A minor point perhaps, but there must be a tale behind this somewhere, and unless I'm greatly mistaken this has been discussed in the past. But I can't recall what conclusions wre drawn.
I've noticed this as an anomaly regarding the Bozeman before, but I made some screencaps to study it in closer detail. It seems to me that the Bozeman here, is displaying the registry of NCC-1841, not 1941 as we have been led to believe by all canon material, to my knowledge anyway...
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
zhukov/zhukov, 1841/1941. what are a few mistakes between friends? doesn't the Encyclopedia show a picture of the dorsal surface and it says NCC-1941? i also think that Jein meant NCC-1941 to be a homage to the movie 1941, which he worked on. 1941 seems to be the correct registry. i would just call NCC-1841 a model makers error.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah. The dorsal saucer read 1941, the ventral 1841.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Ah Right. I knew the 1941 movie reference story, but didn't realise there had been a modelling error. How the heck did they manage that?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, the "18" was probably left over from the original Reliant markings -- IIRC, the Miranda model wasn't used on TNG aside from the Lantree in season two... and that ship also had an NCC-18xx number.
Perhaps it wasn't an error, and the modelmakers figured that since it was such a brief shot, the viewers wouldn't notice? (Ha!) Notice that the tractor beam is pointed directly at the error in the registry number? Also, remember that freeze-frame and screen capturing were a lot less common in those days...
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The model had also been used as the Brattain. The upper saucer was relabled with new name and number as was the rollbar. Maybe they left the lower saucer alone. But, like I said, they did relabel the rollbar and we didn't see that up close, so who knows?
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
maybe they were just zany guys. i wouldn't be surprised if it was done on purpose. as MM said, the tractor beam was pointed right at it.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It could be me, but I think the tractor beam in this picture has some serious perspective issues. Isn't the Bozeman *above* the Enterprise's saucer?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
1841 was on the ventral surface of the saucer. 1941 was on the upper surface with the name and on the nacelles. And, as with the Brattain/Brittain issue, there was a specific intention for it to be one or the other. (In this case 1941, in homage to Spielberg's movie.) So, taking that into account, I personally would not even consider giving NCC-1841 any credence.
-MMoM Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The real question is, why would anyone want to make a homage to 1941? Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Since there are so many who believe in the incorrect Prometheus-NX, I'm sure there are a few who prefer 1841.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: It could be me, but I think the tractor beam in this picture has some serious perspective issues. Isn't the Bozeman *above* the Enterprise's saucer?
This would implify there's a third vessel somwhere in this scene - probably cloaked - which is the source of the trsctor beam. Maybe a conspiracy? (On the other hand, the bridge crew would have known that there is a third vessel - does this mean Picard's gang is or was working together with Section 31 operatives? Furthermore, the Bozeman was present during 3 major time travel events - and I didn't even include this one: AGT, the Devron anomaly, STVII, the Nexus and STVIII, the Borg-sphere time travel. Maybe the Bozeman was an ill-fated experiment started by S31 and they wanted to gain the collected data from the ship after leaving her stranded in time for a century?)
It all makes sense now... Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
NCC-1841 was meant to be the Bozeman's registry. It was put on the part of the ship that was seen onscreen. NCC-1941 was put on the dorsal saucer as a joke.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
ah, that would make sense. does mike okuda know this? i distinctly remember one of the Encyclopedias listing it as NCC-1941. maybe it has been changed. i really haven't looked at the third Enc very closely.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Either Okuda thought that 1941 was the correct registry, or he continued the joke in the article. Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
In Star Trek: A Continuing Mission they show the Reliant model labeled as USS Courageous NCC-1841. The caption reads that this is the model that was used in Cause and Effect. I have to look at the book again to get a direct quote.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Was the "1941" ever visible onscreen? Obviously, "1841" was...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
IIRC, the image in "The Continuing Mission" seems like a photocopy of a page from the good old "Ships of the Star Fleet", with some felt pen alterations sketched atop the image of an Endeavor-subclass ship in order to outline the changes that would be made to turn the Paramount studio model into the Bozeman. Not a final blueprint by any means.
Of course, there was no USS Courageous or NCC-1841 in "SotSF". Those details seem to have been edited into the picture by somebody who had more time and patience than the guy who did the felt-pen additions. Any idea who did this and why?
And yes, I'm in the distinct yet superior minority that thinks "1841" was the real registry, because 1941 was never truly seen onscreen. In theory, one could perhaps see the nacelle registries, but in practice this is impossible - they are well below the grain size of the image!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The USS Courageous in The Continuing Mission is 1861, not 1841.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Right. And thus the picture is indeed directly lifted from "SotSF", no registry meddling required.
