# The TOS Enterprise discussion thread... for us non-experts



## Shaw

​


----------



## ClubTepes

Shaw said:


> First let me say "Welcome". If you are reading this thread I'll assume that like me, you are not an expert on the Enterprise models used in the original series. We can assume that the only people who qualify as "experts" are those who were selected by the Smithsonian to be part of that _dream team_ advisory committee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add more stuff as I get time... but anyone with information (who isn't an expert) is free to share info here! :thumbsup:


Sounds a bit bitter, and a little unbecoming.


----------



## alensatemybuick

I am neither expert nor "expert" when it comes to the original big E, but I have an insatiatable appetite for info. about her, and have found both types of individuals can be generous with their knowledge. Thus I will be watching and occasionally chiming in on this thread and any thread with her as the subject. :thumbsup:


----------



## scotthm

ClubTepes said:


> Sounds a bit bitter, and a little unbecoming.


I agree.

---------------


----------



## SteveR

Thanks for the info. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

Bitter or not, this can be a valuable resource for investigation and discussion. 

For example, I'm somewhat surprised that the 'Cage' version of the 11 foot miniature, with no lights, still had the left (or port, depending on your preference and ideology  ) side undetailed (or 'finished'). While I fully grok the "you only build what you need" method, that usually applies to sets and limited use miniatures such as the giant Tyrell building in Blade Runner. It seems odd for the Enterprise which had the hope of going to series and thus would be a 'multi use' miniature. 

I would hope that some 'super private secret' person is holding reference photographs shot of the 11' miniature, shots that would hopefully be 360 degrees (or, of course as close to that as possible given the size and mounting point). If reference photos were not shot I would be shocked. 

I make the brash assumption the 33" miniature was finished on both sides.


----------



## lunadude

Great overview of her history. :thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2

lunadude said:


> Great overview of her history. :thumbsup:


I agree. Thank you, Mr. Shaw!

This is also a good source of historic photos of the 11-footer as well as the 3-footer: http://www.startrekhistory.com/models.html


----------



## Shaw

ClubTepes said:


> Sounds a bit bitter, and a little unbecoming.


*- and -*​


scotthm said:


> I agree.


The suggestion to start this thread wasn't exactly becoming either, but if you guys don't appreciate the info or don't want me to share... I won't. It takes time and effort to put this together, no need to waste it on those who would rather I didn't.

Just hang tight and wait for Gary to publish his info. Remember that the last time Gary got special access to the 11 foot Enterprise some 25 years ago he quickly made all that information publicly available to the benefit of everyone. I'm sure if he has any new information he'll share it with all of us just as quickly as he has in the past.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> I'm somewhat surprised that the 'Cage' version of the 11 foot miniature, with no lights, still had the left (or port, depending on your preference and ideology  ) side undetailed (or 'finished'). While I fully grok the "you only build what you need" method, that usually applies to sets and limited use miniatures such as the giant Tyrell building in Blade Runner. It seems odd for the Enterprise which had the hope of going to series and thus would be a 'multi use' miniature.


You are not considering the short time frame the builders of the 11 footer had to "complete" it in late 1964. Perhaps the thinking was the full port side detailing could come later (as was the case for other detailing). But when Roddenberry changed his mind and said he wanted all kinds of windows and internal lighting (involving a rather inelegant wiring solution that required wires hanging out of the port sides of the nacelles and secondary hull), that ended all further consideration to making the port side "pretty". Regardless, apparently the port side nacelle got the red banners and registry lettering from the beginning, And some detailing of the inner starboard nacelle (simulating the "trench" on the inner port side nacelle) was at least ultimately realized via paint. Perhaps that was done with the expectation that those parts of the ship might appear in certain camera angles (like the one showing the enterprise from the rear / in between the nacelles as used in "Troubles with Tribbles").




Steve H said:


> I make the brash assumption the 33" miniature was finished on both sides.


No such assumption is required; the 33 incher was detailed on both sides from the start, and as the 11 foot model was modified, similar modifications were made to the 33 incher to match.


----------



## John P

This memo was just quoted over at TrekBBS.com in a discussion of lighting the model kit. It refers to mods to be made to the 11-footer for series production. The edits are from the original poster to relate to the topic at hand, so I don't know whet he cut. But...


> To: Robert H. Justman
> cc: H. Solow, M. Jefferies, B. Heath, Anderson Co.
> Date: April 7, 1966
> Subject: SPACESHIP MODEL
> 
> Bob, here is a resume of our discussion of changes in the large model as per the Anderson Company drawing and cost list:
> 
> BALL POWER NODULES ON FRONT OF THE TWIN NACELLES.
> (....)
> 
> TIME AND PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.
> (....)
> 
> FILLIGREED PANELS ON TWIN POD STRUTS.
> We see this marked as "painted". We were of the impression we were going to use some applique which gave the illusion of something like solar cells. We're willing to go any intelligent way here, but wonder if this is an error.
> 
> ROUNDED DOMES ON REAR OF TWIN NACELLE PODS.
> We see no estimate for eliminating them. What is the minimal cost of putting a steady light source illumination in them? Incidentally, we do feel they should be somewhat the same color as the front pods, carrying out a feeling of the same power engines running through the whole pod.
> 
> HANDLES ON TWIN NACELLE PODS.
> We wanted these handles improved to look less like "handles", but wonder if it cannot be accomplished in some way at less cost than $180.00. Or, understanding that this is an estimate, could we review the cost of this shortening? At any rate, let's assume this is one of the last things we'll do, something which could be cut if our cost gets too high.
> 
> BRIDGE DOME.
> (....)
> 
> ADDITIONAL LIGHTED WINDOWS ON SHIP.
> (....)
> 
> MISCELLANEOUS DETAILING.
> (....)
> 
> LIGHT SOURCE ON INSIDE AREA OF BOTH PODS.
> We'll omit this item and cost of $300.00, discuss with Matt Jefferies an applique metal grid overpaint or something else which will require no structural change. And we'd like to have some sort of estimate on this or whether it can be included in the overall detailing figures. Incidentally, this eliminates Anderson's next quote about possible rebuilding of pod, an item for which he was going to give us a price later if it becomes necessary.
> 
> SMALLER QUARTER SIZE MODEL.
> Does the price of revamping this smaller model include some lights in the pods? it seems to us this is one change, since it involves elimination, that would affect any shooting of the smaller model, even if it's flashing by. Would like Anderson to tell us if, perhaps, we could do away with the fluctuating aspect of the lights here since it most often will flash past us very fast. Or, if we do need the fluctuation here, possibly we can do with a standard fluctuation and do without any change of intensity.
> 
> LETTERING AND ARTWORK.
> (....)
> 
> GENERAL "AGING" OF VESSEL.
> (....)
> 
> STEP BY STEP REVIEW AND APPROVALS.
> This U.S.S. Enterprise is terribly important to us -- if the audience does not believe it, they are not going to beleive a multimillion dollar series investment. Therefore I want to suggest and emphasize that I am making myself available to come by and review, discuss, and approve all these changes as they are going on. (....)
> 
> GENE RODDENBERRY


...it does show for sure that lighting the trenches was considered (but would have cost $300!!!). But the new info to me was that they considered lighting the balls at the _aft _ends to match the forward domes!  Can't say as I think that would look good, but it does allow the thoughts of lighting them balls, even if only white.


----------



## Proper2

I find this photo comparison of the pilot version and the later version (1968 photo?) interesting, showing what appears to be nacelle droop setting in already:


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> I'm somewhat surprised that the 'Cage' version of the 11 foot miniature, with no lights, still had the left (or port, depending on your preference and ideology  ) side undetailed (or 'finished'). While I fully grok the "you only build what you need" method, that usually applies to sets and limited use miniatures


When you have a limited budget and a hard deadline things like that happen.

---------------


----------



## scotthm

Shaw said:


> The suggestion to start this thread wasn't exactly becoming either


No it wasn't.



> but if you guys don't appreciate the info or don't want me to share... I won't.


It's not that at all, but the attitude isn't necessary IMO.

---------------


----------



## Proper2

Shaw said:


> *- and -*​
> 
> The suggestion to start this thread wasn't exactly becoming either, but if you guys don't appreciate the info or don't want me to share... I won't. It takes time and effort to put this together, no need to waste it on those who would rather I didn't.
> 
> Just hang tight and wait for Gary to publish his info. Remember that the last time Gary got special access to the 11 foot Enterprise some 25 years ago he quickly made all that information publicly available to the benefit of everyone. I'm sure if he has any new information he'll share it with all of us just as quickly as he has in the past.


Those who "smell out" an "attitude" need not attend. The rest of us would like to continue to partake here. So, I for one hope this thread continues to thrive and be enjoyable.


----------



## irishtrek

Proper2 said:


> I find this photo comparison of the pilot version and the later version (1968 photo?) interesting, showing what appears to be nacelle droop setting in already:


Those 2 images are slightly different angles so I fail to see how you can determine nacelle droop.


----------



## Proper2

irishtrek said:


> Those 2 images are slightly different angles so I fail to see how you can determine nacelle droop.


I've looked at those photos again, long and hard. I even super-imposed them in Photoshop. And you're right about the angle variance which is even greater than at first glance. The bottom photo also appears to be taken from a closer angle than the top one, and or with a different angle lens. So, the amount of nacelle droop does seem more exaggerated in the bottom photo due to the angle difference. Bottom line, you're right, these photos aren't as conclusive as I first thought.


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> When you have a limited budget and a hard deadline things like that happen.
> 
> ---------------


I understand all that, but, and please jump on..I mean, correct me if I am mistaken, at THIS stage, the Pilot build, I just don't see how adding decals to the left side is that huge a time/money issue. If you're PAINTING it, there's time to put decals on. 

And they have precedent in the 33" miniature. That seems just a matter of 'blowing up' the decal sheets in the same proportions as the build itself. 

I dunno. All I'm saying is in the overall scheme of things it's not logical to NOT have put decals on the left side of the Pilot, unlit, solid miniature. It's not the same issue as all the mods made to install lighting. THAT was clearly and documented (see above) a time/money pressure issue. The perfect solution would have been a new 11 foot miniature from scratch with changes made to the build necessitated by the lighting install. Clearly that wasn't gonna happen.


----------



## alensatemybuick

But apparently the banners and registry were PAINTED on the port nacelle of 11 foot model from the beginning...not that I've personally ever seen a photo demonstrating this, but based on a statment Gary Kerr made recently about the model having the pilot version of the registry lettering (unique "7"s and "1"s) on that side at the time the Smithsonian got it (and thus that is what it will have when the model is put on display in July). Not sure about the red markings on the port side of the secondary hull, but since that side never had the "protuberance" near the deflector, I doubt they would have added those. By the way, the decal sheets were used much later (I think they may not have even been printed till mid 1966).


----------



## Richard Baker

Pilots tend to have even more money issues when you have a SciFi TV show. There are no standing sets from other productions you can reuse, all props and costumes also have to be made from scratch. The pilot corridor sets were even built so they could only be filmed from one direction. When the show went to series they had to scrap them and make complete new ones so they could be used from every angle.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> But apparently the banners and registry were PAINTED on the port nacelle of 11 foot model from the beginning...not that I've personally ever seen a photo demonstrating this, but based on a statment Gary Kerr made recently about the model having the pilot version of the registry lettering (unique "7"s and "1"s) on that side at the time the Smithsonian got it (and thus that is what it will have when the model is put on display in July). Not sure about the red markings on the port side of the secondary hull, but since that side never had the "protuberance" near the deflector, I doubt they would have added those. By the way, the decal sheets were used much later (I think they may not have even been printed till mid 1966).


Are we sure it NEVER had that 'tab' on the left side? That seems a bit odd as I'm sure it was called for. If you mean the detailing on that tab (the parts that held the deflector unit and was used as the off/on switch in the original AMT model kit) wasn't installed, wasn't that part of the 'detail up' done later?

OK, so the Pilot model had it's deco hand painted. That, I agree, IS time and money, so if they left that off the left side, I can agree it's reasonable, kind of. Again, they were building a model for a pilot of a TV series. Logic tells me you're going to take that money and build a model that's as useful as possible. The cheating comes into play when the left side had to be cut into in order to install lights.

And the decal sheet makes sense then, because as we know, they used decals that were reversed in order to do shots showing the port side. 

So to further that discussion, did they keep the pennants painted on and just names/numbers were made decals, or the whole shooting match? I thought I saw a pic of a surviving decal sheet but I can't recall what all was on it.


----------



## Richard Baker

Makes no sense to replace the pennants since they would be mirror images anyway- just replace those few elements which were not reversible.
Replace as little as possible..


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> Logic tells me you're going to take that money and build a model that's as useful as possible.


For a pilot they wouldn't be too worried about making it useful beyond the few shots they needed to get the job done. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't make do with just the 3 foot model for the pilot.

---------------


----------



## Dr. Brad

Proper2 said:


> Those who "smell out" an "attitude" need not attend. The rest of us would like to continue to partake here. So, I for one hope this thread continues to thrive and be enjoyable.


I never sensed any attitude - I think this thread is fascinating!


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> For a pilot they wouldn't be too worried about making it useful beyond the few shots they needed to get the job done. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't make do with just the 3 foot model for the pilot.
> 
> ---------------


And I agree with that last sentence. 

Here's my thing. If the thinking was "I want this sweet zoom-in to the bridge to open the scene" why didn't they save even MORE money and just build a large saucer top, done and finished and "all that's needed for the shot", right? They could have pushed in on the 33" miniature to a point, then have something obscure the lens for a frame or 6 (a flash, a gas cloud, whatever) and cut to the close-up of a larger saucer top model for the final zoom. It worked for Star Wars and the attack on the Death Star. 

They spent money to build the entire 11 foot miniature. I would be convinced they did so with the intent of saving costs when they went to series, and as such it would be logical to assume it was originally built to film from any angle. The monkeywrench in that savings is that Roddenberry wanted it better, more realistic, blah blah so they had to do all this refitting as fast and as cheap as they could, hence carving up a miniature that wasn't INTENDED to have lighting instead of complete re-building or starting from scratch. 

Am I making sense here? 

I'm not making declarative unsupported statements like "The left side was completed!", I'm simply questioning the 'conventional wisdom' that since the lit version of the 11 foot miniature was un-detailed (due to the substantial surgery to install the lighting), of course it was that way for the original, unlit, solid, Pilot miniature.


----------



## alensatemybuick

This discussion has led me to wonder about something else...I have heard it mentioned by Margaret Weitekamp and others that the last time the 11 foot model was modified before the series ended was for the filming of "The Trouble with Tribbles". There is the famous shot of the Enterprise taken from the rear while approaching the K7 space station , in which you can see part of the inboard starboard nacelle. Pretty sure it was David Shaw who pointed out previously that the appearance of a matching "trench" on the inboard starboard nacelle was realized with paint. I have wondered before WHY exactly the model had to be modified for this episode, and NOW wonder if it's because of that particular shot. Does anyone know if this angle of the big E was ever used previously? Anyway, not sure I have ever heard it explained before what the last mods made to the ship for the series were. If it's not what I have speculated (and sorry if this is "old news"), then what else?


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> This discussion has led me to wonder about something else...I have heard it mentioned by Margaret Weitekamp and others that the last time the 11 foot model was modified before the series ended was for the filming of "The Trouble with Tribbles". There is the famous shot of the Enterprise taken from the rear while approaching the K7 space station , in which you can see part of the inboard starboard nacelle. Pretty sure it was David Shaw who pointed out previously that the appearance of a matching "trench" on the inboard starboard nacelle was realized with paint. I have wondered before WHY exactly the model had to be modified for this episode, and NOW wonder if it's because of that particular shot. Does anyone know if this angle of the big E was ever used previously? Anyway, not sure I have ever heard it explained before what the last mods made to the ship for the series were. If it's not what I have speculated (and sorry if this is "old news"), then what else?


Allow me to maybe ask the underlaying question, or maybe just show my stupidity.

What WAS the modification made for the shooting of 'Tribbles'? I can't see anything new or different.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> Am I making sense here?
> 
> I'm not making declarative unsupported statements like "The left side was completed!", I'm simply questioning the 'conventional wisdom' that since the lit version of the 11 foot miniature was un-detailed (due to the substantial surgery to install the lighting), of course it was that way for the original, unlit, solid, Pilot miniature.


If you are suggesting that at some point after filming The Cage, the various port side windows were painted over and/or filled in (along with the inboard starboard nacelle trench) and the port side protuberance was hacked off and smoothed over, then no, you are not making sense.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> What WAS the modification made for the shooting of 'Tribbles'? I can't see anything new or different.


What I was speculating is that inner starboard nacelle detailing was added for the filming of "TTWT". My theory is based on that area never being shown prior to this episode, something I am by no means certain of. But I also can't imagine what other mods would be required by this episode other that those needed to allow for filming the ship at a particular angle.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> If you are suggesting that at some point after filming The Cage, the various port side windows were painted over and/or filled in (along with the inboard starboard nacelle trench) and the port side protuberance was hacked off and smoothed over, then no, you are not making sense.


OK, fair question. 

From my memory, neither nacelle had trenches or they were more shallow, detailed with paint. Trench was deepened/detailed during the lighting modifications. There were no windows, only paint or decals. Port side sensor support, that's still one of my questions. I could easily see it being hacked off as part of the cutting up the port side to install the lights. 

If my memory on all that is wrong (aside from my speculation that the port side sensor support was there in the Pilot build) then, well, I'm wrong.


----------



## RSN

The port "clamp" NEVER existed as you can see by this picture I took of the Enterprise when she was first displayed at the Air and Space Museum. There would have been no reason to remove it to install the lighting and they for sure would not have patched the hull to perfection if they had "hacked" it off. 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> What WAS the modification made for the shooting of 'Tribbles'? I can't see anything new or different.


Explanation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbJuWnuu1s


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> The port "clamp" NEVER existed as you can see by this picture I took of the Enterprise when she was first displayed at the Air and Space Museum. There would have been no reason to remove it to install the lighting and they for sure would not have patched the hull to perfection if they had "hacked" it off.
> 
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!


All due respect, I can't take any post restoration (yes even for the first display) photograph as proof of 'never'. That's the point of our discussion, isn't it? Questioning? 

Why would they hack it off? I dunno. To get at the screws mounting the neck? To get better access to the interior as they chopped and carved their way thru the wood? Why clean it up? Professionalism, maybe? No need to access that specific area? 

All I'm saying is, question. In absence of photographic proof, a 360 of the newly finished Pilot miniature, why are we assuming that "because of this event later, it was always so". 

There's no need to explode, we're discussing. It's OK.


----------



## alensatemybuick

SteveR said:


> Explanation here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbJuWnuu1s



Thanks for that link, SteveR, had not seen that (odd coincidence as well that it was just posted yesterday?!). I went back and looked at some old threads here and on trekbbs, and found a post by David Shaw that shows the painted starboard side "faux trench" on the 2nd pilot version. So it was there already. BUT I was right at least that the modifications were required because of that famous shot of the E approaching K7 (even if that may already have been a "known known") . And I suppose it is still possible that that is when the grille was added (an "unknown" known?). 

I also recall David also explaining once that during the 1974 restoration, the simulated painted trench was painted over, and the grill was also lost, resulting in a lack of detail on the inner starboard nacelle. No need to go by memory or speculate, there are photos of the big E from that era that clearly show this.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> All due respect, I can't take any post restoration (yes even for the first display) photograph as proof of 'never'. That's the point of our discussion, isn't it? Questioning?
> 
> Why would they hack it off? I dunno. To get at the screws mounting the neck? To get better access to the interior as they chopped and carved their way thru the wood? Why clean it up? Professionalism, maybe? No need to access that specific area?
> 
> All I'm saying is, question. In absence of photographic proof, a 360 of the newly finished Pilot miniature, why are we assuming that "because of this event later, it was always so".
> 
> There's no need to explode, we're discussing. It's OK.


Steve, it took this post of yours to clinch it, but I think I finally figured it out...you are a troll (I can be a little slow on the uptake sometimes).


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Steve, it took this post of yours to clinch it, but I think I finally figured it out...you are a troll (I can be a little slow on the uptake sometimes).


What?! No! Honest, I'm not.


----------



## modelmaker 2001

Steve H

Here are some photos showing that the port side of the secondary hull did not have the boxy object that is located on the underside and starboard side of the secondary hull. All of the photos were taken before any "restoration" work was done on the 11 foot Enterprise.


----------



## SteveR

Never mind!


----------



## RSN

Steve H said:


> All due respect, I can't take any post restoration (yes even for the first display) photograph as proof of 'never'. That's the point of our discussion, isn't it? Questioning?
> 
> Why would they hack it off? I dunno. To get at the screws mounting the neck? To get better access to the interior as they chopped and carved their way thru the wood? Why clean it up? Professionalism, maybe? No need to access that specific area?
> 
> All I'm saying is, question. In absence of photographic proof, a 360 of the newly finished Pilot miniature, why are we assuming that "because of this event later, it was always so".
> 
> There's no need to explode, we're discussing. It's OK.


It was never there, deal with it. I am sure if they could, the builders would have let you know 50 years ago WHY the left it off, but apparently it was not that important to them.


----------



## Steve H

modelmaker 2001 said:


> Steve H
> 
> Here are some photos showing that the port side of the secondary hull did not have the boxy object that is located on the underside and starboard side of the secondary hull. All of the photos were taken before any "restoration" work was done on the 11 foot Enterprise.


Never, ever seen anything like that. So I must stand corrected! 

But oh man, that stuff is even more dire than I thought. Then I imagined. 

Wasn't there a trench gouged into the engineering hull? Was that sealed up after the cutting and drilling? I don't see how you install windows and bulbs...well, wait. They could have pulled nails and removed hull skin, huh? 

geeze. 

BTW, shoutout to Lou for his capture of the lecture. Lots of stuff going on there.


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks for that link, SteveR, had not seen that (odd coincidence as well that it was just posted yesterday?!). I went back and looked at some old threads here and on trekbbs, and found a post by David Shaw that shows the painted starboard side "faux trench" on the 2nd pilot version. So it was there already. BUT I was right at least that the modifications were required because of that famous shot of the E approaching K7 (even if that may already have been a "known known") . And I suppose it is still possible that that is when the grille was added (an "unknown" known?).
> 
> I also recall David also explaining once that during the 1974 restoration, the simulated painted trench was painted over, and the grill was also lost, resulting in a lack of detail on the inner starboard nacelle. No need to go by memory or speculate, there are photos of the big E from that era that clearly show this.


If my memory is correct on something I read many years ago, the wires for the starboard engine lights had to be rerouted down the outside of the support strut to achieve the shot seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles". You can also see the wires sticking out on the port side of the dorsal and down around the secondary hull. A lot of effort went into this great shot.


----------



## aurora fan

Thank you for starting an interesting topic for us regular guys . I'll be watching closely


----------



## charonjr

Silly thought: wouldn't it be interesting if the port side clamp(?) wasn't meant to be part of the ship design?


----------



## Proper2

RSN said:


> If my memory is correct on something I read many years ago, the wires for the starboard engine lights had to be rerouted down the outside of the support strut to achieve the shot seen in "The Trouble with Tribbles". You can also see the wires sticking out on the port side of the dorsal and down around the secondary hull. A lot of effort went into this great shot.


You have got to respect the sheer mental and physical effort and hands-on ingenuity that was once married with the film camera to produce thrilling special effects. A lost art that will never be again. All the artists now are computer software geeks with never a callus or a sweaty brow.


----------



## Steve H

charonjr said:


> Silly thought: wouldn't it be interesting if the port side clamp(?) wasn't meant to be part of the ship design?


As in an intentional asymmetrical feature? It's not unknown in some of Matt Jefferies other work, see the 'ring ship' StarShip design. 

Interesting thought.


----------



## alensatemybuick

charonjr said:


> Silly thought: wouldn't it be interesting if the port side clamp(?) wasn't meant to be part of the ship design?


Very silly, since the 33 inch model (that came first) has the port side "clamp", as do the original construction plans published in Richard Datin's biography, which were drawn by Matt Jefferies himself and depict the port side of the ship. 

Those plans also depict the little known third nacelle that extended at a 90 degree angle out the port side and was thus not visible onscreen. As those "in the know" know, it was removed from the 11 foot model and discarded in 1991 by Ed Moriarty, who is on record as saying that he never liked it anyway.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

charonjr said:


> Silly thought: wouldn't it be interesting if the port side clamp(?) wasn't meant to be part of the ship design?


Interesting thought, but unfortunately probably not true, as on Jefferies' own drawings the "clamp" is shown on both sides - curiously enough, he also depicts the AMT-style B/C deck...


----------



## jgoldsack

I think the clamp comment was more meant as sarcasm than actual reality.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Just read an interesting tibdit on page 45 of the Gary Kerr authored article in my recently purchased copy of volume 26 of "Sci Fi and Fantasy Modelling"; seems that subsequent to the April 7 memo from Gene Roddenbery discussed earlier in this thread, *"the shop only made a minor modification (to the nacelles), the addition of metal grills to the inboard nacelle trench of just the port side nacelle*(parenthetical text mine).

So I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the metal grille seen on the inboard Starboard trench was likely added at the time that the specific "Trouble with Tribbles" FX shot of the big E approaching K7 was filmed.


----------



## alensatemybuick

By the way, here is a great site that includes a lot of interesting images of the big E that were previously hosted on William McCullars' IDIC page:

http://www.new-gallery-of-art.com/trek/idic/index.html

It shows original filming studio photos and pictures of the 11 foot model following the first three restorations. Plus pics of other ship miniatures.

I find the left most thumbnail image below of the 11 foot model at the time of delivery to the NASM especially interesting, as it shows it from behind. I've a seen higher resolution version of the right most thumbnail before. But sadly, checking the IDIC page on the "wayback machine" turns up a broken image link to the other photo (with the following caption:"In the photo below, the Enterprise's wiring for its internal lighting can be seen dangling from the left side of the miniature. For this reason, the left side of the ship was never shown on television").


----------



## jheilman

alensatemybuick said:


> By the way, here is a great site that includes a lot of interesting images of the big E that were previously hosted on William McCullars' IDIC page:
> 
> http://www.new-gallery-of-art.com/trek/idic/index.html


Hey, really old pics of my 3D Enterprise are on there too.


----------



## modelmaker 2001

Matt Jeffries' overall designs for the Enterprise always had 3 "clamps" (or "sensor boxes") mounted port, starboard, and ventral. It was never intended for the "real" Enterprise to only have the starboard and ventral clamps or boxes. See the 33 inch model and his drawings for the writer's bible.


----------



## Proper2

modelmaker 2001 said:


> Matt Jeffries' overall designs for the Enterprise always had 3 "clamps" (or "sensor boxes") mounted port, starboard, and ventral. It was never intended for the "real" Enterprise to only have the starboard and ventral clamps or boxes. See the 33 inch model and his drawings for the writer's bible.


Yes, I think that makes sense, and I think that has now been established.


----------



## seaQuest

alensatemybuick said:


> As those "in the know" know, it was removed from the 11 foot model and discarded in 1991 by Ed Moriarty, who is on record as saying that he never liked it anyway.


Ed Miarecki (pronounced MY-ah-RECK-ee). I've known the guy for 36 years. You think MY ego is huge? His is the size of Boston's "Big Dig" project. He got some work building miniatures for STTNG (most notably the Cardassian cruiser). I don't know if he used that experience to land the 1991 restoration job or not. 
The E wasn't the only restoration he screwed up. He did a half-arsed restoration of Grant McCune's model of the Battlestar Galactica (TOS) for collector Gary Canavo. He didn't even bother to acquire original kit bits that were lost over the years when Universal moved the model around between Hollywood and Orlando. Dale Long put a team together to restore the Galactica to her original glory, as well as the Cylon Basestar (which needed ALL the fiber optics replaced when an unthinking stagehand turned the rheostat up all the way during on-set filming of "The Hand Of God" in March of 79, despite being told explicitly NOT to turn it up).

