Spoilers Why wasn't the Franklin and NX class ship?

[WebLurker]

As someone who was there when TMP first came out and completely redesigned the entire Trek universe just because it could, I find it so quaint when today's fans go "Aaaaaahh! That detail looks slightly different! Alternate universe!!!"

I think it depends on if we could imagine the two designs co-existing, or existing at different places in the same timeline. Case in point, the Franklin's overall design works. They could've thrown it into an ENT episode and no problem. The Franklin's use of the Starfleet arrowhead in a timeframe prior to it's use and at a time when ships received unique mission patches is something I have a harder time reconciling. (My fudge is that the arrowhead was recycled a few times before Starfleet chose to have all ships use the same insignia sometime between TOS/TAS and TMP.)

I also never had a problem with the redesigns in TMP (excusing disliking the monochrome PJs). The Enterprise redesign was explained as a refit, the uniforms were newly issued. Technology updates and changes design a lot. I assumed that the movie's version of Earth was the way it had always looked in the TOS timeframe.

 

[Christopher]

The Franklin's use of the Starfleet arrowhead in a timeframe prior to it's use and at a time when ships received unique mission patches is something I have a harder time reconciling. (My fudge is that the arrowhead was recycled a few times before Starfleet chose to have all ships use the same insignia sometime between TOS/TAS and TMP.)

Actually, Voyager: "Friendship One" established that the arrowhead was originally the UESPA insignia in the 2060s, and ENT's 2150s uniform design featured tiny arrowheads on the enlisted rating patches. It's also a myth that the arrowhead was unique to the Enterprise in TOS; we saw it on non-Enterprise personnel on Starbase 11 in "Court-Martial" and "The Menagerie," and the Defiant crew in "The Tholian Web" had it on their uniforms (although the makers of "In a Mirror, Darkly" used a different insignia because it was hard to tell what insignia was being used in "Web"). A production memo turned up a few years ago revealing that Roddenberry intended the arrowhead insignia to be used for all capital ships (with the Antares insgnia from "Charlie X" meant to represent the merchant marine) and that the use of different insignias for the Constellation and Exeter was a production error. Not to mention that the arrowhead has been used Starfleet-wide in every Kelvin Timeline movie, spanning the period from 2233-63.

What I've posited in my Rise of the Federation novels is that the different insignias we saw in TOS originally represented the member worlds' individual space services that cooperated in Starfleet -- the assumption being that, over time, they came to represent administrative subdivisions within Starfleet. So all the ships and bases operating under a specific command (e.g. UESPA for the Enterprise) would use the same insignia, rather than every individual ship having a different one.

I also never had a problem with the redesigns in TMP (excusing disliking the monochrome PJs). The Enterprise redesign was explained as a refit, the uniforms were newly issued. Technology updates and changes design a lot. I assumed that the movie's version of Earth was the way it had always looked in the TOS timeframe.

Which doesn't account for the redesigned Klingons or Andorians. And yes, technology updates, but absolutely every last bit of design and technology being completely changed after just a few years? That's a bit much to accept. Usually that kind of change is more incremental. Roddenberry's intent wasn't "Everything's been redesigned at the same time," it was "This is how it was always meant to look, but we couldn't afford to show it before." The passage of time just makes for a handy excuse if you don't think about it too carefully.

 

[WebLurker]

Actually, Voyager: "Friendship One" established that the arrowhead was originally the UESPA insignia in the 2060s, and ENT's 2150s uniform design featured tiny arrowheads on the enlisted rating patches.

Okay, forgot about that. Cool.

It's also a myth that the arrowhead was unique to the Enterprise in TOS; we saw it on non-Enterprise personnel on Starbase 11 in "Court-Martial" and "The Menagerie," and the Defiant crew in "The Tholian Web" had it on their uniforms (although the makers of "In a Mirror, Darkly" used a different insignia because it was hard to tell what insignia was being used in "Web"). A production memo turned up a few years ago revealing that Roddenberry intended the arrowhead insignia to be used for all capital ships (with the Antares insgnia from "Charlie X" meant to represent the merchant marine) and that the use of different insignias for the Constellation and Exeter was a production error.

I honestly feel that, at the end of the day, that the on-screen evidence outweighs the intent, since we see far more examples of the different patches, and the original idea was never made into canon. The fact that ENT revised the Defiant patch speaks volumes. (Also, the unique patch system was continued in TAS (barring one incident from the zoo episode I can't recall the title to).

