# TMP Enterprise VS TWOK



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

*TMP Enterprise VS TWOK Paint*

What did ILM do to the Enterprise's paint from TMP? Was the entire ship repainted or dulled? The paint job for TMP took 6 months and untold manhours. Seems a shame if it was completely repainted.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Some claim that parts were repainted (before the battle damage), but I've never heard any convincing evidence that is true. It was, though, dulled down quite a bit. For TMP the model was shot in front of a black screen. For TWOK, it was shot in front of a blue screen. Many of the panels were highly reflective, meaning there were little blue reflections all over that would make it look like a lot of black holes all over the ship. Thus, they dulled it down, I believe with spray dulling as well as something like baby powder in some areas.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

I think they whitewashed it in a sense. I saw a good set of photos, and you could easily see the pearlescent paint under a thin milky white cover. Even some detail had an "oversprayed" look to it, which makes me think it was done in a hurry.

Shame, the original paintjob would have looked awesome on more recent technology.


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

My vote goes to just a dulling down.

I also feel that even to this day the filming minture still retains its orginial paint job, in most areas, just its been covered by dull coats from around the TWOK time. Sure the green has been turned blue (engineering) and some other details changed, but the main aztecing is intact. 

I think it would have taken to much time and cost to much to compltely repaint her. According to olsen, when he painted it, it tooks months and months to do, I doubt anyone had the time or budget to do this. If you comapare pictures from when the E was retired to when it was new right after TMP filming, you can see exact patterns in the paint that are the same.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dulling down for TWOK sounds right from the looks of it, IMHO.

The ship was given a totally new paint job for VI according to an article I read. The paint job had cracks in it in a lot of places and looked really bad.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

CaptDistraction said:


> I think they whitewashed it in a sense. I saw a good set of photos, and you could easily see the pearlescent paint under a thin milky white cover. Even some detail had an "oversprayed" look to it, which makes me think it was done in a hurry.
> 
> Shame, the original paintjob would have looked awesome on more recent technology.


I always wondered how the ship would have looked if they'd gone with it for the stargazer instead of the constellation class.

The ship looked really grey in parts of trek 6 and really bright and shiny in trek 5.

Mike


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Krylon dulling spray is standard kit on set for dulling annoying reflections. I wouldn't be surprised if they sprayed the whole miniature with it.

And it wipes off easily with no residue!

Steve
(ex-grip)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Guys, the pearlescent finish of the first movie *was* what gave TMPicture Enterprise it's destinctive look.

That finish was stripped.

So yes, it was definitely dulled, but far far more was lost then just the dulling of the finish.

Here is a link from the guy who actually painted it.

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

Also remember that if you are looking at the director's cut of TMP in many of the scenes they used a totally new CGI model for many of the shots. That may explain why some are not seeing all that big a difference between TMP and later versions. Your DVD has a section covering that.


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Yes, he's the fellow who painted it first. Do you have any links giving first-hand accounts from the guys who stripped and/or painted it _*after * _ that?

Or is the assertion that the thing was stripped for TWOK based on your interpretation of the photos, including the cloudster shots?

(Not that there's anything wrong with interpretation, I'd just like to know where first-hand post-TMP painting info can be found.) 

Thanks,
Steve


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

The Enterprise was also repainted before filming Star Trek V. Effects for that film were farmed out to a studio other than ILM, and they claimed when they unpacked the model that it appeared to have been "vandalized" with paint.


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Indeed: from http://mario.lapam.mo.it/films/st5.htm :

_Bran Ferren: "The model had been borrowed and someone had spray painted one entire side of the Enterprise model gray, destroying the meticulous original paint job. We had to go in and fix it before we could shoot it, which took two painters and an assistant about six weeks to do."_


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

You can thank the producers of the _Star Trek Adventure_ at Universal Studios' Tour for that one. The finely detailed paint finish was reportedly causing problems with their video camera that was used to shoot angles of the ship for the addition of cheesy video effects of an energy field surrounding the vessel. So, one side of the model was spray painted light gray. 

The model looks terrible in the shots: poor lighting, poor composition, no style. Very amaturerish. Like a plastic toy.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

podmonger said:


> Yes, he's the fellow who painted it first. Do you have any links giving first-hand accounts from the guys who stripped and/or painted it _*after * _ that?
> 
> Or is the assertion that the thing was stripped for TWOK based on your interpretation of the photos, including the cloudster shots?
> 
> ...


I believe ILM Steve Gawley MAY just be quoted in that MAKING OF TWOK book about the E paint job. There is a little bit on it in the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER TWOK issue, and some about it in the CFQ TWOK double issue as well. There is stuff in AC from an ILM guy saying whoever did the electrical stuff for the models in TMP didn't know what they were doing, which is enough to make me think this ILM guy was not workin' on all thrusters, as the saying goes. 

