RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,815
Posts: 5,472,590
Members: 25,037
Currently online: 525
Newest member: Sebastian380

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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 July 10 2014, 05:02 PM   #31
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

To cut a long story short: While the subject may be trivial, it's eventually about showing some respect to the original creators and artists.
I think I show respect to the original creators and artists every time I sink a wad of cash into a show that I've bought multiple times. And will likely buy again in the future. I seriously doubt any of the creators or artists care how we personally refer to the minutiae.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 05:11 PM   #32
PCz911
Lieutenant Commander
 
PCz911's Avatar
 
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Havent all written something, beit a story or a report, and hasn't that creative work changed or evolved over time? We are talking creative writing here, did they have it all plotted out when they started the pilot? Probably not. That it leads to lively debate is good fun, but we are not talking religion here. Canon exists until a creative needs to breakit for the purposes of a good story.

So, relax. Enjoy the variantsof thought and logic... And believe what you want and not what someone else's says is the "truth".
PCz911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 05:14 PM   #33
Green Shirt
Commodore
 
Green Shirt's Avatar
 
Location: 21133
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

PCz911 wrote: View Post
So, relax. Enjoy the variants of thought and logic... And believe what you want and not what someone else's says is the "truth".
But that's the fun of this place. I'm right, and everybody else is wrong.
__________________
Its not easy being green.
Green Shirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 05:36 PM   #34
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Forbin wrote: View Post
And there has never been a prettier airliner.
Qualification: There's never been a prettier piston-engined airliner than the Constellation.

The Concorde was the most beautiful commercial airliner ever. Period.

Now back to the topic . . .
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 06:05 PM   #35
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

scotpens wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post
And there has never been a prettier airliner.
Qualification: There's never been a prettier piston-engined airliner than the Constellation.

The Concorde was the most beautiful commercial airliner ever. Period.

Now back to the topic . . .
I'm comfortable with that.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 09:31 PM   #36
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Great discussion, guys. Strong points on both sides of the issue.

Personally, i've always interested in the actual name of ships, rather than class, such as Reliant, instead of Miranda class, or Exeter instead of....well, i'll leave that last one alone!
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 10:22 PM   #37
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Don't be shy, "Exeter instead of Constitution Class" ?!

I never really had issues with these "16XX" prefixes, actually I think these all belong to the 16th design series (Constitution Class) but with the 17th design series (Enterprise Class) there are differences that distinguish both classes, no matter who similar they look on the surface or from far away.

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 July 10 2014, 10:25 PM   #38
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

It's just too bad for your way of looking at things that the NCC-1701 Enterprise is a Constitution-class vessel. It's been canonically established as such. Yay, canon.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 10:45 PM   #39
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
It's just too bad for your way of looking at things that the NCC-1701 Enterprise is a Constitution-class vessel. It's been canonically established as such. Yay, canon.
Can we move on then to what 'NCC' stands for, as they never stated during the series itself, but the Franz Joseph Tech manual stated it was:

"Naval Construction Contract"
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2014, 11:15 PM   #40
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
It's just too bad for your way of looking at things that the NCC-1701 Enterprise is a Constitution-class vessel. It's been canonically established as such. Yay, canon.
Personally, I don't care if they call it the Baron Von Shitberg-class. I just get tired of being told that I'm somehow disrespecting the creators by being okay with the Constitution-class.

I think of "Starship" as a super-class that covers all Starfleet deep space vehicles over a certain size and firepower. The Constellation (before the new effects) is different enough from the Enterprise that she could be considered a different class of vessel, yet Spock says, "By configuration, a starship stopped in space."

Star Trek: The Motion Picture wrote:
KIRK: Mister Scott, there's an alien object with unbelievable destructive power less than three days away from this planet. ...The only starship in interception range is the Enterprise. Ready, or not, she launches in twelve hours.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture wrote:
DECKER: No, Admiral. I don't think you are, not one damn bit. I remember when you recommended me for this command. You told me how envious you were, and how much you hoped you'd find a way to get a starship command again. Well, it looks like you found a way.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture wrote:
KIRK: That's all we know about it, except that it's now fifty-three point four hours away from Earth. Enterprise is the only Federation starship that stands in its way. Our orders are to intercept, investigate, and take whatever action is necessary, ...and possible.
The seeds of Constitution-class comes from TOS itself from parts diagrams we see. So there could have been some retconning going on from very early on. Plus, it is retconning that Roddenberry himself apparently didn't mind as the term makes it into both The Starfleet Technical Manual and "The Naked Now".

