Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » USS Hathaway and schematic differences (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: USS Hathaway and schematic differences
Starship Freak
Active Member
Member # 293

 - posted      Profile for Starship Freak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I noticed in "Peak performance" that the msd-schem and a sideview of the Hathaway seem somewhat different. In my opinion, the msd shows a slightly longer ship and shorter nacellestruts. It might be the cameraangle, but it sure does look different

MSD

USS Hathaway

--------------------
"The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something."
Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"

Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The screen in the screengrab is at a oblique angle to the camera- I think that's all it is.

Man, that second screengrab really shows how laughably mis-scaled the hathaway was...awful compositing there.

Stuff like that is why I long for an effects upgate to TNG like TOS got- the scaling thing and the insane use of stock footage make some old TNG episodes just painful to watch instead of exciting.

[fanboy]
Also, I want to see the Hathaway really fight in the mock battle- with it's extra five saucer mounted phasers!
[/fanboy]

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mars Needs Women
Sexy Funmobile
Member # 1505

 - posted      Profile for Mars Needs Women     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The remastered edition of Peak Performance also featured a CGI model of the Hathaway, which has some differences from the physical model.
Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only in a couple of shots, though. Most of the time it's the physical model. That shot of the ship being towed is also a reused shot of the Stargazer. I have no idea why the Enterprise should be towing the Hathaway at that point, and it vanishes shortly after when the Enterprise goes to warp.

Saying all that, I think the MSD does show a much longer ship. I agree it's not clear though, so I might have to give Peak Performance a watch. Which is good, because Peak Performance is awesome.

(I need a blu-ray player on my PC to take screenshots. I don't believe there's anyway to get screenshots off a PS3, is there?)

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looking again, is the scale THAT wrong? I always thought that the Galaxy-class nacelles were roughly the same length as the refit-Constitution nacelles.

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Dukhat
Hater of Stock Footage
Member # 341

 - posted      Profile for Dukhat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:

Man, that second screengrab really shows how laughably mis-scaled the hathaway was...awful compositing there.

I choose to interpret the VFX as having the Hathaway much closer to the camera, and the Enterprise's tractor beam is coming from the side of the ship rather than right behind. I can understand why they did it that way though...if the scales were correct the Hathaway would be too small in the shot.

--------------------
"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
Starship Freak
Active Member
Member # 293

 - posted      Profile for Starship Freak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, notice the underbelly of the actual ship, the "cannons" or whatever it is, sensors?, the do not appear on the msd.

--------------------
"The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something."
Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"

Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Dukhat
Hater of Stock Footage
Member # 341

 - posted      Profile for Dukhat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starship Freak:
Also, notice the underbelly of the actual ship, the "cannons" or whatever it is, sensors?, the do not appear on the msd.

It's just an inaccurate MSD. The Defiant had an inaccurate MSD when it ws first introduced as well.

--------------------
"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
Starship Freak
Active Member
Member # 293

 - posted      Profile for Starship Freak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, that is true, I remember that msd. However, I also remember the Phase II enterprise msd shown in one of the early star trek films. Perhaps this is a similar case?

--------------------
"The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something."
Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"

Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The difference in those cases (and the Enterprise-B) is that the model was being worked on at the same time as the MSD. For the Hathaway, the model had already existed for over a year.

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
SUPPOSED TO HAVE ICE POWERS!!
Member # 646

 - posted      Profile for The Mighty Monkey of Mim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the screencap it definitely appears to me that the ship is closer to the camera than the Enterprise, and that her bow is angled slightly towards the camera as well. Whether this fully accounts for any discrepancy with the MSD I cannot say.

--------------------
The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.

Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Starship Freak
Active Member
Member # 293

 - posted      Profile for Starship Freak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bow might be angled, but if you look at the nacelles, if the bow was angled much, you would see the nacelles behind a bit more, wouldn´t you?

--------------------
"The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something."
Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"

Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
SUPPOSED TO HAVE ICE POWERS!!
Member # 646

 - posted      Profile for The Mighty Monkey of Mim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I certainly don't think it's angled "much," but it also doesn't look like a dead-on side view either. The Enterprise is pointed slightly away from the camera, and the Hathaway is pointed slightly towards it, the key word being slightly.

--------------------
The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.

Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Looking again, is the scale THAT wrong? I always thought that the Galaxy-class nacelles were roughly the same length as the refit-Constitution nacelles.

No, the Galaxy's nacelles are much longer- and the Constelation's nacelles are even shorter than the Refits- their ends having been chopped off and greebles added to the rear of each instead of the fins...no RCS packages back there either, which is pretty odd.
I guess they just had front wheel drive on that model. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
The difference in those cases (and the Enterprise-B) is that the model was being worked on at the same time as the MSD. For the Hathaway, the model had already existed for over a year.

If you mean the model in the office, that's another kettle of fish- and tat might explain why the MSD is off. The MSD might be based on the office desk model, which is a lot different than the model they made for the Hathaway/Stargazer.
The office model does not have the lower labs with that jutting telescope(?) or the robot model kit...or the five extra phasers on the saucer where the Refit has elevators.

Here's all the reference images of the desktop model-
http://franksavage918.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/stargazer-kitbash-pictorial/

I'm pretty certain most of the small quirks of the shooting model are not present on the desk model- the ventral side of the primary hull in particular seems to be from the ventral saucer of the Refit model, not a second dorsal saucer like the shooting model uses.

Here's some pretty reference pictures of the studio model:
http://starstation.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/stargazer-studio-model/

The robot:
http://starstation.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/stargazer-studio-model/#jp-carousel-2804


YEP- The desk model definitely appears to be longer than the filming model- I think the custom nacelle pylons are the difference- they seem more swept back on the desktop version, which would make the ship not only longer but probably a bit shorter overall.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mars Needs Women
Sexy Funmobile
Member # 1505

 - posted      Profile for Mars Needs Women     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I recall that the Stargazer (both desktop model and studio model) were built with parts from a VF-1 Valkyrie from the anime Super Dimensional Fortress Macross. Years later, on Macross 7, a ship called the Stargazer was featured in an episode. If that's not a reference, it's one hell of a coincidence.
Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3