# Why I will never attempt a Enterprise model



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

I'm new here, and enjoy reading all the posts on different subjects relating to all different types of models and different ways of building them. There is so much to learn about different techniques in building and painting. It is like an encyclopedia of models here. 

Having said that:

I WILL NEVER ATTEMPT TO BUILD A MODEL OF THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE!!

And this is why: THERE IS MORE OF A CHANCE OF FAILURE THAN THERE IS OF SUCCESS. 

Which one would I build? Original series, Next Generation, Movie version (which movie?), etc. 
And how accurate? What is the rate of the blinking lights on the port or starboard side?
How should one light the engines? Front and back?
How should it be painted? What shade of white? Maybe a hint of blue? Aztec?
Which windows are lit, and which are dark?
Should the deflector be lit?
Should the bridge be lit? What color? Light blue or white?
Phasers--lit or not? Slow increase from dark to bright?

I could go on--and on--and on. 

Having read many posts on this subject, my head is ready to explode. 

I thought that a simple little thing like a communicator could be a cute little thing to build and have on display. But-- Which version of the communicator? The Alpha or the Beta? Can I use a pre-drilled antenna? Which jewels should I use? Should I light it? Should I rotate the center display? Etc. And this is just on the communicator. 

Trying to get everything as accurate on the ship itself would nearly be impossible. The first decision would be the wrong one. 

All that being said, I do have two Star Trek models on the to-be-built shelf. The TOS bridge, and the cut-away Enterprise. The TOS bridge I willl attempt. I plan to light with fiber optics, leds, and some other ideas I have not fully developed yet. The fiber optics will be replacing some of the "jewels" on the original bridge. 

The cut-away Enterprise, however, poses a different set of problems. The kit is inaccurate right out of the box. How accurate should I make it, and to what degree? 

I know there are a lot of Enterprises being built, so my question is: If I attempt it, how should I approach the cut-away Enterprise?

This is where I need the most help from Trek fans and model builders.

Many, many thanks in advance.

(Believe it or not, I edited this post from a longer one)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Actually, you've hit upon the very reason I've built dozens of kitbashes, but have yet to build a straighforward Enterprise. I'm not sure I could get it right!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

You have no ones standards to meet but your own, there are _so_ many interpritations of the subject that no one person can achieve absolute perfection; just go for it and have fun! (The real point of scale modeling, if you ask me.) If nothing else, It serves as a reasonable excuse to build multiples.

That said, I would suggest the 1/1000 Enterprise as the most accurate _styrene_ TOS Enterprise.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

I have the 1/350 Refit I do plan on making, but it is intimidating just opening the box. I've studied all the threads here on lighting, Azteking, and what have you. I decided I will probably try the iridescent look - but only up to a point. I probably won't spend the money on after market parts or etchings. I *may* get the Aztec Dummies, but may just wing it with the templates available online and frisket tape it. The point I'm wandering to is that I'm only going to make the kit for myself, not to impress others. I plan on doing the best job I can do - or *care* to do. I will never build the thing if I try and match what others have done. All I have to do is satisfy myself and then things just got easier. If you would like an ENTERPRISE model, just build it how you'll be happy with it. Life's too short to worry if it's not "accurate." If that's your thing and it makes you happy there's nothing wrong with it (myself, I love all the threads of that are shared of these fantastic builds people are doing and I wish I had the talent for that), but if it stops you from making something you may want to display then it's kind of sad.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It's _your_ model. You can build it any way you wish.

There is enough reference material out there to make a reasonably accurate Enterprise. Each kit has it's own unique qualities and drawbacks that we all have to deal with to some degree. Just get one and build it how ever you think is best, and enjoy the process.


----------



## ajmadison (Oct 18, 1999)

Not to be a crab, but pretty much all of the original complaints can be applied to more traditional subjects. 

WWII tanks: which mark of the Tiger should you build? Early? Late? Should there be zimmerit? How to apply it? Which camouflage scheme. Did you know the turret should asymmetric? 

Modern Tanks: Which variant of the original cold war warrior, the M60 should you build? The well known M60A1? But the original gasser was the first issue. There is a rare conversion kit for it, but you could smash it with a M48 kit. What about the updated M60A3? Should you apply photoetch sets? Are you aware the Tamiya kit sits way too high, because the Tamiya engineers measured a dry (non-fueled/no ammo) tank? The current Italeri (formerly Esci mold) models a gassed up/armed version and is more accurate in this regard.

Frankly, I hold in contempt any variant of "Rivet Counter" who criticizes a finished model. Be this a Trekkie dork who points out the inner covers of the refit-E warp nacelles should be purple not black, or the AFV modeler who complains there aren't enough bolts on a tank's drive wheels. Build the model for yourself, don't worry about what others may think.


