I think part of Trekker's point may be that if we have to count windows to tell the difference between CGI and model, then does it really matter which was used?
I'd argue the specifics of TNG-R do matter in a TNG-R thread

I think part of Trekker's point may be that if we have to count windows to tell the difference between CGI and model, then does it really matter which was used?
JJohnson was talking about a specific frame (linked) where the model-ness is very apparent.
I understand, and I honestly don't think it looks bad there. It's interesting to find out that the new klingon shot is a matte painting and not a CG render. So far those in favor of CG have been claiming it as an example of how good it could look. In actuality the only CG is most likely the warp shot and that's unanimously bad.
Funny how lock step Okuda is on "Original Intent" as he's the guy who swapped out several ships in TOS-R with more modern looking stuff- especially the Tholians that look like the designs from Enterprise.
Its odd that the windows go to the edge on the physical model you'd think that it would be the opposite. Like hard to bulid it like that.
This is Absolutely Right(TM).
The Ten-Forward window "issue" is a red herring; the four-foot model deviates from the ship as designed in so many of its curves and proportions that it's ridiculous. The show would look better if they replaced every shot of it.
whats wrong the 4 and 6foot are a little different. the 4 is more detailed if i remember properly its looks blocker on the screen i like the sacuer has more pronouced little outlines where the pieces of tritanium are supposed to meet i think. But what are u refering to, windows missing, whats different?![]()
The 4-footer isn't more detailed. Its details are just much more pronounced than the details on the 6-footer and were better visible in lower resolution on smaller screens.
whats wrong the 4 and 6foot are a little different. the 4 is more detailed if i remember properly its looks blocker on the screen i like the sacuer has more pronouced little outlines where the pieces of tritanium are supposed to meet i think. But what are u refering to, windows missing, whats different?![]()
The 4-footer isn't more detailed. Its details are just much more pronounced than the details on the 6-footer and were better visible in lower resolution on smaller screens.
Yeah, the raised paneling on the underside of the saucer is much more pronounced. That I'm not so much a fan of. I do like the 2-deck saucer rim to coincide with 10-forward, but that's probably it.
Does the saucer curve change between the 4 and 6 foot models?
♫Though seven windows are swell, there needs to be twelve♫
Kidding!
Its odd that the windows go to the edge on the physical model you'd think that it would be the opposite. Like hard to bulid it like that.
Here's the Christie's Auction of the ship.
and the window placement stuff is so beyond trivial is seems pointless to squabble over it.
You really are determined to not understand what the window placement conversation was actually about.
The window (or lack there of) was being used as a way to tell the CGI from the 6 footer. That is all.
No one here is complaining about the loss of the window.
I think part of Trekker's point may be that if we have to count windows to tell the difference between CGI and model, then does it really matter which was used?
Watching that Star Trek episodes summary video really makes me remember why I still love TNG so much, why I forked out all that money to buy every season on DVD, and why I'll more than likely fork out an ungodly amount of money for the upcoming Blu-ray releases.
I am definitely one of those people who enjoys watching TNG "over and over" again.
I think it was awesome of Dac to remind us of why we spend so much time and energy still talking about this very special show.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.