One thing everybody fails to consider is that Jeffries designed what would become known as the Daedelus as a 23rd century Starship Enterprise, and that the Constitution design he came up with afterwards was never intended to be 100 years older than it. Hence the very similar styling cues. Putting the Daedelus design back 100 years was, in hindsight of course, a somewhat silly decision by Okuda.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
What about the USS Carolina from "Friday's Child?" It was a Daedalus calss ship, says the Encyclopedia, with a registry of either NCC-235 or NCC-160. Would this be considered a fake ship, because the Klingons used it in a false distress call, or a real one? (On another note, I would say the sphere hull design is canon and official, since it has been said to be Daedalus in so many places.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay:
The ships Archon, Carolina, and Horizon were mentioned breifly in episodes of TOS. ("Return of the Archons," "Friday's Child," and "A Piece of the Action," to be specific.)
The U.S.S. Essex, a Daedalus-class ship, was mentioned in "Power Play" (TNG).
That's where the names come from.
All of these ships were later featured in Okudagram displays in TNG and elsewhere which assigned them all to the Daedalus-class, and gave the registry numbers of NCC-189, NCC-160, NCC-176, and NCC-173.
That's where the class and registry info comes from.
A Greg Jein-built (I think) model of the U.S.S. Horizon NCC-176, built originally as a conjectural model for the Star Trek Chronology, was seen in various episodes of DS9 as set decoration in Sisko's office. A very clear picture of this model, with all its markings visible, is shown in the book "The Art of Star Trek."
That's where the design came from.
All of this was later featured in Encyclopedias 1, 2, and 2.5.
NOTE: The Carolina can easily be explained by the fact that it was a hoax by Klingons. No conflict.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:
All of these ships were later featured in Okudagram displays in TNG and elsewhere which assigned them all to the Daedalus-class
In which episodes are these displays? I want to see them.
[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think making the Carolina a Daedalus is just an Encyclopedia thing. If the Carolina were really a Daedalus, it would have been out of service for at least seventy years by the time the Klingons used it in their ruse, and no-one would have believed them.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Not necessarily, TSN, since I doubt ANYONE in Starfleet could really remember all 1700+ ships names that Starfleet has had at that time. The Klingons may have known the name of the Carolina because maybe they destroyed her or briefly encountered her somewhere.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Spikey:
Okuda has stated that all his starship information in the Encycs comes from Okudagrams that he himself put together for displays in the background of various episodes of various series. We don't know exactly which ones, and he can't remember exactly either. It's just one of the many things we sort of have to trust him on because he's an inside guy. (I know a lot of you think I trust him a bit too much, but I think that at least this is something we can ALL take his word for, comfortably.)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I think you're misrepresenting Okuda a bit there. While he's said some registries are from displays, by no means has he said that all of them are, especially the TOS ones.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Matt: I would think, for the signal to be taken seriously, there would be some sort of identification w/ it. So I would think the computer displays would be telling info about the ship. If nothing else, the computer should have realized the signal was coming from a non-existent ship.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
Strangely enough, the issue that is identified and discussed in this thread on the Daedalus ships is identical to the Ambassador ships. No person or computer display ever said that the Enterprise C form is Ambassador. This, too, is accepted upon faith.
The dialogue for the USS Carolina says (a.) there were two supposed messages from this ship; (b.) the ship is not a starship; and (c.) she might be real.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:
No person or computer display ever said that the Enterprise C form is Ambassador.
The Zhukov is of the same design as the Enterprise-C and the Zhukov was identified as an Ambassador-class vessel on a computer display.
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
You and I know this. The majority of the viewership doesn't know this. Why? No connection was ever made in an episode or film between the class and the form of the ship. Our knowledge is unique and is not dispersed outside the Star Trek fan base.
I should have been clear on the computer display I had in mind. My apologies. I was referring to those displays that we can freeze in an episode on DVD format and analyze. The second type of displays are seen in specialized publications that are largely bought by the Star Trek fan base.
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ah, but in The Continuing Mission book, which is the subject of much debate, has Okudagrams from "Yesterday's Enterprise" saying that the Enterprise-C is Ambassador Class. And if you look in the TNG Companion under the episode "Conspiracy," you'll find that they knew the USS Horatio was supposed to be Ambassador Class when they made the episode, even if they didn't ave a design!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The_Tom:
All these people are absolutely right. Okuda made up a lot of TOS registries, and a lot of others too. In fact he made up most of them. And sometimes he made them up arbitrarily. But he incorporated all his made up info into the show, by displaying it on graphics that he designed. So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen, whether we as viewers could see them or not.
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:
So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen.
Sez who?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Sez the people who know there is no other source but the Encyclopedia that is close to being official and canon, besides the writers, Okuda, etc. Why don't we just accept what the Encyclopedia says, because we can't find another source with better nformation and most of the time the Okudas don't have the answers?
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
All these people are absolutely right. Okuda made up a lot of TOS registries, and a lot of others too. In fact he made up most of them. And sometimes he made them up arbitrarily. But he incorporated all his made up info into the show, by displaying it on graphics that he designed. So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen, whether we as viewers could see them or not.
Two problems...
(1) It is highly unlikely that Okuda incorporated the TOS registries into Okudagrams, simply because these ships weren't in service at the time. We've seen a fairly representative sampling of Okudagrams, and none feature ships below NCC-2000.
(2) Okudagrams also say all sorts of goofy things taht we don't accept as canon. Why should we accept the registries?
Anyway, I have no problem with accepting the registries, but I wouldn't call them "canon," either.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Damn, whose got the quote from that old Okuda interview? I can't seem to find it. Anyways, he DID say that as homage to TOS, he made up displays with ships familiar from the old series. I'll keep looking for the quote. That's where the Antares' reg comes from.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, but that doesn't mean he's used all of them...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's right, it doesn't HAVE to mean he's used EVERY SINGLE ONE, but consider this:
We have NO WAY of knowing which, if any, he didn't use.
He probably wouldn't just make shit up only for the Encyclopedia. Chances are he made it up a while beforehand and put it in the show.
There are so many frickin' displays out there on all the shows that nobody in heaven or hell's gonna be able to check each one to see if it matches what Okuda says.
Why do you require such absolute proof? Okuda is an inside man, who has been highly involved with the show, and he's done most of the graphics personally. Why can't you just accept what he says?
Besides, the Encyclopedias are canon. The Technical Manuals are canon. The Fact Files are canon. Having something published in one of these sources is equivalent to it being seen or heard onscreen. It's the same thing.
Why do we continue to debate this endlessly? That's Paramount's official view on the subject, and it's mine, and I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you make it your own. It just makes sense.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:
Besides, the Encyclopedias are canon. The Technical Manuals are canon. The Fact Files are canon. Having something published in one of these sources is equivalent to it being seen or heard onscreen. It's the same thing.Why do we continue to debate this endlessly? That's Paramount's official view on the subject, and it's mine, and I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you make it your own. It just makes sense.
You, sir, are wrong. Paramount's official position on the subject, as well as those associated with Star Trek itself, is that the supplementary material liscensed by Paramount is at best semi-canon. It is not canon; it is not non-canon. It lies in a state of limbo fluctuating between the two extremes.
The information in these works that you mention are based off of on-screen evidence, but the authors in their works make assumptions. What assumptions, you say? Well, in the encyclopedia, reference is made to events in Spock's life that occurred only in an Animated Series episode. Paramount's position is TAS is non-canon. Based on evidence presented in the series, Zephram Cochrane is listed in the encyclopedia/chronology as having performed the first warp test in 2061. First Contact establishes that this happened in 2063. If these assumptions do not make it on-screen, then they cannot be accepted as the total truth of God. The writers can turn around and change this to fit their needs for an episode. As such, what is on-screen is what goes, not what is in a book.
Why the need for this? Simple, Paramount has to see to the support of the Star Trek fans to the lowest common denominator. Not every Star Trek fan is going to be reading all of the novels nor is every Star Trek fan going to be in the possession of all of the supplementary texts. As such, Paramount's official position is that on-screen evidence is canon, everything else is in a quasi-sort of existence until the writers include the information in an episode that either supports or denies it.
The large majority of fans do not have the encyclopedia or the tech manuals or subscriptions to the magazine or the Fact Files (which are only available in Europe). To say that all of this other material (which in some instances is in conflict with each other like the Thunderchild's registry in the encyclopedia versus the Fact Files) is canon makes this required reading for the fans. And to force the fans to have to know all of this is expecting too much of the fans. And that is why strictly canon material is left with what is seen on-screen. All Star Trek fans have at minimum that ability to watch the shows and movies.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Not to mention that, from my understanding, Paramount has jack shit to do w/ the Fact Files, and, while they provide quite a bit of interesting information we couldn't get elsewhere, they also have a tendency to be just-plain-wrong about some stuff.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:
He probably wouldn't just make shit up only for the Encyclopedia.
Of course he could. Okuda's a nice guy, but he's hardly the continuity-fundamentalist God that a lot of you make him out to be.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
But we have nothing to do but accept them, because no one else can come up with a better book or something. Unless, that is, someone has found something...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:
But we have nothing to do but accept them, because no one else can come up with a better book or something.
