Thanks, Maurice!
Tallywhacker
- Thread starter Metryq
- Start date
Thanks, Maurice!
So it's actually the Enterprise's "iPod"!
It looks like a fricking penis. Where are these pictures from?
Yeah, so surprising that I don't quite believe it. Could the images Maurice supplied have been an unused or little-used modification? The 11-footer was altered several times: the bridge, the deflector dish, the fore and aft ends of the warp nacelles, the impulse engines... maybe the lower sensor dome had a turret briefly, say in "The Cage" only, and then it was gone. Or on second thought, looking at the "Last Battlefield" shot, maybe it was there all along.
Last edited:
Ah yes....the old tallywhacker discussion again.
This is something that has been talked about for years. I wish that I would have copied and kept all of the material that I have seen in reference to this so that I could share it here. The dimple has been there all along. I have seen artists renditions of the locking ring opening and exposing the torpedo launchers while the nipple is the phaser emitter.All good stuff.
This is something that has been talked about for years. I wish that I would have copied and kept all of the material that I have seen in reference to this so that I could share it here. The dimple has been there all along. I have seen artists renditions of the locking ring opening and exposing the torpedo launchers while the nipple is the phaser emitter.All good stuff.
You guys are ridiculous. "I'm an internet expert, so I don't believe the photographic evidence, because I never noticed this tiny feature before and know better!" Jesus. Get over yourselves.
Gary Kerr included it in the Polar Lights model, because Gary Kerr handled and examined the 11-foot model, took measurements and reference photos, and helped disassemble the model for its Smithsonian restoration. Anybody else in this thread handle, photograph and measure the model before its Smithsonian restoration? Hm?
Gary Kerr included it in the Polar Lights model, because Gary Kerr handled and examined the 11-foot model, took measurements and reference photos, and helped disassemble the model for its Smithsonian restoration. Anybody else in this thread handle, photograph and measure the model before its Smithsonian restoration? Hm?
It looks like a fricking penis. Where are these pictures from?
It's not a turret at all - it's the ship's glory hole!
No one in this thread ever claimed to be an expert on anything, or to have ever seen the 11' model in its original state.
I said I thought it was BS, then when presented with evidence I said I didn't like it and intend to ignore it. Zoid's prerogative.
So there.
I read one definition stating that a tally whacker is a stick used when counting bananas.
A colloquial usage, sometimes spelled "tellywhacker," means penis, hence my joke about the Enterprise being a stallion.
Beat me to it. This was widely discussed as Gary Kerr and Round2 shared their research and development of the big 1/350 TOS Enterprise kit. That and other surprising little oddities that few realized were there all along even from the beginning.
The notorious gridlines were the most hotly "discussed" issue. Gary Kerr's research and archival evidence establishes the lines were added when the 11ft. miniature was modified into series production form. The lines are definitely there drawn in pencil yet become hard to see when viewed from a distance or seen on the resolution of CRT televisions. Even digital remastering of the episodes later seen on dvd and modern flatscreen televisions really don't show them off, but they were indeed there (and can be seen in some shots). The argument really got rolling when R2 decided to include the gridlines as etched or engraved detail on the 1/350 model kit---their opinion is that the drawn lines on the 11ft. filming miniature were a quick-and-simple way to depict a physical detail that would have been too costly and time consuming to do any other way.
In fairness R2 included the gridlines as a finely etched detail although not quite as fine as they would have preferred. It also has to be said that the etched lines can rather easily be filled in and painted over if one really wants a completely smooth look to their model. Yes, it's a bit time consuming but no real challenge to any decent modeller. I have one of R2's TOS Enterprise kits and it's gorgeous. I, too, wish the lines were etched more finely, but that said I don't find them at all obtrusive. Once I prime and then paint the model the lines will become even harder to see, which is as it should be in my opinion. It must be said that even as they are they become hard to see when you're several feet away from the model.
In some if not many respects the 1/350 kit is a better representation of the intended starship Enterprise than the original 11ft. miniature which was saddled with production compromises and faults that simply weren't noticeable onscreen.
- the main saucer wasn't a true circle all around.
- the three concentric recessed lines on the saucer's underside were not cleanly done.
- the nacelles were not exactly the same length.
- the windows aren't equally spaced if the decks are supposed to be all the same height (which is a non-issue since the decks don't have to be all the same height).
- one never seen side of the ship was unlighted and near completely unfinished.
- detailing was lacking on sides of the nacelles never seen onscreen.
- the nub behind the bridge dome isn't offset if the bridge is really meant to face directly forward.
I'm sure there are others I'm overlooking.
This isn't to fault the craftsmanship of TOS' creators, but acknowledging the limitations of television production. Indeed it is very much to their credit that the 11 footer came across so convincingly onscreen.
Last edited:
Wait - I'm ridiculous because something contradicts everything I've ever thought about something, so I remain skeptical?
Especially on a board where people do mess with each other?
And where there are photoshop threads, fer cryin' out loud?
A little skepticism is an ok thing.
Where are the pics from?
And - just to clarify - the vaunted Polar Lights model has not just a nipple, but a little gun turret-looking thing?
Especially on a board where people do mess with each other?
And where there are photoshop threads, fer cryin' out loud?
A little skepticism is an ok thing.
Where are the pics from?
And - just to clarify - the vaunted Polar Lights model has not just a nipple, but a little gun turret-looking thing?
Yes.
It's easy to see how that little detail could be overlooked all these years. It isn't lighted and can be next to invisible in the glare of the lighted lower sensor dome. Throw that image on a CRT television screen and the little thingy is invisible.
Imagine my surprise learning that all along there were little red antenna like thingies on either side of the series production bridge dome. That and other details that have come to light, for me anyway.
And for years I decried and denied the existence of the contentious gridlines...until I could deny it no longer. However, as I understand it Matt Jefferies himself did not want the gridlines added, but his objections were overruled. Also since they became an established feature he included the lines when he worked up the Phase II refit which were then later translated to the TMP refit. Note, too, that on those versions the lines were now a physical feature as opposed to merely drawn. That fact is essentially what persuaded Round2 to believe the original drawn lines were meant to depict a physical detail on the TOS 11ft. miniature.
No, THIS is a space weenie"The E has a little space weenie?
Well, I don't like it. Not one little bit. I can't believe NBC S&P would ever have let that pass. So, in true Trekkie fashion I'm going to ignore it and deny its existence.
Which DID have a number of Trek ties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_Gordon
My biggest surprise was that the "shoulder" parts of the intercoolers and reactor loop were lighter gray than the hull color, and the entire neck was blue on both pilot versions. That was pretty much impossible to see on a TV screen.
Blue? On a model to be photographed in front a bluescreen? I'll have to look into that. The blue cast seen in some of the composite shots is because the foreground was not corrected, or the extraction and compositing technique was not as refined as the software in use today.
Similar threads
