NCC-2541 is canonical

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by throwback, Nov 22, 2012.

  1. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    It appears that when ILM redid the registry on the Excelsior-class starship model that the modelers didn't change the registry on the saucer only. They changed the registry on the nacelles, as well.

    In this shot, the registry on the nacelles was visible. It was NCC-2541. It appears that the registry was on both sides of the nacelles.

    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/images/thechild_repulse_hd.jpg

    As many of the shots of the Excelsior-class starship model were reuses of the original footage shot for "Encounter at Farpoint", I think that it can be argued that there was a NCC-2541 in operation in the mid-2360s.
     
  2. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Well, the shuttlecraft from the very episode establishes the registry as NCC-2544 instead - whereas the above image only establishes that the registry is a four-digit one, completely illegible. I see no reason to really believe in the existence of a NCC-2541 anywhere, any more than I think there should exist USS Alka-selsior.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  3. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I used the zoom-in function (Ctrl+) to see the registry. I saw NCC-2541, the last digit being 1 and the fact that knowing that the model was re-registered as NCC-2541 were evidence enough for me. I went into hyperbole on the last paragraph.

    Conflict with registries wasn't anything new in the canonical Star Trek, and, frankly, for me, this argument doesn't dissuade me in the slightest. The latest discussion concerned the Yamato, which had two registries - NCC-71807 and NCC-71804 in one episode. The full list would be rather lengthy.
     
  4. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    The reason why the Repulse's registry is 2544 was because the model still had the Hood's original 2541 registry, and it was close enough (but not too close) for any viewer in 1987 to make out the difference.

    If it makes you feel better I have the Hood listed as both 2541 and 42296 on my shiplist. However, I like your theory that the 2541 ship could be another Excelsior thanks to stock footage. In reality though, I find it hard to believe that every single time the Enterprise rendezvoused with an Excelsior, it was the exact same Excelsior every time.
     
  5. Jerikka Dawn

    Jerikka Dawn Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can make out a registry number in that pic. Looks like "STA-0001" to me what with all the blur and total unreadability of it.
     
  6. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    It's known that for the first showing of the Excelsior-class model in "Encounter at Farpoint" that they changed the registry to NCC-2541 from NCC-2000. Subsequent footage of the model was either stock shots or a new shot using the model with the Hood decals on. (The new shot was first seen in the episode "The Child".) It appeared that they changed the registry on the upper saucer and on the nacelles. They may have changed the registry on the lower saucer as well.

    For its appearance in the sixth movie, the Hood decals were removed, and new Excelsior decals were applied.
     
  7. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    I see 2541 in the picture. Not super clear, but definitely a 4 and a 1.
     
  8. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    And, as we now see, the decals in all these stock shots are unreadable even at high resolution or in the remakes of the blu-ray release. We can see whatever we want to see there, and that includes five-digit registries, letter suffixes, and non-NCC prefixes... In other words, mission accomplished!

    http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x01/farpoint_hd_492.jpg

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  9. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Timo, why the negativity? I can see 2541 on the nacelles. You can't, that's fine. Then you tell me that you don't believe in NCC-2541. Here is a shot of the model with the registry.

    http://starshipclass.net/modules/archives/index.php?content_id=8

    What I see is within the realm of possibility. I am not seeing anything outside this realm.

    I don't think that anyone expected in 1987 or 1988 that we would now have the resolution that we have now.

    I wouldn't write an article on a supposed ship with a registry of NCC-2541 on Memory Alpha. There are people who are on that site that need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is recognized that ILM did change the decals on the Excelsior-class model for its appearance in "Encounter at Farpoint". The registry prefix and the numbers on the nacelles don't match those used for the Excelsior.

    As for the under saucer registry, I am inclined to believe that the registry was changed there as well. What leads me to believe this - the registry prefix NCC. Before the pilot, it was NX. The Excelsior didn't receive its NCC until the sixth movie.

    Upon reflection, I think I could have written the opening post much better.
     
  10. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I guess my point is that we don't have resolution. We have a priori knowledge of what the registry is. Without that, you could not tell whether that nacelle text says "NCC-2541" or "SMOOCHIES". The pixels just aren't there - it must be all in your head, in the "I can see Lenin's face in the oil stain" sense that is built into our sensory systems. That is, an objective image enhancement system of CSI:Kalamazoo quality would reveal "SMOOCHIES" with the same probability as "NCC-2541"

    The separate fact that the model has the NCC-2541 labeling is more in the category of the model also having a motion control rod attachment point at the bottom of the secondary hull. It's purely backstage stuff.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  11. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Beginning kitbash of USS SMOOCHIES this weekend.
    I think I can get the cowl around the Ent-B's deflector to look like lips...
     
