Talk:Studio model

POV/Separate from Model?
I understand it's still in development, but it needs to work on the introduction (i.e. these are a list of models used and their evolution, yada yada yada). That said, I'm not entirely sure this needs to be seperate from model... or that the info needs to be seperate from the episodes/movies which the models were seen in. But that's just my opinion, of course. It is looking good, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that Model is in universe POV. --Bp 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, indeed you are correct! My apologies, then. Carry on. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirm MIDAS array is a CGI model
I wrote that MIDAS array is a CGI model, but I'm just going by looks. Can someone confirm if it is CGI or a Studio model? --Bp 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a CGI model. The views were published in the Fact Files or the Star Trek magazine --Jörg 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

- - -

this is my first time editing discussion page :p so forgive, but:

BREEN and QUARREN models seem to me to be also used as son'a ships in 'star trek: insurrection'. correct me if i'm wrong. they are very similar at least. xoxox (stachooi)
 * They may use similar designs, but they are definitely two different models. The original Breen design wasn't as symmetrical as the Quarren ship (which was created mirroring parts of the Breen ship and thusly making it more symmetric) or the Son'a ship. --Jörg 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Split?
Perhaps we should split the article now that it is quite long, following the classification by series now used on the page. – Cleanse talk 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were kind of my thoughts, seeing as displaying them in order chronological appearances seems to make more sense from a historical perspective, but I was hoping to work on it a little more between now and this weekend just to see what it would culminate into first. --Alan 05:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose
If this page should even be here, it needs a better definition, formatting, examples, everything. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:22, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, well I know. I just thought i'd add least something to get it started - Mackie :)


 * Probably best categorized as Category:Star Trek, as is it was a common behind-the-scenes term. --Alan del Beccio 09:29, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * By canon, only the Curry type and vessels had specifically been identified as kitbash starships. The kitbash models employed for various other class starships do not necessarily suggest that these other starships were kitbash in canon. --Fenian 09:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the Curry type and were never referred to "by canon" as being kitbashed as neither the ship names, types or the term "kitbash" was never used on screen in conjunction with these models. Again, a behind-the-scenes term used in conjuction with behind-the-scene references. --Alan del Beccio 09:43, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * We seem to be splitting hairs, here. I concede the term "kitbash" is a 20th century colloquialism. By the Frankenstein fleet's very nature, however, these vessels were kitbashed by Starfleet.--Fenian 09:55, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily true either. Canon implies that these vessels were referred to as "kitbash" (or ""Frankenstein Fleet"") somewhere in the dialogue or other on screen reference--but alas, they were not. In fact, the term "kitbash" is (again) a behind-the-scenes term, where the term "canon" really doesnt apply. For that matter, the Curry type and were not the only vessels that "kitbash" applied to as that term dated back to the vessels that first appeared in the graveyard scene from /, which includes the Cheyenne class, Challenger class, etc. If anything, the Yeager and Curry were the first to be reference to (off screen) as being part of the "Frankenstein Fleet", which I'm not even sure was a term used by the Star Trek production staff, but is something that cropped up in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual. --Alan del Beccio 10:16, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * the frankenstein fleet as proposed in the DS9TM made no logical sense anyway. most of these ships used components that were not even from the same era, much less the same design style, and trying to mix and match the parts involved to produce a viable ship would take more effort and time than just building a brand new ship. you'd have to rip out every conduit, hallway, and room, and then dismantle half the superstructure to attach the parts properly, then you'd have to design and install a totally new interior arrangement to make the ship operate. and that doesn't even begin to touch on the scaling issues. because the filming models were built with parts from many different scale models, you end up with some parts being undersized while other are oversized. the Centaur would scale to the Exclesior, were it not for that Miranda pod. at excel scale, the pod is too big. at miranda scale, the rest of the parts are obviously too small to be excel parts. the curry type has Constitution nacelles with excel hull and saucer. scaled to the excel, the nacelles are far too large to be off a connie. scaled to a connie, the excel parts are too small to be off an excel. the only reasonable explanation is that these really were regular classes of ships, or perhaps limited run prototypes, that were built from the start in those configurations, using no salvaged parts. -Mithril 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mackie: Firstly, im sorry I dont know how to properly use the discussion feature of wiki so hope you dont mind ;P Secondly, kitbashes ARE NOT just created by production staff. Alot of the ships in ST games are fan created kitbashes, Ive done some 150 of them in the past few years my self. Only the minority of the 'kitbashes' are actually created by official production staff, most of them are made by fans from either plastic real models 3d models.


 * Thing is, the game and fan designs are not the focus of this wiki. the show and movies are. so the focus of the kitbash article should be on the models seen in the shows. perhaps though, a line to the effect of Kitbashing is very popular in fan circles, and has produced countless fan designs. should be added to reflect how prevalent the method is outside the show. -Mithril 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
This could easily be placed into the studio model article. --Alan 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Support merge. --From Andoria with Love 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Support. - Archduk3 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, cheerio then. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages were merged.– Cleanse 05:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Study model
I propose a merge of this article with Studio model under a separate heading. The reasoning behind this is that study models are models normally leading up to studio models. The second reason is that quite a few study models made it unto the screen thereby becoming studio models for all intents and purposes (the study models being prime examples). In other words the very close relationship between the two merits a merge like "Kitbash" and "studio model" in my mind.--Sennim 13:30, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Alan 13:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

C'mon boys and girls, nobody else got an oppinion about this?--Sennim 23:23, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Pages were merged.– Cleanse 04:11, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Way cool...Sennim 04:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)