# What Trek do you want next from PL?



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Lets try some harder numbers. I'm sidestepping the 1/350 TOS _E_ simply because _everyone_ wants it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I no particular order, if there were only going to be 3 Trek kits okayed ever again before RC2 pulls the plug:

1/350 TOS E
1/1000 1701-D
1/24 TOS shuttle


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Give me a 1/1000 scale Refit and I can build a boatload of kitbashes - and get a lot of the larger 1/537 scale kits off my shelf.... 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

I'd personally like the D and a Warbird in the same scale, since I can only pick one it's gotta be the D in 1/1000 (and a Warbird, dammit)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Mine's not on the list. The others are just gravy.


----------



## Cappy D (Jun 19, 2004)

More 1/1000 scale ships, especially the TMP refit Enterprise (or Enterprise A) and 1/1000 scale K'tinga.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Hasn't someone else done this poll before?


----------



## Barry Yoner (Mar 6, 1999)

I'm sure this poll has been done before.


1/1000 Refit, K'tinga and Reliant in that order!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

starmanmm said:


> Hasn't someone else done this poll before?


 A miwwion times. 



> Give me a 1/1000 scale Refit and I can build a boatload of kitbashes - and get a lot of the larger 1/537 scale kits off my shelf....


 I'm all for _that _too!


----------



## MitchPD3 (Dec 27, 2001)

Kazon Torpedo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## philp (Jul 20, 2004)

Want a D and TOS Warbird in 1/1000.
TNG Klingon Warbird in either scale.
Want shuttles in 1/72nd.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I want TOS Shuttlecraft _Galileo_ with alternate markings in 1/24 scale and made along the lines Phil Broad and *FourMadMen* have been working on.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

starmanmm said:


> Hasn't someone else done this poll before?


 On the average of about once or twice a month for the past two years - on just about every SF and ST modeling board on the net.

Often multiple threads on the topic. All at the same time.

We seem to never get tired of the topic continually coming up, or voting over-and-over again for the same favorite would-be kits.

Myself included.


----------



## viper (Sep 7, 2003)

You don't have the Aurora/AMT Spock listed there.That's the one I'd really like to see next from PL.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*1/350 T'kinga Klingon!*

I voted for the T'kinga in the poll but I want to point out how cool it would be to be in scale with the 1/350 Enterprise. I'm not really into most of the others but I'm clearly not in the majority.


----------



## ghostbuster (May 30, 2004)

*enterprise-E*

I think the Enterprise-E is the second greatest of all of the enterprises, the first being the enterprise refit/A. but since they are already releasing the refit in 1/350th i would love to see the enterprise-e in 1/1000.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I had to flip a coin between the K'Tinga and the _Defiant_. The latter won. I'm mildly surprised to see it has as many votes as it does. It would be _my_ ship if I were able to choose, all things being equal. And I would _*obliterate*_ anyone who bugged me.

This means you.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Seeing as we'e getting the 1/350 refit _E_ next I rather doubt we'll see a 1/1000 scale version anytime soon. That's why I'm still pulling for the _Galileo._


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

I voted K'tinga. And I assume it is understood to be a 1/350th choice in this poll.

I Must Have K'tinga!..... MUST HAVE!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This one in 1/350:











!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



......and a 1/350 TOS 1701, too!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> This one in 1/350:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We could get Captain April and MGagen to co-design an accurate Phase II bridge interior too!

If they put their heads together, how long do you think it might take for them to agree on the design and whip one up for us?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^ :lol:
Of course, the bridge for this baby does face forward. (It has two turbolift tubes, one off to port by about 35 degrees, the other off to starboard the same amount.)


----------



## daikins (Jul 24, 2003)

_Defiant_ all the way!


----------



## ssgt-cheese (May 31, 2000)

_I voted for a 1/350 scale K'tinga. With options to built the KronosI from STVI. Besides the PL E kit will need an adversary.:thumbsup: _

Mike


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

An inclusion of photoetch brass details would be most welcome in a 1/350 scale K't'inga/Kronos One kit. That feature seems to be much more commonplace now in the better kit releases.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> An inclusion of photoetch brass details would be most welcome in a 1/350 scale K't'inga/Kronos One kit. That feature seems to be much more commonplace now in the better kit releases.


What? 

Not going to speculate on how long a joint MGagen/Captain April collaboration would take?


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

1:350 TOS 1701
1:1000 NX-01
1:1000 1701-A
1:1000 1701-PH II (since the box art is already done  )
1:24 TOS Galileo


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

No 1/1000. Small models are a waste of time and just harder to paint for those of use with shakey hands. And when you're done it's less detailed anyway.

