Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
01-01-2011, 11:59 AM
Canon is what you make of it in this case. They moved in Star Trek III but that's basically it. They almost every moved after that, even when they went o CGI in DS9. Likewise, wing configurations were completely contradictory on many occasions thereafter.

This is a cosmetic change, and thus it should have zero affect on gameplay.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
01-01-2011, 12:58 PM
It's got a proper explanation in soft canon, though, and we do know that the wings did not move down again until the BoP switched to CGI late in the DS9 series simply because the model was broken, which is out-of-character.

If it would be purely cosmetic the Klingons wouldn't have wasted resources to build this feature into the ship, anyways. There's got to be some reason, and soft canon delivered - backed up by the hard canon fact that starship shapes do have an effect on how they perform even in space.

In the end it's about encouraging people to prefer the correct stance above the wrong one, like it would be in-universe as well. I think it'd be a neat feature and implement a sense of IC realism.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
01-01-2011, 01:28 PM
I'll just go with the simple solution the devs are working on, the ability to turn it off.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
01-04-2011, 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
It's got a proper explanation in soft canon....
You mentioned that several times; beside the fact that I hate the word "soft canon" I'd really like to hear that explanation^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
though, and we do know that the wings did not move down again until the BoP switched to CGI late in the DS9 series simply because the model was broken, which is out-of-character.
Well I personally thing that you miss the point how "canon" works, you made a similar, in my opinion simply wrong argument about the K'Vort.

Canon is what happens onscreen, the production background does not count at all. I it where otherwise... well a few examples:
Our beloved Bird of Prey was completly designed as a Romulan ship (it still looks more Romulan then Klingon). Its origins just were changed because of a short termed Screenplay change (a bad one if you ask me, the Original STIII Screenplay was MUCH better).
Does that mean that Ship is a Romulan? Not at all, it appeared as a Klingon ship, and it is nothing else (And yes there ARE people who still consider ist Canon that this is a Romulan Ship).
In that TOS Episode with the Cloaking device (dont know the english title) the Romulans used D7s, because they couldn't efford to design another romulan ship for that episode. Does that mean they used Romulan ships in that Episode? No, we saw Klingon ships so that ARE Klingon ships used by Romulans (and that caused the "legend" of the Romulan/Klingon technology exchange wich is, although many people do not want to believe that, non canon).
Or another example: The Transporter was inventet because it was to expensive to film Shutle landing sequenzes in TOS; if the production backround would effect the canon that would mean we can not beam at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
If it would be purely cosmetic the Klingons wouldn't have wasted resources to build this feature into the ship, anyways. There's got to be some reason, and soft canon delivered - backed up by the hard canon fact that starship shapes do have an effect on how they perform even in space.
Here I agree. Also, if you look at the ship model (ignoring the fact that i Bird shaped ship does not make much sense), the construction wouldnt make sense without wine movement. I mean look at that what called "mission pod" in STO, that thing clearly shows that wings can move on the ship.

But that doesnt mean it HAS to have a purpose. That would be, of course, nice, but I still thing that would change the way the BoP works now to much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
01-04-2011, 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
You mentioned that several times; beside the fact that I hate the word "soft canon" I'd really like to hear that explanation^^
It's pretty easy, actually:

With wings up, the ship creates a more stable warpfield, which in turn allows it to travel faster and/or spend less power on its structural integrity field. Basically the same reason for Voyager's "variable geometry pylons" that moved up every time the ship went to warp. This wing position also improves atmospheric flight capability. I'm not sure if it has any effect on impulse speed though (would have to dig through technobabble but I guess it's possible).

However, the Bird-of-Prey also has a vulnerable spot on its underbelly, either due to critical systems or a slightly weaker armour plating. Moving down the wings in combat provides additional cover. Additionally, the wings also house the deflector grid emitters, so this (speculation from here on again) might influence the shield bubble too.

