# Restore the original TOS Enterprise?



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Not sure where to put this because while it could certainly be classified as belonging under sci-fi movie and television subjects it can also apply here because we're talking about an actual model albeit a quite large and very well known studio filming miniature.

Discussions on the TrekBBS in the TOS forum led to a member starting a petition to get the original 11ft. _Enterprise_ filming model restored to its original series production state. Secondarily the petition is asking for the restored model to be put on display in a more appropriate setting.

This is a subject I believed would be of great interest here amongst modellers particularly since there are also many _Star Trek_ fans here as well.

The original discussion:

The petition.


Unfortunately I can't sign said petition simply because I don't reside in the U.S. and I'm not an American citizen. But I certainly and wholeheartedly support the intent. That said there should be enough American support to get this done if enough people care for it to happen.

Probably no one has researched the ship more than Gary Kerr. If they ever get around to properly restoring 11 footer then I nominate they invite Gary onto the team.

Images exist of the 11 footer before its restorations as well as still shots (not frames from episodes) of what the model looked like during production of both pilots as well as the series. These and other behind-the-scenes shots can be compared directly with what the model looks like now. 

Such heavy weathering as well as the exaggerated gridlines (as well as lines added that were never there in the first place) can clearly be seen to have not been there when the model was in its prime. I can't believe this is really being contested. The model as it exists now is an erroneous interpretation of what it once was. I won't say it's a defacement because I don't really think that was the restorer's intent. However, altering signage on the model (even if it was normally hard to see) is a blatant change bordering on vandalism. It's near akin to historical texts being tweaked and altered during translation or restoration simply to suit someone's more contemporary agenda.

Repainting, while certainly time and labour intensive is actually a relatively minor issue here I think. The structure of the model is a bigger issue. Should it be moderately repaired and then put on display with appropriate supports (perhaps plexiglass)? Or should it basically be dismantled and some internal components replaced and/or added to better hold everything together? There is also the issue of replacing previous restoration parts that are clearly inaccurate. Sure these won't be original parts (since the originals were lost long ago), but they would be more accurate to those lost parts than the replacements currently there. Also during reconstruction it should be relatively easy enough to restore the original lighting effects.

This isn't an impossible or even a monumental task---old items and artifacts are restored/refurbished/reconstructed all the time. The real issue here is will. Fans obviously think this is important, but the real question is whether those presently responsible for the model can be convinced that it is important as well, important enough to act.


The original _Enterprise_ filming miniature has become more than just a curious television artifact. Many people over the ensuing decades have attested that they were inspired by the _Enterprise_ to become pilots and engineers and scientists and more. The _Enterprise_ has come to represent the hopes and aspirations for countless people in the U.S. and around the world for a better future. It has become iconic.

But sadly the 11 footer is beginning to fall apart under its own weight. It was intended to last (hopefully) a few years for the run of a television series. It was intended as a studio prop. It wasn't built with the intention of being a museum display to last for decades on end. But events changed that and now the model is cherished by many and its historical significance widely recognized. And so shouldn't it be preserved for future generations?
And I might as well get this out there. A proper restoration would mean the original gridlines would be drawn (likely in pencil) rather than engraved. 


In her prime.












And I might as well get this out there. A proper restoration would mean the gridlines would be drawn (likely pencil) rather than engraved.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

For what it's worth I've shared this on Facebook as well. It just so happens that on Facebook I am also friends with Canadian SF author Robert Sawyer (who I've met a number of times---how we became friends) and Robert knows a lot of people in the U.S. in and out of the SF field. I also know he's a *huge* TOS fan as well as an equally devoted fan of the TOS _Enterprise._

And note, I've just heard back from Robert Sawyer. He is in wholehearted agreement with this petition and has agreed to begin promoting it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I'm thinking it's a matter of money for the Smithsonian to even consider it. If a signed petition were to include a donation for the project things would be much more likely to move forward. Maybe Shatner and Nimoy could be approached to get the ball rolling with generous donations. Somehow, I doubt that they care, though.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

While I've read the petition over at BBS, I'm not sure I agree with some of its 
goals. 

I do believe that she belongs in the NASM, preferably in a more prominent place, but I don't have a problem with where she is now.

I have been to see her many times over the years,
I agree 100% that it is time for a freshening up. I've never liked the current paint, it seems to me that it is way overdone. However over the years my dislike for it has faded. 

I wonder if a fan based restoration is possible? Maybe a sight where we could donate for the cause. I'm just not sure I trust the government to do do the research and spend the money to do it right. 

I think having Gary on board is a GREAT idea if he is willing.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I am not sure about this, and I do not have a source, so I may not have accurate info ... however, I thought I read talk that the Smithsonian was already considering re-restoring the model back to its original look. However, in case I am wrong, a petition would be a good idea to show support to the Smithsonian.

UPDATE: Petition signed and shared on Facebook.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Even on the TBBS there was disagreement about where the model should be displayed. That really is the lessor part of the issue since it could easily stay with the NASM.


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

I wonder if they could be convinced to put together what documentation they have for the original restoration and produce an info packet to help fund the restoration. Rights issue would probably prevent this, but hey I can dream.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

wjplenge said:


> I wonder if they could be convinced to put together what documentation they have for the original restoration and produce an info packet to help fund the restoration. Rights issue would probably prevent this, but hey I can dream.


Still a great idea.

Assuming the petition gets sufficient traction then I think it would be a great idea to open the funding to donations. Even if it's only $5, $10 or $20 from an individual it could really add up. And if some significant names (Shatner and Nimoy aren't bad suggestions) even made a token donation along with someone like Nichelle Nichols or anyone else connected to the franchise (even from behind the scenes) it could give the petition some visibility beyond just fans.

I'm not American and I don't live in the U.S. but I'd kick in some money for it.


It's a shame Matt Jefferies and Richard Datin are no longer with us.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

They are at over 99,600 signatures and need a minimum of 100k by March 13th. Looks like they should make it.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Modelers Magic has some photos of the 11 footer being restored, just look under refference scroll down to Star Trek click on the link and then scroll down until you find the link for the restoration photots. None of how it looks now though.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If I could sign, I would. Does it belong in the NASM? To be objective, I think it should go alongside other television artifacts in the Museum of American History, since it isn't an actual spacecraft or aircraft. 

To put it another way: in the NASM, among actual flying craft such as _The Spirit of St. Louis_, its status is a bit lower than that of its companions in the museum: it's an imaginary craft that never flew, and it's not even a wind-tunnel mockup. However, among television artifacts, it would be much more powerful, and would have pride of place. 

Clearly, the administration at NASM places a priority on flying craft: "real" stuff. Otherwise, the big E _filming miniature_ wouldn't be in the gift shop. Pass it on to the American History folks, who will place it in its proper context.

Let the flames begin ...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> They are at over 99,600 signatures and need a minimum of 100k by March 13th. Looks like they should make it.


Where did you get 99,600? It says they need 99,959 by March 11th to reach 100,000 and that there are presently 41 signatures on the petition.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

It seems a very complex issue to me.

Smithsonian A&S= higher profile location, more traffic. ANYPLACE else = fewer eyeballs. 

Other locations (except maybe Museum of TV History and the 'general' Smithsonian) run the risk of just plain closing down. Barring that, even worse fates, such as venue ownership changing hands.

Restore/refinish or preserve? huge issue to some. Unlike aircraft, the likelihood of finding vintage manufacture domes for the nacelles, for example-slim to none. We're not going to find abandoned Enterprises buried in the ice in Finland to salvage parts from...

Pretty it up or reveal the gaping holes on the port side (and hook all the wiring to a reconstructed control console), because it's a model not a real craft?

Lots of issues. Lots of valid points to do any of them. 

It's too big for me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

see below


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Modelers Magic has some photos of the 11 footer being restored, just look under refference scroll down to Star Trek click on the link and then scroll down until you find the link for the restoration photots. None of how it looks now though.


That would only get you so far, since Miarecki didn't get his hands on the ol' girl until the NASM staff had already done a couple of ham-fisted "restorations" of their own. The only part that has remained untouched since it left the Paramount prop warehouse is the upper surface of the saucer, and since it's still untouched, there's no dispute there anyway.

Best reference material would have to be pre-Smithsonian. And apparently, those pics aren't available to the general public (which still confuses the hell out of me; what the hell is so proprietary about behind-the-scenes pics of the Enterprise?).


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

RSN said:


> I think there are FAR more important things that need to be paid for in this country!


Now there's a point. Funding should come from donations, not taxes.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

RSN said:


> As much as I love the lady, it is still just a piece of plastic, wood and metal that only a few handfulls of us will ever notice, Or care, if it is not "Screen Accurate" to how it looked in 1966. Air and Space Museum or American History, it is still just a novelty item that holds no real significace in our nations history. No amount of money should be spent on it unless it all comes from the public. I think there are FAR more important things that need to be paid for in this country!


Okay, my dog died last night, and I'm managing to be civil. What the frak is _*your*_ excuse for peeing in everyone's corn flakes?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Best reference material would have to be pre-Smithsonian. And apparently, those pics aren't available to the general public (which still confuses the hell out of me; what the hell is so proprietary about behind-the-scenes pics of the Enterprise?).


I agree, I've never understood why people just don't share what they have.
It's maddening.

But I suppose this is thread wander.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The original post does open up talking points, from which discussion can drift as long as it's related.

- should the model be restored and preserved?
- how should it be restored and preserved?
- where should it displayed?
- is it a significant/relevant artifact of history?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> I agree, I've never understood why people just don't share what they have.
> It's maddening.
> 
> But I suppose this is thread wander.


I'm sure it's another surprisingly complex issue.

There's likely a fear that Viacom (Paramount/CBS/whatever) would step up, claim ownership of the pics, maybe even sue.

There's the usual fannish need to be 'king of nerds' and control information, because in the end that's the only way some people get validation. NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE HERE THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF POTENTIALS.

There is also the whinybutt of the internet to consider - once the pics show up they go EVERYWHERE and might be stripped of any context generated by the owner, thus...well...internet. 

Seconded on the sadness of Datin and Jeffries being gone. I would love a wonderful book all about the making of the Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As far as the question of "why do it", the fact is that it's a museum piece and with that ridiculously overdone paintjob, it's being displayed in less than museum quality condition, regardless of whether it's in the NASM or parked next to Archie Bunker's chair.

So a proper restoration is an imperative, just on basic principle.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Well, I'm all for a restoration (as my comments in "Tips on building 1/350 TOS Enterprise" suggests). 

I don't have an issue with private donations or a private/public match in funds approach, as long as it ends up being done professionally.

This is my biggest issue with the current non-restoration (besides the fact that it's wrong) - it was paid for (was that time private or public funding?) and it was not EM's personal property. If you want to put jokes on it, build your own and have at it - don't do it to something that doesn't belong to you. I'm not even sure - was he older than 12 when he did it?

My hope is that it is properly restored and he is relegated to "that doofus who messed it up that time".


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

While I agree it's a good idea, I'm afraid you're pissing into the wind. The heavy weathering, incorrect decal signs and heavy grid lines were all at the Smithsonian's direction, and were not the restoration team's decision.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I find that hard to believe, especially since Miarecki's comments at the time indicated that it was all his idea.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I find that hard to believe, especially since Miarecki's comments at the time indicated that it was all his idea.


That's always been my understanding as well.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I say restore it to its original condition, none of the heavy grid lines and inaccurate paint job. Also detail the port side.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> I say restore it to its original condition, none of the heavy grid lines and inaccurate paint job. Also detail the port side.


Well, that wouldn't be authentic to its original condition.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Well, that wouldn't be authentic to its original condition.


Agreed. I personally would not want that.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> Well, that wouldn't be authentic to its original condition.


I know, but the port side does need proper detailing though the way it should have been done 40 years ago.
As for what board members here want to see done to it it's not our decision to make, it's up to who ever would be in charge of any new rstoration like those who run the Smithsonian for example.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

A proper restoration is certainly due. It's been 22 years and it's starting to show a lot of aging. I also agree that Gary should be involved and every effort made to get the ship as close to its original filming condition as possible.

Are there higher priorities? Sure. But that line of reasoning always bugs me. So, until we solve the huge problems around the globe, we can't restore the Enterprise? Translates into we can _never_ restore the Enterprise. 

Kind of like, OK, so until I'm totally debt free, I shouldn't buy any new models. Translates into _never_ buy new models. :freak:


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

I am honestly befuddled by some of the responses in this thread. The Enterprise isn’t a homeless derelict in danger of being junked tomorrow and therefore, in need of our donations and support. It is the property of the Smithsonian Institution – America’s attic which makes it the property of the people of the United States. It is part of our cultural heritage. Historians may argue its rank but I think it is safe to say it is as important as most items in the American History Museum and many in the A&S. We can make valid arguments all day long about whether it belongs in this branch of the museum or that branch but it unquestionably deserves to be properly preserved and sadly, I don’t think it is right now. Beyond what any of us think of the previous attempt, has anyone paid close attention to the current condition? It is need of attention – glue joints are opening up, paint is chipping and pealing – time is taking its toll and needs to be arrested.

I was very disappointed that when they did the ’91 restoration that they didn’t appear to follow standard museum procedure they use for the major items in the collection. Typically, a curator would be assigned to act as a researcher and project manager. A thorough inspection and condition report would be created followed by a detailed project plan and budget. Every step of the process would be documented and archived for future researchers. And if we are lucky a book might even be published. The Smithsonian produces some of the finest books available on the subjects they have. Here is an example – 

http://www.amazon.com/ALBATROS-D-Va...360584970&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=albratros+DVA

In fact, most of the information I have in my previous paragraph came from this book. I have several from their collection and each one is a treasure. Just imagine the Enterprise getting the same treatment. 

It was suggested that maybe it didn’t get the best attention because it is a model but I have seen at least one example that got excellent treatment. A few years ago an avid modeler built a very large scale model of Apollo 11, a flying version. I believe it stood over 12’ high when assembled. He offered it to the museum and they eagerly accepted. I believe it is on display in the A&S now. The museum sent a crew cross country to take possession of the model. They inspected it and documented its condition. The museum put a dollar value on it for insurance purposes (~$50,000) and then the crew built a custom crate on site to ship it back to the museum. 

As far as using public money to restore it, well, it IS the responsibility, duty and mission of the museum to preserve, research and restore the artifacts in their possession. They have a budget and a priority list for this. They are also constrained from certain activities by their charter – for example they cannot outright buy an artifact; it must be donated. But I don’t think they are exactly impoverished either. In case no one noticed, in the past decade they completed a huge expansion and state of the art restoration facility costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of that came from a super wealthy patron but the point is it is there. The museum is constantly working to preserve, document and restore historic aircraft costing millions. Now, compared to the restoration of something like, say, the B-29 Enola Gay, restoration of the Enterprise would probably cost a tiny fraction as much. Let’s say, for arguments sake, it cost a whopping $100,000 to get the royal treatment. No small sum for anybody but in the grand scheme of what they do there and for the historic value of the artifact well worth the investment. 

Sorry for the long winded post but this is something I feel rather strongly about. And I hope some of my comments were not too strident in tone.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

IIRC, the Smithsonian was never that crazy about the Enterprise. I remember reading years ago that they did not even want it displayed in the NASM. However, it was a popular draw to the museum so they kept it there (It should really have gone in the American History Museum). But an example of how little they really think of it, is How they have it on display in the basement gift shop. Not what I would call an appropriate place for it in my opinion. It was great they had it restored, but I suspect it was due to the 1991 Star Trek Exhibit they were going to have at the time in which they wanted to draw in the crowds. What better way then to have it on display in restored fashion with all lights running? However, when the exhibit was done, it was placed in the basement shop and displayed without the lights. Kind of like the far corner of the attic where it collects dust.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

Well, I don't have anything against a private effort to fund and support the restoration but the example of the Statue of Liberty isn't a fair comparison either. There is quite a difference of scale there. Once again - millions and millions of dollars compared to thousands. As I said before - it is their _job _to preserve and restore the artifacts in their possession. This is just one of many artifacts in their care. 

Also, "restoration" is an ongoing process. Nothing is static. As it ages it changes and the E is feeling some age there. To be properly restored they would typically document the current condition and make prudent decisions about what needs to be repaired and what they can do to stabilize its condition.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

Steve H said:


> It seems a very complex issue to me.
> 
> Smithsonian A&S= higher profile location, more traffic. ANYPLACE else = fewer eyeballs.
> 
> ...


All good points.

Though I must respectfully disagree that it's all that complicated.

Clearly, they are unlikely to reinstall duct tape on the port side. 

That being said, the whole option of whether or not to restore to how she looked in-the-studio vs onscreen is clear - unless you are going to tear open the port side and slap on some duct tape you will be restoring her to a "as seen onscreen" version.

IMOpinion, it would not be difficult for a couple of professionals to restore her to a representation of the ship as she appeared onscreen.

Many many amateur modelers are doing that as we speak in 1/350th scale, and while none of them were absolutely perfect - thousands were mass produced with an excellent paint job and very convincing nacelle effects by chinese factory workers who mass produced the Master Replica 1/350th TOS E's.




While I have to agree with all the criticisms of the paint job done on the 11 footer, 

we should alll admit they did a fantastic job getting the Grey Lady restored and all the ugly "never-seen-onscreen" warts removed.



She sort of looks like a 50 year old woman who had enough money to afford the best plastic surgeons on the planet and who - after surgery - looks/looked 28 years old again . . .

But then went and got a cheap $30 orange spray-on tan! :freak:



While some of them might have a little light leak here and there(which one of us doesn't have a leak or two of some sort of our own? :freak,

The paint jobs on the 1/350th Master Replicas TOS E's show that restoring her to an "as-seen-onscreen" wouldn't be rocket science!

No pun intended, NASM! :tongue:


I don't see that it would be all that complicated for a professional restorer to recreate the nacelle effect on an 11 foot miniature, even if one had to resort to forgoing using the Christmas tree bulb method originally used. 

Heck, if dozens of chinese workers can do more then a passable job of recreating the effect in 1/350th scale a couple of thousand times over,

I don't see why a couple of good professionals couldn't take the solid(structurally if not in terms of the paint) work already done on the restoration and redo the lights and paint on the 11 foot long version.

Really the lighting(including nacelles) and a new paint job is all she needs, she appears structurally - even cosmetically - sound.

90% of the work on her - unfortunate paint job aside - has already been done.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

True. A "restoration" would probably just be for the paint job. From what I observed on the restoration sites, they did fantastic work restoring the main structure to its original beauty. From when I observed it a couple of years ago, I could see that it might need some minor work to fix a few things, but the paint job itself could easily be re-done and made to look great. Even the paint job was showing its age when you looked up close.

