Does Starfleet only use Galaxys Now?
- Thread starter Hartzilla2007
- Start date
Actually the model was made and then rejected because there weren't enough windows, or they weren't big enough, or, something like that.
It's still perfectly plausible that an alien species with longer lifespans than humans would use the same starship design for that length of time. Particularly since, other than the addition of holodecks (which are probably meant to be an invention of the "Unexpected" aliens), Trekverse technology is unchanged between "Broken Bow" and "Star Trek: Nemesis". Only the degree of power in weapons, shields and engines has been upped.
But...the multitude of different-sized Birds-of-Prey (something like five different sizes, IIRC) are shown onscreen in some measurably different context to ships of known size...so they're ALL canonnnnnnn!
(my personal in-universe explanation is that Klingons, great command of English aside, are nonetheless a completely alien race that subscribes to the basic tenet of If It's Good But It's Bigger Then It MUST Be Better...YMMV)
Are you suggesting that NONE of it is canon?
Infidel!!!!
And here I thought you were going to come up with a good reason why all of the Federation's computers sounded just like Lwaxana Troi...
I thought they sounded like Nurse Chapel, myself.
No, I'm saying that it's a gross mistake to think that the word "canon" means "gospel truth in every detail." A canon is simply a core body of work in a fictional series or franchise as distinct from derivative works. It is not a value judgment or a seal of approval, merely a classification. As I said, every canon contains inconsistencies, mistakes, and contradictions both accidental and intentional. Just about any long-running canon will eventually disregard or retcon some of its earlier details. Saying that something is canon doesn't mean you're required to take every last tiny detail literally. That's just nonsense. The word "canon" applies to the whole, not to its specific details, since the details are subject to reinterpretation -- particularly the ones that are mistakes and compromises.
A canon is a text, and no text is free of errors. That's why it's necessary to use your own critical judgment to interpret the text rather than taking every word literally.
I personally find it fun that the little Miranda class was a workhorse of the fleet, doing a lot of the grinding work for 100 years, with a number of blocks of production. The VW bug or Golf of Starfleet. With a proven space-hull that can be built for exploration, cargo, scientific study, surveying, and law-enforcement and "Coast Guard" type duty.
For whatever budgetary reasons, the props, costumes, sets and starships(models) used in all official STAR TREK productions: TOS,TAS,NG,DS9,VOY,ENT & MOVIES must be considered canon to some degree and not just random substitutions.
^"Must?" By whose authority? Where do some fans get this idea that they're employees or servants or something and are compelled to obey what they're told? That's not what being an audience means! Being an audience means interpreting what you see, applying your intelligence and imagination and critical thinking to it, finding your own meaning in it. It's the right of the readers or viewers of a work of fiction to find interpretations that the creators never intended. Being an audience member is supposed to be an active, engaged activity, not just passive absorption.
Besides, "canon" doesn't mean every tiny detail must be treated as some sacred gospel. Canon is simply the core body of work, and every canon contains mistakes and contradictions. In a television show, where saving money is necessary, producers often deliberately include things that they do not intend any intelligent audience member to take as literal fact -- reusing the same props or costumes on different planets, recycling stock footage of the same special effect to represent a separate place, thing, or event, recasting roles, building sets that are too large to fit inside the starship represented by a miniature or computer model, etc. They do not do these things with the expectation that the audience will slavishly take them as literal fact; they do them with the expectation that the audience will apply reasonable suspension of disbelief and critical judgment and interpret what they see as a suggestion or approximation of a different "reality" that they will imagine for themselves.
So basically the production team of STAR TREK does not want the audience to take anything they see as meant to be accurate(gaffes everywhere)...there goes my STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Going back to the D7 for a sec... I forgot to mention that the klingon ship model made and rejected for "Unexpected" (the D4, iirc) looked almost exactly the same as the D7, anyway. It just had a bit of added exterior support framework and nacelles more like those on the TNG Vor'cha-class attack cruiser.
