Connie - TOS canon nomenclature
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
...unless those other sites are your own image hosting sites (your own flickr account, your own imagebucket account, your own google images account, etc.) As long as it's your own bandwidth, go crazy.
From the FAQ file:
"Images
"When posting images, please make sure you do not post more than 50-70kb worth of photos, as a courtesy to those with slower connections. Images are to be no larger than 640x480.
"Plus, you should only include an inline image from that your own, or with the permission from the webmaster on which the image is located to avoid what results in costly bandwidth theft to the originating site owner.
Instead, please post a link to the image."
Last edited:
Well, yeah.
But do you think there will ever be an officially licensed novel or technical manual or even further onscreen appearance featuring the TOS Enterprise which will call it anything other than a "Constitution-class starship"? TPTB's opinion on the matter has crystal clear for decades.
Odd, my version looks like this:So, when Picard sees this ship in The Naked Now
(click for full size)
...and calls it "constitution Class" he is quite correct. With TNG-R they replaced the graphic:
(click for full size)
Now I've not seen TNG-R but is this really how it appears in the episode - a crystal clear cut&paste over the existing soft focus graphics? Unbelieveable, if so
Damned time travel retcons, always confusing me! 
You've done a better job integrating the graphic into the scene too, nice one.
You've done a better job integrating the graphic into the scene too, nice one.
Most publications are told from a 24th century viewpoint and use "Constitution", which is perfectly consistent with TNN and a general "reclassification" movement toward the end of the 23rd century. However, within TOS canon (the title of this thread) the focus is very much on using "starship" as the Enterprise's "class", whatever that might mean. Personally, I lean towards it referring to the type/function of ship rather than a batch label.
Last edited:
Then why did Khan read the manuals of other starships as well? Obviously the scene and the dialogue allow these interpretations
- He did study a phaser of the Enterprise
- He did study the phaser of a previous starship class, to better understand the evolution (and working principle of this weapon)
- He did study the phaser of a different starship class to prepare himself what firepower he might be up against after his seizure of the Enterprise.
And a couple of months after that scene we get this:
And so Bob Justman was just a nobody? I think the Starfleet uniform insignia debate where his delicious memo popped up clearly revealed he had influence to the point that qualifies him as TOS’ continuity guru. And Gene Roddenberry definitely approved, with his signature on the TMP official blueprint sheets, that the TMP Enterprise belonged to the “new Enterprise Class”.
That is not what I’m saying. Some of Matt Jefferies’ premises (e.g. there should be a turbo lift at the end of the Jefferies Tube corridor so it could align with the vertical bridge turbo shaft) were changed.
But the statements in TMoST were not overwritten by any premise change in TOS (this is still a TOS thread?) to suggest that the Enterprise was anything other than a member of the “Starship Class” or the “Enterprise Starship Class”.
His BBC interview reflects the decisive element in his TOS pre-production sketch (which you all seem so eager to find fault with), namely that the Enterprise was the “first in the series”, “the first bird”. So we do not just have this TOS pre-production sketch, but the Enterprise’s creator’s comment for it.
Why does it kill Jefferies’ “first bird” intention? If the last two digits are a contact code which will be assigned later to the ship based on availability, then it’s just a placeholder for the yet-to-assigned contact code. At the beginning of construction, Starfleet definitely knows what kind of starship they are going to build, in this case one of the 17th design.
And where do I get that idea from? Curiously, the same guy who first linked that number with the Constitution, admitted in the aftermath correspondence – regarding the interpretation of the starship status chart – that NCC-1700 might refer to a starship being in the process of construction:
* RB's note. Readers may recall from T-N 23 that I speculated that the chart measured where the ships were in their five-year missions, as it was numbered in percentages -- and the ship which Greg has here identified as the Intrepid had not only reached the 100% line but had a line beyond it starting over. Greg's theory, that the chart showed ships in port and undergoing repair, fits in better with the plot of the episode, and I asked him if he could find a way to reconcile a repair job which was more than 100% complete. He suggested that perhaps the extra percentage "refers to some form of 'finishing touch' labor, i.e., painting, checking computer, etc" and the first part of the graph "to heavy mechanical labor/construction."
