Geordi looks dismayed...
For giggles, I did up a "variant" schematic for this one. I made the missing window panels outward-facing shuttlebays, because, why not?
View attachment 29352
I hope Leah Brahms doesn't see that.
More seriously, did the model builders just go with the "flat" nacelle arrangement because that's what Enterprise-D had and they didn't know anything better?
I'm not entirely 100% sure what they were thinking when they assembled that particular abomination.
The way I see it, it was one of two options:
You'd think one critical bit of skill to qualify someone for a job on the Star Trek production is to know what all different versions of the Enterprise (at the time) looked like, but what do I know?
The way I see it, it was one of two options:
- Either it was intentional and they wanted to devise a potentially interesting-looking variant of a familiar design without it being THE original design, or...
- It was just quickly slap-dashed together by some summer intern in the props department being paid less than minimum wage (or nothing at all).
You'd think one critical bit of skill to qualify someone for a job on the Star Trek production is to know what all different versions of the Enterprise (at the time) looked like, but what do I know?
I use to think that.You'd think one critical bit of skill to qualify someone for a job on the Star Trek production is to know what all different versions of the Enterprise (at the time) looked like, but what do I know?
Then I met Trek writers. They don't.
I hope Leah Brahms doesn't see that.
More seriously, did the model builders just go with the "flat" nacelle arrangement because that's what Enterprise-D had and they didn't know anything better?
I'm not entirely 100% sure what they were thinking when they assembled that particular abomination.
The way I see it, it was one of two options:
I think it likely that it was the second option, if I'm being honest.
- Either it was intentional and they wanted to devise a potentially interesting-looking variant of a familiar design without it being THE original design, or...
- It was just quickly slap-dashed together by some summer intern in the props department being paid less than minimum wage (or nothing at all).
You'd think one critical bit of skill to qualify someone for a job on the Star Trek production is to know what all different versions of the Enterprise (at the time) looked like, but what do I know?
I've heard that either
A/ someone without a clue made it in a super rush
B/ Young Rod Roddenberry made it, and so it was GOING ON TV, no matter what
I think Rod Roddenberry made the silver TMP Enterprise that was in Picard's ready room during "The Battle" (the only time it was seen; the model being switched from the yellow Stargazer model for that one episode.) And that model only had one nacelle!
https://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x09/thebattle_hd_304.jpg
To say that background models were rush-built is an understatement
https://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x09/thebattle_hd_304.jpg
To say that background models were rush-built is an understatement
This. This is the answer.
Somebody had to create a brand-new joint between nacelles and pylons on that model. The plastic was molded to go together one way, they wouldn't naturally fit together any other way.
Remember, Roddenberry insisted that they avoid Constitution stuff whenever possible. Makes sense they did this deliberately to make it just different enough.
I'm not quite buying that. First, there's no way the audience would have even noticed that back then, what with the average standard definition TV set being 13 inches. And possibly black-and-white, no less! Second, if Gene was that concerned about showing a Constitution class ship on screen, why would he have approved a model that looks 95% like a Constitution (not to mention that there's a TOS Enterprise model right next to it)? And third, that theory doesn't hold water anyway because they were set to use the TMP Enterprise filming model as the Stargazer back in season 1. Not to mention that by the time they filmed "Booby Trap" in the third season, Roddenberry had no creative control of TNG at all.
Last edited:
I guarantee you that they were not programming for black and white televisions in 1989. And putting something literally in the foreground in the middle of the frame meant it was made to be seen. It literally could not have been more made to be seen.
Gene might have been gone, but he established the basic rules of TNG and the subsequent showrunners largely kept to them. It's not like they scrambled to add Vulcans to the cast when Gene pulled back.
Gene might have been gone, but he established the basic rules of TNG and the subsequent showrunners largely kept to them. It's not like they scrambled to add Vulcans to the cast when Gene pulled back.
I think you overestimate the influence Roddenberry had after he was gone. But that's a topic for a different forum.