----------



## scottnkat (May 11, 2006)

If all the different variations throw you for a curve, just build it straight out of the box without any changes. If it looks good to you, then that is all that matters. In the long run, you have to be happy with it or it's just a waste of time and money. Just do what you think would be best for you.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

iriseye said:


> ...
> 
> The cut-away Enterprise, however, poses a different set of problems. The kit is inaccurate right out of the box. How accurate should I make it, and to what degree?
> 
> ...


Well, if you are planning on attempting the 22 inch Cutaway Enterprise, I can point out a few of my favorite builds...
 *JGG1701*'s Enterprise
 *Clactonite*'s Enterprise
 *gecko*'s Pilot Enterprise
I think those builds show the potential of the Cutaway kit to become a really nice display piece.

But as has been pointed out, you should build the model you want. Three years ago I realized that the Enterprise I had always really wanted was the 33 inch model that I had seen in _"Requiem for Methuselah"_. I love researching (even more than model building), so I drew up plans and made a couple attempts... the last one turned out pretty good.

And now, not a day goes by that I don't catch myself stopping to look at the model when I pass by one of the familiar angles. Sure, it was a lot of work... but it was worth it.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Thanks Mr. Shaw. Never been used as a reference before.



iriseye said:


> The cut-away Enterprise, however, poses a different set of problems.
> 
> I know there are a lot of Enterprises being built, so my question is: If I attempt it, how should I approach the cut-away Enterprise?


Here is my Cutaway.
It is not ""accurate" but, I am pretty happy with it.
If I can offer any kind of help, just let me know.

http://s377.photobucket.com/albums/oo218/JGG1701/?action=view&current=2008_08182rach0054.mp4
-Jim


----------



## GunTruck (Feb 27, 2004)

ajmadison said:


> Not to be a crab, but pretty much all of the original complaints can be applied to more traditional subjects.
> 
> WWII tanks: which mark of the Tiger should you build? Early? Late? Should there be zimmerit? How to apply it? Which camouflage scheme. Did you know the turret should asymmetric?
> 
> ...


I had to quote ajmadison again because this is exactly what I thought when I read your post.

I looked over at my "Slick '60" in my display case and grinned - because I chose to model a M60 gasser when faced with such similar quandry - and I love it to this day. I did what I wanted to do, and it makes me happy to have finished it up. I just sat down and did it.

Build what you want, the way you want to build it, and have fun! 

That's all that really matters.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Nice thing about building the original Enterprise is, if it's not 100% screen accurate to the season 3 production Enterprise, you can say it represents the year 4 or 5 Enterprise which nobody ever saw due to the show's cancellation. This is based on the idea that Kirk completed his 5 year mission which has been well established in Star Trek canon. Any differences between your version and the studio model could be attributed to "upgrades" installed during a refit. 
That's the explanation I used for my 18 incher:
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/NCC-1701 lost pics/EnterpriseStarboardProfile.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/NCC-1701 lost pics/1701BowLit.jpg


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Trek, I like your 18 incher! But the guys are right! You can go all perfectionist and never attain your goals, or you can do it up the way you want the ship to look. You have to live with the product: have fun and enjoy building and displaying your work. Nobody is going to poo-poo your work. We'll all be glad that a fellow modeler somewhere actually finished something (I have a ton in my closet that I haven't touched...)!

Enjoy!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

charonjr said:


> Trek, I like your 18 incher! But the guys are right! You can go all perfectionist and never attain your goals, or you can do it up the way you want the ship to look. You have to live with the product: have fun and enjoy building and displaying your work. Nobody is going to poo-poo your work. We'll all be glad that a fellow modeler somewhere actually finished something (I have a ton in my closet that I haven't touched...)!
> 
> Enjoy!


Amen brother! I couldn't agree more.


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> You have no ones standards to meet but your own,


and



> just build it how you'll be happy with it. Life's too short


and



> It's your model. You can build it any way you wish


and



> Build the model for yourself, don't worry about what others may think.


and



> If it looks good to you, then that is all that matters.


Of course, this all makes sense. But it begs the giant question: Who do we build models for? 

There is a lot of satisfaction looking at the work you've done. But always that question--"If I built it now I would've done ------ differently". 




> JGG1701's Enterprise
> Clactonite's Enterprise
> gecko's Pilot Enterprise
> I think those builds show the potential of the Cutaway kit to become a really nice display piece.
> ...





> JGG1701's Enterprise
> Clactonite's Enterprise
> gecko's Pilot Enterprise
> I think those builds show the potential of the Cutaway kit to become a really nice display piece.
> ...





> http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ardProfile.jpg
> http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...1701BowLit.jpg


All excellent builds. That is the high standard I set for myself. 

Off topic, but a related question: When did the "antenna" (for lack of a better term) dissappear from the bussard scoops?"

