top of the old ones. The ship seen in TFF is a 'new' ship... from a certain point-of-view.
Wouldn't all Constitution starships have the same bridge design?
Well yes, that was the point. When we see the above bridge in Star Trek IV, the new Enterprise has just been given to Kirk so it's still using the original bridge module from the first three movies. Or, more to the point, it's using the USS Yorktown's bridge module, as the only thing Starfleet has done to modified the ship is to change the decals on the outside. But when we see it in Star Trek V, the same Enterprise has got a brand new bridge design, indicating that a new bridge module has been airlifted in to replace the one used when it was still called Yorktown.

I think it indicates that 'in universe' the Enterprise does change between tbe two movies. Which might further indicate that, whether it was previously the Yorktown or not, the Enterprise that we see at the end of Star Trek IV is at the very least a Constitution Class (refit) ship that had already seen service. Not a brand new build straight out of spacedock. It was modified to a newer spec in the next movie.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 07:15 PM   #169
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
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?
Since no other classification alternative (except for the small print on a display on a small monitor) was ever presented in TOS this is obviously what had been intended. I can't see what quantity has to with it.
And thus I must again insist that you are suffering from a lamentable mental ailment. Your claim makes no sense at all, except as a form of delusion.

"What was intended" is a concept that simply does not exist for TOS. One episode says one thing, another says something completely different - naturally enough, as they were written by different people without coordination. If by some accident one episode's ideas aren't contradicted by those of another, then that certainly isn't evidence of some sort of a divine plan. It's a coincidence.

Again I must reiterate that only sick people see patterns where none exist. Or, more exactly, we all see patterns, but most of us are healthy enough to realize they don't exist for real.

Timo wrote: View Post
You're just being delusional again.
Look who's talking. That's not your usual style, Timo, debasing someone like you just did. Are you running out of arguments? [/quote]

Nope - the argument that you are stark raving mad (in this respect) is the only relevant one.

(I do realize it's probably just pretense on your part. Or at least I hope it is. But for the purposes of this discussion, I have to take it dead seriously, of course.)

Now if you see your deeply faulted reasoning for what it is in this specific occasion, perhaps we can get back to arguing about actual facts with the understanding that nonexistent patterns should not enter the discussion.

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?
Now that's a whole different ball game. And I'm certainly game for that. 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.

...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. It's something you have to invent out of whole cloth, and then retroactively decide that it doesn't exactly contradict what little we know of the intentions of the creators.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 12:30 AM   #170
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
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.

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 September 2 2013, 01:27 AM   #171
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

yenny wrote: View Post
There's already a Enterprise class. And it's a Aircraft Carrier.
Erm, that was basically my point; since we know the television ship was named after the real-life aircraft carrier, perhaps the ship being the only member of her class was also lifted from real-life?

Praetor wrote: View Post
You know... who's to say, as I think someone else mentioned, that she's not the only member of a Starfleet Enterprise class, not unlike CVN-65 in real life? This explains both the plaque (and the Defiant one) and the simulator sign in TWOK. All along, from TOS until her destruction in TSFS, she was the sole member of the Enterprise class. Then, the A was a member of the Constitution refit class. Further, the Enterprise class might make use of Constitution class phaser banks.
Moving on, I don't for a moment believe that the production team had everything planned out on TOS, nor do I believe that all of the members of the team agreed on everything. I do think certain things were planned, and certain things were left intentionally vague. And, some things that were planned were changed as the show rolled on; consider the various terms used for the agency to which the Enterprise reported: Space Central, the Star Service, UESPA, and the UFP wasn't referred to for some time.

I think that's the problem - it's very difficult to sift through what was planned or not. Certain evidence taken only from TOS will give you one notion, while if you take TOS with the rest of the franchise things might appear another way. So it's understandable that different perspectives would draw different conclusions.
__________________
"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 September 2 2013, 02:03 AM   #172
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
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, I actually agree with Robert on this. While the two of us share different opinions, and I think (with no disrespect, Robert ) that some of his ideas are applied a bit too narrowly, I appreciate that he's been civil throughout this discussion. I'd like to keep it that way even if not everyone agrees with some of his ideas.

If you have irrefutable proof that "one episode says one thing, another says something completely different" please feel free to provide examples.
Spock was referred to early on as a "Vulcanian" and this was soon shortened to "Vulcan" and has been consistently used ever since. Kirk's middle initial is given as R in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then became T. I think Timo and Praetor are right that the production staff put a lot of thought and creativity into the series, that they definitely had some concepts they wanted to use, but they were also flexible enough to change things as needed. That's not the same as arguing that they were clueless and didn't know what they were doing. Nobody here has made or inferred that claim, aside from you.

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.
Maybe many fans simply liked the effort that FJ put into it and his attempts to make the deck plans sensible, even if they didn't match perfectly with what's onscreen. My understanding is that if Gene or anybody else insisted it match perfectly, FJ would have complied and not been bothered by it. I sort of feel the same way about Matt Jeffries' registry scheme. I think the whole concept of class digits_ship digits is good in theory and would have liked to see it used more consistently, but since it wasn't used consistently and it has some potential problems as well, I choose to regard it as not the best system for handling registries.

Star Trek is rather notorious for having a lot of small details that either don't make sense or are very inconsistently handled. Look at the Defiant for DS9. It's one of the cooler designs ever developed (IMO anyway ) and it's very popular with fans, and yet things like the proper dimensions, weapons loadout etc. have never been portrayed with any consistency. The DS9 Technical Manual, which is the closest we'll get to something reasonably canonical, has a number of problems with how the Defiant's systems are described in relation to the details on the model.

That doesn't mean the production staff was clueless or just didn't care, because they did. It just means that, with the reality of production pressures and so forth, they didn't worry too much about a lot of those little details. They worried about the big details, making sure the model existed and most of its SFX were portrayed consistently.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 05:13 AM   #173
Avro Arrow
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
GUT is the acronym for Grand Unified Theory which I feel suits as an analogy for what many fans try to accomplish seeing (a GUT of Star Trek where all series and movies appear to take place in a masterplanned, coherent and continuous universe).
Ah, I see. Thank you, I appreciate the response.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
yenny wrote: View Post
These are the class and type of ships that were seen and mention on the small and large screen.
What small and large screens would these please be (except for the more obvious ones beginning at "17")?

Bob
Since yenny seems unwilling to answer your (perfectly reasonable) question, I'll see if I can take a stab at it for you.

1: Valiant type -> Presumably the Valiant mentioned in TOS: WNMHGB
2: Conestoga type -> ENT: Terra Nova
3: Emmette type -> This the the BtS name for the ship in the ENT credits after the Phoenix shot
4: Intrepid type -> ENT
5: Neptune class -> ENT (mentioned only)
6: Delta shape ship -> ENT
7: NX class -> ENT(This is the class of Enterprise herself)
8: Sarajevo type -> ENT: Daedalus
9: Daedalus class -> class mentioned in TNG: Power Play. Supposed to be the class of the Horizon model Sisko has in DS9
10: Antares type -> TOS: Charlie X (I'm guessing, there are a lot of ships named Antares...)
11: Soyuz class -> TNG: Cause and Effect
12: Oberth class -> I'm guessing that even though this is before #17, it still counts as one of the "obvious" ones...
13: Kelvin type -> ST09
14: Mayflower type -> ST09
15: Armstrong class -> ST09
16: Newton class -> ST09

Hope this helps.
Avro Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 10:42 AM   #174
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Unicron wrote: View Post
Spock was referred to early on as a "Vulcanian" and this was soon shortened to "Vulcan" and has been consistently used ever since. Kirk's middle initial is given as R in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then became T.
Admittedly, some birth pangs in the creation of the show, but seriously nothing worth to write home or rant about, IMHO.

Unicron wrote: View Post
I think Timo and Praetor are right that the production staff put a lot of thought and creativity into the series, that they definitely had some concepts they wanted to use, but they were also flexible enough to change things as needed.
I concur. But that can't possibly be the standard excuse not to make an effort to figure out what they had actually established by the end of TOS (and whether or not that truly contradicts something mentioned earlier).

Unicron wrote: View Post
That's not the same as arguing that they were clueless and didn't know what they were doing. Nobody here has made or inferred that claim, aside from you.
"The creators of the show never cared and thus never knew", the one thing for which there is rock-solid evidence.” made by somebody "here" in the parallel thread and a recurring theme of ingratitude in several posts and threads throughout the BBS (and the major reason why I joined the BBS in the first place).

Unicron wrote: View Post
Maybe many fans simply liked the effort that FJ put into it and his attempts to make the deck plans sensible, even if they didn't match perfectly with what's onscreen.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating an effort, but there is something seriously wrong when a conjectural and retroactive (i.e. after TOS) effort gets an erroneous canonical status and as a consequence of that makes the original creators look like they didn't care or knew. This is my major issue and criticism of the intoxicating effects of FJ's work in general (but I don't believe it was a deliberate act of FJ).

That's the second time you mention that his work "didn't match perfectly with what's onscreen" which I feel to be a vast exaggeration (no offense) when in fact it's vastly incompatible with what's onscreen.
The only thing that comes close to a perfect match is the command bridge. Already the shuttlebay is only an approximation of the real thing (there...are...two...lights in the observation corridors) and they never walked into any engine room just by exiting a turbo lift.

Bob

@ Avro Arrow

Many thanks for compiling the list, and I learned something new today. But I feel ENT and that other thing to take place in an alternate universe and feel myself incapable of retroactively applying any of this to TOS or the subsequent series. This is one of the reasons.

