posted
Well, I've given my reasons as to why I think it's a different model. You're free to agree or disagree with my logic as you will.
-------------------- "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
posted
Apparently this wasn't the only model with the pod and rollbar facing the wrong way.
-------------------- "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
posted
Tsk. Don't these people read the instructions that come with the model kits?
(Although this does give me the urge to get my model kits out of the loft and finish them after... 15 years oh shit I'm old)
-------------------- 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
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: It is either, depending on if you open the box to see, or leave it closed.
You are confusing this ship with the USS Schrodinger and it's Catian captain. Boxy design on that one.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Occam would think that they're just two different models.
Been a while, but I was just reviewing the thread. Actually, wouldn't Occam prefer it other way around? It's a simpler explanation that whoever kept the model on their desk after it was used noticed it was wrong and flipped it around (the rollbar is one individual piece of the kit and this could be easily done, right?) than to think that there were two separate models labeled the same thing.
(Remember, we had the information that there was a ship in "Way Of The Warrior" called the Trial independently prior to the photo of the model being unearthed, and many people had already posited that it was the docked Miranda since the name could be easily created using the same letters as Reliant. It was years later that the photo surfaced, and lo and behold it confirmed what we'd already suspected. That's some coincidence!)
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Been a while, but I was just reviewing the thread. Actually, wouldn't Occam prefer it other way around? It's a simpler explanation that whoever kept the model on their desk after it was used noticed it was wrong and flipped it around (the rollbar is one individual piece of the kit and this could be easily done, right?) than to think that there were two separate models labeled the same thing.
Here's the problem with that theory. If the rollbar was facing the wrong way for filming, and then someone decided to fix the orientation later before taking that photo, then they would have either had to break apart the rollbar from the model or cut it off somewhere and then reposition it. 1) It's extremely hard to break something off of a model that's already been cemented in place without breaking it in unintended places, and 2) if it was just sawed off with a Dremel and then re-glued, that should be noticeable in the photo. It's not.
Plus, (And I won't be able to verify this until either a clearer pic emerges or WOTW is upconverted to HD), I think I can see where the ship's name starts in the screencap. The Trial's "U.S.S." starts above the beginning of the second C in "NCC", but in the screencap it starts above the N.
And honestly, I have no idea why anyone would try to "fix" a disposable plastic model kit used for far background shots once it was filmed. When I got the U.S.S. Curry photos from Mr. Dan, I didn't even try to fix my model; it was easier to just build another one. And my model was not a down-and-dirty kitbash like these were.
-------------------- "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
posted
Well, you do have a point there, and you know these models better than I do. I figured (wrongly, it seems) that it would be a piece that would just snap on with little teeth or something of that manner. Since the big filming model had its rollbar taken off and put on again many times, I assumed the same could be done with this little one.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It all depends on the glue. Some glues will come apart easily, some won't. Judging by the assembly instructions (assuming this was built from the AMT 1/537 scale kit) the roll bar could be switched around easily with glue that either hasn't set properly or is very weak.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
