quote:Still, I am now a bit confused as to what this means regarding the Xhosa design from DS9, which had TOS-style computer interfaces and a dedication plaque designating it as Antares-class...
But the Xhosa, Norkova, et. al weren't Starfleet vessels. Federation ships, perhaps, but not Starfleet. So there could be a Federation/civilian Antares class, and a separate Starfleet Antares class, which has been discussed before. The same thing goes for the "U.S.S. Whorfin," which was a Starfleet ship, which most likely had nothing to do with the Federation Whorfin-class transport ships that look nothing like Starfleet vessels.
In turn, my issue about the class of the S.S. Antares is that it appears here on TOS-R as a definite Starfleet vessel, with Connie-type nacelles and a Starfleet registry. Howver, I still stand by my belief that this design would not be operating by TNG time, if only because it's even older than the TOS Connies, which are definitely not operating by TNG time.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Connies may not be around in their TOS configuration, but there has been some evidence of refitted Connies being around; namely, the Connie wreckage at Wolf 359 in BoBw and that of the Olympia in "The Sound Of Her Voice" (DS9). In addition, contemporaries such as the Oberths, Mirandas, Excelsiors, and Constellations are abundant. Also keep in mind that the "Redemption" tachyon grid blockade fleet was hastily cobbled together from whatever ships were available, including several that were undergoing repairs at the time and were pressed into service despite not being considered ready by the yard superintendant.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: IMHO: 2. If we couldn't rule it out before, why should we be able to now? Whatever her specific design, I think we all envisioned the Antares as being some kind of TOS-like design. If movie era ships are still being used (and, what's more, being built) in the TNG era, then I see no reason why this design couldn't still be around as well, especially since it's proabably a fairly simple, utilitarian, and low-maintenance vessel. Of course, there's no reason why it need look like this anymore, though. The TOS aesthetics have probably long been refitted out.
3. On the contrary, I would rather tend to think the very fact that they used the registry from the Encyclopedia should lend more credence to the class designation from the same source.
Still, I am now a bit confused as to what this means regarding the Xhosa design from DS9, which had TOS-style computer interfaces and a dedication plaque designating it as Antares-class...
On the other hand, this point brings up again a question that has so far been skirted by us in our discussion of these "remastered" episodes: Are they actually to be taken as re-writing the canon account of things, superceeding the originals, or simply an interesting and fun diversion? Until more time passes, it's hard to tell.
-MMoM
I know folks have said the main reason we only seen mostly the existing physical models from the movies is because they didn't build any other types of feddy ships during TNG for regular use. Other than the kitbash ships for BoBW's, they used nothing else truely original. why?
because nobody at Paramount either told 'em to, or they said, no $ availible when they did ask. There are also other possiblities that could have prevented them from doing so.
One: What if FC (or who ever the 70's Saladin/Federation sket maker was. His name eludes me)'s estate used Paramount of using designs of ships simular to theirs? I mean, that's one of the possible reasons B-Bird made the 2 nacelle oath, right?
Two: FASA, on their defunctness designs or SFB's?
I'm lossing my chain of thought but hopefully someone will reconise my ideas/concerns, neh?
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:One: What if FC (or who ever the 70's Saladin/Federation sket maker was. His name eludes me)'s estate used Paramount of using designs of ships simular to theirs? I mean, that's one of the possible reasons B-Bird made the 2 nacelle oath, right?
Two: FASA, on their defunctness designs or SFB's?
It's "FJ," as in Franz Joseph. And I doubt the "estate" of Franz Joseph would have sued Paramount; FJ didn't even care about the show itself. He just made his book for his kid daughter. And Gene pulled his "Starship Rules" out of his ass just to discredit FJ's work because they had a falling out. Unfortunately, Mike Okuda took the rules seriously because he knew nothing of this little spat & just wanted to follow Gene's vision.
And as for the FASA designs, the less said about them, the better.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Oh c'mon, that's just being silly. Is there any reason at all to believe that at any point Star Trek ships were required to be aerodynamic?
Where "aerodynamic" = streamlined and/or warp-dynamic, then yes there is reason, simply because they all are to some extent.
I can't imagine any other reason why one would expend all the time and effort making such curvy and/or tapered hull surfaces, undercuts, and so on. If it weren't required or at least more efficient in some capacity, everybody would just fly in cubes or cylinders or other more readily engineered and easy-to-build shapes.
As for the Antares issue, I concur with the Picard-scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel idea and the civilian Antares.
The meatier issue for me is that of TOR being canon. Given the old Viacom split there's something of a power-sharing arrangement in regards to Trek, and thus a power vacuum in regards to Trek canon policy, inasmuch as there is no longer one obvious ranking individual with say in the matter. Viacom's Paramount Pictures is making the new JJ Abrams film whereas CBS Corp's CBS Paramount Television is doing TOR, and even if they were in cahoots there would inevitably be differences. (Even the StarTrek.com guys are not-so-quietly lobbying folks to go with TAS canonicity.)
Thus, in the new interregnum it's really up to folks themselves.
As for me, I'm following "last known good" sort of thinking inasmuch as procedures are concerned. Thus under normal circumstances and given that these are supposed to end up the definitive versions of TOS episodes for the franchise's longevity, I go with TOR as the new canon. After all, in the next-gen DVD era of Blu-Ray, it's all that's gonna be released.
Besides, I'd wager that the question will become moot in the future. TOR will be the one that's available and the one that new generations will know and see. Thus I'd have to go with the idea that TOR is the new TOS canon on that basis also.
The alternative would be to further fracture the fanbase by having an elitist camp of original-original folks pooh-poohing the revisionist-original folks, kinda like those people who reject post-70's Trek. But that would be quite silly.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [...]I go with TOR as the new canon. After all, in the next-gen DVD era of Blu-Ray, it's all that's gonna be released.
That's not what I understand. I've heard they're planning to release both and continue to make them available side by side, like with Speilberg's redux of ET.
quote: The alternative would be to further fracture the fanbase by having an elitist camp of original-original folks pooh-poohing the revisionist-original folks, kinda like those people who reject post-70's Trek. But that would be quite silly.
It's more akin to the Star Wars thing, and somehow I suspect that in that case it will remain the originals--warts and all--that are remembered and perpetuated in the long run...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But what is the big deal? The TOSR episodes have not reshaped TOS's continuity the way the Special Edition Star Wars have reshaped continuity.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
That just reminded me of an interesting side point - my son recently got the Lego Star Wars II game for the Gameboy Advance, and in the cantina scene, Greedo *doesn't* shoot!
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to that extent, no. However, to single out one particular example, what shall we say in the future when asked what the Eymorg ion ship looked like?
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: That just reminded me of an interesting side point - my son recently got the Lego Star Wars II game for the Gameboy Advance, and in the cantina scene, Greedo *doesn't* shoot!
I just played that level the other day and it looked to me like they both shot at about the same time, similar to the revised version of the movie.
I'll have to go rewatch the cut scene. Glad Star Wars II has that.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
The choice of the Robot Cargo Ship over Huron might have come down to access to blueprints. The Robot ship was blueprinted, printed (on real paper!), and sold by mail order and at conventions back in the 1980s, whereas Huron wasn't blueprinted until recently and is only available on the Internet.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
BTW, since they're going to do a shot of the Intrepid for "Court Martial," I really hope somebody realizes/remembers that her registry is NCC-1831 and not NCC-1631...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic