Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
01-04-2011, 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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)
I'd cite the off-screen fact that the model was simply broken and they could not have done it any other way - but for the sake of argument we can just settle to that it's at the Commander's discretion whether he wants to move the wings or not. Just like it is at the commander's discretion how much power he wants to put into the shields or if he wants to raise them at all. Maybe there was some sort of weird and childish game of "dare" going on in the KDF that had captains not lower their wings as they went into battle for added risk? Again, the weak spot is hard canon, as per DS9.

Other reasonable options (excuses) that I could come up with now are that the wing actuators on the ships in question were damage in-universe, or that they were a refit of the old Bird-of-Prey that "fixed" the weak spot whilst retaining the wing motors it already had. Not likely, but possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
You're aware that this would equalize the B'rel and K'vort in size, effectively negating the soft canon sources stating their sizes, then?

Sadly, Star Trek has contradicted itself time and time again, as Katrina already pointed out, so canon in Trek sadly isn't quite as clear as one might believe. Which is exactly why we are left with so much discussion. There is no Holocron for Trek where the creators give us a definite answer, we just see lots of inconsistencies - and that's even before we take the soft canon books into consideration. :/

And so we fans are left with lots of debates and speculation.

And there are a lot of things in canon that I don't like but I simply have to accept. When I see so much obscurity and contradiction that I believe I can maneuver, however, then I will do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
Oh, I'm not alone in this. Check the ship database of Starfleet Command III if you don't believe me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
This is by far not the only canon I am discussing! It should seem logical, however, that I focus on areas I deem important due to personal interest. I enjoy the Klingons and I love the BoP - more specifically, I fell in love with how I've grown to see it, and this is a perspective that I will defend. I do believe that the same can be said about the K'vort-cruiser-fans, for this difference is the very reason why they've become what they are, is it not?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
01-05-2011, 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
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.
To the point of contradiction between 2 canon facts: there is no way to determine wich one of them is "true" canon and wich one not, they are both and those are "canon failures". Actually there are A LOT of them. But thats where the fun begins, by, for eample, beeing creative and find logical explanations why they both could be true. But the "on screen canon" is the base of every discussion, its where you have to start.
I mean, as an oposite, look at the completly scrwed Star Wars canon. Nothing make sense, its pure chaos because Lucas sees every game and every Novel as "canon", of course including everything released before the preqeuls, and including any stiupid "technical data". Not even prequels and "original" movies work together, but including everything else, there is NO base for any disucussion.

Star Trek canon on the other hand has a nice sense of order, there are failures, especialls since Voyager and the "newer" movies (including the TNG Movies) but you can work with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
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.
Thats actually a good example. Its not "Canon" that the scale was changed, it a theory just like the Romulan-Klingon alliance. Of course its the most logical explanation (although the fact that the Archer-Enterprise seemed to use the TNG-Era scale contradicts that), I clouldnt thing of a better one, but that doesnt make it canon.
But seeing that "soft canon" may be a not THAT bad term. I mean: Saying something is "non canon" doesnt really exclude. It doesnt say "Under no circumstances there have ever been a Klingon_Romulan alliance and there was no change in the warp scale because no body said that" is wrong of course. It is POSSIBLE that those are the explanations for the things we see. But that doesnt make it canon. Canon says "It is THAT WAY" everything "non canon" that doesnt cotradict canon says "It may be that way". But thr (purposely stupid) explanation "Q didnt like Starfleet ships beeing that fast and changed the laws of physics just for fun" is as valid as "the scale has changed". Just stupider.
So yes I admit, soft canon may be an "ok" term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
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.
Yes thats basicly it. (although, I never needet an explanation for that. Within an 40 years old franchise i thing we should be able to simply accept some things...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
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.
Well i heared that "simple explanation" in doesents of writer comments, Magazines, interviews ect ect ect. I guess you'll find one yourself.
I personally dont like the fact that TAS was excludet since.... well there was a lot of crap in it.... like in tos, but it had many nice ideas too. I liked it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'd cite the off-screen fact that the model was simply broken and they could not have done it any other way - but for the sake of argument we can just settle to that it's at the Commander's discretion whether he wants to move the wings or not. Just like it is at the commander's discretion how much power he wants to put into the shields or if he wants to raise them at all. Maybe there was some sort of weird and childish game of "dare" going on in the KDF that had captains not lower their wings as they went into battle for added risk? Again, the weak spot is hard canon, as per DS9.
I personally always thought that the "wings up" is a position for attack from distance (more energy in shields, less in the engines), and down for "closer" combat (that would even make sense combined with the theory that the under side needs more protection then)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Other reasonable options (excuses) that I could come up with now are that the wing actuators on the ships in question were damage in-universe, or that they were a refit of the old Bird-of-Prey that "fixed" the weak spot whilst retaining the wing motors it already had. Not likely, but possible.
Possible, yes.... but I dont like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
You're aware that this would equalize the B'rel and K'vort in size, effectively negating the soft canon sources stating their sizes, then?
We both know that it is canon that they have the same size. But they are, in canon, both "bigger" birds, while the "type description" of the small variant not has been named yet. May be the d12, the duras sisters BoP seemed in Generations and DS9 quiet small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Sadly, Star Trek has contradicted itself time and time again, as Katrina already pointed out, so canon in Trek sadly isn't quite as clear as one might believe. Which is exactly why we are left with so much discussion. There is no Holocron for Trek where the creators give us a definite answer, we just see lots of inconsistencies - and that's even before we take the soft canon books into consideration. :/
And so we fans are left with lots of debates and speculation.

And there are a lot of things in canon that I don't like but I simply have to accept. When I see so much obscurity and contradiction that I believe I can maneuver, however, then I will do so.
Well my opinion on the Star Wars canon I already statet above. The Star Trek creators do not have to explain as much aus the Star Wars creators. Sure a lot of it is unclear. But, to be honest.... thats what kind of makes it intresting for me.

For the "soft canon books"..... well I kind of hate a lot of them. Especially the "post nemesis" TNG books and the Desteny books, because it seems (in line with the new Movie) that for the writers Star Trek doesnt work without creating artificial tension with killing millions of people.
During the, in my opinion, best time of Star Trek there was ONE incident of that kind, Wolf 359, that was a big and often referd disaster. In newer trek (including DS9, before that a "big fleet" was about "30 ships" now suddenly "1500 ships" were usual) a Wolf 359 disaster almost happens every day. Thats simply cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Oh, I'm not alone in this. Check the ship database of Starfleet Command III if you don't believe me.
I dont understand...., Starfleet command HAS the K'Vort?????
However.... there are a lot of things making no sense, but again, the large BoP is simply there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
This is by far not the only canon I am discussing! It should seem logical, however, that I focus on areas I deem important due to personal interest. I enjoy the Klingons and I love the BoP - more specifically, I fell in love with how I've grown to see it, and this is a perspective that I will defend. I do believe that the same can be said about the K'vort-cruiser-fans, for this difference is the very reason why they've become what they are, is it not?
Well the BoP is the very one reason I became Star Trek fan in the first place. After seeing it in STIII the only reason I even STARTET watching TNG is because a friend told me that ship would appear there too.

But I dont see why the- proven- existence of the K'Vort should hurt your view. The smaller version, of course, exists too, i would never doupt that. I dont see any need for that disagreement in the first place.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
01-05-2011, 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
To the point of contradiction between 2 canon facts: there is no way to determine wich one of them is "true" canon and wich one not, they are both and those are "canon failures". Actually there are A LOT of them. But thats where the fun begins, by, for eample, beeing creative and find logical explanations why they both could be true.
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
I mean, as an oposite, look at the completly scrwed Star Wars canon. Nothing make sense, its pure chaos because Lucas sees every game and every Novel as "canon", of course including everything released before the preqeuls, and including any stiupid "technical data". Not even prequels and "original" movies work together, but including everything else, there is NO base for any disucussion.
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Yes thats basicly it. (although, I never needet an explanation for that. Within an 40 years old franchise i thing we should be able to simply accept some things...)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
I dont understand...., Starfleet command HAS the K'Vort?????
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
But I dont see why the- proven- existence of the K'Vort should hurt your view. The smaller version, of course, exists too, i would never doupt that. I dont see any need for that disagreement in the first place.
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.

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.

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

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!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
01-05-2011, 08:55 PM
I think that Star Trek has a lot of things that are going on that simply can not be explained away with logic.

What about the ships always being right-side up?

How about noise in space?

What sense does it make that something has to be a right shape to better travel through space unless we're talking about a ramscoop ship that process interstellar dust into fuel?

The wings are just another part of it. I personally love the way the wings are right now. If other people don't, I hope that Cryptic has the good sense to make it optional.
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
01-06-2011, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorko1 View Post
What about the ships always being right-side up?
What sense does it make that something has to be a right shape to better travel through space unless we're talking about a ramscoop ship that process interstellar dust into fuel?
To be fair, those two things are easily explainable, even if Star Trek did not do so itself:

In Star Wars, ships are always the right side up because their navigational computers align the vessel towards the galactic "disc", which is a reliable reference point. I would imagine it works similar in Trek, even if it's not stated there.

As for the shape - the idea that space is empty is a misconception. Space is filled by dust particles, which can and will exert resistance when an object travelling through it has sufficient speed, "ramming" enough of said particles simultaneously. It is also quite possible that there is a connection between a ship's shape and the warp bubble generated by the vessel.

It's not waterproof - but enough that you can explain it away with technobabble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
Yes, but why? Not because the creators had any idea on how large the ship should be - they went with that size because, just like with the Defiant, they felt it looked better that way. They wanted the BoP's to seem more "threatening" to the large Galaxy, so they had to make them large, too. That's the same kind of narrator exaggeration that makes the dragon appear larger every time the story is retold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well that TAS is NOT part of the canon is very clear and "decidet" for a long whie now.
Well, apparently not, for Memory Alpha (the prime fanbase resource for canon information) has recently reconsidered its stance on the subject based on this:

"With the release of The Animated Series DVD, the studio appears to have changed its stance, and is leaning towards the animated series being part of established Star Trek canon. Previously, The Animated Series was not considered part of established Star Trek canon by Paramount Pictures."
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Tr...nimated_Series

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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 see way less contradictions than in Trek that doesn't even gets its ship sizes and species looks (not talking about Klingons here - but remember how Trill looked in TNG?) right. Actually, there are zero contradictions. Any contradictions that did exist were either retconned or received an official explanation - that's the beauty of the Holocron, and its main purpose.

Other than that I know that those really old comics were declared non-canon because they were quite simply over the top, but that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
When they reshot the scene this means that obviously it was spotted before public release, so I do not really think this is a problem. Again, look at what Star Trek has produced over the years - on the live screen. This includes the new movie as well (which is at least one thing where we seem to share the same sentiments) where the writers managed to show off their lack of understanding for the setting even in spite of the movie being a reboot. Magnificent.

And I say this without a desire to bash this franchise (otherwise I would not be here). I like them both and recognize that each has its values, but it is clear to me that SW has the more consistent canon. Otherwise we would not have debates such as this one about the wings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Of course it wouldnt be thinkable. If you have no common ground for discussion, how should you discuss details like that?
Uh... what? There is only one canon, ergo the common ground is there. The lack of it exists in Star Trek, which is why we both argue based on interpretations differing from each other, and neither of us has much in the terms of hard facts to point to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
Huh? Why? Do you mean it was necessary to rescale the Defiant? What purpose did this serve?

Every setting has limitations that prevent "certain stories". Star Trek is no different - just that these limitations are way more vague and liberal, thus creating thousands of contradictions, in turn hurting the immersion of the reader/watcher.

And yes, storytelling is what's important - but good storytelling works within the boundaries of a given setting. It simply makes the whole franchise less believable the more inconsistencies you encounter. Writers who are unable to make their plot fit to the world the story is set in should either find a new plot or a new franchise. Or a new job. It's as simple as that.

Of course you could also say that it merely is another style of storytelling, just like there are numerous variants of the Nibelungenlied. This all works fine as long as you are just watching/reading it for the story. This is not what we do here, though. We've moved beyond that and are trying to actively play in or discuss the setting in detail, and for this we need hard facts. Which in far too many cases do not exist, making such debates more of a nuisance than truly constructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
Just that the new Normandy actually looks merely similar, not identical - and that its size merely doubled, whereas the K'vort grew 500% whilst keeping the exact same looks, including a photon torpedo launcher with a diameter of 50 meters, 10 meter windows and navigational lights as big as a grown man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
And, by the way: It is more likley that they did build copy the "bigs scaled" to "small scaled" not the other way arround.
Again, you can see it at the windows. It's just like the downsized Akira still having a number of decks only fitting into a ship four times its height.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
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.
What exactly would qualify this relation? Merely the shape? A K'vort handles differently, has different weapons, vastly different interior layout and crew numbers, is used for different purposes ...

It's like saying a Perry frigate and a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser are relatives just because they both have an identically shaped rump, are painted grey, have one set of superstructure and swim on the water.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
01-06-2011, 11:58 AM
Quote:
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.
As a writer, and as someone with a degree in Creative Writing, I've got to correct you on this. The view you have here is what leads to massive screw ups and complications in storytelling.

Yes, storytelling is important. However, it's very -very- important for the -writer- to know all the little details and reasonings behind everything, thus allowing the writer to maintain consistency, even if the reader/viewer is never actually going to be informed of some of those details and reasons.

For example, if the writer -does- know how big the hard drive of a Star Destroyer's computer is, there's no chance of accidentally having one Star Destroyer be unable to download certain data due to only having 40,000TB space and another downloading something that's 80,000TB.

This is actually one of the reasons for Gene creating a new Warp Factor scale that has a very set range of 1-10. It created a lot of confusion that the TOS Enterprise reached speeds in excess of Warp 15, when normally they struggled to maintain warp speeds high in the single digits. The specificity of the new warp scale also let them create a more consistent concept of just how far the starships could travel within the Galaxy.

Granted, the writers of Star Trek haven't held as firmly to that as they should, which has created some additional inconsistancies (such as the Galaxy-X traveling at Warp 14), but that's the fault of the writers, and in part a problem that comes out of having so many different writers instead of just one.

It's key to creating a truly believable setting, regardless of the genre.
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 04:24 PM.