And a paraphrase of Picard that sums it up: "I will not sacrifice the integrity of TOS. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our continuity and we fall back. They assimilate the entire canon, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here, ...this far, no further!"

Maybe Praetor would like to add his paraphrase which fits in the context?
__________________
"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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 2 2013 at 11:21 AM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 11:29 AM   #175
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I suspect Gene Roddenberry is the one who decided the Enterprise would be a Constitution-class starship (see for example, that FJ and Mike Okuda use the term, and they both consulted with GR yet contradict on everything else). And surely his word overrules Matt Jefferies', or whoever else?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 12:02 PM   #176
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

First and unless I recall incorrectly "Constitution Class" (for the Enterprise) wasn't noticable until after Gene Roddenberry no longer walked the Earth (i.e, "Relics" and ST VI).

While the passage in The Making of Star Trek referring to "Enterprise Class starships" is not a literal quote from Gene Roddenberry, it's the outcome of the interviews and talks Stephen E. Whitfield conducted with the producers. Because the book lists Whitfield and Roddenberry as authors, everything that's in there must have met with the approval of the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

The Constitution Class (!) blueprints of Franz Joseph suggest Gene Roddenberry had approved but don't carry his signature. It's fair to assume Roddenberry merely tolerated this (hoping he'd still get a share of the profits which never happened).

In contrast the official TMP "new Enterprise [Starship II] Class" blueprints are not only authenticated by Andrew Probert but also approved by Gene Roddenberry - and this time with his signature.

On the other hand, the TMP novelization apparently written by Gene Roddenberry himself, makes an early reference to "Constitution Class", in particular Kirk wondering whether this particular Starship Class would still be a match for the new K'tinga Klingon Battlecruisers.
But this is not evidence that the Enterprise belongs to the Constitution Class. Since we apparently do have a refitted Enterprise Starship II Class (NCC-1701) and a refitted Constitution Starship II Class (NCC-1701-A), this could merely indicate that the Constitution Class had stronger weaponry, shields or whatever.

Interestingly, the only thing we do know for certain about the Constitution Class is that it carried a Mark IX/01 primary long-range phaser, and that Scotty found this interesting enough to study it in detail in "The Trouble With Tribbles".

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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 2 2013 at 12:13 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 12:25 PM   #177
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Workbee wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
To seriously voice such a wish, IMHO, would have implied that Sulu somehow knew that the Excelsior did not have a captain (anymore) by the end of the film.
Why? It's not a real-world requirement that a position be empty in order for a new guy to move into it. Except perhaps in certain very rare cases where the person in the position cannot move further up, cannot move laterally, and isn't going to retire quite yet. But in Starfleet, that would be the top flag ranks (and even there we see "lateral" reshuffling for Cartwright), not mere starship commands.

Timo Saloniemi
In interpreted this as, not necessarily that Styles was now gone, but that it was known that he was only occupying the Captain's Chair on a very limited and short term basis. Maybe instead he was stationed at Spacedock and was only in charge of the initial trials (which may have been completed in the 3+ months that passed since TSFS). Making Styles a sort of glorified valet / test driver. Yes, he did posess the RANK of captain, but as has before in TOS, not everyone with the rank is suited for command.

Never thought about this until now, but we never see Styles refer to one of his crew by name. Its always a general positional reference, "Bridge" or "Helm". Since the ship was soon to undertake its trials, the fact that Styles doesn't seem to have developed more of a relationship with his crew, or selected a crew that he would do so, suggest he is not expecting to stay. By this, I am not expecting a warm lets play cards with my crew like in all good things, but something at least something less than the borderline contempt we saw "How can you have a yellow alert in spacedock?"

In fact, he had more familiarity with (or contempt for) Admiral Kirk, who had not been in active command of a starship, but working at Starfleet Command for some time.

Additionally, when Excelsior's drive breaks down, Styles expression seems to convey more annoyance at how the situation affects him, than how it has affected the ship. Granted, starship captains can have egos too. But some concern about the status of his ship I would expect to weigh in. Maybe a quick frantic call to Engineering. Then again, Scotty's loyalty to Kirk, he may have quickly surmised that Scotty sabotaged the ship and made of with the Enterprise.

A problem here is trying to evaluate motivations of characters based on behaviors that the filmmakers admitted were deliberately skewed and exaggerated in order to make the Enterprise crew look more professional in comparison. So in light of this, I try to account and compensate for this "narcissistic lens" that casts over the rest of starfleet. My conclusion, Styles is not an idiot, nor is he a complete pompous ass. He's likely a competent career officer serving a function as temporarily in command of Excelsior during the transwarp trials. He knows it, his crew know it, and likely so does most of people familiar with the Excelsior. Ships in the US Navy often have multiple commanders, there is no reason the same couldn't be true for Starfleet. For all we know, Styles may in fact have his own ship.