For all the "SotSF" fans, 1841 would be free game, and indeed a nice place to insert some variants of the Avenger design into. Canon Trek has already given us NCC-1837 for that slot, and there's room for eight more ships there (including, say, USS Soyuz).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
the picture whoever did that used is of the USS Courageous NCC-1861. the pages of SotSF arent numbered, but its the fifth page of the Avenger-class chapter. The ship was shown to show the differences between the class ship, Avenger 1860 and the Courageous 1861, which was built to different specifications.
odd, because i think that the 1861 variant is different in shape than the Reliant studio model.. so they copied the wrong one! (i think) it still served its purpose, showing where the modelmakers were to put the additions.
and as to the screencap, in the Trek hull font the 8 looks a lot like a 9 anyway, si im still not sure what we are seeing until i rewatch some video.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain... Mike: and as to the screencap, in the Trek hull font the 8 looks a lot like a 9 anyway, si im still not sure what we are seeing until i rewatch some video.
I was jsut thinking the same thing. Sure, it looks like an 8 but it might really be a nine after all. No one's ever been quoted as confirming the second number, have they? (Jein, Okuda, etc...?)
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
We'll get better screenshots in November.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Actually, if you think about it, since 1841 is what was seen onscreen, 1941 is the second number. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I'm positive it's an eight, but yes, the DVD of this episode may indeed tell a different story. For now, I'm sticking with the official registry for the Bozeman to be NCC 1941.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, at the end of the episode, didn't the Bozeman fly from right to left (from our perspective), giving us a nice pan of the saucer section? Could anyone see the registry from that.
And yeah, for the registry font, an 8 looks just like a 9.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
In fact, I realised that I actually have "Cause And Effect" on tape. So, one quick check later, I can confidently say that yes, if you pause the tape just as the final shot of the episode starts, you can see, plain as day, the number "9" on the top of the Bozeman. It's very brief, but it's also a hell of a lot clearer than the shots of her underside. It can't be mistaken for an "8", in any way.
In your face, "we have to choose the explanation that's different from the majorty" fanboys!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: The model had also been used as the Brattain. The upper saucer was relabled with new name and number as was the rollbar.
Labelling the roll bar on the Brattain seems about as useful as labelling the deflector dish on said vessel.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Wasn't one of the shots of the Br!ttain a pan across the saucer? The rollbar labelling could have been visible in this shot.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The rollbar on the Br!ttain was labelled. Ask Mojo.
So let's see here.. We can chart the use of the Reliant model as such:
Reliant - ST2 Saratoga - ST4 (also in spacedock, but probably not relabeled) Lantree - "Unnatural Selection" (TNG 2nd) Br!ttain - "Night Terrors" (TNG 4th) Bozeman - "Cause and Effect" (TNG 5th) Saratoga - "Emissary" (DS9 1st) Unknown Miranda - ST7 Unknown Miranda - "Way of the Warrior" (DS9 4th) Unknown Miranda - ST8 (possibly CGI)
[Edit - added unknown Miranda in "WotW"]
Missed anything?
Mark
[ August 05, 2002, 19:50: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Do we know for sure there has been only one model? Somwhere between Bozeman and Saratoga there is something wrong. They modified the Miranda for 'Cause and Effect', OK. This could also be the reason we never saw that model on TNG again. Later, they needed a Saratoga, and lacking several of the original parts or whatever, they decide to make it another variant instead of a standard-Miranda. That's where we are.
But there has been another Miranda appearance after 'Emissary' - Generations, and later 'Way of the Warrior'. So why the hell did anyone modify the Saratoga again just for a 2-second appearance? No one would have noticed that it is not the common model but a variant. But they did it.
My theory? Either one of the less-detailed models of the Saratoga was redone and used here (it was said that there have been several less detailed models of the Saratoga for the effect shots and blow-up sequences) or - which would be far more interesting - this is USS Trial.
If we assume 'Trial' was indeed a rearrangement of 'Reliant', and Trial was the name of the Miranda in WotW, probably a smaller modelkit (I have it, too, and I know there has even been an illuminated version), the starship Trial could have been prepared for and used in Generations and later reused for WotW, one year later. (Of course, they could have taken the larger model, too, but it was still Saratoga, and DS9 fans might have remembered that)
I can live with it, and we'd finally have a name for the Miranda in Generations (all speculation, of course, but if you rewatch the scene in VII again, you'll see that there was absolutely no need for a detailed model. The Miranda was a far-background-ship only).
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'm of the opinion that the Miranda in Generations and FC is the Bozeman, but that's perhaps an argument for another thread.