Big big big!

Defiant in 1/150 since it's so much smaller than Enterprise.
1/350 TOS Enterprise
1/700, Enterprise D/E

Worry about where you're going to put it later


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sword of Whedon said:


> No 1/1000. Small models are a waste of time and just harder to paint for those of use with shakey hands. And when you're done it's less detailed anyway.


 Yeah?
http://www.inpayne.com/models/models_trek2.html

How about even smaller, the waste-of-time 1/2500 scale?
http://members.aol.com/griffworks/shipyards.html


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> What?
> 
> Not going to speculate on how long a joint MGagen/Captain April collaboration would take?


----------



## modelcitizen (Dec 30, 1998)

*Been away for awhile*

Hello BB members. Although I joined this forum quite a while ago, I have only stopped in at rare intervals lately. I was one of the Polar Lights early die hard followers and bought every kit that was re-issued with a big fat smile on my face and told everyone that would listen how fantastic it was that a company was popping out all the old Aurora monster kits again! I started several young persons building kits and was proud to be doing it. I began going to my local hobby stores,and model shows collecting everything I could get my hands on that had a Playing Mantis label. Recently I have been checking in to see what this great company is working on and other than Captain America, figure kits have gone the way of the Do-Do. I was confused as to why, after re-popping all the Aurora monster kits, they've slammed the brakes on short of fininshing the complete original monster kit collection by not re-issuing the Dr. Jekyle as Mr. Hyde. So I just checked out a FAQ thread and the reason given for not doing this was that "there is not enough demand to justify the costs of producing it. It just isn’t commercially viable." WHAT??? When this company started producing these kits I know that most of these kits were "not commercialy viable" but we all bought enough kits to build this company into a multi $$$$ company. I am insulted that the last monster kit that would complete the original line up is kept from the faithful customers of PM/PL because of this lame excuse. You should re-pop it and give to to all your faithful buyers as a gift! (Or at least let me prove we'll all buy it and then re-pop Big Frankie as a gift!) By the way, I buy All your Johnny Lightning cars and my daughter buys all your Memory Lane stuff too. So How much does it take to make something "commercially viable". One more kit certainly won;t bankrupt you guys. (didn't the Guillotine prove that your statistics aren't always right?) Anyway, I just needed to get that off my chest, I will still always be a Polar Lights die hard fan.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Yeah?
> http://www.inpayne.com/models/models_trek2.html
> 
> How about even smaller, the waste-of-time 1/2500 scale?
> http://members.aol.com/griffworks/shipyards.html


1- It's a ship that doesn't exist onscreen, so to my personally it's a double waste. It doesn't exist in continuity, and it's too small for any real detail

2-Meh, It should be a minimum of 3 feet tall, preferably about 4. I would never bother with the mushroom any smaller.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sad, that you close yourself off to possibilities .


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

Well, I just don't see a point in modelling Star Trek if it doesn't exist in Star Trek. Unless it's on the actual show, it's just something someone made up. That's why I don't watch non-humorous fanfilm, read the 70,000 books they put out. It's not a lack of creativity, but as far as I know the purpose of modeling is creating a replica of something. If it's an original, it's now a sculpture.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, while I think the original 11' Enterprise is as _beautiful _as a sculpture, Richard Datin will probably tell you he built a model.


----------



## chuckman (Nov 25, 2003)

Sword of Whedon said:


> It's not a lack of creativity, but as far as I know the purpose of modeling is creating a replica of something. If it's an original, it's now a sculpture.


so youre saying that all the clay "models" that car companies use (at at least to, now its a whole buncha cad) are sculptures and not models? or that car models with custom paintjobs and parts arent really models? nor are ho-scale trains around a fictional railroad? and all this time i thought a "model" was just a synonym for "miniature" or "prototype."

anyway, i voted for a 1/1000 e-e, followed by an e-d, and then a 1/350 k't'inga. a 1/350 tos-e would be nice, but i just dont have the shelf space with the 1/350 nx and (soon) refit, and i really dont feel like having to build a full-blown display room in my basement, as i'd rather throw some parts on the truck.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, I was just watching some old Thunderbirds episodes - ya know, where they have sculptures of aircraft flying around on strings. I guess they couldn't have been models since they weren't copied from anything real.

We better notify members of the Motion Picture Model Makers Union that they need to change their resumes to say "sculptors" :lol:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Even if they're not REAL ships, they're still REEL ships!


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> so youre saying that all the clay "models" that car companies use (at at least to, now its a whole buncha cad) are sculptures and not models? or that car models with custom paintjobs and parts arent really models? nor are ho-scale trains around a fictional railroad? and all this time i thought a "model" was just a synonym for "miniature" or "prototype."


