Which doesn't indicate huge numbers...
But, it indicates the technological possibility to put more than one ship of the same class into a scene.
phx1138;7237403Well said:
Reliant[/I] & Sara aren't in the same class (AFAIK),
Sorry, but they are of the same class, because they used the same model.
phx1138;7237403& you're forgetting Decker's [I said:
Constellation[/I]...
Yes, the Constellation... Her registry number does not make any sense.
If the registry number indicates the order in which all Starfleet vessel were comissioned than it would make her much older than the at that time 20 year old Enterprise. And that is unrealistic because the Enterprise is one of twelve Constitution-class vessels. This means the Constitution has to be nearly as old as the Enterprise.
If the registry number indicates the class of the vessel, that we have the problem, that she looks like a Constitution-class vessel. But her registry number starts with 10, that means that she cannot be a Constitution-class vessel.
So we have two possible explanations:
- a simple 'mistake' made by the model builders
- the Constellation is a member of a predecessor/successor(?) class of the Constitution-class, with a similiar design.
 
Barbarossa Rotbart said:
But, it indicates the technological possibility to put more than one ship of the same class into a scene.
Which AFAIK was never at issue.
Barbarossa Rotbart said:
Sorry, but they are of the same class, because they used the same model.
Fair enough. IDK about that.
Barbarossa Rotbart said:
Yes, the Constellation... Her registry number does not make any sense.

If the registry number indicates the order in which all Starfleet vessel were comissioned than it would make her much older than the at that time 20 year old Enterprise. And that is unrealistic because the Enterprise is one of twelve Constitution-class vessels. This means the Constitution has to be nearly as old as the Enterprise.
If the registry number indicates the class of the vessel, that we have the problem, that she looks like a Constitution-class vessel. But her registry number starts with 10, that means that she cannot be a Constitution-class vessel.
So we have two possible explanations:
- a simple 'mistake' made by the model builders
- the Constellation is a member of a predecessor/successor(?) class of the Constitution-class, with a similiar design.
That's the problem, & not just with Connie. Intrepid (1631), Potemkin (1657), & Excalibur (1664) all, just from "TOS", blow up the "class prefix" idea. There's also the problem of Defiant (74205) & São Paulo (75633), clearly of the same class... (Not to mention: 1428 ships built in the interim?:eek::eek:)

And the usual explanation, with the NCCs in sequence & Connie & others in the same class, is pretty nonsensical, too, with almost 700 contract numbers covering them all.

I tend to think Connie is a predecessor, of a like type, so Tambor or Dolphin to Enterprise's Gato or Tench.

Either way, for total fleet numbers to be just 1700-odd ships in over 100yr, for a Fed covering so much space, is mighty damn low...:eek:

BTW, the "TOS" shuttles didn't have their own NCC numbers: they had side numbers. The NCC was the "mother ship" number.
 
First of all, thank you all for your lovely responses to my latest update! Your enthusiasm always astounds me. And now, as always, for my responses to your replies:

I'm really liking that alt-Star Wars, Brainbin. :cool: Makes me wish to see it.
Thank you, Dan! As with many 1970s films ITTL so far, it seems to be more pretentious than IOTL, so bear that in mind ;)

In OTL several things that helped make Star Wars so great were the musical score and the sound effects. Rather than just use the sound library, the sound gurus of Star Wars went out of their way to find new and unusual sound effects, like taping Lion roars for Chewie. John Williams score needs no discussion to establish its importance. So how were sound and music in JOTF?
This is the problem with a written timeline. Not to in any way impugn the work of John Williams, nor Ben Burtt; but for obvious reasons it would be extremely difficult to describe the audio of Journey of the Force (particularly how it differs from that of Star Wars IOTL) without doing so in highly technical terms. And being neither a musician nor an audio engineer, that is unfortunately beyond my expertise. (I did mention the music in Star Trek, true, but that's more to give credit where credit is due.)

Asharella said:
Were there people standing in line for hours and seeing JOTF over a hundred times?
But of course!