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Do we know for sure there has been only one model? Somwhere between Bozeman and Saratoga there is something wrong. They modified the Miranda for 'Cause and Effect', OK. This could also be the reason we never saw that model on TNG again. Later, they needed a Saratoga, and lacking several of the original parts or whatever, they decide to make it another variant instead of a standard-Miranda. That's where we are.
I've often wondered about this as well. Your "timeline" seems to be correct AFAIK, and seems to make sense to me. A few other tidbits:
-The Saratoga model was actually painted white, as opposed to the original light-blueish/gray of the model previously painted.
-The less-detailed models that were blown up were much smaller than the Miranda studio model, presumably from model kits.
quote:But there has been another Miranda appearance after 'Emissary' - Generations, and later 'Way of the Warrior'. So why the hell did anyone modify the Saratoga again just for a 2-second appearance? No one would have noticed that it is not the common model but a variant. But they did it.
My question is this: Just when did they stop using the physical model and started using the CGI? Was it during WoTW or after?
quote:I can live with it, and we'd finally have a name for the Miranda in Generations (all speculation, of course, but if you rewatch the scene in VII again, you'll see that there was absolutely no need for a detailed model. The Miranda was a far-background-ship only).
I'd have to disagree with you here. There is NO WAY that a plastic model kit would be used in a feature film, no matter how much they beautified it. It would still be too easy to spot as fake. I don't agree that the Miranda was a far-background ship. It was just smaller than the Nebula along side it. They might have used it for WoTW, but not for Generations.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
(edit) OK, disregard this post...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If the Miranda in Generations was not a model kit and it was not the Saratoga, we'd have a third ship. Was the Farragut a completely new model or just a modification of the original Sutherland?
Since the Oberth appeared on FC, I have no idea what happened to that ship after Generations. Either the ship was used at the Exhibition and later returned for some shots for FC, or the vessel in FC was CGIed. Same for the Nebula - it could have been the Leeds/Farragut-model or an early CGI - and the Miranda. Personally, I doubt those three were CGIs. It seems strange that exactly these 3 ship classes were choosen to appear on FC after they had used them for Generations. From that point of view, I tend to say all three were physical models, mixed up with the four new CGI-ship classes and a model Sovereign.
I guess then FC was the third appearance of the mysterious Miranda, after Generations and - possibly - WotW. (Do we know for sure the ship in WotW was just a model kit? Maybe the Trial/Reliant relabel-thing was just a coincidence. Or they used the same decals for the model that came with the model kit, for some reason.)
BTW, if the Oberth from Generations was the same ship they used on the show, too, there's a good chance the Miranda wasn't much larger than the model kit. The Oberth model wasn't that large, either.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: The less-detailed models that were blown up were much smaller than the Miranda studio model, presumably from model kits.
When have they ever blown up a Miranda model? All the ones in TNG survived fine, the Saratoga looked like the "explosion overlayed on model effect", and by the time of "Sacrifice of Angels", they were all CGI anyway.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: When have they ever blown up a Miranda model? All the ones in TNG survived fine, the Saratoga looked like the "explosion overlayed on model effect", and by the time of "Sacrifice of Angels", they were all CGI anyway.
I think it was said in the DS9 Companion that they created seveal miniatures for that sequence, and I'm quite sure they were talking about the Saratoga. Maybe the effect didn't look like they wanted it to look and they decided for another way to film it.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
The Saratoga blowup models were custom builds, not model kits. They were far larger than a model kit, maybe slighter longer than a metre. There were three of them, so that if the explosion didn't deliver, they could redo it. They got it on the first try.
Sometimes Discovery Channel's Movie Magic actually is worthwhile, when it's not about how Freddy Kreuger's head's all gooey.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: If the Miranda in Generations was not a model kit and it was not the Saratoga, we'd have a third ship. Was the Farragut a completely new model or just a modification of the original Sutherland?
Since the Oberth appeared on FC, I have no idea what happened to that ship after Generations. Either the ship was used at the Exhibition and later returned for some shots for FC, or the vessel in FC was CGIed. Same for the Nebula - it could have been the Leeds/Farragut-model or an early CGI - and the Miranda. Personally, I doubt those three were CGIs. It seems strange that exactly these 3 ship classes were choosen to appear on FC after they had used them for Generations. From that point of view, I tend to say all three were physical models, mixed up with the four new CGI-ship classes and a model Sovereign.
I guess then FC was the third appearance of the mysterious Miranda, after Generations and - possibly - WotW. (Do we know for sure the ship in WotW was just a model kit? Maybe the Trial/Reliant relabel-thing was just a coincidence. Or they used the same decals for the model that came with the model kit, for some reason.)