One of the great things about that restoration is that photos were taken of other SF miniatures in Gary's collection, and the 6-foot F-18 I built for Independence Day (my first modelmaking gig in L.A.) is part of his collection and has never needed to be restored.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Gee, I'm not positive but it sounds like you don't like the guy. Thanks for the spelling lesson. But I guess you missed the emoticon I used to indicate that I was parodying those who seem to never tire of bashing him (even if they can't always spell his name right).


----------



## alensatemybuick

seaQuest said:


> You think MY ego is huge?


Actually I don't know you, never heard of you or saw you post here before. But then I'm new here, so I hope I can be excused for that. From your post, I am prepared to agree that you have a huge ego. Also, could you possibly drop any more names in a single post? Please know my tone in entirely tongue in cheek. But being new, I must have forgotten to sign the anti-Miarecki pledge that is an apparent prerequisite for posting here.


----------



## SteveR

Owen E Oulton said:


> Interesting thought, but unfortunately probably not true, as on Jefferies' own drawings the "clamp" is shown on both sides - curiously enough, he also depicts the AMT-style B/C deck...


Forgive me if I missed any irony ... but those are Franz Joseph images, no?


----------



## alensatemybuick

SteveR said:


> Forgive me if I missed any irony ... but those are Franz Joseph images, no?


Aren'they in fact the blueprinte drawn by Matt Jefferies and published in "The Making of Star Trek? Regardless, there is nothing "original" about them.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

SteveR said:


> Forgive me if I missed any irony ... but those are Franz Joseph images, no?


Nope. Matt Jefferies images from TMOST, as posted on the Cygnus-X1 site.


----------



## seaQuest

I'll say this about Eddie. He did do a damn fine job restoring Princess Ardala's Flagship Draconia from Buck Rogers for a certain Boston-area SF film memorabilia collector whose name I won't mention again.

Well, I'll mention him again to put things in context since you're a noob. Gary Canavo is a very wealthy individual who buys up any and every science fiction filming miniature he can lay his hands on. If he finds out you have something he wants, you may as well take his offer because he'll acquire it sooner or later, will you or nil you. If the Enterprise didn't belong to the Smithsonian, I guarantee he'd have it never to be seen by the public again.


----------



## alensatemybuick

You must mean Gary Cannavo (pronounced Can-NAV-oh).


----------



## SteveR

alensatemybuick said:


> Aren'they in fact the blueprints drawn by Matt Jefferies and published in "The Making of Star Trek?


Ah! That's where I saw them! 

Never mind ...


----------



## seaQuest

alensatemybuick said:


> You must mean Gary Cannavo (pronounced Can-NAV-oh).


Yeah, that's him. The guy with the face.


----------



## charonjr

About the port side clamp, yes, I was kidding! Though, having an asymmetrical design can be very interesting. I love the comment about the port side third nacelle! Oh well. Almost believed it, LOL!


----------



## ClubTepes

Shaw said:


> *- and -*​
> 
> The suggestion to start this thread wasn't exactly becoming either, but if you guys don't appreciate the info or don't want me to share... I won't. It takes time and effort to put this together, no need to waste it on those who would rather I didn't.


I never said that the info wasn't appreciated.

But your tone came across as I said.


----------



## Kit

seaQuest said:


> Yeah, that's him. The guy with the face.


AKA DJ Gary C.


----------



## Shaw

ClubTepes said:


> I never said that the info wasn't appreciated.
> 
> But your tone came across as I said.


Well, your tone has come across as unappreciative... and nothing you've posted has changed that.

I got plenty of stuff to share, but there isn't any point in me wasting an effort if you and *scotthm* are going to make this an unpleasant experience. When you guys decide to change your tune, I'll be happy to chime in again.

I'll check back later to see if you guys think it is worth it.


----------



## starseeker

Shaw: David, there's a wonderful tool here - the "ignore list". I haven't got many people on my ignore list but it makes HT so much easier at times. Most of the time? Access it through My Settings, I think. Trust me, you'll like it.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## John P

I wish there was a "like" button!


----------



## scotthm

---------------


----------



## Steve H

Shaw, that's some amazing work there. It answers most of the questions I've had (and some I've poorly articulated), but I do wonder about one thing. 

This is not trolling or poking the bear. I'm not sure about that 'hanging from a single wire was the original intent' thing. Are you SURE that was the idea, and not that's just what was done for the 'first display' of the model at NA&S? It doesn't seem stable or logical for filming purposes.

Looking at your drawings and the published X-Ray, that hole on the port side sure looks more like a place to mount a pipe stand. I know and can see it was repurposed as a through-point for wiring later. The X-Ray is incomplete to the bottom of the engineering hull so I can't see any fixture there, it's obvious there has to be SOMETHING for the as-used pipe stand. 

I just don't know. It's hard to for me 'backdate' to before the lighting install in my head. I think that's the thing, it looks like your drawings are accounting for what the 11' model has going on now, which is of course not what was going on then during the pilot. 

Visual aids help!


----------



## alensatemybuick

Great information, David. Seems pretty clear from your animation that the pennant WAS painted on the seco. hull. News to this noob! Per the differently cropped photo below, it unquestionably included on the port nacelle as well.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> This is not trolling or poking the bear. I'm not sure about that 'hanging from a single wire was the original intent' thing. Are you SURE that was the idea, and not that's just what was done for the 'first display' of the model at NA&S? It doesn't seem stable or logical for filming purposes.


Just stop, already. Took about 1 minute to find this pic using a google image search.


----------



## Shaw

Steve H said:


> ...
> 
> Visual aids help!


Does this help?








Also, the hole cut in the side was designed to fit the transformer mounted there like this one... and didn't exist before the lighting was added.

Here is the thing about research... you can't have things the way you want them. If you set yourself to a fixed idea, then you will find reasons to dismiss the evidence before you. Grasping at any possibility to not give up a preconception isn't research.


----------



## scotthm

Shaw said:


> And yes, markings were painted on both sides of the 11 foot model. For some reason people don't believe me (specially with the secondary hull), so maybe this will help...


It looks to me more like a decal has been removed.

---------------


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> Does this help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the hole cut in the side was designed to fit the transformer mounted there like this one... and didn't exist before the lighting was added.
> 
> Here is the thing about research... you can't have things the way you want them. If you set yourself to a fixed idea, then you will find reasons to dismiss the evidence before you. Grasping at any possibility to not give up a preconception isn't research.


I get that. I'm kinda terrible on the Google stuff, I really am. That's why I enjoy reading what smarter people than me have found out. It makes me happy to see fact than tales told and retold regardless of objective proof. So now, with my question, there is objective proof brought out in order to show how ignorant I am. I don't know, I've NEVER seen that Enterprise on a wire picture before. Am I the only one, then? The only time I've seen it on a wire is hanging at the NA&SM. 

I was under the impression we were on a journey of discovery. It seems some just hate it when someone asks a question. I asked, it's answered, we all learn. Shaw, isn't that the reason for this?


----------



## SteveR

Sure. I'll buy the model-on-a-wire thing before they added lighting.

I'd have used at least _two_ wires to avoid any accidental spinning of the model. But maybe they were able to account for that, or they _wanted_ the thing to spin slowly. 

But ... I'm not so sure about shot number 2. Extend the wire down visually, and it meets the primary hull off-center, slightly starboard of the dorsal. I'd expect the wire to attach to the ship on its centerline. I could be wrong ... or maybe it entered the dorsal partway down. If that were the case, I guess it didn't show up very well in shot #2 in front of the port nacelle.


----------



## alensatemybuick

You are forgetting about the the impulse engine.

*On EDIT*: See you edited your post, SteveR a couple minutes after I posted the above, adding the possibility that the wire entered the dorsal partway down. Yup, as necessitated by the impulse engine jutting out.


----------



## Steve H

Aside, I strongly urge anyone reading this thread to pick up a copy of that book written by Datin's son and daughter, "The Enterprise NCC-1701 and the Model Maker"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1518644880?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

Fascinating story, lots of meaty stuff. Don't expect tons of pictures. It's just one of those kind of books that makes you wish you could sit and talk to the man, now that he's passed away.

Of course, like anything that's basically an oral history with some key documentation, we're left with the occasional question: is a statement true, or a slight blending of truth caused by 40+ years of time passing, or is it just a memory of 'what it should have been' Vs. what something really was. 

Per the authors: (Originally my father stated) "The left side was as detailed as the right when it was first delivered before it was subject to the changes for lighting requested by Gene (Roddenberry)" (pg. 80)

And Chapter 21, discussing the NA&SM acquiring the 11 foot Enterprise and it's display circa 1974-early 90's " (The model was never made to hang which later caused some structural problems to arise)" (pg 139)

Now, this is one of those "was his memory foggy?" moments. Clearly, photographic evidence of the 11 foot miniature 'hanging by a thread' for the 2ed pilot (I assume this is so. the clapper seems to say '1-23-65' but it must be some light bounce on the surface and it's really 7/23/65 as that is actually when shooting was underway) so what's the story? Maybe, just maybe the ship was build for a pipe stand and Anderson modified it for that suspension without Datin knowing it? 

does that count as research?


----------



## SteveR

alensatemybuick said:


> You are forgetting about the the impulse engine.


I had considered it. Did it really stick out that far aft? Or ... was it structurally sound enough to support the ship?


----------



## Trek Ace

If you don't mind my chiming in...

Shaw is absolutely right about his observation of the port side, and the model hung by wire for the first pilot. There were thinner, I guess you would call them "stabilizing" wires, added to keep the model true while shot.

Here is a shot of the model showing the port side during production of the 2nd pilot. Despite the grain, you can easily see the pennant on the engineering hull, as well as the missing "clamp". If you look closely, you can see the wires for the lighting.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Grainy or not, what a remarkable image! Never saw that one before. Sure would love to see more like that one.


----------



## SteveR

Trek Ace said:


> ... and the model hung by wire for the first pilot. There were thinner, I guess you would call them "stabilizing" wires, added to keep the model true while shot.


That sounds reasonable. Still not sure about the _apparently_ off-center wire in shot 2. I'll let it go.


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> That sounds reasonable. Still not sure about the _apparently_ off-center wire in shot 2. I'll let it go.


Well, why? Is it possible that off-set wire was what supplied power to those early lights? Or just maybe some odd optical illusion makes it seem out of true? 

We question and discuss!


----------



## scotthm

SteveR said:


> ... I'm not so sure about shot number 2. Extend the wire down visually, and it meets the primary hull off-center, slightly starboard of the dorsal. I'd expect the wire to attach to the ship on its centerline. I could be wrong ... or *maybe it entered the dorsal partway down*.


Which is exactly what the x-ray image in this post shows.

---------------


----------



## SteveR

scotthm said:


> Which is exactly what the x-ray image in this post shows.
> 
> ---------------


You've convinced me: the wire clearly attaches to an eye at the bottom of the secondary hull. Thanks for pointing that out! :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek

Trek Ace said:


> If you don't mind my chiming in...
> 
> Shaw is absolutely right about his observation of the port side, and the model hung by wire for the first pilot. There were thinner, I guess you would call them "stabilizing" wires, added to keep the model true while shot.
> 
> Here is a shot of the model showing the port side during production of the 2nd pilot. Despite the grain, you can easily see the pennant on the engineering hull, as well as the missing "clamp". If you look closely, you can see the wires for the lighting.


One can clearly see a Starfleet ncc number on the out side of the nacelle as well as the inner detailing on the opposite nacelle.


----------



## Steve H

I gotta tell you, for its small size, this Datin book is just one surprise after another. 

According to his memories, the 11 foot Enterprise was shot 'stop motion' style. One frame at a time. All lights turned on or off MANUALLY, so, the idea of 'blink rate' consistency may be problematical if not moot. 

He stated that when the Enterprise was on display at the high school in 1972 they had problems with the 'dome lights effects' needing constant fiddling with, this was due to overheating the plexiglas dome by the lights being constantly on. Dantin says it wasn't designed to be on like that, hence the difficulties. This makes sense, thermal expansion and all, incandescent bulb heating, and so on. (paraphrased from pages 82-83)

Well ain't that just a kick in the head? And here I thought it was done the usual way, slight overcranking to smooth out motion but otherwise 'conventional' filming.


----------



## ClubTepes

Shaw said:


> Well, your tone has come across as unappreciative... and nothing you've posted has changed that.
> 
> I got plenty of stuff to share, but there isn't any point in me wasting an effort if you and *scotthm* are going to make this an unpleasant experience. When you guys decide to change your tune, I'll be happy to chime in again.
> 
> I'll check back later to see if you guys think it is worth it.


Not at all. As you've included me saying in the quote.
Any info is always appreciated.


----------



## jheilman

Steve H said:


> According to his memories, the 11 foot Enterprise was shot 'stop motion' style. One frame at a time. All lights turned on or off MANUALLY, so, the idea of 'blink rate' consistency may be problematical if not moot.


As others have said, Mr. Datin's memory wasn't always completely accurate. Trek Ace can probably attest to the validity of the stop-motion style of shooting. It doesn't make sense to me especially considering the dome lights.


----------



## Proper2

jheilman said:


> As others have said, Mr. Datin's memory wasn't always completely accurate. Trek Ace can probably attest to the validity of the stop-motion style of shooting. It doesn't make sense to me especially considering the dome lights.


I very much doubt that the E motion was stop-motion. They had cameras on tracks. In fact I remember reading that in one of the books I've read.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> I very much doubt that the E motion was stop-motion. They had cameras on tracks. In fact I remember reading that in one of the books I've read.


OTOH cameras on tracks (which is common, you want an absolutely smooth truck-in and truck-out) are exactly what you would need shooting stop-motion (or any other kind of shooting that requires precision).

As I've said, it's hard to tell when something is real and something is 'off' because of 50-some years have passed. I believe the statement that the lights on the 11 foot model weren't designed to stay on for any long period. I believe heat buildup from the bulbs was a concern. I believe blink rates may have been a manual operation. 

I know other shows shot spaceship effects in stop motion. It's obvious in some of the episodes of Men Into Space, I've seen a couple in Twilight Zone (Outer Limits, I've noticed, used a LOT of stock shots from Men Into Space as well as sets and costumes. How convenient!  )

I don't think it's impossible they shot something with the 11 foot model in a stop motion way. It's such an odd detail for Datin to hit on, you know? But again it may well have been a confusion with some other work done at Anderson. Maybe The Invaders?


----------



## Bwain no more

I also recall hearing that the Enterprise was filmed using stop-motion photography. A quick skim through Mark Cushman's "These Are the Voyages: Season One" and I came across a quote from Howard Anderson Jr: "We had no motion control for the track, We [used] stop-motion[photography], one frame at a time." Checking the footnote for the quote, I found that it came from a 1996 "Cinefantastique" retrospective on Trek, so it WAS a statement made thirty years after the fact, but it DOES come from someone directly involved with the shooting of the model. :thumbsup:
Tom


----------



## seaQuest

I didn't think shooting a model frame-by-frame with a track-mounted camera was possible until the invention of the Dykstraflex camera.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> I didn't think shooting a model frame-by-frame with a track-mounted camera was possible until the invention of the Dykstraflex camera.


Well, of course it was. It was just very time consuming and required precise notes and all that stuff. The Dykstraflex just speeded up the tedious aspects, automated the shoot as well as making moves repeatable.


----------



## Bwain no more

W/O checking two or three more references, I believe Linwood Dunn used track mounted cameras as far back as "King Kong" ( IIRC, some of the sequence where Kong was wrecking the elevated train featured a POV camera animated down the model train tracks). But to achieve these sequences required HUNDREDS of still photographs testing lighting, focus, exposure etc, and even then if a light bulb blew (or even dropped in intensity) dozens of hours of work would have to be scrapped. This comes from Orville Gardner, primarily a model maker on Kong, but also responsible for ALOT of the test shots, many of which he kept in his collection and reprinted later. I think Dykstra was the first to tie a computer into recording all the myriad bits of data so that IDENTICAL camera passes could be achieved, rather than requiring all of that hands-on (and PAINSTAKING) effort AND, oftentimes LUCK. I think Dunn had passed away before the '96 "Cinefantastique" article, and I do not remember any other interviews with him about "Trek"; he IS mentioned in Cushman's book as "the only other optical house to film the (sic) 12 foot model" after the folks at Anderson fell DESPARATELY behind on their delivery dates.
Tom


----------



## alensatemybuick

Trek Ace's posting an image of the port side of the ship in its WNMHGF configuration inspired me to scour the net and other sources for another photo depicting the ship's port side. Finally found one of the ship in it's series configuration. I am not sure when this was taken, but I suspect it was prior to the modifications made for TTWT. At first, I wondered if it depicted the ship as delivered to NASM in 1974, but I noticed the starboard side nacelle cap appears to still be in place (tough to be 100% sure).

The starboard side inner nacelle detail and strut "solar panels" appear to be absent. Also, interestingly, it appears to me that there is some paint overspray that partially obscures the port side nacelle pennant and registry (which appears to be the pilot font). If I were to guess, the ship was repainted at some point after the photo Trek Ace posted, and little care was taken to preserve the port side paint detailing. That would also explain why there is no longer any paint detail to simulate the inner starboard nacelle trench and why the pennant on the port side seco. hull disappeared (with remnants that showed in the animation David Shaw posted).

I would be very curious to know if this seeming overspray effect on the port nacelle paintwork will be replicated in the current NASM restoration or if they will go for a "clean" application of pennant and registry.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Trek Ace's posting an image of the port side of the ship in its WNMHGF configuration inspired me to scour the net and other sources for another photo depicting the ship's port side. Finally found one of the ship in it's series configuration. I am not sure when this was taken, but I suspect it was prior to the modifications made for TTWT. The starboard side inner nacelle detail and strut "solar panels" appear to be absent. Also, interestingly, it appears to me that there is some paint overspray that partially obscures the port side nacelle pennant and registry (which appears to be the pilot font). If I were to guess, the ship was repainted at some point after the photo Trek Ace posted, and little care was taken to preserve the port side paint detailing. That would also explain why there is no longer any paint detail to simulate the inner starboard nacelle trench and why the pennant on the port side seco. hull disappeared (with remnants that showed in the animation David Shaw posted).
> 
> I would be very curious to know if this seeming overspray effect on the port nacelle paintwork will be replicated in the current NASM restoration or if they will go for a "clean" application of pennant and registry.


Even as I would desire the display to show the 'working' Enterprise, man, THAT just looks nasty. I mean, DANGEROUS as well as unseemly. 

It makes me wonder if that pic is actually from the '72 high school loan. You'd think there would be at least some gaffer's tape neatening up the wiring, huh? But that can't be as I think on it, it doesn't have the 'Trouble with Tribbles' minor modifications visible.


----------



## alensatemybuick

The camera Linwood Dunne used to film the Enterprise at least was a Mitchell NC Standard #257 35mm. From what I have read, it could film at various frames per second, and could even be configured to shoot stop motion. But I don't see how any effect shot depicting the nacelle lighting in action could have been filmed in stop motion. 

Enterprise Nacelle Rotation Study on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3lsYBGBc10


----------



## John P

^That's a very good point. The nacelle dome effects were clearly a live-action thing. No way the ship could be stop-motioned and have them come out properly.


----------



## Proper2

John P said:


> ^That's a very good point. The nacelle dome effects were clearly a live-action thing. No way the ship could be stop-motioned and have them come out properly.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## Trek Ace

Steve H said:


> Even as I would desire the display to show the 'working' Enterprise, man, THAT just looks nasty. I mean, DANGEROUS as well as unseemly.
> 
> It makes me wonder if that pic is actually from the '72 high school loan. You'd think there would be at least some gaffer's tape neatening up the wiring, huh? But that can't be as I think on it, it doesn't have the 'Trouble with Tribbles' minor modifications visible.


That picture is of the shooting stage. You can clearly see the shuttlecraft hangar behind it.

Stop-motion photography was only used in the pilots, and then only for the 11-foot model. You guys are correct in your conclusion that the series version was shot live. Live shooting of the models was also necessary (in the pilots as well, if the ship was to appear to be moving fast, or passing by close to the camera, in order to have natural motion blur. Otherwise, the sharp, static images resulting from stop-motion would cause strobing and ruin the effect.

Stop-motion was used both for control and for holding focus, as it allowed for longer exposure times per frame and better depth of field as a result. For the "live" shots, it was necessary to use a lot more light in order to get the proper exposure with a smaller aperture that would allow for more depth of field.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Trek Ace said:


> That picture is of the shooting stage. You can clearly see the shuttlecraft hangar behind it.


Duh, why didn't I see that? Remarkable!


----------



## John P

The hangar was HUGE!


----------



## MartyS

Two thoughts about why those 3 details were not completed on the port side of the model: 

One: They knew that it would have lighting installed in the future and left those parts off for easier access to the inside. If they didn't think the model was going to be changed then in doesn't really make sense to build a model with limited filming angles.

Two: They left those parts off so that side of the model could be filmed as a slightly different federation ship? And that got messed up when they had to put the wiring on for the lights.

And a third just occurred that maybe they knew the size of the studio where the model would be filmed and knew there wasn't enough room for a pan around the model, so building one side was all they needed and saved half a days work and money.


----------



## Steve H

MartyS said:


> Two thoughts about why those 3 details were not completed on the port side of the model:
> 
> One: They knew that it would have lighting installed in the future and left those parts off for easier access to the inside. If they didn't think the model was going to be changed then in doesn't really make sense to build a model with limited filming angles.
> 
> Two: They left those parts off so that side of the model could be filmed as a slightly different federation ship? And that got messed up when they had to put the wiring on for the lights.
> 
> And a third just occurred that maybe they knew the size of the studio where the model would be filmed and knew there wasn't enough room for a pan around the model, so building one side was all they needed and saved half a days work and money.


I thank you for stating thought #1. It's been stated several places that Roddenberry was asked if he wanted lights (when the 11 foot miniature was being planned) and he said no, so the model was build without any 'upgrade' ability, then comes the second pilot and Roddenberry said he wanted lights after all.

Which means as-built there's no REASON to remove the sensor ring part to access anything, which means leaving off the left side ring clamp part doesn't make anything easier in terms of removing said part to gain said access.


----------



## Proper2

MartyS said:


> ...maybe they knew the size of the studio where the model would be filmed and knew there wasn't enough room for a pan around the model, so building one side was all they needed and saved half a days work and money.


That seems the most likely scenario to me. Considering the size of the model and the fact that it's fully symmetrical, and the way they filmed motion in those days, I think they figured panning circles around the thing never needed to happen.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

plus remember, for the cost of a little time and a reversed decal, they could fake the port side by flipping the film. no need to build that side


----------



## alensatemybuick

Lou Dalmaso said:


> plus remember, for the cost of a little time and a reversed decal, they could fake the port side by flipping the film.


Right. And yet they never did, at least not after the 11 foot model was modified to its series configuration.

Related to the discussion, The following site has a great breakdown of individual shots of the models and how they were composited into the effects shots used for every episode:

http://www.trekplace.com/tosfxcatalog.html

Anyone who watched the show keenly knows how they re-used shots as much as possible. I recall reading that the Galileo miniature for example was only filmed on a single occasion. Time and money were always tight.


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Right. And yet they never did, at least not after the 11 foot model was modified to its series configuration.
> 
> Related to the discussion, The following site has a great breakdown of individual shots of the models and how they were composited into the effects shots used for every episode:
> 
> http://www.trekplace.com/tosfxcatalog.html
> 
> Anyone who watched the show keenly knows how they re-used shots as much as possible. I recall reading that the Galileo miniature for example was only filmed on a single occasion. Time and money were always tight.


Before you say "Never", I suggest you watch "Dagger of the Mind" with the original effects in it. There is a shot of the port side, with non-mirrored numbers on the engine. The reverse side decals were used for this shot. If memory serves, there is also a shot in "Mirror, Mirror" where the port decals were also used for the right to left move of the Enterprise in orbit.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Not the regular series version. Per the link from my last post, the shot used in DOTM was a shot of the second pilot version of the 11 footer which was not used in WNMHGB). "Mirror, Mirror" also used a shot of the model from the second pilot that was previously not used. 

I also have my doubts that the reverse lettering was realized with decals. The font is the pilot version, with distinct 1s and 7s. I think they were likely painted. The decal sheets that have turned up have the regular series font. In the Datin biography, he seemed to doubt that the reverse decals he had printed by Airmark were ever used. Based on some text from the April 7th 1966 Roddenberry memo reprinted in the Datin biography, I suspect they weren't printed till after that date.


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Not the regular series version. Per the link from my last post, the shot used in DOTM was a shot of the second pilot version of the 11 footer which was not used in WNMHGB). "Mirror, Mirror" also used a shot of the model from the second pilot that was previously not used.
> 
> I also have my doubts that the reverse lettering was realized with decals. The font is the pilot version, with distinct 1s and 7s. I think they were likely painted. The decal sheets that have turned up have the regular series font.


Do you really think they would paint, then repaint, then repaint back, when using decals is the more logical solution?!! Thanks for the shots proving me right!!!


----------



## Steve H

And turning it all around, for Alens to be right, the left side of the engineering hull would have to have the sensor ring clamp/support/whatever in place...

Check and mate, I think?


----------



## Proper2

RSN said:


> Do you really think they would paint, then repaint, then repaint back, when using decals is the more logical solution?!! Thanks for the shots proving me right!!!


Yes, I do. Actually, painting is not a big deal. All you need is a reverse template and a little spray paint. Probably just as quick if not quicker when decals weren't handy.


----------



## alensatemybuick

You are not right, RSN, though it is clear that you desperately wanted to prove me wrong. What I said earlier in this thread (post 110) was the reverse decals were not used "*at least not after the 11 foot model was modified to its series configuration*."

Yes, I have expressed some doubt that the decals were used for the reversed WNMHGF shots. but rather than base that on wild-*ss conjecture, I have stated the reasoning behind my thought process . I will be happy to be proven wrong if it means I have learned something in the process.

On page 22 of that other thread (i.e. Gary's), you seemed "bothered" that I posted the link to the NASM video showing the metal supports, as though I posted that for your own personal information and yours alone. If you enjoy being a d-bag, go right ahead, won't stop me from posting here or there.

Finally, what is it the deal with needing to quote the immediately preceding post, no matter how long it is, or how many attached photos there are? That's one reason we are up to page 8 here (and counting).


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> You are not right, RSN, though it is clear that you desperately wanted to prove me wrong. What I said earlier in this thread (post 110) was the reverse decals were not used "*at least not after the 11 foot model was modified to its series configuration*."
> 
> Yes, I have expressed some doubt that the decals were used for the reversed WNMHGF shots. but rather than base that on wild-*ss conjecture, I have stated the reasoning behind my thought process . I will be happy to be proven wrong if it means I have learned something in the process.
> 
> On page 22 of that other thread (i.e. Gary's), you seemed "bothered" that I posted the link to the NASM video showing the metal supports, as though I posted that for your own personal information and yours alone. If you enjoy being a d-bag, go right ahead, won't stop me from posting here or there.
> 
> Finally, what is it the deal with needing to quote the immediately preceding post, no matter how long it is, or how many attached photos there are? That's one reason we are up to page 8 here (and counting).


I hope when you can prove what you want to be the truth, your life will be vastly improved. Good luck, wear something bright and stay low. :thumbsup:


----------



## alensatemybuick

Actually, I am a scientist. Thus I believe that theories cannot be proven, only confirmed or disproved. That applies to my belief that the reverse lettering used in "Mirror Mirror" and "DOTM" were painted, and that you are a gigantic, blubbering d-bag.


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Actually, I am a scientist. Thus I believe that theories cannot be proven, only confirmed or disproved. That applies to my belief that the reverse lettering used in "Mirror Mirror" and "DOTM" were painted, and that you are a gigantic, blubbering d-bag.


:thumbsup:


----------



## alensatemybuick

Proper2 said:


> Actually, painting is not a big deal. All you need is a reverse template and a little spray paint. Probably just as quick if not quicker when decals weren't handy.


Would they have even needed a reverse template, or simply to flip over the one they had (assuming that is what they used)?


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Would they have even needed a reverse template, or simply to flip over the one they had (assuming that is what they used)?


Because if a template were simply "flipped", the "N" would be at the aft of the engine and the "1" would be at the front.


----------



## alensatemybuick

RSN said:


> Because if a template were simply "flipped", the "N" would be at the aft of the engine and the "1" would be at the front.


Not when applied to the starboard nacelle.



Steve H said:


> And turning it all around, for Alens to be right, the left side of the engineering hull would have to have the sensor ring clamp/support/whatever in place...
> 
> Check and mate, I think?


Not even check. We are talking about a reversed image of the starboard side of the ship (with reverse registry lettering) being used to depict the port side of the ship.


----------



## RSN

Sure!


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Would they have even needed a reverse template, or simply to flip over the one they had (assuming that is what they used)?


There is zero evidence that templates or stencils were used in applying the lettering and numbers on the Enterprise. Interpreting Datin's comments, all that was done by hand until they made decals. 

And I have to say, those were EXPENSIVE decals by our standards today. 

The closest thing to a template was when Datin cut out and used the upper saucer blueprint to paint the name and number on the 33" model. 

Datin's memo from Roddenberry regarding the 'upgrade' for series (lighting, nacelle dome lighting, markings and all that) makes a reference to decals INSTEAD of hand painting and making 'flopped' versions for doing reverse angle shots.


----------



## MartyS

Some people around here need to listen to the theme song for MST3K....

I do wonder how they did the reverse lettering on the second pilot version of the model? What grey paint would cover the black letters and not have them show up under bright light? So did they sand off the black letters and repaint? They only did it once so it's not that much work, but probably enough to get them thinking about using a different method (not knowing it would never be needed again).

They did mirror the film for some effects with the production model, but what ended up on screen didn't show any registry numbers (or at least not close enough to read them). You have to think when they got the call that there were going to be shots of the port side that they put the reverse decals on just in case, so I'd guess they were there on the model for those shots.

Edit: I was only thinking about the nacelle numbers there, the obvious use of the reverse decals on the underside of the saucer would be the tilted up flying towards the screen effect, that was the production model mirrored with proper looking numbers.


----------



## Steve H

Well, one piece of the puzzle might be Datin's own words in which time and time again makes statements about not wanting to damage the paint, wanting to make alterations as carefully as possible so as to not have to repaint and overall (reading between the lines) not wanting to paint that giant beast of a model again. 

Much is made of painting the model with lacquer paint. I suppose it's possible the lettering may have been painted on in something else that, with some thinner, could be wiped away but that's just crass speculation and doesn't seem supported by existing evidence.


----------



## Trekkriffic

I could see using an enamel based paint over a lacquer base to paint the letters. No idea if they would have used masking tape or created some kind of a frisket to paint them though. Lacquer would cure quickly and allow any enamel paint that got under the tape/frisket to be wiped away easily without damaging the underlying lacquer layer. Lacquer also dries very hard so would be more durable than enamel although it can be more brittle if banged on.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> And I have to say, those were EXPENSIVE decals by our standards today.


They sure were...


----------



## RSN

Or, perhaps easily removable press down letters and numbers that would not mess up the paint job?!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## alensatemybuick

Steve H said:


> There is zero evidence that templates or stencils were used in applying the lettering and numbers on the Enterprise. Interpreting Datin's comments, all that was done by hand until they made decals.


Just took another look at Datin's bio; on page 59 it states "Originally, the letting "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC 1701" was hand *masked* on, and painted, no decals were used" (bold emphasis mine).

Of course, on the same page it states "Decals were later used on the eleven-foot Enterprise beginning with the second season". But then it has been already pointed out that there are some timeline errors in the book Datin's daughter misunderstood or got wrong, such as confusing the ship's appearance in WNMHGB with how the ship appeared throughout the first season.

I think we can put the matter to rest now.


----------



## RSN

Could be her recollection was "Second Season" rather then "Second Pilot".


----------



## alensatemybuick

Nah, she states more than once that the spinning nacelle lights were added for the second season. There are scattered references throughout the book (such as in the photo descriptions for the original wooden nacelle caps) suggesting the WNMHGBF version was used until the end of the first season. Mistakes happen; William McCullars got the timeline right in his "Communicator" articles published in 2001 after he interviewed Mr. Datin.


----------



## jheilman

alensatemybuick said:


> They sure were...


OK, context here. Is that yours and where did it come from? I know a less complete sheet was auctioned over a decade ago by Craig Thompson. He was instrumental in getting the Enterprise loaned to his school for their large space display prior to it going to the NASM.


----------



## dcarty

alensatemybuick said:


> They sure were...



Innnnnteresting...so are you the winner of last Septembers eBay auction? I don't want the keys to your Ferrari; I want the decals to your Enterprise lol


----------



## alensatemybuick

That's right; I even cut out and used a couple of the decals to make my Round2 model more "authentic".


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

David, in the Nov. 1964 enterprise plans you posted above, it states:



> "these plans had a real world scale of 1" = 14.5'. the call out numbers shown are inches at that scale".


I have trouble understanding that; 1837 inches = about 153 feet. What would you say the intention was with those "frame numbers" in terms of the length of the secondary hull, and why do you think the frame numbers were applied to the revised secondary hull design?


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## starseeker

Amazing research and love of subject here, Shaw. It's a lot of fun to read. 
As for the unreliability of using the memories of people who actually built these things, if it's permissible to mention Lost in Space in a Star Trek thread, Bill Creber who designed the Jupiter 2 and other props for the show and Voyage and such was interviewed starting back in the '80s regarding details of the props and filming, and I have to say, looking back on what we now know from the blueprints, props, and records of the time, he got almost everything wrong. Which led to decades of "experts" quoting the same wrong information until it became "fact". 
Neil Armstrong was interviewed for a book on the history of the X-15 rocket plane and he refused to provide anything but general personal impressions, quite rightly saying that memory was the worst possible source of history, full of confabulation and confusion and error. 
Seeing the actual history that you're reconstructing, that the Smithsonian project is reconstructing, is a pleasure. Will everything we believed for the last 20-50 years be binned? Maybe not all of it but an awful lot of it.
Very exciting time, for an Enterprise fan. Thanks again for sharing all of this! Can't tell you how many folders I have in my model references with "Shaw" in the filename. Someday I'll actually do something with all of this, too! Altho' that might just be me channeling a modelling equivalent of Woody Allen's father in Love and Death, with his dreams for his piece of land...
Edit: Link for those who don't know Woody Allen movies by heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOzqP9Dt9E


----------



## scotthm

Shaw said:


> First, the model was never designed to remain assembled for any length of time. You assembled the model to film it, and then disassembled it for storage until it was needed again.


I think this is one of the most significant things to keep in mind about this model.

---------------


----------



## alensatemybuick

Shaw said:


> Well, if we're looking at the October 1964 secondary hull, Jefferies listed it as having a length of 217' and diameter of 52'. He also listed the dorsal pylon as having a width of 10'. I'd guess that the 1837 was where that back edge was below the hangar deck...


I have speculated that the 1837 number as applied to the model is a holdover from an originally conceived 540 foot length of the entire ship (per Magen and others), and a corresponding 194 foot length of the secondary hull (the ratio 540'/194' corresponds to the ratio of 33.75"/12.125" for the "33 inch" model). The extra 41 feet (194-153) could represent the ~*21%* of the secondary hull (sans deflector) that extends past the frame markings in either direction on the filming models. I don't have exact measurements to confirm that percentage, based it on some tracing of the borrowed schematic below and "back of the envelope" calculation. Just one noob's guess...


----------



## Steve H

Shaw, you make a good case but I'm still having a mental hiccup on one aspect, and I seek your thoughts. I'm going to try and phrase this in the most clear way possible. 

I had not considered that the 11 foot model was THAT far behind construction. When you say "shooting the pilot was finished" I make the assumption you refer in shorthand to "live action filming on the stages" had completed, and effects and optical and other post-production was churning away. Do I have that right? 

I understand the point of the boxes on the front and back of the nacelles. These are 'plant-on' pieces and the missing ones can be added when the show goes to series. Do we agree on that? Remember, as-built, the 11 foot model was LIKELY intended to be shot either side in series, no need for complicated trucking x-axis rotation, just setting it up on the stand for the port or starboard shot as needed. So, those missing boxes, that saves some time for its limited used in the pilot. 

Now my sticking point, that darn left side sensor ring clamp/support whatever. The difference to my eyes is the built parts look integral to the engineering hull skin. They look crafted as part of the construction, not plant-on parts.

My thing has been, when the left side was being lofted from the plans and wood being cut to lay out, I can't see how it saved time to NOT build that feature, since right then, right there, it would take no more time to cut as the rest of the hull skin.

But, if that IS a plant-on carved part, then yes, I see that leaving it off might have been a manhour saving. 

My key thought is that the sensor ring parts are a different element in the construction phase than the boxes on the nacelles. But maybe not. That's one of the construction questions. 

Naturally all this was moot due to the re-working of the model for extended lighting. 

A different factor that strikes me, it's easy to assume 'a team' building the 11 foot model, but I have the distinct impression that it was the work of one man, just as Datin built the 33" model, and the shuttle hanger. I'm sure there were likely different people drawing the vac-form plastic but all the carving shaping cutting nailing gluing seems to be a one-man job. Wow. That's impressive.

Fox, being a union shop likely had a number of people working the models. It was an effects DEPARTMENT after all.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Pretty sure the entire secondary hull, after being built like a barrel, was turned and smoothed on a lathe prior to the cut out below the hangar deck. I assume that is why the curvature in the lower seco hull in Jefferies idealized ship was not realized. It also means the protuberances would have had to have been added on relatively late in the construction process.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

Well I sure don't want to keep you from important work, so I'll hold off on further questions, esp. about frame markings. Thanks for the fascinating info.; it clearly does as someone else so nicely put it, "come from a love of subject".


----------



## MartyS

Thinking about the idea that the model was not to be stored in one peice, but broken down between shooting, could the port side box have been left off so the deflector assembly could be removed?


----------



## Steve H

Shaw, that's an impressive and interesting scratch build you've got going, and it's exciting to see.

But it has little to do with the construction of the 11 foot model. You've built up a solid resin (or other material) part cast as halves. the 11 Foot was built from frames and planks and a core (hexagonal in shape originally IIRC).

Now on your own plans you show these planks. You also indicate grooves in the planks for the Sensor Ring clamps/supports to rest in, implying they're planted on parts. OK.

I'm not sure if you were able to actually able to view the 11 foot model in person close enough to verify this or not, you may have assumed it had to be this way from a logic standpoint and your personal building experience. If that (possible) speculation holds true than yes indeed, that's a bunch of man-hours to chip out that groove and mount the support thingie. 

It could, also, be built in, designed as a unit nailed to the frames/core, or screwed in place. the trick is to remember there was no need to access the interior by removing the sensor ring until the 2ed pilot original lighting install. If it WAS an entire chunk of wood (or several pieces knocked together) that 'plugged in' that space of the hull, that takes even more work and hence, again, now it makes sense to omit the left side if the model was late.


----------



## Shaw

Steve H said:


> Shaw...


Wow, all these points you raise have been answered more than a few times already... what would be the point in attempting to answer them again?

At this point I think we've enough evidence here to suggest cognitive dissonance on your part. You have no real interest in answers, you are looking for a way to support your preconceived notions.

And now I'm feeling a bit foolish for extending you the benefit of the doubt in trying to help you. I won't make that mistake again.

The only person who can answer your questions is you... as your answers are the only ones you are willing to hear. Best of luck with that.

:wave:


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> Now my sticking point, that darn left side sensor ring clamp/support whatever. The difference to my eyes is the built parts look integral to the engineering hull skin. They look crafted as part of the construction, not plant-on parts.


It's amazing what a good modeler can do with a little wood, glue, filler and paint.

---------------


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> Wow, all these points you raise have been answered more than a few times already... what would be the point in attempting to answer them again?
> 
> At this point I think we've enough evidence here to suggest cognitive dissonance on your part. You have no real interest in answers, you are looking for a way to support your preconceived notions.
> 
> And now I'm feeling a bit foolish for extending you the benefit of the doubt in trying to help you. I won't make that mistake again.
> 
> The only person who can answer your questions is you... as your answers are the only ones you are willing to hear. Best of luck with that.
> 
> :wave:


Man, what? I appreciate what you're saying here, and using your own plans I've come to agree that leaving the left side without that part was indeed a decision made during initial construction due to the very lateness of the 11 foot model being finished. 

If this is because I hurt feelings because I suggested that your excellent resin study model is not a 1-1 example due to materials and construction methods, not much I can do about that. 

I'm fascinated by the process in making the models of Star Trek. I'm envious of the old-world skill involved in the construction. I'm curious about choices made. I don't know how to learn without asking questions and picking at things that stick out until it's nailed down.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Shaw said:


> Wow, all these points you raise have been answered more than a few times already... what would be the point in attempting to answer them again?
> 
> At this point I think we've enough evidence here to suggest cognitive dissonance on your part. You have no real interest in answers, you are looking for a way to support your preconceived notions.
> 
> And now I'm feeling a bit foolish for extending you the benefit of the doubt in trying to help you. I won't make that mistake again.
> 
> The only person who can answer your questions is you... as your answers are the only ones you are willing to hear. Best of luck with that.
> 
> :wave:


I am reminded of the saying, "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig". I called this guy out as a troll a few pages back, and I stand by it. By malicious intent or not, the end result is "truth decay". Last I checked, the title of this thread was not: "The TOS Enterprise discussion thread...for rebutting endless nonsense". IGNORE.


----------



## MartyS

Does anyone know how the original sensor dish was attached?
If it was bolted into the wood that would give them a reason to have that part of the model removable even before the lighting was considered. I'm sure they would have considered all that weight on a small nut and bolt would require tightening up once in a while.


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> If this is because I hurt feelings because I suggested that your excellent resin study model is not a 1-1 example due to materials and construction methods, not much I can do about that.


I think that Shaw was trying to show that when we construct a model from scratch (as opposed to assembling a kit), we build _basic_ shapes first: shapes that can be made simply. It's a lot simpler to loft a cylinder-like object and add box-like shapes to it than to loft an object with those clamp-like things already incorporated into the profile. 

One axiom of fabricating, if i understand it, is this: rather than make one complex shape, first make simpler shapes then assemble them.


----------



## RSN

Shaw, I have said it before, but I will say it again, I love you research and your scratch building techniques! A1!!!


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> I think that Shaw was trying to show that when we construct a model from scratch (as opposed to assembling a kit), we build _basic_ shapes first: shapes that can be made simply. It's a lot simpler to loft a cylinder-like object and add box-like shapes to it than to loft an object with those clamp-like things already incorporated into the profile.
> 
> One axiom of fabricating, if i understand it, is this: rather than make one complex shape, first make simpler shapes then assemble them.


I grok.It may have been helpful to have spelled that out a bit, as I'm as dumb and unskilled as a box of rocks.  

It's the way I've built any number of props, it's the way I built a stupid little spaceship for someone's planetarium show back in the '70s (Speed Stick container, S:1999 Hawk cockpit with the 'window cuts' filled in, blah blah), I've always had issues making full scratch so my usual technique is find something close and work it down. 

I get it. And Shaw's study models are things of beauty.


----------



## seaQuest

Just my opinion, sitting at a Jack In The Box in Van Nuys with nothing better to do. Shaw is beginning to sound like David Merriman, with the exception being that even though Merriman has built replicas of the Enterprise, he loathes the ship. 

And hey, lighten up on Steve H., I've known him for 35 years, his mind compartmentalizes information. He wants to know how the Big E was built IN MINUTE DETAIL to fully understand the construction process. Cut him some slack. Some people's minds don't process information according to YOUR personal criteria.

My 2nd wife is dyslexic, I know all about brains that function on a different level.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Just my opinion, sitting at a Jack In The Box in Van Nuys with nothing better to do. Shaw is beginning to sound like David Merriman, with the exception being that even though Merriman has built replicas of the Enterprise, he loathes the ship.
> 
> And hey, lighten up on Steve H., I've known him for 35 years, his mind compartmentalizes information. He wants to know how the Big E was built IN MINUTE DETAIL to fully understand the construction process. Cut him some slack. Some people's minds don't process information according to YOUR personal criteria.
> 
> My 2nd wife is dyslexic, I know all about brains that function on a different level.


Ha! Thanks for that. It'll reach those that it'll reach. 

I'm not one to over-analyze process (funny, given how OCD I've become over the past few years) bit I did learn something about myself long ago. Maybe it's instructive. 

Most people, they find the 'How' of a thing, that's all they need. "How does that work? OK, next". Most things I understand the 'How' perfectly well. But sometimes, some times the 'How' just makes no sense. There's something missing, some context or step or operation. Those things make me CRAZY because I hate hate hate puzzles. What I learned long ago that if I could learn the 'Why' of a thing, the 'How' just somehow magically falls into place. Why does that do that? What is the reason for this? 

It's the only way I can stumble thru math. I am terrible at math, my mind just can't wrap around it. Thank God for calculators. 

When the 'Why' makes sense, the 'How' follows. 

I think the missing piece for me, if Shaw's timeline is correct, was that the 11 foot Enterprise was SUPER late and missed all original effects filming, only being used for Roddenberry's beauty zoom-in shot during pick-up filming during post-production. See, it's all well and good to shout "Something wasn't done to save time!!" but that additional context makes all the pieces fit together and go into their nice little compartmentalize boxes.


----------



## Shaw

seaQuest said:


> Shaw is beginning to sound like David Merriman...


----------



## Y3a

I really miss Jack in the Box tacos.


----------



## Steve H

Y3a said:


> I really miss Jack in the Box tacos.


*pfff*

I miss Burger Chef.


----------



## gene1138

I posted this over in Gary K's thread which I had actually meant to post here...

I think some are missing the seemingly irrational decisions by corporate bean counters to save money. I'm sure one of them got the bright idea that, "Hey if we just film this from one side we can save $500 by not finishing the other side." They're always looking to save money. 

Look at the movie Deadpool. The makers had to slash $7 million at the last minute. Seems odd for a movie that's made $700 million. But at that time it wasn't a sure thing that it would be box office success. And we're probably sure Star Trek was never thought of as ever being successful. And at the time it really wasn't in the eyes of studio execs.


----------



## Steve H

gene1138 said:


> I posted this over in Gary K's thread which I had actually meant to post here...
> 
> I think some are missing the seemingly irrational decisions by corporate bean counters to save money. I'm sure one of them got the bright idea that, "Hey if we just film this from one side we can save $500 by not finishing the other side." They're always looking to save money.
> 
> Look at the movie Deadpool. The makers had to slash $7 million at the last minute. Seems odd for a movie that's made $700 million. But at that time it wasn't a sure thing that it would be box office success. And we're probably sure Star Trek was never thought of as ever being successful. And at the time it really wasn't in the eyes of studio execs.


I'm not disagreeing in principle, but I do think it's important to try and keep examples as close to 'apples to apples' as possible. The situation with Deadpool was the studio getting cold feet at the last minute and wanting to save what is in effect, some exec's salary, a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then suddenly the movie is a huge box office hit which makes the beancounters seem like geniuses. Oh, Hollywood and your shady accounting. 

A closer example may well be Star Trek the Motion Picture, with its budget that expanded like V'Ger's energy cloud. Dumping Anderson and bringing in Dykstra, starting from square one and STILL delivering the effects on time (with a carved-in-stone opening date) was a HUGE money drain. 

But that's not what was facing people back then. I guess Roddenberry kept fiddling around and fiddling around until it wasn't practical to hold back effects shooting for the 11 foot model. That's the time pressure in play. As far as I know about shooting a pilot they probably could have gotten a little postpone time depending on when NBC was reviewing pilots for the upcoming season. Even then it looks like they were riding that deadline pretty hard. 

Maybe the core problem goes back to a habit Roddenberry developed as the series progressed. He did NOT want to be the guy who said no. That was for other people, who could then be the 'bad guy'. Roddenberry wanted to be the friend of everyone, the pal, the good guy. "Yes I like that" "Yes you can do that" "Yes I agree, you should have more lines" but telling everyone yes except when it involves a necessary, unavoidable binary choice ("Pick one!" "they both have good and bad things" "Doesn't matter! PICK") just doesn't get a TV show (movie, whatever) made. 

Gene **** could make the calls. Justman and Solow could make the calls. Roddenberry was over in Wardrobe doing 'Gene things'


----------



## seaQuest

Or he was doing Diana Muldaur.
Steve, I think you meant Robert Abel and Associates replaced by Douglas Trumbull. Trumbull brought Dykstra in to split the work because the entire yearvof 1979 was "crunch time."


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> A closer example may well be Star Trek the Motion Picture, with its budget that expanded like V'Ger's energy cloud. Dumping Anderson and bringing in Dykstra, starting from square one and STILL delivering the effects on time (with a carved-in-stone opening date) was a HUGE money drain.


The effects weren't delivered on time, they just went with what they had.

---------------


----------



## nautilusnut

> The effects weren't delivered on time, they just went with what they had.


It's my understanding that they had nothing usable from Robert Able's effects group when he was fired and Trumbull was brought in. Trumbull brought in Dykstra and the effects group worked round the clock to produce the effects for the opening date. "Crop it, flop it, or drop it" was the mantra to save an effects shot. It's true things were not completed and the film was released to theaters as a "rough cut." That said, what they did in the time they had was quite remarkable.


----------



## StarshipClass

I remember noticing the missing port side clamp some years ago when looking at the scene from the show in this video that shows the front of the secondary hull:

https://youtu.be/d3lsYBGBc10

EDIT: The point being, I was thinking when I noticed it that they must have been really hurting on keeping the model in repair. I never realized that the clamp was never put on there in the first. I just figured that it had fallen off and they hadn't bothered to replace it since that side was never seen.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Or he was doing Diana Muldaur.
> Steve, I think you meant Robert Abel and Associates replaced by Douglas Trumbull. Trumbull brought Dykstra in to split the work because the entire yearvof 1979 was "crunch time."


Ya. That thing you said there. 

Altho for some reason my mind wants to make a connection between Anderson and ST:TMP. Maybe I'm thinking of the 'Phase II' planning? I dunno. 

Lots on my mind lately. Lost a stepsister, gonna lose a step-uncle soon. 2016 sucks.


----------



## alensatemybuick

S'funny, I posted that same YouTube link a couple pages back (to argue against the regular series FX being filmed in stop motion) and did not notice that. I hate that this thread has turned into a kind of "reductio ad absurdum" discussion about the port side dooflingy. But...it is interesting that probably very few people noticed its absence in that particular FX shot or others that may have shown it (or rather not shown it). Not in 50 years. Truth be told, I didn't even notice it the first two times I saw the ship in person at NASM. First time I was 10, so perfectly excusable. But second time (in 1986) I was 20, and should have noticed. Saw it again in the early 2000s and did spot it. Probably scratched my head and thought about it for all of a few minutes back then. Later, after reading about the history of the model did it make perfect sense to me why it was left off. Y'all know that some of the ribs on the reactor cooling loops / intercoolers on the back of the nacelles, on the sides that didn't show, were also left off, right? How much effort do you think THAT saved? Or how about not lighting the port side rear saucer "skylight" and just painting it white instead? It's pretty obvious onscreen in that shot of the ship approaching K7 when you know what to look for, but again probably was noticed by very few watching on TV. Fact is, wasted effort was avoided not just when the ship was first built, but during the various revisions made thereafter. It is said that Datin sold his services on the revisions "on the cheap" because of penny-pinching on the part of Roddenberry et al. He said something in the 1996 Cinefantastique interview to the effect that he did so because he "believed in what Roddenberry was trying to accomplish". He put his all into making the ship look great where it actually counted.


----------



## RSN

Steve H said:


> Ya. That thing you said there.
> 
> Altho for some reason my mind wants to make a connection between Anderson and ST:TMP. Maybe I'm thinking of the 'Phase II' planning? I dunno.
> 
> Lots on my mind lately. Lost a stepsister, gonna lose a step-uncle soon. 2016 sucks.


Brick Price Movie Miniatures was building the new Enterprise and Magicam, Inc was going to film the effect for ST: Phase II.


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> Y'all know that some of the ribs on the reactor cooling loops / intercoolers on the back of the nacelles, on the sides that didn't show, were also left off, right?


Yep, I knew. :thumbsup:


_Click to enlarge_​


----------



## alensatemybuick

I know YOU knew....that image I saw for the first time a couple years back is how *I* know!


----------



## actias

Now we "ALL" know!:thumbsup:


----------



## alensatemybuick

Because of people like Shaw who share their knowledge with people like us who aren't as observant (or maybe I should just speak for myself). Not to butter him up, but as is the case with other experts in their field, the truth of what they say cannot be denied by anyone willing to think critically. It just "clicks".

ON EDIT: I reminded myself of a line uttered by R. Lee Ermey's (sheriff) character in the movie "Switchback": "Once you have heard the truth, everything else is just cheap whiskey".


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> Brick Price Movie Miniatures was building the new Enterprise and Magicam, Inc was going to film the effect for ST: Phase II.


Right, right, all clicking back in. Thank you. 

Just to check, Magicam was Trumbull, right? The gimmick was shooting model sets with a snorkel cam and supering actors on it, per the War of the Worlds promo?

Good lord why is this getting all muxed up in my head all of a sudden?


----------



## Steve H

actias said:


> Now we "ALL" know!:thumbsup:


I gotta do it. I just gotta. 

And knowing is half the battle! 

I'm a'gonna be over here doing the walk of shame...


----------



## John P

Shaw said:


> Yep, I knew. :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> _Click to enlarge_​


:headsmack: I did not know that.


----------



## swhite228

Steve H said:


> Right, right, all clicking back in. Thank you.
> 
> Just to check, Magicam was Trumbull, right? The gimmick was shooting model sets with a snorkel cam and supering actors on it, per the War of the Worlds promo?
> 
> Good lord why is this getting all muxed up in my head all of a sudden?


No Magicam was Paramount's unit:
Magicam, Inc. was a relatively short-lived visual effects (VFX) company, specialized in building miniatures that was located on North Las Palmas Avenue in Los Angeles (Hollywood), California. The company, headed amongst by Robert C. King, Joe Matza and vice-president Carey Melcher, was a full subsidiary of Paramount Pictures, who created the company to maintain full control over filming models.
For info on Magicam follow link...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Magicam


----------



## Steve H

swhite228 said:


> No Magicam was Paramount's unit:
> Magicam, Inc. was a relatively short-lived visual effects (VFX) company, specialized in building miniatures that was located on North Las Palmas Avenue in Los Angeles (Hollywood), California. The company, headed amongst by Robert C. King, Joe Matza and vice-president Carey Melcher, was a full subsidiary of Paramount Pictures, who created the company to maintain full control over filming models.
> For info on Magicam follow link...
> 
> http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Magicam


Pardon me while I bang my head against my desk for a few minutes... 

cripes. I KNEW most of that. Not names however. At least pat me on the head and tell me I was right about Magicam was the concept of shooting model sets and supering the actors in. 

It's all becoming a giant stew in my head. Trumbull wanted to do the 60 fps movies, I want to call it Showscan but that's probably wrong too. That deal was for...Universal? And never went anywhere. 

Nevermind. I'm gonna sit in the corner for a little and play with my toes, I think I can handle that at least.


----------



## alensatemybuick

^Fleischmann's


----------



## seaQuest

Trumbull wanted Magicam to do the FX for The Starlost. It seems to me the Magicam system was a refinement of Chroma-Key, which is what The Starlost ended up using anyway after Trumbull left the series (along with Harlan Ellison).

IIRC, Magicam built the Refit Enterprise model (which was painted by Paul Olsen) and the drydock.