When used in this context, modeling is creating a replica. If it's not on screen, it may as well not exist. Bottom line for me. If you want to be creative, get a job working on the show, the 7th level of hell it may be at the moment


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

And back on topic, I'd like to see more in the 1/1000 range. A, D and E Enterprises would be great. But I'm not even sure that we'll see anything beyond the 1/350 refit E this fall. And, honestly, I really hope that the refit makes it to store shelves.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Now we're not allowed to be creative unless it's part of our job.

Narrow, narrow world view.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Well, I just don't see a point in modelling Star Trek if it doesn't exist in Star Trek. Unless it's on the actual show, it's just something someone made up. That's why I don't watch non-humorous fanfilm, read the 70,000 books they put out. It's not a lack of creativity, but as far as I know the purpose of modeling is creating a replica of something. If it's an original, it's now a sculpture.


Hmmmm. If you have kids, I sure hope you don't smash their ideas like this.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Now we're not allowed to be creative unless it's part of our job.


Why not be creative in your own worlds instead of other people's? It's not smashing ideas, it's that if you want to work on Star Trek, get a job on Star Trek. Otherwise create your own things. Sure you can kit bash from Trek kits to make something completely new, but all these designs I see are obviously just derivative. Most of the great Hollywood models (Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars)were original models combined with kitbashes. Build something new, don't copy, and don't be playing in other people's yards without permission.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There is nothing wrong with kitbashing to create something you'd like to see exist in 3D form that wouldn't exist otherwise outside of your imagination. That said one must be realistic and accept that a company isn't likely to risk producing something that isn't universally recognized and sanctioned by the owners of the original product.

Regarding the poll the results seem to be reflecting the earlier similar poll with the TOS _Galileo_ Shuttlecraft leading the way as the favoured potential kit overall.

Hello, PL, are you listening?


----------



## brain (Apr 16, 2003)

I think I'd really like to see an Enterprise D done properly rather than the only offereing we got from ertl - far too many errors on that model!

[Hey that was my 100th post!  ]


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Why not be creative in your own worlds instead of other people's? It's not smashing ideas, it's that if you want to work on Star Trek, get a job on Star Trek. Otherwise create your own things. Sure you can kit bash from Trek kits to make something completely new, but all these designs I see are obviously just derivative. Most of the great Hollywood models (Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars)were original models combined with kitbashes. Build something new, don't copy, and don't be playing in other people's yards without permission.


 Without _permission_?! What are you, a Paramount lawyer? :lol:
Man, you just have NO idea of the fun you're missing.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Sure you can kit bash from Trek kits to make something completely new, but all these designs I see are obviously just derivative. Build something new, don't copy, and don't be playing in other people's yards without permission.


Soem interesting thoughts. "Just Derivative." Problem with that phrase is that it implies that "derivative" is always bad. Sometimes it is bad, and sometimes it's just fun. I'm pretty sure if we took a look at the various new fighters aircraft that have been introduced through the airs, some pretty darn fine aircraft could be labelled as "just derivative."

Course, if you don't like doing that it's cool. But I'm not sure you need to absolutize your perceptions. In this case, live and let live (or model, as the case may be).

And as for doing this "without permission." I think I understand what you're saying, but I rather doubt Paramount's lawyers care one whit about the constitution class kitbash that's sitting on my display case at home.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Man, you just have NO idea of the fun you're missing.


I have respect for creator's rights. It's not right to play with someone else's creation without their consent(That's the Roddenberry estate, not Paramount in my mind). Whether or not the lawyer brigade is going to bust down your door is irrelevant. 
I don't watch dubbed movies, I don't watch them in unapproved aspect ratios, I don't listen to remixes of songs. Nothing not directly approved by the creator/writer/artist


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Your respect for the creator/writer/artist is great. It's just that I really don't think the creators of the various Trek ships (such as Rick Sternbach) would object to the idea of kitbashing. They might object to how unappealing some of the results are, but that's a different issue. 

And back to the topic of the thread, I guess we really don't know for sure that there will be any more Trek models. But I'm still hoping for more 1/1000 ships!


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

nothing like living life on the edge.....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dr. Brad said:


> Your respect for the creator/writer/artist is great. It's just that I really don't think the creators of the various Trek ships (such as Rick Sternbach) would object to the idea of kitbashing.


 In fact, I know he doesn't, since we've corresponded about my kitbashes over on TrekBBS.com, a bboard with thousands of participants who indulge in CGI, modeling, kitbashing, designing their own stuff, writing their own fanfic.....

Roddenberry loved that fans went off on their own and had fun with his creation.

