posted
Monkey: Perhaps you forgot to finish reading my post. I'm well aware of what registry was on the diagram in the book. But whether that part of the diagram was on the screen or cut off is another matter entirely.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
How can it be cut off? It's right smack in the middle of the picture! It isn't like off to the side where it would be 'cut off.' It couldn't be cut off without a chunk out of the middle of the screen being missing.
Or did you mean that the movie guys might have removed the registry? Let's face it, they didn't bother to modify those pictures at all. They just backlit them and flashed them on the screen.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I mean I don't know how big the screen is compared to the picture. For all I know, the only things visible could be the saucer, the pylons, and the very front tip of the pod...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It is also possible to say that the registry of the ship was in fact NCC-380 and the pod read "Ed's Removals". It boils down to the resolution of the image - if it's below the grain size of the original film, then no matter of future technowizardy can prove that the screen originally read NCC-4000.
However, I currently prefer the idea that the first container on that configuration was actually a starship of its own, one of those fancy starliners, whereas the later containers were just registry-less shells...
(bear in mind that we don't know what a starliner looks like, until we spot that specific page of FJ's manual on some movie background display!)
quote:It's also a constant torture to me that we have seen all of this stuff, BUT NOT THE FEDERATION-CLASS DREADNOUGHT!!!!! The closest we've come is hearing about one of them (The U.S.S. Entente NCC-2120) in TMP.
Well, that all depends on how you view canonicity in the absence of an actual sight of a described ship. The usual definition of "canon" as it pertains to most people here is: If the ship in question appeared on the screen, then it exists, therefore it is official.
Now there could have been an episode of TOS where Kirk or Spock described how a dreadnought looks in vivid detail, but the ship dosn't get shown. How do you deal with that canon-wise? As far as I'm concerned, we already have good evidence of the dreadnought being canon without it being seen.
1. Both the Columbia & the Revere are mentioned by name and registry. Although not seen, these are taken right from FJ's manual.
2. Three (or four if you count the starliner) of FJ's ship classes, including the classes of the two aforementioned ships, are seen on a display.
3. The name of one dreadnought (U.S.S. Entente) and it's corresponding registry is spoken in dialogue. True, it could be a different design than what was shown in the manual, but why? The other ships were the same designs.
IMO, the Federation class dreadnought Entente, and its corresponding design in FJ's manual, is canon.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
Well, there's a problem with that. Here is all the canonical info we know from the FJ Technical Manual:
-Scout USS Columbia, NCC-621 (Source: TMP)
-Scout USS Revere, NCC-595 (Source: TMP)
-Dreadnought USS Entente, NCC-2120 (Source: TMP)
-Class One Destroyer USS Saladin, NCC-500, Saladin-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Class One Scout USS Hermes, NCC-585, Hermes-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Class One Transport/Tug USS Ptolemy, NCC-3801, Ptolemy-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Transport Container NCC-4000, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TSFS)
You see, we don't know class information for any of the TMP ships. None of their info in the technical manual other than thier types, names, and numbers was in the film. Even though the MAnual says that the Revere was a Hermes-class and the Columbia was a Cygnus-class, and the Entente was a Federation-class, that info isn't canonical because it wasn't in the film. And while the designs of all the ships portrayed in the manual except the Dreadnought were seen on screens in TWOK and TSFS, the Dreadnought herself was not.
However, I am still very interested to know more about the 'Dreadnought' seen in an episode of TAS, which might be the key to matching it with a canonical design. Anybody?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
That was my point: It depends on how you view things, and how loosely or definitively you define "canon". Some people here don't put any stock in ship diagrams on display screens because the actual studio "model" of the ship was not seen. The same goes for desktop models for set decoration. I, on the other hand, am very liberal when it comes to these things. The simple fact that they mentioned the Entente makes it canon to me.
IIRC, the TAS dreadnought looked exactly like a Constitution. Someone here made a statement that the episode it was featured in gave the impression that the ship was scaled up ten or twenty times, though. Utter hogwash, of course. That would have made it at least as big as the Enterprise-D, not to mention the inherent problems with upscaling.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
quote:Some people here don't put any stock in ship diagrams on display screens because the actual studio "model" of the ship was not seen. The same goes for desktop models for set decoration. I, on the other hand, am very liberal when it comes to these things.
As am I. However, it's not exactly being 'liberal.' Anything seen on screen in any form is canon. Those who say displays and desktop models aren't canon are simply wrong.
quote:The simple fact that they mentioned the Entente makes it canon to me.
The Entente IS canonical. So is its designation of Dreadnought, and its registry number. But NOT the class designation of Federation-class, and NOT the design as portrayed in the Technical Manual. These things were not mentioned/heard onscreen in ANY form. They appear ONLY in the FJ Technical Manual, which is a non-canon source.
As much as I'd like to see it canon, it just hasn't happened yet. Some future film or episode may make it canon, though, and I'd very much like that.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:Those who say displays and desktop models aren't canon are simply wrong.
In your opinion.
Without starting a major argument, I really do see your point. I even agree with it, to an extent. And that extent is, sometimes you can't always take what you see as literal canon. If you did, then those names on the Excelsior's dedication plaque also being on the plaque of a ship built one hundred years later is kind of stretching things
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
There were no names on the Excelsior's Dedication Plaque.
Plaques without names: Enterprise Enterprise-A Excelsior Hathaway Tsiolkovsky
Plaques with names: Brattain Defiant Enterprise-B Enterprise-D Enterprise-E Pasteur Phoenix Prometheus (the class ship) Relativity Sao Paulo Sutherland Valiant Voyager
Gene Roddenberry for example disappeard on the newer plaques IIRC. A Gene Roddenberry was Chief of Staff in 2293 but arround 2345 Les Landau was Chief of Staff. On the 2360's plaques it's again Gene Roddenberry. This could be another GR or the same from 2293. If he is the same, he will be between 80 and 130 years old. But who knows? Maybe his mother was a Vulcan.
SCNR
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
[ August 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
quote:-Class One Destroyer USS Saladin, NCC-500, Saladin-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Class One Scout USS Hermes, NCC-585, Hermes-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Class One Transport/Tug USS Ptolemy, NCC-3801, Ptolemy-class, and the design and technical specifications thereof. (Source: TWOK)
-Transport Container NCC-4000
As someone mentioned before (IIRC it was TSN) some information were cut off.
[ August 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
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
The other problem with the Adm Gene Roddenbarry thing is that he was in charge of radically different designs in separate shipyards.
You have to just accept some things as tributes to be ignored; Tasha Yar waving from the shuttle bay, 47, and the Admiral Gene Roddenberry.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
Just what's wrong with an Admiral Roddenberry, or several? It could have been his freaking son. There was also a Captain Gene Roddenberry, commander of the V.K. Velikan, a DY-1200 class vessel launched in 2160 on a mission to explore strange new worlds. (Source: "Up the Long Ladder" [TNG]) An ancestor, obviously. Just about everything can be explained, and you can't just say "it isn't canon" because you don't want to put the effort into it.
On the whole, it's very un-Trekkie like.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
