posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
[QUOTE]Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class

---

quote:

---

But the Encyclopedia doesn't say that. In the shiplist, the Antares is listed without class

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
Good continuity is not determined simply by having gratuitous names dropped all over the place. Good continuity establishes a logical reason for the consistency -- or even the INconsistency, if there was a change. It's in the story, the background... not the name itself.

Perhaps I rely a little too much on analogies to the present day, but let me try anyway: Assume that for some bizarre reason, some Starfleet officer creates a holodeck program about the exploits of the United States Navy during World War II. In the first program, or "episode," (set in 1941) they mention the carrier USS Yorktown. It's never seen or mentioned again in the program. But several years later, that same Starfleet officer writes a second holodeck series about the Korean War. In that story, he again mentions the carrier USS Yorktown.

Now, would a knowledgeable participant in the program simply assume that these two ships were one and the same? Or would he stop to notice that the USS Yorktown (CV-6) was destroyed in the Battle of Midway, and the one that served during the time of the Korean War was named in the first one's honor?

Obviously there are many permutations of the above scenarios... my point is, that the same name does not on its own imply an identity.

---

I completely agree, surprisingly enough.

If I was looking at this from the POV of a person watching the shows for the first time, without any knowledge of Okuda or any behind-the-scenes stuff like the Xhosa plaque or the shiplist display with the Hermes' class on it, etc, my first instinct would *not* be to connect the old Antares to the various alien vessels described as "Antares-class" on TNG.

But obviously Okuda thought it would be neat if there were a connection, and so he created the display terming the Hermes an Antares, and made the Antares from "Charlie X" the class ship, assigning it an NCC-501 registry in the process. Still, at this point, the only non-speculative connection that's been made is that of the designation of Antares-class to a present day Starfleet vessel. In later years, he also created a dedication plaque for the Xhosa (a ship, mind you, that---hardly by coincidence IMO---is a modification of the same design possessed by other vessels that have been called Antares-class) done in the TOS-style calling it an Antares. In addition to this, he stlyed the displays on the interior of the ship to match closely those on the original Enterprise. Now a connection has been made between the Xhosa and TOS-era Starfleet vessels. After this, I find it not a great stretch to believe that the TOS-era U.S.S Antares is a common ancestor of both the Hermes and the Xhosa. The ties are subtle, but apparent.

So, while I agree that a name in and of itself does not indicate a common identity. But, it does allow for the possibility of one. And when that possibility of connection is expanded upon by actual identifying markers such as the aforementioned display and plaque, it becomes less of a possibility and more of a likelihood.

I'll admit that this might be regarded as all fairly sketchy, but I'm not trying to say that onscreen evidence alone can be used to prove that the "Charlie X" ship is the class ship of the "Redemption" ship and the DS9 ship. It can't. But it can be used to show that the suggestion that the above is true is neither impossible nor unreasonable. To dismiss the concept simply because there is no absolute proof, but when there is some evidence to back it, is not IMO to be advised. Especially when it's a source considered as high on the "official-ness" scale as the Encyclopedia that’s presenting it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SoundEffect:
Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.

---

Agreed. I don't think anyone is refuting this. What they are saying (and they are quite correct) is that the Antares doesn't HAVE to be an Antares-class vessel at all just because the Encyclopedia says so. You and I, and a lot of people recognize that the Encyclopedia's info is quite official and as close to canon as pretty much anything. But, as we know that later editions may say different things about the same ships if an error was made or some new canon info has supplanted the old stuff, a case can be made that it shouldn't be trusted blindly.

-MMoM

--------------------
The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.

posted                      

quote:

---

Xhosa - a ship that is a modification of the same design possessed by other vessels that have been called Antares-class

---

quote:

---

USS Antares - NCC-501 - Antares Class - "Charlie X"

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dukhat:
MMoM: You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe. Don't lecture me that my views & thoughts are any more or less valid that anyone else's. End of argument.

---

I apologize for coming off as "lecturing." I was simply trying to point out that not only is there nothing precluding things from being just as suggested by Okuda, but there is actually some manner of evidence supporting that view. (Granted, said evidence was created by Okuda himself.)

And my whole point was that your idea was no more or less valid or possible than the one in the Encyclopedia, and vice versa. Admittedly, I did point out that the latter was more likely to be used for future reference by TPTB. That is possibly an unnecessary point to make, as I'm sure you are already aware of that fact. But I make no apology for stating that in my opinion the evidence points more towards Okuda's ideas than yours. (Which, again, it obviously would, since he's the one who's generating it.)

-MMoM

P.S.

Spike:
Was not the Batris herself, in "Heart of Glory," said to be Antares-class? (That's what Bernd's article on the subject claims anyway. I haven't seen that episode in forever...)

posted                      

quote:

---

footage of the Batris was reused in 'Face of the Enemy' as the Corvallen frieghter

---

posted                      

1. The "Charlie X" Antares is indeed the NX ship for Starfleet's Antares-Class of which the Hermes is a member while the Xhosa and Batris are of an alien Antares-Class that has nothing to do with Starfleet.
2. The "Charlie X" Antares is just an old survey ship of unknown class and that Starfleet would later build another U.S.S. Antares that was the NX ship for the Hermes's Antares-Class.
   While all the other Batris & Xhosa type ships are built by an independent shipyard that sells it's vessels to other governments and shipping companies.
3. That the "Charlie X" Antares looked exactly like the Xhosa and was used by Starfleet in the early days before they had the resources to build all of their own ships and that later on they do build an Antares-Class of their own of which the Hermes is a member.
4. That all the ships that are associated with the Batris design are all of the Antares-Class including the "Charlie X" and "Redemption" ships and Starfleet just uses them to make up the numbers in some of the more backwater areas of the Federation

posted                      

quote:

---

so, basically, no one ever referred to the Batris as Antares-class.

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by newark:
She was built before the Enterprise-type starships which didn't employed (sic) baffle plates. (Baffle plates, from my study on the internet, are used for regulating the flow of gaseous matter or liquids in a system such as air ventilation.) Enterprise-type starships employed force fields for the regulation of fluids or gases. She may been a J Class starship.

---