(Above) The hull and one nacelle of the Starship Enterprise as it was received by the National Air and Space Museum from Paramount studios on March 1, 1974.
Amazing new background info from the Smithsonian on it’s receiving of the TOS Enterprise in 1974. Thanks Mike! Check it out: http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2009/06/04/starship_restoration/
Some good stuff here too http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672
YA-HOOOOOOOOO!
Thanks guys!
LLP,
deg
How dismaying to see the Enteprise model stuffed into a crate in pieces, as if it were some hideously dismembered mob hit!
Scott! You have the soul of a poet!
I don’t mind seeing her that way, as much as I mind seeing here as she is now.
At least going forward from that point Matt and Gene were in on the original restoration, that kept her paint-job accurate.
I posted on that blog asking if the museum ever has plans to restore her to her original paint-job glory.
I like Ed’s work in general, no doubt, but I am not a fan of his restoration direction.
LLP,
deg
Upon first glance, I thought this was a package Doug received from the Bad Robot office.
“Where’s your precious Starship Enterprise now, see? M’yeah!”
Don’t get mad, Simon. I’m only funnin’.
Jay… it’s the horse’s head scene from Godfather.
On the one hand, I’m thrilled that this piece of history was saved. But on the other hand, the most recent “restoration” is more like a “disfigurement” with the hideously over-done panel lines and weathering. I have yet to hear who thought that was a good idea. I know Ed Miarecki did the paint job, but I don’t know if it was his call or if he did it at someone’s instruction. Either way, I hope one day the E gets to shed its gaudy lipstick and stand with the simple detailing it was created with. Please!!
Nahh Doug, I’m just in a crabby mood because Lightwave is refusing to bend to my will at the moment. :p
Bingo, my Drexlerian friend!
Oh, ya beat me to the horsehead comment!
I really do appreciate the way Scott put it. It’s such a crude and disturbing picture of the once proud and beautiful lady. At least she got some TLC and didn’t get scooped up with a forklift on the backlot and thrown away!
Dea – So true! It could have been worse! She could have ended up in that warehouse in Indiana Jones never to be seen again!
[img]http://www.indyfan.com/gallery/wander/raiders/warehouse.jpg[/img]
Ooops…heh heh…doesn’t let me post images. I guess follow the link.. ;D
Don (#7),
Well, there’s a first time for everything, isn’t there? I don’t have a problem with the additions made during the most recent restoration of the Big E. When viewed up close, the panel lines on the saucer do seem a bit heavy-handed, but when you take a few steps back they add a nice textural effect that helps give the model a better sense of scale. I went to the Star Trek Exhibit at the Smithsonian during the summer of 1991 and used up two rolls of film just taking photos of that model. I think she looks fine, and certainly better than she did before the last restoration took place. The Smithsonian has taken good care of the old girl in my opinion, and it’s comforting to know that such an important piece of television, science fiction, and American history has been so well preserved.
I saw the Big E a few times at Air & Space during the 80s and early 1990. The first time, they had done some horrible thing with the nacelle domes that were solid red and looked like they had a single bulb behind each dome flashing on and off. Thank goodness they fixed that by the next time I saw it. But either way, it was still like visiting a shrine, as I first fell in love with the ship in 1966 when I was 15.
These photos are great for reference! Thanks!
Once again the idiots crawl out of their holes to sling mud at the great Ed Miarecki….
Amazing though the affection people have for this old hunk of wood… Maybe that explains the way everyone decides to bash poor Ed every time the Enterprise restoration is mentioned.
Sorry Simon but it is indeed possible to both generally like the body of Ed’s work and yet specifically dislike this one piece of his work. In this case it has become quite clear thanks to the Internet and some of the original builders and/or their family posting pictures, etc. that Ed really botched the paint job, if the purpose was a restoration to how the Enterprise looked circa 1969.
The problems with the Enterprise started before Ed Miarecki, and he undid a ton of ills that time had inflicted on the model. And the problems also predated both the 1974 and 1984 restoration attempts too.
