There's actually some nice detail in the model when you look closely.
SpockboyThe originals are from birdofthegalaxy
Last edited:
More TOS Photo Restorations
- Thread starter spockboy
- Start date
There's actually some nice detail in the model when you look closely.
SpockboyThe originals are from birdofthegalaxy
These are simply outstanding.
Yes. Pity they skimped on a few key areas though.
EDIT: I never really bothered to look before, but the aft-view ship is clearly a different model. Apart from comparatively looking like soft clay, it's lacking some of the details visible on the other shots. Why did they make another model for that angle? And why did they bungle it?
Last edited:
Yeah, the view of the aft is still clearly the least flattering.
The Constellation model was an AMT model they took a propane torch to. They just didn't put any greebly detritus on the back end of the nacelle, so it isn't as impressive. For what they had to work with, I think they did a fantastic job of making it look like it could stand beside the 11-footer in terms of believability.
Where are those Constellation models now? I have a bad feeling that they're buried in a landfill someplace, but I'd love to be wrong.
The penny pinching budget crunchers probably said "Buy an AMT Enterprise model. There's no money to build a new starship and then destroy it."
Well, it looks really nice from the other angles. I have to wonder if it was realized how important an angle the aft-view would turn out to be as the model was being built, though I really have no idea.The penny pinching budget crunchers probably said "Buy an AMT Enterprise model. There's no money to build a new starship and then destroy it."
I'm not so sure it's different, more likely was the decision to have the aft-view shot was made late in the game and the original Constellation model never planned for that angle and so was unfinished.
I really have no idea, but I believe that it would be a significant revelation to learn that not one but two models had been used. The various accounts that I've read always only discussed one model.
If only one model was used and it really looks different, then perhaps scenes were filmed and the model was worked on for other scenes and then filmed some more? Maybe they really thought it needed more work for the other scenes?
The penny pinching budget crunchers probably said "Buy an AMT Enterprise model. There's no money to build a new starship and then destroy it."
AMT supplied at least two ready-built models, one for the Constellation, and later another one for "Tribbles." I'd like to know who customized the Constellation model after AMT delivered it. Was it Matt Jefferies?
Irving Feinberg was the property master; that doesn't quite fit. Jim Rugg was special effects, but he was more about live-action fx, such as animating Nomad, and Flint's M4 robot, and making the sliding doors whip open so fast.
The credits list "Photographic Effects: Cinema Research" but it's not clear if they did anything more than photograph the model. Matt Jefferies is the most plausible name I can think of. Wah Chang was done with Star Trek by that point, wasn't he? Maybe it was Richard Datin's model shop.
Excellent work, Spockboy!
Some thoughts/ruminations:
1. I, too, always wondered about the story behind the story with this model. I'm sure someone like Bob Justman came up with the idea to use an AMT model. But who built it? Who torched it? And what happened to it afterwards? Did it simply end up in a dumpster on the Desilu/Paramount lot?
2. The decals are obviously straight out of the the AMT kit, except the ship's name. Look closely and you'll see that the font used for the name is not the same as used on the 11- and 3-foot models of the Enterprise--it looks to be a version of Arial rather than the USAF-type font.
3. The panels on the struts for the warp nacelles have a rose gold coloring, as did (apparently) early versions of the 11-foot model of the Enterprise. But why paint these on, as well as the gold deflector dish, and leave the rest of the model unpainted (such as the two squares for the exhaust vents of the impulse engines)?
4. Looking at the Spockboy's first picture from the rear of the ship, doesn't it seem like the lower part of the saucer section is missing? Was the ship mounted for photography in this area of the model? We never do see the bottom of the saucer in any shot, do we?
5. To Corporal Captain's point, the model is over-lit the first time it's shown from the rear. Subsequent scenes show it lit in more subdued light, and it looks much better then. It's also shown over-lit from above in the second act, making it much more obvious that it's a model that's not up to the standards of the 11-footer.
Your thoughts?
Some thoughts/ruminations:
1. I, too, always wondered about the story behind the story with this model. I'm sure someone like Bob Justman came up with the idea to use an AMT model. But who built it? Who torched it? And what happened to it afterwards? Did it simply end up in a dumpster on the Desilu/Paramount lot?
2. The decals are obviously straight out of the the AMT kit, except the ship's name. Look closely and you'll see that the font used for the name is not the same as used on the 11- and 3-foot models of the Enterprise--it looks to be a version of Arial rather than the USAF-type font.
3. The panels on the struts for the warp nacelles have a rose gold coloring, as did (apparently) early versions of the 11-foot model of the Enterprise. But why paint these on, as well as the gold deflector dish, and leave the rest of the model unpainted (such as the two squares for the exhaust vents of the impulse engines)?
4. Looking at the Spockboy's first picture from the rear of the ship, doesn't it seem like the lower part of the saucer section is missing? Was the ship mounted for photography in this area of the model? We never do see the bottom of the saucer in any shot, do we?
5. To Corporal Captain's point, the model is over-lit the first time it's shown from the rear. Subsequent scenes show it lit in more subdued light, and it looks much better then. It's also shown over-lit from above in the second act, making it much more obvious that it's a model that's not up to the standards of the 11-footer.
Your thoughts?
I don't see anything to leads me to believe these are different models. What details are visible on the other shots that are not on the aft view?
I'll admit, the more pics I look at, the less I stand by that statement. It seemed at first that on the Aft-View model, the raised strip behind the bridge was missing, but the little nub is there so it may be the poor lighting that makes it disappear from view. And I thought the red detailing on the nacelle strut was missing, but you can make it out on the lower half. So I return to wondering why the ass-end of the model looks so poor compared to the rest.
I believe Matt Jefferies' younger brother John had a hand in building the Enterprise model used in "Tribbles" and retained possession of that model until it was sold to Paul Allen. who has displayed it at EMP (now "MoPop", a horrible name change in my opinion, BTW). Perhaps the younger Jefferies was involved in the construction of the damaged Constellation; admittedly this is speculation on my part.
ON EDIT: The AMT Enterprise model used in "Tribbles" (outside Lurie's office) was lit, unlike the Constellation, and was more a "set piece" than a special effects filming miniature. As each would have different requirements, it is perhaps not a given that the same person / persons would be responsible for building both. And although John Jefferies was in possession of the Enterprise model for many years, I cannot seem to find any verification that he was personally involved in its assembly (though I do seem to recall reading that somewhere).
Last edited:
Similar threads
