posted
Matt: I would think, for the signal to be taken seriously, there would be some sort of identification w/ it. So I would think the computer displays would be telling info about the ship. If nothing else, the computer should have realized the signal was coming from a non-existent ship.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Strangely enough, the issue that is identified and discussed in this thread on the Daedalus ships is identical to the Ambassador ships. No person or computer display ever said that the Enterprise C form is Ambassador. This, too, is accepted upon faith.
The dialogue for the USS Carolina says (a.) there were two supposed messages from this ship; (b.) the ship is not a starship; and (c.) she might be real.
quote:No person or computer display ever said that the Enterprise C form is Ambassador.
The Zhukov is of the same design as the Enterprise-C and the Zhukov was identified as an Ambassador-class vessel on a computer display.
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You and I know this. The majority of the viewership doesn't know this. Why? No connection was ever made in an episode or film between the class and the form of the ship. Our knowledge is unique and is not dispersed outside the Star Trek fan base.
I should have been clear on the computer display I had in mind. My apologies. I was referring to those displays that we can freeze in an episode on DVD format and analyze. The second type of displays are seen in specialized publications that are largely bought by the Star Trek fan base.
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
Ah, but in The Continuing Mission book, which is the subject of much debate, has Okudagrams from "Yesterday's Enterprise" saying that the Enterprise-C is Ambassador Class. And if you look in the TNG Companion under the episode "Conspiracy," you'll find that they knew the USS Horatio was supposed to be Ambassador Class when they made the episode, even if they didn't ave a design!
All these people are absolutely right. Okuda made up a lot of TOS registries, and a lot of others too. In fact he made up most of them. And sometimes he made them up arbitrarily. But he incorporated all his made up info into the show, by displaying it on graphics that he designed. So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen, whether we as viewers could see them or not.
[ July 15, 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
quote:So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen.
Sez who?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sez the people who know there is no other source but the Encyclopedia that is close to being official and canon, besides the writers, Okuda, etc. Why don't we just accept what the Encyclopedia says, because we can't find another source with better nformation and most of the time the Okudas don't have the answers?
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: All these people are absolutely right. Okuda made up a lot of TOS registries, and a lot of others too. In fact he made up most of them. And sometimes he made them up arbitrarily. But he incorporated all his made up info into the show, by displaying it on graphics that he designed. So, you are correct to say that he made up the TOS registries and such, but they're still canon and official because they HAVE at some point or another turned up onscreen, whether we as viewers could see them or not.
Two problems...
(1) It is highly unlikely that Okuda incorporated the TOS registries into Okudagrams, simply because these ships weren't in service at the time. We've seen a fairly representative sampling of Okudagrams, and none feature ships below NCC-2000.
(2) Okudagrams also say all sorts of goofy things taht we don't accept as canon. Why should we accept the registries?
Anyway, I have no problem with accepting the registries, but I wouldn't call them "canon," either.
posted
Damn, whose got the quote from that old Okuda interview? I can't seem to find it. Anyways, he DID say that as homage to TOS, he made up displays with ships familiar from the old series. I'll keep looking for the quote. That's where the Antares' reg comes from.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That's right, it doesn't HAVE to mean he's used EVERY SINGLE ONE, but consider this:
We have NO WAY of knowing which, if any, he didn't use.
He probably wouldn't just make shit up only for the Encyclopedia. Chances are he made it up a while beforehand and put it in the show.
There are so many frickin' displays out there on all the shows that nobody in heaven or hell's gonna be able to check each one to see if it matches what Okuda says.
Why do you require such absolute proof? Okuda is an inside man, who has been highly involved with the show, and he's done most of the graphics personally. Why can't you just accept what he says?
Besides, the Encyclopedias are canon. The Technical Manuals are canon. The Fact Files are canon. Having something published in one of these sources is equivalent to it being seen or heard onscreen. It's the same thing.
Why do we continue to debate this endlessly? That's Paramount's official view on the subject, and it's mine, and I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you make it your own. It just makes sense.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:Besides, the Encyclopedias are canon. The Technical Manuals are canon. The Fact Files are canon. Having something published in one of these sources is equivalent to it being seen or heard onscreen. It's the same thing.
Why do we continue to debate this endlessly? That's Paramount's official view on the subject, and it's mine, and I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you make it your own. It just makes sense.
You, sir, are wrong. Paramount's official position on the subject, as well as those associated with Star Trek itself, is that the supplementary material liscensed by Paramount is at best semi-canon. It is not canon; it is not non-canon. It lies in a state of limbo fluctuating between the two extremes.
The information in these works that you mention are based off of on-screen evidence, but the authors in their works make assumptions. What assumptions, you say? Well, in the encyclopedia, reference is made to events in Spock's life that occurred only in an Animated Series episode. Paramount's position is TAS is non-canon. Based on evidence presented in the series, Zephram Cochrane is listed in the encyclopedia/chronology as having performed the first warp test in 2061. First Contact establishes that this happened in 2063. If these assumptions do not make it on-screen, then they cannot be accepted as the total truth of God. The writers can turn around and change this to fit their needs for an episode. As such, what is on-screen is what goes, not what is in a book.
Why the need for this? Simple, Paramount has to see to the support of the Star Trek fans to the lowest common denominator. Not every Star Trek fan is going to be reading all of the novels nor is every Star Trek fan going to be in the possession of all of the supplementary texts. As such, Paramount's official position is that on-screen evidence is canon, everything else is in a quasi-sort of existence until the writers include the information in an episode that either supports or denies it.
The large majority of fans do not have the encyclopedia or the tech manuals or subscriptions to the magazine or the Fact Files (which are only available in Europe). To say that all of this other material (which in some instances is in conflict with each other like the Thunderchild's registry in the encyclopedia versus the Fact Files) is canon makes this required reading for the fans. And to force the fans to have to know all of this is expecting too much of the fans. And that is why strictly canon material is left with what is seen on-screen. All Star Trek fans have at minimum that ability to watch the shows and movies.
posted
Not to mention that, from my understanding, Paramount has jack shit to do w/ the Fact Files, and, while they provide quite a bit of interesting information we couldn't get elsewhere, they also have a tendency to be just-plain-wrong about some stuff.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:He probably wouldn't just make shit up only for the Encyclopedia.
Of course he could. Okuda's a nice guy, but he's hardly the continuity-fundamentalist God that a lot of you make him out to be.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