(To me, this kind of falls into arguing that Kirk's uniform is green, since that was the intended color of the fabric. That's not what we see onscreen, if we didn't know the behind the scenes stuff, we'd have no clue, and we have onscreen evidence of the opposite. Your mileage may vary.)

Not to mention that the arrowhead has been used Starfleet-wide in every Kelvin Timeline movie, spanning the period from 2233-63.

Most of the Kelvin timeline movies take place in a parallel universe, so it's okay that the their timeline uses the arrowhead post 2233. Since the movies make a lot of mistakes in regards to the Star Trek universe, I'd personally have no problem dismissing the pre-2233 arrowheads as filming mistakes to be ignored, although, since you pointed out that the arrowhead even predates ENT, I'll be even more willing to accept it as a recurring design back in the days of the patch system.)

What I've posited in my Rise of the Federation novels is that the different insignias we saw in TOS originally represented the member worlds' individual space services that cooperated in Starfleet -- the assumption being that, over time, they came to represent administrative subdivisions within Starfleet. So all the ships and bases operating under a specific command (e.g. UESPA for the Enterprise) would use the same insignia, rather than every individual ship having a different one.

I honestly prefer the unique patch system, since I like the variety (I also have a graphic design background), but that's not a bad way to go.

Which doesn't account for the redesigned Klingons or Andorians.

Different ethnicities? In real life, we humans have some varying characteristics depending on genetic background. Why can't aliens? (The Klingons would be a bridge too far, IMHO, if you wanted to keep general consistency but that was addressed after the fact. I also have no problem with the different ridge, since it looks like a viable genetic variation within the species.)

And yes, technology updates, but absolutely every last bit of design and technology being completely changed after just a few years? That's a bit much to accept. Usually that kind of change is more incremental.

Some of the tech could have been introduced before, but wasn't stocked on the Enterprise. In all the TV shows, there have been changes over time to the hardware. Also we saw handheld communicators used at the same time as the TMP wrist ones in TWOK. (Yeah, its a bit of a fudge, but there are worse.)

Roddenberry's intent wasn't "Everything's been redesigned at the same time," it was "This is how it was always meant to look, but we couldn't afford to show it before." The passage of time just makes for a handy excuse if you don't think about it too carefully.

Maybe that was a product of the times? With serialized fiction moving more toward story arcs and massive interconnectedness, would filmmakers be less likely to try and keep stuff more unified in look? I mean, it seems like in franchises today, exactly replicating a prop or setup from a previous installment is considered great.

 

[Christopher]

I honestly feel that, at the end of the day, that the on-screen evidence outweighs the intent, since we see far more examples of the different patches, and the original idea was never made into canon. The fact that ENT revised the Defiant patch speaks volumes. (Also, the unique patch system was continued in TAS (barring one incident from the zoo episode I can't recall the title to).

We see evidence of both multiple patches and the reuse of the same patch by multiple ships. A theory has to be based on all the evidence, not just the parts that fit what you want to believe. The best model that fits all the evidence is that the different patches are not for individual ships, but for fleet subdivisions that encompass multiple ships. And it is certainly wrong to say that the arrowhead was unique to the Enterprise before TMP. Canonically, it was the UESPA insignia 200 years before TOS.

Since the movies make a lot of mistakes in regards to the Star Trek universe...

No, they contain differences of interpretation. Just like every other new incarnation of ST before them.

Different ethnicities? In real life, we humans have some varying characteristics depending on genetic background. Why can't aliens? (The Klingons would be a bridge too far, IMHO, if you wanted to keep general consistency but that was addressed after the fact. I also have no problem with the different ridge, since it looks like a viable genetic variation within the species.)

Look, obviously any of these things can be rationalized after the fact. That's a large part of what I've been doing for the past dozen years as a professional Star Trek tie-in author. But that's entirely not the point. The point is about the real world, about the actual living people who created this work of fiction called Star Trek and who decided that they wanted to redesign everything in it, because ultimately it's all just a bunch of sets and costumes and makeup appliances on a Hollywood soundstage.

Maybe that was a product of the times? With serialized fiction moving more toward story arcs and massive interconnectedness, would filmmakers be less likely to try and keep stuff more unified in look? I mean, it seems like in franchises today, exactly replicating a prop or setup from a previous installment is considered great.

