View Full Version : Enterprise Designer dies
Scott Hedrick
July 22nd 03, 03:26 AM
Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:08:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
>In article >,
>Scott Hedrick > wrote:
>>Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
>
>He must have been awfully old, since the original Enterprise was a
>schooner launched in 1799. Or did you mean the USN aircraft carrier
>launched in 1936? :-)
....No, he designed the original "Star Trek" USS Enterprise. The one
with the battleship grey paint job. And just for being a smartass, I'm
claiming an ICH T-Shirt for that one, Henry :-P
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Chris Manteuffel
July 22nd 03, 07:28 PM
(Henry Spencer) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Scott Hedrick > wrote:
> >Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
>
> He must have been awfully old, since the original Enterprise was a
> schooner launched in 1799. Or did you mean the USN aircraft carrier
> launched in 1936? :-)
1799 was the 3rd Enterprise in the USN. 1st Enterprise was a
sloop-of-war captured from the British in 1775, served in Lake
Champlain, fought at the battle of Valcour, was burned along with the
rest of Benedicts Arnold fleet in 1777 to prevent capture by the
British (the Philadelphia @ Smithsonian American History, the oldest
existing US warship, was sunk at Valcour).
The Continental Congress purchased an Enterprise from Maryland in 1776
to patrol the Chesapeake, returning it after two months.
1799 was the 3rd Enterprise, the first ship built for the USN as
Enterprise, so I guess you could call its designer the "designer of
the original USS Enterprise".
4th Enterprise was a 1831 schooner that sailed around the world,
decommed in 1844.
5th Enterprise was the 1877 steam sloop-of-war, which was sold in
1909.
6th Enterprise was CV-6, commissioned 1938, sold in 1958.
7th Enterprise was CV(A)N-65, commissioned 1961. Scheduled to decomm
sometime in the 2010's.
I don't know when the "USS" started to appear in ships names, so I
don't know which might have been the first ship to be contemporarily
referred to as "USS Enterprise". When Constitution was launched in
1797 she was commissioned as "USS Constitution" so #3 would have been
a USS Enterprise, but I don't know about the previous ones.
I always knew interning at the US Naval Historical Center would come
in handy some day.
Chris Manteuffel
Jay Windley
July 22nd 03, 08:16 PM
Matt Jeffries, in case it hasn't been pointed out, is the designer of the
USS ENTERPRISE that was commissioned in 2245 ... and is about seven or eight
feet long. And if you don't think it belongs in s.s.h., argue with the
Smithsonian; it was on display in the NASM for a number of years.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Mike Dicenso
July 22nd 03, 09:07 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jay Windley wrote:
>
> "Hallerb" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Yeah I saw it there, a highlight of that visit. Where is it today?
>
> Unfortunately I do not know. I'm told one of the improved Constitution
> class heavy cruiser models is on display in a theme park in California, but
> I know for a fact that the self-destruction of the Enterprise in "The Search
> for Spock" was filmed by destroying the model itself. So the one currently
> on display must be one built after that.
That is not true. The destruction of the Enterprise in TSFS was created
using a series of different models, and not the original 8 foot model
built for ST:TMP.
The original 11 foot model used in TOS is still on display at NASM, but it
has been moved over the years after the so-called 1991 "restoration".
-Mike
Jay Windley
July 22nd 03, 10:19 PM
"Mike Dicenso" > wrote in message
zona.edu...
|
| That is not true. The destruction of the Enterprise in TSFS was created
| using a series of different models, and not the original 8 foot model
| built for ST:TMP.
_American Cinematographer_ published an interview with the FX technicians
who seem to state otherwise. They made a special point about relishing
blowing it up because it was such a difficult model to work with. I'll have
to go back and dig up the issue out of my attic, but I was pretty sure they
were talking about the big model. It's possible they were talking about a
smaller one. Obviously if we can point to a surviving large-scale model,
they must not have blow that one up.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:07:38 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jay Windley wrote:
....Totally wrong. Just like his bandwidth wasting attempts to prove
he's smarter than the group trolls.
>That is not true. The destruction of the Enterprise in TSFS was created
>using a series of different models, and not the original 8 foot model
>built for ST:TMP.
....Correct. The top of the saucer section was recreated two ways:
1) in a styro compound that didn't produce blackened outgassing when
burned. This is what we seen on fire before the saucer blows.
2) in glass, and then exploded from underneath using a combination of
pyrotechnics and a shotgun. This produced the proper amount of
fragmentation when the saucer blows.
....The two shots were aligned with a third shot of the TMP Enterprise
to provide the nacelles. If you have a DVD copy of STIII, you can
still frame this scene to see just where the cut occurs between the
burning and the blast. While it wasn't noticeable in the theaters,
it's not as clean as it should be.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Terrell Miller
July 23rd 03, 12:32 AM
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:26:26 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> > wrote:
>
> >Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
>
> http://www.trektoday.com/news/210703_04.shtml
>
> http://www.startrek.com/news/news.asp?ID=129357
>
> ...Damn. That's all I can say. Damn.
shoulda been whoever did the "original blueprints", remember those?
Fascinating when I was a kid, but I dusted them off a couple eyars ago.
*Really* stupid interior layout. The Captain's quarters, the bridge, and the
briefing room are all on separate levels, for starters.
But the exterior model was *way* cool <g>
Thanks, Matt, and RIP
--
Terrell Miller
"I think the significant thing is that whatever prodecure we use, we are not
prepared to handle what I would call a fluid bowel movement. That is where
we were very...lucky. I was deathly afraid of that."
-Wally Schirra, Apollo 7 mission debrief
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
July 23rd 03, 12:41 AM
"Jay Windley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Dicenso" > wrote in message
> zona.edu...
> |
> | That is not true. The destruction of the Enterprise in TSFS was created
> | using a series of different models, and not the original 8 foot model
> | built for ST:TMP.
>
> _American Cinematographer_ published an interview with the FX technicians
> who seem to state otherwise. They made a special point about relishing
> blowing it up because it was such a difficult model to work with. I'll
have
> to go back and dig up the issue out of my attic, but I was pretty sure
they
> were talking about the big model. It's possible they were talking about a
> smaller one. Obviously if we can point to a surviving large-scale model,
> they must not have blow that one up.
>
Please do since the Star Trek magazine I have from Dec. states teh same as
Mike states.
> --
> |
> The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
> to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
>
Scott Hedrick
July 23rd 03, 01:15 AM
"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott Hedrick > wrote:
> >Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
>
> He must have been awfully old, since the original Enterprise was a
> schooner launched in 1799. Or did you mean the USN aircraft carrier
> launched in 1936? :-)
Wasn't Enterprize built by Henry VIII to test concepts for the Mary Rose?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Scott Hedrick
July 23rd 03, 01:20 AM
I have a picture of the Enterprise hanging in NASM from 1980. It was in
terrible shape.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Hallerb
July 23rd 03, 02:01 AM
>
>I have a picture of the Enterprise hanging in NASM from 1980. It was in
>terrible shape.
I remmber reading it had been stored in a garage disassembled.
Hallerb
July 23rd 03, 02:28 AM
>
>Well, my pics of her, taken in 1992, look pretty good...
>
>Andre
I think it was restored somewhere along the way after being stored in a garage
when the series ended.
Doug...
July 23rd 03, 04:12 AM
In article >,
says...
> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
> in message ...
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:26:26 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original Enterprise, died today.
> >
> > http://www.trektoday.com/news/210703_04.shtml
> >
> > http://www.startrek.com/news/news.asp?ID=129357
> >
> > ...Damn. That's all I can say. Damn.
>
>
> shoulda been whoever did the "original blueprints", remember those?
Franz Joseph.
> Fascinating when I was a kid, but I dusted them off a couple eyars ago.
> *Really* stupid interior layout. The Captain's quarters, the bridge, and the
> briefing room are all on separate levels, for starters.
They're all on different levels based on the scripts in the series. The
bridge is Deck 1, the officers' quarters are on Deck 5, and the Briefing
Room is... wherever the hell they said it was. (Memory is an iffy thing,
sometimes...)
> But the exterior model was *way* cool <g>
Yep, though it was the last of something like 15 or 20 rough
configurations that Jeffries came up with. And the original version of
the design -- two nacelles, a cigar-shaped engineering module and saucer
-- was inverted from what they finally photographed.
> Thanks, Matt, and RIP
Godspeed, Matt Jeffries.
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:44:53 -0700, Eddie Valiant
> wrote:
>I tend to agree with Mike. I seem to recall on the ST:TMP DVD that
>the model was actually sent to the company doing some of the updated
>CGI shots of the Enterprise. I'll have to dig out the DVD after we
>unpack to watch it again, but I'm fairly certain it was the large
>model they showed being uncrated.
