# Movie Seaview Preview



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

WOW! The new update on the movie Seaview looks fantastic! The box art is great too!!! Can not wait for this one! Great job as usual Moebius! :thumbsup:

http://culttvman.com/main/?p=19993


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

_*OUTSTANDING!!*_ This is the kit I've been waiting 43 years for. Bravo, Moebius, _*BRAVO!!* _


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Looks freakin awsome! pre-ordered at cult's when first announced! I hope she comes into port soon!!!! 

Box art looks fantastic!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

:woohoo:AWESOMENESS!!!!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Love the launching Polaris missile. Nice touch!


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

*beautiful!*


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

Both Steve and Diamond Previews are listing it for a March release.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Must. Get. Bigger. House!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

John P said:


> Must. Get. Bigger. House!


:jest: I am so there, mate! :thumbsup:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

At least this solves what is upstairs leading to the second set of windows. Something that was never seen in the movie or series.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I'm generally not one for the big kits but this one is an exception. In 1998 I bought the Lunar Models 32 inch long Seaview as well as a conversion kit to turn it into the series version. I traded in with Gemini Buildups for some Star Trek models. I really like this kit and I actually have the Voyage Movie on tape. I want this one and will put my all into buildong and painting it. Anyone know when its going to reach the store shelves. I know it was supposed to be out by the end of 2011 but Moebius makes great stuff. Any information as to its release date would be appreciated. Thanks, Guy Schlicter.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

That looks SUPER! Gonna have to start hanging these from the ceiling, but better than not having it at all.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Must....get....bigger..................bathtub.


----------



## MJB (Aug 3, 2001)

Must...not...let...wife...know...what...I'm...really...getting...the...bigger...bathtub...for!!! Must...keep...letting...her...know...it's...for...her!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I'm actually glad I sold my built up TV version... I always liked the movie sub better in a lot of ways.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> At least this solves what is upstairs leading to the second set of windows. Something that was never seen in the movie or series.


????????
Two of the early 1st season episodes clearly showed the second deck platform, as well as a brief look in the movie also.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

*Great looking kit..I will hold out hoping Frank puts out a smaller one like he did with the TV series one..

Z
*


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> ????????
> Two of the early 1st season episodes clearly showed the second deck platform, as well as a brief look in the movie also.


In the movie you can see the underside of the upper deck flooring during all the shaking that happens when the UN sub attacks. For the TV show they removed the catwalk alogether, and to prevent the area above the bow girders from accidentally being filmed they added a vertical wall where the forward end of the catwalk used to be. The arrangement is clearly shown in the photos of the studio set in the old TV Guide article.

Gary


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Memories can sometimes fail us. The partial platform to the upper windows is clearly visible in the film, but it was not recreated for the series. In the first season, the stairs only go up to a small platform as seen in these two photos. There was no walkway or even a door to the control room. Moebius has done a great job filling in the gaps on the design that were never realized in the film set!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Sorry Gary, I was writing mine when you posted yours. The pics I used should make what we were both getting at easier to understand. Thanks for all your great work on the kit!!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

RSN said:


> Sorry Gary, I was writing mine when you posted yours. The pics I used should make what we were both getting at easier to understand. Thanks for all your great work on the kit!!


You're quite welcome. I'd post that TV Guide photo, but I'm busy trying to finish a big article on the Seaview model that I'm writing for Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller magazine.

Gary


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Were these two of them?


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

This is not a complaint... more of a question... but the sail shows 4 windows.... I thought the movie version only had 2?


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

The cover art was done by Yoshiyuki Takini. He's a VERY popular Japanese illustrator who's done scores of model illustrations of a wiide variety of subjects from mecha to historical. A real coup for Frank to get to do the box.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

RSN said:


> Were these two of them?


Yep. The 2nd photo shows how they simply walled off the upper level and didn't deal with the upper row of windows.

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starmanmm said:


> This is not a complaint... more of a question... but the sail shows 4 windows.... I thought the movie version only had 2?


No, both the studio plans & screen caps from the movie show 4 windows.

Gary


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Ok... memory is going then.

Thanks


----------



## FoxTrot (Jan 27, 2000)

As much as I like the movie version 8-windows, I also like the control room being upfront in the 4-window TV 2nd season sub.

Now this is one stupid question - if you obtained the 8-window kit (movie sub) and the existing 4-window kit (TV 2nd season sub), could you shoe-horn the control room into one of the decks of the 8-window sub ? I realise this would be a complete 'fraken-seaview' - but I wonder what the result might be like. The external beauty of the 8-windows, but with the internal control room details...