If we go by the assumption that Sulu was originally meant to be her captain (from cut dialogue in TWOK which admittedly isn't cannon), it is likely that the political mess that was left in the wake of the Khan incident put that on hold. Starfleet then would have to scramble to find someone to conduct Excelsiors trials. Making this another sort of Jelico situation: another Captain with his own ship and crew temporarily assuming command. As debated in the Chain of Command thread, the behavior we see likely is very different from how he handles his own crew.

Further support -- With all of Scotty's resentment and complaining about Excelsior, we do not see any of that directed toward Styles. Certainly Scotty seemed cordially indifferent to Style's remark about breaking Enterprise's Speed Records. But his beef seemed more about the SHIP and the people who designed her, and Styles is just one of the many players in the political situation.

The whole first act of TSFS has so many disconnects in tone from TWOK (not necessarily continuity errors), that there seems to be a lot of political subtext going on. Granted, much of this disconnect comes the reality of production; from introducing elements that would seem like they would have been seen in TWOK but didn't because they hadn't yet been conceived by the filmmakers.




Just a few things I would add:

1. Sulu was part of the group who directly saved Earth for a second time in TMP and TVH. I think if any group of Starfleet officers could choose their own assignments, it would be them. We don't know how long it took Sulu to get the Excelsior...it could have been as long as the time it took between Star Trek 3 (1984) and Star Trek 6 (1991), but given Sulu's love at first sight for the Excelsior, you can bet that if Commander Sulu simply asked for command of it, he got it, considering his record. In fact, almost any of the TOS crew could have had commands at that point, if they wanted, but most liked to serve with each other, apparently. Not that different from the TNG crew.
2. Styles could have been captain only intended to command the Excelsior during its test runs of the then new transwarp engines, during its time as "the Great Experiment."
3.The Excelsior, as everyone knows, was NX-2000, but by the time Sulu got it, it was NCC-2000. So something was different by the time Sulu was commanding the Excelsior. Apocrypha states that the difference is that the transwarp experiment was a failure, and that the Excelsior was converted to a conventional warp design.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2013, 01:01 AM   #178
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Was there any specific mention of the USS Constitution in TOS, aside from perhaps the Court Martial chart? My brain's way too tired after work to look it up at the moment. I do recall mention in the novelization of the Enterprise being the only ship of the original twelve to survive its 5-year mission intact, and that is why it became the basis for the movie era refit. This detail was also referenced by contemporary works like FASA and Mr. Scott's Guide, and going by FASA there were still other ships in service (those being Constitutions, because Starfleet built a lot of them) that were later refitted, but the proposed upgrades by Scotty at the time of TMP required more drastic changes than had been originally envisioned.

Mainly I'm curious to know whether FASA would have used the Constitution class name to refer to the Enterprise and others like it if there was no basis to use it on the level of official work. I'm sure, as with FJ's work, they would have willing changed it if they were told it was wrong.

FWIW, Robert, I do share some of your frustration with what I'd consider a level of inadequate research and just making stuff up on the part of the modern producers. I don't think it was more than just dealing with production stress, personally, but I wish the results were a lot more consistent than they are. I sometimes feel like there are a lot of gaps in the Treknology area that could have been avoided, and which have often been best filled in by fans.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2013, 06:20 AM   #179
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Unicron wrote: View Post
Was there any specific mention of the USS Constitution in TOS, aside from perhaps the Court Martial chart?
The NCC-1700 on that chart was never canonically referred to as the U.S.S. Constitution. The term "Constitution class" was on a diagram though; I believe it was in one of Scotty's technical manuals.

I do recall mention in the novelization of the Enterprise being the only ship of the original twelve to survive its 5-year mission intact, and that is why it became the basis for the movie era refit.
Well, that would have been contradicted by Picard's statement about having a Connie in the Starfleet Museum.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2013, 06:50 AM   #180
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Unicron wrote: View Post
Was there any specific mention of the USS Constitution in TOS, aside from perhaps the Court Martial chart?
The NCC-1700 on that chart was never canonically referred to as the U.S.S. Constitution. The term "Constitution class" was on a diagram though; I believe it was in one of Scotty's technical manuals.

I do recall mention in the novelization of the Enterprise being the only ship of the original twelve to survive its 5-year mission intact, and that is why it became the basis for the movie era refit.
Well, that would have been contradicted by Picard's statement about having a Connie in the Starfleet Museum.
We could argue that "12 like it in the fleet" might refer to twelve ships with the same mission and/or mission package as the Enterprise. Doesn't necessarily rule more than 12 Constitution class ships of different mission/mission packages.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |

Last edited by SeerSGB; September 3 2013 at 04:43 PM. Reason: fleet for flight
SeerSGB 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 11:59 AM.

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