This is all, admittedly, my interpretation of how we got from Starship to Constitution-class during the run of the franchise. But it is plain crazy to act like people are disrespecting the creators by referring to the ship class as something other than what was on a wall plaque.

YMMV.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 05:44 AM   #41
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

The problem with using 'Starship' as the class is that it should imply that there is a USS Starship someplace out there. Though that also should mean there is a space ship NX out there too.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 11:58 AM   #42
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
It's just too bad for your way of looking at things that the NCC-1701 Enterprise is a Constitution-class vessel. It's been canonically established as such. Yay, canon.
The only "canon" that has tried to establish that is post-TOS, post-TMP and post-TWOK ("Enterprise Class") retroactive continuity.

And in post # 16 on the previous page of this thread I've commented why I think these retcon attempts were of a rather bumbling nature.

I have no difficulties whatsoever accepting "Constitution Class" as a widespread colloquialism (especially popular in the 24th Century) to which the 16th design series gave raise to, but regarding the Enterprise I cannot see where and why it could possibly be the accurate description, considering the information the original creators left behind.

@ Noname Given

"Naval Contact Code" is a valid alternative.

@ BillJ

I'm afraid you got it wrong. The "honors" of disrespect or oversight go to Greg Jein and Franz Joseph Schnaubelt.

Their research wasn't double-checked and thus "Constitution Class" ended up in he ST Concordance and eventually in the ST Encyclopedia. We, the fans, have accepted this in good faith, assuming that this classification had been based on accurate and unbiased research.
This includes myself - and before I saw Matt Jefferies other TOS pre-production sketch and reading his comments about it ("first in the series", "first bird").

Thus, he essentially re-emphasized that the classification in The Making of Star Trek - "Enterprise [Starship] Class" was still the correct one as late as of 2002 (BBC interviews).

This is now less a matter of respect or disrespect, but a more philosophical question on whether and how we acknowledge inaccurate and/or biased research.

@ Ithekro

The Making of Star Trek mentions that Kirk's first assignment was a "Destroyer Class" vessel and in ST III:TSFS Chekov introduced us to the "Scout Class".

It looks like a possibility that the original creators just wanted to show what category of vessel the TOS Enterprise belonged to.

And then we have the "J-Class starship" classification provided by Commodore Mendez in "The Menagerie I". I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the creators didn't have name classes in mind, but nowadays it looks like that nomenclature has as much chances as a snowball in hell.

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 July 11 2014, 02:39 PM   #43
Last Redshirt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Last Redshirt's Avatar
 
Location: On the Starship Enterprise
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Post-TOS we saw an "Enterprise Class" label on the bridge simulator at the beginning of ST II:TWOK
And? That doesn't mean anything. The bridge during the Kobayashi Maru is a facsimile of a Starfleet starship bridge. Putting Enterprise-class is, if we're looking at it through an in-universe perspective, an attempt to make it an 'any-ship.' It's obvious that it's supposed to be a Constitution, though.
Last Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 03:19 PM   #44
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Ithekro wrote: View Post
The problem with using 'Starship' as the class is that it should imply that there is a USS Starship someplace out there. Though that also should mean there is a space ship NX out there too.
Maybe you're being too literal. "Starship Class" may be analogous to broad type, such as calling something a "Destroyer Class" vessel or an "Aircraft Carrier Class" ship.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2014, 03:22 PM   #45
Marsden
Captain
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Location: Party's over. No ice cream tonight.
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Bob, I get what you are saying.

I just don't think of it that way. I think the word Starship is used as an overall type rather than a specific model. As in Constitution Class Starship, J-Class Starship, Enterprise Class Starship, and so on.

I think Starship is the 23rd 24th century equivalent of Ship of the Line in the age of sail, no one would claim that Ship of the Line refers to a certain particular type of ship but rather it's capablities.

I think the usage fits all of these situations. Merick commanded a spaceship, Kirk commands a Starship. Merick's ship obviously had some kind of warp capablity, maybe it was a survey ship that comes with the survey party that goes to planets the Starships have discovered and think are useful to get a full planetary study. (Or maybe he was hauling space garbage like Quark.)

So I think no matter what was the original intent of the first creators, they didn't stress it enough to establish it difinetively, and in that ambiguousness, other people defined it for them. And here we are.
__________________
Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgment, you simply have no alternative.
Marsden 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 05:03 PM.

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