Fox!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

My advice would be to get the two kits and do it. Then, you'll have your own unique version.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

FoxTrot said:


> Now this is one stupid question - if you obtained the 8-window kit (movie sub) and the existing 4-window kit (TV 2nd season sub), could you shoe-horn the control room into one of the decks of the 8-window sub ? I realise this would be a complete 'fraken-seaview' - but I wonder what the result might be like. The external beauty of the 8-windows, but with the internal control room details...


It’s possible to fit the control room into the uppermost level if you narrow it down a bit. Then it could be located under the sail as on a real sub. You could make a section of the deck superstructure removable for viewing the control room.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Grabs from the movie:


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Season 1 interior set.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Maaaan, dig those crazy orange chairs!!


----------



## B-9 (Jun 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> Maaaan, dig those crazy orange chairs!!


Yup, that was Irwin Allen orange, his favorite color.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

And why is there a control console in the observation nose? Maybe it was a mixing board for the deejay when they had disco parties there.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

That was the forward lookout's position. Since Seaview had the fabulous windows in its' nose, it made sense to post a crewman there to warn when objects appeared in the windows. Yes, that's what sonar and radar are for, but Seaview has those windows to add a third "sense". Too bad they didn't see those mines in the motion picture!

Larry


----------



## megabot11 (Aug 3, 2008)

I've been looking forward to this Kit for of over 30 years. I still haven't built up the TV season 2 refit, but now you guys have been coming up with some interesting ideas, I like adding the control room from the first kit, but See if anybody would be up to this little conversion. I've always Liked the original Movie/season 1 nose design better than the 4 window ( I think the 4 windows were fine, but the two sonar blister housings on either side were a bit much ) So what could it look like with the best of both designs.

Mike.B


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

Being a big fan of both the 8 and 4 window versions, I look at them as two different ways of doing an Uber-build on each. All I can say is "Keep them coming Moebius".........:thumbsup: Now, I'm just waiting for my ship to come in.......


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Zathros said:


> *Great looking kit..I will hold out hoping Frank puts out a smaller one like he did with the TV series one..
> 
> Z
> *


You and me both Zathros. I'd love a big one (I aleady have the big TV sub still unbuilt) but just don't have the room for another big model.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

I am well aware of the fact that some of you good folks don't use Facebook for fear of viruses, hackers, alien implants or whatever, but Frank just posted some new pics on there of my favorite sub today, and I guarantee that your mouths will water after seeing them!

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Moebius-Models/152580141448964


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Looks great, thanks for the link seaview. Of coarse now I'm worried about alien implants...


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Hunch said:


> Looks great, thanks for the link seaview. Of coarse now I'm worried about alien implants...


 

 HEH HEH HEH! Now you know too much, earthling! :hat:
Anyway, I told you this is a thing of great beauty! I'd have been happy to copy and paste those pics to HobbyTalk, but I think that might be copyright infringement.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Man. I can't wait to get this one! I hope she is released soon! I drooled all over my keyboard again! Is this part of getting old or should I just keep my mouth shut like the wife says?


----------



## megabot11 (Aug 3, 2008)

This Is The Seaview...The most extraordinary submarine in all the seven seas.:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'd forgotten how flipping huge this kit is! (Well, I mean the 4 window, since the 8 window isn't out yet, but you knew that.)


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Awsome looking kit!
I must have one of these beauties:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

It really look quite amazing my hats of to Moebius on the whole
production I can't wait to pick one up. With any luck this kit will
be a huge hit and that I hope will spark more offerings in the near future
such as the Movie Seaview.

Bravo Moebius Bravo!!!

fortress:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

fortress said:


> It really look quite amazing my hats of to Moebius on the whole
> production I can't wait to pick one up. With any luck this kit will
> be a huge hit and that I hope will spark more offerings in the near future
> such as the Movie Seaview.
> ...


Ummmmmm......this IS the movie Seaview! I know, I started the thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

RSN said:


> Ummmmmm......this IS the movie Seaview! I know, I started the thread. :thumbsup:


 
I think Fortress meant to write that he hopes that this kit will spark more offerings in the near future LIKE the Movie Seaview.
And I agree with that sentiment, too! A large B-9 Robot, a 1/48 scale Spindrift... :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seaview said:


> I think Fortress meant to write that he hopes that this kit will spark more offerings in the near future LIKE the Movie Seaview.
> And I agree with that sentiment, too! A large B-9 Robot, a 1/48 scale Spindrift... :thumbsup:


Got it, that make sense! :thumbsup:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> I'd forgotten how flipping huge this kit is! (Well, I mean the 4 window, since the 8 window isn't out yet, but you knew that.)


