Damage to the Enterprise D 6 foot model

[jimbotron]

I never even knew there was a difference before the Internet.

Suspension of disbelief. They're both artistic interpretations of the same ship.

As a little kid, I noticed the ship looked different, but didn't know it was a different model. I thought they filmed it differently or something. The difference that stuck out to me was the fattening of the saucer and secondary hull edges, which also fattened the warp pylons. All I knew was that it didn't look as good as the earlier seasons.

 

[jimbotron]

I wonder though, according to TPTB, which E-D design is the "correct" one? The 4' model obviously took preference as the series wore on, but then they went and used the 6' model for Generations!

The 6-footer was used for Generations because the 4-footer was deemed unsuitable for close-up photography. Though it looks like the 4-footer was used in a wide shot. http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1115.jpg I can't tell for sure though.

The 4-footer is perfectly fine for 480i TV (which is what it was built for), but as we can see with the remaster, it barely holds up in HD, and needs help to make it look good, specifically darker lighting.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Did the corresponding windows on the Engineering Hull get thickened up as well? Judging by those comparison shots I'd say yes! Which throws up the question of where Deck 36 (Main Engineering) is now. Are there still 42 decks in total? With the extra one(s) created due to the 4' refit, wouldn't there now be 44?

I'd consider Andrew Probert's cross-section for the 6-footer first and take it from there.

Extending a narrower saucer deck to saucer rim diameter, wouldn't necessarily affect deck height / number of decks.

Bob

 

[Tosk]

I can't tell for sure though.

Yeah, that's the four-footer I believe. Unless I'm misremembering, if Ten Forward is lit up it's the 4ft. (Not counting CG shots, obviously. )

 

[Mytran]

I'd consider Andrew Probert's cross-section for the 6-footer first and take it from there.

Extending a narrower saucer deck to saucer rim diameter, wouldn't necessarily affect deck height / number of decks.

Thanks! I'd forgotten an interesting nugget in that cross-section: specifically the reduced height deck on the lower half of the saucer rim. I seem to remember Probert calling it a "strongback" or something similar, which helped hold the massive structure of the saucer together. It makes a lot of sense to have something like that, the upper saucer is enormous.

However, TPTB seem to have interpreted it as just another deck, and placed their new lounge in it accordingly. But simply counting the decks down from the Bridge puts that level at Deck 11, leading to a 17 deck thick saucer (the Captain's Yacht forms most of the lowest deck).

I suppose in addition to Deck 1 Upper and Deck 1 Lower we could also have Deck 1 Lowest or something? It all is very suggestive of them coming up with the clever name of the Ten-Forward lounge first and not really worrying about how it would fit at all.

 

[Salinga]

It seems to me many models of the 1701-D today are a hybrid of the 6- and 4-footer. The saucer is from the 6er, but the lower area is from the 4er (with the lesser curvy nacelles connection).

http://startrekblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/3931346188_b8b285c170_b.jpg
http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/USS-Enterprise-NCC-1701-D-2_1358951341.jpg
http://www.starbase8.info/startrek/toy-store/asylum/ships/agt-1701-d_dbx.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2448/3930562469_65a47522d8.jpg
http://www.away-mission.com/media/c...525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/n/enterprise_d_1.jpg

 

[TheSeeker]

I never even knew there was a difference before the Internet.

Suspension of disbelief. They're both artistic interpretations of the same ship.

I noticed as soon as they started using the 4-footer. The exaggerated hull plating was quite noticeable to me.

 

[Tosk]

It seems to me many models of the 1701-D today are a hybrid of the 6- and 4-footer. The saucer is from the 6er, but the lower area is from the 4er (with the lesser curvy nacelles connection).

http://startrekblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/3931346188_b8b285c170_b.jpg
http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/USS-Enterprise-NCC-1701-D-2_1358951341.jpg
http://www.starbase8.info/startrek/toy-store/asylum/ships/agt-1701-d_dbx.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2448/3930562469_65a47522d8.jpg
http://www.away-mission.com/media/c...525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/n/enterprise_d_1.jpg

1, 2, 4, (and I'm pretty sure 5) are all the same toy. (In fact, 1 and 4 are literally the same toy.)

