# Flying Sub, Refit Enterprise, Klingon etc images



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I've added images from Bob Burns' collection and my encounter with some miniatures from Star Trek - TMP on my flickers page--see "Drydock 2001" and "Bob Burns Basement" folders:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Fun stuff. 

Love the little _Seaview_ amusement park study. I grew up near (the now defunct) Marineland of the Pacific. For a time during the mid-70's the park was owned by FOX, which is where I suspect the proposed _Seaview_ ride would have been built. 

Jeff, I sent you a PM...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Carson, you're probably right--just e-mail me at [email protected]. My identity's no secret!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Nice!

Who makes that Icarus? Is it the Lunar?

Huzz


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

jbond said:


> I've added images from Bob Burns' collection and my encounter with some miniatures from Star Trek - TMP on my flickers page--see "Drydock 2001" and "Bob Burns Basement" folders:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


Who has ownership of the Enterprise now (as well as the Klingon ship and anythingelse from STTMP)? I sure wish it was in a museum for the rest of us to admire.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Who makes that Icarus? Is it the Lunar?


Amazingly, Lunar never made a POTA spaceship. The miniature pictured is either a fan-produced replica or the actual miniature built for the first APES film (I seem to recall Bob Burns owned the original, but it may have been Greg Jein).


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Bob said the one he owns is a reproduction--maybe cast off of one owned by Greg Jein or reproduced by Greg. It's hard to tell in that photo but the Icarus is about five feet long...


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

...and the 1701-A in those pictures? Is that a replica?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Nope; that is the real thing, along with the original K'Tinga and workbee miniature. There's a folder, "Drydock 2001" that gives the history of that little encounter...


----------



## A Taylor (Jan 1, 1970)

jbond said:


> Bob said the one he owns is a reproduction--maybe cast off of one owned by Greg Jein or reproduced by Greg. It's hard to tell in that photo but the Icarus is about five feet long...


It's a repro that Greg Jein gave him.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

jbond said:


> Nope; that is the real thing, along with the original K'Tinga and workbee miniature. There's a folder, "Drydock 2001" that gives the history of that little encounter...


OK...I didn't think the E was green anymore, but in those pictures, it sure looks like there is a lot of green on it.

Was there any repainting done for the Director's Edition or is that green just a color issue with the photos?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It was green when I looked at it...I seriously doubt they did any repainting for the Director's Edition--it was only there for reference.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Very interesting...check out these two sets of different images...

Engineering
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145935353/in/set-72057594134113076/
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent56.jpg

Bridge area
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145934137/in/set-72057594134113076/
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent49.jpg

I think the cloudster pictures are older...but not sure...it appears to have been repainted...


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Dave Hussey said:


> Nice!
> 
> Who makes that Icarus? Is it the Lunar?
> 
> Huzz


Looks like the Monsters in Motion Icarus.....


----------



## caesar4u (Apr 13, 2005)

Guys, here are the photos after ST VI, it was deffinetly blue. If this IS indeed the studio model it was repainted. Proof is in the pudding:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/STMPEnterpriseColor.htm

Looks like they put the engineering green back, like the ST TMp - ST III Enterprise, awesome ! Now we have color photos of engineering green the way it should look ! Thanks J Bond, 007


----------



## caesar4u (Apr 13, 2005)

Wow, this is so cool. They painted the ship back to her colors of ST TMP !!!  You are the Man !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Why would they bother doing that? Expensive waste of time when the ship was auctioned off I believe??

Everything on the Director Cut was digital, they didn't need the minature after TUC.

I'd pass it off as colour cast, but we have posts here suggesting it did look green in person. Stranger and stranger


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Well...I don't want to be a "doubting thomas", as they say, but this one pic makes me wonder about the colors in the photos (no offense intended)...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145934810/in/set-72057594134113076/

Those lines were NEVER blue/purple!

As Kirk said when the Reliant approached..."This is damn peculiar."


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

This picture, in particular, has me perplexed...

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=145935350&size=o&context=set-72057594134113076

View this at full size (click on view all sizes and then choose "Original")...notice the very apparent green around the dish but the "green in other pictures on this site" along the edge of the pilons and the top fron of the closest nacelle appears to be blue/grey...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> Those lines were NEVER purple!


Sometimes a flash can bounce UV back towards camera and change the cast of certain colours. It can happen with man-made fabrics. The thing is, it doesn't change the overall cast of the shot, which makes it hard to correct in post. 

So we shouldn't judge colour from the EnterpriseBridgeRear shot. 

As for the rest of the excellent shots (including the excellent Cloudster shots), unless the miniature was shot under controlled conditions in a studio, under even light, colour-balanced with a gray card, and with a gray card in shot as a reference, I wouldn't use any photographs as an absolute colour reference.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Bob Burns Icarus;

His model is a replica which was molded off the original filming miniature by Greg Jien. Bill Creber owns the original model and had it restored by Jien a while back, it was then that he made molds off it. The studio model is a poor rendition of the ship, lots of inaccuracies. Seems like it was a rush job. IIRC, it was built by an outside vendor for some reason, not the usually guys in the Fox miniature/prop shop.

The full scale mockup was faithful to the construction plans but for some reason the miniature was not. "That's Hollywood"...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I've always said that the cloudster photos to me have always looked green rather than blue. When I first began to build my PL refit kit, I had lengthy discussions with many great folks here. To me, the cloudster photos still look green. Altough I have used blue in my E-A build.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Regarding the "purple" lines, that is an error that occured when I did the scan--I've gotta redo that one. I noticed that happened on a couple of images, for some reason large areas came out bright purple like the scan wasn't getting the complete spectrum or something. I didn't notice it on that bridge photo because the lighting in that shot made the purple areas come out pretty subtly and I was looking at a smaller image after the scan. I think that's the only shot on the site with that problem so I'll redo that image.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Phil, what was the fate of the full-scale Icarus?

I've seen the pictures of it on your site where it was discovered in somewhat deteriorated condition on a movie backlot. Is it still there, destroyed, or has it been restored?

Huzz


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

My friend Daren who worked on the TMP Director's Cut and generously allowed me to view the Refit says it is green now and that ILM had it repainted from blue to avoid any bluescreen problems. It's had various paint additions and changes over the years and I don't know what was done exactly when. But I'm sure this will start a hundred new arguments!


----------



## caesar4u (Apr 13, 2005)

Jeff,

So this is the actual studio model and it was repainted green , and not a replica ? Just to clear things up for everyone. Thanks Jeff Bond,

caesar


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Bob Burns Icarus;
> 
> His model is a replica which was molded off the original filming miniature by Greg Jien. . . The full scale mockup was faithful to the construction plans but for some reason the miniature was not. "That's Hollywood"...


What "filming miniature"? The first three "Apes" movies used no miniature work at all, just the full-size mockup.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Scotpens:

The scene in the first film where the ship slips below the waves was a model shot filmed at the big outdoor tank on the Fox Malibu Ranch. That is what the model was built for.

Huzz:

The mockup was last seen at the Fox Malibu Ranch. From there it was sold to a fellow who ran a junk/scrap yard in Utah where I believe it ended up on the roof of his office building as an "attention getter". Later on that building burned down and the mockup was destroyed with it. Still trying to track down pictures of it in that location but have come up with none so far. If I do find some, they will be added to my web site.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The area in question on the STMP Enterprise was indeed shades of blue when I photographed it right after the first film wrapped up, unfortunately I took no color photos of it then. Apparently it was repainted in shades of green after the first film, most likely for the reasons mentioned above. The model was in fact repainted several times which destroyed the beautiful finish seen in the first film. As the years went by it got more and more beat up from rough handling which necessitated further repaints to restore its appearance.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

According to Mr. Probert, this painting matches the colours of the ship as it appeared during the production of TMP. Scroll down for a closeup.

Sorry, I can't find the post where he stated that.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The refit on my site is the actual studio model, yes. And come on, people--I said a HUNDRED arguments! This is barely a start...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

jbond said:


> And come on, people--I said a HUNDRED arguments! This is barely a start...


Patience, Jeff, patience ...


----------



## caesar4u (Apr 13, 2005)

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for confirming that it is indeed the studio model and NOT a replica.

I have a couple of questions for you that many have asked in other forums, was there a reason aside from better screening that the ship was painted to reflect it's earlier incarnation as the refit NCC-1701, but with differances ? 

A couple of notes is the rear of the interconnecting dorsal painted green and the vent behind the torpedo launcher that should be black for the first refit.
( Not the A that is.) 

Also that the NCC -1701-A decals are on and not NCC-1701, was it used in the Director's Cut movie as well as the CGI Enterprise ?

Or.... is this perhaps just another repaint of many in her life and it just happens that some of the green is back but that the intent was not to show the original paint job as for TMP-TSFS Enterprise and that we may yet again see the Refit on screen and it will be the NCC-1701-A but with this new paintjob ? That it was not repainted for the Director's cut movie itself but for future purposes ????


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

See what you started, Jeff? Ah, well... I'm sure you'll be able to clear up the controversy surrounding the Enterprise color chronology once and for all, and to the complete and utter satisfaction of TREK fans everywhere. Thanks in advance for finally setting the record straight.


----------



## captain kirock (May 10, 2005)

Hey guys this is indeed the refit minature used in Trek 1 thur 6! I have seen this minature three times myself! The difference in color can be explained by differences in lighting, cameras, film, and pixals! I myself am a professional photographer and I work for CBS in Atlanta GA! I can tell you right now that the model has not been repainted! It has not been filmed for a movie sense ST 6 TUC! It was not photographed for STTMP directors edition. All that was CGI work! The studio would not waste money repainting the minature unless it was needed for a production, and they would use CGI anyway! These new pics look exactly the way it looked last time I saw the model and BTW some of the pic on the IDIC page are photos I took with William Mccullars! The guy who runs the IDIC page web site!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Scotpens:
> 
> The scene in the first film where the ship slips below the waves was a model shot filmed at the big outdoor tank on the Fox Malibu Ranch. That is what the model was built for.


Thanks for clarifying that point. Thou knowest whereof thou speakest. In other words, YOU DA MAN!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

So the Refit has green (similar in color to the latest pics shown here?) and the pictures on Clousters site are wrong (it's not really blue/grey)? And it was originally blue in those areas but repainted green for TWOK and after?

I am so confused now...this seems to be the opposite of what I have read/been lead to believe in the past.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> So the Refit has green (similar in color to the latest pics shown here?) and the pictures on Clousters site are wrong (it's not really blue/grey)? And it was originally blue in those areas but repainted green for TWOK and after?
> 
> I am so confused now...this seems to be the opposite of what I have read/been lead to believe in the past.


Ditto that. Where's an exploding head emoticon when you need it...

I think I'll just stick to painting based on screen appearance. There's a broadside shot during the battle scene in Undiscovered Country that matches the cloudster photos perfectly, so I'm basing my 1701-A on that.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

captain kirock said:


> I can tell you right now that the model has not been repainted! It has not been filmed for a movie sense ST 6 TUC! It was not photographed for STTMP directors edition. All that was CGI work! The studio would not waste money repainting the minature unless it was needed for a production, and they would use CGI anyway! These new pics look exactly the way it looked last time I saw the model and BTW some of the pic on the IDIC page are photos I took with William Mccullars! The guy who runs the IDIC page web site!


I am entirely with you. If they wanted a refit Ent (which they don't as there are no films needing it) they have the complete CGI rendering from the Director's Cut. No one is going to spend a week repainting her just for fun, when they don't even have any budget. Get real guys!!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Yet it was repainted several times during the course of the 6 movies... :tongue:


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I think Flux Chiller was making a reference to the earlier posts about whether or not it was repainted for the Director's Edition of TMP. They just used the studio model to construct the CGI model. 

I'd love to see the private collector that has it now (from what I have heard/read) have it repainted back to original specs (have Paul Olsen do it!!). Drop the "A" and all that jazz and make it look like it did back in 1979. The collector could even auction off the repaint on EEEBAY...

Get a few thousand people to give $20 each and in return they get access to pics of the repaint in progress and of the completed project (through a web site of course). 

OK...silly idea...I need some lunch...my brain is starved...


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Yes, firstly to sort the bluescreen issues in the early films, and then latterly when they needed to tidy it up for 1701-A work after storage problems and so on. But in each case they had filming to do again, budget and no real CGI alternative. Green changed to blue early on, and that was that.


----------



## caesar4u (Apr 13, 2005)

Hi guys,


I just want you guys to be aware, if you were painting the ST TMP Enterprise, or the Wrath of Khan Enterprise or Search for Spock Enterprise strongback blue like in the Cloudster color photos for the NCC-1701-A, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG !

The Cloudster COLOR photos ONLY are good for the STAR TREK VI TUC Enterprise !!!!

The black and white photos on the Cloudster site for the NCC-1701 refit are just that, black and white. Good for the pattern for a ST TMP Enterprise, but that's it !!

Andrew Probert said specifically that ST TMP- ST III TSFS Enterprise strong back was ENGINEERING GREEN !! NOT plain blue !!  

Now.... the controversy.... Andrew Probert specifically said Engineering green was a grey-green color, like Krako's decals on Starship modeler.

Krako, please jump in here and help put these people straight.

On the other hand... There are UNDISCLOSED color photos of the original refit NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C, D or E. Thomas has some of these, others have them as well, WE DO NOT.

However, Thomas has revealed to us yesterday that the refit strongback was blue green and not grey green for TMP !!! :freak:  

What is It ???????????? Can we ever know ?????

I savor the day we get these color photos once and for all, here's wishing we get to see the color photos soon :wave: 

But remember, Thomas said he will post the photos on his forum, but you must NOT, in your freakin' mind EVER link from ANYWHERE !!! Anywhere to his forum once he posts the pictures because they will be taken down and we'll never know because some Bum didn't listen to me.

Thomas HATES linking to his forum, so don't ruin it for us. Remember he was going to post pics but someone this very forum ruined it, so let's be nice and respect his wishes, OK ?

Aren't we willing to listen and be GOOD and be rewarded by COLOR photos of the NCC-1701 refit ??? Let's do it guys, I'm dying to see the pictures.

Now, the only other thing I would want are pictures of the WOK Enterprise to see the blue-white/blue grey aztec and how it differed from TMP, also the ST III Enterprise had other areas repainted, ASIDE from the battle damage, YEP, more repainting. Not the entire ship like in Wrath of Khan, but changes yes.

:tongue:


----------



## Georgepropguy2 (Sep 2, 2005)

I thought that the DRYDOCK2001 photos were of a 4 foot miniature made for the directors cut of TMP only? I thought it wasnt the original 7-8 foot studio model


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

No, those photos are of the actual studio miniature...if you look closely, you will see all of the same scuffs/discolored areas on the model in those pics and as you will in the pics on the cloudster site...


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Georgepropguy2 said:


> I thought that the DRYDOCK2001 photos were of a 4 foot miniature made for the directors cut of TMP only? I thought it wasnt the original 7-8 foot studio model


Nothing was built for the Director's Cut. Some guys sat in a room with a big computer, chopped some scenes out of the film and added a few bits and pieces in using the magic of CGI. Oh and someone messed about with the soundtrack for good measure. Couple of beers later and there you have it.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

caesar4u said:


> Thomas HATES linking to his forum, so don't ruin it for us. Remember he was going to post pics but someone this very forum ruined it, so let's be nice and respect his wishes, OK ?


 Let's set the record straight.

I have never said I hate linking to my forum.

One time early last year I made available an index of the refit tooling correction images that were exchanged between myself, Polar and the factory. That index was posted on HobbyTalk where I asked it to stay and my image index not be linked to on other boards. Immediately after I made the post, some starship modeler had to be the man with the info and post it on another board. Because of that I pulled the index down temporarily.

Because of that it is now 'common knowledge' that I hate linking. That is not true. I asked that something not be done to reduce the bandwidth usage from my site which I pay for, and someone else felt that while my images were good enough, my wishes that the index not be spread across several modeling boards, were not.

So link away if you want! All I ask is that images or an image index I post anywhere not be expolited should I ask that it not be posted on other message boards.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm trying to figure out how anyone got the idea that the photos on my site were of a "four foot miniature constructed for the Director's Cut"...


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

They read it on the internet. Therefore, it _must_ be true.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

jbond said:


> I'm trying to figure out how anyone got the idea that the photos on my site were of a "four foot miniature constructed for the Director's Cut"...


I think they mistook Daren for a little person, yes?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thomas,

I would be happy to host any photos you care to post, if you want to conserve your bandwith usage. My website has unlimited BW and it would cost me nothing extra. They might be attached to an existing section about a given subject, such as the "TOS Enterprise", or could be presented as an entirely separate section such as "The Thomas Sasser Collection", whichever might be your preferrence. Either way, they would be credited as being from your collection.