As for this model, I'm 100% sure it was just hastily assembled. There was no effort to make a 'variant' or whatever of the Constitution class. It was just set decoration, like the Lincoln Enterprises TOS Enterprise and Klingon battlecruiser models sitting right next to the AMT model. Or do you think that that one-nacelled Constitution I posted was also supposed to be a Constitution 'variant' as well?
As for this model, I'm 100% sure it was just hastily assembled. There was no effort to make a 'variant' or whatever of the Constitution class. It was just set decoration, like the Lincoln Enterprises TOS Enterprise and Klingon battlecruiser models sitting right next to the AMT model. Or do you think that that one-nacelled Constitution I posted was also supposed to be a Constitution 'variant' as well?
Last edited:
As somebody who worked for 15 years in props and set dressing? Yes.
Those were deliberate choices. Even if it was possible to accidentally put the nacelles on sideways (which it isn't).
I don't think they were trying to create variant starships that actually existed in that world, but it seems clear to me that they wanted something other than a retail model faithfully constructed.
Those were deliberate choices. Even if it was possible to accidentally put the nacelles on sideways (which it isn't).
I don't think they were trying to create variant starships that actually existed in that world, but it seems clear to me that they wanted something other than a retail model faithfully constructed.
Your experience aside, I disagree. Even if those nacelles were deliberately positioned that way (which I doubt), it wasn't done with the intent that someone would scrutinize screencaps of the scenes on their computer monitors years after the fact. And if they really wanted to change the model because of some vague moratorium on the Constitution class being seen in TNG, then they either would not have used the model at all, or they would have made far more significant changes to it than just putting the engines on sideways. And I highly doubt that a ship with one nacelle that was specifically placed there to be a representation of a ship with two nacelles later in the episode was done so deliberately either. It's more likely that the model was broken, and either was just placed back without any more thought or notice, or they simply didn't care enough to bother fixing it for the microsecond shot where Data walks by it.
But you're welcome to believe otherwise.
The model's not broken, it's just the port pylon is in shadow so it blends in with the wall, and the nacelles overlap, making them look like one long nacelle from that angle. You can see the shape of the port nacelle more clearly in the very next screencap on Trekcore.
Ah, nice. Thanks for that evidence!
Geordi looks dismayed...
For giggles, I did up a "variant" schematic for this one. I made the missing window panels outward-facing shuttlebays, because, why not?
View attachment 29352
I'm not going to lie, I kinda dig the nacelles this way. Every time I do a rewatch of the original six movies, it always takes me a bit to get used to the refit nacelles. The nacelles turned this way seems like a more natural evolution to the Enterprise's TV nacelles to me
Evidence suggests that the rumours are true, a company called Hachette Partworks tried to "rescue" Eaglemoss and buy them out. But it has fallen through
Here in the UK, Forbidden Planet are going to sell the XL Stargazer - and it's listed on their site as due in 2 weeks. Normally, it is months ahead. They are also listing UN One from the Expanse and the Liu Cixin and Vancouver from DSC. We are also seeing companies getting stocks of Enterprise E XL's and even StarTrek.com seems to be involved in selling off old stock as they are listing Enterprises.
Sadly, stuff from Stargate, Firefly and other Trek items were never produced. The Caretakers array and the Scorpion were also never produced.
If you have an Enterprise C XL or a Voyager XL or especially the terrible ENT-A XL then hold on to them. These are going to be worth silly money. Already, The A-XL's are going for £200-£300 on ebay. Maybe the Cerritos too, there will only have been a limited run after the disappointment of the poorly selling DSC line.
Could be a good investment. All the ones priced at £200 have gone from ebay UK and there are none left there now. Like the Cerritos, it seems that you can name your price.
Prices are all over the map, I agree. For example, The Equinox can still be found in the UK for sub £100, but a friend in Australia just cant find any for less than £200 over there. I actually considered importing some models from Germany, but thanks to Brexit, there's too much tax to pay!
I wonder if the US will have a bigger shortage than us in Europe actually.
Eaglemoss doesn't seem to be as popular in Germany as in other countries. The second hand prices were always low.
Good for me... But many german sellers will not ship outside of Germany because of fraud risk.
Last edited:
Similar threads
