posted
There is nothing wrong with including the CG model into the picture, but liking or not liking it has nothing to do with anything. Seeing the model as realistic or unrealistic has nothing to do with anything likewise, otherwise we could throw out warp drive and transporters along with the Centaur. Being indebted to anyone has nothing to do with anything either, because that's subjective.
The show is the primary source. The model photo is a secondary source. The CG model is a less valid secondary source that has to be included into the picture defined by the first two. Given that the proportions on the CG model are different from those on the Centaur, the CG model is either a different ship, a major refit, or simply an inaccurate drawing.
As far as the Baracus-class name is concerned -- it's not even official, so I'd prefer we don't call it that. Right now, we don't even know if the ship has a class, so the most we can call it is "Centaur" or "U.S.S. Centaur", which is shorter than "Baracus-class." Creativity doesn't belong here -- we already have a forum for it.
posted
As I told Mike, I wasn't debating the veracity of the models. I was stating my personal opinions about them. So what are you saying, that you don't want us to state our opinions about things unless it has to do with canon Star trek facts, because it has "nothing to do with anything" otherwise? Tough shit, buddy. I'll think what I want to think, & say what I want to say. And if I want to call the ship Baracus class, I'll do that too. Not that I would. Because I hate that name. But you get the point.
-------------------- "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
I'm merely saying that liking or not liking something, seeing something as realistic or unrealistic must not influence the analysis. There's a difference between saying "I like this model" and "I like this model, and because I like that model, I'll include it" (and true, you never said this, and I never said you did.)
I think it's OK criticize the latter stance, because it has direct bearing on the results of the discussion.
posted
Those are pretty nice drawings. Will you also try to make a set that includes all the little greeblies and such of the model?
To those criticizing the "look" of the shooting model, I'd like to remind them that we've only ever seen two photographs of the model, which were obviously taken under less-than-ideal lighting conditions---probably just by some VFX staff member who happened to have a handheld camera. It's not like it was a professional job. We HAVE seen the model under shooting conditions and lighting. IN THE EPISODE. And I haven't heard much criticism of the "look" of the Centaur in the episode...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You've got a point.. Obviously, the model had been color-corrected in post to reflect the usual Starfleet grey scheme of the time. This should be taken into account.
posted
sure ill make an addition to the centaur to reflect the model a little more
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
Silent-Bob
Ex-Member
posted
could you please make a smaller side view, so that it's in scale with your top and bottom views? i can't wait till you can do the front and back views
IP: Logged
posted
Akira62497: I think I mentioned it before but the rollbar should be a little further back.
For what it's worth, I'd say a std Excelsior saucer would be 10 decks tall. 7 decks down to and including the rim, and then 3 decks below. If we assume the Centaur's Miranda-like bridge piece is 2 decks, then the entire saucer is 11 decks tall. I'd personally say that the Centaur bridge is two decks in height but is only actually counted as 1 deck (as with the Galaxy-class).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(not as good quality) 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
