Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

[Robert Comsol]

You're just a lone voice of reason fighting against the establishment that always tries to put you down.

I guess it's no use asking whether the mocking at my expense will stop anytime soon?

I realize it was a big mistake violating an apparently unwritten law here at the BBS, i.e. going against general consensus by wondering if there is information meriting a review and possibly allowing a different interpretation. The mere fact that people other than the OPs or the moderators asked to have the "C"-threads closed (because they didn't like the subject to be talked about) is pretty "remarkable".

Please, you've gone from thread to thread introducing your supposedly heretical ideas with often little or no connection to the original subject matter of the thread. It's become a running joke that you'll find some way to shoehorn your Enterprise-C "thesis" into any barely or unrelated topic, usually with a hefty dose of self-righteous complaining about how everyone jumps on you for your ideas.

Examples? I guess it's "no" again? In one thread the poster was wondering how he Klingons could have possibly defeated the Federation following Narendra III, I presented my rationalization. In another TNG thread the poster was wondering about the definition of "meaningless death", I joined the discussion.

What apparently no one ever noticed was that there were more issues than just the Enterprise-C I would have liked to discuss, but a couple of people made that impossible, so please don't lament if I seize opportunities to discuss these other issues in other threads whenever the opportunity arises.

You're the one that loves using behind-the-scenes material to try and prove your points. That becomes tricky because not everyone has access to the same materials and some folks are more than happy to use what actually made it to the screen.

Most of it is available on the internet and for serious TOS discussions I dare to say that The Making of Star Trek is a must-have. I can't just pretend this information doesn't exist, because I'm not just interested in the results (onscreen) but also the context why and how these made it there.

With the above, you are ignoring pieces of the script that explain exactly why the Enterprise was moved to the front of the line. Which was posted by GSchnitzer.

Do I presume right you are referring to this:

FEATURING chart with legend: STAR SHIP STATUS. Columns
lettered: Major Maintenance...Minor Maintenance...Ships
Incoming...Ships Cleared.

But that didn't make it to the screen but something else in its place. This looks like a changed premise because in its place we see a chart where the Enterprise is almost "complete" although she has just arrived.

I recommend, again, reading Greg Jein's ]original treatise[ to understand how and why the "Constitution Class" supposedly became "canon".
The first part contains impeccable treknological research results (IMHO). We know from "Amok Time" that the Enterprise was to rendezvous with two other starships at Altair VI, but the original script also tells us their names.

In this particular example that's behind-the-scenes information I happily adopt because there is no premise change of any kind that later gave us different names for those two starships at Altair VI.

So, it is awkward debating anything with you because there is no rhyme or reason to what material you are using. You cherry-pick the pieces of behind-the-scenes material that backs your point while trying to dismiss or ignore material that goes against your theories. Then you try and browbeat and use backdoor insults (1984 canon) to try and bully people into seeing things your way.

I hope the above mentioned illustrates that this isn't the case. But please, where do I ignore material that goes against my theories. Are you referring to the retcon "canon" of TNG and DS9?

If the canon some people here are propagating is "revise, rewrite and reboot" with no concern whether it comes at the expense of other people, than that's essentially what the Ministry of Truth is practicing in 1984. Why I should possibly sugarcoat that?

And I don't bully people, but other people have bullied me where I would have liked to see debate or discussion instead (e.g. "C"-threads). I'm totally okay if someone says "Bob, that's bullshit" as long as it is followed by a "because..."!

From various behind-the-scenes/related material, I've seen it referred to as "Enterprise", "Constitution" and "Constitution II"-class. Lots of different material out there with lots of differing opinions.

But, pardon me, that's fanwank versus The Official TMP Blueprints.

These blueprints, each sheet approved with Gene Roddenberry's signature (something FJ never got, BTW), clearly identify the refit Enterprise belonging to the "Starship II Class".
And Sheet 6 specifically mentions "new Enterprise Class" so it's obvious it belongs to the "[Enterprise] Starship II Class". I also think that's the plausible answer where the "Enterprise Class" simulator in TWOK came from.

Bob

 

[Nerys Myk]

You're just a lone voice of reason fighting against the establishment that always tries to put you down.

I guess it's no use asking whether the mocking at my expense will stop anytime soon?

I realize it was a big mistake violating an apparently unwritten law here at the BBS, i.e. going against general consensus by wondering if there is information meriting a review and possibly allowing a different interpretation. The mere fact that people other than the OPs or the moderators asked to have the "C"-threads closed (because they didn't like the subject to be talked about) is pretty "remarkable".

