posted
Two quick notes: 1. The IKC Amar is absent from the latest version of the TMP. If we follow precedent, this is the definitive version. Therefore, this Klingon battlecruiser's name is not canonical.
2. The registry of the Toron Class shuttlecraft is NCD-31775.
posted
Two quick notes: 1. The IKC Amar is absent from the latest version of the TMP. If we follow precedent, this is the definitive version. Therefore, this Klingon battlecruiser's name is not canonical.
2. The registry of the Toron Class shuttlecraft is NCD-31775.
3. The IKS Koraga is identified as K'Vort Class in an okudagram.
posted
The K'Vort and the B'Rel... Different sizes? Hmmm...
The B'Rel was 'scout sized'. smaller than the E-Refit.
The Klingon BOPs seen in DS9 weren't as small as the B'Rel but they weren't as LARGE as the LARGE LARGE BOPs seen in Yesterday's Enterprise (yes yes an alternate reality - but the ED was still built) and the 3 large BOPs from The Defector. Then there are SMALLER and Larger BOPs seen in DS9 it seems. Look at the little BOPs in the mirror universe.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Do you know in which scene this okudagram is?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
About the huge Klingon freighters in "Sons and Daughters": I would support a size at least twice that of the Cardassian models. Special note should be made of the fact that we see a BoP and a Cardassian freighter next to each other in "Return to Grace", and a BoP and two Klingon freighters next to each other in "Sons and Daughters", establishing this size relationship. The behemoths in "Sons and Daughters" are clearly in the high 500m+ range (and thus the first truly big freighters seen so far, if we discount the waste barge from TNG "Final Mission).
And to verify that both BoPs are of the same size, we see both Dukat's ship and the Rotarran (their identities are clearly defined by context) docked to DS9, using the same stock footage shots. Thus, the infamous BoP scaling debacle need not be evoked.
Also note that the Klingon ships are not simply painted green. They also have added "nacelles" on the downcanted wings, and seem to have some extra stuff added to the bow. So that alleviates the "scaling problem" - the ships *are* of different designs. Luckily, there are no easily distinguishable scale-establishing features like portholes or docking ports on the ships, nor do we have any reason to assume that a standard "container" is being used. Those bumpy protrusions do not appear to be detachable containers at all, but simply fixed cargo holds (we even see the interior of one briefly in "Return to Grace").
I have no problem saying that the ships share a common origin. Perhaps the Cardassians stole Klingon ships in the old Betreka nebula conflict, or the Klingons stole Cardassian ships in the invasion of Cardassia, or in the Dominion war. But a common manufacturer still clearly produced two differently sized models.
In fact, since both Cardassians and Klingons have been shown using the Merchantman model, I gather that some sharing took place there, too. And I suspect the Klingons were the original owners and manufacturers, at least until we hear of Cardassian presence near Earth in the timeframe of ST3...
posted
And about the battlecruiser problematique: I haven't yet posted my latest silly theory thereon, have I? Basically, I think the different exteriors do not truly mark different classes. Instead, there is a basic spaceframe in use, and different Klingon Houses and even individual Klingon Kaptains decorate, equip and upgrade their ships differently. A plain TOS-like ship denotes a young or puritan captain (like Kang or Kor), a "greebled" one like those from TMP indicates veteran captains from noble and wealthy Houses. Koloth's ship from "Trials and Tribble-ations" is somewhere in between. And from the looks of it, the Klingons in "Unexpected" were well off as well...
The difference between a D-5 and a D-7 lies deeper, possibly in the nature of the main powerplant, or perhaps (if we want to evoke the scaling problematique) the size of the spaceframe. Externally, a D-7 can look like a ship from TAS, or a D-5 like a ship from TNG. Similarly, there is an underlying difference between D-12 and the other, non-retired BoP types, but we're not privy to it. And Klingons redecorate their BoPs to a lesser degree than their battlecruisers.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ship has one torpedo tube in the bow and two deflector cannons at the wing tips --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would those be similar to the disruptor shields? Gotta keep an eye on those spell checkers
Oops. I haven't even enabled the spell checker. I must have been thinking of two things at once.
quote:6.) Possible IKS T'ong K't'inga sleeper ship variant portrayed in Fact Files. No difference seen onscreen.
Since it's stock footage and it was nothing mentioned that points to a class variant, I will simply assume that it's another K't'inga (only a very cold one).
BTW, does anyone know about possible modifications for the Kronos One? All pics I have seem to be of the TMP K't'inga.
quote:13.) Possible Neg'var variant from VGR "Endgame." Slightly different underslung pods??