----------



## irishtrek

I think Magicam built all the studio models for STTMP not just a couple of them.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Trumbull wanted Magicam to do the FX for The Starlost. It seems to me the Magicam system was a refinement of Chroma-Key, which is what The Starlost ended up using anyway after Trumbull left the series (along with Harlan Ellison).
> 
> IIRC, Magicam built the Refit Enterprise model (which was painted by Paul Olsen) and the drydock.


The impression I had, referencing an old Starlog article in my head and the George Pal promo reel for the War of the Worlds TV series (Paramount 4th Network version, not the later one), Magicam was a bit more than just simple chroma-key of a background. It was more akin to today's greenscreen and CGI backgrounds, only Magicam used model sets much like they're done in the current 'Thunderbirds are Go' series (with WETA doing those effects). 

The idea being of course you could shoot any angle you wished same as a full size set but for much cheaper (in theory). The snorkel cam could get right in there. Mind, per the WOTW reel, you have massive potential issues regarding light levels and proper perspective. It didn't look like dramatic lighting (such as Jefferies used, color and shadow, as design elements) would have been easy if at all possible. 

It's funny how it all comes around. Magicam (the process) pretty much vanishes yet exists in spirit in current greenscreen set shoots. CBS helped save Desilu studios in the early '60s yet turns their back on Star Trek, yet now CBS (via Viacom) owns Paramount which means Star Trek. 

Man, life is a damn circle.


----------



## swhite228

Steve H said:


> cripes. I KNEW most of that. Not names however. At least pat me on the head and tell me I was right about Magicam was the concept of shooting model sets and supering the actors in.


Correct...while the process is still used Magicam exist on paper only as a shuttered but still 'ACTIVE DIVISION OF Paramount PICTURES.


Steve H said:


> It's all becoming a giant stew in my head. Trumbull wanted to do the 60 fps movies, I want to call it Showscan but that's probably wrong too. That deal was for...Universal? And never went anywhere.


Close...the movie was Brainstorm and the studio was MGM...the Showscan process is still used today .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan 

Given these are 40+ year old processes that didn't really see that much use your memory isn't as bad as you think.


----------



## Trek Ace

Am I in the right thread?

What does Magicam have to do with the original_ Enterprise_?


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> Am I in the right thread?
> 
> What does Magicam have to do with the original_ Enterprise_?


Nothing about the original 11 foot model of course. It was a digression about various effects houses and such like. 

OTOH it is relevant in the greater context of Star Trek and model effects and history and such like.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Trek Ace said:


> Am I in the right thread?


Been asking myself the same thing just about every time I look here.

So anyway, been doing some work this weekend "acc-u-rizin" my 1/350 scale Round2 (TOS) Enterprise...


----------



## Proper2

Trek Ace said:


> Am I in the right thread?
> 
> What does Magicam have to do with the original_ Enterprise_?


This thread has lost me a few pages back. Don't know what nobody's talkin'bout... so feel like a dunce... :hat:


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> This thread has lost me a few pages back. Don't know what nobody's talkin'bout... so feel like a dunce... :hat:


It's all secret language and coded talk. You should have gotten your decoder ring by now.


----------



## SteveR

The thread went off-topic at post #162 and #163, when it left the TOS Enterprise model.


----------



## gmd3d

What an amazing thread, so many unanswered questions, well Answered.


----------



## Steve H

gmd3d said:


> What an amazing thread, so many unanswered questions, well Answered.


It is, isn't it? It's not the destination, it's the journey, and sometimes the path meanders.


----------



## seaQuest

alensatemybuick said:


> Been asking myself the same thing just about every time I look here.
> 
> So anyway, been doing some work this weekend "acc-u-rizin" my 1/350 scale Round2 (TOS) Enterprise...


I thought the kit was accurate except for the scribed grid lines.


----------



## alensatemybuick

There is one rather direct connection between the original Enterprise and all this talk about Abel and Associates, Magicam and Richard Taylor, which can be seen in the background of the attached photo (reference photo included as well for comparison).


----------



## BWolfe

alensatemybuick said:


> There is one rather direct connection between the original Enterprise and all this talk about Abel and Associates, Magicam and Richard Taylor, which can be seen in the background of the attached photo (reference photo included as well for comparison).


That is probably the last known photograph of the 33 inch Enterprise model. Robert Abel had the model during his company's involvement in the production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but it was never returned to Gene Roddenberry. When Gene Roddenberry asked for the model, Abel claimed to not know the whereabouts of the model.


----------



## MGagen

Judging from the scale of the drawer pulls, surely that is an AMT model, not the "three-footer."

M.


----------



## Steve H

MGagen said:


> Judging from the scale of the drawer pulls, surely that is an AMT model, not the "three-footer."
> 
> M.


I tend to concur but the perspective is wonky, if that desk is wider than a normal steel office desk (like, say, a desk used to view blueprints and plans and such like) that model may be further back than one may think.


----------



## Shaw

That is an 18 inch AMT model at Brick Price's shop... the 33 inch model didn't leave Roddenberry's office until Jefferies, Price and Loos were no longer part of the production (though Price would eventually return to work on props).

Besides the size...









_(18 inch AMT Enterprise inserted for scale)_​
... the 33 inch Enterprise has some very unique curves to her. Here are some comparisons using my second study model as a stand in for the 33 inch Enterprise and some shots of both the Custom Replicas' and Master Replicas' models as a stand in for the 11 foot Enterprise.

_Click images to enlarge_
 
 
 ​
My study model isn't perfect, but it should help illustrate some of the differences.


----------



## Steve H

Assuming your study model is always the lower, yeah, there's a real difference in that topside saucer bulge, that really stands out. the 11 foot (stand-in) looks to have a more subtle taper.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

I actually planned to offer some speculation in my last post about whether is was indeed the 33" model behind the Phase II Enterprise, having doubts about the scale myself based on the fluorescent table lamp to the left in the background. I have read Shaw's timeline for the model going missing, and figured there was little point in my attempting to tell that story when there are others better equipped to do so than me. 

Differences aside, I have wondered though why anyone would have needed to use the 33 incher as a study model when the AMT version was readily available.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

Thanks, David. Great juxtaposition of your lovely Phase II model with the TMP-ified Price model.

I actually went to Planet Hollywood in NYC earlier this year for a drink before seeing George Takei's "Allegiance", but alas the Enterprise no longer flies there. A Klingon ship still does, however.


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> Assuming your study model is always the lower, yeah, there's a real difference in that topside saucer bulge, that really stands out. the 11 foot (stand-in) looks to have a more subtle taper.


The saucer underside profile is also noticeably different. The 33-inch model's saucer is bulkier and flatter on the bottom.


----------



## seaQuest

Deleted as irrelevant.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> The saucer underside profile is also noticeably different. The 33-inch model's saucer is bulkier and flatter on the bottom.


I wondered about that, but the supplied pics didn't give me a good enough view of the saucer underside, so. Good to know my private speculation was accurate.


----------



## alensatemybuick

There is a video associated with Robert Taylor et al's cynical-cash-grab-crowdsourcing attempt to supposedly rebuild the TMP Enterprise I saw last year in which he is interviewing Jim Dow and asks him point blank if Matt Jefferies had *built*(?!) the Phase II enterprise. Dow says no, but then claims not to recall the names of those who did (only that it was no damned good, that he remembers perfectly). Taylor makes no attempt to refresh his memory. I don't believe for a second that neither men don't recall the names. I suppose if I were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, they were "pretending" not to recall Brick Price and Don Loos so as not to besmirch them personally when criticizing their work (as they then go on to do). I have read on the "memory-alpha" wiki that Dow did criticize Loos' work back in a Starlog interview circa 1979, which stirred up some controversy. So maybe he has learned his lesson from that (as an aside, apparently a misreading of the same Dow interview is the reason why for nearly 2 decades, it was Don Loos and not Richard Datin that was often credited in print for building the original series Enterprise). Even if were to give Taylor and Loos the above benefit of the doubt, the video can still be used as a primer to educate people as to the 17 "pantomimes" of lying. Uh...er...um, yeah...so...


----------



## lunadude

Just as a cross reference...

It looks like the John Berkey painting on this teaser poster is the Phase II configuration. Right?


----------



## The_Engineer

Yeah, that's the Phase II Enterprise. I remember that very poster being printed in comic books in the 70's and was a little confused when I saw ST:TMP and the Enterprise design was different.


----------



## SteveR

Thanks, for all the info, Shaw. Good thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## bisc59

Enlightening thread. Thanks Shaw, for sharing.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## seaQuest

Did Mike Minor contribute anything to the Phase II/TMP Enterprise?


----------



## alensatemybuick

The upper illustration shows the earlier bridge, A/B deck and lower sensor dome on the "almost-final" TMP Enterprise. I wonder if, had not been for a faulty AC unit leaking on the filming miniature, that is how it really would have looked for the film... I have read one account of the bridge area being fixed quickly (almost overnight), with no mention of a redesign, and another speculation that this was a moment seized by Andrew Probert to use his own design for the top of the saucer at least.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Did Mike Minor contribute anything to the Phase II/TMP Enterprise?


I know he did work, lots of pre-pro for Phase II, I think some of that carried over to TMP. We lost a great creative person when he passed away, his fan blueprint work set standards.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Steve H

*arrgggh* Yes, McMaster. Thank you Shaw.

ETA: That was just embarrassing. I should not have conflated the two of them. I can't explain why I have memories of Minor in fandom. I thought he was in Geoff Mandell's circle of friends like Doug Drexler. *pffff*


----------



## alensatemybuick

Thanks, David. BTW, that's a pretty popular angle of the Phase II Enterprise Minor painted (and I gather you used as the basis of your own artwork, adapted to be more accurate to your model). Robert McCall even painted a version of the refit Enterprise, the basis of a NASM poster, that was very similar. I think a similar angle of the refit E was even painted by Rick Sternbach in the "Spaceflight Chronology" circa 1980 (can't seem to find my copy to confirm, going on memory there).










*ON EDIT:* Found the Sternbach illustration of the refit E online, but as two separate halves:


----------



## Gregatron

The weird thing about that Sternbach illustration is that it features the specific detailing of the final model, but still includes the extra red pinstriping and alternate secondary hull pennant of the earlier iteration of the model, before the Bridge and lower saucer domes were redesigned.


----------



## Proper2

I thought this was supposed to be the T O S Enterprise thread.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## irishtrek

Any body else notice the shape of the B/C deck on the 3 inch E??


----------



## Phillip1

Shaw,

The information you have posted on this thread is both entertaining and informative. Thanks for taking the time to share it.

Phillip1


----------



## robn1

irishtrek said:


> Any body else notice the shape of the B/C deck on the 3 inch E??


Yeah, fully round. It had to be simplified so it could be turned on a lathe in one piece.


----------



## Richard Baker

robn1 said:


> Yeah, fully round. It had to be simplified so it could be turned on a lathe in one piece.


In the context of 'Catspaw' that would fit find. The Enterprise on the pendent represented the ship to establish the connection- it did not have to be accurate as long as it did that. Kirk might have actually completed the final connection when he saw it and thought "Hey, that's my ship!" allowing Sylvia link the two together.


----------



## Allansfirebird

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks, David. BTW, that's a pretty popular angle of the Phase II Enterprise Minor painted (and I gather you used as the basis of your own artwork, adapted to be more accurate to your model). Robert McCall even painted a version of the refit Enterprise, the basis of a NASM poster, that was very similar. I think a similar angle of the refit E was even painted by Rick Sternbach in the "Spaceflight Chronology" circa 1980 (can't seem to find my copy to confirm, going on memory there).


There's also this version of the painting, updated to include the pre-Trumbull changes to the refit Enterprise.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks, David. BTW, that's a pretty popular angle of the Phase II Enterprise Minor painted (and I gather you used as the basis of your own artwork, adapted to be more accurate to your model). Robert McCall even painted a version of the refit Enterprise, the basis of a NASM poster, that was very similar. I think a similar angle of the refit E was even painted by Rick Sternbach in the "Spaceflight Chronology" circa 1980 (can't seem to find my copy to confirm, going on memory there).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ON EDIT:* Found the Sternbach illustration of the refit E online, but as two separate halves:


It's fascinating that the U.K. edition took that 2-page spread from the American edition and made it their cover. More hilarious they got around the 'bleed' by making the cut at the spine. 

Man that book did NOT age well, did it?


----------



## seaQuest

Richard Baker said:


> In the context of 'Catspaw' that would fit find. The Enterprise on the pendent represented the ship to establish the connection- it did not have to be accurate as long as it did that. Kirk might have actually completed the final connection when he saw it and thought "Hey, that's my ship!" allowing Sylvia link the two together.


In terms of magick, it would be called a "fetish." Kind of the same principle as a voodoo doll.


----------



## irishtrek

Richard Baker said:


> In the context of 'Catspaw' that would fit find. The Enterprise on the pendent represented the ship to establish the connection- it did not have to be accurate as long as it did that. Kirk might have actually completed the final connection when he saw it and thought "Hey, that's my ship!" allowing Sylvia link the two together.


So then does that make it canon??


----------



## Steve H

irishtrek said:


> So then does that make it canon??


Depends on how you mean 'canon'. 

A fetish, as in the 'voodoo doll', is rarely an exact representation of the person (or in this case, object). Rather, it's mainly a focus, or an identifier- sympathetic magic (or magick if you prefer) at work. 

So as a function of 'canon' yes, of course, it was the sympathetic representation of the Enterprise, no different than a crude doll containing Kirk's hair and other things being a representation of Kirk for voodoo purposes. 

'Canon' as that was meant to be a perfect recreation of the Enterprise? O heck no.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Richard Baker said:


> In the context of 'Catspaw' that would fit find. The Enterprise on the pendent represented the ship to establish the connection- it did not have to be accurate as long as it did that. Kirk might have actually completed the final connection when he saw it and thought "Hey, that's my ship!" allowing Sylvia link the two together.


Well, as Shaw said, this model was also used in an effects shot in the Doomsday Machine, even if it may not have been built for that purpose.










I've seem some debate over whether the size of the working prop could be used to figure out the size of the doomsday machine prop (hinging on whether they were filmed together or if the small model was composited into the shot). One would think it were composited, they would not have had to use such a small model (?). As an aside, when Decker takes the Galileo into it, it looks to be nearly the same size as the Enterprise!:freak:


----------



## JGG1701

SteveR said:


> Thanks, for all the info, Shaw. Good thread. :thumbsup:


You mean a *[email protected]^^* GOOD Thread.*:thumbsup:
Love the Enterprise!!!
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Well, as Shaw said, this model was also used in an effects shot in the Doomsday Machine, even if it may not have been built for that purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seem some debate over whether the size of the working prop could be used to figure out the size of the doomsday machine prop (hinging on whether they were filmed together or if the small model was composited into the shot). One would think it were composited, they would not have had to use such a small model (?). As an aside, when Decker takes the Galileo into it, it looks to be nearly the same size as the Enterprise!:freak:



It seems reasonable that the 'working prop' Enterprise was shot with the Doomsday Machine, it would have been faster and cheaper than doing a composite or multiple exposure shot. All it needed to do is visually establish the scene for a brief moment. 

I note that they were wise in staging, hiding the clearly different saucer top (and the eyelet?) with a careful angle. 

Do you think they gave the 'working prop' a quick shot of gray or just hit it with some anti-flair to knock the shine down?


----------



## irishtrek

alensatemybuick said:


> Well, as Shaw said, this model was also used in an effects shot in the Doomsday Machine, even if it may not have been built for that purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seem some debate over whether the size of the working prop could be used to figure out the size of the doomsday machine prop (hinging on whether they were filmed together or if the small model was composited into the shot). One would think it were composited, they would not have had to use such a small model (?). As an aside, when Decker takes the Galileo into it, it looks to be nearly the same size as the Enterprise!:freak:


The 2 images show 2 different sizes for the doomsday machine. Not a very accurate representation of the size for the 2 ships.


----------



## alensatemybuick

irishtrek said:


> The 2 images show 2 different sizes for the doomsday machine. Not a very accurate representation of the size for the 2 ships.


Seriously? You can't compensate for the relative difference in size of the planet killer of 2 fold or less between those images? If not, why not try standing back about 6 feet from your monitor when viewing the lower photo.

The Galileo is supposed to be less than 1/30th the length of the Enterprise. Clearly the "creators" lost their sense of scale for a moment, this time by an order of magnitude. They did a much better job in the remastered version of this ep.:










And did you really have to re-post those pics for a THIRD time on this page?! Your name isn't Tom, is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sU0vIUSZ4


----------



## Trek Ace

Here is a larger image of the little _Enterprise_ if it is of any use to anyone.


----------



## Carson Dyle

For the record, Richard (not Robert) Taylor's primary contribution the ST:TMP E was the automotive-inspired stylings of the engines. Richard was (and remains) a car nut, and he's the one who felt the engines should convey a subtle "auto" vibe.

EDIT: Just re-read Richard's interview, via the link provided. 

I'm by no means an Enterprise expert, which by definition qualifies me as a non expert. 

That said, I've gotten to know a number of guys who worked on ST:TMP, and one thing they (now) agree on is that Matt Jefferies is primarily responsible for having designed the "refit." Many others contributed, and here's where we often have to rely on memory and well-reasoned conjecture.

Re: The Refit's engines: A couple years ago a retrospective was held in Los Angeles celebrating Robert Abel's FX company. Many of the ST:TMP crew were in attendance (Taylor, Probert, Jim Dow, Ron Gress, etc). I got to be a fly-on-the-wall for a conversation that took place afterwords: re Star Trek. Memories fade with time, as we all know, but one thing in particular the guys agreed upon was Taylor's "automotive" influence upon the engines. 

Has Richard taken too much credit for the E design over time? Perhaps... but I'm convinced he contributed the aforementioned automotive stylings to the engine nacelles.

FINAL EDIT: As others have mentioned, many of the Enterprise illustrations we fans associate with the early days of the Refit's design were originally rendered BASED UPON pre-existing sketches, doodles, and drawings. I know this point has been made, but for the benefit of the original designers it bears repeating.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Seriously? You can't compensate for the relative difference in size of the planet killer of 2 fold or less between those images? If not, why not try standing back about 6 feet from your monitor when viewing the lower photo.
> 
> The Galileo is supposed to be less than 1/30th the length of the Enterprise. Clearly the "creators" lost their sense of scale for a moment, this time by an order of magnitude. They did a much better job in the remastered version of this ep.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And did you really have to re-post those pics for a THIRD time on this page?! Your name isn't Tom, is it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sU0vIUSZ4


While the remastered effect shot may have proper scale, the Shuttlecraft is all but lost against the DDM. Could they have composited the shot back in the '60s so the Shuttlecraft was properly scaled? I'm pretty sure that was possible, but geeze, you're completely forgetting what TV looked like circa mid '60s. They composited the shots so they could be SEEN, regardless if the viewer had a top-line RCA color TV or a 10 year old Magnavox B&W set.

Context, always context.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Carson Dyle said:


> For the record, Richard (not Robert) Taylor's primary contribution the ST:TMP E was the automotive-inspired stylings of the engines.


Oops, somehow I wrote his name wrong, probably because I've had Robert McCall on my mind of late. Yes, I've heard the front of the refit's warp engines compared most often to the grille of a 1940 Ford (that comparison being attributed to Taylor himself). I suppose I can see that. Though I saw someone on TREKBBS compare the overall shape to this locomotive (which I definitely buy, and would be more inclined to say was an inspiration for Jefferies design):


----------



## Carson Dyle

I've always wondered if the inspiration for the ST:TMP Enterprise engines didn't originate with the TOS Klingon Battle Cruiser. Certainly there are similarities.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Delete


----------



## irishtrek

alensatemybuick said:


> Your name isn't Tom, is it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sU0vIUSZ4


No my name is not Tom, but O do have an uncle named Tom Dooley though.:wave:


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> While the remastered effect shot may have proper scale, the Shuttlecraft is all but lost against the DDM. Could they have composited the shot back in the '60s so the Shuttlecraft was properly scaled? I'm pretty sure that was possible, but geeze, you're completely forgetting what TV looked like circa mid '60s. They composited the shots so they could be SEEN, regardless if the viewer had a top-line RCA color TV or a 10 year old Magnavox B&W set.
> 
> Context, always context.


Exactly right.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Pretty sure Allan Asherman called out the ludicrous scale of that same effects shot in his synopsis of the Doomsday Machine ep in The Star Trek Compendium (written pre CGI and HDTV). But you digress.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Pretty sure Allan Asherman called out the ludicrous scale of that same effects shot in his synopsis of the Doomsday Machine ep in The Star Trek Compendium (written pre CGI and HDTV). But you digress.


And that proves what, exactly? That he has an opinion? Shock. I am shocked. I do believe I may swoon to hear of such a thing, sir!


----------



## alensatemybuick

That's right,it's all about you. 

The fact that Asherman pointed out the fact (not opinion) of the scale problem back in the day proves your previous post about old technology was irrelevant. I brought up the scale problem more as an aside, but again as a matter of fact (not opinion). The creators made a mistake. It's no big deal. But I think it's cool that the error was addressed in the remastered FX, which NO CHIT were done 40 years later and could take advantage of new effects and TV technologies.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> That's right,it's all about you.
> 
> The fact that Asherman pointed out the fact (not opinion) of the scale problem back in the day proves your previous post about old technology was irrelevant. I brought up the scale problem more as an aside, but again as a matter of fact (not opinion). The creators made a mistake. It's no big deal. But I think it's cool that the error was addressed in the remastered FX, which NO CHIT were done 40 years later and could take advantage of new effects and TV technologies.


If one takes the implied scale created by the use of the 'working prop' Enterprise Vs. the DDM as canon, then the remastered effect is ALSO 'not right' as by that reckoning, the Shuttlecraft would be so small you couldn't even see it.

Asherman was expressing his opinion. The fact is the shot. It was filmed and approved. It's exactly the same as the conflict between the design of the Shuttlecraft itself and the filmed interior Vs. the practical exterior Vs. the miniature. *It served the purpose of the needs of the moment within the constraints of time and budget and the practical reality of filming a weekly TV series in the mid 1960s. *

Now, yes, of COURSE the shot is off to rational, considered thought. I knew it way way back when I watched it as it aired. Even I, a young boy, knew "awww, that's goofy! It should be smaller!" but you know what? I would bet Dollars to donuts the AVERAGE television viewer didn't think about that at all. 

We have the luxury NOW to pick it apart, to mock the use of an 'off the shelf' toy (nee model kit) 'burned with a cigarette lighter' to represent a horribly crippled StarShip, to call out that the shot of a Shuttlecraft doing a suicide drive into the mouth of a planet killing device is disproportional. Why, we can even mock William Windom's acting as arch and over the top if we wish! 

*pfft* You even seem to forget that Asherman himself didn't call out the shot as a 'mistake', he acknowledged it as 'artistic license' same as I've said. (Star Trek Compendium, first printing 1986, pg. 77)

context, context, always context. 

To return to the discussion of Phase II and TMP, I recall sometime in the 90's (I think 95?) Asherman was listed as being the author of a book on Phase II, a trade paperback by Pocket Books, that never came out and no more was heard of it until the publication of the Reeves-Stevens version in '97. Anybody ever hear any scuttlebutt about what happened? Was it Paramount killed it, or fan politics or dominance games at Pocket or some combination? I know the Reeves-Stevens were the 'official' historians for a time there and so Asherman may have been pushed out, but...anything?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Steve H said:


> *It served the purpose of the needs of the moment within the constraints of time and budget and the practical reality of filming a weekly TV series in the mid 1960s. *


Not to beat a dead horse, but we continue to see examples of this all the time in contemporary movies and TV shows. Actors and/or props posed in such a way as to best tell the story, irrespective of whether or not the composition is "realistic." Thanks to artful storytelling and suspension of disbelief the audience seldom notices. 

That shot of the shuttlecraft always seemed a little dodgy to me, but I give it a pass because it tells the story. I'm sure the producers and FX guys knew they were on thin ice at the time, but given budget and time constraints I doubt they lost much sleep over it.


----------



## Shaw

Steve H said:


> We have the luxury NOW to pick it apart, to mock the use of an 'off the shelf' toy (nee model kit) 'burned with a cigarette lighter' to represent a horribly crippled StarShip...


Who is _mocking_ their use of the AMT model kit? That model is a more valid representation of the Enterprise than, say, the 2011 1/600 Revell kit. Had the production not already had the 33 inch Enterprise on hand, I'm sure that they would have assembled and used the AMT kit's masters as a studio model in the same way that the AMT Klingon masters were used in the third season.

As for the sizes... when the 3 inch Enterprise was filmed with the planet killer, you could see both the top and bottom of it's front in the shot. By comparison, when we see the shuttlecraft, we are only given a view including the top... the bottom is out of frame. This was to help hide the size issues.

Lets return to the AMT kit (_mocked_ by some) for a bit. One of the interesting aspects of the 1966 release is the decals. From what I can tell, these are a direct transfer of reference graphics supplied by Jefferies. I don't think Jefferies intended them to be used directly, but I'm guessing that AMT thought they were good enough.

How can we tell they were drawn by Jefferies? We have a sample to work from...








... which we can compare with the original decal sheet's graphics...








As for the quality of their work with the AMT kit, lets first look at the Constellation...








And given that the 33 inch model was solid wood, they attempted to use another AMT model for distance shots that could be lit...








Oddly I believe that the model only had open windows on one side. That side was seen from the K7 administrator's office window, but the other side of the model was used when filmed with the K7 model...








No matter what anyone thinks, these two models (the AMT Constellation and Enterprise) were used as effects models in the original series, and I think they should be given the same historical considerations as all the others.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Carson Dyle said:


> That shot of the shuttlecraft always seemed a little dodgy to me, but I give it a pass because it tells the story


Yup. When I brought it up (only as an aside no less), I never thought it would be treated like the "rape of the lock". Sure, we accept the 3/4 scale Galileo mockup for example as not too egregious a problem even if, like the Tardis it's bigger on the inside, but I still say that particular effect shot is an "order of magnitude" greater problem with scale. And that's all I was saying. Empirically. As a matter of fact. Without judging. Much!


----------



## Y3a

Since they were telling a story, the technical scale wasn't as much of a consideration as being able to SEE the shuttle craft on your typical 15-17" TV. Hindsight is 20-20.


----------



## alensatemybuick

It's just a g-ddamned TV show, I know. Doesn't mean we can't take a critical look it. Man, this thread is starting to remind me of the "Leave Britney alone" vids of a few years back.


----------



## Richard Baker

null
null


----------



## Steve H

Shaw, my context on deriding the use of the AMT kit was based on the 'popular opinion' in the '70s and '80s, fandom as a whole. That opinion was based mainly on 'glance' impressions, memories and faded syndication prints in circulation at that time. Hence the quotation marks. It's not *my* opinion, it was a statement of the thought of the gestalt of Trek fandom at the time. Time and better source material clearly put the lie to that opinion.


----------



## seaQuest

I have a question. Since accuracy is often brought up in discussions of the E, I'd like to know...back when Polar Lights hired Thomas Sasser to make the patterns for their new line of ST kits, everyone was stoked about finally having accurate kits. When the kits were released, it turned out that they weren't. So...what happened with Thomas Sasser's patterns and why did the kits (especially the 1/350 refit) need so much correction?


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> I have a question. Since accuracy is often brought up in discussions of the E, I'd like to know...back when Polar Lights hired Thomas Sasser to make the patterns for their new line of ST kits, everyone was stoked about finally having accurate kits. When the kits were released, it turned out that they weren't. So...what happened with Thomas Sasser's patterns and why did the kits (especially the 1/350 refit) need so much correction?



That's a good question and I hope there's an actual answer. My speculation is maybe in those days the powers that be weren't as invested in calling the Chinese 'turn-key' manufacturer on bulls**t changes and ensuring that they made what was sent over to them. 

We've seen that even with Gary's obsessive and careful notes and instructions things STILL go wrong. I assume it takes time (which is money) to fix that nonsense. 

I wonder if R2 has considered 'tuning up' the 1/350 Refit.


----------



## Bwain no more

seaQuest said:


> I have a question. Since accuracy is often brought up in discussions of the E, I'd like to know...back when Polar Lights hired Thomas Sasser to make the patterns for their new line of ST kits, everyone was stoked about finally having accurate kits. When the kits were released, it turned out that they weren't. So...what happened with Thomas Sasser's patterns and why did the kits (especially the 1/350 refit) need so much correction?


Speaking from memory here and DIRECT interactions that I had with both Mr. Sasser AND Dave Metzner re; the 1/1000 kits, I am not sure that PATTERNS were even created for those kits, but rather the tooling was done from line drawings. I am not sure if Sasser provided those drawings or not. Almost CERTAINLY he did the art for the decal sheet. One thing I DO know for sure is that the build-ups pictured (at least on the FIRST run of the Enterprise box) were of altered AMT 1/537 kits and those kits WERE constructed, painted and decaled by Mr. Sasser. These DID appear on Polar Lights table at several trade shows and MAY have been presented as, or interpreted to be(sic) "two-ups"; the next time I talk with Dave I will ask him. :wave:
Tom


----------



## John P

On the 350 refit, I'm pretty sure I remember Tom Sasser continually sending corrections back to China when they kept getting things wrong - I guess reinterpreting his drawings to make it easier on themselves when cutting the molds. I recall some frustration on his part. It _has _been quite a while, though... memory fades.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> On the 350 refit, I'm pretty sure I remember Tom Sasser continually sending corrections back to China when they kept getting things wrong - I guess reinterpreting his drawings to make it easier on themselves when cutting the molds. I recall some frustration on his part. It _has _been quite a while, though... memory fades.


This is the thing that always gets me, and maybe there's an aspect to the process I just don't know or understand.

I can understand translation problems. Chinese is a pretty ridged language in some ways, it doesn't have a system to adapt or adopt western words, so if one writes a careful, technical description it's just gonna be a mess to translate.

But drawings, and measurements, with precise numbers, THAT'S SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. It's a picture. Make it look like the picture. How is that hard to understand?

*sigh* And again to be fair, if there are complex shapes or curves that might require sliding molds or being broken down into more parts (and thus costing more money beyond the budgeted amount), OK, that takes some work to figure out but that's what the job IS, right? Not make it WRONG. 

I have thought for some time the errors that appear in these projects might be deliberate on the factory's part. Like maybe there's some fixed number of 'corrections' that are free but over that they have to charge extra and so it's a way to pad the bill and increase profit. But that's probably paranoia on my part. Maybe.


----------



## SteveR

Based on my experience studying the culture ...

There's a thing that us Westerners usually get wrong about dealing with people raised in the Chinese culture: it's how to ask for something without making "no" one of the possible answers. 

For example, if we ask the shop "can you do this by the deadline?" and the truth would be "no," we won't hear "no" for an answer. Instead, we'll hear "yes," or "maybe." Why? Because to the shop, saying "no" to you causes you to lose face, to look bad ... it's like denying your reality, saying "what you want is wrong." It's seen as offensive, and they don't want to offend you. Yeah, it's different.

(There are differences between European customs as well, e.g. the Dutch come across as blunt ("that tie is ugly"), while to them, the polite English come across as insincere ("you might consider changing that tie, old boy").

So ... while IMO it may be better to ask the shop _when_ something can be delivered, some suggest going through an intermediary who can smooth it over and get us closer to what we want to know.

Anyway, that's my impression: that our reps asked if something can be done, the shop said "yes" or "maybe", then something different came out. Or, of course, there's no guarantee that the shop is very good, or honest. (shrug)


----------



## RSN

Steve H said:


> I have thought for some time the errors that appear in these projects might be deliberate on the factory's part. Like maybe there's some fixed number of 'corrections' that are free but over that they have to charge extra and so it's a way to pad the bill and increase profit. But that's probably paranoia on my part. Maybe.


There are no corrections that are "free", from what I have been told by Frank, at Moebius. Any mistakes made on the China end are still paid for by Moebius. That is why no kit is perfect, to make the perfect kit would often times put the price too high on the shelf.


----------



## Proper2

RSN said:


> There are no corrections that are "free", from what I have been told by Frank, at Moebius. Any mistakes made on the China end are still paid for by Moebius. That is why no kit is perfect, to make the perfect kit would often times put the price too high on the shelf.


Really. That just doesn't sound right. If errors are made on the part of the Chinese, why would Moebius be responsible? If that's the case, maybe the lesson for Moebius is make it in the USA, and have better, hands on quality control.


----------



## SteveR

Proper2 said:


> Really. That just doesn't sound right. If errors are made on the part of the Chinese, why would Moebius be responsible? If that's the case, maybe the lesson for Moebius is make it in the USA, and have better, hands on quality control.


It may be that such a "Moebius pays" contract negotiated with a Chinese supplier may still be cheaper than a "supplier pays" contract negotiated with a US supplier. (shrug again)


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Really. That just doesn't sound right. If errors are made on the part of the Chinese, why would Moebius be responsible? If that's the case, maybe the lesson for Moebius is make it in the USA, and have better, hands on quality control.


We've (you, me, others) have suggested this time and again and of course it's not possible for 'reasons'. 

I think of all the issues that inflate the cost of production (paying to correct errors and time involved, shipping time from China, time spent in customs, transit time to warehouse) and can't help but wonder if 'reasons' really aren't as impossible as some people think. 

but, ya know. Not our company, not our problem in the end.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> We've (you, me, others) have suggested this time and again and of course it's not possible for 'reasons'.
> 
> I think of all the issues that inflate the cost of production (paying to correct errors and time involved, shipping time from China, time spent in customs, transit time to warehouse) and can't help but wonder if 'reasons' really aren't as impossible as some people think.
> 
> but, ya know. Not our company, not our problem in the end.


Well, in the end the modeler will buy the final product no matter how flawed it is, so not much incentive for Moebius to get it right.


----------



## RSN

SteveR said:


> It may be that such a "Moebius pays" contract negotiated with a Chinese supplier may still be cheaper than a "supplier pays" contract negotiated with a US supplier. (shrug again)


That is indeed the case, and good luck finding people who can produce the molds and run the products here in any sort of competitive way!! And it is not just Moebius, it is how the Chinese do business, they know they have the advantage in the market right now!!


----------



## RSN

Proper2 said:


> Well, in the end the modeler will buy the final product no matter how flawed it is, so not much incentive for Moebius to get it right.


Would you pay $250 to get Seaview with the proper hull contour? NO, at some point you have to cut your losses and go with it, no one will pay $250 for a Seaview, if the lower hull contour is correct or not!!


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Look, can we lose the side-discussion of Chinese kit contractors? It has absolutely ZERO to do with the original Enterprise shooting model. It's easy to start a new thread - do so. Sheesh, we need a moderator badly.


----------



## Steve H

In the context that the discussion veered to ST:TMP and by proxy SThase II, the discussion went into "hey, how did the 1/350 refit (and I assume by inference and context the 1/1000 TOS E) not attain perfection when an avowed expert was doing the planning back then?" and there were comments about asking the person involved what went wrong. I did not know that the 1/1000 Enterprise was considered 'flawed' so this is of interest to me. I surely did not know they 'cheated' a little bit by showing the '60s AMT kit as a faux '2-up' prototype at shows (and anyone know if Tom had altered/corrected that kit any?).

So, a digression on the turn-key manufacturers ensued and I learned something truly new, that necessary corrections to mistakes have no 'free' period but that everything, every tiny glitch that must be fixed, is added to the bill. THAT knowledge informs the choices made with all kits because as others note, there comes a time when you have to figure is it really a problem or can it be lived with vs. unknown thousands of Dollars more to correct it (and what OTHER flaw might suddenly be introduced by that fix?), you gotta close it out and just make the darn kit. 

I'm learning a lot. I'd like to know how bad the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise is, compared to the AMT kit and of course the 11 foot studio miniature. maybe this triggers that discussion.


----------



## Bwain no more

Steve H said:


> In the context that the discussion veered to ST:TMP and by proxy SThase II, the discussion went into "hey, how did the 1/350 refit (and I assume by inference and context the 1/1000 TOS E) not attain perfection when an avowed expert was doing the planning back then?" and there were comments about asking the person involved what went wrong. I did not know that the 1/1000 Enterprise was considered 'flawed' so this is of interest to me. I surely did not know they 'cheated' a little bit by showing the '60s AMT kit as a faux '2-up' prototype at shows (and anyone know if Tom had altered/corrected that kit any?)


I am PRETTY sure Sasser used items from his own aftermarket product line as well as doing additional corrections to the AMT kits when assembling the displays. And like I said, this came from conversations I had at the time with both Thomas AND Dave Metzner, but it has been close to 15 years , so MAYBE the details are getting hazy, but I AM pretty certain that the tooling was done direct from drawings. I do NOT recall if Gary Kerr had ANY involvement on the 1000th scale TOS (I'm thinking he DID, but not at the level of his work on the 350th version) but perhaps he would be aware of some of this. 
Tom


----------



## Steve H

Bwain no more said:


> I am PRETTY sure Sasser used items from his own aftermarket product line as well as doing additional corrections to the AMT kits when assembling the displays. And like I said, this came from conversations I had at the time with both Thomas AND Dave Metzner, but it has been close to 15 years , so MAYBE the details are getting hazy, but I AM pretty certain that the tooling was done direct from drawings. I do NOT recall if Gary Kerr had ANY involvement on the 1000th scale TOS (I'm thinking he DID, but not at the level of his work on the 350th version) but perhaps he would be aware of some of this.
> Tom


Isn't it amazing how quickly time has passed? Seems like just a short time ago that 1/1000 Enterprise came out but no. 

And I'm not saying there was intent to deceive regarding the use of an improved AMT Enterprise for display at shows and conventions. 

It's not anything that I actually tracked but my memory wants to say Gary K didn't become deeply involved until after R2 came into being and reclaimed Polar Lights, which I *think* was after the 1/350 Refit came out. I accept I'm probably wrong on that.


----------



## Bwain no more

ALOT of companies do the exact same thing because of the nearly impossible timeframes that licensing involves. Personally I refer to these things as "placekeepers" and again depending on how knowledgeable a rep sitting at a table may or may not be, plus the conclusions people jump to seeing a photo online w/o context can be astonishing. 
Tom


----------



## TonyT

There is a lot of very interesting information here in this thread...Thanks for that! Love the TOS Enterprise!


----------



## alensatemybuick

Was looking on the NASM site for photos, and found this interesting piece in their collection, a build-up of the AMT model from some time prior to 1973. Considering the era in which it was made, some of the detailing on the build are quite remarkable to me: 

http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19750603000


Here also is a hyperlink to some very nice pics of the lucite-encased "working model" that is also in their collection:

http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19740483000


----------



## Steve H

Given that back then there was NOTHING in terms of reference material other than what was on TV and the book Making of Star Trek, that's a decent and impressive build.

ETA: On reflection, that statement may be not completely accurate. There was Lincoln Enterprises and their film clip slides. But not everybody was hooked into fandom and knew about Lincoln Enterprises.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Googled Richard Van Treuren, the builder of that model in the Smithsonian collection, and it seems he wrote an article "Adapting Your Own Enterprise Model" which was published in "Trek #5" and MUST have been reprinted in one of the "Best of Trek" anthologies in the early 80s, as I now distinctly recall reading such an article back in the day and only had the anthologies (still have them somewhere, purchased them at my local Walden Books).


----------



## RonH

Look at those rock solid nacelles ! That's the Estes flying Enterprise, not an AMT kit. There are numerous differences like the nacelle domes, the bridge shape, the soft details at the front end of the secondary hull, the uneven edges of the whisper thin vac-formed saucer top, and the out-of-scale decals. I had one but wasn't up to a vac-formed kit at that time. Wish I still had it.


----------



## robn1

Richard G. Van Treuren wrote at least two articles for Trek magazine, one on the making of the filming models and one on building the kit to be more accurate. They were both reprinted in the Best Of Trek paperbacks, and a summarized version was in the Famous Spaceships book.

He suggested using the decals and detail parts from the Estes rocket to improve the AMT. The model here must have been made from both kits, as the Estes saucer had a rounded trough in the underside to accommodate the rocket tube.


----------



## alensatemybuick

RonH said:


> That's the Estes flying Enterprise, not an AMT kit.


Not sure I can agree with you there. If I recall the article Mr. Van Treuren wrote (read it over 30 years ago), he was not afraid to do heavy modifications / sculpting to his models. The NASM site says it was an AMT kit donated in 1973; I suppose they could be wrong on both counts, but the ESTES kit came out in 1975. 1973 would even pre-date the donation of the 11 foot filming model, so it's an odd date (but then again, the same year Jefferies donated the Klingon ship and the lucite encased working model, and the Smithsonian may have appreciated it based on the fact that it was built by someone while serving their country). I did find evidence of an article on building the Enterprise that Mr. Van Treuren wrote in a 1972 issue of a fanzine called "T-Negative".

I Googled a few photos of both the AMT and ESTES kits, in the box and built up, and although I don't have a great eye for subtle details like the contours of the hulls, I just don't think its an ESTES kit (though I've been wrong in this thread before!). An Estes kit would need quite a lot of work to remove the launcher tube. The underside edge of the saucer has been heavily modified to remove the "lip", such that it resembles neither kit. Finally, I don't think the nacelle trenches were as fully realized on the Estes kit compared to the AMT kit.

And for all his talent, I think Mr. Treuren installed his intercoolers / reactor cooling loops backwards...


----------



## Steve H

Good lord, now I'm questioning reality!

Looking at the pics, I am thinking more that there's something really odd going on with that model!

The engineering hull, that sensor ring and the supports... (hush now!  ) look how blended that is there. 

And the nacelles. no taper (was that accurate for the early runs of the kit?) but look at the boxes aft. They hardly stick out and they're 'square' to the tube, without that slight 'ramp' that was necessary to prevent undercut in the mold. Mind, I suppose the gentleman could have filed them square as part of his build. 

(ETA) (OK, looked at other pics and zoomed, I can see the 'ramp' on the nacelle boxes. Never mind  )

The way paint has flaked off the underside of the saucer looks like vac-form plastic flex to me but geeze, that rocket tube trench would have been a king bitch to correct.

AARRGGH BRAIN and BRAIN!


----------



## Bwain no more

I built (and flew) an ESTES kit back in the day and the nacelles were cardboard body tubes w/decals representing the trenches. Intercoolers (IIRC forty some odd years later) came from a sheet of fairly thick precut cardstock with a chunk cut out and you glued dowel rod (or maybe launch lugs?)in where the grilles would be. I'm not sure WHY this was done rather than supplying decals. Raised rectangles on the aft end of the nacelles also came from this cardstock sheet.
Tom


----------



## alensatemybuick

Well, I can't seem to figure out what I did with my "Best of Trek" books, but just found a scan of the "Adapting Your Own Enterprise Model" written by Van Treuren himself in 1976, and he clearly indicates he was working with the AMT kits. He explains how to modify the kit for a "pilot version", or how to damage one like the Constellation kit used in TDM. He even addresses the issue of "nacelle sag".

He goes on to point that since AMT kits were used to depict starships in the second season of the original series, there is no reason why a modeler should not be to "assemble and damage the kits in the same way the pros did".


----------



## RonH

There are 3 tells in this picture. The two holes in the bottom of the saucer show the thickness of the vac-formed piece. Second, the three slabs (?) around the front of the sec hull are thinner than the AMT kit. Third, the pylons intersect the nacelles at a different position than the AMT pylons.


----------



## alensatemybuick

RonH said:


> There are 3 tells in this picture. The two holes in the bottom of the saucer show the thickness of the vac-formed piece. Second, the three slabs (?) around the front of the sec hull are thinner than the AMT kit. Third, the pylons intersect the nacelles at a different position than the AMT pylons.


I can only speak to your first "tell" and point out that the flaking paint/filler on the bottom of the saucer are likely due to the fact that the bottom saucer has been heavily sculpted to remove the lip around the edge. I did mention that the builder was not afraid to modify his kits. I'd be curious to know what Shaw thinks. but for now I think I will avoid arguing any further about this. I don't claim to be certain.

*ON EDIT*: I'm going to go ahead and call bullsh*t:

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/ENTERPRISE TOS PAGE.htm


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> I'd be curious to know what Shaw thinks.


It is a modified AMT kit (based on the earlier tooling) and includes the original AMT decals. The features are soft because of the heavy paint.

As for the build itself... it is amazing that someone who took the time to add in so many details still put all the intercoolers on backwards (and yes, even back then I gave my friends grief for doing the exact same thing).

I thought the images of the encased 3 inch model were more interesting. For example, you can tell from those images that the model was encased using a number of stages rather than all at once.



On the subject of Sasser, the three AMT models he modified included replacement resin primary hulls, along with many other additional parts. These were made for the box art and he didn't have the actual kit to work with at that time. And Sasser got a 150% scale proof of the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise kit to check out before the kit went into production. I don't think he got to keep the parts though, and I'm sure he didn't build it to completion (he only did a test assembly of them).

I know Sasser had a ton of notes on corrections for the 1/350 refit kit, but I don't know which elements were finally addressed... mainly because I haven't studied the refit that closely.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Shaw said:


> It is a modified AMT kit (based on the earlier tooling) and includes the original AMT decals.


Well, it's official then. 

Just found my trove of "Best of Trek" Books. There is an excellent history of the TOS Enterprise filming models by Van Treuren in the first volume entitled "Star Trek Minatures: The Starship Enterprise", which was originally published in July 1976. It appears quite accurate, and contains details as to the modifications made to the "three footer" and "134 inch" models that I have seen discussed in this thread and others on Hobbytalk and other forums. It also mentions the "4 inch" Lucite-encased Catspaw prop (the dimensions of the block are given as: 10.4 x 5.4 x 3.5 cm) and has some info as well on the development of the AMT Enterprise kit.

In another article also reprinted in "BOT 1", "Star Trek Miniatures: The Other Spaceships", there is a nice discussion of some of the other TOS filming models and AMT kit versions. The same article mentions the 1975 ESTES flying rocket kits, which apparently the author consulted on. Finally, and getting back to that AMT model in the Smithsonian, Van Treurer also mentions that "The Smithsonian Institution expressed a desire to obtain a representative collection of science-fiction-oriented models in 1974. Jefferies was kind enough to donate the Klingon ship, and others, including myself, donated miniatures."

I do wonder what "access" Van Treuren had to get so much info. back in the early to mid 70s. 



Shaw said:


> I thought the images of the encased 3 inch model were more interesting. For example, you can tell from those images that the model was encased using a number of stages rather than all at once.


I was originally looking for info. on permissions on reprinting an image of McCall's "The Space Mural" when I found they had some images of their Star Trek pieces, some of which have not been displayed in many years. I'm rather glad I searched through the archives, as it inspired me to look through some old books I had packed away and not looked at in over 3 decades.


----------



## Shaw

I figured you guys might want to see a sorta comparison of some versions of the Enterprise. While these drawings aren't finished, I think they are far enough along to illustrate both the differences and similarities between them...


----------



## alensatemybuick

Nice side-by-side comparison. In my opinion, it pretty much puts the kybosh on the following statements uttered in the TREKBBS thread entitled "Original 12 Constitution class ships" just yesterday: 




> A side-by-side comparison of the AMT to the 11-footer shows that the two ships are proportionally different in exactly every aspect. Really the only similarity is the general arrangement and the overall style. But not one angle or curve in the kit's lines match any part of the 11-footer. For me this is the strongest arguement for different class.



Exactly the same? Or course not. But I think that fellow was overstating the differences just a bit!

One thing this thread has succeeded in doing is to renew my interest in the AMT kit. Being that it would be cheap enough to buy a later version to play with, I may just try and build one for the heckofit. 

If anyone dounts that a superb result cannot be achieved with an AMT kit, one only need see the results TomD66 achieved as outlined in the following thread (using an early AMT kit):

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=508922&highlight=


----------



## Richard Baker

IIRC that same thread had a heated discussion about when Kirk told Christopher "There are only twelve like it in the fleet" was he referring to a total of twelve constitution class ships _in addition_ to the Enterprise or a total of twelve _including_ the Enterprise.

TrekBBS is an interesting site but there are people there who make rivet counters look like generalists...


----------



## alensatemybuick

There does appear to be no lack of people with a predilection to argue about irrelevancies *(or even previously established fact)* on either site. Though of course when Kirk said that he meant 12 including the Enterprise, otherwise he'd have said there were twelve OTHERS like it.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> There does appear to be no lack of people with a predilection to argue about irrelevancies on either site. Though of course when Kirk said that he meant 12 including the Enterprise, otherwise he'd have said there were twelve OTHERS like it.


CONTEXT! 

Shaw, I wonder. I see it appears that all the design iterations of the Enterprise have a feature on the top of the saucer that aligns with the dorsal support underneath. Do you feel that Jefferies was intentionally placing a feature there to help disguise the needed connection hardware for the filming models?


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> ... But I think that fellow was overstating the differences just a bit!


Amazing how that image magically popped into existence shortly after that statement had been made... what a coincidence!





alensatemybuick said:


> If anyone dounts that a superb result cannot be achieved with an AMT kit, one only need see the results TomD66 achieved as outlined in the following thread (using an early AMT kit):


I thought I did an okay job on my USS Republic...


_Click to view gallery_​
... though the goal of that build was to see what could be done without straying too far away from the original model's main features. Plus I hadn't worked on an AMT model since the mid 90s, and wanted a chance to practice on one before attempting to build my 1966 kit (which I'm still holding off on).

From what I've gathered, the AMT Enterprise and Constellation (and the Doomsday Machine) were made by the Jefferies' brothers (Matt and John)... so anyone upset with their use can blame them. Of course the actual designer of the original (pre-retooling version) of the AMT model was Matt Jefferies.

While Jefferies may have rationalized the "1701" later in the design process, he stated quite clearly that the choice of using "1", "7" and "0" over any other numbers was based on visibility. Similarly, I'd guess that the random selection of numbers on Stone's display was to help make "1701" stand out. And likewise, using "1017" on the Constellation was to help viewers differentiate it from the Enterprise.

I think it should also be noted that early in the first season more time and effort was spent on visual effects because no one had seen Star Trek on TV. Everyone working on the show watched those early episodes on 35mm film projected on a screen. As it became apparent that much of the quality was being wasted, short cuts became more frequent (including in the compositing of stock footage).



Steve H said:


> Shaw, I wonder. I see it appears that all the design iterations of the Enterprise have a feature on the top of the saucer that aligns with the dorsal support underneath. Do you feel that Jefferies was intentionally placing a feature there to help disguise the needed connection hardware for the filming models?


Yeah... specially when you consider how large the bulge version was that he originally drafted. I would guess that he recognized the need for it after building the demo model early on and included it to help with construction.

The fact that the model got larger is most likely why the thinner version was used (even though it was only included as a note on the earlier plans but not included on the final version).


----------



## Trekkriffic

Love the Republic Shaw. Very subtle weathering. Just right for the scale as I would expect from you.


----------



## TomD66

Hey, I'm just honored you saw my work and liked it.

Shaw, I love all of your research on the filming miniatures, and can't get enough when you post something new.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Shaw said:


> I thought I did an okay job on my USS Republic


Oops.


----------



## kekker

Shaw said:


> I figured you guys might want to see a sorta comparison of some versions of the Enterprise. While these drawings aren't finished, I think they are far enough along to illustrate both the differences and similarities between them...


Wow! I never realized how much of a difference there was between the 11 footer and the 33 inch in terms of the lower part of the primary hull! I can see some of the other little differences, but the drawings really show that up well.

Good work!


----------



## Steve H

So another question that pops into my head. When was the 'Phaser cannon' detail added to the underside Saucer dome? Reportedly it actually had a grain-of-rice bulb in the tube, so they could switch it on for 'firing' and then one assumes they were to key an animated beam from it. Obviously that never really worked out. I would assume it was added as part of the major re-working for lighting to the model.

I had the theory that this 'cannon' would be the same as the cannon unlimbered from the ship and remounted as a ground weapon as seen in 'The Cage' (in keeping with the idea that Enterprise was completely adaptable and re-configurable as-like a 19th Century fighting ship see also 'Master and Commander'), I *think* the scaling holds or close to.

Thoughts?


----------



## Shaw

Thanks guys! :thumbsup:




Steve H said:


> ...
> Thoughts?


The turret assembly was added after the second pilot... but that is just about all I know about it. I haven't gotten around to studying the lower sensor dome assembly on the 11 foot model in any great detail yet.

But yeah, the equipment the crew brought down in _The Cage_ would fit in the turret assembly.

Because the Enterprise wasn't designed with weapons, it proved to be an on going issue for the effects people throughout the original series. The point of origin (and the color of the beams) changed depending on which effects house was doing the effect that week. Jefferies gave an approximation of the location of the phasers... but matching the effects to the correct spot on the model was difficult.

The phaser (or weapons) assembly on the Phase II Enterprise was designed to address this issue... giving the effects people a clear point for the effects to originate on the model. There was also the specification that phaser beams (in fact all the Enterprise's weapons) should be blue. The Star Trek II writers' guide attempted to merge photon torpedoes back into the generalized description of phasers (much like in _Balance of Terror_)... but the production team included photon torpedo controls on the consoles of the new bridge.

Maybe someone else can expand on the nature of the turret assembly added to the 11 foot model.


Sorry that is such a weak answer... I'm sorta focused on the shuttlecraft right now, so I'm not even sure where to look for that info in my collection off hand.


----------



## RonH

Not worth the bother.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Not canon of course but I've seen some fan produced schematic diagrams describing the lower dome "nipple" as the ion probe. As the lower sensor array is located in the lower saucer dome it makes sense to me that the ion probe would be located there too as it is basically a sensor manually operated to take readings during ion storms.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Not only is it not canon, it's also not necessarily a cannon either.


----------



## Richard Baker

Trekkriffic said:


> Not canon of course but I've seen some fan produced schematic diagrams describing the lower dome "nipple" as the ion probe. As the lower sensor array is located in the lower saucer dome it makes sense to me that the ion probe would be located there too as it is basically a sensor manually operated to take readings during ion storms.


Makes more sense to me than having a powerful energy emitter surrounded by 
delicate high resolution sensors. That would be like installing a fog horn in a hearing aid showroom...

I like the idea of the phaser emitters being hidden behind retractable doors. The one used on the ground in the pilot show could be one of those or a replacement spare mounted to a mobile generator. Having a smaller power source would explain why the energy beam was so low- a ship mounted emitter being fed full power would have been pretty dangerous to be anywhere near- those things can carve up a planetary crust from orbit...


----------



## alensatemybuick

RonH said:


> Not worth the bother.


This is the fourth tell:



(from page 10 of the article, "Star Trek Miniatures: The Starship Enterprise", written by Richard van Treuren, appearing in TREK: The Magazine For Star Trek Fans, Number 5, July 1976)

Turns out Mr Van Treuen had a interesting career; following his Naval service, he worked for 31 years (from 1979-2010) as a "Space Craft Operator" with United Space Alliance, a NASA contractor supporting the space shuttle program.


----------



## Steve H

In order to not contaminate the other thread, I'll mention this here:

http://smile.amazon.com/dp/06926438...UTF8&colid=G2XACBTUPVLV&coliid=I21N8RZS0ZJOJO

I guess the flood of ST50 merch is underway. 

So, anybody pick this up yet? I'm leery on buying a book of retouched photos no matter what the claims, yet this is the sort of thing I desire highly.

Well, as long as 90% isn't clapper board blocking everything.


----------



## TrekFX

Copy that!

The best case is that if an altered photo is presented, the original should be included as well.


----------



## Steve H

TrekFX said:


> Copy that!
> 
> The best case is that if an altered photo is presented, the original should be included as well.


That would be my preference, but a book has limitations whereas the web is effectively infinite. Then the judgement is, more rare photos or half as many but doubling up by including the original and the 'corrected'?

OTOH it says Season One. So, plenty of room for more I guess.

I'm REALLY waffling on this one. Money is beyond tight but I can afford one last indulgence. I've been burned on a few of the recent Trek books and wonderfully impressed by others, soooooo.

(and the Okudas have a new edition of the ST Encyclopedia in Oct., and it's stupid expensive but man, over 1000 pages...)


----------



## RossW

The book's author provided his BTS photo collection to Marc Cushman for his series of book about the making of ST TOS. This book shows more of his collection. I did not find it as compelling as I'd hoped.


----------



## alensatemybuick

When I took the attached photo of the ceiling at the restaurant my wife and I had dinner at on Saturday night (and explained why), she said it was official that I've been thinking too much about Star Trek too much lately.


----------



## jheilman

Ceiling grid lines!


----------



## robn1

Fill 'em in!


----------



## SteveR

Then get your pencil!


----------



## alensatemybuick

Pretty sure I see a rust ring as well...


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> ... she said it was official that I've been thinking too much about Star Trek too much lately.










Ummm... there is no such state (though I'm sure my wife would take her side).


----------



## alensatemybuick

Well, I'll assume that your wife, like mine, knew what she was getting into. In my case, I had a 5 foot long refit Enterprise cardboard mobile (video tie in from the early 90s) hanging from the ceiling of my living room when we met.


----------



## alensatemybuick

In the recent photo of the packing crates included in Margaret Weitkamp's article about the "dual nature" of the Enterprise (as model and "celebrity"), I saw for the first time the crated saucer. It appears that the nacelle struts were packed in to the left of the saucer. And looking at the other photo of the nacelle and primary hull that I'd seen before, I now realize that the starboard nacelle is packed behind the port nacelle, sandwiched under the secondary hull and around the filming stand. But what the heck am I looking at circled in red?! When I blow it up, it reminds me of the three lower magnifiers in an old microscope you could switch by rotating them.


----------



## Steve H

Huh. Not a single clue. Since I see, like you say, three tubes seemingly arranged on a disc, I'm wondering if it's another part of the effects stuff, maybe something that was spun in front of an inky or other small spotlight to create some shifting colored light effect. Not part of the Enterprise per se, just some other stuff hanging around, no longer needed and just put into the crate just because.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Steve H

Sure would be nice for the 33" model to suddenly appear from whatever secret place it's been sequestered at all these years, huh? 

OK, I want to suggest one possible answer to your question in that last sentence above but I want to make sure I have the correct underlying facts.

Could the different contours be a factor of materials used?

That is, my understanding is the 33" model was solid wood (with maybe some detail bits in other materials) while the 11' model was Vac-formed plastic with wood braces/stringers inside. 

Might the bulk of the 33" saucer (excepting the B/C deck) have been turned on a lathe from a single piece of wood?


----------



## Richard Baker

Steve H said:


> Might the bulk of the 33" saucer (excepting the B/C deck) have been turned on a lathe from a single piece of wood?


I would think you could turn the correct profile on a lathe- it might have even been harder to have the bottom of the saucer flattening out like that...


----------



## alensatemybuick

Datin says as much in his daughter's book, not to mention the 2001 "Communicator" interview, that he subcontracted out the the primary and secondary hulls and nacelles for the 33" model to an older woodworker who had the required size lathe. I think it was a rudimentary lathe.

Here's a guy who created a lovely 36" wooden enterprise, and turned the major pieces on a lathe to start:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Wooden-USS-Enterprise-Model/step2/Major-Components/


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I would think you could turn the correct profile on a lathe- it might have even been harder to have the bottom of the saucer flattening out like that...


That's why I made it a question, because from the look, my uneducated mind wants to say it was built up from wood discs and smoothed. 

Which probably also doesn't make sense, contour-wise.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Was surfung the net (especially the "wayback machine" Internet archive) last couple days trying to find photos of the big E I'd never seen before. Found the following that perhaps some of you have also never seen. These pics are not exactly what I'd call "high-res", but they do offer some nice detail. Some of the shots showing the underside of the saucer clearly show some very subtle gridlines that I can't say I'd ever seen such clear evidence of. The lower sensor domwe "tallywhacker" is also fairly clearly shown in couple shots. They also clearly show weathering / streaking, for example on the backs nacelles.


----------



## MartyS

alensatemybuick said:


> Some of the shots showing the underside of the saucer clearly show some very subtle gridlines that I can't say I'd ever seen such clear evidence of.


With the lighting coming from the side I'd say those "grid lines" are shadows, slight bumps in the surface from the wooden frame inside the model.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Couple more shots of the nacelles, including what I would characterize as a "high-res" photo of the inner nacelle workings and another shot of lesser resolution that shows how they hid the inner starboard side nacelle wiring with some tape. Hopefully this technique will not be reproduced by the Smithsonian restoration team!


----------



## alensatemybuick

MartyS said:


> With the lighting coming from the side I'd say those "grid lines" are shadows, slight bumps in the surface from the wooden frame inside the model.


And I'd say you were full of crap, as usual.

Shaw should have named this thread "The TOS Enterprise discussion thread...for those who like to argue untenable positions".


----------



## sizzlerjoe

*enterprise thread*

star trek returning to tv 2017. suppose to be anyway.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

Thanks, David; I think when the current restoration is complete, we'll see a toned down / subtler version of the undersaucer grid lines and even the concentric rings on the secondary hull and nacelles. That's what I had done with my own PL 1/350 Enterprise. I wanted those details, just much more subtle than on the last resto. They barely show up in photos on my E.


----------



## irishtrek

MartyS said:


> With the lighting coming from the side I'd say those "grid lines" are shadows, slight bumps in the surface from the wooden frame inside the model.


Don't know a lot about wood working/construction but for the inner skeleton to show through like that the outer surface would not be made of wood but a fabric instead.


----------



## Steve H

Shaw is of course referring to the gatekeepers. It's easy to assume that someone who is actually working on Trek HAS to be the final word (Drexler, did Mandel ever actually graduate to working on Trek or was he always 'hanging around' until he got tapped to do graphics work on other shows and thus officially went from fan to pro? I can't recall) but gatekeepers have the job of above all else, staying a gatekeeper.

Then there are the people who have that 'bully's pal' gene, the guys who think that echoing what a gatekeeper says is RIGHT ON, boss you tell him! and so on and so on. Life is forever High School. 

Me, I feel it's right to always question, because there's always something new to learn. Sometimes asking an obvious question can cause reconsideration. I think it's safe to say Gary K has that open mind, even if it did take some time for him in the case specifically mentioned. 

It's all about information and the ability to learn. 

Regarding Miarecki, man that ship is LAZY. But then again it's a background element, not meant to be really seen up close. 

I might say a better example is how the Enterprise-D itself was painted. While perhaps not 'heavily made up' like that model above, it sure is darn dark and not too pretty. I don't know if it was the limitations of the video effects editing or a concern that too light a color would make it look like a toy or what.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Steve H

To be fair, the docking ports on Shaw's Phase II Enterprise study model seem delicate and subtle, unlike the docking ports on the finished ST:TMP Enterprise.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## robn1

irishtrek said:


> Don't know a lot about wood working/construction but for the inner skeleton to show through like that the outer surface would not be made of wood but a fabric instead.


The saucer outer surface was vacuformed plastic called Royalite. It's quite flexible and the saucer bottom had trouble holding it's shape, it kinda just hangs loose.


----------



## alensatemybuick

What I think is so cool about that build is that I can imagine (even if not certain) that it was built in very much the same way the original 33" model was. 

One thing I noted is the nacelle caps were turned along with the entire nacelle. I wonder if this was also the case for the front portions of the nacelles on the 11 footer. I recall reading reference to Datin "sawing off" the original caps when the spinning lit jobs were added. And when one of the original wood nacelle caps was sold on EBay in January of this year, I noted it did seem to have saw marks on the back. Regardless of whether they were turned on a lathe or not along with the fronts of the nacelles the original blocks they were made from must have been made with 4 pieces of wood bonded together, since from the back you could tell from the grain that it had 4 "pie slices". Perhaps that makes sense due to the approximate 7 inch diameter of the finished nacelles precluding one big block of wood? Actually the caps also had 3 "stepped down" layers from the widest part to the part where the spires had attached as well, complicating their construction further. 

Also I did note that the Kretchmer wood model includes the concentric rings on the seco hull and nacelles like those depicted in the Charles Casimiro plans (and perhaps others) and as applied too thickly by Miarecki in 1992. If you think about it, it is unlikely that grid lines would have been added only to the tops and bottoms of the secondary hull in an attempt to convey even subliminally a "constructed" appearance without doing something similar to the rest of the ship. In those B&W photos on the previous page, I do see evidence of the rings on the port side nacelle at least.


----------



## RossW

> Originally Posted by *MartyS*
> With the lighting coming from the side I'd say those "grid lines" are shadows, slight bumps in the surface from the wooden frame inside the model.





alensatemybuick said:


> And I'd say you were full of crap, as usual.
> 
> Shaw should have named this thread "The TOS Enterprise discussion thread...for those who like to argue untenable positions".


I think that's unnecessarily harsh. I, too, thought the same thing up until the grid lines were proved conclusively, because we knew that the surface of the saucer is plastic over a wooden frame with radiating 'spokes'. Turns out, thanks to recent X-Rays, that there are fewer 'spokes' than grid lines. Plus, you know, the first-hand observation of the unretouched top.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## wpthomas

Shaw said:


> I get the feeling that Jefferies liked this bridge design far more than the eventual one. He was always critical of things like the turbolift alignment (something he quickly fixed for the Phase II Enterprise) and the multiple levels. These elements of this earlier design feel more like the cockpit of an airliner or control room of a modern submarine, which seems like something Jefferies would have favored.
> 
> Anyways, I figured this would be interesting for those wanting to get a feel for what we _almost_ had.


Very cool as always.

Where was MJ critical of the levels and the turbolift?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Seeing these bridge drawings just reminds me how puzzling it is to me that some fans, and modelers, just cannot accept that the cylinder on the back of the bridge is the turbolift and that the entire bridge is rotated off-center. And it's still disappointing to me that the makers of the remastered episodes didn't align the interior set with the exterior digital model during the famous swoop-in shot in new versions of "The Cage" and "The Menagerie."


----------



## Steve H

Always interesting and excellent research. As expected. 

But I feel it's important to keep context in mind. The practical reality of television production circa 1964 made that prototype bridge unusable. Even with wild sections a cinematographer and director would be severely limited to just a couple of angles. The only practical way to film that bridge would be using only handheld cameras and shooting MOS both which were just not the way things were done back then. Supposedly it wasn't until MGM's Man From U.N.C.L.E. that a handheld Arriflex was a common, daily tool of production. 

So the bridge needed to be larger. 

As to the placement of the Turbolift doors, that's also driven by production and dramatic needs. It allowed for more economy of set-up, it allowed for entrance and exit of characters without them being blocked by Kirk in the center seat, it made for more action for Kirk (turning to acknowledge someone appearing on the bridge, one example) and so on. 

Even with the redesign for TMP (which was informed by work done on Phase II) you'll note that the Turbolift doors are still at an angle to the center seat, for the same dramatic reasons. They could have put the doors anywhere. But doing so would mean more shots, the need to cut away from the center of dramatic action (the Captain) in order to establish entrance and exits. Plus the need to light and activate console practical effects.

We shouldn't ignore the production realities in these discussions


----------



## Steve H

Hunk A Junk said:


> Seeing these bridge drawings just reminds me how puzzling it is to me that some fans, and modelers, just cannot accept that the cylinder on the back of the bridge is the turbolift and that the entire bridge is rotated off-center. And it's still disappointing to me that the makers of the remastered episodes didn't align the interior set with the exterior digital model during the famous swoop-in shot in new versions of "The Cage" and "The Menagerie."


It's counter-intuitive. The 'shaft' is here so logically that MUST align with the doors on the bridge. The usual counter is "we never see the Turbolift move to the 'left' before it travels down so it can't be off-center!!" (assuming that the Main Viewer is meant to be centerlined with the ship)

Then we get "look at the way everyone bounces when they (take a hit make a violent maneuver), that proves that the bridge is centered with the viewer forward!" stuff.

And on and on. 

Myself, while I accept that it seems logical for that shaft to be for the Turbolift, and I'll accept that at some point Jefferies may have stated "well of course it is, yeesh"(  ), there's no reason to assume that shaft is actually connected to the doors on the bridge. It could easily be a 'siding' for the cars and the shaft connected to the bridge doors (off the centerline) goes straight down thru the B/C decks to the saucer, then moving to go where it needs to go. 

Of course there's no way to 'time' how fast the cars move as the time in the Turbolift is purely a function of the dramatic necessity of the scene.


----------



## Proper2

I'm in the school of thinking that suggests that the shaft (and doors) are centered and the viewing screen is off center. After all, the screen is not a window so why would it need to be centered?


----------



## RSN

So, the door never lined up with the Captain's chair and the viewer?!!!! It was just a TV show, the only sense it made was how to get the best shot!


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> I'm in the school of thinking that suggests that the shaft (and doors) are centered and the viewing screen is off center. After all, the screen is not a window so why would it need to be centered?


If one must have the doors align with the (nominal, assumed) shaft on the exterior of the model, you're exactly right, except that tends to be counter to how people think when they design and build things. It's natural to want to align the 'command center' part of the bridge with the direction of travel. That's just something people do. 

Granted, it's much more important with an Earth-bound vehicle due to motion and how it affects the inner ear (aka 'getting motion sick') but there's no reason to assume that this embedded thinking would be subverted at any point in the future.


----------



## scotthm

Proper2 said:


> After all, the screen is not a window so why would it need to be centered?


For the same reason the bridge needs to be placed at the most vulnerable spot on the ship.

---------------


----------



## Proper2

Well, like someone once pointed out, it's just a TV show. And the bridge was a sound stage, and had all kinds filming equipment in it and loose cables snaking all over the floor and all manner of hardware and lights hanging from the ceiling.


----------



## robn1

If it's onscreen it's canon. Hey waidaminute...


----------



## John P

!!!


----------



## phicks

Masking tape on the carpet is canon too.


----------



## Proper2

phicks said:


> Masking tape on the carpet is canon too.


Precisely. Don't forget that when scale-modeling any floor.


----------



## Proper2

Canon: Scotch was invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> . . . It's natural to want to align the 'command center' part of the bridge with the direction of travel. That's just something people do.
> 
> Granted, it's much more important with an Earth-bound vehicle due to motion and how it affects the inner ear (aka 'getting motion sick') but there's no reason to assume that this embedded thinking would be subverted at any point in the future.


There's also no reason to suppose it would influence the design of a vehicle whose occupants have no sense of motion or acceleration due to artificial gravity and inertial dampers and all that. Besides, most of the bridge stations don't face "forward" anyway -- they're arranged in a circle facing _outward_!



Steve H said:


> . . . Of course there's no way to 'time' how fast the cars move as the time in the Turbolift is purely a function of the dramatic necessity of the scene.


Turbolift cars are like warp drive. They move at the speed of plot.


----------



## Shaw

Guys, we've all seen this argument time and again. Personally, the idea of a forward facing command module requires a level of cognitive dissonance that the show itself just doesn't justify. For me, the numbers and geometry ended this debate long ago.

I whole heartedly invite anyone needing to battle this issue further to start a *TOS Bridge: CIVIL WAR* thread and start beating up on each other over there (until it is finally locked).

That having been said... why aren't you guys more interested in the _why_s of the October 1964 bridge? To me, I figured you guys might find the possibilities intriguing.

For example... with the bridge being such a confined space, would it still have had the same focal role in the show that the later (more spacious) bridge played? Or would they have made it a limited use set and had a control room set to play that part?

All of the chairs on the October 1964 bridge were locked down, more like aircraft seats... was the main purpose of the design for flying the primary hull to land on planets on a regular basis? The October 1964 primary hull had a 235' (or 217') diameter, making it a much more manageable landing craft (from an effects point of view)... and could have used effects similar to _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ (not as nice as _Forbidden Planet_, but easier on the budget).

Anyways, this was the direction of discussion I was hoping to find, not the futile off set bridge battle which has been done to death in countless other threads.


----------



## alensatemybuick

The more cramped bridge reminds me a bit of the bridge of the Romulan Bird of Prey in "Balance of Terror", at least in terms of how tight it is for even a few people. I can't say I like it, but that's because its not what I've become accustomed to. Maybe in an alternate reality that's how it would have ended up looking on the show, and I'd have thought a bigger bridge would have looked silly.

By the way, I thought sites like this one and TREKBBS for example were invented for rehashing old arguments. Seems to be what people prefer using them for.


----------



## robn1

These two early bridge designs look more spacious. Did these come after the ship's scale change? These are Pato Guzman designs, not Matt's.


----------



## Radiodugger

Shaw said:


> ...was the main purpose of the design for flying the primary hull to land on planets on a regular basis? The October 1964 primary hull had a 235' (or 217') diameter, making it a much more manageable landing craft (from an effects point of view)... and could have used effects similar to _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ (not as nice as _Forbidden Planet_, but easier on the budget).


Wow, Shaw! I have always wondered that. The three landing legs are depicted on the saucer bottom. They did have the shuttle craft. But, as I understand it, the bolts that hold the two sections together were called, "explosive bolts". Rejoining the hulls would not be feasible out of drydock.

The Next Generation solved this. Sorta. The damn thing still never landed, except for that one (and _only!_) time...

Doug


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> Guys, we've all seen this argument time and again. Personally, the idea of a forward facing command module requires a level of cognitive dissonance that the show itself just doesn't justify. For me, the numbers and geometry ended this debate long ago.
> 
> I whole heartedly invite anyone needing to battle this issue further to start a *TOS Bridge: CIVIL WAR* thread and start beating up on each other over there (until it is finally locked).
> 
> That having been said... why aren't you guys more interested in the _why_s of the October 1964 bridge? To me, I figured you guys might find the possibilities intriguing.
> 
> For example... with the bridge being such a confined space, would it still have had the same focal role in the show that the later (more spacious) bridge played? Or would they have made it a limited use set and had a control room set to play that part?
> 
> All of the chairs on the October 1964 bridge were locked down, more like aircraft seats... was the main purpose of the design for flying the primary hull to land on planets on a regular basis? The October 1964 primary hull had a 235' (or 217') diameter, making it a much more manageable landing craft (from an effects point of view)... and could have used effects similar to _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ (not as nice as _Forbidden Planet_, but easier on the budget).
> 
> Anyways, this was the direction of discussion I was hoping to find, not the futile off set bridge battle which has been done to death in countless other threads.


But that's exactly the thing and what makes me a little sad that you wish to dismiss the discussion. All that talk about 'which way the bridge points' is exactly that, WHY. 

The evolution of process is wonderful and fun. Speculation is a central conceit of being a fan. I LIKE these things you find and bring up but we can't have discussions that make any real sense if context is discarded. 

You can see, in some of those designs, which I assume were shown to Roddenberry et al, roots of ideas that reoccurred later, in TMP, in TNG, even Enterprise. Very open bare bridge? It was a concept pushed to Probert early in TNG. Tight, sealed contained bridge? Pushed to Wise on TMP. Cramped, aircraft/submarine look? The intent of the NX-01.

And note, on ALL of those, the central 'direction' of the bridge, the Captain and the helm and the viewscreen- aligned with the c/l of the ship and facing forward. 

Changes to the bridge were done for the purpose of cost (building and use), flexibility and functionality as defined by the production tech of the time. And Roddenberry did have the habit of saying "I want it to look like but not like" before he fell into the sad habit of saying 'yes' to everything and letting others sort it out. 

The fact that the eventual bridge set actually seems to fit within the allotted space in the finished filming model seems a bloody miracle to me given what was considered the norm. It shows the attention and thought, WAY beyond what was honestly necessary, that everyone involved with Star Trek had. 

And It's a credit to your skill and ability that you can show these things and share.


----------



## Trek Ace

Yes. Please, let's remain civil in our discussions here. This isn't the TrekBBS.


----------



## Shaw

Steve H said:


> Tight, sealed contained bridge? Pushed to Wise on TMP.


The TMP bridge set was built before Wise (or TMP). That bridge represented Jefferies attempt to _fix_ the direction issue without breaking the rest of the ship.



> And note, on ALL of those, the central 'direction' of the bridge, the Captain and the helm and the viewscreen- aligned with the c/l of the ship and facing forward.


Here is the problem... you have thrown everything into a pile and then _pick-n-choose_ the things that you think support your argument. You have an agenda (forward facing bridge) that you are pushing, and you are hand picking evidence to support your pet theory. You are even willing to throw out Jefferies work to make things fit together as either an aberration or coincidence (or a _miracle_) to support your theory. 

That is an example of someone discarding context.

When talking about TOS, there is no need to bring up TNG, DS9, Voyager or ENT. The only reason Phase II has relevance is because Roddenberry was attempting to bring back many of the original artists from TOS (many of whom were dropped in the transition to TMP).

The logic of using the ENT bridge to prove your point is like saying that the T-Rex was bipedal because humans are.

I've pointed this out before, and you'll just dismiss it again... you tend to start with an answer you are emotionally tied to and try to rework things to support it. That isn't research... that is dogma.

You (and others) are always going to fixate on something I bring up as some type of _ah ha_ moment that shows what you wanted is what was. There is nothing I can do about that, and I'm not going to censor what I share to avoid it. If you want to disregard my analysis, be my guest.

All too often you display the characteristics of _target fixation_ when discussing these types of things. And I learned a while back not to waste my efforts when you do this.

Like I said, start a *TOS Bridge: CIVIL WAR* thread to discuss this stuff and then knock yourself (and others) out pushing whatever theories you want.


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> The TMP bridge set was built before Wise (or TMP). That bridge represented Jefferies attempt to _fix_ the direction issue without breaking the rest of the ship.
> 
> 
> Here is the problem... you have thrown everything into a pile and then _pick-n-choose_ the things that you think support your argument. You have an agenda (forward facing bridge) that you are pushing, and you are hand picking evidence to support your pet theory. You are even willing to throw out Jefferies work to make things fit together as either an aberration or coincidence (or a _miracle_) to support your theory.
> 
> That is an example of someone discarding context.
> 
> When talking about TOS, there is no need to bring up TNG, DS9, Voyager or ENT. The only reason Phase II has relevance is because Roddenberry was attempting to bring back many of the original artists from TOS (many of whom were dropped in the transition to TMP).
> 
> The logic of using the ENT bridge to prove your point is like saying that the T-Rex was bipedal because humans are.
> 
> I've pointed this out before, and you'll just dismiss it again... you tend to start with an answer you are emotionally tied to and try to rework things to support it. That isn't research... that is dogma.
> 
> You (and others) are always going to fixate on something I bring up as some type of _ah ha_ moment that shows what you wanted is what was. There is nothing I can do about that, and I'm not going to censor what I share to avoid it. If you want to disregard my analysis, be my guest.
> 
> All too often you display the characteristics of _target fixation_ when discussing these types of things. And I learned a while back not to waste my efforts when you do this.
> 
> Like I said, start a *TOS Bridge: CIVIL WAR* thread to discuss this stuff and then knock yourself (and others) out pushing whatever theories you want.


I reject the basis of the argument. 

I mean, you also have target fixation. To you, that Turbolift door MUST align with the tube sticking off the back of the dome on the model. 

Mind, it's a rational assumption, I won't disagree. But it's an assumption. Nowhere in any original documentation does it say that feature is the Turbolift shaft. Any commentary is after the fact. It could have been intended to be a docking port. It could have been intended to be a fueling point. It could have been intended to be NOTHING except an interesting surface feature that gave options for storytelling and additional visual direction to aid storytelling, likely the same reason they didn't keep to the pure circular saucer. 

OK, so let me put a little speculation on the table. I assume that the bridge, as it exists in finished form, does not fit flush to the skin of the hull. I don't see how it can. There has to be mechanical spaces behind for pipes, wires, ducts, accessways to repair. Not everything is going to be accessible via those tiny grills on the bottom. You have to think 1964. It's a future ship build with 1964 thinking. So if there's that room for access, there's room for the lift shaft to be off-center. 

I think the discussion might well be "is the bridge as seen the real size, or should be assume like the height of the corridors it's larger than it would 'really' be due to filming realities?"

(and careful there, because the wrong argument means the Shuttle is 'really' what the prop was and not that the prop was semi-scale  )

And that goes to bridge orientation. The viewing public would assume the main viewer is front. hundreds of years of building vehicles puts the command and steering people in a way to face the front. Regardless of what's possible, history, tradition and just plain human stubbornness would maintain that tradition. 

Grief, man, we build houses essentially the same way as they did in the 1600s. Better tools, faster methods, improved materials and of course evolution of such things as heating and cooling and lighting (nobody puts a coal chute in the basement window now, for one) of course but you transplant an architect from 1633 to now and he's not going to be that confused by the construction. 

I'm not picking and choosing, I'm showing patterns and history, different direction, same methodology. I'm playing nice. 

But I'm also tabling this aspect of the discussion as it upsets you. Not my intent to upset, just discuss.


----------



## Carson Dyle

While by no means an expert, I've read quite a bit about the making of the 11-footer over the years. At no point do I recall hearing anything about the base color of the Pilot miniature being different than that of the Production version. Alas, some Treksperts now inform me the Pilot version(s) featured a blue-grey finish, as opposed to the now-familiar grey-green Datin used when refinishing the Production version. 

Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but if this topic has been covered elsewhere I'd be grateful for a link. I'm gearing up to model the 1/350 1st Pilot model, and I'm hoping to be able to zero-in on an accurate hull color. I've been told that all of the information and evidence concerning the construction and painting of the 11-footer will be made public once work on the restoration is complete, but if there's any info currently available I'd love to see it.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Carson Dyle

Shaw said:


> Well, my understanding is that most of the model is the blue gray...


Thanks for the info. I'm content to wait for the Smithsonian Team to publish their findings re: the paint scheme (which should happen sooner rather than later, from what I understand). I just thought there might already be something "out there" by way of FS or Pantone numbers, that sort of thing.

Thanks again.


----------



## scotpens

Shaw said:


> All of the chairs on the October 1964 bridge were locked down, more like aircraft seats... was the main purpose of the design for flying the primary hull to land on planets on a regular basis?


Highly unlikely, as the transporter was part of the concept right from the beginning. G.R.'s series format stated: "The cruiser itself stays in space orbit, rarely lands upon a planet." For time, budget and storytelling reasons, "rarely" was quickly changed to "never."


----------



## alensatemybuick

I love Star Trek, have for over 40 years. But it *is* just a TV show, and no matter how hard the creators tried to make it plausible, I can't help but question why anyone would try to reconcile the interior bridge arrangement with the exterior "turbo tube", or the inside of the shuttlecraft with the outside, or the shuttlebay set with the exterior of the ship. 

I especially don't get why anyone would waste time doing so just to satisfy someone who won't respect the stated wishes of the thread creator. It's a free country, and people are free to do that, but they shouldn't expect anyone to engage them either. Do that, and you re-enforce the behavior.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> I love Star Trek, have for over 40 years. But it *is* just a TV show, and no matter how hard the creators tried to make it plausible, I can't help but question why anyone would try to reconcile the interior bridge arrangement with the exterior "turbo tube", or the inside of the shuttlecraft with the outside, or the shuttlebay set with the exterior of the ship.
> 
> I especially don't get why anyone would waste time doing so just to satisfy someone who won't respect the stated wishes of the thread creator. It's a free country, and people are free to do that, but they shouldn't expect anyone to engage them either. Do that, and you re-enforce the behavior.


I'm confused here. Usually you comment in the vein of "yeah! He said shut up!" but the first paragraph above, you seem to be critical of Shaw for doing just that, desiring to reconcile things. 

