I was bored, so I came up with this idea to discuss
So we all know that the BoBW Chekov model NCC-57302 was renamed the Tolstoy in post-production because the name sounded too cute. And even though the ship was clearly named after Pavel Chekov, the name "Tolstoy" was used as an analogue to "Checkov."
The proto-Nebula class Melbourne NCC-62043 was also one of the wrecked ships. Because this was a study model made from an Enterprise-D kit, there were many differences between this model and the eventual filming model built for "The Wounded," although the "Reliant-ized Galaxy" structure was basically the same.
When the Nebula Melbourne was replaced in "canon" by the Excelsior Melbourne, a funny thing happened: When the first edition of the Encyclopedia came out, the Chekov wasn't mentioned at all, and the Tolstoy was given the class name Rigel and the registry of NCC-62095. Now Okuda could have just given the Tolstoy the class name Springfield and the Chekov's registry, but he didn't, even though the Tolstoy name basically superseded the model (just like how the name "Centaur" supercedes the Buckner model, even though they share the same registry). Instead, he gave the Tolstoy a registry number that visually looks very similar to 62043, especially since the "5" was missing in the battle damage and only half of the "9" is visible.
So here's my question: Since the later filming model of the Nebula class looks significantly different in proportion if not in overall shape from the BoBW study model, and that the study was invalidated by the Excelsior Melbourne, do you think this was a subtle move on Okuda's part to retcon the Tolstoy (and the Rigel class in general) to look like that study model?
My take: Short of actually bothering Okuda with this esoteric question, I think that this scenario is entirely possible. While the study model is structurally very similar to the eventual Nebula class filming model, the differences are really no different from, say, the changes between the Miranda and the Soyuz classes. The main difference of course (aside from the differences in the saucer between the Galaxy and Nebula) is that the study model has no interchangeable pod, a staple of the Nebula class. Instead it has two small nacelles, making it a four-nacelled ship, which no known Nebula ever was.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I always noted that in "Emissary" the Nebula-class Bellerophon had the registry NCC-62048, and figured that was a similar subtle retcon to the one you postulate. (i.e., the BOBW "Melbourne" wreckage was "actually" the Bellerophon's.)
As for "bothering Okuda," fair call on your part but I doubt it would be that much of a bother simply to be asked. He, like Sternbach, posts on the TrekBBS from time to time and doesn't seem to mind such fannish inquiries as these. He's a pretty big fan of the minutiae himself.
I'd still like a straight answer on whether/which classes and registries were actually made up for the Encyclopedia or/and which actually come from onscreen and background materials that we simply haven't identified yet. Of course, such an answer is not likely forthcoming. I asked him once, and his understandably-not-particularly-precise reply was something to the effect that "most of them" come from onscreen sources.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
i want the first TNG-reboot movie to be set around the BOBW episodes... that would solve everything... maybe they can use the cast from the latest TNG-Pr0n 'film'...
seriously, considering how vague the imagry of the grave yard scene in BOBW, Part 2 was back in... 1990? 1991? from a TNG-R project POV... the ships in the background (the springfield perhaps or maybe the round thing to the right of It) could be imaged to be the Excelsior-Mel thus unfucking up things for horny fan bois like us?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
I always noted that in "Emissary" the Nebula-class Bellerophon had the registry NCC-62048, and figured that was a similar subtle retcon to the one you postulate. (i.e., the BOBW "Melbourne" wreckage was "actually" the Bellerophon's.)
That's true; I hadn't thought of that. However, that still doesn't reconcile the differences in design of the two ships.
quote:As for "bothering Okuda," fair call on your part but I doubt it would be that much of a bother simply to be asked. He, like Sternbach, posts on the TrekBBS from time to time and doesn't seem to mind such fannish inquiries as these. He's a pretty big fan of the minutiae himself.
What I meant was that when the whole Wolf 359 Project was going on and Timo was interviewing him about it, all he remembered at the time was that there was no specific model built for the Tolstoy because that name was only changed in post. If he meant for the proto-Melbourne to be the "new" Tolstoy after the fact, I'm sure he would have made a comment to that fact then. Of course no one actually asked him that question directly, either.
(Now what would really be nice is if, when they reused the proto-Nebula in "Emissary" as a background ship, they had removed the name "Melbourne" and replaced it with "Tolstoy" to differentiate it from the Excelsior. Rob Legato mentions something to that effect in the DS9 Companion, but his memory could be faulty too, from my experience emailing him. If only the proto-Nebula model still existed so we could see what was written on it...)
Again, this is just a thought experiment, getting people's opinions as to whether the proto-Nebula is different enough to warrant it being a different class.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I kind of think of it as similar to when the Enterprise CVA(N)-65 was built. Originally she was considered a 'revised' Kitty Hawk class carrier. Her overall layout was about the same though longer and the most distinguishing feature being her island. Totally new propulsion system eliminated the need for the canted smokestack. Same with the 'Improved' Nimitz class ships. Perhaps we have an 'Improved' Nebula class.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
what ever became of the models used in BOBW? were they sold, given to folks or destroyed (as i suspect)? perhaps someone can ask TPTB?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
As far as we know, not a single one exists in the Star Trek production archives, since if they did, they probably would have been sold at auction with the rest of the stuff.
It's possible that one or two were given away (taken? stolen?) by production staff, but we have no evidence of that. Also, Greg Jein could still possess the two models he built, but again we haven't seen them since, and it's not like he has his own website with pics of all the studio models he's built.
