posted
Fresh from the Constitution class history thread, I'm laying down a synopsis of my draft of a way to have Matt Jeffries' registry system from TOS change over in the mid-2280s to Okuda's system, followed by my list of the ships that would need some aspect of their being altered to fit. And trust me, that list is far shorter than the lists that come from forcing one system on the other...
To recap, for those not familiar with the obscure background material of TOS, Matt Jeffries partially laid out a system for ship registries as a sort of guide to himself. It stemmed out of his speculation on what the various parts of 'NCC-1701' might signify. Granted, he came up with that registry more or less at random, by starting with the 'NC' of American civilian aircraft, and adding another 'C' to make it different. He eliminated all the numerals that look unclear on a TV screen, and that left him with '1', '4', '7', and '0'. And with those to work with, '1701' was as good as anything.
Now we come to his speculating. Gene's comments to him were that the ships of the 'Starship' class were the heavy cruisers, the ships-of-the-line, the workhorses. So that was what the 'NCC' prefix came to signify in his mind. Presumably other vessel types would have other prefices. Then he turned to the numbers. Rather than just a sequential assigning, he posited that the '17' stood for the Federation's 17th Starship (read: Cruiser) design, and the '01' indicated the 1st production hull built after the prototype.
All this would have stayed in the realm of speculation, and would be utterly irrelevent, were it not for the first season episode "Court Martial". For that episode, Jeffries -- in his capacity as Art Director -- created a wall graphic for Commodore Stone's office on Starbase 11. For those who are unable to see this, it is a wall chart listing "STAR SHIP STATUS", and consists of a listing of ten numbers with no prefices down the left hand side, each of which has a horizontal bar to the right, representing differing levels of completion of something. Some think it indicates repair or refit progress, some think it denotes completion of a patrol cycle or other mission. I lean to the latter interpretation, as the bar after the number '1831' goes to 100%, skips a column, than goes for a further column.
First of all, remember Starships all have NCC prefices, hence why he didn't feel the need to put it before each registry number. Next, notice some numbers are in the 16xx range, some in the 17xx range, and one in the 18xx range. By the system Matt had noodled up, the 16xx numbers would be ships of the Cruiser class just before the Constitution class, and NCC-1831 would belong to the Enterprise's successor class.
Unfortunately, no one ever interviewed Matt, and he didn't publicize. So more and more half-arsed numbering came along as the years passed, from the cringeworthy numbering of the Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine", to Franz Joseph's Technical Manual and all the fandom works that use that as a basis, to Greg Jein's cocked-up list in the T'Negative fanzine, to the damn odd freighter registries in TAS, to FASA's offerings.
No one ever thought to ask Matt if he had a system, and more and more made-up systems contradicted his and each other's. Mike Okuda coming on the scene in 1986 was rather a windfall, and his registry scheme became the new and current standard, where all Federation Starfleet vessels have the 'NCC' prefix, and numbers are assigned roughly sequentially as ships are built, regardless of class. Works great, but then he tried to apply it to Matt's era.
Starting with the erroneous conceit that all the ships on the "Court Martial" chart are Constitutions, and thus leading to the (let's face it) stupid notion that registry numbers don't have to be chronological or even sequential.
Well, then, what's the f***in' point of having registry numbers at all?
Anyhoo... My approach was to apply Matt's system to his era and Okuda's to his own era. The two but up against each other in the TOS movies, mostly between 2285 and 2291 (TSFS and TUC), so somewhere in there makes the most sense for the one system to be abandoned for the other. Let me gather my thoughts now before going on to the next stage.
--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
First, to go back and massage things in the TOS-TVH era...
The Cruiser class registries would go up by one for each new class, and fandom sources provided a rich and largely consistent pool of material to draw from. So not going too far back, we have this for the Starship class -- ships with 'NCC' prefices:
1600 -- Baton Rouge class 1700 -- Constitution class 1800 -- Miranda class 1900 -- Constellation class 2000 -- Excelsior class 2100 -- Federation class 2200 -- Belknap class 2300 -- Enterprise class (hi, Mim!) 2400 -- Menagha class
As of NCC-2500, all vessels would adopt the 'NCC' prefix. Newly built ships would continue to be numbered as they were ordered by Starfleet, and older ships of other types would also get new >2500 'NCC' registries.
So now we come to the individual vessels within the crossover range, either in terms of registry or in terms of time period, that need either their prefix, number, or class changed to fit in.
