Why was the 4-foot model built without the ability to separate?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
I tried googling a bit but I couldn't find a definitive answer. Maybe when it was built it was already thought that saucer separation was (narratively speaking) not a good idea?
My guess is that it would've made the miniature more expensive, it was unnecessary as they hadn't done a separation in years, and the giant 6 foot model wasn't too bad to work with when it was split into two smaller parts.
It’s a shame the idea was largely dropped.
I also imagined something like this, I would have liked some official confirmation. Instead in all sources I always find "The 4-foot model was built without the possibility of separation", without ever an explanation that led to the decision.
I vaguely remember an interview where one of the writers had said that finding ways to separate the saucer would detract from the drama. Still can't remember if that was a real interview or not because, each time they did separate and it wasn't that often regardless, it was exciting and amped up the scene to come. Or is "action" not a type of "drama"? (Based on the radical changes in season 5 onward, it makes sense...)
Considering the "drama" in the latter half of the show anyhow, they needed to pop the saucer a lot more often. Especially in "Disaster" where they, interestingly, found - if not contrived - a reason to not separate, and both saucer and engineering hulls have shuttle bays for if the transporters are down... Isn't there standard protocol that, if in the event of something this big and communications are down, you and your "fam" there should hightail your heiney to the saucer section because, chances are, given all the explosive fun stuff in it, the Engineering hull is the place you'd least want to be? (Plus, given how far away Troi can sense minds in other stories, she should know that there are plenty of people in the Engineering hull/drive section and sensing how many might be feeling determination rather than fear and then base an instinct from that. But this is the same story that forgets Geordi has that VISOR thing that can pick up on all heat and microfractures and sorts of things long before anyone else could begin to, and how Beverly is telling everyone to take a nice deep breath and hold it before depressurizing a rather large space, someone also said "suck into space" and it can't be Geordi because he unlike Riker knows the difference, when even season 1 told us, along with Geordi's ViSOR's usefulness, the correct term "blow" anyhow. Yeah, it was Geordi who said it, but the script is a disaster on so many levels... I know season 1 wasn't well-remembered by the latter half of 1991, but still...)
Considering the "drama" in the latter half of the show anyhow, they needed to pop the saucer a lot more often. Especially in "Disaster" where they, interestingly, found - if not contrived - a reason to not separate, and both saucer and engineering hulls have shuttle bays for if the transporters are down... Isn't there standard protocol that, if in the event of something this big and communications are down, you and your "fam" there should hightail your heiney to the saucer section because, chances are, given all the explosive fun stuff in it, the Engineering hull is the place you'd least want to be? (Plus, given how far away Troi can sense minds in other stories, she should know that there are plenty of people in the Engineering hull/drive section and sensing how many might be feeling determination rather than fear and then base an instinct from that. But this is the same story that forgets Geordi has that VISOR thing that can pick up on all heat and microfractures and sorts of things long before anyone else could begin to, and how Beverly is telling everyone to take a nice deep breath and hold it before depressurizing a rather large space, someone also said "suck into space" and it can't be Geordi because he unlike Riker knows the difference, when even season 1 told us, along with Geordi's ViSOR's usefulness, the correct term "blow" anyhow. Yeah, it was Geordi who said it, but the script is a disaster on so many levels... I know season 1 wasn't well-remembered by the latter half of 1991, but still...)
"Power Play" might have been creepier if they had separated, having the nasties try to take over the families in the saucer.
"Gambit" could have made use of separation. Or any episode where the ship is taken over by invading baddies.
"Timescape" and seeing the ship frozen in mid-separation would have been a really cool twist, but it was cool enough already.
Even "Aquiel" would have benefitted from the separation. Well, in that one having Picard tapdance on a dustbunny for 45 minutes would be more interesting too, so there's that...
If the separation hindered drama, why not make a 2-parter to make use of the separation flow more naturally in the script?
Was the hindrance of drama the reason they dropped it? I thought it was dropped due to adding unnecessary strain on the FX department?
It's most telling in the early S3 episode "The Survivors" how restrictive the six foot model was when the f/x crew tried creating a shot of the Enterprise retreating from an attacking enemy vessel. It looks so stiff in its maneuverability. It's no wonder the best shots of the six footer were all the stock footage provided by ILM. But when Image G was put to task this was the best they could do.
Then when they finally have the four foot model they're able to do these kind of shots with a lot more freedom of movement.
From what I recall, the flow of the drama was a reason for discontinuing the separation gimmick.
