RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,404
Posts: 5,505,878
Members: 25,127
Currently online: 569
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 23 2012, 10:31 PM   #16
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

I asked three questions, Timo, You failed to answer the questions.

The questions are:
1.) Is there a reason why you are defensive, and now angry, about this subject?
2.) Do you have an emotional investment in approving or disapproving what I and others have seen?
3.) Do you have more information on this pixel measurement?

And, please, watch your language. If a word is censored on network tv, then that word shouldn't be used on a forum.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2012, 10:38 PM   #17
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

I had as good a look at that image as I can, cleaning and brightening it and hell if I can identify one single digit there, it's unreadable.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 01:10 AM   #18
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

As I said, it's not super-clear, but from what I can make out, it does look like 2541 to me. That's just my opinion, though.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 01:20 AM   #19
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Should have I included a survey, where I asked the reader, do you see NCC-2541? Would this have reduced the acrimony?
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 03:06 AM   #20
Ar-Pharazon
Rear Admiral
 
Ar-Pharazon's Avatar
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

I think it has to do with knowing it's supposed to be 2541. It definitely ends with two different digits.

The last digit isn't wide enough at the top to be a 7, so it could really only be a 1. The second to last digit could only be a 4.

It looks like 2541 to me without trying to focus too much.
__________________
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).
Ar-Pharazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 03:20 AM   #21
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

I think it helps to see it from a different angle...


... thing is, the Hood was given NCC-42296 as a registry later in TNG. Honestly, I think the main thing they were going for was not seeing anything that looked like NX-2000 in the stock footage.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 03:39 AM   #22
Unwrapped
Continuity Spackle
 
Unwrapped's Avatar
 
Location: The mockingjay soars (Unicron)
Send a message via ICQ to Unwrapped
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

^ Was that registry applied to the physical model itself, or just used for a source like the Encyclopedia? Just curiously mainly. It would fit in the somewhat wonky registry system used in TNG.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Unwrapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 04:50 AM   #23
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

To my knowledge, the large Excelsior model only had the following applied to it...
NX-2000, USS Excelsior
NCC-2541, USS Hood
NCC-2000, USS Excelsior
NCC-1701-B, USS Enterprise
NCC-42768, USS Lakota
The Hood's registry first appeared in a graphic in TNG and later in the Encyclopedia.

The model that Jein made had a few registry numbers applied over it's career, though I only have photos of it as the USS Excelsior (NCC-2000), USS Fredrickson (NCC-4211) and USS Excelsior (NCC-2000 put back with missized decals).
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 05:00 AM   #24
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Shaw wrote: View Post
To my knowledge, the large Excelsior model only had the following applied to it...
NX-2000, USS Excelsior
NCC-2541, USS Hood
NCC-2000, USS Excelsior
NCC-1701-B, USS Enterprise
NCC-42768, USS Lakota
The Hood's registry first appeared in a graphic in TNG and later in the Encyclopedia.

The model that Jein made had a few registry numbers applied over it's career, though I only have photos of it as the USS Excelsior (NCC-2000), USS Fredrickson (NCC-4211) and USS Excelsior (NCC-2000 put back with missized decals).
There was also the Excelsior class Melbourne in DS9's "Emissary," which would either have been the original studio model or a model kit.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 06:01 AM   #25
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Memory Alpha has an article on the Excelsior-class model.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Excelsior_class_model

Summary of Uses
The large model was used for the:
* USS Excelsior, NX-2000, 3rd & 4th movies
* USS Hood, NCC-2541, TNG Series
* USS Excelsior, NCC-2000, 6th movie
* USS Melbourne, NCC-62043, "Emissary"

A smaller model, known as the Jein model, was used for the:
* USS Excelsior, NCC-2000, "Flashback"
* USS Fredrickson, NCC-42111, "A Time to Stand"

The USS Hood was given a new registry in "Brothers" where it was listed with other Starfleet starships. (This information could change with the release of the Season 2 Blue Ray Set. There is a list of starships in "The Measure of a Man". I am hoping that some part of it is readable.)
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 06:25 AM   #26
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

throwback wrote: View Post
Summary of Uses
The large model was used for the:
* USS Excelsior, NX-2000, 3rd & 4th movies
* USS Hood, NCC-2541, TNG Series
* USS Excelsior, NCC-2000, 6th movie
* USS Melbourne, NCC-62043, "Emissary"
Well, as Shaw already stated, the model was also used for the Enterprise-B and the Lakota.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2012, 06:34 AM   #27
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

True. The modifications which were meant to be temporarily proved to be anything but, which led to Jein building a new model.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2012, 11:33 PM   #28
Longinus
Commander
 
Longinus's Avatar
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

throwback wrote: View Post
Should have I included a survey, where I asked the reader, do you see NCC-2541? Would this have reduced the acrimony?
No. You should have asked: "What number, if any, you can see here."

To me it could just as easily be 2391, for example. Without prior knowledge, there is no way to read it clearly.

In any case, why does this matter?

Last edited by Longinus; December 1 2012 at 07:56 PM.
Longinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1 2012, 07:54 PM   #29
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Longinus wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
Should have I included a survey, where I asked the reader, do you see NCC-2541? Would this have reduced the acrimony?
No. You should have asked: "What number, if any, you can see here."

To me it could just as easily be 2391, for example. Without prior knowledge, there is no way to read it clearly.

In any case, why does this matter?
It matters because the toy stuffed eagle is gonna claw his eyeballs out while he is sleeping if he doesn't get the registry number right. He just wants you to know what's at stake here.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 04:55 PM   #30
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

If I was wittier, there would be a witty comment here.
If i was sarcastic, there would be a sarcastic comment here.
If i knew how to be humorous, there would be a comedic quip here.

<shrug>
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.