USS Excalibur: NCC-1664 or NCC-1705?

[Dukhat]

My examples of the Hood and the Melbourne are not production mistakes. At the time of EaF, the Hood's registry was supposed to be 2541, even though you couldn't actually see it on the model in the shot. At the time of BoBW, the Melbourne was supposed to be a Nebula class starship. The Hood's registry and the Melbourne's class were changed later to reflect whatever changes were being made in the show. That's a retcon, not a production mistake.

My other examples covered other various issues. The misspelling of the Brattain's name is clearly a mistake. The use of the name "Centaur" in the script even though another name was on the model is an example of the disconnect between the writers and the VFX crew (another example of this is the innumerable uses of Excelsior stock footage to represent other ships...clearly the script's name for a particular ship is not representative of whatever name was on that Excelsior. This is an expedient of budget, not a production mistake). The Prometheus conundrum still had no clear answer as to what registry is the correct one.

My point was that things are not so clear-cut as you're seeming to make them.

 

[T'Bonz]

Don't get personal, guys.

 

[MacLeod]

Discounting the registry error, the reason perhaps for their being two Melbourne's at Wiolf 359. One was an older ship pulled out of mothballs to bolster the fleet.

 

[FalTorPan]

Its true registry number is OU-812.

 

[Forbin]

The remastered episodes are not canon, they're a sales gimmick. I consider any new visuals presented in them as interesting, sometimes nice to look at, but as far as I'm concerned they do not supercede the original episodes.

 

[Dukhat]

Discounting the registry error, the reason perhaps for their being two Melbourne's at Wiolf 359. One was an older ship pulled out of mothballs to bolster the fleet.

It would have been nice if they had the foresight to make the Excelsior Melbourne's registry 6204 or 2043; that would have made way more sense than to give the old ship such a high registry of 62043. But unfortunately they didn't.

My personal theory is that after the retcon, that Nebula study model became the USS Tolstoy NCC-62095. The numbers look close enough and the design is sufficiently different from the studio model of the Nebula class that it could work as the Rigel class, IMHO.

 

[Capt Bob April]

Discounting the registry error, the reason perhaps for their being two Melbourne's at Wiolf 359. One was an older ship pulled out of mothballs to bolster the fleet.

I like that.

 

[Jeffmw078]

I just read this thread. Couldn't we just split the difference. NCC-1664 for the TOS Series era and NCC-1705 for the TOS Movie era? the Constitution/Enterprise Class.

 

[Dukhat]

I just read this thread. Couldn't we just split the difference. NCC-1664 for the TOS Series era and NCC-1705 for the TOS Movie era? the Constitution/Enterprise Class.

The 1664 registry was used on the CGI model of the ship in TOS-R. So that’s the correct canon registry. NCC-1705 doesn’t exist canon-wise.

 

[1001001]

I just read this thread. Couldn't we just split the difference. NCC-1664 for the TOS Series era and NCC-1705 for the TOS Movie era? the Constitution/Enterprise Class.

First, welcome to the board.

Second, please take some time to read through the posting rules, pinned at the top of this forum.

In particular: "Resurrecting dead threads. If you find a thread that has not had a post in it in over a year, don't post in it. Start a new thread instead. You can, if necessary, link back to the old thread if something crucial is in the thread."

This one has been dead for ten years. Let's let it rest in peace, shall we?

Thanks.