Roughly 6 months ago I was contacted by email by an individual called Mitch Jones. He claimed to work on TNG VFX during seasons 3 to 5. He described his work "My job as "camera 22" was wide angle shots of the models for mostly the battle scenes".
We got talking on a few FX related topics including the reuse of the BoP miniature as the K'vort-class. He wrote "they had the decency to drill a few more windows to increase the deck number". At the time I had no way to confirm this as I only had "Yesterday's Enterprise" on tape and the detail is just not up to par. Now that I have the 3rd season DVD set, I can confirm that Mr Jones is correct -- you can clearly see rows of drill holes in "YE". The holes aren't lit but, if anything, it proves the supposed large BoP has a difference in external appearance from the std small one.
Another thing that Mitch mentioned was that a second Warbird miniature was built. Apparently, like the 6' Ent-D, the original WB miniature was too heavy and awkward to film. He wrote that the second Warbird was lighter in both colour and mass and had much improved lighting (especially in the tail section). I think he's right about that too. In early episodes the Warbird only has a few window lights in the tail section. Later the tail is filled with window lights. It looks to me that "The Defector" was the first episode to use the new Warbird, as well as being the first appearance of the 4' Ent-D. It might be a coincidence but "The Defector" could also be taken as the first appearance of the K'vort-class although, according to Mitch, the drill holes weren't added until "YE".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Thanks for that Dax. Interesting!
Has anyone noticed how the BoP never had its 'wings' up very much? They are usually up when they are depicting a K'Vort.
I noticed in "Unification Part 1" The other night (It was on... how great was Mark Lenard!?!) that the Klingon vessel that takes Data and Picard to Romulus was about 3/4 the length of the Enterprise's nacelle. This time it had it's wings up.
The funniest scene where Picard is sleeping and Data is looking at him/not looking at him. LOL!
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Good info.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Where are these new holes? Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheF0rce: Where are these new holes?
You'll need "Yesterday's Enterprise" (or possibly "Reunion" or Redemption") on DVD to see the holes. There's at least a couple of tight rows of holes on the head, one being just above the red rim. There might be some new holes in the rear section too. I'd have to check more thoroughly if I wanted to map the new windows.
I feel your mention of the wings is important, AndrewR. All the BoP in TNG from "The Defector" onwards have their wings fixed in flight mode and appear to be gigantic in size. Conversely, all the BoP in DS9 have their wings always in attack mode and appear relatively small in size. If we are to accept the upscaled K'vort-class, I'd say it can neither move it's wings or land.
Mitch gave the length of the K'vort-class to be 320m. Works out as half the length of the Ent-D and the same width. I'd be inclined to up the figure to 329m so it's exactly 3x the std BoP planform.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yes, but the BoP's in "The Defector" were bigger than that, weren't they? Their wingspans were about as long as the Warbirds' wingspans.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Mitch admitted that the scaling was way off in that bit. In fact, he wrote that "this was the worst scale error we ever had with the BoP".
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I think that the REAL question here is - were these holes filled in later on when the model was again used as a smaller BoP in subsequent episodes? I'm pretty sure that the Kleavage Sisters had a smaller ship later on, as would Chang, the ship Kang & Koloth & Colicos had, etc... Also, if the model were used as the basis for the CGI model, then we had BoPs of multiple sizes with the extra holes in them - thus making this almost a moot point.
Mark
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I always had the impression that there were multiple classes of BoPs, even within the smaller ships. The BoP from "Generations" was of a class taken out of service due to design flaws.
So it doesn't surprise me that there would be multiple variations within each size group -- small (12x crew), medium (Martok's), large (the big one).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Frankly, after having just recently watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" again, I'm starting to think that the K'vort class simply doesn't exist in the "real" world. Assuming we write off "The Defector" as a goof, we're left with no mention of the name, nor any more appearences of gigantic birds of prey. At least, none that I can readily recall.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, there were the scenes of the two BoP's positioning themselves to the left & right of the Bortas. In those shots, they seemed only a bit smaller than the Vor'cha.
Either way, this just confirms my previous ranting in the thread about the Lantree. TPTB should have known that the show was going to be a hit, so they should have had more new models built than just the Enterprise-D, instead of just reusing the movie models. This goes for Klingon ships as well.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, should they?
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
i refuse to acknowledge any of these scaling idiocies. i think there is a basic BOP with a 12 man crew and a huge cargo bay, and then we have the bulkier versions built on the same spaceframe with internal differences that allow them to support the 30 or 40 something crews. i dont take VFX as canon, because they are often made using artistic license (like the giant Doomsday Machine shuttle, etc..). I think its acceptable that TNG era BOPs are uprated internally to Defiant-like configurations that put them on par with Jem'Hadar bugs, Excelsiors and Romulan ships in combat. Even the small BoPs in ST III & IV changed size, depending on whether they needed to be shown against a whaling ship or a Constitution. I think a single middle ground size feature would allow for the different configurations weve seen.
Since its never been canonically defined that any BoP was even a meter longer than any other, why let it bother us?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Three words: "One Little Ship."
Boris
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
One word: "Little!?"
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Mike Wong (perhaps jokingly) suggested this one to me, but it could make sense. To expand on it, perhaps ships and the people inside routinely change size within a certain range, which ultimately affects their power. This could be a valuable weapon, and all OLS was about is trying to expand the size variation range from 6x to a lot more than that.
Alternatively, we ignore the appearance of the models and conclude that ships of a different scale really look different, and that given a sufficient budget we would see these variations. These two options are the only ones that logically make sense in light of episodes that would've been made impossible if we simply ignored the depicted size relationships (the Defiant fitting under Galor's shields, etc.)
Boris
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Frankly, after having just recently watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" again, I'm starting to think that the K'vort class simply doesn't exist in the "real" world. Assuming we write off "The Defector" as a goof, we're left with no mention of the name, nor any more appearences of gigantic birds of prey. At least, none that I can readily recall.
I can give several examples of BoP's comparing with the Enterprise-D:
-- "A Matter of Honor," when Riker served as an exchange student. -- "Unification, Part I," which might have been reuse of the same shots. -- "Reunion," which had the E-D, a Vor'cha, and two BoP's. -- "Rascals," which reused footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise." -- "Redemption, Part I," which shows two BoP's attacking a Vor'cha at close range. Not a perfect comparison, but we do know the length of a Vor'cha (independently, and compared to E-D).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm just not sure any of those are convincing. To me, anyway. But, we shall see, I guess. I could make a project out of it.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, the shot in "A Matter of Honor" and "Unification, Part I" pretty much shows that there was an super-sized Bird-of-Prey. (Do you want fries with that?)
But the funny thing is the example from "Rascals" -- which is the origin of the B'rel class designation. Except that that episode reused the footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise," which was the origin of the K'vort class designation. Meaning that the B'rel class BoP can't "really" be the smaller version of the BoP, because according to the SFX that it was based on, it was actually the 300+ meter version!
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
the VFX are contradictory even to themselves. thats why i maintain the single-sized, multiconfiguration theory.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yes, of course the VFX shots are contradictory. Everyone knows that the REAL Klingon Bird-of-Prey was painted NEON GREEN, and the dull/rusty green-red scheme is just another one of their many goofups! Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'm yet to see "Rascals". Were the BoP in that episode mentioned to be scouts? If so, that might be the reason Okuda assigned the name to the small Birds.
I personally don't like the idea of upscaled ships, but the BoP is not the only example of it being done. It's impossible to ignore that there's two sizes of the Hideki ("Tacking into the Wind") and of the Kazon raider/shuttle.
Going by the evidence, the BoP being larger and more powerful during TNG is clearly intentional. We can ignore it, as I've done thus far, but ultimately it's ignoring the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
im not saying they arent more powerful.
the Defiant is as or more powerful than an uprated Excelsior, but im sure a Defiant built for a crew of 12 with movie-era technology would be much less powerful, despite its identical size.
and the term scout was in ST:III -- Sulu identifies the ship as a scout, probably a crew of 12.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
"Rascals" made no mention of the size or type of the attackers - Worf just called them B'Rel class BoP's. But Okuda knew that K'Vort had been used as the name for the big ships, and B'Rel was the only other name known, so he probably picked it for the smaller ones without doing the research. Or perhaps he thought the Ferengi wouldn't be able to steal/buy the big BoPs but could acquire the small ones.
In the regular Trek universe, the name B'Rel probably applies to what K'Vort applied to in the alternate one - the really huge bird. And in the regular universe, the name K'Vort could either be used for the "midsize" BoP (the one in all DS9 save "Way of the Warrior" fleet scenes), or then not be used at all.
