# Original GEMINI 12 MINIATURE



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Here now is the Gemini 12...The actual miniature from Lost in Space seen in the Pilot episode. She is being restored and will be seen at the 50 th Lost in Space celebration, Thanks to Kevin Burns. I originally reached out to the owner of the prop in hopes of restoring her myself, but the logistics of shipping the prop to me in terms of location and packaging proved impractical. So still wanting this piece of Sci Fi history restored to her former glory, I reached out to my friend *************. Paul has a long list of credentials one being he worked on The Fantasy Worlds Of Irwin Allen. He supplied the Seaview you see June Lockhart standing behind in the Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea segment. Paul has been working tirelessly to restore the prop to it's original condition. "ORIGINAL" being the key word. In the top photo is the miniature now, the bottom left is the miniature when Paul Received it and the remaining photo is of the ship in a scene from the pilot episode. As mentioned, she will be at the 50TH celebration on Jan 23-25 at the LAX Westin Hotel, 5400 W Century Blvd. I am very proud to have been involved in bringing back this Sci Fi Icon!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Man! Wish I could be there to see it in person. Any chance it may go to the Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum in the future?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Fascinating.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The client insisted(thank God!)That the miniature be returned to her original condition. Even the "bump" is retained and can be seen clearly in the meteor sequence. As a result of the crash sequence filming.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I noticed that!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Here now is the Gemini 12...The actual miniature from Lost in Space seen in the Pilot episode. She is being restored and will be seen at the 50 th Lost in Space celebration, Thanks to Kevin Burns. I originally reached out to the owner of the prop in hopes of restoring her myself, but the logistics of shipping the prop to me in terms of location and packaging proved impractical. So still wanting this piece of Sci Fi history restored to her former glory, I reached out to my friend *************. Paul has a long list of credentials one being he worked on The Fantasy Worlds Of Irwin Allen. He supplied the Seaview you see June Lockhart standing behind in the Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea segment. Paul has been working tirelessly to restore the prop to it's original condition. "ORIGINAL" being the key word. In the top photo is the miniature now, the bottom left is the miniature when Paul Received it and the remaining photo is of the ship in a scene from the pilot episode. As mentioned, she will be at the 50TH celebration on Jan 23-25 at the LAX Westin Hotel, 5400 W Century Blvd. I am very proud to have been involved in bringing back this Sci Fi Icon!


These pictures answered a question that I have always wondered about, it seems that the windows were not curved to match the hull contour, only the frames have the curve.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The window glass was NOT curved...only the frames to match the hull. The frames were made of wood.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Glad this was brought up. I assume it would have been easy to heat form some acrylic or something to make curved glass for the miniature, but such a thing would be too costly or create problems for filming for the set, so the model was made to conform to the stage set. 

Of course all this careful thought kinda goes out the window once all the modifications are made (when the show went to series) 

Out the window. See what I did there? Out the WINDOW. 

*heh* sorry.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Great news! I wasn't sure if that particular minuiture still was in existance.
Glad to see it is, And will be restored to it's former glory.:thumbsup:

I'm quessing this prop was spared the fate that the 4 ft.J-2 hero's shared during that City below the sea movie.

Thanks for the info!


----------



## bil4miller (Jul 30, 1999)

What is the lower portion of the miniature like? Pictures in issue 35 of Sci-fi and Fantasy
Models International show missing fusion core.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

The upper hull did have the holes cut into it for city Beneath the Sea just like the Jupiter 2 miniatures.

They were poorly fixed when the miniature was sold at auction. They had to be removed and repaired.

The engine or fusion core is still missing. However a new scratch built one will be attached to the miniature.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Captain Han Solo said:


> The upper hull did have the holes cut into it for city Beneath the Sea just like the Jupiter 2 miniatures.
> 
> They were poorly fixed when the miniature was sold at auction. They had to be removed and repaired.
> 
> The engine or fusion core is still missing. However a new scratch built one will be attached to the miniature.


Thank's for the info!
At least this ship is in VERY cappable hands for restoration.:thumbsup:

Will this be redone in it's original light gray finish?
Somehow this ship still seems not as battered as the 4 footer's.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

spocks beard said:


> Will this be redone in it's original light gray finish?
> Somehow this ship still seems not as battered as the 4 footer's.


Isn't this a 4'? 
And: does anyone have any color photos of the 4' Gemini 12 or the J2 miniatures that shows they were ever grey or tan? I only ask because the only things I can find show them in silver:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4867140&postcount=13
The little G12 and the full sized sets were white or grey but what about the hero miniatures?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Paul and I wanted the miniature to be the correct color. Weather it be Light Gray, Beige(as suggested in some books)...whatever.

After Paul disassembled the miniature to repair it, and after removing the terrible Paint from "City beneath the Sea" , Over spray inside the miniature determined that the Gemini 12 was painted silver originally. Silver.

And this is indeed the 4' miniature from the Lost in Space Pilot " No Place to Hide". Used in the lift off sequence, crash sequence and meteor storm. The TUBES for the piano wire for the Lydecker Rig are still present.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks very much, Captain!


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Yep, Thank you.
I never realised that the Gemini 12 saucer was in fact 4 foot model.
(Or that the particular model was silver)

I always assumed since the revised Jupiter 2 -4 footer was gray during the first season, The Gemini was also. Interesting!:thumbsup:

Anyone know if that smaller J2 featured in first season episode Wish Upon a star 
was a modified Gemini model? Maby i got that smaller model confused.:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

spocks beard said:


> Yep, Thank you.
> I never realised that the Gemini 12 saucer was in fact 4 foot model.
> (Or that the particular model was silver)
> 
> ...


The Smaller 12.5 Jupiter 2 seen in Wish upon a Star is indeed a converted Gemini 12.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I suspect, with no factual back-up, if the 'revised J-II' seems gray, it may well be because it was constantly hit with 'anti-flare' spray to keep the silver paint from turning into reflection hot spots. 

Could be wrong, of course.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The picture in Starseeker's collection shows, what seems like, a smaller than 4 foot, possibly 2 foot model. The robot and Dr. Smith are quite close to it. Of course, it could be an optical illusion depending on the lense used. Did they ever use a 2 foot model?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

charonjr said:


> The picture in Starseeker's collection shows, what seems like, a smaller than 4 foot, possibly 2 foot model. The robot and Dr. Smith are quite close to it. Of course, it could be an optical illusion depending on the lense used. Did they ever use a 2 foot model?


This Picture?


That is the 4' Gemini 12. Before being destroyed for City Beneath the Sea.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

So, is this one aluminum? Beautiful work.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

terryr said:


> So, is this one aluminum? Beautiful work.


The restored Gemini 12 is indeed Silver. You can thank ************* for the Beautiful work!:thumbsup:


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Captain Han Solo said:


> This Picture?
> 
> 
> That is the 4' Gemini 12. Before being destroyed for City Beneath the Sea.


Cool. Years of watching that episode, I thought it was a Jupiter 2 miniuture.

Now looking at that still from Cave of the wizards, I can see that larger fusion core. So it must be a 4 foot Gemini model after all.

To me any way, That shot of the Gemini/Jupiter on it's launch cradle during the first episode of Lost In Space reveals what looks like larger diameter fusion core.

To bad the core was lost over the years.
Captain, Are there still studio molds for that Gemini Core? How will Paul go about Refurbishing it? If no existing molds, Blueprints?:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

spocks beard said:


> Cool. Years of watching that episode, I thought it was a Jupiter 2 miniuture.
> 
> Now looking at that still from Cave of the wizards, I can see that larger fusion core. So it must be a 4 foot Gemini model after all.
> 
> ...


 Paul scratch built a new Engine based on studio blue prints and Photographs. It's anyone's guess where the original is now.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Captain Han Solo said:


> Paul scratch built a new Engine based on studio blue prints and Photographs. It's anyone's guess where the original is now.


Cool!
Please do post any other photo's of this restored model as they become available.:thumbsup:


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Captain Han Solo said:


> The restored Gemini 12 is indeed Silver. You can thank ************* for the Beautiful work!:thumbsup:


No, I meant what is it made of?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

From the Hollywood show...


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

It's thrilling to see this miniature restored!:thumbsup:


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

terryr said:


> No, I meant what is it made of?


I believe this and the Jupiter 2 four footer were made out of fiberglass. Is this correct, Mark?


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

seaview62 said:


> I believe this and the Jupiter 2 four footer were made out of fiberglass. Is this correct, Mark?


Hull is fiberglass.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Captain Han Solo said:


> From the Hollywood show...


Thank you for the additional restored photo's!
It's great to know the model still exists, And has been proffesionally restored.:thumbsup:

While i love the revised Jupiter 2 desine, The Gemini with it's larger viewport and slightly larger fusion core is truly beautiful.

That 2nd pilot episode ( The reluctant stoweaway) footage of the Gemini sitting in it's launch cradle, And the glow effect as it lifts off for Alpha Centorie is awsome.:thumbsup:

Thanks to the powers that be that were involved in this restoration..Good to know it is in safe hands.:dude:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Is it possible to clear up the one remaining controversy regarding the G12? What is the angle subtended by the viewport? Is it 1/8 of the circumference and does it look larger because of wide angle lenses, etc, or is it in fact larger than 1/8 as some contend? Thanks! Wonderful seeing her. She went for less than $500 around 1980. What she'd be worth now...


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

starseeker said:


> Isn't this a 4'?
> And: does anyone have any color photos of the 4' Gemini 12 or the J2 miniatures that shows they were ever grey or tan? I only ask because the only things I can find show them in silver:
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=4867140&postcount=13
> The little G12 and the full sized sets were white or grey but what about the hero miniatures?


Here you go, awful quality yes, BUT the only color one I am aware of:



This is no doubt why some think it was a shade of beige. However, an experienced color photography type will recognize the "warmth of hue" of the Gemini 12's hull was due to an incandescent lighting source and not the paint's color (notice this same shade of warmth in the lamp's reflection of the Port side window). 

It was finished with a stippled, metallic silver. The blue prints call for the hull to be done in a "Finish as metal" paint. Note the gantries in a dark metallic gunmetal and not the later applied red. Remember too, the robot had far more silver in the B&W episodes than found in the color episodes where much additional red (and yellow) were added.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I suspect, with no factual back-up, if the 'revised J-II' seems gray, it may well be because it was constantly hit with 'anti-flare' spray to keep the silver paint from turning into reflection hot spots.
> 
> Could be wrong, of course.


There are areas under the inner mounting flange for the "Fusion Core" that had traces of the original "gritty" silver I duplicated as seen here:


Mark Dorais Photo

And the inner lighting prior to painting the Fusion Core framework:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

starseeker said:


> Is it possible to clear up the one remaining controversy regarding the G12? What is the angle subtended by the viewport? Is it 1/8 of the circumference and does it look larger because of wide angle lenses, etc, or is it in fact larger than 1/8 as some contend? Thanks! Wonderful seeing her. She went for less than $500 around 1980. What she'd be worth now...


It went for about _$3000_ in 1980, not $500. The current market price for the original one and only surviving _Space Family Robinson _Hero Miniature as in today's dollars? I'd estimate many, _many _times the 1980 sales price quoted above.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I got to sit next to it for two days this weekend, what an honor and what a beautiful job Paul did in restoring it. Pictures do not do it justice! It was also great finally meeting Paul and hearing the passion in his voice as he told me about the restoration.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Super 7 said:


> It went for about _$3000_ in 1980, not $500. The current market price for the original one and only surviving _Space Family Robinson _Hero Miniature as in today's dollars? I'd estimate many, _many _times the 1980 sales price quoted above.


I guess I assumed that because it didn't make its $500 reserve bid in its first auction that it would have been re-listed for less in the second. But even if it was, I guess the Starlog article got it some publicity. Would I have gone to 3 grand in the day? Three weeks pay for the 4'???? Oh, yeah. Still bitter... 

Boy, I hope you can get that together with the original launch tower in LA. What a great pairing they would make. 

Anybody? Viewports 1/8 of circumference? 1/6? Something in between?


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> I got to sit next to it for two days this weekend, what an honor and what a beautiful job Paul did in restoring it. Pictures do not do it justice! It was also great finally meeting Paul and hearing the passion in his voice as he told me about the restoration.


Thanks Ron, I do appreciate your saying that! It was really nice meeting and talking to you too (AND Major West lol!)


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

So, I know the bottom part of the saucer is more shallow, etc...But was top casting the same for both J2 and Gemini 12(minus different windows). Not that it would suggest to anyone to do a bottom for the Gemini 12 to match the upper hull of the 18" Jupiter 2.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Y3a said:


> So, I know the bottom part of the saucer is more shallow, etc...But was top casting the same for both J2 and Gemini 12(minus different windows). Not that it would suggest to anyone to do a bottom for the Gemini 12 to match the upper hull of the 18" Jupiter 2.


So...it certainly does look like it may be. The best way would be an actual side by side comparison of the two...IN the same room and not with just photo references.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Captain Han Solo said:


> So...it certainly does look like it may be. The best way would be an actual side by side comparison of the two...IN the same room and not with just photo references.


HI there old Pal,

Well..... The problem with doing that type of a direct comparison would specifically be this:

Which Jupiter 2 would you be using? It would have to be an original 1st generation casting, ie: One of the difficult to access "Hero" miniatures.

I say that as all of the filmed models were made from fiberglass reinforced polyester resin. That means there are shrinkage and distortion depending on how much catalyst was used at the onset, condition of storage and a myriad of other aspects. As you are all aware from this thread, I am a "little" familiar with all of those. 


That said, I expect they are the same as a plaster mold that large would probably have been retained until at least the pilot was known to have sold or not. 

So in all likely-hood, yes the differences between the Gemini 12 (the better looking older brother) and the younger and plumper Jupiter 2 are:

1) Larger windows,

2) More slender under surface

3) Much larger "Fusion Core" (about 12-1/2" on the J2 versus 18-1/2" in diameter on the G12)

4) Smooth, detail-free exterior surfaces

Here is what a single layer of polyester and fiberglass looks after a bad conversion to a "City Beneath the Sea" domicile with 12 rectangles cut on it's perimeter, with each one later literally externally patched over with fiberglass and bondo and then storage for 35 years in a rather warm clime. Loads of distortion and warping:







There are 6 internal plywood bulkheads, one of which was absolutely perfectly intact under the glass. This was used to re-establish the full contour. It was used to return the entire hull to it's original condition by heat gun and gloved hands. That after a complete hand stripped removal of about 6 pounds of Bondo. It took over a painstaking month of 60 hour weeks to do. 

BELOW: AND here's the _after _all the DENTS above were corrected by the most sympathetic and careful means as possible, a heat gun and fingers (which are still numb!!)



--Paul


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I have one of the Jupiter 2 4' hulls I got from a great guy in Ohio. I've filled in the door and space pod lines that were added, leaving the Chariot ramp lines in.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OMG that poor model! Funny thing, it actually somewhat looks like how I would imagine the Jupiter II to look after all the beating (crash landings, meteor storms, near miss explosions and so on) it's endured over the years. 

