posted
That screaming and possible bloodshed I mentioned? I can sense it is coming SOON...
Seriously, why are we taking Harry's thread in this divergent direction? Let's keep it Connie-oriented. This quibbling over the chronology was just given a thorough---and, as usual, inconclusive---rehashing in the latter pages of this thread in the General Trek forum.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Starship Millennium: ...("The First Duty" shows Starfleet graduation is in September, but personally I think it would make much more sense if it were placed towards May or June.)
That only makes sense if you assume Starfleet sticks to modern western schedules for schooling. There's no good reason to assume they do so, especially if they give September as a graduation date.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos. In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
And as for the Operation: Retrieve displays, they are all Enterprise-class silhouettes orientated the same direction. That, coupled with the Excelsior-class silhouettes all orientated the same direction on the Enterprise-B's helm (or was it navigation?) board, leads me to believe it is a generic position marker for ships with no regard to class.
Far too much of what's come since the late '80s is based on the worst speculation. I wince at the "exhaustively researched" line on the Encyclopedia, when Mike still uses his half-baked registry system for the TOS-era ships, rather than maybe tracking down Matt Jeffries and talking to him like Herb and Fern did for the Star Trek Sketchbook.
--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
Since we'll never reach consensus on this debate in the next four billion years anyway, I think it's best to stick to the most official names and numbers we have, at least for the purpose of this timeline.
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: That only makes sense if you assume Starfleet sticks to modern western schedules for schooling. There's no good reason to assume they do so, especially if they give September as a graduation date.
True... but any way you cut it, TFF couldn't have been a full year after TVH.
And methinks some people want some sort of "battle" to break out...
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos. In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
Well... granted TOS has less "official" documentation, at least in the vein that TNG and beyond did... but I don't think that some internal memo could count as canon at all... or even "provisional canon." And depending on your perspective, you could say that Jeffries' system for registries has been thrown out the window with the "modern" Trek pseudo-system.
quote:The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
True, but the class of that ship is not known at all... for all we know it could be an early Miranda or something we've never even seen before. Just because the name and number match references in the book, doesn't mean that the book's complete entry is automatically correct...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
Her class, however, is not mentioned, so canonically speaking, its not Constitution class.
Edit: Damn you for your quickness!
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Regarding the placement of the movies chronologically, the one piece of info that has repeatedly been ignored is the date for Star Trek IV. The Chronology lists it as 2286 and it's supported by early Next Gen. When Next Generation promos were first being televised, they kept mentioning "78 years ahve passed since the days of Kirk and Spock". It's a definitive date they chose, not just a rounded number. W know that Season 1 TNG takes place in 2364. 2364-78=2286. Star Trek IV was the last Classic Trek we saw before TNG began. So they had 2286 in mind for Star Trek IV long before the Chronology came out. That puts Treks II and III in 2285, and cannot be as far back as 2283.
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Defiant's 1764 registry is based on internal memos.
Ooh...what sort of "internal memos"? Is this something you've had access to or just heard about it second hand? Is there any other useful info on registries, names, or classes that could be gleaned from such sources?
quote:In my not-remotely-humble opinion, the notion of any of the 16xx and the lone 18xx registry on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitution-class ships is utter nonsense. The chart was created by Matt Jeffries using his personal roughed-out system of how registries are assigned. They are all Heavy Cruisers -- which is what "Starship" means in that context -- but only the 17xx registries are Constitutions, for reasons laid out in pieces in several interviews with Jeffries.
I agree with what you're saying, and am well acquainted with Mr. Jefferies' intended registry system. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, that registry system never really came to fruition, and is now most certainly quite defunct. (That's one thing you can blame Franz Joseph for to a great extent, although it was actually "The Doomsday Machine" that cast the first wrench into the works.) There is absolutely no way that Jefferies' proposed system can be applied given what we've seen in canon Trek in the ensuing 30 years. A pity, to be sure, but there's no use crying over spilt milk...
quote:The Merrimack is referenced at NCC-1715 in TMP, so that's canon.
Yes, but even while it would fit nicely into the range, there's no reason to assume it is a Connie. In fact, it was lifted directly from FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, which lists the ship as a Bonhomme Richard-class vessel. (Which, arguably, could be a variant of the Constitution-class, but isn't necessarily---and I am of the utmost reluctance to accept the fandom notion of subclasses or ships being "upgraded" to new classes...[ick!].)
quote:And as for the Operation: Retrieve displays, they are all Enterprise-class silhouettes orientated the same direction. That, coupled with the Excelsior-class silhouettes all orientated the same direction on the Enterprise-B's helm (or was it navigation?) board, leads me to believe it is a generic position marker for ships with no regard to class.
