"Relaunching the Gemini 12" From LOST IN SPACE part 1
- Thread starter MARK M3
- Start date
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
Yes it was...However it doesn't seem to have any interest here. I thought it would as it goes into Early film Special Effects using real miniatures.
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
Agreed, Lost in Space seems to have a limited following here. I kinda stopped posting pics of my 3D J2 work because it zooms to page 3 or 4 in a day and never sees the light of day.
Put a Stormtrooper helmet Or Vader helmet in the thread...perhaps it will get more foot traffic!
Paul shows us again what a genius at figuring out all the subtle details. The smaller Gemini 12 he showed us made me want one REALLY BAD. Pulling off the shots with about 70% less crew and other stuff related to getting old...is just wonderful. I had tried a Lunar Models 16" vacuuform model with little spools attached to a pop cicle stick to run a single wire to through the model from the front window to the teeny hole in the back of the model. It was very light so the cable control plane wire could be super tight for the run down the wire. Fun afternoon fun with friends as stage hands.
Millenniumf
Sr Member
Well, I'm glad to see stuff like this on the board. I'm sorry it's not as popular as you wanted it to be, but it's still great! I loved seeing all the effort gone into recreating the effect and reviving a bit of TV model making history. 
SSR
Well-Known Member
All three videos were fabulous - professionally made and very interesting.
I would expect that most people on this site would find this of interest, and worthy of comment.
Any examples of "old school" effects work are definitely worth seeing - the shots of the Gemini 12 at the end are just as impressive today as when originally shot in the mid-60s - perhaps more so in the digital age.
I will admit to overlooking this posting, and likely many others have done the same, as I thought it was the original "restoring" videos - which most of us have already seen. "Relaunching" "Restoring" and a similar (not same mind you) logo probably indicated to many that they had already seen it - I know I did.
Thanks again for some great work.
I would expect that most people on this site would find this of interest, and worthy of comment.
Any examples of "old school" effects work are definitely worth seeing - the shots of the Gemini 12 at the end are just as impressive today as when originally shot in the mid-60s - perhaps more so in the digital age.
I will admit to overlooking this posting, and likely many others have done the same, as I thought it was the original "restoring" videos - which most of us have already seen. "Relaunching" "Restoring" and a similar (not same mind you) logo probably indicated to many that they had already seen it - I know I did.
Thanks again for some great work.
Highliners
Well-Known Member
The answer to your question is "patience please!"
We are talking here about a fully licensed and entirely U.S. designed and manufactured, injection molded exact and to-scale replica. At 1/5th scale, it is to be an exact, practical miniature of an actually filmed, practical (meaning operating) miniature. This referring to a motorized, actually spinning and lighted internal "Fusion Core".
This possibly upcoming item, is to be molded in an easily cemented, but exceedingly strong, Lustran 248 A.B.S. resin and not an inexpensive, filled and therefore flimsy (as in cheap) polystyrene. The tolerances with regard to the original filmed miniature are beyond virtually anything yet commercially produced in this field. --Kindly see the "Relaunching the Gemini 12", Part I for other photos of the 3D scanning facility used and images of this work while it was actually being done:
I am not aware of any other original filmed miniature, Fantasy Space Craft, being rendered as an injection-molded kit using this technique. I hope it is clear that I am attempting to provide absolute credentials for full authenticity.
The issue that I ran into on that other website as it were, was what exactly is actually meant by the bona-fide engineering term: "Scale". The very first known "scale models" were contracted by and used as prototypes for sailing ships by the British Admiralty beginning I believe, during the 16th century, and perhaps earlier still. Many such examples still exist and I have seen several at the Science Museum in London, England. They are absolutely incredible, especially when thinking of how primitive the tools used actually were and when they were created.
In the above instance, the term model is properly used to depict a forthcoming full-sized vessel. These Admiralty Models were built in a most precise 1/4 inch to the foot scale, (1/48th) with all the internal structures shown. Why? Well the majority of shipwrights of that era while illiterate were capable of mathematics. They used primitive metal calipers and simply scaled everything "up" by a factor "48" to yield the full-sized components from which the ships were assembled. Think, "H.M.S. VICTORY", a or more correctly, the definitive "First Rate, Ship of the Line". This hand made "Admiralty Model" of "Victory" (no "the" in front) is a wooden example of true Fine Art that's amazingly well over 220 years old!:
We however, are using the inverse definition of the term scale, where a prototype is being scaled-down to the item's finished size. And to correctly use the term Scale in this manner, the specific prototype by definition, must be identified.
