posted
I recently thought up this idea while working over one of my starship lists, which was listed in order or registry number. I came upon two ships, the USS Melbourne NCC-62043 and the USS Bellerephon NCC-62048. Both these ships were destroyed at Wolf 359. Melbourne, as well all should know, was built as an Excelsior and Nebula class model, though we all know now that it's basically meant to be the Excelsior only. But I was thinking about the Nebula here more. Notice the registry numbers. 62043 and 62048. Nearly identical. In order to make the first into the second, you'd just have to close the circles on the 3, and it becomes an 8. So I got a theory. The Nebula class Melbourne, seen in "Best of Both Worlds", and as we have now found out as wreckage in "Emissary", is actually the USS Bellerephon. If you look at this image of the Melbourne, you see the final number the 3, is not fully visible. One could, quite possibly, mistake it for an 8.
Now, you might quickly point out that the Bellerephon was seen intact attacking the Borg Cube, and had the sensor pod instead of the micro-nacelles, which is quite clear. But, I don't think the FX guys cared much about it, since the wrecked version would barely be seen (Heck, it took us thing long to find it!). Therefore, Michael Okuda, in writing the Star Trek Encyclopedia, knew that there was a Nebula in "Emissary", and wanted to cover-up the "two Melbournes" mistake. Therefore, he made the Nebula class Melbourne, changed the last digit from a 3 to an 8 (since anyone looking at the Nebula model wouldn't be able to tell the difference), and renamed her Bellerephon!
------------------ Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?" Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"
posted
Something weird about those images. Where is the *name* of the ship?
If the model really lacked a name, then I would be all for calling the ship NCC-62048, USS Unknown. The ventral "3" could simply be a damaged "8" with white instead of black charring on it. Or even a damaged "9" for that matter.
I'm not very fond of calling her USS Bellerophon, though, since we saw rather clearly that the ship of that name had the triangular pod and not the mini-nacelles. If we start using the sort of resolution that reveals the registries, then we have to accept that this resolution reveals the difference between the pod and the nacelles, too.
BTW, did we see the name or the rego of the "real" Bellerophon in sufficient detail? Does a DVD mercilessly nail down that NCC as 62048?
Anyway, here's my latest attempt at juggling the names, numbers and models:
Excelsior = NCC-62043, USS Melbourne Nebula wreck = NCC-62049, USS Leaky, uh, Leahy Nebula big model = NCC-62048, USS Bellerophon
posted
You're writing this from work, aren't you, Timo? I know I am!
------------------ So, how's that Survivor-contest coming along, Newt? -Well not very well at the MOMENT, everyone seems to have died. -Gee, that's bad. Those Aliens bugging you yet? -Not really, they mostly come at night mostly...
posted
Also, perhaps Okuda didn't just try to retroactively patch up the "2 Melbournes" mess. Perhaps Legato came to ask him about Wolf 359 models and Okuda pointed those to him. Legato then sez "We can't use the Melbourne, we need close-ups on her and that model isn't good enough." Mike goes "Use, uh, use the Excelsior then, I'll re-interpret the Nebula as, uh, USS Bellerophon and do a little trick with the rego. See, it can become 62048 rather easily."
Legato then goes film the battle, and his notes proudly read "ships in the battle: USS Bellerophon, NCC-62048, Nebula class". So the new Nebula model is thus labeled... even though this *isn't* exactly what Okuda wanted.
Just a theory. I don't know if Mike did anything of the sort. From his previous posts, I gathered there was no big and memorable story associated with the registries and names, just a typical "Okay, we have to change the model, let's hope nobody notices" thing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
