posted
I find it very ironic that the bulk of what you just stated applies just as much to TOS (and in some cases more) as it does to TAS. So, are we to accept the gradual "de-canonization" of TOS as well? If they've already done it once, why not again?
I refuse to just shrug off TAS as it seems to be so popular to do. I refuse to support the notion that any series can be "de-canonized." TAS is just as much a valid part of the official/canon/real ST universe as TOS, TNG, or any other series you care to name. It is ridiculous to dispute that. It's a series like any other, and the fact that it's animated should not and does not make any difference. The door must not be opened for this to happen to other series that "stand in the way" of TBTB's (and I'm not talking specifically about Berman & Braga here, I mean anyone in a position of 'power') desires to "re-imagine" the ST continuity.
I also maintain that at the present time, there as-yet exists no irreconcilable inconsistency between TAS and the rest of the canon. Everthing that has been cited as incongruous can be explained. And, somehow, I doubt that such a devastating calamity will ever take place. TAS is clearly acknowledged as having taken place (thanks mainly to Ron Moore and others on DS9's and VGR's production staff) and at least seems to still have a tenuous foothold in the plans of TPTB. True, we'll see what happens with ENT, but at the moment you cannot make any reasonable and con vincing case for TAS being a non-canon series.
For, like an Enterprise-class vessel, there is no such thing.
-MMoM
[ May 07, 2002, 10:20: 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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I just think that Scotty's line was slightly misleading. The Bonaventure was obviously a pre-1701, post NX-01 ship with Federation pennants. Maybe 'Installed Warp Drive�' is somewhere between 'Warp 5 Drive�' and breaking the 'Time-Warp Barrier�' on Star Trek's list of confusing early technical idiocies. At least we know its power isn't 'Simple Impulse�'
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:I find it very ironic that the bulk of what you just stated applies just as much to TOS (and in some cases more) as it does to TAS. So, are we to accept the gradual "de-canonization" of TOS as well? If they've already done it once, why not again?
It's funny you mentioned that, because that was exactly what I was thinking as I was writing my post.
quote:The door must not be opened for this to happen to other series that "stand in the way" of TBTB's (and I'm not talking specifically about Berman & Braga here, I mean anyone in a position of 'power') desires to "re-imagine" the ST continuity.
But that's exactly what's happening, isn't it?
However, although B&B seem to be going out of their way to ignore TOS in favor of TNG/VOY (well, maybe ignore isn't a good choice of words, but TOS is definitely being swept under the table...), I really don't see anyone "de-canonizing" TOS anytime soon. However, the problem doesn't really lie with B&B liking or disliking TOS. The problem lies with trying to be internally consistent with a show that's had 35 years of existence in some form or other. And whether they really want to.
IMHO, I would rather have had a prequel show more in tune with TOS than with TNG/VOY myself. But that's not what we got. And the more that B&B stray from the Original Series, the more things are going to be harder & harder to be explained away. That was my whole point. Unless of course you look at Enterprise as a remake rather than as a sequel. That solves pretty much every continuity issue.
[ May 07, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Back to the Boaventure, I don't see a problem;
Phoenix was the first ship equipped with a warp drive; Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with a warpdrive and NX-01 is just the designation of the class and has nothing to do with Starfleet registries in the common sense. If you don't believe it, fine, but show me a good explanation for the NCC-scheme before 2161 (maybe we should even include TOS-era). What do we have? Okuda's Ficus-sector diagram with NARs, spread up to the 2000's, I think, the Enterprise/Dauntless-debacle, the TAS registry scheme with letters in front of the number and so on. I don't have a problem to thank that Bonaventure came before NX01, even if it's S2100 or something. Who said TOS-registries are non-chronological?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
I don't think that saying the Bonaventure was the first warp-capable ship necessarily clashes with the events in ST:FC. The Phoenix was merely a *craft*, while the Bonaventure was supposedly a real *ship*. This is a real difference; even the TNGTM mentions the distinction between ships and craft:
quote:Smaller vessels with impulse or limited warp capability, such as shuttles [but can also be applied to the Phoenix, IMO], are referred to as craft, to distinguish them from the larger starships. (page 5)
Although I consider TAS to be a 'real' part of the Star Trek lore, I qualify it lower than the other series, so I'd dismiss the Constitution-ish appearence of the Bonaventure, rather than saying that the entire ship didn't exist.
