That's how I took her statement. Didn't DS9 mention different fleets during the Dominion War?
New Orleans-Class
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
That's how I took her statement. Didn't DS9 mention different fleets during the Dominion War?
Andrew Probert's original Ambassador-class concept is no more canon than the Phase II or Planet of the Titans Enterprise designs, or Doug Drexler's NX-01.5 refit.
Well, the two Planet of the Titans study models were shown on screen as actual ships, so those ship designs are canon. However, what they were originally meant to represent (a refit TOS Enterprise) is no longer valid, just like that sculpture is no longer valid as anything more than some unknown, possibly even non-existent ship design.
Completely incidental, but I'm really enjoying this thread!
Same; I love talkin' about starships!
I guess the problem I have (sans a refit scenario like you posed) is that those designs are just so radically different than the other Galaxy-style ships that share similar registry numbers and possibly the same construction times. Plus as I said before, I'm not sure why Alex Jaeger etc. would have purposely designed ships that were meant to be older unless they were specifically told to do so. Looking at the concept art for FC, the ship designs I saw looked as if they were all supposed to be new. But I guess that's my supposition...Well, the easy answer as we all know, is "there was never a story need and budget sufficient to show them"I have no problem with the FC ships having been around in some form decades prior, any more than I do with the Apollo-class having been unseen (not to mention as a sister-class to Ambassador)... but I digress.
Keep in mind that the bulk of the research was done back in 2001, and has rarely been updated since. And also keep in mind that during that whole period, we literally had new info coming in every day, so it wasn't the easiest thing in the world to keep all the correct info straight. Now that I have the BoBW BluRay and have made screencaps of the VFX portion of the special features, I've found even more info about those ships.
Pressman states that the ship was destroyed 12 years ago. Geordi wonders what the Romulans would want with a 12 year old ship. Since the ep took place in TNG's 7th season, that would mean that the Pegasus was built five years before the Enterprise-D (and the implication is that she was built and destroyed in the same year). And no one knew about the interphase cloak at the time other than Riker and Pressman. And all Pressman said was that the Pegasus was an experimental prototype utilizing new technology such as experimental engines, weapons and other tech that would be used in the Galaxy class (which makes using the Grissom model even more ridiculous).I would be more than hesitant to use these cited exceptions (especially those which were merely production flubs) as the rule... I'm also not sure where you got that the Pegasus was constructed around the time of the Ent-D, though. It received an interphase cloak in 2358, but that doesn't suggest a commissioning date. (let's ignore the fact that an Oberth model was used to save time/money. I've read enough crap about that class of ship for one month!)
The Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque states that the ship was built a year before the Enterprise-D (Which means that, like the Pegasus, she was built and destroyed in the same year). I have a theory that Okuda made that plaque thinking that the VFX guys were going to build a new model for the science vessel, not reuse a movie model.
I realize that disconnects between the Art Department and the VFX personnel, and sloppy scriptwriting, aren't the most persuasive arguments in the world. I for one would be perfectly happy believing that both ships were far older than that. But I'm just going by what I saw in the show.
1. I'm not sure why the Borg would bother to completely destroy just the older ships and leave the newer ones relatively intact, or by that logic even know which ships are older and which are newer.Quickfire responses:
1) Could be because all of the smaller and older ships were blown into teeny-tiny pieces... and thus went unseen. "Boom! Chunks of Starfleet, EVERYWHERE!!"
2) I've no problem with the Encyclopedia referring to Roosevelt as an Excelsior, since they're all over the place anyway!
3) Neither Ambassador, nor Excelsior, Miranda or Connie II are contemporaries to the Galaxy - even a new build of the same design wouldn't have the same rated capabilities IMO. I lean in the same direction for New Orleans.
4) At least one of those Nebulas is a "proto-Nebula" and thus could conceivably be a different class, but that's just splitting hairs - it's still of the same design family!
2. As I've probably made clear, I'm just basing my viewpoints on on-screen canon, not what someone printed in a book that could potentially (and in some cases already has) be contradicted with later onscreen canon.
3. I consider the Ambassador to be somewhat contemporaneous to the Galaxy (at least in design more than that movie ships), but I didn't say the others were. The opposite, in fact.
