quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: coatlantis, that is ignoring the obvious evidence where the Republic appeared as a Baton Rouge-class cruiser in the Marvel comic series.
I was merely poking fun at your statement but since your going to get technical on me, I wasn't aware of Republic being mentioned in Marvel Comics.
I tend not consider Trek comics as potential source material, but there may be some elements to glean from them.
-------------------- All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by. . .
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well, in the hierarchy of canon, the comics were officially licensed by Paramount, and all the stories were approved by lawyers and, when he was around, Gene's office.
SotSF, while i love it, was made by a few fan-guys against paramount's wishes and they were later sued for it. i think that damages the credibility a bit. besides, i dont think its feasible to refit an Archon into a Connie.. its just a ridiculous concept.. there would be no original ship intact..
BTW, on the subject of the TAS ship, it suffered from the same problems as the TOS footage.. a lot of the ship footage was traced from film of TOS.. some shots of the ship show the old pilot bridge, others show the regular series bridge.. im not sure, but i think TAS has a nacelle ball problem too.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: well, in the hierarchy of canon, the comics were officially licensed by Paramount, and all the stories were approved by lawyers and, when he was around, Gene's office.
"Canon" is still defined as anything seen "on-screen". If you want to go with what was officially licensed by Paramount, you have to add a butt-load of stuff which is considered apocryphal by a great many fans: "StarFleet Technical Manual" (which means that you have to consider the Dreadnought, Destroyer, Scout, and Transport/Tug as canon), "Star Trek Blueprints - General Plans Constitution class U.S.S. Enterprise", every TAS episode ever aired, etc... Not a problem for me, as I love those designs, but you'll torque off bunches of other folks.
quote:SotSF, while i love it, was made by a few fan-guys against paramount's wishes and they were later sued for it. i think that damages the credibility a bit. besides, i dont think its feasible to refit an Archon into a Connie.. its just a ridiculous concept.. there would be no original ship intact..
There was a C & D (cease and desist) order issued, but no law suit that I've ever heard of.
I'll agree w/you about refitting an Horizon/Archon or even a Baton Rouge into a Constitution. Just plain silly, IMO. There are also no real world correlations to this that I'm aware of beyond the 20's when a cruiser was "converted" into a "carrier" by adding a platform on the bow of the ship. Not a major "refit", just addition of a flat top.
quote:BTW, on the subject of the TAS ship, it suffered from the same problems as the TOS footage.. a lot of the ship footage was traced from film of TOS.. some shots of the ship show the old pilot bridge, others show the regular series bridge.. im not sure, but i think TAS has a nacelle ball problem too.
I believe you're correct. Still haven't pulled out my VHS tapes of TAS to verify, tho. I do seem to remember remarking to the room about that observation last time I watched the tapes, tho.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
ok, first off, fuck canon.. i dont give a shit.
by hierarchy, i mean that there is canon: that which was on-screen or intended by TPTB.. below that there is license: that which was granted the rights to use the ST name by Paramount.. below that is fan-publications.. and below that are unpublished fanfics.. in that hierarchy, i give a little more credence to a licensed work than to a fandom work.. luckily, there is little to discredit the things i DO like about SotSF like the Decatur/Belknap, Akyazi, etc. I'm just saying their timeline and their 'refit' theory are complete and utter bullshit.
I have 20 of the 22 TAS eps on my harddrive now.. i just checked, most of the shots from behind are modeled off the WNMHGB shost with the grille nacelle ends.. and the upswoop shot zooming in on the bridge (traced from "The Cage"s opening scene) show the large cage bridge (and the Cage registry font i believe.. ill have to check later)
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
The universally accepted form of canon is that which is seen on-screen and ain't got crap to do with "what's intended". After all, you have to have a basic standard for everone to use, and that's what most folks use: what's seen/heard on-screen. Don't like it? Don't deal with anyone else, then....
I'm with you on how you layer it, believe me. I'd much prefer a world in which we could have everything ever produced w/the approval of Paramount. I think there's plenty of room for the Pre-TNG ships and registry system, personally. Why cause yourself an aneurysm trying to figure it all out...? Just let it be.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
canon has everything to do with whats intended.. but like i said, fuck it, its not important.. i accept all trek, regardless of approval.. but i rate it on where it stands in my hierarchy.. if its a ridiculous idea, its wrong.. if its a novel thats contradicted by a show, its wrong.. if its a comic thats contradicted by a novel, its wrong.. if its a fanboy published funbook that contradicted by everything we know about common sense, its wrong.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree that the E-nil->E-nil-plus refit was beyond ridiculous and a Horizon->Connie or BR->Connie would be two steps beyond *that*. But 1920s did not spell the end of major refitting and role-changing of warships. Changing of gun cruisers or even battleships to carriers went on throughout WWII. Special purpose vessels were created out of vanilla warships long after the war. Even today, we see conversions, such as old amphibious assault ships becoming floating command posts.
