I don't understand why we can't take the word of those who worked directly on the show as canon.
They obviously consider it a fact in-universe.
Lorca: Fans Will Have To Adjust
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
I don't understand why we can't take the word of those who worked directly on the show as canon.
They obviously consider it a fact in-universe.
Non-canonically, the TMP blueprints* refer to the refit as "STARSHIP II" class. But also on sheet 6, it refers to the class as "ENTERPRISE CLASS".
* - signed by GR, FWIW.
* - signed by GR, FWIW.
Because that's not what the canon is defined as.
Go back to the origin of a 'canon' for other examples. 'Eucharist' is a very common term to Catholics including major authorities in the religion, but it appears nowhere in their canonical text.
You can take whatever you want in whatever way you want.
But, what is in the Star Trek "canon" is clearly defined by the studio(s) that own the franchise. It doesn't make other stuff any less valuable...or any less capable of adding to your personal enjoyment of the franchise.
But if it ain't canon, it ain't canon.
'Starship Class' is certainly seen on the Franklin dedication plaque and is seen on the 1701 bridge. So that would be logical. Perhaps in that time, 'starship class' was a general term, of which vessels of Constitution type were a subgroup?
But they won't always work on the shows/movies. Any one working in that time period could call the class anything they want. If it appears onscreen then that would be canon. Or, they could call it "Akira" onscreen then it would be canon.
Didn't the Akira only make one or two background appearances? We don't know what they consider fact in-universe. They likely never cared.
My gut feeling is that whoever settled on the name "Starship Class" originally didn't really have an idea of what the show would develop into, in particular in terms of all the other kinds of ships that it would be reasonable to call starships. I think "Starship Class" was a mistake, albeit an understandable one. Probably they were just thinking nothing much deeper than: our hero ship is a starship, so that's the class of ship it is for the show.
I just see it as an identifier for a group of ships that have certain mission parameters they carry out. Not all Connie's are "Starship Class".
Or (hypothetically) if a TNG film would have called ships of that design "Akira Class" onscreen, but DS9 called ship s of that design something else, then we as fans would have come up with reasons why the DS9 ship was of a different class than the TNG-film ship.
The same thing should be true for DSC. If DSC uses a different term for something than was used in TOS or The Cage, then we as fans would do what we usually do in those situations and come up with a reasonable in-universe explanation for the difference.
I mean, we've done it for 50+ years of Trek on TV and in films; there is no reason why we should stop doing that for alleged inconsistencies in DSC relative to the past 50+ years of Trek.
I doubt they really care. Honestly. They aren't even working in that time period.
No, but the USS Thunderchild herself is, the only ship that had visible name and registry during the onscreen battle. Even the CGI'd names on the hulls of the other ships was never legible.
Until Burnham et al. gets a visit from Crewman Daniels and/or the USS Relativity
I was talking about the Ship class, not the name of the ship.
They care enough that they don't like the novel writers going against it. Or so Christopher says.
That's all that's canon. Apart from the express intention of everyone working on First Contact all the way up to Eaglemoss the last 3-4 years.
Similar threads
- Locked
