capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Well, unless they really didnt bother to relabel the model, all of the stock Excelsior footage orginated in Encounter at Farpoint, with the Enterprise and Excelsior in orbit shot, and the alongside shot (that end with them swinging away from each other).. so this would mean all the Excelsior footage from EaF, WNOHGB, Tinman, BoBW was 42296 (or 2000 if they didnt relabel).
The model itself however should have been labeled 2544 for the appearance as the Repulse in 'The Child' (which i dont believe was ever reused as stock bacuse the ships were stopped, rather than in motion like the more versatile EaF footage). Of course I'm assuming they relabeled it since it was a new shot created specifically for that episode, which they did relabel the shuttle model 2544 for.
After that, i cant recall any 'new' Excelsior appearances up until 'Emissary' where it was the Melbourne.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Just to clear things up: There are TWO Excelsior stock shots we see throughout TNG:
1. USS Hood, NCC-42296. First seen in "Encounter at Farpoint", then afterwards as the Fearless in "Where No One Has Gone Before" and the Cairo in "Chain of Command", among appearances. The shot is a travelling shot with the Excelsior model on the STARBOARD side of the Enterprise, then it peels off and vanishes into the top of the screen as the camera follows the Enterprise from left to right. I'm fairly certain that this model is indeed marked as NCC-42296.
2. USS Repulse, NCC-2544. First seen in "The Child", and subsequently as the Potempkin in "Ethics", Admiral Hanson's flagship in "Best of Both Worlds", the Crazy Horse in "The Pegasus", etc. Contrary to the previous post, it *is* a travelling shot, following both the Enterprise and the Excelsior model from left to right - the Excelsior is first seen in an almost dead-on side elevation, and by the end of the shot we usually see the aft undercut. You can pick this shot out easily as it tends to be much more blue than the first shot, and the ship is travelling on the E-D's low PORT side. In its original appearance, this shot was complemented with another one seeing the Repulse's secondary hull and nacelles through the doors of the E-D's Shuttlebay Two.
Interestingly enough, on at least one occasion we've seen the show use BOTH shots to represent the same ship: one for when someone's beaming aboard, and the other for when the ship leaves. For this to be correct, the Excelsior class ship would have to be travelling in a parallel course, then for some reason switch to the other side of the Enterprise, travel along there for a while, and THEN leave. What's up with that?
Speaking of registries on ship models, I've seen some screen caps of the DS9 battle footage in various episodes, and I've noticed that it seems the Galaxy class ships are nameless and don't even have a number. What's up with that?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
With the exception of the USS Galaxy, NONE of the GCS in DS9's sixth or seventh seasons had markings. As Mojo pointed out earlier, in Trek CG effects unless the model could have the registry clearly visible, odds are that they won't bother. Digital Muse did most, if not all of the GCS in those episodes, and obviously didn't.
The *story* reason behind that can be found in the DS9TM: Sternbach establishes that frequently at the shipyards they rushed lots of ships out without bothering to properly christen them with real names or NCC numbers. Odds are they had numbers, at least, but they didn't bother to paint the hulls properly. Isn't this roughly analogous to all the hundreds of small combatant vessels it the World Wars that only got a number?
Mark
[ January 28, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
posted
That seems sorta...lame. No offense to the modelers, of course.
I mean, it's not like we can actually read the name or number clearly. They could have just used one medium sized name like "Venture" or "Trinculo" right?
Why wasn't this the case for the Mirandas and Excelsiors, too? They labeled the Majestic, Hood, and the Valley Forge...
posted
The Sitak and Majestic got labelled in all likelihood because they were front-and-centre and a missing registry would look a little jarring.
Stipes and Digital Muse went out of their way in "Tears..." to do ship names, based on the subsequent online postings and the general virtual self-backslapping.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
As for the combined use of the two stock Excelsior shots, the explanation seems pretty simple: After X hours of flight, the sunny sides of the ships began to get a bit hot, so the helmsmen nodded to each other over the comm line and performed a 180 degree roll in perfect synchrony...
The cameraman (with a side-mounted camera shooting at straight angles to the flightpath of his camera boat) sighed and performed a 180 degree yaw to compensate, then noticed that this would not only mean the ships were now going left when they had been going right in the previous shot, but also that he'd have to fly backwards the rest of the trip, sighed again, and piloted his little camera boat to the other side of the starship pair in a wide arc. And then the bastards rolled AGAIN.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