I just wish they would let it be lit up. When I saw it in 1991 it looked fantastic! The bussard effect was great! Seeing it with all the lighting was a great moment.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

All I know is I was at the NASM a few years ago (maybe 8 years). I was unaware that the Enterprise was even there. I didn't even see it, and I was in the gift shop. Hell, I didn't even know the gift shop had a lower level.

Point is, I would love to see it restored to the proper look it should have, and displayed with all lights in a place where it actually can be seen by the casual observer who is not going out of their way to find it.

If you don't know it is there, it is very easy to miss.


----------



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

Steve H said:


> Smithsonian A&S= higher profile location, more traffic. ANYPLACE else = fewer eyeballs.
> 
> Other locations (except maybe Museum of TV History and the 'general' Smithsonian) run the risk of just plain closing down. Barring that, even worse fates, such as venue ownership changing hands.


Again, I don't see it being too complicated, but the point you make above is one I too have both a substantative and practical issue with.

The gift shop will always be there. And most people who go to museums and see anything at all they like usually go through the gift shop before they leave - even if they buy absolutely nothing.

For example, there are tons of interesting exhibits with many pieces of art, sculpture and artifact in the New Orleans Museum of Art, 

such that I don't think I've ever gone through more then three exhibits at a time.

But every single time I've gone there I've gone to the gift shop afterwards and seen tons more people in there then I saw within the exhibits I had just visited.

You are 100% right about the danger of the Grey Lady being moved onto a floor where everything is always changing when she has such a large and central space alloted to her in the Gift Shop.

There are often more important things to worry when placing a display then where best to place an item within the "displays of the day" melange.

Precisely because those other displays that will be around her will very often change, and she might have to be moved not all that infrequently.

A definite, dedicated space in which she won't be moved(and thereby risk damage as well) is something she already has.

Instead of getting an ever-changing answer to the question, "Where's the Star Trek Enterprise model?" 

it would be better to always get the same one "in the middle of a Gi-normous display case in the Gift Shop."

Plus again, virtually everyone - at least several times as many people then those who came specifically to see her - would file past and have their awareness to her raised.



The practical problem beyond those I just covered is that it's never a good idea to ask for more then one thing in a petition unless it is absolutely necessary.

Which in this case, I not only don't believe it's necessary to move her to an forever changing exhibit floor - as Steve H first pointed out -

it's a downright bad idea on it's own merit.



It also gives the people being petitioned a chance to turn it around on you,
and after going through the trouble of getting almost 100,000 signatures
turn around and say:

"the petition is unclear,"
or,
"how do we know how many people are voting for restoration,
how many people just want her moved?"

State legislatures and courts invalidate and ignore petitions and demand that petitions be split up
and resubmitted for that reason all the time.

Always a REALLY bad idea to ask for more then one thing in a petition. 




All that being said, the petition is already written - so the question is, "should the part about moving her be such a big mistake that it warrants not signing it or even perhaps a second petition?"

I'll have to think about it myself. I've at least reduced the decision to a clear yes or no based on the moving it part in my own mind.

So it no longer seems complicated. I'm just not sure if the danger of moving her is worth the restoration.

Or if we need a new petition. :freak:


----------



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

Question:

I haven't been to the exhibit,

but isn't there is a walkway above her, not just a ground level area, so people can look down at the top of the ship and especially the unretouched saucer?


If they haven't since moved it, I'm pretty sure I remember the caption of the picture I saw saying it was taken inside the gift shop,

if it currently is surrounded by an elevated walkway and a ground level one,

what's the chance they are going to surround her with walkway you can look at her from above, if they just move the Grey Lady onto the exhibit floor?


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Well, that wouldn't be authentic to its original condition.


True.

But what would be?

I don't think anyone would want to see the port side ripped open again and duct tape re-applied.

So then applying a little Spock & Sherlock Holmes like deductive reasoning we must ask, "what does that leave us with?"

Answer, as I believe none of us want to see her with humongous cables and duct tape hanging out of one side . . .

We are left with what?

Not going to restore her to her "authentic" studio look.

So that pretty much leaves the option of restoring her to her "as-seen-onscreen" look.

There might be some flaw to that logic, but I'm not seeing it as yet.


Elementary, my dear Warped9! :tongue:


----------



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

Captain April said:


> That would only get you so far, since Miarecki didn't get his hands on the ol' girl until the NASM staff had already done a couple of ham-fisted "restorations" of their own. The only part that has remained untouched since it left the Paramount prop warehouse is the upper surface of the saucer, and since it's still untouched, there's no dispute there anyway.
> 
> Best reference material would have to be pre-Smithsonian. And apparently, those pics aren't available to the general public (which still confuses the hell out of me; what the hell is so proprietary about behind-the-scenes pics of the Enterprise?).


I don't think there is that much information missing as to how she appeared onscreen.

If you look at all the source material used by the guys that made the Master Replicas TOS E prototype,

which they also used many in-studio pictures in order to reference details that may have appeared a bit fuzzy onscreen,

They pretty much nailed the paint job 100%.

Even to the point where one detail they accurately portrayed - which I previously had never noticed in over 30 years of watching reruns - the three atmospheric burn streaks on the upper saucer/leading saucer edge,

I was a bit put off by / didn't like.

But I must admit that after checking they were there - so I can't really moan about it.

They did an accurate job.

If they can do that well a job on a model at 1/350th scale I don't see why a similarly accurate paint and lighting job can't be done on the 11 footer.

If they can reproduce the work done on the Master Replicas Prototype(or the the even the Chinese production versions sans the ocassional light leak) onto the 11 footer I think 99.9999999999% of us would be happy.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> As far as the question of "why do it", the fact is that it's a museum piece and with that ridiculously overdone paintjob, it's being displayed in less than museum quality condition, regardless of whether it's in the NASM or parked next to Archie Bunker's chair.
> 
> So a proper restoration is an imperative, just on basic principle.


Agreed!!!!

This was NOT just a TV show, as someone else suggested.

It contributed to the evolution of American society.

Elements of Jefferies design were even studied by the Navy to be incorporated into some of their bridge and ship designs.

It's culturally significant because at a time at which we all lived in fear of imminent nuclear annihlation, Star Trek gave both our nation and the world a view of the future in which it was shown that technology could be used to better mankind - not just destroy it.

And it showed a future in which we had put aside our differences of country and ethnicity while still managing to keep our appreciation of our various heritages.

It was a vision of the future uniquely American at the time. And unlike most American TV quickly spread across the globe to be broadcast in 140+ countries. Even being broadcast in Russian during the Cold War.

It did more to promote American ideals and culture and counteract the image of the crass and obnoxious "ugly American" then anything else I can think of. 

We've gone backwards as a nation since the height of Star Treks worldwide popularity.

It's vision of the future inspired not just countess Americans and gave the general public a tremendously higher respect for science,

it inspired countless inventions and innovations as well.

So, no.

For all of those reasons it's not just a piece of wood, metal and plastic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

It sounds like a lot of people are missing the point here. This goes beyond what any group of individuals want or how they think it should look. The museum actually has very specific guidelines that can be used to objectively determine how an artifact is to be preserved or restored. At the very least they should stabilize the model and arrest further deterioration - and it is deteriorating. 

RSN the example you use above could be said of EVERY exhibit in the museum. They could put a plastic prop of Apollo 11 in there and tell everyone it was the real deal and only the avid fans of the project could tell the difference. Nothing in here is important in the terms as you describe them. There are multiple aircraft on display that don't meet your criteria - certainly not the ANG P-51 that has been there for years with incorrect markings for example. And who cares about an Arado Ar234. The Me262 saw more combat and was more heralded. 

These exhibits are icons of the intangibles of our society, our shared history and our culture. How many engineers, scientists, astronauts, even civic leaders have cited Star Trek as a personal inspiration? The Enterprise is the face of that. 

Like I said, I am supportive of a private project to raise money for the old girl but it also bothers me that people don't seem to think there is any intrinsic value or importance in these artifacts of our American culture. I also don't think preservation of our culture should be entirely entrusted to the private sector. That is too subject to the whims of the times and budget constraints - example only a lucky few can afford to hop over to Tokyo to see John Lennon's guitars.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Does anyone know how much the last "restoration" cost?

It needs a new coat of paint, but is it verified that it is structurally falling apart?

The Enterprise model will be all that is left after all the minds behind the show and actors are gone. It does have an enduring effect on history (I remember getting my first cell phone with the flip-up top and thinking "a communicator at last!") The Tricorder was the predecessor to the portable computer. They are even now discussing Warp Drive seriously.

There was just enough "science" in Star Trek's science-fiction to make it seem attainable at the time. The inspiration it provided had real value too.

As Oscar Wilde said, “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

I understand why some would not want public funds going to it, but does it really require that much work? What's a couple of cans of gray Krylon and a sledgehammer to get through the Plexiglas go for these days...?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Well - it was obviously important enough to the Smithsonian to pay for (2?) "restorations" to it already (unless there's a time-travel episode in this when the past is wiped clean!!  ) 

I'm figuring that the next is more likely when approaching an anniversary of the show.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

One thing I am greatful for and that is the fact that the Smithsonian NEVER touched the top of the primary hull. It is just as it was when it was filmed in the '60's. The problem you will always run into is where does preservation end and restoration begin? As far as I am concerned, 3 failed "Restorations" have taken the model to the point where it may never be returned to it's "Original" condition. Too many coats of paint need to be stripped of and all the markings redone, so the hull will never be "Original" again, it will always be recreated. The same for the lighting and so forth. 

The time for proper preservation needed to be in 1974 when they first opened the crates. Nothing, other than the top of the primary hull, can be preseved today, it can only be recreated and the original surface can be approximated, but never duplicated. Funny thing is, the top of the hull still looks great after 50 years, with minimal attention, whereas the rest of the hull looks like..........well, this is a family show so you add your own descriptive!


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

My apologies RSN. Not trying to be insulting. You will find no one more appreciative of aerospace history than me and I would not put the Enterprise on the same level as Apollo 11 either. I was merely pointing out the general public is not going to notice incongruities and inaccuracies on anything under that roof. Only people who care about those subjects and study them will. You know - fan boys. 

I think we differ in our opinion on the importance popular culture plays in our national character. Certainly only time will tell what survives but I do think that a great deal of pop culture is very important and this is part of it. If the E is forgotten in the future and it is shuffled off to the Indiana Jones warehouse so be it but it would be worse down the road if a future generation said, "that was such an interesting time. What a shame they didn't save these things for us." This opinion is not specific to the E either. I believe it applies to anything that informs, inspires, creates or destroys in our democratic experiment.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Regarding the influence of Star Trek on our culture (and so on), I think some of us are confusing the ship with the _stories_. If we wanted to write an essay about Star Trek's influence, what would we write about?

Not the _ship_, I'd think. So although we love the ship, I wouldn't inflate its importance in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

True, but J Indy made the point best in that the people behind all of it are going and this remains as a tangible part of the stories they created. It is a symbol. It is also an artifact that helps make their creativity tangible for us. This is true of anything preserved. 

And speaking to the point that the originality is lost to previous clumsy restorations - this is true too. But, this is also true of much of what else is preserved there. Using the Apollo 11 example again - it is completely original and consequently well protected under a clear cover. But many other artifacts have been pieced together from pallet loads of rotting parts. The paint is carefully sanded away layer by layer to reveal all previous color schemes and markings and fresh and as accurate as possible paint job is applied during restoration. The E is not alone there.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Botched "restorations"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...inci_5.jpg/800px-Última_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg


http://www.theworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Jesus-PaintingNEW.jpg


http://cumbriansky.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/enterprisesm2.jpg


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

RSN,

While I understand your point, I think it can be taken to extremes.

Here is the P-61 and Northrop flying wing in the NASM at Dulles:



Both have been restored, Both are original.

A few parts might have been fabricated to replace things that went missing over the years. Both have new paint and markings.

But they ARE both accurate. I would venture to say that none of the original paint exists on either (though I don't know that).


I have seen the original Wright flyer, but only a small portion of it is original.
I have walked the decks of the U.S.S Constitution. She is the Constitution even though well over half of her has been rebuilt.

For me, Original condition is original condition. It does not mean 100% original paint/parts.

But that is only meaningful to me of course.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

The Big E can be restored to her former glory. If it can be done in 1/350 scale, it can be done on the original (and with R2/G Kerr, et al at the helm, that would be bankable). So that is not an issue.

It has value to the Smithsonian. They have proven it already. If they were to let her disintegrate, it would waste the money of previous "restorations" (which they willingly paid - so that is not an issue). 

The only issue is timing - and as I said, it is more likely approaching a significant anniversary than at any other time.

My personal preference would be to recreate her as the famous shot in front of the blue-screen with a recreated Botany Bay. I can always look at it as the on-screen version after building my own (and I get to swoosh it around too!!  )


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

The short take on this would have to be-- if the ship is deteriorating and needs renovation to stabilize and restore, then it should be done right. And 'right' includes fixing the cosmetic 'wrongs' that exist. With the extensive research that has been done on the E's original state, research that was not available at the time of the last restoration, then restoring the ship to original condition is very doable. I vote the ship is restored to filming condition, including all the wiring hanging out. This was/is a filming miniature and not a 'model', so creating new surfaces to close the holes where the wires came out would be changing the condition of the artifact to reflect a condition that never existed.

Scott


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

I'm in for a $20-$50 donation if it comes to that.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> I'm in for a $20-$50 donation if it comes to that.


Me, too.


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

Leave it alone! The Enterprise has "evolved" so much since the 60's they could never get it right. Most people would want the saucer carved up with lines or put wheels on it because they read it had them in some online "technical manual". Enough damage has been done to it already. Leave it like it is.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, never mind that one of the world's most preeminent air and space museums is displaying a priceless artifact in a condition that would otherwise embarrass any self respecting museum, and that a number of seasoned professionals (Doug Drexler, Mike Okuda, et al) are willing to do a proper restoration job, and that a sizable segment of the fanbase has been clamoring for that proper restoration job from the moment they first set their eyes on the latest hatchet job, we should just toss up our hands and happily lap up the lukewarm porridge they've served up.

With that kind of attitude, Texas would still be a part of Mexico.


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

A little perspective is needed here. As William Shatner once said, "It's just a TV show." Regardless of whether the model remains as-is or receives another restoration or somebody tosses it into a bonfire, the world will not end and life will go on.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Well, thanks for that.:freak:

So, it's not important enough to effect the orbit of the planet, change the tides, etc. then it simply doesn't matter? Got it. 

It's a pop culture touchstone that is a truly an important artifact from one of the most influential TV shows in history. Others can disagree for sure, but you'll run up against a huge mountain of opposing opinions.:thumbsup:

AND, Shatner said that in an SNL skit. The words were not his. And where would he be today without that little TV show?


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

I think CaptC said it well. 

As far as deterioration, refer to this thread from Starship Modeler's Star Trek forum. One of the members made a trip to the NASM about Thanksgiving time and took a lot of nice high res reference pics and posted them here. 

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=103670

He got a lot of good close-ups that show chipping and peeling paint. But worst of all in a couple of pictures of the secondary hull you can see two long horizontal cracks where the wood structure is starting to open up. Considering its construction and how straight the lines are it looks like the old glue joints are starting to lose their integrity. Now I don't think that means it is about to fall apart tomorrow but it is evidence of age related deterioration that will get worse over time.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SteveR said:


> Regarding the influence of Star Trek on our culture (and so on), I think some of us are confusing the ship with the _stories_. If we wanted to write an essay about Star Trek's influence, what would we write about?
> 
> Not the _ship_, I'd think. So although we love the ship, I wouldn't inflate its importance in the grand scheme of things.


What, you never heard of an object being a symbol for something intangible?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Wattanasiri said:


> A little perspective is needed here. As William Shatner once said, "It's just a TV show." Regardless of whether the model remains as-is or receives another restoration or somebody tosses it into a bonfire, the world will not end and life will go on.


I think you're on the wrong message board.


----------



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

SteveR said:


> Regarding the influence of Star Trek on our culture (and so on), I think some of us are confusing the ship with the _stories_. If we wanted to write an essay about Star Trek's influence, what would we write about?
> 
> Not the _ship_, I'd think. So although we love the ship, I wouldn't inflate its importance in the grand scheme of things.


We are discussing a museum exhibit, however.

I don't think anyone will be displaying - muchless debating the restoration of a pile of scripts anytime soon.

Tons of non-Trek fans recognize the importance of Trek to our culture.

The exhibit is there and exists, bottom line.

The Smithsonian constantly restores and retouches it's displays.
There is no reason the TOS E shouldn't be restored,

People will always try to compare exhibits, but musuem pieces that preserve our culture shouldn't be pitted against one another.

They are all important and they should all be properly preserved, whether at taxpayers expense or not.

If we start nickel and dime restorations and voting on exhibits based on popularity then we might as well stop having museums.

We used to dream of building colonies on Mars.

Now we are bitching about funding museums and allowing our bridges and tunnels to collapse around us because we've allowed the "T" word to become demonized.

We used to have vision in this country.

And Star Trek is one shining example of that vision we used to share for the future.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Why not build ANOTHER TOS E? With steel frame, corrected parts details etc. Perhaps LED and Tube lighting.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

*sigh*

And fannish habits start to rear their unpleasant head. We always eat our own. Calm rational discussion turns to veiled insults, and the problem of 'tone' being different in print vs. what would be spoken face-to-face starts to make everyone all prickly and sensitive and hair-triggered. 

Guys, just...take a moment, huh? 

And guess what? I'm NOT talking about RSN. He's speaking truth to power. But the part he's missing is yes, there WERE uncomfortable things in Star Trek, things that seem bad in today's PeeCee world, things imposed by Roddenberry's rather...personal... views on women in particular, but it doesn't MATTER because Star Trek DID come to mean more to tens of thousands of people around the world. And the Enterprise is a symbol of that, stripped of personality and ego and backstage 'dirt'. Pardon me if I use a dirty word, the Enterprise is very American, and I think it tends to be more positive than many other things we see today.

Does it belong in the Smithsonian A&S museum? Yes. Hopes and dreams for tomorrow? What better place?

Restore? Refurbish? repair? Well, like I said, it's not like they're ever going to find other Enterprises they can cannibalize parts from to 'frankenstein' the display, so ANYTHING they do changes the state of the model. 

Do a full-on restore? Strip the paint off? take it apart, replace damaged/shrunk/rotted wood? But then what is lost?

I think the Enterprise model should be seen as an artifact of a time. I regret the loss of the original wiring (as much as it was dangerous by today's standards, if nothing else likely wrapped in asbestos!), I'm 50/50 on letting the wood crack. My perfect display is the model is restored as best as possible to filming condition, complete with gaffer's tape holding the wires in and running to a recreation of the control box. Dream one side, reality on the other. I know this is not a popular idea.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

Well said. I like your post Steve H and agree with most everything you said - except that part about letting the wood split. 