If that is the case, I'd call it an unhealthy obsession on precision to the detriment of creative freedom. Art is not about slavishly clinging to the first idea you had. It's about constantly striving to improve and come up with better ideas. Fandom today is too obsessed with the past, with wanting everything to be fixed and unchanging, and that is inimical to creativity.

 

[WebLurker]

We see evidence of both multiple patches and the reuse of the same patch by multiple ships. A theory has to be based on all the evidence, not just the parts that fit what you want to believe. The best model that fits all the evidence is that the different patches are not for individual ships, but for fleet subdivisions that encompass multiple ships. And it is certainly wrong to say that the arrowhead was unique to the Enterprise before TMP. Canonically, it was the UESPA insignia 200 years before TOS.

I won't argue with the arrowhead not being unique to the Enterprise and used before (although I will subjectively admit that it's very jarring to see it used for the Kelvin and Franklin in the movies -- although the latter's was actually a plot point that I can understand the need for).

May I ask, beyond the memo (which is not canonical), why the arrowhead for non-Enterprise crew model should be meshed with the "unique patches" model? I'm asking, since there are other conflicting elements (like the "200 year" figure in relation to Khan) where one is considered accurate and the other is just ignored as a mistake (maybe pretending that the correct information/version was used). I'm trying to understand why the patch situation doesn't fall under that version . Esp. since ENT changed the arrowhead for the Defiant -- indicating that there was something "wrong" with the first version, shifting the instance from one side of the disagreement to the other, and it being a border case, since it looked like the original episode went out of their way to hide the patches, as if the makers didn't want us to see them in the first place.

No, they contain differences of interpretation. Just like every other new incarnation of ST before them.

Look, obviously any of these things can be rationalized after the fact. That's a large part of what I've been doing for the past dozen years as a professional Star Trek tie-in author. But that's entirely not the point. The point is about the real world, about the actual living people who created this work of fiction called Star Trek and who decided that they wanted to redesign everything in it, because ultimately it's all just a bunch of sets and costumes and makeup appliances on a Hollywood soundstage.

Of course. Suspension of disbelief is inherent in fiction. In this case, though, I don't find it as strained as others do. That's all. I guess I assumed that it was a given and skipped to the theorizing (which, truth be told, is the fun part).

If that is the case, I'd call it an unhealthy obsession on precision to the detriment of creative freedom. Art is not about slavishly clinging to the first idea you had. It's about constantly striving to improve and come up with better ideas.

I was only wondering about the shift in the way TV (and other stuff) approaches serialized storytelling. Modern day stuff tends to prefer stronger internal continuity and story arcs, as opposed to decades earlier, which tended to have really isolated episodes that don't affect each other much (there are quite a few TOS episodes that you could cut out and the overall show would be pretty much the same).

Personally, I think (when handled well), the former actually can make for a better product. Events in one show/book/whatever having consequences later down the line can be good. Characters are less likely to remain static. It uses the medium to it's full advantage; being able to build on itself and become bigger than the single episodes.

Now, at the end of the day, the actual quality of the product is the important factor. M*A*S*H stuck to the episodic format for most of its TV run and it more than earned its reputation as a great show. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. follows the more modern format, and, while I consider myself one of its fans, I don't think it going to be remembered as classic TV years down the line, nor should it. I also don't want episodic storytelling to go away completely (whether it be as breaks in a story arc, or a whole show devoted to the concept). I like having variety.

Fandom today is too obsessed with the past, with wanting everything to be fixed and unchanging, and that is inimical to creativity.

I have seen some franchises I really like strip everything that made me a fan in the first place through changes, so I don't blame anyone for being leery about change. It's is a double-edged sword. It can be great or it can be bad.

Also, creativity can come from working within an existing framework.

 

[Timo]

No.

...No what?

The intention in the film is clear

Intention is never clear, least of all in films which are created by a committee that outshouts the creative input of any single artist.

and we know from much of Into Darkness and Beyond that the Enterprise era remains unaffected.

We have no pressing reason to believe in any affecting. But we have no pressing reason to believe affecting could not have happened, either.

She's the Earth Starfleet's first Warp 4 ship and a MACO vessel, operating alongside the Earth fleet seen in Seasons 3 and 4 and through the Romulan War.