In any case, three distinct sizes of BoPs have been shown next to the well-defined Vor'Cha: the tiny ones (about 80m, in "WotW"), the midsize ones (150-200m in "Sons and Daughters" et al.) and the big ones (250m+ in "Reunion" and "The Mind's Eye"). And ALL of these would have had the extra window rows (unless DS9 returned to a more pristine version, like an AMT kit or a CGI model).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
None of the non-TNG BoP are likely to have the extra window holes. All of the TNG episodes that feature large BoP originally aired between when ST:V and ST:VI were released. I'll check this later but it's likely that ILM restored the miniature for ST:VI. DS9 and Generations would also thus have the BoP in its original state. And then later they introduced a CG model based on the "no drill" model.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
by the way, i dont get that neon green reference at all
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capped In Mic: by the way, i dont get that neon green reference at all
I'm implying that if you're choosing to ignore the appearance of the SIZE of the ships in VFX sequences, then I'm going to choose to ignore the color of the ships' hulls.
In simpler words...
IT'S A FUCKING TELEVISION SHOW!!! DON'T TAKE IT SO GODDAMN LITERALLY!
(ahem)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
But the funny thing is the example from "Rascals" -- which is the origin of the B'rel class designation. Except that that episode reused the footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise," which was the origin of the K'vort class designation. Meaning that the B'rel class BoP can't "really" be the smaller version of the BoP, because according to the SFX that it was based on, it was actually the 300+ meter version!
Except it didn't. It reused footage from "The Defector" which is the episode that originated the "Amazingly stupidly almost-as-big-as-a-Warbird sized Bird of Prey".
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
No, I'm positive that the "Rascals" shots that involved the two BoP's firing on the -D were re-used from "Yesterday's Enterprise." The same disruptor shots, the flare of the shields, et cetera. Granted, I don't have a copy of the tape as proof, but my memory is pretty accurate with these kinds of details. I wouldn't claim a photographic memory, but I can remember some specific scenes, clips, and images pretty clearly. Maybe I should forget the useless Star Trek crap and spend more time remembering what I read about for history class yesterday?
However, the shot of the two BoP's in orbit of the planet with the -D was probably a new shot, though.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
There was no weapon's fire involving BoPs in "The Defector."
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant: [QB](like the giant Doomsday Machine shuttle, etc..). [QB]
Wha? That thing with a shuttle... LOL!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
There has to be something 'big and special' about those 3 klingon ships in 'The Defector'. If they were the size of the ship from TSFS those Birdies would have picked them and most probably the Enterprise clean.
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Frankly, after having just recently watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" again, I'm starting to think that the K'vort class simply doesn't exist in the "real" world. Assuming we write off "The Defector" as a goof, we're left with no mention of the name, nor any more appearences of gigantic birds of prey. At least, none that I can readily recall.
The Runabout display in DS9's "Penumbra" clearly says that Worf's missing Bird of Prey, the Coraga or whatever its name was, was a K'Vort class Bird of Prey.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
I think the Romulans would have been suitably cowed by BoPs that were the same size as the ST:III BoP, had they, by the TNG era, been refit with a Defiant style overpowered weapons systems.. remember, our approximate middle size would be the same size as the Defiant, and i think that a handful of Defiants and a Galaxy would match a few Warbirds.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
That's like saying Caesar really died of poisonous red ink after being briefly touched by a rubber sword.
Boris
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
you will have to restate that response, operator. this unit did not comprehend.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Let me ask this question: why is a ship's appearance so much more important to us than its size, whereas every VFX person will tell us exactly the opposite? Why is it so easy to ignore the observation that the ships change their sizes, yet so difficult to ignore the other observation -- that their looks remain the same?
VFX people assume the audience won't remember the looks of the models, so they deliberately change their sizes to make them into capital ships or scouts, "to satisfy a story point" in the words of David Stipes. So the real random property isn't the size -- it's the exact look of the model, which most people don't remember.
This is a huge reality gap between our analyses and actual practices. Perhaps it's because we're so much into the appearance of models, drawing of the exact schematics and such that we fail to consider that perhaps what we see onscreen isn't supposed to be analyzed that closely, and would, given a greater budget, look different. It would make the accounting of classes much more complicated, but also more realistic, as Cardassians and Romulans would finally have more than just a few warship classes.
Again, why are the looks of the models so much more important than their size, when the exact reverse was intended by people making the show?
