The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[FrontierTrek]

I can't play the damn thing...

Yep - StarTrek.com is getting hammered.

I've put it on YouTube for those interested, although it's not particularly worth it - for some unknown reason they've encoded it HORRIBLY. It looks like it's been artificially compressed down so it's all jagged.

Nevertheless - here are the two clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWxTpCXc0Ow

 

[beamMe]

It would be cool if someone would ask when they started working on this project though, so we could get a good idea how long it takes to get each season out. At this rate, it seems like we'll be lucky to get one season every 9 or 10 months.

I keep reading "six months ago" but don't know the original source.

And about four months ago Richter said this:

Thank you - unfortunately, I won´t be releasing this model to the public. I plan to use it in a project - and some other stuff that I´ll let you know when I can talk about it.

And on the Jan. 19th he asked us to "check out the pics".

 

[davejames]

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 aztecking detail on the 6-footer is barely even noticable, even in closeups. It's just a slight change in coloration and nothing more.

I happen to like BOTH models, but I suppose it would be nice if there were more consistency between the two.

(Although I just watched The Hunted again, and I'd hate to lose that great shot of the escape pod bouncing off the Enterprise's shields; it was such a dynamic shot, and really showed the strengths of the 4-footer well in my opinion).

 

[Mark 2000]

Please keep your insults to yourself. This is beneath this community.

It's also beneath anyone to claim to be experts in something when they're just playing the same guessing game as everyone else. I've gotten some interesting IMs lately from folks getting themselves in trouble for pretending to have more sway than they actually do by TPTB.

 

[beamMe]

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 aztecking detail on the 6-footer is barely even noticable, even in closeups. It's just a slight change in coloration and nothing more.

I happen to like BOTH models, but I suppose it would be nice if there were more consistency between the two.

(Although I just watched The Hunted again, and I'd hate to lose that great shot of the escape pod bouncing off the Enterprise's shields; it was such a dynamic shot, and really showed the strengths of the 4-footer well in my opinion).

They did some nice shots with the 4-footer, but the model is just bad looking compared the the one it's based on with all those changed shapes.

 

[Sho]

It's also beneath anyone to claim to be experts in something when they're just playing the same guessing game as everyone else.

That's no justification to roll out verbiage like "demented" to refer to the activities of your fellow posters, especially of folks like Maxwell Everett who have done far more to contribute to this thread with informative and measured responses than you have. Please keep your conduct respectful of the ways others derive enjoyment and use from this forum.

I've gotten some interesting IMs lately from folks getting themselves in trouble for pretending to have more sway than they actually do by TPTB.

No clue what this even means.

 

[Trekker4747]

So... We're still arguing over whose CGI model was used, huh?

...

Okay.

 

[beamMe]

So... We're still arguing over whose CGI model was used, huh?

...

Okay.

That's still an argument?

 

[Sho]

So... We're still arguing over whose CGI model was used, huh?

Not really, folks are discussing a new interview with Okuda where he says no model has.

 

[Trekker4747]

Ah. Well, that makes sense, since no one ever has mis-spoken or been mistaken.

Carry on.

 

[Sho]

Ah. Well, that makes sense, since no one ever has mis-spoken or been mistaken.

That possibility has been raised, and I agree with it personally. What's with the smartass attitude?

 

[Trekker4747]

Because it seems like a lot of discussion over very, very trivial stuff. The placement of windows, whose CGI model it is, and Okuda saying no CGI was used. It seems like a lot of discussion over, well, nothing.

Okuda was apparently mistaken as some of the shots we've seen clearly are CGI, not sure why it matters whose model it is whomever it is they were likely compensated for the use, and the window placement stuff is so beyond trivial is seems pointless to squabble over it.

 

[TheSeeker]

What else would we have to talk about then? Until the actual episodes can be viewed this is all we've got!

 

[Dac]

Because it seems like a lot of discussion over very, very trivial stuff. The placement of windows, whose CGI model it is, and Okuda saying no CGI was used. It seems like a lot of discussion over, well, nothing.

Okuda was apparently mistaken as some of the shots we've seen clearly are CGI, not sure why it matters whose model it is whomever it is they were likely compensated for the use, and the window placement stuff is so beyond trivial is seems pointless to squabble over it.

That's what I was trying to say all day long yesterday. REGARDLESS of what is and what isn't, we won't know for sure from the horses mouth so why bitch and moan about it?!?!

 

[GNDN]

Hmmm... Personally I see a lot more people complaining about squabbling and arguing over trivia than there are actual arguments or squabbling.

I also see a bunch of Trekkies (or Trekkers, if you prefer) pouring over the few details that have been shared with us. With the few number of photos and interviews released there is little else to do. I'm pretty certain that the conversation will get invigorated on January 31 when we are able to actually SEE the product we're all discussing. So till then, why not join the discussion or not. Speculation is all we have for now. If it's uninteresting, read another thread, or contribute a new idea. If people are talking about windows, why not let them?

I've learned a few things about the 6-foot model Enterprise I wouldn't have otherwise known. That interests me, and I can't wait to see it in action in HD. I could care less at this point whose CGI model is being used or considered. If it blends well with the show and is used judiciously, I'll offer appropriate praise for whoever designed it. If it distracts or detracts, I will offer criticism.

Can't wait to see TNG anew!!!

 

[Sho]

Okuda was apparently mistaken as some of the shots we've seen clearly are CGI, not sure why it matters whose model it is whomever it is they were likely compensated for the use, and the window placement stuff is so beyond trivial is seems pointless to squabble over it.

The window placement talk started because it's a convenient tell to tell apart the physical and CG versions. Later it turned out that the Generations refurbishment introduced some of the changes now seen in the CG model. Personally I find that interesting, because I like production minutae.

You may not, which is fine by me. I don't need to keep hearing it from you, though. If you don't find a subthread engaging, just ignore it.

Hmmm... Personally I see a lot more people complaining about squabbling and arguing over trivia than there are actual arguments or squabbling.

^ This.

 

[TheSeeker]

I'm not really contributing anything but I have to admit I am enjoying learning about all the different aspects of both the CGI E-D and the physical model. Keep it coming!

 

[Beatnik]

Because it seems like a lot of discussion over very, very trivial stuff. The placement of windows, whose CGI model it is, and Okuda saying no CGI was used. It seems like a lot of discussion over, well, nothing.

Okuda was apparently mistaken as some of the shots we've seen clearly are CGI, not sure why it matters whose model it is whomever it is they were likely compensated for the use, and the window placement stuff is so beyond trivial is seems pointless to squabble over it.

Dude, I get it. You find it trivial. That's fine, and I understand why you feel that way. You don't have to keep reminding us, though.

From what I can tell, nobody is (or few are) arguing. We're discussing. Personally, as trivial as these details are, they're fun discussing (especially in the absence of other topics). I like talking about ships. It's fun. It's one of my few remaining core geeky traits from my childhood. I'm excited about the remaster, and the ship (for me) is a huge part of that. It's enthusiasm. Nothing more.

When cooler topics surface, we'll inevitably pivot to that.

 

[sojourner]

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.

 

[AviTrek]

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?