Re: Me suggesting the Prommie does indeed start with a 7xxxx.
quote: "Firstly, I am indeed going with NX-59650 for the Prometheus, as I always have. My reasons for this are essentially stated in the entry�s notes. I find it rather too difficult to ignore the highly-visible number, (Brattain issue aside) especially since every single official publication uses it. Even the Encyclopedia, written by Okuda and which displays the MSD and dedication plaque on which the NX-74913 number, lists the lower number in the main text. I know there will be many who disagree with this, but that�s how I�m leaving it---with the 59650 number in the main entry text and notes about the other, perhaps more �reasonable� number in the annotations.
Secondly, I understand your point about the First Contact vessels. I too have always maintained that they were most likely new vessel designs at the time of the movie. I have no intention of ret-conning their registries, though. I prefer to simply chalk it up to another unexplained �glitch� in the sequential/chronological registry scheme."
OK. I agree with everything there. The reason why I started a new thread - is that I had a brain-wave.
Question - the Enterprise is 1701-D - but it actually had a proper 7xxxx registry number didn't it?
NOW - theory what if a Starship Captain or a committee - whom-ever can assign a different name and/or registry to a ship (but underneath all that paint - the ship is really it's original designation - like the E-D is/was actually 7xxxx.
OK, this fits with firstly the Enterprise-D.
This fits with the Defiant-class Defiant/Sao Paulo. (The ship is/was REALLY the Sao Paulo - now it just has a new paint-job/registry for sentimental reasons. Thus in WWLB - there is still the old registry.)
This can explain the Prometheus - ACTUALLY originally was NX-74913 - but now everyone knows it as NX-59650 for some sentimental/acknowledgement/tributary reason. There might have been an NX-59650 Prometheus (or other name) that might have done fantastic things over her career. Or something - or the Admiral's wife was captain of that ship and he decided to give her a nice birthday present - or it was to decieve Romulans or WHAT-EVER. Yes the ship is now officially NX-59650 - it's original roll-out order number is NX-74912.
This can now apply to those 4 FC ships. 7xxxx generation - but with 'old registries' assigned/wished for them. (if things became confusing - there would be some underly signal from the starship saying it is NCC-59280 (NCC-74373)
etc.
This also fits the wierd Connie registries.
The original connie WAS 1700 and the Enterprise WAS 1701. (you'd have to be a Starfleet specialist insider to know all the original registries) but there are some that wanted to adopt old registries for some reason like the Constellation - maybe it was Decker's old ship's number NCC-1017? Maybe his Fathers? He could have put in a special request.
Where we see blocks of numbers and closely identifying ships - we can assume that they are their unchanged/original registries - where we have things say like 6 Akiras all 7xxx1,2,3,4,5,6 and the 4th is 64622 - then we can extrapolate that Command/whomever wanted to give that ship an old registry - for some unknown reason? Feng Shui reasons... who knows!!
This sufficiently covers all bases.
It's basically - we don't really know the system - you'd have to be an insider Starfleet specialist engineer - a Zackdorn somewhere probably knows all the registries and their histories - but we won't find out. So taking what we know and extrapolating - we get this. A near-continuous starship release registry - with some anomalies due to some particular whims of captains or admirals or some cultural/historical significance for member worlds!?!
Something akin to personalised numberplates!?!
Andrew
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Do you really believe Starfleet would operate like that? I don't.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well we've already got 6 examples of it happening.
1701-A->E 74205
Possibly even the Yamato. Riker AUDIBLY said 1508-E or what ever. And we've got the 7xxxx number.
We have the clearly WIERD Prometheus (with a plaque saying 7xxxx)
That could be at least 8 examples.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The Enterprises are a special case and hardly count. The other examples have already been explained as laziness/mistakes of the production crew. I'd prefer not to see production errors perpetuated or justified.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
But these errors will continue. If the production errors can be rationalized, it's better than ignoring them. In this case, they can. Non-US ships have pennant numbers that change with missions. Every Starfleet ship could've had many different numbers throughout its history.
Rick Sternbach thinks that the Intrepid hulls are actually labeled IC-101, IC-102, etc, which is probably the underlying system used just in case they needed to identify precise hull in question.
Boris
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: The Enterprises are a special case and hardly count. The other examples have already been explained as laziness/mistakes of the production crew. I'd prefer not to see production errors perpetuated or justified.
OK! Cool - combine this with the idea that the Thunderchild, Budapest, Yeager etc. are just production errors and mistakes by the crew instead of making these classes so old (i.e. 5 and 6xxxx vintage) Why should the registries override the looks of those ships!?!
Andrew
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I wouldn't suggest that the FC ships designs are old. I'd prefer to think that those four (and possibly others we haven't seen) were so revolutionary for their time, that the design was started during a time when they were issued 6xxxx registries. These ships may have had a longer design time than many other ships, and by the time they were launched, the numbers appeared woefully out of sequence with other more ordinary ships commissioned when these designs were ready for launch.
As for the Prometheus registry, we've seen the low number officially once (on the hull), and the high registry twice (plaque and MSD). Do we go with high tally wins??
We all accept that the Yamato is 71807, which you had to squint to see on TV, over the audible 1305-E registry Riker said. Production mistake....TPTB said so!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Do we go with high tally wins??
No, normally you accept the NCC that wasn't an error.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The Enterprises are a special case and hardly count."
"Do you really believe Starfleet would operate like that? I don't."
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't think that the Ent-D was originally given a higher number. I think that it was 1701-D from it's comissioning. At least, I dont' recall every reading anythign to the contrary. The Galaxy had a 71xxx number, and I believe the other Galaxies we've seen also had a 71xxx number... but if they knew the ship they were going to build was going to be named Enterprise, they probably knew that they were going to register her with the commemorative number.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
If one is a production error - then why can't the other.
AND if the Akiras, Norways and Sabres were around way-back-when they should have be more in the vein of the Nebulas and the New Orleans etc.
They are Sovereign/Defiant/Voyager era through and through. And no amount of 'refitting with sovereign escape pods' is going to change the overall shape and major structure etc.
The E-refit still looked like the E - it didn't look more like the... Daedelus or Ambassador.
Clearly these were meant to be NEW ships... why can't the be new ships. Clearly the Yamato wasn't supposed to be 1305-E - everyone else can accept that.
Brattain/Brittain CLEARLY seen.
NCC-63549 wasn't easily seen. I mean "Thunderchild" wasn't even written on the hull.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Andrew: I personally see no problem in assuming the FC ship designs are oldish. Most of us accept the Wolf359 ship designs as pre Galaxy and, for the most part, it's a similar situation. 6xxxx regos aren't even that old.
