OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Did we see the Excelsior jump to warp in III or VI? Also, hasn't there been the blue coming out the sides of the Excelsior and others where its coming out the top?
[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, technically speaking, the pictures of the Daedalus in the Encyclopedia suggest that the back ends glow blue.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I really could care less about nacelle-glow colors. I'm more concerned for MINOR and IRRELEVANT details, like, oh, I don't know, historical continuity. Preventing the timeline, and all other canonically established facts from being screwed up seems to me a somewhat bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, technically speaking, the pictures of the Daedalus in the Encyclopedia suggest that the back ends glow blue.
Yes, and I submit that the whitish domes on the aft end of the series-version Constitution serve the same purpose... as well as the holes on the pilot-version Constitution. As a matter of fact, it would be cool if, at warp, the original series Enterprise's aft domes glowed blue-white. They could even "smear" as the film versions did.
posted
Hey the Evil Lord is right! Can't we shut up about this whole 'does the blue glow or not' crap and think about why wars are jumping around from one century to another and why there was a Starfleet starship Enterprise before the E-nil?
I think we've settled the whole bluewarp grille thing pretty well. The E-nil has them. The Daedalus has them. The Phoenix has them. There's no technical reason why the Pre-E shouldn't have them. It's just a cosmetic thing that serves as one more little detail that makes the NX-01 look not quite as primitive as it should.
R U guys happy now?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:Why there was a Starfleet starship Enterprise before the E-nil?
Easy. The E-nil bore the name "USS Enterprise". The E-(-A) bears the name "SS Enterprise." Therefore, the E-D is the fifth to bear the name "USS Enterprise" but certainly not the fifth vehicle to have Enterprise in its name in any shape or form (because then you'd get into the space shuttle, the sailing ship, the Hoopliner etc.) The fact that they could be different Starfleets entirely is only reinforcement.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
April/Pike/Kirk's Enterprise (NCC-1701) has been explicitly referred to (on TNG, DS9, VGR, I can't quote exact eps) as both "the first Starship Enterprise" and "the original Starship Enterprise" so it doesn't matter what prefix it carried (U.S.S., S.S., etc.) because it hasn't only been called the "first U.S.S. Enterprise."
That's one thing they can't get around. That and the registry number.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
"Can't we shut up about this whole 'does the blue glow or not' crap and think about why wars are jumping around from one century to another and why there was a Starfleet starship Enterprise before the E-nil?"
No, we can't. If we have to shut up about nacelle glows, then you have to shut up about that other stuff. Gotta be fair...
"The E-(-A) bears the name 'SS Enterprise.'"
Well, according to the ship's hull, it's just "Enterprise", not "SS Enterprise".
posted
Oh, yeah. I don't think it's been confirmed yet that the present incarnation will be S.S. at all. If it's Starfleet than it should by all rights be U.S.S., but then again, that might turn out worse.
Doc Obvious: Are you on my case again?! Man! Forget it, I'm too lazy. Go find the eps yourself. I can't believe you guys won't just admit that the whole frickin' series is just one big frickin' continuity error.
I'm going to bed. Talk to ya in the morning.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Oh, yeah. I don't think it's been confirmed yet that the present incarnation will be S.S. at all. If it's Starfleet than it should by all rights be U.S.S., but then again, that might turn out worse.
Actually, Paramount registered the term "S.S. Enterprise" with the PTO recently, suggesting it's official.
posted
Strangely enough, I just discovered, this weekend, that my great-uncle served on the HMS Daedalus as a Swordfish pilot in the Fleet Air Arm. Until he had a bit too close a look at a German anti-aircraft battery, that is.
quote:Forget it, I'm too lazy. Go find the eps yourself.
Here's the first rule of debating: if you have a point to make you need to present the evidence that supports your argument. It is not your opponent's job to find the support for your argument; it's your opponent's job to find the evidence that contradicts and invalidates your argument. Of course, this could hardly be considered a debate, in which case, your failing to support your own conclusions attacks at your own credibility.
quote:I can't believe you guys won't just admit that the whole frickin' series is just one big frickin' continuity error.
Why should we admit that the series is going to be one big clusterfuck? The evidence that we have shows that the series is not violating continuity. Your argument for the new series being a continuity disaster is based on 1) your dislike of Berman and Braga, 2) dates for events that were assumptions made in the Chronology and Encyclopedia, and 3) the physical details such as set construction and ship design conflict with your sense of what is proper for the mid-22nd century.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
