Star Trek: Starships Model/Magazine Subscription

[137th Gebirg]

Wow... Okay - had no idea they ran that one good thing into the ground either. Sorry to hear that.

Then again, I've only ever personally had one thing replaced this entire time (one of the DeLorean build boxes missing a piece), and they quickly replaced it with no issues and I know others have had good responses from them in that arena over the years.

Admittedly, some ships I got from them came slightly disassembled from shipping, but nothing that couldn't be quickly fixed with a dab of super glue, so I never tried calling over those types of incidents. Not worth my time, honestly, when it's easy enough to fix.

 

[Retro Tech Ralph]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mswood]

How is Eaglemoss customer service regarding broken models? I got a shipment in the other day and I found my Tholian (2152) ship was broken! Do they send a replacement? How long does it take? I think I could glue mine back together and have it be passable on the shelf, but I don't like paying for broken product. I already e-mailed them about it.

I've never had a problem with them replacing a model that arrived damaged. Hell I used to send back models just because the window alignment was way out of whack, until I got one that was maybe not spot on but at least close to the mark. And I returned the first Kelvin Enterprise probably 5 times trying to get one whose nacelles weren't seriously out of alignment. Out of the replacements I have had, only 3 have they asked me to mail back the original shipment, though I know some people who have had to do that more often. And all of mine have been shipped just like a normal delivery. Its one of the things I have never had an issue with Eaglemoss.

 

[Markonian]

I wonder why they decided the TMP Vulcan shuttle needed to be a Special? I think I would have preferred it as a Regular release so it would be smaller.

At DST Birmingham (final DST in that city, btw. RIP Birmingham) Ben explained that Rob Bonchune took over building some of the CGI models of ships that were lost or have not been CGI before. This includes the Vulcan warp sled and the T'Plana-Hath. He has been working on these for 4 years. To recoup the investment on these, they have to be made specials. The Son'a command ship is the first of the bunch.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Makes sense.

Bonchune’s an excellent modeling artist (although I do not-so-secretly wish he made his Nebula more studio miniature-correct and less like it was made from Galaxy parts), and I trust his ability to do them correctly. Don’t have a problem with paying a little extra for them.

 

[dantini]

But didn't Fabio Passaro already build quite a few new CG models for the collection, which were nevertheless made as standard-size issues?

By the way, if this is their new model for the T'Plana Hath I have to say it doesn't look that accurate - the overall shape might be correct but the surface details are quite different. Look at that shape above the entrance for example - in the movie it's big and octagonal, on the new model it seems to be hexagonal and smaller.

 

[Markonian]

But didn't Fabio Passaro already build quite a few new CG models for the collection, which were nevertheless made as standard-size issues?

By the way, if this is their new model for the T'Plana Hath I have to say it doesn't look that accurate - the overall shape might be correct but the surface details are quite different. Look at that shape above the entrance for example - in the movie it's big and octagonal, on the new model it seems to be hexagonal and smaller.

Wow! The difference is even more striking on the surface of the outrigger pods.

 

[Rahul]

By the way, if this is their new model for the T'Plana Hath I have to say it doesn't look that accurate - the overall shape might be correct but the surface details are quite different. Look at that shape above the entrance for example - in the movie it's big and octagonal, on the new model it seems to be hexagonal and smaller.

Wow! The difference is even more striking on the surface of the outrigger pods.

The mistake you two make here is comparing the model with a real-life mockup. Mock-ups ALWAYS look different - see all the shuttles that people entered into. They always looked like boxier versions of the small filming models.

For all we know, First Contact had a small scale vfx model for the T'Plana Hath for the landing shot, and a large scale real-love mock-up for the actors to walk out of. Eaglemoss' model will definitely be based on the small model. Not the mock-up.

Edit:
On second look, on the First Contact image definitely only the ramp is a mock-up, the whole ship above is clearly a cgi extension.

But the overall point still stands, that a cgi- extension for a set probably uses a different CGI model (more detailed, but only one angle) then their model of the whole ship (complete, but lacking in detail to render the whole thing faster). Especially for a movie from the 90s. So the Eaglemoss might be movie accurate, they just used more than one model during the movie itself.

 

[dantini]

@ Rahul:
I doubt they would have built more than one CG model of a ship for one movie back then. But even if they did - if EM had to build a new mesh that means the original ones are lost, and I don't even think there are any orthographic renders that show what the original model(s) from FC looked like that EM could have used. There's the study model and its first commercial derivative, but at first glance they look pretty similar to the landed ship in the movie. They don't have all the details of the finished CG model, but I don't think they are where the noticable differences of the EM version originate.
The shot from the movie is probably the best reference for what the surface details should look like, and if the model doesn't look like that I consider it inaccurate.

 

[Rahul]

@ Rahul:
I doubt they would have built more than one CG model of a ship for one movie back then. But even if they did - if EM had to build a new mesh that means the original ones are lost, and I don't even think there are any orthographic renders that show what the original model(s) from FC looked like that EM could have used. There's the study model and its first commercial derivative, but at first glance they look pretty similar to the landed ship in the movie. They don't have all the details of the finished CG model, but I don't think they are where the noticable differences of the EM version originate.
The shot from the movie is probably the best reference for what the surface details should look like, and if the model doesn't look like that I consider it inaccurate.

Of course they would. ESPECIALLY back then! It would be insane to render a fully detailed model from far away, or use a downscaled model for close ups.