Paramount doesn't give a rat's ass if you kitbash a starship of your own.

Life's too short and dull to be so rigid.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'm amazed at how many variations of a saucer and a couple of nacelles folks can still come up with.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sword of Whedon said:


> I have respect for creator's rights. It's not right to play with someone else's creation without their consent(That's the Roddenberry estate, not Paramount in my mind).


Actually, though he misled Franz Joseph into believing otherwise for almost a year, Roddenberry sold away all rights to Star Trek to Paramount by the time TOS was over.

He was a consultant on TAS, TMP, and other endeavors, but he hasn't held any of the rights to Trek since the 60's.

On the kitbashing subject, as long as you are doing it for fun and profit it's 100% legal. True, some garage kit manufacturers who make special parts for those who want help kitbashing are violating the law. Though most of them spend much more on their hobby then they make, and their customers are buying products that are too specialized for large companies to bother producing.

Again, I admit that it is illegal to sell such products.
But if Paramount choses not to prosecute them I see no reason to complain.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Why not be creative in your own worlds instead of other people's? It's not smashing ideas, it's that if you want to work on Star Trek, get a job on Star Trek. Otherwise create your own things. Sure you can kit bash from Trek kits to make something completely new, but all these designs I see are obviously just derivative... Build something new, don't copy, and don't be playing in other people's yards without permission.


I'm going to take a hard swing at this one and see if I hit something...

I bet you are a really big Anne Rice fan and you are also really appalled at all the Ricean fan-fiction that is circulating on the internet?

Did I strikeout???



Back to the subject of the thread...
after the 1/350th TOS Enterprise I'd love to see a 1/350th D-7...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's not _remotely _illegal to sell upgrade/modification _parts _or decalsfor Star Trek models.

It IS a copyright volation to sell _full kits_ of the spaceships that have appeared on screen.

It's NOT a copyright violation to _build _a model.

It's NOT a copyright violation to kitbash your own design for fun nor to sell models of it.

It's NOT a copyright violation to design plans for a _new_ starship and sell them.

It's NOT a copyright violation to write fanfic, or make fan films, _as long as you don't charge money _for them.

It's a rich, pleasant sandbox to play in; there are lotsa people in it sharing the joy and wonder.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

I'll disagree with your interpretaition of copyright violation John. If you create a product that is derivative of a copywritten work, then you are in potential violation of the copyright. However, that's something that lawyers, lawsuits, and courts decide. It doesn't matter whether you exchange money in the process or not. Simply utilizing the intellectual properties without authorization can be seen to lower the finacial value of the original property and it is in the interests of that original copyright owner to protect his property. 

For instance, if you make copies of a script and give them away, you could be lowering the potential commecial sales of that script if it were published. 

Or, you could create your own Star Trek or Batman movie and the fans might like your show better than the current theatrical Trek or Batman. This could be seen as lowering the value of thier property.

Or if you print up a bunch of T shirts that say Star Wars and give them away at a convention. This could have an impact on the sales of t shirts by people that actually paid money for a Star Wars T Shirt license. 

There's a lot of grey areas in the whole mess, and it usually takes litigation to redefine those as black and white. 

Some specific properties are very aggressively protected. I recall someone telling me once they got a call from a DC comics lawyer over a photo of a batman kit because the bat emblem was protected property. I recall someone else that got a C&D from Paramount for trying to sell his built up Enterprise kit. 

It may seem like stupidity but when they have bigger lawyers and deeper pockets than you do, is it worth a fight?

Cult


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, granted I'm not legally versed on the subject. 

So where does the "fair use" doctrine come in? For instance, a part of one of my kitbashes was inspired by a starship design published in the book _Starfleet Prototype_. This is one of the ships I sell a datasheet for. The guy who designed that ship threatened to sic his copyright lawyers on me if I didn't credit him (which I was happy to do, once I found out his name, which wasn't in the damn book). Yet several notables in the Trek internet community assured ne he didn't have a leg to stand on, since he himself used bits of Paramount's property to create HIS ship, and my borrowing of part of his was as much "fair use" as his borrowing the saucer and engines from Paramount.

Also, I should have mentioned that using the property's name (a la "STAR WARS" on a T-shirt) and _selling it_ is _clearly _an infringement. Hence One is wise to avoid using the phrase Star Trek in fanfic, and why my kitbashed starships page only says "kitbashed starships."


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Fair Use pretty much applies to your personal use of a product, and for educational purposes. For instance, you can copy diagrams for your own use in building your own model kit. You can't copy those same diagrams and distribute commerically. You could utilize them in a handout in a classroom setting assuming they were not already commecially available. 

Fair use also applies in cases where the product in question becomes part of a news event. Suppose a band has a big party to cellebrate selling a million copies of an album. A new organization could air a short snippet of that album under fair use without having to pay royalties. When a movie wins a best picture award, you can generally broadcast a brief illustrative clip.

Fair use overly used to justify too much infringement. It really has a narrow legal application.

Sometimes, as in the case described, you make a fair effort to obtain permission but cannot. You produce the product anyway. The copyright owner comes along and makes a stink. You come to some agreement as to how to handle the situation. Sounds like you handled the situation properly. Worst case is when you are forced to discontinue the product and pay damages. That means they have big lawyers and deep pockets.

Now, if you ever do find yourself involved in any sort of legal entanglement regarding copyright infringement, the best thing you can do is consult with a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer and none of my comments should be construed as legal advice. Its just my understanding of how the law works. 

Steve


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

You certainly have a better handle on it than me .

In any case, what got this line of thought going - there certainly isn't anything wrong with kitbashing for personal enjoyment.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Fair Use pretty much applies to your personal use of a product, and for educational purposes. For instance, you can copy diagrams for your own use in building your own model kit. You can't copy those same diagrams and distribute commerically. You could utilize them in a handout in a classroom setting assuming they were not already commecially available.
> 
> Fair use also applies in cases where the product in question becomes part of a news event. Suppose a band has a big party to cellebrate selling a million copies of an album. A new organization could air a short snippet of that album under fair use without having to pay royalties. When a movie wins a best picture award, you can generally broadcast a brief illustrative clip.
> 
> ...


Hi Ya' Steve Listen Your Entire Explanation Seems 100% Correct! It also reminds me of that BIG Contoversy years ago when Forrest Ackerman and Warren Publishing did a Cover of Famous Monsters (One of the Later Issues) And they Put ABOVE the Magazine Title "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA" Aparently they didn't have the Right to do that are something. I think Because the Galactica Title was SO Much Bigger than the FM Title It Turned that Issue into a "Special ALL Galactica Issue " Which IIRC it was not! So I ask you Steve (are anybody) how does it work for a Magazine like a Starlog or a Famous Monsters Are they Infringing on any kind of Copyrights when they Publish a Photo of Chaney or Karloff or Robby The Robot? Heck Starlog used to have Robby as their Spokes uh Bot Lol how does that work?

JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

John P said:


> In any case, what got this line of thought going - there certainly isn't anything wrong with kitbashing for personal enjoyment.


As long as you do it well


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> I'm going to take a hard swing at this one and see if I hit something...
> 
> I bet you are a really big Anne Rice fan and you are also really appalled at all the Ricean fan-fiction that is circulating on the internet?
> 
> Did I strikeout???


Completely. I liked the first book, the others bored me. I give a rats about Anne Rice's rights as a creator, but that's where it stops as I don't like her writing for the most part.

Copyright law has nothing to do with it. Creator's rights are (no pun intended) paramount. If it's not on screen, it may as well not exist. If I want to get creative, I create something new.


----------



## Epsilon (Apr 3, 2004)

I, for one... like to be a touch creative. [shrug] Personally, I don't mind the idea of making a dreadnought 3 engined version of the refit that's not a part of the "official" Star Trek cannon.

Just a background note. I have modeled most of my life. (probably fairly poorly by this forum's standards, but still...) but... I have been driven to draw, based on what I've seen on screen, ships never evisioned in the movies or the shows.

Then... I dabbled in CGI. Started making 3d model-sets in Lightwave. Got my stuff published... by mistake... on the covers of the Babylon 5 video tapes, and published in some major UK mags... simply because WB couldn't tell the difference???!?!?!

All because it inspired me to be creative. 

So why bust people's humps because they want to create their own stuff based on the "look and feel" of Starfleet ships? It's part of the hobby. It's part of the fun. It's personal. And it gives the more "creative" people an outlet for their creativity, albiet based on some other's work, only for their appreciation for the asthetic "look" of what these designs inspire. 

Isn't that what we... as modelers... DO???? We re-create the look and feel of [what-ever-the-subject-is] because we appreciate it. We want to have a replica of the the subject at hand. So what if the fine folks at Paramount created it or not?

My plan? 

After I ruin a refit or 3... Get my final version right, I'm gonna start on a 3 nacelle'd dreadnought design, and make it look kick ass!


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Then... I dabbled in CGI. Started making 3d model-sets in Lightwave. Got my stuff published... by mistake... on the covers of the Babylon 5 video tapes, and published in some major UK mags... simply because WB couldn't tell the difference???!?!?!


Well, Warner never did care about B5 enough to pay attention, until they saw how much $$ the DVDs brought in. 