So the ship that’s supposed to be the class leader, NCC-1700, hasn’t been build, yet?
I still think it’s easier to rationalize that the “1700” is a placeholder for the yet to come Defiant (NCC-1764), which got it’s contact code from the Excalibur that was still alive and kicking according to that starship status chart.
No, in Star Wars (aka A New Hope) Vader didn’t have equivalent rank, yet. “I’m not surprised finding you holding Vader’s leash” was a pretty forward remark by Princess Leia. Vader had to follow Tarkin’s orders (and in a cut scene, he openly criticizes these while talking to Commander Number One, played by Leslie Schofield).
“Genocidal maniac?” That’s exactly the apologist excuse I got to hear after my outburst at the “Revenge of the Shit” premiere:
“Didn’t you know Vader was a mass murderer?”. I replied “No, to my knowledge, and from what I could tell he killed a dozen people in the original trilogy by his own hand or his immediate actions in battle. Other than that he acted like other military commanders of past and present, we usually don’t find fault with, as strange as that is.
Do I feel he should have been trialed for war crimes: ABSOLUTELY! But if you or I were to trial Vader for war crimes at the Hague, we’d better present more evidence than just assumptions.
The truly despicable retcon part is the deliberate slaughter of defenseless children (so next time we see Luke crying in the OT are we now going to laugh about this scene “Hey Luke, save your tears for someone else, didn’t you know your father is a despicable child killer?”), it betrays audiences, and to promote toys, so that our children can play and re-enact Darth Vader is simply this:
(together with a friend of mine we wrote LEGO and HASBRO
after the premiere, asking for a statement / clarification)
On the contrary, this too illustrates perfectly that once you start down the path of retroactive continuity, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Ben Kenobi was a hero and role model, not only for Luke but a lot of people of my generation. A wise and integer character. Of course, Lucas finally realized that Darth Vader would be a good choice for Luke’s father, so he changed the original premise according to which Luke’s father, Darth Vader and Ben Kenobi were three different people.
So we got this “from a certain point of view” manure, but unfortunately Lucas didn’t stop there.
Next he betrayed the integrity and character of the Jedi, people like myself had accepted in good faith, to somehow move his prequel story along because he had no better ideas (and poor Timothy Zahn had to sit and listen to Lucas’ lamentations how bad it is that nobody anymore comes up with good stories
), but by that that time he had become pretty much the kind of emperor, his younger self / Alan Dean Foster found so despicable in the prologue of Star Wars novelization.Answering for myself: NO. From a strictly TOS point of view (and a little further beyond) it’s a myth, it’s an assumption that has become mainstream belief and – worse – some kind of petrified dogma, although its roots are apparently inaccurate and biased research.
Evidence suggesting differently is systematically ignored, double-guessed or declared irrelevant - This is not about twisting facts on behalf of a theory, it's about refusing facts to keep the current theory afloat.
People that feel differently have to live with that, but that doesn’t merit the kind of mockery and statements that transpired in this thread, too (and which remains – like in other debates – my major issue).
Bob
P.S.
I like it! Emilia, if you ever where to do some research on the "real" Robert Comsol, you'd find that he was that kind of guy expecting that orders would be followed.It's a good thing, Captain Kirk did not follow orders, otherwise we would have missed Spock for the remainder of TOS after "The Menagerie I" ...
Last edited:
That he was studying other ships is your idea. I'm pretty sure the writers' idea was to establish the ability to take over the ship.
Or Scotty could be reading up on the latest upgrades as published Starfleet Engineering Quarterly. Since, you know, dialog established the was catching up on his technical journals.
Did I say anything about Justman in my statement about who did what in TMOST?