Again, thanks all.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I build models for myself. I try and make them "close" to the "real" ship/car/whatever, but on every model, I purposely have taken my own personal artistic license, and made it my own, but yet still recognizable as a particular item.

I build models for my own enjoyment, and I like sharing them with other builders, especially if it inspires someone else to build the model.

One of these days I need to take final pictures of my 1/350 E.... just waiting for a couple things to come in for the base still...lol


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

iriseye said:


> THERE IS MORE OF A CHANCE OF FAILURE THAN THERE IS OF SUCCESS.
> 
> Which one would I build? Original series, Next Generation, Movie version (which movie?), etc.
> And how accurate? What is the rate of the blinking lights on the port or starboard side?
> ...



I think you worry way too much. Takes all the fun out of it. What do YOU want to do? If I let myself get so wrapped up in the possibility of failure I never would have made the transition from building out of the box to making detail parts to complete scratch builds. Never would have learned mold making and casting, photo etch, electronics and vacu-forming. Just jump in, learn and have FUN. And there are plenty of references available out there to answer most of the above questions. Choice of which Enterprise? Which one do YOU like? Or, do them all!

Who do we build models for? I think you answered your own question with the quotes you pulled. Who do YOU build for? First and foremost you have to satisfy yourself. The possibility of failure always exists, particularly if you are trying something for the first time. So what? Learn from it. You just have to be willing to put in the time a patience to reach your goals. Don't be afraid of making mistakes or going back and redoing something you're not happy with. You shouldn't be constantly worrying about the opinions of others (unless you're going to enter contests, but that's a different topic).

Like many others here, I've been building a long time. I've had my work in a magazine or two. And every single time I've looked at the finished piece and thought that there were things I could have done differently or better. Who doesn't? It's not something to shy away from or get depressed about. It's part of the process of gaining experience and applying it to your next project.

Have no fear. It's a hobby. Just get in there and get started!


----------



## Iheartscifi (Jul 11, 2009)

Iriseye, as my Monica suggests, I love science fiction. From The Andromida Strain to Zardoz! Why? Because of the way it stirs my imagination! Having said that nothing encapsulates and defines science fiction (to me) more than the hardware. And there are so many classic pieces of sci-fi hardware. Like the very cars that we drive around in, we might not be able to articulate the reasons why we like or dislike them, we just do.
Now as far as I am concerned, as modelers, we are just selling an idea. After all, all we are dealing in is glue, plastic and paint. The TRICK is to make it LOOK like a space ship (or whatever). But even more fundamental than that is you should grow as you build your models. It’s all about what you learn. Not what you know!
Frankly it’s disheartening to see you won’t start a particular project only because you believe you will fail. This isn’t school, there is no pass or fail. If a project doesn’t turn out the way you expected well analyze what went wrong and learn from that. What you should aim for is to make your next project better than your last.
In my opinion, 25%-50% of a project is research. But this not just data collection, it also involves decisions about things you do and don’t like about that project. Like, “oooh I like how research shows STTMP Enterprise looks like a beautiful, giant in-side-out clam” or , “oooh I hate how research shows STTMP Enterprise looks like a giant, gay, in-side-out clam”. (Please don’t flame me I’m JUST embellishing a point).
Ok, if you consider that you do not have the skills NOW to do justice to a particular project well that may be considered a wise decision. As Clint Eastwood once said “A mans gotta know his limitations”. 
But then as Sean Connery once said, “Never say never”.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

There's no rule about having to build just one definitive _Enterprise_ model. Grab both AMT and Polar Lights kits and do one of each, pouring whatever amount of work and effort you wish into them. Down the road, you can always build another one. 

Perhaps even a large, 1/350 scale original _Enterprise_ may be available in the not-too-distant future. Just imagine what you could do with that!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

It's "an Enterprise Model" not "a Enterprise Model". Geez...


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

Build what you like and like what you build....

To John P's point earlier, you do have lots of choices and don't be afraid to try different things. Try to build one without lights first then add them. You have lots of choices. Here are some I made...


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I can appreciate the OP's point of view, especially after viewing some of the builds that have been shown on this site.

There have been some really amazing builds done my members of this forum, but not all of us obtain. The time, the skills, the materials, etc., that some people have shown usually result in a model that looks perfect in every way. I'm sure that all of us want that level of perfection when we complete a build, but it may not be possible for some.

I do agree that if someone builds a model, it should be to the best of their abilities and to suit their personal tastes. For some, coming up with a replica of a filming model is what makes them happy, for others, building the model box stock to the best of their ablities without any glaring flaws would make them just as happy.

I think that I fall in the second group. I just don't have the skills to pull off a "balls to the walls" example of model building. I do know that I have the skills to build a model that will look good and make me happy. I just need to realize that when I see all the lighting kits, aztec templates, photo etch parts, and so on, I lack some of the skills to use those effectively. I think that aztec templates will be as "outside of the box" as I can manage, because I think that will attain the best result with a box stock kit and a good paint job will result in.

It's nice to aim for perfection that some can manage, but for some of us, being content with the result can be just as pleasing.

Bryan


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Honestly, I think you are missing the point of building models.

Besides, who says you have only one chance to build something? Buy 20 kits and build it again and again if you want to. Each time you do it, it will turn out a little bit different--either intentionally or through your improving skills.

But the bottom line is *this is a hobby, its supposed to be enjoyable.* If you can't find anything but stress in it, then you need to find another hobby, my friend.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Nova Designs said:


> Honestly, I think you are missing the point of building models.
> 
> Besides, who says you have only one chance to build something? Buy 20 kits and build it again and again if you want to. Each time you do it, it will turn out a little bit different--either intentionally or through your improving skills.
> 
> But the bottom line is *this is a hobby, its supposed to be enjoyable.* If you can't find anything but stress in it, then you need to find another hobby, my friend.


Exactly!

Unless you're super-anal-retentive (like a great many of us are!), be happy with what you end up with. Have fun! Practice!

As a kid, I always wanted super-accurate _Enterprise_ models. It's only now that I'm actually happy with what I'm turning out. And even though I'm going for super-accuracy to the original, I still enjoy seeing others' builds, even if they're not 100% dead-on. Artistic license and freedom to customize are what make this hobby fun. 

Feel free to use my blog as a reference if you want to go super-accurate--it's designed for the novice who is curious about the details of the real model. 

www.enterproject.wordpress.com

Or, you can build a kit stock--better yet, make it your own, with unique details (like, say, an aztec pattern or extra detailing)!

The point of this hobby is to have FUN! It doesn't have to be about "right" or "wrong". Rivet-counting has its place, sure, but it shouldn't be the end-all, be-all.


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> It's "an Enterprise Model" not "a Enterprise Model". Geez...


Noted.


I think some of you might be missing the point.

I DO enjoy building. For example, today when I cracked the box of the TOS bridge, I wasn't bothered by cutting out material for the displays. I kept looking at it and thinking how great this is going to look when I light it.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

iriseye said:


> Noted.
> 
> 
> I think some of you might be missing the point.


Ah, but do YOU get the point every one on this thread is trying to make????
It is YOUR build and the only person you have to please is YOURSELF.
And ANY model kit one build can never be 100 percent acurate. Well almost never any way.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

*In the star Trek genre, I am pretty much a classic series collector..I have absolutely no interest in the later incarnations aside from the classic movie Enterprise, and klingon ship from STIII ...That said, I basically forego all the "minutae"that many lose thier hair over, on The classic enterprise :"hey!! the nacelles have a taper, and the balls are wrong on the amt kit, etc" ...The AMT classic enterprise was one of the most massively successful star trek kits to date, so they must have gotten it right, for the most part..I made my classic enterprise a "TV watchers" kit, and it looks fine to me..since it wasnt really a real spacecraft, I dont feel it necessary to constantly pick over tiny details..as with all my kits, I build them out of the box, with very little adjustments , if any...and again, as was said, its your kit...do it as you like it..I wouldnt let all the detail discussions deter 
me from taking on any build of any kit, nor worry about spending anything more on it for "accurate upgrades"

If I pay say...30.00 for a kit...personally , I will not spend more than I paid for the kit , no matter how great the "upgrades" are..

Z

*


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Zathros said:


> *...That said, I basically forego all the "minutae"that many lose thier hair over, on The classic enterprise *


You seem to be under the impression that just because you don't enjoy studying the minutiae of the Enterprise, that it must also be unenjoyable for the rest of us.

I can tell you (for myself) that nothing could be further from the truth. My hobby isn't model building... it is the Enterprise. And most of that hobby has nothing to do with building models, it actually is mostly writing and drawing. Cataloging the details is what I do for enjoyment.



> *..since it wasnt really a real spacecraft, I dont feel it necessary to constantly pick over tiny details..*


It wasn't a real spacecraft, but it was represented by very real models. My studies in recent years have focused more on the real life models rather than the fictional starship they represented on screen.

For me, the endeavor of studying the Enterprise is as much a history/archeology project as anything else.

At any rate, just because you find all of that tiresome and hard to follow, please don't begrudge those of us who find it stimulating and even exciting. Remember, you don't have to read every thread, and if the subject of the Enterprise minutiae has become tedious for you, you should feel free to skip threads with _Enterprise_ in their title. :thumbsup:


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Shaw said:


> You seem to be under the impression that just because you don't enjoy studying the minutiae of the Enterprise, that it must also be unenjoyable for the rest of us.
> 
> I can tell you (for myself) that nothing could be further from the truth. My hobby isn't model building... it is the Enterprise. And most of that hobby has nothing to do with building models, it actually is mostly writing and drawing. Cataloging the details is what I do for enjoyment.
> 
> ...