Tim: What's your point actually?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I believe what Tim is trying to say (and which makes sense, really) is that he doesn't think Starfleet would work in a way that the Enterprises were the only case with suffixed registries. I mean, we have the example of the Relativity-G. Maybe other ships have suffixed registries as well. Now, let's lot get all crazy like the fandom Nichter dreadnoughts and add a -B to all ships refitted to those specs or anything.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
All I was saying is that the FC designs could've been considered a radically revolutionary design departure in the 2350's, and it took a long time, and updated materials along the way, to get them to their 2370's likeness.
Bad example I know, but look at the EPCOT Center concept car. The design is now decades old, and although modern cars are more rounded, the EPCOT car still has a futuristic look to it.
I'm suggesting Starfleet design engineers with preliminary Galaxy Class blueprints on their workstations are shown the Steamrunner design and laugh and scratch their heads saying "That design can never work."
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Once again, almost everybody is proceeding from the unquestionable assumption that there is one and only one registry number to every starship, and that they follow a strict system which is never off. If there are exceptions to this, they're production errors because it's impossible that Starfleet would make such a mistake.
Where do you get this from? Wishful thinking and Okuda's encyclopedia. Nothing like that was ever said onscreen. Nothing like that happens in the real world.
The primary source, which is the TV shows and the movies, suggest that the registry numbers very much resemble car license plates or pennant numbers. There is a definite system to them, but there are exceptions. If I wanted to label my car NX-74205, all the cops care about is that nobody else is using the registry number in their area of influence at this time (and maybe a few other details). Similarily, pennant numbers don't stay the same forever -- they're simply temporary identification marks.
Every time we label something that is perfectly fine in the real world an error, we diminish the show in favor of Okuda's Encyclopedia and wishful thinking. It's not analysis, it's fan-fiction.
Boris
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK, I get ya. But what is/has been so hard with accepting that they are 7 vintages? I don't get the WOLF 359 example cause there are Galaxy-generation things there... I.e. there is a whole generation that ranges from the mid 5's to the early 7's that are Galaxy-ish. Really the Galaxy is well Nebulae-ish or what ever came before it that was mostly Galaxy-ish.
No one accepts that the USS Yeager starts with an 8 do they? so why does the Thunderchild and the Budapest have to start with 5's and 6's (actually what was the Budapest?)
Andrew
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I believe what Tim is trying to say (and which makes sense, really) is that he doesn't think Starfleet would work in a way that the Enterprises were the only case with suffixed registries."
Yes.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
As far as I consider the production errors, Mike Okuda and the in-house art department were always in charge of keeping track of things like the NCCs because they made the markings for the models. To me, they should still have been the last word on the subject even when the CGI models started to be used. A hired out CGI Effects House shouldn't have the authority to assign those numbers. That's where most of the descrepancies have been. I'll choose the in-house suggestion over one an effects house assigns if there's a conflict. Prometheus being a prime case.
Just my opinion though.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
quote:As far as I consider the production errors, Mike Okuda and the in-house art department were always in charge of keeping track of things like the NCCs because they made the markings for the models.
Wrong. Mike Okuda wasn't in charge of that before 1986. The first guy in charge was Matt Jefferies, who wanted ships of Enterprise's design to be numbered 1701, 1702, etc. Somebody else from the production team decided that the numbers do not follow this system, which is where Bjo Trimble got some of her numbers in the Concordance such as 16xx, which ended up being used by FASA.
Then, Franz Joseph came up with his system which labeled all the scouts with numbers such as 5xx or 6xx, which is probably where ILM got its NCC-638 registry number for the Grissom. Only then did Okuda come along and decide on a simple sequential system where older ships have lower registry numbers, and even he thinks that the new Defiant is labeled NX-74205.
Of course, ever since the art department no longer needs to do the markings, they've been done by outside CG modellers who seem to think that there is no real system to these numbers. Hence, saying that Okuda was the guy in charge and that only his word should be followed is oversimplifying things quite a bit.
quote: To me, they should still have been the last word on the subject even when the CGI models started to be used. A hired out CGI Effects House shouldn't have the authority to assign those numbers. That's where most of the descrepancies have been. I'll choose the in-house suggestion over one an effects house assigns if there's a conflict. Prometheus being a prime case.
It would be desirable to have only one person do the numbers all the time, but even that wouldn't help in every case. The reality of the situation is that the numbers have been assigned with different meaning in different times, and that they will never fit in one system. We can either close our eyes to reality and become one narrowsighted circle similar the old Tech Fandom, or we can accept the reality and attempt to figure out a realistic system that explains what's going on in every era.
What's completely strange to me is this unfounded assumption that there is one number to every starship and that it lasts forever, whereas that's only true for US ships in the real world, while other ships do not necessarily use this system.
In the real world, if your theory doesn't explain even 1% of the cases, you've overlooked something.
I think that some people are just so arrogant that they consider their own personal visions more important than research. I'm not seeking a high standard of analysis. It isn't difficult to make a connection between car license plates or pennant numbers and onscreen evidence. All you need do is free yourself from any religiously dogmatic visions of Starfleet and really think for yourself.
When Doug Drexler designed the NX-01, he chose not to specify the exterior details because he knew that the VFX people will want to make their own choices.
Guess what? He didn't see reality as a mistake, he didn't choose to accept the notion of production errors. He accepted the reality, and was smart enough to ignore over twenty years of convention which had ships littered with details, as though one were shooting a movie where everything could be planned out in advance.
He wasn't bound by any convention -- why should we? If we do, then twenty years from now people will look at us as another Tech Fandom refusing to abandon the views of the TNG era.
Boris
[ November 19, 2002, 14:59: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Somebody else from the production team decided that the numbers do not follow this system, which is where Bjo Trimble got some of her numbers in the Concordance such as 16xx, which ended up being used by FASA.
IIRC, the 16xx registries didn't come from any "official" source before the Okuda works in the 90s. They came from Greg Jein and some fandom magazine (coincidentally the same year that FJ published the SFTM), based on the ludicrous assumption that every ship on the wall chart from "Court Martial" was a Constitution. (The logic of that still, to this day, eludes me.) Even then, FASA deviated on some counts.
FJ's system still makes the most sense, but that's IMHO, of course. Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The Concordance included some registries that were neither on the Court Martial list nor were invented by Jein (NCC-1764 of the Defiant and NCC-1647 of the Farragut, among others). Trimble told me they originated from either the old TOS production lists or scripts that she was given access to, and that this was one reason Mike Okuda chose to use them.
Boris
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Ok, but what's wrong with those two numbers? 1764 seems to be fitting for a Constitution-class vessel and as we don't know the Farragut's class, 1647 is ok too.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, one thing that's definitely wrong is the number 1764, which under the Jefferies system would be the 64th starship of the Enterprise type. The TOS production people, on the other hand, agreed on there being around twelve of such ships.
Boris
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Well, one thing that's definitely wrong is the number 1764, which under the Jefferies system would be the 64th starship of the Enterprise type.
