Hey, I never noticed that before....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
See? Too stupid to live. Weak brain...
Interesting, but I think it was actually a model not a photo in the window, it was moving. That's how I noticed it.
Brain is brain, what is brain?
I'll let you know. Tonight, we watched "Arena" on the little TV, and in some ways, it was a superior experience!
(yes, that antenna really does go to the TV.
)That actor is in everything in the 1960s. I just saw him on this weeks rerun of The F.B.I.
I keep a Sony Trinitron pro CRT for connecting vintage home computers and video game systms to, because the images were designed for that technology and never looks right on a modern flatscreen.I'll let you know. Tonight, we watched "Arena" on the little TV, and in some ways, it was a superior experience!
(yes, that antenna really does go to the TV.
That looks odd--the secondary hull looks to have a deeper "chest" along with a lower sensor dome that seems more prominent--perhaps explaining the Trials and tribble-ations
https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.bl...tribble-ations-is-hip-deep-in-star-trek-love/
There doesn't even seem to be a turbolift behind the bridge---due to the way the image was insertd perhaps? That may explain TAS drawings...
It was 1967. The visual fx guy might have cut out the 11-footer photo by hand with scissors. I wouldn't read too much into its precise contours.
One thing that jumps out though is that the AMT kit had a smaller saucer diameter, which was done to save on plastic and shipping costs:
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x15hd/thetroublewithtribbleshd0104.jpg
Wow! I haven't even seen a cathode-ray TV set for about a decade. I'm surprised that they could still receive a modern broadcast.
On the Florida coast, we always had a thunderstorm around 4 p.m. Eastern, which is when our local channel played Star Trek.
Any TV can receive a modern broadcast with a digital antenna. That said, this one is using standard bunny ears -- the broadcast is analog on channel 9.
It's just very limited range (so the FCC need not knock on our door)
Oh dear -- ruined or just interfered with reception?
Any TV can receive a modern broadcast with a digital antenna. That said, this one is using standard bunny ears -- the broadcast is analog on channel 9.
Oh dear -- ruined or just interfered with reception?
Less than optimal!
I was doing software for NASA contractors back then, and they seemed to like to schedule launches in that time slot, something I never understood. Still, as I maintained the meteorological programs, they were keeping me busy!
(Long ago here, I posted a screen shot of my TV picture with storm warnings on top and bottom plus other dingbats on the sides. You could sort of make out a vintage Trek episode in there, but you had to know it rather well.)
Edit: It;s here!
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/a-different-sort-of-tosr-question-the-dvds.64924/#post-2014289
Last edited:
What's the source for that assertion re the plastic and zine+shipping costs?It was 1967. The visual fx guy might have cut out the 11-footer photo by hand with scissors. I wouldn't read too much into its precise contours.
One thing that jumps out though is that the AMT kit had a smaller saucer diameter, which was done to save on plastic and shipping costs:
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x15hd/thetroublewithtribbleshd0104.jpg
I read that so long ago, it's just become background knowledge to me, and the reference is not availing itself.
But the AMT saucer diameter is proportionately a lot smaller than the saucers of the 11-footer and 33-inch studio model. That's an objective fact. And this would obviously save on the costs of plastic and weight when you're mass producing the kits. I just don't have a published citation for you.
Last edited:
The objective factuality of the relative scaling of parts doesn't automatically equate to financial reasons for same. IIRC, in later runs of the kit they replaced the original simple cradle stand with a much larger triangular based one that must've taken 4x as much styrene, which is a ding against it being the cost of plastic or shipping.
Huh. My very first kit, which had to be either the 1966 or 1968 version, had the huge triangular base. My second one ('73 or '75, can't say), had a flimsy little cradle assembly, which was actually better because you didn't have to glue the ship to the stand.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek_model_kits
So I think the big triangular base-and-post came first, and was then replaced with the little cradle to save a lot of plastic. And of course the saucer was always a bit too small— which seems odd now that you've brought up the base. Seems like the base should have been the first thing to skimp on.
If the saucer size was not meant to save plastic, then we need an alternate theory.
• Maybe AMT figured they'd have trouble supporting and balancing the full-diameter saucer on the model's neck.
• Maybe Matt Jefferies inadvertently provided AMT with scale drawings of the Constellation instead of the Enterprise. Spock: "It would explain a great many things."
Model kits of that era weren't usually accurate. They were, at best, simplified. At worst they were altered to do weird things (like add wheels and a torpedo up front on Japanese Seaview model kits).
The Enterprise had to not fall over. It's probably as simple as that.
As a kid, I found the model to be perfect. It's still my favorite to assemble, mostly because you can bang it out in an afternoon and it looks great.
The Enterprise had to not fall over. It's probably as simple as that.
As a kid, I found the model to be perfect. It's still my favorite to assemble, mostly because you can bang it out in an afternoon and it looks great.
I checked and I misremembered about the stands. See this (link).
I think Ssosmcin has it. None of the TV spaceship/scifi kits of the time were very accurate. The only relatively accurate Trek kit was the Klingon ship, because it was pantographed from the filming miniatures AMT built for the show.
Last edited:
Here is Shaw’s AMT drawing
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/site_demo/1966_amt_plans/index.html
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/AMT_1966_project/AMT-18-inch.pdf
https://www.hobbytalk.com/threads/original-1966-18-enterprise-model.320865/page-3#post-4353145
More
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/matt-jefferies-and-the-tos-enterprise.269635/
Hobbytalk had a nice thread where the Casimiro and Shaws AMT blueprints were overlain one atop the other…but the images have been lost…
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/site_demo/1966_amt_plans/index.html
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/AMT_1966_project/AMT-18-inch.pdf
https://www.hobbytalk.com/threads/original-1966-18-enterprise-model.320865/page-3#post-4353145
More
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/matt-jefferies-and-the-tos-enterprise.269635/
Hobbytalk had a nice thread where the Casimiro and Shaws AMT blueprints were overlain one atop the other…but the images have been lost…
Last edited:
You know, looking at some of that old stuff and the contention that Richard Taylor might have disposed of the 33" TOS model not knowing what it was, but there was a small model of the Star Trek II [TV] Enterprise built by Brick Price's shop (I have video of him with it somewhere), and I wonder if that's what Taylor was referring to as regards a small Enterprise model.
Last edited:
Similar threads