BTW, if the Oberth from Generations was the same ship they used on the show, too, there's a good chance the Miranda wasn't much larger than the model kit. The Oberth model wasn't that large, either.
The Farragut was an ILM refurbishment of the standard Nebula studio model from TNG, IIRC. The GEN Miranda was most definitely the full size studio model. The Oberth (Valiant NCC-20000) also seems to be the standard studio model.
There has been no real evidence one way or another (to my knowledge) as to whether the WotW Miranda was a model kit or a studio model, but it wouldn't appear to be CGI. The Trial/Reliant bit is just speculation, and could very well be a coincidence, but it is quite interesting.
I always thought the Miranda in FC looked CGI, but I don't recall if there existed a digital model of the ship at that point.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I don't think any of the ships besides Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre and Norway was CGI. On the other hand, I remember a quote from the Making Of-book where Alex Yeager said they had created 'half a dozen CGI-vessels for the battle sequence'. Maybe it was just a rough estimation, but since both E-E and the cube were physical models, maybe he was referring to another 2 old, less detailed ships for the background done as CGI.
But as far as I know, the first CGI-Miranda was the Majestic in 'Sacrifice of Angels'. If they used the same CGI-model for the other episodes of the episode, too, then it's OK, but if not, we have another Miranda-appearance in 'A Time to Stand' and 'Call to Arms', the season-finale, which was probably the same ship used in Generations, FC and WotW. Woo-hoo. Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I for one hope we never see a Miranda ever, ever again.
I actually wish they would have made a new class of ship for the Saratoga, but I can understand why they used the Reliant model. At the time, it was really the only small Starfleet ship they had, minus the Oberth (which would have looked stupid as an attack ship).
What I can't understand is why the VFX guys made a CGI model of the Miranda in the first place (or even of the Excelsior, for that matter). I mean, were they not inventive enough to design a new, small ship, as was done for FC? The only conclusion I can draw is that they wanted to CGI a model whose physical details were of movie quality.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except, for good or for ill, we already knew that there were legions of Excelsiors and Mirandas "out there," thanks to TNG. (Admittedly, more Excelsiors than Mirandas, or so it seemed.) To exclude them from DS9 in favor of some new ship wouldn't make much sense.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
They could have used some of the unseen Encyclopedia-ships.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Yes, but that would require such things as "originality", "money" and "time".
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Yes, but that would require such things as "originality", "money" and "time".
Oh, I think they have more than enough money and they could have spend the time building a new ship instead on an old, but... Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
There's a book out there called "The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" that was published back in 1994 or so. They go into a bit of detail about some of the effects done for the Wolf 359 battle, and there's a half-page image of the Reliant studio model. It's definitely a full-size model, and I'm pretty sure that they say it's the old Reliant.
I would suggest that the additions made to the model for "Cause and Effect" were almost certainly intended to be temporary. When you've got a huge, expensive shooting model like that, you're not going to permanently deface it for just a single episode without good reason. Those hull additions were probably easily removed.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In reference to the building of CGI models of the Miranda and Excelsior, I would think it would be primarily because:
a.) There was really good reference from which to construct them. (The physical models.) b.) Like the Nebula and Galaxy, these ships were very identifiable as typical Starfleet vessels. They would be familiar to the audience.
Personally, I think it's quite logical that these would be the most heavily-reproduced/used designs. True, it would've been nice to see designs for more of the unseen classes, but I'm not dissatisfied with what we got. (Aside from the fact that towards the end there was so much use of stock footage rather than new shots.)
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Actually, that was something that kind of fit in, regarding the CGI models. For the original War Arc, they used almost exclusively Galaxies, Excelsiors, and Mirandas, with a few occasional FC ships thrown in.
By the time we got to "Tears of the Prophets," there were several more of the Akiras and Steamrunners in the foreground. And then in "The Changing Face of Evil," we saw quite a lot of the "new" ships on the front lines.
This makes a lot of sense for Starfleet as a military/naval organization. They've got loads of the older cruisers/"destroyers" out there on the frontier, and they make due with the tried-and-true in the beginning. But as the wartime production ramps up, they can deploy a lot more of the new ships, and let them take over more duties. Not that the old ships were replaced completely, or even mostly, of course.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Regarding the Miranda in First Contact, it could very well have been CGI. Both Mojo and Hutzel have confirmed that the Defiant was CGI so it's not impossible that the Miranda, Nebula, and Oberth in the same battle weren't CGI too. IIRC even the Ent-E was supposed to be CGI in at least some of the battle scene.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The level of hatred on display here is shocking. Did Miranda-class ships kill all your mums, or what?