....The model was loaned out so it could be scanned into a 3D mesh that
could be used to complete and/or remake certain SFX shots originally
done in miniature and the viewer not be able to tell the difference
unless they knew the movie down to the frame. Which means guys like
me, Rick Sternbach, Mike Okuda(*), and probably the lurking geek who
calls himself Pat Flannery.
....Here's an example of how good the CGI was:
http://members.aol.com/IDICPage3/tmpdvd.html
....Regrettably, Bill McCullears doesn't update his site very often
these days, but the entire site is worth a couple of days surfing for
those wanting more info on the Enterprise and its various
incarnations.
(*) And maybe his wife Denise, but IIRC she doesn't lurk here, so...
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On 23 Jul 2003 01:18:55 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
>"Scott Hedrick" ) writes:
>> I have a picture of the Enterprise hanging in NASM from 1980. It was in
>> terrible shape.
>
>Well, my pics of her, taken in 1992, look pretty good...
....That was after the 1991 restoration, where they added all the
weathering and enhanced the hull lines based on suggestions by Greg
Jein on how to bring it more in-line with how Starfleet ships were
being shown on TNG and DS9. While adding these details were met with
some criticism by Trek fans more interested in preserving the original
appearance of the 11' model(*), there was quite a bit of agreement
that the new look was quite detailed enough to stand up to the
resolution of TV for that day, and it probably wouldn't have hurt
Paranoidmount to have used it instead of Jein's new miniature in the
DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations".
(*) Calling an 11' model a "miniature" is like calling William "The
Refrigerator" Perry is "big".
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:15:48 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> wrote:
>Wasn't Enterprize built by Henry VIII to test concepts for the Mary Rose?
....IIRC, you are correct.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Doug...
July 23rd 03, 08:15 AM
In article >,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org says...
>
> <snip>
>
> (*) Calling an 11' model a "miniature" is like calling William "The
> Refrigerator" Perry is "big".
The Lord of the Rings effects staff built models so big that they stopped
calling them "miniatures" and started calling them "bigatures."
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:20:48 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> wrote:
>I have a picture of the Enterprise hanging in NASM from 1980. It was in
>terrible shape.
....Lessee, before it got to the SASM, it had been loaned out to a
small Sci-Fi con, where the two guys assigned to hooking up all the
lights got some wires crossed and blew out practically every light in
the model. IIRC, there's some story about them replacing most of them
with a few strings of Xmas lights, but these were apparently removed
before they returned it to Paranoidmount after the convention.
....Here's what it looked like when it got to Garber:
http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/garber.html
....When it arrived at the SASM, it was missing both nacelle domes, the
main deflector dish, and several of the plexiglass rectangular and
cylindrical windows on the model. Also, the bridge dome had become
detached - the word I've gotten over the years was that the attachment
screws had been sheared loose - and some of he black decal lettering
on the top of the saucer section had been chipped in places. Finally,
there were two rather obvious cracks in the Royalite vacuuformed
plastic of the saucer, both adjacent and running alongside the wooden
ribs which supported the outer surface. Current theory was that either
the model was dropped inside of its support crate and/or someone stood
or set something on top of the model that cracked the Royalite.
....To their credit, the people at Garber did the best they could at
the time to restore the model to as close to its original appearance
as possible. However, they were hampered by many of the same problems
Franz Joseph and most other Treknologists faced in those pre-digitally
enhanced days - all they had for resources were grainy 16 and 35mm
slides of the actual film stock the show aired on. As a result, the
renovators made some major errors in both the deflector dish and the
engine nacelle caps. The domes were painted bright red instead of a
transluscent frosting, while the dish was the wrong size, shape, and
had a completely inaccurate horn element.
....Still, they did a remarkable job in getting the model in
presentable form. They cleaned up the paint only where it was chipped
or scratched (*), replaced the missing plexiglas windows, and even
replaced some of the lighting arrays with cooler, safer lights. When
it went up over the "Life in Space?" exhibit, it wound up being one of
the SASM's most visited exhibits. This despite the fact that the SASM
ignored thousands of complaints that the model should *not* have been
displayed up high, but down below where people could see it better.
....One thing that I do fault the Garber guys for was the lack of
documentation made regarding the lighting array underneath the nacelle
caps. This was some sort of oddball mirror arrangement that I would
have loved to have gotten a better grasp on how it worked. From what I
was told in correspondence with someone at Silver Hill - what Garber
was before it was renamed in '80 - the arrays were removed during the
initial restoration, and were junked as they were burned out and there
was some question as to how they worked that nobody at Paranoidmount
had any ideas about. Dick Datin wasn't able to assist, as the upgrades
were done by one of the other effects houses - probably Howard
Anderson's company - and not by himself. From what I've been able to
gather, when the model was refurbished the 2nd time in '83-'84, they
concocted their own method of lighting the nacelles, although they
still retained the inaccurate red caps. It wasn't until Ed Miarecki
did the '91-'92 renovation that they were corrected.
(*) By not repainting the entire model, the Garber guys inadvertently
provided opportunities for proof to be recorded to verify whether or
not grid lines were actually drawn on the top of the saucer section.
Computer enhancement shows that, as Jeffries claimed and detailed in
his drawings, grid lines *did* exist, but based on how light they are
it's obvious that they were drawn on, probably with a big pencil and a
straight edge. Dick Datin, who built the model, doesn't recall
puttling grid lines on it at the time he built it, and enhancements of
effects shots taken during the two pilots also fail to show the lines.
The current guess is that they were drawn on when the bridge dome was
in height and the big copper strips were removed from the navigation
lights on the top port and starbord sides of the saucer.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:59:38 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>Frankly someone should've been kicked in the ass good and hard for that.
>It was one thing to repair the cracking in the support pylons, and replace
>the nacelle domes, and the navigational deflector dish, but to add the
>extra weathering and the lines was going too far.
....The decision was made by the NASM PR people, who decided that a
facelift was needed prior to the opening of the 1992 Star Trek exhibit
at the NASM. The model, they argued, was almost 30 years old and in
serious need of repair. However, the NASM was contacted by Ed Miarecki
of SFMA Modelers, a Springfield, MA based FX house about the
possibility of doing a new renovation of the model after seeing photos
of it in a magazine. During the negotiations, someone at the NASM got
the wild idea of revamping the model to look more in-line with the way
models looked on TNG. Miarecki, according to several sources, had seen
sketches Greg Jein had done of the same concept, and based his
renovations on Jein's work.
....I should note, however, that Miarecki has never, to my knowledge,
acknowledged Jein as his inspirational source. I'd love to track him
down one day and see what his side of this story is.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Scott Hedrick
July 23rd 03, 03:59 PM
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:20:48 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have a picture of the Enterprise hanging in NASM from 1980. It was in
> >terrible shape.
>
> ...Lessee, before it got to the SASM, it had been loaned out to a
> small Sci-Fi con, where the two guys assigned to hooking up all the
> lights got some wires crossed and blew out practically every light in
> the model. IIRC, there's some story about them replacing most of them
> with a few strings of Xmas lights, but these were apparently removed
> before they returned it to Paranoidmount after the convention.
>
> ...Here's what it looked like when it got to Garber:
>
> http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/garber.html
>
> ...When it arrived at the SASM, it was missing both nacelle domes, the
> main deflector dish, and several of the plexiglass rectangular and
> cylindrical windows on the model. Also, the bridge dome had become
> detached - the word I've gotten over the years was that the attachment
> screws had been sheared loose - and some of he black decal lettering
> on the top of the saucer section had been chipped in places. Finally,
> there were two rather obvious cracks in the Royalite vacuuformed
> plastic of the saucer, both adjacent and running alongside the wooden
> ribs which supported the outer surface. Current theory was that either
> the model was dropped inside of its support crate and/or someone stood
> or set something on top of the model that cracked the Royalite.
>
> ...To their credit, the people at Garber did the best they could at
> the time to restore the model to as close to its original appearance
> as possible. However, they were hampered by many of the same problems
> Franz Joseph and most other Treknologists faced in those pre-digitally
> enhanced days - all they had for resources were grainy 16 and 35mm
> slides of the actual film stock the show aired on. As a result, the
> renovators made some major errors in both the deflector dish and the
> engine nacelle caps. The domes were painted bright red instead of a
> transluscent frosting
On a whim, when I was building my version of Enterprise-D, I thinned the
bright red paint I had on hand, added a touch of yellow, and painted the
inside of the translucent domes. It provided a nice effect, much better than
simply painting the outside.
It was only later that I read the instructions and discovered that painting
the insides was suggested. Thinning the paint allowed me to vary the
thickness, so that the dark interior of the nacelle appeared swirly and made
it seem active.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Jay Windley
July 23rd 03, 04:06 PM
"Mike Dicenso" > wrote in message
izona.edu...
|
| My reference is the Decemeber 2002 Star Trek:The Magazine, pages 20-27.
| There were several models used, each one custom built for the scene.
You're absolutely right. Here are the relevant sections of the article from
_American Cinematographer_, "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" by Nora
Lee, pp. 54-63:
[begin lengthy quote]
The scene all devoted Trekkies were waiting for was the destruction of the
Enterprise. To the uninitiated, this might seem like an obvious story
twist. How many times Kirk had started that destruct sequence in the past!
And at the last moment he would figure some other way out of the dilemma and
cancel the order to destruct. Not this time -- this time it blew up and an
era ended. Not only that, but Ken Ralston, the man who engineered its
destruction, was *glad*!
"It was something I always wanted to do. I hate that ship. I've said that
a hundred times but it's true. I think it's ugly -- the most silly looking
thing. The model itself is murder to work with, so I am glad it's gone. I
would hope that the idea actually originated with me on Trek II. I talked
to Harve Bennett about doing that to the ship -- blowing it up. I'd like to
take some credit, at least, for blowing it up -- for physically doing it.
Watching that thing go was one of my favorite parts.
"There are a lot of complicated things happening and it's pretty quick. My
involvement began at the top of the bridge when you see it blow up. It was
a miniature that we shot with the Bruce Hill camera. Sean Casey had done a
lot of work on all those models, mold-making and things, because we had to
do a lot of tests before we ever got to really shooting it. The pyro work
was headed up by Ted Moehnke, who did a great job on the show. I think we
got some real nice pyrotechnics and different character pyrotechnics, too.
"So it was a full miniature blown up. Then we had to pull a matte off that
and put some stars in because it was just shot against black. Then we cut
back to the Bird of Prey ship moving away from the Enterprise and dropping
down. The top is blowing up. What we did -- Don Dow shot that one -- we
just painted out the top with black. If it's against the stars, you won't
be able to see it. We painted it real black. We weren't about to destroy
that $150,000 model that Doug Trumbull built. I was tempted though --
tempted many times to take a mallet to it.
....
"Next we cut to the famous number (NCC 1701) being eaten away and the
explosions going off. Bill George devised a very light styrofoam that he
laid over this incredible gridwork -- something he came up with in 20
minutes or so. It looked great. We dripped acetone or MEK or some realy
vile stuff on the surface of it and you can see it eating away the surface,
but you can't see the stuff dripping on it. I wasn't sure if it would work.
The camera is shooting over a frame a second, that is why it is hard to see
the drip. ...
....
"But the final explosion, when the whole thing goes, is a large dish shape
which Sean made out of plaster. I sprinkled talcum powder over it to get
more fine material coming off it. It had several explosives inside that Ted
had come up with."
(_American Cinematographer_, Aug./Sept. 1984, p. 61)
[end lengthy quote]
Sorry about the confusion. I reached back 20 years (the last time I read
this article) and recalled Ralston's statement that he hated the model and
was glad it's gone. But the article makes it plain that the large original
model was not damaged.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Mike Dicenso
July 23rd 03, 08:06 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jay Windley wrote:
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | Please do since the Star Trek magazine I have from Dec. states teh same as
> | Mike states.
>
> Both you and Mike got your information from the same source, and after
> blowing the dust off my old magazines, it agrees fully with your source.
> Ken Ralston indeed hated the model and *wanted* to destroy it, but didn't.
I've heard the same about Ken Ralston's hatered of the ST:TMP model from a
variety of sources, not just that one. A friend of mine who works in the
FX biz stated that Ralston was really just hard up because he didn't want
to take the time to learn how to use the Dougla Turnbull devised mounting
system as it was very different in many ways from the ILM standard. I
don't know how true it is, but it really wouldn't suprise me, if it were.
> My question now is where the TMP model currently resides. I saw a model
> about the right size in a California theme park, either at Paramount's Great
> America or Knott's Berry Farm, and the park staff told me it was the
> "special effects model". I'm however skeptical that it would be put out in
> the weather.
Sounds a bit suspicous to me. Are you sure it wasn't Brick Price's
abandoned Phase II model? I know that one has been making the rounds here
and there. See "http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/GemKirk110.html" to see
what it looks like. It apparently was finished up to look more like the
Turnbull model. But the nacelles are the giveaway.
-Mike
Justin Broderick
July 23rd 03, 08:07 PM
(Justin Broderick) wrote in message >...
Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I sent it off prematurely.
I meant to add that the 1797 Enterprize may have been "USS" as in "US
Schooner." Or "US Brig" in her War of 1812 form. But never "US Ship,"
as that term was still used quite technically and her two masts would
definitely disqualify her.
--Justin
Mike Dicenso
July 23rd 03, 08:14 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:59:38 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >Frankly someone should've been kicked in the ass good and hard for that.
> >It was one thing to repair the cracking in the support pylons, and replace
> >the nacelle domes, and the navigational deflector dish, but to add the
> >extra weathering and the lines was going too far.
<story snipped>
> ...I should note, however, that Miarecki has never, to my knowledge,
> acknowledged Jein as his inspirational source. I'd love to track him
> down one day and see what his side of this story is.
Yeah, I heard that story. But whoever is reponsible deserves to get a good
butt-kicking for it. At the very least Miraecki could have done was
protest the issue. I know I would have as there is no good reason to do
such an extensive reworking of the model.
On the subject of gridlines and weathering; apparently there was already
at some point in the 11 footer's life a light weathering effect. the
weathering can be seen in good publicity photos such as those in "The
Making of Star Trek" There apparently were also gridlines, but they were
very lightly stenciled in, and were found only on the top of the saucer
section. See "http://member.aol.com/WMccullars/Grids.html". Whether the
grids were added during or after the show is still a matter of some
conjecture. Certainly they are light enough that they would not have shown
up very well, or not at all during filming.
-Mike
kmart
July 24th 03, 03:58 AM
"Jay Windley" > wrote in message >...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | Please do since the Star Trek magazine I have from Dec. states teh same as
> | Mike states.
>
> Both you and Mike got your information from the same source, and after
> blowing the dust off my old magazines, it agrees fully with your source.
> Ken Ralston indeed hated the model and *wanted* to destroy it, but didn't.
>
> My question now is where the TMP model currently resides. I saw a model
> about the right size in a California theme park, either at Paramount's Great
> America or Knott's Berry Farm, and the park staff told me it was the
> "special effects model". I'm however skeptical that it would be put out in
> the weather.
As I recall, the Franklin Mint purchased the TMP-TUC Enterprise in the
mid-90s. It got loaned back out to Foundation Imaging as a reference
when they did their dubious CG enhancements for the TMP DVD (probably
could have been done better by animating large format still-cutouts a
la 2001, but that is an aside & not relevant), and showed up at an
event hyping that disk's release, but I never heard about whether it
was shipped back to the Mint, which I believe is in the Southeast US.
My take is that Ralston & co simply didn't ever take the shooting of
the model seriously in the same way Trumbull did. It just doesn't ever
look huge in the ILM movies like it did in TMP, though their works is
certainly very serviceable a lot of the time. One thing is that I hate
them for messing up the paint job.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:14:32 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>On the subject of gridlines and weathering; apparently there was already
>at some point in the 11 footer's life a light weathering effect. the
>weathering can be seen in good publicity photos such as those in "The
>Making of Star Trek" There apparently were also gridlines, but they were
>very lightly stenciled in, and were found only on the top of the saucer
>section. See "http://member.aol.com/WMccullars/Grids.html". Whether the
>grids were added during or after the show is still a matter of some
>conjecture. Certainly they are light enough that they would not have shown
>up very well, or not at all during filming.
....Dick Datin apparently cleared this up recently. While he never
applied the lines when he first built the model in late '64, he
believes that when the Howard Anderson company "upgraded" the model
for regular series filming - despiking the nacelle caps, resizing the
deflector dish, eliminating that big huge dome of the bridge,
completely redesigning the nacelle rear ports *twice*, etc. - some
additional details were added, such as the penciled-in gridlines and
some of the little signage that is noticeably absent in the pilot
footage. However, there's still one mystery about the gridlines: it's
uncertain whether Matt Jeffries drew his plan views with the gridlines
before or after they were applied to the model.
Talk about your tribble or the egg story...
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On 23 Jul 2003 12:07:24 -0700, (Justin
Broderick) wrote:
(Justin Broderick) wrote in message >...
>
>Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I sent it off prematurely.