Actually the model of the 8-window version is about an inch shorter than the 4-window. The noses of the filming miniatures were stretched to accommodate the Flying Sub bay.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

ChrisW said:


> The cover art was done by Yoshiyuki Takini. He's a VERY popular Japanese illustrator who's done scores of model illustrations of a wiide variety of subjects from mecha to historical. A real coup for Frank to get to do the box.


Only just saw the box art, and was thinking "Man, whoever did the boxart is a real Takani fan!"...little did I know! His work on box art for Macross, MOSPEADA and many others is a real pinnacle in SF art. He did incredible work realizing the unusual Mecha designs from a show called Xabungle as oil paintings. The Xabungle designs are quite whimsical, but in the Takani paintings it's as if someone took a camera and shot them out in the field. The guy's a genius. And possibly a Voyage fan, as this is the second painting he's done of the Seaview:

http://www.hlj.com/product/MDG22977

Some Takani Xabungle:

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/549606/80s-baseball_cap-cockpit-desert-gloves-gun-hat-hea


----------



## voyagefan** (Dec 19, 1999)

*Movie Seaview Box Art*

It is sad that no one wants to give an honest thought
on the Movie Seaview box art.
In my opinion ,the Seaview image looks wrong on all angles.
Especially the front bow.
Whether famous or not, We got plenty of starving artists in the states that would have rendered the Seaview properly.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The box art looks great to me, not much more I need to say about it. :thumbsup:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The painting is a stylized representation and I love it--that's why they call it "art." There are plenty of photos that show what the kit really looks like.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, well I'm all for art as an artist, but a boxtop _illustration _is supposed to show you what you're getting inside. But if there are model photos on the side panels, it's fine.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

The box art looks great to me! I am an avid fan of well done box art and from my house this is a winner! Everyone has their own opinion. I just never liked the picture box format. I also collect box art so I may have a bias! :thumbsup:

BTW- I respect the opinions of those who prefer picture boxes. To each his/her own.


----------



## voyagefan** (Dec 19, 1999)

jbond said:


> The painting is a stylized representation and I love it--that's why they call it "art." There are plenty of photos that show what the kit really looks like.


Stylized representation ? It does not look like the Seaview should.
Box art should match model design somewhat. This does not.
Thats my point . Read my post again.
Thank you John P.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The original box art for the Flying Sub Seaview looked nothing like the kit, but the art itself was beautiful. Same for this one. I know what the Seaview looks like and I know what the model looks like in the box, so I see no problem with what is presented, no one is being missled! I for one am a bit put off at being called dishonest, (I read the post!), in my feelings about the art. If one does not like it, fine, don't like it, but don't tell those who do that they are wrong or not "honest" about it. :thumbsup:


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

I think it's all a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs. The Big Flying Sub version of the Seaview (1st edition) by Moebius had box art by Chris White that I thought was quite unflattering to the gracefull lines of the Seaview. Just my opinion but I know a lot of fellow modelers thought it was great. There are some who could care less what the box looks like. Different strokes as they say.

I do like the new 8 window box art quite a lot. There's a retro nostalgia feeling to it for me anyway.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

I love that box art. I'm glad Moebius is brave enough to embrace the concept of "art".

This was common during the golden age of modelling. Then we moved into a period of evermore boring and pedestrian technical illustrations. At the height of laziness, some companies just put a big photo on the box.

I think that box art does matter. It's one of those small details that reflects a commitment to the product. You could put the same product in a brown paper bag and the finished model would be just as good. When I see art, the company is telling me that they care enough about the product to commission a professional to present their creation. And that speaks well of the care that went into what is inside the box.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

zike said:


> I love that box art. I'm glad Moebius is brave enough to embrace the concept of "art".
> 
> This was common during the golden age of modelling. Then we moved into a period of evermore boring and pedestrian technical illustrations. At the height of laziness, some companies just put a big photo on the box.
> 
> I think that box art does matter. It's one of those small details that reflects a commitment to the product. You could put the same product in a brown paper bag and the finished model would be just as good. When I see art, the company is telling me that they care enough about the product to commission a professional to present their creation. And that speaks well of the care that went into what is inside the box.


Totally agree!


----------



## voyagefan** (Dec 19, 1999)

Who called anyone dishonest?
To me the box art does not look at all like the Movie Seaview,
Is there anyone around who still has the Aurora /Polar Lights Seaview box?
Now that illustration" Is the Seaview".