Luckily the number wasn't shown onscreen, was it?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I never said that these numbers were canon. The point was to show that there was more than one offscreen system, and that because of that, Okuda's intention doesn't apply to the entire history of Star Trek.
Anybody care to attack my actual argument, or are we going to keep circling around the issue? Do you completely disagree with the idea of art by accident? Do you think that the only valid interpretation is that of the people who made the show? If so, how do you deal with the fact that some production people's errors are other production people's creative choices (i.e. the original 171m Defiant size)? If it's about making up your own mind, why not do it in a rational manner where you can support your choices with argument, as opposed to a whimsical fan-fiction-like manner where you don't need to give explanations?
Here's an example of the sort of proof I'm looking for.
The number 59650 is canonical and overrides the non-canonical 74913. It's not an error because we've seen similar out-of-Okuda's-system numbers for new ships in the past, and they were production errors only from Okuda's point of view, which by definition isn't canonical and cannot override the actual show. If they contradicted all of the valid naval systems or similar real world systems, they would possibly qualify as errors, but they don't.
Hence, because those numbers are valid, there's no reason to discount this one in favor of an offscreen number. If anything, both numbers were in use at the same or at different times.
Boris
[ November 19, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, Boris, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that the canon overides that which we otherwise know to be an error.
As an example, does that mean that the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" is none other than a K't'inga-class and that the class was in service as a frontline vessel for >225 years?
Canon is not always logical or consistent with reality and, as such, we can't just take everything at face value. If we know something is an error, such as the 1305-E Yamato rego, I don't see why we can't just accept it was error and move on.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, Boris, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that the canon overides that which we otherwise know to be an error.
I'm not saying that the canon overrides actual errors -- what I'm doing is questioning your definition of an error. I'm arguing that the only errors are obvious technical bloopers which cannot possibly be explained (and if someone does succeed, they no longer are errors). Aside from the boom mikes and bubblegum cameraman reflections, the similarities between Admiral Cartwright and Ben Sisko's father are an error -- Starfleet doesn't believe in cloning, and they're not twins.
Registry numbers, on the other hand, are more like stardates -- they're random because the producers, with the exception of Okuda, don't really care about them being perfectly consistent. That doesn't mean that the stardates are in error, that we should be inventing new stardates or reordering episodes based on them. The apparent randomness is in their very nature, and can be explained by saying that the value of a stardate is closely linked to a specific point in space, kind of like time zones. Move a little, and it would seem that the stardate rate changes. Move even more, and the stardate goes slightly backwards. Go to another planet, and the stardate REALLY goes backwards or forwards.
Likewise, registry numbers can be easily explained by referring to real-world systems such as pennant numbers or personalized license plates. This is nowhere near the category of a visible boom mike, or the bubblegum cameraman reflection.
quote:As an example, does that mean that the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" is none other than a K't'inga-class and that the class was in service as a frontline vessel for >225 years?
First, we really don't know how long these designs (as opposed to actual hulls) can last, except from non-canonical technical manuals. Star Trek technology is nothing like we use today -- how can we even attempt to apply what we know about the lifespans of our designs?
Second, we don't know if it is the K't'inga class, because we've seen examples of outwardly identical designs having different class names and possibly interior configurations. Finally, "Enterprise" makes it obvious that everybody had essentially the technology of 200 years later, except in its earlier stages. The Enterprise itself has features of ships from 200 years later.
Also, we cannot prove from merely the onscreen evidence that this ship is 100% identical to the Voyager version.
quote:Canon is not always logical or consistent with reality and, as such, we can't just take everything at face value. If we know something is an error, such as the 1305-E Yamato rego, I don't see why we can't just accept it was error and move on.
I've just argued why the canon in this case is consistent with reality (pennant numbers). I've also argued that an error from Okuda's POV need not be an error from the CG person's point of view, the TNG writer's point of view, or the point of view of Paramount which declares the shows canon, not the individual views of people who contributed towards them.
Boris
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
From Boris:
"I think that some people are just so arrogant that they consider their own personal visions more important than research. I'm not seeking a high standard of analysis. It isn't difficult to make a connection between car license plates or pennant numbers and onscreen evidence. All you need do is free yourself from any religiously dogmatic visions of Starfleet and really think for yourself. "
FUCK BORIS... seesh - I see that aimed at me. I'm not being arrogant. I've given thought and EVIDENCE to back up my theories.
What I don't get is why some people can accept the 'production error' or inconsistancy for one thing and not another?
It's not a personal vision... it is trying to make the First Contact ships FIT with what we have CHRONOLOGICALLY seen (with the evidence known) over the years.
If people want to get into this whole 'well we only know like 1% of what is really in Starfleet - then forget about EVERYTHING here - because baby, everything we talk about IS from what we see on screen - and that is probably LESS than 1% of Starfleet.
Everyone was cool on the idea that the higher the number the more modern the vessel - except for the suffixed ships. Then along comes FC information and - as mentioned stuffed up because of some effects guys who had no idea.
LOOK at the First Contact ships - they fit with the era of Defiant, Voyager and Sovereign - not Cheyenne, Nebula and New Orleans.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Actually, Andrew, am I missing something or isn't Boris on your side here in this discussion?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
FUCK BORIS... seesh - I see that aimed at me. I'm not being arrogant. I've given thought and EVIDENCE to back up my theories.
I directly responded to people I wished to argue with, so I wasn't exactly hiding who I disagreed with. It wasn't aimed at anybody specific, and I didn't have anybody like you in mind because you were actually trying to explain the perceived errors.
quote: What I don't get is why some people can accept the 'production error' or inconsistancy for one thing and not another?
Because one thing can be explained by referencing other examples inside the show as well as the real world, while another thing cannot. Is 59650 as bad as the boom mike?
quote: It's not a personal vision... it is trying to make the First Contact ships FIT with what we have CHRONOLOGICALLY seen (with the evidence known) over the years.
I wasn't discussing the FC ships, never said that your argument was your personal vision. I also never said that registry numbers have absolutely no system to them -- I merely said that there are exceptions. Consequently, the FC ships may or may not be that old; if you include evidence from the official sources, they're not that old, especially given their looks.
quote: If people want to get into this whole 'well we only know like 1% of what is really in Starfleet - then forget about EVERYTHING here - because baby, everything we talk about IS from what we see on screen - and that is probably LESS than 1% of Starfleet.
Exactly. That's precisely why we shouldn't assume that any apparent deviations are errors. We don't assume that the Wolf 359 ships or the DS9TM kitbashes are errors, despite the fact that they severely deviate from the norm, that Rick Sternbach really doesn't treat the DS9TM kitbashes seriously (inflatable decoy baloons was his most recent theory), and that they aren't covered in the Encyclopedia to the extent of all the other ships, meaning that Okuda doesn't exactly like them. Why? They can be explained, at least until we get into the whole kitbashing with rescaling issue.