I also don't think that it is an problem that the Bonaventure was already zipping around at warp speeds as early as the 2060s. It could have been constructed and commissioned even prior to the launch of the Phoenix. Even the TNGTM says that 'existing vessels were equipped with warp drive with surprising ease'. Perhaps even written with the Bonaventure in mind?
Kyle: the Ficus-chart goes back to 2102, not as far as the 2000s.
Mighty Monkey, thanks for your elaborate description, but I only wanted to know if any 'official' registries were available. I knew of all the ships and how they looked like.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Alpha Centauri: Mighty Monkey, thanks for your elaborate description, but I only wanted to know if any 'official' registries were available. I knew of all the ships and how they looked like.
You're welcome. As said, I believe all of those registries (obviously not the Potemkin's) were readable onscreen. (Or, as mentioned, from clearer images [i.e., the trading card of Masao's which would appear to be made from an actual animation cell used in filming] that have surfaced since.)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
"She was the first Starfleet ship that had warp drive installed, Capt'n!"
KIRK:
"Scotty, EVERY Starfleet ship had warp drive installed. For decades before that, ships had been running on warp drive. What you're saying is like saying that she was the first Starfleet ship to be made of metal."
It's better to discount something completely than to invent irrational explanations. If we accept the Bonaventure, then it must have been equipped right after the Phoenix. Since there were clearly no ships or shipyards orbiting the Earth in FC, either it was built on an Earth shipyard (unlikely, because the 1701 to which it is similar was built in space), or it was built after 2063 with the help of the Vulcans/other humans. It need not look the same -- that's why TAS is merely official. Perhaps it was somewhat modified over the years in order to keep the "symbol" up to date.
Boris
[ May 07, 2002, 16:14: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Scotty's line didn't refer to Starfleet, did it?
But whether it did or not, we now have evidence of Starfleet being an Earth organization long before the founding of the Federation.
Other things about the FC era... This was almost seventy years after the launch of the Botany Bay, so Earth's had interstellar capability for some time already. And I'd like to point out how outright impossible it is to see something as small as a shipyard or early space station from anything more than a few tens of kilometers. It would appear as just another star in a cursory glimpse -- if it's in the field of view at all.
And considering that station-keeping systems would be a lot simpler than in later stations, odds are any orbital shipyards would be at synchronous altitudes, which are a lot higher than the altitudes of the Borg sphere and the Enterprise.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, let's solve one thing for certain. Here's exactly what Scotty said:
"Captain, there's the old Bonaventure. She was the first ship to have warp drive installed. She vanished without a trace on her third voyage."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "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
Twits. I see nothing wrong with that comment. Earth had been sending out interstellar ships for decades by the time of Cochrane's warp flight. I have no problem with the notion that the Bonaventure was the first ship to have warp drive [u]installed[/u]. As in, not built in, as with the Phoenix or later classes.
What indications have we seen in Enterprise as to when Starfleet might have been formed, BTW?
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
IIRC, around 15 years before 2151, according to the series bible. "...hasn't been around for that long" according to Trip in one of the first few episodes.
[ May 14, 2002, 01:04: 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
quote:I see nothing wrong with that comment. Earth had been sending out interstellar ships for decades by the time of Cochrane's warp flight. I have no problem with the notion that the Bonaventure was the first ship to have warp drive installed. As in, not built in, as with the Phoenix or later classes.
So what you're saying, and which also seems to be the prevalent attitude, is that the Bonaventure was built in the 2060's. But it looks like the Enterprise NCC-1701, a ship from the 2260's. You can't have two ships that look incredibly similar, but have a two hundred year span of time separating them.
Oh, wait a minute...
[ May 14, 2002, 13:31: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
