Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
New shiplist format preview
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] Sorry about that premature post, and thanks for taking the time to look it all over. I'll take your points one at a time... [QUOTE]Originally posted by newark: [qb] My suggestions: [b]USS AHWAHNEE NCC-2048[/b] I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.[/qb][/QUOTE]I would tend to agree, but that map has proved to be more trouble than it's worth and I'm not wholly comfortable with finalizing anything from it except the [i]Eagle[/i] and [i]Endeavour[/i] datapoints until we get a closer look at it. (If that ever happens...) However, the entry in the main body of the shiplist for the [i]Ahwahnee[/i] includes this note: <blockquote>[i]"Based upon close examination of screencaptures from the film, the chart may have shown the ship to be an [/i]Excelsior[i]-class vessel (which would make sense given the registry number) and also may have misspelled the name as '[/i]Awahnee[i],' though until a clearer view of the document is made available, this cannot be verified."[/i]</blockquote> [QUOTE][qb][b]USS ATLANTI(S) NCC-40657[/b] This ship is mentioned on a computer screen seen in "Conspiracy". Even if the name is not 100% certain, the registry is.[/qb][/QUOTE]I'll have to check on this... [QUOTE][qb][b]USS CHALLENGER NCC-2032[/b] I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.[/qb][/QUOTE]Same response as for the [i]Ahwahnee[/i]. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS CONCORD (E) NCC-68711[/b] According to StarTrek.Com, Concorde is the correct spelling for this ship.[/qb][/QUOTE]According to the script, it's [i]Concord[/i], (for the Revolutionary War battle site) and this is supported by the Encyclopedia and Worf's pronunciation of the name. Not to mention that, as a general rule, people at startrek.com = idiots. (Although, admittedly, the 'e' spelling also appeared in at least one place in the Encyclopedia as well.) [QUOTE][qb][b]USS CONSTITUTION NCC-1700[/b] On my ship list, I don't list the registry. My reason is this-the only known and recorded source for the connection between the name 'Constitution' and 'NCC-1700' are works authored by Franz Joseph and later discredited by Gene Roddenberry. There is no recorded connection between the name and registry in the first series. In the post-discredition process, a starship bearing the registry 'NCC-1700' is seen in "Datalore". She bears no name. So, for my records, there are two ships: the USS Constitution with a registry preceding NCC-956 and an unnamed Connie with the registry NCC-1700.[/qb][/QUOTE]Well a monitor in STIII, lifted from FJ's Tech Manual, shows the ship labeled NCC-1700 under the heading "CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER: [i]Constitution[/i]-class Starships." That seems to imply that this is the prototype being displayed. And that's the same as the [i]Hermes[/i], [i]Saladin[/i], and [i]Ptolemy[/i] screens, too. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS COURAGEOUS NCC-1861[/b] I see you are adding information from sketches and scripts. This ship is a sketch of a Soyuz Class starship located either in the Art of Star Trek or TNG: Continuing Missions. I don't see an issue in including her in a ship list and it's nice, I think, to have an additional name to the Soyuz Class.[/qb][/QUOTE]It's a maybe...but as I recall the name and number are just from some SOTSF ship that the artist drew over to show what the [i]Soyuz[/i] would look like. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS DEFIANT NCC-75633[/b] My opinion is stated on this ship. :) [/qb][/QUOTE]Yeah, I know...[i]BUT THE FOOTAGE![/i] :( [QUOTE][qb][b]USS EAGLE NCC-956[/b] This is the second ship mentioned in the episode "Amok Time", not the 'Excalibur'.[/qb][/QUOTE]No, the [i]Excalibur[/i] and [i]Endeavor[/i] are the ships from the "Amok Time" first-draft script. The [i]Eagle[/i] is from the "Journey to Babel" draft along with the [i]Essex[/i]. But you're right in pointing out that I forgot to make note of it either way. Fixed. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS ENDEAVOUR NCC-1718[/b] How did you create this connection between name and registry?