The 11 Footer E flaws, shoddy construction or by design?

[scotpens]

. . . It's more for the sake of comparison. Ed's stance is that to achieve that look on film, the detailing had to be horribly overdone. The candid shots say otherwise. Why he didn't take those candid shots into account, only he can say.

Right, it's not as if we don't know what the model looked like during TOS production. Compare the production pics on this page with the photos of the disfigurement Mr. Miarecki inflicted on the big E. After all that painstaking work of disassembling, cleaning and repairing, replacing missing parts, and reassembling, why the ridiculous paint job?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm sorry, but what you have there are a collection of early photos of the model - right after construction and during the pilot shoot, some black-and-whites and a few really grainy color images of the model during shooting for an early episode ("Space Seed").

That's not quite "knowing what the model looked like during production."

That Ed overemphasized the weathering on the model isn't something that I think many people dispute. What is tiresome is the use of terminology like "disfigurement inflicted" with regard to the restoration.

Anyone who had the opportunity to see that model on display at the NASM prior to the 1991 restoration and was at all observant knows how much of an improvement Ed's work was over that. There's way to prove by looking that any of the previous repair work was done with any more research than a glance at the art on an AMT model kit box, if that.

Jim Brooks really pretty much addressed all of this.

 

[Warped9]

^^

Instead of restoring it to what it should have been he changed it into something it never was, and it doesn't matter how well he did it. It's still flawed work.

 

[scotpens]

. . . That Ed overemphasized the weathering on the model isn't something that I think many people dispute. What is tiresome is the use of terminology like “disfigurement inflicted” with regard to the restoration.

I calls ’em like I sees ’em. YMMV.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm sorry, but what you have there are a collection of early photos of the model - right after construction and during the pilot shoot, some black-and-whites and a few really grainy color images of the model during shooting for an early episode ("Space Seed").

That's not quite "knowing what the model looked like during production."

That Ed overemphasized the weathering on the model isn't something that I think many people dispute. What is tiresome is the use of terminology like "disfigurement inflicted" with regard to the restoration.

Anyone who had the opportunity to see that model on display at the NASM prior to the 1991 restoration and was at all observant knows how much of an improvement Ed's work was over that. There's way to prove by looking that any of the previous repair work was done with any more research than a glance at the art on an AMT model kit box, if that.

Jim Brooks really pretty much addressed all of this.

Well, here's how she looked in '72, before the Smithsonian got their hands on her, courtesy of the Wayback Machine...

Compare this with the pic you posted upthread and that unretouched upper surface of the primary hull.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Oh there's no question EM overemphasised the weathering.

And I agree, I think some of the still color photos we have from behind the scenes give a pretty good idea of what it looked like "in person" back in the day.

But I don't think how she looked on motion picture film is a very reliable gauge to how she looked "in person"?

It's more for the sake of comparison. Ed's stance is that to achieve that look on film, the detailing had to be horribly overdone. The candid shots say otherwise. Why he didn't take those candid shots into account, only he can say.

A reasonable assumption for an experienced effects artist, I suppose - but shouldn't he have realized that the model was NOT going to be under studio kleig lights and on film, but in a softly lit gallery viewed by the naked eye?

As I've said previously, his experience is with computer motion control with multiple passes, where, yeah, the detailing is heavily overdone to compensate for the bright lighting during the "beauty pass" (check out the candid shots of the E-D sometime), and he either forgot, or failed to think through the fact, that for Star Trek, it was all done in one camera pass, and to have the lights bright enough to mellow out that level of detailing, it would've overpowered the ship's internal lights to the point where you wouldn't have been able to tell that the ship even had lights.

 

[Tallguy]

For the amount of detail that shows up through all of the grain in the TOS shots I would argue that Ed's restoration gets it right more than wrong.

 

[YARN]

For the amount of detail that shows up through all of the grain in the TOS shots I would argue that Ed's restoration gets it right more than wrong.

The main reason why TOS was capable of being bumped up to HD is that fact that it was shot on 35mm film (i.e., the source was already HD). The blu ray versions of the show will let you watch the original effects shots.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For the amount of detail that shows up through all of the grain in the TOS shots I would argue that Ed's restoration gets it right more than wrong.

There are only a couple of questionable things about Ed's restoration. The heavy weathering is one. While the whole sensor dish is a massive improvement over what NASM had done previously, the antenna sticking out of the sensor dish Ed made (or refurbished?) is not shaped like the original. And he put some tiny joke signage in a few places on the hull.

Beyond that, the exact methods he used to replicate the original lighting were not identical to the original tech - obviously newer kinds of lights, and the "egg-beater" effect in the nacelles is achieved a little differently.

The original effects shots are dreadful in HD, and there's no real reduction of grain or improvement in resolution. TOS may have been shot on 35 mm film but the matte elements were reprinted through several generations - not the way it would have been done on a big budget film like 2001, but much less expensive.

 

[scotpens]

. . .The main reason why TOS was capable of being bumped up to HD is that fact that it was shot on 35mm film (i.e., the source was already HD). The blu ray versions of the show will let you watch the original effects shots.

Until the advent of hi-def video, all TV shows that weren't live or videotaped were shot on 35mm film. 16mm telecine prints were made for broadcasting. The Enterprise flyby shots in Trek TOS became grainy and color-distorted through multiple generations of printing, as the same stock shots were used over and over and recomposited with other elements.

 

[YARN]

. . .The main reason why TOS was capable of being bumped up to HD is that fact that it was shot on 35mm film (i.e., the source was already HD). The blu ray versions of the show will let you watch the original effects shots.

Until the advent of hi-def video, all TV shows that weren't live or videotaped were shot on 35mm film. 16mm telecine prints were made for broadcasting. The Enterprise flyby shots in Trek TOS became grainy and color-distorted through multiple generations of printing, as the same stock shots were used over and over and recomposited with other elements.

Even so, there was still plenty of detail to see through the grain. A simple viewing of a VHS recording of the show would cure one of thinking that the E displayed heavy green weathering.

The person who restored the ship should have had access to materials that your average viewer never did.

 

[YARN]

There are only a couple of questionable things about Ed's restoration. The heavy weathering is one. While the whole sensor dish is a massive improvement over what NASM had done previously, the antenna sticking out of the sensor dish Ed made (or refurbished?) is not shaped like the original. And he put some tiny joke signage in a few places on the hull.

Beyond that, the exact methods he used to replicate the original lighting were not identical to the original tech - obviously newer kinds of lights, and the "egg-beater" effect in the nacelles is achieved a little differently.

The original effects shots are dreadful in HD, and there's no real reduction of grain or improvement in resolution. TOS may have been shot on 35 mm film but the matte elements were reprinted through several generations - not the way it would have been done on a big budget film like 2001, but much less expensive.

OK, but how do we size up these admitted flaws with your flat comments that "The Smithsonian model IS the Enterprise"?

At most, it seems that the 11 foot model was the Enterprise, but now there are certain non-standard details on the model which should be passed over in favor of the design plans, or the images of TOS, or historical photos of the model.

 

[dgguy2006]

After reading this thread, I can only conclude that some folks take ST waaaaayyyy too seriously. Several artists have been involved in multiple design phases and updated schematics. It is therefore inevitable that somewhere, in some form, there will be a discrepancy.

Let us all just look on in awestruck wonder at the works that greater (wo)men than us have made, huh?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OK, but how do we size up these admitted flaws with your flat comments that "The Smithsonian model IS the Enterprise"?

Because it is. There's not another candidate. This is the ship photographed and used in all production episodes of TOS Trek.

You don't have a credible rebuttal to that.

 

[Mytran]

...except when it was the 33" model...

 

[YARN]

OK, but how do we size up these admitted flaws with your flat comments that "The Smithsonian model IS the Enterprise"?

Because it is. There's not another candidate. This is the ship photographed and used in all production episodes of TOS Trek.

You don't have a credible rebuttal to that.

But I do have a credible rebuttal and you don't have a credible rebuttal to my rebuttal. That's just how it is.

NOTE: YARN is a recent graduate of the Dennis School of Internet Argument.

 

[scotpens]

...except when it was the 33" model...

Which was used only for a few crude flyby shots in the first pilot. And for some publicity stills with actors posing with the thing.

 

[Shaw]

...except when it was the 33" model...

Which was used only for a few crude flyby shots in the first pilot. And for some publicity stills with actors posing with the thing.

Well, to be accurate, it was used for all the shots of the Enterprise in The Cage other than the bridge pull-in shot.

And besides appearing in every episode of TOS in the title sequence, it also appeared in the following episodes:

Where No Man Has Gone Before
Charlie X
Tomorrow Is Yesterday
The Deadly Years
Obsession
By Any Other Name
The Enterprise Incident
Is There in Truth No Beauty?
Day of the Dove
That Which Survives
Requiem for Methuselah​

There were 18 stock shots of the 33 inch model used throughout the series run (compared to 50 for the 11 foot model), so it actually saw a lot of screen time... though most people seem to have missed it.

 

[Mytran]

^^^ Yep, that's what I meant!
(Shaw just said it better)

Actually I had no idea it was in so many of the later episodes, that's good to know!

 

[Tallguy]

Thanks, Shaw. I need not add to that.

(I know you've had your avatar for forever, but my two year old just discovered "Up" and I've seen it fifteen times this week - your avatar is STILL making me laugh.)