Inspired Enterprise -- new behind-the-scenes book about TOS

[Christopher]

The book says that the first shuttlecraft model kit was released in 1974. It also has some discussion of the Leif Ericson/"Mystery UFO" kit, which apparently was developed for a TV series concept Stephen E. Whitfield pitched called Space Cadet (no idea if it was related to the Heinlein novel), in which the cadets would've trained on a different ship each season, allowing AMT to put out a new model kit each season.

There's an interesting bit in the first photo insert -- a set of photos from Whitfield's collection that didn't make it into The Making of Star Trek, including more photos of props from the show and some behind-the-scenes photos of things like Jim Rugg working on the bridge equipment and one of the planet models being lit for an effects shot. Unfortunately, they're printed rather small, so it's hard to make out detail.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Jim Rugg working on the bridge equipment

This one? :

 

[Christopher]

This one? :

Not that specific photo -- as I said, these are photos that did not make it into TMoST. But they appear to be from the same set of photos. Rugg is wearing the same shirt, the same box is on the floor beside the helm console, and I think maybe two of the same people are shown working on the console (plus another man in a checked shirt), with the camera angle from next to the navigator's station, just right of the guy standing on the left in your photo. The other photo shows Rugg kneeling behind what's apparently one of the bridge stations, working on the back side of the lights and displays.

Speaking of the bridge, it strikes me as odd that AMT's bridge model kit is open on the port side of the bridge, with engineering and the other stations between the turbolift and the viewscreen missing, when in the show it was usually the starboard-side stations that were removed for camera access.

 

[mb22]

AMT may have built the filming model, but the tooling people for model kits apparently didn't pay much attention to the plans. I ended up extensively kitbashing the stern, based on the FJS plans, to get it even kind-of sort-of right. I also have a somewhat kitbashed bridge.

Have you read the 1976 essay "Star Trek Miniatures: The Starship Enterprise" in the very first Best of Trek anthology back in 1978, by Richard G. Van Treuren? It discusses the production of the AMT Enterprise model and has instructions on adapting the AMT version to look like both the pilot and series versions of the ship.

https://archive.org/details/TheBestOfTrekIrwin/page/n25/mode/2up

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I'm sure I did, a long time ago. I also have an unusual 'zine, called Star Fleet Assembly Manual No. 1, or something to that general effect.

 

[mb22]

I'm sure I did, a long time ago. I also have an unusual 'zine, called Star Fleet Assembly Manual No. 1, or something to that general effect.

 

[Phaser Two]

I think so (know so), too. "The Galileo Seven" was named in the same format as The Magnificent Seven (1960). And the usage occurs in non-fiction once in a while: two years after the episode, there was a "Chicago Seven," who were tried for inciting political rioting. And it doesn't have to be seven for the form to crop up. It's a known thing.

Agreed completely. I . . . seriously can't believe that anyone ever thought that the title of the episode referred to anything but the seven crew members. I guess I'll file that one away with "Hey, was Starfleet a military organization?"

The cool picture from TMOST with the production crew working on the bridge reminds me of a question I've often had but never posed here as far as I remember. In the picture, the doors are stuck open (were the Scalosians around?) and you can clearly see the turbolift. Did they film all scenes set in turbolifts with the cameras on the bridge set? Or did they use one of the turbolifts in the corridor set? I guess it probably varied depending on where they were boarding and disembarking. If that's the case, how many "working" turbolifts did the sets have altogether? Three, perhaps—two off the corridors and one off the bridge?

 

[Just a Bill]

Recently I also have been wondering about the total number of usable lifts on the set. Like you, I have been imagining two for the corridor complex (and will probably end up making two wild ones for my Stage 9 model), but I have a feeling they could have done it with the bridge lift and just one more. I haven't yet thought of an episode where it would have been strictly necessary to have two wild ones (even though it would clearly be a lot more convenient).

