That's just silly. It is a highly implausible and convoluted explanation for a thing which can be explained much more easily: the registries are not sequential. If I tell you the registry number of my car can you tell which year it was made?
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
I know! It isn't like Starfleet has never torn a vessel down to the studs before and rebuilt to different specs!
Can I? No. There are experts out there that can.
And (the simulator text notwithstanding) it did not make it different class. (Ask Scotty, he has the blueprints.)
No they can't. I don't know how it works in the States, but here registries are random.
There is completely very high amount if inconsistencies if you assume registries are chronological, you need to come up with a silly and convoluted explanation for each. Apply some Occam's Razor: there is absolutely zero reason for them to be chronological.
Are you talking about the license plate or the vehicle VIN?
You have a terrible time with anything that doesn't fit in your canon box. Relax, it is all make believe.
Whatever the thing on the registration plate is called. Here it is three random letter followed by three random numbers.
I am a bit allergic allergic for people's tendency in this fandom (and in many others I'm, sure, but in Trek it is an epidemic) to concoct most bizarre and convoluted explanations and theories for things which simply do not need an explanation or have a very simple and obvious one.
As far as the Eagle and Constellation go, we have no proof either are Constitution-class. The Eagle was never seen on screen. The Constellation was identified as 'Starship Class', but the AMT model used for it was quite a bit different from the Enterprise filming model.
If one wants them all to be Connies, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants them to be other ships that were upgraded to Connie specs, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat them as an entirely different class(es), there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat the Oberth-class as an older ship type, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat the Oberth-class as a new build in The Search for Spock, there's nothing wrong with.
Because nothing on film contradicts any of the above.
If one wants them all to be Connies, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants them to be other ships that were upgraded to Connie specs, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat them as an entirely different class(es), there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat the Oberth-class as an older ship type, there's nothing wrong with it.
If one wants to treat the Oberth-class as a new build in The Search for Spock, there's nothing wrong with.
Because nothing on film contradicts any of the above.
We were talking about two different things. You were talking about (what we call) license plates. I was talking about the Vehicle Identification Number. The little plate on the inside of the windshield. It gives, in code, all the information about your particular vehicle.
It is our time, if we want to concoct bizarre and convoluted explanations, what is it harming you?
I guess, If you're willing to basically abandon the concept of starship classes. To me this is very simple: Constellation and Enterprise basically look identical, they're of the same class. That is the simplest and most obvious conclusion based on the evidence available.
It makes discussing things here often rather tiresome and pointless. But carry on, it is not like I can stop you or that I would if I could.
The dimensions of the AMT model are a bit different. Which may or may not make them representative of the same classes. It isn't written in stone, just one person's interpretation of the material.
You do you.
I don't particularly understand the pointless dig. Different people have different interpretations. I love seeing how various people interpret the universe. IDIC and all that.
Yeaah... Completely imperceivable differences make it different class. Yet a refit that drastically changes the look of the ship doesn't... And do you think they intentionally chose this 'different' model to represent a different class? Also, in some shots they used that AMT kit to represent Enterprise too, does it change classes depending on which sot was used? How about remastered? They used same base model there. Are Constellation and Enterprise same class in the remastered but different in the original? Does this really seem sensible to you? It is basically like creationism. The chronological registries are taken as an article of faith, without any evidence, then any evidence to contrary is ignored, even if it required concocting a highly implausible explanation for the discrepancy. 'But God made the fossils to test the faith of the people!'
Because often the 'interpretations' are not based on anything. They're just whole cloth concoctions. And there is a separate forum for fanfic.
You do you, while I go have fun.
Except, Star Trek itself has done this very thing. Something that requires a simple explanation, e.g. the Klingons, gets an incredibly convoluted one. It is built in to the Trek DNA itself at this point.
IDIC at its finest
I always thought the theory that the AMT model of the Enterprise was supposed to be representing a different class than the Enterprise because of some minor detail inaccuracies was absolutely bizarre. It seems all the more so when most everyone around here seems willing to accept that a ship as blatantly different as the Discoprise is supposed to be not just the same class as the TOS Enterprise, but the same ship.
In fairness, I believe a similar statement can be made regarding the current debate around the magee class. Everyone has their hill.
Yeah. I in no way see the Discovery version of the Enterprise as the same ship from TOS. No matter how many times the behind-the-scenes folks tell me it is.
#Multiverse