Ooh. Your description of a restoration gave me an idea for a very interesting display. Have it in a room on its original filming stand, blue screen behind. Outside the room would be a very large screen with a live camera feed of the model as it sits but superimposed of the classic star field. The idealized image gives way to the reality in the room.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Sorry, up all night and tired... what is the "T" word? Agreed, the country is lacking vision. When the national education goal is to be less educated than the generation before it, vision, especially, creative vision is a casualty. Intelligence has never been a prized commodity in the USA. Even now, if you are above average in any way, you are an "elite" - something wonderous and bad! Can't have your Doctor telling you that you're sick: he's an elite, after all. A bad thing.

The Enterprise is a model representing a fictitious ship on a TV show. True. As far as it goes. It is an icon, a touchstone, imbued with the visions of the creators and writers of the show to ferry the characters, our heroes to their stories. The Enterprise is also imbued by the Audience/Fanbase of this show with a special meaning in their lives. Just as the show posited a positive future, so could "we" posit such for ourselves. Coming out of the Vietnam War, World War III a distinct possibility, race wars and food riots and gasoline rationing (Arab Oil Embargo) and the resigning President Nixon (now do we trust the government? nope) all rendered the "future" to be a low probability in a lot of peoples minds.

To say that the shooting model of the Enterprise holds no value to our culture invalidates the time it came from and the lives of the people who lived through that time. It is akin to saying the religious symbols of the cross or the star of David, are irrelevant to our culture because they're just belief systems and therefore invalidates those who believe in them or use them as guidelines for their lives.

Those stories taught me things. A basic level of ethics and morality that I believe are corollaries to the religious teachings and cultural teachings I was raised with. I can't have a model of my heroes to speak to or with. But I can have a touchstone to remind me of them. The Enterprise is such a touchstone. The original in the Smithsonian represented something amazing to the people of the time, enough so that it is "immortalized" in our grandest cultural heritage museum!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Star Trek wasn't perfect. But there is a saying:

"Don't let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good."

I can't think of any show that was perfect. It was partly a product of it's time/handlers because it had to be (they couldn't really teleport to the future to film it  ).

But it was better than most. Certainly better than the cop shows or whatever else was on at the time (and since forgotten).

The basic concept of the show has also endured long enough in some form to adapt to changing times.

To me, the point is moot, as the Smithsonian obviously values it enough to have already invested money in it's past "restorations" and at least it's out on display and not in the warehouse.

They'll get to another restoration sooner or later, whether anyone agrees with it or not.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I think the Enterprise model should be seen as an artifact of a time. I regret the loss of the original wiring (as much as it was dangerous by today's standards, if nothing else likely wrapped in asbestos!), I'm 50/50 on letting the wood crack. My perfect display is the model is restored as best as possible to filming condition, complete with gaffer's tape holding the wires in and running to a recreation of the control box. Dream one side, reality on the other. I know this is not a popular idea.


I would concur with this. As an artifact, it is a miniature used to film effects sequences. Present it that way. She always had her "good side!" 

Display her as seen on film? That goes hand-in-hand with the previous. Love that head-on shot where you can see the missing "finger" extension on the port engineering hull. Or all the shots where you can see the external electrical wiring, or the painted-on/simplified detailing of the inboard starboard nacelle. Back before freeze-frame and instant replay, few noticed and it didn't matter nearly as much in the suspension of disbelief. Image degradation inherent to the matte process of the time aside, I think their work holds up pretty well still. It's even more impressive given the limitations of the day, in both tech and budget.

I like that idea of an interactive "effects studio" display. But it might take up a lot of space with the 11-footer... maybe they could do a miniature version with a properly-done 1-350 buildup! A miniature of a miniature of a... :wave:!

It may help to actually reinforce the historical value of the model, as people reconcile the "dreams" brought to life on screen and long-carried in their memory with the wood, plastic and paint used to give it life.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Thank you Steve H for understanding that I am only presenting another side to a discussion and am no way trying to demean any other member through personal attacks.
> 
> I have run convention, with thousands of attendees, starting back in 1980. I wasn't just a fan going to conventions and watching a TV show, I was, (And AM!) a fan who put a large portion of his life and money into keeping fandom ALIVE and was partly responsible, as was every other convention orgainizer at the time, for the return of "Star Trek" to TV. I have been interviewed when the films came out and helped radio stations with their promotions at their premieres and was sought out for interviews by the media when a new Trek series debuted on TV. I am proud to say that I had Nichelle Nichols honored by the mayor's office in Atlanta at the King Center. Touring that beautiful facility with her, both of us for the first time, is something I will never forget.


Wow. As a post-70's Paraborg promoter of Trek I guess we all owe everything Trek related produced since then to your efforts.

Thanks! :wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

John P said:


> What, you never heard of an object being a symbol for something intangible?


Of course. But the meaning attached to a symbol is subjective: not everyone feels the same way about it that we do.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Of course. But the meaning attached to a symbol is subjective: not everyone feels the same way about it that we do.


So? Lots of things are funded that certain individuals don't see value in. So there is nothing wrong with asking for attention to something you do see value in.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> So? Lots of things are funded that certain individuals don't see value in. So there is nothing wrong with asking for attention to something you do see value in.


Exactly. We're talking about maintaining something that has already been deemed important enough to be in a museum.

When we start thinking museums, especially a National museum, are frivolous things that maybe-should / maybe-shouldn't be funded let's just close up shop and stop pretending we're a country and a society with some shared values.

Let's just close all publicly funded museums and only have private ones. Sell off all our priceless artifacts to private collectors who may or may not let anyone see them again.

Maybe Disney can buy out NASM and add a few rides and cartoon characters and turn a profit.

Poster shops and cheap cement garden sculpture stores are all we really need to preserve history and culture . . .

NOT!!!!!

We need to get over this obsession with public financing and simply admit that there are things worth preserving.

If there isn't a range of artifacts and our history worth preserving - what does that say about our country?

Dismissal of the fact that we all have a shared culture, all of which deserve to be preserved, and that preservation requires we the people to pay for it

has led us to that point where Anti-Intellectualism and zero respect for the Arts and preserving our culture is now mainstream.

Everything in NASM deserves preserving - including the TOS Enterprise.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> So? Lots of things are funded that certain individuals don't see value in. So there is nothing wrong with asking for attention to something you do see value in.


I don't see the value of most of what my tax dollars are spent on.

It does not seem to matter to the majority, I think they can spot me this one. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

As a point of interest, I had forgotten that the filming model of The Hindenburg (from the movie of the same name) is also on display, hung among real aircraft. Of course, naysayers will point out that at least it's a model of something that really flew, unlike our wooden 'starship' (insert hoity-toity tone and uptilted nose here  )


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I certainly have no problem whatsoever with making a donation for the _E's_ restoration. Just tell me where to send it.


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

John P said:


> I think you're on the wrong message board.


You may think whatever pleases you but it is not your place to tell me what message board I can be on.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Remember, John, don't feed the trolls.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Of course, naysayers will point out that at least it's a model of something that really flew, unlike our wooden 'starship' (insert hoity-toity tone and uptilted nose here  )


Sorry. My point has never been that the big E _shouldn't_ be in the NASM, just that it would help us to understand why the public or people with influence (curators, for example) do not feel the same way as we do about the miniature. If we understand why others don't agree with us, it might help us craft a more persuasive case.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Sorry. My point has never been that the big E _shouldn't_ be in the NASM, just that it would help us to understand why the public or people with influence (curators, for example) do not feel the same way as we do about the miniature. If we understand why others don't agree with us, it might help us craft a more persuasive case.


The story from the Smithsonian is that it does care about the model however the Smithsonian’s funding is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittees. In a word the represenative who holds the purse strings for the NASM money isn't a Trek fan (and not a big fan of the Smithsonian as well). That presure is also why the gift shop is the models home, and there is no money for restoration.

There have been a couple of attempts to raise private funds to restore the Entrprise. None of them have raised anything near what is needed. They also would have to put the cost into their budgit request (even with funds in hand) where it runs the risk of being stripped out and spent on something else. 

The given cost to restore the model and do whats needed to display it properly ( in any museum) is being put at around one million dollars by the Smithsonian. It needs a lot more work than pushing the plastic windows back in and a new paint job.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Second is that many feel because their desire to get this project done is not reflected in the museum staff. This is an unfair assessment of them. Some there may want very badly to see it restored properly, but it just plain comes down to a matter of money. They have only so much to go around from federal funding and many of the restorations come from private donations that target specific subjects to be restored. In those cases, the money they get must be used for that specific restoration project.
> 
> As I posted last night, the curator of the NASM said in 2011, when asked specifically about the Enterprise, said unless a donor stepped forward to pay for the project, it wasn't going to happen. This does not mean he doesn't want it done, just that he has no money to do it.


The first post I've read from you on the subject that doesn't appear to be designed to tick fans off. I keep forgetting the word for that . . .

Anyhow, I am forced to agree - while not forgetting your earlier comments about the Grey Lady being just plastic wood and steel that no one but fanboys care about.

I'm going to ad to this moment of clarity a bit more and point out the curator should have said "anytime soon."

That was just a snapshot in time from what A curator said in 2011.

Museums have a duty to repair and preserve everything they are entrusted with.

Without a private donor, it might take 20 years or more for the Enterprise to make it through the batting order to be restored with public money. But sooner or later it would happen.

The wood splitting and paint chipping sooner then some houses I've seen is a bit ridiculous, though I don't think it would take that much to preserve the old girl.

I do however hope that they have learned from the last restoration and NASM has someone there with the authority to stop anyone who wants to do a paint job that someone who paints surf boards for a living should be embarrassed by.

The pooch was "impaled-repeatedly" on that one. I've been told by people I trust he's a really nice guy. But as someone else pointed out, this was supposed to be a restoration - not someones (very poor) vision of how the ship should have been painted.

They need to get painters and restorers that are not related to Trek at all and simply given the proper info on what she is supposed to look like.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I did some research back in 1989-1990 about Monocoupes. I used the resources of the Smithsonian A&S library in my studies. I would get to talk to the folks actually restoring the aircraft for display. 

BAD NEWS. 

They only restore the items to LOOK like the originals. They rebuilt the landing gear on a P51 and didn't use the same materials as the original, so the gear is too weak to ever be used for flying. This is common practice. Their are other examples but you get my point.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> I appreciate the sarcasm, but as I actually said in my post, it was a joint effort by ALL the convention organizers AND the fans who attended who kept the dram alive...................and "You're Welcome"!


1980 though?

I'm glad you joined the army, and thank you for your service.

But I think you joined right about about a week or two after Eva Braun and her boyfriend went down into the bunkers.

I loved the Trek convention in Atlanta in '78, the one in which Michael McMaster gave lectures about his D-7 plans. It sticks out in my mind because a few issues of Starlog later I learned he had died within about six weeks after the convention.

The biggest push that resurrected Star Trek took more then a decade of hard work by fans starting immediately after the series was canceled and culminating in Star Trek The Motion Picture, in 1979.

Then in 1979, Paraborg started to realize that the series they had to be almost beaten into restarting could make tons of dough,

so they proceeded to sue and threaten anyone of note in the '70's fan community.

The very fans whom without which Trek would have never been reborn in 1979.

It's not the fault of fans forced to work within the post TMP constraints,
But Trek conventions haven't been the same since the Paraborg crackdown. 
They just aren't.

Still fun. But not the same creative feel at all.


Again, thank you for joining the Trek army.

But let's not try to characterize things that occurred post-The Motion Picture as something that brought back and saved Trek. It was already back by then.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

swhite228 said:


> The story from the Smithsonian is that it does care about the model however the Smithsonian’s funding is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittees. In a word the representative who holds the purse strings for the NASM money isn't a Trek fan (and not a big fan of the Smithsonian as well). That pressure is also why the gift shop is the models home, and there is no money for restoration.
> 
> There have been a couple of attempts to raise private funds to restore the Enterprise. None of them have raised anything near what is needed. They also would have to put the cost into their budget request (even with funds in hand) where it runs the risk of being stripped out and spent on something else.
> 
> The given cost to restore the model and do whats needed to display it properly ( in any museum) is being put at around one million dollars by the Smithsonian. It needs a lot more work than pushing the plastic windows back in and a new paint job.


Yep. It would seem that reality is a Harsh Mistress.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Remember, John, don't feed the trolls.


I'm not John. But I too, must confess to this sin.

Too easily tempted, I suppose.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

swhite228 said:


> The story from the Smithsonian is that it does care about the model however the Smithsonian’s funding is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittees. In a word the represenative who holds the purse strings for the NASM money isn't a Trek fan (and not a big fan of the Smithsonian as well). That presure is also why the gift shop is the models home, and there is no money for restoration.
> 
> There have been a couple of attempts to raise private funds to restore the Entrprise. None of them have raised anything near what is needed. They also would have to put the cost into their budgit request (even with funds in hand) where it runs the risk of being stripped out and spent on something else.
> 
> The given cost to restore the model and do whats needed to display it properly ( in any museum) is being put at around one million dollars by the Smithsonian. It needs a lot more work than pushing the plastic windows back in and a new paint job.


I'm not shocked by any of that though I am surprised by the questimate on the restoration. I expect the phrase "and display it properly" has a lot to do with that. The only part I find completely unacceptable is that even if "we" raise the funds it could be redirected by an elected official with the apparent sensitivity of a neanderthal. I wonder if any of his relatives were executives at Fox when Firefly was on the air? 

Someone else posted comments about exhibits being restored to a visual state only citing that P-51 as an example. I am sure that is true in that case but the museum completely changed their philosophy and direction under the direction of Mr. Mikesh back in the 80's. Now, the exhibits are brought back to what they once were. That Albatros DVa had to have a LOT of wood replaced but in the end the entire aircraft was ready to fly according to the restorers. This is supposedly true of any aircraft they have worked on in the past 30 years. In addition, features, roles, markings and all details are kept as original as possible. Any reproduced or replaced parts are tagged and documented so that future researchers can immediately differentiate them from the originals. They are serious about this and taking the long view. That is why I was disappointed in how they approached the E in '91. I am sure there were good reasons at the time. In fact, regardless of what you think about its current condition I honestly think it is in the best place in the world for this.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

With the lack of civility displayed here, I sure hope that no one from the Smithsonian happens across this thread. . . . . . 


Anyone ever hear of Kickstarter?


----------



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

ffejG said:


> I'm not shocked by any of that though I am surprised by the questimate on the restoration. I expect the phrase "and display it properly" has a lot to do with that. The only part I find completely unacceptable is that even if "we" raise the funds it could be redirected by an elected official with the apparent sensitivity of a neanderthal. I wonder if any of his relatives were executives at Fox when Firefly was on the air?
> 
> Someone else posted comments about exhibits being restored to a visual state only citing that P-51 as an example. I am sure that is true in that case but the museum completely changed their philosophy and direction under the direction of Mr. Mikesh back in the 80's. Now, the exhibits are brought back to what they once were. That Albatros DVa had to have a LOT of wood replaced but in the end the entire aircraft was ready to fly according to the restorers. This is supposedly true of any aircraft they have worked on in the past 30 years. In addition, features, roles, markings and all details are kept as original as possible. Any reproduced or replaced parts are tagged and documented so that future researchers can immediately differentiate them from the originals. They are serious about this and taking the long view. That is why I was disappointed in how they approached the E in '91. I am sure there were good reasons at the time. In fact, regardless of what you think about its current condition I honestly think it is in the best place in the world for this.


I don't believe anyone can redirect privately donated funds that are directly for specific projects, elected officials can take money out of NASM general funding before the final appropriations are alotted.

Once NASM their general funding approved, it's possible that NASM can decide to move their federal funding arround.

But I don't believe they can redirect private funds donated for specific projects.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The first post I've read from you on the subject that doesn't appear to be designed to tick fans off. I keep forgetting the word for that . . .


I think "antagonize" would work.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

Trek Ace said:


> Anyone ever hear of Kickstarter?


The thing you use to start a motorcycle?

Or the creative projects funding website?

Please elaborate ...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Well, I was working through and with Paramount and Gene Roddenberry's office well into the '90's and I know first hand how certain things got done and the reasons for them. You have your opinion, I have my facts.
> 
> I was also giving credit to the convention promoters who came before me in the 1970's, several of which I attended in New York that fueled my desire to a part of running them.
> 
> ...



My point, which you seem to be drowning out with a never ending lists of "I's" -Idize,

is that the tireless work of fans from the moment the series was canceled to the point at which Star Trek The Motion Picture was released

was the one true reason Star Trek still exists in any form today.

Had there never been a tremendous, continuous push by fans from the time the series went off the air until TMP there would have been no Star Trek movies, TNG etc.

Fans kept Trek alive and had to beat ParaBorg over the head to get her going again.

Pretend like the big ole slap down on fan fiction and other producers never happened if you want to.

But most people in this forum knows that it was relentless work by fans during the 70's that brought Trek back,

and that ParaBorg wasn't the smiling happy creature that gave fans "everything they needed."

Unless you think "everything they needed" was thankless threats to sue and bankrupt people as thanks in return for keeping

their franchise alive.

Maybe you have convinced yourself of it, but I doubt you'll convince anyone else.


I'm going to take Captain Aprils advice and stop feeding you now.

Have fun name dropping, painting Paramount as a friend to all fans, and listing every activity you've allegedly performed in your war to keep Trek safe. :wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

RSN said:


> I am not from a cookie cutter "Fan Mold" and I don't think anyone here is either. I have my own opinions as do all the other posters here. If you read them and want to feel "antagonized", I can't say it enough that that is not my motivation for posting them. I can't help how people want to read them so there is not much I can do about it. My views will not change, I will try to find better words to express them in the future.


What should we read in this reply since I was only answering his question?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The thing you use to start a motorcycle?
> 
> Or the creative projects funding website?
> 
> Please elaborate ...


Kickstarter is a site where projects are funded by donations. Do a search on "Star Trek" and you should see one of the successfully funded projects is a restoration of the TNG Bridge. Might be an option.

http://www.kickstarter.com/


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> The "Everthing they needed" I was referring to was Paramount provided any promotional items, displays or even actors we or other conventions needed to put on a great show for the fans. At NO time did I ever say I alone, was responsible for "Star Trek" continuing. I may have opinions, but I have no ego,


Guy. Come on. I know I promised to stop feeding you, but you might want to honestly consider reading what you write aloud before posting it if you think that is how you are coming across:

Here is a quote with emphasis added,

"*I have run convention*, with thousands of attendees, starting back in 1980.* I* wasn't just a fan going to conventions and watching a TV show, *I* *was, (And AM!) a fan who put a large portion of his life and money into keeping fandom ALIVE and was partly responsible*, as was every other convention orgainizer at the time, for the return of "Star Trek" to TV. *I have been interviewed when the films came out* and helped radio stations with their promotions at their premieres* and was sought out for interviews by the media* when a new Trek series debuted on TV. *I am proud to say that I had Nichelle Nichols honored by the mayor's office *in Atlanta at the King Center. Touring that beautiful facility with her, *both of us for the first time, is something I *will never forget."