*Pardon me, Sir....

No One is "begrudging" anyones taste nor am I saying that no one can embark on a quest for what they would consider a "perfect Enterprise"...I am simply saying that no one should be intimidated at building any kit due to a fear of "not getting it 100% accurate"..thats my point...the key to this hobby is to enjoy it...not get frustrated or overly concerned...I will continue to post on subjects in this forum as I see fit, as I have been doing for over 10 years..feel free to forego replying to my posts if that becomes stressful to you..and make no mistake about it" you can talk to 10 classic enterprise fans and get at least 3 different opinions on what they believe is "accurate"...if your main study is only the "classic enterprise"..you may be in the wrong forum...this is about modelling star trek subjects..Id start at the smithsonian if I were you, and take close up shots of the original miniature,,that may be as close as you are going to get.

Its a hobby..and I am a lifetime classic star trek fan...anyone that wants to build a classic enterprise should build it as they like it, and enjoy it!..:thumbsup:

*


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

Settle down, guys. 

I just think it would be difficult to even copy the Smithsonian one. 

Let me give you an example of some difficulties in another Trek kit. In the TOS bridge kit, my next step was to look at the captain's chair. I wanted to make sure I painted the correct colors in sequence for the lights and rocker switches. To my dismay, the buttons on the chair are incorrect (too many) right out of the box. When I started looking for reference pics, I made another discovery. The chair configurations changed depending upon episode and season. 
I then made the decision that I will light and paint the chair in the configuration that I think will look the best. 

So, in effect, I am building the model the way I will be most happy with the result. 

(By the way, part of the enjoyment of this build is finding out there is no "One" correct way)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Zathros said:


> *Pardon me, Sir....
> 
> No One is "begrudging" anyones taste...*


Maybe you should consider what you say before saying it. After all you did say..._"...That said, I basically forego all the "minutae"that many lose thier hair over, on The classic enterprise"_​Sure sounds like you consider the study of such things a bad thing. After all, I doubt people _lose their hair over_ doing the things they enjoy.

Or does that have a different meaning for you?



> *...I will continue to post on subjects in this forum as I see fit, as I have been doing for over 10 years..*


Well, I was more concerned for your hair line than anything else... after all, you were the one who characterized the study of such minutiae as a cause of hair loss. 



> *..feel free to forego replying to my posts if that becomes stressful to you..*


Don't worry about me... I'm not losing any hair over this. 



> *..you may be in the wrong forum...this is about modelling star trek subjects..*


I found my way to this forum with threads about the details of the Enterprise... they are some of the most popular threads this section has ever had.



> *..Id start at the smithsonian if I were you, and take close up shots of the original miniature,,that may be as close as you are going to get.*


Considering the fact that you've _foregone_ all that minutiae, I doubt you have much to add that would be of any help for anyone who really cares about such things.



> *Its a hobby..and I am a lifetime classic star trek fan...anyone that wants to build a classic enterprise should build it as they like it, and enjoy it!..*:thumbsup:


And anyone who wants to study the details should be allowed to without having their hobby characterized as promoting hair loss. :thumbsup:


Not to get too far off the subject... could you post like a normal person please. You make your posts difficult to read/comprehend. You could start by not *bolding* everything. If English isn't your native language, then I apologize... you are actually doing quite well if that is the case.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Shaw said:


> Maybe you should consider what you say before saying it. After all you did say..._"...That said, I basically forego all the "minutae"that many lose thier hair over, on The classic enterprise"_​Sure sounds like you consider the study of such things a bad thing. After all, I doubt people _lose their hair over_ doing the things they enjoy.
> 
> *you missed the point entirely...so I wont repeat it...obviously you refuse to comprehend the simple point I was making...I was speaking for myself...*
> 
> ...


*in case you havent noticed...these forums give one a choice as to color and font...this is the one I have chosen..then again, perhaps you are aware of that, since you use the :thumbsup: icon...if you look further,there are even more options.....feel free to utilize them as a member..with a little practice you'll see how they work..and with that,this closes the subject for me..back to my three stage ferry rocket build! 

Z
*


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

^^ 



Zathros said:


> *..with a little practice you'll see how they work..
> *


But not by your example?

Could you edit that post to be more readable please. Thanks.


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

Obtained from another thread:



> Again, what is "accurate"? The blueprints Matt Jeffries drew, the 3 foot model, the 11 foot model, the deck schematics on set pieces, the Franz Joseph blueprints, Greg Jein's model from "Trials and Tribble-ations", the CG model used in the re-mastered episodes or the "precieved" look that we each have of the ship? See my point? They are ALL different!