That's the gist of it, they point it out in a couple sourcebooks and I've rolled with it as I thought it was a somewhat believable explanation for something that started out as a purely visual gimmick but would have to get a proper explanation in-universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well I personally thing that you miss the point how "canon" works, you made a similar, in my opinion simply wrong argument about the K'Vort. Canon is what happens onscreen, the production background does not count at all. I it where otherwise... well a few examples: [...]
No. You misinterpreted my position:

I am not saying that off-screen overrules on-screen, I am saying that off-screen needs to be considered when on-screen clearly contradicts itself (example: a 100% identical BoP having five different sizes). Likewise I am dismissing off-screen or soft canon when it doesn't make sense compared to what we have seen on-screen (example: B'rel supposedly being smaller than the K'vort which is in direct contradiction to hard canon).

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
No, we saw Klingon ships so that ARE Klingon ships used by Romulans (and that caused the "legend" of the Romulan/Klingon technology exchange wich is, although many people do not want to believe that, non canon).
I'm pretty sure that is actually soft canon by now, I remember having read about it several times.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
01-04-2011, 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
No, we saw Klingon ships so that ARE Klingon ships used by Romulans (and that caused the "legend" of the Romulan/Klingon technology exchange wich is, although many people do not want to believe that, non canon).
That one episode you refer to, 'The Enterprise Incident', is not the only thing that leads us to believe the Romulans and Klingons formed an Alliance. There are a number of other things which support that. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan-Klingon_Alliance
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
01-04-2011, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
However, the Bird-of-Prey also has a vulnerable spot on its underbelly, either due to critical systems or a slightly weaker armour plating. Moving down the wings in combat provides additional cover. Additionally, the wings also house the deflector grid emitters, so this (speculation from here on again) might influence the shield bubble too.

.
I have never gotten a good answer to why that weakness exists.
Though my favorite was, " Simply so the we (klingons) will have a weakness and not be able to take over the universe. Twas the last spiteful joke on us for killing our Gods."

Certainly not true, but very Klingon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
01-04-2011, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
I have never gotten a good answer to why that weakness exists.
I doubt we'll ever see one - with few exceptions Star Trek just isn't as concerned with details as Star Wars. Such weaknesses are far from uncommon, though, and exist in real world designs as well.

Considering how Klingon science and engineering works I'm pretty sure it went something like this:

Klingon #1: "And it's going to have cannons here and here! Big cannons!"
Klingon #2: "Love it! What about this part, though? Do you really think that's enough armour?"
Klingon #1: "Hey, if anything gets through it'll just decompress the cargo hold."
Klingon #2: "Aaand what's right above the cargo hold?"
Klingon #1: "Oh sh*t, I totally forgot about the reactor! Okay, you think she can take a couple more plates?"
Klingon #2: "That'll totally shift the center of gravity. Do you know how this beast will handle if you do this?"
Klingon #1: "F**k that, let's just make it so that the wings move down."

You know, kinda like the development of the Bradley tank as retold in the movie Pentagon Wars. :p

By the way, the BoP having a weak underbelly is also supposed to be stated in DS9s "Return to Grace", which would make that part hard canon.
From Memory Alpha:
The most vulnerable spot on a Klingon Bird-of-Prey was located the underside of the ship's hull. While weak, this section was able to withstand sustained phaser fire from a Cardassian Groumall-type freighter with the shields down. This area was, however, unable to withstand a shot from a system-5 disruptor, which was capable of breaching the hull within two shots.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
01-04-2011, 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
It's pretty easy, actually:

With wings up, the ship creates a more stable warpfield, which in turn allows it to travel faster and/or spend less power on its structural integrity field. Basically the same reason for Voyager's "variable geometry pylons" that moved up every time the ship went to warp. This wing position also improves atmospheric flight capability. I'm not sure if it has any effect on impulse speed though (would have to dig through technobabble but I guess it's possible).

However, the Bird-of-Prey also has a vulnerable spot on its underbelly, either due to critical systems or a slightly weaker armour plating. Moving down the wings in combat provides additional cover. Additionally, the wings also house the deflector grid emitters, so this (speculation from here on again) might influence the shield bubble too.