Seriously, try reading it aloud.

Perhaps you genuinely don't know how you sound sometimes.

Throwing in a quick "and all other fans" here and there doesn't change the over all self-agrandizing tone at all. 

Have a great day. I sincerely hope this perhaps helps you realize how you often come across.

Perhaps I'm over reacting. If so I apologize.

I wasn't going to go to mass today, but I think I'm going to get some ashes on my forehead so I can be reminded we're all just human beings, warts, faults and all. :thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Tut, tut gents - no need to get stirred up. There will always be disagreements.

In such times, there is the old saying "We can disagree without being disagreeable"...

Though personally, I like to use my own:

"I don't even take myself seriously - so your chances aren't good."


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I was at the Air and Space this last weekend and was saddend by her state. There are cracks on the secondary hull and the paint is coming off the engine port engine. I also think there's paint coming off the bottom of the saucer since there's a peice of tape on it. I remember seeing it in 1991 after it's restoration, even though I know now it was not correct, it looked awesome to see it all lite up.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

tardis1916 said:


> I was at the Air and Space this last weekend and was saddend by her state. There are cracks on the secondary hull and the paint is coming off the engine port engine. I also think there's paint coming off the bottom of the saucer since there's a peice of tape on it. I remember seeing it in 1991 after it's restoration, even though I know now it was not correct, it looked awesome to see it all lite up.


Just curious, is the top of the primary hull visible? To my knowledge nothing beyond a sealant has beed applied to it, since the '60's, to preserve the original finish. I remember seeing it in the original location as it hung from the ceiling near the central escalator, but it was not visible when it was moved in around 1980 to the far end of the building.

It would be ironic if it is still holding up better than the 3 restorations of the rest of the ship! Should have just left her alone and displayed as is perhaps?!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Being a SF fan it's a sobering realization that while SF related films can generate decent to big box office returns SF is still a small puddle in the greater ocean of entertainment. You can surely see this in chain bookstores where (with rare exception) SF can be quite marginalized to one or two bookshelves. If you want a good selection of SF you pretty much have to go to specialty bookstores or shop online.

_Star Trek_ is indeed widely recognizable, but how widely its impact is recognized is really up for debate. I dare say that most of the public likely still view SF and sci-fi as frivolous escapism with no real relevance to real life despite evidence to the contrary.

One could make a fair case for _Star Wars_ and the clutch of genre films from the late '70s and early '80s for kick-starting the broad general acceptance of genre materiel across a much broader demographic than "just kids and adolescents." Some of those "young'uns" grew up to make even more of the genre materiel they enjoyed and today's generations presently enjoy. Today's obsession with big box office opening weekends was founded back in the day.

I think one could also make a case that while _Star Wars_ and its contemporaries popularized genre materiel in a huge way it was _Star Trek_ that had already been paving the way for a decade earlier. There had been other genre films and TV series of note before, but none resonated like _Star Trek._ It was recognized in all manner of legitimate media beyond fanzines and tie-in publications. It was recognized and referenced in scientific publications. It was recognized by government in naming its first space shuttle _Enterprise_ and the Smithsonian accepting the original 11ft. filming miniature for display. And it was cited by numerous writers, filmmakers, pilots, astronauts, astronomers, physicists, scientists, engineers, technicians, doctors and more as significant inspiration for them to pursue their chosen fields.

I've never heard that said about _Star Wars, Twilight Zone, The X-Files, Stargate, Voyage To The Bottom Of Sea, Doctor Who_ and any number of other genre entertainment.

Yet it's often been said of _Star Trek._ And there is no more immediately recognizable symbol of _Star Trek,_ it's mythos, it's ideas and its stories, than the _Enterprise._

Lots of people might be ignorant of the fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Being a SF fan it's a sobering realization that while SF related films can generate decent to big box office returns SF is still a small puddle in the greater ocean of entertainment. You can surely see this in chain bookstores where (with rare exception) SF can be quite marginalized to one or two bookshelves. If you want a good selection of SF you pretty much have to go to specialty bookstores or shop online.
> 
> _Star Trek_ is indeed widely recognizable, but how widely its impact is recognized is really up for debate. I dare say that most of the public likely still view SF and sci-fi as frivolous escapism with no real relevance to real life despite evidence to the contrary.
> 
> ...


Well said sir, well said.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I don't believe anyone can redirect privately donated funds that are directly for specific projects, elected officials can take money out of NASM general funding before the final appropriations are alotted.
> 
> Once NASM their general funding approved, it's possible that NASM can decide to move their federal funding arround.
> 
> But I don't believe they can redirect private funds donated for specific projects.


If an donation is made to a non profit and "directed" to a fund like building repair or uniforms then those donations can't be used for other cost.

The Smithsonian isn't a non profit business under the current tax laws (even with the contributions being tax exempt) it is a government supported organization with the government controling it's funding and to a large part it's distribution of it's private funding. The current push is building repair and upgrades. So while the "money" may say Enterprise restoration it is possable for congress to strip that money out of the funding requested by the museum and move it anywhere it wants.

They are also still a little worried about funding after the 2008 purge of the leadership of the museum which was prompted with the House threating to defund the museum. 

To make it worse they are working with 2010 funding. For an overview of the 2012 budgit request check this out...
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-fiscal-year-2012-federal-budget-request-totals-8615-million


----------



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

RSN said:


> Chuck P.R., I sent you a PM, I hope you read it. Thank you.


An email would be better. My PM box is almost full, and PM's only allow small messages anyway. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

swhite228 said:


> If an donation is made to a non profit and "directed" to a fund like building repair or uniforms then those donations can't be used for other cost.
> 
> The Smithsonian isn't a non profit business under the current tax laws (even with the contributions being tax exempt) it is a government supported organization with the government controling it's funding and to a large part it's distribution of it's private funding. The current push is building repair and upgrades. So while the "money" may say Enterprise restoration it is possable for congress to strip that money out of the funding requested by the museum and move it anywhere it wants.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the budget info.

The only thing I was trying to address in my post though was ffejG's fear that if fans created a dedicated fund to restore the Enterprise that Congress or even NASM might take those dedicated funds and use it for something else.

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear on that. I'm still a little woosey from Mardi Gras night. :drunk:


----------



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

RSN said:


> It is there and it is short, I hope you will read it.



Haven't received the email yet,
but of course I'll read it. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> This is what I sent to your PM:
> 
> "Not sure why you keep taking certain words out of context to paint me as someone I am not. As I said I am a fan from the beginning and love the show and devoted a large portion of my life to entertain fellow fans. I sincerely apologize if any of my comments hurt you on a personal level. It was never my goal. I hope you accept this note in the spirit of friendship it was meant and we can continue to exchange views and grow our interest together. Ron"
> 
> We are all brothers in fandom.



I read it.

My response won't really fit in a PM though.
I should have made it clearer that that was an issue.
Sorry about that.

Since you did choose to make the PM public,
I'd like to say in my own defense that I have kept myself to responding to things you have actually written.

My last post on the subject being an extended direct quote in which I attempted to show you how
the statements come across.

Which for a moment it seemed like you got at least part of what I was saying.

Nothing was taken out of context. It was a simple quote of your own writing I wanted you to read.

There was no painting involved nor intended.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Well, I am past it, I am the one who needed to apologize, and did, both here in a few posts and in the PM. You do not need to respond. I realize my words were many and inappropriate in some cases. Not much more to be said.
> 
> Let's just work to get the Lady looking good in a way that works for everyone!


I completely planned on responding. And still will if you email me.

My response simply won't fit in a PM.

It is fairly detailed analysis of some writing conventions you are using that you may not even understand you are using.

I'm going to say I would be very surprised if you were not in the past or present heavily involved in politics and probably have had training and experience in political speech writing.

The devices you use when writing you may have become so accustomed to using you don't even realize you are using them.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Deleted by poster as irrelevant to the topic.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Well, wrong on all counts.  Don't give out my e-mail on these forums, just PMs, so........... :thumbsup:


Well then I stand corrected.

However, involved in politics or not, you certainly use all the tricks politicians use.

You asked for an answer in the PM you published, as to why I allegedly take you out of context.

Since you asked publicly, I'm answering.



I accept your apology.
But I have not taken you out of context.

I've been trained to read through the qualifiers someone like yourself uses. 


You have picked up an affectation in which you present a heated 
passionate statement that is very clear in it's intent.

But then simultaneously do what anyone who has studied political speech 
writing recognizes immediately - you insert wiggle, safety-valve, and 
parachute words.

Perhaps you have come to have to write this way out of necessity - or have 
done it so long you instinctively lace what you write with passive-agressive 
words and phrases.

But whether you realize it or not they are there.

Just because you put in wiggle words doesn't change the meaning and thrust of what you say. 

When someone quotes you and disputes something you have actually said, you defend it by 
claiming that not what you meant and you are being taken out of context - when clearly that is not the case.

This gimmick that gets by a lot of people among the general public(but I doubt few in a forum like Hobbytalk) 
allows you to make a VERY strong and passionate statements which on the face of it you and anyone with 
common sense knows is meant to illict a viceral response 

but then you ad phrases like "and all promoters" or "all fans."

These types of terms are VERY common among politicians. I've met some who 
literally go their entire day and never say a single sentence that doesn't 
have back-peddling qualifiers in them. They talk that way to everyone from 
Senators down to their wives and children - it has become a part of them.

Perhaps you have gotten to the point where you don't even realize you are 
doing it. I hope that that is the case.

But please understand that not everyone is befuddled or confused enough by 
provacative statements laced with back-peddling escape valves.

It is possible for some people to clearly read all the strong, agressive 
statements clearly, and not be thrown of the track by the passive qualifiers 
that you believe will get you off the hook when those strong statements are 
challenged.

Not everyone is thrown off by this passive-agressive dance.

I hope you take these statements in the spirit they are offered and try not to 
do the mix strong statements with safety valve words and then claim to be 
taken out of context.

That politician style passive-agressive, qualify everything, tactic doesn't fly 
over everyone's head.

Walk into the light and join the rest of us direct and to the point people.


If you write things directly without wiggle words and a million qualifiers you won't have to claim you were taken out of context.


If you can't write something without adding a qualifier that nulifies any 
disagreement with the statement then don't write it.


You really are saying nothing at all, if everything you say can always be explained away by "I didn't mean that."

Just simply write what you do mean and leave the qualifiers to the 
politicians.

I'm not sure if this habit is curable, but there is always hope.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. :wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Spent the better part of the morning digging through a box of photos and this was the only one I could find.....so far. (Sorry for the condition, but it spent a considerable amount of time taped to my door in my youth!)

It was taken in the summer of 1976, not long after it went on display. Even from her bad side, you can still see her much the way she was during filming. Pretty sure they repainted it, but it "looks" pretty good to the eye. The most glaring errors they made were the "Turkey Red" nacelle caps and a literal "dish" antenna. (250 channels with 5 HBO's!)

At this point, they had not taken her beyond the point of no return as far as preserving her in her filming condition, yet still sprucing her up a bit to hold up to day in and day out public scrutiny.

I know I have more pictures burried somewhere, one from above at this location and more from 1980 after it was moved to a more out of the way spot and harder to see all of her.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

RSN said:


> Spent the better part of the morning digging through a box of photos and this was the only one I could find.....so far. (Sorry for the condition, but it spent a considerable amount of time taped to my door in my youth!)
> 
> It was taken in the summer of 1976, not long after it went on display. Even from her bad side, you can still see her much the way she was during filming. Pretty sure they repainted it, but it "looks" pretty good to the eye. The most glaring errors they made were the "Turkey Red" nacelle caps and a literal "dish" antenna. (250 channels with 5 HBO's!)
> 
> ...


This is the 1st referb done by Rogay. They were told amber domes but delivered turkey red and didn't reproduce the dish as instructed. If I remember this is the first repaint of everything but the saucer top. Even more sad is that on the wall of the gallery where she was hanging was an original set of FJ Enterprise blueprints from the rolled sets he sold before Ballentine published them. To hold the plexiglass cover over the prints they drove screws through the plastic and the prints under it.

So It seemed that the model was given a half hearted referbishment the first time out and the habit has stuck.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Posted on the TrekBBS.



AshGL1914 said:


> *Ok, and so here's where I come in. *
> *Hi everybody! My name is John Cooley and I'm the founder of The Enterprise Restoration Project. *
> *Back on September 8th 2011 I was talking to Mike Okuda about the condition of the model and what happened during Ed's restoration. That night we discussed everything that needed to be done, and who precisely would need to do it. He asked who I would bring in to a project like this and I went away thinking about just what the next step would be. The next morning I called Steve Neill and laid the plans for The ERP. So far the ERP is a private group that has among its members people like Doug Drexler, Steve Neill, John Eaves, Ron Moore, James Cawley and about 30 others. *
> 
> ...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Wattanasiri said:


> You may think whatever pleases you but it is not your place to tell me what message board I can be on.


I think you missed the joke.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

swhite228 said:


> This is the 1st referb done by Rogay. They were told amber domes but delivered turkey red and didn't reproduce the dish as instructed. If I remember this is the first repaint of everything but the saucer top. Even more sad is that on the wall of the gallery where she was hanging was an original set of FJ Enterprise blueprints from the rolled sets he sold before Ballentine published them. To hold the plexiglass cover over the prints they drove screws through the plastic and the prints under it.


Is that where those rolled blueprints came from? I have one!


----------



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

John P said:


> Is that where those rolled blueprints came from? I have one!



Yet another reason you're *The Wind Beneath My Wings!*


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Posted on the TrekBBS.


Any chance you have a link to that post kicking around, Warped9?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

swhite228 said:


> This is the 1st referb done by Rogay. They were told amber domes but delivered turkey red and didn't reproduce the dish as instructed. If I remember this is the first repaint of everything but the saucer top. Even more sad is that on the wall of the gallery where she was hanging was an original set of FJ Enterprise blueprints from the rolled sets he sold before Ballentine published them. To hold the plexiglass cover over the prints they drove screws through the plastic and the prints under it.
> 
> So It seemed that the model was given a half hearted referbishment the first time out and the habit has stuck.


Another sad thing about that 1976 visit was that there was nothing on the display directories about the Enterprise and no staff we asked at the NASM knew where it was or frankly what we were talking about. As we were leaving we spotted it hanging in that gallery. It was weird, because by that time, it was up for at least 6 months to a year.


----------



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

swhite228 said:


> This is the 1st referb done by Rogay. They were told amber domes but delivered turkey red and didn't reproduce the dish as instructed. If I remember this is the first repaint of everything but the saucer top. Even more sad is that on the wall of the gallery where she was hanging was an original set of FJ Enterprise blueprints from the rolled sets he sold before Ballentine published them. To hold the plexiglass cover over the prints they drove screws through the plastic and the prints under it.
> 
> So It seemed that the model was given a half hearted referbishment the first time out and the habit has stuck.


I think I have a Star Trek Posterbook from way back when that has a good deal of pictures of that restoration.

I seem to remember it had fairly detailed info on the restoration.


----------



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

^^^^^ I think this is the one I was talking about:

http://www.intergalactictrading.com/product.cfm?pid=STMACLPB10


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^^^ I think this is the one I was talking about:
> 
> http://www.intergalactictrading.com/product.cfm?pid=STMACLPB10


Yup that is it, may still have it somewhere. Has some great shots of the Klingon Battle Cruiser and the tiny metal Enterprise encased in resin that were also donated at the time.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

John P said:


> Is that where those rolled blueprints came from? I have one!


The rolled blueprints were the ones he sold at a con in L.A. He got permission to do a small run from Roddenberry which was for the most part sold out. When he went back to see if he could sell the remaining few sets he was told that Roddenberry didn't have the right to allow them in the 1st place, and was sent to see a Paramount lawyer who not only allowed the remaining sets to be sold helped to get Ballentine to publish them.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

RSN said:


> Just curious, is the top of the primary hull visible? To my knowledge nothing beyond a sealant has beed applied to it, since the '60's, to preserve the original finish. I remember seeing it in the original location as it hung from the ceiling near the central escalator, but it was not visible when it was moved in around 1980 to the far end of the building.
> 
> It would be ironic if it is still holding up better than the 3 restorations of the rest of the ship! Should have just left her alone and displayed as is perhaps?!


Just went to see her today.

Yes you can see the top, and yes it looks in better shape that the rest of her, but then nothing on the top is really load bearing.







She is getting tired looking.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

mach7 said:


> Just went to see her today.
> 
> Yes you can see the top, and yes it looks in better shape that the rest of her, but then nothing on the top is really load bearing.
> 
> ...


Thanks for those pictures! The paint on the top hull still looks good. It never dawned on me that the stress on the model was wearing on her, as she was never intended to be together this long on display. 

It would be great if that group, from the above post, with Michael Okuda onborad can move it up from the bottom of the renovation list.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Any chance you have a link to that post kicking around, Warped9?


That post was from the TBBS thread discussing restoring the _Enterprise_ model and it was posted by John Cooley himself. Further on in the thread he makes mention of someone named Gary and his extensive research regarding the 11 footer. It sounds like he's referring to Gary Kerr, but he isn't more specific. But it does sound like this Gary has already been invited to work with the team.


----------



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

swhite228 said:


> The rolled blueprints were the ones he sold at a con in L.A. He got permission to do a small run from Roddenberry which was for the most part sold out. When he went back to see if he could sell the remaining few sets he was told that Roddenberry didn't have the right to allow them in the 1st place, and was sent to see a Paramount lawyer who not only allowed the remaining sets to be sold helped to get Ballentine to publish them.


Yep. It was reprehensible that he asked Roddenberry on several occasions about the rights and Roddenberry never told him he had long ago sold them away.

Then after FJoseph negotiated a far better deal with Paramount then anyone before or anyone since Roddenberry started bad mouthing the guy at conventions

all the while Roddenberry's Lincoln enterprises was selling tons of Trek stuff illegally.

FJoseph had a better business acumen the Roddenberry did, and out of jealousy Roddenberry and his 70's entourage ridiculed the man.

I love what Roddenberry did in creating Star Trek and still greatly admire him, but his leading FJoseph on, and then trying to trash the very honest man's work at conventions, all the while selling tons of Trek stuff illegally

was something he should have apologized for and been ashamed of long before his death.

It wasn't Franz Joseph's fault that Roddenberry made a way crapier deal with Paramount then he did.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I remember a story about Roddenberry and Alex Courage having a run-in over the original series theme - which is why is wasn't used in TMP.