Not a single item of those above is actually established in the movie.

1) There is no association with Earth Starfleet whatsoever in the Franklin story. The organization doesn't get any mention, its uniforms and symbology make no appearance, and its history is not referred to, not even through random ENT name-drops.

2) There is no connection between the MACO and the Franklin in evidence, other than Edison having been part of MACO in his previous career.

3) Nothing about the operational history of the Franklin in either ENT S3/4 or the RW is mentioned. Nothing requires us to think she was even operational at that time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[jamestyler]

I honestly prefer the unique patch system, since I like the variety (I also have a graphic design background), but that's not a bad way to go.

I know I'm picking up one small thing from a massive comment, but this stood out to me as I'd have thought, from my own experience in the field, that would be the opposite way round.

The idea of having a patch so prominently for every ship is absolutely baffling to me. Essentially Starfleet is a massive brand awareness mission. Seek out new life, shake hands with new people and tell the world that the Federation is cool. Creating a strong brand awareness, but using dozens of different logo's to do that, is incredibly backwards thinking to me.

 

[rRico]

I know I'm picking up one small thing from a massive comment, but this stood out to me as I'd have thought, from my own experience in the field, that would be the opposite way round.

The idea of having a patch so prominently for every ship is absolutely baffling to me. Essentially Starfleet is a massive brand awareness mission. Seek out new life, shake hands with new people and tell the world that the Federation is cool. Creating a strong brand awareness, but using dozens of different logo's to do that, is incredibly backwards thinking to me.

The delta arrowhead is the "brand" symbol of Starfleet. So long as this is prominently featured, these varying mission patches or ship-specific patches could still be a thing.

 

[Christopher]

May I ask, beyond the memo (which is not canonical), why the arrowhead for non-Enterprise crew model should be meshed with the "unique patches" model?

I already told you. Canonically, we saw non-Enterprise personnel wearing the arrowhead in "Court-Martial" (the officers in the bar who gave Kirk the cold shoulder -- that would've been insubordinate if they'd been part of his crew) and "The Menagerie" (a Starbase 11 staffer in the background). The memo merely provides context for the canonical evidence.

Esp. since ENT changed the arrowhead for the Defiant -- indicating that there was something "wrong" with the first version, shifting the instance from one side of the disagreement to the other, and it being a border case, since it looked like the original episode went out of their way to hide the patches, as if the makers didn't want us to see them in the first place.

I think it's more just that the makers of IaMD probably didn't realize that they were actually arrowhead patches. The memo hadn't surfaced yet, and the myth that each ship had its own insignia had been part of fan lore for decades.

Besides, there's the preponderance of later evidence about the pre-TOS use of the insignia -- the Friendship 1 UESPA emblem, the 22nd-century rating patches, the Kelvin. It's clear that the arrowhead was originally the UESPA emblem and was never unique to a single ship. So it's illogical to assume that Starfleet temporarily switched to using a different insignia for every single ship and then went back to using the arrowhead exclusively. It's simpler to conclude that it was always used fleetwide, but that there were other variant patches in use alongside it for a time.

I was only wondering about the shift in the way TV (and other stuff) approaches serialized storytelling. Modern day stuff tends to prefer stronger internal continuity and story arcs, as opposed to decades earlier, which tended to have really isolated episodes that don't affect each other much (there are quite a few TOS episodes that you could cut out and the overall show would be pretty much the same).

Yes, but that's story. Keeping the story and the characters consistent is one thing. Obsessing on making sure every single prop and costume looks exactly like it did 50 years ago is not necessary for story consistency. Look at comic books. When a new artist takes over a book, they don't slavishly copy their predecessor's art style. They bring in their own distinctive way of drawing the characters and the costumes. John Romita, Jr.'s Peter Parker does not look like John Romita, Sr.'s Peter Parker, or Steve Ditko's Peter Parker, or Ross Andru's or John Byrne's or Humberto Ramos's. But we accept that they're the same character even though the artists interpret them differently. We accept that the Spider-Man costume is the same even if different artists draw the eyes or the logo at different sizes. And so on.

So when it comes to redesigns of alien makeups or Starfleet technology, we don't have to assume it's actually changed in-universe, any more than we have to assume that Saavik got massive cosmetic surgery right after Spock's funeral. Some visual changes are merely differences in interpretation. We're not watching a documentary broadcast from a parallel universe, we're watching an artistic interpretation of a story. And elements of the interpretation can be tweaked without changing the underlying narrative.