Please, you've gone from thread to thread introducing your supposedly heretical ideas with often little or no connection to the original subject matter of the thread. It's become a running joke that you'll find some way to shoehorn your Enterprise-C "thesis" into any barely or unrelated topic, usually with a hefty dose of self-righteous complaining about how everyone jumps on you for your ideas.

Examples? I guess it's "no" again? In one thread the poster was wondering how he Klingons could have possibly defeated the Federation following Narendra III, I presented my rationalization. In another TNG thread the poster was wondering about the definition of "meaningless death", I joined the discussion.

What apparently no one ever noticed was that there were more issues than just the Enterprise-C I would have liked to discuss, but a couple of people made that impossible, so please don't lament if I seize opportunities to discuss these other issues in other threads whenever the opportunity arises.



Most of it is available on the internet and for serious TOS discussions I dare to say that The Making of Star Trek is a must-have. I can't just pretend this information doesn't exist, because I'm not just interested in the results (onscreen) but also the context why and how these made it there.



Do I presume right you are referring to this:



But that didn't make it to the screen but something else in its place. This looks like a changed premise because in its place we see a chart where the Enterprise is almost "complete" although she has just arrived.

I recommend, again, reading Greg Jein's ]original treatise[ to understand how and why the "Constitution Class" supposedly became "canon".
The first part contains impeccable treknological research results (IMHO). We know from "Amok Time" that the Enterprise was to rendezvous with two other starships at Altair VI, but the original script also tells us their names.

In this particular example that's behind-the-scenes information I happily adopt because there is no premise change of any kind that later gave us different names for those two starships at Altair VI.

So, it is awkward debating anything with you because there is no rhyme or reason to what material you are using. You cherry-pick the pieces of behind-the-scenes material that backs your point while trying to dismiss or ignore material that goes against your theories. Then you try and browbeat and use backdoor insults (1984 canon) to try and bully people into seeing things your way.

I hope the above mentioned illustrates that this isn't the case. But please, where do I ignore material that goes against my theories. Are you referring to the retcon "canon" of TNG and DS9?

If the canon some people here are propagating is "revise, rewrite and reboot" with no concern whether it comes at the expense of other people, than that's essentially what the Ministry of Truth is practicing in 1984. Why I should possibly sugarcoat that?

And I don't bully people, but other people have bullied me where I would have liked to see debate or discussion instead (e.g. "C"-threads). I'm totally okay if someone says "Bob, that's bullshit" as long as it is followed by a "because..."!

From various behind-the-scenes/related material, I've seen it referred to as "Enterprise", "Constitution" and "Constitution II"-class. Lots of different material out there with lots of differing opinions.

But, pardon me, that's fanwank versus The Official TMP Blueprints.

These blueprints, each sheet approved with Gene Roddenberry's signature (something FJ never got, BTW), clearly identify the refit Enterprise belonging to the "Starship II Class".
And Sheet 6 specifically mentions "new Enterprise Class" so it's obvious it belongs to the "[Enterprise] Starship II Class". I also think that's the plausible answer where the "Enterprise Class" simulator in TWOK came from.

Bob

It was approved by "Chief of Staff Gene Roddenberry".

 

[yenny]

Those blueprints were made by FASA for the roleplaying game. copyright =/= canon.

You need to look at the copyright year of the Blueprint. The blueprint itself was printed in 1966, 1963. Which is at the bottom right corner, which is Copyright 1966,1963 Paramount Corporation.
FASA Corporation was founded in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASA

Paramount didn't even own Trek in 1966. 1968 was the first year they did own it. I doubt the blueprint was from 1966 or 1968. FASA was just acknowledging Paramount's ownership of the imaged used.

Gulf+Western which had own Paramount at that time had bought Desilu in 67 and change their name to Paramount Television. Which is now own by CBS.
Actually you're right, Paramount wouldn't be on the first print, that would be Desilu. The original print of 1966 would just have the Enterprise on it and Desilu name on it. And FASA didn't exist back then either. Someone printed the original blueprint in 66. FASA only reprinted it and add their stuff to it in 83.

 

[Mytran]

Another thing to consider about the whole bridge simulator thing: ships of the same class can have completely different bridges. Take the Miranda class. On no less than three different occasions we saw a Miranda class bridge, and each one looked nothing like the other (TWOK, TNG's "Night Terrors" and DS9's "Emissary.")

