Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Daedalus Class in the 2260's
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [qb]Good continuity is not determined simply by having gratuitous names dropped all over the place. Good continuity establishes a logical reason for the consistency -- or even the INconsistency, if there was a change. It's in the story, the background... not the name itself. Perhaps I rely a little too much on analogies to the present day, but let me try anyway: Assume that for some bizarre reason, some Starfleet officer creates a holodeck program about the exploits of the United States Navy during World War II. In the first program, or "episode," (set in 1941) they mention the carrier USS Yorktown. It's never seen or mentioned again in the program. But several years later, that same Starfleet officer writes a second holodeck series about the Korean War. In that story, he again mentions the carrier USS Yorktown. Now, would a knowledgeable participant in the program simply assume that these two ships were one and the same? Or would he stop to notice that the USS Yorktown (CV-6) was destroyed in the Battle of Midway, and the one that served during the time of the Korean War was named in the first one's honor? Obviously there are many permutations of the above scenarios... my point is, that the same name does not on its own imply an identity. [/qb][/QUOTE]I completely agree, surprisingly enough. :p If I was looking at this from the POV of a person watching the shows for the first time, without any knowledge of Okuda or any behind-the-scenes stuff like the [i]Xhosa[/i] plaque or the shiplist display with the [i]Hermes[/i]' class on it, etc, my first instinct would *not* be to connect the old [i]Antares[/i] to the various alien vessels described as "[i]Antares[/i]-class" on TNG. But obviously Okuda thought it would be neat if there were a connection, and so he created the display terming the [i]Hermes[/i] an [i]Antares[/i], and made the [i]Antares[/i] from "Charlie X" the class ship, assigning it an NCC-501 registry in the process. Still, at this point, the only non-speculative connection that's been made is that of the designation of [i]Antares[/i]-class to a present day Starfleet vessel. In later years, he also created a dedication plaque for the [i]Xhosa[/i] (a ship, mind you, that---hardly by coincidence IMO---is a modification of the same design possessed by other vessels that have been called [i]Antares[/i]-class) done in the TOS-style calling it an [i]Antares[/i]. In addition to this, he stlyed the displays on the interior of the ship to match closely those on the original [i]Enterprise[/i]. Now a connection has been made between the [i]Xhosa[/i] and TOS-era Starfleet vessels. After this, I find it not a great stretch to believe that the TOS-era [i]U.S.S Antares[/i] is a common ancestor of both the [i]Hermes[/i] and the [i]Xhosa[/i]. The ties are subtle, but apparent. So, while I agree that a name in and of itself does not indicate a common identity. But, it does allow for the possibility of one. And when that possibility of connection is expanded upon by actual identifying markers such as the aforementioned display and plaque, it becomes less of a possibility and more of a likelihood. I'll admit that this might be regarded as all fairly sketchy, but I'm not trying to say that onscreen evidence alone can be used to prove that the "Charlie X" ship is the class ship of the "Redemption" ship and the DS9 ship. It can't. But it [i]can[/i] be used to show that the suggestion that the above [i]is[/i] true is neither impossible nor unreasonable. To dismiss the concept simply because there is no absolute proof, but when there is some evidence to back it, is not IMO to be advised. Especially when it's a source considered as high on the "official-ness" scale as the Encyclopedia that’s presenting it. [QUOTE]Originally posted by SoundEffect: [b]Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.[/b][/QUOTE]Agreed. I don't think anyone is refuting this. What they are saying (and they are quite correct) is that the [i]Antares[/i] doesn't HAVE to be an [i]Antares[/i]-class vessel at all just because the Encyclopedia says so. You and I, and a lot of people recognize that the Encyclopedia's info is quite official and as close to canon as pretty much anything. But, as we know that later editions may say different things about the same ships if an error was made or some new canon info has supplanted the old stuff, a case can be made that it shouldn't be trusted blindly. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3