Cinefex never published their TWOK coverage (I spent most of my time there trying to get a copy of the 'unpublishable' manuscript they had, but the publisher never ponied up with it), but there is some stuff about the paint job in their article on SFS, which is issue 18 I think. 

There is more about the Ferren painting of the E for TFF in Cinefex issue 42, and more still about the newest repainting/fixingup of it for TUC in the first trek article I did for them in issue 49. I'd dig out relevant quotes, but I pared down my collection awhile ago and only have a few issues that I use as writing samples, and they're in storage right now.

EDIT ADD ON: they did more than just dull it down for TWOK. Take a look a the first new ship footage in the movie, when E approaches RELIANT in midfilm, and again when you see it pull in and park at regula station. The thing has got tons of parallel lines scribed in, both vertically and horizontally, in addition to the greying down. It looks like the ship went through a fight between the time it left dock in TWOK and the time it reached RELIANT, once you see the switch from stock footage to ILM stuff.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

ILM also used much longer lenses to shoot the _Enterprise_ with than the folks over at EEG. 

The additional lines look very much like those found on the _Star Wars_ stardestroyers.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

podmonger said:


> Yes, he's the fellow who painted it first. Do you have any links giving first-hand accounts from the guys who stripped and/or painted it _*after *_that?
> 
> Or is the assertion that the thing was stripped for TWOK based on your interpretation of the photos, including the cloudster shots?
> 
> ...


I take no offense to the question, but the whole idea of your statement confuses me.

I feel compelled to ask you the *reverse question* you keep asking over and over again.

Rather then ask if countless stories about the Enterprise being heavily refinished are just rumor...

_*I must ask what tangible information have you come across*_ to suggest that any of these stories are _*not*_ accurate?

I've read in print several times from several sources that the paint job has been reworked not just once but a few times. The exact chronology I never bothered to follow as the point remains that the paint job was never restored to it's former glory.

Do some searches in the Trek section of the TrekBBS, as well as the sources cited above. The fact that the paint job has been worked and reworked has been commented on several times by people who have, and at the time still did, work on Trek for Paramount in many of it's different incarnations.

_I've never once read anywhere_ where it was suggested that the original miniature *wasn't* reworked. This is the first I've ever heard the idea that the ship wasn't really heavily redone as has been reported.

What evidence is there that all these documented incidents of repainting/finishing *aren't *true?

Why would you think all these articles, interviews, and reports could possibly be mere assertions?

Very very many people who not only have been interviewed and commented about the refinishing on their own *- as well as those interviewing them -* would have to be in on it.

And to what end? 

There is unlikely to be any possible benefit to such a conspiracy.

I'm genuinely confused as to why you think the reports about the paint job could be in any way fabricated.

Are there not perhaps one or two scenes where the paint jobs might appear similar due to lighting, or maybe even the use of stock footage, perhaps even by the reworking of the model in CGI if you are watching the Special Edition version of TMPicture? Of course.

But what piece of tangible info have you come across to lead you to the statement that the level of refinishing that was done didn't really happen.

Other then the already mentioned hodge podge view of the ship caused by the use of a CGI model in the remake of TMP and stock footage used in TWOK, _what tangible info_ has led you to believe that so many people have just been making this up for years?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^It _is_ up to the person making the positive assertion to provide evidence for same. As the old saying goes, "It's impossible to prove a negative."

Judgement of the evidence is another matter. There are bound to be some subjective reactions to the evidence presented. However, I tend to believe that if the person was actually involved in the process (usually verifiable by quotes in reputable magazines and such) that they are telling the truth _to the best of their recollection._ 

From what I've read, I have no doubt that the paint job was reworked quite a bit. To what extent isn't exactly clear.

Wasn't the model cast in clear material that let light shine through unless paint covered it? I seem to remember reading in regards to its paint job for VI that there were many cracks in it allowing light seepage. I could be wrong on this detail, however.

It would seem logical that the hard use of the model would necessitate repainting on a regular basis.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

perfesser, i believe you're mixing the refit up with 1701-d, which was cast in clear polyester resin. iirc, the refit was made with vacuum molded sections over a metal superstructure, and the some of the windows were glass(!), adding to the tremendous weight of the model.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I stand corrected then. Thanks! :thumbsup: It was so long ago that I read the article that it may have been about the refurbishment of the _1701D _for _Generations_.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

To muddy the waters a bit, I definitely remember reading an article quoting an ILMer saying that they used dulling spray on the E for TWOK, with no mention of further repainting (for THAT film). They even mentioned that the battle damage was put on in such a way as to be easily reversible. Unfortunately, I've read so many magazines and books about this kind of thing over the years that I have no idea where to find the cite.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Trevanian,

I'm still waiting for that special _Wrath of Khan_ issue of Cinefex. Tell that publisher that he's got to ante up.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

It's amazing the difference in the colours in these 2 shots - I guess the 1st one was taken with a regular camera to get the pearl effect to come through so much.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent59.jpg

Looking quite dull in this image 


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent61.jpg

very fine lines in this one

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent67.jpg

No real help here, just killing time!

