This is topic This month's Trek Communicator is actually good! in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2343.html

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
This month there's a nice article on the transition between physical models and the CGI ones and features nice pics of many Trek alumni.
Including a great shoot of Dan Curry: sitting next to him on the desk is the model of the USS Curry!
It's a great pic and I'll have to pick up a copy to scan for everyone.

This month's "starship file" is a nice entry on the DY-100 (not that it intrests me, though).
 
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
Sweet. I'd be interested in seeing that piccie of the Curry.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
THe model's actually much smaller than I thought (or Dan's a giant) but it does indeed look to be a 1:100th EXcelsior straight off the shelf.

Truthfully, it looks almost exactly like Soundeffect's model.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I just went over to the bookstore to look at said pic. It's way too small to be of any practical use.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I guess as far as ship scrutinty is concerned, yeah.

I just really like the look on Dan Curry's face with the wrecked ship next to him.
It makes the magazine worthwhile.

The mag also shows a nice view of the Andorian bridge from their upcoming appearance.

The CGI ship files are very nicely rendered, although I really wish they'd go over some ship material not covered in STTM.
Like a nice Valdore article would be great. [Wink]
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
While a bit OT, I should mention that I picked up the Insurrection "movie book" with all thhe behind the scenes stuff and the "Science of Star Trek" both for $4 each at my local Barnes & Noble today (also why I didint buy the mag today).
Looks like they're selling their backstock of Trek specials dirt cheap.
Also for $5 was the Scriptbook on 7 of 9 (I skipped that one though)
If anyone's intrested, there's a few left at mine and I could pick something up if asked.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
quote:
I just went over to the bookstore to look at said pic. It's way too small to be of any practical use.
I also went & bought a copy of this issue. Although I'm guessing Mim's comment to be in regard to the model's name/registry; then yes, the pic is useless. On the other hand, it also tells us other things, the main point of which is that this model is definitely not the same model as the Raging Queen. Dan painted his model to match the normal blue/gray tones of a regular ship; not those godawful yellow/orange colors of the other kitbashes. Also (and again the pic is too small for this to be definite, but I like to think I have good eyes), it looks like Dan was a little more skillful in building & detailing his model than the quick-slap-together-melted POS's that were the other KB's. This is probably why the VFX people had the Curry be seen from up-close
on screen, traveling slow enough to make out detail.

Perhaps if someone who knows Curry's email address could ask him if he still has the model, & if he could take some photos of it. Heck, it worked for DD. If someone hasn't already beaten me to it, I can scan the pic if you'd all like.
 
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
Do scan in the pic, even if it's small.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I was under the impression that the ship was simply named after Curry, not built by him.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It's something he's forced to adopt as his own.
Just as Soundeffect must forever be associated with my Miranda variant USS Loftus, for good or ill.

It's a starship modeler thing: You would'nt understand. [Wink]
 
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
At least the USS Loftus is a REALLY COOL design!

I can live with that! [Smile]

Please do include a scan of the USS Curry, no matter the size. I want to see how close I got with my model.
 
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:

Looks like they're selling their backstock of Trek specials dirt cheap.

Perk??
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
quote:
I was under the impression that the ship was simply named after Curry, not built by him.
OK, technically speaking, I don't know if Dan Curry actually built the model. I was just making an educated guess, since it has his name and is sitting on his desk. Plus the fact that it doesn't look like something an eight-year old kid slapped together, like the other ones did (to give Curry some credit).

So the question remains: What is the true registry for this model? It's obviously not 45617, as was previously believed. Where did that number come from, anyway? The screencap shows what looks like the same registry as the Raging Queen, but we can't be 100% sure. Perhaps Curry (or whoever built the model) drew inspiration from the Queen model, & had the registry either match or be very close.

I'll try to scan the pic tonight.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Shoot. Either I'm doing something wrong, or my scanner is acting up. Either way, the pic didn't come out the way I wanted. Perhaps someone else can scan it better.

For what it's worth:

http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/341/curry
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I'll try and scan it at work tonight.

Nice pic of the Romulan runabout too.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
As I've mentioned in the past, file names are supposed to have extensions. Just so you know.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Fixed.

http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/341/curry.jpg
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Sorry to dredge this up but it hasn't been too long...

I researched the issue and found that the NCC-45617 registry for the Curry originated here on this very board with the speculation of a member named Lindsly. It does not come from a newsgroup post and was never quoted by Okuda, nor by any other insider. Only the name was. Said Flare member watched the episode and tried to make out the number, and that was what he/she came up with. He/She sent this information to D.J. Creighton of the Star Trek Archive and he accepted it without verification, and it spread from there. Needless to say, the latest DVD screencaptures have proven this to be incorrect, showing the Curry with the registry of NCC-42284.

NCC-42284 is the same number borne by the model of a similar configuration to the Curry, labeled Raging Queen, pictured here. This model is theorized to be the ship seen in the background of the same shots of "A Time To Stand" (DS9) where the Curry is seen.

My question is this: What exactly is the relationship between these two models?

I basically see two possibilities:
I really wonder about why they have the same registry if they aren't the same model. One might say that, given the "quality" of the craftmanship present, the modeler was just lazy. But then why are there two different names? And how would they end up with two identical sets of number decals?

Dukhat says he doesn't think the models are the same, but is there any sure-fire way to tell by looking?

-MMoM [Big Grin]

P.S.
Jason: Did you ever scan the pic? It would be nice to have a slightly clearer version.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Lazy modller who reused the same model altered it a little - including a new name and forgot to also change the reg no.?
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I really doubt it's the same model. Painting issues aside, the damage patterns are just too different (i.e. damaged areas on one model do not correspond with areas on the other, & vice versa).

It's no stretch to think that Dan Curry or someone saw the Raging Queen (which, like the other models sans the Centaur, were never meant to be seen that close, as per DD's email to me), liked the design, & made another, similar, more detailed model to be seen closer up.

Of course, all of this can be easily solved if someone found Curry's email address.
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Well, depending on how careful they were when cutting the model up to create the damage, was it possible that they could've put some of it back? (I know, silly idea....)

Personally, I think they're the same model -- I can't think of a reasonable explanation why they would put the same registry number on two separate ships...
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Oh, and Mim: could you provide a linky to the original false speculation about the Curry's registry?
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Lindsly's original post

Thread where Creighton's repetition of the info is discussed

Re: battle damage---
The difference in damage patterns is why I proposed that the model might have been filmed as the (less damaged) Curry and then messed-up some more for the (more damaged) Raging Queen. The Curry doesn't sport any damage that the Queen lacks, does it? Only vice-versa.

-MMoM [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
This is really a non-issue.
When I print decals for my models, I often make two sets so that if one turns out badly or gets maimed during application, I'll still have a backup set.

It often leaves me with a useless set of ship's registry (and it led me to give two of my Ambassadors the Excalibur registry!) so I think this was probably just a left-over decal that they used twice knowing the ship would not be onscreen enough to be ovious.

They werent counting on us Flarite's dogged attention to minute details.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Update: I have confirmation that the Curry's registry number is actually NCC-42254, not 42284 (which would duplicate the Raging Queen's). Dan Curry did build the model, although it is possible that someone else labeled it. However, it was named after its builder.

More on the way...
 
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
 
disturbingly geeky: i feel kind of upset that the NCC-45617 i've believed in for so many years may have been a lie. i must open old photoshop files and relabel graphics now *sulks*
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Fuuuuuck: I just made USS Curry decals for my half completed model last week!
 
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
 
Silly question, the communicator issue, what number and month? I want to order it, because I would like BIG scans of the romulan model, as well as the other models shown, including Curry, and the dy100 pics.
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starship Freak:
Silly question, the communicator issue, what number and month? I want to order it, because I would like BIG scans of the romulan model, as well as the other models shown, including Curry, and the dy100 pics.

Its Issue 148...umm, I think they are published every two months, so it would have been the Jan/Feb 2004 issue. Also, I have it and access to a scanner and have competant scanning zooming cropping skills and I could attempt to acquire better pictures for you (and others) to save you the $6.95 that they are definately not worth coughing up to find.

Also, does anyone have the current issue (with the Cardassians), I am interested in getting a scan of the Galor featured in it?
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Oh, also, the picture of the Curry and the Romulan shuttle (Interceptor perhaps? [Wink] ) are literally 2 - 2.5 inches across to as a fore warning...
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Here you go.
Grainy as can be, but definately bigger:

 -

and

 -
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
The Romabot was a model!?!
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
No. Gary Hutzel is a CGI creation, which explains his wicked-cool skillz.
 
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
 
Thanks futurama guy! Was there pics of DY 100 also?
 
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
And now I'll have to change a few numbers...

I didn't verify the registry either, as all I had was a grainy screen cap and a bad video that didn't allow to read anything. I just trusted that it was a lot better on a good video.
 
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starship Freak:
Thanks futurama guy! Was there pics of DY 100 also?

I'll post them later this weekend....
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
No. Gary Hutzel is a CGI creation, which explains his wicked-cool skillz.

Thanks for your sarcasm.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
What, on Flare? Most unanticipated.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
See? More sarcasm!

Look what you've started, Guardian!
We'll never have another sarcasm-free discussion about a fictional technology again, thanks to you!

I hope you're happy, young man.
 
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
No. Gary Hutzel is a CGI creation, which explains his wicked-cool skillz.

this comment needs more love.

i can't believe theyve been using the CGI Hutzel for so long but they are still sticking with the old physical models for Okuda and Sternbach.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Their files were lost and kitbashed versions were subbed in to keep cost down....
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Their files were lost and kitbashed versions were subbed in to keep cost down....

I thought they were just too lazy to redo an Okuda or Sternbach so they just used an Oberth and a Miranda with extra prongs instead. (With incorrect registeries). [Smile]
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
No, they are just represented as scaled up existing ships:
Okuda is the Perigrine fighter as the 300 meter long Nightingale and Sternbach is a 600 meter KBOP with giant 15 meter tall windows on it.

You, as a fan, are supposed to start threads on discussion forums about how (somehow) it all makes sense.


....somehow.
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
Update: I have confirmation that the Curry's registry number is actually NCC-42254, not 42284 (which would duplicate the Raging Queen's). Dan Curry did build the model, although it is possible that someone else labeled it. However, it was named after its builder.

More on the way...

I'm still waiting. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Sorry...

In my email correspondence with Curry, I dropped what I thought were polite but blatant hints for him to actually take some photos of the model & send them to me. He either didn't get the hint (doubtful), he didn't have the capability to do so (possible), or he just didn't want to (most likely). Either way, I never got any pics.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Can't yah just out right ask him!?! [Smile]

"Mind if you take a few snap shots for model builders or freaks at flare.solareclipse.net - which you might like to visit."

[Smile]
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3