Music from TOS would be more appropriate.
News about the TOS 11-Footer
- Thread starter MGagen
- Start date
I read that Doug Drexler is involved.
^^I heard that too. If so, he'll push for it to be as accurate as possible.
On a previous thread, someone, I think Christopher, remarked that a restoration to how it looked in real life (theoretically what was done last time) might not be a reset to how it looked on . . . what? most color TVs of that time? Good TVs now running the original fx? It does raise some historical preservation questions since light grid lines are attested by witnesses including I think Mr. Jeffries. Does a historical museum do restoration, or just preservation? I guess it's impossible to "preserve," since it's been altered so much from its original state. Maybe a model from the '60s is not a "historic artifact" to a museum, though it is to us.
Not sure on the hull section lines and nacelle lines, those that encircle the hull and nacelles, if you know what I mean. I was a bit - a bit, mind you - disappointed when I saw her, though our trip to DC was great. (We're in Michigan, and it was a once-in-a-lifetime for the family.)
[As a total aside: if I change my user name, does it alter the name for all my old posts instantly? I'm thinking of using a real name as Christopher does, since I was naive when I started here. Avatar would stay the same, to help people know me, though. Thanks. I'm going to go look for the petition I started on the White House site to preserve the E.]
Not sure on the hull section lines and nacelle lines, those that encircle the hull and nacelles, if you know what I mean. I was a bit - a bit, mind you - disappointed when I saw her, though our trip to DC was great. (We're in Michigan, and it was a once-in-a-lifetime for the family.)
[As a total aside: if I change my user name, does it alter the name for all my old posts instantly? I'm thinking of using a real name as Christopher does, since I was naive when I started here. Avatar would stay the same, to help people know me, though. Thanks. I'm going to go look for the petition I started on the White House site to preserve the E.]
You're probably right, but I still couldn't help but make the connection about the TOS Enterprise getting a "refit", if you catch my drift.
It changes your name on all posts on the board, but obviously does not change instances where your name is within the body of a message (like when you are quoted). A number of us went switched to real names after years using handles (middyseafort = Ryan Thomas Riddle, Admiral Buzzkill = Dennis, DS9Sega = moi, etc.) with no ill effects.
It should look like this:
Not necessarily, because that's how it looked through a camera lens under stage lighting and after several generations of effects compositing which degraded the clarity of the image. It doesn't accurately reflect what the filming miniature would have looked like to the naked eye. The most accurate reconstruction would probably look more detailed than that, though I doubt it would be quite as heavily detailed as the current appearance of the miniature.
Here the ship is being crated to be shipped out: https://www.facebook.com/udvarhazyc....7879619558/10152733450379559/?type=1&theater
I believe there are shots available, some of them seen on startrekhistory.com, that show what the miniature looked like in the studio before post-production. From those shots it seems the miniature doesn't look that much different from what we saw on the screen. And if there are shots of the miniature before its first restoration at the Smithsonian those would also be a good indicator of its original appearance.
I would think the model needs quite a bit of work given it was a studio prop and not intended to be on display for decades on end. No one then had any notion how revered the miniature would become and its eventual fate. They probably thought it would end up on the scrap heap once production eventually ended.
I believe there are shots available, some of them seen on startrekhistory.com, that show what the miniature looked like in the studio before post-production. From those shots it seems the miniature doesn't look that much different from what we saw on the screen. And if there are shots of the miniature before its first restoration at the Smithsonian those would also be a good indicator of its original appearance.
I would think the model needs quite a bit of work given it was a studio prop and not intended to be on display for decades on end. No one then had any notion how revered the miniature would become and its eventual fate. They probably thought it would end up on the scrap heap once production eventually ended.
These are restored images from startrekhistory.com.
This is the miniature before we see it as it appeared on television. It really doesn't look much different. So this alone should be a fair indicator of what the model looked like during production. You can definitely make out the weathering, but the gridline work is really understated to the point where you'd have to get close to the model to see it as opposed to how it's presently painted where you can see it from afar. They really messed up the last restoration.
