Well, I had it in microsoft word in a table format with nice columns, (a la Encyclopedia) but when I posted it I just pasted the entire document into my reply window and that's how it turned out.
Personally I just never have understood anyone who wants to ignore what's onscreen. Isn't that, like, totally against everything you guys believe in...or...something?
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Simon: There's a difference. One of those things was actually spoken. Those sorts of things are supposed to be accurate. But we've seen time and again that the VFX people are less concerned w/ accuracy, and more concerned w/ making things look pretty. So I've decided to ignore stuff like that. Besides, the "1305-E" wasn't a mistake. Labelling the ship w/ a 7xxxx number was the mistake. Someone should have told Okuda the "1305-E" was going to be on screen, so he could make the labels accordingly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
We, as the audience, need to be cautious about what is said and seen in Star Trek.
Let's discuss the latter part. The argument for the third Defiant's registry is that since it is visible as NX-74205, the registry is valid. The counter-argument is that the VFX staff were rushed and didn't have the time to complete all changes.
I am not taking sides in this debate. However, I will point to several registry issues. Here they are:
U.S.S. Hood This Excelsior Class starship is introduced in "Encounter at Farpoint". The underside of the saucer is seen as the ship pulls away from the U.S.S. Enterprise. The registry is that of the U.S.S. Excelsior-NX-2000. Later, in "Redemption, Part 2", the U.S.S. Hood is given an unique registry-NCC-42296. Then, finally, in "Tears of the Prophets" and according to insiders, the U.S.S. Hood is given the registry of the U.S.S. Lakota- NCC-42768. If we follow the argument illustrated above for the U.S.S. Defiant, then the U.S.S. Hood started life with registry- NX-2000, then had a change in registry-NCC-42296, and finally was given another registry-NCC-42768. This is seen for the most part on screen and can thus be ruled canonical. Or we could argue that the U.S.S. Hood had only one registry and that the other two registries were inadvertent.
S.S. K.E. Tsiolkovsky This ship, from "The Naked Now", has one visible registry-NCC-638 (seen as the ship careens into the solar fragment). This is the registry of the U.S.S. Grissom, of ST III. On the other hand, there is the dedication plate which is seen and not readable in the episode. This has the registry of NCC-53911. Since the visible evidence is more noticeable, can we say the S.S. K.E. Tsiolkovsky had the Grissom's registry? Or is this another instance of inadvertence?
U.S.S. Prometheus This ship has two registries-NX-59650 and NX-74913. This one has been the focal point of many controversies and I will simply point to this case.
Danube Class starships & U.S.S. Rio Grande This is a more interesting case. The first known runabout in Star Trek history, the U.S.S. Rio Grande had the registry NCC-72452. This is seen when the ship is ascending to the outer hull of the station. AFter this introduction, every runabout, including the runabout destroyed in the TNG episode, carried this registry to "One Little Ship". In that episode, the U.S.S. Rubicon was seen with a registry-NCC-72936, followed by the U.S.S. Shenandoah with registry NCC-73024. Then we see again the U.S.S. Rio Grande and her sister ship, the U.S.S. Gander. Both ships carry the registry NCC-73024. Finally, one of the last appearances of the runabout had the ship carrying registry NCC-73918.
So, in effect, the visual evidence tells us that from 2368 to 2374, all runabouts with the possible exception of one had registry NCC-72452. Then in 2374, runabouts had two registries. A year later, the runabout had two registries with the last registry as NCC-73918.
I will leave you to figure this mess out.
My personal opinion- The models of ships are symbolic of the ship and her mission. The registry and name are often less important than the visual message that is being conveyed.
I believe that Mr. Okuda inadvertently forgot the U.S.S. Cochrane from "The Drumhead". And this adds another case to the list above.
U.S.S. Cochrane In the first episode for this ship, as confirmed by the TNG Companion and StarTrek.com, the U.S.S. Cochrane is seen in "The Drumhead". Her registry is four digits long and could be NCC-8000 or NCC-9000, which could account for the ease that this ship is transformed into the U.S.S. Yosemite NCC-19002. Returning to the subject matter, this same ship is seen in "The Game" and "A Fistful of Datas", as the U.S.S. Biko. Then in "The Emissary", we see an Oberth Class starship docking with DS9. Her registry is NCC-19002, that of the U.S.S. Yosemite. (BTW, this could be argued as proof that the ship seen in "A Fistful of Datas" was stock footage. And the ship seen in "Realm of Fear" was a new reuse of the Oberth Class model.) According to the StarTrek.com site and the Encyclopedia, this is the U.S.S. Cochrane. Years later, we see this ship on a display in DS9.
So in summary, the U.S.S. Cochrane has the following registry history- NCC-8000 or NCC-9000 "The Drumhead", "The Game" NCC-19002 "Emissary" NCC-59318 "In the Pale Moonlight"
I told you: It's not 1305-E it's 1305E. There's no evidence that it's a sixth-generation ship. I'm working on a theory about letters in reg numbers, based on the Yamato and the TAS ships. But, in any case, the number was changed by Starfleet for whatever reason.
The thing about the Defiant is that we see it multiple times, not just once, and clearly, so it doesn't really matter WHY it was onscreen. It was and so that's what we have to accept as the reg.
It's not 'S.S. K.E. Tsiolkovsky' it's U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky. Whatever the dedication plaque says, it's the name and prefix in the encyclopedia that are considered correct. The NCC-53911 is the correct reg.
The NX-59650 reg is correct for the Prommie because that's what was most visible (plastered all over the hull) in the ep. That's also what the Encyc says in the text of the entry. The other graphics are overruled by the text.
The latest theory is that there were two Oberth-class U.S.S. Cochranes. The NCC-8000 from "The Drumhead" and the NCC-59318 from "Emmisary" and "In the Pale Moonlight."
Targetemployee: Your other examples were mostly stuff that either wasn't seen clearly onscreen at all, or only briefly and for once only.
Targetemployee's examples illustrate my point quite well. In every one of those instances, it's the VFX of the ships that don't make sense. Spoken word, and things seen on computer displays and such are more consistently sensical.
"I told you: It's not 1305-E it's 1305E."
Yes, but you're wrong. If, because Riker didn't say "hyphen", there isn't one, then that means the registry must have actually been "NCC1305E", not "NCC-1305(-)E".
"It's not 'S.S. K.E. Tsiolkovsky' it's U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky. Whatever the dedication plaque says, it's the name and prefix in the encyclopedia that are considered correct."
So, would you also contend that the registry of the Raman was NCC-59983, even though we know for a fact that that was just a fuck-up in the Encyclopedia?
There is no hyphen in the entry for the Yamato in either Encyclopedia. It's just NCC-1305E. I agree, the Raman is an undisputed fuck up. But while it has it's fair share of errors, the Encyclopedia is our best official source of info and since okuda was the man responsible for most of the regs, prefixes, names, etc, on the shows, I think we should go with what he says, for the most part.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Riker, to my knowledge did in fact say NCC 1305 'dash' E, indicating that it is really 1305-E.
I'm sure we all know that Okuda sent an urgent memo to the Producers to say that the reference to 1305-E be ommitted, as it was not a canon registry. They unfortunately commissioned a second draft of the script, whereby the old 1305-E was inadvertently re-inserted.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty