• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The 11-foot TOS Enterprise model-

^ It almost looks photoshopped. Just imagine the nacelles and how they extend away from the primary hull. It looks like they'd be sticking through the floor at this angle.
 
It's a real photo, but it's always fun on teh Intarnets when folks start talking suspiciously about Photoshopping.

Craig Thompson

I don't know whether the sensor dish used at the Smithsonian is the original, but the "antenna" was fabricated for the 1992 restoration and does not match the original in detail.
 
Gary7 said:
^ It almost looks photoshopped. Just imagine the nacelles and how they extend away from the primary hull. It looks like they'd be sticking through the floor at this angle.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly I've seen that photo decades ago and long before Photoshop. I believe there were other shots of that date that went along with it.
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20060703121136/http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1972Voyage.html


..."One thing led to another and I decided to call my old friends at Desilu/Paramount TV (Herb Solow, formerly VP of Production at the studio, for one). Realize, in those days no one ever thought Star Trek would be heard from again. Star Trek was a royal pain in the (a--) as far as production execs were concerned. In fact, Gene Roddenberry had apparently tried, unsuccessfully, to get his hands on the Enterprise and they wouldn't let him have it. I was the only one, in the beginning--so I'm told--that they ever leant it to. Most of the problems came from all the years the show seemed to go ‘over budget.’ They were always fighting over budget--especially the cost of SFX. Roddenberry and Bob Justman were always having some disagreement with the ‘powers that be.’ When Star Trek went off the air, there was probably a collective sigh of relief at (the studio). There was no love lost between GR and the execs, so I'm told. In any case, I received permission to add the Star Trek Enterprise to our collection of displays." Approval was given by Herb Solow, but he since he was no longer at the studio, he "really deferred to the (Paramount) Properties Department for coordination." Thompson added, "Props was delighted to get it out of their hair."

Sitting unused in a corner of a prop warehouse for three years, the model was far from pristine. "It was gathering dust...a lot of dust," said Thompson. "Real dusty. It hadn't been covered in storage, at all. As I recall, the Enterprise was just sort of sitting on a raised platform back in the dark recesses of Props Department. No real damage, that I recall. Maybe a few light scratches from time. But, that could have happened on the SFX stage at Howard Anderson's. Howard Anderson's was just across the street from my office, and down a bit...but on the Desilu side. I visited there from time to time, since I worked in Post Production. We did a lot of business with Howard at Desilu (which) became Paramount TV after Lucy (Lucille Ball) sold the studio. Howard Anderson was a private company who leased space on the lot."
.
.
.
How tough was it getting the Enterprise’s lights, including the spinning lighting effect in the forward engine nacelles, working again? "We struggled only as much as you might when your Christmas lights would blow on a series circuit, and it still wouldn't light up. When we would get it working again in the nacelles, the turning action would cause the lights to loosen up again. We were constantly having to pull it apart. We didn't want the kids to be disappointed." But did the spinning nacelle domes, whose rotational speed could be varied by the control box, make a lot of noise? "Not really. I was surprised--it only had a mild whirring sound, as I recall. Maybe a hand-blender on low--not quite that loud." The original Christmas lights that came with the model were blown, and where do you find Christmas lights in April? Not to worry; resourceful GWC students located replacement sets at a local store.

The nacelle domes were white translucent hemispheres. Removing the exterior nacelle domes, there was a clear interior hemisphere with black lines that bisected the hemisphere, and this rotated at various controlled speeds. The starboard nacelle interior dome rotated clockwise, while the port side rotated counter-clockwise. Ten multicolored miniature Christmas lights were in each nacelle dome, just behind the rotating interior hemisphere.

Did you keep the Enterprise lights running all day long? Or just sporadically? "(We) only ran the lights--the engines--when we had people coming through. Or, if we decided to show it off to someone special." Did they conduct a lot of heat? "No , not much that I recall. There were quite a few lights in the side, in addition to the Christmas lights in the engines."

"When I took my family to the Smithsonian (seven or more years ago, Thompson recalled), they only had the model hanging in a flying position above the floor--no lights, no engines moving, no control panel, no cables." Thompson’s visit to the NASM was before the Ed Miarecki renovation, which returned the warp engine nacelle lighting effects to the model. Of the improvements made to the model by Miarecki in 1991-92, Thompson said, "Glad to hear it."
Click to expand...
 
Warped9 said:
If I recall correctly I've seen that photo decades ago and long before Photoshop.
Click to expand...

So, are you arguing that faked photos are impossible without Photoshop? Mind you, I'm not contending that the photo of Thompson with the Enterprise model is faked. Conversely, the advent of Photoshop (and other image editors) is not a guarantee of realism. Visit Photoshop Disasters sometime. The most extreme examples are when professional graphic artists distort the human form* or add extra limbs, etc.

* For some really bizarre examples, see EscherGirls—women with rubber spines and other contortions.
 
Metryq said:
Warped9 said:
If I recall correctly I've seen that photo decades ago and long before Photoshop.
Click to expand...

So, are you arguing that faked photos are impossible without Photoshop? Mind you, I'm not contending that the photo of Thompson with the Enterprise model is faked. Conversely, the advent of Photoshop (and other image editors) is not a guarantee of realism. Visit Photoshop Disasters sometime. The most extreme examples are when professional graphic artists distort the human form* or add extra limbs, etc.

* For some really bizarre examples, see EscherGirls—women with rubber spines and other contortions.
Click to expand...
Photographs and film have been manipulated since the beginning of both. What I meant was that that photo has been around for a very long time and quite unlikely to have been manipulated. The difference is that something like Photoshop makes such manipulation relatively easy (hell, I do it all the time for fun) but back in the day it was a lot trickier. Still if you follow the link up thread you see other shots of the ship at the same time and learn that it isn't Gary Kerr in the picture. It makes sense, too, because if it was Gary he'd be a lot older today than he actually is.

If I recall correctly one of the most famous examples of bogus photography was of film footage purporting to show the actual sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. It was trotted out to the public as live footage yet in reality was a staged fabrication of a model kit in a tank of water.
 
Metryq said:
For some really bizarre examples, see EscherGirls—women with rubber spines and other contortions.
Click to expand...
Getting off-topic for a moment, but I don't quite see the point of that blog. It seems to be all about drawings of women in comics and manga. Of course they don't look "real." They're cartoons!
 
feek61 said:
Robert Comsol said:
Accidentally found this weblink with many original pictures of the 11-footer (and the one I had been looking for for a long time!): http://tosgraphics.yuku.com/topic/372/Enterprise-11-foot-filming-minature-photos

Enjoy!

Bob
Click to expand...

Hey!! That's my site!!! lol

Glad I was able to help and I hope you enjoyed the site. I have been working on some stuff that I will be posting over there in the future so stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Hey Feek61, the link isn't working. Can you restore it for us?
 
alchemist said:
feek61 said:
^^^
Took care of it; thanks.
Click to expand...

Feek61,

I don't know how to get a hold of you through PM, so when you get a moment please PM me. I have a high-resolution scan of a bridge graphic I want to send you.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,
Couldn't get a hold of you because I don't yet have the minimum 50 post needed to be able to PM but please email me at:

tosgraphics69 - at - gmail.com

I will be looking for you and if anyone else can PM Dave for me and give him my email address that would be grand.
 
Last edited:
I did get a hold of Dave so no need to PM him for me. BTW, Dave REALLY hooked me up!! Thank you Dave!!
 
You know how the warp nacelles are tapered, so they have a smaller diameter at the aft end?

Question: was this a styling choice, meaning the audience was supposed to see it?

Or was it a trick intended to create forced perspective and make the model look huge? If it was just a forced perspective feature, then you could argue that the "real" nacelle design is a straight cylinder.

thegamestersoftriskelionhd0471j.jpg
 
Last edited:
ZapBrannigan said:
You know how the warp nacelles are tapered, so they have a smaller diameter at the aft end?

Question: was this a styling choice, meaning the audience was supposed to see it?

Or was it a trick intended to create forced perspective and make the model look huge?
Click to expand...
Probably both. Think of how the Enterprise's nacelles would look if they were simple cylinders with a constant diameter. They'd look clunky and tail-heavy.

The full-size mockup of the Galileo shuttlecraft had a slight decrease in width from back to front for the same reasons.
 
scotpens said:
The full-size mockup of the Galileo shuttlecraft had a slight decrease in width from back to front for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
Your source for that assertion? Everything I've studied about the Galileo has never indicated that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shaw
Series Enterprise (rebuild)
Replies
18
Views
2K
Shaw
Shaw
A
Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
7K
Iamnotspock
Iamnotspock
Shaw
Pilot Enterprise (rebuild)
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Tallguy
Tallguy
Warped9
TMP's Enterprise reveal...
2 3
Replies
48
Views
2K
Tallguy
Tallguy
ZapBrannigan
Let Me Count the Ways... I Watched Star Trek
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Cryogenator
Cryogenator
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top