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 12:35: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
Because they arent trying hard enough. I mean, a ship is a ship is a ship. If you saw a picture of a Jeep on a plain, you would assume that its a Jeep. What if later, they said, 'no thats a Super-Jeep.. its about four times as long as a regular Jeep and four times as high' and then say that people get into it with ladders that run up the wheel wells.' If someone tried to tell me that, I'd tell them to shove if because they are a fucking moron. Its obviously a Jeep and they are trying to pull one over on me. There's only one Jeep™�
I've learned to disregard sizes in VFX. its one of the biggest example of suspending disbelief, because the visuals are often used with serious artistic license to show events, not exact proportions. The Constellation and its shuttle were the same height as they entered the planet-killer, even though I know they are vastly different sizes. Whenever a Galaxy-class ship tows a Constellation-class ship, the much smaller vessel is shown as the same size. Why? So you can see it, of course. The modelmakers very clearly spelled out the size of the model, with established dimensions, windows, etc. But the VFX distorted it, for the sake of the viewer being able to see it, even in the ships first appearance.
In ST:III the Bounty was shown to be very large next to the Enterprise.. but then in the same movie it changes size to appear smaller to land on Vulcan.. (some estimate an 80m BoP on Vulcan, while a 120m BoP against the Enterprise [the ILM effects chart seems to indicate around 100m])... then in the next movie, the Bounty has to grow bigger to accomodate 2 whales, indicating it to be closer to 150 or 180m, to accomodate the kind of cargo bay that would hold 2 whales. But the exterior sequences against the Golden Gate bridge and the crew on the hull indicate a 50 or 60m BoP. but the ship became freaking huge again for its run-in with the whaling vessel. This isnt a matter of the ship being several vessels of different sizes.. they are all the same ship. It changes sizes because the VFX crew took liberies with how they established its size. Some of it was poor communication.. one was built as a VFX model, one was built as a physical set piece by a different portion of the art team. There's no good explanation why the ship would change size in the middle of its flight. Its just visual license. The ship needed to be seen against the large Enterprise and it needed to look bigger than the whaling ship and it needed to be small to save on lumber for the exterior sets in both movies (landed on Vulcan, or sinking in the Bay).
Basically the VFX is always going to show an object, not at a size it is supposed to be, but at a size that is easily seen on a TV screen. This has been done with shuttles, the BoP model, the Warbird, the Constellation-class, the Defiant, even a few Enterprises. Its for visual clarity, not accurate scaling.
So why then, can we not establish a single size for what has consistently been the same ship? A BoP with a length of 180m would accomodate a huge cargo bay, or in a differently configured version, a crew of more than twelve, such as the 48+ crews seen in later shows. And TNG/DS9/VGR has certainly established that the size of a ship doesnt matter when it comes to weapons ability in combat. The Defiants and Prometheuses and Intrepids certainly are intimidating as much as as the ships that are 2, 3, or 4 times as long as them. We know that BoPs of all configurations have defeated Galaxy-class starships (over and over and over, in fact). So have small ships like the Jem'Hadar Attack Bugs. So why not believe a handful of BoPs could take on a Warbird or two also, especially with a Galaxy on their side?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
We could also keep in mind that the Romulans were not necessarily assured of their destruction, but rather concerned that their overwhelming advantage now became slightly less so, enough to make the whole thing no longer worthwhile.
(Especially since the last time they fought a combined Federation-Klingon force, even though they won, they drove the two together. Imagine what could happen this time. Destroying a sole Starfleet ship inside the Neutral Zone might be something you could smooth out later. Destroying a small multi-national fleet could spark something serious.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Frankly, I favor shape over size as the defining identification factor because that's what I can use when I play "fleet analyst" and go through background material. For a real "fleet analyst", the background material could very well include size measurements from satellite photos of real ships. But for me, merely playing an analyst, the background material consists of photos of SCALE MODELS, whose size I always HAVE to completely disregard.
OTOH, the changing sizes of the BoPs have not bothered me much, because (thanks to the TOS movies) they are a FEATURE of the design, not a bug. It is a known fact that the ship does change size. While this may be physically somewhat hard to swallow, I'm quite happy with the idea that the ship really is of the smallest possible size to accommodate two midget whales (perhaps 80m or so), and is equipped with a cloaking device that has a "cat in the corner" mode, designed to intimidate the adversaries by exaggerating the size of the ship.
This idea forces me to believe in at least two sizes of BoPs, though, since I do need one that's more than 200m long "for real". I'm happy with that, too, because this is what Paramount also wants us to believe.
If I can somehow pretend that the two "real" sizes of ships are also different in shape, and the TV screen just doesn't show that very well, then all the better... Too bad that the window row thing or the wings-always-up thing don't work as definite separating factors between the sizes.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I was first alarmed when reading about the drill holes. But, as has been speculated before, if all or most of the later BoPs (physical and CGI) had them too, there is no point in this additional detail and it doesn't conflict with my previous considerations about the topic. It is interesting though. Thanks, Dax.