>
>I meant to add that the 1797 Enterprize may have been "USS" as in "US
>Schooner." Or "US Brig" in her War of 1812 form. But never "US Ship,"
>as that term was still used quite technically and her two masts would
>definitely disqualify her.
....Correct. However, today a ship is any surface vessel, while a boat
is a sub.
(where's Derek in all this?)
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On 23 Jul 2003 19:58:12 -0700, (kmart) wrote:
>My take is that Ralston & co simply didn't ever take the shooting of
>the model seriously in the same way Trumbull did. It just doesn't ever
>look huge in the ILM movies like it did in TMP, though their works is
>certainly very serviceable a lot of the time. One thing is that I hate
>them for messing up the paint job.
....While I totally disagree with your opinion regarding the DVD CGI,
you are correct on the dulling of the model when ILM got ahold of it.
Their excuse was that the multifacited pearlescent look played havok
with their method of bluescreening. Had they used Trumbull's methods,
the model would have worked fine. Having seen several natural light
shots of the TPM model before ILM raped it, the effect was stunning
and deserved to be left as-is.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Herb Schaltegger
July 24th 03, 02:07 PM
In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2003 12:07:24 -0700, (Justin
> Broderick) wrote:
>
> (Justin Broderick) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> >Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I sent it off prematurely.
> >
> >I meant to add that the 1797 Enterprize may have been "USS" as in "US
> >Schooner." Or "US Brig" in her War of 1812 form. But never "US Ship,"
> >as that term was still used quite technically and her two masts would
> >definitely disqualify her.
>
> ...Correct. However, today a ship is any surface vessel, while a boat
> is a sub.
>
> (where's Derek in all this?)
>
>
> OM
IIUC, a "ship" is a vessel over 100' (or possibly 30 m these days) in
length; anything smaller than that is a "boat" as well.
And where IS Derek these days? He hasn't posted in weeks . . .
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
Henry Spencer
July 24th 03, 04:53 PM
In article >,
Herb Schaltegger > wrote:
>And where IS Derek these days? He hasn't posted in weeks . . .
It's possible that he has (gasp!) actually gone on vacation somewhere
where there's no (convenient) net access. You won't be hearing from me
in the first half of August, for that reason.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |
Mike Dicenso
July 24th 03, 05:27 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:14:32 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >On the subject of gridlines and weathering; apparently there was already
> >at some point in the 11 footer's life a light weathering effect. the
> >weathering can be seen in good publicity photos such as those in "The
> >Making of Star Trek" There apparently were also gridlines, but they were
> >very lightly stenciled in, and were found only on the top of the saucer
> >section. See "http://member.aol.com/WMccullars/Grids.html". Whether the
> >grids were added during or after the show is still a matter of some
> >conjecture. Certainly they are light enough that they would not have shown
> >up very well, or not at all during filming.
>
> ...Dick Datin apparently cleared this up recently. While he never
> applied the lines when he first built the model in late '64, he
> believes that when the Howard Anderson company "upgraded" the model
> for regular series filming
Yes, which is essentially what the IDIC article has to say. Although we
should keep in mind that this is what Datin *believes*, even he himself
isn't all that sure.
- despiking the nacelle caps, resizing the
> deflector dish, eliminating that big huge dome of the bridge,
> completely redesigning the nacelle rear ports *twice*, etc. - some
> additional details were added, such as the penciled-in gridlines and
> some of the little signage that is noticeably absent in the pilot
> footage. However, there's still one mystery about the gridlines: it's
> uncertain whether Matt Jeffries drew his plan views with the gridlines
> before or after they were applied to the model.
It is also possible that the plans were made to relect changes done for
the show's third season. It's really too bad that the 3 footer model has
gone missing; it would be nice to get a close up inspection of it to see
if anyone stenciled in a grid pattern on it's saucer section as well.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
July 24th 03, 05:45 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:06:13 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >Sounds a bit suspicous to me. Are you sure it wasn't Brick Price's
> >abandoned Phase II model? I know that one has been making the rounds here
> >and there. See "http://members.aol.com/IDICPage2/GemKirk110.html" to see
> >what it looks like. It apparently was finished up to look more like the
> >Turnbull model. But the nacelles are the giveaway.
>
> ...First off, that's Doug Trumbull. Secondly, the Brick Price
> miniature at the link you provided was a prototype for TMP, not Phase
> II. The Phase II Enterprise was more closer to the TOS version, with
> only the nacelle upgrades, the recessed sensor dish, and the bridge
> featuring two turbolift shafts that gave the bridge dome a "Mickey
> Mouse" appearance when viewed from above(*). The model was never 100%
> finished, and in the Phase II book that Reeves-Stevens did a couple of
> years back a photo or two of it appears. The saucer looks *nothing*
> like the one on McCullear's site.
I have the "Star Trek Phase II: The Lost Series", and there is nothing
either way to indicate that the Brick Price model seen in McCullear's IDIC
page and the one in the ST: Phase II book are not one in the same. In
fact, it would not have taken too much work to rebuild the saucer section
to resemble the later Trumbull ST:TMP model. The interconnecting pylon,
engineering hull, and warp nacelles are all very close to the final movie
version. The photos you cite are from back in the mid-70's, and it is very
clear that the model is still in an early stage of construction. So,
unless you can cite a source, there is no reason why Brick could not have
completed his model to resemble Trumbull's at some later date.
-Mike
Doug...
July 24th 03, 06:13 PM
OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
Enterprise.
In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
appear?
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
Jonathan Silverlight
July 24th 03, 07:14 PM
In message >,
Herb Schaltegger > writes
>In article >,
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jul 2003 12:07:24 -0700, (Justin
>> Broderick) wrote:
>>
>> (Justin Broderick) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >
>> >I meant to add that the 1797 Enterprize may have been "USS" as in "US
>> >Schooner." Or "US Brig" in her War of 1812 form. But never "US Ship,"
>> >as that term was still used quite technically and her two masts would
>> >definitely disqualify her.
>>
>> ...Correct. However, today a ship is any surface vessel, while a boat
>> is a sub.
>>
>
>IIUC, a "ship" is a vessel over 100' (or possibly 30 m these days) in
>length; anything smaller than that is a "boat" as well.
I was told that a ship is something that carries a boat.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk
Herb Schaltegger
July 24th 03, 07:17 PM
In article >,
Doug... > wrote:
> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
> Enterprise.
>
> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
> appear?
I'm guessing "The Ultimate Computer" as the four starships Enterprise/M5
was wargaming against and "The Doomsday Machine" when Enterprise finds
Decker's ship all smashed to ****.
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
Andre Lieven
July 24th 03, 07:23 PM
Doug... ) writes:
> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
> Enterprise.
>
> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
> appear?
Well, one would be " The Domsday Machine ", penned by Norman Spinrad,
where the other Constitution class starship is the damaged Constellation
( NCC-1017, the numbers being a shuffle of the model's 1701 decal, IIRC ).
Interestingly enough, the US Navy's Connie is one number back of the
US Navy's Enterprise, CV-64, v/ CVN-65.
Also, IIRC, the NCC-1017 in that episode also marked the only time an
AMT kit fired a phaser bank on TOS...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Doug...
July 24th 03, 08:09 PM
In article >,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org says...
> On 24 Jul 2003 18:23:27 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
> >Doug... ) writes:
> >> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
> >> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
> >> Enterprise.
> >>
> >> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
> >> appear?
> >
> >Well, one would be " The Domsday Machine ", penned by Norman Spinrad,
> >where the other Constitution class starship is the damaged Constellation
> >( NCC-1017, the numbers being a shuffle of the model's 1701 decal, IIRC ).
>
> ...The other time the AMT kit showed up was outside of Manager Lurry's
> window on Deep Space Station K-7, in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
>
> ...Also, stock footage from "The DoOmsday Machine" showed up in "The
> Ultimate Computer" as well.
And you got the complete answer first! Yep, the answer is "The Doomsday
Machine" and "The Trouble with Tribbles." (And yep, I got the name of
the model company wrong, it was AMT.)
However, the sequence in which four Constitution-class starships appear
in "The Ultimate Computer" was made up of stock footage of the
Enterprise, photocomposited into a single frame (all had the swirling-
light caps on the nacelles). There may well have been a shot of the
Enterprise approaching a single wounded starship that was taken from
"Doomsday Machine," but again, that's stock footage re-use, so I didn't
count it.
I always thought the shot from behind of the Constellation approaching
the Doomsday device was cute, in that the movement of the trolley holding
the AMT kit caused the nacelles to bounce! It was really a cheap shot,
literally, and is quite amusing in hindsight.
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
On 24 Jul 2003 18:23:27 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
>Doug... ) writes:
>> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
>> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
>> Enterprise.
