I like the supposition that, since it was never meant to be viewed, it was used for testing purposes. I've done that with models and other art.
Left side myth busted?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I like the supposition that, since it was never meant to be viewed, it was used for testing purposes. I've done that with models and other art.
People tell contradictory stories. The later in life they tell them the more dubious the particulars are. The photographic evidence to date does not support the contention that the port side of the 11' model was ever fully detailed. Where are the windows? Where's the aforementioned box thing? And why are there only two plates below each nacelle cap (center and to starboard, missing the ones to port)?
I guess after over fifty years of studying and debating the background details of a TV show, it's necessary to make stuff up to get excited about. The YouTuber got his clicks out of it - though not very many. He'd be better off ranting about Captain Marvel and the new Trek shows being attacks on Western masculinity, or something.
I don’t think the video’s author was just trying to make something up just for the hell of it. He has made several videos regarding the models and miniatures used on TOS. Seeing the Starfleet pennant and registration number on the port nacelle, where it was never expected to be seen, could lead one to wonder why bother given the 11 footer was initially a static model. And the above photo does show the pennant also on the secondary hull’s port side at one point. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder if it were just possible the model could have been finished all around.
Text on Page 80 of the Datin book also could lead one to wonder because it states Datin’s opinion that with the wiring harness in place on the port side the model could now be photographed only from the starboard side. The way it’s phrased could lead you to wonder.
The missing box detail on the port side of the secondary is more problematic for me. Given the ship could be photographed from the bow that missing detail is apparent in a few shots as seen onscreen. On a smallish CRT television of the 1960s it could be missed, but its absence is apparent with today’s bigger screens and higher resolutions.
Text on Page 80 of the Datin book also could lead one to wonder because it states Datin’s opinion that with the wiring harness in place on the port side the model could now be photographed only from the starboard side. The way it’s phrased could lead you to wonder.
The missing box detail on the port side of the secondary is more problematic for me. Given the ship could be photographed from the bow that missing detail is apparent in a few shots as seen onscreen. On a smallish CRT television of the 1960s it could be missed, but its absence is apparent with today’s bigger screens and higher resolutions.
Was the Enterprise finished on both sides in The Cage? No... in fact it wasn't finished to be shot from the rare either.
Were there markings painted on the unfinished side? Yes... but the inboard channel on the starboard nacelle was painted on also.
Lets get this straight, key physical details are missing from the port side from the beginning... which is why it is called unfinished. Enough details were painted on to help the viewer believe the model was finished on both sides if glimpsed during a shot, but the port side was never intended to be viewed directly. The details missing from the port side would have been inset into the model, you can't just remove them... they were never there to begin with.
You can find my (unfinished) plans of the 11 foot model (as a model, not an idealized starship) here. It shows what physical features were omitted.
This guy wants to think he found something new... he hasn't. He uses a lot of info from different places (including my works on the subjects), but doesn't have a mastery of the subjects in his videos. He really needs to take a lot more time to digest what he has "found" on the net before throwing together these videos.
Were there markings painted on the unfinished side? Yes... but the inboard channel on the starboard nacelle was painted on also.
Lets get this straight, key physical details are missing from the port side from the beginning... which is why it is called unfinished. Enough details were painted on to help the viewer believe the model was finished on both sides if glimpsed during a shot, but the port side was never intended to be viewed directly. The details missing from the port side would have been inset into the model, you can't just remove them... they were never there to begin with.
You can find my (unfinished) plans of the 11 foot model (as a model, not an idealized starship) here. It shows what physical features were omitted.
This guy wants to think he found something new... he hasn't. He uses a lot of info from different places (including my works on the subjects), but doesn't have a mastery of the subjects in his videos. He really needs to take a lot more time to digest what he has "found" on the net before throwing together these videos.
Thanks for that. It's brilliant.
I got a message back from Doug Drexler confirming he forwarded a copy of the above posted photo to the video’s author.
Doug also confirmed the 11 footer was indeed painted on the left side with windows and markings, but it still lacked physical details when it was first delivered upon completion.
Doug also confirmed the 11 footer was indeed painted on the left side with windows and markings, but it still lacked physical details when it was first delivered upon completion.
I watched this video around the time it was put up, and in following the guy's series on the Star Trek filming models, I appreciate his enthusiasm, but he doesn't quite have a grasp on facts that he needs to if he wants to put these videos out as "facts from research" or something like that.
I mean, in watching them, he doesn't even get parts of the ship named right or just generalizes, instead of being a little more definitive, which could be solved with a little work searching online.
I mean, in watching them, he doesn't even get parts of the ship named right or just generalizes, instead of being a little more definitive, which could be solved with a little work searching online.
Define "completed".
There are some images of the 11-footer that look like the completed port side, but are actually the starboard side dressed in reversed decals, and the film is flipped.
I think everybody knows that, but I feel like saying something.
Doug Drexler answered the question. When Datin built the 11 footer he painted the left side to match the right in terms of markings and windows. But he didn’t make the model truly symmetrical because he did not add all the same physical details as the right side. Apparently the intent was always to focus primarily on the right side. It was a cost saving measure because more detail meant more time involved equals more money. In this state the model could be photographed from a distance and pass muster on a smallish television of the era. Of course today you couldn’t get away with that with today’s large screens and high resolution. Today the model would have to be finished all around.