The Enterprise had spent too many years in the hands of those who saw little value in her after production had ended in 1969, and by the time she arrived at the Garber Restoration Facility she was missing quite a few of her original details. Each of the teams that worked on her after that period of neglect did so with the best of intentions, and deserve our thanks and gratitude for their efforts.
And consider this… this December she’ll be 45 years old and still a part of our lives. But she could have just as easily shared the fate (what ever that may be) of her older (and smaller) sister (who would have been 45 in November of this year). Lets just be thankful we still have this model.
Oh my God!!!
I know the criticisms of the restoration, but I’ve always felt people bring it up too much and make too much of an issue about it. Ed’s a great guy. We’ve all done things that can be nitpicked or criticised by others, but I’m sure we wouldn’t like it to be constantly harped on, decades after the fact. The “punishment” doesn’t fit the “crime”. I know, that all these comments are really just lots of different people putting in one or two comments here or there…but it adds up and gets to be a bit much. Just my take.
I think shes looking great. I think alot of fans have problems actually seperating the way the model looks in person and how it looks on screen too. Afterall, on alot of physical models details, panels and colours are exagertated so that you can actually make them out on the televison screen. So sometimes, when fans get to see a studio model they are shocked by how different it looks. I think the same thing happens to the original Enterprise somewhat, since in the show the details were ‘very’ hard to make out onscreen, so when they see harsh panel lines they sometimes freak out.
Either way, I think Ed did a great job and I’m so happy this model is still with us and on display publically, unlike some of the models that got auctioned off at Christies that are now hidden away in private collections.
I was actually discussing the critism of the production staff on Trek a few days ago, I’ve always felt it funny that when a fan produces a cool design or a great model the community insists they should work on the show and praise how they’d love to see it in Trek, but the moment you get onto the actual production staff the fans do a 180 and insist you know nothing about how Trek looks and that the fans can do a better job
I just wish they had bit of a more respectful place for her. She’s buried down in the basement gift shop at Air and Space with the internal lighting unhooked. It’s a good display, but she deserves better.
The miniature has a very prominent location within the gift shop. I wouldn’t call that being buried.
Yeah, but the E used to be in a coveted spot in the “Life in the Universe” gallery. Now it’s in with the toys! That’s ok! At least it is well cared for!
demanding more respect… for a hunk of wood? Seriously, isn’t the fact that it is displayed *anywhere* in the NASM enough?! On certain grounds I might even dispute the relevance of its display in the same building as real aviation and space hardware, but hey, its a piece of TV history and inspired a lot of people to enter careers in aviation and space exploration, so on that basis, it deserves recognition, but is it important enough to be the centerpiece of the museum? Not really.
Simon, I get the idea that your natural environment is boiling water.
Scott Gammans said: “How dismaying to see the Enteprise model stuffed into a crate in pieces, as if it were some hideously dismembered mob hit!
”
Exactly! I felt a lump in my throat when I first recognized what that photo was.
As a Trekkie, I wish there was a museum dedicated to all the models and props that had been used in Trek over the years, but as a general tech-head, I realize what an honor it is to have a model of a fictional starship in the NASM… even in the gift shop.
Well, lets just hope Big E doesn’t see her newest incarnation [ie. replacement]. Her nacelles would sag in horror [which would make her look MORE like the JJ replacement!]!
A short post; just to prove I could!
The DC
Interesting, even blogs come with trolls now. Thanks for the heads up on this Doug.
DC, I was thinking that if TOS E saw her “replacement” she may do what Herbie (yes, the Love Bug) did when Jim betrayed him and rammed the replacement to pieces. I don’t picture her drooping, but standing up for herself. That wouldn’t work though, because TOS E has heart, but the new one doesn’t even have a body.
We have no fear of the TOS model being joined by the new one, and that, my friend, is a good thing!
That brings up the point that it seems sad that there won’t be as many tangible pieces to enjoy from films that will become classic because of CG. Will there be a museum to show the original files on monitors? I jest, of course, but it seems sad that the era of models is closing.
That x-ray at the link is intriguing. The recessed bit underneath the fantail was nailed on like the sole of a boot! And you can see some of the wiring for the lights. If they did x-rays of the whole miniature, I’d love to see them all. It could reveal even more about the construction techniques.
