posted
TSN: You don't have to convince me pal, I already know you're right. I have both the Miranda and C-2 models from ERTL and I believe that the nacelles are about the same size so it shouldn't matter which model they took them off of. And, yes, both those models are out of scale with the Excelsior model so the nacelles are bigger than the Trek universe's Miranda.
I believe the actual studio model used for this shot (as well as shots of the Yeager Class and Centaur) was constructed from the ERTL kits. If it was a CGI shot, you'd think they'd come up with a more unique looking design. The ERTL kits were probably used to save some cash.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
posted
If (and when) the nacelles and saucer are not to the same scale, then I'd suggest we interpret the saucer as being too small instead of the engines being too large. The reasons being:
1) Seldom seen, ugly and unpopular ships ought to be smaller than regular ships whenever possible. That way, Starfleet would appear to be wasting less credits on something so useless.
2) Since so far, the LN-64 and related engines have only appeared at a single scale, be they aboard a C-II, a Miranda, a Sydney, or modified for a Constellation, it would be nicer not to invent new and larger versions unless absolutely necessary. OTOH, we have seen how Galaxy saucers can be convincingly kitbashed to different scales - and the scale of the Curry saucer is not apparent, especially considering the heavy battle damage.
3) If we downscale the saucer of the Curry, then we can more easily justify downscaling the saucer of the Centaur to make that ship better match the small Jem'Hadar battlebug in the scenes shared by those two ships.
Of course, if we downscale the Curry to match the nacelles, we lose all hope of ever squeezing one of those interceptors through the shuttlebay doors... I wonder if we should think that the secondary hull was shot to hell as well? Perhaps there is something significant missing?
Timo Saloniemi
P.S: What about the rumor that there would be a "Whorfin-class" (i.e. Lakul type) transport or two in the background in these "Curry scenes"?
posted
Timo: Which seems more likely to you? Two nacelles of different sizes that look nearly identical externally, or two saucers/secondary hulls of different sizes that look nearly identical externally? When something like a sacuer gets rescaled, certain features have to change. Look at the New Orleans and Cheyenne. The saucers are smaller versions of the Galaxy's, but the windows and bridges are proportionally larger to make up for this. If the Ex parts on the Curry had been scaled down, things would have to change, but they didn't. However, if a Miranda nacelle were to be scaled up, what external features would need to be changed? None, really. So, it's much more likely that this is what happened.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
posted
I would usually scale down the nacelles like on the NO, since their shape is less complex and scaling can be rather justified. However, Timo's proposal has some benefits too. I would have to give it some thought.
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
posted
My reason for arguing that the saucer should be scaled instead of the engines was mainly the sorry state of the said saucer. Excelsior saucers do not have much in the way of windows to begin with, and those of the Curry were all chewed away. Bridge domes in turn come in all sizes, as do impulse crystals (from the minute crystal of the shuttle Chaffee upwards!). The secondary hull might have had some windows remaining, but those seemed conveniently unlit.
Engines in general seem less scaleable than hull parts. After all, a window works as a window regardless of its diameter. But try scaling down, say, a combustion engine, and you soon notice it cannot retain its original shape and still work. I'm forced to accept the downscaled-but-not-reshaped Galaxy nacelle of the Freedom class (the alternative would be to accept a humungously big one-naceller, her saucer almost Galaxy-sized), but I do that grinding my teeth and appealing to the evidence of smaller Galaxy-shaped nacelles aboard the 2+2-nacelle Nebula.
posted
Still, if the Curry's saucer had been scaled down, why would the bridge module look exactly the same? Obviously, it couldn't be the bridge anymore, since it would be too small. Are you saying that they put some sort of rounded dome atop the saucer, which looked exactly like a scaled-down brdige module, just to keep it looking identical to an Excelsior saucer? I doubt it. Besides, as mentioned, this would make the shuttlebay dorrs hopelessly small. We don't want the shuttles flying through and becoming convertibles in the process, do we? :-)
Like I said, nacelles are easy to rescale, since they don't really have many external details. This makes it incredibly more likely that this is what happened.
------------------ "To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves." -They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