Mike


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

I stand corrected. In addition to dulling down the original finish for TWOK, ILM also added some pencil lines (not scribed) to the secondary hull to give it more of an intricate look for the close-up of the approach to Regula I. 

I also wonder if they decided to add that after making the big wax model of the upper engineering hull/torpedo deck/neck section? They wanted to add some visual interest to the model, and I just wonder if that idea came out of working on the larger wax model, which would've had some large, plain sections.*

The battle damage was originally meant to be removable. However, it was left on the model for years, so when they finally removed it, some of the paint came up, necessitating some level of repainting for STIV.

For STV, one side of the model had to be repainted because of they greying mentioned above.

At some point before STVI, the engineering greens were changed to blues.

However, among all those well-documented paint job changes, I've never seen ANYONE say that the entire model was completely repainted, as Chuck seems to believe.

Also, don't put too much stock in the CGI version for the DVD. It was used in only a few shots (the asteroid explosion, the V'Ger energy device impact, the V'Ger flyover and the interior V'Ger flyby were all relatively distant shots, not showing much detail. The only detailed shot was the saucer close-up sequence when they're hopping out to walk to V'Ger's brain). Most of the Big E in the DVD release is still the model.*

* If you want to get technical about other models used, you'd have to then compare the paint job of the saucer close-up model for the self-destruct sequence from ST III to the larger filiming minature; you'd have to do the same with the wax ST II model, and also with the distant shot of the AMT model used for the planetary approach sequence in ST III. For the purposes of this discussion, everyone seems to be limiting their discussion to the filiming minature without relying on the DVD CGI verison or any of the other special models sued.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Treadwell said:


> To muddy the waters a bit, I definitely remember reading an article quoting an ILMer saying that they used dulling spray on the E for TWOK, with no mention of further repainting (for THAT film). They even mentioned that the battle damage was put on in such a way as to be easily reversible. Unfortunately, I've read so many magazines and books about this kind of thing over the years that I have no idea where to find the cite.


The first reworking I remember reading about was due to the battle damage.
Again, there seems to have been several reworks.

She never did have that same pearlescent sheen finish that changed colors as it moved though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

justinleighty said:


> I stand corrected. In addition to dulling down the original finish for TWOK, ILM also added some pencil lines (not scribed) to the secondary hull to give it more of an intricate look for the close-up of the approach to Regula I.
> 
> I also wonder if they decided to add that after making the big wax model of the upper engineering hull/torpedo deck/neck section? They wanted to add some visual interest to the model, and I just wonder if that idea came out of working on the larger wax model, which would've had some large, plain sections.*
> 
> ...


Repainting, refinishing, take your pic. 

I NEVER used the terms you have attributed to me above, namely "I've never seen ANYONE say that the entire model was completely repainted, as Chuck seems to believe." Because you could mean just about anything by the term "completely repainted." A term I have never used in this thread.

But having never said that, in one sense the ship has been "completely refinished."

I made clear from my first post that having a dull, monocolored finish is a major difference later Enterprises never looked as good as in the TMP.

It was clearly to stress the point that I thought the differences being characterized as a slight dulling was missing the mark.

The pearlescent finish was part of the original paint job. Sometime during the filming of TWOK that finish was screwed up. Later movies have no pearlesnce to the paint.

If you want to believe the pearlescent finish disappeared entirely because they only refinished bits and pieces of the ship go right ahead.

I doubt that. As well as doubt that they fixed the model when it was painted plain ole' gray one entire side by repainting just that side...

I don't know what you mean by your term "completely repainted," but it really doesn't matter.

We're splitting hairs about minor points.

We aren't modelers billing Paramount so how much painting was done when and where is really not that important, nor was never my point.

To me the major point is the Enterprise never looked the same after the first movie. Which is a loss to us all.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

there's a lot of clues in the post retirement model and the original scheme. 

Take for example large details like the vents on the nacelle supports, they went form a dark metallic grey to a very light bluish one. Along with the striping on the opposite side.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Trevanian,
> 
> I'm still waiting for that special _Wrath of Khan_ issue of Cinefex. Tell that publisher that he's got to ante up.