Roddenberry apparently wrote some words for it that it never had (they were printed in The Making Of Star Trek) and supposedly was then due royalties, which Courage objected to.


Good to see that a professional team is being assembled to take on a REAL restoration. For a while there I was afraid even if the money for it was raised, some dim bulb would ask EM back to do it again.

Though...maybe they should ask him to come back - and pay to fix it.


----------



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

mach7 said:


> Just went to see her today.
> 
> Yes you can see the top, and yes it looks in better shape that the rest of her, but then nothing on the top is really load bearing.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the pics, mach7 :thumbsup:

Have any wider shots that show her from further back, how the case and overhead walkway are situated?

Even if you don't, once again thanks for the ones you've posted.

Personally I think she is perfectly situated where she is.

If they put her on the museum floor it's unlikely there will be an overhead walkway,

plus I'm willing to bet more people would see her in the gift shop then somewhere on the immense display areas.

As RSN pointed out, he went through most of the museum and almost didn't find her back in the '70's.

Lot's of people go to particular areas in museums, but almost all of them at least browse museum gift shops before leaving.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Hmmmm...interesting that the little bulb on the side of the saucer by the running lights is not there....

And for God's sake - couldn't he find a correctly shaped bridge dome - or cast one himself???


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> I remember a story about Roddenberry and Alex Courage having a run-in over the original series theme - which is why is wasn't used in TMP.


You might want to go back and listen a little more carefully. Courage's theme is playing under Kirk's first log entry. As it turned out Jerry Goldsmith and Sandy Courage were good friends, and Jerry brought him in to help with some of the arrangements for TMP. (Little known trivia: Among the composers on the short list for doing the music for TOS besides Alexander Courage were Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams.)



> Roddenberry apparently wrote some words for it that it never had (they were printed in The Making Of Star Trek) and supposedly was then due royalties, which Courage objected to.


Roddenberry's rationalization was that he didn't know if he was going to see a penny out of Star Trek, so slapping some lyrics in there, even if they were never sung, entitled him to half the royalties. What mainly irritated Courage was that GR didn't even give him a heads up; he didn't know about it until the sheet music was published and the deed was done. If he'd approached Courage first, Sandy would've been happy to help him work up much better lyrics than was GR did on his own. It's not like he was going to retire on the royalties of that tune anyway. More about principle than anything else.




> Good to see that a professional team is being assembled to take on a REAL restoration. For a while there I was afraid even if the money for it was raised, some dim bulb would ask EM back to do it again.
> 
> Though...maybe they should ask him to come back - and pay to fix it.


From what I've read, Ed Miarecki is a talented craftsman, generally nice guy, but an ego the size of a medium sized gas giant. I doubt he's ready to acknowledge that me may have committed a bit of a whoopsie with his "restoration".


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks for the pics, mach7 :thumbsup:
> 
> Have any wider shots that show her from further back, how the case and overhead walkway are situated?
> 
> .


Here you go,

I get to DC every month on business and always stop in and see her.

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



I have more than is posted here also.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Captain April said:


> You might want to go back and listen a little more carefully. Courage's theme is playing under Kirk's first log entry. As it turned out Jerry Goldsmith and Sandy Courage were good friends, and Jerry brought him in to help with some of the arrangements for TMP. (Little known trivia: Among the composers on the short list for doing the music for TOS besides Alexander Courage were Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams.)


Ok - I must have fallen asleep at that part. 

The pacing was a bit slow.

And frankly, rehashing "The Changling" was a disappointment at the time.


----------



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

mach7 said:


> Here you go,
> 
> I get to DC every month on business and always stop in and see her.
> 
> ...


Thanks again!!! :thumbsup:

It looks like she can be very well viewed from both above and the sides exactly where she is.

While I agree with the renovation, I doubt that would happen if she were moved from where she is in the gift shop and put back onto the exhibit hall.

Then we might not get to see her from above and lose the view of her and her saucer top and bridge that can be easily seen from above now. 

That would be a loss, not a gain.


----------



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

Where are the smaller items originally given to NASM?


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Where are the smaller items originally given to NASM?


In storage.


----------



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

swhite228 said:


> In storage.



That's a shame.

Seems like more then enough space inside that case to store a ton of stuff close to one or more of the rails.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I'm not sure what else they have. The D-7 was returned to paramount in the mid '70s I think. 

They claim to have a few props, but I think they were proven to be fakes. They used to be on display in the American History museum but have been gone for about a decade. some where I have a photo of them, but they are really poor reproductions.


When I was there yesterday I asked about any plans to refurbish her and was told "some one else was in asking about that the other day, no there are no plans for that but we did turn the lights on!"

The lights were not on, but they insisted they were. Not sure what that is about.


----------



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

mach7 said:


> I'm not sure what else they have. The D-7 was returned to paramount in the mid '70s I think.
> 
> They claim to have a few props, but I think they were proven to be fakes. They used to be on display in the American History museum but have been gone for about a decade. some where I have a photo of them, but they are really poor reproductions.
> 
> ...



I thought that after Paramount had wrecked the D-7 someone had restored her to near original condition, I had assumed that they were going to return her to NASM

Someone like Phil Broad or TrekFX would probably know about that off the top of their heads.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I could be wrong, but I think the NASM model was sold at auction.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

James Cooley (author of the quote I posted upthread) has just confirmed on the TrekBBS that Gary Kerr has indeed been invited to join the _Enterprise_ restoration team.

_*FANTASTIC!*_ :thumbsup:


----------



## bil4miller (Jul 30, 1999)

I am rewatching the original series on MeTV lately and noticed that all the shots of the studio model are now CG. So if a restoration of the NASM prop is done, should it match the look of the CG model now? Unless you can find some old VHS tapes or DVD's on the bay, current generation will have no idea what the original model was like. I am an original viewer of the show since 1966 and while the CG version is cool. I miss all the original material that 12 year kid of me drooled over in 1966.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Blu-ray.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

bil4miller said:


> I am rewatching the original series on MeTV lately and noticed that all the shots of the studio model are now CG. So if a restoration of the NASM prop is done, should it match the look of the CG model now? Unless you can find some old VHS tapes or DVD's on the bay, current generation will have no idea what the original model was like. I am an original viewer of the show since 1966 and while the CG version is cool. I miss all the original material that 12 year kid of me drooled over in 1966.


No. Restoration means bringing something back to it's _original_ form or as close as possible. The fact that original might not appeal to a contemporary generation of viewers isn't a consideration.

A lot of old films have been colourized and while sometimes it can be interesting it's still nice to see what the original b&w print looks like. And contrary to wide belief not all of the younger generation are turned off by old things. I've met quite of few young'uns who like and sometimes are even fascinated with older films and in their original presentation.

Preserving artifacts of the past means creating a window, even if it's small and incomplete, to an earlier time. It's a glimpse to what once was.

A cgi TOS _Enterprise_ might be all very nice, but that computer generated model would not exist if it weren't for that monster sized physical filming model of the _Enterprise_ (and the talented people who filmed it) setting afire the imaginations of countless viewers, young and old, of an earlier era.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

bil4miller said:


> I am rewatching the original series on MeTV lately and noticed that all the shots of the studio model are now CG. So if a restoration of the NASM prop is done, should it match the look of the CG model now? Unless you can find some old VHS tapes or DVD's on the bay, current generation will have no idea what the original model was like. I am an original viewer of the show since 1966 and while the CG version is cool. I miss all the original material that 12 year kid of me drooled over in 1966.


The Blu-ray release has the option of watching the original effects or the stupid cartoony CGI replacement effects.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> No. Restoration means bringing something back to it's _original_ form or as close as possible. The fact that original might not appeal to a contemporary generation of viewers isn't a consideration.
> 
> A lot of old films have been colourized and while sometimes it can be interesting it's still nice to see what the original b&w print looks like. And contrary to wide belief not all of the younger generation are turned off by old things. I've met quite of few young'uns who like and sometimes are even fascinated with older films and in their original presentation.
> 
> ...


 
Not to stray to far off topic but touch upon something mentioned here, I have been watching the Blu-Ray Original Series Trek, And have to say, I personally prefer the original special effects to the CGI effects...I think even though some effects are flawed, The Enterprise has more weight and a real feel to it...
Now back to our regularly scheduled program..


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Someone once said that it's a matter of comparing one set of fake looking f/x with another more contemporary set of fake looking f/x. And it is. Neither the original nor the cgi f/x look truly realistic, but what really matters is what an individual finds more convincing.

For me the original f/x, flawed as they are in some respects, are more convincing in conveying the ship's size and sense of majesty. I find the new f/x, while quite interesting in many respects, generally fail in conveying the ship's sense of size and majesty.

The original f/x were state-of-the-art _for television_ at the time but not for feature film. However, it wasn't a huge gap since the main difference was time and money. Given sufficient time and money TOS' f/x could have been on the level of _2001: A Space Odyssey_ and _Forbidden Planet_ and _Planet Of The Apes._ Films like _Alien_ and _Star Trek - The Motion Picture_ aren't that far removed from what was being done a decade or so earlier. But then it wouldn't have been possible because a TV series production doesn't have the luxury of a feature film's time and money and resources.

The situation is still pretty much the same today. In any era really you can lavish a feature film with awesome f/x because _you're making only one picture._ You simply can't afford to do that with series television.

The TOS-R f/x suffer from the same issue of not enough time and money available. It really comes down to time = money and the TOS-R guys simply didn't have enough time to do better.

That said I still think a bigger issue I have with TOS-R is the aesthetic of the new f/x. To me they don't look like what could have been done _under the best of conditions_ back when _Star Trek_ was in production. If I were to approach enhancing the original f/x I wouldn't be asking, "What can we do that they couldn't with _today's_ resources?" I'd be asking, "What could they have done if they had had access (and sufficient time allotted) to the best resources _available at the time?"_

The difference is you're now trying to put yourself into the minds and perspective of the f/x artists of the time and seeing it through their eyes rather than a perspective coloured by forty years of advances in visual f/x. The end result means your new enhanced f/x should look more aesthetically consistent with the remaining live-action footage.

This is where I think TOS-R generally blew it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

That is the biggest problem with CGI, a feeling of mass. When a large model is fimed by a large and heavey camera, the mass is almost built in at the time the shot is done on the soundstage. With CGI, everything must be programmed, including the appearance of mass.

The CGI is like the old "Godzilla" films when they don't shoot at high speed, (To save money!), and it does not project back in slow motion. A monster that should have grat mass than looks like.............well, a guy in a rubber suit.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I think a 3rd option is to use the footage shot as original and just Clean It Up.

Digitally remove the bad matte around the ship, correct the shots when the stock footage of the ship didn't match (except in Mirror, Mirror - when they were supposed to be slightly different), enhance the background paintings to be more real, etc - but leave the basic footage for the most part as it was.

I think there are some instances where it is a judgement call - like scaling the shuttlecraft to correct size when entering the Doomsday Machine and making the Constellation not look like an AMT kit - but for the most part, the Enterprise should be edited, not recreated.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

RSN said:


> That is the biggest problem with CGI, a feeling of mass.


Indeed. How to show that? All we have to work with on a shot is perspective, shading (lighting and/or texture) and motion. Maybe a wee bit of aerial perspective in the studio (yes, I know there's no air in space)?


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

I want a laser scan of the 11 footer, that and a slit scan of it in side view, free of parallax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Parallax_error_in_photography

This way, a true side view can be seen. I think even smart phones allow a panorama, but a dedicated slit scan might be nice.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SteveR said:


> Indeed. How to show that? All we have to work with on a shot is perspective, shading (lighting and/or texture) and motion. Maybe a wee bit of aerial perspective in the studio (yes, I know there's no air in space)?


"Jurassic Park" was able to convey mass with the dinosaurs in what to me has been the best CGI incorporated with live action to date. It seems that space ships all seem to manuver like speed boats when they should move like aicraft carriers. I know that there is no resistance in space. We have no real comparison to tell our minds eye that things would move any different than terrestrial objects of comperable size, so I think it just looks wrong to a viewer, even though it is more scientifically accurate.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

RSN said:


> It seems that space ships all seem to manuver like speed boats when they should move like aicraft carriers.We have no real comparison to tell our minds eye that things would move any different than terrestrial objects of comperable size, so I think it just looks wrong to a viewer, even though it is more scientifically accurate.


Agreed. We know what we know, and we judge by comparing to our experience. And yes, I also think the E should move like an aircraft carrier.


RSN said:


> I know that there is no resistance in space.


I was trying to stave off the inevitable responses (from others) to the idea of aerial perspective's being relevant to _Star Trek_.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SteveR said:


> Agreed. We know what we know, and we judge by comparing to our experience. And yes, I also think the E should move like an aircraft carrier.
> I was trying to stave off the inevitable responses (from others) to the idea of aerial perspective's being relevant to _Star Trek_.


Great minds...  :thumbsup:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

SteveR said:


> Otherwise, the big E _filming miniature_ wouldn't be in the gift shop.
> Let the flames begin ...


The airship model from "The Hindenburg" is in a prominent position.

A likely part of the problem is that the TOS model is really cheesy. It is more of a historical oddity than a thing of beauty. When you think about all the cheap #*&^ from China that fills the shelves of the gift shop, the TOS fits right in.

Compare the quality of the CVAN-65 model on display.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> A likely part of the problem is that the TOS model is really cheesy.


In whose eyes? I can think of a lot of modern designs that are cheesy as all hell and eminently forgettable. And some think they look good nonetheless.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

bigjimslade said:


> The airship model from "The Hindenburg" is in a prominent position.
> 
> A likely part of the problem is that the TOS model is really cheesy. It is more of a historical oddity than a thing of beauty. When you think about all the cheap #*&^ from China that fills the shelves of the gift shop, the TOS fits right in.
> 
> Compare the quality of the CVAN-65 model on display.


Well, thats your opinion,

But the Hindenburg model is.....

wait for it....

in the entrance to the gift store.

If you mean the CVN-65 model in the navel aviation wing. I believe it was a purpose built museum display piece not a 46 year old television filming prop.


----------



## Gary7 (Jan 2, 2013)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Not to stray to far off topic but touch upon something mentioned here, I have been watching the Blu-Ray Original Series Trek, And have to say, I personally prefer the original special effects to the CGI effects...I think even though some effects are flawed, *The Enterprise has more weight and a real feel to it..*.
> Now back to our regularly scheduled program..


You have put the point on what bugged me about the restoration of the original series. What they should have done is cleaned up the original F/X, not replace them.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

bigjimslade said:


> A likely part of the problem is that the TOS model is really cheesy.


Now the TMP Refit ... there's a model. Or "was."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary7 said:


> You have put the point on what bugged me about the restoration of the original series. What they should have done is cleaned up the original F/X, not replace them.


To do that properly would require taking the individual bluescreen elements and doing the high def treatment on them, then digitally compositing them, like they're doing with TNG. 

Unfortunately, that footage is long since gone, so the only way to produce visual effects sequences without all the garbage mattes and the muddying up from being stacked up in the optical printer is do recreate them from whole cloth via CGI, and while they're at it, spruce things up a bit. "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is probably the best example of an episode that was greatly enhanced by the new effects that isn't one of the usual suspects of "The Doomsday Machine" or "Balance of "Terror".


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> To do that properly would require taking the individual bluescreen elements and doing the high def treatment on them, then digitally compositing them, like they're doing with TNG.
> 
> Unfortunately, that footage is long since gone, so the only way to produce visual effects sequences without all the garbage mattes and the muddying up from being stacked up in the optical printer is do recreate them from whole cloth via CGI, and while they're at it, spruce things up a bit. "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is probably the best example of an episode that was greatly enhanced by the new effects that isn't one of the usual suspects of "The Doomsday Machine" or "Balance of "Terror".


You are right Captain April, "Tomorrow is Yesterday" did benefit more from the CGI than most other episodes. This episode screamed for something other than random stock shots for the slingshot around the sun scene and even though they were the weaker of the shots, (The whole mass thing again.), it looks much more exciting than the original footage.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Define "Cheesy". Carefully.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

John P said:


> Define "Cheesy". Carefully.


Hee.


----------



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

RSN said:


> "Jurassic Park" was able to convey mass with the dinosaurs in what to me has been the best CGI incorporated with live action to date. It seems that space ships all seem to manuver like speed boats when they should move like aicraft carriers. I know that there is no resistance in space. We have no real comparison to tell our minds eye that things would move any different than terrestrial objects of comperable size, so I think it just looks wrong to a viewer, even though it is more scientifically accurate.


Battlestar Galactica solved the problem in theaters with "Sensoround."

While there may not be much noise is space, the IN-proper use of sound, especially low frequency, could help.

I'm pretty sure the original F/X included crude rumbling noises as the Enterprise passed,

though not to the degree of "Sensoround's" Galactica, and even if they had the speakers on those 1960's TV's didn't have the ability to reproduce it very realistically.


----------



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

On the subject of 3D. There is nothing inherent in 3D effects that don't allow as much a feel of size(let's not talk mass - as we are still dealing in a 2D image here) as physical models - though I love physical models.

Poorly done 3D effects don't properly convey a sense of size.


The people who did the Reliant(which before anyone jumps in I will concede wasn't perfect, but easily could have been if they had the time and budget CBS devoted to the restoration)

during the last year of Enterprise proved it can be done properly.


----------



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

bigjimslade said:


> The airship model from "The Hindenburg" is in a prominent position.
> 
> A likely part of the problem is that the TOS model is really cheesy. It is more of a historical oddity than a thing of beauty.



Yep! What's even worse is the ridiculous Enterprise Refit!!!

What were they smoking when they designed that monstrosity!!!!!























Just Kidding, BigJimSlade! :tongue:

Turnabout's fair play!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Battlestar Galactica solved the problem in theaters with "Sensoround."
> 
> While there may not be much noise is space, the IN-proper use of sound, especially low frequency, could help.
> 
> ...


Yes, that goes with what I said about our viewing perception being based on atmospheric effects we experience in day to day life. I actually liked the rumble they used in the early first season episodes, it helped to give the impression that the ship had mass as it passed by. We know it wouldn't be that way in space, but it seems "more real" to hear it. I was glad they brought it back for the Enterprise after ST:TMP.

I think my all-time favorite shots of the refit Enterprise is when she backs up and tries to escape the Genesis detonation. It looked like a massive ship, not a model. Tops!

And I remember feeling the theater vibrate watching Galactica in the theater! :thumbsup:


----------



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

On the subject of the remastering, some of CBS's work was good, some not so good.

I'm hoping that just like the FX guys that worked on Enterprise, 
the special effects CGI routines CBS created are safely stored on hard drives somewhere.

Computers become tremendously more powerful, faster and cheaper every single year.

In a few years what took the F/X guys that worked on Enterprise 30 seperate monster computers each working for hours at a time to render a single second's worth of effects will be able to be done on a common computer.