Coincidentally, the Wolf 359 research would be my example of Flare analysis at its height.
quote: Everyone was cool on the idea that the higher the number the more modern the vessel - except for the suffixed ships. Then along comes FC information and - as mentioned stuffed up because of some effects guys who had no idea.
LOOK at the First Contact ships - they fit with the era of Defiant, Voyager and Sovereign - not Cheyenne, Nebula and New Orleans. [/QB]
I'm with you on this one given the evidence.
Boris
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Under the terms of the Capps doctrine, you shall all either grow up or shut up. Post-haste. Jolly Good.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
What, people's methods of analysis are above criticism? We're all perfect analysts? I dare not criticize the way someone analyzes something, point out the logical fallacies in someone's argument, only state my own opinion and merely nitpick, and then we'll see what the consensus is?
I thought people hung out at the Officer's Lounge. I also thought they gave their creative views at the Designs, Artwork, and Creativity forum. I thought that this was a forum where we analyze, discuss, and debate, not settle for easy answers.
Remember, not everybody here is an expert in everything. Some people are newbies in some regards, some are complete newbies. I can't even name all the Wolf 359 ships or their classes, and have no idea where this or that picture came from, or what's still unclear about the whole thing.
But what do people do? As soon as a newbie makes a post with a decent spelling and repeats one of the accepted opinions, nobody dares to attack that person's argument. I'm sure that's not what Vulcans had in mind with Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
Boris
Posted by The Mike from C.A.P.T.A.I.N. (Member # 709) on :
I like spaceships.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
My apologies to Boris.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Don't sweat it Boris, as a fellow newie here, I hear ya. I posted a thread in 'Design, Artwork & Creativity'. Aparently, though scale models are not art. I just wanted to show off some of my models, [artwork & creativity] and the thread was locked promply for reasons of spam!
I guess here you have to pay your dues with 100s of posts, then you're accepted.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Actually no not really SE. I found that quite silly to lock your thread - it was quite in-line. I thought.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Thank you.
Just want to be a contributor here.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
FYI, I'm not a fellow newbie, it's just that I had to reregister and that I don't really worry about my member status; if it can make some people think that they can deal with me easily and attack my argument, all the better for me, them, and the argument.
I think that if you linked to the actual images and asked for specific comments, as opposed to linking to your entire website, it wouldn't have been considered spam. That's how the guys at 3D Gladiators do it. Bernd is a long-standing poster here, and even he links to specific webpages-under-construction of his site when he needs feedback. However, it really is a minor thing.
BTW, your post was in the correct forum, given that there is a measure of creativity in your designs. For the same reason, Mark's "You're the Admiral" threads belong in that forum, because he created the hypothetical situation that is being played with.
What if I create a hypothetical situation where I'm designing a phaser: "You're the Phaser Designer, Sector Alpha", and am asking everybody to contribute their views on how the phaser should be designed? It is technology, and yet, it would probably get moved over to "Designs, Artwork, and Creativity."
The name "Starships and Technology" is too vague. How about "Starships and Technology Research"?
Boris
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
double-double, toil and trouble Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
You research a cure for cancer. You discuss the technology of Trek. There is a difference.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
From Merriam-Webster:
quote: Main Entry: dis�cuss Pronunciation: di-'sk&s Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart + quatere to shake -- more at DIS-, QUASH Date: 14th century 1 obsolete : DISPEL 2 a : to investigate by reasoning or argument b : to present in detail for examination or consideration c : to talk about 3 obsolete : DECLARE - dis�cuss�able or dis�cuss�ible /-'sk&-s&-b&l/ adjective - dis�cuss�er noun synonyms DISCUSS, ARGUE, DEBATE mean to discourse about in order to reach conclusions or to convince. DISCUSS implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con . ARGUE implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held . DEBATE suggests formal or public argument between opposing parties ; it may also apply to deliberation with oneself .
I'm not sure I see any of this here. What I see is a casual chat with endless nitpicking and circling around the main issue until nothing is resolved.
Research, on the other hand, is careful and close study of something, regardless of whether it involves discussion or not. It can be done by one person or by several people working together and discussing their results. There's historical research, medical research, anthropological research, linguistic research, and many other kinds that you haven't mentioned.
You can call it discussion or research -- in any case, investigation and study is implied. If you were in a discussion, would you suggest that the approval time of NASA spacecraft can be estimated by looking at the approval time of dog food? Yet this is exactly the kind of "reasoning" I see here.
If you're discussing "Defiant", you have to define "Defiant". It's a fictional starship. What's the primary source of information on that fictional starship? The show. If the show has errors, explain what they are and give evidence to support the idea that they are errors.
How reasonable is it to jump to conclusions without investigating something in detail? What gives one the right to do that? If I haven't researched something in detail, at least I do come out and say so, not imagine that I can nevertheless give a truthful view through my Magical Personal Vision (tm) without explaining myself in painstaking detail.
It's arrogance combined with laziness.
Boris
[ November 20, 2002, 16:22: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm in agreement about the "You're the Admiral!" thing, really. Moving "Sector Gamma" to the Creative forum at this point would be a bit awkward, though - but "Sector Delta" or "You're the TOS Commodore!" or other suggested developments should move there, certainly.
Apart from that, though, I do not see the benefits in narrowing down the scope of Starships & Technology. People will still come here with both questions that require speculation to answer, and with ideas that are treknology at its best even if purely speculative. Guiding them elsewhere would be a chore.
And S&T is a lively group, with far-ranging speculation in addition to "serious research". The other two groups under Star Trek are oriented towards the dramatic aspects of the shows and the movies. This group is the remaining forum for pretending that the Trek universe is for real, and for speculation on what we *don't* see in the telly. The scientific method isn't all that suited to covering the whole range of issues discussed here.
I'm sure it won't be impossible to run serious research alongside more free-form discussion here, without subdividing or reorganizing this forum. And even serious research needs to be punctuated by witty remarks and wild ideas every now and then...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I fully agree. Speculation is perfectly fine, as are witty remarks, and a lot of research begins with an odd hypothesis such as "objects fall down with speeds proportional to their weights" or "The TWA 800 crashed because of a terrorist attack."
The problem I have is with people who ignore actual testing done by people who have time to test these hypotheses. The former stick to their original hypotheses like the Aristotle or Bible followers in the 17th century. They think that you cannot agree on some things such as the ordering of sources, or a definition of error.
You can. It's only that such discussions are a bit difficult, and that few have a desire to follow the reasoning and to discuss specific, disputed points. It can get as tedious as a legal dispute, but that doesn't mean that the people who choose to examine it in greater detail are as right or less right than those who chose not to.
