Tallywhacker

[alchemist]

ZapBrannigan wrote:

---

I scanned this pic from the April 2005 issue of the STAR TREK COMMUNICATOR, which makes no mention of the blue tint on the neck. And I have not altered the photo in any way:

It's hard to tell from that photo because it's not of the best quality.

I have many internegatives of the large model on the sound stage and the blue on the neck is quite evident (and no, it's not a reflection of the blue screen). If you have US issue #35, 2011, of the Star Trek Magazine (UK #162), you can see the blue in a couple of pictures I restored for the "Lost and Found" column.

[Robert Comsol]

alchemist wrote:

---

It's hard to tell from that photo because it's not of the best quality.

I don't know if this helps but here's a pretty clear studio model shot of the 11-footer for "The Cage".

Hmm...the neck appears to have a slightly different color and the bow reflection tells me it's rather glossy.

Bob

[BillJ]

Count me with the skeptics.

[alchemist]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I don't know if this helps but here's a pretty clear studio model shot of the 11-footer for "The Cage".

Hmm...the neck appears to have a slightly different color and the bow reflection tells me it's rather glossy.

Bob

Yes, the neck is blue in that clip image, albeit the restoration could use some tweaking.

Also, check out the neck in the shots here: http://startrekhistory.com/models.html

[Warped9]

It's like the overall hull colour was tinted blue on the dorsal making it more apparent in some shots and less apparent in others, but the blue is distinctly there on the two pilot versions of the ship.

[Forbin]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I don't know if this helps but here's a pretty clear studio model shot of the 11-footer for "The Cage".

Hmm...the neck appears to have a slightly different color and the bow reflection tells me it's rather glossy.

Bob

According to Gary Kerr, it was metallic blue for the Cage, then repainted matte blue for Where No Man due to the reflective metallic causing serious blue screen problems....

[Robert Comsol]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I strongly believe these were intended to be lights and my firm belief stems from the fact that we do have one identical red thingy or "cone" on the upper engineering hull just ahead of the hangar dome.

Notice that the red translucent cone is surrounded by two circular windows. On the WNM pilot model the center objects of those "triumvirate" windows were lights (saucer bow, saucer underside port and starboard) but for a reason I do not know they decided not to turn the cone on the engineering hull into a light and decided to use the hangar dome instead as a running light.
When they prepped the 11-footer for the regular series they turned the hangar dome into a constant light and placed the running lights port and starboard, the cone remained unlit.

I have to get back to my previous post and require the assistance of experts / footage / information to settle a debate with my friend who's participating in our TOS Enterprise blueprint project.

My theory, thus far, had been that these red cones had been used on the second pilot version as saucer underside (and bow) position lights. Here's a rare shot of the second pilot version underside with what appears to be one of the cones fully lit (however, it's white, not red!).

These cones did not decorate the outer hull of the bridge prior to the modifications for the regular series (one might speculate that when these were removed from the saucer underside and bow these weren't discarded but instead recycled to decorate the outer bridge, but then should probably be clear unless these were painted red).

In the unusually clear VFX shot in my previous post with the Enterprise in front of the third season asteroid / Yonada we can make out the silhouette of the cone on the engineering hull. It appears to be illuminated from the diffuse (white) light below from the three circular light spots but appears to be translucent and red (not clear!?).

To make matters even more complicated here is an upside down close-up shot of the engineering hull, apparently prior to the "restoration" but does not reveal a red cone but a red bulb instead!
You may say I'm seeing things but the third season VFX shot sufficiently indicates a cone, IMHO, and not a bulb. Is it possible the cone got damaged / lost after the VFX shot and was replaced with a bulb?

I'm confused and would appreciate assistance.

Bob

[Doug Otte]

[QUOTE=Robert Comsol;7655998][QUOTE=Robert Comsol;7647013]

Warped9 wrote:

---

My theory, thus far, had been that these red cones had been used on the second pilot version as saucer underside (and bow) position lights. Here's a rare shot of the second pilot version underside with what appears to be one of the cones fully lit (however, it's white, not red!).


Bob

I can't be of much assistance, other than my vague memory of the first Enterprise model I had around the early 1970s. I recall those two bulbs on the outer edges of the lower saucer section lit up. I can't recall if the bulbs were red or white. The subsequent model I had a few years later did not light up.

[Robert Comsol]

@ Doug Otte

Thanks for trying to help. In the meantime I found an unused () VFX shot from "The Doomsday Machine". Apparently the bridge cones were illuminated red.

Bob

[Maurice]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

@ Doug Otte

Thanks for trying to help. In the meantime I found an unused () VFX shot from "The Doomsday Machine". Apparently the bridge cones were illuminated red.

Bob

Inconclusive. If the red details are translucent the lighting from off camera right could shine through it and make it seem illuminated. It's poking out if the shadow.

[Robert Comsol]

Maurice wrote:

---

Inconclusive. If the red details are translucent the lighting from off camera right could shine through it and make it seem illuminated. It's poking out if the shadow.

The bridge cone is in a shadow zone as are the four horizontal teardrop windows below. While the teardrop windows were illuminated from within we can barely see most of these but the bridge cone is visibly red. Though none of this answers my big question from my earlier post, we can apparently exclude that the bridge cones were painted red.

Bob