I never said it should be the centerpiece of the museum, but at least bring it upstairs somewhere. I love NASM, but there are a lot of things in there on regular display that are a lot less influential to the American idea of space travel than the 1701 model. I am glad it is taken care of, but to me, the gift shop is one step away from going to the warehouse.
“Simon, I get the idea that your natural environment is boiling water.”
You’re right Doug, I should actually just cool down and not get so worked up over nothing. Sorry for coming across as angry and blunt – apologies to everybody.
I love the TOS Enterprise, don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate its cultural significance, and I think it is wonderful that it is displayed in one of the world’s premiere aeronautical museums. But I think splitting hairs over the manner of the model’s display is really looking the gift horse in the mouth. The fact that it is there in any capacity is honour and recognition enough for this icon of the 20th century.
Again, sincere apologies for phrasing my opinions in an aggressive manner.
Good man, Simon!
Not apologies necessary! It’s just a little quibble I have. I always worry that the gift store arm of NASM might want the space back. The Smithsonian has far many more artifacts than it has space to exhibit them. A lot of really cool things are shoved in a warehouse up in Maryland.
What would really be fitting would be to move the 1701 out to the Udvar-Hazy NASM annex at Dulles Airport (a really cool place to visit btw) you could park it somewhere near here [link]http://www.nasm.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=987[/link]. Which would be fitting.
Poor Ed. Every time the classic E on display comes up, folks start up the “bash Ed’s paint-job” jukebox again and all the 45′s in that jukebox skip at the same point in the song. It’s different than I would have done, sure, but it was professionally done. Ed catches entirely to much carp for this one example of his huge contribution to the filming-model craft.
Regardless of all that; these are some wonderful new references photos.
That x-ray was worth the price of admission alone. It took me a second to two to sort out what I was seeing, but it was very revealing (pardon the pun). Indeed neat to see that the “fantail” was attached like a boot-heel. I’m really hoping against hope that NASM will post more pics like that. What would be a Godsend to modelers is if they have pics showing the original nacelle-cap “sparkle-effect” hardware, even in it’s busted-up state they received. Folks have done an amazing amount of detective work sort out how it was done, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing to confirm theories.
I don’t mean to “bash” Ed, eh. He a great artist, IMO. Just not on-board with the “vision” of the last “restoration.”
Peeps that know me, know I’m pretty accepting (AVAV) of all views eh, but this is E we’re talkin’ about here. In regard to her, you don’t mess around, eh.
Just my two quatloos, eh.
BTW, “quatloo” in in my Apple system dictionary and includes a full-on The Gamesters of Triskelion account and pics. Yeah, baby!
LLP,
deg
Oh, and the reason I know that is from running spell-check on my posts, and it knows the word “quatloo.”
Kinda comes off as left-field in comment without that info.
PLL,
deg
@Deg: that’s because Dictionary.app links to Wikipedia if it doesn’t find a definition.
Here’s a neat (OT) tip: hit [Cmd]-[Ctrl]-D (⌃⌘D) when hovering over a word to get a quick definition.
I certainly appreciate the efforts to restore Enterprise, and finding room to display an 11 foot model with views all around can’t be easy (I like the idea of the Enterprise’s bay at Udvar-Hazy, too). I also don’t know who had input and how much for the final restoration paint job, but this image at http://www.nasm.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=1643 just doesn’t look like this sunlit photo of the Lady on John’s blog at http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/history-in-the-making/ .
It doesn’t seem that a historical (albeit film history) object with pretty clear photos should leave room for interpretation. That’s where I’ll leave it and please let me know if I’m missing something (as I’m sure someone will!
).
Yeah, I noticed that Dan, pretty cool. And thanks for the keystroke tip, eh.
LLP,
deg
I don’t see that command working for me – it keeps wanting to add a Favorites link. Since my PC doesn’t have a cmd button, is that the problems?