Were it just a question of a lack of research, it would be understandable. Not everybody has time or the DVD's for such research. However, how many canon examples are required before people finally accept the notion that the ship classifications aren't as simple as Okuda laid them out -- that outwardly identical ships can have different class names? How difficult is it to recognize that Okuda isn't canon, and that proving the show is in error requires a source more valid than the show, which is the real world -- our physical universe, in which the show pretends to take place?
Since the real world is a tricky, complicated place, it allows for a lot of weirdness that doesn't neatly fit into Okuda's Encyclopedia. We can't even prove that warp drive is impossible -- how can we ignore the possibility of random registry numbers?
Okuda is a technical advisor -- his suggestions are used by writers who create the final show. Okuda doesn't research in detail, because his hypotheses that end up being used become fact by the virtue of his creating parts of the show. That's the distinction, and I'm merely arguing that if fans want to pretend they do the same, they ought to go to the fan-fiction forum and by all means create.
They can create here likewise; however, it should be understood that such creations are mere untested hypotheses that stand or fall depending on the actual evidence, and not pronouncements that can be as valid regardless of evidence. Saying that A is more canonical than B requires evidence. Saying that C is an error requires evidence. Say whatever you want, but defend your argument. To me, that's the fun of it.
Boris
[ November 21, 2002, 05:30: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is one of the more frightening threads I've read.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Let me see how briefly and non-inflammatorily I can touch on some of the points raised...
Some of those who have been here for a while know my position on registries. I look at both the intention and the execution, and when the two don't match up, I tend to err on the side of intention. Execution gaffes tend to be due to time or budgetary restrictions, or to a breakdown in communication. I think everything could be resolved if the impetus was there to go back and fine-tune the episodes -- from all of the series -- that felt the effects of those considerations.
Everything from changing the registry of the Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" to redubbing Riker's '1305-E' line, to making the Crazy Horse and Pegasus the Cheyennes they were supposed to be to revising the VFX shots in the last couple episodes of DS9 to reflect the Sao Paulo's registry on the new Defiant.
In my own endeavours here at home, I'm deconstructing things even further, going into why things are the way they are. By understanding the nature of the screw-ups and wounded egos and departmental miscommunications and all, I'm finding it's actually possible to go back and create a consistent structure for the fleet that transitions smoothly from Matt Jeffries' scheme to Mike Okuda's scheme with only two or three highly-visible things that would have to be retconned. That works a lot better than trying to shoehorn one into the other or vice versa.
The rest is just padding out the background information in such a way that it 1) supports the conclusions reached through research, and 2) provides a guide for those who come after so they don't start a whole new crop of errors to bitch about.
I'll spare you the details for now, as I'm not wearing my fire-retardant bodysuit.
--Jonah
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: [QB] Let me see how briefly and non-inflammatorily I can touch on some of the points raised...
Some of those who have been here for a while know my position on registries. I look at both the intention and the execution, and when the two don't match up, I tend to err on the side of intention.
Execution gaffes tend to be due to time or budgetary restrictions, or to a breakdown in communication.
I think everything could be resolved if the impetus was there to go back and fine-tune the episodes -- from all of the series -- that felt the effects of those considerations.
I'm sure some of these changes would be made -- for the Director's Edition of TMP, the size of V'Ger was reduced to 2 AU, and the planets in Vulcan's sky were omitted. However, no fan could guess exactly what would be changed beforehand and in what ways it would be changed. We didn't even know whether there would be a Director's Edition.
If we could see into the future and prove that Star Trek will be reedited in the ways you suggest, preferably by acquiring the reedited DVD collection, you would be able to convince me unless there is a possibility that the future will change as a result of your actions.
I want to analyze Star Trek, and Star Trek is objectively defined as the collection of television shows, movies, books, novels owned by Paramount and created by its employees and licensees. Legally, only Paramount or its licensees can create more of Star Trek and decide what Star Trek is -- by ignoring certain materials or establishing an order of precedence -- while outsiders can merely reproduce parts of these sources for scholarly analysis under the Fair Use terms of the copyright law, if ever they intend to go public without licensing their work.
If we're not playing by these rules, then we're not analyzing Star Trek. If you believe part of the legal definition is wrong, that's your view and not necessarily mine, and you can always try to become a writer or a licensee. Otherwise, we're analyzing and discussing our individual views of Star Trek, which can technically range from "Voyager is a dream" to "Everything happened just the way it is shown onscreen." These views can depend on everything from how much we like a show under analysis to how much Okuda we've read. The result is a rough consensus called the Flare View of Star Trek. It's not Star Trek.
If, on the other hand, we analyze Star Trek, the conclusions we reach will have no creativity to them given what we know about Star Trek so far -- there are many more shows to be made. By the virtue of being objective, these conclusions help the writers and technical advisors who do not have the time to make up a registry system that would take into account an occassional random number.
The best part is that they're not the intellectual property of fans and can be technically used without the fear of stealing story ideas. The method produces useful theories that explain what we see throughout the entire history of Star Trek, as opposed to just one particular show. These theories can alert the writers of any unintended consequences of their shows, such as communism or racism that have been observed by serious essayists in published books.
That's why I like analyzing Star Trek as opposed to my own view of what Star Trek should be. You may not like analyzing Star Trek, but the conclusions reached are objective if done right. Hence, it does not belong in the "Designs, Artwork, and Creativity" forum, whereas the other kind of discussion technically does.
Regardless of whether or not we retitle this forum, it can be described as "Discussion of Subjective Views of Star Trek Starships and Technology". That's why there's such a thin line between this and "Designs, Artwork, and Creativity." To sum up, the result of such discussions is not an objective view of Star Trek, but rather a comparatively useless Flare consensus.
Boris
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I have no problem with anything you said, Boris. But to elaborate slightly on what my position is about... The Star Trek universe is a collection of episodes and movies (primarily) focussed around one group of people at a time, and the ship or station in which they go about their Trek-y business. The rest is just set dressing, and relatively unimportant to the larger context of those people's stories.
Thus, to use one of my earlier examples, when production materials and behind-the-scenes info identify the U.S.S. Pegasus, as a Cheyenne-class vessel, but when it comes time to do the VFX work for the episode, there isn't enough time or money to create a filmable miniature of that class, and an Oberth is struck from the existing molds to fill in... Well, I accept the limitations imposed on the makers of the episode and accept that it was supposed to be a Cheyenne, and still is in the 'real' Trek universe, as the registry wasn't altered to reflect the change of class. If one wants to take the placeholder model at face value and rationalize from there, fine. I just composite a Cheyenne in those shots in my mind's eye and call it done.
Similarly, I just hear Riker saying "NCC-71807... That's the Yamato -- our sister ship!" But I also acknowledge the erroneous line by having a U.S.S. Yamato in my ship list at NCC-1305 -- whichever class that ends up being. Plus four more between there and her Galaxy-class incarnation.