 

[starburst]

Not a single item of those above is actually established in the movie.

1) There is no association with Earth Starfleet whatsoever in the Franklin story. The organization doesn't get any mention, its uniforms and symbology make no appearance, and its history is not referred to, not even through random ENT name-drops.

2) There is no connection between the MACO and the Franklin in evidence, other than Edison having been part of MACO in his previous career.

3) Nothing about the operational history of the Franklin in either ENT S3/4 or the RW is mentioned. Nothing requires us to think she was even operational at that time.

All good points though Scotty did refer to her as Earth's (at least I remember it being Earth's not Starfleets) first Warp 4 ship. While its possible she could have been built after that statement would suggest (to me at least) that she was built before Enterprise.

According to Memory Alpha the United Federation of Planets was formed officially in 2161 and the Franklin went missing in 2164 (though I don't remember the date in the film from memory) which could have led to various changes including new uniforms in those 3 years especially as they had remained largely the same since the NX-Alpha flight which was 18 years before the Enterprise season finale especially if you imagine during this time Earth Starfleet had become the Federation Starfleet and MACO being folded in when it was disbanded.

The fact she wasn't seen on screen or in print doesn't mean she couldn't have been in service at the time and just never seen (she could be the only ship of her type) and name dropping that Edison was a MACO and was offered the Franklin when MACO was shut down sometime in that 3 year window. Not knowing how long he had been in charge its impossible to even try and date at the earliest the ship had been built as she could have been new off the line in 2161 and MACO could have shut up operations the day after Archer's speech.

For me, until something from the production says otherwise, I am going to line up the "Warp 4" comment with it being built sometime between 2143 (NX-Beta hitting Warp 2.5) and 2151 (Enterprise's launch). Its not like having a Warp 4 ship demeans Enterprise's Warp 5 as its not like going from 40 to 50 in a car, again according to MA Warp 5 is over twice as fast as Warp 4 [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_factor] so that doesn't even come into it.

Its interesting that Sean Hargreaves said he was told the story intention was that the Franklin was a cargo ship in a recent TrekYards interview as I had the theory it could have been some sort of small fast courier ship which still kinda works I suppose.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For the STB scenes set on the Franklin's bridge, that probably wouldn't have worked if they'd used the Enterprise bridge (if it had still existed) because that one is just too big. STB needed a small, cramped bridge, with a minimum of crew stations.

@Christopher: I buy the idea that the Franklin was a MACO ship, but if it was, why were its crew all given Starfleet uniforms and ranks?

Just because it used to be a MACO ship doesn't mean it retained a MACO crew. Keeping around the Captain and first officer would make sense because they were familiar with the ship and had served with distinction, but the rest of the crew would probably have been reassigned to other duties better suited to their skill set (security officers on other starships, for example) while Franklin itself received more science officers and generalists.

If they'd go to all the trouble to integrate the MACOs with Starfleet (most of them anyway, i.e. the ones that didn't become the SFMC)

Actually I don't think MACO was integrated into Starfleet entirely, just their space service. Meaning starships and spacecraft. The ground force of MACO was likely reorganized into something else, United Earth's land army or Civil Defense Force or something.

It's unlikely Starfleet has any kind of separate "marine corps" or anything of that nature since their operations branch includes security specialists.

 

[WebLurker]

I already told you. Canonically, we saw non-Enterprise personnel wearing the arrowhead in "Court-Martial" (the officers in the bar who gave Kirk the cold shoulder -- that would've been insubordinate if they'd been part of his crew) and "The Menagerie" (a Starbase 11 staffer in the background). The memo merely provides context for the canonical evidence.