And I'm going to preserve that paragraph so you can't change it and claim you never said it. So there. 

To quote Alen: "I love Star Trek, have for over 40 years. But it *is* just a TV show, and no matter how hard the creators tried to make it plausible, I can't help but question why anyone would try to reconcile the interior bridge arrangement with the exterior "turbo tube", or the inside of the shuttlecraft with the outside, or the shuttlebay set with the exterior of the ship."

And the answer is the same as speculating on discarded Enterprise designs. Because it's interesting and challenging and sometimes, it's surprising. Shaw has shown me that regardless of the Turbolift issue, the bridge set fits reasonably well within the assumed space on the 11 foot miniature. Honestly, I would never have thought it would work. Oh, it's not a scaling insanity like the Seaview or Jupiter II, but I think most people would assume the production thinking would have been "eh, close enough, nobody will notice or care" and even if that WAS the case, it still turned out as Shaw shows it. 

Of course the Enterprise is a larger vessel than Seaview or the Jupiter II and had more 'phantom space' that writers could assign to a new (redressed) set, but still, impressive. 

but a thought is, this is all pre-production. There was more time to work that little bit harder.


----------



## gmd3d

fascinating discussion about the bridge and turbo lift, never fit in the established scale 947 ft and the only solutions would as shown in Shaw's post.. I have found the same issues in 3D that Shaw points out in the post above... alternative is to enlarge the fictional scale ? 

I never cared for the 36° bridge offset myself, 

but as always I come away from the discussion better of for the information ..


----------



## Carson Dyle

I've never felt the need to reconcile technical inconsistencies in fictional sci-fi vehicles -- especially fictional sci-fi vehicles from the 60's ("Where is the Proteus' toilet?" "Who gives a s---)."

That said, from the purely aesthetic standpoint, the offset bridge configuration looks ridiculous. Shaw has come up with an elegant and logical solution to the "problem" -- one I suspect Matt Jefferies himself would have appreciated.


----------



## RSN

To me, it is a moot point. Jeffries said, his original design was a forward facing bridge and the turbolift in line with the captains chair and the viewscreen, ALL facing forward. The set builders and production crew of the pilot moved the lift doors for ease of filming, not that the bridge was turned off center! (And don't get all in my face about where I read it, it was in these very boards and in the Trek Memory Alpha site!) If want a crooked bridge, build it that way, if you want a bridge facing forward, build it that way. NO ONE is going to lose sleep if you chose one or the other, it is a fictional ship! Guess what, none of the sets of the Millennium Falcon will fit inside the dimensions of either the full size mock up or the miniatures!!


----------



## Steve H

Carson Dyle said:


> I've never felt the need to reconcile technical inconsistencies in fictional sci-fi vehicles -- especially fictional sci-fi vehicles from the 60's ("Where is the Proteus' toilet?" "Who gives a s---)."
> 
> That said, from the purely aesthetic standpoint, the offset bridge configuration looks ridiculous. Shaw has come up with an elegant and logical solution to the "problem" -- one I suspect Matt Jefferies himself would have appreciated.


Are you speaking of the final illo Shaw drew up, of a bridge that's lower than the dome? If so, yeah, I like that as well. It's not hard to assume that much of the dome could be taken up with sensors and machinery. 

Might be opening a can of space worms, but does anyone have that Jefferies 'interior spaces' graphic from the series handy? Was it shown in Space Seed or Day of the Dove?


----------



## Proper2

Carson Dyle said:


> I've never felt the need to reconcile technical inconsistencies in fictional sci-fi vehicles -- especially fictional sci-fi vehicles from the 60's ("Where is the Proteus' toilet?" "Who gives a s---)."
> 
> That said, from the purely aesthetic standpoint, the offset bridge configuration looks ridiculous. Shaw has come up with an elegant and logical solution to the "problem" -- one I suspect Matt Jefferies himself would have appreciated.


So, what exactly is Shaw's solution in regards to the lift and the bridge orientation. I don't really get what he suggests. I'm either just dense and or unwilling to read all that a second time. :|


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> So, what exactly is Shaw's solution in regards to the lift and the bridge orientation. I don't really get what he suggests. I'm either just dense and or unwilling to read all that a second time. :|


Filtering out what..well, it doesn't matter, I believe the solution (if you want to have the main viewer face forward which some people just can't abide it seems) is to drop the bridge down out of the dome itself so the Turbolift has clearance. That means the bridge intrudes into the assumed 'B' deck and much of the dome space is, my guess, sensors and mechanical stuff. It *might* even be a little bit of armor, given the usual complaint about putting the control center in the most vulnerable spot possible. 

I might assume this would upset some. But it seems a good solution given the scaling of the set, including the assumed size of the Turbolift car. 

Note: it seems to me that all the nomenclature tends to be a carryover from the Franz Joseph blueprints and technical manual. That may not work when compared to Jefferies 'interior volume' graphic produced for the show. You know, that crude seeming drawing laid Engineering in the secondary hull long before anybody else really worked it out. We view the past to inform today.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Filtering out what..well, it doesn't matter, I believe the solution (if you want to have the main viewer face forward which some people just can't abide it seems) is to drop the bridge down out of the dome itself so the Turbolift has clearance. That means the bridge intrudes into the assumed 'B' deck and much of the dome space is, my guess, sensors and mechanical stuff. It *might* even be a little bit of armor, given the usual complaint about putting the control center in the most vulnerable spot possible.
> 
> I might assume this would upset some. But it seems a good solution given the scaling of the set, including the assumed size of the Turbolift car.


Well, I personally don't buy that scenario. But it's not at all important to me. As in the case of the shuttlecraft, I don't feel the need to have everything make perfect physical sense between scales. Especially when comparing a bridge dimension of a few inches on the 11-footer to a full scale sound stage for a TV show that was constantly on a shoestring budget, a ridiculous time frame to shoot, a sound stage with the need to accommodate cameras, lighting, cast and crew and filming angles. Nobody then cared about such trivial matters... it was just a... well, you know.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Proper2 said:


> I don't feel the need to have everything make perfect physical sense between scales. Especially when comparing a bridge dimension of a few inches on the 11-footer to a full scale sound stage for a TV show that was constantly on a shoestring budget, a ridiculous time frame to shoot, a sound stage with the need to accommodate cameras, lighting, cast and crew and filming angles. Nobody then cared about such trivial matters... it was just a... well, you know.


The problem is that the creators made things sufficiently plausible that (some) people want it to be completely plausible. But it's really only a problem for some.


----------



## Shaw

I'm not sure why people are "speculating" on things we have actual figures for (from Jefferies himself). If you want deck heights, here is how Jefferies' saw them...


_Click to enlarge_​
There is tons of information here, but there isn't any reason to discuss it with people who's primary strategy is _cherry picking_ to get the answers they want.

It is disheartening when it feels like I'm the only one willing to put a real effort (research and analysis) behind what I say, but others want to be taken seriously by playing the _Texas Sharp Shooter_ when I provide complete data. It would be nice to see well thought out, well presented arguments rather than snark and dismissal. If your argument isn't worth presenting well, maybe it isn't that strong an argument to begin with.

I'm heading back into another week without internet, please try to make this thread worth visiting when I get back.


----------



## robn1

Discussions on all of this can be fun, as long as we can avoid beating each other up over it.

I see no need to fudge the bridge down into B deck, just to overcome the lift structure being about 1/8in too short on the 11 foot model. I just accept that the model is a bit off, and ignore it. I also have no problem with the bridge being rotated to allow for the off-center turbolift. It's a round room with no windows, who cares which way it faces? I never noticed the lift placement as a kid until I first saw the Tech Manual drawings, and I had no trouble accepting it. I just said "Huh, that's cool. Never noticed that".


----------



## Proper2

Excuse me, your research and analysis is impressive but this proves nothing about the orientation of this FICTIONAL, NON-PHYSICAL bridge; or the lift, for that matter. Your theory is pure speculation and personal opinion. The reality is that you have spent a lot more time trying to make all of these separate ends meet than all of the people involved in designing and building all of these elements for the show combined. These functions--the model and the soundstage--were never designed or planned to be completely truthful to one another. It didn't matter back then and it doesn't matter now. The show did not and does not require this. Only model builders obsess over this, for reasons that escape me, unless you are building the interior and exterior together, as they were never meant to be. In that case, good luck!


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> I'm not sure why people are "speculating" on things we have actual figures for (from Jefferies himself). If you want deck heights, here is how Jefferies' saw them...
> 
> 
> _Click to enlarge_​
> There is tons of information here, but there isn't any reason to discuss it with people who's primary strategy is _cherry picking_ to get the answers they want.
> 
> It is disheartening when it feels like I'm the only one willing to put a real effort (research and analysis) behind what I say, but others want to be taken seriously by playing the _Texas Sharp Shooter_ when I provide complete data. It would be nice to see well thought out, well presented arguments rather than snark and dismissal. If your argument isn't worth presenting well, maybe it isn't that strong an argument to begin with.
> 
> I'm heading back into another week without internet, please try to make this thread worth visiting when I get back.


Shaw, I just don't understand where all this passive/aggressive stuff is coming from. You said this is a thread for non-experts to discuss The Enterprise, and you're putting out stuff and speculating like mad just like anyone else. OK, wonderful. You're doing some impressive math, you're finding obscure references, you've inspired others to dig into their old publications and find things and it should all be ticky-boo. 

Yet when I bring up this or that, suddenly you're the expert and I MUST be a complete idiot because I wonder about things and want to learn what I can, the why and the how and all that. I was stubborn about the 'left side' argument for so long because I just did not grasp how late, how REALLY late the construction of the 11 foot model was in delivery to the shooting schedule. 

And I get the odd feeling you're honestly angry at me because as you fiddled with the bridge and the dome you pretty much proved there's a fair problem reconciling it. Something's got to give there because if you're trying to make it 'real' then you have to have room for all the needed mechanicals.

You accuse me of cherry picking yet you totally dismissed my comment that there's no mention whatsoever what that tube behind the bridge is supposed to be. Nothing from 1964. 

I've praised your work, I'm impressed with your skill. I'm not the one saying what you're doing is dumb like at least one other person has. I GET it. I've done somewhat the same since 1972. 

I'm sorry you have to leave the internet for a time because I'm a frustrating monster. I've got my own problems, another friend has died, of cancer just the other day. I've lost 6 close people over the last couple of years. So, yeah, not cutting any slack here. 

Discussion leads to learning. People have chimed in saying so. So what is you actually want? You want the title 'expert'? Fine. You're an expert.

But so it goes.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Excuse me, your research and analysis is impressive but this proves nothing about the orientation of this FICTIONAL, NON-PHYSICAL bridge; or the lift, for that matter. Your theory is pure speculation and personal opinion. The reality is that you have spent a lot more time trying to make all of these separate ends meet than all of the people involved in designing and building all of these elements for the show combined. These functions--the model and the soundstage--were never designed or planned to be completely truthful to one another. It didn't matter back then and it doesn't matter now. The show did not and does not require this. Only model builders obsess over this, for reasons that escape me, unless you are building the interior and exterior together, as they were never meant to be. In that case, good luck!


I think, what I've seen and commented on (or was it just me in the clock tower?) is how amazing WELL it manages to work out with all you say under consideration. It's interesting that if you just take the bridge as its own thing it seems to fit mostly well in the space of the dome of the model. That's pretty impressive, all things considered. But it does start to fall apart when you try to work with the Turbolift, and then take into account space for all the mechanicals, the machinery that makes everything work. So, not perfect. But it's surprisingly close.

It might well be a hopeless task (the height of the corridors is just completely unreasonable if you scale off the sets) but it can be interesting.


----------



## gmd3d

Shaw said:


> I'm not sure why people are "speculating" on things we have actual figures for (from Jefferies himself). If you want deck heights, here is how Jefferies' saw them...
> 
> There is tons of information here, but there isn't any reason to discuss it with people who's primary strategy is _cherry picking_ to get the answers they want.
> 
> It is disheartening when it feels like I'm the only one willing to put a real effort (research and analysis) behind what I say, but others want to be taken seriously by playing the _Texas Sharp Shooter_ when I provide complete data. It would be nice to see well thought out, well presented arguments rather than snark and dismissal. If your argument isn't worth presenting well, maybe it isn't that strong an argument to begin with.
> 
> I'm heading back into another week without internet, please try to make this thread worth visiting when I get back.


 I have found your work on this to be very helpful and informative ..


----------



## bigjimslade

Shaw said:


> I'm heading back into another week without internet, please try to make this thread worth visiting when I get back.


Mr. Shaw, your posts have been the ONLY useful modeling data posted to this forum in years.


----------



## MGagen

Speaking of Civil War, I feel like the oldest living Civil War Veteran. My epic debate on bridge orientation with Captain Robert April (alas, perma-banned) was a barn burner and the stuff of legend. Old hands around here may still dimly remember it. Way back in 2004 I outlined the very issues brought forth by Shaw and can attest that his math and conclusions are right. Unfortunately those threads have rolled around the event horizon on both TrekBBS and Hobbytalk since both have changed software since then. Those wishing to hash it all over again should heed Shaw's request and do it in another thread. I won't be participating.

M.


----------



## Steve H

Know what? I had written something that I thought was worthwhile and useful, but on reflection I just know it would have been taken entirely the wrong way, so I have deleted it. 

But in case it's been preserved in an upcoming quote I'll deal with it then.


----------



## MartyS

At least the 1/350 model gives you the option to put the bridge either way.

Of course if you put the bridge with view screen facing forward the turbolift doors are at the skin of the ship with no room behind them for a lift......

How hard is it for people to understand that the effects builders and set builders were 2 different groups working in different studios, and they didn't interact all that much, and that changes were made for cost and ease of filming. These days show runners know that people look for everything to be correct, but back then no one had ever done a show like Star Trek before.

Also back then it was expected that episodes would air once and maybe be repeated once, then be gone forever, syndication wasn't even an idea yet. And no one could record at home. So why would they make more work for themselves and run the budget up in order to keep stuff consistent if no one was ever going to remember those details anyway.?


----------



## Proper2

MartyS said:


> How hard is it for people to understand that the effects builders and set builders were 2 different groups working in different studios, and they didn't interact all that much, and that changes were made for cost and ease of filming.


This is exactly right. It should not be hard at all to understand this. But it's much more fun and bumptious to show how a square peg can be diagrammed to fit into a round hole, even though it was never meant to.


----------



## Steve H

MartyS said:


> At least the 1/350 model gives you the option to put the bridge either way.
> 
> Of course if you put the bridge with view screen facing forward the turbolift doors are at the skin of the ship with no room behind them for a lift......
> 
> How hard is it for people to understand that the effects builders and set builders were 2 different groups working in different studios, and they didn't interact all that much, and that changes were made for cost and ease of filming. These days show runners know that people look for everything to be correct, but back then no one had ever done a show like Star Trek before.
> 
> Also back then it was expected that episodes would air once and maybe be repeated once, then be gone forever, syndication wasn't even an idea yet. And no one could record at home. So why would they make more work for themselves and run the budget up in order to keep stuff consistent if no one was ever going to remember those details anyway.?


The problem, Marty, seems to be... I don't know. Or I do know and am being polite. You're exactly right altho a minor correction, syndication WAS a thing, it just wasn't as much a primary driver of studio focus as it became later. 

There seems to be a basic desire to believe that 20/20 hindsight should be taken as primary truth instead of someone expressing wishes but is grounded in the reality of production necessity. Example, Jefferies may have PREFERRED the Turbolift to be centered behind the command chair and Helm/Nav, but that's not what was built. Jefferies accepted that production reality. I have NEVER read anything about him or by him that painted him as a grumpy old man cursing everyone for ruining his perfect ideas, that's not the way he was. I mean, grief, he worked at Paramount on the film Strategic Air Command. There was stuff going on in the B-36 interior set that had NOTHING to do with the real aircraft, and that's after he spent hours photographing, measuring and documenting the real thing. Changes made because of production necessity.


----------



## Shaw

Wow... this is disappointing.

I had thrown together some stuff to post and figured I'd sacrifice a little sleep to post it, but this environment has become way too toxic to continue. *Steve H* has done a great job of effectively shutting this thread down (at least for me).





Proper2 said:


> Your theory is pure speculation and personal opinion.


Hmmm... just out of curiosity, what exactly is my _theory_? Could you contrast it with your theory? I'm assuming that your theory is still this one...


Proper2 said:


> I'm in the school of thinking that suggests that the shaft (and doors) are centered and the viewing screen is off center. After all, the screen is not a window so why would it need to be centered?


You've thrown a lot of venom in my direction over this, I'd like to know where our theories are substantially different to the point that you were moved to post what you did.

I supplied complete data and analysis... it seems to have escaped you that I wasn't pushing _my theory_, just presenting all the possibilities that worked with the geometry given. I guess to you that was a bad thing.

And also didn't you post this...



Proper2 said:


> Those who "smell out" an "attitude" need not attend. The rest of us would like to continue to partake here. So, I for one hope this thread continues to thrive and be enjoyable.


Interesting.


On the plus side, this now frees up my Saturday. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

Please do continue, David. Don't let it get to you. Most of us love to see the research and detail.


----------



## RSN

I believe someone asked about the deck layout graphic from "Day of the Dove", here it is. It was seen on screen, it is cannon........debate away!!


----------



## Richard Baker

"The TOS Enterprise discussion thread... for us non-experts"
I look upon this thread like a class in college- we have a professor up front with research and diagrams and a large number of people taking notes. 
The thing is that this is a discussion thread, not a lecture thread. The best classes I have taken were ones where the professor engaged the class in a lively discussion of the material presented, had them try to present counter arguments and thrash out the material. That is how you learn, not by passively absorbing information but working it all out in your mind, seeing why some alternatives don't work as you think they should and when that sort of thing is settled you understand things much better.

This thread has been very interesting to me. I have been in the camp of the viewscreen is forward mostly because it seemed strange to have it cockeyed for no reason except to connect to the centerline turbolift shaft. I had though there was plenty of room inside the bridge section for the lift shaft and the external cylinder was either storage of a different function altogether. With the diagrams and discussion presented here I can see why things work out he way they do- aside from the physical structure sizes/position one point which has not (to the best of my knowledge) is that Roddenberry wanted the bridge to be instantly identifiable and the turbolift cylinder is a very distinctive part of it- the entire bridge is a perfect circle except the the lift and when you look at the top of the saucer you see a perfect circle and a lift.

Shaw- I highly respect you and your knowledge- I have seen your threads on TrekBBS for a long time and have learned a lot from them. Please do not take this the wrong way, but you started this thread as a discussion thread, not a presentation thread. Just because people want to discuss the subject instead of passively take notes should not be cause for you to pull out of it. Personally I am taken aback by your pronouncement that you will only return if you find the thread 'worthy' of your time. I do not know what criteria you are using to judge this worthiness, but I do not think a professor would leave the classroom because a few students want to discuss the information presented. You use cherry pick and sharpshooting to characterize these discussions, I find it is just the way people who have been thinking along one line for so many years trying to work out things in their head. Some may never 'get it' some will eventually come around, you never know. That is not important. Treating the discussion of the material as some sort of slight to your knowledge I think is taking it too personally. Things could have been phrased better on both sides in this thread I am positive. I do not think any insults were intended, but a lively discussion examining things from every angle is the best way to learn- it just gets weird a few times.

If you want to leave this thread that is up to you, but you created it for non-experts to discuss information about the TOS-E and that is exactly what is happening. 

I hope I did not make you mad but I have been following this thread from the beginning and hate to see it slide off the rails...


----------



## scotthm

Shaw said:


> On the plus side, this now frees up my Saturday.


You deserve it.

---------------


----------



## MartyS

Steve H said:


> Jefferies accepted that production reality.


I'm sure that to survive in his line of work you had to be the type of person that could accept any changes needed to make a set work.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## alensatemybuick

Shaw said:


> Well, that _sounds_I'm guessing that *Steve H* has been very successful in getting others to do his homework for him in the past doing what he has done here. But I'm of the belief that you _give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime._


Remember too, if you beat a man over the head with a fish, you can take his money...and his woman (if he has one).

I stopped acknowledging that idiot (and a couple others there) a looooong time ago. The ignore function does wonders. Still, when others quote the idiots, I am forced to see the idiocy. And so I couldn't help but notice that "idiot-prime" asked a question in GaryK's Enterprise thread just yesterday (about the unlit top port-rear saucer "skylight") that was answered in this thread many pages back (i.e. it was done to save money and time(which can be the same thing)). 

By the way, I choose not to work on this (particular) homework assignment, hope that'll be OK.


----------



## Steve H

I guess I should change my name to Col. Green. I never knew I was both so dangerous and yet a crybaby. 

So, since I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, I present this:

There has been a statement that Jefferies worked his changes on the Enterprise for Phase II, in some cases, to 'correct mistakes'.

It has been said that Jefferies disliked the shifting of the Turbolift door from directly behind the Captain's Chair to port.

I'm not so sure those are related thoughts. I suspect Jefferies did not consider the door shift to be a 'mistake'. 

Here's where we have fun.

Long ago, it was reported that Roddenberry would tell a story (and he told many. many stories) of how a viewer wrote in to Star Trek and pointed out how dumb it was there was only one way onto the bridge, and Roddenberry agreed. (aside: for security concerns it's not that problematical, but you WOULD want some kind of emergency exit, maybe a maintenance hatch leading to a Jefferies tube or access way or some such)

Roddenberry was reported as saying "You're right! That is dumb! I'll fix that" and so it came to be, in Star Trek the Animated series.

So that's a point of contention. Some totally dismiss the series. Some, including Paramount, consider parts of the cartoon to be actual canon. Maybe in the new JJTrek movie we'll solve what happened to the 50 foot tall Spock. 

So then, is the Animated series bridge canon? If so, how does the second Turbolift near the Main Viewer work? Even if it's just a door to stairs, how does it work?

Thing is, I thought that final drawing that Shaw made was an excellent and elegant solution and anticipates this very element, but it appears by later comments it was done as mockery, a big wet slap in the face with a monkfish. 

As has been said, I thought this was a discussion, not a lecture. 

Let us not forget this thread was started because of two people who got 'target fixation' on the meaning of the 'hull numbers' decals over on the 11 foot restoration thread. Those two went on and on and on. Pretty good amount of disagreeing there. 

So, huh.


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> I believe someone asked about the deck layout graphic from "Day of the Dove", here it is. It was seen on screen, it is cannon........debate away!!


I forgot to say thank you for finding that. Thank you!

I tend to think of that as a stylized 'quick glance' status graphic, much the same way train or bus routes aren't usually shown as actual geography but as a stylized arrangement of stations and stops. See also London Tube or Japan Rail route graphics. 

One would think important items would be marked, such as damage control bulkheads and the like. I think they are.


----------



## RSN

Steve H said:


> I forgot to say thank you for finding that. Thank you!
> 
> I tend to think of that as a stylized 'quick glance' status graphic, much the same way train or bus routes aren't usually shown as actual geography but as a stylized arrangement of stations and stops. See also London Tube or Japan Rail route graphics.
> 
> One would think important items would be marked, such as damage control bulkheads and the like. I think they are.


I like the gaffer's tape around the edge, it reminds us that it is all just pretend.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Given the blatantly provocative title this thread was probably doomed from the start. Still, for all the petty discord, some well reasoned research. Thanks for having made the effort, Shaw. Obviously you care about this stuff, and have done a lot of legwork.


----------



## Radiodugger

Shaw is a CHAMP! This is the kind of info _I collect_ on Sci Fi TV shows. A lot of this info helps me as a model builder. I don't quibble over unsolvable details. Ya know, the offset bridge never bothered me. 

The thing that DID bother me, was the lower level of the Jupiter 2 would never fit in the real craft. Lost In Space had so many Jupiter 2 (and Gemini 12) miniatures that were different from each other, it's difficult to determine just which one is the real Jupiter 2?

Star Trek did not have that problem. At least not to that extent. So I _laugh_ at these little "bridge discrepancies"! Try building a Moebius 1/35 Jupiter 2 with a lower level! Go ahead! Ain't possible. No one went furious over that!

Shaw makes Star Trek interesting for me. I have never seen details like this! I'm getting a yearning for the Round 2 1:350 TOS Enterprise due to what Shaw has posted so far on the subject!

Disagreements notwithstanding, I find this thread invaluable! There is SO much here...

Doug


----------



## StarshipClass

I think I've learned more from Shaw and his studies than anyone else so far. That's not to belittle anyone else's efforts but just to point out the gargantuan effort he has put forth in terms of models, graphs, blueprints, and voluminous text. He could publish a book with all the information he has produced so far. My eyes have been opened on a number of details and I continue to learn from his generosity. Thanks, Shaw! Please keep up the good work. Plenty of us appreciate it. :thumbsup:


----------



## alensatemybuick

Here's a photo of an original Matt Jefferies drawing of the Enterprise and Klingon ship which I think was printed in TMOST. It is currently on display at EMP's new Trek exhibit in Seattle. You can see a hole in the center of the bridge dome where he used a compass to draw the saucer gridlines.

ON EDIT: Others have noted before I am sure, though somehow it eluded me, but the bow light at the leading top saucer edge is clearly depicted In this drawing, suggesting to me at least that this was an intended feature of the Enterprise (at least "retroactively" based on when the drawing was made) even if it did not come across onscreen.


----------



## StarshipClass

alensatemybuick said:


> Here's a photo of an original Matt Jefferies drawing of the Enterprise and Klingon ship which I think was printed in TMOST. It is currently on display at EMP's new Trek exhibit in Seattle. You can see a hole in the center of the bridge dome where he used a compass to draw the saucer gridlines.


That's fantastic! I've never seen the original before :thumbsup:


----------



## Radiodugger

alensatemybuick, that is fantastic! Thank you!

Doug


----------



## alensatemybuick

Couple pictures of Jefferies maquette of the filming sets from same event; as it depicts the bridge I figure it is at least tangentially related to the recent discussion here.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Other one


----------



## alensatemybuick

Amt model used in the Trouble With Tribbles (to depict the Enterprise outside The K7's window), also now on display at EMP.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Coupla pics of a Brick Price Phase II Enterpise replica made for Planet Hollywood, modified to more closely resemble the TMP Version. I have heard criticism of this piece, but I really like it. From same EMP museum display.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Second one


----------



## alensatemybuick

Well, I said I wasn't going to get into it, but...

I would like to offer a counterpoint to Shaw's attempt to explain the turbo shaft offset problem by lowering the bridge, in the form of this photo of the Phase II model under construction. It shows the two tubes from the exterior of the ship, in a configuration that is close to what we'd expect based on the set seen in TMP (itself a holdover from the aborted series IIRC) AND a forward facing view screen. Since the Phase II Enterprise was envisioned as a more direct evolution from the TOS version, I don't think Jefferies would have made a change in terms of the orientation of the bridge or its height. I also think it is pretty clear that Jefferies intention was that the cylinders at the back were turbo tubes (as was the case with the TOS version). So we are left with the conundrum which resulted from an interior set change that had unexpected implications in terms of reconciling against the exterior shape already in place. I personally am happy to consider it a minor error in an otherwise very plausible depiction of a fictional ship (and one that Im pretty sure David himself has previously pointed out that Jefferies was eager to correct with his redesign). 

All that said, I am not claiming this is the only correct perspective, and I can appreciate David's explanation and the effort that went into it even if not entirely agreeing with it. It's sorta how political discourse should be; you can respect different points of view.


----------



## goose814

alensatemybuick said:


> Coupla pics of a Brick Price Phase II Enterpise replica made for Planet Hollywood, modified to more closely resemble the TMP Version. I have heard criticism of this piece, but I really like it. From same EMP museum display.


I don't think that is the modified Brick Price Enterprise. Even modified to look like the refit it still has elements of the Phase II, particularly in the engines. This one appears way too spot on to the refit. Depending on the size of it, which is difficult to determine in these photos, it could be the Northstar Models (DeBoer) kit.