The final filmed material is not some infallible documentary. There are flawed human beings creating this stuff, and all their eccentricities and misunderstandings and politics and practical considerations form a significant filter between core concept and aired (or screened) end product. And so long as the core stories and characters remain inviolate, I see no problem with doing what we can to remove that filter and get a clear idea of what the Star Trek universe would look like if viewed through some hypothetical objective lens.
There is a third alternative to rationalizing or ignoring production errors. One could just as easily -- if not moreso -- acknowledge the error and go with what maintains internal consistency within the Trek universe. It beats going in circles trying to impose one's personal rationalizations on everyone else. *laugh* Especially in this crowd, where we have such a wonderful pool of behind-the-scenes information upon which to draw. We'd be fools to leave such a valuable resource lying around unused...
--Jonah
P.S. Don't get me started -- I've written essays on this subject and can go on for pages if provoked. Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The final filmed material is not some infallible documentary. There are flawed human beings creating this stuff, and all their eccentricities and misunderstandings and politics and practical considerations form a significant filter between core concept and aired (or screened) end product.
Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make earlier. Star Trek is nothing more than a fictional sci-fi TV show. It's simply madness to treat the final "canon" product as something that is a 100% accurate documentary of reality, especially when taking into account the extensive subject knowledge that most of us here have.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I didn't say it's 100% correct. I just said that you shouldn't need production notes to know what's an error and what isn't, because the show takes precedence over production notes if anybody cares to look at it closer. All you need do is notice bloopers, and 59650 or 1305-E hardly qualify as one.
I'll alert you to an "oddity" among some of the best writers, which is that they consider the final result the final result regardless of their intentions. If they don't like it, they don't go out and reedit it -- they write a new story.
Although he has revealed some of the intentions behind the B5 story, JMS refuses to accept anything but the final version, right down to the details. If you've read enough of his posts, you'll see that even if he admits to an error, he's not telling anybody how to interpret it, although he does have his own definite views that may be canonized in further stories.
If the core concept of the show cannot fit inside the limitations of the medium, the argument is that the original core concept wasn't good enough because it didn't use the limitations of the medium properly -- i.e., you're not a good TV writer, and you shouldn't blame the viewers for misinterpreting you. Low budgets, fears of cancellation, or the inability to go back are no less a valid limitation than the word-count of a novel.
They should be used to your advantage -- if most of the viewers expect a simplistic story of good and bad guys, use it to shock them somewhere in the story by turning things upside down. If you've made mistakes that can be rationalized but that contradict some of your concept, use them nevertheless if you care about a good final show more than a good original intention. It's just a show, not a holy vision that has to remain the same from the beginning to the end.
And there is no distinction between the details and the big picture -- if you can use the details to your advantage, they become foreshadowing and things that will be noticed on a second viewing.
If you do not take responsibility for your creation, you're going to be stuck writing for a show that does not express your views to people who don't know the distinction between error and the intended. Is Star Trek intended for people who know that the Pegasus was to have been a Cheyenne? If it were, the production notes would be aired next to the show. How do you know that it's still considered the Cheyenne among people who create and own Star Trek?
I don't know, and I don't pretend to. I just look at what's there and try to explain it a way that doesn't diminish the final result by literring it with "errors." So do many people who are not fans, and come to completely different conclusions than some of us. That's a red flag to me saying that perhaps my perception need not be the perception of the mainstream audience who don't have the production notes and books.
Boris
[ November 22, 2002, 06:44: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I agree with you wholeheartedly. One of the things I liked about Babylon 5 that I've found lacking in Star Trek is the fact that in B5, the details are important. Whereas, as I said above, in Trek, the details could almost not matter less.
For instance, it matters not a jot to the story of "The Pegasus" if the ship was a Cheyenne or an Oberth. Thus, my quibbling over what class it was is equally irrelevent to the story. It just comes down (for me) to the fact that now that I know the story, I look at the tapestry on which it's woven. Yes, the casual viewer won't know what class it was intended to be, and that doesn't matter, as it doesn't affect the story or their understanding of it.
Most of the production errors can be skipped over, like the one shot in "Generations" in which the Enterprise-D is accidentally shown bearing the 71832 registry of the Odyssey from her recently-filmed DS9 appearance. That sort of thing might (emphasis on might) cause some confusion among casual viewers. Probably not, but maybe. Most will have the brainpower to figure out that it was a production goof and move on.
I think we're in agreement about the context here. Our ruminations in no way affect the picture on the tapestry.
--Jonah
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: the one shot in "Generations" in which the Enterprise-D is accidentally shown bearing the 71832 registry
Really? I never noticed that before. Which bit is it in?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I think the point of contention is just what a blooper is, which to me is merely that which cannot possibly be rationalized within the context of the show (a boom mike), whereas other people see it as something that was not intended but happened anyway.
The latter allows much more room for accepting and rejecting what we see. It theoretically allows a producer to think like this: "Hmm...maybe I couldn't force my views on to Braga, or work hard enough, but if I manipulate the actual audience through the nets, I'll gain the following which allows my work to be perceived in the way I wanted."
What if that producer's views were out of spirit of Star Trek? It would be like me accepting Harlan Ellison's "City on the Edge of Forever" in favor of the aired version, or imagining that Jadzia never died. The official canon order is in place to prevent such manipulations, and that's why public fandom creations are illegal anyway. They can hurt the show as much as helping it.
If Star Trek is to become a better show, everything must matter, from the details up. The first step is to stop excusing anything but bloopers that cannot possibly exist within the context of the show, as perceived by the mainstream audience uninfluenced by production notes. That's what I want to do, and it's the only approach lacking any creativity, which is why I'm arguing it belongs to this forum.
Boris
[ November 23, 2002, 10:29: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Paragraph 3, Boris, is where I think I can clear this up. Your "City..." and Jadzia examples would change the story! I'm trying to say that neither registry number of the Prometheus has any bearing on the Romulans, the Holodocs, the Starfleet interception, the Hirogen ultimatum, or any other element of that script or episode at frickin' all.
Can we agree on that much? Quit trying to shoot my approach down through the use of misconceived examples.
--Jonah
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I don't think the examples are misconceived, because they're merely changing the plot and a little bit of characterization, which are only aspects of the story.
The visual items influence the way a viewer perceives the story likewise. It's just that you seem to perceive the work of the VFX people and the artists as almost irrelevant to what is nothing less than a visual medium, as opposed to a book.
They do choose their ship sizes and models carefully given their budget. They may not have the movie budget that allows them to build new models to perfect scale, but they do the best they can, sometimes better than the writers. Every ship is designed or used to make it fit the story under the budget, and is not a matter of "let's see, do we want an Oberth or an Excelsior today?" In talking to Gary Hutzel, David Stipes, and reading all of the behind-the-scenes interviews, I never got the impression that their work is disconnected from the story.