I didn't see it on my 300x200 copy of Endgame, but I may check it.
quote:And I still REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYY think you should do a retouch of the D-7 pic to be the TAS D-5. Just add a little nub at the front around the torp tube/sensor and a pair of tubes on towards the back of the neck. C'mon. Do your part to make sure TAS isn't forgotten.
This conflicts with my wish to think of a reeeeeeaaalllly old ship that looks different from the D-7.
At least for the strange Qevin/Slivin I should watch the episode again. Anyone speaking Klingon? Maybe both spellings sound alike.
quote:The behemoths in "Sons and Daughters" are clearly in the high 500m+ range (and thus the first truly big freighters seen so far, if we discount the waste barge from TNG "Final Mission).
Maybe the idea to have them at the same size isn't that good after all. But the similarity of the designs would be hard to explain if the sizes were different.
posted
According to the KLI, Klingon "Q" is pronounced like a "Kh" with your tongue pointing far into your throat, as if you were choking Sounds kinda like a harsh "h". The other letters are what we'd expect in "Kevin", though the Klingons have no lowercase "i", so the spelling here is botched a bit.
I also found an alternative spelling in the pronounciation guide "SLIVAN" (pronounced SLEE-van), but this is outnumbered by Slivin in the actual text (two instances in the dialogue).
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Um...Benrd? Your list of the above is correct. I doublechecked on the Encyc. To paraphrase Mr. Martian, "DO what you want, SAY what you want, & post the inforMAtion you want...so FUCK ze frequency laws!"
Oh, & there's both an Etam (Dukat's prize) AND a Y'Tem. (from the "By Inferno's Light" fleet)
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
What about that Klingon scout ship from "Friday's Child?" I realize it was just a glowing smudge, but it is a canon glowing smudge
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
quote:Originally posted by targetemployee: Two quick notes: 1. The IKC Amar is absent from the latest version of the TMP. If we follow precedent, this is the definitive version. Therefore, this Klingon battlecruiser's name is not canonical...
Bull. (Sorry! Just caustic about this. ) Just because there's a new version of the film out doesn't mean that previous versions are non-canonical. You cannot erase canon by making a re-edit of the scene. Stuff that's new in the DE is canon, but stuff from the other two versions that was cut is still just as canon.
None of this 'definitive version' crap. All the edits were seen onscreen for many many MANY years. They cannot be simply whisked away by an alternate version.
Besides, we count stuff like that canon all the time. What about all the stuff in the Encyclopedia that was drawn from scenes in Insurrection that were cut? (U.S.S. Ticonderoga, etc...)
IKC Amar is just as canon as it ever was, and always will be.
And so is TAS. (Whoops! I told ya. Don't get me started! Where's Snay when I need to be put in my place?)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:This conflicts with my wish to think of a reeeeeeaaalllly old ship that looks different from the D-7...
Well, if Kor was using it around 2270, it couldn't be that old, could it?
Besides, RDM said he was referring to the TAS ship. That should count for something. And like you said, it would help things considerably if all battlecruisers looked very much alike.
If we see a K't'inga (or K't'inga look-alike) in ENT, then why can't you accept the TAS D-5?
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Shik: Dukat's BoP isn't named anywhere in the scripts. You're right, the Y'tem (pronounced EE-tem) is an unimportant BoP in the fleet of "By Inferno's Light", seen *after* Dukat joins the Dominion fleet with his BoP.
Question is, where did Okuda get "Etam" for Dukat's ship? Someone said once he used the UManitoba ship list for reference. Now, if we check that list, we see that UManitoba has only the Etam, assuming it to be Dukat's ship. Let's say Okuda adopted the assumption into the Encyclopedia and added the Y'tem from the scripts, not realizing the mistake. Unless Dukat's BoP is named onscreen, which it isn't in the script.
If Bernd's original spellings are in the Encyclopedia, then the Encyclopedia must be wrong. Okuda is supposed to use the actual script spellings like he said he would, and usually does.
Unless a name has been contradicted onscreen, the script takes precedence over the Encyclopedia, just as registry numbers from models and Okudagrams take precedence over those from the Encyclopedia. It's not like the writers don't know how to spell Klingon, and have to be corrected by Okuda. Not even Okrand can claim to have higher authority, since his Klingon is not always used on the show.
Sounds kinda like a harsh "h". The other letters are what we'd expect in "Kevin", though the Klingons have no lowercase "i", so the spelling here is botched a bit. 
) Just because there's a new version of the film out doesn't mean that previous versions are non-canonical. You cannot erase canon by making a re-edit of the scene. Stuff that's new in the DE is canon, but stuff from the other two versions that was cut is still just as canon.
I told ya. Don't get me started! Where's Snay when I need to be put in my place?)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