In other words, what I was simply pointing out to a respondent on that other website was this:
Referring to a 9.6" diameter model kit (exactly 1/5th Scale of the original filmed miniature's 48" diameter) as "1/60th Scale", and therefore a replica of a purported "Full Size" vessel/craft or whatever, for obvious reasons, is factually incorrect. Another individual there responded by saying "theoretical", regarding a 48 foot diameter "prototype" which is also and obviously not the case as such a ship could and would never be built. Plainly, there has never been an actual full sized-ship of this saucer design (or another very similar type) with a circa 50 foot diameter for it to be reduced by that falsely claimed factor of "1/60th". The actual prototype being used here is a very real 4 feet in diameter and nothing else. There exists nothing else to be used as a prototype but for the actual miniature prop. This 20th Century Fox, filmed miniature, including the actual interior presented in it, are at this moment, in the process of being absolutely faithfully reproduced at 20% of "full size" or a 1/5th Scale. I sincerely hope all of this is now clear.
On that other website, I was also taking issue with other commercially produced items in this arena as being listed as "1/350th Scale", "1/125th Scale" etc. These in fact truly are Fantasy Models (there being no actual prototype for any such subjects). And perhaps more importantly, many of those "models" more accurately fall under the description of "Caricature" as they are nowhere near scale representations of the actual filmed miniatures. Something else to truly consider when using the term "scale".
So, will we, can we please agree this is "Fantasy Modeling" (as opposed to "Scale Modeling") and the subjects therefore cannot be described as "Scale", unless that is, the actual filmed miniature is listed as being the very prototype used.
---Can we please agree regarding and with the above concepts?
Thank you.
Last edited:
Hi Paul! Glad to see you here & thrilled that a kit is in the works.
As a professional you have an understandably rigid definition of "Scale" My policy is to defer to anyone who has more expertise than I do on any given subject so there you go.
I'm just looking forward to that gem of a Gemini getting to my workbench!
And BYW - deep thanks for those incredible videos recreating the effects shots - I haven't waited that impatiently for an upcoming episode of anything in quite a while - Despite the hardships filming that must have been a blast!
As a professional you have an understandably rigid definition of "Scale" My policy is to defer to anyone who has more expertise than I do on any given subject so there you go.
I'm just looking forward to that gem of a Gemini getting to my workbench!
And BYW - deep thanks for those incredible videos recreating the effects shots - I haven't waited that impatiently for an upcoming episode of anything in quite a while - Despite the hardships filming that must have been a blast!
Highliners
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
The definition I've provided of "Scale" isn't in reality "rigid", it exists entirely on it's own, without my being involved in any way.
It is as stated: an engineering expression and must also include tolerances for it to be genuinely valid. Otherwise, it's meaningless as is the case with the majority of "Fantasy Hobby Kits". Note my terminology. Calling such things "Scale Models" actually dilutes the value of the meaning of the expression "to scale".
One may ask, what is the actual reason for this to be the current situation with "Fantasy Hobby Kits"?
To be plain, it's economic: It's simply to save money during the production of the tooling by the manufacturers. They are taking shortcuts expecting the Fantasy hobby market to accept whatever is given to them. It costs no more to manufacture a plastic hobby kit that is done to precise scale, once the tooling exists. And that is the hard part!
To do a true to scale model, is actually quite expensive as a great deal more research is required as well as the holding of dimensional and contour tolerances in the fabrication of the all metal, injection mold tooling. That is very costly when compared with the cheap alternative of making things up (dimensions, contours etc,) as one goes along during the tooling aspects of product development.
And that is why I have commented as I have, to hopefully provide a greater meaning for the value of what is understood and meant by the term; "scale model", or "scale replica". For examples of what I have achieved in this regard, kindly see: HighlinersOnline.com. Not "Fantasy" subject matter, but hard-core, exact scale models, which are well recognized as such. It has been written in the hobby press that they have redefined the meaning of "H0 Scale". So far, these models have been "knocked-off" (in China) five times, and still counting.