From TAS, the freighters need new registries altogether, I think. That suffix system never made sense to me. Barring that, at least a new prefix is needed.
From TMP, the Revere and Columbia need new prefices.
From TWOK and TSFS, the bridge displays of the Saladin and Ptolemy need to be considered to have at least different prefices. Not much problem, as the resolution is too crappy anyway.
From TSFS, the Grissom needs a new prefix, or else a new >2500 number. The time period of these three movies is when the Constellation-class Hathaway is said to hail from, with her registry of NCC-2593. The Repulse, then, with her NCC-2544 registry must have been laid down a bit earlier.
The Jenol*n and Nash (that latter problematic already) also need new >2500 registries.
And then, of course, most of Okuda's ships from those nearly illegible displays in TUC need a little work. The Ahwahnee and Challenger are perfect as pre-switch Excelsiors, but the Eagle has a registry more appropriate for a Ranger-class Cruiser, the Endeavour and Emden should be Mirandas, the Springfield should be a Constellation, the Scovil should be of the Cruiser class before the Baton Rouges, the Constellation should be NX-1900, or else NCC-1974 should be some other Constellation-class ship, the Helin should be a Baton Rouge, and so on. If we want to keep them as the classes shown, they need different registries.
Let me know if I missed any. Considering only two of these are seen clearly onscreen (the Grissom and the Jenol*n), the rest are very easy retcons indeed...
--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
I see many, many problems with this idea. But I doubt that going through them will do anything but spark a long-winded and ultimately pointless argument.
To be blunt and brief, in my opinion your ideas of 'retconning' canon registries to fit with a scheme that has never been so much as suggested by onscreen dialogue (your interpretation of the "Court Martial" chart aside) and is the result of early conceptualization by one person when Trek was only in its very infancy, and has been continuously (and continues to be) contradicted ever since, is both ludicrous and entirely against the spirit of much of the discussion that takes palce on this board.
You cannot (well, I mean, you can, but...) presume to take on the role of re-molding the Star Trek universe as it has come to be revealed by all of the collected works that make up the official canon---namely the six television series and ten films that have been produced to date, plus perhaps a few select printed sources and official statements---to fit with either Matt Jefferies' outdated notions or your own personal speculations. To make such a presumption is...to be regrettably impolite...quite unbecomingly fanboyish.
Even if what you propose does make some measure of sense, (and I want to be clear on the fact that I don't think it makes nearly as much sense as you seem convinced of) I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain or accomplish by proposing it. Obviously, speculation is invaluable among such people as frequent this board, (and indeed among many who do not) but there can come a point where one's speculation gets too radical. At such a point, it looses believability and credibility.
I respect your passion and your knowledge in regards to this subject, but I am wholly and totally opposed to your ideas as presented in this thread. I realize you're simply presenting a hypothetical resolution of what you seem to see as some kind of injustice somehow done to Mr. Jefferies, but the kind of mass-scale revisionism you're talking about---even if those views which it is intended to revise are revisionist in nature themselves---is simply not possible, and additionally would be an insult to the principles of continuity and canonicity. Minor retconning (as is occasionally initiated by TPTB, etc) is sometimes an unavoidable part of keeping an entertainment phenomenon going for nearly 40 years. But it is never a desirable thing. I am usually disappointed and in rare cases even saddened and disgusted when Fandom actually strives for it.
Sincerely & respectfully, -MMoM
P.S.
I do not wish to make it seem as if I feel that my opinion is somehow more valid than yours. In fact, that would be totally contrary to my point---that no one of us, or even all of us as a collective entity (Fandom) can dictate canon (read as: "valid") Trek. For better or for worse, only Paramount has the power to do that.
-MM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
*heh* All true, Mim... And if I didn't want your feedback, I wouldn't throw this up here for all to see. I'd just print it out and masturbate over it at home. *chuckle* If it doesn't take up too much room, please do lay out your line-item objections. The scientific method is about seeking to disprove theories, not to look for corroborating evidence. That which can't be disproved, survives. As long as we don't resort to name-calling, I find these debates exhilerating.
I also grant that what I posted above is the most extreme retro-un-revisionist (or whatever) approach I could take. When you get right down to it, I'd be realistically happy just having Okuda let go of his dear little notion that all the "Court Martial" ships are Constitutions, and the Constellation is a lone aberration. I've actually written a little premise that could account for that case, too...