> Isn't that what we... as modelers... DO???? We re-create the look and feel of [what-ever-the-subject-is] because we appreciate it. We want to have a replica of the the subject at hand. So what if the fine folks at Paramount created it or not?


Because if it's not previously existing, you're not creating a replica, you're creating.
That's the difference. Only the creator of something has the right to create, or to appoint people his creative representative. If you want to be creative, have at it, but create something new, don't be inventing new Federation starship designs.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think perhaps you are the only sci fi modeler in the world who thinks that way.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I'd still like a 1/1000 1701-A, D or E from PL. In addition to building them out of the box, imagine the kitbashing possibilities!


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

I'd like a 1/1000 version of the D as long as PL include the "All Good Things" mods as well!


----------



## James Henderson (Aug 22, 1999)

I'd like to have all the Enterprise incarnations in 1/1000 scale. I know AMT already did the -B, but I have a feeling PL would do it better.

James


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Completely. I liked the first book, the others bored me. I give a rats about Anne Rice's rights as a creator, but that's where it stops as I don't like her writing for the most part.
> 
> Copyright law has nothing to do with it. Creator's rights are (no pun intended) paramount. If it's not on screen, it may as well not exist. If I want to get creative, I create something new.


Okay, guess I'd better sit on the bench for awhile. I understand the principle of creator's rights, though I think you seem to be applying them more then a little unevenly.

I think, for example, that Jefferies may well have had way more to do with starship design considerations then Roddenberry.

I believe asking everyone who isn't employed by Paramount not to indulge their imagination is a bit unrealistic.

Out of curiousity, how old would you happen to be? How long a Trek fan?

During the last couple of years I've been spending more and more time checking out fan designs -which I avoided doing during the '70's due to the sheer volume and expense. Not to mention some were crappy and before the internet you could never tell until you opened the envelope.

Granted, some of the fan designs are lame.
But several of the fan artists, Aridas Sofia for example, are AS talented if not MORE talented then some of the people that Paramount has hired.

Which I think is probably responsible for Paramount starting to crack down on fan blueprints/fiction about 1980, and why they started to so feverently try and dismiss and discredit the value of "unofficial" Trek blueprints/fiction. I fear you may have become an unwitting victim of that brainwashing/inculcation that began in the early '80's.

Paramount knew they would never be able to employee ALL of the best trek designers, so they clamped down on everyone else.

Can't have the amateurs showing up the "professionals," can we?

Many of the fan designs/fiction are truer to the "spirit" of Roddenberry's original Star Trek then anything Paramount has produced since The Animated Series.

Just my humble opinion.

But anyway, what kits do you want to see after the 1/350th TOS Enterprise?


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Out of curiousity, how old would you happen to be? How long a Trek fan?


26, and I've been watching Trek (TOS) since before I was 1 (OK, that wasn't active/concious but you get the idea)



> But anyway, what kits do you want to see after the 1/350th TOS Enterprise?


Order of preference, all need to be huge kits on the order of 1/350 ENT

Defiant
DS9
Runabout
Enterprise 1701(TOS/D/E)
Excelsior
Warbird
Bird of Prey


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

I for one would enjoy a Model of John DeLancie (sp) as "Q" I guess he might be a kinda Boring Kit but I really enjoyed the the Actor's Many Visits to the ST Universe.


LONFAN/JOHN


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Wonder which outfit to put him in... Wasn't he in Napoleonic uniform in an early TNG? Wasn't there an Aurora kit like that? Two kits with one mold...

He's been in enough different uniforms it shouldn't be hard to find *some* Aurora to match...

Personally, I'd like a vinyl kit of "The Intendant"...


----------



## lecook (Feb 24, 2000)

Sword of Whedon said:


> Because if it's not previously existing, you're not creating a replica, you're creating.
> That's the difference. Only the creator of something has the right to create, or to appoint people his creative representative. If you want to be creative, have at it, but create something new, don't be inventing new Federation starship designs.


 Yeah! Who the heck did Andrew Probert; John Eaves and all the others think they were, making derivative designs of Matt Jefferies original work? Shame of DaVinci! His interpretation of the Pieta! Who did he think he was! Emulating, without permission, another sculpter's work and idea! And all those european painters, going to the museum and having the complete gall to paint their interpretations of the original Infanta portrait! Without permission! And to thank they thought this "uncreative" emulation was a cornerstone to developing their own competency! The NERVE!  And all those Elizabethan playwrights going to one another's plays and then writing interpretations of complete scenes into their own work, and even celebrating the competition of trying to steal from each other and do a better version of the scenes. 

