The Stargazer
- Thread starter Iceyl86
- Start date
powell99
Aviation Junkie
No thats not what they are saying, and I think you're looking a little too deep in this. It's just a fun television show.
What they are saying is that Starfleet considered the Ambassador to be an explorer because it was one. I mean it is a ship we see for the whole of probably an hour on screen, we don't know worth shit wether or not it was a warship, other than the fact that the all the dialouge we see on the series points to the USS Defiant being the Federations first purpose designed Warship.
From that they make the logical conclusion that the Ambassador was like all of the other ships and were designed for exploration missions. Take the Galaxy class, that thing is armed to the teeth, but it was an exploration ship.
Anyways I'm probably wrong in my explanation, but I'm not a grand Star Trek master or somesuch.
What they are saying is that Starfleet considered the Ambassador to be an explorer because it was one. I mean it is a ship we see for the whole of probably an hour on screen, we don't know worth shit wether or not it was a warship, other than the fact that the all the dialouge we see on the series points to the USS Defiant being the Federations first purpose designed Warship.
From that they make the logical conclusion that the Ambassador was like all of the other ships and were designed for exploration missions. Take the Galaxy class, that thing is armed to the teeth, but it was an exploration ship.
Anyways I'm probably wrong in my explanation, but I'm not a grand Star Trek master or somesuch.
I think the word 'cruiser' in Star Trek refers to more it's size than combat capabilities, because thats not what the Federation or Gene Roddenberry had in mind when these ships were made, and making another reference to Star Trek 3, during docking, one of the Enterprise's Station screens referred to the ship being a heavy cruiser, the word 'cruiser' does not refer to any armament or weapon of war, simply a ship.
The word 'battlecruiser' however does, I think someone is forgetting the differences or using the Wing Commander meanings of the words as that was set in a very long war. Either way, cruisers aren't necessarily seen as warships, just pretty big ships.
The word 'battlecruiser' however does, I think someone is forgetting the differences or using the Wing Commander meanings of the words as that was set in a very long war. Either way, cruisers aren't necessarily seen as warships, just pretty big ships.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Again, though, this isn't what the TV show is about... at all. The Klingons were very clearly created to be a commentary on the cold war -- both sides believe the worst in the other, neither is right. For instance:
Star Trek has always been very explicit about the fact that its ships can fight in a war when such a thing is necessary -- and equally explicit about the fact that this is not why they're built in the first place (as quoted above).
The entire point of Yesterday's Enterprise should have been that these ships *weren't* supposed to be used for war -- Guinan goes right out and says that at one point. The timeline is wrong (to her and to the viewer) because the Enterprise is a warship instead of an explorer.
Did you, perhaps, see the rest of Star Trek 3 too? *Everything* the Klingons did was about overreacting to the Federation's (actually peaceful) intentions -- their entire motivation in the movie was that they were sure that the Genesis Device was actually a "Genesis Torpedo" that they, fearing Earth was planning to subjugate their empire, needed to save their race from.
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
It should also stand to reason that the Ambassador class is certainly not a warship, given that it gets the crap beaten out of it so badly before and during "Yesterday's Enterprise". Thats not to say that ships of war don't take damage, but it's not like the vessel had tons of hardpoints and phaser arrays.
(Is this is what it's come to? Interstellar war is the selling point of Star Trek? Jesus Christ, no wonder the last couple movies were so awful if they're trying to sell ST to people who like ST for that reason)
(Is this is what it's come to? Interstellar war is the selling point of Star Trek? Jesus Christ, no wonder the last couple movies were so awful if they're trying to sell ST to people who like ST for that reason)
I'll admit I like the odd scrap in Star Trek, but if people think about it as all combat and no exploration then it really is screwing what Gene Roddenberry was thinking, he didn't say the united federation of planets was formed and they conquered the galaxy, he said they went out and explored the galaxy.
It was the fact that the vision was of a brighter future and not the Terran Empire, it was the brighter future that attracted the millions of fans to join in Roddenberry's dream, humanity with friends, all aiming to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."
So LeHah, I agree with what you said on the last two lines except one thing, I don't think Nemesis was particularly awful.
It was the fact that the vision was of a brighter future and not the Terran Empire, it was the brighter future that attracted the millions of fans to join in Roddenberry's dream, humanity with friends, all aiming to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."
So LeHah, I agree with what you said on the last two lines except one thing, I don't think Nemesis was particularly awful.