I mean, it's not like the Space Family was going to be able to dismount panels off the body to beat out the dents, right?


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Y3a said:


> I have one of the Jupiter 2 4' hulls I got from a great guy in Ohio. I've filled in the door and space pod lines that were added, leaving the Chariot ramp lines in.


Now, here's the issue so many have a measure of difficulty understanding:

IS yours a copy of a copy.... _of a copy?_ Some guy in Ohio? Where and how did he get his, etc. With each generational copy when using polyester resin, the object, _any object_ appreciably shrinks and distorts. 

To many (but not all) this difference cannot be seen. However, after two or three copies of copies, even the most casual observer notices disparities, especially when physically comparing the two objects. The overall size may be different by an inch or more, the contour, appearing to be from another source altogether from the original.

This is the reason I prefer the 5 times as expensive epoxy resins. ($20 a gallon for polyester versus $100 a gallon for a quality epoxy.) There is "nil" shrinkage in the resin and when filled with fiberglass, there is no measurable shrink. Further the material is some 3+ times the strength of polyester and cures evenly so there's zero distortion.

Therefore, one must conclude the one you obtained "from a guy in Ohio" is of questionable accuracy and authority. Sorry.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I understood that several people were allowed to copy the 'restored hero' after it was restored for making copies for Planet Hollywood displays. The guy in Ohio is a member of the B9 builders club, and does lots of other things in fiberglass.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Super 7 said:


> Therefore, one must conclude the one you obtained "from a guy in Ohio" is of questionable accuracy and authority. Sorry.


If you're saying that there is no way of knowing if Y3A's is truly "accurate" or not, that's true. It might be, and then again it might not. No way of telling for sure, without measuring and matching the contour. But to what? Really, only the original molds Fox would do, providing they're still intact and haven't changed dimensionally over the years. 

The same with the prop Gemini 12. If the one good plywood rib you used to re-establish the hull contour was a full contour rib (about 48" across in one piece), then the potential for error has one less element (eliminating the joint with the other rib parts). I hate to be anally pedantic, but with several generations of woodworkers in my family, I know that even plywood isn't perfectly dimensionally stable. Various plywoods have an average longitudinal stability of about 1%. Vastly better than solid woods but there is still some. Given the storage conditions you've documented and the damage to the miniature that you've pictured, it's obvious that the G12 was not kept in an archival environment, to say the least. So over 50 years, you'd have top allow for a 48" width of plywood to have shrunk and/or expanded back and forth over time by easily 1/2". 

You've shown the effects of time and storage on fiberglass. That poor thing was so damaged and deformed as to break a heart. You've done an absolutely brilliant job of making it look mint again. But as to "accurate"? It is an actual original miniature. But it is 50 years old and we've seen what it's been through, both in years past and this last year or so. It's beautiful again, now. But, sorry, we'll never be able to tell if even It is measurably "accurate" to the way it was originally 50 years ago. Darned close, tho', as close as any scale modeller could reasonably want. Any more than we can judge any other casting from a surviving hull. Especially w/o examining and measuring said casting carefully. 

But it looks stunning now. It IS the Gemini 12, and, as far as I know, The one and only one of those. But, most importantly, despite whatever happened to it over a half century, whether it's "accurate" to the millimeter or even the centimeter to the way it once was or not, it Looks like the Gemini 12. That's all that does matter. 

Again, kudos on a fantastic piece of work!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The REAL QUESTION IS what was inside? No landing gear, no mechanics for the fusion core or bubble. Could they have transferred those items into the Jupiter 2 Hero?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Y3a said:


> The REAL QUESTION IS what was inside? No landing gear, no mechanics for the fusion core or bubble. Could they have transferred those items into the Jupiter 2 Hero?


I believe the Gemini 12 never had landing gear, as the concept was it would crash and never fly again.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I should have used a period, not a comma. Yeah I know it didn't have gear. I DO remember a spinning something in the bubble on the 'front on' crash landing clip. I also think I've seen a 'tweaked' clip of the fusion core activity on it, from the same sequence.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

*Well, not quite...*



starseeker said:


> If you're saying that there is no way of knowing if Y3A's is truly "accurate" or not, that's true. It might be, and then again it might not. No way of telling for sure, without measuring and matching the contour. But to what? Really, only the original molds Fox would do, providing they're still intact and haven't changed dimensionally over the years.
> 
> The same with the prop Gemini 12. If the one good plywood rib you used to re-establish the hull contour was a full contour rib (about 48" across in one piece), then the potential for error has one less element (eliminating the joint with the other rib parts). I hate to be anally pedantic, but with several generations of woodworkers in my family, I know that even plywood isn't perfectly dimensionally stable. Various plywoods have an average longitudinal stability of about 1%. Vastly better than solid woods but there is still some. Given the storage conditions you've documented and the damage to the miniature that you've pictured, it's obvious that the G12 was not kept in an archival environment, to say the least. So over 50 years, you'd have top allow for a 48" width of plywood to have shrunk and/or expanded back and forth over time by easily 1/2".
> 
> ...




STARSEEKER: Thank you for the very kind compliments. 

But remember, all that I said was yours, the one you _bought, _ is of an unknown number of generations from a repaired original to which you've already agreed. This as it was molded _after_ it had been patched up from the "City Beneath the Sea." Because of these repairs, there's no way your Jupiter 2 can be truly accurate to the filmed original. That as well as for the many other reasons I've listed below. May I ask you do not continue to obfuscate in this regard?

I closely examined the repaired Jupiter 2 at Icons back in 1997 after it's at best_ adequate _ patching up. I even have a photo somewhere taken at the time of myself with Bill Mumy, arm over shoulder of us both standing behind the thing, as the old buddies we are having worked together on a number shoots.

To be sure, that one before molding was repaired and is therefore no longer an _original._ The techniques used to do the repairs were not "all out" as I have done here with the Gemini 12. You must understand, time is money. I did it for _authenticity first,_ with money, _forth. _

And now, how many generations of copies on from that one is your polyester re-edition? It comes down to_ Provenance_ after all!

Now back to the Gemini 12: I've most sympathetically restored (as opposed to quickly as with all the J2's) this hull's contours: Your comment: ".... it is 50 years old and we've seen what it's been through, both in years past and this last year or so. It's beautiful again, now. But, sorry, we'll never be able to tell if even It is measurably "accurate" to the way it was originally 50 years ago." 

That comment is quite an accusation. Your saying the collective "we" get's you personally out of this claim but also does implicate me. This charge you have made is well, _flatly wrong!_

This miniature IS now extremely accurate as in tolerances of better than an overall +-1/16" to what it was when new. I have included all the warping as well as the orthography of the original BUT _without Bondo _as seen below!

The original miniatures had no tolerances, as none were called out on any of the drawings. As a toolmaker/designer for steel injection mold plastic tooling, I am saying the above with a good deal of confidence and if necessary, proof.

Your comment that 1% dimensional longitudinal variation in plywood is at best, moot. It depends on the wood used, the glue used and the storage climate; humidity etc. That 1% is a worst case scenario. The plywood bulkhead I used was beyond _kiln dried_ during it's storage period, so there is absolutely no distortion from new. I know that as my father was a professional cabinet maker and taught me the trade. Plywood can but not always may run in to problems with moisture only. While the generational distortion of polyester and glass is at minimum a 5% change from any original and at the maximum well over a 10% assured change _per generational copy_. Three generations from the original and its is "game over," period.

Nor does that bulkhead have to be full-width as you say to be dimensionally sound. The perimeter of the miniature itself was and is intact, as it has an additional joint seam at the mating of the top and bottom halves with an additional strip of fiberglass tape running the inside perimeter. _That_ seam has not "moved" at all as a result of this doubling of layers and resin. Photos of the miniature now compared to frame grabs of the pilot footage do indeed confirm this.

All 6 of the plywood bulkheads were made to precisely the same outer and inner contours (having no doubt been stacked during cutting and belt/disc sanding) and do check with regard to each other. But what you are not aware of is 4 of those 6 bulkheads had cutouts made in them for the "City Beneath the Sea's" 12 perimeter windows and _that_ is why the one I used I referred to as "intact." The other one without a window aperture cutaway, was damaged at the top center where a wooden box with a 110 volt black light bulb was fitted for "City" and had to be removed without damaging the fiberglass' hull top center, which I did. 

I haven't related to you guys _all _that I've done on the Gemini 12 original, _not even close:_







ABOVE: The paint and Bondo had to be meticulously removed _and in the correct sequence of reconstruction._ This in order to return the actual Gemini 12 fiberglass hull to it's true and original shape and initial condition. Note the 13 new additional and painstakingly accurately contoured, kiln dried furniture grade 1/4" Birch plywood inner ribs visible through the translucent fiberglass. I do not _cheat_ in my work!

This thing is no half-an-inch thick "Bondo Wonder" as are so many supposed "restorations." There's actually very little Bondo type filler on it. Far less by far than I'd removed. Just the original fiberglass, carefully, sympathetically persuaded to return from whence it came.



There have already been well over 700 hours expended at this point, and the fusion core isn't near finished or correctly animated and lit. But this IS the real deal, it is the real fiberglass returned to it's former shape with hundreds of hours of heat gun and acetone applications, using gloved but still burnt fingers, wooden templates, a dozen new internal ribs, another two layers of internal fiberglass, a lot of patience and more than a fair measure of sculpting skills.

Also, I must point out, your comment regarding the plaster mold, that is not the original at all. In reality, it is _this one_ that is the very first article that actually came out of the aforementioned plaster mold. It is this miniature, that is_ the filmed miniature_, *the* original! And it _is _ inviolate insofar as accuracy is concerned in regards to those contours.

PLEASE refrain from being so defensive regarding the validity of something you've only purchased. --P.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Wish I caught this thread earlier... I have a friend who would have love to gone to see her.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I have a question that is somewhat related to this effort, just how many...oh, let's class them all as saucers... were made during the course of making Lost In Space?

(I fully understand I may be showing immense ignorance in my use of terms or descriptions, I risk this for a better understanding for all.  )

We know there were different models for different jobs. The 'hero' 4 foot Jupiter II was the big deal because it was the one made with landing gear, a development not in the Original Gemini 12 planning. 

I assume there was at least one 4 foot 'flying' saucer for the Lydecker rig, my guess would be this was a G12.

There was at least one smaller saucer for distance and perspective shots. 

There was the all-but-forgotten 10 foot saucer, meant to be used for shots of the Chariot loading and unloading. I *believe* there is also footage of it being used for a crash landing shot that obviously didn't work for one reason or another.

There was the 'pod dropper' which may or may not have been an original (newly made) hull or might have been an alteration to the 'flying' Jupiter II

(I consider the semi-scale exterior and the stage 'crash site' exterior to be a different category)

So that's the count I have. I compare this to 'City Beneath the Sea' and come up with:

The 10-foot, what I think is the 4 foot and what may be the 4 foot Gemini 12 are used as set dressing to portray distant buildings in 21st Century New York. The 10 foot doesn't seem to have windows cut in, rather they appear planted on. 

When we reach Pacifica I can count 3 saucers, and they look to be the small saucers. They each have a clear dome resting on top, exactly fitting to that circle formed at the edge of the top hull slope. I suggest they're the smaller saucers due to the astrogation console being close by for comparison. 

So, is that about it?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> I have a question that is somewhat related to this effort, just how many...oh, let's class them all as saucers... were made during the course of making Lost In Space?
> 
> (I fully understand I may be showing immense ignorance in my use of terms or descriptions, I risk this for a better understanding for all.  )
> 
> ...


It is impossible for there to be any footage of the 10 foot Jupiter 2 crashing since only the Gemini XII was used for that scene, in December/January of 1964/65, about 6 months before the 10 foot Jupiter 2 was constructed.

Best I know:
4 foot Gemini XII
12.5 inch Gemini XII (Converted to Jupiter 2)
4 foot Jupiter 2 with landing gear (Hero)
4 foot Jupiter 2 without landing gear (Converted to the "Pod Dropper")
10 foot Jupiter 2 (Only ever seen on film in "City Beneath the Sea")


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> It is impossible for there to be any footage of the 10 foot Jupiter 2 crashing since only the Gemini XII was used for that scene, in December/January of 1964/65, about 6 months before the 10 foot Jupiter 2 was constructed.
> 
> Best I know:
> 4 foot Gemini XII
> ...


Hence why I tended to use 'saucer' as much as possible. 

Note: I am not challenging any expert status, I am questioning some things to try and understand better. 

Were there really 2 of the 10 foot saucers built and neither one actually used in production? That seems not at all like Allen's M.O.

Looking at the NYC scene in 'City' I can tell the two smaller saucers have the more shallow under hull, leading me to believe they are modded Gemini 12s. The 10 foot does have the deeper Jupiter II under hull. 

I note how they cheat the living daylights on these things, with the main window turned away from the camera. It seems pretty clear they are the miniatures as the crane shot of the set spoils the perspective illusion. 

Watching the approach to Pacifica, I'm really straining my eyes because it's really tough to 'decode' the layout. I thought the three saucers were the small (one foot-ish) saucers, but a change in camera angle make them (compared to the Astrogator) suddenly seem closer to the 4 foot. 

They don't give much in the way of a low angle on these but they SEEM to be the shallow underhull of the Gemini 12.

Thinking further on this, it would make practical sense to use the same saucer/tower parts for that NYC exterior and the part of Pacifica. So, then, three Gemini 12 hulls?!

Hey, saw the Seaview cameo! Man, what the heck did the stick on her aft of the sail?

And all the plastic bins and automobile grills...they must have raided every dumpster for miles around for this!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Hence why I tended to use 'saucer' as much as possible.
> 
> Note: I am not challenging any expert status, I am questioning some things to try and understand better.
> 
> ...


Picture 1: 10 foot Jupiter 2 on the right, 4 foot Gemini XII and Jupiter 2 on the left. Picture 2: Two 4 foot Jupiter 2's and one 4 foot Gemini XII. The whole point of reusing these models was to save money and not fabricate anything.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> Picture 1: 10 foot Jupiter 2 on the right, 4 foot Gemini XII and Jupiter 2 on the left. Picture 2: Two 4 foot Jupiter 2's and one 4 foot Gemini XII. The whole point of reusing these models was to save money and not fabricate anything.


Yeah, I get that. I thought there were more 'saucer' towers at Pacifica but I see there's only 3, with all the others having glass (or plexy) domes.

The question I had in the back of my mind, given the labor involved in cutting all those holes in the fiberglas, might they have used the 'buck' for the 4 foot saucer and made more hulls solely to be turned into buildings. It seems this is now unlikely, more probable that the buck was destroyed when filming LIS wrapped, being a huge hunk of plaster taking up space in the props room. 

But that NYC shot. I would swear both of the smaller saucers had the Gemini 12 shallow underhull.

What we need is something that may exist but we can't see, normal-light shots of the stage floor, setting up the models for Pacifica. Stage hands standing around arranging things for the camera, that sort of thing. Maybe there wasn't a set photographer, as tight and fast as the shoot was.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Yeah, I get that. I thought there were more 'saucer' towers at Pacifica but I see there's only 3, with all the others having glass (or plexy) domes.
> 
> The question I had in the back of my mind, given the labor involved in cutting all those holes in the fiberglas, might they have used the 'buck' for the 4 foot saucer and made more hulls solely to be turned into buildings. It seems this is now unlikely, more probable that the buck was destroyed when filming LIS wrapped, being a huge hunk of plaster taking up space in the props room.
> 
> ...


The only models used in the production of "City Beneath the Sea" were the 4 built for "Lost in Space". The ONLY 10 foot Jupiter 2 made, the ONLY two 4 foot Jupiter 2's made and the ONLY 4 foot Gemini XII EVER made!! It is not rocket science. The reason you can't quite tell the profile of the lower hulls in the New York scene is because of the hollow pedestal they are resting in and the fact that the 10 footer had a much different and even deeper lower hull than the two 4 footers!

This is based on all the research I have done over the decades, beyond looking at the movie. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. If you feel you have a different number, then simply live with your findings and stop contradicting those who choose to take the time to answer a question that you posted.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Wrong thread.....


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

The central building in the Pacifica set was made from the JII's astrogator. They removed the guts, and put in new ones.

About the Gemini XII's drive nacelle. I have read that it was removed to be used on a JII, can anyone say for sure if this did, or did not happen?

David.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Krel said:


> The central building in the Pacifica set was made from the JII's astrogator. They removed the guts, and put in new ones.
> 
> About the Gemini XII's drive nacelle. I have read that it was removed to be used on a JII, can anyone say for sure if this did, or did not happen?
> 
> David.


No, it was not, the Jupiter 2 engine was considerably smaller then the Gemini XII and was not used like that.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Captain Han Solo said:


> And this is indeed the 4' miniature from the Lost in Space Pilot " No Place to Hide". Used in the lift off sequence, crash sequence and meteor storm. The TUBES for the piano wire for the Lydecker Rig are still present.


How thick are those tubes? Were they steel, brass, or something else?

I played around a few years ago with a 16" Lunar Models J2 and put tubes in it made from brass, but I still got too much friction for it to 'glide down' the wires.

I went back and used small brass rollers intended for an HO scale work crane, and that worked better for my tests. Never did get around to doing any video.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

RSN said:


> The only models used in the production of "City Beneath the Sea" were the 4 built for "Lost in Space". The ONLY 10 foot Jupiter 2 made, the ONLY two 4 foot Jupiter 2's made and the ONLY 4 foot Gemini XII EVER made!! It is not rocket science. The reason you can't quite tell the profile of the lower hulls in the New York scene is because of the hollow pedestal they are resting in and the fact that the 10 footer had a much different and even deeper lower hull than the two 4 footers!
> 
> This is based on all the research I have done over the decades, beyond looking at the movie. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. If you feel you have a different number, then simply live with your findings and stop contradicting those who choose to take the time to answer a question that you posted.


Here is the ten foot J2, in a sad state. Don't know when or where the picture was taken


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Man that's a sad thing to see. Interesting that it didn't have a door etched in, or doesn't seem to from that pic. And it seems to confirm my idea that they didn't cut the windows into it for City Beneath the Sea, rather they just 'planted' some squares on the hull. But then again, the side we're not seeing is exactly where the windows would be, so...

anyway, THAT would be a restoration challenge, no doubt about it.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The Jupiter 2's didn't have doors on them either. Just an outline underneath for the Chariot ramp and the lower window.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BWolfe said:


> Here is the ten foot J2, in a sad state. Don't know when or where the picture was taken


That is the only know picture of it, once it left the studio. A BIG beastie!!! As stated, none of the Jupiter 2 models or the Gemini XII miniature had a main hatch on them. Sadly, this was added to at least one of the original Jupiter 2 models and to me renders it not accurate to the original filming condition. It should have been restored and preserved as it was in 1965-68. you want a door, build the Moebius kit!!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

RSN said:


> That is the only know picture of it, once it left the studio. A BIG beastie!!! As stated, none of the Jupiter 2 models or the Gemini XII miniature had a main hatch on them. Sadly, this was added to at least one of the original Jupiter 2 models and to me renders it not accurate to the original filming condition. It should have been restored and preserved as it was in 1965-68. you want a door, build the Moebius kit!!


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Steve H said:


> Man that's a sad thing to see. Interesting that it didn't have a door etched in, or doesn't seem to from that pic. And it seems to confirm my idea that they didn't cut the windows into it for City Beneath the Sea, rather they just 'planted' some squares on the hull. But then again, the side we're not seeing is exactly where the windows would be, so...
> 
> anyway, THAT would be a restoration challenge, no doubt about it.


I'm not sure............


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Steve H said:


> Man that's a sad thing to see. Interesting that it didn't have a door etched in, or doesn't seem to from that pic. And it seems to confirm my idea that they didn't cut the windows into it for City Beneath the Sea, rather they just 'planted' some squares on the hull. But then again, the side we're not seeing is exactly where the windows would be, so...
> 
> anyway, THAT would be a restoration challenge, no doubt about it.


Are you SURE this is the 10 footer?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Super 7 said:


> Are you SURE this is the 10 footer?


Yes, it appears to be the 10 footer, there is a 4x8 foot piece of paneling behind it, easy to do the scaling from that. Beside the fact that the two 4 foot miniatures are accounted for. If that is a fan effort, I would think there would be more pictures of it as well.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> Yes, it appears to be the 10 footer, there is a 4x8 foot piece of paneling behind it, easy to do the scaling from that. Beside the fact that the two 4 foot miniatures are accounted for. If that is a fan effort, I would think there would be more pictures of it as well.


Ron,

Honestly, from the photo I can't tell if that actually is a 4x8 ply sheet.

Also, I have heard the 10 foot was rather crude (I. Allen rejected it's use for this reason) and was made of plywood. The sides of the one depicted here are well done and apparently made of glass. That said, I am aware of who has it. --P.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Super 7 said:


> Ron,
> 
> Honestly, from the photo I can't tell if that actually is a 4x8 ply sheet.
> 
> Also, I have heard the 10 foot was rather crude (I. Allen rejected it's use for this reason) and was made of plywood. The sides of the one depicted here are well done and apparently made of glass. That said, I am aware of who has it. --P.


It would be great if you could check it out and put it to rest!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, at the risk of invoking the ire of some, I'm taking what I've learned just in this thread to speculate that is an official miniature. It's got what seems to be the proper 'control dashboard' going on, there seems to be indications of the correct interior rib layout (seen in the crushed area near the window), proportions seem right. If this were a fan-made thing they had really good access to information, the kind of thing that wasn't seen until fairly recently. 

It was my understanding the reason the 10 foot saucer wasn't used in the end was because it was just an awkward as all get out beast to do anything with. A larger model means needing a larger stage, which means more lights, more crew, more money. I would SWEAR on a stack of bibles there was color test footage of this massive thing making a 'hard' landing (more of a drop and slide than a straight on shoooooo sliding crash) on a sandy landscape but I can't find it anywhere, just the 4-foot doing something similar. 

If that could be recovered and restored, that would be a pretty significant thing. It would be nice if that happened.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

BWolfe said:


> Here is the ten foot J2, in a sad state. Don't know when or where the picture was taken


This is the only shot of the 10 foot J-2 that i know of.. And i saw that very same photo on the old cloudster web site at least 8 years ago, So it is apparently a pretty old shot.

Until i saw this photo, I had no idea about it's existance.
It definately was in sad shape back when that picture was taken.

