posted
I suppose so. It just seems odd that they'd gather up the bits and pieces and stick them back on 18 months later for a split-second shot. I'd always assumed the reason we got to see the nacelle phasers again was that they were just stuck on too well.
The TNG Companion, and here I'm fuzzily remembering a book I don't own, talks about how part of the reason they did such extensive AGT refitting was that there were no plans to restore the model. The Venture example shows it wasn't an irreversable modification by any means, but they would have known they'd be using it as the Odyssey in short enough order that I'd take the book into account and assume the Odyssey scenes were filmed before AGT.
-------------------- "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
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Actually, I just remembered that I'm not clear on what form of Galaxy was used in the bigass fleet in CtA, which could have been CGI, an ERTL kit, or, yeah, the 4 footer.
IIRC there was a thread on this kind of recently. It was revealed that the "CtA" Galaxys weren't a studio miniature but they were either CGI or a cheap kit/toy model (I can't remember which).
posted
In that case, the Trinculo can be pretty conclusively ruled out from ever having appeared on screen. (Funny, because I'm sure a lot of people said that months ago.) And even if these dubious pictures appear, we'd have to assume it was a relabel job for an exhibition.
-------------------- "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
I didn't hear any mention of a starship called Trinculo in that episode. Where is that remark supposed to be heard??
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
i remember seeing a pic of the Trinculo, too.
IP: Logged
posted
Me too, but I didn't find it on the maze which is my hard-disk - yet. But I was always under the impression that it was relabeled "Trinculo" for an exhibition - not that it was ever shown (or mentioned) onscreen!?
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It certainly wasn't mentioned in SoA, unless it was one of those impossible to see display type references. The story I've always heard was that the Trinculo was just relabled in the same way as the Valkrie for some exhibition or restaurant. I can't think of anywhere we'd see a physical model in SoA except in the Starbase 375 shots(dark neck?).
posted
It wasn't an assumption. They're not allowed to 'damage' the hero models. A magazine article had photos of the AGT Enterprise with some of the pieces removed and laying on a table. There were cameras around, so it wasn't a model shop. Greg Jein also said in the interview that the third nacelle and connecting pylon had to have it's own power source, as it couln't be hooked to the internal wiring of the four-footer.
It was the same with the Enterprise-B. The refit version was additional pieces that could be addd on and then removed. Kirk was blown out of a 'new' section added on because the model makers weren't allowed to rip open the Excelsior hull.
If you look closely at the shot from "Way of the Warrior" when the Venture is shown docked, the AGT nacelle addons are actually placed on backwards with the phasers towards the front. It doesn't flow ith the contour of the nacelle if the wide part is at the front. Still, I guess that orientation is canon now...
posted
1. I remember the Trinculo pic, too, but if I had it on my drive (which I think likely) it would've been deleted at the same time I deleted several other similar backstage pics when I briefly flirted with a full hard drive.
2. I also recall the notion that the Trinculo signage was only seen (or at least confirmed) on a display model, a la some sort of ST:Experience or Planet Hollywood sort of thing.
(On the other hand, I also "remember" a mention of a ten-foot E-D which doesn't exist, so do with that what you will.)
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: The TNG Companion, and here I'm fuzzily remembering a book I don't own, talks about how part of the reason they did such extensive AGT refitting was that there were no plans to restore the model.
I do own that, and saw no mention of the idea in the AGT section.
The Generations section suggests that the six-footer was used because it had saucer sep capabilities, and that it was therefore stripped down and reworked to bring it up to motion picture specs . . . no mention of the four-footer is made.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: The Venture example shows it wasn't an irreversable modification by any means, but they would have known they'd be using it as the Odyssey in short enough order that I'd take the book into account and assume the Odyssey scenes were filmed before AGT.
which makes me more upset they didnt use the TNG bridge in Jem'Hadar.. but then they were probably using it for Preemptive Strike/AGT.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: The Generations section suggests that the six-footer was used because it had saucer sep capabilities, and that it was therefore stripped down and reworked to bring it up to motion picture specs . . . no mention of the four-footer is made.
The "AGT" future D was most definitely the 4' miniature. I'd put money on it.
They repainted and detailed the 6' miniature for Generations.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