>>
>> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
>> appear?
>
>Well, one would be " The Domsday Machine ", penned by Norman Spinrad,
>where the other Constitution class starship is the damaged Constellation
>( NCC-1017, the numbers being a shuffle of the model's 1701 decal, IIRC ).
....The other time the AMT kit showed up was outside of Manager Lurry's
window on Deep Space Station K-7, in "The Trouble With Tribbles".
....Also, stock footage from "The DoOmsday Machine" showed up in "The
Ultimate Computer" as well.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:17:38 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> wrote:
>In article >,
> Doug... > wrote:
>
>> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
>> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
>> Enterprise.
>>
>> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
>> appear?
>
>I'm guessing "The Ultimate Computer" as the four starships Enterprise/M5
>was wargaming against
....Only after the Excalibur gets wasted. Prior to that, they used four
shots of the 11' model next to one another.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:45:03 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>So, unless you can cite a source, there is no reason why Brick could not have
>completed his model to resemble Trumbull's at some later date.
1) Price's own admission that the Phase II model seen in the
Reeves-Stevens book was never finished. The fate of that one is still
unknown, but it's believed it was simply trashed, as was the original
Drydock model.
2) Here's a major clue: The model on McCullear's page is only about 4
feet long, according to correspondence I had with McCullears some time
back. The model seen in the Reeves-Stevens book is 8 feet long.
....So, unless he did some serious whittling down with a big knife,
it's obvious that they're not the same model. Very similar in some
aspects, but not the same.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
>In article >,
>Herb Schaltegger > wrote:
>>And where IS Derek these days? He hasn't posted in weeks . . .
>
>It's possible that he has (gasp!) actually gone on vacation somewhere
>where there's no (convenient) net access. You won't be hearing from me
>in the first half of August, for that reason.
....Make damn sure you post a formal annoucement of this, because we
don't want people thinking you suddenly died or something :-P
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:27:08 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>Yes, which is essentially what the IDIC article has to say. Although we
>should keep in mind that this is what Datin *believes*, even he himself
>isn't all that sure.
....Mike, be careful here. You're taking the tactic of "but do we
really know for sure" to allow the possibility that you're right and
I'm wrong. So far, the proof and sources have been cited where
applicable. Please back off this tactic, because that way lies CT's
Syndrome.
>It is also possible that the plans were made to relect changes done for
>the show's third season.
....Except that due to budget restrictions, no changes were made to the
model save for some paint touchups where scraps had occurred during
model movement.
>It's really too bad that the 3 footer model has gone missing; it would be
>nice to get a close up inspection of it to see if anyone stenciled in a grid
>pattern on it's saucer section as well.
....There aren't. Contrast analysis was done on the promo photos where
Shatner & Nimoy hold the 3' model in front of that big plexiglass grid
display. No grid lines, however, at that size why bother?
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:09:54 -0500, Doug... >
wrote:
>I always thought the shot from behind of the Constellation approaching
>the Doomsday device was cute, in that the movement of the trolley holding
>the AMT kit caused the nacelles to bounce! It was really a cheap shot,
>literally, and is quite amusing in hindsight.
....Gene made a comment about that in an early 80's con appearance.
They'd shown the episode just before Gene's schpiel, and he commented
on the one engine bouncing up and down, stating that it was actually
*deliberate* - after all, this ship had the living **** blown out of
it, and that engine was about to fall off as it was!
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Mike Dicenso
July 25th 03, 01:46 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> In article >,
> Doug... > wrote:
>
> > OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
> > sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
> > Enterprise.
> >
> > In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
> > appear?
>
> I'm guessing "The Ultimate Computer" as the four starships Enterprise/M5
> was wargaming against and "The Doomsday Machine" when Enterprise finds
> Decker's ship all smashed to ****.
Actually the four ships seen flying in formation were just the 11 foot
model used to represent the E-1701 photographed and optically printed
together. The only exception is the U.S.S. Excalibur just as the
Enterpirse fires the final coup de grace phaser blast. That shot reused
footage of the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine".
The Enterprise as seen from Lurry's office in "The Trouble With Tribbles"
is supposed to be an AMT mode, through other sources claim it is the 3
footer.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
July 25th 03, 02:31 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:27:08 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >Yes, which is essentially what the IDIC article has to say. Although we
> >should keep in mind that this is what Datin *believes*, even he himself
> >isn't all that sure.
>
> ...Mike, be careful here. You're taking the tactic of "but do we
> really know for sure" to allow the possibility that you're right and
> I'm wrong. So far, the proof and sources have been cited where
> applicable. Please back off this tactic, because that way lies CT's
> Syndrome.
I don't see the problem, and you're getting at bit too zelous here with
the whole JTM/CT thing. The fact is that we simply cannot be sure *when*
the changes were made, and I for one would like to pin it down. All we can
say for sure at this point is that Datin had nothing to do with putting
grid lines on the upper saucer hull, and that he *believes* it was done
during the final major rebuilding of the model into what we know today as
the "production" version of the ship.
> >It is also possible that the plans were made to relect changes done for
> >the show's third season.
>
> ...Except that due to budget restrictions, no changes were made to the
> model save for some paint touchups where scraps had occurred during
> model movement.
Well, to be fair, the stenciling with a pencil basically would not have
costed all that much, relatively speaking. I remember that there were some
notes and billing excerpts published in Cinefantasque back in 1996, though
I believe those are Datin's, and probably would not help here. I know the
Datin made some extensive changes at Roddenberry's request to the foward
nacelles domes between the first and second seasons to enance their
appearence.
> >It's really too bad that the 3 footer model has gone missing; it would
> >be nice to get a close up inspection of it to see if anyone stenciled
> >in a grid pattern on it's saucer section as well.
>
> ...There aren't. Contrast analysis was done on the promo photos where
> Shatner & Nimoy hold the 3' model in front of that big plexiglass grid
> display. No grid lines, however, at that size why bother?
I'am a little bit skeptical of that. Although the lighting of the model in
those publicity stills of the 3 footer is much better than the lighting
most of the 11 footer ones, so it probably would have a better chance of
showing up, if they were there. Has anyone done contrast analysis of the
11 footer to see if the grid lines show up there? If so, and the lines
don't show up, it would probably put some doubt on the 3 footer analysis.
Either way, the loss of the 3 footer is tragedy for television and film
history.
-Mike
John Pelchat
July 25th 03, 02:49 AM
(Hallerb) wrote in message >...
> > And if you don't think it belongs in s.s.h., argue with the
> >Smithsonian; it was on display in the NASM for a number of years.
> >
> >--
> >
>
> Yeah I saw it there, a highlight of that visit. Where is it today?
Sorry if this has already been resolved, but it is still at the NASM.
Last summer I saw it in the expanded giftshop located in the basement
of the NASM building.
Take care
John Pelchat
Mike Dicenso
July 25th 03, 03:31 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:45:03 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >So, unless you can cite a source, there is no reason why Brick could not have
> >completed his model to resemble Trumbull's at some later date.
>
> 1) Price's own admission that the Phase II model seen in the
> Reeves-Stevens book was never finished. The fate of that one is still
> unknown, but it's believed it was simply trashed, as was the original
> Drydock model.
The problem is not that the Price built models were unfinished at the time
that the Phase II project was cancelled, but whether Price may have
finished up the model at much later date. I know have not not seen
anything one way or the other as to the model's fate.
> 2) Here's a major clue: The model on McCullear's page is only about 4
> feet long, according to correspondence I had with McCullears some time
> back. The model seen in the Reeves-Stevens book is 8 feet long.
Eight fee long? Most of the sources I've seen indicate the Price model
is/was 6 feet long.
> ...So, unless he did some serious whittling down with a big knife, it's
> obvious that they're not the same model. Very similar in some aspects,
> but not the same.
If you are right, it is is possible that the model on the IDIC page is an
early study model for Phase II, which was later modified to more closely
resemble Trumbull's TMP model.
-Mike
Mary Shafer
July 25th 03, 05:47 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:07:55 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> wrote:
> IIUC, a "ship" is a vessel over 100' (or possibly 30 m these days) in
> length; anything smaller than that is a "boat" as well.
You can put a boat on a ship, but you can't put a ship on a boat.
However, submarines are always boats, by definition. To submariners,
all other seagoing vessels are "targets" and the ship/boat distinction
is immaterial.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Mary Shafer
July 25th 03, 05:47 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Herb Schaltegger > wrote:
> >And where IS Derek these days? He hasn't posted in weeks . . .
>
> It's possible that he has (gasp!) actually gone on vacation somewhere
> where there's no (convenient) net access. You won't be hearing from me
> in the first half of August, for that reason.