I guess it comes down to my long-standing grumpiness when it comes to 1) people not doing their homework before filming/publishing stuff in the Trekniverse, and 2) inconsistencies that arise out of laziness or carelessness -- which sort of also ties into point 1 above...
--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
My feelings are the Old Connies were from an earlier production run that a contract was cancelled or production stopped but later reissued to Connie�s to fill in for the gaps in the system.
OR
Could have been older ship but reclassified to Connie specs but the reg. never changed.
Than later around TMP the reg. system was changed.
I�m more for the 1st idea.
I still think the Old series was blocked for the Most part until around 2284 when the Constellation was launched than it goes to Sequentially(sp?)
Canon speaking with noncanon info research.
2242 or there abouts the Connie was Comm. 2245 Enterprise was launched
| v 2284 Constellation is launched 2285 Excelsior is Com. or launched I don�t remember
Well Download this and read this and you will see what I�m talking about. BTW this is about 8mths of work so i hope you guys like it.
posted
There are really only three problematic registries for the Connie. The 16** and 18** are close enough to allow for small variations in the sequential system (left over numbers from some Yard, or left-over numbers from a discontinued class).
The Eagle (which I actually believe is a new-built post-2271 Connie! Yay! Crazy me! ) is most likely named en numbered in honor of some older ship, much like the Sao Paul -> Defiant thing. I guess the same story could go for Constellation, unless you say it's actually of a different class (since it was a very inaccurate AMT model...) but that's a bit weird... That leaves the Republic. I'm running out of ideas now.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Back again, as you all may have noticed by now...
In my constant quest of self-examination and personal criticism, I've looked at why I'm so adamant on reviving some semblance of Jeffries' embryonic rego system. I guess it mostly comes down to a couple distinct but interrelated observations:
1) If registries aren't sequential, what's the point in numbering ships, anyway, if the number is assigned more-or-less at random? Why would not the name and class alone suffice for record-keeping? Unless later ships of the same class are given the same name as an earlier ship. Yards would probably assign individual numbers to each hull they built, and those would be on file somewhere, but there wouldn't be any need to paint them on the hull -- and more often and prominently than the ships' names, to boot!
2) Registry blocks seem too damn obvious when one looks at the 1700 hull number of the Constitution and the 2000 hull number of the Excelsior. No reason, based on the first three films, why the Reliant's class ship can't be assumed to be 1800, either.
3) Given the assignation of the 1600, 1700, 1800, 2000, and 2100 blocks to Cruisers, where in that scheme is there room for other types of vessels? Simply assigning smaller ships smaller registry batches, or some such, doesn't make much sense, for what happens when enough Scout, Destroyer, and Surveyor classes are created to but up against the Cruisers' low end? Easier to presume different prefices for different vessel types to allow unrestricted room for growth.
Given all those considerations, Matt Jeffries' system, regardless of when he first conceived it, or how far he developed it, fits that era best, just as Okuda's fits his era best. Considering Mike gives us two additional Excelsior-class ships in the 2000 range, as well as one in the 2500s, plus a Constellation-class ship also in the 2500s, NCC-2500 seemed to represent the best place for an abandoning of the type/block registry pattern.
In the end, though, I will only accept the "Court Martial" ships all being Constitutions if Mike goes to Matt, asks him, and is told by Jeffries that he intended them to all be Constitutions (which I currently find about as probable as William Shatner actually being a woman).
With Andy Probert up in San Francisco, Mike here in Los Angeles, and Matt down San Diego way, I hope one day to get them all together with me for a weekend pizza party to hash all this out face-to-face. *chuckle* Wish me luck. If I pull it off, you can bet I'll videotape it. Now if I could only figure out how to get Todd Guenther out here from New England...
--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
While phoning through the arrangements for that historic summit, could you also ask who would be the miser most likely to be in possession of the "Operation Retrieve" charts at the moment?(Hopefully, not the garbage guy, except if he's the one frequenting Dilbert...) Okuda claims he doesn't have any idea.
I'm ready to accept that there was a Constitution named Eagle, because that's a fun, fun reference. But this isn't enough for me yet to accept that NCC-956 would be a Constitution class vessel. She could be some later Eagle just as well, perhaps an Oberth or a Miranda (if that's what those smaller silhouettes on the chart were). Or a NCC-1956 typo, not by Okuda but by Starfleet.
posted
What if it's a registry re-used in honour of the original Eagle NCC 956. It's just that the Enterprises were the first (and presumably only) to get the suffix.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(right click and save as)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