In a few years(or several, they all seem to zip by me these days) they could dust off the hard drives, load them onto whatever the medium of the day is, and lay down improved textures, etc. and redo them.


----------



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

RSN said:


> And I remember feeling the theater vibrate watching Galactica in the theater! :thumbsup:


Yep! I was actually quite shocked and amazed. Even though I was just a kid and it was over 30 years ago it still sticks out in my mind.


----------



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

As to what might be the catalyst for Re-Re-Mastering, it might take years in the states, but the good people who brought us HD and Pearl Harbor,

are working on UHDV.

I'm willing to bet it would take over a decade to come to the US, especially considering the required storage space. But you never know what breakthroughs might speed up it's development, if it gets off the ground.


Here is a snipet quoted from http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic...ns_ultra_high-definition_tv_standard_for_2015


UHDV or Super Hi-Vision consists of video at a resolution of a massive 7680x4320. Try to envision a 33-megapixel image, which is exactly what this resolution offers. It runs at 60 frames per second. It doesn't lack in the audio department either, offering 22.2CH audio (9 above ear level, 10 at ear level, 3 below ear level and 2 low frequency effects). 

Now, the Japanese Government is set to begin a joint project with private companies to develop this next generation technology. The goal is to make this concept a broadcasting standard by 2015. Of course, there have been many technical problems like the development of a camera that can record it and equipment to transfer the 24Gbps uncompressed stream. 

Some public testing with UHDV video required an array of 16 HDTV recorders to capture just 18 minutes of footage, about 3.5TB of space. The recorded footage was projected on a 4x7 meter screen for a public demonstration. Reports were that it gave an experience of actually "being there". People experienced nausea while watching the footage.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yep! I was actually quite shocked and amazed. Even though I was just a kid and it was over 30 years ago it still sticks out in my mind.


It was the last to use "Sensurround", (Which was mainly just a movie in surround sound!), and filled the contract with theaters Universal had after it installed the system for "Earthquake" in '74. I saw "Midway" and "Rollercoaster" in theaters with it as well, but Galactica sounded the best out of all of them.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> UHDV or Super Hi-Vision consists of video at a resolution of a massive 7680x4320.
> The goal is to make this concept a broadcasting standard by 2015. Of course, there have been many technical problems like the development of a camera that can record it and equipment to transfer the 24Gbps uncompressed stream.


While I love the idea of higher res, I'm not holding my breath for it to become a broadcast standard. It'll require more bandwidth, no? More bandwidth could go to higher rez, or it could go to more channels. More channels means more income streams. Hence my cynicism.


----------



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

SteveR said:


> While I love the idea of higher res, I'm not holding my breath for it to become a broadcast standard. It'll require more bandwidth, no? More bandwidth could go to higher rez, or it could go to more channels. More channels means more income streams. Hence my cynicism.


I agree that it won't be anytime soon.

But then again, I remember how incredible it felt when I upgraded my dual floppy Tandy 1000SL with a 20 megabyte hard disk for a mere $300! :freak:

A couple of weeks ago I saw medic-alert bracelets hanging on peghooks at Walgreen's pharmacy that have about 1000 times the storage space of that 2 pound hard drive for $10 bucks.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here is a snipet quoted from http://www.afterdawn.com/news/artic...ns_ultra_high-definition_tv_standard_for_2015
> Some public testing with UHDV video required an array of 16 HDTV recorders to capture just 18 minutes of footage, about 3.5TB of space. The recorded footage was projected on a 4x7 meter screen for a public demonstration. Reports were that it gave an experience of actually "being there". People experienced nausea while watching the footage.


Now, is that a *good* thing?!! :hat:

Ah, memory. I remember setting up a "state-of-the-art" recording rig with C-Lab Creator software and an Atari 1040ST just like Mike Oldfield had at the time. I had a whole MEG of RAM and it felt so good. At the time!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Way back when we set up our department PC network (around 1995?), we had a server with three individual 300MB drives. Our computer guru excalimed "That's almost a GIG of storage!! My god, we'll NEVER need that much!!"

Our current server is a terrabyte, and only has 156GB free space left.
Our archive server is 1.5 TB, and only has 72 GB left.


----------



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

TrekFX said:


> Now, is that a *good* thing?!! :hat:
> 
> Ah, memory. I remember setting up a "state-of-the-art" recording rig with C-Lab Creator software and an Atari 1040ST just like Mike Oldfield had at the time. I had a whole MEG of RAM and it felt so good. At the time!


I hear 'ya!

I had to spend $80 bucks to upgrade my Tandy to 1MB.
It came in a long tube full of chips with legs that I had to snap
into my motherboard. Eight or twelve little eight-legged chips! :freak:



Maybe nausea-inducing video quality will not be a good thing at all - directly. 

But a lot of time stuff like that forces the development of other tech required to make it happen and we all benefit.

It seems that the entertainment industry will be driving new tech development for awhile - at least tech that we mere civilians can buy and use.

Permanent cheap storage that's fast and exponential greater in storage space might be on such benefit of such tech.

Even if it doesn't come to America as a broadcast standard for well over a decade,

if it only exists in Japan there will still need to be massive storage and video streaming tech improvements created.


Plus eventually if it exist at all in few years(doubt they have the technology - even non-broadcast - by 2015 even in Japan) 

Video Technofiles and the Japanese market will want UHDV versions of old favorites like TOS.

By then computer horsepower might make Re-re-mastering CBS's 3D effects possible on a desktop computer.


----------



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

John P said:


> Way back when we set up our department PC network (around 1995?), we had a server with three individual 300MB drives. Our computer guru excalimed "That's almost a GIG of storage!! My god, we'll NEVER need that much!!"
> 
> Our current server is a terrabyte, and only has 156GB free space left.
> Our archive server is 1.5 TB, and only has 72 GB left.


I bought a 300MB drive in '94 I think with my custom tower computer I bought to do OCR (very bleeding edge back then).

I'm pretty sure I paid right under $500 bucks for the drive portion, $2400 for the whole thing(not counting my 15" $500 Sony Trinitron Monitor), and thought I got a hell of a deal! :tongue:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> To do that properly would require taking the individual bluescreen elements and doing the high def treatment on them, then digitally compositing them, like they're doing with TNG.
> 
> Unfortunately, that footage is long since gone, so the only way to produce visual effects sequences without all the garbage mattes and the muddying up from being stacked up in the optical printer is do recreate them from whole cloth via CGI, and while they're at it, spruce things up a bit. "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is probably the best example of an episode that was greatly enhanced by the new effects that isn't one of the usual suspects of "The Doomsday Machine" or "Balance of "Terror".


Actually, the original footage isn't gone. A large percentage of it is in private hands.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As to what might be the catalyst for Re-Re-Mastering, it might take years in the states, but the good people who brought us HD and Pearl Harbor,
> 
> are working on UHDV.
> 
> ...


I attended one of the demonstration screenings of this format. It was very impressive - basically IMAX on video. The projected image looked as if you were seeing a live event through a large window. In particular, a shot of Times Square was very real. I experienced no nausea while watching the demo.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

At times it seems technology change occurs simply for change's sake.

I remember the promise that technology would be a liberator of sorts - freeing people from drudgery.

Some of that is true, but some of it is also a treadmill, meant as the latest shiny trinket to dazzle the eyeballs and pump up a quarterly earnings and sales report.

How much time is spent on TV these days? I've cut down my viewing to almost nothing. Don't follow any show with regularity.

While great definition TV it does have a value and a place, "Like Being There" reminds me of the warning at the end of "The Menagerie/Cage" - there is no substitute for the real.

And just because someone "Friends" you on Facebook, doesn't mean they are really your friend.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> At times it seems technology change occurs simply for change's sake.
> 
> I remember the promise that technology would be a liberator of sorts - freeing people from drudgery.
> 
> ...


I hear ya, man. And my TV viewing is also next to nothing for quite some time now.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> I hear ya, man. And my TV viewing is also next to nothing for quite some time now.


Well said. Who's up for a pint down at the pub then?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My TV watching list is quite short.

- NHL Montreal Canadiens' games and occasionally some other teams. Also some World Junior or Olympic hockey.
- _Mad Men_
- _Boardwalk Empire_
- _Game Of Thrones_

The only other time my television is on is when I'm watching a DVD or BluRay. Sadly there is no contemporary science fiction in production I give a damn about. No good sitcom either (and please don't bother mentioning _Big Bang Theory_ or _The Office)._ I used to be an avid _Law & Order_ fan, but I drifted away some years ago.

The thing is I don't really miss TV either. It lets me get on with other things.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Warped9 said:


> My TV watching list is quite short.
> 
> - NHL Montreal Canadiens' games and occasionally some other teams. Also some World Junior or Olympic hockey.
> - _Mad Men_
> ...


I don't watch anything on TV a regular basis. Sometimes the news. Bloomberg TV. A few sports games sometimes. Nothing regularly scheduled.

I do drink a pint every now and then though! 

But after I've put in time at the gym - as a reward.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

RSN said:


> It was the last to use "Sensurround", (Which was mainly just a movie in surround sound!), and filled the contract with theaters Universal had after it installed the system for "Earthquake" in '74.


The Sensurround gimmick wasn't just surround sound. It used extra subwoofers to produce a low-frequency rumble that the audience felt more than heard. Needless to say, the applications were somewhat limited -- there can only be so many movies about earthquakes, naval air battles, rollercoasters and giant rumbling spaceships!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Actually, the original footage isn't gone. A large percentage of it is in private hands.


Unless it's still relatively intact, it might as well as be gone. If it's been snipped into slides, what's the point?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Unless it's still relatively intact, it might as well as be gone. If it's been snipped into slides, what's the point?


I will clarify my statement. Original negatives and some IPs of effects elements remain intact in private hands. Only workprints and certain IPs were cut into slides. Lincoln didn't cut negatives into slides because they're...well...negatives.


----------



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

scotpens said:


> The Sensurround gimmick wasn't just surround sound. It used extra subwoofers to produce a low-frequency rumble that the audience felt more than heard. Needless to say, the applications were somewhat limited -- there can only be so many movies about earthquakes, naval air battles, rollercoasters and giant rumbling spaceships!


You would think so. But if you add to those horror movies and most action adventure, and James Bond movies you'd be surprised what percentage of movies that would add up to - for good or for bad.

But you are right about the extreme low frequency deal.

I don't think any flavor of surround sound(using the term generically) since has done so because I think there were a very small percentage of the audience who were sickened by it. 

I do distinctly remember reading an article about it being retired as a standard, and as I was very impressed by it at the time I read carefully about the complaints. The instances I read about involved people with pre-existing poor health who felt bad early on in the movie but stayed anyway. 

A small percentage of people will have an adverse reaction to anything.
Look at what was described in the article about UHDV. 

There is nothing inherent about resolution that should make you want to hurl.
If you are easily made sick by motion, and you are watching video of a rollercoaster ride, that might do it.

My girlfriend looks away everytime a roller coaster comes on for that reason on our regular def TV in the kitchen! It's not a resolution thing, it's a motion sickness thing!

I don't think those technologies should be banned, especially UHDV.

There will always be one or two people out of a hundred who will react negatively to something.

Heck, a couple of people had heart attacks watching _*The Passion of the Christ*_, simply due to the content. Do we ban adults from seeing disturbing content?

Some people who don't know they have latent epilepsy can get seizures from certain video games. But it's not the video games' fault, or anyone's in that case. 

I can understand them dropping extreme low-frequency Sensoround in a way, because it does indeed physically effect you. 
If anything, I think they should have simply warned people with serious heart conditions or the easily flustered to not attend instead of dumping 
yet another product that had great potential for the general public.

But also I understand that corporations usually don't want to keep producing a product - even a good one - if a small percentage of the population doesn't know when not to use it, even when warned.

But I still miss Sensoround. :freak:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> I will clarify my statement. Original negatives and some IPs of effects elements remain intact in private hands. Only workprints and certain IPs were cut into slides. Lincoln didn't cut negatives into slides because they're...well...negatives.


Any idea about what condition that footage is in? As in, would it be worth it for CBS to scan all that stuff in and give it the high-def treatment? Or would it be easier to restore an old Lon Chaney film that dissolving as we speak?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

John P said:


> Define "Cheesy". Carefully.


No amount of restoration will make it look good. The model is a real let down when you see it for the first time.

It was not built museum quality. Restoration is not going to make it museum quality.

When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


That goes without saying.

The model was never really museum quality even when it was new at least in terms of being immaculate and perfect. But that isn't the point. The point is to restore it as close as possible to what it looked like when the series was in production.

It could only be classified as cheesy, remotely, if you expect it to look like an immaculate precision made miniature, which it never was. So the flaw isn't in the 11 footer but rather in one's unrealistic expectations. The fact is next to no filming miniature meets the standards of a discerning modeller simply because filming and post-production can veil the flaws and "fill in the gaps" so to speak.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

bigjimslade said:


> When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


Well, no, not exactly... necessarily. That's an individual matter. I like the idea of my model built and painted to represent the studio Enterprise as she may have looked during filming (whatever that may have been). To me, that's somehow a more concrete piece of the show to have in my house. Makes me feel like I'm there on the set. In fact I was entertaining the lofty idea of building a "set," displaying my MR E against a blue background. Recreating a miniature set around it like in the classic pics of her against the blue screen and the 1:350 Botany Bay in the foreground, and encasing the whole stage in acrylic. :thumbsup:

But who's got that kind of room?


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

*Enterprise*



bigjimslade said:


> No amount of restoration will make it look good. The model is a real let down when you see it for the first time.
> 
> It was not built museum quality. Restoration is not going to make it museum quality.
> 
> When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


The problem is not the model but your eyes, when you first saw the Enterprise it was with young eyes that could still see the dream of flying though space in the captains chair. Now as an adult your eyes have lost the dreams and have come jaded ,thus the dream that was the Enterprise is now just a hunk of plastic and wood. That is the price of growing older in heart as well as in years.


----------



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

bigjimslade said:


> No amount of restoration will make it look good. The model is a real let down when you see it for the first time.
> 
> It was not built museum quality. Restoration is not going to make it museum quality.
> 
> When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


I agree with what you are saying, but with reservations.

It should not be restored, 
but go beyond that and make it look like the 
actual spacecraft it was meant to represent.

Meaning both sides finished so the port is just 
as well done as the filming starboard side.

I don't know why you think no amount of "work"
(my term, not yours, as I think you were not meaning
to use the term restoration literally - i.e. just brought 
back to what it was formally)

will make her museum quality though.

It might cost a small fortune, but I don't see why
it couldn't be turned into a complete replica of 
what we saw onscreen.

It would take really skilled artists and maybe even
an engineer - but it's not undoable.

How's your Refit coming along?


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> That goes without saying.
> 
> The model was never really museum quality even when it was new at least in terms of being immaculate and perfect. But that isn't the point. The point is to restore it as close as possible to what it looked like when the series was in production.
> 
> It could only be classified as cheesy, remotely, if you expect it to look like an immaculate precision made miniature, which it never was. So the flaw isn't in the 11 footer but rather in one's unrealistic expectations. The fact is next to no filming miniature meets the standards of a discerning modeller simply because filming and post-production can veil the flaws and "fill in the gaps" so to speak.


The TOS Enterprise was of course built as well its budget allowed. It is wonderful that it didn't get thrown in the scrap pile or just disappear after filming the original series. The construction is what it is and not what I would label as cheesy. What is cheesy is the paint job from the last restoration. I've never seen it in person but from photos the model looks like a caricature of its original condition. When the Refit, 1701B (or Lakota if you will), and 1701D models were auctioned off, you could see how time was taking it's toll on the models in close-up photos. Seeing the TOS model showing its age (even badly) like those models rather then 'restored' to an exaggerated appearance would have been preferable. 

These days, I'd much rather look at all the fine 350 scale kits being constructed by forum members than the original model. Just sad to see it looking that way. I'm sure those who did the last restoration meant well.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

bigjimslade said:


> No amount of restoration will make it look good. The model is a real let down when you see it for the first time.
> 
> It was not built museum quality. Restoration is not going to make it museum quality.
> 
> When you build your TOS models, you should try for an artistic representation of what you see on the screen, rather than a slavish copy of the studio model.


Again all of this is your opinion, it's not for me to tell you how to feel.

But, the model is NOT a real letdown the first time you see it. I remember clearly the first time I saw her back in 1976. It was anything but a let down. Over the years I have talked to many fans and your the first I've ever heard say it was a letdown. 

Of course it is not museum quality, it's a filming model for crying out loud.
Of course no amount of restoration will make it museum quality, All folks here are saying is bring her back to original filming condition. If you want a museum quality model it will have to be purpose built.

And thank you, but I will build my models (tos or otherwise) however I like. 

I don't need you to tell me how I should feel about the Enterprise model.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Learned my lesson and I am sitting my dog down for this leg of the race!!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

"It's a complete letdown."

"I found it to be rather disappointing."

There's a difference in how the same sentiment is expressed. Both statements are just an expression of opinion, but the former sounds like a blanket assertion while the former is obviously a personal opinion. The former could potentially be interpreted as an offense while the latter is just an individual's perspective.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> How's your Refit coming along?


My refit plans are completed. I gave sets to a number of friends. Eight 36x24" sheets.

New project now. Nothing to do with Sci-Fi.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

My presumption is that the model is in the Smithsonian not in its original role as the starship _Enterprise_, but rather as what it is and always was — an iconic filming model used in a TV series which inspired many. The model isn't in the museum because it is the closest we can come to putting the fictional ship there, but because it was the model used in the show. The model, in and of itself, is worthy of being in the museum, and it does not need to "pretend" it is something other than what it is to prove its worth. Its "acting" days are over. It has a place in the museum, or in one of them, anyway, because of what it _is_, not because of what it was built to portray. It should be restored to the way it appeared at the time it was being used for shooting, to the degree that appearance is known and to which doing so is possible given the funds available.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If the point is to have a super-realistic representation of a 23rd Century starship named Enterprise, they'd be better off commissioning a brand new model.

_*WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION!!

*_The point is to restore the filming miniature to its original condition, or the closest that can be achieved, in keeping with its status as a historic artifact. Whether or not that meets someone's arbitrary feelings of being let down is completely irrelevant.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> The point is to restore the filming miniature to its original condition, or the closest that can be achieved, in keeping with its status as a historic artifact.


Indeed. Restoring it to an appearance that matches that seen in studio photographs should not be a matter for subjectivity: take some photos and see if they match ... within reason. Keep the left side blank with wiring (explained on a plaque for the noobs), keep the visible screws, but restore the weathering to a level similar to that of the upper saucer, fill the cracks, try to get some proper bussard effects and we'd be done. Right?