That's the gist of it, they point it out in a couple sourcebooks and I've rolled with it as I thought it was a somewhat believable explanation for something that started out as a purely visual gimmick but would have to get a proper explanation in-universe.
Well it makes sense, but I ask myself then why SOME BoPs (dont want to argue wich ones) fight with wings up (I also would love to have BOTH variations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
No. You misinterpreted my position:

I am not saying that off-screen overrules on-screen, I am saying that off-screen needs to be considered when on-screen clearly contradicts itself (example: a 100% identical BoP having five different sizes). Likewise I am dismissing off-screen or soft canon when it doesn't make sense compared to what we have seen on-screen (example: B'rel supposedly being smaller than the K'vort which is in direct contradiction to hard canon).
I couldnt disagree more. If that were that way, where is the line to draw? Actually that is what I like about Star Trek, it is basicy CLEAR what canon is. Production background has no meaning at all for what is canon.

Our etarnal big-small-BoP topic is a perfect example: YOU decide that there is just one BoP size because... it doesnt make sense for you.
For thousands of other people, including myself it actually MAKES sense. And within 5 series and 10 movies (yes yes eleven ) there is more then enough stuff to discuss that doesnt make sense and "need" interpretation, so usually ESPECIALLY in Star Trek there is no need to discuss some things, those which are simply canon because they simply were seen on screen, like the diffrent sized Birds.
Even if it includes things like the Borg queen or... well everything happening in that Abrahams movie.... things I hate... are canon if I like it or not. Its not question if we thing its logical. The question is just "was it seen/said/mentioned" or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'm pretty sure that is actually soft canon by now, I remember having read about it several times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
That one episode you refer to, 'The Enterprise Incident', is not the only thing that leads us to believe the Romulans and Klingons formed an Alliance. There are a number of other things which support that. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan-Klingon_Alliance
There might be other indications, but it is NOT canon. Thats beside the legend the Akira were "in canon" a carrier, the most discussed topic where people simply dont want to understand the nice simplicity of canon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
01-04-2011, 06:40 PM
When in the position of simply being a fan of Star Trek, viewing canon in the simplistic manner of "if it's on the screen, it's canon" is fine (though there are still many contradictions in what was seen on screen that cannot be simply explained away, especially if you go back to TOS).

However, when you want to go more in depth into the setting, especially if writing a story or creating a game based in that setting, it is necessary to consider far more than simply "what was on the screen," though that of course does take -precedence.-

It is also necessary to determine what is the true canon situation when two things on screen contradict each other. One of the first sources to go to in such a situation is the production information. The reasons why certain things were presented in certain ways.

One great example of this is the Warp 10 barrier. In TOS, they frequently fly past Warp 10. In TNG and onward, Warp 10 is the maximum possible speed and equates to infinite velocity. We know -why- this is because we can look at the production information. Gene Roddenberry hated how high the numbers kept getting in TOS, so he created a new Warp Factor scale that stopped at 10, with 10 being equal to infinite velocity, and applied that at the start of TNG. Thus, sometime between the time period of TOS and the time period of TNG, the Warp Factor Scale used by the Federation was changed. This is canon. This is canon that is utilizing production information.

The reason some things from production are referred to as "soft canon" is because they are not "set in stone" (not that anything actually seen on screen necessarily is either, when it comes down to it) and may be changed/given a different/better explanation at a later date in an actual on-screen instance. An example here is the changes in Klingon foreheads between the 22nd century and 24th century. We could only look at production information to formulate any kind of reasoning for the change until the episodes in ENT that gave us a canon in-setting reason for the changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paula Block, VCP Senior Director of Licensed Publishing, TrekBBS posts, December 2005
Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was not canon. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one after he got TNG going, he... well... he sort of decided that some of The Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in The Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.
If you can find me a simple rule for what is canon, please do tell. Till then you are sounding a bit condescending. I admit that the Akira being a carrier isn't canon, the makers of the ship wanted it to be. But the Romulan-Klingon Alliance is able to be understood through the words of the characters in the show. I am not sure how much more of a canon source you want.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.