Enterprise-A Questions

[Blip]

No, you're telling me to let the matter drop (your own words.) Which is pretty clear that you don't wish to talk about it anymore, and that you wish for me to stop talking about it too. So just like you told me, let's please avoid needless word games. You are welcome to your opinion, and welcome to disagree with mine. But please don't tell me what to do, or who I can and can't talk to. This is not your personal message board. You, however, are welcome to stop talking about it any time you like.

Dude I really, really don't care if you want to talk about anything to other people. Why would I?

I simply asked that you respect that it holds no further interest for me -since it was me, and not the general thread that you'd been quote-replying to on that subtopic; hence letting the matter drop. It's really not that hard dude; if you really feel you can't stop yourself from wasting any more of my life on this I'm happy to just punch Ignore.

 

[Dukhat]

Dude I really, really don't care if you want to talk about anything to other people. Why would I?

I simply asked that you respect that it holds no further interest for me -since it was me, and not the general thread that you'd been quote-replying to on that subtopic; hence letting the matter drop. It's really not that hard dude; if you really feel you can't stop yourself from wasting any more of my life on this I'm happy to just punch Ignore.

You do what you need to do. I will continue talking about this topic whether you continue or not. And lay off the personal insults; that's against the board rules.

 

[Blip]

You do what you need to do. I will continue talking about this topic whether you continue or not. And lay off the personal insults; that's against the board rules.

I don't care if you talk about the topic to anyone else, merely that you stop trying to draw me into endless debate about one single point, to the inevitable result that I'm utterly bored to tears with it.

If you find that somehow personally insulting, that's on you.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't care if you talk about the topic to anyone else, merely that you stop trying to draw me into endless debate about one single point, to the inevitable result that I'm utterly bored to tears with it.

If you find that somehow personally insulting, that's on you.

I was pretty clear how one could interpret that the ships in questions could either be Connies, or not be Connies. I never said it was one way or the other, but I offered evidence that refuted the statement you made that 'those hulls were recognisable, so the question is irrelevant.' They weren't recognizable, and it wasn't irrelevant, and I posted screencap evidence to back up my claims, which you completely ignored. So at this point, there's really nothing more for me to say about the matter, so fine, let's drop it.

 

[B.J.]

Believe it or not, there are noticeable differences between the two saucers. And knowing which model was used for the wreckage IRL, I'd trust that the folks behind the scenes knew what they were doing far better than any Random Internet Guy.

Yes, there are differences between the Galaxy and Nebula saucers on the physical model. But there are few or no differences between them on some of the digital models that have been used due to kitbashing from the Galaxy model.

 

[Blip]

Yes, there are differences between the Galaxy and Nebula saucers on the physical model. But there are few or no differences between them on some of the digital models that have been used due to kitbashing from the Galaxy model.

Yes, I'm aware. But that was somewhat irrelevant to the point, so.

 

[blssdwlf]

Nor, for that matter, is there another ship that uses the Constitution-II starboard nacelle and pylon, so that's probably the TVH ships positively identified, as well.

I dunno. If you let the movie play forward just a bit you can see more of the starboard pylon and it lacks the vent that is seen on the Enterprise. It could be argued that this is not a Connie.

 

[David cgc]

The vent is there. It’s behind Spock’s head at that moment, but you can see it for a split second after McCoy stands up (and briefly blocks it even more).

 

[blssdwlf]

The vent is there. It’s behind Spock’s head at that moment, but you can see it for a split second after McCoy stands up (and briefly blocks it even more).

I see what looks like a shadow from the curvature of the pylon and no sharp feature that looks like the vent.

 

[David cgc]

I don't know what to tell you. The leading edge of the dark spot is vertical, like the vent, there's a white border along the aft edge, like the vent, it's the same color as the larger vent in the same lighting a couple seconds earlier, you can tell from the shadow of the fin at the back of the nacelle that a shadow wouldn't look like that, and there's nothing on the model that could cast a shadow like that... it's the vent.