 

[trekker670]

It seems to me many models of the 1701-D today are a hybrid of the 6- and 4-footer. The saucer is from the 6er, but the lower area is from the 4er (with the lesser curvy nacelles connection).

http://startrekblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/3931346188_b8b285c170_b.jpg
http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/USS-Enterprise-NCC-1701-D-2_1358951341.jpg
http://www.starbase8.info/startrek/toy-store/asylum/ships/agt-1701-d_dbx.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2448/3930562469_65a47522d8.jpg
http://www.away-mission.com/media/c...525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/n/enterprise_d_1.jpg

1, 2, 4, (and I'm pretty sure 5) are all the same toy. (In fact, 1 and 4 are literally the same toy.)

Yep, 1, 2, and 4 are the Diamond Select Enterprise-D model put out a few years ago. 5 is either a prototype or a different one, but I'm not sure which version (notice the grayed out nacelles)

 

[drt]

I've seen the 4-footer in person, and it's pretty rough.

Pictures of the 6-footer at auction: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/EnterpriseD.html

Yeesh, the six footerlooks a little worse for the wear, too.

I can understand the dust (while still thinking SACRILIEGE!), but it looks like someone spilled coffee on it.

 

[Tosk]

5 is either a prototype or a different one, but I'm not sure which version (notice the grayed out nacelles)

Now that I think about it, it might actually be the AMT/Ertl kit.

 

[jimbotron]

5 is either a prototype or a different one, but I'm not sure which version (notice the grayed out nacelles)

Now that I think about it, it might actually be the AMT/Ertl kit.

That sure looks like it. I have an unbuilt model, and the raised detail looks exactly like it. Many builders sand that detail down before building. The designers used the original blueprints, so while all the raised detail is accurate, it should be recessed, not raised. And since it was released in 1987, it's based on the 6-footer entirely. There are a few inaccuracies though, but there are some fan-made corrective parts for them. Here: http://www.tetryon.ca/galaxy1400.php

 

[publiusr]

I think the Hot Wheels version is closer to the 6-footer, and the Eaglemoss closer to the 4 footer

 

[Robert Comsol]

Needed to find a poster print this weekend for a business partner and relocated the cutaway print that was enclosed with a couple of "D" model kits, here is the part featuring the saucer:

I really love the style of this cutaway, but if you look closely, you'll see that the windows near the cutting line do not correspond to rooms but something else, partially owed to the urge to have Deck 10 at the saucer's rim.

Bob

 

[JJohnson]

Speaking of damage, the 4-footer looks extremely rough lately. I saw it a couple years ago when the Trek Exhibition made a stop in San Jose. Included there was the Stargazer/Hathaway model and a Borg cube.

The 4-footer still had scars from the All Good Things modifications. It looks like they were glued on, and then ripped off, leaving depressions and removing chunk of the original material. Decals for NCC-1701-D were reapplied, but not very well.

Even if you look at the model just after it was built, it looks pretty rough. You can tell in TNG-HD that the impulse engine is covered by a thin film of red plastic. There's an apparent crack and some poorly filled seams along the neck, extending down to the nacelle pylon. Then there's the not-so-clean line separating the pylon and the nacelle.

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x26/the_best_of_both_worlds_part1_hd_173.jpg

I understand the convenience of having a smaller model with more apparent surface detail, but it looks like the model was rushed.

Or we could've had the opportunity to remove the imperfections of the model and have a CG Enterprise D, but no, there are those that still believe that models are always and forever in all situations better than CG, even when flaws like these seams show up. Again why I believe TNG-R is a BIG missed opportunity.

I'm not asking for E-D to do barrel rolls. I just want the best-looking ship, the same model (not switching between 6/4-footer, like TOS-R had the pilot/filming version switches corrected), where it looks like a real ship (TOS-R again did this better - you could see into the windows along the sides of the ship), and new establishing shots - enter/exit/in orbit, at warp, flyby, new Starfleet ship classes they wish they could've done, etc. That does nothing to detract from the show, and enhances viewing enjoyment for something that to me, is a bit stale at this point. The painstaking restoration of the original model shots just seems to be misdirected effort to me.

 

[jimbotron]

I'm not asking for E-D to do barrel rolls. I just want the best-looking ship, the same model (not switching between 6/4-footer, like TOS-R had the pilot/filming version switches corrected), where it looks like a real ship (TOS-R again did this better - you could see into the windows along the sides of the ship)

Whether or not the CGI Enterprise in TOS-HD looks like a real ship is debatable. My opinion: nope.

Are you going to bring this old argument back up in two different threads?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Or we could've had the opportunity to remove the imperfections of the model and have a CG Enterprise D, but no, there are those that still believe that models are always and forever in all situations better than CG, even when flaws like these seams show up. Again why I believe TNG-R is a BIG missed opportunity.

The mission goal, explicitly stated by Mike Okuda, was to keep the presentation of TNG-R as close as possible to the original presentation. Thus, only the most obvious flaws were corrected (okay, the editing flaws in the docking tube scene at Starbase 74 in “11001001” remain debatable and should have been fixed, too, IMHO) and the original model VFX footage was used wherever possible. This was a golden opportunity to reveal how good this footage still held up in HD and I would not have wanted to miss that. The model VFX shots added a level of authenticity that could not have been achieved with CGI recreations only.

I'm not asking for E-D to do barrel rolls. I just want the best-looking ship, the same model (not switching between 6/4-footer, like TOS-R had the pilot/filming version switches corrected), ... , and new establishing shots - enter/exit/in orbit, at warp, flyby, new Starfleet ship classes they wish they could've done, etc. That does nothing to detract from the show, and enhances viewing enjoyment for something that to me, is a bit stale at this point. The painstaking restoration of the original model shots just seems to be misdirected effort to me.

I think I understand how you feel, but I’m more than confident that we will eventually see a special edition (in a positive sense) of TNG-R that will feature all the issues you raised. CBS invested a lot of money into the restoration project. The live action footage has been scanned, digitized, re-edited and reconstructed, so in the next step all it would require for such a special edition would be the creation of new VFX CGI footage to create new buying appeal, which - as far as I can tell - would only cost a fraction of the restoration budget. To me that looks like the logical and economic next step.

(But PLEASE: no barrel rolls for the E-D, it's a spaceship and not a spaceplane)

Bob

 

[jimbotron]

I think I understand how you feel, but I’m more than confident that we will eventually see a special edition (in a positive sense) of TNG-R that will feature all the issues you raised. CBS invested a lot of money into the restoration project. The live action footage has been scanned, digitized, re-edited and reconstructed, so in the next step all it would require for such a special edition would be the creation of new VFX CGI footage to create new buying appeal, which - as far as I can tell - would only cost a fraction of the restoration budget. To me that looks like the logical and economic next step.

On what basis do you think CBS is going to revisit TNG, especially to give it the George Lucas treatment? CBS is never going to touch this show again. I'd bet good money on it. The fact that this project exists at all is a minor miracle. All resources need to go toward DS9 now.

 

[BillJ]

On what basis do you think CBS is going to revisit TNG, especially to give it the George Lucas treatment? CBS is never going to touch this show again. I'd bet good money on it. The fact that this project exists at all is a minor miracle. All resources need to go toward DS9 now.

I'm not sure CBS is going to do anything with any of the spinoffs going forward after what look to be the lackluster sales of TNG.

 

[trekker670]

I'm not sure CBS is going to do anything with any of the spinoffs going forward after what look to be the lackluster sales of TNG.

That makes you and everyone else. As TrekCore and other sources have repeatedly said, CBS hasn't made a decision on DS9 or anything else after TNG yet. Anything saying otherwise is pure speculation.