As for creating something from our imagination, well, we can do that with the big kit to our heart's content.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

There are many starships Enterprise.

There is the actual filming miniature of the starship, as "she" was used in the 1960's, used to film (on 35mm film) effects for a broadcast television series.

There is the starship as we saw "her" delivered in the Standard Definition television format (approximate resolution of 640x480) on broadcast television. Each of us saw something different, a unique and personal experience.

There is the starship as she appears in our imaginations, which she and her crew fired to an extent that sociologists still marvel over. Again, these are unique and personal visions and have nothing whatsoever to do with what she actually looked like.

All of these are valid and significant interpretations. But only one was delivered to the Smithsonian -- the actual filming miniature.

Unfortunately, the Enterprise came into the possession of the Smithsonian at a time when her social and cultural significance was yet to be fully appreciated. Consequently, she was treated as a bit of popular (and temporary) kitsch, and not shown the respect she should have been. As a museum, the Smithsonian's job was to preserve the miniature EXACTLY AS IT WAS, warts and all. Instead, she was made into what they imagined she was expected to be, in the hopes of attracting a bit of patronage (and money).

Now, it's become clear that the Enterprise is of enduring interest and cultural significance. It's also become clear that the miniature is relatively speaking fragile, a design (or construction) not suitable to long term exposure to gravity.

Countless generations will be able to create new representations of the Enterprise based on what they see as recorded. But right now, in this time, there is still some expertise around about what the miniature really looked like. This may be the last opportunity to preserve that.

As a museum, the Smithsonian's job should be to preserve the miniature as she actually was and actually appeared, when she was actually filmed, and to the extent possible without degradation of the miniature to display it to the public. If that's at variance with imagination, then that's a curator's job to discuss and explain.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Captain April said:


> If the point is to have a super-realistic The point is to restore the filming miniature to its original condition, or the closest that can be achieved, in keeping with its status as a historic artifact. Whether or not that meets someone's arbitrary feelings of being let down is completely irrelevant.


Actually, there were two points raised in the original discussion:

1. Restore (where there is no real objection that I see); and 
2. Put the model in a better position


----------



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

sbaxter said:


> My presumption is that the model is in the Smithsonian not in its original role as the starship _Enterprise_, but rather as what it is and always was — an iconic filming model used in a TV series which inspired many. The model isn't in the museum because it is the closest we can come to putting the fictional ship there, but because it was the model used in the show. The model, in and of itself, is worthy of being in the museum, and it does not need to "pretend" it is something other than what it is to prove its worth. Its "acting" days are over. It has a place in the museum, or in one of them, anyway, because of what it _is_, not because of what it was built to portray.


This part of your statement I have to totally agree with. The term museum quality has been used more then a few times in the thread by more then a couple of people and it's a bit confusing. I've seen some really battered and broken items in museums.

The best example might be The Liberty Bell. 

Has anyone noticed that thing has a crack in it? How can they display it that way? That thing is waaaaaaay overdue to be restored. :tongue:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> This part of your statement I have to totally agree with. The term museum quality has been used more then a few times in the thread by more then a couple of people and it's a bit confusing. I've seen some really battered and broken items in museums.
> 
> The best example might be The Liberty Bell.
> 
> Has anyone noticed that thing has a crack in it? How can they display it that way? That thing is waaaaaaay overdue to be restored. :tongue:


There are several problems with this argument. One is uniqueness. There is THE liberty bell. The have been multiple enterprise models. While museums often have examples of type (e.g., a Zero), they are usually of a significant historical type. If the museum were to display the model used in the DS9 episode rather than the one used in the TV series, it would convey the cultural impact with little diminution of history.

This leads to historical significance. This is often hard to judge. Jacqueline Suzanne stated that three things would be remembered about the 60's: The Beatles, Andy Warhol, and Jacqueline Suzanne. (Got 2 out of three). A hundred years from now, I expect people will be talking Glamorous Glennis, the Wright Flyer and Enola Gay. Starship enterprise model. Don't know about that.

The museum quality factor comes into play because this is a model. The quality of the model is extremely poor. It is immediately apparent that this was done on a budget with the warts hidden by TV. The thing I found most immediately laughable was the hangar doors. As you go around more things get added to the observers' list: screws around the warp engines, giant christmas tree lights, plywood construction. It isn't displayed because it's a beautifully-crafted thing. (The Jein model appears to be of much higher quality.)

My assertion all along has been that the model has a good location in the museum given its relative historical value and quality of original construction. 

If you folks want to have it restored, by all means do so. Take up a collection. Make it look better. The paint job is is laughably bad. The museum would surely take a designated gift.

That said, it is never going to be the kind of thing to display in a main gallery outside of a special exhibit. 

Imagine if Paramount had donated a set of models that could be displayed together rather than auctioning them off piecemeal. That could have been the starting point of a "Space in the Movies" gallery.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

The back and forth is interesting, though there are some general facts:

1) It was donated to the Smithsonian
2) They said "Yes", not "Thanks, but that really belongs someplace else."
3) It is on display, not crated.
4) It takes up floor space, which (esp in the gift shop), means MONEY!! I'm thinking at least 2 racks of "Opportunity Cost" in the space the Big E is taking up right now.

So, it is museum quality because, well, it's being shown in a museum and is not in a box.
They consider it a draw, not a drain, since they are sacrificing shelf space to it.
It needs some fixing-up, which as I always said, is more likely around an anniversary than at any other time.

If it needs fixing-up, there is a petition for that.

If it should be removed from view, somebody can always start a petition for that.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Well said, J. The facts are always so... not-so-grey after all. 

I still can't believe this warrants over 230 posts. I mean, a Wimbleton match has less back and forth.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Well said, J. The facts are always so... not-so-grey after all.


The conclusion is a logical one, arrived at through logical means.


----------



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

bigjimslade said:


> That said, it is never going to be the kind of thing to display in a main gallery outside of a special exhibit.


The skills and technology exists to do exactly that.

Though I too would leave her where she sits in the gift shop, 
but for different reasons.

You can view her from above and below quite clearly. If they move her to the floor the chances of viewing her from as many angles will be next to zero.

Again, I think you are getting hung up on phrases like "museum quality," which is really a term that companies like The Franklin Mint uses to sell replicas.

As J. pointed out, the test of whether something is good enough to be in a museum is whether or not it is in a museum, not whether or not it's perfect.

I'm still genuinely confused why you think a restoration can't be done that will make her an impressive display piece. 

It might even take some re-engineering such as cables on the nacelles to relieve some to all of the stress on the secondary hull.

But we aren't talking of another moon landing, I don't understand why anyone would think it's impossible.

I know you've must have seen some of the fantastic work done in the past on totally trashed props even larger, bigjim.

Consider the exterior mock up Galileo.

That thing was almost a total wreck, was restored to beautiful condition and displayed at conventions.

Now it's been wrecked again and is being restored again.

And I'm sure few doubt it will once again be restored to how she looked onscreen - if not better.

Why the doom and gloom forecast for the TOS E?


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

I've been watching this thread with interest, and figger' it's time to throw my two-cents in.
Some years ago I worked for a company supplying shirts to the Smithsonian Gift ships. We specialize in historical aviation shirts. I was sent to the museum twice during this time. I got to know most of the curators at that time- (the late 90's) Here's what I discovered. THE SMITHSONIAN LOOKS DOWN IT'S NOSE AT THE ENTERPRISE BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF A "REAL OBJECT." They consider it a second-class citizen they have to put up with because of it's popularity. Don't think for a minute they are overly concerned about accuracy of it's paint job- just look at the mistakes they made in restoring it at their Maryland facility when it first arrived.
To get an idea of some of the questionable practices of the Smithsonian, look into this story of how they tried to "fake" the original KING KONG armature when Bob Burns refused to let them borrow the original armature from him.-http://hollywoodlostandfound.net/props/kingkong.html

ANYWAY, back in 2005 I attended the big STAR TREK convention at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Everyone connected with Star Trek was there. While wandering around the dealer's room for the umteen-teenth time, I spotted a photo of the Enterprise Model being "restored" in a pile of photos behind a dealer's counter. I asked him about it and he produced a large stack of photos- seems he was one of the guys who worked on it! I expressed that I was an avid modeler and very interested in the original miniature, could he please elaborate on the restoration process.
I WAS TOO STUPID TO WRITE DOWN HIS NAME AT THE TIME AND I HAVE NO-IDEA WHO HE WAS! You will have to take my word that this conversation happened- it did.
I mentioned that I knew there was some controversy about the re-paint and he absolutely bristled saying most of the fans have no idea about how hard they worked on the restoration and tried to save the iconic model. He said the model proved to be way more popular than anyone at the museum dreamed it would be, and the STAR TREK exhibition had proved to be a major success for the museum, having to be extended in run. (a first for them) It was decided to restore the Enterprise again in time for an anniversary of the show, and the restored model would be the center-piece at a gala party in which astronauts, former show cast members, Washington elite, etc would be invited. Trouble is, with the time running out, they kept dragging their heels and were not sure who should do the repairs. According to story, Ed Miarecki, a professional model builder with Star Trek experience learned they looking for someone to restrore the ship and he told them he could do it. Trouble was, they had no money to restore it, and darn little time. Several weeks later the model arrived at Ed's studio. Ed enlisted the help of several fans who worked long hours without pay to try and have the model finished for the big event. The model was restored to what Ed said was, "the appearance the model had at it's last filming session for , "Turnabout Intruder." This included heavy weathering which was washed out by studio lights and optical processes.
This guy said they hadstayed up all night just trying to get it presentable the day it was due to be installed They were well aware it was a beloved icon (for them too) and they did the best they could in the time they had- only to be heavily criticized by those who didn't know what they were talking about. What's more, at the event party, a military general could be loudly talking about all the 'freaks" and nuts who had been invited to the event- it was just a stupid tv show!" 
I'm sure it was not Ed I saw at that convention, but from the photos this guy had I'm sure really did work on the original miniature. Though I personally feel the model was overly-painted, (especially the underside of the saucer), I did come away feeling that Ed and his crew did try to do a good job with the time allotted and very little money.
(I can assure you from personal experience, that although it looks great on your resume to be selling the Smithsonian, they will nickle and dime you to death so you make no profit from it.)


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

nautilusnut said:


> What's more, at the event party, a military general could be loudly talking about all the 'freaks" and nuts who had been invited to the event


He was talking about the politicians present at the event. 

This thing about its condition during "Turnabout Intruder" is interesting. In all this time, has EM ever posted/published the research that lead him to the conclusion it was so "heavily weathered/paneled" at that filming?

Maybe he could elaborate on the comparatively more subtle paneling on the top of the saucer versus his own research on the rest of the model.

With all the controversy over the years, the documentation for that would be of interest to fans critical of the final product, I would surmise.

Also, what prompted the jokes for the signages on the ship? They may have said the model was an icon to them too, but should people believe what they said - or what they did? :freak:

Finally, my own opinion about the opinions of those at the Smithsonian is - who cares? The museum is America's museum, not their private one. They can look down on it all they want. Tough noogies.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The thing is, photos exist of the filming model on its cradle.
The bright filming lights are off and no postproduction to distort 
her. And there is NO indication of the heavy handed paint.

I know we would not see all the weathering and signage, but the horrendous, heavy paneling would show up.

I can believe that the curators don't respect her, but If they did not want her there it would not be hard to move her to the Museum of American history.
They might not love her, but they do love the carbon units that she brings in.

In DC its always about funding, I would venture NASM gets more funding because more people visit it than any of the other museums in DC.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> The thing is, photos exist of the filming model on its cradle.
> The bright filming lights are off and no postproduction to distort
> her. And there is NO indication of the heavy handed paint.
> 
> I know we would not see all the weathering and signage, but the horrendous, heavy paneling would show up.


You'd be referencing the photos of the Big E as she first arrived at the Smithsonian, with her shards of glass showing in the bussards....

I know that ploy sir - you are trying to confuse me with facts! Facts!!

But it will not work, sir. No - it will not.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Well no, I talking about the photos on the star trek history web site.
But good point!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Well no, I talking about the photos on the star trek history web site.
> But good point!


I don't think the pictures of the E uncrated for the 1st time at the Smithsonian had a view of the underside of the saucer.

But.........

The secondary hull, as well as the angled EDGE of the saucer is in plain view with the hard paneling lines CLEARLY NOT VISIBLE!

This, however, is easily explained thusly:

Unknown to the packers of the Big E, little anti-panel gremlins managed to smuggle themselves into the packing crate, dutifully scrubbing the heavy panel lines - which WERE THERE - off the entire model, before its arrival.

Said gremlins then hid inside the hollow hull until nightfall, escaping unnoticed into the night.

Thus the garish gridlines were almost lost to history, until......


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I wish the gremlins would come back...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> I wish the gremlins would come back...



I mean, seriously - the guy says he did research, and he doesn't even look at the Smithsonian's own photographs of the model as it was uncrated??

Although...I did about as good research on my anti-paneling gremlin theory, and I think it's pretty good..... :tongue:


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

mach7 said:


> I can believe that the curators don't respect her, but If they did not want her there it would not be hard to move her to the Museum of American history.


You are aware that the Museum of American history is part of the Smithsonian, same thing with the national zoo.

It doesn't matter where it is moved the fact is they don't care about the model. It is to them what it is a donated item from a tv show that was taken off the air 50 years ago.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd have gotten suspicious the second Miarecki cited "Turnabout Intruder" as the model's last filming session, since there's nothing to indicate the model was even uncrated after the second season, never mind filmed on the effects stage, and certainly not as late as the last freakin' episode.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Captain April said:


> I'd have gotten suspicious the second Miarecki cited "Turnabout Intruder" as the model's last filming session, since there's nothing to indicate the model was even uncrated after the second season, never mind filmed on the effects stage, and certainly not as late as the last freakin' episode.


But that would suggest that Miarecki is a....liar...... :freak:

I think a far more plausible explanation would be that, after knowing the show was cancelled, and knowing the model would not be used again, and maybe even after cannibalizing the model for its warp domes and deflector dish for other projects, the production people at Paramount/Desilu decided "Let's spend some production resources on it and repaint it!"

This would clearly explain why the heavy paneling gridlines were there on the last filming episode, but somehow went missing when it arrived at the Smithsonian.

Though that theory doesn't have any gremlins. I think the story needs some cute gremlins.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

swhite228 said:


> You are aware that the Museum of American history is part of the Smithsonian, same thing with the national zoo.


Yup, thats why it would be easy to move her there. 

Personally I think she belongs in the NASM, but what do I know?


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I think they should move it to the Udvar-Hazy and put it next to the Close Encounters mothership etc.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Yup, thats why it would be easy to move her there.
> 
> Personally I think she belongs in the NASM, but what do I know?


What are their rules for accepting donated items?

I'm looking to donate an R2-D2 I built from an old soup can.

They'll take that, won't they? And they must assure me it will be on display.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Well, judging from the fact that for years they had a fake phaser on display, and still to this day they insist that it was "screen used" I'd say they are pretty lax. 

Give it a go!:thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Well, judging from the fact that for years they had a fake phaser on display, and still to this day they insist that it was "screen used" I'd say they are pretty lax.
> 
> Give it a go!:thumbsup:


Thanks! I will  !

I think "screen used" meant it was in somebody's home movie... :tongue:

I left the Del Monte label on the can of my R2-D2 , but they can say that's what the "D" in D2 stands for. 

Also - Captain April now has me looking for brand new, never before seen shots of the Enterprise in the "Turnabout Intruder" episode.

That would surely be the easiest way to spot the heavy gridlines and bolster EM's claim.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

Somewhere in my files is an old copy of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine with a photo of Ed M and the Enterprise just before she was put on display at the gift shop. The title of the article is "This Old Starship". It is in this article that Ed states he had restored the Enterprise to the condition seen in "Turnabout Intruder," as this was the last episode where original footage of the ship was shot.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Well, there's the photographic evidence of the E when it arrived at the museum, and then there's EM's word.....

Tough choice. Tough choice....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I was about to check out "Turnabout Intruder" on Netflix, but then I remembered that they only have the remastered ones.

I guess I'll have to dig out the DVD...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Candidly I think this story about the _E's_ condition in TI is b.s.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If the visuals for TOS were filmed like TNG, with computerized motion control cameras for multiple passes for varying lighting effects (one pass for key light, one for matte, one for internal lights, one for warp engines, etc.), then Miarecki's hyperdetailed paint scheme makes sense, but it wasn't done that way in 1967. Everything was done in one pass, and the motion control system was a guy on the side pulling the camera down a track by a rope. They couldn't match up multiple passes on a bet, never mind on a regular basis.

So, while _some_ detail was washed out by the studio lights, it sure as hell wasn't *THAT* washed out.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> If the visuals for TOS were filmed like TNG, with computerized motion control cameras for multiple passes for varying lighting effects (one pass for key light, one for matte, one for internal lights, one for warp engines, etc.), then Miarecki's hyperdetailed paint scheme makes sense, but it wasn't done that way in 1967. Everything was done in one pass, and the motion control system was a guy on the side pulling the camera down a track by a rope. They couldn't match up multiple passes on a bet, never mind on a regular basis.
> 
> So, while _some_ detail was washed out by the studio lights, it sure as hell wasn't *THAT* washed out.


This publicity shot show the lines the best. Yes, they were there, but in this shot you can barely mkae them out around the edge of the saucer and down to the lower sensor dome. Under the brighter filming lights all the passes through the optical printer, they were all but invisible.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And for the record, there are only two external views of the Enterprise in "Turnabout Intruder", an orbital flyby at the beginning of Act I that dates back to the first season, and that flyby from the second pilot at the very end. That's it.

So, we have confirmation that Ed Miarecki is full of crap.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> So, we have confirmation that Ed Miarecki is full of crap.


Hold on. I think you're reading a bit too much into this. Miarecki was just saying that he was attempting to restore the finish to the state it was at the end of the series. I don't think he was saying that they made last minute changes and filmed new footage for Turnabout.

You can complain all day that the weathering is horribly overdone (and you won't get any argument from me) but let's not parse words so closely that you make the man out to be a liar...

M.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Anybody ever ask him why the heavy paneling is missing in the pictures the Smithsonian took when the model first arrived at the museum?

I'm guessing the answer was uncovered in his research.

Or not. :drunk:


http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/640/74-3977_640.jpg


Where are the gridlines, dude? Where are the gridlines??

Was it....GREMLINS??!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Stop looking!

I found it.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

For the record, Ed M does not answer anymore questions or comments about the model's present paint scheme. It is a really sore subject with him.


----------



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

nautilusnut said:


> For the record, Ed M does not answer anymore questions or comments about the model's present paint scheme. It is a really sore subject with him.