I wonder about it's fate, And if it even still exists.
Again, Thanks for those additional Gemini pictures!:thumbsup:


----------



## JPhil123 (Jan 1, 1970)

spocks beard said:


> This is the only shot of the 10 foot J-2 that i know of.. And i saw that very same photo on the old cloudster web site at least 8 years ago, So it is apparently a pretty old shot.
> 
> Until i saw this photo, I had no idea about it's existance.
> It definately was in sad shape back when that picture was taken.
> ...



Hello,

It would be nice to see the 10 footer improved and restored.

As far as the Gemini 12 version of the ship, I will always be sorry someone did not produce an injection molded model kit of the original design, say at 12 inches and with an accurate launch tower. A talented builder could modify a Polar Lights or Moebius kit of the Jupiter 2 into a fair representation, but unless they scratch build a fusion core, replicate the more shallow lower hull that the Gemini 12 had, lengthen the view ports and remove hull features it will not be very cannon. The Gemini 12 is a great looking ship.

Jim


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would like to see a set of Jupiter 2 kits in matching 1/128 scale to the existing Flying Sub and Spindrift kits. The Gemini 12, the hero J2 filming model, the J2 set prop on it's landing legs and the planetside 'homestead' set prop.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

JPhil123 said:


> Hello,
> 
> It would be nice to see the 10 footer improved and restored.
> 
> ...


Like this? A friend of mine built this a couple of years ago using the Polar Lights kit. He is in the process of updating it to match the new info found on this thread.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Nice!


----------



## JPhil123 (Jan 1, 1970)

BWolfe said:


> Like this? A friend of mine built this a couple of years ago using the Polar Lights kit. He is in the process of updating it to match the new info found on this thread.


Exactly! Beautiful job. 
"Bold in concept, brilliant in execution..."

I have posted on Hobbytalk in the past that a Gemini 12 kit would be great. 

Wish they would do a "Lost In Space" 50th anniversary issue of a "The Reluctant Stowaway" pilot version of the ship. I know I would buy at least two kits, maybe three (two to build, one to collect). Other kits from the show would be interesting (for example, Hapgood's/generic space capsule, the derelict ship), but an accurate Gemini 12 is my first desire. Even at 12 inches in diameter. Guess I will dream on.

Jim


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I would like to see a set of Jupiter 2 kits in matching 1/128 scale to the existing Flying Sub and Spindrift kits. The Gemini 12, the hero J2 filming model, the J2 set prop on it's landing legs and the planetside 'homestead' set prop.


That would be reasonable, logical, a great way to use the license, and it has the potential to be just like the original Aurora 'Cyclops' kit- G12 by itself, G12 on launch cradle, G12 pilot crash site, J2, J2 with legs, J2 crashsite (same base different stuff), J2 with Pod and Chariot...

in other words, ways to take the basic tool and repackage it to increase the ROI.

But that's never going to happen, I fear. Makes TOO much sense. Maybe they can get to it after they release that Space Pod and Chariot kit.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

RSN said:


> No, it was not, the Jupiter 2 engine was considerably smaller then the Gemini XII and was not used like that.


Thanks for the clarification RSN. Now, can you tell me if this is a real color pilot photo, or a reproduction of one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2113711978/in/set-72157603400764609/lightbox/

David.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Krel said:


> Thanks for the clarification RSN. Now, can you tell me if this is a real color pilot photo, or a reproduction of one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2113711978/in/set-72157603400764609/lightbox/
> 
> David.


I believe that is a colorized freeze frame from the pilot.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> I believe that is a colorized freeze frame from the pilot.


I am going to go and say it: IF this is a colorized frame, it's the _best _ job of colorizing_ I've ever_ seen! To my experience, this must be the _real deal:
_


There simply are TOO many subtle variations in the overall color temperature as well as with minute details such as with the gantry lamps, the underside of the miniature itself, also note the variations in the differential of the bright silver of the Gemini 12 when compared with the gunmetal of the gantry towers as well as the launch tower's inner, lower circular center section, the shadows on the red flooring, even the rear projected image's color details, etc.

I'd even put money on this one being _proof_ that all second unit miniature effects footage for the pilot was shot in color and also the textured and bright, but matt-finished aluminum that I applied to the restored original miniature, is dead-on accurate.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I want to agree with Super 7. Colorized film does tend to not have much subtlety and you can't escape the 'pastel' effect of 'painting' over shades of gray. But an interesting thing, is the 'spin drive' painted gold, or is that just an artifact of light reflecting off the red 'floor'? I'm also guessing that, like the 11 foot Enterprise there's some 'pre shading' in the paint job to make the different breaks and curves of the hull more visible and distinct.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I want to agree with Super 7. Colorized film does tend to not have much subtlety and you can't escape the 'pastel' effect of 'painting' over shades of gray. But an interesting thing, is the 'spin drive' painted gold, or is that just an artifact of light reflecting off the red 'floor'? I'm also guessing that, like the 11 foot Enterprise there's some 'pre shading' in the paint job to make the different breaks and curves of the hull more visible and distinct.


Here's precisely what I mean: the apparent "gold" on the core is actually an effect of the variations in color temperature of the 2900 (or lower) to 3400 degrees Kelvin of the studio lighting on the otherwise color-neutral overall aluminum paint on the ship. Good old L.B. "Bill" Abbott was a downright visual genius!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I thought I remembered, when this first appeared years ago, the person posted it as their own work at colorizing the picture. It was reposted by other people over the years and he would again take credit for his work. Go figure, fans making something up?!! If you think it is legit, no argument from me!!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Colorizing an old B&W image can be fun but it is a challenge to get it to come out right.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> I thought I remembered, when this first appeared years ago, the person posted it as their own work at colorizing the picture. It was reposted by other people over the years and he would again take credit for his work. Go figure, fans making something up?!! If you think it is legit, no argument from me!!


And you may well be right. Like my memory of seeing some kind of outtake of the 10 foot Jupiter II making a hard landing there are things out there that memory keeps but the internet has buried. 

If it is fan work, it really is impressive and startling in the detail and care taken. If it is proof that all the second unit effects shots were in color (and we DO have proof of much of that, all the pilot footage. Filming for the series is a different animal as I also refer below) then the only thing is, gee, can't we please see it? ALL of it? (watch, all that second unit stuff shows up as bonus material on the upcoming Blu-ray set.  )

But here's a bug-a-boo about it. What about the saucer footage that was used as 'stock' and got the 'blue tint' treatment when the show went to color starting with the second season? Was that all shot in B&W to make the optical effects easier as well as speeding up the film processing process? The only full color Space shots I can recall off the top of my head involve the Space Pod.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> And you may well be right. Like my memory of seeing some kind of outtake of the 10 foot Jupiter II making a hard landing there are things out there that memory keeps but the internet has buried.
> 
> If it is fan work, it really is impressive and startling in the detail and care taken. If it is proof that all the second unit effects shots were in color (and we DO have proof of much of that, all the pilot footage. Filming for the series is a different animal as I also refer below) then the only thing is, gee, can't we please see it? ALL of it? (watch, all that second unit stuff shows up as bonus material on the upcoming Blu-ray set.  )
> 
> But here's a bug-a-boo about it. What about the saucer footage that was used as 'stock' and got the 'blue tint' treatment when the show went to color starting with the second season? Was that all shot in B&W to make the optical effects easier as well as speeding up the film processing process? The only full color Space shots I can recall off the top of my head involve the Space Pod.