Asharella said:
In OTL there was another film in the same time period that was really one man's vision who had to fight for it and which made him enormous and which created a plethora of sequels and also used music. I'm talking about Rocky. So? What's the story in TTL?
We'll revisit films in the 1970s once again as the decade draws to a close, and we may get an answer to your question at that point.

Asharella said:
Thinking about Stallone almost requires one to think about Arnold too. So will the Governator break out in TTL in the 80s like he did in OTL?
(shakes Magic 8-Ball) "Ask again later" :cool:

Asharella said:
DARTH VADER????????!!!!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!??????
Who? :confused:

Nice update. You have played with several of the rejected early ideas from OTL mentioned in the Star Wars scriptbooks, but some people may be surprised to find this is actually a relatively conservative treatment (one early script had Han Solo as a reptilian alien and Leia never appearing after the first scene for goodness sake).
Thanks for the kind words, Thande! Yes, I wanted the same basic story structure as IOTL, largely because (as we all know) Star Wars developed largely by committee, and Lucas would have (and did!) consult all the same people ITTL that he did IOTL, which would naturally have a similar result. Casting is so often a matter of being in the right place at the right time, though, and with a POD over one decade in the past by this point, it's harder to justify keeping the OTL cast (especially given how young Hamill and especially Fisher were at the time). The different actors, of course, inform the portrayals of the characters differently, as well they should.

Yet another great update. It looks like Elstree is going to be the real loser ITTL, having missed out on the Muppets and Star Wars. OK, that's actually two seperate Elstree studios, but it looks like the British film industry is going to be in an even worse situation ITTL than OTL.
Thank you, Nigel! You raise an excellent point, of course, and we'll have to see how those studios will adapt to the lean years.

NCW8 said:
Bluhdorn must be quietly seething that Desilu is having such a large role in the production of his epic. He obviously doesn't have a choice, but it could be another factor in why he was negative about the film while it was being made and why he screwed Lucas as much as he did.
It's funny how I originally envisioned George Schlatter to be the logical nemesis to That Wacky Redhead, given how their epic confrontation over the Monday 7:30 slot in 1969 was such a pivotal moment; but in many ways, Bluhdorn fits the bill so much better, right down to being introduced in the first proper update.

The Star Wars update was amazing. (One wonders if they'd do the PSAs as they did OTL.)
Thanks, Orville_third! Everybody did public service announcements back then, so it's probably a safe bet. (Also: don't smoke.)

Fascinating and interesting to think of the film with totally different stars.
Thank you, Steve - but do you find it intriguing? :D

"Remember kids! The Journey of the Force Christmas Special - Just say No." :D
Especially if Bruce freaking Vilanch is involved. (He's like a black hole of talent.)

Damn brainbin! You really turned things upside down. Need the Best Pictures for 1975, 1976, and 1977, as well as other Oscar winners in those years.
Well, we wouldn't want to be just like OTL, now would we? :cool: One minor correction: I've actually announced the Best Picture for one of those three years, though which one depends on how you count. If we go by the year in which the Oscar is awarded, then Chinatown won in 1975. If we go by the year which is being recognized, then Journey of the Force won for 1977. Two Best Pictures have yet to be named: 1975/76, and 1976/77.

:cool::cool: Serendipity is great.:)
It sure is! If that's not a sign as to how perfect NCC-1911 is for the Excelsior, I don't know what is. (Though I doubt that would carry much weight with the Puritans ITTL.)

Because color TV is boss, and they wanted to make sure you felt you were getting your money's worth for buying one, basically. :D
One must remember how much of a driving imperative this was in the late-1960s, especially (as noted) on NBC shows (due to that network being owned by RCA).