They did make the 4ft model to replace the 6- and 2-foot models to alleviate strain of filming. The 2ft model was clever, just a model kit you could get at the model store*, that had special luminescent paint for the windows that glowed when light hit it, but the deflector dish - despite having what looks like an actual light behind it - looks far less convincing, in several shots in especially 2. Nowadays, generic fiber optic kits can be used after drilling holes in the plastic, and yet so few models come with pre-cut windows...) The 6ft model was so large and unwieldly, to the point that it had visible damage on the lower starboard edge of the saucer thanks to an accident during one of the stock/main beauty bypass shots (which I think was covered in one of the blu-ray documentaries, likely season 1 given how prominent the scratch was).
* back in the day that model building stores existed, where you could get all sorts of specialty paints, thin brushes, exotic glues, decals, semi-sticky templates, cardboard slats, precision cutting materials, and so much more for assembling or customizing those model airplane, trucks, trains, etc, kits. They had an aisle devoted to sci-fi and tons of Ertl Star Trek kids were there. Just wish they had the crosshatching semi-sticky templates at the time that you could put on the 1701 saucer, spray paint it proper, let it dry, remove, apply the second template to spraypaint the opposite panels, dry, etc, but those didn't come about until later and from niche sources that, ironically, the hobby stores didn't carry or didn't know existed. Some people have the dexterity to hand-paint every opposite panel without going off the lines, but many don't...
Just found one example, of many from a few, that discusses some of the custom paint jobs. And this one's just 40 minutes long, covering elapsed time too:
Like anise-flavored lemonade or licorice (liquor ish?), the 4-footer is an acquired taste. The bumpy Lego aspect was to help show relief detail and depth on low-resolution CRT (cathode ray tube) TVs of the time, the median size being 25", with large clunky dot pitch that made everything look blurrier and soft. The phosphor tube design had some neat aspects to it, especially color/contrast fidelity, but the size and weight and overall limited resolution were drawbacks. Flat screens using OLED (organic light emitting diode) would eventually surpass this as each pixel could be controlled directly, but it took decades. Even the most modern LCD (liquid crystal display), backlit not edge-lit, still have some contrast problems (haloing, especially in outer space scenes.) LCD's transistors are all individually controlled as well, except these transistors act as shutters to prevent light going through and they're only so thick to begin with. LCD sets have light source behind this transistor array that lights everything up. Also note, LCD sets often say "LED" - but this is to describe the backlit/edgelit light source. But some video editing studios still use CRTs because of the contrast advantage. That said, flat screens are becoming more prevalent as the technology is good enough, and to eke out a little more contrast detail on a 27" CRT would require 400w whereas an LCD would take 165w:
https://caec.coop/tips/clear-picture-television-energy-usage/
To compare, look at your hair dryer's wattage then multiple the number of TV sets running for the same amount of time. You could have 10 or so LCD sets running, or 3 CRTs, to use as much electricity as that 1200w hair dryer. Why anybody would leave their hairdryer running all day, especially if they don't have pet lizards, and even then those little heat rocks use much less electricity to keep the critters toasty warm (or at least unless they malfunction and end up electrocuting the poor things...)
That said,
https://www.repairzone.com/learningcenter/technotes/what-is-a-crt-monitor
https://www.reddit.com/r/crt/comments/1f7lwcd/why_crts_are_better_than_oleds/
Motion clarity (no motion blur), as well as superior contrast (black/white) detail, still make CRTs superior for professional video editing. The newer technologies are catching up, but with a CRT there's far less chance of inducing errors like crush or blooming to screw up contrast, and not seeing blur when you shouldn't is also important for editing or blending in CGI with live action.
One other fun/boring thing - OLED still has a high chance of burn-in over time, meaning it WILL, and this is where the same image has a retained "ghost" appearance of a frequently used image over the animated image you're now seeing. So if you have a web browser on screen in the middle of the screen for a bunch of months, and now want to watch a movie full-screen on it, you'll see a ghostly visage of that web browser floating over that car chase action gunfight pew-pew scene that you can't get rid of. CRTs could exhibit this as well, only it takes longer, and I still remember some video game arcade kiosks by 1990, for games made in 1982, where maze burn-in was ubiquitous. Even degaussing doesn't always help, but it can but I digress...
