U.S.S. Enterprise, an on-screen reference

[Maurice]

I think that they are either stills, or (in the case of the 11 foot model with nacelle and running lights working) a locked off shot that is slid through the frame. (Please, somebody translate this into actual film terms.)

The term you are looking for is...

cut out animation
Use of still images, usually shot on an Oxberry animation stand or equivalent

There's also the technique of moving a shot on the optical printer, as in scaling a still frame of the Enterprise towards or away from the "camera". This is also how they make the Enterprise zoom into or out of infinity, by scaling the first or last frame of a pass on the ship.

 

[Shaw]

Looking at these, it looks like the neck is different from image 3 and and Catspaw toy.

The second image sure looks like a 1:1 match for the Catspaw toy!

Well, I can only point out what visual clues I'm looking at that make me think otherwise...

Plus the fact that there was more than one 3 inch model (one of which was sent out to be encased in Lucite.

The AMT model is still around to use as a reference (as are thousands of kits)...

In the end, for me, the only similarity between those is the misalignment of the nacelles... which on the 3 inch model was most likely caused by the handling of it by the actors that day.

Again, I can only point out what I see (and what I don't see) and give an opinion. Everyone is free to do the same and reach their own opinion. I don't think my opinion has any extra weight... for anyone else except me.

 

[trevanian]

BEST OF TREK had a couple articles on the miniatures, and while there was some incomplete info in them (no mention of Richard Datin for instance), they did discuss the number of miniatures and their disposition. I don't have the book anymore, but I'm pretty sure they said there was just the one CATSPAW model -- described in the text not as a model but as a trinket -- and that Jeffries got it when they wrapped. So would that indicate the lucite was a temp arrangement, that if the model was actually used for filming or still photography, they'd've had to break it out of there first.

 

[WendellM]

BEST OF TREK had a couple articles on the miniatures

Say, I have numbers 1, 2, and 7 of those books (from back in the days of fandom before TrekBBS: 1978-84 ). Here's that article (the only one I have) from the first one, in case it helps - scaled to TrekBBS's limits of 640-pixel width and 70K file size:

 

[WendellM]

Oops - I thought I only had the one article (it helps to turn the table of contents page... ). For completeness, here's the second miniatures article from the first The Best of Trek:

 

[Shaw]

BEST OF TREK had a couple articles on the miniatures, and while there was some incomplete info in them...

I wouldn't characterize bad information as incomplete... it was just bad. We know more today about the production of Star Trek than people of the 70s, 80s and 90s could have dreamed of.

I don't fault the authors of articles like those, most of whom believed that they had the best data possible, but I hope no one today who is serious about this stuff is using any of that as reference material. Those people took what data they had and tried to reach conclusions, and their results are spotty at best.

But there is enough good raw data today that you can form a much better picture of what happened between 1964 and 1969 than anyone in previous decades could have hoped to. So there is no good reason to handicap ourselves with their limitations.

 

[trevanian]

BEST OF TREK had a couple articles on the miniatures, and while there was some incomplete info in them...

I wouldn't characterize bad information as incomplete... it was just bad. We know more today about the production of Star Trek than people of the 70s, 80s and 90s could have dreamed of.

I don't fault the authors of articles like those, most of whom believed that they had the best data possible, but I hope no one today who is serious about this stuff is using any of that as reference material. Those people took what data they had and tried to reach conclusions, and their results are spotty at best.

But there is enough good raw data today that you can form a much better picture of what happened between 1964 and 1969 than anyone in previous decades could have hoped to. So there is no good reason to handicap ourselves with their limitations.

I haven't seen anything in print suggesting more than one CATSPAW E, have you? I Not antagonistic, just wondering.

 

[Shaw]

I haven't seen anything in print suggesting more than one CATSPAW E, have you? I Not antagonistic, just wondering.

Would you like me to print something for you?

I, personally, don't trust anything in print when it comes to this stuff. I don't need (or want) someone else interpreting the data for me, I'd rather just have access to the raw data.

I mean if the only evidence that works for you is stuff that has been printed, then you aren't going to care what I say or show. You were willing to rely on the poor data and conclusions of articles written by third party people in those BEST OF TREK articles even when major aspects of them were clearly erroneous, I doubt there would be any thing that I could show you that would make any difference... until it gets printed at least.

But I'll leave it to you to answer some questions for yourself...

How long does it take to encase something in Lucite? And as a prop that could effect the production schedule (that cost far less than a single day of shooting), would you risk having only one? And would you stop shooting on a scene to wait for a prop to be that heavily altered?

The one in Lucite is at NASM, so it was never removed from the Lucite. When do you think that the filming of Catspaw was done? When do you think that effects shooting for Doomsday Machine was done? When do you thing design/construction of the 3 inch model was started?

Let logic and the data be your guide (and ignore me) and reach your own conclusions.

I can tell you right now that whatever conclusions you reach (whether they agree or disagree with mine) will be better informed than anything in those BEST OF TREK articles.

 

[Christopher]

I don't have any data to go by on the "Catspaw" issue, but there's just common sense to consider. Consider these two screencaps:

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x07/2x07_Catspaw121.jpg
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x07/2x07_Catspaw132.jpg

One has Kirk looking at the un-encased Enterprise pendant, and the other has him holding the encased pendant. His hair is ruffled almost exactly the same way in both shots. It seems very likely that they were shot on the same day. And it just seems like common sense that if they intended to shoot a scene where the pendant was handled both before and after encasement in the same sequence, that they'd have both versions ready in advance so that they could easily switch them out during the day of shooting, rather than having to come back days later and recreate the same setup. The same goes for the FX shot of the pendant being encased, which is at about 7:38 here on YouTube (the pendant first appears at about 4:05). I really don't believe they would've set this shot up, filmed the un-encased model, then waited for days while the model was encased. It's far more likely that they had both pendants ready beforehand and just switched them out.