And also, I really doubt that they did have time to design a new ship. The Sacrifice of Angels required more CGI than had ever been used in Star Trek ever (more than First Contact, easily). They'd have been working flat off just to get the thing finished. Throw in that, at the time, they possibly only had CGI models for the FC ships, and maybe the Galaxy, then trying to fit in new ships would have been a nightmare. Designing them, getting Sternbach or whoever to put on all the Starfleet details, getting Berman to approve, making necessary modifcations and more would all have to be done before they even got close to starting on creating the CGI model.
With the Miranda and Excelsior, they had two audience-recongised, approved designs, and physical minitures they could work from, so it makes sense that they went with those.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And that's why we'll hate them till the greenhouse effect cooks us all.
I consider it a grievous mistake that the Miranda class was ever re-introduced to the Trek universe in "Unnatural Selection". If I had the divine power to Put Right What Once Went Wrong in TNG's season two, I'd leave "Shades of Grey" be and retcon the Lantree!
Trek was one of the first sci-fi shows to do this "next generation" thing - not just rejuvenate the main cast, but jump-start the whole setting as well. The Lantree and her successors work against that. And with Trek now spanning three distinct eras, the need for era-specific designs is greater than ever. (So what do they do? They give us the 22nd century Klingon battlecruiser...)
However, since I lack those divine powers, all I can do is hope that the Fleet will be made in the E-E's image for all the future TNG movies and possible other 24th century spinoffs. No Miranda, no Oberth, no Excelsior, no Sydney, no Constellation. Preferably none of the Excelsior kitbashes, either.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But...why? We use decades old ships today. Considering how large and advanced starships are, it's not inconceivable that they'd be using even older (comparitivly) designs.
Besides, it still shows the progression of time and technology. In ST III and VI, the Excelsior was a brand new state of the art big arse starship. In TNG, it was half the size of the main ship, and in DS9, there are hundreds of the things flying about. It's move from top of the line prototype to workhorse shows the advancement of years just fine.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Technically, I have nothing against 100-yr-old starships. Even million-year-old ships would make perfect sense. Space technology could be made to last. And in a Trek-style multicultural environment, there would be little or no "cold war" style competition to outdate old designs. And yes, it makes sense for a former frontline warship/explorer to become a garbage scow later on.
But artistically, I want era-specific looks. TPTB have the resources to give me those looks if they want. They don't. And the supernatural powers of a moderator aren't as much above those of a mere mortal as I'd hoped. Which is why I will whine and bitch about it.
TNG *deserves* a TNG-style garbage scow, as much as it deserves a TNG-style hero ship.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
See, this is where the differing that we share is happening. I'd much rather have an old design be used for crappy jobs, than have them come up with a brand new design that's suppossed to be old and crappy. It just seems like a waste of resources (and I don't doubt that if they did spend a lot of time coming up with 24th century workhorse ships, then it would take time away from doing other jobs).
And your "Shades of Grey" comment shows you to be a crazy person anyway. Next thing you know you'll be saying "Enterprise-class", and I'll be forced to hurt you.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i liked seeing Miranda class ships in TNG. i did not like the Miranda class in the dominion war. i think there were enough Excelsior class ships that being in the Dominion war made sense, and the Excelsior made perfect sense as the workhorse of TNG. however, i wish they had come up with some more ships for the dominion war.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But then (as someone once said) the Defiant wouldn't have been equipped with "ablative Mirandas" in The Sacrifice of Angels.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: But then (as someone once said) the Defiant wouldn't have been equipped with "ablative Mirandas" in The Sacrifice of Angels.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: See, this is where the differing that we share is happening. I'd much rather have an old design be used for crappy jobs, than have them come up with a brand new design that's suppossed to be old and crappy. It just seems like a waste of resources (and I don't doubt that if they did spend a lot of time coming up with 24th century workhorse ships, then it would take time away from doing other jobs).
And your "Shades of Grey" comment shows you to be a crazy person anyway. Next thing you know you'll be saying "Enterprise-class", and I'll be forced to hurt you.
Then again, its not like Starfleet has a shortage of design people considering the sheer number of shuttle designs and uniform changes. Think about it this way, how many Galaxy class starships are there? 12? 100? Whatever. How many freighters, antimatter tanks, transport ships, etc. are there in a ratio for each Galaxy class ship?
A quick google search gives a 3000 ocean going and 1000 coastal ships in Britain's merchant fleet, compared to 61 capital fighting ships in WW1 Link
If Starfleets numbers are anywhere near comparable, you're going to gain much more efficiency and savings by redesigning a transport ship than a capital ship.