Seemingly, you mean "right" as in ethical, rather than legal or even moral right. Is that how you mean it? Ethics and the creative process... How much of a historical perspective do you have on art and products of human creation? I'm sitting here, with my brain running back through everything I've accumulated about it, and I 'm finding countless examples contrary to ethics or morality or even legality. 

From reading your messages in this thread, your "stance" doesn't appear to be completely thought through.

Have you ever read "The Art of Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig? There's a part where, as a professional slight, the philosopher protaganist is saddled with teaching an "Art Appreciation" course at a small college. He flounders with it until he hits upon this idea of "Quality". That most people even when they have no knowledge, experience or understanding of the mechanics of art, or the larger scope of the creative process in general, can look at any piece of art, or at anything that has been produced by human hands (artifice), and even if they don't particularly like it, can immediately tell you if it is of apparent "quality". 

Unfortunately* , and with all bearing on this discussion, this ability to discern "quality" in interaction with products of human creation, does NOT then endow any perceiver with the ability to "create" productions of quality themselves.

*Note: Or "fortunately" to those that have then struggled for the ability. Once they see what all the struggle has wrought within themselves.

Yet when anyone feels compelled to create, they want and hope that what they create has, or expresses, quality. And the more quality that seems to appear during the creative process, the more enthused, involved and happy they become; the less quality that appears or having already appeared is marred by subsequent mistakes or inexperience the more alienated and unhappy they become with the process, if it continues it acts just like inertia, bringing them to a complete halt.

The natural question at that point, usually asked with real feeling, is "How the hades did (insert successful artist or creator here) do it?" Which leads to analysis and and critical observation of ANY and ALL creative work that the would-be creator holds as measuring posts. Not the critical observation of an audience, but rather the critical observation of an apprentice.

One of the natural developements (or in case of this discussion, *THE* natural developement) of this process, is *EMULATION*. I haven't yet found a field of creative endeavour where this isn't one of the main steps to success, experience, understanding and competency.

Taking apart a successful design or work, and then trying to put the elements back together, _with the addition of your own interpretation_, is one of the surest ways to discover which elements of the design were the roots of its success. If you overlooked any of them, you'll most likely feel it. And the trial and error of doing this over and over can give you a better sense or grasp of how to make a successful design of your own.

Not only that, but it can give you a better sense of the element of your own interpretation, your own creative _voice_. 

How is that possible? Well, when you're consciously emulating someone else's work or design, the elements you add, and how you configure the elements of the design stand out in high contrast, especially over multiple attempts with the same material. When you produce a work where you're not consciously emulating someone else's work, you assume that all the work is totally _your_ voice. When in truth your unique voice is mixed in with all the subconscious influences and emulations of other artists that have crept into your work.

Emulation is a great springboard to developement. For most people it will teach more about composition then any other way of creating. To "not" emulate because it doesn't appear to be creative, smacks too much of being a posture.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Yeah! Who the heck did Andrew Probert; John Eaves and all the others think they were, making derivative designs of Matt Jefferies original work?


Authorized by Gene Roddenberry to do so.



> Shame of DaVinci! His interpretation of the Pieta! Who did he think he was! Emulating, without permission, another sculpter's work and idea! And all those european painters, going to the museum and having the complete gall to paint their interpretations of the original Infanta portrait! Without permission!


And if they made money off them, that's known as "bootlegging". Someone screaming about "interpretation" is just someone looking to packrat on someone else's talent, usually screwing it up in the process. The same goes for the even more vile term "re-imagine" If they wanted to try to paint it themselves as a learning experience, why, that's the same as building a model.




> And to thank they thought this "uncreative" emulation was a cornerstone to developing their own competency! The NERVE!  And all those Elizabethan playwrights going to one another's plays and then writing interpretations of complete scenes into their own work, and even celebrating the competition of trying to steal from each other and do a better version of the scenes.


You've totally missed my point. And all those Elizabethan playwrites (with some noteable exceptions) were drinking buddies who liberally, and probably with permission, spoken or implied borrowed scenes from each other's work. It doesn't make it any less wrong.



> One of the natural developements (or in case of this discussion, THE natural developement) of this process, is EMULATION. I haven't yet found a field of creative endeavour where this isn't one of the main steps to success, experience, understanding and competency.


There's a difference between saying "Yes my ship needs some kind of field generator for FTL travel that's exterior" and pasting warp nacelles from an Enterprise kit on something. CONCEPT stealing is as old as time. Creating something derivative and declaring it part of someone else's universe is what's wrong.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I just build models.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's a hobby. You do what you like, and don't do what you don't like. Delaring someone's hobby wrong is a bit much.


