posted
Could it be ILM's CG model from "Generations"?
I think it's important to make an inventory of all Galaxy-class models in official use, to list differences between them, their current status and history of modifications. That way, we'll be able to identify everything easily. I've found out, for example, that the Defiant exists as the four-foot physical model, the ILM CG model (with battle damage), the VisionArt CG model, the first Muse CG model, the second Muse CG Model, and finally, the new CG model by Andrew Bradbury. That's it.
As for the Galaxy class, we have the six-footer, the four-footer, the two-footer, models that are only a few centimeters across (according to the IDIC page), the ILM CG model, the Muse CG model, a modification of the latter by Mojo and Rob Bonchune, and finally, Andrew Bradbury's new model.
Here are my questions:
1) What is the status of the two-foot Enterprise-D and the smaller models? Any pictures of them? The two-footer was used by ILM to animate the warp jump (they'd switch from the six-footer to the two-footer after the flash that precedes the leap into the distance).
2) Was the four-footer used after "The Way of the Warrior"? Who labeled it as the Trinculo? Was it possibly used with this name in "A Call to Arms" or the first five episodes of DS9's season six?
3) Was ILM's CG model ever used on DS9, say by VisionArt in "A Call to Arms" and the first five episodes of season six?
4) What was used as the reference for building the Muse CG model? Was it ILM's CG model?
posted
Most likely. The four footer continued to be used on the show after Generations was filmed (such as in WoTW, and Call to Arms), so obviously the TV people either couldn't or didn't want to get the the 6 footer back of ILM. Maybe despite being all glitzed up, it was still a pain to shoot. Or maybe they didn't want to have to scrub off all the battle-damage from Generations.
Mojo claimed not to even be aware that ILM had a Galaxy CGI model, so I'm guessing that the Galaxies we see in season 5 (especially Call To Arms) are the 4 footer, although in that case someone removed the Venture phaser-strips.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I now checked the PsiPhi guide pages, and found out that Stipes said that the two Galaxies seen in "Call to Arms" were CGI. I posted this in the Trinculo thread.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, he does, although he vastly prefers motion-control. Stipes, on the other hand, prefers CGI. They sometimes used a combination of the two techniques, as in "Call to Arms".
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
About my blur comment - of course... they matte them together *boing*... but that Gal still looks CGIish while the station and the Deffie look model-like... maybe seeing as a majority of the picture is model work Hutzle gets the credit? Or maybe he did some CGI as well?
Andrew
P.S. Why does anyone care about this Gal - it's not CANON - it's just a pretty picture - it was never seen in an episode.
[ February 03, 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
...and I hope it never becomes canon. Why is it that Okuda and the other physical model tech-heads never inform the CGI guys about registry numbers? All the other GCS that were physical models had NCC-718XX except for the Galaxy and the Enterprise. The Yamato's saucer that was blown up also had a 718XX number. When CGI comes along, we get 71099 and now 70564...it's not really a big deal, but then we have other CGI ships like the FC ships, the Honshu, and the Prometheus. Sure, we can say the FC ships were actually always there, and we could say the Honshu is simply a refit Nebula (it has the lowest registry number of all known Nebula class ships, yet has newer CGI "features" like a Galaxy class saucer with impulse engines, versus the previous, spartan saucer). Now, we have the most advanced ship ( Prometheus) with a registry lower than her Nebula predecessor (why couldn't they just pick another name?).
This isn't a rant, just an inquiry as to why Okuda and Co. don't communicate as much to the CGI guys as they do to the physical modelers (and yes, I know Okuda himself labeled quite a few models like the Yamato).
posted
You're missing the very important "interference" of the writers in lots of this stuff. Someone gave the order for lots of new ships to show up in First Contact, and someone gave both Prometheii their names. in the order of who gets the final say, the writers tend to come right after the producers, and are followed by the tech guys and the FX guys.
I think the dichotomy here is that prior to the switch to CGI, the tech guys *were* the FX guys, who designed and built the models and were responsible for their labelling. When CGI came along, so did outsourcing to lots of different companies. Creating this extra step is probably the source of a lot of the inconsistencies that have popped up.