And I'll be wandering off in September.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Doug...
July 25th 03, 06:06 AM
In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:53:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Herb Schaltegger > wrote:
> > >And where IS Derek these days? He hasn't posted in weeks . . .
> >
> > It's possible that he has (gasp!) actually gone on vacation somewhere
> > where there's no (convenient) net access. You won't be hearing from me
> > in the first half of August, for that reason.
>
> And I'll be wandering off in September.
And, while I'm sure it makes little difference to any of you, I'll be
gone for a very long weekend (Thursday through Monday) the second weekend
in August.
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:31:55 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>I don't see the problem, and you're getting at bit too zelous here with
>the whole JTM/CT thing.
....No, I'm not. You took the identical tact that those two dip****s
took. As I'm more interested in the TOS model discussion than pointing
out your mistake here, I'll just say you're being blinded by your own
zeal to be correct about something you're wrong about, and ignore this
particular arguement from hereout.
>The fact is that we simply cannot be sure *when* the changes were made,
> and I for one would like to pin it down.
....Wrong again. The gridlines had to have been added before Season One
filming began, because all post-pilot footage that's been
contrast-enhanced shows the very, very faint lines in the same places.
....Also, while typing this, I got forwarded a note from McCullears
addressing this issue: "According to original model-maker, Richard C.
Datin, the USS Enterprise studio model had no grid lines on the saucer
section when he built it (nor when he modified the model for Star
Trek's second pilot and the "production revisions"). Instead, these
were later added to the model by an artisian at the studio before
filming on the first season commenced."
....So once again, the lines were added right before Season One. Now,
if you're wanting actual date and times for first line to lift of
pencil, you're *really* being way too anal about this.
>Well, to be fair, the stenciling with a pencil basically would not have
>costed all that much, relatively speaking.
....Have you ever dealt with a Hollywood union? Rest assured they'd
have charged several hundred bucks an hour for "model work", with at
least a 3-hour minimum.
>I know Datin made some extensive changes at Roddenberry's request to
>the foward nacelles domes between the first and second seasons to
>enance their appearence.
....Correct. However, Datin did not add the rotating light arrays.
These were added afterwards.
>> ...There aren't. Contrast analysis was done on the promo photos where
>> Shatner & Nimoy hold the 3' model in front of that big plexiglass grid
>> display. No grid lines, however, at that size why bother?
>
>I'am a little bit skeptical of that.
....Sorry, but they were done from original 8x10 glossies released in
'66, acquired from a collector who verified their authenticity by
comparing them to the reproductions that Lincoln Enterprises used to
sell. It's obvious which ones were first print run and which ones
weren't. The only thing that would seal it would be for the rock in
the foreground to have a "C" on it.
>Has anyone done contrast analysis of the 11 footer to see if the grid
>lines show up there?
....Again, it has been done. What's ****ing me off is that the link I
had to those enhanced images isn't working now. Model Citizen used to
have some of these up as well, but they're not there. These were
enhancements taken from the DVD remasters, and actually show that the
footage used for the 2nd pilot had a totally unfinished impulse deck -
there's two holes in the rectangles where lights and frosted plexiglas
should go! - and they're not there now. If worse comes to worse, I've
got some stills I took directly from the same DVDs and I'll see if I
can enhance them enough to show the gridlines.
Anyone else has this link, please feel free to jump in...
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:46:39 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>The Enterprise as seen from Lurry's office in "The Trouble With Tribbles"
>is supposed to be an AMT mode, through other sources claim it is the 3
>footer.
....Nope. AMT made a big deal about this at a toy & model trade show
that season, claiming that their kit was "good enough to meet the high
standards required for television". The modelers laughed, but the toy
buyers simply upped their orders. It's still the biggest-selling model
kit of all time, beating out all the 249 different versions of the
B-29 and B-17 and P-51 that have been released since WWII *combined*.
Last I saw, before AMT/Ertl was bought out and the new owners k'hest'd
the license, the figure I heard was something like 9 or 10 *million*
releases over something like six kit revisions. And I'm *not* counting
that 22" cutaway version that's far more accurate, either.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:55:04 GMT, Doug... > wrote:
>I dunno. I've looked at the model in the Phase II book, and I've looked
>at the model at the link posted. The model in the link has a saucer
>underside that looks almost exactly like the TMP model. The lighting
>ports that flare out of the bottom of the saucer were added fairly late
>in the process of the TMP design, IIRC, when the designers decided they
>wanted the ship to "light itself." The Phase II model in the book shows
>nothing like these ports. These would have to have been added much
>later, and they look molded in on the model shown at the link.
....Correct. I meant to mention the "self-lighting" additions earlier,
but got sidetracked. All of those were added by Trumbull after the SFX
were taken away from Robert Abel & Associates, who wanted a lot more
detail than what was on the model. The model itself was actually only
painted a rather metallic off-grey when the contract changed hands,
and some promo pictures show the model in this form. Best example I
can come up with right off was that most of the shots of the TMP model
in the 1979 Topps trading card set were from test shots of this model
conducted by Abel's team.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:47:27 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:
>However, submarines are always boats, by definition. To submariners,
>all other seagoing vessels are "targets" and the ship/boat distinction
>is immaterial.
....I'm now putting on my "I Was Corrected By Mary Shafer" lace panties
after this one :-)
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:47:28 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:
>And I'll be wandering off in September.
....Just make sure you come back :-(
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Mike Dicenso
July 25th 03, 09:57 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:31:55 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't see the problem, and you're getting at bit too zelous here with
> >the whole JTM/CT thing.
>
> ...No, I'm not. You took the identical tact that those two dip****s
> took. As I'm more interested in the TOS model discussion than pointing
> out your mistake here, I'll just say you're being blinded by your own
> zeal to be correct about something you're wrong about, and ignore this
> particular arguement from hereout.
I can't be wrong about something when there is only circumstantial
evidence at best for what we are discussing. If I was insisting, as you
are, that the gridlines were added becaus we can see the Enterprise's
nacelles crossing over in the Mutara Nebula, then you might have
something. Your best response to date is to give me a vauge line about
Datin *believing* about when it occured. Are there any workforms to cite?
Any of Datin's worknotes? Anything from Howard Anderson? No, I didn't
think so.
I'am asking for some solid proof here. No more no less.
> >The fact is that we simply cannot be sure *when* the changes were made,
> > and I for one would like to pin it down.
>
> ...Wrong again. The gridlines had to have been added before Season One
> filming began, because all post-pilot footage that's been
> contrast-enhanced shows the very, very faint lines in the same places.
> ...Also, while typing this, I got forwarded a note from McCullears
> addressing this issue: "According to original model-maker, Richard C.
> Datin, the USS Enterprise studio model had no grid lines on the saucer
> section when he built it (nor when he modified the model for Star
> Trek's second pilot and the "production revisions"). Instead, these
> were later added to the model by an artisian at the studio before
> filming on the first season commenced."
>
> ...So once again, the lines were added right before Season One. Now,
> if you're wanting actual date and times for first line to lift of
> pencil, you're *really* being way too anal about this.
Whoa, wait a minute. Why didn't you just provide this quote when it
mattered, instead of the high-on-my-horse patronizing attitude? This quote
is FAR different than Datin saying "I think", or "I believe someone may
have done it about such-and-such a time, but I'am not really sure".
All I would have required is that. How come you had to play JTM games in
withholding the quote when it would have settled the issue? Sheesh.
The important thing is that this settles the fact that Datin most
certainly did NOT stencil in the gridlines himself, someone else did.
Secondly, the gridlines were added after the primary work to rebuild the
11 footer to the "production" version, but apparently *before* first
season filming began.
> >Well, to be fair, the stenciling with a pencil basically would not have
> >costed all that much, relatively speaking.
>
> ...Have you ever dealt with a Hollywood union? Rest assured they'd
> have charged several hundred bucks an hour for "model work", with at
> least a 3-hour minimum.
I've heard the horror stories. But then again I have also read stories
about how Datin and others did work pro bono because they believed so much
in what Roddenberry was doing. Of course, the work was not done by Datin,
and we have no information who carried out the work.
> >I know Datin made some extensive changes at Roddenberry's request to
> >the foward nacelles domes between the first and second seasons to
> >enance their appearence.
>
> ...Correct. However, Datin did not add the rotating light arrays.
> These were added afterwards.
That is not quite how Datin describes it in the July 1996 Cinefantasque
issue. He decribes it more as Roddenberry not wanting any lights on the
ship, then suddenly wanting lights, then more lights, and finally the
rotating lights to give the impression of the ship's warp nacelles power
increasing.
