RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 144,937
Posts: 5,700,758
Members: 25,695
Currently online: 406
Newest member: Sos

TrekToday headlines

Wheaton To Introduce Beer
By: T'Bonz on May 6

Wheaton In Dark Matter
By: T'Bonz on May 6

Star Trek: The Next Generation Commemorative Coins
By: T'Bonz on May 5

Star Trek IV: What Might Have Been
By: T'Bonz on May 5

Russ Explains Star Wars Day
By: T'Bonz on May 4

New Seekers Book Covers Debut
By: T'Bonz on May 4

Whitney Passes
By: T'Bonz on May 4

Retro Review: Phage
By: Michelle on May 2

The Next Generation Shower Curtain
By: T'Bonz on May 1

Burton Part of Roots Reboot
By: T'Bonz on May 1


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 December 2 2012, 08:04 PM   #31
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

So it seems we have evidence for two Excelsior-class ships named Hood...?
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 08:43 PM   #32
Chemahkuu
Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

DEWLine wrote: View Post
So it seems we have evidence for two Excelsior-class ships named Hood...?
Nope, one ship onscreen with the name Hood and the occasional behind the scenes mess up on the actual registry that people argue about.
__________________
"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 December 3 2012, 02:45 AM   #33
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Wouldn't surprise me if NCC-2541 was part of the same production order as the Repulse(NCC-2544) and got despatched relatively early on in her career, thus making room for NCC-44296...
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 08:35 AM   #34
chrinFinity
Commander
 
chrinFinity's Avatar
 
Location: Scmocation
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Yeah, I was going to say. Not a problem if one of them met with its demise or was decommissioned.
__________________
i hate everything
chrinFinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 08:35 AM   #35
chrinFinity
Commander
 
chrinFinity's Avatar
 
Location: Scmocation
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Also this seems like a stupidly trivial thing to be arguing about.
__________________
i hate everything
chrinFinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 01:24 PM   #36
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

chrinFinity wrote: View Post
Yeah, I was going to say. Not a problem if one of them met with its demise or was decommissioned.
The problem with that theory is that if there were two different ships, that would mean that the second ship would have been commissioned after 2363. It's doubtful that Excelsiors were still in production, and even more doubtful that a brand new ship would have a registry as low as 42296. It would most likely start with a 7.

chrinFinity wrote: View Post
Also this seems like a stupidly trivial thing to be arguing about.
Arguing about trivial things is what Star Trek nerds like us do all the time.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:20 PM   #37
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

With these many inconsistencies, and with Starfleet personnel constantly tampering with the timeline, I have come up with my own hypothesis - these inconsistencies are the result of the timeline changing.

For instance, in 2364, there was a starship Atlantis with the registry of NCC-72007. Then, between "The Neutral Zone" and "The Measure of a Man", the timeline changed, and now there is a starship Atlantis with a lower registry. The people are no more the wiser for they change with the timeline, but, we the viewer, are aware of the changes for we exist outside their world and are looking in.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:31 PM   #38
Chemahkuu
Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Or it's an unimportant background error.
__________________
"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 December 7 2012, 04:36 PM   #39
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

^Or just a changed premise. It's no different than "James R. Kirk," and no one's rushing to create convoluted explanations for that. YMMV.

These listings will go into my ship list for completeness' sake, but I'm treating them as nothing more than curious oddities.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:38 PM   #40
Chemahkuu
Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^Or just a changed premise. It's no different than "James R. Kirk," and no one's rushing to find convoluted explanations for that. YMMV.
A few people did, then a novel threw in a comment to say it was an injoke between Kirk and Mitchell, all was well.

NCC's however, aren't really worth that effort.
__________________
"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 December 7 2012, 04:51 PM   #41
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Or, one could take the Biblical approach, which is to preserve different traditions. This is the same approach that ancient Greeks and Romans did with their stories. It seemed that each town and city had their own version of mythical stories.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:53 PM   #42
Chemahkuu
Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

It's a number on a sheet of plastic that was never meant to make sense or matter, even to the production staff who made it.
__________________
"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 December 7 2012, 05:06 PM   #43
throwback
Captain
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

Star Trek fans have been discussing registries ever since I joined the Internet community in the late 1990s. Now, that we can see some of the new registries, we can discuss some more. Now, that we have new registries, people are saying we shouldn't be discussing them. Well, the cat's out of the bag, so isn't it a bit late to put a cork on the whole shebang.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 05:15 PM   #44
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

BTW, I think this thread has started getting mixed up with the other Measure of a Man shiplist thread.

Don't get me wrong; I'm totally fine discussing registries, and I look forward to actually seeing the list in HD or screencaps thereof so that I can take a stab at guessing what they say. All I'm saying is that it's not entirely necessary to create explanations for every single inconsistency we see, especially when they're from charts and displays that were never meant to be seen up close or scrutinized the way we can now.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2015, 02:05 AM   #45
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: NCC-2541 is canonical

My quick opinion of this thread topic (which has likely been discussed before) is that the Hood's registry is canon as 42295 and that 2541 is an error and never existed via retcon. Doesn't matter if it was actually seen in the show the creators changed the ncc system halfway during season 2 when the Yamato was stated by Riker as 1305-e and later changed to 71807 a few episodes later. In your argument 1305-e should be canon because we hear it on screen. The same could be said about the USS Brattain which was erroneously shown as "Brittain". The ship must be Brattain since it is named after a historical figure.

The sad truth is a lot of what was actually shown on screen with ship info was flat out wrong as the creative team was morphing all the time and there wasn't one all seeing trek advisor there to catch those errors though I think Okuda and Jein tried their best. A lot of stuff was the result of quick turnaround time the creators realizing afterwards of a slip too late for them to change it. With Hood I think what happened was that during Season 1 the idea of the 70,000+ registries hadn't been thought of yet so someone figured Excelsior class ships would be in the 2000-2500 range and probably be about 60 years old while Miranda's like lantree would be in the 1800's and 70+ years old. The original intention was to build a model the Fearless as an Ambassador class ship which would be the main model used through much of TNG but due to budget restraints things changed. When the Fearless was shown as an excelsior it's registry was 14598 which threw the system out of whack. That compounded by the fact that the Ambassador model they did build was inferior and difficult to use over the years we saw more and more Excelsior and Miranda ships (due to the availability of the models via cgi), a new system was developed which placed excelsior construction mainly in the 10,000-45,000 range and Miranda's 21,000-31,000 range. The only throwbacks were the Lantree, Repulse and the Constellation class which make them very old ships from Kirks time.

Also just as a last point I'm no longer confident that the Melbourne was ever an Excelsior class even though it is seen clearly on screen in DSN. I suspect what happened is that someone gave the group a bunch of numbers and names and said "here put these on the models and blow them up" and they so not thinking that a 60,000 number belonged on a nebula and not an excelsior etc. They probably did it because a close up of a nebula blowing up would probably not show the numbers as clearly that's all. Either that or the Melbourne could have been retconned to an Excelsior but we can speculate it should have a different registry 42043 perhaps. That actually seems more likely as the DSN footage happened later and the registry discrepancy probably wouldn't have been thought of until after the scene was done. As stated a lot of these factors can be explained by real world reasons either the creators made mistakes or changed their minds via retconning tng but really my opinion is that canon is what they state it to be via intent of the creative team vs what may actually be shown on screen. Yeah that's weird but it keeps me sane lol.

Last edited by CharlieZardoz; March 26 2015 at 08:25 AM.
CharlieZardoz 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 03:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.