4. Since the Excelsior Melbourne supersedes the Nebula one, the former ship was still present at the battle; it's just now a random Nebula class (or it could be the Tolstoy now, for all we know
)I think that classification came from his ASDB section on his website. I don't think he himself thinks that.You're correct, mea culpa. That's what I get for referring to one of Bernd's diagrams!Not to mention, he lists the Apollo class as being the POTT design. *shudder*
We don't see enough of either the saucer or the secondary hull on screen to legitimately say that they came from a Connie. But since the parts obviously did, I'll concede
The Melbourne is a special case here. No other canon Excelsior has a registry number that high, so to justify it canonically, I'd have to say that it was the last Excelsior built, but hey, whatever
I know I'm biased because there was so much work and love put into the Enterprise-D design, while I feel that these newer ships are just kinda soulless slapped=together products. But again, that's my supposition.I hear you... See this is the other thing: If they were older, hurriedly refit designs with ablative armor slapped all over, I could maybe forgive how un-shapely they look. I unfortunately can't give the Ent-E the same leeway.... Good grief, that thing sucks space lemons.
Last edited:
Let me get this straight: A rejected and abandoned 3D model, that just got a few seconds of screentime because they needed to put "something" there, is canon, but an approved 3D model, deliberately put in plain view that got several minutes of screentime exposure in the first four TNG seasons isn't worthy of rationalization? Our interpretation of canon is, indeed, not compatible.
Bob
First of all, Bob, let's put this into some perspective: The Planet of the Titans study models are canon ships because they were shown on screen as actual ships. There was a ship in the surplus depot in "Unification," and there was a ship in Spacedock in STIII. But as I said before, what those ships were originally meant to represent was no longer valid. No one is going to argue that those ships were actually a refit TOS Enterprise NCC-1701, just like no one (other than yourself) is going to argue that Probert's wall hanging was actually the Enterprise-C.
Conversely, the only thing about Probert's ship design that's canon is a piece of abstract sculpture on a wall. The ship itself was never shown on screen, just the sculpture. Saying it appeared on screen for four years doesn't negate the fact that it was just a piece of artwork. No one ever pointed to that piece of artwork and stated it was the Enterprise-C. There's no little card under each ship with a name or registry number. There wasn't even a tiny study model of Probert's design floating around in space somewhere that we could rationalize as an actual ship. Instead, we saw Sternbach's design as the actual ship for the Enterprise-C, and again as sister ships of the actual Ambassador class.
That's the difference, and there's no argument about interpretation of canon to be made here, other than your own personal bias.
Last edited:
The TNG wall model certainly IS the Enterprise-C. It's just a rough/poor/inaccurate/artistic/abstract representation of it, as are ALL of the models in that particular display.
LOL, some third-graders in the Enterprise-D's art class probably made it, and Picard felt obligated to hang it on the wall
...Until the fifth season when they inexplicably swapped it for a generic science fictioney wall piece. IIRC they had rebuild the set for some reason (not because of sickbay - they already did that in S2) and decided to leave it out.
In any case I'm glad they AREN'T accurate models, otherwise everyone would've been ducking under the enormous saucer of the E-D sticking out of the wall for four years..!
Mark
In any case I'm glad they AREN'T accurate models, otherwise everyone would've been ducking under the enormous saucer of the E-D sticking out of the wall for four years..!
Mark
Pretty sure the reason they had to rebuild the conference room was because it got partially blowed up filming STVI.
I'd agree on the "rough" and "artistic". Other than that the distincitive features are discernible enough to realize that the Enterprise-C is not the one that popped out from the temporal and/or interspatial anomaly in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
The accuracy of these sculptures may be debatable but the sculptor got the Enterprise-C to look rather exactly like the one on the side view Andrew Probert provided:
Bob
In Keiko's classroom on DS9, and the Starfleet Academy recreation on Voyager, there is a graphic showing (non-impressionistic) plan views of the Enterprises. The -C is represented by the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Ambassador class model.
Like it or not, the -C model in early TNG was a placeholder (as was the -B)
Like it or not, the -C model in early TNG was a placeholder (as was the -B)
I agree on the -C but why does the -B appear to lack the extensions on the rear of the saucer and look like a stock Excelsior?