Furthermore, just because the VFX aren't produced under a movie budget doesn't mean that they're wrong. Only a viewer who sees the million Oberths and Excelsiors as artifacts of a certain budget will ignore them, and that's people who know too much about the way the VFX was produced and unreasonably want the TV show to be produced under a movie budget.
The budget limitation merely defines the kind of story that will or won't be told -- we've seen numerous examples where certain stories were abandoned because they didn't fit the budget or the VFX abilities. That's why the VFX vendor had to be changed on DS9 when the story suddenly required fleet shots.
Every once in a while, a casual viewer does notice these things. She notices that the Defiant has four decks in the background MSD. Its having twenty decks would create quite a different impression of the ship and by extension the story. There's the whole thing in literary analysis about finding new things in the text on subsequent readings, and this is one example of it.
Boris
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Damn, it's a registries thread and I find myself agreeing with Jonah. What has happened to the world? Oh yeah, no one's actually taking about registries...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hey! Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And Boris? They are misconceived. The plot is what makes the story. If Jadzia hadn't died, we're in parallel universe-land. Ezri wouldn't be there. She wouldn't have taken the approach she did to nail the serial killer. There would be no Dax-Bashir romance. Worf wouldn't have left to become the Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire (before apparantly becoming bored with that and returning to the Enterprise). Jadzia not getting killed profoundly affects the story, no two ways about it...
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I don't think the examples are misconceived, because they're merely changing the plot and a little bit of characterization, which are only aspects of the story.
Merely? What crazy world is this where story != plot + characters?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I don't know what kind of shows you guys are watching, but plot by itself doesn't normally make a story (except maybe in Sherlock Holmes or Mission Impossible). Characterization is usually cited as the most important aspect, because a lot of things follow from the characters. I never said that these are the ONLY aspects of the story, or that the setting is what makes the story.
I'm saying you shouldn't ignore the setting. If you read a novel describing the characters' home town in some detail, it's not window dressing. It's what made the characters what they are, and can also tell us something about the characters who chose to move there from another town.
Similarily, the kind of hardware Starfleet uses tells us a lot about Starfleet. The Defiant tells us a lot about Sisko, because he was one of its main designers. The ship is a malformed, raw expression of anger, with a lot of confused and redundant systems all over the place. That's the subtext. On a more obvious level, we essentially see the kind of design process that must have gone into it to make it the Defiant, by noticing all of these features and imagining who designed what and how.
The registry numbers probably have little function in this specific story, but it's still better to explain some oddities than to label them errors. We've seen that Starfleet allows the Enterprises and other ships to maintain the original registries occassionally, and that ships can be sometimes renamed with Starfleet's permission. Hence, a couple of out-of-system registry numbers seem quite reasonable, and are more consistent with Starfleet practice than the extremely uniform system you're proposing.
Boris
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But. y'know, changing something like Jadzia dying isn't "merely" altering the plot and some characterisation. Or rather, it is, but there's no merely about it. In any way, shape or form.
Characters drive the plot. Plots make interesting things happen to the characters. Setting is way, way below them on the list of "what makes a good story".
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I Disagree, strongly.
Characters, Plot, and Setting (both time and place)... are equally important to a good story. All stories have characters, they aren't always human, or even animate, but there is something within the story that has it's actions described. Perhaps it's only a short poetic narrative about the wind, but the wind is still the character. Plot is also important, if nothing happens then there is no story. Setting is the final piece which sets up a story. If you have good characters and plot for a 1880's western you don't want them in 20th century new york--- it's not natural.
Characters, Plot, and Setting have to be worked on equally and together because they are codependent.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Watch a Qunetin Tarantino movie to see how a story can be driven by the characters, and the plot is just there to give them a reason to interact. Granted, the plots tend to be rather complicated, but they still aren't nearly as important as the characters.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Getting back on the topic:
Jonah seems to think that because Star Trek is a low-budget/low-care show with mistakes, one must fix it before treating it seriously. However, I'd argue that fixing it removes its essence, even when it comes down to the details.
If the essence of Star Trek is to be unrealistic and cheesy at times, why ignore the possibility that registry numbers are as meaningful as ship names? The suffices added to some registries support this notion, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to suppose that in some cases, Starfleet would allow numbers to be reused without suffices. That's what Starfleet is about -- it can do things that regular navies cannot.
Similarily, let's say you're describing Jim Phelps from MI. The essence of Jim Phelps is that he always does his mission, no matter what. He has the option of not accepting a mission, but he does it nevertheless, without any real feelings or moral quandries. It's unrealistic, but that's what Jim Phelps is about. If you give Phelps moral quandries, he won't be Jim Phelps any longer.
That's why MI2 was a bit of a dissapointment -- suddenly we have Ethan Hunt having a real romance, as opposed to mere fake playacting. That's also why the fate of Jim Phelps makes sense in the MI movie -- once you decide to blow the formula and show the characters behind the scenes, you've got to ask the question of what kind of person you'd have to be to behave like Jim Phelps did in the old show.
Boris
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Noooo.... I know Star Trek is a high-budget show where the focus is on what's happening and who's doing it, and the VFX shots are there to connect the live-action scenes and put them in context. Much of the budget is sunk into said VFX shots, and there is a heirarchy of importance I ascribe to the data contained therein...
F'r instance, to the layman, all a stock shot in TNG of the Enterprise rendezvousing with an Excelsior-class ship does is show that Our Heroes are meeting up with another ship in furtherance of whatever's going on (compare notes, transfer passengers, form a task force, whatever...). What ship it actually is almost always has nothing to do with the story. Any uses of ship names in said moments are fluff, icing, and registries are less important still.
The only instances I can think of where a registry number has been pointed out onscreen are in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", with the four ships involved in the Epsilon 9 comm traffic; in "Where Silence Has Lease", with Riker recognizing the Yamato from the (erroneous) registry on her ventral saucer; in "Hope and Fear", with the Voyager's bridge crew being puzzled by the fake Dauntless' registry; and in "Yesterday's Enterprise", when Tasha read off what the transponder was telling her about the other ship.
Three episodes out of over six hundred, plus one movie out of nine. That's how important registries are to the settings and plots -- occasionally at best.
I don't think they're a bunch of cheapskates who don't care. I think they're a bunch of busy people who have things more important to what they're working on to worry about.
And forgive me if for some reason I feel Starfleet would not actually just slap some random numbers on their ships, whether they'd been used before or not, and maybe tack a letter on to the ones with these names, and all sorts of other crap that results in bookeeping nightmares. I apologise most sincerely for maintaining that they'd actually employ a system that makes logical sense and remains consistent. Maybe I'm just wacky, but for some reason I just don't think chaos theory should be applied to assigning starship registries.
We know the boom mike operator wasn't really standing there in the Rio Grande's cockpit. Why should we suspend the same critical thinking skills when we see two different classes of ship bearing the name Melbourne and possessing the same registry?