You see why I hesitate.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I look forward to seeing your build, Iriseye. (He says, hoping to bring the thread back to what it was originally about - Iriseye's model and his decisions going into building it.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

iriseye said:


> ... You see why I hesitate.


Not really... Are you planning on being in a contest of accuracy? More importantly, how are you going to look at the model when you finish it?

Lets look at that quote for a second..._The blueprints Matt Jeffries drew..._​Well, to date, the only attempt to reconstruct those blueprints has been mine (though I welcome others to share their interpretations based on available data). You can find them here.

There is a lot of data there, but there is even more missing... so any attempt of _that_ Enterprise (again, using my plans) will have a lot of filling in of data gaps involved. So no matter what you end up with, it'll still be pretty cool that someone attempted it.
_... the 3 foot model..._​Well, (again) to date, the only attempt to reconstruct those blueprints has been mine (though I welcome others to share their interpretations based on available data). You can find them here.

I built my last two models of the Enterprise to help find errors/omissions in those plans so I could go back and make them more accurate. They are pretty good, and my last model (here) is (quite honestly) the fulfillment of a dream for me every time I see it (even given my mediocre model building skils). But none the less, I think my attempts show that a good model can be made from those plans.
_... the 11 foot model..._​Most everyone attempts to capture the essence of that model... but I think what constitutes that essence is different for everyone.

Personally, one of the reasons I don't like the 1/1000 scale model (and am not necessarily looking forward to the 1/350 model) is that it had removed much of the artistic interpretation from building models of the Enterprise. I would much rather see what people do with either the 18" or 22" kits than see the 1/1000 kit.

If you are going to attempt to make a model like the 11 foot Enterprise, I would hope that you start with either the 18" or 22" kits so we can see what *you* see in that model. If you end up with something hyper accurate, great... but even if you don't, more of it will be of your own hand if you use those kits.
_... the deck schematics on set pieces..._​Those are interesting because along with a couple smaller segments of drawings, they show us what the Enterprise was heading towards in mid-October of 1964 before the design changed directions.

There isn't a lot of information, so like with the _original plans_ used for the models, you'll end up putting in more of your own interpretations into that.
_... the Franz Joseph blueprints,..._​Beautiful plans that can make a beautiful model.
_... Greg Jein's model from "Trials and Tribble-ations"..._​It was used on screen, so is screen accurate... and was a beautiful representation of the ship!
_... the CG model used in the re-mastered episodes..._​Again, screen accurate and a beautiful representation, how can you go wrong using them as a reference?

Actually, this is why I love the TOS Enterprise... there is so many great interpretations! And I'd be willing to bet yours will be the next one.

So start building! I'm dying to see a new attempt. :thumbsup:


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

JGG1701 said:


> Thanks Mr. Shaw. Never been used as a reference before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jim,

What paint/color did you use to paint your cut-a-way Enterprise. BTW, Beautiful job.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Hiya!

Thank you for the kind comment.
I used this.....................
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/WTI0095P?FVSEARCH=LXFFR8&search=Go
-Jim


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

iriseye said:


> I'm new here, and enjoy reading all the posts on different subjects relating to all different types of models and different ways of building them. There is so much to learn about different techniques in building and painting. It is like an encyclopedia of models here.
> 
> Having said that:
> 
> ...


Only you can answer these questions. Please read on. 




irishtrek said:


> Ah, but do YOU get the point every one on this thread is trying to make????
> It is YOUR build and the only person you have to please is YOURSELF.
> And ANY model kit one build can never be 100 percent acurate. Well almost never any way.


 Correct, a very valid point. 



Shaw said:


> My hobby isn't model building... it is the Enterprise. And most of that hobby has nothing to do with building models, it actually is mostly writing and drawing. Cataloging the details is what I do for enjoyment.
> 
> It wasn't a real spacecraft, but it was represented by very real models. My studies in recent years have focused more on the real life models rather than the fictional starship they represented on screen.
> 
> For me, the endeavor of studying the Enterprise is as much a history/archeology project as anything else. :thumbsup:





Zathros said:


> * no one should be intimidated at building any kit due to a fear of "not getting it 100% accurate"..thats my point...the key to this hobby is to enjoy it...not get frustrated or overly concerned. you can talk to 10 classic enterprise fans and get at least 3 different opinions on what they believe is "accurate"...if your main study is only the "classic enterprise"..you may be in the wrong forum...this is about modelling star trek subjects..Id start at the smithsonian if I were you, and take close up shots of the original miniature,,that may be as close as you are going to get.*
> 
> *Its a hobby..and I am a lifetime classic star trek fan...anyone that wants to build a classic enterprise should build it as they like it, and enjoy it!..:thumbsup:*


Without adding insult to injury, or turning this thread into a pissing match - let me say that you all have interesting, and valid views. None are unimportant, except mine as I'm not a Trekkie and I don't know anything about Star Trek other than as a casual observer. I've seen quite a few of these threads turn into all out brawls between members. I just want to add - iriseye: Do yourself a huge favor - read your signature line. Read it over and over again the next time you feel you need to ask this question. 