----------



## EvilWays (Jul 21, 2004)

John P said:


> Yeah?
> http://www.inpayne.com/models/models_trek2.html


This is just a few of the ships that are "used" in Star Fleet Battles (which _is_ a licensed Paramount game based on the Star Trek Universe with the main focus of the SFB timeline during TOS...AND using work from Franz Joseph), and upgraded in looks (to TMP on type look) in Star Fleet Command (computer game based off of SFB).

Becase SFB is based off of Franz Joseph's work (and those models reflect some of Franz Joseph's work, though I can't verify since I don't have any reference books from him), those models can at least be considered semi-canon, even if they are kitbashed from "true canon" material. For example, the Federation-class Dreadnought still retains some of the look of the Constitution-class Heavy Cruiser for the following reasons (based on info from SFB, and some is open for interpretation):

the DN has only a 50% increase in firepower (again, this is from SFB info so the 50% part is really open for interpretation)
to minimize the cost of fleet production, Star Fleet increased the size of the Constitution-class hull to allow for more equipment (this would later prove to allow the CVA (heavy carrier) to be a DN variant instead of creating a completely new CVA design (another in-game reason for DN->CVA was the need for a new engine class on the scratch design CVA)
For the record, I consider SFB to be semi-canon since Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. was kinda told what it could/could not include in their products (they also do Federation & Empire (SFB is tactical-based, F&E is strategic-based very roughly like Risk) and Star Fleet Prime (based on GURPS) and it's actually great that they sometimes require Paramount's feedback and/or approval on some things, plus the use of Franz Joseph material gives it some "legitness".


Now back to your regularly scheduled posting...

I wouldn't mind any of the models on that list, because I'm very happy with the quality of work PL put into the NX-01 model and I've purchased several AMT/Ertl models (the Light & Sound TMP era Ent several times since it kept breaking and whatnot...being early-teens didn't help much with the frustration either...). My vote is for the TOS Shuttlecraft...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The Franz Joseph Tech manual, and his starship designs, were originally approved by Roddenberry at publication. I understand it was some years later that there was some kind of disagreement and he began denying the canonicity (!?) of the FJ TM. And I really couldn't care less, since teenage me fell in love with the book, and executive infighting BS means nothing to me.

Regardless of never have _SEEN _FJ's ships on screen, they were mentioned in radio chatter at the beginning of the Motion Picture, by name and type. So hey, that's canon folks.

But again, I don't give a rat's red pootahtah about canon, I'm just here to have fun building models. All kinds of models - authentic reproductions of aircraft that actually existed, speculative models of things that don't exist, figure models of characters and actors I like, kitbashes, original designs, whateverthefrick I want. It's a frickin hobby. Have fun.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

*FJD Ship Designs WERE Seen On-Screen*

The FJD ship designs *were* seen on-screen. Trekplace.com used to have some screen-caps of the FJD destroyer/scout, transport/tug and dreadnought, along w/the dialogue that JohnP mentions above. They were part of the bridge displays in ST:III, IIRC. Sadly, it would appear that Trekplace.com is no more, as I keep getting the standard "The page cannot be displayed" error message...  


- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## RBM (Aug 21, 2004)

^^^ According to Fal Tor Pan's posts at TrekBBS, he's been having issues with his web host. That was back in June though. Seems they haven't gotten better.


----------



## Wagoner/77 (Apr 13, 2002)

A vote for TOS Shuttlecraft Galileo 1/24th.
Thanks.
W/77


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> But again, I don't give a rat's red pootahtah about canon, I'm just here to have fun building models.


Yea, brother! We reach <>! :jest:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Thomas' been scratchin' around, lately.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Beautiful, TrekAce! Is that a kit or scratch?


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

...I didn't know rat's pootahtahs were red. Funny the things you learn on these boards...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well if you hold them up by their tails and peek, you can tell...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Oops!

I forgot to add the text to the pics. That's Thomas' work.

Fixed above ^.


----------



## Wagoner/77 (Apr 13, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Oops!
> 
> I forgot to add the text to the pics. That's Thomas' work.
> 
> Fixed above ^.



Trek Ace,,thanks for posting the shuttle images!
W/77


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Cappy D said:


> More 1/1000 scale ships, especially the TMP refit Enterprise (or Enterprise A) and 1/1000 scale K'tinga.


Exactly! I'm really wanting a 1/1000 BOP but I'd get the most mileage from a 1/1000 refit.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I hate to admit it, but I'd buy anything in styrene of TOS subjects, including 'non-canon' designs.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I hate to admit it, but I'd buy anything in styrene of TOS subjects, including 'non-canon' designs.


Once it becomes a licensed product, to me, it is canon.


----------