Sure, its less glamourous...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
"Ablative Mirandas." Heh!
Actually, that's a very good point. Since the Miranda had already been established as a design in use in the 24th century, they decided to use it for production reasons described above. And in episodes like "Sacrifice of Angels," they were used essentially as cannon fodder. Would you have rather seen the Mirandas with uber-cannons and taking out Jem'Hadar ships right and left?
There's no one good reason for using the Mirandas in DS9. But when you start with the production justification, it makes more sense to have them as weaker designs, at least.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: Then again, its not like Starfleet has a shortage of design people considering the sheer number of shuttle designs and uniform changes. Think about it this way, how many Galaxy class starships are there? 12? 100? Whatever.
Actually, I was talking about real-world resources. Putting Sternbach or whoever on designing a Stafleet vessel (which would autmoatically require a lot more work and authorisation than a "ship of the week") would take that person away from doing other, potentially more important jobs at the office.
And the Galaxy-class question brings intense pain.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Regarding a TNG-style garbage scow... methinks the Oberth class is perfectly suited for that role Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Next thing you know you'll be saying "Enterprise-class", and I'll be forced to hurt you.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And that's why my forum has twice as many posts as yours. Ha!
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes I don't see any problems with Mirandas and Excelsiors being still around, but it's the fact that the presence of these particular ships of antiquity doesn't seem to be substantiated and reinforced by the appearances of other older ships. Yes we've heard about the Hokulea's, Renaissances, Apollos, etc, as well as more recent fleet additions such as Korolev and Rigel.
I think the main complaint here is that, as yet, we haven't seen onscreen appearances from these other classes of ship, because the main resource TPTB have are the Mirandas and Excelsiors..
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Did I already say that the only thing I would have changed would have been to commission a New Orleans and an Ambassador and maybe even a Springfield (which is growing on me) CG model, to use in addition to the Excelsiors and the Mirandas? Unlike the unseen classes, these are already designed and thus, I naively imagine, would be easier to create.
I'd like to see a USS Crazy Horse-type as well, but I do not dare try to spell out its class because I will embarass myself.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Crazy Horse was an Excelsior. You're probably thinking of the Encyclopedia-1's premature classification of it as a Cheyenne.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Well I've built meshes of all of the obscure, barely seen Wolf 359 ships, and I can say it didn't cause me to sweat much. So other than whatever the economic situation was between TPTB and ILM, you'd have thought there'd be no problem at all building CGI versions of these models. I also know for a fact that mine were a heck of lot better, and more detailed than the First Contact ships (excluding the Akira, which was a superb model).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Curses! It is Cheyenne that I do not dare spell on my own, anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Actually, I was talking about real-world resources. Putting Sternbach or whoever on designing a Starfleet vessel
Then get shuttle man on it, after designing all the new shuttles in Insurrection, Voyager, and even that weird-ass one for the Defiant, whomever he is, he must be dying to design something other than shuttles. God knows the "NX-01" didn't take up much time to design......or the Klingon battlecruiser that showed up in both DS9 AND Enterprise Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
Whoever said that the Defiant was CGI in FC was wrong. This quote is taken from the sketchbook by John Eaves: "THE MODEL OF THE DEFIANT, SHOWING DAMAGE INCURRED DURING THE BATTLE. THE "DAMAGE" WAS ALL CGI. BY ALEX JAEGER". That is the caption to a dorsal image of the Defiant. So it was the Defiant model used and the damage was computer generated, to avoid costs and hassle of having to create the damage then repair it on the actual model.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I read that, but I was curious...how on earth does that work? Wouldn't they have to model a CGI Defiant anyway, and have it match exactly the movement of the physical Defiant model in order that the damage stays consistent with the position of the ship?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
It is this image I always remember when I hear the CGI/model question of FC. Look at the damage next to the nose. CGI.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes, I'm acquainted with this model, it is as Cpt Amazov says, CGI.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
From the caption to that photo, which is from the TNG film sketchbook:
"The model of the Defiant, showing damage incurred during the battle. The "damage" was all CGI. By Alex Jaeger."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes, but...I'm still not clear how you can put CGI damage on a physical model that's ducking and diving all over the place without having to, basically, use a full CGI model as well in order to get the placement right.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Computers can do many things, it seems.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by iam2xtreme: Whoever said that the Defiant was CGI in FC was wrong.
That was me.