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

As Shakespere pointed out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I always loved the Aurora illustrations of my favorite vessel. However, you really couldn't tell what the actual hull color was supposed to be, even though the instructions said to see box art for painting scheme, or words to that effect.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

voyagefan** said:


> Who called anyone dishonest?
> 
> 
> > Well, you did!
> ...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seaview said:


> As Shakespere pointed out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I always loved the Aurora illustrations of my favorite vessel. However, you really couldn't tell what the actual hull color was supposed to be, even though the instructions said to see box art for painting scheme, or words to that effect.


Didn't the instructions say to paint the hull blue and the "windows" black. Gotta love it! That box art was nice, as was the reissue in the '70's. 

The Flying Sub art was probably the most accurate of the Irwin Allen model boxes, balancing both what the kit looked like and the original source miniature. 

I thought the original Spindrift box, with the photo of the model, was a BIG dissapointment after all the great box art that came before. The reissue in the '70's was much better, glad Frank, in his infinate business wisdom, chose it for the mini-Spindrift kit.

Frank used that same wisdom on the movie Seaview box and I will not question his business sense!


----------



## voyagefan** (Dec 19, 1999)

Hey RSN,
I did not say you personally were dishonest.
I was speaking Euphemistically.

I am not talking about whats in the box or what you put on a shelf.
The subject is the box art not looking like the Movie Seaview.
Aurora nailed the box art.
You dont have to agree. 
My post is really making your day. I am not going to respond to any
more of your remarks.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Hey! You can call me Ron, friends do. There was never anything to argue over, they are all just opinions, I stand by mine as you should stand by yours, no biggie.....honest! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I think we can all agree and be thankful that they didn't use a photo of the most used miniature for new footage from the first season, the 2 footer, for the box art!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

RSN said:


> I think we can all agree and be thankful that they didn't use a photo of the most used miniature for new footage from the first season, the 2 footer, for the box art!


 
Yes, indeed! I'm also glad they didn't use the one from the Alladin lunchbox, either, although I admit that it does have a little more charm than that poor, battered 2 footer. :dude:


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

<in my best Iverson voice>
We're talking about art... not models... not models... art!!?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seaview said:


> Yes, indeed! I'm also glad they didn't use the one from the Alladin lunchbox, either, although I admit that it does have a little more charm than that poor, battered 2 footer. :dude:


Don't you love how the Flying Sub was always shown with the eight window Seaview. The Gold Key comics did the same thing. And they made the limber holes windows too!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Is the missile tube hatch opening in the wrong direction? On the 17' at least the hinges faced forward. Maybe the part was just assembled reversed on the prototype. Then again, the escape hatches were all reversed in direction between the 8' and the 17' miniatures, but did the 8' even have an opening missile tube to reverse?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> Is the missile tube hatch opening in the wrong direction? On the 17' at least the hinges faced forward. Maybe the part was just assembled reversed on the prototype. Then again, the escape hatches were all reversed in direction between the 8' and the 17' miniatures, but did the 8' even have an opening missile tube to reverse?


On the 17-footer the hinge was incorrectly put on the fwd portion of a stbd missile hatch, and if the sub were moving even slightly during launch, water pressure would tend to close the hatch on the missile. Not a good idea. During the launch sequence in the movie, though, the hinge is on the aft portion of a portside hatch, which means that they were actually dragging the 17-ft model BACKWARDS through the scene. 

The full-size set of the missile deck matched the 17-footer. In the live-acion scenes of Crane placing the timer on the nose of the missile they reversed the full-size missile deck set, too, and filmed the scene so it appeared that the hinge was on the aft portion of a portside missile hatch.

After Crane attached the timer he swims backward, away from the missile, yet when the sub surfaces moments later he ends up at the hatch behind the sail. Only in an Irwin Allen production.... 

Gary


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks, Gary!


----------



## gareee (Jan 1, 1970)

I'm one of those slackers who never built my 1st edition Seaview. I'm waffling on which version I REALLY love more, because there really isn't room here for both on display.

Decisions, Decisions.

I will say though that Moebius will be getting more money from me this year than in the past few years for sure!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> So just to be clear, these photos do show the one opening missile hatch as it was built and no one reversed the piece before David Merriman restored it?


Your b&w photos of the Seaview were taken by Phil Broad before anybody did any work on the model, and they show the front-hinged hatch on the starboard side of the missile deck. For the uninitiated, I've attached three caps from the missile launch sequence in the movie that show how they "cheated" with both the full-sized set & 17-ft miniature to make it appear that the hinge was on the aft portion of the hatch.