For the record, Mr. Coles, I made no disparaging remarks about Ed Miarecki. I’m sure he’s a swell guy – I’ve dealt directly with him, so I have some knowledge. My argument is with whoever made the decision to “upgrade” the model. I don’t think it needs upgrading. I think it should look the way it did when it first sat on a sound stage and cameras started to roll. Artistic license has no place on a restoration, IMO. The goal should be to be true to the source material, of which there is a ton for the Enterprise model.
If you disagree, that’s fine, I really don’t care. But general apology or not, Mr. Coles, I don’t ever need to be called an idiot for simply disagreeing with you or anyone else. I hope in the future you’ll have the good graces to lead with civility first.
Ed is a great guy and a terrific model maker / restorer. He works thoroughly and documents any piece he will be working on. I know – he rebuilt my Dry Dock to the TMP version from essentially scraps. It is definitely studio ready (if they used models any more!)
If our lady E isn’t the same as what-was-filmed, its likely some request by NASM or the restoration department to punch ‘er up. Don’t doubt that the still-anonymous they were calling the shots here.
Hmmm… wouldn’t it be nice if they also had the original models of the “A”, “D” and “E” Enterprises (well, I really don’t care that much for the “E”, let’s be honest)?
My understanding is that the overwrought detailing was done with the idea that it would have to be overdone to keep from being washed out by the studio lights. After all, that’s how it was done in later productions.
The problem with this concept in this case, however, is that unlike, say, TNG, where they made multiple camera passes under computerized motion control (one pass for the key light, one for the windows, one for the engines, one for the matte, etc.) at the time of TOS, they could only make one pass. And for the lights to wash out the level of detail that Ed put on, they’d have to be bright enough to overpower the internal lights.
So, Ed had a valid concept when he did it. He just forgot the era and the limitations of the subject at hand.
That, and every behind the scenes picture of the model from the time of production shows very little detailing. Even the grid lines on the upper saucer were only put on in very light pencil, and that was done under protest.
Richard Datin, the builder of the original ship says that it was never weathered like that. Let me add that I have the highest regard and respect for Ed.
The E-A and E-D were both sold at auction to private collectors. It was in all the papers.
There’s photographic evidence in the form of early publicity stills that there was indeed some airbrushed panel weathering besides the faint pencil grid lines on the original Enterprise. The airbrushed weathering was quite faint, but it appears to have been there very early, possibly as early as “The Cage.” It’s remarkably difficult to gauge how heavily the original weathering was, given the fact that most images we have of the ship are prints of prints, and that the nature of multigeneration photography is that such details tend to get washed out with successive generations. In any case, I believe that Ed did apply the weathering too heavily, but it seems clear that it was there, in some form, on the model during the production of the original series.
Maybe in another 10 years the weathering will fade to the point that it looks like it originally did?
Christopher: If only that were true…
It seems to me that the Smithsonian has a duty to preserve the historical artifacts they hold for the American people in thier original condition, without modifying them to fit someone’s notions of contemporary expectations. Does the fact that the Enterprise was used to create a television show somehow make it exempt from the same standards of curation that the museum applies to the rest of its collection?
I really don’t care what a “great guy” Ed Mariecki is. It doesn’t matter to me how good the rest of his work might be. The new paint scheme is inaccurate and hideous, and was a mistake on the part of the Smithsonian.
DOUG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve lost track of you. Your phone rings and rings. No machine. Please contact me through my website. http://www.sneillfx.com
I’m still alive. LOL! Or is that, “The repost of my death have been greatly over exaggerated gentlemen.”
Thanks a whole bunch,
Steve Neill
I think “Mike Okuda” above (is that your real name, as in THE Mike Okuda or someone just using the name as a handle? Hard to know for sure these days!) got it most right when comparing all the comments here. Yes, all the weathering Ed did IS supposed to be there, but much more subdued and not quite as sloppy. All you need do to prove this is compare it with the TOP of the saucer section (which still sports original paint, minus, of course, the bridge section) and you can see it’s no where near as heavy handed. Yes, it’s aged (yellowed), but the intensity of the weathering as originally painted can still be judged. Therefore, the weathering PATTERNS on the model nevertheless do provide good reference to those of us building model replicas. We just have to tone down the weathering a bit to match what’s seen on the top of the saucer.