I tried to look up the uses of insignia on pre-TMP Starfleet (prime universe), and this's what I found

ships with the Enterprise arrowhead

- U.S.S. Ariel (registry unknown) (“The Eye of the Beholder” [TAS]): A TOS era ship
- Unnamed ship of the hostile officers (“Court Martial” [TOS]): A TOS era ship

Ships with a variation of the Enterprise arrowhead

- Friendship 1 (“Friendship One” [VOY]): A rep-TOS, pre-Starfleet, pre-United Earth (at least in full) UESPA probe with a United Nations or New United Nations emblem that resembled the future Enterprise arrowhead.
- U.S.S. Franklin NX-326 (Star Trek Beyond): A pre-TOS ship, who’s unique mission patch included a sider version of the arrowhead.
- U.S.S. Kelvin NCC-0514 (Star Trek [2009]): A pre-TOS ship, with an unique hollow version of the arrowhead

Ships without the Enterprise arrowhead

- Bonaventure 1028NCC (“The Time Trap” [TAS]): A pre-TOS ship
- U.S.S. Antares NCC-501 ("Charlie X" [TOS]): A TOS era ship
- U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (“The Doomsday Machine” [TOS]): A TOS era ship
- U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 (“In a Mirror, Darkly, Parts I and II” [ENT]): A TOS ship [retconned from the Enterprise arrowhead in “The Tholian Web” (TOS)]
- U.S.S. Exter NCC-1672 (“The Omega Glory” [TOS]): A TOS era ship
- U.S.S. Lexington NCC-1709 (“The Ultimate Computer” [TOS]): A TOS era ship [possibly; Commodore Wesley, the CO, had the “starburst” emblem used for staircase personal]
- U.S.S. Huron NCC-F1913 (“The Pirates of Orion” [TAS]): A TOS era ship
- Epsilon IX (Star Trek - The Motion Picture): A TOS era facility [also operating when the arrowhead was definitely the universal Starfleet emblem in the prime universe]
- Starbase 11 personal (“The Menagerie, Part I,” “Court Martial” [TOS]): A TOS facility [that metal starburst emblem thing]
- Starbase 10 personal (“The Deadly Years” [TOS]): A TOS facility [it also looks like a different one than the Starbase 11, if I recall correctly[/quote]

So, we have two minor instances with the arrowhead being used outside of the Enterprise, two of a unique patch using the arrowhead in its own design (I don't think Friendship 1's should count, since that's obviously a non-Starfleet emblem that presumably influenced the later arrowhead, regardless of what theory you subscribe to) against ten instances where we see unique patches for different ships and assignments.

So, it's two against twelve. At best, if we count the arrowhead variations with the exact copies, it's four to ten. Either way, the "unique mission patch theory is in the majority and all the examples against it make more sense as minor costuming errors. So, can you understand why I don't think your position is a very viable one? There's not only overwhelming evidence against it, but the only examples usable to support it are the weakest in the whole discussion.

I think it's more just that the makers of IaMD probably didn't realize that they were actually arrowhead patches. The memo hadn't surfaced yet, and the myth that each ship had its own insignia had been part of fan lore for decades.

It's not a myth. There are ten to twelve examples of it. We just didn't know that that was a retcon of a non-canon idea the filmmakers had.

Besides, there's the preponderance of later evidence about the pre-TOS use of the insignia -- the Friendship 1 UESPA emblem, the 22nd-century rating patches, the Kelvin. It's clear that the arrowhead was originally the UESPA emblem and was never unique to a single ship. So it's illogical to assume that Starfleet temporarily switched to using a different insignia for every single ship and then went back to using the arrowhead exclusively. It's simpler to conclude that it was always used fleetwide, but that there were other variant patches in use alongside it for a time.

The Franklin and Kelvin's patches are different enough I would count them as separate patches, IMHO. I don't have a problem with Starfleet reusing variations of the arrowhead over time, esp. as there are decades in between each ship getting there's.

Yes, but that's story. Keeping the story and the characters consistent is one thing. Obsessing on making sure every single prop and costume looks exactly like it did 50 years ago is not necessary for story consistency. Look at comic books. When a new artist takes over a book, they don't slavishly copy their predecessor's art style. They bring in their own distinctive way of drawing the characters and the costumes. John Romita, Jr.'s Peter Parker does not look like John Romita, Sr.'s Peter Parker, or Steve Ditko's Peter Parker, or Ross Andru's or John Byrne's or Humberto Ramos's. But we accept that they're the same character even though the artists interpret them differently. We accept that the Spider-Man costume is the same even if different artists draw the eyes or the logo at different sizes. And so on.

I don't know. A new artist can be really jarring, esp. if they're trying to go for a different style.