Wow. This is an update...:eek::cool: This is background on background. This is great.:cool::cool:
Thank you for the kind words, phx :)

phx1138 said:
Aside: it makes me wonder what Marcia Lucas would have been doing, where she'd have ended up, without George...
e of pi and I are both in agreement that she would have eked out a reasonably successful career without hitching herself to George's wagon.

phx1138 said:
Knowing the theme to "GAH", that's either really, really cool, or the worst pun I've heard in months.:eek: I can't decide which.:confused:
Why not both? :D

phx1138 said:
OK, I like him, but--"greatness"?:rolleyes:
Hey, I happen to like Bogart types, all right? :p

phx1138 said:
Kurt Russell is really interesting casting, tho. (Like him, too.;)) I've never seen him to something light, but dramatic, myself, so no comment on him as Solo.
I would recommend Big Trouble in Little China, which I'm told is an excellent light action-adventure film in the classic 1980s vein.

phx1138 said:
:eek: Jodie? Seriously?:eek::cool::cool: (I've loved her since "Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane.":cool:;))
Hey, lots of people love Jodie Foster.

phx1138 said:
:cool: That's a "Wild Bunch" touch. Nicely done.:cool:
Thank you! I thought it would be nice for one of those old-school Chinese-American actors to get their due.

phx1138 said:
For who? George?:rolleyes: Evidently undeserving.:eek:
Note that he didn't win ;)

phx1138 said:
Which is to say, "director as sole creator"?
Indeed so. Most New Hollywood types venerated the auteur theory, for obvious reasons.. which also helps to explain that movement's demise.

phx1138 said:
BTW, I had no idea she played such a big role in how the story got told.:eek: Thx for that.:)
My pleasure. Spreading the word about underrated contributors to popular culture has always been a fundamental objective of mine in writing this timeline. What's unfortunate about Marcia IOTL is that, due to her bitter divorce from George and subsequent seclusion, she's effectively being whitewashed from history.

Check out the link of the casting footage--the dialogue is astoundingly rough, but that's what we used to decide they could pull it off.
Both of them, in fact. I didn't think much of William Katt beforehand (not enough GAH in my formative years, I guess), but he really acquits himself well in that footage.

e of pi said:
Outside of these two seasons, we also see USS Defiant lost with all hands in season three IOTL, though I cannot recall if Brainbin hasn't said if "The Tholian Web" is butterflied (I hope not, it's one of my favorites).
"The Tholian Web" does indeed exist in substantially the same form as IOTL (and it's my favourite episode of season three, actually). With Coon as Producer and a higher overall budget, there will be changes, but they'll all be for the better. And even IOTL, the effects were quite good, and the character interaction was definitely top-notch.

e of pi said:
Well, Enterprise is about as far from canon ITTL as it's possible to be--it's about 35 years after the PoD, and it's based on decades worth of canon that won't exist ITTL--not likely to be a TNG quite as we know it, nor DS9, nor VOY, so certainly not ENT. Anyway, if new members have existing "blue water" ships, what I'd say is that based on their relative strength, they'd either be commissioned into Starfleet (if they're roughly at tech parity, or can easily be made to be) or otherwise make them the core of the new member's "system guard."
This bears repeated emphasis - any part of the OTL Star Trek franchise beyond TAS and the planned Phase II spinoff (both of which involved much of the original production staff, and both of which were mined by myself to fill out the final seasons of Star Trek ITTL) is completely irrelevant as to the development of fanon or of any canon evidence with regards to Starfleet technology, hierarchy, nomenclature, and/or organization. This is just how things really were back in the 1970s IOTL.

In other words, such discussions are really best taken to PM. Thank you all very much for your understanding :)

Great update! Hmm, between a far more successful Star Trek and a Star Wars that seems to be even more successful than OTL as well, special effects have got to be going places. What's Douglas Trumbull up to at this time? He's easily one of the best special effects supervisors around, and would have gone a lot farther were it not for his self-imposed exile from Hollywood...
Thanks for the compliment, vultan! And an excellent question, to boot. One that should be answered in due time... :cool:

vultan said:
Also, I wonder if Desilu (or anyone) has any desire to approach computer effects earlier than OTL. With all the other associated special effects technologies further along...
Computers? Those are for those newfangled video game machines. And since Desilu has a stake in Syzygy, they would divert anyone with any talent in that arena to them, and keep the non-concrete visuals to the practical effects wizards at their post-production house - the best in the business, after all.

Ah, clearly you're working off the OTL screenshots. ;) This is what they see ITTL:

tumblr_mh8pe159XO1qlz9dno1_500.png


The same labels are re-arranged from the Enteprise AMT model, but they're a little more careful in what they re-arrange to.
I'd just like to add that e of pi did this photomanipulation job himself, at my request, after we both agreed that 1017 was ridiculous and that 1710 made far more sense.