An extremely reliable source had been in contact with Gary Hutzel (the main designer of the Defiant) and Hutzel revealed that the FC Defiant was entirely CG. Hutzel even expressed his dislike for the model because he thought it wasn't faithful to the physical miniature (although I personally always thought the FC Defiant looked pretty damn good). Anyway, if you have a keen eye for detail you can tell that FC doesn't use the physical model e.g. the dome on the bridge and the circles around the bridge don't look quite right.
I vaguely remember Mojo mentioning the FC Defiant too - back when he revealed that picture of the new CG Defiant model they were/are working on.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Mojo never mentioned the FC Defiant, but otherwise, yes, it was CGI according to Gary Hutzel, Alex Jaeger, Mike Okuda, and Daniel Kramer of VisionArt Design and Animation.
Kramer also said that they had sent the VisionArt CG model (used in DS9 seasons 3-early 6) to ILM, but that he did not know whether it had been merely modified for FC or used as reference for a brand new model. Alex Jaeger simply said it was built by John Knoll, but it could be that Knoll merely added the battle damage. Jaeger also thinks they used the physical model for reference.
Since the VisionArt model is seems good enough already, it might have sufficed to rerender the model at a higher resolution and add the battle damage. This part is still a bit muddy, but the onscreen model was definitely CGI.
Boris
[ August 09, 2002, 03:02: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Which makes one wonder what the picture in "TNG Sketchbook" is all about. Did they want to test the CGI damage texture on the physical model? Why on Earth on *that*, and not on the final CGI ship? (It must be the physical model in that photo, since nobody would model that missing bridge bit and the marks left by it on the rest of the model...)
Or was this an early test of how things would look if a CGI-painted physical model were to be used - and the test resulted in abandoning the use of a physical model?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
That was probably another one of Alex Jaeger's Photoshop tests, designed to see where the battle damage should be applied. Check out his Borg Queen death sequence using a fellow co-worker's picture -- same thing.
Considering that everything else in the scene was CGI to our knowledge (isn't this the only place you'd want to use a CGI Enterprise which they did build?), I would discard the second option from the start. It would've been a waste of time to wait for Knoll to finish his model (or VisionArt to deliver theirs) to merely sketch out some battle damage that would be added later. Or maybe they never built an undamaged model, and the battle damage *had* to be tested on something else beforehand.
Boris
[ August 09, 2002, 03:49: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I vaguely recall Mojo mentioning a CGI Defiant for FC as well -- in that long thread about "The Unseen Frontier" about six months ago. I might be wrong, though.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree, that photo looks like a concept test for the battle damage, probably given to the 3D artists as a guide.
As for all the ships in that scene being CG; I'm pretty sure that both of the Borg vessels were physical models, at least for the close ups. Also it seams likely that the Oberth, Nebula & Miranda were the same models left over from "Generations".
Regarding the CG version of the Enterprise-E, I remember reading somewhere that this was only really used for the "going to warp" scene because it can be stretched out to a greater effect than using optical distortions on a photographed miniature. I can'tsay where I read this but I'll look into it and let you know if I find the reference.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I vaguely recall Mojo mentioning a CGI Defiant for FC as well -- in that long thread about "The Unseen Frontier" about six months ago. I might be wrong, though.
That's exactly what I was thinking but I'm just too lazy to go back and check.
The FC Borg battle is a bit of a head scratcher. We can be reasonably sure the Defiant was CG, we know Jaegar's inventions were CG, the Borg ships should be physical because we know they exist (why otherwise build such detailed miniatures), and it's been mentioned that the Ent-E was CG during the battle. Now where does this leave the Miranda, Nebula, and Oberth? None of the three were seen up close so CG models aren't out of the question IMO, but it's impossible to be sure either way.
The question remains - where did all these detailed CG models end up? The ILM CG Defiant, Norway, Ent-B, and possible others all seemed to disappear off the face of the Earth.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except the Norway wasn't a detailed model. That's why it disappeared, or so it seems to me.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm not sure what happened to the Norway-class -- Stipes mentioned unspecified technical problems. Otherwise, part of the reason existing models are often not used is software incompatibility. We know that the reason all the models had to be rebuilt for "Sacrifice of Angels" is that Vision Art did not use LightWave, so the models would become scrambled during the conversion process.
Boris
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
i think the e-b model wouldve been a great help in sprucing up some few-design-containing DS9 and VGR scenery.. its too bad it vanished
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I had a theory I presented in another thread, that I reckon at least one person would have seen the Norway model IN DETAIL other than the ILM people - and may even still have a copy...
Doug Drexler.
He had to have SOMETHING to create the two view diagrams for the Encyclopaedia did he not?
If someone could contact him, they could ask him. He might even have a piccy still on his computer!?!