This a weak argument for supporting the canonicity of the supplementary materials. The equivalent is saying that we have nothing better to accept than the Bible because no one else can come up with a better scripture or something. This would no doubt be offensive to all other religions. But on a more practical nature, you would be postulating that we should accept the Bible solely for its being there and you're perception that nothing better has been created.
Let me say this again: we do not have to accept anything EXCEPT what is seen and heard on-screen from the live-action television series and the movies. You accept other stuff to your heart's content, but if the writers decide that there are eight personnel transporters on Galaxy class starship instead of the six proposed by the TNG Tech Manual, then eight personnel transporters become the correct answer.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
We don't have to accept them blindly without reservation. We can accept them as what probably happened, but not what necessarily happened.
Quickly, regarding the fact that, ignoring displays, the name Daedalus has never been linked with the design, and the name Ambassador has never been linked with that design, there is one slight difference.
We have actually seen the Ambassador on screen. We know, for sure, that that design exists. All we have for the Daedalus is pics from the Encylopedia/Chronology, and Sisko's model. And considering what Cochrane's ship looks like in the original Chronology, and considering the past record of ship models in people's rooms in modern Trek (the Obvservation Lounge Ent-B and C, Riker's Nebula-Melbourne, Sisko's strange Melbourne model...), it does mean that we don't actually know if the design we associate with the Daedalus actually exists (outside the Olympic-class).
Yes, it probably does. But it doesn't have to.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The Phoenix from the first chronology doesn't look THAT much different from the final design, just a little. The models are the same except for the fact that the first one wasn't taking into account that the cockpit was based on a Titan V missile. So it was a custom-built cockpit on the old model.
The Melbourne model isn't any more different from the final Nebula model than the Phoenix-Nebula (with the round sensor dish) is from the final model. Plus, the Melbourne wasn't just seen as a model, but also in "The Best of Both Worlds" (TNG) and "Emissary" (DS9) as wreckage in the Battle of Wolf 359.
The stuff done by Okuda and Sternbach is officially considered canon. You're right though about if it's contradicted onscreen. However, some stuff like the transporter thing you can explain by saying: "Generally, Galaxy-class ships have six, but the Enterprise has eight." because you know that the Enterprise and other individual ships are often specially modified by the crew during missions. The Enterprises have always been just alittle different from other ships of their classes.
About the Animated series, while PAramount studio policy does not at this point in time regard it as canon, it has historically been considered as such, and much of the information presented in it is valid. Hopefully, someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical.
If you read my post on like the first or second page of this, you'll see why we know the Daedalus looks like it does. And BTW, what do you mean 'excluding displays'? You can't exclude displays because there's a lot of info comes from displays. Most of the ship info in the Encyclopedia comes from displays.
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:
The stuff done by Okuda and Sternbach is officially considered canon.
No, the stuff done by Okuda and Sternback is NOT officially considered canon. You know, I wrote a long explanation of this on page 2. So I am NOT going to sit here and repost it again. And you are STILL not providing your support for your position.
quote:
You're right though about if it's contradicted onscreen. However, some stuff like the transporter thing you can explain by saying: "Generally, Galaxy-class ships have six, but the Enterprise has eight." because you know that the Enterprise and other individual ships are often specially modified by the crew during missions. The Enterprises have always been just alittle different from other ships of their classes.
But the almighty TNG Technical Manual written by the Gods Okuda and Sternbach say that there are only SIX personnel transporters! The show is incorrect! Berman and Braga are the devil incarnate who are going to blah blah blah insert a bunch of wild accusations here. 
quote:
About the Animated series, while PAramount studio policy does not at this point in time regard it as canon, it has historically been considered as such, and much of the information presented in it is valid. Hopefully, someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical.
The Franz Joseph Starfleet Technical Manual was once considered canon by Gene Roddenberry. He then declared The Animated Series non-canon. Many still hope that someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical again.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:
Ah, but in The Continuing Mission book, which is the subject of much debate, has Okudagrams from "Yesterday's Enterprise" saying that the Enterprise-C is Ambassador Class
Can someone please scan this? Are there any other okudagrams in this book?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Gene roddenberry is NOT by any stretch of the imagination the final word on what is canon and what is not. He was the one who provided all that crap in the Making of Star Trek, which was what caused a lot of the errors in Franz Joseph's book. However, pretty much All of Fj's material has been contradicted heavily, many times over on screen. The only things left from that book which are canon are the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes, and of course the Constitution. But nearly every single one of his registry numbers is incorrect, and so on and so forth...