As for that video footage of the Gemini 12: You have only seen a fraction of what we've done. Glen Loughboro and I are continuing work on what ultimately will be a 4 minute or so "Effects Reel" of the Red Rock Canyon (Ca.) footage as well as a good deal more. It will be "Pure Eye-Candy", --trust me on this.
Last edited:
SSR
Well-Known Member
Had a look at your Highliners website - the EMD units look great.
It reminded me of an article from the November 1967 issue of Model Railroader "To the Plastic Kit Makers a Letter" where the author suggested a very similar approach to the one you have taken - the ability to create a number of variants by changing out various unique sub assemblies; something common for military kit manufacturers, but not for the model railroad manufacturers.
It reminded me of an article from the November 1967 issue of Model Railroader "To the Plastic Kit Makers a Letter" where the author suggested a very similar approach to the one you have taken - the ability to create a number of variants by changing out various unique sub assemblies; something common for military kit manufacturers, but not for the model railroad manufacturers.
Highliners
Well-Known Member
Thank you very much! Yes, I too remember that specific article, quite well actually. The main difference was the bulldog nose itself being applied to either an E7 or an F Unit. His thinking there was the nose tooling would be extremely expensive to do by hand, (and by hand, it absolutely is, it took me months on a 3D Pantograph Milling machine) so he felt it best to make it the key component. That letter to the editor also inspired me as I believe you may be suggesting, and after much analysis (and a decade and a half) I started work on what ultimately became the Highliners series.
And this brings me to why I am actually here: Is there a solid and sufficiently large market for Fantasy/Sci-Fi subjects to be re-done, but to very high-scale standards?
Subjects that have been "done to death", (Jupiter 2 perhaps?) but only to what I would call semi-scale standards. Possibly even what I'd call caricature level replicas. I hope I have previously made my point there is a good deal of expense in doing quality tooling for genuinely precision scale models, especially when they're done in the U.S.A. I wasn't able to so much as broach this concept on that other web site before being attacked in street gang style. On that very site, there was a rather lengthy thread about taking some such semi-scale replica of a silly Fantasy submarine and revising it into a respectably accurate, prop miniature replica, ...ahem. Oh, and today that thing's original, front fin-less and twelve window design is exactly 60 years old!
Not every subject after all has the enormous appeal and market as does say a 33" long Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise. Almost 20 years ago I actually made a presentation at Paramount to their licensing department with a 14-1/2" Star Trek ship with all of the correct contours, lights with motorized and strobe-lighted "Warp Engine Nodules" (Roddenberry's name for the domes) domes that most effectively reflected the original's spinning and operational lighting:
The above (and below) Enterprise is 14-1/2 inches overall in length. Since then, I have had both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner sign the warp nacelles on this particular one-off.
Book Shelf Size. I believe this size is approximately the ideal size for most people, provided the form, contours and details are all rendered to a very high standard of accuracy. In this size range, the intricacy itself makes the model most visually appealing to many people.
Although the Paramount people were impressed, I was informed me that they had just given out licensing so there was no "room" for yet another variant, no matter how good. Oh well...
So, for a subject as yet never offered, the Lost In Space Gemini 12; is there a substantial and valid market for such an item manufactured to as yet to be seen standards in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy arena?
Thank you. ---P.
And this brings me to why I am actually here: Is there a solid and sufficiently large market for Fantasy/Sci-Fi subjects to be re-done, but to very high-scale standards?
Subjects that have been "done to death", (Jupiter 2 perhaps?) but only to what I would call semi-scale standards. Possibly even what I'd call caricature level replicas. I hope I have previously made my point there is a good deal of expense in doing quality tooling for genuinely precision scale models, especially when they're done in the U.S.A. I wasn't able to so much as broach this concept on that other web site before being attacked in street gang style. On that very site, there was a rather lengthy thread about taking some such semi-scale replica of a silly Fantasy submarine and revising it into a respectably accurate, prop miniature replica, ...ahem. Oh, and today that thing's original, front fin-less and twelve window design is exactly 60 years old!
