posted
I recently obtained the episode "Space Seed". Though there are issues with the show that have either never been discussed or resolved by a majority of the board members, there is one issue that I think is important.
In the scene set in sickbay, dictator Khan and Lt. McGivers, Khan's future wife, are having a discussion in the sick bay. On the reader attached to the bed, there is a drawing of a whatever. This whatever is technical and may or may not involve the USS Enterprise. This whatever is unreadable and the diagram is undecipherable.
Decades later, after the show aired, Mr. Okuda writes that the whatever had written on it the name USS Constitution and NCC-1700. Further, Mr. Okuda writes that this is one of Scotty's engineering files.
I read that certain people perceive that if you don't see a fact in an episode and the fact is later stated in a reference book, that fact can't be canonical. This is a strict interpretation of the rules of canonicity as set by Paramount.
So, what is the issue? The issue is-Is the USS Constitution's registry NCC-1700?
Adhering to the guidelines and perception stated above, this is the evidence.
The first time that we see the registry of NCC-1700 is in the episode "Court Martial". There is no name attached to the registry.
In "The Doomsday Machine", the USS Constellation is identified with registry of NCC-1017.
Two decades later, the episode "The Naked Now" establishes the USS Enterprise as Constitution Class. Staying to US Navy tradition, the first ship of the Enterprise-type ships is the Constitution. And we can infer that this first ship has a registry lower than NCC-1017.
Finally, in "Data's Day", a refitted Constitution Class with the registry of NCC-1700 is seen briefly as Lore accesses the ship's library. There is no name on the ship schematic.
So, this leaves us with two ships. One ship is the USS Constitution with unknown registry of lower value than 1017 and an unknown starship with registry NCC-1700.
This is one perception of Star Trek and this perception leads us to this issue. For if the visible evidence from the franchise doesn't support the USS Constitution as having registry NCC-1700, can we say with certainly that the registry is NCC-1700?
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited February 25, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited February 25, 2001).]
quote:This whatever is unreadable and the diagram is undecipherable.
Maybe Okuda saw this diagram in Real Life and used the info on it for the Enc. Is something canon, when it was onscreen but unreadable, and later is shown in RL readable?
BTW: Isn't the Court Martial-chart unreadable too?
posted
Is the Space Seed chart readable on the DVD?
It's not a bad argument actually. The Constitution as NCC-1700 has less on-screen evidence than the Melbourne as Excelsior class, and yet while you'll get people swearing black and blue that the Melbourne is a Nebula, you don't get anyone going "Hang on. How can the Constitution be NCC-1700 if the Constellation (and possibly the Eagle) have lower registries?"
Unfortunatly (or not), in this case, you've simply got too many years of people agreeing with it to launch a successful counterargument. Even FASA thought the Constitution was NCC-1700. Those daft registries in the AMT Enterprise instruction say it's NCC-1700. Frank probably says it's NCC-1700. Sorry, but even though registries are normally given out in ascending order, we've seen instances where they haven't. Fans would rather think up convuluted reasons why the Constellation and Eagle had low registries. then put them into bad fan-fics. That have lesbian sex in.
So some good does come out of all this.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited February 25, 2001).]
posted
Another debate that has its roots in a VFX goof/shortcut! *hee hee* Wouldn't it have been wonderful if the modelmakers had opted for something like "1710" for the Constellation -- of if thay'd splurged for two decal sheets, "1717" or "1700" or "1711" or "1770" or...
But no, and now we have more problems to try to ignore -- as I have been doing for some time now. ;-) As much fun as it would be, I don't really want to clean up TOS inconsistencies just yet. I'm afraid I would be stoned to death in the process...
--Jonah
------------------ "It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."
posted
Why does no-one ever like my idea that the 1700 was the second USS Constitution, and the class ship was actually lower than 956? It's a simple, non-convoluted solution, and it explains everything completely w/o contradiction.
Listen to me, people! *L*
------------------ "I am slightly disturbed that a news station in the US would use the phrase 'to the max'. What's next? CNN saying 'Totally righteous murders?' BBC News 'Dude, like people were wasted yesterday'. The Times reporting 'Iraq bombed! For Great Justice!'?" -Liam Kavanagh, 22.Feb.2001
posted
Because I have an EXTREMELY hard time believing Starfleet would put out a new ship named after a class that is still in service -- even (or especially) if it is another new member of that class.
--Jonah
------------------ "It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."
posted
No, reusing a regestry number (without adding a suffix, of course, thereby creating a different number) would defeat the entire purpose of regestry numbers.
I don't see any problem with assuming that there were two USS Constitutions, both of Constitution class. We know that there was a ship called "Excelsior" in service as of 2370, eighty years after the class ship was launched. Unless, of course, this is the ORIGINAL Excelsior, which seems unlikely, we'd seem to have a similar situation.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
Why is it so unlikely it's the original Excelsior? The Repulse (NCC-2544 -- contracted sometime around/just before ST II) was still in service during the Dominion War...
--Jonah
------------------ "It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."
posted
Oh, the old Constitution discussion is back. I think the Constitution registry is in the blurry zone between canon and conjecture. It's not really canon, since name and registry were not shown together, at least not at a readable size. If we could have a closer look at the table in "Space Seed", we would have to believe in ducks, hamsters, Porsches and DC3s in the E-D MSD, and in the "Alka-Selsior" too. On the other hand, if the Constitution was supposed to be NCC-1700 and this didn't change for over 30 years, it weighs much more than an in-joke that was never meant to be taken seriously.
As for the infamous low registries, the only strictly canon (=readable) number was the Constellation NCC-1017. If we make up a pre-history of the Constitution (no matter if there was a USS Constitution NCC-1700 to replace the destroyed class ship or if there was no such ship), the problem of design life time is aggravated. I strive to make the Constitution as new as possible, and the NCC-1017 is just an oddity.
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
posted
The Pharmaceutical Alka-Seltzer intertwined with the ship Excelsior, namewise. I wonder what would've happened if the ship had been hurled down into a sea?
------------------ Here lies a toppled god, His turnip not a small one. We did but build his pedestal, A narrow and a tall one.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