With no more reference than the public has available and the many models that were used in the original series and movies, no one is going to have a perfect replica with 100% accuracy no matter what your modeling skills are! Just build it the best you can with whatever picture reference you have. If you don't feel that you have enough, there are other forums out there that are dedicated totally to the Star Trek series that may be able to help you get what you need to make a satisfactory version that will please you. I haven't learned anything about Star Trek as I'm just not interested in it anymore, but I'm not going to discourage you from enjoying it if this is your genre of interest. Seek out the information you need - I did when I was looking for Star Wars reference. There are reams of information for those looking for it all over the internet. I'm sure someone here knows of other forums, or websites that will help you more than I can. If you're not satisfied with what's available to you here, search until you find what you're looking for - there a lot of unbuilt models out there that are waiting untouched in the box because the owner is looking for the correct reference to accurately recreate its' appearance for their own personal build. 

~ The God of still needing to get paid


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

iriseye said:


> I'm new here, and enjoy reading all the posts on different subjects relating to all different types of models and different ways of building them. There is so much to learn about different techniques in building and painting. It is like an encyclopedia of models here.
> 
> Having said that:
> 
> ...


I'd like to throw my two cents in here. I've built a number of Enterprise models, from TOS to TNG and almost everything in between. I've also built several TOS bridge models, a Reliant, a couple of shuttlecraft, and even the Exploration Kit (communicator, tricorder, phaser). I did most of these when I was much younger, although a have a 1/1000 PL Enterprise awaiting me on the shelf.

I never worried about accuracy. I always worried about making sure the seams didn't show, and the decals were on straight. Everything else was my interpretation, and I always thought they looked OK. I didn't worry about what anyone else thought, because it was a fictional starship. If it really existed, then I'd worry about accuracy (I do DIY baseball jerseys, too, and accuracy is a big deal for me there). But the main reason I do models (or jerseys, for that matter) is because I enjoy it.

I hope that's helpful in some small way. If it's not, feel free to ignore. But I just wanted to point out that accuracy shouldn't get in the way of enjoyment.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Well there is one thing that kept me from making any more Enterprises over the last decade or so and that as the problem of the nacelle supports breaking off from the secondary hull, over and over again.

Back then I hadn't thought of supporting them with a metal insert.


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> I look forward to seeing your build, Iriseye.


Thanks.



> (He says, hoping to bring the thread back to what it was originally about -


Again, thanks.



> ... the CG model used in the re-mastered episodes...
> Again, screen accurate and a beautiful representation, how can you go wrong using them as a reference?


Should it be episode specific? 



> I'm dying to see a new attempt.


Thanks.



> Well, (again) to date, the only attempt to reconstruct those blueprints has been mine (though I welcome others to share their interpretations based on available data). You can find them here.


This will be a great help. 



> or turning this thread into a


I'm glad it didn't. 



> I hope that's helpful in some small way. If it's not, feel free to ignore. But I just wanted to point out that accuracy shouldn't get in the way of enjoyment.





> I've built a number of Enterprise models, from TOS to TNG and almost everything in between. I've also built several TOS bridge models, a Reliant, a couple of shuttlecraft, and even the Exploration Kit (communicator, tricorder, phaser).


In terms of accuracy, at what point did you say "Stop"? I am building like this, even though I could do some things to change it. 

I do enjoy the build and the research that goes into it. So if I attempt it, the question would become "Which one?"


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

iriseye said:


> In terms of accuracy, at what point did you say "Stop"? I am building like this, even though I could do some things to change it.


When ever it fits your personality and what you like



iriseye said:


> I do enjoy the build and the research that goes into it. So if I attempt it, the question would become "Which one?"


How about the one you see in your head every time someone mentions "USS Enterprise"

Your model - build it how it suits you


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> How about the one you see in your head every time someone mentions "USS Enterprise"


I see the TOS enterprise. But, even there, there are variations between 1st pilot, 2nd pilot, and the one used in the series.

But I have to give you guys credit. I am starting to think about it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Personally, one of the reasons I don't like the 1/1000 scale model (and am not necessarily looking forward to the 1/350 model) is that it had removed much of the artistic interpretation from building models of the Enterprise. I would much rather see what people do with either the 18" or 22" kits than see the 1/1000 kit.
> 
> If you are going to attempt to make a model like the 11 foot Enterprise, I would hope that you start with either the 18" or 22" kits so we can see what *you* see in that model.