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
On the other hand, he might have used exactly the same CGI image I used. You can create a top and sideview of the ship with that image.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not strictly relevent, but I'm suddenly curious. What SFX companies did what on modern Trek? ILM did Farpoint, who did the rest of the series? At what point did Foundation Imaging start working for Trek? And what about VisionArts? And did they share models, or what?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
ILM did Farpoint and some stock footage that was to be recycled throughout the series. The plan changed and new footage was needed, so Legato and Hutzel started shooting motion control at Image G, which earlier had done only commercials.
DS9 used the same facillities for most of the series, with VisionArt doing an occassional CG sequence such as Odo morphs, the gas giant sequence in "Starship Down", part of the "Call to Arms" fleet shot, etc. The latter episode overwhelmed the existing system, which resulted in DS9 starting to gradually move towards an almost pure-CGI show with the help of newly enlisted Digital Muse, but also Foundation Imaging (which already was doing CGI for Voyager since "Basics" and would continue to primarily work on that series).
Muse and Foundation shared models (in fact, Foundation built the bad guys while Muse did the rest), but they couldn't do so with VisionArt, which used Houdini according to David Stipes. He was the main proponent of the move to CGI, whereas Gary Hutzel continued to shoot models as late as season six, although he, too, would gradually move towards CGI. Only the DS9 station wasn't CGI-ed until the final episode.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So it would have been Gary Hutzel that insisted that they use a miniture for the Valient?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: So it would have been Gary Hutzel that insisted that they use a miniture for the Valient?
Huh? Stipes did "Valiant". The Valiant was the Defiant CG model from Digital Muse that was also used in "Sacrifice of Angels" and "Tears of the Prophets". Worst CG Defiant model ever! I can't stress how much I hate that model. Unfortunately Mojo used that same model in his calendars and Starship Spotter too.
[ August 10, 2002, 22:55: Message edited by: Dax ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Although you could be right Amazov, how did Drexler get the info/detail about the deflector dish area for the Norway? Yes he could have guessed.
Has anyone actually asked him!?!
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
didnt someone here already try to contact him on this issue?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Stipes did "Valiant" using the CG model that Digital Muse had built for "Sacrifice of Angels." Shortly before that, Hutzel had done "One Little Ship" using the physical model. As far as I know, that was the last time new footage would be shot of that miniature.
Boris
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Hutzel had done "One Little Ship" using the physical model. As far as I know, that was the last time new footage would be shot of that miniature.
I agree that "OLS" used the miniature but I'm not sure it was the last time. "TCFoE" may be the last time the miniature was used. In that episode, to my knowledge, the scene where the Defiant leaves the station was new footage. Furthermore, after reveiwing my tape of the episode, I'm near convinced that the miniature was used (there's none of the tell tale signs of the CG models). I'm not completely sure but it does make sense given that the station would've been physical too.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Sorry. I remember there being a bit of a thing over the fact that they used a phyiscal miniture for the Valiant. I must have gotten confused by the evil monkeys, or something.
Didn't someone build a new CGI Defiant model for "The Changing Fce of Evil" and the rest of season 7? Who designed and built that one, and was it better? Or have I also imagined this?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The "Changing Face of Evil" model was built by the same guy who did the "Sacrifice of Angels" model, Brian Fisher, only that now he had both access to the four-foot miniature and ample time to build it. It would be used until the end of the show, but I don't believe Foundation Imaging ever got a copy (else why didn't Mojo use it?)
As I said, I'm not 100% sure about the miniature being abandoned for later episodes -- that's something we'd have to check.
Boris
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Yep there was a beauty of a CG model built for "TCFoE". The only other DS9 episode it appeared in was "WYLB". I never thought of it before but Foundation not being given access to the model would explain why Mojo never used it. OTOH, Mojo did mention his awareness of the "TCFoE" model in the Unseen Frontier thread. I'm also now wondering which CG Defiant model was used in "End Game". I'd check but it's late here - time to sleep.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
OK, it's now a sunny day outside and I'm sitting at my computer. Anyway, I checked my tape of "End Game" and the Defiants look to be the "SoA" model. They aren't shown up close but I'm reasonably sure from what is visable.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He had to build the model without getting to look at the miniture? Crazy.
How many Defiant minitures were there, anyway?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: He had to build the model without getting to look at the miniture? Crazy.
How many Defiant minitures were there, anyway?
Fisher actually built the first model on his own accord as practice, before Muse were asked to create CG models of Starfleet. Since the VFX team were short on time, they decided to use the model for the time being.
There's only one Defiant miniature. 4' long and 3' wide.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)