Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Constitution Class history
» 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] Oh dear, I sense screaming and possible bloodshed lie somewhere in the immediate future of this thread... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Reverend: [qb] I may be wrong but wasn't the USS Eagle (NCC-956) identified on the Operation Retrieve chart as an Oberth-Class starship and not a Constitution as had been previously assumed?[/qb][/QUOTE]No. I've tried to point this out before, but no one seems to be listening. While nobody can tell for certain until/unless we get to see them up close, I believe that the three silhouttes on the Operation Retrieve are those of [i]Excelsior[/i]s, [i]Constitution[/i]s, and [i]Miranda[/i]s. Those ones that people have mistaken for Connies are actually the [i]Excelsior[/i]s. The other two types of silhouttes have identical-diameter saucers. They are NOT [i]Oberth[/i]s. The EAGLE name and NCC (discernable because of their short length compared with the others on the chart) *do* indeed match up with a Connie silhoutte. I *think* SCOVIL matches as well. I'm not yet convinced of most of the other name-silhoutte associations that Tim drew up in the last thread devoted to this topic. The comparative lengths of the names CHALLENGER, POTEMKIN, AHWAHNEE, SPRINGFIELD, and ENDEAVOUR are simply too similar to make a call. (I'm willing to give Okuda the benefit of the doubt, though, and believe the [i]Endeavour[/i] also matches with a Connie, even though the registry could easily make it a [i]Miranda[/i] as well. Given the registries, the [i]Ahwahnee[/i] and [i]Challenger[/i] probably match with [i]Excelsior[/i] silhouettes.) I think we all pretty much agree that Greg Jein's original idea of matching all the names on the "Court Martial" chart to Connies was deeply flawed. Had it remained solely a fandom conception over the years, it would no doubt be paid any heed and would be disregarded as the nonsense that it likely is. Franz Joseph's far more logical system (which actually predated Jein's by about two years and was approved by Roddenberry) would have likely become more prevalent and been perpetuated as the official scheme. However, for some reason or other, (probably because she was extremely active in fandom circles, and perhaps not well acquainted with FJ's technical literature) Bjo Trimble picked up on the Jein scheme and used parts of it in then-considered-authoritative [i]Star Trek Concordance[/i], with a few additions. ([i]Defiant[/i] with NCC-1764, [i]Potemkin[/i] with NCC-1702, [i]Farragut[/i] with NCC-1647, and [i]Yorktown[/i] with NCC-1717. Unfortunately, she reproduced Jein's erroneous NCC-1631 reg for the [i]Intrepid[/i], and mistakenly listed the [i]Republic[/i] as NCC-1373.) This became the lexicon used by most fans and writers thereafter, and was used by FASA in the 80s as a source of Connie registries. (But, of course, they made up their own numbers for ships that Jein had originally given numbers to in his list but Trimble had omitted from hers---namely the [i]Eagle[/i], [i]Endeavour[/i], and [i]Essex[/i].) Then along comes Okuda, who no doubt revered the [i]Concordance[/i] and of course had a personal and professional relationship with Greg Jein himself---and who furthermore had been told by a bitter and vindictive Gene Roddenberry that Franz Joseph was simply a fan kook---and (surprise, surprise) he bases his numbers for the new official Encyclopedia on a combination of the Jein and Trimble schemes, though he corrects the errors of both lists and inexplicably invents new and not highly-sensical numbers for the [i]Potemkin[/i], (NCC-1657) [i]Eagle[/i], (NCC-956) and [i]Endeavour[/i] (NCC-1895). I have come to see that this mishmash of slightly varying but very similar number schemes all tracing their roots back to a scarcely sound premise (that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart were Connies) is most confusing and difficult to explain. However, the fact remains that this is the scheme which Paramount (at least currently) considers to be definitive and will in all likely-hood continue to use as reference for any future projets concerning these ships. So I choose to simply make the best of it and not scrutinize too closely. -[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