the JJprise is actually the Enterprise A?

[The Wormhole]

^^Indeed. I didn't really pay much attention to Enterprise novels prior to the Romulan War series, but both it and the current Rise of the Federation have their own continuity while including things established in the 24th century novels like notable Federation politicians of the 22nd century and details about Andorian culture, naming practices and biology.

23rd century novels have a shared continuity in the Vanguard series (which gets mentioned in the 24th century) and its spin-off The Seekers. TOS novels are mostly stand-alone adventures with no real continuity between them, although sometimes a previous novel might be mentioned, or an upcoming one foreshadowed. Some TOS novels have also referenced ships, characters, planets, or alien races from the Vanguard series as well.

 

[ATimson]

Also, in the script it was meant to be the Abrams style Constitution. They just inserted the TOS style as an Easter egg for the scene after it was deleted.

Was the Into Darkness script ever released? I haven't been able to find it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also, in the script it was meant to be the Abrams style Constitution. They just inserted the TOS style as an Easter egg for the scene after it was deleted.

Was the Into Darkness script ever released? I haven't been able to find it.

Good question. I'm just passing along second-hand information, which come to think of it, I might have read in another thread here.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^You may be thinking of concept art for Marcus' office rather than the script. Click!

 

[Juju Zombie]

The simple answer is that until we learn more onscreen, we simply don't know. The people asserting that it IS the first and only NCC-1701 Enterprise are no more correct than anyone else. There's absolutely nothing backing it up one way or the other.

In fact, all we have to go on is what we know onscreen, and that's that all of the major changes that caused this timeline to occur happened when the Narada first appeared. The question then should be: Was there an NCC-1701 Enterprise prior to 2233 A.D.? If there was, then there we know for certain that the one featured in the movies wasn't the first. If not, then we still can't say one way or the other, but it certainly doesn't mean it is.

The NX-01 clearly existed, as did the XCV 330, the OV-101, and all of the naval vessels from history that bore the name Enterprise, but those doesn't count since they lakced the NCC 1701 serial number. I believe the first ship we commonly refer to as the NCC-1701 Enterprise was the one commanded by April, and that ship went into service in 2245.

So unless there's a canonical ship named Enterprise that existed somewhere between 2161 and 2245 (which is extremely likely, mind you), then yep: We definitely have no way of knowing if the movieverse's Enterprise is the first NCC-1701 or not.

(But it probably is.)

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Its registry is NCC-1701 with no bloody A,B,C,D,E, and so on added after it. That makes it pretty clear that it is the first ship to have the registry NCC-1701. We need no further evidence than that.

 

[Juju Zombie]

Not really. The whole letter bit was just something that happened in the original timeline. It's certainly not standard operating practice in the real navy, and in fact, is wholly unnecessary unless more than one ship with that registration exists simultaneously with other versions.

But you go ahead and keep on asserting that your opinion is absolute fact. Me, I'll wait til there's some actual evidence one way or another. As it stands, there is none, so there's no way of telling until we learn more.

 

[BillJ]

^^Its registry is NCC-1701 with no bloody A,B,C,D,E, and so on added after it. That makes it pretty clear that it is the first ship to have the registry NCC-1701. We need no further evidence than that.

We simply don't know if letter suffix registries existed as far back as the 2250's. In the Abrams timeline, there may have been an NCC-1701 that was built in the 2240's but was destroyed in the early 2250's. The Enterprise may have kept the registry as some kind of honor for its fallen predecessor.

Registries are likely more complicated than the 4 digits on the hull.

 

[The Wormhole]

Okay, but why would Starfleet have two ships with the exact same registry number? People in the know have made regular complaints about reusing registry numbers and adding letters for being impractical. Names get re-used for reasons related to nostalgia, but registry numbers have purposes far more technical and are meant to be a definitive way to keep two ships with the same name separate, even if those two ships are not in service in the same time periods. Reusing the same registry defeats that purpose.

Plus, registry numbers are usually assigned to a ship frame long before a name is assigned. So no, there can be no other USS Enterprise NCC-1701 existing before the JJprise, otherwise the JJprise wouldn't be 1701. It would be, well whatever registry was given to that frame when it was registered.

