Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Noddy, Aug 31, 2013.
Apparently, people in the future write with numbers and not words
Well, I would if I knew first in what kind of context you presented him.
Chances are that in future depictions he's gonna meet the same fate as Dr. Carol Marcus did in ST III, right?
Since you addressed "canon" in broader terms than just the barely legible graphics I responded accordingly.
But I realize I've been way too patient and fair regarding the myth that the TOS Enterprise is a member of the "Constitution Class".
Since prior to ST VI the only hint is a footnote (!) on a small monitor display (only indicating the primary phaser of a Constitution Class starship), which could be an inside joke, we can now finally get rid of this myth?
Wouldn't that eliminate the plaque calling the ship "Starship class", too? I guess the Enterprise is like Summer. No class.
Anyone have the screenshot of the gerbil on the wheel that runs the Enterprise-D?
Well, please excuse the rest of us as we go on haggling over niggling details.
^I'm not saying there's anything wrong with examining the details of a work of fiction. As I've said, anyone familiar with my Trek writing knows I'm the last person who'd have a problem with examining the details. I'm just pointing out that the word "canon" refers to a holistic concept rather than a reductionistic one. Asking if a single detail is "canon" is like asking if a single thread is a tapestry, or if a single dot of color is a Seurat painting. The canon is the whole thing, and the details of the canon may or may not be consistent with the whole. Often a canon is an impressionistic thing -- you have to step back to see it as a cohesive whole, because on the detail level it can look a lot rougher or less meaningful.
So it's certainly worth evaluating the creation of the fiction on a detail level, because that can be illuminating about the process and can provide some interesting background insights. Or it can provide material that a novelist like myself can build stories and characters on. But one has to be flexible about it and recognize that some details aren't meant to be taken literally. Film is illusion, and often the illusion is ruined if you examine certain details too closely. (The "canon" of a magic trick is that the assistant is levitated, not that there's a hidden pole holding her up.)
That's not Picard's log entry, that's his PIN number. The log entry comes after that.
^"Mr. Data, I need to make a log entry."
But if you have to look for those details by freeze-framing in HD, you might be getting more niggly than the creators ever intended.
Freeze frame too much, and you'll come across a diplomatic mission to Alderaan in a ready room scene during TNG: Up the Long Ladder.
Then where is the Ambassador?
* gasps, chokes, and gets thrown against a wall *
"Commander, tear this ship apart until you've found those plans, and bring me the passengers, I WANT THEM ALIVE!"
Sorry, it couldn't be helped, you started it....
Contrary to most if not all of these one-shot screen shots with small print, the dedication plaque apparently indicating "Enterprise Starship Class" (Bob Justman) is visible in almost every TOS episode and was featured close-up in the final scenes of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield".
Besides, Abrams stuck with "Starship class" for the dedication plaque in his movies.
When considering the TOS dedication plague, one should keep in mind that in TOS, the term "starship" was used to describe that specific class and its capabilities, and wasn't a generic term applied to all FTL vessels. It's possible that the term "Constitution-class" was retroactively applied in-continuity, when more classes came along that fit TOS's idea of a true "starship"...making the term "starship" descriptive of a general type of ship, like "aircraft carrier" or "battleship".
Starfleet's a wee bit OCD about keeping their computer system secure.
So it would appear.
Funny: his name should appear as J.-L. Picard.
(Screencap is from Yesterday's Enterprise).
Relax, Cupcake. It was a joke.
Separate names with a comma.