I would disagree with TMP Enterprise being so different that she MUST be a new class. If we take the design progression and apparent modular construction of Trek ships, the upgrade wasn't as severe as some like to make out. Starfleet obviously was upgrading the whole class to more modern specs. We never see the old design again after that. So if all the remaining ships were upgraded, then the argument that the different classes are because they require different customized service doesn't apply. The argument that different warp engines would change the class doesn't work either. The way I see it is that they are all Constitution Class. Scotty, from TMP Dialoge, is responsible for most of the Enterprise design, so I would go with the label on his drawing in ST:VI over the label of the simulator in ST:II. You have to look at it one way or the other. Either they are all Consitution Class or every variation is a seperate class. I would dipute the use of the AMT model for Constellation indicates it is an older class of ship. The production team deliberately got a model of the Enterprise that they could distress to fill the role of Constellation. They were not concerned (as we are) that there were minor subtle differences. And if you look at the design evolution, The features of the AMT model fall between those of the 11 foot model and the FJ plans. The TMP Enterprise design evolution goes from there, adopting FJ's fatter Engineering Hull and less beveled edge on the saucer. When you compare the evolution and particularly the design similarities betwen the FJ plans and the TMP Enterprise, the distinctions diminish considerably. With 25 years between the 11 foot model and the TMP model and the given design progression, I cannot agree that there is any class change. If you truly want to get picky, than we need to discuss the United Earth Space Probe Agency. Now I don't wish to imply that my opinion is the only one and everyone else is wrong. I am mearly stating my own opinion and why I don't agree with other opinions. IDIC rules.
I would tend to agree with much of what you've said, yotsuya. The only single thing I seem to see differently than you is that the refit original 1701 seemed different than the Enterprise-A - particularly the shuttle/cargo bay arrangement, which is to me a big difference. The shuttlebay in TFF seemed much closer to the TOS arrangement to me, which suggests the possibility that the original Enterprise was refit further than other ships of her class, which in turn opens the door to the notion that the original 1701 was refit unique and perhaps the only member of the Enterprise-class, whereas all other ships beginning with Constitution would be refit to a more 'economic' standard... establishing the Constitution (refit) class. Consider the parallel of the CVN-65, whose somewhat experimental construction as the first nuclear aircraft carrier was quite different from later carriers. Given the apparent revolutionary nature of the TMP engine setup and technology, I see a parallel.
^^ I'll buy that, it's a way of having our cake and eating too! The big "E" refit is it's own class and the refit Connie's are their own class, though looking quite similar to the untrained eye. This works particularly well if we remember TMP Enterprise was a prototype of sorts, or a "test bed" for the newer technologies, not all of which would ultimately become standard? Anywho, back to my "retrofit" of FJ. Here's deck 18 with the Botany section/Herbarium, this first one shows more of a balance between FJs version and MJ's set.... http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/tin_man_2009/Picture047.jpg with the inset leaning more toward MJ's version. Here's a colorized version of the Jefferieish version... http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/tin_man_2009/herbarium.jpg And here's a somewhat fuzzy pic of MJ's production sketch from the "Star Trek Sketch Book", showing the proposed full floorplan (in the upper right), Kinda makes you wonder if FJ had access to this when he designed his version? http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/tin_man_2009/Picture128-1.jpg Maybe someone has a better pic they can post? And finally a MJ production sketch showing the elevation view... http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/sketches/STTOS_Sketch_ElaanofTroyuis_RecRoom.jpg
Well, regarding 1701-A, there are different possibilities as to its origin. The semi official story is that it was the USS Yorktown (which just lost its full crew compliment in ST:IV) and renamed. The Scott Johnson tech manual lists it as the Tai-ho renamed. The other option is that it was a ship nearly completed in the docks and renamed. That is the one that I prefer. In ST:V it acts more like a new ship with lots of bugs than an older ship. I can't see Kirk and crew being comfortable serving on a ship where 400+ people just died. Where if it was in its final stages of construction, they might not have needed to change the name everywhere yet. Either way, old or new, 1701-A is substantially different internally then 1701-refit, but externally identical (exact same model after all). And the hanger sets are not so different between 1701-series, 1701-refit, and 1701-A. The designs have much in common and the biggest difference is what is in front of the hanger.
I honestly wish we could put that someplace else. It just seems 'off' there. I guess it's just one of the biggest quibbles I have with the FJ plans an no matter the tweaking one of the things that won't go away. Good work nonetheless.
Yeah, it's a really nice, well thought out set. Which is why I don't understand why FJ changed it so much? I mean, I can understand tweaking something like the botany lab, from "The Man Trap", which was just a redress of sickbay, and only seen once, but the Rec Room/Herbarium was a fully realized "from scratch" set that was seen several times and would have been seen more, if the show had went on for another season ot two. So it should have been left as is IMHO. BTW here's FJ's original deck 18, I meant to start including these again for easy comparisons. http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/blueprints/deck18.gif
I tend to disregard most things from TFF when it conflicts with what was seen elsewhere. Most of the sets and such were built with little to no regard for previously established canon (Or do you agree that 1701-A had what - 78 or more decks?, by extension implying a MUCH larger ship than the 23 or so that would fit in the 1701(r) or the TOS 1701). Especially considering G.R. said w.r.t. TFF "It never happened" or words to that effect, I tend to disregard the entire movie when considering what is canon, or at most weigh it very low and easily toss out any contradictory evidence. I have no problem with 1701(r) being a prototype for the refit, and being initially described as a sub-class of Constitution, especially while most of the Connies are going through or pending refit. Once most have been refitted to the new sub-class standard, the point in referring to the sub-class refit diminishes in value, and once all* have been converted, the point of the sub-class reference disappears altogether. From a Manning/Deployment/Resource management perspective, the (r)'s are initially a sub-class, largely the same with some key differences that are phased out with the conversion of the class as a whole. One could argue that during the transition (TWOK near the end of that) they were referred to as the "Enterprise Class" as a sub-class of the Connies, but once they were all either converted or decommissioned (TUC), the original class nomenclature would hold. *all with some possible exceptions where ships were retired or singled out to remain at the old spec or converted into something else entirely. Consider the Essex Class carriers. They changed substantially from 1944 to the retirement of the last one (in the 70s IIRC). Throughout their service life, they were referred to as "Essex Class" even though the original run had the standard Essex and the Long Hull Essex (with slightly more internal volume and longer flight deck, again IIRC). They were still all referred to as "Essex class", even when you had up to 4 major variants in service (short-hull, long-hull, short-hull angle deck, long-hull angle deck). Trivia questions: Which Essex was the first converted to the angle-deck? Which was the first long-hull Essex? Which was the last short-hull built? Which was the last converted to angle-deck? While the answers to such questions do exist, the importance of them - even to those who studied and managed such things - are relatively minor.
Of course the ship doesn't have 78 decks, but I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater if I can help it, i.e. if there's a suitable workaround - which here I feel there is one that could actually add depth to the universe. Generally, I feel throwing out visual evidence on a whim sets a dangerous precedent for exploring the universe. No matter what G.R. said. Those are good comparisions. I'm sure, however, that there were also differences in the first Essex refit and the last similar to the differences we saw in the 1701 refit and the 1701-A.
You know, I've heard about this rationalization many times it seems, but I never hear exactly how it's rationalized. I, for one, would love to get a way to work this one in, and I kinda have a an idea, but it's weak. What's your take on this? --Alex
I still maintain that the whole "movie" was just a story in the tradition of telling campfire stories after eating "marshmelons." But that is just my opinion as someone who despises just about every aspect of that movie.
The deck numbers? Well, I hate to disappoint if you were expecting a huge bend-over-backwards retcon, as I am sometimes rather good at those, but I don't have one here. The point of what I said above (and perhaps I wasn't 100% clear) was that this is the one case where I just plain ignore the numbers as a production mistake. To me, there are a few certain intractable 'goofs' like this across all the series and movies that, no matter how hard one tries, one can't do anything, IMO, but ignore, as a simple production mistake. (I'm talking like 'Threshold' level of ignoring here. ) But the rest, IMO, is retconable. And I'd certainly be interested in hearing others' ideas for retconing the deck-78 thing if it's possible.
Don't forget the whiskey. Helps explain the more bizzare aspects of the story. KIRK: An' we go zhooming up the shaft...Deck 10...Deck 18...Deck 45...Deck 78... SPOCK: Captain, the Enterprise only has twenty-two decks, and no turboshaft -- McCOY: Shaddup, Spock! *urp* Go on, Jim. And stop hogging the bottle. KIRK: *hic* Where was I? SPOCK: Deck 78. KIRK: Oh, yeah...
+1 I think I am comfortable with that "wrapper" around that film. Makes much more sense than what was actually depicted.
I have an idea regarding this. First, the shot is from inside the shaft so any labels would be for maintenance or construction only. This is not an area that needs labels. The explanation I like best is that word "deck" and the number have no correlation to what deck. Deck is just a label indicating that that segment is a new deck. The number could be either a number for all the stops on the ship, from the bottom of engineering to the bridge, or it is something left over from construction. Please note that the numbers go in the opposite direction from all normal ship deck numbering. Whether the Bridge is Deck A or Deck 1, that is where the counting starts. I think from a practical production point of view, someone (perhaps with Shatner's involvement) got careless. If the Enterprise had 78 decks, it would be nearly 1 Km long, larger than D or E. And the backwards numbering is someone imagining the ship as a building. I look at that scene as them flying up from the bottom of Engineering to the top of the dorsal and the numbers are some sort of maintenance reference number so the maintenance crew knows exactly where they are in the ship ("Look, Ted, the Deck 78 stop, we're at the top of the dorsal. We were supposed to go to 87 outside of Sickbay."). Basically a kind of shorthand for the maintenance crew and not an actual label for what the deck number really is (which would have gone from 22 at the bottom to 7 at the top - don't hold me to those numbers which I dredged out of my memory).
As for the content of ST:V, if you really look at the story and the production values, it is most like the original series than any other movie. From my perspective, if you cut out ST:V, you might as well cut out half the original series. There are far more wacky stories from those three years. Need I mention "Spock's Brain". If you keep keep all the series, you can't cut ST:V. The other movies just have such higher production values that you can really tell how much better they are.
I could buy that the doors are labelled instead of the levels, and the numbers refer to the doors. If I squint a little.