LeHah said:
When is the last time you've seen a Romulan Warbird? It seems that almost every time (Save the original series) when the Federation comes out with a "Ship of the Line" the Romulans come out with something larger and far more powerful. You take one Federation ship against three Romulan Warbirds and see how long you last. No matter what the situation is, one large ship will not be able to beat three larger ships without some kind of advanced weaponry or something of that sort. That does not mean that the Ambassador class wasn't built with combat in mind. My point is that the Ambassador class was being built at the end of the war between the Klingons and the Federation. You don't build vessels of exploration during wartime. Even when things had been peaceful for a long time, the Federation began building warships when a new war broke out; Defiant class(Escort), Steamrunner class(Not sure), Saber class (Light Cruiser), Akira class (Heavy Cruiser), and even the older Miranda class (Light Cruiser). Not to mention the fact that they brought in the old Marquis raiders as fighters. These ships were built for combat. Every book, backstory, and website supports these facts. Though I also must agree with you LeHah... the last few movies DID really suck! Although... I did kind of like DS9 slightly better during the Dominian war... but I had gotten sick of it by like the third season of it.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Iceyl86 said:
That's a really really bad way to support what you're trying to say. Books, "back stories" and unofficial websites are basically fan fiction and have no bearing on what the official line is. You also don't seem to get the message behind Star Trek that everyone is trying to make you understand and should have stopped this a while ago.
ChrisReid said:
No, I also have books written and published by people like Zimmerman and others who have worked on Star Trek who are actually part of bringing the Star Trek Universe to life, Canon or not, they can't be too far off as there really isn't anything 100% canon in Star Trek save the VERY limited info put into the shows...
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Iceyl86 said:
Perhaps I missed something - but was there ever a formal war with the Klingon Empire after Star Trek VI? Wasn't the point of that movie to show that they joined the Federation later on?
Given that the following movie (Generations) shows the Enterprise-B - the idea that the Enterprise-C (which is in action in a time (long) after Generations and before Encounter At Farpoint) is produced during "wartime" doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
However, I could be wrong. Care to explain?
Iceyl86 said:
Since when did Star Trek ships get "cruiser" designations? Anyway, I remember the Mirandas were usually science vessels ala Star Trek II. They were lightly armed exploration vessels or something?
Death said:
People on the internet need to understand the difference between the "C" word and simply an offically licensed product.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
He's referring to a single, unspecific line in Yesterday's Enterprise. Alternate-Yar explains to the Enterprise-C's helmsman that the war with the Klingons has been going on for twenty years and he replies that "we were negotiating a peace treaty with the Klingons when I left."
... of course, they were negotiating a peace treaty with the Klingons without having fought a war in Star Trek VI, too. I bring this up not only as an obvious example of why it's wrong to assume that there's a secret space war going on twenty years before Next Generation, but to point out what the purpose of the line originally was. You must remember that Star Trek VI hadn't been written in 1989... all they knew when putting together Yesterday's Enterprise was that at some point between the original series and the Next Generation the Klingons and the Federation go from being cold warriors to being space friends. This is an initial attempt to explain what those events were... which we retcon out of existance four years later when Star Trek VI attaches them to the adventures of Kirk and company (oh, we say, it must be *another* peace treaty of some sort...).
You would think that the folly of creating this retcon to explain a later story in the first place and then adding to it even further (there was a terrible war! ships were designed to fight it!) to the point of contradicting both direct quotes from Deep Space Nine and the entire nature of the series in the first place would be self evident... but who knows how people think.
I disagree on this point. I don't think people on the internet should know anything at all - insert your own joke here. A canon is a tool for writers: they tell the guy writing a new script what he should and should not take into account. It would be absolutely impossible for a professional writer (who is not by nature a Star Trek fan - but I defy even Star Trek fans to have such a level of knowledge) to take into account a thousand comic books and 300 novels and so forth every time he writes a line of script. It's just impossible - the idea that there's a essential core of material that he must be familiar with makes his job reasonable (in Paramount's reckoning, for their writers that core is all filmed material).
Continuity and the idea of a "canon" are and should have remained behind the scenes element, distinct and separate. They should serve only the needs of an episode writer (and in practice, with 900+ hours of filmed material, they no longer do this either) and not the unsubstantial opinions of a fan.
Throwing it out to the fans is forcing the apple down Adam's throat. Instead of respecting and enjoying Star Trek as Star Trek (or insert your favorite series here), they fighter over what is and isn't *really* Star Trek. I mean -- what the hell? Why do people watch/read/etc. Star Trek in the first place? Is it because they enjoy the stories, characters, etc... or because they feel it's some kind of important future history that they're under some kind of painful responsibility to be exactly familiar with? You may not believe the latter and respect the former. If the second terrible read is the case -- which somehow it seems very often to be -- why put yourself through any of this in the first place?