Also, kind of off-topic, but looking at everyone's backs... how many different back-buttons did they make for the Monster Maroons, and is there any BTS explanation for why there are so many variations?

 

[blssdwlf]

I don't know what to tell you. The leading edge of the dark spot is vertical, like the vent, there's a white border along the aft edge, like the vent, it's the same color as the larger vent in the same lighting a couple seconds earlier, you can tell from the shadow of the fin at the back of the nacelle that a shadow wouldn't look like that, and there's nothing on the model that could cast a shadow like that... it's the vent.

Here is the full sequence. That shadow you think that looks like the vent doesn't have the right shape.

You can see the shadow at this point and it curves around (next to Spock's head). It isn't vertical as we would expect from the vent.

That white border on the aft edge could be a matte line or an edge reflection because from a similar angle you can't see the white border on the aft edge on an actual Connie.

Also, kind of off-topic, but looking at everyone's backs... how many different back-buttons did they make for the Monster Maroons, and is there any BTS explanation for why there are so many variations?

LOL, if those Monster Maroons can have so many variations, surely there could be variations of the Connie in space dock

 

[Dukhat]

I'm not sure what else it could be though (IRL, I mean), other than a reuse of the Enterprise. They only had four models to work with; the Enterprise, the Reliant, the Grissom, and the Excelsior.

 

[blssdwlf]

I'm not sure what else it could be though (IRL, I mean), other than a reuse of the Enterprise. They only had four models to work with; the Enterprise, the Reliant, the Grissom, and the Excelsior.

True, IRL they had four complete models to work with, the Enterprise, the Reliant, the Grissom and the Excelsior. There are also those partial models made for close ups and pyrotechnics and the scene from ST4 only needed parts of a model. Some partial models may be unfinished or not accurately detailed as the original and just a guess, one was used with a warp pylon appearing to be not fully detailed. Without seeing the entire ship, we have room to imagine that those nacelles could be from a class different from the Enterprise, IMHO.

 

[Dukhat]

There are also those partial models made for close ups and pyrotechnics and the scene from ST4 only needed parts of a model.

Which partial model would it have been, though? It would have had to be something made for TMP, TWOK or TSFS, and not something battle-damaged, because the nacelle/pylon appears to be clean. The only partial model I’m aware of was the engineering hull that was shot at by the Reliant in TWOK (which did not have a nacelle) and the self-destructed model built for TSFS.

 

[DSG2k]

Here is the full sequence.

With apologies, I'm going to have to disagree on the vent thing. One important detail to remember is that the pylons aren't flat-sided. They're curved, like truncated ellipses. As a result, a detail on the rear half of a pylon might become invisible from shallow front angles. That is to say, the faint visible edge of the upper little funny corner vent does demonstrate that it is a Constitution-style pylon.

Here's an excellent model from Michael Wiley, superimposed, placed atop the image you supplied . . . such scene-matching is difficult to get just-so, but it should at least demonstrate that the model is fairly close.



Now, let's attempt to position and overlay the model over more movie frames:



The visibilty of the front pylon edge gives a good spatial cue for positioning. I tried to maintain the angle and 'fly by' the Wiley 1701, but in any case you can see that, at a roughly proper angle, there's simply not a lot of that vent visible.

 

[blssdwlf]

With apologies, I'm going to have to disagree on the vent thing. One important detail to remember is that the pylons aren't flat-sided. They're curved, like truncated ellipses. As a result, a detail on the rear half of a pylon might become invisible from shallow front angles. That is to say, the faint visible edge of the upper little funny corner vent does demonstrate that it is a Constitution-style pylon.

I've done more than my share of camera matching and 3D modeling so I understand what you're getting at. However, based on how much of the larger vent we can see as a reference, the smaller vent should be much more apparent at the filmed angle, IMHO.

Here's an excellent model from Michael Wiley, superimposed, placed atop the image you supplied . . . such scene-matching is difficult to get just-so, but it should at least demonstrate that the model is fairly close.

Unfortunately your sample model is not close enough in the most important parts. There is clearly some very different proportions and geometry on the warp pylon and nacelle apparent in your overlay so I don't really see how your demonstration is accurate enough to be valid.

Are you able find a more accurate model?

Now, let's attempt to position and overlay the model over more movie frames:



The visibilty of the front pylon edge gives a good spatial cue for positioning. I tried to maintain the angle and 'fly by' the Wiley 1701, but in any case you can see that, at a roughly proper angle, there's simply not a lot of that vent visible.

 

[blssdwlf]

Which partial model would it have been, though? It would have had to be something made for TMP, TWOK or TSFS, and not something battle-damaged, because the nacelle/pylon appears to be clean. The only partial model I’m aware of was the engineering hull that was shot at by the Reliant in TWOK (which did not have a nacelle) and the self-destructed model built for TSFS.

After watching some more scenes from movies 1-6, I'm thinking you guys are probably correct that it was the Enterprise model used for that shot IRL and the reason for the small vent being practically invisible is due to the way the model was lit. I couldn't find any good views of the self-destructed model from TSFS from the lower angle to see how it was constructed.

So to anyone that didn't have behind-the-scenes knowledge the invisible small vent could be interpreted as a different model to the Enterprise. Only for people aware of the filming constraints would connect it to the Enterprise model, IMHO.

 

[drt]

It would have been quite nice, in retrospect, for there to have been some reference in Star Trek VI to some issues with the ship.

The reason for decommissioning the ship was right there, too damaged from the battle and not worth repairing. I suppose they didn't specify that in the movie for a few reasons: it's the same reasoning used in ST3 following the battle with Khan, if she's that damaged maybe they shouldn't be flying her into the sunset at the end of ST6, and I'd be willing to bet the production wanted to leave the door open for a potential ST7 with the TOS crew.

Also, kind of off-topic, but looking at everyone's backs... how many different back-buttons did they make for the Monster Maroons, and is there any BTS explanation for why there are so many variations?

I don't believe i've ever seen an explanation or reasoning. I did have a fan-produced technical manual back in the day that tried to explain the differences, but I don't remember what they were (sorry brain old now, lol). On a related note, I think that same manual explained the dot-slash insignia on the colored wrist piece as indicating your position/job, which i always liked better then being length of service pins.

 

[DSG2k]

Unfortunately your sample model is not close enough in the most important parts. There is clearly some very different proportions and geometry on the warp pylon and nacelle apparent in your overlay so I don't really see how your demonstration is accurate enough to be valid.

Are you able find a more accurate model?

The model is fine. I think the issue is that I was aiming to synchronize the entire scene, deflector and all, rather than center on the pylon. That can cause a lot of trouble insofar as matching model view angle, camera distance, field of view, et cetera . . . especially in SketchUp, where it's all a very manual and freehand process. SketchUp also has an unfortunate tendency to randomly throw the whole model out of position and orientation when attempting delicate movements. I also typically don't try to line it up perfectly anyway so that the overlay transparency has some offset that is visible in a screenshot rather than requiring a transparency-shift gif . . . that is to say, it is simpler to leave a 'shadow' effect.

That said, I just spent quite a bit of time aiming for precision on the nacelles and pylons, only to enjoy several rounds of cursing as the model would get itself thrown, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's a good model and showed what I needed it to show . . . the nacelle offset shadow effect in the image I shared showed excellent match of proportion and geometry and made it clear that the small triangular vent could more or less disappear if viewed from the front.

It occurs to me that there's another way to demonstrate this without allowing any argument over model precision. Here's a contrast-enhanced shot of the Enterprise departing Regula making her run for the Mutara Nebula. The angle is similar to the pylon shot and you effectively can't see the triangular vent at all.




Of course, in looking more closely, none of this is relevant anyway, since the vent does appear in the shot David mentioned earlier: