Anybody have a 35mm clip from Court Martial?

[Henoch]

Perhaps Starfleet demanded a representative be present because of the supposedly unprecedented nature of prosecuting a Star Ship Captain. Most of the time we see a trial board of three and this one has four. Did Khan/McGiver's hearing have four members?

It was a "hearing" in Space Seed, not a court martial, and Khan was a civilian anyway. Different processes. Per The Menagerie:

KIRK: A mutiny requires a trial board of no less than three command officers.​

So, three at minimum and four as standard might be a rule-of-hand for a court martial. Also, "command" rank is Captain or above. Seems fairly simple and to-the-point.

STONE: This court is now in session. I have appointed as members of this court Space Command Representative Lindstrom, Starship Captains Krasnovsky and Chandra.​

Commodore Stone said he appointed Space Command Representative Lindstrom, so, I'm now thinking that Lindstrom is probably a high seniority Captain rank (now in a staff job) and was probably the second highest rank command officer (behind Stone) on Starbase 11. The other court members are passing Starship Captains would happen to be in port. Based on all their apparent ages and serious nature of the court martial, I assume they too would be the senior most Captains on station. They may also be the only two on station based on the later availability of Starships at Starbase 11 during The Menagerie when all they could muster was a damn shuttlecraft.

 

[BillJ]

To me, it would have made sense that, other factors ignored, any ships whose numbers don't start with 17 are not ships like the Enterprise. (By "like the Enterprise", I mean ships a casual fan would think are the same, even if there might be small external or internal differences). However. the 1017 of the Constellation seems to contradict that, too.

The CBS Digital team blew that out of the water when they gave the Exeter from "The Omega Glory" the NCC-1647 tag in the remastered episode.

 

[Henoch]

You mean NCC-1672 per the TrekCore screencaps, but ya, it sure looks identical to the Enterprise both inside and out. I never noticed it before, but the dedication plaque on the Exeter bridge was "replaced" with a blue panel.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

The CBS Digital team blew that out of the water when they gave the Exeter from "The Omega Glory" the NCC-1647 tag in the remastered episode.

You mean NCC-1672 per the TrekCore screencaps, but ya, it sure looks identical to the Enterprise both inside and out. I never noticed it before, but the dedication plaque on the Exeter bridge was "replaced" with a blue panel.

I was aware of the TOS-R registry; assumed that this thread was partially about whether those numbers should be canon after all. If TOS-R is treated as strictly canon is this respect, then we are left with accepting that there were indeed many "ships like the Enterprise" at Star Base 11, since numbers from that chart were explicitly used for other starships during TOS-R whenever applicable.

 

[BillJ]

You mean NCC-1672 per the TrekCore screencaps, but ya, it sure looks identical to the Enterprise both inside and out. I never noticed it before, but the dedication plaque on the Exeter bridge was "replaced" with a blue panel.

Mixed it up with the Farragut from New Voyages.

 

[Maurice]

The CBS Digital team blew that out of the water when they gave the Exeter from "The Omega Glory" the NCC-1647 tag in the remastered episode.

It's 1706.

 

[Henoch]

It's 1706.

But it still has an older bridge configuration?

 

[ZapBrannigan]

For the Exeter, NCC-1672 is the Greg Jein number that CBS Digital adopted. It was in his article "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship."

NCC-1706 is Franz Joseph's Exeter number, which was supported by the AMT model kits in the 1970s that gave you decals to "Build the Fleet!"

 

[ChallengerHK]

You mean NCC-1672 per the TrekCore screencaps, but ya, it sure looks identical to the Enterprise both inside and out. I never noticed it before, but the dedication plaque on the Exeter bridge was "replaced" with a blue panel.

One concept I had mentioned in another thread is the idea that there are several ship types which are outwardly indistinguishable but which have significantly different equipment loadouts. I can't take credit for it. At least where I found the notion, it comes from Ruth Berman's response to "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship."

In this idea, Constitution class apparently refers to the hull, and they're all identical, and probably have been for a while. The various "Marks" represent the mission/loadout. I can't remember all of her details, and they were guesswork on her part anyway, but Mark IX was a Deep Space Explorer. Another option was Space Explorer. i.e., not "Deep".

Anyway, if you can buy into this, it becomes clearer than something shaped like NCC 1701 doesn't necessarily have to be the same type of ship.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I was aware of the TOS-R registry; assumed that this thread was partially about whether those numbers should be canon after all.

That wasn't my intent, which doesn't mean that you can't discuss it :-) I first came here asking questions about canon. What I came away with is that a) by my standards the term has become meaningless, and b) most people don't appear to have a problem with that, so I just don't talk about it anymore :-)

 

[Falconer]

For the Exeter, NCC-1672 is the Greg Jein number that CBS Digital adopted. It was in his article "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship."

NCC-1706 is Franz Joseph's Exeter number, which was supported by the AMT model kits in the 1970s that gave you decals to "Build the Fleet!"

Franz Joseph FTW!

For me, if you need to account for all those Court Martial registry numbers, it seems more likely that the 1600s and 1800s could easily have been science vessels, or cargo ships, or passenger ships, etc.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Franz Joseph FTW!

For me, if you need to account for all those Court Martial registry numbers, it seems more likely that the 1600s and 1800s could easily have been science vessels, or cargo ships, or passenger ships, etc.

Doesn’t work since those would’ve been spaceships, not starships (which needed a crew of 430).

 

[Mytran]

Doesn’t work since those would’ve been spaceships, not starships (which needed a crew of 430).

Well certainly "over 400" (according to Charlie X)

But yes; the title of "Starship" was a very special badge of honour in TOS

 

[Maurice]

But it still has an older bridge configuration?

That's the same bridge low-profile dome as the Enterprise had in TOS.

 

[Falconer]

Doesn’t work since those would’ve been spaceships, not starships (which needed a crew of 430).

Why would they have to be Starships?

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Why would they have to be Starships?

The chart says Star Ship Status in other screencaps. In TOS this way of wording things typically could mean some kind of special and typically "larger" vessel (larger in what way, if any, to non-"starships" is much debated, it seems, lol.)

The question, to me, really boils down to how "different" can a ship in the TOS era be from the Enterprise and still be a starship. The Reliant fits this well, looking noticeably different but being similarly capable. Thus if 1864 could be confirmed to be on this chart, we'd know for sure that the TOS era had vessels that were called starships but looked notably different from the Enterprise.

I think it is interesting that there are fan theories I've seen here that ships like the Exeter (if it really has a number in the 1600's) could look very similar to the Enterprise but actually be slightly different, and thus have a different role in the fleet of starships, even apart from those that are apparently not starships, like cargo ships and so on. But this is a different and even more interesting question: How different can a TOS ship be and still be a starship by TOS standards?

Here's another question: does anybody have behind-the-scenes info on how 1864 was chosen for the Reliant?

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Here's another question: does anybody have behind-the-scenes info on how 1864 was chosen for the Reliant?

Good question. A problem with calling the Enterprise 1701 is that as soon as you advance into the 18s, 19s, and 20s, the numbers look like years and some viewers will be distracted looking for symbolism or references. A huge number of years in the 18s and 19s call some historical subject to mind. And you can't call a ship the NCC-1999 or 2001, for instance, because you'll get unbidden talk about those other productions washing back at you, or maybe the Prince song.

 

[Henoch]

Since the Exeter was the Enterprise filming model and used the same interior sets, it was in all ways identical to the Enterprise. Another bad and unnecessary retcon on the remaster. It would have been so easy to just use 1706 or some other low 1700 number in the CGI. Dummies.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Since the Exeter was the Enterprise filming model and used the same interior sets, it was in all ways identical to the Enterprise. .

Not necessarily in all ways. Identical in the elements that we saw. Possibly in all ways, but that remains unproven.

 

[BillJ]

Since the Exeter was the Enterprise filming model and used the same interior sets, it was in all ways identical to the Enterprise. Another bad and unnecessary retcon on the remaster. It would have been so easy to just use 1706 or some other low 1700 number in the CGI. Dummies.

Just ignore the remaster and go with the Franz Joseph number.