Anyway, I find myself on the side of Mike and Timo concerning the importance of shapes.
From a dramatic viewpoint, Boris is right that the author just needs one ship to be bigger or more threatening than another, or two ships on par, and the VFX people comply by scaling one up or down just as needed. If the budget would have allowed, I agree that we would have seen a new Klingon cruiser for all of TNG, and a huge new Klingon ship for "The Defector". Well, but we have to consider that even ships that must be supposed to have always the same size are treated like this (Defiant vs. Sovereign in FC, Bounty in ST III/IV).
On the other hand, there is the argument that the tendency is to scale ships that they just look good relative to each other (Constellation-Galaxy, Excelsior-Galaxy), or to scale up small vessels so that they would be recognizable at all (shuttle in "The Doomsday Machine"). In many cases it was probably the sizes of the studio models that necessitated the size compromise in ship encounters. In all these cases, the shape is actually the determining factor. These ships must be still supposed to be a certain constant size, but it's been more or less reluctantly decided to ignore that.
We may have to decide from case to case which is prevalent, but generally I tend to pay more attention to the shape.
Finally, I would like to annotate that at least two frequently quoted sizes of the BoP are completely unnecessary in my view. There is no need that Martok's BoP should be any larger than the 110m long model. I doubt that we would ever see the roughly 25% difference on screen, even if the two allegedly different BoPs would fly next to each other. The other one is the D-12 from "Generations" or the prototype from TUC. Why can't it be just another standard BoP, only equipped differently, considering that there was no size comparison possible with the E-D or E-A, respectively? The nomenclature alone does not establish a size difference, just think of D-7 and K't'inga.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: I was first alarmed when reading about the drill holes. But, as has been speculated before, if all or most of the later BoPs (physical and CGI) had them too, there is no point in this additional detail and it doesn't conflict with my previous considerations about the topic. It is interesting though. Thanks, Dax.
That's the thing -- all the BoP after TNG are of the small variety and don't appear to have the drill holes. ILM must have restored the miniature for TUC.
quote:Anyway, I find myself on the side of Mike and Timo concerning the importance of shapes.
I'm still leaning towards that side too. Currently I'm just presenting the facts as I see/know them. To be honest, when Mitch Jones first contacted me I was reluctant to believe anything he told me. Mostly that was because what he said was unheard of and there was no way I could confirm the information. Now that I/we have the DVDs, it is proven that he was right, and I feel this new evidence is too strong to simply be ignored.
quote:We may have to decide from case to case which is prevalent, but generally I tend to pay more attention to the shape.
Agreed, but if visible external detail has been changed with intent, then it's worth at least consideration.
quote:Finally, I would like to annotate that at least two frequently quoted sizes of the BoP are completely unnecessary in my view. There is no need that Martok's BoP should be any larger than the 110m long model. I doubt that we would ever see the roughly 25% difference on screen, even if the two allegedly different BoPs would fly next to each other. The other one is the D-12 from "Generations" or the prototype from TUC. Why can't it be just another standard BoP, only equipped differently, considering that there was no size comparison possible with the E-D or E-A, respectively? The nomenclature alone does not establish a size difference, just think of D-7 and K't'inga.
Couldn't agree more.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm not saying that in some cases, the size must be ignored in favor of the shape. However, as Bernd says, this is something that needs to be examined in every case, and as far as the K'Vort BoPs are concerned, a lot of evidence suggests they are different-size ships. Hence, in this case, size over shape would matter more. In the case of the Bounty, we might have to reevaluate the size. I'm just pointing out that we cannot by default ignore the size in favor of the shape.
Capped in Mic makes a good point about being empirical, but to use his Jeep example, why couldn't I say "Well, it's a BIG Jeep, not a SMALL ONE BUT A BIG REGULAR JEEP And I know how to explain it -- remember the time Sisko's runabout was shrunk?" However, I feel there is little evidence to support ships that regularily shrink and grow, and that's why I'm leaning more towards the "blooper" theory.
Timo: What if we find evidence that the ships' size is not merely simulated, but in fact real? If they approach each other but don't overlap, we'd be able to conclude this. Now, I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Doomsday Machine or other episodes. Again, we have to examine each case independently.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And I know how to explain it -- remember the time Sisko's runabout was shrunk?" However, I feel there is little evidence to support ships that regularily shrink and grow, and that's why I'm leaning more towards the "blooper" theory.