Brainbin, casting William Katt as Skywalker is genius, except, of course, that you've killed yet another of my favorite TV shows from my childhood in The Greatest American Hero!
Believe it or not! :D

Andrew T said:
I loved the focus on Marcia; that's the sort of research and deep thinking that really makes this timeline one of the very best anywhere. (If I could stuff the Turtledove ballot boxes over the next 12 hours, I would!)
Thank you so much for your kind words, and I'm glad that you reacted so positively! I was intrigued by Marcia Lucas from the very first time I'd heard about her, and I thought that focusing on her perspective, rather than that of her husband, would be a fresh take on the old "making of Star Wars" chestnut.

Andrew T said:
(If I could stuff the Turtledove ballot boxes over the next 12 hours, I would!)
Well, there's always next year ;)

I never understood why they didn't do that. Even if you're not really thinking about the background to it, it just seems like you would want a number close to the Enterprise's.
I completely agree; making the number closer also enhances the "this could be the Enterprise" effect, ratcheting up the tension.

Unless they wanted a number distinctively different from the Enterprise's so that viewers wouldn't confuse the two ships.
The extensive damage to the Constellation is visible in every shot of the crippled ship, and in fact we rarely get a clear view of the hull registry outside of the opening shots (to establish that This Is Not The Enterprise, But It Could Be). Also in that opening shot, context makes clear that this ship is the derelict which the Enterprise is approaching.

There's also Court Martial in season 1 where a number of crewmen in the bar on Starbase 11 are shown wearing Enterprise insignia, in spite of the fact that most if not all of them would be from other ships.
Great catch, Nigel! And not particularly justified, either, considering the established starburst "Starfleet Command" patch worn by the Commodore.

Anyway, I wanted to just thank Brainbin for letting me help with this update.
And I wanted to thank you for helping! Thank you. Seriously, you guys, he contributed a lot to this past update, despite his modesty.

e of pi said:
Basically, he linked me that article on Marcia Lucas when he discussed what he wanted to draw on for this, and I...kind of hounded him until he let me toss in a few ideas. :D
In a way it gave me confidence that my choice to have Marcia Lucas as a featured character was a good one, because he really took to it.

e of pi said:
That said, it was a really fun experience and made a nice change from working on Eyes, and I wanted to do a bit of "editor's commentary" on this. Here's a few of the things I thought were really important in this update:
And I will now link you to his post, now on the previous page, because its contents are Very Important. You might want to read through it.

All that said, and as should now be reasonably clear: as a general rule, when e of pi claims to be speaking for this timeline, you can assume that he has my authorization to do so, unless I explicitly state otherwise. But he might also choose to comment just to speculate about things (because I don't tell him everything, after all).

More to Come soon! Perhaps tomorrow. February should be a good month, as well as a short one :p
 
Well, we wouldn't want to be just like OTL, now would we? :cool: One minor correction: I've actually announced the Best Picture for one of those three years, though which one depends on how you count. If we go by the year in which the Oscar is awarded, then Chinatown won in 1975. If we go by the year which is being recognized, then Journey of the Force won for 1977. Two Best Pictures have yet to be named: 1975/76, and 1976/77.

What were the Best Pictures for 1975/76 and 1976/77 then? Jaws, Nashville, or One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest? Rocky, Network, Taxi Driver, or Bound for Glory? All the President's Men isn't on the list of nominees for those years because it was never made ITTL and Barry Lyndon isn't on there because Stanley Kubrick filmed Napoleon, which used several elements that Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon IOTL. Could a picture that wasn't nominated for the Oscars IOTL fill in the empty spots there ITTL and probably win?
 

Thande

Donor
While Star Wars without Darth Vader is certainly an interesting idea, I wonder if it would have been quite as popular without him: he was clearly a breakout character at the time and this strongly influenced the next two films (as has been pointed out, Vader only has eleven minutes of screentime in the first Star Wars a.k.a. Episode IV).
 
I'd just like to add that e of pi did this photomanipulation job himself, at my request, after we both agreed that 1017 was ridiculous and that 1710 made far more sense.

