Remember that time that an entire Klingon starship's crew was taken out by just TWO of those Augments? And what those same Augments did to Cold Station 12? Looks like Soong didn't do enough correcting....
The Star Trek Encyclopedia getting first update since 1999!
- Thread starter ScottDS
- Start date
Remember that time that an entire Klingon starship's crew was taken out by just TWO of those Augments? And what those same Augments did to Cold Station 12? Looks like Soong didn't do enough correcting....
That's klingcide not homicide
I thought the same thing but then I realized that those were 2130-something embryos, not 2153; I think Markonian meant the embryos he stole from Cold Station 12, the ones he was going to correct, the correction of which he almost got killed for by the Augments in the process.
That's "cling on to the side" which was spelled "clingcide" in Latin.Wait, I thought *this* was klingcide:
Perhaps I have the spelling, wrong, though.
Do Future Guy and the Silent Enemy aliens have entries in the new Encyclopedia? What names does the Encyclopedia give them?
There are several instances where the Abrams movies gave characters canon first names (James Komack, Nensi Chandra, Nyota Uhura). Does the Encyclopedia use the same names on Prime reality articles?
There are several instances where the Abrams movies gave characters canon first names (James Komack, Nensi Chandra, Nyota Uhura). Does the Encyclopedia use the same names on Prime reality articles?
Future Guy was listed as "Temporal Operative", IIRC, although there was actually an entry for "Future Guy" which redirected you to the other entry.
I think they also mentioned that one of the original plans was that he would be a future version of Archer, however that would've worked. But it's possible I read that elsewhere recently instead.
The only ones I remember seeing out of those were the Uhura entries. KT Uhura was listed under "Uhura, Nyota", but PT Uhura was just under "Uhura".
I remember flipping through a friend's Star Trek reference/companion book. I don't recall the title, but it was published sometime in the 1980s or 90s.
That book was published before the augment virus explanation about the Klingon ridged/non-ridged appearance.
Back then, the explanation was that the Klingons consisted of two races, the (ridged) Imperial Klingons -- who the humans had never encountered before -- and the Klingon-human fusion race. The fusion race were the Klingons that were seen in TOS. The fusions were genetically engineered by the Imperials to specifically deal with outsiders.
I don't know who came up with the fusion race explanation. I don't know if that explanation was canon, at least at that time; or if that book even represented canon. But it did provide an explanation. I wonder why the ENT show writers didn't just go with that explanation instead of feeling a need to create the augment virus explanation.
That book was published before the augment virus explanation about the Klingon ridged/non-ridged appearance.
Back then, the explanation was that the Klingons consisted of two races, the (ridged) Imperial Klingons -- who the humans had never encountered before -- and the Klingon-human fusion race. The fusion race were the Klingons that were seen in TOS. The fusions were genetically engineered by the Imperials to specifically deal with outsiders.
I don't know who came up with the fusion race explanation. I don't know if that explanation was canon, at least at that time; or if that book even represented canon. But it did provide an explanation. I wonder why the ENT show writers didn't just go with that explanation instead of feeling a need to create the augment virus explanation.
Either they never read this explanation, or felt it was something the Klingons wouldn't have done.
It came from John M. Ford's novel The Final Reflection, and I believe he also used it in a FASA role-playing game. The reference book you're referring to may have been a FASA sourcebook or something. It was never canonical, because only the shows and the films constitute the canon.
Because they're creators, and they're entitled to come up with their own ideas. There are a ton of things in Trek where different tie-in authors have come up with different conjectures (for instance, there are at least seven incompatible versions of the end of Kirk's 5-year mission), or where tie-ins have come up with one idea and later show or movie writers have come up with a different one, and that's fine, because it's called creativity. This isn't a history lesson. It's just people making stuff up for fun. Ford's "fusion" idea was simply a conjecture. It didn't rob other creators of their right to offer their own conjectures. It can be fun to compare the different ideas that people come up with to explain the same question.
Odd question - but has anyone in the UK received a copy yet? Amazon have updated with another delay - which is getting abit annoying. So far a lot of 50th merch has been delayed far too much over here :/
Most of the entries on the various Enterprises as well as a size comparison chart are among the sample pages floating about the internet.
Question: Did the Encyclopedia mix up the Klingon ship classes of the 22nd century? A new upload on Memory Beta names the BOP Raptor class, but without the book I can't verify that.
Yes, and actually the error can be seen on the "Ships of the Galaxy" sample page on startrek.com here, which was linked to way back in this post.
(FWIW, I made note of the error in this post, which I why I was able to actually remember it when I read your question!
)Similar threads