How many times have you seen someone say 'oh, I don't read/won't discuss/won't consider the novels (or comics, or the cartoon)... they're not *canon*'. It's stupid not just for the horrible abuse of language -- it doesn't make sense in concept. They're applying an unnatural standard that should never even be understood in the first place, all in order to destroy something that otherwise exists only for their enjoyment.
A Star Trek novel (or comic book or cartoon) holds itself to the same standard as the TV episodes do. If I pick up whatever this months book is, it will be absolutely 'in continuity' with all the previous novels *and* the existing studio 'canon' (in so far as such a thing is possible, and it is impossible in every form including television episodes). If our generation of horrible cynical jerks absolutely needs to quantify everything in terms of how real a fictional story is, let them pick that as their continuity -- the obscure media tie in that works itself to fit with everything and in so doing gives them another story to experience.
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Bandit LOAF said:
Ah, that makes sense.
You'll have to excuse my error. I knew that TNG was being shot during STVI - Michael Dorn plays Kirk and McCoy's defense lawyer, after all - but I keep forgetting that the series started in the mid-80s, so my understanding of what happened when in terms of production is pretty weak given that I'm only now regaining interest in ST after almost a decade's absence.
Bandit LOAF said:
I agree with you completely except on one point - I've never come across anyone who "refuses to discuss... the novels" or other spin-offs. True, I don't talk to any ST fans outside of here, I do talk to a lot of Star Wars fans and the vast majority of them attempt to validate every comic, novel, cartoon and action figure into a single continuity. I'd think that ST and SW fans in this respect would be fairly interchangable - but I suppose not.
The reason I said what I did was purely out of my experiences with Star Wars fans not understanding the difference between canon and licensed products - or that one lady's inability to discern licensed product and illegally published fanfiction. They don't seem to think that Tim Zahn came up with the name Coruscant and that Lucas used it in Phantom Menace to credit him - when in fact Zahn had to call Lucasfilm to get the name in the first place.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Well, there's a reason for that - LucasVariable is better at marketing than Paramount is. Instead of simply telling their audience their actual policy on what is part of their canon (ie, the movies are nothing else is), they have a PR answer that keeps selling tie-in products in minds... which is why you hear all sorts of inanity about how Star Wars has different 'levels' of continuity.
Which is, of course, a load of cat-bones... because it's an entirely self-contradictory concept. You either consider something a rule or you don't.
It's a silly argument either way -- even if Zahn came up with the name and Lucasfilm asked him for it (and I have no idea, myself), it's simply a measure of respect and not a necessary thing on Lucas' part to use the same name. People should be happy that he cares about the fans enough to keep the same name regardless of circumstances, not find some excuse to fight over good news.
t.c.cgi
Vice Admiral
LeHah said:
Since that pesky book "Star Trek: Starfleet Technical Manual" was printed. It refers to destroyers, cruisers, dreadnoughts, etc. But, outside of that, I don't think it's used anywhere. Even so, literal military definition doesn't have to be taken for granted. It could simply be left as a distinction of size, range, and capability.
ChrisReid said:
I'm not sure if I have the right understanding about your post, but why does everyone have to conciously appreciate the political/social messages, nuances, cultural references etc. of Star Trek. For some people, the appeal could come from powerful "warships" and conflict and "giant space war fleet logistics (LOAF). But these could be the same things that some find attractive about Wing Commander. Characters, storyline, whatever, it's all there but why does it seem that everything has to be so sophisticated.
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Bandit LOAF said:
Given Lucas's dismissal of so much "expanded universe" material that could've been used in the prequels (Z-95 Heaadhunters, Sparatti Cloning, etc) - I find the thought of him using "Coruscant" as an homage to be fairly groundless.
(Not that I disagree with him ignoring EU - I actually completely agree with it. But why pick one thing to acknowledge? It doesn't sit right to me)
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
That's exactly what a homage is, though -- a little 'hey, you're out there, thanks for existing' wave with absolutely no strings attached.
People making movies enjoy that sort of thing and also have no understanding of the convoluted and stupid continuity-obsession that goes on in fandoms.
Why does the original Lost in Space robot show up briefly in the remake movie? Why does Matthew Lillard have a line about Hornets in Wing Commander? Why is there an original Cylon blueprint on the guys desk at the start of Super Neon Battlestar Galactica 2000? Why does the test ape in the Planet of the Apes remake have the same name as the ancient Jesus-ape from the original movie? These aren't conscious attempts at universe-building such as we might expect from some sold-to-20,000-die-hards-fans novel... they're kind little nods.
The point is that it's *not* there, not that some element of the series is more "sophisticated" than some other one. If you can watch Star Trek and decide that it's a a futuristic glory-of-war story, then you are -- in no uncertain terms -- an idiot.