1017 comes from the fact that it was previously a Ranger class or was 1017-B but came in an age when there wasn't a number added or when numbers were reused after a ship with it left serve *convoluted nerd explanations* *grumble* *grumble*

But since you changed it, you've removed my nerd need to explain things away.
 
That's the problem, & not just with Connie. Intrepid (1631), Potemkin (1657), & Excalibur (1664) all, just from "TOS", blow up the "class prefix" idea. There's also the problem of Defiant (74205) & São Paulo (75633), clearly of the same class... (Not to mention: 1428 ships built in the interim?:eek::eek:)
If you would have read this post carefully, then you would have noticed that both 16 AND 17 stands for the Constitution-class (perhaps for two different sub-classes). And I've also written that the whole registry number system did not work since the last scene of TVH (because they've introduced the NCC-1701-A).
 
Good update.
Loved the JTOF, hope JOTFII will be better! ;)
Bit of loss to not have a DV but I'm sure there'll be compensatory villains :D
Shame about Elstree but perhaps they might get that Dr Who movie that's in the works...
 
While Star Wars without Darth Vader is certainly an interesting idea, I wonder if it would have been quite as popular without him: he was clearly a breakout character at the time and this strongly influenced the next two films (as has been pointed out, Vader only has eleven minutes of screentime in the first Star Wars a.k.a. Episode IV).

It's sometimes forgotten that the Grand Moff Tarkin (played by Peter Cushing) was the main antagonist in Star Wars. As you say, he has been eclipsed by Darth Vader.

IOTL Star Wars was one of the films to establish the Evil Brit trope - even Vader was played by David Prowse, although not voiced by him. Since TTL's version won't be filmed in the UK, and so have mainly American actors on the Death Star, this trope might not be established until later.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Last edited:
Shame about Elstree but perhaps they might get that Dr Who movie that's in the works...

There had already been two Doctor Who films made, starring Peter Cushing as the Doctor. Since they were made in 1965 and 1966, they also exist ITTL. Both films were made at Shepperton studios rather than Elstree.

There was some discussion about making a third film based upon the The Chase, but the poor reception to the second film put an end to that.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Last edited:
To clarify a growing misconception: there is a Darth Vader analogue in this film (I may not be writing a utopia, but I'm certainly not writing a dystopia either). I was only joking in my response to Asharella on the subject. Though yes, as noted, the *Tarkin character is the primary villain of the film, as IOTL. Also, due to all of the filming taking place stateside (not withstanding sojourns to Hispaniola), the principal cast (including all villainous characters) is entirely American (or possibly Canadian :p).

If you would have read this post carefully, then you would have noticed that both 16 AND 17 stands for the Constitution-class (perhaps for two different sub-classes). And I've also written that the whole registry number system did not work since the last scene of TVH (because they've introduced the NCC-1701-A).
I've already asked you guys to cut that out. Take it to PM, please.
 
What were the Best Pictures for 1975/76 and 1976/77 then? Jaws, Nashville, or One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest? Rocky, Network, Taxi Driver, or Bound for Glory? All the President's Men isn't on the list of nominees for those years because it was never made ITTL and Barry Lyndon isn't on there because Stanley Kubrick filmed Napoleon, which used several elements that Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon IOTL. Could a picture that wasn't nominated for the Oscars IOTL fill in the empty spots there ITTL and probably win?

THE OBSERVER

I've lost trace of so many things but pretty certain that TTL there's been no Taxi Driver so that definitely won't get an award. From what I remember being mentioned of TTL I wonder if Napoleon might be one of winners?

Steve
 
Brainbin


Now that is going to have interesting, even intriguing:p impacts on popular culture. Has he been written out completely or just assumed a minor role? If the former and presuming the 2nd and 3rd films are made that kind of removes a sizeable chunk of the character background.;)

Thank you, Steve - but do you find it intriguing? :D

You mean someone else has noticed I tend to over-use that word. Seems to be a personal habit I've fallen into. At least you guys don't know about the human sacrifices, slave trading and handling of 2nd hand nukes yet.:D:p


Hey, I happen to like Bogart types, all right? :p

Ditto.

