This cannot be a serious question; it just can't.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
This cannot be a serious question; it just can't.
It is.
Sigh....
Then I don't know how to help you.
TNG ship numbers are all over the place because they're being used on TMP-era ships. Of course Excelsiors and Mirandas are going to have "fill-in" numbers between the 2000's and 50000's as those ships were all built after the USS Excelsior and before the USS Galaxy. Then, of course, you have newer builds of older classes like the USS Lakota and its registry of NCC-42768.
I'm going to go with the modern naval system of assigning a hull number upon the ORDERING of a ship to be built. This assignment of a hull number happens even before final designs for the ship have been laid out. The assignment of the number also happens before the final decision on the name of the ship.
With that said, if the initial order for the Crossfield-class consisted of [let's say] 20 ships starting with NCC-1020 going through NCC-1039, but [for whatever reason] the Admiralty decided to only build 10 of them, ending the series with NCC-1029, then the remaining registry numbers of NCC-1030 through NCC-1039 are still on the books as belonging to the Crossfield-class but are then listed as "Unnamed; Unbuilt." Pop forward a few [or more] years and Starfleet decides to build a couple more Crossfield-class ships because "it's the easiest class to use as the testbed for this new drive system" and voila, the next two numbers, which were already ordered..., are used on the two brand new ships. This then gives us the USS Glenn NCC-1030 and USS Discovery NCC-1031, both with "old" numbers despite being brand new..
In this way, assignment of registry numbers is tied to the orders placed by class, not the order in which ships are actually built.
Still waiting for your own examples.
You're the one claiming it would change, you give the proof.
Just look at it as a visual reset that you don't necessarily have to accept in your personal canon. The timeline itself is pretty consistent with TOS and with ENT before it. Here's a very obscure example for you:
In Die Another Day we know that the Pierce Brosnan James Bond is supposed to be the exact same Bond that was played by Sean Connery. Never mind the fact that Brosnan was a little kid when Connery filmed the earliest Bond films and 007 should probably be a greying senior citizen by the year 2002, let's just stick to the established continuity from the first 20 MGM and United Artists films. Brosnan is Connery and vice versa.
There's a scene where the new Q(John Cleese) takes Bond into a room filled with gadgets and weapons from his previous adventures, a literal storehouse of canon to link Brosnan's 007 to the previous films and actors who played the character. Bond picks up Rose Klebb's shoe with the knifepoint sticking out of the sole. Now, we know that's Rosa Klebb's deadly shoe from From Russia with Love and that British Intelligence confiscated her weapons after she was killed. But it's a different shoe. It has a recognizable knifepoint sticking out of it, but the shoe is a different design of women's shoe than the prop used in the 1963 film. But it's still Rosa Klebb's shoe and we know that. It's close enough and to the casual fan they won't know the difference anyways unless they ask about the shoe Bond picks up and comically sniffs.
Same shoe, just a little bit different. Same Bond, just a different actor. Same continuity, just tweaked from a visual standpoint by 2002 filmmakers working with a then-forty-year-old franchise. The continuity and canon haven't been changed, just the filmmaking tools and a few visual angles and styles. I'm not defending every dumb aesthethic decision made by the producers on DSC by a longshot and I won't, but we need to pick our battles better than this.
This is the Enterprise. Jeffrey Hunter's Enterprise. I'd have made it look more like the Defiant in "IaMD," but what we got is about 80-85% there. I'm fine with it. It's still the NCC-1701 we grew up with, just with a few changes that quite honestly are nowhere near as nauseatingly idiotic as what these guys did with the Klingons and their ships. She's still Rosa Klebb's shoe. Just with a slightly different stitching pattern and outline.
In Die Another Day we know that the Pierce Brosnan James Bond is supposed to be the exact same Bond that was played by Sean Connery. Never mind the fact that Brosnan was a little kid when Connery filmed the earliest Bond films and 007 should probably be a greying senior citizen by the year 2002, let's just stick to the established continuity from the first 20 MGM and United Artists films. Brosnan is Connery and vice versa.
