What TOS "things" would you like to see on this show?

[F. King Daniel]

Whatever in-universe interpretation one ultimately prefers, and there's certainly room for a few, your real-world facts are quite blatantly incorrect here.

It was first used onscreen in "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9),

I checked the transcript and you're right! My apologies.

and there referred to a replica of the TOS version with updated surface details, made especially by Greg Jein from molds of the original.

Okay but isn't a K'tinga intended as a replica of the original with updated surface details? Are the differences between the "Trials" D7 and The Motion Picture K'tinga more different than, say, STVI and "Flashback" Exclesior models?

"Prophecy" (VGR) came more than four years later, and used a CGI model of the TMP iteration, which had in the meantime been created for the last couple seasons of DS9. This was called out at the time by fans, and subsequently acknowledged by the writer, as an error. In the words of Nero, I watched it happen. I saw it happen. Don't tell me it didn't happen.

Can of worms time: Are mistakes canon? A viewer with no BTS knowledge would assume the ship shown in "Prophecy" was a D7.

But all right, I'll play along...this is my sort of game, after all. If we ignore all intents and go just by what's onscreen, and interpret that the not-K't'inga is merely a refit (or improved visual depiction) of the D-7 that merits no distinguishing designation, then we are left with the matter of it being said in "Prophecy" that D-7s were retired from service "decades" earlier, despite us seeing them in regular use beyond that timeframe. Even saying they were pressed back into wartime service leading up to "The Way Of The Warrior" (DS9), and that the Voyager crew simply don't know this because they were stranded in the DQ before it happened—which I'll grant, sure sounds like an attractive theory at first blush—doesn't really work, because in "Heart Of Glory" (TNG) we see one in current service. So we have to make 13 years from 2364 to 2377 into "decades." Okay, it is slightly more than a single decade, even if it isn't two...if we were talking 2358 to 2371, I could buy it.

Or we could always fall back on: "Tom Paris doesn't know what he's talking about, amirite?" Sure, but then we'd still be left with Kor saying the Klothos was a D-5 in "Once More Unto The Breach" (DS9) despite it looking almost exactly like a D-7 in "The Time Trap" (TAS) and nothing like the D-5 in "Judgment" (ENT). Now, we could readily explain that by saying he too made a mistake, as he clearly was going senile, after all. Or we could say he commanded two ships in succession called Klothos, one a D-5 and the other a D-7, just as Kirk commanded two called Enterprise. (If I'm not mistaken, it was I who personally originated both of those theories back in the day.) Or we could just default to: "TAS is not canon!" (thus defeating the whole point of the reference in the first place) and/or "ENT is an alternate timeline!" or a visual retcon or whatever. Fine. We could indeed say all of that, and then on top of it all, say "DSC isn't Prime! It's a reboot!" Whatevs.

But personally, I would rather think of the D-designations as more analogous to something like the V-designations of car engines (or perhaps even more apt, considering their origin, "four door" vs "two door" sedan body types) allowing more than one configuration to bear the same D-number, or indeed for two examples of the same hull configuration to bear different ones. In "Prophecy" (VGR), Tuvok is only able to identify the ship as a D-7 by its tetryon readings. In "Choose Your Pain" (DSC) the ship is only identified as a D-7 by its warp signature. (And here we might further note that, in "The Augments" [ENT], we are explicitly shown that such signatures can readily be "faked" simply by reconfiguration of the warp coils.)

All three D-7s aside, this allows us to accomodate both D-4s, both D-5s, and a faulty retired D-12 that looks identical to other BoPs of different class names that are still in service, to boot! So to my eye, that seems the most elegant and sensible solution, all things considered. YMMV. You're the guy that apparently likes there to be as many continuity errors as possible, after all...

-MMoM

I have a headache

[P.S. -- Congrats, you got me again. Well played. Can we do "Antares class" next?]

[P.P.S. -- You'd probably never guess it by such posts as this, but I actually enjoy your "imponderable" videos rather more than those dudes' at Trekyards. Peace and long life to you, Sir! ]

Thank you!

 

[DaveyNY]

Many times, it really helps to 'squint' (a lot) when comparing visuals throughout the televised history of Star Trek.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Okay but isn't a K'tinga intended as a replica of the original with updated surface details?

