posted
When I first hear that they were going ahead with the prequel idea, I figured that TPTB were going to change things so much that the show would hardly be recognizable as a Trek series (or taking place in the trek universe anyway). Now it seems that the producers are going to such lengths to make the series a recognizable part of trek that they are (in my opinion) screwing things up.
I mean its not the end of the universe that they are keeping the same registry system (I am assuming they are, and that we will see other ships with NCC regos), or that there is going to be a pre federation Starfleet. But why do it? What’s the point of having the time period be pre-Fed if all of the trappings are the same?
Yes, you can justify the Earth Starfleet and NX-01 as not being in contradiction, but how are they a good idea. Couldn't TPTB come up with a creative name for Earth's interstellar navy (no not UESPA)? I also think that completely dropping registries altogether would have been better than keeping with the Fed Starfleet standards.
One worries that this will be a continuing trend.
-------------------- "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It?s us. Only us." Rorschach
posted
*sigh* Silly Naval quasi-historians, CV-1 was the U.S.S. Langley. She and CV-2 and -3 (the Lexington and Saratoga, respectively) were all converted from other ships. CV-4 -- the U.S.S. Ranger -- was the first ship designed as a carrier.
Then we got to the good ones, starting with the Yorktown and Enterprise, taking the numbers CV-5 and -6, respectively. Then the Wasp and the Hornet, each in a class by itself.
Then came the seventeen carriers of the Essex class... Which I won't bother with unless asked. And so on, but now we're moving past the relevent time-frame.
--Jonah
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I know a lot of you are gonna cry and wet your pants over this, but Roddenberry's vision was not starship registries or design. It was the hope for a future where peace was a constant within humankind. GASP!
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well... No one's arguing about that. Though I'm sure that the writers of the show will write our new cast to be a little less than perfect. Perfect is supposedly boring.
posted
Seigfried: I've followed Star Trek for 25 years with precision. Meaning I have precisiely followed every episode, every movie, countless books, editorials, cons and so forth. That is what I mean by 'precision'. Meaning in the final analysis that I 'perceive' and 'understand' the Star Trek universe, and comprehend it as a living, breathing entity - like many other die hards. This is a caring quality that Berman and Braga in their 'creative' capacity may lack.
Wes: By Roddenberry's vision I mean the whole ball park which is Star Trek. I don't just mean ships and so forth. He cared for his creation, and his original vision is something that was his, and his alone. It is not a commercial comodity to be arbitrarily trampled on. I love what has happened to Trek in the last 10 years since his death, I have no complaints with it. But Gene himself was against any prequel ideas. The only way for his creation, in his eyes, was forward.
I only wish to state that a prequel idea may work, and may be a good idea if properly researched and thought through thoroughly. 'Enterprise' I fear may not stand up to much scrutiny, and more than that could unravel the sacred tapestry which is the Star Trek universe and its chronology. Possibly even worse than that, it may totally invalidate TOS, which in my mind would be unconscionable.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
A little off topic here, but Langley CV-1 was coverted from USS Jupiter, a Neptune class collier. By the time of WWII, Langley was converted to a seaplane tender I believe and her hull number was changed accordingly to AV-1 or something like that. She was later sunk by the Japanese in the war. Lexington CV-2 and Saratoga CV-3 were originally of three Lexington class battlecruisers until the Washington Naval Treaty, barred their further construction as battlecruisers. Lexington and Saratoga were both converted to aircraft carriers. The third ship was scrapped. Hornet CV-8 is or rather was a member of the Yorktown class of aircraft carriers.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Concerning the first carriers, there are people out there whose hobbies are naval history (myself included) and know that sort of thing. The question we have to ask is how many 22 year olds crewman or a 50 year old captain would know the registry of the Langley if they saw it on the side of a ship?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