I know it is a rather silly question: But seeing as Trek writers can and often do change the nomenclature at will, why is it so important to establish what "actual" class of starship that the Enterprise belongs in?
No matter what is "established" as "factual" Star Trek is a science FICTION franchise and therefore the main story, the back story, the character histories, the technical details, etc. can be changed, modified, and updated. We the fans don't own the creative rights to the franchise and any of our pet theories or interpretations don't matter in the long run to anyone but us.
No matter what is "established" as "factual" Star Trek is a science FICTION franchise and therefore the main story, the back story, the character histories, the technical details, etc. can be changed, modified, and updated. We the fans don't own the creative rights to the franchise and any of our pet theories or interpretations don't matter in the long run to anyone but us.
This thread is exciting!
Sorry in my excitement I forgot to write the question.
Is the nuTrek Enterprise the same class as TOS Enterprise?
Sorry in my excitement I forgot to write the question.
Is the nuTrek Enterprise the same class as TOS Enterprise?
Last edited:
No, but I was under the impression that he didn't matter because you pressed for a clearer statement of Gene Roddenberry regarding the issue.
I thought that was crystal clear you meant me. Yes, I get that a lot that I'm taking treknological research too serious. And I won't exclude the possibility that in this particular case I suffer from a mental case of adolescent trauma.
I had never understood where Bjo Trimble got the class and registries from for her ST Concordance. I checked various screenplays but, alas, no hints or evidence.
It wasn't before I read Greg Jein's original treatise, archived at trekplace.com (thanks Greg, we owe you!), that I was finally able to get to the the bottom of it. But after reading it I just went
As for the registries of the starships, Greg Jein filled a vacuum and I'm okay with these. But how he arrived at the decisive conclusions, which is the source for the issue, is "remarkable" to say the least. And now matter how hard I try I'm unable to accept his methodology and conclusion as the essential base for "serious" canon (just matching the starship status chart numbers to a name list he made up and next to read the whole thing from bottom to top). Again, on behalf of Greg Jein, I think he did this as a mental excercise and for fun, but the ramifications that sprang from it were "serious".
Bob
Yep. When Khan scans the Enterprise prior to beaming up the torpedoes, one of the stats reads "Constitution-class starship". They build them a lot bigger in that timeline.
No, but I was under the impression that he didn't matter because you pressed for a clearer statement of Gene Roddenberry regarding the issue.
I thought that was crystal clear you meant me. Yes, I get that a lot that I'm taking treknological research too serious. And I won't exclude the possibility that in this particular case I suffer from a mental case of adolescent trauma.
No, plenty of people take the subject seriously. It has more to do with your twisted and erroneous definition of how canon works.
On the issue of Roddeberry's involvement with TMOST?
Exactly so. There's nothing in the definition of "canon," when used in this context, that means "internally consistent."
To use the oft-cited example of TOS inconsistencies about how many centuries in the future the show takes place: fans can waste as much time as they like making up explanations for the contradictions. However, all the inconsistent statements in the shows remain canonical whether they can be reconciled or not.
Thought I would ask this again...
Or his tendency to have "first takes precedence", which is actually the reverse of how it works in canon.
- Accepting the onscreen information (in pictures and dialogue) and the conclusions we can draw from these.
- If in doubt regarding the proper conclusion look up publically accessible materials from the original creators to determine their intentions in the particular context unless revised by their own premise change.
- Premise change by third / later parties should be solid and leave no room for doubt and/or should constitute an improvement the original creators could have approved.
Bob
Sorry, can't see what's "twisted" or "erroneous" here.
- Accepting the onscreen information (in pictures and dialogue) and the conclusions we can draw from these.
- If in doubt regarding the proper conclusion look up publically accessible materials from the original creators to determine their intentions in the particular context unless revised by their own premise change.
[*]Premise change by third / later parties should be solid and leave no room for doubt and/or should constitute an improvement the original creators could have approved.
Bob
Point three. That's where the concept you have goes off the rails.
