Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Canon is a term derived from religion.
How do they reconcile contradictory stories in canon religious books?
I'm pretty sure the newer story is considered the correct one.
Problem solved.
Canon is a term derived from religion.
How do they reconcile contradictory stories in canon religious books?
I'm pretty sure the newer story is considered the correct one.
Problem solved.
On this I do actually agree with you. For some of us fictional worlds are basically all we have to get us from one day to the next.
But as I said apocryphal information just isn't factual and can't be treated as such. Now you're perfectly welcome to ignore the information SNW has provided of course but that comes with an acceptance of being wrong.
There are swathes of things I ignore or heavily recontextualise but I know the hodgepodge frankencanon in my heart isn't mirrored by the real world. But given how I can count the amount of friends and family I have on one hand and haven't had anything resembling a romantic prospect I've come to think maybe the real world isn't really for me.
I feel this is all getting disturbingly close to personal insults in every direction.
Facts are not contingent upon any particular person’s feelings. The fact is the only current canonical measurement is 442 metres. The nature of canon in Trek is such that this figure may be superseded, contradicted, reaffirmed, ignored, or in some other manner sidelined—or not. If it’s onscreen in an official production, it’ll be canon. And no doubt provoke negative reactions from some fans and positive reactions in others, while still others will not care enough to be bothered either way.
Pointless conflicts in the fandom? Haaave you met Trek fans?
If all onscreen graphics are in-universe canon then a lot of the 1701 deck blueprints seen on the Refit bridge display screens in TMP, TWOK and TSFS mean the Refit is still the TOS configuration of the ship.
The DS9 Defiant changed sizes several times. She was ridiculously tiny against the 1701-E in First Contact but much larger compared to other known starship classes in DS9 itself.
The DS9 Defiant changed sizes several times. She was ridiculously tiny against the 1701-E in First Contact but much larger compared to other known starship classes in DS9 itself.
Then it's not canon. But then, you haven't figured that out yet with literally everyone telling you this, so I don't know why I'm bothering to tilt at this windmill.
The Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual of the seventies and Loren Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise of the eighties were rendered apocryphal by Sternbach and Okuda's TNG Technical Manual in the nineties. All other prior publications were in the metafiction of the introduction to that work dismissed as part of an ongoing Starfleet disinformation campaign to confuse and thwart Threat forces.
However, even though tech manuals and series bibles reflect the thinking of the production team during the time of production, they are not technically canon until the details are established onscreen. That information can be and has been contradicted by the production itself in episodes written and aired after publication of various official guides, encyclopedias, and technical manuals, especially if and when they think a script has come up with a better idea.
The DS9 Defiant changed sizes several times. She was ridiculously tiny against the 1701-E in First Contact but much larger compared to other known starship classes in DS9 itself.
But as I said apocryphal information just isn't factual and can't be treated as such. Now you're perfectly welcome to ignore the information SNW has provided of course but that comes with an acceptance of being wrong.
I have no problem with the SNW Connie being 442 meters long.
It's only when you try to Retro-Actively apply that figure to the TOS Connie is when I start having issues with that.
True. It's also a fact that for 50+ years, the TOS Connie was generally accepted to be a different set of dimensions as well.
But don't let that fact affect new canon data.
The nature of canon in Trek is such that this figure may be superseded, contradicted, reaffirmed, ignored, or in some other manner sidelined—or not. If it’s onscreen in an official production, it’ll be canon. And no doubt provoke negative reactions from some fans and positive reactions in others, while still others will not care enough to be bothered either way.
But I don't blindly apply it to every iteration of the vessel.
Different eras, different designs.
SNW/Discovery Production knew exactly what they were doing when they made the SNW Connie. MA Constition Class Size:
The length of the Constitution-class had for over half a century been accepted as being 947 feet (289 meters) long, a figure once propagated across nearly all contemporaneous reference works dealing with the subject
…
The first brief onscreen indication of scale occurred when two ship size comparison graphics were featured in the Original Seriesthird season episode "The Enterprise Incident". The two computer console graphics, also created by Jefferies, showed a Constitution-class vessel in comparison with the D7-class, along with a barely discernible yardstick. Careful measurement of the production art using that yardstick produces a figure close to but not entirely congruent with other sources, placing the Constitution-class vessel as depicted here at 900 feet (274 meters). Jefferies later sold this original art, including that created for AMT, in the Profiles in HistoryThe Star Trek Auction of 12 December 2001, in order to raise funding for the Motion Picture & Television Fund charity.
…
With the return of the class to the limelight as redesigned for its Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds appearances, a new set of specific dimensions were established onscreen in a recurring manner for the first time. Most easily seen during SNW: "Memento Mori", a length of 442 meters (1450 feet), width of 201 meters, and height of 93 meters can be identified on the dedication plaque of the Constitution-class USS Enterprise as it was in 2259. Of the 53% increase from the prior reference material figures, Discovery Production Designer Tamara Deverell said following its debut, "Overall, I think we expanded the length of it to be within the world of our Discovery, which is bigger, so we did cheat it as a larger ship." [2] In the redesign's debut episode "Brother", Deverall intended to leave behind what she called an "Easter egg for the fans" in the form of a USS Discovery bridge display screen which stated the prior reference dimensions of 288.6 meters long, 127.1 meters wide, and 72.6 meters high, taken from Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual.
They intentionally scaled up the size of the Connie by 53% in all dimensions.
It stands to reason that production didn't have any intention of applying the New Dimensional Figures to the old TOS design when they debuted the new numbers.
Their intention wasn't for a blank "One-Size Fits All" #.
But if you are that rigid about following Star Trek Canon Rules to the Explicit Letter, then there's not much I can do; because you're following the letter of the rules, not the intent from the production staff.
While the rules would back you up, I don't think they were ever intended to be applied this way.
Since this automatically causes conflict / division amongst a subset of the Trek Fandom.
Then it's not canon. But then, you haven't figured that out yet with literally everyone telling you this, so I don't know why I'm bothering to tilt at this windmill.
I know what the ST Canonicity rules are, but it doesn't make sense given we know how the ship was designed and how it was meant to be applied.
You want to blindly apply it to the past productions and call it good.
I have a hard time buying this given numerous external factors.
It's not about my belief, most fans that care about Ship Sizes have known about the size of the TOS Connie long before I was born or even a Trekkie.
It's 50+ years of established information, and you're telling everybody that they should throw it out and be replaced with the new values.
Even though the SNW Connie isn't identical to the TOS Connie, but you treat it as the same ship and justify it via "Visual Reboot".
Despite the numerous In-Universe Time-Line Conflicts between TOS events & newer productions that have created numerous TimeLine / Continuity issues that don't make sense or match up.
The simple logical solution/conclusion would be that DISCO / SNW takes place in a slightly different Time-Line or Continuity than TOS.
So everythings a bit different due to numerous Time-Travel Shenanigans that have occured.
So different Ship Sizes, different features, that's fine then.
Timey Wimey Wibley Wobbly.
But you keep on insisting that it's "The Prime Time-Line", despite "Prime being arbitrary & relative to the Time-Line you were natively born into".
It's just not canon. That's all. I don't care about "generally acceptance." I owned Concordance, Technical Manual, and such, and didn't know that this was generally accepted. That was not the subject of a conversation in my nerd circles. Phasers, phaser power, tricorder uses, security procedures, tactics and space flight were those discussions.
Somehow, in all that nerd talk, the subject of size did not come up.
I know...I was surprised too. Imagine my great surprise when I encounter fans on the Internet who insisted to me that the size was a well known "fact".
It's just not canon. That's all. I don't care about "generally acceptance." I owned Concordance, Technical Manual, and such, and didn't know that this was generally accepted. That was not the subject of a conversation in my nerd circles. Phasers, phaser power, tricorder uses, security procedures, tactics and space flight were those discussions.
Somehow, in all that nerd talk, the subject of size did not come up.
I know...I was surprised too. Imagine my great surprise when I encounter fans on the Internet who insisted to me that the size was a well known "fact".
I love my characters and situations and species I've created for my fan films. I wish they were canon to Paramount. They're not. I live with it and I'm fine.
You do realize none of this is real, right?
