Thread: The Wings
View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
01-06-2011, 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Or why one of them has to be dismissed because it was obviously an off-screen f..k-up. You can explain a lot (believe me, I'm good at finding "excuses"), but you should not try to explain everything as you'll just end up hurting the overall consistency of the setting more than you would by just a simple retcon.

Scaling issues have been a long-standing problem in Trek. The Defiant has the very same problems as the Birds-of-Prey, with on-screen evidence placing her at anything between 50 and 200 meters. They even had two different MSD layouts for this ship! By your logic this would mean there have to be several different Defiant classes?
It is because of this kind of stuff that I simply say "acknowledge the fail of the creators and let's move on".
Well for the Defaint that is a problem, that one ship can just have one size. And if you want to include developing backgrounds: the TNG-BoPs, as you can see in many production comentarys for the episodes, were PUPOSLY filmed in diffrent angles ect to show that they ARE bigger ships. They are bigger compared to other ships like the Vor'Cha and Galaxy class ON screen and its expained purpuse, so thats not a screw up, its "working as intendet". They are bigger ships then the TOS-Movie and DS9 BoP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'm honestly surprised you see it that way. It is because every game and every novel is canon and every successive author is held responsible to stick to what was established before that Star Wars canon is much less chaotic than Trek. There still are discussions, but by and large the facts are much clearer because in SW there's actually officials tasked with cleaning up the mess and a proper canon policy so you actually know what really is a cold, hard fact. As opposed to Trek that currently cannot even decide whether TAS is canon or not.
Well that TAS is NOT part of the canon is very clear and "decidet" for a long whie now.
And if you create a big universe and make films and series in it you have to stick to clear regulation. If you want to produze more sequels you cant throw away a good screenplay because fanfiction author X wrote 20 years ago in a short story something that doesnt work with it. And year, as far as I know some fanfiction was includet.
Of course, beside the fact that Lucas has proven not to be able to write good screenplays any more, he doesnt do it that way, he includes everything wich means that there are THOUSANDS of contradictions. (I personally lost my respect for that mans work wenn he statet laughing in the audio commentary of EpIII that they had to reshoot the scene where obi wan picks up Anakins Lightsaber in the end AFTER first screenings to a test audience because the FANS had to remind him that Old Ben gives that Lightsaber to Luke in EpIV. The had at last to keep up some continuity between sequels and prequels, but the WHOLS production stuff wanst capable to recognize such basics)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Something like the BoP debate would be unthinkable in Star Wars, so I don't see how that could be more chaotic. If Trek had half this consistency, we'd not only know the size of this ship but also had proper designations, crew numbers, armaments, engine specs and maybe even deckplans because a ship as famous as this surely would've showed up in a canon tech manual. As detailed as something like this.
Of course it wouldnt be thinkable. If you have no common ground for discussion, how should you discuss details like that?
Also, THEIR techincal Data is Canon. But that means that every storytelling that comes has to stick EXACTLY to that data. That may even make it inpossible to tell certain storys. So the Star Trek Technical "rules" are much better: they dont tell more then they need onscreen, (because in end STORYTELLING is what is important, not how big the hard drive of a star destroyers computer is) and "technical books" exist for the enjoyment of fans but can be ignored at any time in future productions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Exactly. I was perfectly okay to accept the ridge difference as what it was - an off-screen budget limitation in terms of masks. All they'd have to do was ignore it or say it was a retcon, but nooo.
That said, the explanation in the old P&P books (in that the "Klingons" encountered in TOS were actually hybrids existing alongside pureblood ridged Klinks) was so much better than the ridiculous medibabble from ENT, as cool as that episode was.
Well that explanation sounds better to me, buts thats it: The non Canon interpretations are so often better then the Canon. But to make something "Canon" means to stick with it (wich,like I said, Star Wars doesnt even try) and Authors cant make their Storys dependent on fan speculations.
I would have loved to see the Klingon-Romulan Alliance become Canon, that would explain a lot. I wouldnt have a problem to see the Akira as a "Carrier-like" ship to become canon... or be includet into STO that way (of course not as the "kind" of carrier our Klingon Battlestar is, but could imagine some ways to make it work), im just saying those things are not canon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
The 3rd game has it, yes, as a "destroyer" variant of the B'rel "frigate". It actually still is larger, but only by 20 percent - which I still deem believable as the general design wouldn't explode out of shape in that case. We've seen such size increases in real life, too - just not by a factor of 5.
Since it is still a non canon game I dont see the problem... I'm just saying others obviosly accept the existence of diffrent sized birds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Because I dislike inconsistency. The K'vort looks exactly the same as the B'rel, so it should be a relative - not a completely different ship in a completely different size category that just happens to look exactly the same, with 10 meter wide windows and all that crap that comes with just scaling the entire thing up.
Thats NOT inconsistency. Again: recently in Mass Effect for example the same thing was done to the Normandy on purpose, and you cant say thats because of production problems, the could have made 20 new looking Normandys if they wantet.
Its simply the fact that you dont like that. I dont like a very lot of things in canon. Startet with the idiotic idea to make an completly untrained Teenager "honor caused" bridge officer on the Federation Flagship up to... well again everything in STXI, including the stupidity to make a Teenager who not has finished the acadamy and was about to get thrown of because he was a criminal the CAPTAIN of the Federation flagship.
And, by the way: It is more likley that they did build copy the "bigs scaled" to "small scaled" not the other way arround.
And again there are a lot of good reason why they should such a thing. Also, beeing another sized ship does not mean they are not relatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'd have loved to see the K'vort become the official designation for what currently is the "Refit-B'rel", for example. A more modern class of a proven design, utilizing the same general hull with different interiors. Because that just makes sense for the resource-mindful Klingons.

Well if they stick to canon it should be the exact opposite, they should rename the B'rel wich way ever and can include the B'rel as big BoP.


Or, to put it in a visual explanation: I just never want to see this sh*t happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Birds-of-Prey are a category of their own. A cruiser being in them makes the entire line of ships as well as their intended role totally inconsistent and invalidates several lines we've heard on-screen.
"Klingon Bird-of-Prey decloaking!" - Geez, Chekov, don't you think you should point out whether it's a frigate or a battlecruiser? Might be more important than the shape!
Actially I'm not sure if the big BoPs were ever called "bird of prey" on screen.... If it was not, "Bird of Prey" isnt even a canon description for the large scaled version.