Well, yes and no.

In terms of the narrative, it was intended as a newer, larger, faster and better successor class. At the beginning, in the first draft script for Phase II's "In Thy Image" (which went on after innumerable revisions to become TMP, and in which their designation is given as "Koro class") they are described as "their newest and best" and Scotty remarks on how "big" they are compared to what he's seen before. At the other end, Roddenberry's novelization of the film describes them as "their new K't'inga-class heavy cruisers which some Admiralty tacticians feared might prove faster and more powerful than" Starfleet's best, and further specifies that the very purpose of Epsilon IX's sensor drone being launched into Klingon territory in the first place had been "to gather intelligence on the new Klingon cruiser design."

But of course, neither was actually in the film, so not canon, and ultimately mutable. And the fact of the matter is that until the series morphed into a feature film, they actually were literally going to use the TOS design with a new paintjob. (It was actually way back then that Greg Jein made the molds of the original TOS filming model from which he would many years later cast his slightly-modified "Tribble-ations" version.) It wasn't good enough for the big screen though, which led to them constructing the larger and improved model that became the K't'inga.

So I guess it's more like: no, but yes.

I think we may be having one of our little misunderstandings here, though. (And I'm quite sure it's my fault in this case, belaboring it all so!) To be clear, it wasn't, and never would be, my suggestion or argument that the two should require different designations in-universe based on appearance alone. However, the fact is they have always been treated as separate entities behind the scenes and in all licensed reference materials such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, etc., and the intent in "Prophecy" wasn't actually to retcon this, as Mike Sussman explained:

I was the one who dropped the D-7 designation into the dialogue. I knew at the time that we’d seen Greg Jein’s D-7 in “Trials and Tribble-ations” and I assumed the optical department would simply reuse that model. That’s what I get for assuming things! When the episode aired, I was surprised to see the movie-era Klingon ship. I believe that by Voyager’s seventh season, all the effects were computer generated, and to my knowledge, a CG version of Jein’s D-7 did not exist, and it would have cost a fair amount of money to design one in the computer. Had I been aware of this, I would have simply changed Tuvok’s line to 'The tetrion [sic] readings indicate it’s a K’t’inga Class cruiser.' And obviously, Tom’s line about the D-7 being retired decades ago would have had to be changed as well.​

The point I was really trying to make (and perhaps defeating myself in doing so) was twofold:

(1) Firstly, from a real-world perspective, that the reaction to this ultimately-relatively-insignificant flub in online fandom circa 2001—i.e. "WHAT DO THEY MEAN SAYING THIS IS A D-7 KLINGON SHIP!?"—was much the same then as it was after "Choose Your Pain" (DSC) aired, and seemingly just as oblivious to the irony, considering what "D-7" is a reference to in the first place. So if "Prophecy" is now being held up as an example of doing it right, that's some serious goal-post moving there!

(2) Secondly, from an in-universe perspective, that when one combines the above instances with all the other oddities regarding D-designations found elsewhere (and again, duly considers their origin), it becomes fairly clear to me that there is a rather obvious way of resolving them all in one fell swoop, sensibly and consistently, without need of disregarding any. Consider this bit the "TL;DR" condensation:

I would rather think of the D-designations as more analogous to something like the V-designations of car engines (or perhaps even more apt, considering their origin, "four door" vs "two door" sedan body types) allowing more than one configuration to bear the same D-number, or indeed for two examples of the same hull configuration to bear different ones. In "Prophecy" (VGR), Tuvok is only able to identify the ship as a D-7 by its tetryon readings. In "Choose Your Pain" (DSC) the ship is only identified as a D-7 by its warp signature. (And here we might further note that, in "The Augments" [ENT], we are explicitly shown that such signatures can readily be "faked" simply by reconfiguration of the warp coils.)

I have a headache

Well, be fair now...in my defense, I did try to explain it using pictures the first time around!


-MMoM

 

[johnnybear]

Leonard Nimoy, Jeffrey Hunter and a younger Shatner?
JB

 

[TrickyDickie]

Leonard Nimoy, Jeffrey Hunter and a younger Shatner?
JB

I've been waiting for the right opening. Thanks for providing it, JB!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

^THAT CADET UNIFORM IS ALL WRONG FOR THE PERIOD! IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THIS!!!1!

DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!!!

-MMoM

 

[TrickyDickie]

^THAT CADET UNIFORM IS ALL WRONG FOR THE PERIOD! IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THIS!!!1!

DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!!!

-MMoM

Maybe the one I posted is just the dressier one and Finnegan's is the every-day one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, yes and no.

In terms of the narrative, it was intended as a newer, larger, faster and better successor class.

Weird that the K'tinga's official size is actually a little smaller than the D7.

So I guess it's more like: no, but yes.

I think we may be having one of our little misunderstandings here, though. (And I'm quite sure it's my fault in this case, belaboring it all so!) To be clear, it wasn't, and never would be, my suggestion or argument that the two should require different designations in-universe based on appearance alone. However, the fact is they have always been treated as separate entities behind the scenes and in all licensed reference materials such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, etc., and the intent in "Prophecy" wasn't actually to retcon this, as Mike Sussman explained:

I was the one who dropped the D-7 designation into the dialogue. I knew at the time that we’d seen Greg Jein’s D-7 in “Trials and Tribble-ations” and I assumed the optical department would simply reuse that model. That’s what I get for assuming things! When the episode aired, I was surprised to see the movie-era Klingon ship. I believe that by Voyager’s seventh season, all the effects were computer generated, and to my knowledge, a CG version of Jein’s D-7 did not exist, and it would have cost a fair amount of money to design one in the computer. Had I been aware of this, I would have simply changed Tuvok’s line to 'The tetrion [sic] readings indicate it’s a K’t’inga Class cruiser.' And obviously, Tom’s line about the D-7 being retired decades ago would have had to be changed as well.​

The point I was really trying to make (and perhaps defeating myself in doing so) was twofold:

(1) Firstly, from a real-world perspective, that the reaction to this ultimately-relatively-insignificant flub in online fandom circa 2001—i.e. "WHAT DO THEY MEAN SAYING THIS IS A D-7 KLINGON SHIP!?"—was much the same then as it was after "Choose Your Pain" (DSC) aired, and seemingly just as oblivious to the irony, considering what "D-7" is a reference to in the first place. So if "Prophecy" is now being held up as an example of doing it right, that's some serious goal-post moving there!

I can only speak from personal experience here, I've always considered the D7/K'tinga to be one and the same or a slight variation/upgrade. The "Choose Your Pain" version is a straight swap-out for something entirely new.

(2) Secondly, from an in-universe perspective, that when one combines the above instances with all the other oddities regarding D-designations found elsewhere (and again, duly considers their origin), it becomes fairly clear to me that there is a rather obvious way of resolving them all in one fell swoop, sensibly and consistently, without need of disregarding any. Consider this bit the "TL;DR" condensation

I think it's one of those "each to their own" things. While I see the benefit of saying the D-X designations are Starfleet's and may refer to things other than overall design, a loud part of my brain screams "That's not what they intended!"

 

[TrickyDickie]

Just an interesting little aside:

Has anyone documented the many different colors that AMT / ERTL molded the TOS Klingon cruiser in over the years?

I know of the following:

bright white
off-white
light gray
darker gray
light blue
darker blue
gray-green
black
orange
yellow

Anyone know of any others?

 

[thribs]

Proper phasers for one.
Hell, most things from TOS I want to see in this.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Weird that the K'tinga's official size is actually a little smaller than the D7.

Oi, size weirdness is your department, mate! Don't drag me into that...I can't be responsible for rationalizing everything on my own now, can I?

The "Choose Your Pain" version is a straight swap-out for something entirely new.

I think it's one of those "each to their own" things. While I see the benefit of saying the D-X designations are Starfleet's and may refer to things other than overall design, a loud part of my brain screams "That's not what they intended!"

Just learn to ignore that part of your brain like Spock learned to ignore the part of his that kept shouting "THE WOMEN!" all the time.

Pretty sure what they intended was to make us both look as ridiculous as possible for arguing about it so damn much! They're just keeping Shatner and Nimoy's gag alive, and up to date with current production values!


-MMoM