> >> ...There aren't. Contrast analysis was done on the promo photos where
> >> Shatner & Nimoy hold the 3' model in front of that big plexiglass grid
> >> display. No grid lines, however, at that size why bother?
> >
> >I'am a little bit skeptical of that.
>
> ...Sorry, but they were done from original 8x10 glossies released in
> '66, acquired from a collector who verified their authenticity by
> comparing them to the reproductions that Lincoln Enterprises used to
> sell. It's obvious which ones were first print run and which ones
> weren't. The only thing that would seal it would be for the rock in
> the foreground to have a "C" on it.
That's fine. Though it would still be nice to inspect the 3 footer close
up and see what minute similarities and differences they have. The big
structural changes are rather obvious, of course.
-Mike
> >Has anyone done contrast analysis of the 11 footer to see if the grid
> >lines show up there?
>
> ...Again, it has been done. What's ****ing me off is that the link I
> had to those enhanced images isn't working now. Model Citizen used to
> have some of these up as well, but they're not there. These were
> enhancements taken from the DVD remasters, and actually show that the
> footage used for the 2nd pilot had a totally unfinished impulse deck -
> there's two holes in the rectangles where lights and frosted plexiglas
> should go! - and they're not there now. If worse comes to worse, I've
> got some stills I took directly from the same DVDs and I'll see if I
> can enhance them enough to show the gridlines.
>
> Anyone else has this link, please feel free to jump in...
I'd like to see that. I know I've taken close looks at the DVD remasters
and high-quality VHS, and I have spotted in close-up views of the 11
footer what may be one or two gridlines here and there. But nothing very
definite.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
July 25th 03, 10:00 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:46:39 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >The Enterprise as seen from Lurry's office in "The Trouble With Tribbles"
> >is supposed to be an AMT mode, through other sources claim it is the 3
> >footer.
>
> ...Nope. AMT made a big deal about this at a toy & model trade show
> that season, claiming that their kit was "good enough to meet the high
> standards required for television".
I'am only telling you what I've heard, particularlly from the July 1996
Cinefantasque issue. It's claimed that the model used there is the 3
footer. However, the main arguement against it being the 3 footer is the
fact that if you look very closely at the bottom of the saucer section,
you can see that it is a nicely tapering conical shape, and not flat as
would be the case with the 3 footer.
-Mike
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:57:20 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>I can't be wrong about something when there is only circumstantial
>evidence at best for what we are discussing. If I was insisting, as you
>are, that the gridlines were added becaus we can see the Enterprise's
>nacelles crossing over in the Mutara Nebula, then you might have
>something. Your best response to date is to give me a vauge line about
>Datin *believing* about when it occured. Are there any workforms to cite?
>Any of Datin's worknotes? Anything from Howard Anderson? No, I didn't
>think so.
....I said I wasn't going to pursue this particular aspect of the
thread, but I will make this comment about the nacelles. When the
Enterprise blows off the port nacelle of the Reliant, it does a 90
degree rotation downward, which if you plot it out would have sent the
rear section of the nacelle into the underside of the Reliant's port
side, thus leaving a gash. None exists, which has me believing the
Federation doctored this film so as to cover-up the fact that the
nacelle failed due to being a factory defect version that had been
built by the Orion Syndicate, and that Khan had been assasinated not
because he had his hands on Genesis, but that he'd discovered the
truth about the shoddy engine quality. Remember, he was a Real Working
Engineer before he became a dictator in the 20th Century.
>I'am asking for some solid proof here. No more no less.
....Hey, no problem. Next time, just *ask*.
>Whoa, wait a minute. Why didn't you just provide this quote when it
>mattered, instead of the high-on-my-horse patronizing attitude? This quote
>is FAR different than Datin saying "I think", or "I believe someone may
>have done it about such-and-such a time, but I'am not really sure".
....Read what I said again. I got the info as I was typing this.
Someone actually sent the info in e-mail. Had I the quote from
McCullears - he still hasn't responded to my query from Wednesday on
this one - I'd have posted it then and saved us this tiff.
>All I would have required is that. How come you had to play JTM games in
>withholding the quote when it would have settled the issue? Sheesh.
....No withholding intended or actually performed. Honest Maxson.
>The important thing is that this settles the fact that Datin most
>certainly did NOT stencil in the gridlines himself, someone else did.
>Secondly, the gridlines were added after the primary work to rebuild the
>11 footer to the "production" version, but apparently *before* first
>season filming began.
....Agreed, and explains why some footage in the series shows no signs
of gridlines or weathering, because it's pilot-era footage. Then
again, you can usually tell pilot-era footage by one of three signs:
1) Big Bridge Dome From Hell.
2) Big Deflector Dish From Hell.
3) Exhaust Holes in rear of Nacelles instead of glowing balls.
....I list the balls last, as I've gotten differing stories as to when
they were added. They either were added in the middle of Season One,
or just before Season Two. I'm leaning towards the latter as the
tooling for the first release of the AMT kit, IIRC, was done towards
the end of production for Season One, and this tooling lacks the balls
on the ends of the nacelles. Oddly, tho, those same ends are smooth
with no details other than the corrugations on the circumference.
>I've heard the horror stories. But then again I have also read stories
>about how Datin and others did work pro bono because they believed so much
>in what Roddenberry was doing. Of course, the work was not done by Datin,
>and we have no information who carried out the work.
....They either did it Pro Bono or at least as part of existing duties
so they got some semblance of payment. The really interesting thing
about stories like this is that you *never* hear of anything like this
happening on any other series, period. There was something about Gene
and his concepts that, according to those who worked with him, made
you want to help him out because somehow you knew and/or were
convinced he was trying to do something more than sell pills and soap.
>That is not quite how Datin describes it in the July 1996 Cinefantasque
>issue. He decribes it more as Roddenberry not wanting any lights on the
>ship, then suddenly wanting lights, then more lights, and finally the
>rotating lights to give the impression of the ship's warp nacelles power
>increasing.
....Again, see my comments on that particular magazine. Datin's
recollection about Gene not wanting any lights, however, may be his
changing his mind based on budget juggling. The original order in fact
called for a lightless model - and there are windows for lighting, but
unlit - but when the 2nd pilot was given the green light, lighting was
added. The initial flyby in the 2nd pilot shows the lighting upgrades,
especially the blinking navigation lights.
>That's fine. Though it would still be nice to inspect the 3 footer close
>up and see what minute similarities and differences they have. The big
>structural changes are rather obvious, of course.
....And there's the rub. According to Majel, Gene loaned the 3' model
out to a friend, and it was never returned. At the same time, there's
the long-standing rumor that Gene Jr, at age two, tossed the 3' model
into the family pool, where it a) broke into pieces as all AMT kit
builders know is prone to happen when you fart next to it, and b) got
waterlogged and warped so badly when it dried out that it was simply
tossed in the trash. Gene Jr. hasn't exactly denied this happened, but
Majel's still asking for the "friend" to surface and return the
"stolen property".
>I'd like to see that. I know I've taken close looks at the DVD remasters
>and high-quality VHS, and I have spotted in close-up views of the 11
>footer what may be one or two gridlines here and there. But nothing very
>definite.
....They're actually visible in the DVD remaster of "The Cage", and can
be seen when the 11' model does its flipover and zoom into the bridge,
and that's without computer enhancement. They're slight, but they're
there.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Scott Hedrick
July 26th 03, 12:20 AM
"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> And I'll be wandering off in September.
Say it isn't so! I thought we lived in a society that provided, albeit
inadequately, for our elders. Mary, there's no need to cut yourself off from
the tribe!
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Mike Dicenso
July 26th 03, 03:39 AM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, OM wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:00:42 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >I'am only telling you what I've heard, particularlly from the July 1996
> >Cinefantasque issue. It's claimed that the model used there is the 3
> >footer. However, the main arguement against it being the 3 footer is the
> >fact that if you look very closely at the bottom of the saucer section,
> >you can see that it is a nicely tapering conical shape, and not flat as
> >would be the case with the 3 footer.
>
> ...IMHO, _Cinefantastique_ isn't as well-known for their accuracy as,
> say _American Cinematographer_. This one especially flies in the face
> of years of verbal histories from everyone associated with the series
> from Gene Roddenberry on down to pre-Ertl AMT. In addition, if you
> look at the scale of the model to the windows, it's obvious it's *not*
> the 3' model, because there wasn't enough space behind the windows for
> the 3' model to have been located to get the same forced perspective
> measurement.
>
> ...Also, for a really great shot showing just how obvious the 3'
> model's underside differs from the 11' model, there's this brief flyby
> at the end of "The Cage" that shows this very well.
Also there's the shot of the 3 footer in "Requiem for Methuselah" where
you can see not only the flat bottomed saucer in some shots, but also the
mounting stem.
-Mike
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:06 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>Also there's the shot of the 3 footer in "Requiem for Methuselah" where
>you can see not only the flat bottomed saucer in some shots, but also the
>mounting stem.
....The mounting stem is what most people see on the "Tomorrow is
Yesterday" publicity still, and also claim is the tractor beam array.
IMHO, it's not a bad idea, considering that's where every other
starship tends to have a tractor beam :-)
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Gordon Davie
July 26th 03, 06:14 PM
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Doug... ) writes:
>> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
>> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
>> Enterprise.
>>
>> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
>> appear?
>
> Well, one would be " The Domsday Machine ", penned by Norman Spinrad,
> where the other Constitution class starship is the damaged
> Constellation ( NCC-1017, the numbers being a shuffle of the model's
> 1701 decal, IIRC ).
That always irritated me - why couldn't they have used NCC-1710, which would
have kept it within a sensible numbering range for the ship class?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Gordon Davie
July 26th 03, 06:14 PM
OM wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:12:51 -0500, Doug... >
> wrote:
>
>> Yep, though it was the last of something like 15 or 20 rough
>> configurations that Jeffries came up with. And the original version
>> of the design -- two nacelles, a cigar-shaped engineering module and
>> saucer -- was inverted from what they finally photographed.
>
> ...One point of note here: There's been a couple of Trek art books
> that have come out lately that show some of Jeffries' sketches showing
> how the Enterprise evolved. Some of those drawings show an Enterprise
> concept that was *not* for TOS, but was originally for Phase II and
> actually wound up as one of the five versions shown on the historical
> display in the rec room. The key to identifying them is that they've
> got dates on them that place their creation in 1977. How the authors
> of these books missed that is really embarassing to their efforts,
> which otherwise were very, very concise in their accuracy.
The BBC news site carried an obituary for Jefferies, including a photo of
the Enterprise which they described as "instantly recognisable".
Unfortunately they chose a photo of the film version.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Andre Lieven
July 26th 03, 07:32 PM
"Gordon Davie" ) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Doug... ) writes:
>>> OK, here's a quick trivia question for all you Trek fans in the
>>> sci.space.history group, since we're talking about models of the
>>> Enterprise.
>>>
>>> In what two TOS episodes did the MPC plastic model of the Enterprise
>>> appear?
>>
>> Well, one would be " The Domsday Machine ", penned by Norman Spinrad,
>> where the other Constitution class starship is the damaged
>> Constellation ( NCC-1017, the numbers being a shuffle of the model's
>> 1701 decal, IIRC ).
>
> That always irritated me - why couldn't they have used NCC-1710, which
> would have kept it within a sensible numbering range for the ship class?
True, I've never seen or heard an explanation for that number.
OM ?
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
July 26th 03, 08:19 PM
OM (om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org) writes:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:03:20 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
>>Another spot where the 3 footer makes a cameo appearence in "The Doomsday
>>Machine", it can be clearly seen as the "little" Enterprise being dragged
>>into the Planet Killer's maw. At least there the FX people had the good
>>sense to hide that annoying mounting bracket for the stem. ;-)
>
> ...Actually, there's been some debate on whether that's the 3' model
> or the 11'. At that size, it's really hard to tell which one it is. I
> need to pull my DVD copy and look at that one closer as well.
Well, I just had a look at my tape of it, and the three footer seems
to have a different flow to the underside of the saucer section that
is distict enough from the 11 footer, and all of the shots of the 1701
close to the Doomsday Machine show the distinct shape of the three
footer.
> ...Also, on a side note, something else to look at is whether the
> long-distance shot of the Constellation finally getting underway was
> done with the AMT kit, or if it was just a reuse of a very similar
> shot from "The Cage".
I had a specific look at this, and the shot right after Kirk calls
out " full power, Mr. Scott ", and the Connie gets under way, is of the
AMT 1017.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:03:20 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> wrote:
>Another spot where the 3 footer makes a cameo appearence in "The Doomsday
>Machine", it can be clearly seen as the "little" Enterprise being dragged
>into the Planet Killer's maw. At least there the FX people had the good
>sense to hide that annoying mounting bracket for the stem. ;-)
....Actually, there's been some debate on whether that's the 3' model
or the 11'. At that size, it's really hard to tell which one it is. I
need to pull my DVD copy and look at that one closer as well.
....Also, on a side note, something else to look at is whether the
long-distance shot of the Constellation finally getting underway was
done with the AMT kit, or if it was just a reuse of a very similar
shot from "The Cage".
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
On 26 Jul 2003 18:32:13 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
>> That always irritated me - why couldn't they have used NCC-1710, which
>> would have kept it within a sensible numbering range for the ship class?
>
>True, I've never seen or heard an explanation for that number.
....It was a simple rearrangement of the AMT decal sheet numbers. IIRC,
the "17xx" = "Constitution Class Starship" bit didn't come into canon
until Franz Joseph's blueprints. Note that no other starship's
registry number was ever used in TOS.
....Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. From my view on it, what
happened was this: The Constellation had been put on order before the
Constellation class was finalized, and for some bureaucratic reason
the paperwork got snafu'd, and the order sent back for reprocessing.
When it finally came back, they were no longer manufacturing any of
the 10xx class starships - we'll call them "Guzman Class", for Pato
Guzman, set designer and drinking buddy of Desi Arnaz, who actually
came up with the basic circular bridge layout with the captain's chair
in the middle, but left the series before anything got built to return
home to South America. Anyway, some bean counter decided to not let
the nomenclature paperwork go to waste, so the Constellation got stuck
with its original 10xx registry number.
OM
--
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Doug...
July 26th 03, 10:04 PM
In article >,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org says...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:03:20 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> > wrote:
>
> >Another spot where the 3 footer makes a cameo appearence in "The Doomsday
> >Machine", it can be clearly seen as the "little" Enterprise being dragged
> >into the Planet Killer's maw. At least there the FX people had the good
> >sense to hide that annoying mounting bracket for the stem. ;-)
>
> ...Actually, there's been some debate on whether that's the 3' model
> or the 11'. At that size, it's really hard to tell which one it is. I
> need to pull my DVD copy and look at that one closer as well.
>
> ...Also, on a side note, something else to look at is whether the
> long-distance shot of the Constellation finally getting underway was
> done with the AMT kit, or if it was just a reuse of a very similar
> shot from "The Cage".
Well, you can always tell the AMT kit. Its nacelles droop down at about
a 10-degree angle from the plane of the saucer and engineering sections.
The 3' and 11' models' nacelles don't do this. And believe me, I
mutilated the AMT model at one point to get the nacelles "straight." So
I know about those damn things...
That's what makes it definite that the Enterprise visible out Lurry's
window in "Trouble with Tribbles" was the AMT model. I'd know that
nacelle droop anywhere.
--
It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |
Gordon Davie
July 27th 03, 02:41 PM
OM wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2003 18:32:13 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>> That always irritated me - why couldn't they have used NCC-1710,
>>> which would have kept it within a sensible numbering range for the
>>> ship class?
>>
>> True, I've never seen or heard an explanation for that number.
>
> ...It was a simple rearrangement of the AMT decal sheet numbers. IIRC,
> the "17xx" = "Constitution Class Starship" bit didn't come into canon
> until Franz Joseph's blueprints. Note that no other starship's
> registry number was ever used in TOS.
>
> ...Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. From my view on it, what
> happened was this: The Constellation had been put on order before the
> Constellation class was finalized, and for some bureaucratic reason
> the paperwork got snafu'd, and the order sent back for reprocessing.
> When it finally came back, they were no longer manufacturing any of
> the 10xx class starships. Anyway, some bean counter decided to not let
> the nomenclature paperwork go to waste, so the Constellation got stuck
> with its original 10xx registry number.
Thank you. Now can you explain why the USS Brattain had her name spelt
'Brittain' on the hull?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Herb Schaltegger
July 27th 03, 04:15 PM
In article >,
(MasterShrink) wrote:
> >That always irritated me - why couldn't they have used NCC-1710, which would
> >have kept it within a sensible numbering range for the ship class?
>
> Considering the number for the USS Constitution was never stated (nor shown)
> in
> TOS I don't see it as a big issue. Granted, I know a lot of books refer to it
> as NCC 1700 but a few other Constitution-Class ships in the class seem to be
> under 1700 as well.
>
> -A.L.
Ships didn't (and don't) have to be manufactured consecutively in Real
Life(TM), either. Sometimes they are started, construction halted for
funding or technical or political reasons, then restarted. Since every
ship in Starfleet is NCC-xxxxx, the numbering sequence for any given
class of ship doesn't really make much difference.
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.