Exactly! Not the prettiest, or the flashiest, or the most advanced, or the one you put in the "Starfleet Wants YOU!" promotional material, but the one that has been quietly and effectively doing the work for decades.
So basically the production team of STAR TREK does not want the audience to take anything they see as meant to be accurate(gaffes everywhere)...there goes my STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA.
*sigh* It's not that all-or-nothing, that simple-minded. The point is that you're entitled to exercise your own judgment and imagination, to be an active, engaged viewer and apply critical thinking to what you see. Being a member of an audience does not mean being submissive and blindly accepting everything you're shown. It means actively interpreting the work, filtering it through your own judgment and perceptions and beliefs. You're a participant in the process, not merely a sponge.
And actually everything specifically made for Memory Beta, novels included, is non-canon.
Actually, it's Number One. At least, according to (I think) Peter David's The Rift. She installed the Enterprise's new talking computer interface and programmed it to speak in her voice.
*sigh* I think this readily applies to the gaffes that the viewer sees in all the filmed STAR TREK series and movies.
I realize that, my problem lied more in the fact that some of those games generate names for the ships, from what I've understood. So IMO, they don't count as Trek-lore. Then again, I do realize that non of the novels count as Trek-lore so to say.
I know that too. And I tried explaining that I know that it's all non-canon. All I was saying is, that personally I feel there's a difference between a ship named by an author and a ship named by a computer game, randomly.
And no, it really doesn't matter anything, and yes, it's kinda pointless for me to even make another post about it.
So basically the production team of STAR TREK does not want the audience to take anything they see as meant to be accurate(gaffes everywhere)...there goes my STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA.
*sigh* It's not that all-or-nothing, that simple-minded. The point is that you're entitled to exercise your own judgment and imagination, to be an active, engaged viewer and apply critical thinking to what you see. Being a member of an audience does not mean being submissive and blindly accepting everything you're shown. It means actively interpreting the work, filtering it through your own judgment and perceptions and beliefs. You're a participant in the process, not merely a sponge.
It is not about all-or-nothing, it is about how much of the STAR TREK filmed multiple series and movies can be accepted as accurate for the viewer. If we see a starship class that we do not think belongs, then just disregard the class? In the Star Trek TOS-Remastered they changed things in the original episodes to correct gaffes or simply enhance the content of the episodes. STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA(Michael & Denise Okuda) has reenforced what we have seen in those official filmed productions. The production team were the creators of the end product so how much can a viewer changed what our lying eyes are seeing?
What do you mean by "named by a computer game, randomly"? How does that work within the game? It can't really be a computer stochastically assigning letter combinations; the list of possible ship names was presumably entered into the game software by its designers. So there's still human authorship involved, just with a bit more technological mediation.
I wasn't talking about entire classes, but about individual instances where the special effect shown onscreen is clearly a money-saving or logistically unavoidable compromise for something where a different class of ship would be more appropriate -- like using stock footage of the Botany Bay for the robot freighter in "The Changeling" or the Rigel VII fortress matte painting for Flint's mansion (both of which were changed in TOS Remastered, note); or using an unaltered Klingon Bird of Prey model to represent a ship that's described in the script as much larger (which was probably an error); or using a Miranda-class miniature to represent the Lantree, which was described in the script as a supply ship with only 26 people aboard (probably because they didn't have a more suitable miniature available, though it seems an Oberth would've worked okay there); or reusing an Alpha-Quadrant starship design in a Voyager episode (because it's cheaper to reuse an existing model than to build a new one -- and this is apparently just as true of digital models as physical ones). Or the example that started this discussion, the use of a stock D-7 Klingon ship in an ENT episode in place of the earlier model that was intended to go there.
Part of interpreting a visual text such as a television series is recognizing that the execution often represents a set of compromises for budgetary or logistical reasons, so that the end result is more an approximation of the intent than an exact achievement of it. In cases like those described above, I think it's better to favor the intent suggested in the script than to take the images too literally.