I'm still a bit hesitant to declare all the half-finished Jeffries or Probert drawings as legitimate Constitution variants. Some of those could have been, you know, *drawings*. Even if from the fictional desk of the ASDB. I'm willing to buy what Todd Guenther is selling, mainly because most of his ships are backed by Franz Joseph's name and registry listing. But anything beyond that gets rather bothersome.
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Alrighty, then....
The universally accepted form of canon is that which is seen on-screen and ain't got crap to do with "what's intended". After all, you have to have a basic standard for everone to use, and that's what most folks use: what's seen/heard on-screen. Don't like it? Don't deal with anyone else, then....
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Jeri Taylor's novels and their canonicity?
According to startrek.com:
quote:As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Personally, I consider them canon, as I like the whole Bonestell thing, but it seems that many people don't...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that Mosaic and Pathways (most definately this book) is a key canon source - because the Voyager writing team did everything they could NOT to give the characters a back-story. Jeri was a Producer and helped create these characters. Also because it is a damn-fine book.
And it's true about the character development thing - I remember an article by Berman at the start of Voyager stating that there would be no referencing any of the character's lives before they entered the Delta Quadrant. That meant no family nothing. How stupid was that decision - the way to understand a character is through their past. We were denied this on Voyager. The only character that really worked was The Doctor because he HAD no history before The Delta Quadrant. They really stuffed up in this department. Oh, Seven of Nine ALSO worked - 1. because HER life did essentially start when she was disconnected from the Borg and by that time - or for that character they were willing to make an exception about seeing back into a character's past.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I agree that the E-nil->E-nil-plus refit was beyond ridiculous and a Horizon->Connie or BR->Connie would be two steps beyond *that*. But 1920s did not spell the end of major refitting and role-changing of warships. Changing of gun cruisers or even battleships to carriers went on throughout WWII. Special purpose vessels were created out of vanilla warships long after the war. Even today, we see conversions, such as old amphibious assault ships becoming floating command posts.
My example was of specific US Navy changes in vessels that I'm aware of. I have heard of no USN vessels being changed from a cruiser/battleship to a carrier during WWII. Even then, however, the vessel was likely reclassified as something other than cruiser or battleship, yes? That's the point I'm trying to make, for the most part. If a major refit occurs, the vessel ceases to be a part of that named class, which is how things should have gone for Enterprise after her refit in ST:TMP. At least, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Jeri Taylor's novels and their canonicity?
According to startrek.com:
[QUOTE]As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Personally, I consider them canon, as I like the whole Bonestell thing, but it seems that many people don't...
I wasn't aware of the comment at StarTrek.com that changes their definition of "canon". Honestly, given all the mistakes I've seen there, I haven't even bother w/the site for quite some time.
And no, I don't consider the novels canon, regardless who wrote them or how nicely done they were. Again, most of the fans I've ever dealt with go by a very narrow definition of canon: that which is seen or heard onscreen - only. I've never read "Mosaic" or "Pathways", tho have heard they're very good books. I respect Jeri Taylor for her work on VOY, even tho I didn't like the show. I marked a definite decline in the quality of the show after she left in, what was it, third season?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the whole Bonestall thing", tho.
Anyhow, all I'm trying to say is that for a common denominator of communication to be capble between different people, you must have some common ground. Allowing only that which is seen/heard onscreen as canon is what most people accept. Now, what they prefer is a completely different beast and that must be agreed on by all parties involved to keep misunderstandings from happening.
Think of it as a sort of universal translator for Trek history.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well technically the definition of canon would be something along the lines of "what Paramount considers to be true", and as startrek.com is a Paramount site I am willing to believe it on matters of policy. (I consider their statement on this, which is in the FAQs, to be far more authoritative than their databases, for instance, which were clearly compiled by some underling to pad out the site, rather than as an official statement.)
The "whole Bonestell thing" is that Pathways says that Captain Janeway commanded the Oberth Class USS Bonestell earlier in her career (presumably before it was destroyed at Wolf 359), and so a) must have been promoted very quickly (Ensign to Captain in no more than 8 years) b) probably commanded another ship between Bonestell and Voyager.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
just for the record, you _can_ command a ship without holding the rank of captain.. a lot of our navy's smaller ships are commanded by Commanders and Lieutenant Commanders, who are captain in title only, not in rank.. possibly Janeway commanded the small science vessel as a junior Commander, before she was promoted to captain.. this would explain it.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: just for the record, you _can_ command a ship without holding the rank of captain.. a lot of our navy's smaller ships are commanded by Commanders and Lieutenant Commanders, who are captain in title only, not in rank.. possibly Janeway commanded the small science vessel as a junior Commander, before she was promoted to captain.. this would explain it.
I'm pretty sure her rank was mentioned in the book.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote: The "whole Bonestell thing" is that Pathways says that Captain Janeway commanded the Oberth Class USS Bonestell earlier in her career (presumably before it was destroyed at Wolf 359),
Well, it would've been a little hard for her to command it after...
quote: a) must have been promoted very quickly (Ensign to Captain in no more than 8 years)
Was she just called captain by another character or was it actually stated she held the rank of Captain? 8 years isn't too bad for Ensign to Lt Cdr which is all I'd imagine is needed for an Oberth!
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