I would recommend Big Trouble in Little China, which I'm told is an excellent light action-adventure film in the classic 1980s vein.

Quite a good little film provided you take it very tongue in cheek.

Hey, lots of people love Jodie Foster.

See answer two stages above.;)

Note that he didn't win ;)

:D

My pleasure. Spreading the word about underrated contributors to popular culture has always been a fundamental objective of mine in writing this timeline. What's unfortunate about Marcia IOTL is that, due to her bitter divorce from George and subsequent seclusion, she's effectively being whitewashed from history.

I agree. Found it very interesting how much of a role she played.

Computers? Those are for those newfangled video game machines. And since Desilu has a stake in Syzygy, they would divert anyone with any talent in that arena to them, and keep the non-concrete visuals to the practical effects wizards at their post-production house - the best in the business, after all.

That could be one of the problems. They would seem to be an obvious leader in use of computers for other roles but its possibly that because of the Syzygy role that would be a dumping ground for any people who take an interest in this new tool.

However sooner or later there's bound to be some interaction. Someone moaning about the difficulty of getting a certain shot or effect and a computer nerd pipes up with "why don't you". Especially since a certain WR seems to have a keen eye for new ideas or ways to cut costs.

More to Come soon! Perhaps tomorrow. February should be a good month, as well as a short one :p

Looking forward to it.:D

Steve
 
There had already been two Doctor Who films made, starring Peter Cushing as the Doctor. Since they were made in 1965 and 1966, they also exist ITTL. Both films were made at Shepperton studios rather than Elstree.

There was some discussion about making a third film based upon the The Chase, but the poor reception to the second film put an end to that.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Of course you are right.
I can only assume I had brainstall :mad::D
 
There had already been two Doctor Who films made, starring Peter Cushing as the Doctor. Since they were made in 1965 and 1966, they also exist ITTL. Both films were made at Shepperton studios rather than Elstree.

There was some discussion about making a third film based upon the The Chase, but the poor reception to the second film put an end to that.

Cheers,
Nigel.
The big problem of the Doctor Who films is, that they contradict the show.
 
Well yes, but the show often contradicted itself. In that sense, the films were actually consistant with the show :D

Cheers,
Nigel.
No. There weren't. In the show the Doctor was always an alien, who stole the TARDIS and whose real name is still unknown, but in the movies he was human, his name was Doctor Who and he invented/build the TARDIS. These are fundanetal differences! And I believe that those are the reasons the films failed.
 
No. There weren't. In the show the Doctor was always an alien, who stole the TARDIS and whose real name is still unknown, but in the movies he was human, his name was Doctor Who and he invented/build the TARDIS. These are fundanetal differences! And I believe that those are the reasons the films failed.

Except that when the films were made it hadn't been stated in the tv series that the Doctor was alien. That was initially left ambiguous. He was occasionally refered to as human, although he never actually refered to himself as such. His alien origin wasn't really established until his regeneration. The term "Time Lord" came even later.

I agree that he was never called "Doctor Who" in the tv series, although the occasional episode title incorrectly made use of that name (e.g. The episode "Death of Doctor Who" during The Chase).

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Except that when the films were made it hadn't been stated in the tv series that the Doctor was alien. That was initially left ambiguous. He was occasionally refered to as human, although he never actually refered to himself as such. His alien origin wasn't really established until his regeneration. The term "Time Lord" came even later.

I agree that he was never called "Doctor Who" in the tv series, although the occasional episode title incorrectly made use of that name (e.g. The episode "Death of Doctor Who" during The Chase).

Cheers,
Nigel.
But he always said that his name is (The) Doctor. And 'Doctor Who' was always a question or used in title or credits, but he never ever said that his name is 'Doctor Who'.
 
But he always said that his name is (The) Doctor. And 'Doctor Who' was always a question or used in title or credits, but he never ever said that his name is 'Doctor Who'.

Correct. The couple of times that it was used in story or episode titles ( such as Doctor Who and the Silurians ) were mistakes as the rule was that the name "Doctor Who" shouldn't be used outside of the series title.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Top