When changes were made to the model for WNMHGB the biggest issue was adding internal lighting. For them to do it meant obliterating the incomplete left side with exposed wiring. This left only the Starfleet pennant on the port nacelle (which is still there) and the pennant on the secondary hull (as can be seen in the photo Doug supplied).
When the model was modified again for the series the only thing that remained on the left side was the pennant on the port nacelle.
One can try to split hairs to say “finished” and “completed” don’t mean the same thing. But bottom line is when Datin completed building the model and delivered it the job was finished…for the time being. But the model itself was not finished in the sense of being fully symmetrical on both sides because it lacked physical details on the left side.
The video’s author is reaching for a gotcha moment believing he’s discovered something everyone else has apparently missed somehow. But those in the know and involved restoring the model know it was never fully finished on the left side, certainly not in the sense the video is suggesting.
The intent of the model, by utilizing reverse decals (done maybe once or twice), was always meant to represent it as being symmetrical. I suspect, though, that if there had been sufficient time and money, and lighting had been planned for from the onset, the model could have been fully finished all around. If Star Trek had been a feature film it could have been done that way. Certainly for TMP the refit model was fully finished all around and smaller as well.
But it didn’t happen that way and here we are.
Interesting to note while TOS used the right side of the ship in TMP we mostly see the left side of the model, almost as if to say, “Folks, we’re giving you something never seen before in the series.”
When changes were made to the model for WNMHGB the biggest issue was adding internal lighting. For them to do it meant obliterating the incomplete left side with exposed wiring. This left only the Starfleet pennant on the port nacelle (which is still there) and the pennant on the secondary hull (as can be seen in the photo Doug supplied).
When the model was modified again for the series the only thing that remained on the left side was the pennant on the port nacelle.
One can try to split hairs to say “finished” and “completed” don’t mean the same thing. But bottom line is when Datin completed building the model and delivered it the job was finished…for the time being. But the model itself was not finished in the sense of being fully symmetrical on both sides because it lacked physical details on the left side.
The video’s author is reaching for a gotcha moment believing he’s discovered something everyone else has apparently missed somehow. But those in the know and involved restoring the model know it was never fully finished on the left side, certainly not in the sense the video is suggesting.
The intent of the model, by utilizing reverse decals (done maybe once or twice), was always meant to represent it as being symmetrical. I suspect, though, that if there had been sufficient time and money, and lighting had been planned for from the onset, the model could have been fully finished all around. If Star Trek had been a feature film it could have been done that way. Certainly for TMP the refit model was fully finished all around and smaller as well.
But it didn’t happen that way and here we are.
Interesting to note while TOS used the right side of the ship in TMP we mostly see the left side of the model, almost as if to say, “Folks, we’re giving you something never seen before in the series.”
Last edited:
Also, there that one shot at the end of "The Cage", where the Enterprise flies away from camera, and you see the port side. It won't clearly show the front of the secondary hull, and may also be the starboard side flipped with reversed decals?
The final shot is the famed blurred 'whoosh' shot, showing the port side, used both going left to right and right to left in the series titles, which won't help determine things.
The final shot is the famed blurred 'whoosh' shot, showing the port side, used both going left to right and right to left in the series titles, which won't help determine things.
The long shot of the ship flying away could well have been the 33in. miniature which was fully finished on both sides. Also the high speed flyby scenes in the opening credits are sufficiently blurred that all they had to do was flip the image to save filming it flying from right to left and the audience could never tell the difference. The high speed flyby could also have been the 33in. model instead of the 11 footer.
Last edited:
The left side was painted, meaning windows and decals and stuff. It wasn't like there was any physical detail. Even then the left side didn't have that block on the side of the deflector. That tells me that they always intended on featuring the right side, but the left could be seen briefly without a problem.
It's hard to call the left side "finished". Decals and painted windows, that's all. You can see that the right nacelle doesn't have the inside "trough" either. Never finished.
This is in fact mentioned in Datin's daughters book: "The Enterprise and the Model Maker".
It's hard to call the left side "finished". Decals and painted windows, that's all. You can see that the right nacelle doesn't have the inside "trough" either. Never finished.
This is in fact mentioned in Datin's daughters book: "The Enterprise and the Model Maker".
Yeah, I agree. I think that's the thrust of the whole thread: what is the definition of completed?
This is the text I quoted from the Datin book that can lead one to question the state of the model when it was first built: “the left side was as detailed as the right when it was first delivered…”
That could easily be taken to mean the two sides were symmetrically identical. And thats apparently how the video’s author interpreted it. He then took the photo Doug Drexler shared with him as confirmation despite it not really confirming what he believes given the photo is of the 2nd pilot version with lights already added with the wiring visible on the port side and the Starfleet pennant being the only detail left on the secondary hull. There don’t appear to be any painted windows left on the secondary hull although it’s hard to tell on such a blurred and grainy photo.
I would say that if you really want to know, it's Gary Kerr you want to talk to. He is the last word on the 11 footer. He will know. Ask him.
Similar threads