Consider it an open invitation to use whenever you feel the need. Just send me an email if you want to take me up on it.

Phil


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Phil,

The reason I have not posted anything is that I have not received permission from my sources to post their images. At the time I had posted that corrections index, my site was getting over 5000 unique visitor hits every 24 hours. I wanted to share what I had, yet conserve bandwidth by asking that visitors who frequent other boards not post my index links on their favorite boards.

Again, I really appreciate the offer, but I kinda like working with industry folks who trust me enough to share images and other files from their personal and company collections as reference on contract work. I'd hate to jeopardize that merely to satisfy message board cravings of "Hey, what color is it?" on one model.

I have several B/W images of the refit miniature taken prior to shooting including close ups and ortho views. As I am sure they were photographed by one of the fx houses, I may be able to post those. I don't recall where I got them, but I will ask who I know gave me certain images to see if those were part of what they passed along.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

ThomasModels said:


> I'd hate to jeopardize that merely to satisfy message board cravings of "Hey, what color is it?" on one model.


It is rather funny when you think about how much so many of us have obsessed over what the original colors were. :freak: 

I was only 12 when TMP opened, but I remember being so excited to see what the "new" Enterprise looked like. It's hard to believe that in just 3 years it will be the 30th anniversary of TMP!

For me at least, the thought of seeing the color pics of the TMP version is kinda like reliving that part of my adolescence.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

The interesting thing for me on this, is that we are all mostly just fans tinkering around with bits of plastic. It is 'hobbytalk' after all. For Thomas, he has some commercial interests to think about too, and of course the internet is one of his prime sources for contacts in this kind of industry. So Tom, if you need to keep things to yourself (thoroughly understandable), best not tease the rest of us with little thumbnails again. That'll make for a quieter life for you if nothing else....meanwhile, keep up the good work sir!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Interesting update...

Thomas updated his "reference" section yesterday with the announcement that more pics were coming "soon (hopefully)".

Maybe these pics will be part of that update....


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Flux Chiller said:


> So Tom, if you need to keep things to yourself (thoroughly understandable), best not tease the rest of us with little thumbnails again. That'll make for a quieter life for you if nothing else....


When I posted the one thumbnail, it was always my intention on posting additional reference pics. It was only after the smart-a comments I read and the overall tone of how I owed it to everyone to make available what I have that I did not follow up with posting images. Despite your perception that my life has been unquiet over it, I can say that not one hobbyist has been bugging me about it. It's brought up occasionaly on the boards, but that's about it.

The refit design was one job I did two years ago. When I have time again, I will revisit it and continue with laying out Pantone and PMS colors, templates, decals, photo ref and the like. Meanwhile as you all know, there are excellant photos of the model on Phil's site.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

So it hasn't affected your life much...well, looks like everyone needs to try harder mate! 

I like your comments reference 'tone'. The internet does give the feeling of 'ownership of the universe' to the common man at his PC.


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

It seems very simple to me -- looking at models I built over the years. Paint colors change with time. Blue, especially with flat laquer on it, gets less blue and more green over time. Put a few years between one set of pictures and the other and you have some changes in the paint color. White is ever worse in this regard.

Add to this different lighting, different cameras, photo emulsions, digital weirdness and you've got all sorts of problems determining the "real" color of anything.

Just look at the movies. From one shot to the next there are significant color shifts. This is one of the reasons why the special effects guys go through 2 - 3 extra steps to "desaturate" the color that appears on film. Many times the paint job you see on screen is very close to a black and white image.

That's why the Vulcan shuttle looked grey (you've all seen those pictures Andy Probert posted -- that thing is pretty dog gone purple) and the Klingon ship looked grey. When you start cutting different effects shots together, it is easier to match shades of grey from one shot to the next than to keep green or blue or purple consistant. In those days, there was not the option of computer color correction -- you could color balance your film, but that tended to impact all the colors. 

So, the additional question is: do you want it to look like the model, or do you want it to look like the image on the film that everyone saw?

And how you paint your model today is not how it is going to look in 2, 3, or 5 years.

But, all that said, it is fun to kick this issue around and engage in debate, because I don't think it can ever be totally resolved -- unless you have a time machine and could go back in time and take a picture of the model as it was being filmed -- but then you have the same color film and image control issues. Oh well.


----------