[/qb][/QUOTE]It's from Greg Jein's [i]T-Negative[/i] article where most of the other Connie registries from the Encyclopedia are drawn from. Since we've got that NCC-1718 and the name [i]was[/i] in a script, I figured what the hell... (It's all in green anyway...) [QUOTE][qb][b]USS ESSEX NCC-1697[/b] Is the name supposed to be green? Is the registry supposed to be yellow? Is the class supposed to be gray?[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, yes, and yes. Fixed, fixed, and fixed. ;) [QUOTE][qb][b]USS FEDERATION NCC-2100[/b] Your selection of yellow for the starships USS Hermes NCC-585, USS Ptolemy NCC-3801, and USS Saladin NCC-500 would seen to indicate your preference for these ships to be canonical. If so, then this ship, too, must be in yellow. She is shown briefly in the TSFS on a computer display.[/qb][/QUOTE]Nope. And believe me, it think it would be [i]SWEET[/i] if she were canon. But the display in question is only the dotted-line "under construction" pic and makes no mention of the name [i]Federation[/i] or the NCC. :( [QUOTE][qb][b]USS INTREPID NCC-1631[/b] The correct registry for this ship is NCC-1831.[/qb][/QUOTE]No it isn't. The most recent examination of DVD screencaps has yielded the same number that Greg Jein's examination of film cells back in the 70s did: NCC-1631. See the 5th paragraph of [URL=http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002154;p=5#000063]this post[/URL], et al. I agree with the poster. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS LEXINGTON NCC-14427[/b] This ship didn't appear in "Thine Own Self". Her succesor, the Nebula Lexington, did. Wouldn't it be easier to state her as a ship from the Encyclopedia and say she is a predecessor to the Nebula Lexington?[/qb][/QUOTE]Possibly. That's one of the few things that's left me scratching my head about what to do with it. I'm as yet undecided. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS MAGELLAN NCC-3069[/b] There appears to be a basic rule in Star Trek: canon overrules all other sources. In the battle plans to retake DS9, there are the 'shadows' of classes of ships engaged in the campaign. The Constellation is not among these classes. Ergo, the Magellan in the episode "Sacrifice of Angels" is not a Constellation. She could be of any one of the classes mentioned, just not a Constellation.[/qb][/QUOTE]Interesting logic... Don't know whether I agree or not. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS MELBOURNE NCC-62043[/b] I happen to think there is only one Melbourne and she is Excelsior. The Nebula Melbourne I see as a nameless casuality in the battle.[/qb][/QUOTE]Again, I can't decide on how to best handle this issue. For now (though it's damned unwieldly) I leave them both. [QUOTE][qb][b]USS PROMETHEUS NX-74913[/b] I am of the camp which supports this connection, not the other connection.[/qb][/QUOTE]This note from the main body of my shiplist says it all: <blockquote>[i]"The dedication plaque and master systems display of the ship show a registry of NX-74913, which is inconsistent with the NX-59650 number seen clearly on the vessel�s hull in �Message in a Bottle.� The reason for this is that Mike Okuda of the Art Department created the plaque and display without knowing about the number generated by the Visual Effects Department. All official sources (Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Fact Files, Starship Spotter, and the official Star Trek website at [URL=http://www.startrek.com]www.startrek.com[/URL]) seem to agree that the 59650 number, much more visible to viewers, is the more definitive. Even Rick Sternbach, the designer of the vessel, acknowledges this in an article in the March 2003 issue of Star Trek: The Magazine."[/i]</blockquote> [QUOTE][qb][b]USS RELATIVITY NCV-474439[/b] This ship is missing from your list.[/qb][/QUOTE]It's intentionally missing because the [i]Relativity[/i]'s dedication plaque says it was only the seventh ship to bear it's name. Since a change in the alpahbet is ruled out because the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are all present elsewhere on the plaque, I reason that it must be a change in the registry system that's to blame. I guess for some reason SF eventually stops issuing suffix-less regs altogether and starts each ship line off with -A. :confused: [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3