...I would also like to add "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". It's perfectly readable behind Lokai, and thus "canon".
I was referring to the dialogue.
What about the originally scripted dialogue in "Court Martial"? It proves that Kirk just arrived at Starbase 11 and wanted the
Enterprise to be put on the top of the repair schedules. The chart in the actual footage still reveals his ship to be almost complete, although he had just arrived.
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?
To feature an "A" for a modernization and modification was a Jefferies suggestion he still proposed in June of 1977 for the TMP
Enterprise, but this one never flew. Just because one of his suggestions didn't make it, do I have to disregard the remaining suggestions contained in that TOS pre-production sketch? I think the 17th Federation design series concept works rather well in a TOS era context, but YMMV.
I also tend to consider screen time exposure when discusing the reliability of one thing versus the other (e.g. conference lounge wall displays). The one thing that's certain about the bridge at the end of ST IV:TVH is that the producers wanted to convey the impression of a bridge that is
different from the one previously seen in the first three films. I already agreed to disregard the bridge argument, and there is still no "canon proof" that the hangar deck was reconstructed to explain the obvious differences or the obvious difference between the simulator label in TWOK and the blueprint header in TUC.
Please, by all means, do go on.
It's all "official". All these different publishing houses pay money to Paramount to publish material. That makes it official.
I still think there is a difference between "officially licensed" and "official" in the sense of being "canonized".
Get off the cross. We need the wood.
Fine, I'll get off the cross so you can use the wood to construct a guillotine, instead.
At some point I hope you realize that no one has a problem with hearing your theories.
Of all the people you have the audacity to make that claim? Here is a
]friendly reminder[ how you did cast judgement, long before I had been done presenting the whole text.
I think that was a vivid display of the Cardassian Articles of Jurisprudence, i.e. verdict before the accused even had a chance to state his case. (I refrain using the emoticon you apparently find fault with, although you don't seem to be willing to do the first step).
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.
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.
Can we please dispense with the bull and the spin-doctoring? Right from the start you guys have been finding fault with my "canon determining methodology" and with some fervor, I should add, insisted that I have to apply your "revise, rewrite and reboot" methodology, instead ("That's canon").
I have vocally and repeatedly expressed my discomfort with it because it's the same methodology the antagonists in Orwell's dystopian Oceania in
1984 apply. When it comes at the expense of people either alive or deceased, IMO, then it's incompatible with the spirit of Star Trek, therefore I reject it, and that's that.
As for the "true intent", and back to the subject of this thread, Bob Justman's "Enterprise Starship Class" remark (in reply to D.C. Fontana's "Starship Class" remark) and the "Enterprise Class" remark in the mission overview in
The Making of Star Trek are rather clear, add to this we have Matt Jefferies' explicit statements (
ST Sketchbook and the BBC interviews) according to which the Enterprise was the "first in the series" and the "first bird".
And I still have heard no good reason or justification to double-guess these, other than to keep the general consensus intact.
Bob