They even did that with practical models - the millennium falcon or x-wings from Star Wars all existed in different sizes and levels of details, depending on which shot they would use. They still do that today with digital models, even though nowadays they often start with the highly detailed cgi model and then just downgrade them for fleet shots or far way shots.

Because I found it interesting, I just read up a bit about the T'Plana Hath:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/T'Plana-Hath_type_model
Very interesting read. It's not explicitly stated, but very strongly implied they had at least 2 different cgi-models: 1 for flying shots, and one fur close-ups that transforms it's leg to look better when landed. Plus a fully fledged study model. Eaglemoss' model looks very close to the study model, which also was the cause for the full cgi model, not so much to Eaves' last drawn details for the landing foot.

 

[dantini]

Hm... I don't see any references to separate CGI models on MA. But even if there were, how would EM know what they looked like? If there aren't even any renders of the detailed model, why would there be any of a less detailed one that was only used for the bottom view?

The details on the EM version don't really match the study model either.

 

[Rahul]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Watching the scene again... you can't see shit. I do think the shot of the landing foot moving forward is a different cgi model than the whole ship landing. But your shot is definitely the best one of the entire model, so the Eaglemoss model is definitely off.

I'm wondering if they based it on the cgi model that made a cameo appearance in ST09 (in the Narada's hangar bay) and DIS season 1 episode "Lethe":
http://blog.trekcore.com/2017/10/star-trek-discoverys-canon-connections-episode-106/4/

Also, just off topic, this scene has aged badly. I still love First Contact, but remember that scene being a bit clunky even back then. But holy hell does it look ridiculous on it's own nowadays.

Also also, I think for a non-Federation non-hero ship, the detail is in my opinion close enough

 

[dantini]

I'm wondering if they based it on the cgi model that made a cameo appearance in ST09 (in the Narada's hangar bay) and DIS season 1 episode "Lethe".

I always wondered whether they built a new CG model for those background / cameo appearances or if they just used paintings.

 

[Rahul]

I always wondered whether they built a new CG model for those background / cameo appearances or if they just used paintings.

My guess would be (very) low poly models, so that you vac move the camera or have different perspectives. 2D images is usually only done for flat textures (house fronts, crowd scenes, sky/mountain backgrounds).

 

[dantini]

Also also, I think for a non-Federation non-hero ship, the detail is in my opinion close enough

If it were a regular model I probably wouldn't care either. But since they're making it twice as big and twice as expensive...

 

[137th Gebirg]

We should remember that FC was at the tail end of the 90’s. CG capabilities back then were still somewhat embryonic and nowhere near as advanced as they had become a decade later. They were just starting to work on models that evolved out of the blocky Babylon 5 designs, which were considered cutting-edge only a few years before. Processing power was still comparatively minimal, and corners had to be cut to get things rendered on tight deadlines. More care and time could be taken with still images and digital matte paintings, of course, but animations were still highly process-intensive and required low-poly solutions.

 

[t_smitts]

I'm still curious why certain models are included in the numbered series, while others are specials.

The two Excelsior concepts and the Captain Proton ship should be specials, really. The Klingon BOP in landing position should've been a numbered edition, if the other two versions were. The Conestoga, the Cardassian weapons platform, and Friendship One, are definitely canon, and therefore should've been in the main set as well.

 

[Rahul]

If it were a regular model I probably wouldn't care either. But since they're making it twice as big and twice as expensive...

Ah, shoot, it's only a special...? Now I'm disappointed.

I only ever buy the regular sized models, they have a great size, fit in my working table, in a drawer, and can easily swapped between the two. Everything else feels too big and to much like a toy to waste space in my apartment on (even though I like them).

 

[Rahul]

I'm still curious why certain models are included in the numbered series, while others are specials.

The two Excelsior concepts and the Captain Proton ship should be specials, really. The Klingon BOP in landing position should've been a numbered edition, if the other two versions were. The Conestoga, the Cardassian weapons platform, and Friendship One, are definitely canon, and therefore should've been in the main set as well.

Originally, everything on screen and canon was in the regular series, and concept designs and variants were specials.

That got tricky when they got to the Wolf 359 fleet, which is beloved, but never technically was seen other as wreckage. And then they put the Excelsior prototypes in the main line - because technically they've all been background ships in TNG, too, but only ever appeared in junkyards or docked in the spacedock.

Then I guess some designs that were made for the movies are just too intricate to pull off at that size (say, the Scimitar, or Son'a ships). And now I think they put ships that needed long and expensive research (like the T'Plana Hath) as specials as well - a company has to make some profits, and it's probably impossible to pull that ship off in 2 weeks on 16€ per model. I guess that they put a second BoP variant in the main collection was mainly a cost/time saving measure, to get a bit ahead in producing again and not having to skip delivery.

My guess long term is that they will end the numbered collection once they run out of their Databank of easy-to-produce ships, and then continue to produce all remaining ships as specials for a more expensive prize and more production time in-between issues.

 

[gaghyogi49]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Huh, Eaglemoss uses Ex Astris Scientia as one of their sources for pictures of ships they either don't have the CG asset for, or were never CG to begin with.

I'm not surprised, it's a great resource for that kind of thing.

Thanks for the video link and the nice words! I only now found out about this video and Ben giving credit to Ex Astris Scientia! :-)

Yes, I've been secretly working with Eaglemoss on various starship models and books over the last 4 years or so. Mostly providing the artists with reference pictures and feedback on the CG models while they are being made and making suggestions for which ship to include/make next etc.. It's been great working together with Fabio Passaro, Ed Giddings and Ben, of course.