Video compression to reduce bandwidth congestion prevailing (so examples of burn-in artifacting won't always be visible and indirectly makes a better case for 4K pressed media where you WOULD see it as 40mb/s on disc vs 5~20mb/s means streaming compression is simply going to wipe out some of that HD detail), the video otherwise does discuss the burn-in thrill a bit better.
I'm reading the Memory Alpha article about the studio models and I read how they absolutely hated having to use the 6-foot model for the "Best of Both Worlds" episode. It almost seems like they didn't expect the saucer separation to ever be used again.
I'm wondering if they built the 4-foot model in that way because
a) they thought this particular gimmick would never be used again
or
b) it would be used so rarely that on those occasions they would use the 6-foot model.
I'm also wondering if maybe some episodes where they wanted to use the saucer separation were scrapped with the reasoning "forget it, too complicated, take it off".
I'm wondering if they built the 4-foot model in that way because
a) they thought this particular gimmick would never be used again
or
b) it would be used so rarely that on those occasions they would use the 6-foot model.
I'm also wondering if maybe some episodes where they wanted to use the saucer separation were scrapped with the reasoning "forget it, too complicated, take it off".
Man, you can tell in the VFX shot from The Survivors that they're just pivoting the model around its ventral mounting point.It's most telling in the early S3 episode "The Survivors" how restrictive the six foot model was when the f/x crew tried creating a shot of the Enterprise retreating from an attacking enemy vessel. It looks so stiff in its maneuverability. It's no wonder the best shots of the six footer were all the stock footage provided by ILM. But when Image G was put to task this was the best they could do.
Then when they finally have the four foot model they're able to do these kind of shots with a lot more freedom of movement.
Perhaps, but it's usually the camera that moves.
It can be a combination of moving the model and the camera together, as the raw model footage from The Roddenberry Vault demonstrated:
It looks to me they pivoted the model and then pushed the camera in to give it the sense of moving away. It kinda illustrates what a small studio Image G was that they couldn’t do much unless they used the 2 footer.
Not surprisingly, that shot was never used in any episode after that.
Not surprisingly, that shot was never used in any episode after that.
I suspect that was not so much a limitation of the model as a limitation of Image G. I suspect ILM could have done just fine with it. Heck, the refit Enterprise model built for TMP was even larger, about 8 feet, and the late, great Doug Trumbull said he would have preferred it to have been larger than that.
CRTs don't look blurry and soft if they are in good working order and adjusted properly. For example, this is a picture of my 32" standard-resolution CRT TV (made in 2005) displaying a classic Nintendo video game:
And here's a picture of my cheap Samsung 12" B&W TV (made in 1984) displaying an episode of The Twilight Zone over an RF connection (which is the only type of connection it has):
Granted, B&W TVs don't don't have a "dot pitch" at all, because they have a uniform coating of white phosphor rather than red, green, and blue phosphor dots. For that matter, not all color CRTs had a dot pitch either. The flat screen ones like Sony Trinitron and Mitsubishi Diamondtron used red, green, and blue phosphor strips along with an "aperture grille" rather than phosphor dots plus an RGB triad shadow mask like conventional spherical CRTs used.
Either way, the dot pitch of a typical color CRT TV was sufficient for the resolution of an NTSC TV broadcast. Resolution was the limitation with regard to how much detail you could see on a model of the Enterprise, made worse by the Betacam SP broadcasting source that they used. If they had used DigiBeta, which is better than DVD quality (essentially the same resolution as DVD, but higher color bit-depth, less chroma subsampling, and a much higher bitrate), it would have looked a lot better. But unfortunately, DigiBeta was just being introduced as TNG was entering its final season.
I love CRTs, but if they were blurry/soft, I wouldn't be able to watch one for more than a few seconds because it would strain my eyes.
I'm skeptical of the numbers on that site. The label on the back of my 32" CRT TV says 145 watts:
I could see a 27" TV using 400 watts if it has a vacuum tube-based chassis, which was phased out in the 1970s in favor of solid-state chassis. There was a transitional period during the 1960s and 1970s when "hybrid chassis" existed, which had chassis with a mixture of vacuum tubes and solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes in TVs were extinct, or all but extinct, by the 1980s (not counting the CRT, AKA: "picture tube," itself).
Last edited:
It was 100% this.
It's exciting the first time in "Encounter at Farpoint" because it's new, but imagine in future episodes everything grinding to a halt for 2-3 minutes to show scenes of people transferring between hulls, the bridge crew taking the emergency lift to the battle bridge and the same stock special effects footage you'd seen a bunch of times of the separation itself.
Similar threads