There's evidence from the TNG DVDs that the Kyushu survived in the Art Department at least until DS9, since photos were taken of the model for the DVD, and it showed up as a test model docked to one of DS9's pylons in a photograph uncovered some years ago.
[ December 13, 2011, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
There's evidence from the TNG DVDs that the Kyushu survived in the Art Department at least until DS9, since photos were taken of the model for the DVD, and it showed up as a test model docked to one of DS9's pylons in a photograph uncovered some years ago.
So we know that at least the Nebula Melbourne and the Kyushu survived at least until the premiere of Deep Space Nine. They were most likely reused in Legato's unused battle scene footage, along with the battle-damaged Reliant from TWOK (from my correspondence with Legato).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: There's evidence from the TNG DVDs that the Kyushu survived in the Art Department at least until DS9, since photos were taken of the model for the DVD, and it showed up as a test model docked to one of DS9's pylons in a photograph uncovered some years ago.
Ah yes. Ever run across old posts and think, "boy was I an idiot"? Search "phantom New Orleans" for just one of MANY examples why I do.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey, I jut had to re-read a bunch of lod posts in that ;Liberia" thread which was ressurected- I neither recall nor really recognise the posts I made.
I guess I still agree with there. Sorta.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm just having to admit that I have at times been kind of a douche in the way I post on here, and it's all the more embarrassing in cases such as this, where my position was so clearly, undeniably WRONG... Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
speaking about models, I own the saucer piece wreckage of the USS Chekov from Mike Okudas personal collection, so that ship they did break up.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Starship Freak: That's awesome! There was a rumor I'd heard many years ago that the remaining model that they used in the shot was given to Walter Koenig as a gift, but short of finding Walter's email address and asking him about it, I'd take this info with a grain of salt.
And if you're ever in the mood to take some pics of your prized collectible, I'd be ever so grateful (after all, I think I've done my part over the years in uncovering pics of rare models )
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I'm just having to admit that I have at times been kind of a douche in the way I post on here, and it's all the more embarrassing in cases such as this, where my position was so clearly, undeniably WRONG...
Well, at least you've learned something in ten years...
Seriously, looking back through that old "City of New Orleans" post from a decade ago brings back memories. I really wish that unused battle footage had been kept in some way, but if we haven't seen it by now, it's probably history. I do know for a fact that if there was a model built to represent the Gage (and I'm pretty certain now that there wasn't), it couldn't have been built from an Ambassador Ent-C kitbash, because the Ent-C model kit was only manufactured a year before DS9 ended. And the only way a model could have been labeled "Tolstoy" is if someone labeled one of the models that already existed...hey, isn't that what this OP is about? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: speaking about models, I own the saucer piece wreckage of the USS Chekov from Mike Okudas personal collection, so that ship they did break up.
WE DEMAND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT.
(please!) Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
It's this piece, right? Looks like it's what Okuda cut away from the model's saucer to "battle damage" it:
Isn't that the piece used in both BOBW and DS9 pilot?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Nope, it's what Okuda cut off of the Chekov. The rest of the ship was filmed, while he kept this piece for himself.
Granted there probably won't be anything new to see even if Starship Freak takes more pics, but it's nice to have multiple views.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It's this piece, right? Looks like it's what Okuda cut away from the model's saucer to "battle damage" it:
It's amazing just how crappy that looks- no interior at all- not even cardboard interior!
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Yup, that´s the one! And I asked Bernd to relay an informationrequest to Mike O, and basically he confirmed what has already been stated above. He simulated battledamage by cutting away the piece I then bought. And the pic MMoM posted is basically the best you all will get. I could take pic of the other side of the saucer after christmas, but it´s basically same-same. I don´t care though, just owning the piece is great ;-)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Regarding the opening post, I think the subtle move idea is far too subtle. While subtle and never-commented-upon retcon-fu is possible in some quarters, we seldom see that in Trek.
Incidentally, the New Orleans class is still perhaps my favorite design, would've made an awesome Voyager, and so on . . . even though for the life of me I still have never come up with a satisfactory idea for what the devil those three extra doodads are, and don't even like the fact that the bottom one is there at all.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
they didnt even need them honestly, G2K. Wasnt the story behind the placement of those markers was to make the ship less Galaxy-like when viewed? its not like you could be confused from the crappy still captures that might have existed before peps posted better pics... If any TNG-R work happens, they can take a lot of liberties with the designs. Of course, when you consider the common meshes used with the various video games (not to mention what STO will do to make the design 'semi-kinda' cannon when/if they introduce the ships as they hope/plan to, according to STO-Wiki)...
and i agree on the like, of all the kitbashes made, the New Orleans-Class is a fav because it is so Galaxy-like in poportions (thus the reason those silly Torpeado Markers were put on the model in the first place) made it a PERFECT Frigate to the Galaxy's Dreadnaught...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Well the top ones you can at least rationalize as shuttlebays, even cool through-deck cans-of-whoopass ones. After all, if Voyager can fit the Delta Flyer in her little behind, then surely you could fit whole fleets in those.
But the bottom one just seems like an afterthought warp core catcher's mitt.
Henceforth I shall simply pretend the bottom one is a special one-off transportation rig for some other New Orleans' port shuttlebay, and that the ship usually doesn't have it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Liiking at the saucer's cureve compared to the lifeboat squares..do we get anything like an official size?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)