Not every subject after all has the enormous appeal and market as does say a 33" long Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise. Almost 20 years ago I actually made a presentation at Paramount to their licensing department with a 14-1/2" Star Trek ship with all of the correct contours, lights with motorized and strobe-lighted "Warp Engine Nodules" (Roddenberry's name for the domes) domes that most effectively reflected the original's spinning and operational lighting:
The above (and below) Enterprise is 14-1/2 inches overall in length. Since then, I have had both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner sign the warp nacelles on this particular one-off.
Book Shelf Size. I believe this size is approximately the ideal size for most people, provided the form, contours and details are all rendered to a very high standard of accuracy. In this size range, the intricacy itself makes the model most visually appealing to many people.
Although the Paramount people were impressed, I was informed me that they had just given out licensing so there was no "room" for yet another variant, no matter how good. Oh well...
So, for a subject as yet never offered, the Lost In Space Gemini 12; is there a substantial and valid market for such an item manufactured to as yet to be seen standards in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy arena?
Thank you. ---P.
Last edited:
SSR
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for the community . . . so I'll try not to.
I can offer up some obvious thoughts you have surely already considered.
If an exact duplicate 9.6" diameter Gemini 12 was available there would be three different groups likely interested, with possibly different views on the project. These groups would naturally overlap each other - with some consumers falling into just a single category or possibly all three.
Studio Scale modelers might be more interested in a 48 inch exact replica as it fits their type of modelling; they also might be more interested in a kit and could handle multimedia construction and more complex electronics.
Commercial model kit builders likely would prefer the 9.6" diameter as they would be displaying a multitude of kits they have built. An injection modeled kit with limited or no multimedia components likely would be preferred. If lighting is to be included, "plug and play" would be best.
Fans of the show or genre likely would have little to no interest in assembling / painting a kit and would opt for a "ready-to-run" out of the box product.
For those who view the Gemini 12 as their holy grail subject, size likely wouldn't be an issue.
It would, ultimately come down to price - which becomes more of a detailed marketing evaluation (which I'm sure is again why you are here). Price point is going to vary. The specific product to be offered (dependent on the above market groups) will obviously impact price as well. I know for myself that there are injection modeled kits nowadays that are of interest and have been designed to a much higher level of detail and accuracy than in the past. Their price, however, is beyond my willingness to pay. I will either pass on the subject altogether or "call it a day" with something of lesser quality. I can always spend my time versus my dollars in trying to make up the difference.
I know that there have been a few projects done on an underwriting basis, which might be a method to pursue. It is one thing to get people to say "Yes I want one!" when they have no stake in the project. Underwriting might also open up the scope of the marketplace by covering some/all of the development cost.
I'm sure that most if not all of this is old hat, but perhaps not.
My two cents.
I can offer up some obvious thoughts you have surely already considered.
If an exact duplicate 9.6" diameter Gemini 12 was available there would be three different groups likely interested, with possibly different views on the project. These groups would naturally overlap each other - with some consumers falling into just a single category or possibly all three.
Studio Scale modelers might be more interested in a 48 inch exact replica as it fits their type of modelling; they also might be more interested in a kit and could handle multimedia construction and more complex electronics.
Commercial model kit builders likely would prefer the 9.6" diameter as they would be displaying a multitude of kits they have built. An injection modeled kit with limited or no multimedia components likely would be preferred. If lighting is to be included, "plug and play" would be best.
Fans of the show or genre likely would have little to no interest in assembling / painting a kit and would opt for a "ready-to-run" out of the box product.
For those who view the Gemini 12 as their holy grail subject, size likely wouldn't be an issue.
It would, ultimately come down to price - which becomes more of a detailed marketing evaluation (which I'm sure is again why you are here). Price point is going to vary. The specific product to be offered (dependent on the above market groups) will obviously impact price as well. I know for myself that there are injection modeled kits nowadays that are of interest and have been designed to a much higher level of detail and accuracy than in the past. Their price, however, is beyond my willingness to pay. I will either pass on the subject altogether or "call it a day" with something of lesser quality. I can always spend my time versus my dollars in trying to make up the difference.
I know that there have been a few projects done on an underwriting basis, which might be a method to pursue. It is one thing to get people to say "Yes I want one!" when they have no stake in the project. Underwriting might also open up the scope of the marketplace by covering some/all of the development cost.
I'm sure that most if not all of this is old hat, but perhaps not.
My two cents.