Except for a couple of nasty emails back & forth about royalties and med benefits, i have had ZERO contact with Cinefex since leaving December 2000. I'm not the one to push this issue, I'm afraid. It took over a year to get him to give me the 2001 transcripts, and a few more months before he let me tackle reassembling an article based on them, and THEN when I left they junked my 50,000 word manuscript in favor of an error-ridden much shorter piece that omitted all comments from Wally Veevers and Zorin Perisic and Les Novros and Ivor Powell and greatly minimized the quotes from Dick Yuricich and and others. They have refused to make the tapes available to parties wanting to access them, too, so they are hoarding and suppressing the wealth, as well as misrepresenting the making of the show (they even get the YEAR that the dawn of man sequence was shot wrong -- geez, for a 'just the facts' mag, that is pretty awful.)


EDIT ADD ON - to bring it back on TMP, that 2001 issue was originally going to be 85% 2001, and a shorter piece on the TMP dvd (it was supposed to come out nearly a year earlier than it did) ... When I contacted SharpLine Arts about it, they didn't respond, and then when I contacted Foundation Imaging, they went nuts with excitement. THEN Sharpline (which is run by a guy who briefly wrote a laserdisc column for Cinefex around 1990 or so) bitched to our publisher that I was hassling the fx people (the ones that were all nuts with excitement) and THAT article was suddenly dead too. Too bad, cuz the Foundation folk still had the refit model there (Ernie Farino had seen it there the same month I called, when I was SUPPOSED to be doing a DUNE miniseries feature), and I'd have KILLED to see it in any condition.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It was clearly to stress the point that I thought the differences being characterized as a slight dulling was missing the mark.
> 
> The pearlescent finish was part of the original paint job. Sometime during the filming of TWOK that finish was screwed up. Later movies have no pearlesnce to the paint.


Gotcha. You're right, the issue is semantics. I didn't catch that you were referring entirely to the change in character of the paint job. Sorry for mischaracterizing you due to my lack of perception.

I don't think anyone maintains that the original pearlescence remained after TMP, but the colors and the panels weren't altered. The dulling of the finish did, indeed, alter the character of that finish.

It would've been interesting to see the miniature after the original paint scheme was completed, especially since you couldn't see the full effect of the paint job on the screen, due to the low lighting used (which was due to the shine of the paint job).


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

It is hard to believe that after spending months creating a paint job masterpiece on a beautiful model, that no one took a load of good colour photos for posterity. The black n white shots on Phil Broads site are fantastic but colours would be worth their weight in gold to us now!
Do paramount keep anything like this? Anyone know anyone?


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

One thing I'm curious about is how all of the subsequent coats were applied, and what type of paint they were. Since the surface was already flawless, and it's just too big to be feasible, I don't think they would have stripped it first(I'm completely ignorant of this, I'm just extrapolating...)

If that is the case, that would mean that the original paint is still underneath all of the crap that got sprayed on top. That would also mean that Big E could also be restored to her original state, with some careful and meticulous wet sanding. 

From Paul Olsen's description, there are so many coats of lacquer that even if the top layer is sanded away, everything else will still be there in all its glory. The beautiful thing about lacquer is that once all the original areas have been exposed, the solvent from a new topcoat will bring the gloss out, and everything will be pretty much back to normal.

I'd love to seen Paramount do this as part of a 40th anniversary celebration...


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I have heard that the ship has cracks forming in various places and is showing her age . It would be nice to her restored to all of her previous glory and sitting in a display case for all to see ! I remember seeing her on screen for the first in Star Trek TMP and remembering how in awe I was of her ,I was just stunned ! I also remember watching her get destroyed in TSFS and nearly crying ! I thought it was the end of Star Trek ! With out the Enterprise there just could not be Star Trek ! Little did I know that many ,many years later Star Trek would die a much more terrifying death !


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steven Coffey said:


> It would be nice to [see] her restored to all of her previous glory and sitting in a display case for all to see !


Yeah! Ed Miarecki could be hired to do the job!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I have no facts to back this up, but,...

for STAR TREK IV, I thought Leonard Nimoy had the F/X 
department "clean-up" the filming miniature by smoothing 
the paint job, maybe re-painting her. He wanted the ship 
to look brand new, as it was supposed to be the "-A", a new 
ship.

So, wouldn't that suggest they cleaned everything off and 
repainted her, or at least touched her up?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Yes. That all happened.

Since the refit and the -A are the same model, ILM had to remove the battle damage scars and patch plates which adorned the miniature after STIII in order for it to appear as a brand-new replacement vessel. Cleaning up, repainting, replacement of decals and refinishing were all necessary. Some replacement parts were also included.


----------

