Connie - TOS canon nomenclature
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
Fer Christ sake... these aren't religious texts we're talking about here. It's a TV series. "Constitution class" began seeping into the public consciousness in the 70's. I've been a fan since I was four-years old (1975) and the Enterprise had always been "Constitution class" to me.
If Gene Roddenberry had no issues with the Enterprise being "Constitution class", why should I?
Well, that's one difference to begin with: I mind being a slave, particularly to trivial nonsense; I'd rather think things through (if a subject seems to merit any consideration at all. This subject is, obviously, a timeworn tempest in a teacup that will lead to no definitive answer, ever).
^ I agree.
And even if it wasn't Jeffries original intention, I think Constitution class is a good class name for the Enterprise.
I also like the Enterprise class for what the ships became from TMP on, assuming they would be building new heavy cruisers that way instead of the older Constitution class style.
Not to stir up an even bigger hornet's nest, but I used to like to think maybe the Constellation was an older type of heavy cruiser upgraded to Constitution class after a refit.
And even if it wasn't Jeffries original intention, I think Constitution class is a good class name for the Enterprise.
I also like the Enterprise class for what the ships became from TMP on, assuming they would be building new heavy cruisers that way instead of the older Constitution class style.
Not to stir up an even bigger hornet's nest, but I used to like to think maybe the Constellation was an older type of heavy cruiser upgraded to Constitution class after a refit.
In the end, for better or worse, justified or not, Constitution-class ended up winning the Star Trek day for the "class of starship to which the Enterprise belongs."
(That "class of starship to which the Enterprise belongs" always strikes me as an odd sentence structure; can't we just concur that "Enterprise-class" might be used (especially in the case of TMoST) in the context of "the class of starship to which the Enterprise belongs regardless of the actual class vessel's name" without also stipulating that the actual class name is Enterprise? I think Enterprise-class is used not as a proper noun but as a simple descriptive possessive noun: Enterprise-class equals Enterprise's class.)
(That "class of starship to which the Enterprise belongs" always strikes me as an odd sentence structure; can't we just concur that "Enterprise-class" might be used (especially in the case of TMoST) in the context of "the class of starship to which the Enterprise belongs regardless of the actual class vessel's name" without also stipulating that the actual class name is Enterprise? I think Enterprise-class is used not as a proper noun but as a simple descriptive possessive noun: Enterprise-class equals Enterprise's class.)
There has been, from time to time, instances where a fictional vessel will be called by a class name, and yet it is the first of its class, without there being a ship with the actual class name, in existence.
This can sometime be justified as a class name that it is generally called (Such as calling a group of ships that are all named after admirals the Admiralty-class even though the class is officially the Fischer-class). But I Starfleet, one would expect there to be a USS Galaxy, a USS Ambassador, a USS Excelsior, and the USS Constitution.
However we get the NX-class, which, after its refit, is renamed the Columbia-class after the first ship lost of the NX-class, rather than the Enterprise.
We had for years multiple names for the class that USS Reliant belonged, and that subclasses from refits would take the name of the first ship of that refit. This was practiced sometimes by navies, but usually the base class would still be the overall name, with the newer subclass used only to tell the variants apart. By the time there are all retired, they are all listed as the parent class of ship.
Other times there are two classes of ship that are basically the same, save for minor differences in structure or engineering. They more or less look and act the same, but are two totally different classes. This sometimes makes for a lot of two ship classes in a sea of ship classes, rather than large packs of a dozen or more ships in a class. Or the French practice of building a lot of one off ships that were similar to each other, but still different.
This can sometime be justified as a class name that it is generally called (Such as calling a group of ships that are all named after admirals the Admiralty-class even though the class is officially the Fischer-class). But I Starfleet, one would expect there to be a USS Galaxy, a USS Ambassador, a USS Excelsior, and the USS Constitution.
However we get the NX-class, which, after its refit, is renamed the Columbia-class after the first ship lost of the NX-class, rather than the Enterprise.
We had for years multiple names for the class that USS Reliant belonged, and that subclasses from refits would take the name of the first ship of that refit. This was practiced sometimes by navies, but usually the base class would still be the overall name, with the newer subclass used only to tell the variants apart. By the time there are all retired, they are all listed as the parent class of ship.
Other times there are two classes of ship that are basically the same, save for minor differences in structure or engineering. They more or less look and act the same, but are two totally different classes. This sometimes makes for a lot of two ship classes in a sea of ship classes, rather than large packs of a dozen or more ships in a class. Or the French practice of building a lot of one off ships that were similar to each other, but still different.
You wanted to spin "respect" into "slavish deference" and I just played along with your figure of speech.