This is an interesting perspective and I find myself intrigued by it. I know there are grid lines on the production series version of the 11 footer, but I can't stand the thought of them in my mind's eye. For all those years before HD televisions and remastered episodes that allowed us to see those lines I saw the TOS _E_ as this sleek clean ship of the far future and seeing those lines somehow made it less so in my eyes. For that reason I'd hesitate to add that detail even on a 1/350 scale model.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

iriseye said:


> Obtained from another thread:
> 
> _Again, what is "accurate"? The blueprints Matt Jeffries drew, the 3 foot model, the 11 foot model, the deck schematics on set pieces, the Franz Joseph blueprints, Greg Jein's model from "Trials and Tribble-ations", the CG model used in the re-mastered episodes or the "precieved" look that we each have of the ship? See my point? They are ALL different!_
> 
> ...


And I answered that with, what is to ME, the obvious answer: The 11-foot model as it appeared on screen during the series, in its definitive configuration. That, to me, is "The Enterprise." 

Jefferies' plans may not have been followed perfectly to build it, so the final model takes precedence over the plans. The 3-foot model was only seen onscreen briefly in the first pilot and for a moment in Requiem for Methusala. FJ's blueprints were done with a great deal of interpretation and show many external differences from the 11-foot nodel. Jein's model was quite faithful, but, again, didn't look exactly like the original. The CG remastered ship is covered with hull plating that didn't exist on the original.

It's pretty clear to me, personally.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

iriseye said:


> I see the TOS enterprise. But, even there, there are variations between 1st pilot, 2nd pilot, and the one used in the series.


Correct. And your choice is to which one to build - or build one of each. It's like building an Iowa class battleship - you can build it in its WWII configuration, its Viet Nam era refit, or its Desert Storm refit. Which one looks best to you? Build that one.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> This is an interesting perspective and I find myself intrigued by it. I know there are grid lines on the production series version of the 11 footer, but I can't stand the thought of them in my mind's eye. For all those years before HD televisions and remastered episodes that allowed us to see those lines I saw the TOS E as this sleek clean ship of the far future and seeing those lines somehow made it less so in my eyes. For that reason I'd hesitate to add that detail even on a 1/350 scale model.


It is funny... there are a lot of things that I might not do on any of my models... but I do enjoy seeing them on other people's builds.

For me the TOS Enterprise is clean or understated in it's weathering, and that is how I generally build my models. But I love looking at other people's models that run the full spectrum of weathering and panel details. Because they see the Enterprise differently than I do, seeing their builds sort of lets me see the Enterprise in their eyes. I love looking at the Enterprise, and seeing it how other people see it gives me that much more to look at.

And again, that is why I love the flawed 18" and 22" models so much.

Lets face it... a perfect kit will generally turn out the same when built by most competent model builders. But a flawed kit (that has potential) is a foundation on which to build. Making changes shows a builder's skill and artistry, and depending on what they decide to change or what they decide to compromise on, we can see what aspects of the Enterprise stand out for them.

The TOS Enterprise is deceptively simple in design, and yet it is almost a _Rorschach test_ when the builder has to pull a kit towards what they are seeing in their mind's eye.

I love that! 



________________​


John P said:


> The 3-foot model was only seen onscreen briefly in the first pilot and for a moment in Requiem for Methusala.


Actually it was used quite a bit (18 effects shots verses 50 effects shots of the 11 foot model)... although most of those were shot of the model during the first two pilots.

*Tallguy* has compiled some incredible research on which effects were used throughout the series run which you can find here:Tallguy’s Original Series Enterprise Catalog (TrekPlace)
Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise FX Library (Google Docs)
Star Trek U.S.S. Enterprise FX Image Catalog (Google Docs)​


John P said:


> And your choice is to which one to build - or build one of each. It's like building an Iowa class battleship - you can build it in its WWII configuration, its Viet Nam era refit, or its Desert Storm refit. Which one looks best to you? Build that one.


Exactly! :thumbsup:

*iriseye*, you should really listen to *John* here. If you are building this model for yourself, build the model that you'll want to see the most (or build more than one). Other than showing it to friends, you are going to be the primary audience for this model... build for that audience!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^Dern educational links, Shaw!


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

Well here are a couple of "My" Enterprises:

1/1000 Scale:

Featured are a Pilot TOS, TMP Enterprise, and a metallic TOS Aztek pattern for my son.

He loves the silver one.

And I love seeing other peoples models, its theirs, and nobody's is ever the same.




























Sorry if the pics are blurry at all.


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> Well here are a couple of "My" Enterprises:
> 
> 1/1000 Scale:
> 
> Featured are a Pilot TOS, TMP Enterprise, and a metallic TOS Aztek pattern for my son.


Nice work on all three.

I would lean toward building the pilot one, however looking at it, it stands out the least. It needs something---


----------

