posted
Definitely like the filming model better. If someone builds a 1:1000 scale Centaur in pristine condition it would be great. Either way, it is definitely a Excelsior sized saucer.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Supposition - the "modifications" that we see in the studio model are wartime-only? I don't think that the Sovereign-esque modifications that Ed did explicitly mean it to be post-war. Part of a refit, possibly. However, for all we know the grey shapes were first on the Baracus class, then incorporated into the Sovereign...
Mark
[ September 05, 2002, 22:10: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
true enough. but my assumption is also based on the fact that, purely instinctually, the raised gridline deflectors on the saucer and the bridge module (even after denying its miranda-ness) LOOK older. besides, the briefing seems like it may have been done after the fact of the Centaur's war exploits.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Then again, if the vessel did not survive those exploits, the writer would only have photo material of her former appearance, back when holographing a Starfleet vessel wasn't forbidden...
And some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature since it was never canonically seen. Well, those other upper-surface details were never seen, either - so perhaps the ship always sported the dark triangles and never featured any dorsal portholes or gridwork? Perhaps those parts of the model are just as ignorable as the mounting point for the motion-control arm is?
(Incidentally, where IS that point? I'd suppose the ship would be mounted from above and/or behind for most of the shots, but we see no obvious attaching point above OR behind. Were parts of the model built to be neatly removable for mounting? Or are the photos pre-mount?)
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I just like the studio model better than the CGI and wanted to explain it. I dont think it matters a hell of a lot anyway, so i'm going to go ahead and say 'I'd agree with you, if you were right.'
Its my assumption, and I'm running with it. And the reason the article, written after the war, would show the post refit Centaur, would of course be the same reason, that holography was forbidden in the wartime days when Centaur existed in the previous configuration.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Here's a crazy theory... The Centaur was seen on screen and therefore exists in the Trek universe. The CGI model is 100% irrelevant.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature since it was never canonically seen.
No, some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature because the scale-defining details of the module have been altered. The back of the bridge mount, where the docking port would be, has been encrusted with gold greeblies and such. The ship has an Excelsior saucer with an Excelsior shuttlebay and Excelsior nacelles. It has a secondary hull that resembles a Miranda rollbar and a bridge that does not have any specific scale-defining features.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
BTW, i realize the studio model is the definitive canon here. i'm just trying to respect the work that Mojo, Giddings and Mark did to get this CGI off the ground, at our request. I could disregard it, and it would be easier to do so, but i feel a little indebted to them for actually doing it.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
TSN's comment aside, the "filming model" was a hastily-built, awfully painted, crappy kitbash that a 10 year old kid could have done a better job building. The CGI model was an extrapolation of the physical model, with attributes making it more believable as a "real" Starfleet vessel. If you like the physical model better, that's your opinion, but I think you're nuts.
I happen to really like this CGI model. I think Mojo made some good choices with what liberties he took, and what to ignore & change. And at the least, I appreciate the fact that he did this because of the points we made when we first saw the physical model pics.
Hey, I just realized that this post is the exact polar opposite of what my status line says. Ironic...
-------------------- "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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Theres a lot of stuff online thats superior to the work that went into the actual shows.
That doesnt make it canon by a long shot.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I never said it was canon. I just said that I liked it better than the physical model.
-------------------- "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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
ok just checking. but why does that make me nuts? (i.e. stupid TV show, not real, etc.. i explained my preference and it makes sense doesnt it?)
i just really love the studio model.. it has a lot more character than a regular looking CGI ship (that we see dozens more of, everyday).
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
