Talk:USS Hood (Excelsior class)
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
I found some Excelsior studio model pics labeled USS Hood NCC-2541. This indicates that Michael Okuda must've completely missed the ILM labeling use of the model for early TNG appearances (that footage was shot for "Encounter at Farpoint", before the regular TNG Season 1 effects company came onboard) -- Okuda assigned Hood the registry NCC-42296 commonly seen in his starship Mission Status graphics, and such. Since the Hood was accidentally labeled with Lakota's registry in its CGI appearances (on DS9), the commonly accepted "NCC-42296" has possibly never been seen onscreen except in that display graphic, and been twice contradicted -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:21, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] USS Hood in Final Unity
In the TNG PC game A Final Unity if the Enterprise D is destroyed, a message plays where a starfleet admiral says that the ship is overdue, he fears the worst and is dispatching the USS Hood to investigate. In realize this is non canon just though I'd mention it anyways.
[edit] PNA inaccurate
Following up on Mike's comment from above - can someone clean up this page? Even if there is evidence for two Excelsior-class ships with this name but different registry numbers, it can't possibly be that both ships were the one USS Hood seen in the TNG-pilot, right?
This either needs to be split up consistently (if there even is some way to do that without considerable overlap), or the two sections need to be merged, stating that both registry numbers were in use for an Excelsior-class vessel, and that we don't know where to make a split... -- Cid Highwind 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The "third USS Hood" was added in this edit: [1] -- Cid Highwind 17:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What I get from the article text is that:
- there was an Excelsior-class USS Hood seen throughout TNG, no registry visible
- during that time, the production model might have been labelled with the registry number "NCC-2541"
- there was an Excelsior-class USS Hood seen in DS9, where the registry "NCC-42768" was visible
- the USS Lakota uses the same registry number
- In Nemesis, there was a USS Hood with the registry "NCC-42296"
- ...but we didn't see its class.
- +NEW: The Starship Mission Status links "NCC-42296" with "Excelsior-class"
Is this correct, or am I missing any information? -- Cid Highwind 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed from article
| |
| Caption: | USS Hood. |
| Affiliation: | Federation Starfleet |
| Class: | Excelsior |
| Launched: | late 23rd century |
| Status: | Decommissioned (2361) |
The second starship Hood was a Excelsior-class Federation starship and a contemporary of the USS Repulse (NCC-2544), in service from the late 23rd century through the early-to-mid 24th century.
She was launched in the original configuration of the Excelsior class with the single impulse crystal and old-style aft cargo bay at the stern, possibly before the USS Excelsior (NX-2000) herself was relaunched in a slightly different configuration for her first active-duty mission under Captain Hikaru Sulu in 2290. (TOS movie: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
[edit] Name
Shouldn't this be named USS Hood (NCC-42296)? --From Andoria with Love 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not until we figure out what information should be in USS Hood (NCC-2541). --OuroborosCobra talk 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've since gone ahead and reduced this whole "2541"-issue to a background note, because there doesn't seem to be any mention of it as a different ship, on-screen. The Hood obviously was meant to be the same ship from Farpoint to Nemesis, so we probably should have only one article for it. However, the registry number did change, several times, and while "42296" is the most prominent one, I'm not sure if we should use it as part of the article title, at the moment. Any reasons for/against? -- Cid Highwind 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize the registry was disputed elsewhere. I just saw that it was called USS Hood (NCC-42296) and figured it should be moved there. I didn't actually read the entire article, come on, that would be nuts. :P But, yeah, if there were other numbers then just keep it where it is. --From Andoria with Love 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reading before posting? Yeah, that would be crazy, wouldn't it? ;) Anyway, I just created redirects for both suggested titles, so that information will be available in any case. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)