There's a scene where the new Q(John Cleese) takes Bond into a room filled with gadgets and weapons from his previous adventures, a literal storehouse of canon to link Brosnan's 007 to the previous films and actors who played the character. Bond picks up Rose Klebb's shoe with the knifepoint sticking out of the sole. Now, we know that's Rosa Klebb's deadly shoe from From Russia with Love and that British Intelligence confiscated her weapons after she was killed. But it's a different shoe. It has a recognizable knifepoint sticking out of it, but the shoe is a different design of women's shoe than the prop used in the 1963 film. But it's still Rosa Klebb's shoe and we know that. It's close enough and to the casual fan they won't know the difference anyways unless they ask about the shoe Bond picks up and comically sniffs.
Same shoe, just a little bit different. Same Bond, just a different actor. Same continuity, just tweaked from a visual standpoint by 2002 filmmakers working with a then-forty-year-old franchise. The continuity and canon haven't been changed, just the filmmaking tools and a few visual angles and styles. I'm not defending every dumb aesthethic decision made by the producers on DSC by a longshot and I won't, but we need to pick our battles better than this.
This is the Enterprise. Jeffrey Hunter's Enterprise. I'd have made it look more like the Defiant in "IaMD," but what we got is about 80-85% there. I'm fine with it. It's still the NCC-1701 we grew up with, just with a few changes that quite honestly are nowhere near as nauseatingly idiotic as what these guys did with the Klingons and their ships. She's still Rosa Klebb's shoe. Just with a slightly different stitching pattern and outline.
I started with the love stories, you seem to think those do not count for some reason. How does "city on the edge of forever" stay the same with a heterosexual female Kirk? It does not work as written.
We know the production folks just randomly made them up. The Akira seen on screen for instance, the designer used his phone number and somone in production just added a 6 to the front. There was no order or plan, they just busted out random numbers.
Either Edith Keeler is a man or female Kirk is not straight. Events don't need to change.
I'm not sure this was the best example to use given that there's this perception out there that every pre-Craig Bond film that didn't star Sean Connery featured a different man taking on the alias "James Bond" in spite of ponderous evidence to the contrary, but I get your point nonetheless.
Well those Bond fans are fools. 
But thanks.
But thanks.
Yeah events change. A male changes the character, which would not act the same way. A homosexual Kirk also vastly changes things. You seem think think gender and sexuality have no impact, this is incorrect.
What on Earth does gender-bending Kirk have to do with the topic of the thread?
I thought this was about the appearance of the Enterprise in Discovery, not reversing gender roles of established characters???
I thought this was about the appearance of the Enterprise in Discovery, not reversing gender roles of established characters???
This is a warp core?
http://www.fourmadmen.com/mirror/~crimsonline/HybridThreeView.jpg
I find it funny how people who were telling others stop whining about 'Enterprise' a few years ago and the NX design and saying "fans are so sad for complaining, this is the problem with trek fans blah blah" are now the ones who have big problems with discovery, it's starship designs and story telling. Guess that's old age for ya or just plain old hypocrisy.
Here's a fan design based on a NX 1701. Got pretty close to what we got.You know it also looks a lot like this top NX-01 Enterprise concept by Doug Drexler
http://www.fourmadmen.com/mirror/~crimsonline/HybridThreeView.jpg
I find it funny how people who were telling others stop whining about 'Enterprise' a few years ago and the NX design and saying "fans are so sad for complaining, this is the problem with trek fans blah blah" are now the ones who have big problems with discovery, it's starship designs and story telling. Guess that's old age for ya or just plain old hypocrisy.
Longinus thinks changing the look is the same thing as rewriting characters, events and changing genders of major characters.
This "genderbending Kirk" thing is Longinus' attempt to back those of us who recognize - rightfully - that redesigns and visual aesthetic changes don't change anything about the Canon of Star Trek into a corner by equating a very slight change in the design of the Constitution-Class Enterprise with a massive change such as making Kirk a woman when the latter would fundamentally alter the Canon simply because you cannot write a female character the same way you would write a male character.
Similar threads