An excellent point, but those differing Bridge types all belong to the TNG era (perhaps not coincidentally, when holodeck technology is commonplace). In TOS, all the Starship Class bridges looked the same (OK, I concede that there is a very good real-world reason for this ).

 

[BillJ]

Most of it is available on the internet and for serious TOS discussions I dare to say that The Making of Star Trek is a must-have. I can't just pretend this information doesn't exist, because I'm not just interested in the results (onscreen) but also the context why and how these made it there.

I have it and read it and it's just as much non-canon as any other book authorized by Desilu/Paramount/CBS.

Do I presume right you are referring to this:

But that didn't make it to the screen but something else in its place. This looks like a changed premise because in its place we see a chart where the Enterprise is almost "complete" although she has just arrived.

I was referring to the dialogue.

I hope the above mentioned illustrates that this isn't the case. But please, where do I ignore material that goes against my theories. Are you referring to the retcon "canon" of TNG and DS9?

One is the Enterprise drawing that you use as proof of the "first bird" theory which you then try to bullshit your way around "first modification" part of the drawing. Another is when you picked the most different picture of the 1701-A bridge as proof of it being a different class and ignoring the fact that there was a bridge that was very similar to the 1701 in The Voyage Home.

Do I need to go on?

If the canon some people here are propagating is "revise, rewrite and reboot" with no concern whether it comes at the expense of other people, than that's essentially what the Ministry of Truth is practicing in 1984. Why I should possibly sugarcoat that?

No. You're using it to try and bully people into accepting your theories by accusing people of being fascists if they don't buy into your view of things.

But, pardon me, that's fanwank versus The Official TMP Blueprints.

It's all "official". All these different publishing houses pay money to Paramount to publish material. That makes it official.

These blueprints, each sheet approved with Gene Roddenberry's signature (something FJ never got, BTW), clearly identify the refit Enterprise belonging to the "Starship II Class".
And Sheet 6 specifically mentions "new Enterprise Class" so it's obvious it belongs to the "[Enterprise] Starship II Class". I also think that's the plausible answer where the "Enterprise Class" simulator in TWOK came from.

See my feelings on The Making of Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

It was approved by "Chief of Staff Gene Roddenberry".

Obviously, there is a human character in the Star Trek universe named Gene Roddenberry and he has to be like 150 years old because his name is on the 1701-D dedication plaque as well!

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was approved by "Chief of Staff Gene Roddenberry".

Obviously, there is a human character in the Star Trek universe named Gene Roddenberry and he has to be like 150 years old because his name is on the 1701-D dedication plaque as well!

And it was published by Pocket Books and copyrighted in 1980 by Paramount Pictures. I had no idea Starfleet was owned by a 20th Century corporation!

It's tie in material for the film rubber stamped by Roddenberry ( if even that).

 

[BillJ]

It's tie in material for the film rubber stamped by Roddenberry ( if even that).

I wouldn't be surprised if it was rubber-stamped by Susan Sackett or another of Roddenberry's assistants.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Those FASA plans say (in the plans' legend in the lower left corner):

"This packet of plans was designed and drawn by FASA Corporation. P.O. Box 6930 Chicago, IL 60680"

I think the original (1966) "copyright" date indicated was meant to credit Paramount for their original Matt Jefferies design work--although, indeed, the ship was probably never actually copyrighted--and would probably have been 1964--when the ship was actually designed--and Desilu Studios anyway. Kudos to FASA for even trying to give credit where they thought it might be due.

The latter date of 1983 (not 1963) is probably just the date that FASA drew up these plans.
Edit: Oops. I see now Corporal Captain beat me to it.

Those blueprints were made by FASA for the roleplaying game. copyright =/= canon.

You need to look at the copyright year of the Blueprint. The blueprint itself was printed in 1966, 1963. Which is at the bottom right corner, which is Copyright 1966,1963 Paramount Corporation.
FASA Corporation was founded in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASA

 

[sojourner]

You're just a lone voice of reason fighting against the establishment that always tries to put you down.

I guess it's no use asking whether the mocking at my expense will stop anytime soon?

I realize it was a big mistake violating an apparently unwritten law here at the BBS, i.e. going against general consensus by wondering if there is information meriting a review and possibly allowing a different interpretation. The mere fact that people other than the OPs or the moderators asked to have the "C"-threads closed (because they didn't like the subject to be talked about) is pretty "remarkable".
Bob

Get off the cross. We need the wood.