So when it comes to redesigns of alien makeups or Starfleet technology, we don't have to assume it's actually changed in-universe, any more than we have to assume that Saavik got massive cosmetic surgery right after Spock's funeral. Some visual changes are merely differences in interpretation. We're not watching a documentary broadcast from a parallel universe, we're watching an artistic interpretation of a story. And elements of the interpretation can be tweaked without changing the underlying narrative.

Fair enough. But I'm looking at it as what can be explained in universe and what we just suspend disbelief on.

 

[TheSubCommander]

Does anyone else think the Franklin should've been an NX class ship? With the reason it was there it would've made perfect sense too. It would've been great to see on the big screen too.

I was fine with it as it was. It was close enough in design to the NX as a tip of the cap, but also a different ship that payed tribute to FASA (even though they say they didn't, it still looks FASA to me). The biggest issue in story is if it were an NX is the fact the Franklin was landed on the surface. NX was built in space, and likely can't land like the Franklin.

 

[Christopher]

So, we have two minor instances with the arrowhead being used outside of the Enterprise, two of a unique patch using the arrowhead in its own design (I don't think Friendship 1's should count, since that's obviously a non-Starfleet emblem that presumably influenced the later arrowhead, regardless of what theory you subscribe to) against ten instances where we see unique patches for different ships and assignments.

The Friendship 1 insignia is explicitly the UESPA logo. UESPA was established as the Enterprise's command authority in "Charlie X" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday," and a set decoration seen in Enterprise established that it was either affiliated with Starfleet Command or part of the same organization. So there is a consistent throughline that allows us to conclude that the arrowhead is the UESPA insignia.

So, it's two against twelve.

It's not a race or an election. As I said, a theory has to fit all of the evidence. All of these things are part of the universe and we need to formulate a model that explains every one of them -- that allows for all of them and explains the inconsistency. You don't get to ignore data that doesn't fit your preferred model. You have to amend your model to fit new data.

Heck, that's what I did. I used to take the "different insignia for every ship" model for granted, because I didn't realize there was evidence that conflicted with it. When I was made aware of that evidence, I amended my model.


And really, I don't understand why you're so hostile to this model. It still allows for multiple different insignias to be in use in the 2260s -- it just makes them the insignias of groups of ships rather than single ships. So it's just a variation on the idea, not a complete repudiation of it. It's a compromise position that fits both the idea of multiple insignias and the idea of a shared insignia used by multiple ships. What's so wrong with that?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Actually I don't think MACO was integrated into Starfleet entirely, just their space service. Meaning starships and spacecraft. The ground force of MACO was likely reorganized into something else, United Earth's land army or Civil Defense Force or something.

The MACOS, by definition, don't have a space service. They're strictly a ground forces organization.

It's unlikely Starfleet has any kind of separate "marine corps" or anything of that nature since their operations branch includes security specialists.

There is a Starfleet Marine Corps - Star Trek VI proved it. (The SFMC were mentioned on the Operation Retrieve plan, and of course there's COLONEL West. )

 

[F. King Daniel]

They're not! The Marine Corps are only in a fan made addition to the actual Operation Retrieve plans.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Whatever.

There's still Colonel West to deal with, you know. Sure, they didn't give him a real SFMC uniform, and I'm sure there's other explanations as to why he has that rank (which may or may not have been put forth in the novels), but in the end...trying to explain West away as something other than a Marine, is no less "head-canon"-ish than saying he IS one, so I'd say we're even.

As for the Franklin, I just had another thought: Perhaps it was a part of another Earth fleet that was separate from Starfleet. I don't mean the MACOS, I mean some other Earth space navy. Could even be left over from pre-United Earth days.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The MACOS, by definition, don't have a space service. They're strictly a ground forces organization.

"By definition?" I don't think so. It was implied that they were mostly a ground organization that was highly specialized in combat to a degree Starfleet never even aspired to. That MACO didn't have combat vessels of its own was NEVER established at all, only that they didn't have anything fast enough to get into the Delphic Expanse in a reasonable amount of time.

It's possible -- and even likely -- that ships like the Franklin were deployed to protect ships and stations NEAR the expanse, particularly ships of the cargo service and slower Starfleet vessels, and that these ships and stations came under attack multiple times by the Xindi while the Enterprise was searching for their superweapon.