 

[Ithekro]

NCC-0701?
NCC-01701?

 

[BillJ]

Plus, registry numbers are usually assigned to a ship frame long before a name is assigned. So no, there can be no other USS Enterprise NCC-1701 existing before the JJprise, otherwise the JJprise wouldn't be 1701. It would be, well whatever registry was given to that frame when it was registered.

But we also know that those things are easily changed in the Star Trek universe, as it is unlikely that '1701-A' was assigned to the ship that eventually became the new Enterprise.

 

[Ithekro]

Back in the days before the "A" there were the Starship name II style ships. Sometimes with the same registry number, just with a "II" added to the name that was usually forgotten in normal conversation. Other times they had new registry numbers entirely, but still kept the "II". These tended to be replacement starships for those lost in action (USS Constellation II for example)

 

[BillJ]

Back in the days before the "A" there were the Starship name II style ships. Sometimes with the same registry number, just with a "II" added to the name that was usually forgotten in normal conversation. Other times they had new registry numbers entirely, but still kept the "II". These tended to be replacement starships for those lost in action (USS Constellation II for example)

That was the Franz Joseph Technical Manual and the FASA stuff if I remember correctly? On screen, we've only seen the suffix used on the Enterprise and Defiant. I can't remember a "II" ever being referenced.

 

[Ithekro]

And one version of USS Yamato (NCC-1305-E I think it was)

 

[Dukhat]

^^Its registry is NCC-1701 with no bloody A,B,C,D,E, and so on added after it. That makes it pretty clear that it is the first ship to have the registry NCC-1701. We need no further evidence than that.

Actually, there's evidence in STID itself that ships can reuse the same registry number. There is a Newton-type ship in Spacedock with the registry NCC-0718, and the TOS Constitution model in Marcus's office with the same number. Yes, the latter is from a deleted scene and yes, the 0718 thing is obviously some in-joke. But because we have no idea how Starfleet reuses numbers pre-TOS (and in an alternate universe to boot), this could be used as some sort of evidence for it.

So for all we know, there could have been another Enterprise post-Nero incursion but pre-ST'09 with the same number, just like what was depicted in the comics (not that I'm trying to defend the canonicity of the comics, which I most certainly am not.)

 

[Kemaiku]

I thought the Biddiford (whatever the hell the spelling is) was 0618?

 

[BillJ]

I thought the Biddiford (whatever the hell the spelling is) was 0618?

Pretty sure it was 0718.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Biddeford

 

[ATimson]

On screen, we've only seen the suffix used on the Enterprise and Defiant.

Did we ever actually see it on the Defiant? I thought she ended up as NX-74205 again in all of her shots. (Which I know was so they could reuse the stock footage, but still, annoying.)

There's also the Dauntless NX-01-A.

 

[Dukhat]

On screen, we've only seen the suffix used on the Enterprise and Defiant.

Did we ever actually see it on the Defiant? I thought she ended up as NX-74205 again in all of her shots. (Which I know was so they could reuse the stock footage, but still, annoying.)

The only new footage of the new Defiant was when it was still the Sao Paulo NCC-75633. All other shots of it were stock footage, so we are led to believe that not only was the ship renamed Defiant, but that it got the exact same registry number (without an "A" suffix), which makes no sense. Why not just keep the Sao Paulo's registry?

 

[The Wormhole]

On screen, we've only seen the suffix used on the Enterprise and Defiant.

Did we ever actually see it on the Defiant? I thought she ended up as NX-74205 again in all of her shots. (Which I know was so they could reuse the stock footage, but still, annoying.)

The only new footage of the new Defiant was when it was still the Sao Paulo NCC-75633. All other shots of it were stock footage, so we are led to believe that not only was the ship renamed Defiant, but that it got the exact same registry number (without an "A" suffix), which makes no sense. Why not just keep the Sao Paulo's registry?

Which logically, it should still have the NCC-75633 registry, even though the intent of DS9's producers was to make it NCC-74205-A.

To muddle matters even more, despite the fact that there is no budget forcing them to re-use stock footage, the novels still stick with the NX-74205 registry, even though in novel continuity this Defiant's been in service for a decade now.