That's why FJ's Technical manual is non-canon. Not because GR said so. I don't give a flip about whether he declared TAS non-canon or not. GR is dead, and it's up to the present-day powers that be what is canon and what is not.
The Encyclopedias and Technical Manuals, and to some extent the Chronologies are designed as guides for script writers. Paramount considers that it needs to be consistent within these publications, and that's what canon is: It's what paramount considers itself as having to be consistent within. Sternbach and Okuda's work ARE included in this.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Spike: I have the book. If I get some free time, I'll scan the page.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
But you can't say for example the Encyclopedia is 100% canon, because so many things in the book are non-canon.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:
That's why FJ's Technical manual is non-canon. Not because GR said so. I don't give a flip about whether he declared TAS non-canon or not. GR is dead, and it's up to the present-day powers that be what is canon and what is not.
Think very carefully about this paragraph.
quote:
The Encyclopedias and Technical Manuals, and to some extent the Chronologies are designed as guides for script writers. Paramount considers that it needs to be consistent within these publications, and that's what canon is: It's what paramount considers itself as having to be consistent within. Sternbach and Okuda's work ARE included in this.
Nope, wrong again. Canon is the material that Paramount Pictures and the leading producer of Star Trek (namely Rick Berman) consider to be part of the Star Trek universe. It has nothing to do with internal consistency, that's continuity. And Star Trek has many continuity errors within itself, but the conflicting parts are still considered canon because they are included in the material that Paramount and Berman deem canon.
You're now making the assumption that the supplementary material (Chronology, TNG Technical Manual, Encyclopedia, etc) are reference guides for the writers. Okay, I'll buy that but it still doesn't make them canon. As a reference guide, the writers are under no obligation to adhere to the information included within the covers of those works. When it comes to the episodes and movies, they are obligated to adhere to the information included in them. In short, the guides are simply that: guides. It proposes a way that can be (and has often been) changed when it suites the needs of the show.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Just because Gene Roddenberry said something isn't correct doesn't make it so. By the time the second movie came around, he really had zero control over what other people did with ST. If you listen to GR, then STV and STVI aren't canon, either.
I'm not going to argue anymore about the Encyc, et al. I'm not conceding the point, but I'm not going to argue about it anymore. I will ALWAYS consider them canon, and I am still very much of the belief that that is the official view as well. I'm sorry.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I doubt whether Paramount spends a lot of time worrying about canon materials being self-consistent (continuity). They only accept what they NEED as canon. And since they own the franchise (except for any fanboys who actually own stock), they are the final arbitrators. Why? Because they will use what they need to. And that WILL define canon.
Hell, the Christian Bible isn't entirely self-consistent, and millions of adherents accept it as canon.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
LOL Treknophyle!
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, well, well. A little off topic for a thread about the Daedalus calss. Anyway, I did not mean the Encyclopedia thing to sound like I was disrespecting the Bible. Let's say, like the Bible, there may--may--be some errors and mistakes, but since it's good reference material, we can believe it. I believe most of the things in it are canon, but not everything.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Veers, I wasn't taking your example to mean that you were disrespecting the Bible. I was simply transferring your example out of the realm of Star Trek and into reality to point what I saw as a flaw in it. It's a trick I've learned in my ethics classes.
I agree with you that a good portion of the Encyclopedia and all of that is canon for the sake that a lot of information either came directly from the screen or eventually made it on-screen. A lot of the information itself is canon. Some of the information itself is not canon. As a whole, the works are semi-canon because of this mixture. That's one of the points I've been trying to make.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Thanks, Siegfried. Now, actually, I am beginning to agree.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"That's why FJ's Technical manual is non-canon. Not because GR said so. I don't give a flip about whether he declared TAS non-canon or not. GR is dead, and it's up to the present-day powers that be what is canon and what is not."
Hang on. The present-day powers get to deceide what is canon? So if (for example), they deceide that there was an Enterprise before Kirk's, then that becomes cannon, surely. And you can't argue with them.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That's right and that's why I'm so frigging frustrated!!!!!!!!! Have you not been paying any frigging attention you frigging stand up comedian!?!?!?!?!?
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Dude, relax a little and chill. Get the mojo flowing. Get some money, go to the local liquor store and check out some of these recipes: The WebTender!
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:
Originally posted by Treknophyle:
Hell, the Christian Bible isn't entirely self-consistent, and millions of adherents accept it as canon.
I'll not go into much for this isn't the place or time, but just to say you're absolutely wrong on this point.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
And before anyone decides to entertain the idea of starting a thread on the internal inconsistencies of the Bible of Christian fame, you've already been beaten to it:
Flameboard: How Does The Bible Contradict Itself?