At some point I hope you realize that no one has a problem with hearing your theories. The problem is when you take umbrage when no one shares agreement with them and you go into persecution mode. You then proceed with the "1984" comments and the "" in reply to every objection that is raised to your view all the while proclaiming it the "one true vision" of the creators whom you have never met nor talked to and can't possibly know the true intent of.

So yeah, learn to say your piece, thank anyone that thinks it's neat, maybe debate the reasons some people don't (and try to actually listen to why they don't) and stop trying to set yourself up as the high priest of canon by painting everyone with the passive aggressive comments of fascism.

 

[Dukhat]

In TOS, all the Starship Class bridges looked the same (OK, I concede that there is a very good real-world reason for this ).

Er, they did? The Enterprise's own bridge went through three iterations itself throughout TOS. The only other Connie bridges I recall seeing in its entirety were the Exeter's and the Defiant's. (We did see a portion of the Lexington's on the viewscreen, and Commodore Wesley's chair was higher than Kirk's...a minute difference, but since we didn't see the rest of the bridge, who can tell what other differences there were?)

As for the TMP era, the only Connie bridges we ever saw were the two Enterprise's, and they were both very different as well.

 

[BillJ]

In TOS, all the Starship Class bridges looked the same (OK, I concede that there is a very good real-world reason for this ).

Er, they did? The Enterprise's own bridge went through three iterations itself throughout TOS. The only other Connie bridge I recall seeing in its entirety was the Exeter's. (We did see a portion of the Lexington's on the viewscreen, and Commodore Wesley's chair was higher than Kirk's...a minute difference, but since we didn't see the rest of the bridge, who can tell what other differences there were?)

We also saw the Defiant from "The Tholian Web".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The only other Connie bridge I recall seeing in its entirety was the Exeter's.

The Defiant's was boarded, too.

 

[Dukhat]

In TOS, all the Starship Class bridges looked the same (OK, I concede that there is a very good real-world reason for this ).

Er, they did? The Enterprise's own bridge went through three iterations itself throughout TOS. The only other Connie bridge I recall seeing in its entirety was the Exeter's. (We did see a portion of the Lexington's on the viewscreen, and Commodore Wesley's chair was higher than Kirk's...a minute difference, but since we didn't see the rest of the bridge, who can tell what other differences there were?)

We also saw the Defiant from "The Tholian Web".

Yep, missed that one, thanks. Edited to reflect my mistake.

 

[BillJ]

Er, they did? The Enterprise's own bridge went through three iterations itself throughout TOS. The only other Connie bridge I recall seeing in its entirety was the Exeter's. (We did see a portion of the Lexington's on the viewscreen, and Commodore Wesley's chair was higher than Kirk's...a minute difference, but since we didn't see the rest of the bridge, who can tell what other differences there were?)

We also saw the Defiant from "The Tholian Web".

Yep, missed that one, thanks. Edited to reflect my mistake.

Thing is, I'm not sure they remembered to cover up the Enterprise dedication plaque in "The Tholian Web".

 

[Dukhat]

We also saw the Defiant from "The Tholian Web".

Yep, missed that one, thanks. Edited to reflect my mistake.

Thing is, I'm not sure they remembered to cover up the Enterprise dedication plaque in "The Tholian Web".

Well at least they fixed that continuity error in ENT

 

[Nerys Myk]

We also saw the Defiant from "The Tholian Web".

Yep, missed that one, thanks. Edited to reflect my mistake.

Thing is, I'm not sure they remembered to cover up the Enterprise dedication plaque in "The Tholian Web".

All that means is every ship has the same plaque with the exact same words on it. It's canon!

 

[BillJ]

All that means is every ship has the same plaque with the exact same words on it. It's canon!

Not the Exeter! No plaque, no class!

 

[Nerys Myk]

All that means is every ship has the same plaque with the exact same words on it. It's canon!

Not the Exeter! No plaque, no class!

It was out being cleaned.

 

[drt]

Yep, missed that one, thanks. Edited to reflect my mistake.

Thing is, I'm not sure they remembered to cover up the Enterprise dedication plaque in "The Tholian Web".

All that means is every ship has the same plaque with the exact same words on it. It's canon!

Lulz, that could mean they are all USS Enterprise Starship Class.