Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by Wingsley, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. J.T.B.

    J.T.B. Rear Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    That was obviously written before anyone knew that "NCC plus number" would be applied to all types of Starfleet ships. You bring in the movies as support, but the movies prove it wrong: The NCC 1700s can't mean the 17th cruiser design because a 500 was a scout (Revere) and a 600 was a science vessel (Grissom).

    Or it could be a class of ships whose names all began with J like the British J-class destroyers (Jackal, Jaguar, Javelin, Juno etc).
     
  2. Geoff Peterson

    Geoff Peterson Robot Skeleton Sidekick Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    The Late Late Show with Nerys Myk
    Repeat after me: Its A TV Show. New people are hired and their ideas will take precedence over the old people. When Gene Coon came in he changed or ignored some of the ideas of his predecessors. Should Coon's ideas be dismissed?

    Jefferies did some great design work on the series, but his job was art director and production designer, so his notes on the ship's class or registry aren't quite the same as the producers or writers, especially pre-production notes. At best they were suggestions.

    (The sound of treknologists sharpening stakes and gathering firewood with shouts of "burn the heretic!")

    I would guess that it was Matt Jefferies who's department designed the graphics calling the Enterprise a Constitution class ship. That would be an actual production drawing done a request/need of the writers and producers, yes? Shouldn't that trump everything else? Could Jefferies change his mind?

    I am curious, when you mention TMOST, are you referring to what Whitfield wrote or quotes from the "creators"?

    No none is rewriting history here. Were talking about the evolution of a TV show not the grinding boot of totalitarianism stamping out the history they disapprove of.
     
  3. Jack-o'-Locutus

    Jack-o'-Locutus RESISTANCE IS FRUITILE Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Locutus of Bored
    I'm with you. I really hated Vader's disgusting character assassination by having him kill the Younglings in the Jedi Temple in Revenge of the Sith.

    Up until then Anakin/Vader was still a big, lovable lunkhead who had only choked a bunch of minions and POWs to death, burned some unarmed elderly farmers and junk dealing Munchkins to a crisp, tortured prisoners (including his daughter and her boyfriend, but it's okay because he didn't know it was his daughter at the time), cut off his son's hand and tried to murder him, turned people into popsicles, killed countless teddy bears, murdered a village of nomads... and I'm forgetting something... Oh yeah, blew up a planet full of hundreds of millions of innocent people because a couple of them were Rebels. You know, that ole' chestnut.

    However, if we use your method of extending minor background references into major changes, Bail Organa and his wife were biologically childless, which clearly must mean no one on Alderaan could have kids, which means Anakin never murdered children before RotS, thus preserving his flawless reputation for self-restraint and fairness until that upstart usurper George Lucas savagely mischaracterized Vader at the end of the Prequels. Problem solved.
     
  4. Ricky Spanish

    Ricky Spanish History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    BillJ
    I missed this originally:

    Who's to say that the next production in "our" fictional universe doesn't turn him into a despicable child killer (that's what happened with Darth Vader)

    What the fuck? I can't believe someone actually wrote this. Have you not seen the rest of the Star Wars films, Robert Comsol? You literally just took the argument to the lunatic fringe.
     
  5. Serveaux

    Serveaux Tasteless and unnecessary Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Location:
    Always seeking new and better distractions
    In fact there's no standard being applied there other than whether he likes an idea or not. It's pretty blatant. :lol:
     
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Just around the bend.
    I like how he picks and chooses which retcons are acceptable.
     
  7. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    There is something to be said about the possibility that U.S.S. Constitution could have an NCC of something other than 1700. Could be 1600. Could be 1680.

    It is also possible that Constitution, as the class ship, started out as NX-1492-A (or whatever) as a rebuild from some other previous class of cruiser. Think of it this way: the previous cruiser design may have been an earlier generational step in the evolution that became the Constitution-class vessel we see in TOS. Instead of building an entirely new vessel from scratch, it is possible that Constitution was an older ship that was partially refit with new components (engines, or bridge module, or new sensor-packages; whatever) that were tested in space so that the test results could be used to further improve the design spec before it was finalized. As Constitution was refit again and again with more components to be tested, the ship would gradually morph into a prototype-spec for the coming new class of cruiser we see in TOS.

    As for Starship Exeter being shown as NCC-1672 in the remastered "The Omega Glory", it could be said that, like Constitution, Exeter was refit from a previous class of cruiser to become a Connie a la TMP. Same can be said for Republic and Constellation. TMP seems to suggest that starships not only can be refit, but are probably refit quite often. Maybe recycling old components is part of the Federation's design ethos, or, more likely, old components are analyzed after being torn out but before rejuvenation. This would make sense if the Federation wants to make standardized parts that are designed to last.
     
  8. CrazyMatt

    CrazyMatt Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Sitting in Kirk's command chair
    From what I've read of the man, I'd bet if he were alive, Gene Coon would be laughing his @$$ off at this thread. But the thread also makes the case that we all love the show so much many of us feel the need to rationalize aspects for things that were obviously pulled straight from the production team's respective behinds!

    At its most basic level, Star Trek is marvelous entertainment. How easily many of us--myself included--forget that.
     
  9. Mytran

    Mytran Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Quite true, out here in the real world. But in Trekland, both the new and the old ideas exist alongside reach other. Amongst some bickering in this thread, there have been several brilliant theories on how to treat the numbering system, which is marvellous. None are definitively right or wrong, each is simply an interpretation.

    For myself, I tend to favour the theories that don't require ignoring the original onscreen canon in order to work.
     
  10. GSchnitzer

    GSchnitzer Co-Executive Producer In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Terra
    I guess I understand Matt Jefferies' (undated) idea that the Enterprise was the first ship of the 17th cruiser design. It's a fun idea. He has gone on to say that the Enterprise was 'the first bird" of this ship design. (Presumably NCC-1702 would be the second ship off the assembly line for this series.)

    What doesn't make immediate sense to me is trying to determine when the NCC-1700 ship was built. Was it the "0th" ship of this ship design? I know when the first ship is constructed and the second, and even the 45th. But when was the 0th ship constructed? If we adopt Matt Jefferies' (speculative and ultimately abandoned) idea that the NCC number of each ship corresponds to its construction order, all kinds of gymnastics and contortions are required to explain an NCC-1700 vessel. "Well, it was just a placeholder number until its final NCC number could be assigned--and if there are multiple ships being constructed simultaneously but which aren't yet formally pressed into service, all those ships would have the number 1700 assigned."

    The idea that the Enterprise is not a Constitution-class ship seems to be premised on the notion that such "format change" (if we can even call it that) was concocted by some lesser tier of people besides Jefferies, Justman, Roddenberry, and Stephen E. Whitfield. Many people thought that such a Constitution-class decision wasn't even made by production staffers; it was something Greg Jein and/or Franz Joseph Schnaubelt (and to a lesser degree Bjo Trimble) cooked up--pulling the idea out of their asses.

    In truth, of course, they had production materials available to them that the average Star Trek fan didn't have. The average fan didn't know that "Constitution-class appeared in the script for "Space Seed"--albeit not in dialogue, so it didn't get much publicity. In the end, the Constitution-class seems to be as important of a Star Trek development as any other decision based on actual production materials. For some, though, it seems to be a case of "Well, although others knew about the original source for the Constitution-class comment, I never knew about it. So I'm going to discount it for some reason. Only the Pantheon of Greats--Matt Jefferies, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman and Stephen E. Whitfield--have opinions on the matter that are worthy of consideration--and only then if they didn't change their minds subsequently. I respect these individuals, but I don't respect their prerogative to change their minds, and I don't respect the input of people who were hired by them to make any decisions that ostensibly conflict with their earliest rudimentary thinking."
     
  11. { Puss in Boots }

    { Puss in Boots } Fear me... if you dare. Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Location:
    San Ricardo
    Why do you assume that any of the later writers, producers or artist ever gave a fuck about this sketch or even looked at it?

    The bottom line is these people were trying to create enjoyable television. They didn't really care about "canon" if it got in the way.

    It's not like there was any serious consistency in that regard. The fact that Kirk's Enterprise was 1701(-A) didn't keep them from randomly inventing an NX designation just to have Archer's Enterprise get the same number. They do whatever feels or looks right enough without causing too much hassle.

    Trying to create a consistent canon where due to the realities of tv and movie production there simply isn't one seems like a pretty bizarre waste of time.
     
  12. plynch

    plynch Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    Nice correct use of "prerogative," GSchnitzer. (Most get that wrong.) I'm not surprised, given the thoroughness of your cogent posts!
     
  13. Ricky Spanish

    Ricky Spanish History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    BillJ
    I'd say Matt Jefferies was contradicting his own drawing (or someone was). As the ship went through major modifications between the pilot episodes and the series proper, yet was never rechristened as the "1701-A" as shown in the drawing.
     
  14. GSchnitzer

    GSchnitzer Co-Executive Producer In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Terra
    I'll come clean: I spelled it wrong like I always do. But my autocorrect fixed it. But thaks for your nice comment and the vote of confidence.
     
  15. Serveaux

    Serveaux Tasteless and unnecessary Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Location:
    Always seeking new and better distractions
    Yep, it's an error to treat MJ or GR as ultimate authorities on any aspect of Trek continuity or tech. Simply incorrect.
     
  16. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Location:
    Configuring the Ontarian Manifold
    I didn't know the 1701-A idea went back as far as Jeffries' original sketches! Very interesting. You learn something new every day.

    On that note, the TMP Enterprise probably should have been 1701-A...
     
  17. Cosmic Consciousness

    Cosmic Consciousness Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    That's a good catch, and it's a foregone conclusion that the mandate to rechristen was ignored for TMP. But TMP was Roddenberry's baby, wasn't it. (ninja'd by WarpFactorZ.)

    That's a nice post, and I've boldfaced parts that I think are key. To hammer the point home about the NCC-1700, for those not in the know, that's the last entry on Commodore Stone's wall chart in the teaser of "Court Martial". A "star ship" [sic; as spelled on the chart] with that number exists in Starfleet, as of mid-first season TOS, which is basically impossible to reconcile with the Jefferies "serial" numbers for the "17th cruiser design". If we must take what we see on screen literally, then the Jefferies serial number scheme can't be in effect by then, for controlling what numbers the production team assigns, assuming it ever was.

    Wingsley's post is also nice, in offering explanations for why the NCC numbers seem so random, and which also covers the Constellation, NCC-1017, as has been discussed on the board before.
     
  18. Ricky Spanish

    Ricky Spanish History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    BillJ
    I think that was floated somewhere along the road to TMP. But technically, it should have been, at least, the 1701-B. The Enterprise undergoes some major modifications between "The Cage" and the series proper. Including a jump in crew from 203 to 430, which likely means it underwent some major internal modifications. Plus we know there were some major modifications to the exterior between the pilot and series version.
     
  19. Ricky Spanish

    Ricky Spanish History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    BillJ
    The next mind-numbing thread... "Is it 'Starship' or 'Star Ship' Class?" :lol:

    *ducks and runs*
     
  20. Cosmic Consciousness

    Cosmic Consciousness Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    The USS Starship is a star ship??? :)