This is the miniature before we see it as it appeared on television. It really doesn't look much different. So this alone should be a fair indicator of what the model looked like during production. You can definitely make out the weathering, but the gridline work is really understated to the point where you'd have to get close to the model to see it as opposed to how it's presently painted where you can see it from afar. They really messed up the last restoration.
I suspect -- though I hate it -- the grids were darker in person than shows up in photos.
In that large screencap upthread I can make out gridlines in underside of saucer. Under bright lights, they'd wash out, so they were darker in real life.
I personally want it to look like it did onscreen. But a preservationist/restorer might be required ethically to make it look as it did in real life. IFF it is a historic artifact and not just treated as a model rescued from a TV show. We shall see. Does anyone have pics where the concentric hull plating lines around the secondary and nacelles are evidenced in the '60s? I don't see them, but why would the last "restorer" just make up lines like those out of the blue? Doesn't seem likely. Any fx workers from that era left alive to tell us how prominent the lines were in 1966?
In that large screencap upthread I can make out gridlines in underside of saucer. Under bright lights, they'd wash out, so they were darker in real life.
I personally want it to look like it did onscreen. But a preservationist/restorer might be required ethically to make it look as it did in real life. IFF it is a historic artifact and not just treated as a model rescued from a TV show. We shall see. Does anyone have pics where the concentric hull plating lines around the secondary and nacelles are evidenced in the '60s? I don't see them, but why would the last "restorer" just make up lines like those out of the blue? Doesn't seem likely. Any fx workers from that era left alive to tell us how prominent the lines were in 1966?
Honestly the grid thing is no big mystery. The top of the saucer to this day is original and has not been touched since the end of filming. There are grid lines done in pencil on the top which is most likely what ALL of the grid lines on the ship were. Hopefully the new restoration will not go over-board on the lines and do them subtly as they were originally.
I'm most interested in seeing the model restored to a paint job that it had while it was being filmed for the series. Whether it looks the same in person as it does on screen is secondary to me.
Pretty much.
I'd say that the whole exterior needs to be redone since it's been beat up so much over the years. And that last restoration was a mess.
So do you sand it all off and start from scratch or paint over it which would have its own problems?
From the NASM blog:
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/behind-the-scenes/moving-the-star-trek-starship-enterprise-studio-model/
So it seems like the goal is more to treat it as a historical artifact to be protected against further deterioration, rather than as a display item to be restored to its original appearance. They might not undo the prior restoration, since that's part of the history of the miniature, for better or worse.
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/behind-the-scenes/moving-the-star-trek-starship-enterprise-studio-model/
So it seems like the goal is more to treat it as a historical artifact to be protected against further deterioration, rather than as a display item to be restored to its original appearance. They might not undo the prior restoration, since that's part of the history of the miniature, for better or worse.
I hope they choose to restore it to original filming condition, portside exterior wiring and all.
Restoration. Ready to go back before the film cameras of its day (exposed wiring aside).
I'm not sure I agree. After all, if you want something that looks just like the original miniature, there are countless fan modelmakers who can create replicas. This is a museum piece, a historical artifact being preserved for purposes of scholarship. Hiding the changes that it's undergone with the passage of time might be aesthetically satisfying, but from a historical/archaeological viewpoint, it might be better to preserve the physical record of those changes.
After all, while there are surely some who'd like to see things like the Sphinx or the Parthenon or the Colosseum restored to their original glory, the general approach to preserving them is simply to prevent any further deterioration, keeping them in their ruined state because that's part of their history. There's more at stake than simple aesthetics.
After all, while there are surely some who'd like to see things like the Sphinx or the Parthenon or the Colosseum restored to their original glory, the general approach to preserving them is simply to prevent any further deterioration, keeping them in their ruined state because that's part of their history. There's more at stake than simple aesthetics.
Similar threads
