Left side myth busted?

[Warped9]

It has long been accepted that the left side of the 11ft. Enterprise miniature was never finished as to accommodate the wiring for the ship’s lighting, and as such that side would never be seen.

However, it has been noticed that as there are sufficient photos showing the left side unfinished it could not be missed that the outboard side of the port (left) nacelle is painted with the Starfleet pennant. Hmm… Why do that if the left side was never meant to be seen?

We do know the 33in. miniature was finished on both sides thoroughly. But could it be possible the 11 footer was also finished on both sides at one point? Remember that when “The Cage” was being filmed there were no plans to internally light the 11 footer. From the get-go it was intended to be a static miniature, one that might never be used again should the series not be picked by NBC.

The video explores the possibility that the left side of the 11ft. Enterprise might indeed have been completed at one point.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Maurice]

It wasn’t. Richard Datin told me so.

 

[Warped9]

The video’s author claims that Doug Drexler was able to supply him with a photo that does show the 11 footer’s side is completed on the left side.

 

[Mudd]

The video’s author claims...

I think we've found the problem, right there.

Let's see the photo.

 

[Warped9]

I think we've found the problem, right there.

Let's see the photo.

So I guess you didn’t bother watching the video that shows the photo.

It shows up around 17:20 of the video.

 

[GNDN18]

I think we've found the problem, right there.

Let's see the photo.

I watched it so you don’t have to.

It’s around the 18:30 mark.

 

[Warped9]

^^ It’s posted in the video more than once. It does indeed look like there is still detailing there despite the obvious wiring. This is the 2nd pilot version of the 11 footer with the taller bridge, bigger nav deflector and no lighting in the nacelle caps. The support pylons were supposedly solid wood so any wiring for the nacelles would have had to be run up behind the pylons.

Interesting.

 

[Mudd]

So, you've got a decal on the side of engineering, but no finished hull detailing, and the same painted-on inboard nacelle area on the starboard nacelle that's still there.

So pretty much, there was a decal or two on the blank side. It's nowhere near "finished" for shooting that side of the model - not in that photo, anyway.

Meh.

 

[Warped9]

So, you've got a decal on the side of engineering, but no finished hull detailing, and the same painted-on inboard nacelle area on the starboard nacelle that's still there.

So pretty much, there was a decal or two on the blank side. It's nowhere near "finished" for shooting that side of the model - not in that photo, anyway.

Meh.

Yes, not in that photo. But the video asserts the left side was finished when the 11 footer was a purely static model when delivered and filmed during “The Cage.”

 

[Mudd]

Yes, not in that photo.

And, Datin said otherwise.

Eighteen minutes? Really?

 

[Warped9]

In the book The Enterprise NCC-1701 and The Model Maker written by N. Datin McDonald and Richard C. Datin Jr. on Page 80 Richard Datin is quoted, “the left side was as detailed as the right when it was first delivered before it was subjected to the changes for lighting requested by Gene.”

 

[Mudd]

The photo indicates that it was never detailed. Neither the inboard side of the starboard nacelles nor the port side of the engineering hull were cut for the missing three dimensional construction.

 

[Warped9]

^^ This photo is not conclusive because at this point the model is now lighted and repainted/retouched to address changes Roddenberry wanted.

We know there are photos in existence of the 11 footer during filming of “The Cage.” The case could be proven only if an authentic photo of the left side of the model taken during filming of “The Cage” were to surface.

As it stands the argument put forth by the video is still inconclusive. The argument might well be true, but incontestable proof is lacking.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In the book The Enterprise NCC-1701 and The Model Maker written by N. Datin McDonald and Richard C. Datin Jr. on Page 80 Richard Datin is quoted, “the left side was as detailed as the right when it was first delivered before it was subjected to the changes for lighting requested by Gene.”

There's a flat surface on the starboard side of the secondary hull, along the center line, where the red-stripe decoration thingie is, that protrudes to the front at the main sensor and navigational deflector dish. A similar structure is completely absent on the port side of the model. You can tell it's absent just from the front view.

If the port side were at any point just as finished as the starboard side, then one would expect a similar protrusion to be present on the port side as well. But there is not. That casts serious doubt on the premise that the port side was ever as finished as the starboard side.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Even just the decal being strangely present on the port-side secondary hull is a major find.

Given that the port nacelle was fully decaled, I wish they had done a shot where the camera curves around the model from starboard to port and shows both nacelles, with the unfinished secondary hull below the frame because the camera moves in tighter as it comes around. It would portray the ship executing a right turn, and kill the feeling that "you never see both sides."

 

[Maurice]

There's a flat surface on the starboard side of the secondary hull, along the center line, where the red-stripe decoration thingie is, that protrudes to the front at the main sensor and navigational deflector dish. A similar structure is completely absent on the port side of the model. You can tell it's absent just from the front view.

If the port side were at any point just as finished as the starboard side, then one would expect a similar protrusion to be present on the port side as well. But there is not. That casts serious doubt on the premise that the port side was ever as finished as the starboard side.

Exactly. I questioned Datin on this point when I exchanged emails with him in 2005. Here is the main one:

> 4. Why does the large Enterprise model lack the indented detail near the
> front of the engineering hull on it's left (port) side? I'm curious why it
> was left off.

Do you mean the secondary hull? I don't know of the "indented detail" you speak of. Are you referring to the "restored" Enterprise model at NASM in DC? If so, that was the side of the model never photographed. The Enterprise flew from left to right on the screen so it was not necessary to detail the other side..

Note that the portside nacelle decal is above where it ended up on the camera-facing side. One might guess they tested decal placement on the unfinished side of the model.

This is not unusual. The 3' Star Destroyer model's upper starboard side was originally nowhere as detailed as the port side. The Death Star II is a hemisphere and every single shot of it is flopped left-right. I've seen both in person.

 

[Warped9]

What Datin is saying is true because the model never was shot from the left side. But it doesn’t disprove his quote that the model was delivered originally with both sides completed. That changed when they added lighting to the ship for the second pilot. And then the model was repainted along with more lighting added for changes for the series proper.

 

[blssdwlf]

What Datin is saying is true because the model never was shot from the left side. But it doesn’t disprove his quote that the model was delivered originally with both sides completed. That changed when they added lighting to the ship for the second pilot. And then the model was repainted along with more lighting added for changes for the series proper.

On the left side it does appear to be missing the rectangular protrusion that is on the right side and bottom. But more importantly, are you able to see the cutout or valley that would have come from the protrusion? If it was detailed or identical to the right side, even if the protrusion was removed on the left side the valley would still remain unless someone took the effort to fill it in.

 

[Maurice]

No, the two sides did not match from the get go. The absence of the boxy structure on the port side proves this, because it's cut into the hull on the starboard and there's no evidence of this on the port. Plus the inboard sides of the nacelles never matched.

 

[Warped9]

I am not trying to argue the assertion is true. I find it interesting, though, because there appears to be contradictory evidence. The Starfleet pennant is present on the port nacelle and (in the above photo) on the port side of the secondary hull while filming WNMHGB. Why would those be there if the port side was never meant to be seen from the get-go?