Question about the original Matt Jeffies design.

[apepa]

So sincel this thread has gone so far off the rails anyway, I figure I’ll prattle on a bit more about the intended symmetry of the Enterprise. Symmetry can be inferred by the appearance of the 33” model in BOTH its pilot and production configurations. I argue that intended symmetry of the 11 foot model can be inferred as well by the 2 pairs of windows (one pair each on each side) of the saucer edge at the approximate 10 and 2 o’clock positions in its pilot configuration and also from the fact that the window positioning seen on the back saucer edge (approx. 7 o’clock position), neck and seco hull on the port side of the 33 inch model as seen in The Cage closely match the configuration of windows on flipped images of the starboard side of the 11 footer used to depict the port side in WNMHGB.

Yeah, while building the model, I'm also choosing to ignore the fact that a lot of the windows as well ad the rings at the bottom of the saucer are visibly crooked on the 11 footer

 

[alensatemybuick1]

While I am less certain about any painted windows on the seco hull in this rare image from the second pilot FX filming, clearly the two dark windows on the saucer edge are a match to those on the other side as they existed at the time of the first pilot (when all 4 dark windows were first painted on). An earlier version of the Trompe-l'œil simulation of the inner starboard nacelle trench is also present (which actually disappeared for a time after the model was repainted for series production and was added back with detail to match the other nacelle for The Trouble with Tribbles for the famous K-7 approach shot). Also present is the seco hull pennant (which also disappeared after the production repaint).

Pity this shot is not more clear / that more like it don't exist (in the public eye anyway).

ON EDIT: Here you can even see that they later got overspray on the port nacelle markings; no need to worry about what that side looked like (and thus no need to preserve).

 

[feek61]

So since this thread has gone so far off the rails anyway, I figure I’ll prattle on a bit more about the intended symmetry of the Enterprise. Symmetry can be inferred by the appearance of the 33” model in BOTH its pilot and production configurations. I argue that intended symmetry of the 11 foot model can be inferred as well by the 2 pairs of windows (one pair each on each side) of the saucer edge at the approximate 10 and 2 o’clock positions in its pilot configuration and also from the fact that the window positioning seen on the back saucer edge (approx. 7 o’clock position), neck and seco hull on the port side of the 33 inch model as seen in The Cage closely match the configuration of windows on flipped images of the starboard side of the 11 footer used to depict the port side in WNMHGB.

Scott is well aware of our differences of opinion regarding the symmetry of the window arrangement. To my mind there is absolutely no reason whey the windows (on a real "starship") should be mirrored on each side of the ship. Most certainly the arrangement of the rooms and the individual sizes of each would most likely preclude the exact window positions being on each side of the ship. In fact, I find the thought absurd! By comparison, today's aircraft carriers which these starships are loosely based on are in no way symmetric and do not have anything approaching identical window arrangements on both sides. On the original miniature the windows on the saucer are not mirrored on any part of the bottom, edge or top. This is because the side facing the camera had more detail but to me the mirrored windows distract from the illusion of reality. That being said, there are numerous examples to support either argument for or against the mirroring of the window arrangements so it boils down to personal preference and what you want to believe in your personal cannon. To me, no symmetry to the window arrangements!!

 

[Maurice]

Of course, the intention was that the two sides would be symmetrical since the plan was to use the mirrored decals and flop shots of the finished side of the ship to represent the unfinished side.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Will, I was just trying my argument on with some other Trekkers, in a forum where it is "safe" to do so, haw haw!

I do think that yes, the intention from the very start was for a symmetrical ship. I further believe that just as the inner starboard nacelle trench and port side seco hull pennant disappeared when the ship was repainted for production, other details, specifically windows that were present from when the 11 footer was first built were also painted over and lost after it was realized / decided that the port side would never be shown (a consequence of the addition of the nacelle spinners and other lighting). I firmly believe for example that there were at one time more than the two windows on the portside B/C deck that were ultimately lit*. And that if there was any thought that more of the port side might have ever been shown, such windows would have been retained.

*No, I cannot prove it based on any photo I have seen. Yes, I've spent a stupid amount of time looking for such a photo or video (even the newly composited Roddenberry Vault shot of the 2nd pilot Enterprise with shadows and shaking at the end is inconclusive) . And if someone with access to such photos or video that might exist to prove me wrong would present them, I'd beg forgiveness for being so sure I was right when in fact I was wrong.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

I have to add that while I totally agree that such a degree of symmetry that portholes would be identical on both sides of the ship is absurd, there is plenty of evidence in TOS of that being the case.

 

[apepa]

Speaking of "filling in the blanks", does anyone have any suggestions for what to put behind the dish? Just leaving a plain bulkhead looks kinda crappy, and as it's rarely visible on camera I doubt much thought was given to it.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Opinions would vary on that, I am sure; here by the way is a blowup of an image I found on startrekhistory.com that shows one of the triangles from the ship as it was in WNMHGB that may have at least SOME relevance to your original query:

 

[alensatemybuick1]

From a blowup of this photo:
https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NASM-Enterprise13

I can just make out the rear port side windows on the saucer edge that existed prior to the production repaint. These appear the same as (mirrored to) the equivalent windows on the starboard side (dot-dash-dash-dot-dot vs dot-dot-dash-dash-dot; not sure what either are Morse code for). The restoration has (interestingly) followed this detail without any overspray.

I am more certain than ever that the B/C deck (and likely other areas of the ship) had identical (mirrored) painted windows on both sides at the time the ship was constructed, following from the same paradigm of symmetry that was later abandoned (on the 11 footer only) for reasons of practicality already discussed.

I am also more certain than ever that I gotta get a g-damned life!

ON EDIT: I must acknowledge that the one place where there is incontrovertible evidence of intentional non-symmetry is the saucer underside. However I think it started out as fairly symmetric, as evidenced by the following photos of the two models:

Later of course, the "dash" and "dot" windows on the underside (on the starboard side and the front center) were changed around a bit (and some colored areas added) I assume for visual interest on the 11 footer (and the 3 footer was modified to match). The later configuration of windows on the saucer underside is the one exception to implied symmetry I must acknowledge on the "real" enterprise and on the models. Still, I have to wonder what would have been the case had completing the port side of the 11 footer not been dismissed as a waste of time (a practical matter rather than design intention).

 

[apepa]

Opinions would vary on that, I am sure; here by the way is a blowup of an image I found on startrekhistory.com that shows one of the triangles from the ship as it was in WNMHGB that may have at least SOME relevance to your original query:

Hmmm...

The trompe d'whatsit effect seems absent here, as is the panelling effect.

Thinking about it, perhaps I'll "fork" the model into two versions, one "as is", with these simply textured on, and another with some addiotional extrapolated detail.

If I make the panelling 3D it will cetcertainly have to be subtle. One of my pet peeves is models of the TOS ship with pronounced grooves between the panels and any sort of Aztec pattern. It's just not right!

 

[Maurice]

Any windows painted on the unfinished side were because bits of that side could be seen from fore and aft angles.

What always perplexes me is how they could think to do THAT yet leave off the boxy detail to the port side front of the engineering hull, which is obviously absent in a lot of shots.

 

[apepa]

Any windows painted on the unfinished side were because bits of that side could be seen from fore and aft angles.

What always perplexes me is how they could think to do THAT for leave off the boxy detail to the port side front of the engineering hull, which is obviously absent in a lot of shots.

Perhaps it was to ease removal of the hollow piece at the front behind the deflector so they could get at the electronics inside.

Otherwise you would have to remove one of the boxy bits in order to take the deflector part off.

Fun fact: Those boxy parts are by far the most difficult part to model in Lightwave if you're trying to create a clean, accurate mesh.

 

[apepa]

I wonder if their intention was for the pylons to have horizontal (or even just zero) gravity. It's the only way the windows make any sense.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

OK, found two versions of the same FX test shot of the 11 footer that is believed to have been taken after filming of The Cage (the first one more "enhanced" for the apparent purpose of showing the wires used to hang the model). I believe some dark painted windows can be made out near the rear of the port side B/C deck that match those on the starboard side (of course it is true that I want to see them).

Probably this will be my last to say on the issue of symmetry.

 

[Maurice]

^^^Definitely post-Cage. Note the dark strips around the saucer-top lights.

 

[Maurice]

Perhaps it was to ease removal of the hollow piece at the front behind the deflector so they could get at the electronics inside.

Nah, because they could have just attached a partial box to the side of the rings, since all you really needed was to see the front of it.

 

[apepa]

Does anyone have any good info on what the nacelle caps looked like for the production model? As I understand it, the Smithsonian had to make some changes in order to replicate the original effect with LEDs because there were some safety issues with the way it was originally done, so it's not as authentic as I'd like.

I already have a good idea of what they did with the fan, christmas lights, mirror shards etc. but I still have a few questions, specifically:

1. What colours were the lights, and how were they arranged?
2. Did the internal dome with the 12 metallic strips actually spin, or was this an illusion created by the lights reflecting off the motorised fan.?
3. What colour was the outer translucent dome? The 1992 restoration had white translucent glass/plastic, the Smithsonian replaced them with red frosted glass/plastic.

Gracias!

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Craig Thompson said the inner domes spun when the 11 foot model was on loan to Golden West College in 1972. Seems pretty clear they did from original FX footage.

Not sure the exact number or colors of the bulbs is known to a certainty at this point - supposedly a number of them burnt out and were replaced likely with no regard to placement of specific colors during that 1972 exhibition. It's quite possible they were changed out when needed during original FX filming as well.

I have read on the interweb that for the series domes were frosted and painted with Pelikan orange ink. I've read as well that a similar ink was lightly applied as an outer coat to the original wood caps, to create a somewhat mottled effect, which seems consistent with their appearance in person and in photos I've seen (and I'm inclined to think a similar paint effect was used on the defector dish originally as well, before it was pared down based on photos I've seen (one of which appears above in this thread)).

 

[Maurice]

The Smithsonian ultimately went with the motors because the modelmaker consultants were unable to get an LED only solution to look right. And the number of bulbs is pretty apparent by comparing the various shots, because the mirrors shards were flat at the back and would not really create "false" lights from most angles, just reflect the light from the back of the bulbs to make everything brighter.

 

[PhotoBoy]

Apologies if this is a bit irrelevant as it’s not the original model but the TMP refit seems to have retained one of the triangles on the port side and appears to be using it as a recess for an airlock.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=63361