What do you have to back that other than your opinion?..I beleive the disillusion is on your end. Show proof of that and I will gladly look it over. Not only is it written by ones involved in it but it is written by those who designed and built the models you see on screen as well as those that wrote the scripts…no matter how brief the appearance with this being the cannon behind it. Again if you have anything that can “officially” be linked with more evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. If not all you have is your own delusion that you have chosen to hold on too against reason and “fact” and that is your right with a universe based in fantasy, but those looking for fictional “fact” (LOL) must look to who created that for the cannon the resources I provided are exactly that. From here on if you have nothing like that to prove to the contrary. Thw only thing to say is “prove it”
That’s not my opinion. That’s fact! The only things that are canon are the shows and the movies, with no exceptions. Everything else is not!
These ships appear on screen. You sight memory alpha…what do they say about these ships???
You sight Ex Astris Scientia did you even read the entire statement here is a direct quote from it
"
Canon and continuity
As outlined in the article on the Realism of (Science) Fiction, Star Trek was designed as a TV series with internal consistency, as opposed to shows that are frequently rebooted or even take pleasure in creating deliberate continuity errors. During The Original Series’ three seasons from 1966 to 1969 there was no obvious canon policy, like there was no particular attention to inter-episode continuity either. But as the fictional universe kept growing, it was necessary to come up with rules what has to be taken into account by future writers (the canon), as well as with a collection of such canon data for reference (The Star Trek Encyclopedia and its forerunners that must have existed behind the scenes).
Keeping looks and events in new episodes compliant with canon was a quality mark of the show until the end of Star Trek Enterprise in 2005."
The “official” documents i provided are the “cannon” notes the writers must abide by to write for the show. If they include these ships in a movie or tv show this is what they are. Unlike if these things were created for a novel, comic book, or videogame. These are the rules if you were hired to write a canonical episode or movie and wanted to include these ships. The info I gave is what you would be handed to take into account
I’ve got some problem with Ex Astris Scientia because many of the conclusions of the sole writer are clearly wrong. I’ve added the link because Memory Alpha linked to this page.
That is understandable not all sites are heavily endosed or focus on being accurate memory alpha in my “opinion” is one of the best. With that being said the exact quote i used from the designer is used by memory alpha in the background info as follows:
" Background information
The name of the ship class was never mentioned on screen but is derived from production sources.
According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 14), the Akira -class was named after the anime fantasy film Akira . " Along with the Lockheed P-38 Lightning , the Akira -class starship helped to inspire Doug Drexler’s design of the NX-class Enterprise from Star Trek: Enterprise. "
According to designer, Alex Jaeger, " This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays - one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they’d come into the back, because they’d be protected by the rest of the ship. " ( Star Trek: The Magazine , July 1999, Issue 3)
With star trek as expansive as it is and with such a “cult” following for anything that appears on screen (no matter how breif) there are designers and writers sometimes things are intentionaly left with very little “cannon” back story given to add to the mystery and your own imagination. Almost every Federation starship that appears on screen since TOS has designers and writers that give “cannon” lore into the ship since that is what the fan base demands wiether we want to use this cannon in our games is a personal choice but if you are a die hard for cannon and trek history these resources such as eaglemoss and others that consult with the original creators are where to find it
But this is only Background information, which might be canon.
Thst is where you are mistaken. You are thinking more as a veiwer than a researcher. Need to look at the cannon as a writer must to flesh it out. This is how memory alpha does its research this is how the star trek Encyclopedia does it, I can only speculate on this but looking at the core rule book it would appear this is even how Modiphius has done it. If you want cannon it is there that you will find it. The background info for that ship that the producers, designers and writers approved before the ship made it on screen is the cannon. A great example of this is the Miranda class ship 1st seen in wraith of khan when designed and written then sent for approval before being put on screen the concept picture was approved and signed for…upside down so the original concept was that the nacelles were to be at the top of the ship. But once everything was signed off for it to appear on screen…as all designs are the upside down aproval is now the cannon look of the ship. There is so much more that goes into putting a model be it cgi or physical into even an episode of trek qnd that work before it is approved for us to even see is the cannon
Sorry, this is not correct. For an information to be canon it has to have a reference to an episode or movie. So everything in the appendices (appearances, background information, apogrypha etc.) is not canon. But everything before the appendices is definitely canon.
…and that’s where we get back to the question “what is canon?”
Most fans accept what is seen on screen as canon. After that it gets sketchy.
We never see an Akira launch or recover fighters. We see it launch a number of torpedoes, but Enterprise D launches several torpedoes at once in at least one episode. There’s no indication the Akira is unique in this regard.
…and we have on-screen an unequivocal statement that Starfleet doesn’t build warships, and that Defiant is the first.
That would seem to trump what somebody said in an interview.
I don’t watch STD but my understanding is that one of the captains in STD is a mirror universe transplant trying to find his way back.
Since the mirror universe was unknown in TOS until Kirk’s crossover we can assume STD is a different reality than the TOS prime reality.
That could be explained many ways, with your assumption being one of the possible answers.
It’s also possible that information on this incident was highly classified, especially given actions taken by another linked character, which is often a valid explanation used in prequels
Watch it, and you will learn why Kirk did not knew about the Mirror Universe.
As @mattcapiche wrote both incidents involving the USS Discovery are highly classified. It helps that the USS Discovery was as a testbed for a new form of FTL already classified. In the end more knew about Captain Lorca and the Mirror Universe than about the real fate of the USS Discovery.
STD is an unfortunate acronym for Discovery.
which BTW is only used by those who hate Discovery. DIS is the acronym used by Memory Alpha and should also be used here.
At the time of the statement it was true. “Starfleet” did not build warships and no warship for starfleet was approved to be on screen. But as a ever evolving universe goes later on they did and the writers, designers and producers sat down and discussed this coming to the conclusion that starfleet would not go all in provide a huge line of warships but given the time they are living in with the borg threat and the dominion war they would build ships designed for battle 1st and exploration 2nd again these designs made it through the process and were approved before they could be put on screen making them cannon. Yes the enterprise D does launch multiple torpedoes in a scene you are correct but it does not do so with multiple launchers as the Akira class clearly does in the movie “1st contact” firing 3 from the rear weapons pod and 4 from the saucer. To expect only what you see on screen to be the only cannon for such a expansive universe is a fallacy it disregards everything that was researched and descided upon to bring that scene into fruition the unseen cannon of trek. Weither you see it or not the creators are using it and consulting it before they put it on screen. By your comment no ship would have a warpcore unless it has a scene showing it does until then it flys by “magic” no other captains exist in starfleet exept the few we see or hear mentioned on shows or movies. This would leave a lot of unmanned ships in those dominion war scenes would it not?
***also by writers, desiners and producers notes the defiant is the 1st warship being built in 2366 and mth balled until descided to place into service in 2371 the same year it was also then descided by starfleet to put the Akira class into service as well
Good gods - how do you mute a thread? /s
Your arguments are getting absurd. Just because something more lor less trivial is not mentioned does not mean that is does not exist.
Can you guys agree to disagree? There literally isn’t anyone who can give you a definitive right or wrong anyway.
You can always start a separate thread if you want to carry on so this one can go back to its broader topic
Um i think that is your exact argument that if you do not see it on screen it is not cannon. If you only exept what you can see then…
But if you accept what is implied through cannon that a warp core is needed because that is what the writers and designers descided it makes sense
Given the argument seems to have come down to:
Canon for people watching vs Canon for people writing
I don’t think they will find a middle ground.
Certainly comes under the heading trivial though. 