The 3rd photo is a publicity shot, and while you're supposedly looking aft, in the background you can see the deck hatch that was located just aft of the sail (and which was cropped out of this scene in the movie). 

The choreography of the missile launch sequence was such a confused mess that I simply made the missile hatch on the Moebius model match the live-action footage.

Gary


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Hi, Gary, and thanks again. I nuked my previous message just after posting because I didn't want to bother you more with this. When I was adding missile tubes to my Seaview, I referenced the movie, where everything happens in the opposite direction to the sets and miniature, and finally went with the miniature. I thought about water pushing the hatch into the path of the missile and then I thought about water pushing the missile into the hatch and decided neither made sense. All modern subs seem to have hatches that open to the side. 
The only camera I know of on the Seaview is on the sail, which means that in your second attachment, the camera is looking back toward a rear hinged hatch on the port side. The third shot, that should be the open hatch that Crane exited, the hatch not behind the sail but the very aft main escape hatch between the missile tubes and the aft torpedo tubes. They just had him crawl back the wrong way to the sail hatch or something. Assuming that, then you're three out of three and I'm not going to argue. And had I known you were researching this - well, I still would have asked - but since you're the most thorough and meticulous researcher I've ever encountered, I would have known that it was either correct or that there were fine reasons.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> Hi, Gary, and thanks again. I nuked my previous message just after posting because I didn't want to bother you more with this. When I was adding missile tubes to my Seaview, I referenced the movie, where everything happens in the opposite direction to the sets and miniature, and finally went with the miniature. I thought about water pushing the hatch into the path of the missile and then I thought about water pushing the missile into the hatch and decided neither made sense. All modern subs seem to have hatches that open to the side.
> The only camera I know of on the Seaview is on the sail, which means that in your second attachment, the camera is looking back toward a rear hinged hatch on the port side. The third shot, that should be the open hatch that Crane exited, the hatch not behind the sail but the very aft main escape hatch between the missile tubes and the aft torpedo tubes. They just had him crawl back the wrong way to the sail hatch or something. Assuming that, then you're three out of three and I'm not going to argue.


Yeah, continuity was never Uncle Irwin's strong suit. For example, the Seaview's sail was beginning the broach the surface at the beginning of the sequence, the missile was launched from deep underwater, and yet the sub leisurely surfaced moments later. Don't even think about how the shark in Peter Lorre's tank fared while the sub was rocking & rolling! 

Gary


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Gary, I think (hope) I've said this before, but it's wonderful that someone like you, with your incredible breadth and depth of knowledge is here on Hobbytalk willing to take the time and effort to answer such esoteric (and grid-line splitting) questions. That science-fiction modelling exists as an actual hobby at all is in no small part due to your efforts.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> Yeah, continuity was never Uncle Irwin's strong suit. For example, the Seaview's sail was beginning the broach the surface at the beginning of the sequence, the missile was launched from deep underwater, and yet the sub leisurely surfaced moments later. Don't even think about how the shark in Peter Lorre's tank fared while the sub was rocking & rolling!
> 
> Gary


I always wondered the fate of Bessie after all that excitement!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

RSN said:


> I always wondered the fate of Bessie after all that excitement!


 
 I've always had a pet theory about Bessie's later career...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seaview said:


> I've always had a pet theory about Bessie's later career...


Appartently in that little shark brain, Chief Brody, in his uniform, bore a close resemblance to Commodore Emery! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Gary, I think (hope) I've said this before, but it's wonderful that someone like you, with your incredible breadth and depth of knowledge is here on Hobbytalk willing to take the time and effort to answer such esoteric (and grid-line splitting) questions. That science-fiction modelling exists as an actual hobby at all is in no small part due to your efforts.


I'll second that emotion! 

Funny thing is, even tho it's completely in your face and almost screaming to be noticed, when watching the film I never really thought about it!

I mean, we already have to accept that a Polaris missile has a nipple on top for a MANUAL CLOCKWORK LAUNCH ACTIVATOR, right?


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

RSN said:


> Appartently in that little shark brain, Chief Brody, in his uniform, bore a close resemblance to Commodore Emery! :thumbsup:


 
Why am I looking for a "like" button? :thumbsup:


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Steve H said:


> I mean, we already have to accept that a Polaris missile has a nipple on top for a MANUAL CLOCKWORK LAUNCH ACTIVATOR, right?


:lol::roll:*LOL*:roll::lol:


----------