While the subject is admittedly trivial (as it has no impact on characters or story-telling), it's the mental gymnastics behind it and our differences in methodology to arrive at possible conclusions or rationalizations that apparently appeals to a lot of people here at the BBS. Certainly you have realized that by now.
The one thing I can't stand - this should have become obvious after two years - is this suspicion that runs through several threads that the original creators "didn't know what they were doing".
On the contrary, as I've tried to point out, there is often no justification for such claims, but it's the fans that didn't look at options or alternate explanations.
My favorite example is the deck numbering of the TOS Enterprise (I mentioned earlier), in particular the references to Decks 2, 13 and 14.
Some fans here expressed that there's not possibly enough space in the dorsal for Decks 13 and 14 to fit in there, "the creators didn't know what they were doing".
This is the result of "slavish deference" to the Constitution Class blueprints of Franz Joseph, a conjectural work of a man who was never involved in the actual TOS production, who numbered the decks without interruption from the top bridge to the bottom keel.
All the Making of Star Trek mentions is that the engineering hull has 16 decks. Once we start counting the engineering decks from the top of the dorsal to the keel (the exterior windows align nicely to 16 decks) you'll have Engineering Decks 2, 13 and 14 with the distance (Deck 2) and the space (Decks 13 and 14) to match the actual footage.
Obviously, the creators knew exactly what they were doing, but apparently it requires some minimal amount of respect and imagination to figure out what could have been on their minds.
To cut a long story short: While the subject may be trivial, it's eventually about showing some respect to the original creators and artists. If we practise our hobby at the expense of others (and especially those who can no longer comment), then there is something inherently wrong with our hobby.
Bob
Connie Francis class.
I think I show respect to the original creators and artists every time I sink a wad of cash into a show that I've bought multiple times. And will likely buy again in the future. I seriously doubt any of the creators or artists care how we personally refer to the minutiae.
Havent all written something, beit a story or a report, and hasn't that creative work changed or evolved over time? We are talking creative writing here, did they have it all plotted out when they started the pilot? Probably not. That it leads to lively debate is good fun, but we are not talking religion here. Canon exists until a creative needs to breakit for the purposes of a good story.
So, relax. Enjoy the variantsof thought and logic... And believe what you want and not what someone else's says is the "truth".
So, relax. Enjoy the variantsof thought and logic... And believe what you want and not what someone else's says is the "truth".
Qualification: There's never been a prettier piston-engined airliner than the Constellation.
The Concorde was the most beautiful commercial airliner ever. Period.
Now back to the topic . . .
Qualification: There's never been a prettier piston-engined airliner than the Constellation.
The Concorde was the most beautiful commercial airliner ever. Period.
Now back to the topic . . .
I'm comfortable with that.
Great discussion, guys. Strong points on both sides of the issue.
Personally, i've always interested in the actual name of ships, rather than class, such as Reliant, instead of Miranda class, or Exeter instead of....well, i'll leave that last one alone!
Personally, i've always interested in the actual name of ships, rather than class, such as Reliant, instead of Miranda class, or Exeter instead of....well, i'll leave that last one alone!
Don't be shy, "Exeter instead of Constitution Class" ?!
I never really had issues with these "16XX" prefixes, actually I think these all belong to the 16th design series (Constitution Class) but with the 17th design series (Enterprise Class) there are differences that distinguish both classes, no matter who similar they look on the surface or from far away.
Bob
I never really had issues with these "16XX" prefixes, actually I think these all belong to the 16th design series (Constitution Class) but with the 17th design series (Enterprise Class) there are differences that distinguish both classes, no matter who similar they look on the surface or from far away.
Bob
It's just too bad for your way of looking at things that the NCC-1701 Enterprise is a Constitution-class vessel. It's been canonically established as such. Yay, canon.
Can we move on then to what 'NCC' stands for, as they never stated during the series itself, but the Franz Joseph Tech manual stated it was:
"Naval Construction Contract"
Personally, I don't care if they call it the Baron Von Shitberg-class. I just get tired of being told that I'm somehow disrespecting the creators by being okay with the Constitution-class.
I think of "Starship" as a super-class that covers all Starfleet deep space vehicles over a certain size and firepower. The Constellation (before the new effects) is different enough from the Enterprise that she could be considered a different class of vessel, yet Spock says, "By configuration, a starship stopped in space."
Star Trek: The Motion Picture said:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture said:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture said:
The seeds of Constitution-class comes from TOS itself from parts diagrams we see. So there could have been some retconning going on from very early on. Plus, it is retconning that Roddenberry himself apparently didn't mind as the term makes it into both The Starfleet Technical Manual and "The Naked Now".
This is all, admittedly, my interpretation of how we got from Starship to Constitution-class during the run of the franchise. But it is plain crazy to act like people are disrespecting the creators by referring to the ship class as something other than what was on a wall plaque.
YMMV.