----------



## goose814

This is the modified Brick Price model:


----------



## goose814

Here's another view of the one at the EMP Museum:


----------



## alensatemybuick

The model is owned by a noted collector and on loan to EMP; to clarify, he bought one of the Phase II-based Planet Hollywood replicas and had it further modified to even more closely resemble the TMP enterprise (including but not limited to engine modifications, aztec paint and lighting). It is approx. 6 feet long.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Proper2

Shaw said:


> Here is another one from October 2007...
> 
> 
> _Click to enlarge_​
> You guys go figure it out.


Well, thanks but in my mind I _have_ figured it out by now. I'm content with the simple solution that has to do with designing a soundstage to accomodate filming. And I don't need to spend countless hours to produce detailed illustrations, as pretty as they are, to visualize a simple concept--like the one here of a rotated bridge--which I believe to be the sensible and correct solution if one simply MUST reconcile both the interior and exterior of the bridge.


----------



## alensatemybuick

deleye


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Well, thanks but in my mind I _have_ figured it out by now. I'm content with the simple solution that has to do with designing a soundstage to accomodate filming. And I don't need to spend countless hours to produce detailed illustrations, as pretty as they are, to visualize a simple concept--like the one here of a rotated bridge--which I believe to be the sensible and correct solution if one simply MUST reconcile both the interior and exterior of the bridge.


Well, and my point about the height of the corridor (and by inference, all the other sets) and 'matching' them to the shown deck separations is, there is zero allowance for the necessary pipes, wiring and ducts. The mechanics needed for a functioning vessel. 

And of course that gets the upturned nose and the superior sniff. 

So, you know, lots of pretty stuff, lots of impressive work. well done.


----------



## Shaw

Well, that sure didn't take very long.

We'll see if there are any changes over the next week. Maybe next weekend will be better.


*Edit:* On further reflection... if members are okay with *Proper2* and *Steve H*'s contributions, then there is no reason for my continued participation. So no next time as the results would just be the same.


----------



## Allansfirebird

alensatemybuick said:


> The model is owned by a noted collector and on loan to EMP; to clarify, he bought one of the Phase II-based Planet Hollywood replicas and had it further modified to even more closely resemble the TMP enterprise (including but not limited to engine modifications, aztec paint and lighting). It is approx. 6 feet long.


That's kinda unfortunate that the model was further modified to resemble the TMP configuration. It would've been nice to have gotten closer images and measurements of the remaining Phase-II elements.


----------



## Proper2

Shaw said:


> Well, that sure didn't take very long.
> 
> We'll see if there are any changes over the next week. Maybe next weekend will be better.
> 
> 
> *Edit:* On further reflection... if members are okay with *Proper2* and *Steve H*'s contributions, then there is no reason for my continued participation. So no next time as the results would just be the same.


Can you say, "leggo my ego?"


----------



## alensatemybuick

Allansfirebird said:


> That's kinda unfortunate that the model was further modified to resemble the TMP configuration. It would've been nice to have gotten closer images and measurements of the remaining Phase-II elements.


I don't see it as unfortunate at all; it was not the original Phase II model, and one of a number made for Planet Hollywood locations (and perhaps other uses). There are still others extant.


----------



## Shaw

Proper2 said:


> Can you say, "leggo my ego?"


What, you aren't going to edit my post to take what I said both out of context and form completely new sentences with it?








Besides, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me. Didn't you once start a thread with my name in the title.

Ego has nothing to do with it, you and *Steve H* are both exhibiting creepy internet stalker behavior, the last time that happened (over at TrekBBS) the person started attempting to contact people I worked with IRL to cause me issues.

It isn't ego, it is experience. Sharing things with others isn't worth the possibility that you guys might be unbalanced enough to do more than just harass me in a forum.

Congrats... you win.


----------



## alensatemybuick

If the only thing left to draw people to this thread are those two idiots, the silence here will be reminiscent of how Harlan Ellison once described the inside of Joan Collins' head: a forlorn, empty venue where the wind whisles forever across a sterile terrain.

Nice going.


----------



## Proper2

Shaw said:


> What, you aren't going to edit my post to take what I said both out of context and form completely new sentences with it?
> 
> Besides, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me. Didn't you once start a thread with my name in the title.
> 
> Ego has nothing to do with it, you and *Steve H* are both exhibiting creepy internet stalker behavior, the last time that happened (over at TrekBBS) the person started attempting to contact people I worked with IRL to cause me issues.
> 
> It isn't ego, it is experience. Sharing things with others isn't worth the possibility that you guys might be unbalanced enough to do more than just harass me in a forum.
> 
> Congrats... you win.


Talk about unbalanced and obsessive behavior, you are one scary and also sad individual.


----------



## RSN

Anyone ever take the time to notice that, even with years of planning and millions of dollars spent, the sets built for the refit Enterprise in TMP would not fit inside the model they built?!! 

The engineering section was the first to catch my eye in 1979, and confirmed after getting the cutaway poster. At the front of Main Engineering there is a corridor that stretches forward a considerable way, with "T" branches off to the sides. According to the cutaway poster, there would be NO room for such a corridor and especially the "T" branches. 

Second it the Rec Dec, it would never fit on the outer rim of the saucer like that and still be as massive as the set depicted. Also, how lazy was the crew in the 23rd century? There a twin turbo lifts on the set that connect the upper and lower levels of the Rec Deck.......but that part of the saucer is only two stories tall, at best. If those shafts continued, they would exit the top and bottom of the saucer. So that means they are there so the crew does not have to climb stairs one level to the mezzanine! 
(I know some will come back with, "The set was originally in the secondary hull and was moved during production, after the set was built." Fine, then apply that to the issue of the bridge set on TOS, which moved the door to suit filming needs!!) 

Lastly, there are only four things, basically, in the secondary. Main Engineering, the Hanger Deck, Cargo Bay and the Arboretum. Lots of stuff now crammed into the primary hull.

It is a fantasy, plain and simple, with props and sets to tell a story. That is what I love about it!


----------



## Steve H

Shaw said:


> What, you aren't going to edit my post to take what I said both out of context and form completely new sentences with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me. Didn't you once start a thread with my name in the title.
> 
> Ego has nothing to do with it, you and *Steve H* are both exhibiting creepy internet stalker behavior, the last time that happened (over at TrekBBS) the person started attempting to contact people I worked with IRL to cause me issues.
> 
> It isn't ego, it is experience. Sharing things with others isn't worth the possibility that you guys might be unbalanced enough to do more than just harass me in a forum.
> 
> Congrats... you win.



What. The. Hell.

It is you, sir, that are engaging in the worst kind of passive-aggressive internet bullying I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. It's worse than some of the bad old days of Usenet. 

Between the circle-jerk of you and AlenAte, I just...

No, you know, I claim the high ground on this. I have been nothing but respectful, heaping praise on the work you've done. I was under the impression, as has been stated, this was a discussion on the Enterprise, originally the original 11 foot model but we drifted back and forth to Phase II and that's OK, but it seems the thread is 'supposed' to be "My name is Shaw and I'm unhappy I'm not Gary K so this is MY stuff and don't you question or challenge anything I say!"

And had this been set up as a lecture, sure, I'd roll with that.

But any discussion that DISMISSES the context in which the Enterprise (models, sets) was made, that doesn't fly with me. In the end, as others say, it IS a ship of fantasy. We can play amateur Franz Joseph all day long but it's not going to result in anything meaningful, let alone a book contract with Pocket Books.

I am at a complete loss how it goes from "the sets on the stage can indeed fit in the space Shaw indicates but there's no room for the needed mechanicals that would make it functional" to I'm stalking. Stalking? STALKING? 

Man. I don't even. 

So Shaw's solution, Everyone on the thread here has to say I'm a horrible person (and Proper2 gets it in the neck as well) and the glorious Shaw will kindly stay and continue to share. I guess the shame of that is supposed to shut me up and make me run away in tears.

huh. Yep, that's cyberbully action fair and true. 

And it seems, oh, Sink me, tis' too rich, Nobody except Alen want to do that. 

This is just all too foolish. Maybe I should start a thread about the Enterprise for the non-non really not experts. Nah. I know who would decide to show up and pee in the cornflakes. 

My public thanks to those that see what's really going on here, or otherwise just are throwing up their hands going "WHAT?!"


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> Anyone ever take the time to notice that, even with years of planning and millions of dollars spent, the sets built for the refit Enterprise in TMP would not fit inside the model they built?!!
> 
> The engineering section was the first to catch my eye in 1979, and confirmed after getting the cutaway poster. At the front of Main Engineering there is a corridor that stretches forward a considerable way, with "T" branches off to the sides. According to the cutaway poster, there would be NO room for such a corridor and especially the "T" branches.
> 
> Second it the Rec Dec, it would never fit on the outer rim of the saucer like that and still be as massive as the set depicted. Also, how lazy was the crew in the 23rd century? There a twin turbo lifts on the set that connect the upper and lower levels of the Rec Deck.......but that part of the saucer is only two stories tall, at best. If those shafts continued, they would exit the top and bottom of the saucer. So that means they are there so the crew does not have to climb stairs one level to the mezzanine!
> (I know some will come back with, "The set was originally in the secondary hull and was moved during production, after the set was built." Fine, then apply that to the issue of the bridge set on TOS, which moved the door to suit filming needs!!)
> 
> Lastly, there are only four things, basically, in the secondary. Main Engineering, the Hanger Deck, Cargo Bay and the Arboretum. Lots of stuff now crammed into the primary hull.
> 
> It is a fantasy, plain and simple, with props and sets to tell a story. That is what I love about it!


*shhhh* You're using logic, reason and most of all context. You'll set him off again! maybe you, too are a stalker!


----------



## RSN

Steve H said:


> *shhhh* You're using logic, reason and most of all context. You'll set him off again! maybe you, too are a stalker!


I never worry about speaking my mind. If someone can't handle another persons opinion or point of view, the internet is not the place for them to hang out!!! :wink2:


----------



## Richard Baker

I wish they had kept the original position of the Rec Deck (in the back top of the saucer just behind the B-C Deck). It was a large enough space to hold that set they build and the upper bay windows would have looked great. I am not positive, but don't those two exposed turbolift tubes line up with the location of the two Bridge turbolift locations from that position or were they too far apart?


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I wish they had kept the original position of the Rec Deck (in the back top of the saucer just behind the B-C Deck). It was a large enough space to hold that set they build and the upper bay windows would have looked great. I am not positive, but don't those two exposed turbolift tubes line up with the location of the two Bridge turbolift locations from that position or were they too far apart?


That also would have allowed that dramatic shot of looking back between the nacelles. 

I don't *think* the two Turbolift shafts aligned with the Bridge. Of course my copy of the ST:TMP photonovel is in storage (I've got all the hardcovers and TPBs on the shelves, paperbacks are boxed until I can cobble together a bookrack to hold appx. 5000 books) so I can't do a visual check. My memory says that since there's no 'kink' in the room- it's straight and square, and it's on the edge of the saucer (at roughly the 5 o'clock position), and I don't think the room went all the way to under the B/C deck bulge, I would say 'no' to them being the shafts connecting the bridge. 
I think that would have been the case had the room been where Probert thought it would work. 

It's funny, there's a really relevant quote here on 'Forgotten Trek' that says something very valuable, and I will quote:

"Andrew Probert subsequently submitted a concept to show what the saucer’s cross section would look like, hoping that the Michelson would see the value in maintaining a level of continuity. The suggested terracing could have added a tremendous amount of visual interest to the scene but it was rejected in favor of the recreation room set that eventually ended up in the film. For, Probert remembers Michelson saying, “no one goes to a movie with a slide rule in his hand.” "

Entire article here: http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/designing-the-motion-pictures-recreation-deck/

Now, this is interesting. I didn't know that a Rec Deck had actually been built for Phase II (excerpted here)

"A recreation room set had already been built on Paramount Stage 10 in the last quarter of 1977 for the abandoned television series/movie Star Trek: Phase II. This set however, was far smaller than the one seen in its immediate The Motion Picture successor and it was deemed too small for the envisioned crew gathering scene at Enterprise's mission launch. Production Designer Harold Michelson, after he was brought in in late April 1978, completely redesigned the room for it to become the largest, 24 foot high, interior set build for the movie, capable of accommodating the crowd of over 300 people. The set for the recreation deck was built on Paramount Stage 8 and cost US$252,000. (The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, pp. 93, 95)

The original room was designed by Phase II Technical Consultant Matt Jefferies, a Star Trek: The Original Series veteran, and one element of his design made it into the movie. During the production of Phase II, Jefferies received a memo on 9 September 1977 from Gene Roddenberry who, inspired by a letter he had received from a fan, wrote, "Some fans have suggested that our new Enterprise should carry a plaque somewhere which commemorates the fact it was named after the first space shuttle launched from Earth in the 1970's. This is an intriguing idea. It also has publicity advantages if properly released at the right time." " 

(full article: Recreation deck - Memory Alpha - Wikia )

Ah, Roddenberry, always looking for the deal. 

Huh. I wonder what happened to that original Rec Room. Was it redressed and finished for TMP? Was it just torn down to make room for something else?


----------



## Richard Baker

No- my question about the two turbolifts involved the earlier proposal of locating it in the upper saucer and having them link up with the Bridge, not if they could link up in it's final location on the saucer's rim.

There was a photoetch replica of the Recreation Deck for use in the 1/350 model but it had to be in forced perspective to fit. The saucer rim is only two decks thick for a while, then it becomes one deck thick as the lower curve sweeps up then down again. That two deck thickness is to not enough to fit the Rec Deck on the radial axis.


----------



## bigjimslade

*It's a Tardis*



Steve H said:


> That also would have allowed that dramatic shot of looking back between the nacelles.
> "Andrew Probert subsequently submitted a concept to show what the saucer’s cross section would look like, hoping that the Michelson would see the value in maintaining a level of continuity. The suggested terracing could have added a tremendous amount of visual interest to the scene but it was rejected in favor of the recreation room set that eventually ended up in the film. For, Probert remembers Michelson saying, “no one goes to a movie with a slide rule in his hand.” "


We're off the TOS but there is no [email protected]% way the rec deck fits in the saucer. First, the windows from the outside scale out to about 2-1/2; high. Second, as Probert shows in his plan, the undercut extends into the rec dec. It's not even close.

I would not even attempt to create a deck plan because no rational plan would fit inside. Even putting decks into the saucer creates oddities. If you put the lower ring of windows at eye height, the upper ring ends up very close to the deck. Put the upper ring of windows at eye height and the lower ring is at the floor.

That's just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Proper2

bigjimslade said:


> We're off the TOS but there is no [email protected]% way the rec deck fits in the saucer.


Yeah, I don't know how or why we got off the TOS Enterprise....


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, I don't know how or why we got off the TOS Enterprise....


Might have had something to do with a person who posted pics of a model in a place and wondering if it was one of those Phase II models modded to look like TMP.

Might have been someone wanting to point to Phase II planning as proof of Jefferies thinking that the TOS bridge set was a 'mistake' he had to 'fix'.

Might have been in general reference to stage sets and the relationship to try and fit them in a model.

might have been you've made a comment in sarcasm and my mental filters only now caught on.... 

Either and any way, it's interesting.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> No- my question about the two turbolifts involved the earlier proposal of locating it in the upper saucer and having them link up with the Bridge, not if they could link up in it's final location on the saucer's rim.
> 
> There was a photoetch replica of the Recreation Deck for use in the 1/350 model but it had to be in forced perspective to fit. The saucer rim is only two decks thick for a while, then it becomes one deck thick as the lower curve sweeps up then down again. That two deck thickness is to not enough to fit the Rec Deck on the radial axis.


Ah, then yes, I do think those two lift shafts would have been meant to connect to the bridge, if the original Probert idea had been followed up. My math is lousy but by eye the physical relationship seems about right to me.


----------



## irishtrek

Richard Baker said:


> I wish they had kept the original position of the Rec Deck (in the back top of the saucer just behind the B-C Deck). It was a large enough space to hold that set they build and the upper bay windows would have looked great. I am not positive, but don't those two exposed turbolift tubes line up with the location of the two Bridge turbolift locations from that position or were they too far apart?


Actually I think that area would make a good location for a shuttle bay.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Turbo lifts don't just go up and down; we can simply be seeing the horizontal terminus of the shafts in the TMP rec deck and an option to get out at either level (or even an allowance for stacked lifts).


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Turbo lifts don't just go up and down; we can simply be seeing the horizontal terminus of the shafts in the TMP rec deck and an option to get out at either level (or even an allowance for stacked lifts).


I knew someone would say that, but two horizontal shafts on two adjoining decks going to the same place......in reality, that would be a waste of space in an already crowded primary hull, thanks to the elimination of most of the space in the secondary hull with the oversized hangar bay, cargo bay and arboretum. Simple fact is, it looked good on film and we were not supposed to do the geometry!!! :wink2:


----------



## alensatemybuick

RSN said:


> I knew someone would say that, but two horizontal shafts on two adjoining decks going to the same place......in reality, that would be a waste of space


Like having two shafts going to the even smaller / less populated bridge...


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Like having two shafts going to the even smaller / less populated bridge...


Exactly!!


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Like having two shafts going to the even smaller / less populated bridge...


Context. This goes to the letter Roddenberry supposedly received pointing out the poor decision of having only one way onto the bridge, leading to the decision to make a second entry for the bridge in the Animated series.

I posit this is the 'mistake' Jefferies wished to correct in the bridge design for Phase II which carried over to ST:TMP, and which was a design element in every Enterprise bridge design going forward.

ETA: expanding on that, the reason for having the one entry point on the bridge was useful, because creating tension and drama by having the bridge cut off ("We must get to the bridge!" "We can't!!" or "They're trapped on the bridge! We have to get them out!") was easy, but like Holodeck malfunctions in TNG, it became a lazy way to advance the story. Of course anything that shuts down one Turbolift can just as easily shut down two and TNG had their share of "we can't get in/out!!" scenes.


----------



## Richard Baker

Stairs, they are a beautiful thing...
IIRC there was one set of Bridge blueprints showing the access area outside the Bridge proper, I think you got to it with that door added in TAS. Equipment servicing and a small set of stairs leading to the B deck. It has been years since I saw them but they made sense to me.


----------



## robn1

Has anyone considered the need for lifts for alien races, or other visitors that maybe can't navigate stairs? 

And concerning mechanical space, I suppose no one noticed the Jefferies tubes? Or the wiring visible in the wall when Charlie made it "go away"? Or the "GNDN" pipes running all over the ceilings? These things were accounted for.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> Has anyone considered the need for lifts for alien races, or other visitors that maybe can't navigate stairs?
> 
> And concerning mechanical space, I suppose no one noticed the Jefferies tubes? Or the wiring visible in the wall when Charlie made it "go away"? Or the "GNDN" pipes running all over the ceilings? These things were accounted for.


Not totally, but enough to give the impression when the story needed it. 

Expanding on that, there's the Jefferies tubes (of undefined location, length and number), there's the gangways, those triangle shaped ladders going up and down (and, one must assume, have ways to seal them off otherwise there's no sealing for damage control purposes) and the Turbolift shafts themselves which, thanks to TNG, we can make at least an inference that they are not vacuum tubes but are containing atmosphere same as the occupied corridors and spaces. 

Now. SOME of the pipes and wiring conduits may well be contained within the Turbolift shafts. So that may be considered accounted for. Jefferies tubes, in TOS terms, were critical junction points so there may not have been too many of them. We don't see too many gangways but they're there. 

Then there's the need to account for the physical thickness of the floors, walls and ceilings. 

It all gets kinda messy. Something has to give. If the physical size of the Enterprise, based on measurements of the 11 foot filming miniature is your guiding constraint and the physical stage sets, exactly as built, are your desired interior for a functioning vehicle, you're not getting the desired number of decks nor will things fit exactly where one wants them.

I saw, looking around, there's been a thread on this very thing over at that TrekBBS place, and the pics of 6 foot tall Spock photoshopped onto various interior blueprints are something hilarious to behold. So clearly, CLEARLY this is not in any way a new discussion and some folk get very wound up about it. 

Gotta play the game. Change the size, change the interior, start from scratch. Let go the smothering legacy of Franz Joseph and find new paths.


----------



## Zombie_61

Just increase the size of the Enterprise by a factor of 2.5 like J.J. Abrams did in the 2009 movie. Everything fits, problem solved.


----------



## StarshipClass

Shaw said:


> What, you aren't going to edit my post to take what I said both out of context and form completely new sentences with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me. Didn't you once start a thread with my name in the title.
> 
> Ego has nothing to do with it, you and *Steve H* are both exhibiting creepy internet stalker behavior, the last time that happened (over at TrekBBS) the person started attempting to contact people I worked with IRL to cause me issues.
> 
> It isn't ego, it is experience. Sharing things with others isn't worth the possibility that you guys might be unbalanced enough to do more than just harass me in a forum.
> 
> Congrats... you win.


PLEASE USE THE IGNORE LIST! IT'S GREAT! I've put three creepy types on it and now very much enjoy this forum. 

BTW: I'm not sure what all you're dealing with since I can''t see his posts anymore (with the exception of quoted portions). :wink2:


----------



## Steve H

Perfesser, you might not see this if I, also, have hit your ignore list, but for the life of me I can't even fathom where Shaw pulled 'creepy stalker behavior' from in any of the discussion at hand. If anything, that kind of behavior is more exhibited by one person who has acted the sycophant to him.

I thought I was used to nonsense on the internet but that whole rant...yeesh.


----------



## alensatemybuick

PerfesserCoffee said:


> PLEASE USE THE IGNORE LIST! IT'S GREAT! I've put three creepy types on it and now very much enjoy this forum.


Sadly, it's too late for that. I just looked back several pages, looking for something in particular and quickly realized Shaw has deleted nearly all of his information-filled posts and hyperlinks from this thread. I can understand why. Even with the few morsels that remain, this thread still contains more actual information than "that other" current Enterprise thread.

No worries though; I'm sure SteveH and some of the other ungrateful asswipes here will be stepping into the void to make it a useful place to visit.


----------



## Proper2

alensatemybuick said:


> I'm sure SteveH and some of the other ungrateful asswipes here will be stepping into the void to make it a useful place to visit.


It's clear that Shaw displayed his unbalanced mental behavior next to his oversized ego. Too bad. It's also clear that his angry-baby cheerleader, whose Buick was et by aliens, has equally sizable anger issues.


----------



## Steve H

20-some years on the internet, and I'm still surprised on how otherwise seemingly rational people turn into 6 years old throwing a temper tantrum.

One thing that got lost (was it lost or just inconvenient to remember?) is how on-board so many people were. Why, if one goes to the very first page that fellow devil Proper2 cheered this thread, while other equally sane and adult voices pointed out that while this thread was a fun idea, Shaw didn't need to be such a d**k about it.

And actually calling out the Enterprise Restoration thread as somehow LACKING?! 

So sorry we didn't get 10 more pages of the Shaw/Alen circle-jerk regarding the 'true' meaning of the numbers on the hull of the 11 foot miniature.


----------



## scotthm

alensatemybuick said:


> Shaw has deleted nearly all of his information-filled posts and hyperlinks from this thread. I can understand why.


I can't. That's the action I would expect of a pouting child, not a mature adult.

I guess if not everyone appreciates the information, none are to have it. Too bad.

---------------


----------



## alensatemybuick

There's a famous soliloquy from "The Lady From Shanghai" that comes to mind:



> Do you know once, off the hump of Brazil, I saw the ocean so darkened with blood it was black, and the sun fainting away over the lip of the sky...We'd put in at Fortaleza and a few of us had lines out for a bit of idle fishing. It was me who had the first strike. A shark it was. Then there was another. And another shark again. Till all about, the sea was made of sharks...and more sharks still. And no water at all. My shark had torn himself from the hook and the scent or maybe the stain it was...and him bleeding his life away...drove the rest of them mad. Then the beasts took to eating each other. In their frenzy...they ate at themselves. You could feel the lust of murder like a wind stinging your eyes. And you could smell the death reeking up out of the sea. I never saw anything worse...until this little picnic tonight. And you know....there wasn't one of them sharks in the whole crazy pack that survived. I'll be leaving you now....


----------



## scotthm

alensatemybuick said:


> There's a famous soliloquy from "The Lady From Shanghai" that comes to mind:


A quite interesting work of fiction.

---------------


----------



## Richard Baker

I am abandoning this thread.
It was a useful discussion about the starship but has degenerated into people just talking about each other. 
I just do not care who is longer...


----------



## Proper2

Richard Baker said:


> I am abandoning this thread.
> It was a useful discussion about the starship but has degenerated into people just talking about each other.
> I just do not care who is longer...


You think?


----------



## Steve H

Well, hell, now I'm confused. Am I the shark or am I the blood or what? 

I'm sure not gonna be the matador, because then I've got to drop an atom bomb on NYC and then jab myself with a suicide needle or something.


----------



## SteveR

Madness. *All* around.


----------



## Y3a

Six years olds, Dude.


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> I can't. That's the action I would expect of a pouting child, not a mature adult.
> 
> I guess if not everyone appreciates the information, none are to have it. Too bad.
> 
> ---------------


I'm not sure if core problem was we didn't pat him on the head enough and tell him how wonderful he was, or if, as suggested, it was all meant to be a lecture that was to be accepted without any critical viewing whatsoever, and lordy lordy don't QUESTION it. 

And it's a shame. I honestly feel his drawing of setting the bridge lower into the B/C deck was a brilliant solution to account for the Turbolift set shift and the later Star Trek Animated secondary access point. To learn by inference that he considered that a joke, an intentional mockery that was supposed to..I dunno, do something that would embarrass me or some nonsense, that was sad.

For years, decades, fans had gone along with Franz Joseph in believing that main engineering was in the saucer, somewhere near the impulse engines. It's only fairly recently that some, looking at that 'interior spaces' diagram from Day of the Dove and suddenly understanding that background design of the set in new context, figured that main engineering actually did belong in the engineering hull, and I think that's gaining more and more acceptance as time goes on, partially informed by what has come after- ST:TMP (and by inference Phase II), ST:TNG and so on. 

We could be perched at the start of a new era of interpretation of the Enterprise, freed of the constraints of the work of Franz Joseph. But maybe not.


----------



## scotthm

Shaw said:


> if you guys don't appreciate the info or don't want me to share... I won't. It takes time and effort to put this together, no need to waste it on those who would rather I didn't.


I would think it took considerable time and effort to delete all the information already posted. It's a shame you felt the need to waste that additional time.

---------------


----------



## Y3a

That part was just more tantrum.


----------



## MartyS




----------



## Proper2

As long as we don't break our little ships...


----------



## RSN

OK, so then we are back to, if you want the bridge offset, that is cool, it is you prerogative, but if you want it facing forward with the elevator door offset, that is cool too and you will not be made to feel as if you just started a famine in the desert!!


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> OK, so then we are back to, if you want the bridge offset, that is cool, it is you prerogative, but if you want it facing forward with the elevator door offset, that is cool too and you will not be made to feel as if you just started a famine in the desert!!


I...I think that's what I'm saying? Shaw showed that it was workable, didn't violate anything other than the Franz Joseph thinking. 

I also feel that helps the old argument about(against) putting the control center in the most vulnerable place there is on the ship (the dome), because dropping it slightly (or more than slightly but less than completely) into the B/C deck bulge now puts some armor, or at the very least more material around the bridge and increases the protection somewhat. 

It makes sense to me. It accounts for what we see. It works if you use the actual physical stage set for your dimensions or if you assume the context of the stage set as overly large in order to work with '60s era lighting and camerawork and the 'real' bridge would be somewhat smaller. It works for the 'upgrade' to the bridge for the Animated Series (which some may or may not consider official canon as they see fit).


----------



## Macs_Little_Car

OK, move along, nothing else to see here

Thanks everybody!


----------