There is a Starfleet Marine Corps - Star Trek VI proved it. (The SFMC were mentioned on the Operation Retrieve

SFMC was printed on a sheet of paper that was never meant to be legible and never identified as to exactly who or what it described (assuming the sheets that popped up on the internet are even the same ones used in the movie and that's debatable). Those same initials just as easily apply to "Star Fleet Medical Corps" or "Starfleet Force Mission Command" or even "San Francisco Masonry Club."

of course there's COLONEL West.

I just figured Bill didn't have the time to explain to the president why there was a changeling in his office or how he factored into the rescue plan.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Whatever.

There's still Colonel West to deal with, you know.

What is there to "deal with"? We don't know anything about Starfleet's rank structure except that it sloppily apes the rank structures of 20th century navies and militaries. For all we know "colonel" is an honorary title for a commodore of Starfleet security (sort of like "Counselor Troi" or "Doctor McCoy" who for whatever reason are never referred to by their ACTUAL RANK).

As for the Franklin, I just had another thought: Perhaps it was a part of another Earth fleet that was separate from Starfleet. I don't mean the MACOS, I mean some other Earth space navy. Could even be left over from pre-United Earth days.

That would imply it was a MUCH older vessel, at least 30 years older than NX-01, and would have been well over due for retirement by the time it was lost.

And that still wouldn't explain why they put a former MACO officer in command of it. It's actually more likely that the Franklin was a starship built and operated by MACO and then transferred to Starfleet when Earth joined the Federation; Edison -- who didn't want to leave his ship and accept forced retirement -- was allowed to transfer along with it, owing to his experience and leadership skills. It would make sense, also, if not everyone in Starfleet was comfortable with this and personality conflicts left him feeling like an outsider in his new adoptive organization.

 

[WebLurker]

The Friendship 1 insignia is explicitly the UESPA logo. UESPA was established as the Enterprise's command authority in "Charlie X" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday," and a set decoration seen in Enterprise established that it was either affiliated with Starfleet Command or part of the same organization. So there is a consistent throughline that allows us to conclude that the arrowhead is the UESPA insignia.

Okay, so the UN-like arrowhead was the 21st century UESPA logo. All right then. It would be interesting to know why and how the rough design came under Starfleet's usage, but okay. Like I said, I accept that this's where the arrowhead originally came from, regardless of _____.

It's not a race or an election. As I said, a theory has to fit all of the evidence. All of these things are part of the universe and we need to formulate a model that explains every one of them -- that allows for all of them and explains the inconsistency. You don't get to ignore data that doesn't fit your preferred model. You have to amend your model to fit new data.

No, it's neither a race or an election. I'm only making the point that one model is better supported than the other by the evidence.

Also, I seem to recall you telling me to ignore the "Matter of Time" (TNG) episode in regards to the phaser/laser/phase weapon question, despite the episode offering relevant evidence to the discussion. How come applying the same reasoning here, is suddenly wrong? How was that not "ignoring data that doesn't fit your preferred model"?

Heck, that's what I did. I used to take the "different insignia for every ship" model for granted, because I didn't realize there was evidence that conflicted with it. When I was made aware of that evidence, I amended my model.

Okay.

And really, I don't understand why you're so hostile to this model. It still allows for multiple different insignias to be in use in the 2260s -- it just makes them the insignias of groups of ships rather than single ships. So it's just a variation on the idea, not a complete repudiation of it. It's a compromise position that fits both the idea of multiple insignias and the idea of a shared insignia used by multiple ships. What's so wrong with that?

Okay, first of all, it really sounds like your using a double standard. Look, I'm 100% percent sure it's not intentional, but I know we've swapped posts about continuity and how much leeway the creators should have regarding retcons. As I noted above, it feels like you're suddenly arguing the opposite and dismissing your previous position of more flexibility in continuity. Again, I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying how it's coming across here.

It seems overly complex for something that's would be simpler to just explain away as a filming error. The fact that ENT, the last made project on the subject chose to retcon one use of the arrowhead indicates that the Powers That Be have decided that it's not the way it worked.

Also, it feels like we're trying to twist the franchise to fit the memo, which was never canon in the first place and only reflected in the series proper a handful of times. Also, the fact that we suddenly didn't realize it was wrong until the memo showed up doesn't really speak too well for the theory, if the evidence was that obscure. Honestly, would you be advocating this model without the memo?

So, my "hostility" comes from my feeling that common sense is being ignored to shoehorn in something that was essentially a mistake in the first place, and that I'm using your rules to approach it and being told that that's wrong.