 

[Christopher]

The cool picture from TMOST with the production crew working on the bridge reminds me of a question I've often had but never posed here as far as I remember. In the picture, the doors are stuck open (were the Scalosians around?) and you can clearly see the turbolift. Did they film all scenes set in turbolifts with the cameras on the bridge set? Or did they use one of the turbolifts in the corridor set? I guess it probably varied depending on where they were boarding and disembarking. If that's the case, how many "working" turbolifts did the sets have altogether? Three, perhaps—two off the corridors and one off the bridge?

The turbolift was small enough that it could have easily been moved. I assume they only had the one, and they stuck it behind whichever doors it needed to be seen behind, or planted it down by itself when they needed to shoot a scene in it. Remember how big cameras were back then. There's no way a shot like this one could've been filmed through the doors to the bridge. And of course, the walls would have been removable so they could shoot a scene from either side, like here. The whole thing was just maybe six wall panels, easy enough to break down and reassemble wherever it was needed.

 

[Ssosmcin]

If it wasn't for the NCC-1701/7" on the hull, I'd completely agree that the "Seven" meant the people inside only, but it's" got to be a double meaning. Considering the 7 is right after the Enterprise's number, it's mostly likely the 7th shuttle in the inventory.

Yes, the Exeter only had an expected 4, but that could mean the Exeter only had 4 in inventory and Spock confirmed that before his report to Kirk in The Omega Glory.

Naturally, TV production issues created inconsistences with the number and the name of the shuttle when used with the replacement Galileo. But Galileo II (or III if they had thought of it) makes sense as a replacement and keeping the number in the series - just filling the hole in the inventory and keeping the name.

Space:1999 had this issue with a few "Eagle 1" transporters being destroyed but replaced next week and the numbers on the door not matching the dialog.

 

[Maurice]

My other Fact Trek half and one of our associates have read the book and pointed our some factual issues and some instances where the text claims something but doesn't support that with any citations (e.g. claims about the AMT Enterprise kit's sales).

It also suggests the pulp magazine Polaroids in the Bird papers came from de Forest's outfit; supporting that only with a decades-on 2019 quote from de Forest ("I provided him [Roddenberry] with pictures of science fiction magazine covers and books but little else"), whereas, our understanding is that these photos were taken by Roddenberry using Sam Peeple's collection. I don't recall De Forest Research being involved in the first pilot, but I could be wrong about that, and I am currently overseas and don't have access to all our research.

I was shown a page where the text was somewhat self-contradictory; of the The Making of Star Trek (emphasis mine) “Both the models and the book proved to be extremely popular and helped generate interest in the show during the vulnerable second and third seasons of the series,” and, in the very next paragraph saying "the book came along too late to have an impact on the series fate". Is interest the same as impact?

I also was shown a very confused paragraph from p.49 about Fontana's use of a pseudonym: "She also wrote the scripts for the episodes 'The Enterprise Incident,' 'That Which Survives,' and 'The Way To Eden,' all under the pseudonym Michael Richards because women at that time had more difficulty getting work as television writers." No, She used D.C. instead of Dorothy partly for that reason, but Michael Richards was to her what Cordwainer Bird was to Harlan Ellison: the name you put on a script when you didn't like what had been done to it and didn't want your name attached to it.

Again, I can't speak to this more because I'm traveling.

 

[Maurice]

Have you read the 1976 essay "Star Trek Miniatures: The Starship Enterprise" in the very first Best of Trek anthology back in 1978, by Richard G. Van Treuren? It discusses the production of the AMT Enterprise model and has instructions on adapting the AMT version to look like both the pilot and series versions of the ship.

https://archive.org/details/TheBestOfTrekIrwin/page/n25/mode/2up

It's not very accurate. For instance, the 4" model was never used on screen.

 

[Christopher]

I was shown a page where the text was somewhat self-contradictory; of the The Making of Star Trek (emphasis mine) “Both the models and the book proved to be extremely popular and helped generate interest in the show during the vulnerable second and third seasons of the series,” and, in the very next paragraph saying "the book came along too late to have an impact on the series fate". Is interest the same as impact?

