Hobbyist Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Seeing how RC2 owns both AMT and PL now, and seeing how Paramount has found the original 22" TOS Galileo filming miniature, seeing how AMT has the artist rights to the original filming miniature, and seeing as how PL now has a Trek license,

it seems that all the stars are aligned legally for either AMT or PL to produce a Galileo model 99.999% accurate to the original filming miniature(a few detail parts like the rear landing pad might have to be redone).

The question is, is there anyone left at PL with any real decision-making authority left who cares enough about Trek to make it happen?

Or, failing that, anyone at RC2 smart enough to realize the easy potential for profit the kit would have, especially considering the attraction of the fact that it would be virtually 100% taken from an original filming miniature?

I'm sure that it would not take a tremendous amount of time for Thomas to make a master copy ready for molding if he had the original loaned to him for a short period of time.

Of course they might need to reduce it in scale to about 16" or a little less to fit in a standard box about the size of the 1/350th NX-01 kit's box, but either at exact studio scale or not, anybody else think it would be a great release?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,791 Posts
I think he did a pretty darn good job on that 'quick and dirty' shuttlecraft model that he whipped together for the Starship Exeter project. Given more time and an official go-ahead, I'm sure he could nail it - with or without what's left of the original studio miniature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
Please God, make it more of a canonical version!!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Lol, personally I say pray more for a 1/350 NCC-1701. The Galileo shuttlecraft would be a nice addition to anyone's collection in like... 1/24 or 1/32 scale, maybe even 1/64, but a beast of an original Enterprise... yeah, I'll take that over the Galileo any day. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Nighthawk said:
Lol, personally I say pray more for a 1/350 NCC-1701. The Galileo shuttlecraft would be a nice addition to anyone's collection in like... 1/24 or 1/32 scale, maybe even 1/64, but a beast of an original Enterprise... yeah, I'll take that over the Galileo any day. ;)
Given the choice between the two, I would agree!

But considering the ease with which the Galileo could be done, I don't see the two as competitors. Without the use of the studio miniature Thomas has already whipped up what appears to be a dead-on scratchbuilt, as Trek Ace pointed out, in three days!

Yes, a 350th TOS E would be preferred, but according to John P in another thread, a source of she has told him that that is not one of the contracted ships that PL has ordered from him as yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
The playmates toy came with a phaser cannon... but it was the kind of cannon seen in The Menagerie. Like the rest of us, I'm hoping for a beastly 1/350 Classic Enterprise... just cuz that'd be sweeter than... well... something really really really sweet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
There's a version with canons on it???:)
Hmmmm, there SHOULD be :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Griffworks said:
You're going to bag on Chris over the word "canonical" when you use the word "accuratizing"...? At least canonical is a real word. ;)

- - - - - -

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing

Not bagging on anybody Griffworks! Just a joke intended to make light of the "canonical" debate which he and I both find boring. :)

He seems to have understood that my tongue was implanted firmly in cheek!

I know that while talking about custom "improved parts" the term accuratizing may seem awkward. Perhaps I should have used "more canonicalizing" instead? :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
spacecraft guy said:
If Paramount just found the original filmimg miniature, which one was I looking at in tha Smithsonian NASM in 1992?
I don't know when they found it exactly. Wasn't trying to allege it has just happened. I believe it was right around the time TNG got cranked up, which would have been before 1992.

Only point was that now that RC2 owns both AMT and PL, and also therefore a Trek license, that there should be nothing legally stopping RC2 from approving PL making one and even asking Paramount for a short loan.

AMT had originally agreed to(and did) build both the stage mock-up and studio miniature for Paramount in exchange for AMT retaining artistic and legal rights to reproduce the ship in model form.

I don't know if that agreement is still in effect to any degree. Perhaps, perhaps not.

But if it was since RC2 owns both AMT and PL there doesn't seem to be much chance that AMT could block PL from producing such a kit under their original deal with Paramount, (which they might not have been able to do anyway).

Now it seems that PL or any other subsidiary of RC2 could probably create a model, even directly from AMT's original studio prop, without having to worry about AMT coming back at them legally, assuming the parent company allowed it and both AMT and PL agreed.

I wasn't meaning to imply they had just now found it. Sorry if I inadvertently gave anyone that impression.
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,363 Posts
Actually, the established word is "Accurizing." It's used both in terms of making a model kit look more accurate, and among gunsmiths who fine tune target guns to make them shoot more accurately.

Curiously, I once read a letter from a reader in FSM who complained about the magazine using the word, saying it wasn't a real word, and the mag shouldn't be screwing with the English language and making words up. I thought the reader was pretty stupid, since I'd heard the word in common use in both the model and gun communities for decades.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,334 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
Not bagging on anybody Griffworks! Just a joke intended to make light of the "canonical" debate which he and I both find boring. :)

He seems to have understood that my tongue was implanted firmly in cheek!

I know that while talking about custom "improved parts" the term accuratizing may seem awkward. Perhaps I should have used "more canonicalizing" instead? :lol:
Sorry if I upset you, dude. Was just teasing you on the "canonical" thing. As John said, "accuritizing" isn't a real word, while "accurizing" is, as is "canonical". All meant in jest....

- - - - - -

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
John P said:
Actually, the established word is "Accurizing." It's used both in terms of making a model kit look more accurate, and among gunsmiths who fine tune target guns to make them shoot more accurately.

Curiously, I once read a letter from a reader in FSM who complained about the magazine using the word, saying it wasn't a real word, and the mag shouldn't be screwing with the English language and making words up. I thought the reader was pretty stupid, since I'd heard the word in common use in both the model and gun communities for decades.
Thanks for the correct spelling, John P.
Was originally going by what I had read as a product description on a particular parts and kits reseller's website.

All this time I thought that if it was on a website it just HAD to be accurate :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
I don't know when they found it exactly. Wasn't trying to allege it has just happened. I believe it was right around the time TNG got cranked up, which would have been before 1992.

Only point was that now that RC2 owns both AMT and PL, and also therefore a Trek license, that there should be nothing legally stopping RC2 from approving PL making one and even asking Paramount for a short loan.

AMT had originally agreed to(and did) build both the stage mock-up and studio miniature for Paramount in exchange for AMT retaining artistic and legal rights to reproduce the ship in model form.

I don't know if that agreement is still in effect to any degree. Perhaps, perhaps not.

But if it was since RC2 owns both AMT and PL there doesn't seem to be much chance that AMT could block PL from producing such a kit under their original deal with Paramount, (which they might not have been able to do anyway).

Now it seems that PL or any other subsidiary of RC2 could probably create a model, even directly from AMT's original studio prop, without having to worry about AMT coming back at them legally, assuming the parent company allowed it and both AMT and PL agreed.

I wasn't meaning to imply they had just now found it. Sorry if I inadvertently gave anyone that impression.

Sorry on my part as well - thought that some other version may have been found that someone may have known the history of. Had heard that Howard Anderson Inc. was shutting its doors, thought maybe something previously unknown may have been found.

BTW, where is the full size version now?
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top