  12. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    No they're not. I can read NCC-2541 just fine. Granted, it's not the clearest pic in the world, and I had to zoom in on it, but I could make it out.
     
  13. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    There are fewer pixels there than what would be needed to spell the registry in four-pixel-high font, which by definition makes it completely illegible. It must be an illusion only: you have no means of being able to read it.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  14. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Timo,

    I have a mental disability. I applied for a SSI (or SSD) - I can't remember which I will get if I don't have enough work credits - and I was granted OTR (on the record) approval by the judge. I am fully aware of seeing things that aren't there. Sometimes, I experience irrational though processes and I think that my toy stuffed eagle has hostile feelings towards me. So, for someone in my condition, I have to double check and triple check what I see. So, it might have been better, if I had open this thread, by asking if anyone can confirm what I see? I was excited when I wrote the opening post, because I believed that I had discovered something new and I wanted to share it with others.

    I had no assumptions when I saw the picture for the first time. I thought it might be NX-2000, NCC-2541, or some other number. When I looked at the picture for the first time, I identified the number as 2541. I am used to models having different registries - this is common with the Star Trek models. For example, the Ambassador-class model was sold with decals for both of its appearances as the Excalibur and the Yamaguchi.

    In this case, I examine the history of the model, I compare the registry of the model from its initial use as the Excelsior (NX-2000) to its second use as the Hood, and I examine the numbers. The numbers are different. The width of a 1 is not the same width as a 0. A 4 doesn't have the same shape as a 0. A 5 doesn't have the same shape as a 0. A 2 is a 2. I can do this comparison because on the web there is a side-profile shot of the Excelsior, as it appeared in the third and fourth movies. (The side profile shot is in the gallery for this ship class at Ex-Astris-Scientia.) The number can't be anything else. I will agree with you, Timo, that the registry prefix is unclear. (This is what I did with the Yamato's registry.)

    Sometimes, the only thing we have to go on for these ships is background information. Do you accept there is an Appalachia with the registry NCC-52136? If so, then you are accepting background information derived from a model. Do you accept that NCC-63549 is the Thunderchild? If so, then you are accepting what Michael Okuda has told us is the name of this ship. (The model carries no name. According to ILM, on a ship size comparison shot, NCC-63549 is the Spector, and the Thunderchild is NCC-63898. I am not getting into here on how the Hiroshima is changed to Appalachia, or how NCC-63549 became associated with the Thunderchild. I feel there is a lack of evidence on either discussion.)

    There are three episodes in TNG where the Excelsior-class ship isn't named, and, in two of those instances, there is a side profile of the ship. Canonically, in those instances, the ship is the NCC-2541. As Memory Alpha puts it, when a thing is not named in the canon, background sources can be used to identity a thing.

    People are stubborn. I accept this. What I am attempting to understand is your behavior, Timo. Is there a reason why you are defensive about this subject? Do you have an emotional investment in approving or disapproving what I and others have seen? In your post, you allude to a measurement. Do you have more information on this measurement?

    For me, illusion is believing that my toy stuffed eagle, Hermione, is harboring feelings of ill will towards me. It is not some registry on a model.
     
  15. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I just plain cannot accept that this cluster of pixels could contain the necessary information for identifying the registry letters without already knowing what they are.

    [​IMG]

    I call total bullshit on the ability to decide that the last digit is 1, or indeed is a digit. This is completely different from a feat I can easily accept: being able to tell that out of the choice between O and 1, the smudge is likelier to be 1, which is something that can be done with sufficient a priori knowledge but which won't carry any weight as a means of analyzing the picture. Odds would still be vastly in favor of the smudge being something else, anything else (say, the tail of a fish or a digit in an image of a rude gesture), unless we knew a priori what we were dealing with.

    I'm fine with that. But since the registry is indeed illegible, I'll just further decide that one of the ships is NCC-2541, another is NCC-42767, and the third is NCC-14558. That's in accordance with the onscreen evidence, too.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  16. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    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.
     
  17. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Ulster
    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.
     
  18. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    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.
     
  19. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Should have I included a survey, where I asked the reader, do you see NCC-2541? Would this have reduced the acrimony?
     
  20. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    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.