That could've been better phrased, but I guess it means that the interest it generated wasn't enough to save the show.

I also was shown a very confused paragraph from p.49 about Fontana's use of a pseudonym: "She also wrote the scripts for the episodes 'The Enterprise Incident,' 'That Which Survives,' and 'The Way To Eden,' all under the pseudonym Michael Richards because women at that time had more difficulty getting work as television writers." No, She used D.C. instead of Dorothy partly for that reason, but Michael Richards was to her what Cordwainer Bird was to Harlan Ellison: the name you put on a script when you didn't like what had been done to it and didn't want your name attached to it.

Yeah, that jumped out at me when I read it.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

If it wasn't for the NCC-1701/7" on the hull, I'd completely agree that the "Seven" meant the people inside only, but it's" got to be a double meaning. Considering the 7 is right after the Enterprise's number, it's mostly likely the 7th shuttle in the inventory.

Yes, the Exeter only had an expected 4, but that could mean the Exeter only had 4 in inventory and Spock confirmed that before his report to Kirk in The Omega Glory.

Naturally, TV production issues created inconsistences with the number and the name of the shuttle when used with the replacement Galileo. But Galileo II (or III if they had thought of it) makes sense as a replacement and keeping the number in the series - just filling the hole in the inventory and keeping the name.

Space:1999 had this issue with a few "Eagle 1" transporters being destroyed but replaced next week and the numbers on the door not matching the dialog.

During World War II, as well as today, aircraft carriers had planes which were "active" and which were "reserve".
An Essex class carrier normally carried 90 aircraft with 10-12 in storage, usually hung in a disassembled state from the ceiling, ready to be activated at a moments notice.
I figure the Enterprise has four active shuttles at any one time, with three in reserve or being repaired.
The Galileo 7 probably just happened to be active that day.
It could have been that Shuttles 2, 4 & 5 were being worked on, leaving 1, 3, 6 & 7 as active.

 

[mb22]

It's not very accurate. For instance, the 4" model was never used on screen.

I imagine that accurate information was harder to access in the 1970s.

 

[Just a Bill]

I assume they only had the one, and they stuck it behind whichever doors...

Tend to agree, and I'm assuming you're meaning only one wild one? My assumption is that the bridge lift was more or less fixed, although I have no sources for this. The circumstantial evidence is non-trivial, though: there are scenes where carpets don't match across camera cuts (blue vs. green, IIRC); the doors are generally regarded as having different widths on deck 1 vs. everywhere else; and the floor elevations differ as well, requiring either a raise/lower mechanism under the lift or a ramp up to the platform height of the bridge. And of course the bridge appears in almost every episode. I've taken all this as evidence that it was impossible, or at least undesirable, to roll the bridge lift over to the corridor complex.

the walls would have been removable so they could shoot a scene from either side

Also, sometimes a wall was removed to accommodate the number of passengers entering/exiting the lift. I wish I could remember the episode, but there's one where Kirk and others exit onto the bridge, and then McCoy follows but his trajectory clearly starts out perpendicular to his exit path, because he's walking into the lift from off stage (our right) in order to exit it toward camera. He makes basically a 90° left turn. (Never noticed that until earlier this year.)

The whole thing was just maybe six wall panels, easy enough to break down and reassemble wherever it was needed.

I think that's right: six curves plus three thinner, straight panels for the vents/movement lights. I think the two front curves (and occasionally the straight ones) were removed for the camera and/or actors, but I haven't seen anything yet that would have required either of the rear curve pairs to be split apart from each other. So I'm contemplating building each of the rear quarters as a single object with two visible panel sections, for reasons of structural support and simpler assembly/disassembly.

Caveat: I'm neither an engineer nor a carpenter; just figuring this out as I go. I'm sure plenty more revisions will be needed.