posted
And the Yamato. And the Relativity.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
.. and the Excalibur.. and the Bozeman.. and the Stargazer.. and the Tubman..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Excalibur? Bozeman? Stargazer?
Ahhh, we're entering the non-canon area!
Allthough I think Peter David it the best Trek author, his first NF-novels were by far superior to the crap he produces at the moment. In other words: no, I don't believe the NCC-26biteme-A.
Bozeman? Aww, come one, you didn't even know if the ship was Norway or not.
Stargazer? Which novel was that?
. . . . . .
And what the hell is a Tubman?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: The only ship to get the EXTRA SPECIAL designation of a suffix was the Enterprise ships.
Yeah but even the Star Trek Mag listed it as the Defiant-A. Surely they'd have checked this first in order to avoid a slagging by their readers . . . looks around dubiously.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't get you people. What's the difference here?
"I served aboard the Enterprise, NCC-1701."
"Which one?"
"The refit."
"I served aboard the Defiant, NX-74205."
"Which one?"
"The new one."
The only difference is that the Defiant was 100% destroyed during its "refit" into the new Defiant, whereas the TOS Enterprise was only 90% destroyed. The 10% won't make a difference in the analogy; in practice, it probably makes a lot more difference whether you served on the refit or the original Enterprise, whereas it really doesn't matter if you served on the old or the new Defiant.
The Sao Paulo was commissioned only a few months before it was renamed; it probably didn't even have a crew. It's not like anybody would miss it. If you want, you can imagine that Sisko salvaged a piece of bulkhead from the old Defiant and had it installed into the new one, to give it *something* of the old Defiant.
Sure, this isn't what we see too often, but it's a war, you want to keep the morale high with the symbolic gesture, and why not if it doesn't make a difference in practice? Starfleet has other ways of identifying the hulls (such as Rick Sternbach's IC-103 for Voyager, vs. IC-101 for Intrepid and IC-102 for Bellerophon).
What you're basically doing is taking Okuda's line/agreed tradition over onscreen evidence. Let's keep the canon order.
Boris
[ April 11, 2002, 13:28: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
please... people take things that make sense over screen info anyway
Yamato: clear aired dialogue establishes 1305-E, fans prefer to abide by illegible background info.
and as for the registry, weve already had to disregard the Defiant's registry before, like when it was NCC-74210, or when many Defiants in one episode will be all labeled Defiant.
Just like no one believes all the Constitutions in The Ultimate Computer had the registry NCC-1701
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I wanted to say something, but I changed my mind, since I realize that arguing about this is pointless. I thought we agreed on what's canon and what can be changed, but now I see how that depends entirely on personal impressions (i.e. the DS9TM can go because it doesn't look right, but the TNGTM can't because it does). That's not how I'm doing this.
[ April 12, 2002, 21:17: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd personally like to see the new Defiant in a movie or something, sporting the NCC-75633 rego. Fact is, we all know that it only retained the old rego because the producers were lazy/idiots.
Boris, are we supposed to believe that the USS Majestic was destroyed in "SoA" and again in "WYLB"? There's more to canon than the show itself. It's called common sense.
posted
But the thing is, you can prove that the Majestic wasn't destroyed twice because that's exactly the same footage, and the chance of the situation recurring with another ship that has the same name and registry from exactly the same camera angles is impossible. Same goes for shots of the Defiant docked at DS9, a lot of which are stock footage. You can actually prove that this is stock footage, by examining the shots frame by frame. Hence, the reality need not be exactly the same, although the stock footage still remains our best evidence.
On the other hand, the new shots of the Defiant model in WYLB aren't stock footage; there's no evidence for it -- hence, had they decided to change the registry, I would've drawn the intended conclusion (just as it can be shown that the Defiant didn't morph from stock footage into Fisher Model 1 during the shuttlebay scenes of the Sound of Her Voice).
It's not impossible that the new Defiant received the same name and registry, and I've given a reason why. It is possible to derive a registry system that is slightly more complicated but fits the show. I don't think it's that far-fetched to argue that the registry numbers are not 100% precise, and that other, more precise designations exist (such as Rick Sternbach's IC-103 etc. for the Intrepid class hulls in the Magazine). I've just read an article about U.S. Navy ship designations -- supposedly, you weren't supposed to name ships after living people, but the tradition has disappeared. Ships of the same class used to have related names, now they don't. Rules have changed for no real reason: politics, relaxed tradition, etc.
[ April 12, 2002, 22:00: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
IIRC, the new shots of the USS Defiant w/Purple Carpet in WYLB (there were what, 2? 3?) never have a viewable registry, while stock footage of the USS Defiant w/Grey Carpet (which we're supposed to believe is the Defiant w/Purple Carpet, too), most notably the banking-over-the-Galor-shot, have it.
[ April 12, 2002, 22:41: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "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
Nyerrrope. There's one very clear spot in the new footage where the registry clearly reads the old number. That's one of the big fusses about the whole argument.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