I have heard over the years that Irwin only chose certain effects scenes to be shot in color because he was paying for the color footage out of his own pocket. As a result, he only filmed scenes in color that could be reused if the series was picked up and went to color, and not necessarily episode specific, the ship flying over the planet and crashing/landing for example, or the Cyclops, Chariot and jet-pack stuff. He also thought that if the pilot did not sell, the color footage could be used in a future color production he did. The lift-off and meteor storm was deemed to specific and would only be used once, so they were done in only black and white.

Also, the footage you are remembering, with the crash in the sand was indeed the 4 foot Jupiter 2, not the 10 footer. It never went before the camera on "Lost in Space". The footage is in the extras on the "Lost in Space Forever" DVD.

All the new space shots from season 2 on were filmed in full color, not just the Pod scenes in season 3.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> I have heard over the years that Irwin only chose certain effects scenes to be shot in color because he was paying for the color footage out of his own pocket. As a result, he only filmed scenes in color that could be reused if the series was picked up and went to color, and not necessarily episode specific, the ship flying over the planet and crashing/landing for example, or the Cyclops, Chariot and jet-pack stuff. He also thought that if the pilot did not sell, the color footage could be used in a future color production he did. The lift-off and meteor storm was deemed to specific and would only be used once, so they were done in only black and white.
> 
> Also, the footage you are remembering, with the crash in the sand was indeed the 4 foot Jupiter 2, not the 10 footer. It never went before the camera on "Lost in Space". The footage is in the extras on the "Lost in Space Forever" DVD.
> 
> All the new space shots from season 2 on were filmed in full color, not just the Pod scenes in season 3.


Ron, I'm not trying to be argumentative, _but....._ 

Here's a frame grab off _Yootoob_ showing the "Space" pilot episode's opening scene, only moments after the same Newsreader as in the opening of the "Voyage" feature, is seen again here, but in profile while reading the "Space Family Robinson" headlines. 

In this frame, the camera has already "pushed in" passed that fellow and close in onto the large screen display (that was also seen in the color episodes of the Seaview's Control Room) showing not just a similar to, but _exactly_ the same shot as is the color Gemini 12 launch scene freeze frame, (below once again for direct comparison.)

Precise alignment of the components within the frame (composition,) the focal length of the lens, lighting and the window reflections, all of it.... completely identical. 

In other words; it's the same exact footage. There is absolutely no doubt, this take was shot onto Eastman ECO, or 5247 35mm color motion picture film stock:


**********

I do not know what was and what was not shot in color or why for the LIS pilot. I am only commenting on what as is seen here, definitely _was_ shot in color.

As for this same Second Unit color footage appearing on the upcoming LIS Blu-Ray set, let's all hope and pray that it does. I understand that the Second Unit color footage including the flying scenes through "Red Rocks," is still over at Fox and would cost a lot more to include it in the Blu-Ray set. So, maybe a letter writing campaign for this to happen would be a good idea here guys? I for one would very much like it included in beautiful Blu-Ray clarity!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Super 7 said:


> Ron, I'm not trying to be argumentative, _but....._
> 
> Here's a frame grab off _Yootoob_ showing the "Space" pilot episode's opening scene, only moments after the same Newsreader as in the opening of the "Voyage" feature, is seen again here, but in profile while reading the "Space Family Robinson" headlines.
> 
> ...


Well, nobody is perfect, including the guy who did the colorization of this launch pad photo. He forgot to add the red ground to the area between the rungs of the rear/center support leg. I took a freeze frame, from "The Reluctant Stowaway", of that very shot and blew it up. You can clearly see that there are two steps and between them, the red ground should be visible in the form of three rectangles. Also, in the B&W footage used on the show, the lights at the top of the towers do not appear very bright, but in the colorized version, identical lens flares are visible on all of them, clearly Photoshopped. So, no color launch footage, at least this colorized image is not proof of it.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Perhaps the work of Chris Pappas?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

RSN said:


> Well, nobody is perfect, including the guy who did the colorization of this launch pad photo. He forgot to add the red ground to the area between the rungs of the rear/center support leg. I took a freeze frame, from "The Reluctant Stowaway", of that very shot and blew it up. You can clearly see that there are two steps and between them, the red ground should be visible in the form of three rectangles. Also, in the B&W footage used on the show, the lights at the top of the towers do not appear very bright, but in the colorized version, identical lens flares are visible on all of them, clearly Photoshopped. So, no color launch footage, at least this colorized image is not proof of it.


Good catch, I see even more proof that it is a colorized image, if you zoom in on that same leg, you can see that the red stops before it gets to the edge of the leg on the right and overlaps onto the rectangular footpad on the left.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BWolfe said:


> Good catch, I see even more proof that it is a colorized image, if you zoom in on that same leg, you can see that the red stops before it gets to the edge of the leg on the right and overlaps onto the rectangular footpad on the left.


Glad I am not the only one who sees that.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> Well, nobody is perfect, including the guy who did the colorization of this launch pad photo. He forgot to add the red ground to the area between the rungs of the rear/center support leg. I took a freeze frame, from "The Reluctant Stowaway", of that very shot and blew it up. You can clearly see that there are two steps and between them, the red ground should be visible in the form of three rectangles. Also, in the B&W footage used on the show, the lights at the top of the towers do not appear very bright, but in the colorized version, identical lens flares are visible on all of them, clearly Photoshopped. So, no color launch footage, at least this colorized image is not proof of it.


Hmm, it could be Ron. That said, the B&W you supplied was not the one he started out with to colorize it. The contrast is too high while the resolution here is simply too low to be certain.

How about letting us all know who it was that did colorize this image? Was it you? If not who? Thanks. Paul


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Super 7 said:


> Hmm, it could be Ron. That said, the B&W you supplied was not the one he started out with to colorize it. The contrast is too high while the resolution here is simply too low to be certain.
> 
> How about letting us all know who it was that did colorize this image? Was it you? If not who? Thanks. Paul


It was most certainly no my work, as I said, I do not remember who did it. I believe it was someone on the "Lost in Space" Forum site. It has been about 5 or 6 years at least. The screen shot I posted, I made today from "The Reluctant Stowaway" just to show the source the screen cap he worked from. I adjusted the contrast so the stairs stood out better in the section that was not colorized.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I found the original file that I downloaded of it. It is dated 12/15/2007 and the originating program for it was Adobe Photoshop. The file has no name of the author. Here is the original, higher resolution, image from 2007. You can clearly see how sloppy the colorizaton is on that rear leg. Also, in this better version, notice the big blob of red over some of the ground detail between the rear gantry and the one on the right, the lights are colored red from the photoshopping. The red also spills over onto the right side gantry as well. Also, part of the handrail on the right side leg is red, from the colorization of the ground behind it.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

RSN said:


> I found the original file that I downloaded of it. It is dated 12/15/2007 and the originating program for it was Adobe Photoshop. The file has no name of the author. Here is the original, higher resolution, image from 2007. You can clearly see how sloppy the colorizaton is on that rear leg. Also, in this better version, notice the big blob of red over some of the ground detail between the rear gantry and the one on the right, the lights are colored red from the photoshopping. The red also spills over onto the right side gantry as well. Also, part of the handrail on the right side leg is red, from the colorization of the ground behind it.


At the very bottom of the left gantry leg there is a red stripe that runs about 3/4 of the way across the leg. It is very easy to see all of the artifacts left over from the colorization in this higher resolution picture.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

I don't believe It's an actual *color* scene from the Pilot...Why? The three Gantries surrounding the Gemini 12 were RED not Silver. It is someone's Idea of a colorized Picture. No More...No Less.

Also...the Launch sequence was the LAST sequence filmed with the 4' Miniature...back at Fox on an elevated soundstage.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain Han Solo said:


> It's NOT an actual *color* scene from the Pilot...Why? The three Gantries surrounding the Gemini 12 were RED not Silver. It is someone's Idea of a colorized Picture. No More...No Less.
> 
> Also...the Launch sequence was the LAST sequence filmed with the 4' Miniature...back at Fox on an elevated soundstage.
> 
> ...


My point EXACTLY! :thumbsup:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

RSN said:


> I found the original file that I downloaded of it. It is dated 12/15/2007 and the originating program for it was Adobe Photoshop. The file has no name of the author. Here is the original, higher resolution, image from 2007. You can clearly see how sloppy the colorizaton is on that rear leg. Also, in this better version, notice the big blob of red over some of the ground detail between the rear gantry and the one on the right, the lights are colored red from the photoshopping. The red also spills over onto the right side gantry as well. Also, part of the handrail on the right side leg is red, from the colorization of the ground behind it.


Aw Geeze Ron, wish I'd seen this one before saying anything. Why'd you hold it back? YES, IT'S OBVIOUSLY COLORIZED!! The far side staircase is crisp as can be where the "red floor" colorizing falls shy as well as between the stairs. Aside from that, it is very well done!





As to the gantries being *red:* WHEN Mark, did they get painted that color? _What color_ were the robot's claws painted during the first season? The view above was done on a sound stage shot by..... _Second Unit perhaps?_ 

That said, the Second Unit color footage _is_ still over at Fox.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Super 7 said:


> ...There is absolutely no doubt, this take was shot onto Eastman ECO, or 5247 35mm color motion picture film stock...


5247 wasn't available until 1973.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Super 7 said:


> Aw Geeze Ron, wish I'd seen this one before saying anything. Why'd you hold it back? YES, IT'S OBVIOUSLY COLORIZED!! The far side staircase is crisp as can be where the "red floor" colorizing falls shy as well as between the stairs. Aside from that, it is very well done!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Gantries are Red. They were Red from day one. They were only used ONCE. For the pilot. And the railing circling the Launch pad is Blue not silver.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

*color or B&W*



robn1 said:


> 5247 wasn't available until 1973.



Well, how about that. I was in film school from 1971 through 1975 and used loads of B&W back then as well as ECO and 5247 stock and had no idea the latter was_ brand new_ at the time. This despite the Kodak reps being there fairly often. Moviolas sure were fun though and the clarity at 72 FPS was absolutely incredible, even 16mm footage looked just like today's 4K!

I have checked my sources and what I have found is that the location shots done by the second unit were indeed shot in color, but that is all, no studio miniature shots. Those were intentionally shot in B&W.

As for the towers originally being painted red, the studio blue prints state: 

*"NOTES: 1) FINISH ALL SURFACES AS METAL" *...with no mention as to any color. However, there were additional notes written vertically adjacent to the Gantry tower on the left stating: "USE JIG AND MATERIALS DEV. (ISED) FOR BRIDGE MINIATURE OF 'VON RYAN'S EXPRESS'."

Now, if in Photoshop, we remove the color from the G. Jein images and do that to the standard Panchromatic color absorption curves, here's what you'd get:



 

The red of the gantries appears very noticeably lighter than the launch tower itself. But the dark silver color of each gantry's rectangular base (with those caterpillar treads,) in B&W, those items appear to be very close to the launch tower itself in hue, much darker than the red painted gantries. Yet in the pilot, the gantries appear a consistent color from top to bottom. 



You can each draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

we are engaged in a form of archeology, so let us look at everything with an open mind. 

Is it *possible* the gantry towers were repainted? Might they have ended up as background material in 'City Beneath the Sea' as well, given that Allen was seeming raiding every 20th Fox prop and effects warehouse?

and even if not, might they have been carefully repainted for that display? I suggest this for the same reason they even exist.

This is the key frustration I keep coming back to. We can't ask these questions 'when it was new' and the answers would be not muddled by decades. Why do the gantries exist? what was their supposed function? Well, they EXIST because in the '60s 'everybody knew' what a launch looked like and there would be a gantry tower nearby, so there, we have gantry towers. But these are on catapiller tracks, and there's no surrounding infrastructure (fuel pipes, power cords, storage tanks, etc). For that matter, we see no way for people to actually board the saucer. So, da heck? 

(I actually have an idea about the gantry towers and transporting the saucer to the launch cradle but it doesn't matter. It's interesting there are stair steps on both the crawler base and the launch cradle however)

Of course none of that matters. It's a completely throwaway scene, minimalistic, needing only to establish that there was a launch site and zoom, off they go. 

Saying that, that's my thinking on why I wonder if the towers were painted. 'Everybody knows' that when you have a launch there's a gantry tower, and 'everybody knows' those things are orange-red. Maybe someone decided that they needed to meet the expectations of what 'everyone knows'?

And another thing on the towers. Is it my eyes or does it appear that one of the towers has articulated, steerable tracks? Or was it built that way so as to give the illusion of 'use' and a more dynamic staging?


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Steve H said:


> Saying that, that's my thinking on why I wonder if the towers were painted. 'Everybody knows' that when you have a launch there's a gantry tower, and 'everybody knows' those things are orange-red. Maybe someone decided that they needed to meet the expectations of what 'everyone knows'?


Something to consider, is that for b&w shows and movies they used to color things to give the impression of specific colors, rather than color them in the actual colors, which would not give the impression of the intended color. I am not saying that this is the case here, just something to consider.

David.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Krel said:


> Something to consider, is that for b&w shows and movies they used to color things to give the impression of specific colors, rather than color them in the actual colors, which would not give the impression of the intended color. I am not saying that this is the case here, just something to consider.
> 
> David.


Very correct. There used to be a 'wheel' computer during the early age of color TV to translate how specific colors would look in B&W, in order to keep the excitement of !!!COLOR!!! turning into an unsatisfying muddle on the millions of B&W TVs still in use. I recall this was one reason why Mr. Spock's skin color (because, you know, being Vulcanian and all) was finalized as a greenish tint as opposed to the originally planned reddish. Seems the reddish make-up didn't turn out well in B&W, almost looking like a minstrel show 'blackface', or so it was said. Mind, I don't think there's any photos of this test so it may be another of Roddenberry's apocryphal stories to show how 'narrow minded' studios and TV were then. 

But Super 7 made a very good point. Going by the original film, the gantry towers and their bases seem to be the same shade, implying it's a uniform color. 

And hey, um, what the heck is the deal with the launch cradle, it looks like there's footprints in dust on the railed platform!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Steve H said:


> And hey, um, what the heck is the deal with the launch cradle, it looks like there's footprints in dust on the railed platform!


Fingerprints?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Y3a said:


> Fingerprints?


It's possible, of course. It's really hard to keep 'scale' in my head looking at those shots because 4 foot...that doesn't sound that big, right? but that's roughly 2/3s of an average person's height! 4 Foot is BIG, any way you slice it.

But those marks really look 'foot shaped' to me. Like a figure was hotmelt glued there and was removed.


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

starseeker said:


> Is it possible to clear up the one remaining controversy regarding the G12? What is the angle subtended by the viewport? Is it 1/8 of the circumference and does it look larger because of wide angle lenses, etc, or is it in fact larger than 1/8 as some contend? Thanks! Wonderful seeing her. She went for less than $500 around 1980. What she'd be worth now...


 Don't know if this was ever addressed but, if there were only six support beams inside ( I believe Paul mentioned he fabricated/used twelve, made from one accurate one he found ), then that would create a 60 degree arc between beams rather than 45 degrees, allowing for a larger main view port. Of course, this would never justify with the eight support beams on the interior set and, hence the smaller view port, but in Allenworld we all know that continuity was not his chief concern.


----------