In Keiko's classroom on DS9, and the Starfleet Academy recreation on Voyager, there is a graphic showing (non-impressionistic) plan views of the Enterprises. The -C is represented by the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Ambassador class model.
Like it or not, the -C model in early TNG was a placeholder (as was the -B)
Because the episode is from DS9's first season ("The Nagus") and pre-dates Generations.
And that's why they need quantum reality cops to stop mucking around with different alternate universes
Yes, and as has already been pointed out, the filming miniature was based on that same design, modified so as to be easier to build. (This happened with at least one of Probert's shuttlecraft designs as well, IIRC.) In-universe, they both represent the same ship of the same design, despite the real-world differences. Fortunately for those who require "explanations" for such things, there is a much more straightforward and sensible one than what you suggest, as none of those wall models is particularly accurate to the filming miniature of the ship it represents, and there would be no reason why it would need be, since it is a piece of decorative art, not a technical diagram.The accuracy of these sculptures may be debatable but the sculptor got the Enterprise-C to look rather exactly like the one on the side view Andrew Probert provided:
Last edited:
Wait... Is there anything in the episodes or legible text that indicates those are Enterprises? How do we know it just isn't a series of historical ships? After all, the top image is the pre-First Contact conjectural Cochrane's first warp ship. Maybe it's just ships... not to mention... that's not the Enterprise-B...
--Alex
Here's the chart:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bonaventure/bonaventure-display1.jpg
As you can see, while it does have the class names, it doesn't say they are the Enterprises, even though that's obviously its intent...if it were just a display of random Starfleet vessels, why not show the Miranda or the Oberth or the Constellation or the Nebula? The old wall display didn't have ship names either, but the original intent at the time was that they were all the Enterprises too, just like the intent of this one. And of course, this chart got invalidated as well once we saw both the Enterprise-B and the Phoenix on screen. This is just another example of older information of lesser substance being invalidated by newer information of greater substance.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bonaventure/bonaventure-display1.jpg
As you can see, while it does have the class names, it doesn't say they are the Enterprises, even though that's obviously its intent...if it were just a display of random Starfleet vessels, why not show the Miranda or the Oberth or the Constellation or the Nebula? The old wall display didn't have ship names either, but the original intent at the time was that they were all the Enterprises too, just like the intent of this one. And of course, this chart got invalidated as well once we saw both the Enterprise-B and the Phoenix on screen. This is just another example of older information of lesser substance being invalidated by newer information of greater substance.
Last edited:
Although as Albertese pointed out, the display in DS9 doesn't explicitly state these are the Enterprises and thus it really isn't invalidated by newer information. As to the wall models, the simpler explanation is that they're artwork and not highly detailed and accurate models which again doesn't invalidate it.
Incidentally, I notice that Sisko's models of the Saratoga and Daedalus (class) are in the screenshot too. Perhaps Jake was doing a show-n-tell later that day.
I think the intent was not necessarily to show ENTERPRISES, but just starships. After all, this was a piece of set dressing after all and we aren't supposed to read too much into it. The context of the poster suggests to me that it wants to describe how starships have been used to explore the galaxy from the first warp ship (Bonaventure at the time according to Okuda, Sternbach et. al.) through classes that are seen as the "backbone" of the "Star Fleet", per the poster. If you were to post the biggest and best starships through various eras of the Fleet, of course you'd use the biggest and most recognizable (or most publicized) ones out there - the "queens" of the fleet, as it were. The fact that an Enterprise was each one of them is academic.
Mark
I think the intent was not necessarily to show ENTERPRISES, but just starships. After all, this was a piece of set dressing after all and we aren't supposed to read too much into it. The context of the poster suggests to me that it wants to describe how starships have been used to explore the galaxy from the first warp ship (Bonaventure at the time according to Okuda, Sternbach et. al.) through classes that are seen as the "backbone" of the "Star Fleet", per the poster. If you were to post the biggest and best starships through various eras of the Fleet, of course you'd use the biggest and most recognizable (or most publicized) ones out there - the "queens" of the fleet, as it were. The fact that an Enterprise was each one of them is academic.
Mark