And as for the Honshu, she doesn't have impulse engines along the saucer. There are shapes along the trailing edge where they were covered up, but they aren't there anymore.
posted
I dunno if it boils down that simply, Mark. I mean, throughout TNG VFX were still outsourced to places like Image G. Perhaps the Greg Jeins and Tony Meningers (sp?) of the world were more likely to chat with Okuda about minutiae than the Rob Bonchunes.
That said, I think it's important to keep in mind that there always was comparatively far less model work done in a season during TNG than we've seen lately with CGI in Voyager. Image G might have averaged three shots every three episodes and so the three or four guys in T-shirts and jeans could afford to leisurely relabel models and keep in constant contact with Okuda, while these days CGI is cranked out on fairly short notice by a larger team of people in an office. Part of the reason that the quality of the stuff out of Foundation and Eden is so good is that Paramount's VFX supervisors probably aren't stickling over things to the same degree they would have in the model shops and allow animation to go ahead methodically rather than as casually as things probably used to be done.
[ February 03, 2002, 12:44: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The answer to the precise question of registries is simple: in the old days, the scenic artists (headed by Mike Okuda) labeled studio models exclusively, although the VFX and model construction, like today, was done elsewhere.
At one occassion, Mike Okuda was surprised when I mentioned the possibility of a second Defiant model -- he said that if one had been built, the art department would've been asked to do the markings. I've since verified that no such model exists.
Obviously, now that the CG modellers can do the markings themselves, inconsistencies arise. Nowdays, it should be as simple as sending an e-mail to Mike Okuda, but one or two things are bound to slip through, especially with time pressures.
Which is one more reason for the Moore to be CGI -- how likely is it that Mike Okuda created these markings?
posted
So, wait a minute. You have a Miranda model which has been sitting in a crate for 18 months. It gets hauled out of a warehouse on the Paramount lot, transported across LA in the back of a pickup to Image G, gets examined by Jein and co., gets its roll bar reattached, and repainted. And then Jein flicks on the Batsignal, and Okuda and his team zoom down to Image G in a 1989 Plymouth Voyager, jump out with little fine-tipped camelhair paintbrushes, and they paint on the name and registry. Okuda, who'd be rather familiar with Mr. Brattain, has a grade-A brain fart and paints on "Brittain" instead. He then hops with his team into the minvan and they rush back to the backlot to finish some Okudagrams.
Strikes me as a bit peculiar. You positive?
And I'd like to hear more about this one Defiant model theory. I'm almost positive Ron Moore said they had to get a second Defiant model built for the escape-pod sequence in "Valiant," which was something of a bother that ultimately convinced them to go all-CGI ASAP.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, maybe he meant something else by "markings". Actually, I admit I don't know if the numbers are painted on, or if they're just stickers. I assume at least a part of the markings would be stickers that Okuda and Co. print out, then stick onto the model or have somebody else do it. Maybe the regs aren't. I should check that, although it wasn't relevant for the purpose of uncovering another Defiant model.
The theory (right now) is based on two things: the fact that the Fact Files/AMT model is so misshapen, and a line in the DS9 Companion saying that the Defiant model is the same size as the Negh'Var model, "two-and-a half feet", as opposed to the many-times verified size of 4 feet for one model.
Unfortunately, Mike Okuda denies it for the aforementioned reason, and we haven't seen this misshapen model onscreen. The closest thing is the new CG Defiant from "Sacrifice of Angels" onward, built by Brian Fisher, then an intern at Digital Muse who had built this model off the Ertl kit as a practice assignment, long before Muse was asked to work on Trek. His model was used in "Valiant", and would be replaced with a 4' based-one in "The Changing Face of Evil."
In all likelyhood, AMT/Ertl got the proportions wrong, while the line in the Companion (which said the model was the same size as the Negh'Var, 2.5 feet) is probably wrong -- the Negh'Var model looks about 4' long, just like the Defiant model.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