Unfortunately this is not possible. I don't know how you're seeing them all as Constitution-class refit ( ) silhouttes, as there are clearly three---or two, if for some mysterious reason the two smaller ones are the same---distinct types shown. You should check out the pics again.
quote:Far too much of what's come since the late '80s is based on the worst speculation.
Agreed.
quote: I wince at the "exhaustively researched" line on the Encyclopedia, when Mike still uses his half-baked registry system for the TOS-era ships, rather than maybe tracking down Matt Jeffries and talking to him like Herb and Fern did for the Star Trek Sketchbook.
Agreed...sort of. You can't undo what TNG showed with registry numbers---that they are, at most, assigned in a roughly sequential order without regard to class or vessel type. One can't very well claim (IMO) that it was somehow different in the TOS era, even if the original intent at the time the first series was being produced was just that. There comes a point (and it was reached long, long ago) when it becomes impossible to try to uphold/reconcile something that is universally ignored by all the other series. But you're right in that it would have been much better if that point had never been arrived at.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Well... granted TOS has less "official" documentation, at least in the vein that TNG and beyond did... but I don't think that some internal memo could count as canon at all... or even "provisional canon." And depending on your perspective, you could say that Jeffries' system for registries has been thrown out the window with the "modern" Trek pseudo-system.
I mentioned the memo to show that while the 1764 isn't canon, neither did Bjo pull it out of the aether. Remember that at the time the Concordance saw print, D.C. Fontana was very active in fandom, too. I would be not remotely surprised to learn she was the source of the Defiant's registry.
As for Jeffries' registry system, yes I know it isn't the system they're going by now, but it is the system he was going by during TOS and is the system he used to make the biggest single piece of TOS canon starship listing data (the aforementioned wall chart). Rather than be an apologist for Okuda's lack of research, I'd rather say Starfleet switched at some point in the mid-2280s from Jeffries' system to Okuda's system. It is the approach that demands the least illogical revisionism.
Additional: I forgot to comment on it earlier, but given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart, I find it more likely to show the mission status of the Starships under SB11's jurisdiction than a repair schedule.
As for the Merrimack, given the data points in favour, it is far easier to make the step to say it is Constitution-class than the leap for the Republic...
--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
"...given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart..."
There aren't any. The highest one is the 1[6|8]31 which is shown right at 100%, and then there's a gap, and another small bar, which presumably denotes completion, or something.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: I mentioned the memo to show that while the 1764 isn't canon, neither did Bjo pull it out of the aether. Remember that at the time the Concordance saw print, D.C. Fontana was very active in fandom, too. I would be not remotely surprised to learn she was the source of the Defiant's registry.
Gotcha -- sorry about that. That definitely does make sense given the other assumptions made back in the day.
quote:As for Jeffries' registry system, yes I know it isn't the system they're going by now, but it is the system he was going by during TOS and is the system he used to make the biggest single piece of TOS canon starship listing data (the aforementioned wall chart). Rather than be an apologist for Okuda's lack of research, I'd rather say Starfleet switched at some point in the mid-2280s from Jeffries' system to Okuda's system. It is the approach that demands the least illogical revisionism.
Not necessarily... for one thing, there's the Reliant. Also, there were no names on that big wall chart, were there? If you use Jefferies' system, and the fact that the Commodore pointed to the number NCC-1831 while referring to the Intrepid, that means that the Intrepid should be a Miranda-class starship!
quote:Additional: I forgot to comment on it earlier, but given the ships shown at >100% on the wall chart, I find it more likely to show the mission status of the Starships under SB11's jurisdiction than a repair schedule.
You know, that makes a LOT of sense! I like that idea...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Regarding the placement of the movies chronologically, the one piece of info that has repeatedly been ignored is the date for Star Trek IV. The Chronology lists it as 2286 and it's supported by early Next Gen. When Next Generation promos were first being televised, they kept mentioning "78 years ahve passed since the days of Kirk and Spock".
I was actually very upset when the first edition of the Chronology came out, and there was no mention of the 78 year thing, to the point that I recalculated numerous dates accordingly.
But, this was resolved (somewhat) in "Star Trek: Generations", with the "78 years later" (i.e. after Kirk's death) subtitle.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
