posted
I do not intend this thread to be a debate over the canonicity of TAS, just a source of interest. Here is a list of all the TAS references that have been made in subsequent shows and movies, or at least all I can think of, in relative chronological order. If anyone has any to add, please do.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Caitians and possibly Edoans (the races to which Lieutenants M'Ress and Arex of TAS belonged) appeared in the UFP Council Chambers.
"Conspiracy" (TNG)An Okuda-created star map seen at Starfleet Headquarters and later on display in Keiko O'Brien's schoolroom on DS9 showed sveral of the planets visited by the Enterprise in TAS, including Phylos, Kzin, Lactra VII, and Theta III.
"Unification, Part I" (TNG)Confirms events of Spock's childhood established in "Yesteryear" (TAS).
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Chang uses Kirk's middle name 'Tiberius' at the trial, originally established in "Bem" (TAS).
"Broken Link" (DS9) Garak mentions 'Edosian orchids,' a possible nod to the planet Edos and its people. (Lt. Arex's species.)
"Displaced" (VGR) Tuvok speaks of a childhood Vulcan ritual, the tal'oth, which is very similar to the Kahs-wan rite which Spock went through as a child in "Yesteryear" (TAS).
"Tears of the Prophets" (DS9) The Miranda-class U.S.S. ShirKahr, NCC-31905, was named for the Vulcan city that was hometown to Spock in "Yesteryear" (TAS).
"Once More Unto the Breach" (DS9) Kor mentions commanding the D-5 class battlecruiser I.K.S. Klothos, which he was seen to do in "The Time Trap" (TAS).
"Q2" (VGR) Icheb mentions that Kirk's first 5-year mission ended in 2270, reserving a nice slot in the timeline for TAS, which was supposed to represent the final 2 years of that voyage after TOS.
That's it. Again, additions are welcomed.
-MMoM
[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
RE: D5/Klothos: That designation bugs me a bit. TAS is supposed to represent either the continutation of TOS's 5-year mission or a second 5-year mission. The ship in Time Trap looks just like the AMT model of the TOS Klingon ship (D7), so might it not be a D7 as well? Might there be two ships (a D7 and a D5) with the same names and the same commander?
I'm just stirring up trouble!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I agree. There's no correlating the D-5 called Klothos mentioned in 'Once More..' with the fact that the Klothos in 'Timetrap' was a D-7. I dont think one difference in the pod would be enough to differentiate the ship from the class (after all, both the VGR 22nd century D-7 and the T&Tribbleations D-7 had vast difference and were still the same type. I'll mention it next time i hit the Klingon thread, i think the D- designations refers to arrangements or size, since they obviously dont change chronologically.
A D-5 might be a smaller type of ship, a frigate or escort, while the D-7 refers to cruiser configurations and D-12 refers to birds-of-prey
Possibly Kor (not Kang) commanded IKS Klothos, a D-5 frigate as he said in 'Once More..', then the Empire told him it was to be decommissioned after a horrible battle in which his first officer was captured. Kor stole the Klothos, and saved his exec from Sto-Vo-Kor, but was forced to abandon ship before kicking his enemy into a lava pit. After returning to Kronos, he was awarded for his courage with the gift of a new D-7 cruiser Klothos that had previously been named possibly IKS yorQ'tawn or IKS tI'Ho, which is the one we saw in 'Timetrap'.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Oh goddamnit people, there's already a thread for this. Can't threads last more than one post before spinning off into oblivion?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
No.
And that reminds me.. did anyone notice that Data only had one and a half pips in AGT?
OK, ill play the game an post about the thread. I dont think Edosian orchids means anything given the DS9 quality for random alien names (seems like they hit upon it by chance) Things of Arex's world were called Edoan, anyway not Edosian.
[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Er, that depends on the writer. If Moore wrote that episode, I'd say there's a fair chance it was intentional, him being the go-to guy for such references on DS9.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
How soon we forget... Moore said on his postings to AOL, that he included a TAS reference in "Once More..." It was the D5.
Edosian... have we ever HEAR Edoan? DS9 is the LAST series that just makes up names. See Voyager for that. DS9 tries to have lots of internal references. What other series can have a name of a dessert spin off into an intruiging race the subject of an entire episode!?! Idanian spice pudding anyone!?!
The other possibility is that it is named after the planet from Justice... The Edo-god ran it. Edosian.
BTW, what was the name of the Chocolates that Dr. Bashir was going to give Garak... or was it Garak going to give Dr. Bashir? Around season 3 or 4 - could have been Improbable Cause/The Die is Cast (one of the best Trek 2-parters ever!)
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
No, I don't think "Edoan" was ever uttered even in TAS (at least "Caitian" wasn't). Good catch with the Edo god, btw.
But yes, I think minor differences can count in separating D-7 from D-5. After all, some internal differences were enough to differentiate D-12 from all the other identically shaped Birds of Prey in "Generations"... Clearly, D-12 was *not* a common name for all BoPs, but a way to differentiate this outdated and retired model from the rest.
Interestingly, Kor's command of the D-5 class Klothos in his "Once More..." story seemed to involve the use of a cloaking device. So it would be nice to make the D-5 a relatively modern vessel, if we want to maintain that Klingon cloaking is a modern concept. Then again, Klingon cloaking might be an ancient invention (perhaps dating back to ENT "Unexpected"), and those TOS Klingons adversaries of Kirk's simply did not consider cloaking a necessary tactic in the respective battles.
posted
I disagree. They've been very careful about avoiding the word cloaking device. Stealthy doesn't equal cloaked, in the Trek sense.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've always considered cloaking as just a very effective type of stealth technology. Stealth technologies might be considered anything that makes a ship less easily observable and might include physical mean (camouflage paint, reflective materials, clouds of gas, and chaff) and electronic means (radar jamming, masking, false signals). The cloaking device, as least as seen in TOS, was a man-transportable unit. Making it so small doesn't make much sense, because unless you plan to put the device into a very very small ship (the size of a phone booth, say), the small size just allows it to be stolen easily by Captain Kirk and a set of ears. But before this cloaking device I'm sure the Romulans had similar cloaking systems built right into the ship. Even earlier than that I'm sure they had less effective sensor countermeasures. Therefore, I think cloaking systems and devices are on a continuum with stealth technology.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That works with the Romulans. The BOP in "Balance of Terror" dissapeared physically, but was still (just about) trackable on sensors. It was said to have some sort of invisibility screen, not a cloak. I don't think "cloaking device" was mentioned until "The Enterprise Incident." And after then, cloaking was still a Romulan only thing, for example, in "That Which Survives"...
Kirk: Could it be a Romulan Ship, using their cloaking device?
That's not to say the Klingons didn't have cloaks, or some other stealth technology, and the Federation was simply unaware, but it's quite obvious that to the series writers, the Romulans were the stealthy ones, and the Klingons had no hiding-technology of any kind.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
If I'm right, we didn't have actual definitive proof that Klingons could cloak until ST3...& that's probably only because of the Romulan "bird of prey" connection holdover.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
