posted
Using Reverend's original Excel shiplist as my template, I've been able to add almost every on-screen ship or display of a ship with an NCC number in a chronological order. However, I need some help with a TOS reference chart, namely this one, from Patrick Kovacs' site:
Here's what I came up with, starting from the top of the list.
NCC 1709 (Lexington, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1831 (unknown) NCC 1703 (Hood, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1672 (Exeter, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1894 (unknown) NCC 1697 (unknown) NCC 1701 (Enterprise) NCC 1718 (unknown) NCC 1885 (unknown) NCC 1700 (Constitution)
My main question, of course, is if I have the numbers right. It's not the clearest chart to make out, but I tried my best to distinguish between the 6's & the 8's, but I could still be wrong.
My second question is, was there another TOS chart which showed NCC numbers, or was this the only one?
And my final question is if anyone has a pic of the NCC chart from ST:VI, which supposedly showed such ships as the Korolev, the Ahwahnee, the John Muir, etc. and their registries.
Thanks,
Mark
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
NCC 1709 (Lexington, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1831 (unknown) Maybe it's 1631, the Intrepid NCC 1703 (Hood, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1672 (Exeter, according to the 'pedia) NCC 1894 (unknown) Maybe 1664 pegged as Excalibur by Okuda NCC 1697 (unknown) Wasn't this pegged as Essex by Okuda? NCC 1701 (Enterprise) NCC 1718 (unknown)
NCC 1885 (unknown) NCC 1700 (Constitution)
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
I think some of these were the registeries that okuda used when assigning them to the constitutions, so he may have misread them which explains why there are a number of similar...numbers.
posted
Most of the Connie registries in the Encyclopedia come off of that chart from "Court Martial" (TOS). It was Greg Jein who originally matched those numbers to Connies back in 1975, and his list was published in the magazine T-Negative. (Incidentally, that was the same year that Franz Joseph's book containing his own numbering scheme was published, which has become so popular with Fandom-inclined folks. Even Spikey uses it, though it's nowhere even close to being either canon or official.) Here's a helpful guide: http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/con_reg.html
Anyways, the official Paramount (Okuda's) list is mainly based off of Jein's list, with a few alterations like the Eagle and Endeavour, which for some reason were assigned different numbers by Okuda for TUC.
So that chart represents as follows (though the quality of this screencap may not have tipped you off to all of them):
*There has been some confusion over whether the Intrepid is NCC-1631 or NCC-1831. From some screenshots it looks like it could be either one. The Encyclopedias list both numbers in various places (1831 in Connie entry, 1631 in Intrepid entry and shiplist.) But all other sources (Chronology and official website) list 1631 exclusively, and that's the number from Jein's original list, so I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 1631.
To answer your second question, I believe this was the only TOS registry chart seen, though according to Okuda there was a screen in "Space Seed" that showed the Constitution's reg to be NCC-1700, but I've never been able to spot it.
Thirdly, I've never heard of or seen any picture of the actual okudagram from TUC, but a reproduction of it's contents (supposedly furnished by Okuda himself) was in Bjo Trimble's Concordance. Here is that information:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --Phillip K. Dick
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I hardly think i could win in a battle between myself, and Greg Jein, Mike Okuda, Doug Drexler, Denise Okuda, and everyone else who has subscribed to that interpretation and would use it in future works. I resign. Checkmate.
What good would it do me now to say that Jein was wrong, 27 years ago. The damage to Trek registry continuity has been done. The only thing that could help now is to explain it (The CaptainMike SemiSequential Registry Theory��™) and move on.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Given that it's in exactly zero live-action episodes or films, it is decidedly not canon. Do you really think Paramount is "officially maintaining" anything? Of course not. It's just like the people who think that Paramount has some great list of what's canon and what isn't that the writers follow. They wouldn't even give the issue a second thought if fanboys didn't keep pestering about it. Mike Okuda stuck the registry list in a book since his art pal Greg Jein came up with it and that's about as far as it goes. With an incredibly large likelihood of never visiting the twenty-third century again in canon Star Trek, it seems pretty sure that there will never be canon to support the Jein sceme. I, therefore, reject it for the time being.
As to your overwhelming opposition, CaptainMike; well, they'll never know if you just quietly dissent.
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: Given that it's in exactly zero live-action episodes or films, it is decidedly not canon. Do you really think Paramount is "officially maintaining" anything? Of course not. It's just like the people who think that Paramount has some great list of what's canon and what isn't that the writers follow. They wouldn't even give the issue a second thought if fanboys didn't keep pestering about it. Mike Okuda stuck the registry list in a book since his art pal Greg Jein came up with it and that's about as far as it goes. With an incredibly large likelihood of never visiting the twenty-third century again in canon Star Trek, it seems pretty sure that there will never be canon to support the Jein sceme. I, therefore, reject it for the time being.
Umm...so what exactly do you think the www.startrek.com website is? A figment of the fans' imaginations? The very fact that such a site exists, and that there have even been such publications as the Encyclopedia, proves that Paramount DOES keep track of this stuff. (Granted, as we all have seen, not without a lapse here and there... )
For the last time, canon is not only what is onscreen, but also anything additional that represents Paramount's official view of the Star Trek universe.
And issues of official viewpoint aside, the fact is that this number scheme is the ONLY one for which there is any kind of onscreen support. All of these registries have been seen in the show. A number of them have been definitely matched with their respective ship names on the show. True, some of the accepted matchings have not been explicitly made onscreen. But at least it fits with what was onscreen. However, there is NO onscreen support for ANY of the Franz Joseph numbers, excepting of course for the obvious NCC-1700, NCC-1701, NCC-1710, NCC-1017, and NCC-1371.
As you said, there is very little chance of a revisitation of the time period in question. However, while you say that means we'll not be seeing any further support of these numbers, I maintain that there is no need of any. And what it also means is that we'll (hopefully) not be seeing any contradictions of them.
As non-sensical as it may seem, it's best to stick to the officially-sanctioned numbers. It leaves fewer unsightly blank spaces in our shiplists.
-MMoM
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Don't confuse 'official' with 'canon', Mim. Canon is what's only been seen on screen. And why are you so adamant that everything in the Encyclopedia is canon, when you've admitted that it has so many outright mistakes/inconsistencies?
posted
Yes, there are mistakes in the Encyclopedia. But that's all they are: mistakes. Just about all of them are simply typos. (2 digits flipped in a registry number, a name misspelled, things like that. When you're typing a lot of numbers, don't you sometimes make an error?) It still doesn't invalidate the information that's presented.
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Monkey-boy: Is that signature really necessary? On my screen, it comes out to a dozen lines, devoted entirely to bashing one person. I'm not saying you can't post that link or quote, but can't you shorten it all a bit?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