Of course, that doesn't address the question of whether there were two un-encased pendants available. But if they made two, they could've made extras as backups.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The sketch that Matt Jefferies did up for that prop specifically says to make two of them.

 

[Tallguy]

Gotta say, not the shot (or the model) I was expecting the most debate from. Cool job guys!

 

[Shaw]

The sketch that Matt Jefferies did up for that prop specifically says to make two of them.

You mean this?

I still think that we should let trevanian reach his own conclusions on this. I'm sure he also has that image and would have checked it to get the date on his own.

 

[Christopher]

Wow, fascinating find there! "'Enterprise' working prop." I guess "working" because it was going to be used in the episode action -- kind of an odd term for it otherwise.

What's that name under Jefferies' at the bottom? Looks like Steve Sardanis? Anyone know who that was?

 

[Shaw]

... Looks like Steve Sardanis? Anyone know who that was?

There is someone who started showing up as an art director in the early 70s by that name... maybe it was someone apprenticing under Jefferies. It is sad to consider the number of people who contributed that we may never know of.

 

[trevanian]

I haven't seen anything in print suggesting more than one CATSPAW E, have you? I Not antagonistic, just wondering.

Would you like me to print something for you?

I, personally, don't trust anything in print when it comes to this stuff. I don't need (or want) someone else interpreting the data for me, I'd rather just have access to the raw data.

I mean if the only evidence that works for you is stuff that has been printed, then you aren't going to care what I say or show. You were willing to rely on the poor data and conclusions of articles written by third party people in those BEST OF TREK articles even when major aspects of them were clearly erroneous, I doubt there would be any thing that I could show you that would make any difference... until it gets printed at least.

But I'll leave it to you to answer some questions for yourself...

How long does it take to encase something in Lucite? And as a prop that could effect the production schedule (that cost far less than a single day of shooting), would you risk having only one? And would you stop shooting on a scene to wait for a prop to be that heavily altered?

The one in Lucite is at NASM, so it was never removed from the Lucite. When do you think that the filming of Catspaw was done? When do you think that effects shooting for Doomsday Machine was done? When do you thing design/construction of the 3 inch model was started?

Let logic and the data be your guide (and ignore me) and reach your own conclusions.

I can tell you right now that whatever conclusions you reach (whether they agree or disagree with mine) will be better informed than anything in those BEST OF TREK articles.

What about 'not antagonistic' isn't clear?

The latter posts here (after mine) offer plenty of info that is news to me. For one thing, I didn't remember CATSPAW, so I thought it was just shown in lucite, not that it was shown both ways, and so what directed me towards the 'taking it out' was if the same item got used for DOOMSDAY and it was a one-off, how else would they have proceeded.

Frankly though, I'm amazed they built two of ANYthing for TOS, given the budget.

I don't know if I pissed in your mouth in some old thread, but if so, take it out on me there, I'm not starting anything up here.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There's a lot of things they built multiples of, because they couldn't afford for production to be shut down if something broke.

 

[trevanian]

There's a lot of things they built multiples of, because they couldn't afford for production to be shut down if something broke.

This is a little more uncommon than pointed ears.

I remember the reports on PHASE II where everybody was doing handstands because Paramount was paying for backup sections of bridge that they could blow up, like it was the first time they had a support system for production.

 

[Gepard]

...like it was the first time they had a support system for production.

It wasn't, though. We know they had multiple phaser props, communicator props and tricorder props, for one thing. The Paramount prop department even dissembled the two Wah Chang tricorders at the end of the first season so they could use them as masters to make more for season 2. So it's not like multiple props were uncommon on TOS.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Where do you think all those duplicate dresses came from for the androids in "I, Mudd"? They made multiples of them for "Mudd's Women", in case one got damaged.

In the case of "Catspaw" and the pendants, you had the one loose for Sylvia to dangle over the candle, and the other to encase in Lucite. The transition from one to the other takes about two minutes to shoot (as opposed to several hours waiting for the Lucite to set).

In the case of Matt Decker assuming command, that's one case of where they deviated from Naval tradition and Roddenberry's Army Air Corps experience seems to have some to the fore. Y'see, in the Army and the Air Force, whoever is the highest ranking person present is in command, regardless of whatever unit they're assigned to. In the Navy, however, an outsider can't just assume command of a ship, doesn't matter how high ranking he is. Specialist Third Class Jenkins down in waste extraction, the lowest ranking person on board, would have higher authority on that ship than Commodore Decker.

So, we can chalk this up to the "combined service" aspect of Starfleet, and since Decker specifically mentioned his assuming command as part of his authority as a Starfleet commodore (with a kinder, gentler version of this same thing happening with Commodore Stocker in "The Deadly Years"), and figure this is something that's only accorded to flag officers. Captain and below, sorry, you have go through everyone else on board before you're entitled to assume command of someone else's ship.

 

[Shaw]

...

I don't know if I pissed in your mouth in some old thread, but if so, take it out on me there, I'm not starting anything up here.

Apparently you were offended... you shouldn't be. I was giving you more credit than you seemed to be giving yourself (by limiting yourself to printed references on this subject).

We can discuss these things, I can put forward my opinions just as you can, just as people who have been published can... but in the end, we (all of us) should really do exactly what Tallguy has done here, take a long hard look at the raw data.

Look, if people point to articles as a reference for some point, and the articles are quite dated and filled with erroneous information on other aspects... then those articles should have been considered weak as references for the points at hand as well. The best information on this subject hasn't been published anywhere yet, so if you are restricting yourself to printed references you will be missing most of the best data.

And I have faith in the fact that you are more than able to look beyond old references... but if that is offensive to you, I apologize.