How so? Seriously, I'd like you to explain. If Mom had as much replaced as they're replacing on this shuttle, she'd have to have new arms, new legs, a new face, and probably entirely new skin.
Galileo Restoration Update - Jan 2012
- Thread starter Search4
- Start date
I'm talking about the 11 foot model of the Enterprise on display at NASM, not the shuttle.
The stand is currently on display, next the model. For me, that was an addition I hadn't seen in 1984.
Day 24 - USS Enterprise stand by Therin of Andor, on Flickr
Oh. Sorry. I can't keep this thread straight anymore as to which item we're talking about. In the case of the Enterprise model, I agree with you.
Yes, the lines were there, drawn on with pencil.
On my 1/350 scale kit I intend to paint the model with primer then sand and apply another coat of primer before the applying the final hull colour. This should reduce the engraved lines to barely noticeable.
I've always really liked that pic.
The stand is currently on display, next the model. For me, that was an addition I hadn't seen in 1984.
I assume that's the stand that supported the model for the bluescreen FX work. You can see traces of blue paint remaining on the metal.
On MJ's drawings seen in The Making Of Star Trek you can see what looks like a bow light on the forward upper saucer. Well, they never did install an actual bow light, but there is a circular hole there covered by a frosted translucent circle of plastic that allowed the f/x guys access to the bulb that lighted the three circular windows on the front edge of the saucer. That little circular panel is barely visible (if at all) in most shots seen from above, but it is indeed there.
Exactly! Stuff like that there. You read my mind and saw what it lacked. My mind to your mind . . .
Apparently, the upgraded and illuminated 11' model for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" didn't have gridlines: (Here's an even closer shot that would have revealed gridlines had there been any).
The black & white promotional shot of the "regular" model (1966-1969) apparently shows gridlines that have been added by a pencil. But even in the original VFX footage these are hard to notice or may have been swiped off because of handling during the VFX production (I don't believe they moved the model by using the warp engine pylons as handles), here's an interesting shot from "The Doomsday Machine": Notice the pencil lines near the starboard stern "skylight" which nevertheless only show up as a fragment (i.e. the pencil lines do not appear to be complete).
In close-up shots of the saucer's starboard underside you can also see very tiny pencil lines (so much for the "paint job" myth? These pencil lines match the position of the pencil lines seen in the b&w promotional shot), however these are absent from the saucer's forward underside taken at the same time in the National Air and Space Museum.
As for the 1/350 model kit I feel the gridlines to be vastly exaggerated. At a scale of approx. 1/96 these gridlines were already difficult to detect on the 11-footer and therefore would be extremely hard to be noticable on a model reproduction at a smaller scale - in my humble, biased and personal opinion.
Bob
Anyone who has worked with pencil knows that graphite is reflective and hence could easily blend into a surface under light. The lines were added, but only to the saucer, when the 11 footer was modified after WNMHGB for series production. Roddenberry is the one who wanted the lines to help give viewers a sense of scale. Didn't really work out since the lines were effectively invisible on '60's era low-res television. He'll, they're barely visible on DVD. But GR wanted them even over Matt Jefferies' objections.
Pencil was used because it would have been too costly and time consuming to have the lines engraved because it would have meant also reprinting and redoing all the saucer's details. And notice the rough nature of the three engraved concentric rings under the saucer.
The 11 footer wasn't a display model that could withstand up-close scrutiny. It was a filming prop that only needed to pass muster on low-res CRT screens, and that it did.
The engraved lines on the 1/350 kit are not as fine as R2 had hoped for, but neither are they as obtrusive as some make them out to be. If someone wants them totally gone for a smooth looking saucer than all it takes is some putty and sanding and paint and they're gone---nothing a decent modeller can't do.
Interestingly Gary Kerr addresses this very issue in the current issue of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeller #28. He has quite a lot to say about it.
Personally I've never liked the lines, but I can't deny that they were there. The best I can do, and still remain accurate, is minimize them.
Pencil was used because it would have been too costly and time consuming to have the lines engraved because it would have meant also reprinting and redoing all the saucer's details. And notice the rough nature of the three engraved concentric rings under the saucer.
The 11 footer wasn't a display model that could withstand up-close scrutiny. It was a filming prop that only needed to pass muster on low-res CRT screens, and that it did.
The engraved lines on the 1/350 kit are not as fine as R2 had hoped for, but neither are they as obtrusive as some make them out to be. If someone wants them totally gone for a smooth looking saucer than all it takes is some putty and sanding and paint and they're gone---nothing a decent modeller can't do.
Interestingly Gary Kerr addresses this very issue in the current issue of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeller #28. He has quite a lot to say about it.
Personally I've never liked the lines, but I can't deny that they were there. The best I can do, and still remain accurate, is minimize them.
Last edited:
Here's another shot of the saucer top gridline detail. Notice the tiny Airfix astronaut and his moon vehicle for size comparison. Enjoy!
Bob
Bob
Cool!
I stand by my original comment that the current paint job on the model photographs very nicely. I'd been hearing the outrage about the "weathering" and "gridlines" added for the September 1992 celebrations - but, seeing it in person a few weeks ago, it was more subtle than I'd expected. And now, at least, I understand why so many model kits manufacturers over the decades felt the need to add gridlines.
The final paint job on the Galileo is destined not to please everyone, too.
I believe that Ed's rationale (not intending to speak for him, but this is my recollection) for the intensity of some of the weathering was that for it to register to the degree that it did under high intensity lights used both for film and studio photography of the model in the 1960s it would have had to be darker and more pronounced than it appeared in those images.
I think that there's pretty wide agreement that he misjudged this. To acknowlege that is quite a different thing than the vituperative, absolutist ranting that discussing the 1991 restoration often evokes online.
Similar threads
