Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
USS Hawk, USS Wellington, T'Pan
» 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 MarianLH: [qb]Actually he wasn't even that. His rank pin was that of an Able Seaman, the naval equivalent of Private*. An NCO is a non-commissioned officer--a petty officer or up (or a corporal on up, in army parlance).[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, thanks for clarifying. [QUOTE][b]Although my personal pet peeve is all the unnecessary pre-1700 [i]Constitution[/i] registries.[/b][/QUOTE]I'd be inclined to agree, but the credit for that goes to Greg Jein for devising the scheme and Bjo Trimble for officializing it it in her [i]Concordance[/i]. Though the Okudas are guilty of perpetuating it. [QUOTE][qb]Good, solid speculation...There are two issues I would take with it, one minor and one major. [/qb][/QUOTE]Thanks. There's no pleasing everyone... [b] [QUOTE]The minor one is that I prefer a 2264-69 dating for the five-year mission. ("Voyager" is guilty of so many consistancy errors that I have no problem ignoring "evidence" from it.) This is, however, my own interpretation; use or ignore as you like.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't prejudice myself against data points because they come from any particular series. It was stated clearly and explicitly in an aired episode that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270. This is not inconsistent with any reference in any other episode of any other series. Furthermore, it acknowledges the existence of the animated seasons. Why on Earth would anyone want to discredit it? ;) [b] [QUOTE]The major one is that, whatever a prop might have said, the actual protrayal of Gary Mitchell is not of someone just a couple years out of the academy, or someone who had a subordinate, mentor/student relationship with Kirk. Rather, they were of an age, and close friends.[/b][/QUOTE]Mitchell's file was displayed prominently in the episode specifically for the audience to read, and there is nothing canonical which contradicts it. Moreover, I question your subjective interpretations of the actors' performances. Clearly the two men were the closest of friends, and this stemmed from their long acquaintance and their sharing of many adventures together, both professionally and personally. But witness these lines from the episode itself: <center>[i]MITCHELL: I remember you back at the academy...a stack of books with legs. The first thing I ever heard from upperclassmen was "Watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink." KIRK: I wasn't that bad was I?[/i]</center> This clearly indicates that Kirk was Mitchell's instructor from his initial arrival at the Academy, and that he was already a lieutenant at the time. There really isn't any arguing with it. [QUOTE][b]In the novel [i]Strangers From The Sky[/i] (IMHO, the best Star Trek novel ever written), Mitchel is a year or two [i]older[/i] than Kirk, who had only recently surpassed him in rank in his meteoric rise to captain. I love this book, precisely [i]because[/i] Bonnano's characters and their relationships ring so true, and could never accept something so incompatible with her portrayal.[/b][/QUOTE]Unfortunately, I could never accept the words of a non-canonical novel---even the best one ever written---over onscreen fact. [QUOTE][b]Vonda McIntyre's novel [i]Enterprise[/i] gives this ship a name, the USS [i]Lydia Sutherland[/i]. Mitchel was Commander Kirk's XO. The ship is also mentioned briefly in McIntyre's novelization of [i]Star Trek IV[/i]. I had no idea, before reading your post, that McIntyre's speculation had any basis in fact.[/b][/QUOTE]Always glad to bring something new to light. Hope I haven't seemed overly confrontational in this post. :) [QUOTE]Originally posted by TSN: [qb] Monkey: Your fourth scenario isn't really a cop-out. How can you cop out of an explanation when one isn't required in the first place? The lines were cut. The "explanation" is: Worf never made any claims to being an ensign at age 17 in the first place. [/qb][/QUOTE][i]Tsk tsk[/i], Timmy. Where's the fun (or the shiplist entry) in [i]that[/i]? :p -[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