--Jonah
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I agree that some things must be ignored. Stock footage, for example -- you can't tell me that the Enterprise is going to fly by at exactly the same angle so many times. Here, we have to allow for the possibility of something slightly different happening every time. I also mentioned actors playing different characters, and would add to that lips moving in English even when the language is alien yet universally translated.
However, registry numbers don't fit the bill. They're obviously not chaotic, and I never said they were, but they're not perfectly regular either -- they follow a system with exceptions. That kind of thing is physically possible and reasonable, so we cannot ignore it, at least not if we're analyzing things.
One such exception are the suffices on the Enterprises and a few other ships such as the Relativity. I'm arguing that other such exceptions are registries that are reused without suffices, picked in advance, or reserved for a certain types of ships. Starfleet is sufficiently computerized to allow for some randomness in its numbers -- all you need to have is a database matching current names with current registries.
How hard is that? Cops must have something like that to allow for registries such as "I LOVE NY" or "NCC-1701". This slight looseness is consistent with the nature of Starfleet, which is not a military in the usual sense of the word. It's consistent with the practice of suffixed registries. It's the kind of system that works for this particular show, given that you can't control everything that's going on onscreen.
Boris
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I wonder if we're over-analysing. I grew up with the FASA notion that registry batches were reserved for certain ships of certain types.
I then realized as I became more interested in canon Trek to see what was actually happening within only the context of the shows and movies.
At this point I'm content with registries being for the most part starting small when Starfleet was founded and increasing in number as time goes on and more ships are commissioned.
There are exceptions of course, but if you look through a list of the canon registries we know and isolate the ones that don't increase chronologically, there really aren't that many.
From that I'm happy with the general rule that hull numbers are assigned to ships as they are constructed.
I'm also happy with the few exceptions which are there. I don't need to know the circumstances of Grissom's comparatively low registry for the time. I could make something up, but that's just a small exception and I leave it that there is an explanation, but I don't have to know it.
I don't bang my head against the wall everytime I see 'Brittain' clearly marked on the ship. I understand it's an error and just wait until the scene changes and 'Brattain' is shown written behind the captain's chair.
I don't think there's a point in making sure the ENTIRE registry sceme fits. It's clear enough from 90% of the known examples how the system works, Do we need to justify EVERY exception?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: One such exception are the suffices on the Enterprises and a few other ships such as the Relativity.
The Relativity being a real Starfleet ship now?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
29th century future Starfleet, sure. I'm not at all sure what "real" means when we're talking about trans-temporal multi-universe things, but, I guess.
Posted by CaptainMaxwell (Member # 932) on :
At least the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-D do not have any other registry. As far as we know there has been no Enterprise before Kirks (except the NX of course). And Garretts Enterprise has been destroyed nearly twenty years before the commission of Picards.
With the -A, the case is clear: Yorktown has been renamed to Enterprise-A.
With the -B, there is a problem. Ships usually get a name when there keel is laied and this is some time prior thir launch. So when the -B has been launched in 2293 (which was just one year after the Khitomer conference where the -A was still active) her keel has to be laid in 92 or even 91. I'm not sure but I don't think that any Navy on this Planet would have two vessel with the same name at the same time. So the -B has been laid as U.S.S. Notenterprise and got therefore a registry higher than 2000.
With the -C, it may be the same as above but I'm not sure. It depends on when the -B has been destroyed or decommissioned.
With the -E, it is similar to the -B. Just one year after the destruction of the -D there was a new Enterprise. Not even the Federation could build such a powerful vessel in one year. Because I think most prototypes will be built in pairs, the -E was originally laid as NCC-75001 (when we take 75000 for the Sovereigns registry and the Enterprise as her sister).
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
It would even make sense to me that a Galaxy Class in the making was registered at the time as something like NCC-71512 and at some point before the final skinning was applied, an admiral says, "hey, let's name that one the next Enterprise", so they change the hull to 1701-D. That would explain the B, C and E as well.
Work on the Sovereign Class Development Project began in TNG season 2 according to the Starship Spotter. I don't know how many treat the book as canon, but I'm willing to unless it contains contardictory information.
Posted by CaptainMaxwell (Member # 932) on :
I'm wondering what type of ship the Sovereign actually is? I assume it is (like all Enterprises) an Explorer but why has it Quantum torps, 13 type XII phasers and such a powerful shielding. I think massive battleships are expensive... I think that massive explorers are also expensive. So when you mix them together they are no more effordable. And don't tell me they have no money in the Federation. If they really haven't, they easily could build a whole fleet of Galaxys and Sovereigns.
For me its a Battleship! Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Stand back everyone! It's a baseless opinion in bold!
Posted by CaptainMaxwell (Member # 932) on :
When they are publishing the next TM we probably find out what she is really...
The only scientific analysis the Enterprise-E has made was the scan of the neutral zone in FC. Even a Type 9 shuttle could scan for the dust concentration.
Okay maybe its no real battleship at all. Graham Kennedy calls it "Enhanced Deterrence Explorer". Probably its really that BB/Explorer hybrid. All Enterprises we have seen were explorers but had a strong tactical suite. Some kinda Battleexplorer?
But it would be much to expensive..
Markus
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"When they are publishing the next TM we probably find out what she is really..."
So, what you're saying is that we'll never know?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:...Navy on this Planet...
Ok, small problem with this vis a vis Starfleet... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"When they are publishing the next TM we probably find out what she is really..."
So, what you're saying is that we'll never know?
Maybe one day Sternbach will do an article on the Sovvie and we'll get to know where those dorsal-aft launchers are Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: One such exception are the suffices on the Enterprises and a few other ships such as the Relativity.
The Relativity being a real Starfleet ship now?
Well that and the Aeon have to be real... otherwise the events in Future's End and Relativity wouldn't have taken place? They weren't episodes with a reset button.
Take Future's End - if there was no Aeon and no Braxton and no going back in time - then there is No Doc's holoemitter. Which has been a key point in the rest of the series.
Although this means the future is set in stone - but not necessarily - as Braxton in Relativity say that he has no knowledge of the event Janeway talks about then there must be a parallel dimension thing happening here.
So there is no real time-travel just a lot of new dimension creation.
Like in Yesterday's Enterprise - someone told me - and explained how there is actually 3 timelines in that episode... I THINK it is something like
The original time-line with Tasha dying at Vagra II and she was never in the past.
The altered timeline where the Feds are at war with the Klingons
The new timeline where there is a Tasha Yar from the altenate future now present in the past - when she wasn't there before.
That MIGHT be what he's getting at - but maybe alt-Tasha was ALWAYS on the E-C when she was destroyed when some of the crew escaped.
MAYBE it was the presence of Tasha Yar that led some of the crew to abandon ship - which Garret didn't order in the first timeline.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)