It's a sore subject for a lot of fans....:freak:


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Hold on. I think you're reading a bit too much into this. Miarecki was just saying that he was attempting to restore the finish to the state it was at the end of the series. I don't think he was saying that they made last minute changes and filmed new footage for Turnabout.
> 
> You can complain all day that the weathering is horribly overdone (and you won't get any argument from me) but let's not parse words so closely that you make the man out to be a liar...
> 
> M.


While I think the paint job is almost criminal in it's cartoonishness,
I'd like to add my own bit of defense to MGagen's points,
and comment on these last couple of pages of posts.

While I totally believe that nautilusnut talked to a guy at a convention who had pics of the restoration and at least knew of Ed M.,

Let's please remember that we are talking about a paraphrased quote of someone we don't know at a dealer's table at a convention, who may or may not have heard Ed M. say this.

It's a paraphrased quote of a quote of a quote!

The guy telling this story to nautilusnut may have been involved or present at the restoration.

He obviously wants to make Ed M and his restoration look better to fans, so who knows if he ever heard Ed M say this?

The convention dealer may have made up the story entirely on his own because he felt Ed M got a bad rap.

Or maybe he came up with the story - in which the dealer insinuates that fans that really know Trek would know Ed's paint job is accurate.

Why?

*Maybe because the guy was selling pictures of the restoration,* and if he didn't come up with some lame way of countering buyers' dismissal of them he wouldn't be selling too many pictures.

or maybe he just was defending Ed M.

We can never know. We don't even know this dealer's name.



But even if the guy was being completely honest with nautilusnut,
(which is impossible to know or verify)

it's still a quote, of a quote, of a quote.

And I'm a little uncomfortable about bashing a guy for something that far removed from a direct quote of the guy.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Candidly I think this story about the _E's_ condition in TI is b.s.



Agreed. And while I wouldn't want the guy painting my house, I think Ed Ms has been involved with Trek enough to know better then to come up with such a lame story.

Which begs the question: why did the dealer say this?

To me the most obvious answer is - he was selling pictures of the restoration.

Maybe there were other motives, but I'm pretty sure Ed M would know better.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

MGagen said:


> Hold on. I think you're reading a bit too much into this. Miarecki was just saying that he was attempting to restore the finish to the state it was at the end of the series. I don't think he was saying that they made last minute changes and filmed new footage for Turnabout.
> 
> You can complain all day that the weathering is horribly overdone (and you won't get any argument from me) but let's not parse words so closely that you make the man out to be a liar...
> 
> M.



Enter, SpongeBob timecard: 265 posts later... 

Agreed. Put the torches and pitchforks down and move on already. Geez......


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Enter, SpongeBob timecard: 265 posts later...
> 
> Agreed. Put the torches and pitchforks down and move on already. Geez......


Sure - after this:

As far as EM not commenting anymore:

Great move! :thumbsup:

Experts recommend that when you are caught telling a Really Big Whopper, that the best thing you can do is to Stop Talking (or "STFU" in the vernacular  )

This way you neither admit nor deny guilt, taking a passive-aggressive approach to the situation.

There is an old saying though, that "You tend to lie to people you have no respect for." (Ok - I just made it up. But it's true.  )

So I think fans of the old E are within their rights to be sore about the whole affair after what amounts to decades of someone thumbing his nose at them.


----------



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

J_Indy said:


> Sure - after this:
> 
> As far as EM not commenting anymore:
> 
> ...



Again I'd like to point out that we haven't caught Ed M telling a lie.

What we have is a quote, of a quote, of a quote of a story that a guy who was selling pictures of the restoration told nautilusnut.

A story that's obviously untrue, but unlikely to have been told by a guy who was involved in Trek production.

A quote that conviently helps the guy sell his product.

Again, we haven't really caught anyone. A quote of a quote of a quote is way too far removed to be counted against someone.

At least by my standards.

There is plently enough to be upset about the restoration without picking apart a paraphrased quote three times removed from the alleged source.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I agree with everything you said, but I wasn't really addressing the quote.

What I see is the picture I posted prior of the E as it arrived for the first time at the Smithsonian, sans gridlines.

If EM was attempting to restore it to it's "last used" condition, then I submit! (in Kirk's voice in Return To Tomorrow  ) the closest that would be is the condition it arrived at the museum in (with the missing hardware replaced, of course). It was actually documented with photos at the time.

After cancelling the series, there would be no resources devoted to altering the look of the model. In the condition it arrived in at the museum, it was even stripped of parts - likely to be used in builds for other productions.

So I think it is safe to surmise that no modifications went into the paint scheme to remove the hypothetical gridlines before it was crated and shipped to the Smithsonian. Who's going to waste resources on a prop from a cancelled show?

Unless someone can come up with a logical reason that the prop guys "enhanced" the gridlines at some point, and then subsequently remove them before the prop was used for the final time and then shipped off.

Any speculations? Anybody?...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Enter, SpongeBob timecard: 269 posts later... 

Irrelevant, anyway. The guy was hired to do a job. Enter, stage right. He did the job. The Smithsonians were satisfied and approved the work. Dude finished the work. Dude was paid. Exit, stage left.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually I just ran across this:

http://www.therpf.com/f10/enterprise-restoration-project-129807/

It sounds like EM has "little man" syndrome....

Would explain a lot..


----------



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

J_Indy said:


> I agree with everything you said, but I wasn't really addressing the quote.
> 
> What I see is the picture I posted prior of the E as it arrived for the first time at the Smithsonian, sans gridlines.
> 
> ...


When you indicated he was caught telling a whopper I assumed you were discussing what was said in the last two pages of posts. 

My mistake for jumping to conclusions. Sorry about that. 

Has he said he was trying to restore her to the way she looked during the series?

I get the impression from what he did to her he had zero concern for that.

Especially galling are the underside of the saucer's ridiculously weathered lines,

but most angering are the places where he replaced studio placed decal wording with personal comments he made up himself that he apparently thought was cute.

How do you take studio decals and replace them with your own personal snide remarks?

There is no explaining that away,

and it proves he had zero concern for keeping her accurate if you are going to pull that kind of c*ap.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually - I stand corrected. I have not seen anything that says he was attempting to restore it at all.

As for "How do you take studio decals and replace them with your own personal snide remarks?"

Little Man Syndrome.

I'm actually less annoyed now that I know that at least it was a useful process as some therapy for him...


----------



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

Okay.

I think I got that rant out of my system.

How many signatures are we at now?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> When you indicated he was caught telling a whopper...


Was he telling a whopper... or did you mean he was eating one?


----------



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

Proper2 said:


> Was he telling a whopper... or did you mean he was eating one?


Darn you!

The nearest Burger King is 10 blocks away from me and I don't have a car right now!!!!

Darn it! :freak:

Where's my umbrella?!

Gotta' go.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You actually can make out the grid lines on the photo posted above yet they are quite faint as they were always intended to be. But the photo does establish that the story of the model having a more pronounced paint schem at the end of TOS' run is total *B.S.*


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> But the photo does establish that the story of the model having a more pronounced paint schem at the end of TOS' run is total *B.S.*


How so? The photo is black and white.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The big mistake was going by black & white photos when the best guide was the part he was forbidden to alter, the upper saucer surface.

If he'd done the rest of the ship like that, there probably wouldn't have been nearly as much negative response.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Warped9 said:


> You actually can make out the grid lines on the photo posted above yet they are quite faint as they were always intended to be. But the photo does establish that the story of the model having a more pronounced paint schem at the end of TOS' run is total *B.S.*


I can make out the weathering in the Smithsonian photo better than I can discern any gridlines.

The bashing will go on....Forevahhhhh....


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

J_Indy said:


> The bashing will go on....Forevahhhhh....


"He tasks me..."

"Khaaaaaaaan!"


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> The big mistake was going by black & white photos when the best guide was the part he was forbidden to alter, the upper saucer surface.
> 
> If he'd done the rest of the ship like that, there probably wouldn't have been nearly as much negative response.


If he would just done that grateful fans of the ship would be probably be naming sons after him (maybe even daughters for the especially intense fans ).


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Sparky said:


> If he would just done that greatful fans of the ship would be probably be naming sons after him (maybe even daughters for the especially intense fans ).


As it is, there are other ways to honor his effort on the Big E.

Like - "When you build your 1/350 TOS E, take your time to get it right. You don't want to rush and ...Mia-Wreck-i it."


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> ... the part he was forbidden to alter, the upper saucer surface.


For which we are all soooooo grateful! :thumbsup:


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

I need to make it clear that to the best of my knowledge, the dealer I spoke to WAS NOT selling the photographs of the restoration of the Enterprise model. I spotted the photos in a pile on some stuff behind the booth table as I was carefully looking over the items on the racks behind the table. I was there for the entire convention and went to the dealers room each day. I never saw the photos for sale- they looked to be just 4x6 ordinary photos you or I might have take while building a kit-except they were very obviously the original model. I don't believe he had any motives for telling me the story-he didn't ask if I wanted to buy them. I spotted them and asked him. He certainly seemed a little irked when I mentioned the "controversy."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For the record, I'd heard the "Turnabout Intruder" bit attributed to Miarecki before, possibly even in a direct quote in a magazine interview, so it seems to have been his standard line regarding his approach to the project. If he'd have left off the title and just said "third season", he'd have been on much safer ground, since it's at least _plausible_ that there were new FX shots in the third season, although after some tallying by our very own John P, it looks more likely that the ol' girl never left her crate after 1968.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I did what now?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Wasn't that you who compiled all the various effects sequences featuring the Enterprise?

Or was that Tallguy.....?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Wasn't that you who compiled all the various effects sequences featuring the Enterprise?
> 
> Or was that Tallguy.....?


I thought it was Tallguy.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I guess it was Tallguy.


----------



## paustin0816 (Nov 8, 2006)

It was Tallguy http://www.trekplace.com/tosfxcatalog.html


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

So ... John's innocent?


----------



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

SteveR said:


> So ... John's innocent?


Who can tell?

It's hard to look someone in the eyes with all
that shaggy fur in the way!


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

John P said:


> I did what now?


Summoned fire without flint or tinder while juggling chainsaws and riding a unicycle. You're that good.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

beeblebrox said:


> Summoned fire without flint or tinder while juggling chainsaws and riding a unicycle. You're that good.


*They even made an arcade game out of him...*










He's THAT good.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The resemblance is uncanny....


----------



## PoORrich (Mar 14, 2013)

As an American and self professed, lifelong "Trekker" I strongly feel that we privileged citizens of this great Nation owe it to the rest of the World to recognize the priceless cultural value of what has become, in my opinion THE Space Age ICON of the Twentieth Century. When Gene Roddenberry initially conceived of his "Wagon Train To The Stars" he specifically instructed Matt Jeffries to create a believable Starship, grounded in as much scientific, achievable elements as possible, to help his audience believe the impossibility of Beyond Speed of Light Travel to Distant Galaxies. He intended The Starship Enterprise to be a living embodiment of his show and to be as much of a principal "character" as any of his actors. 

As a youth, I remember being transpired by that fantastic, beautiful, awesomely powerful, magnificent space craft, even seen on black & white television. The very word "Starship" is forever associated with the Original Series "Enterprise NCC-1701". 

This, sadly neglected, disrespected construct of plywood and wires is so much more than just an 11 foot film prop model. If we do not fully realize that, then sadly we are missing out on the full intention of "her" creators... "She" is an expression of the boundless, optimistic vision and enthusiasm of a past Generation of American Dreamers, who survived the horrors of World War II, were still in the midst of the Nuclear Cold War and yet still had the belief that Humanity could rise above it's own pettiness and unite to explore the Stars...

Hundreds, if not thousands of people, many now NASA Scientists, have admitted that viewing Star Trek led them to choose the careers they're in today. Star Trek has been the epitome of inspirational story telling and for millions, worldwide, the USS Enterprise has become the enduring Symbol of this Boundless Universal Vision.

My dad worked on the Lunar Landing project. There will probably never be a more heady, exciting time in our American history than the Space Race Decade of the "Sixties". No other Nation could produce such an awe inspiring show as Star Trek was. No other Nation put men on the Moon. It was so ironic that, just as America was on the verge of our biggest triumph in the Space Race, the Executives at NBC were too short sighted to understand the phenomenal gem they had in Star Trek & it was cancelled the same year Appollo 11 put men on the Moon and the Country was electrified by this remarkable achievement.

What does all this history have to do with the neglected, shoved in a basement Starship? In my humble opinion, it puts this magnificent replica into a True Perspective of what "She" really continues to stand for, an undying belief in the ultimate ability to achieve the Impossible.

Americans owe it to be faithful Stewards of this Priceless Artifact of Our Beautiful Dreamers, to all future Generations. My wish is that the most talented FX model makers, like the amazingly gifted Steve Niel, Jim Key from Custom Replicas, REL from Sovereign Replicas, the meticulously detail oriented Gary Kerr, Star Trek Alumnus Mike Okuda and other Dream Team Restorers can be given the means to truly make The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 soar. My personal hope is that she be restored, strengthened structurally internally and beautified externally, including all original signage and respectful paint job ( "sans excessive grid shading anywhere" which is not screen accurate) like the way the film producers would have done, given a sufficient budget. Personally, I don't even have a problem with redoing all the wiring internally and completing the Port Side, like it would have been done if there were enough funds to accomplish this originally. Count me in for my modest contribution to save my most beloved Starship. To quote Spock "it's the only logical thing to do!"


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PoORrich said:


> As an American and self professed, lifelong "Trekker" I strongly feel that we privileged citizens of this great Nation owe it to the rest of the World to recognize the priceless cultural value of what has become, in my opinion THE Space Age ICON of the Twentieth Century. When Gene Roddenberry initially conceived of his "Wagon Train To The Stars" he specifically instructed Matt Jeffries to create a believable Starship, grounded in as much scientific, achievable elements as possible, to help his audience believe the impossibility of Beyond Speed of Light Travel to Distant Galaxies. He intended The Starship Enterprise to be a living embodiment of his show and to be as much of a principal "character" as any of his actors.
> 
> As a youth, I remember being transpired by that fantastic, beautiful, awesomely powerful, magnificent space craft, even seen on black & white television. The very word "Starship" is forever associated with the Original Series "Enterprise NCC-1701".
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Gary7 (Jan 2, 2013)

Amen!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Once again playing "Devil's Advocate" (I am a "lifer" Trek fan!!), we need to remember that there are an estimated 40 million "Star Trek" fans out of a World population better than 7 billion. 40% of those are in America, so here we have around 18 million out of more than 300 million. That leaves a lot of people who priorities in other areas and just don't care about what we find important.

It comes as no shock to me why it is in the condition it is in when I keep it in that perspective.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Me thinks the time for a "restoration" has long since passed...sadly.

Playing the typical Hobbytalk Monday morning Quarterback for a moment, I believe the miniature should NOT have been touched at all.

Yes, she was a bit uncared for but she was original. The only restoration that should have been done was to her Nacell Endcaps and the Main Planet deflector dish. Period. I recently saw the miniature and was happy and thankful it's still with us in some form.

The model has been stripped down, repainted...ETC.
It would be next to impossible to get her back to her former glory...You would need an artist who would fogo his/her own ego and "what he/she thinks" it should look like.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Me thinks the time for a "restoration" has long since passed...sadly.
> 
> Playing the typical Hobbytalk Monday morning Quarterback for a moment, I believe the miniature should NOT have been touched at all.
> 
> ...


IMO it needs a proper restoration by professionals, that is all.

Everyone who has "restored" it thus far has NOT dealt with it in a professional manner. Though, as I said in the 1/350 TOS thread, at least some had enough respect for it to not obliterate the signage on a whim.

A group of the aforementioned true experts would prevent any egomaniac from mucking it up.

That way one guy can't p*ss on it and just take pride in saying "that stink is mine!" :drunk:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Me thinks the time for a "restoration" has long since passed...sadly.
> 
> Playing the typical Hobbytalk Monday morning Quarterback for a moment, I believe the miniature should NOT have been touched at all.
> 
> ...


Once again we are in complete agreement my friend.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Idealism and nostalgia are nice things and all but the reality smells of money. Most Trek fans will never visit this bird in person. And you are not likely, I think, to raise the money needed to do what "should be done to restore her properly" with fan contributions, especially when the most ardent of fans themselves can't agree on whether that would be a good thing to do.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

There are numerous things preserved in museums that have limited audience appeal. The Enterprise has as much right to be restored and preserved as they do. And I think there would be plenty of money available if the call is heard loudly enough across the web.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

jheilman said:


> There are numerous things preserved in museums that have limited audience appeal.


Maybe. But in reality, Trekkies (especially those willing to fork out dough for such a restoration) are a very small portion of the population. And it still takes dough to restore something like the 11-ft Enterprise. Lots of it! Maybe William Shatner can fork over a large amount with all the $$ he's made from autographs. 



jheilman said:


> The Enterprise has as much right to be restored and preserved as they do.


Again... dough. Lots of it.



jheilman said:


> And I think there would be plenty of money available if the call is heard loudly enough across the web.


Well, good luck. Talk is cheap, but plunking down dough, is a different matter.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

*Kickstarter!*

I think folks might be surprised what could be raised on Kickstarter. The Enterprise holds a warm place in the hearts of a lot of people. $200K+ was raised to fund a pro-am Star Trek movie. Only the hardcore would give to that. Restoring the Enterprise would probably draw a lot more casual donations.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Exactly. We're not talking millions of dollars here. If the word is spread far and wide and loudly, dollars would roll in. Just think of the celebrity Star Trek fans. They alone could easily fund this. Get enough attention to the project and it's done.


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Me thinks the time for a "restoration" has long since passed...sadly.
> 
> Playing the typical Hobbytalk Monday morning Quarterback for a moment, I believe the miniature should NOT have been touched at all.
> 
> ...


100% correct and in perspective. It is not the same model I was lucky to see during a high school field trip in 1972...in its original glory minus the deflector dish. After the last restoration, it will never be that version again. On the plus side, this model still exists and it is still an impressive model to see in person.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wattanasiri said:


> 100% correct and in perspective. It is not the same model I was lucky to see during a high school field trip in 1972...in its original glory minus the deflector dish. After the last restoration, it will never be that version again. On the plus side, this model still exists and it is still an impressive model to see in person.


Quite right!

"In the 35 years that the National Air and Space Museum has held it, the Starship Enterprise has gone through in-depth conservation and restoration, making it one of the more extensively preserved and studied objects in the Museum’s collection. It is currently on display in the lower level of the National Air and Space Museum Store, where every year it is seen by millions of people from all over the world."

That's a good thing.

Just enjoy it! And let it motivate your own model built to your own liking. And if you're fortunate enough to someday be the artist commissioned to re-restore the 11-footer, have at it with a show of gusto and the artistic touch for which you are hired. And I hope your work will be liked and respected by every single fan—but clearly that's not likely to be the case.


----------

