For Star Trek, everything had to be done in one pass of the camera, and as plenty of comparisons of candid photos and completed effects shows have shown, the way the ship looked to the naked eye is pretty much how she came out on camera.

So, yeah, what Ed Miarecki did was VERY heavy handed.

I have to admit that I am not comfortable with Miarecki’s paint job. In his defense, he has some valid points. Consider that he’s been a lot closer to the model than we will ever be and he had the advantage of forensic paint layer archeology, and I agree with his argument that details would have had to have been overemphasized to be picked up by the camera, especially considering multi-generational analog 60′s filming on a budget, BUT, the Enterprise is no longer being viewed through the lens of a camera, but by the human eye.

Let’s say, for instance, the Smithsonian wanted to make a painstakingly accurate diorama of a Hollywood film production from the 30′s or 40′s, including sets, wax figures of famous actors, the cameraman, the director, and all the equipment. One problem: in the days of black and white film, the actors wore a type of makeup that worked well with B&W film but in real life made their skin look green. Does the Smithsonian display the wax figures in regular flesh tone, or with the green makeup?

If they choose the green makeup, the government could go deeper into debt hiring a tour guide to explain the whole green makeup story and the Smith’s desire for absolute accuracy to every single visitor, but nearly every visitor will still have a WTF moment. If they go with flesh tone, it won’t be absolutely, perfectly, painstakingly accurate, but now almost none of the patrons are going to ask, “Why does Clark Gable look like Frankenstein’s monster?” You’ll only very rarely get the occasional Hollywood buff that will say, “They should be in green makeup!” In other words, sometimes absolute, perfect, painstaking accuracy needs to be put aside to get the majority shut up.

I made my own pilgrimage to see the Gray Lady in 1982. and while I was disappointed with the golden wok deflector and flashing red bussards, I had no problem with the simple paint job. Up to that point in my life I had only seen the Enterprise on static-stricken UHF channels. But now after having seen it on DVD I’m a lot pickier. The over-detailing–especially the lower grid lines on the primary–is just awful.

I don’t have a nice pic of Nona to lighten the mood (thank you Spockboy…gawd…THANK YOU!), but I guess we should be thankful we still have the model at all. According to Craig Thompson the Enterprise gathered a lot of dust in Paramount’s prop warehouse during the years before it was shipped to the S.I.; the workers had little respect for the model and might have even sold it to get it out of the way. We are fortunate that it did not get trashed, lost or, even worse, cut up and recycled for other sci-fi shows like some of Irwin Allen’s stuff did.

Hopefully, the next restoration will gets things right.

http://tinyurl.com/yllcbrk
http://tinyurl.com/ygueyul
http://tinyurl.com/yzww96f

WOW, I have never seen those three images before! You can really tell that the old girl was not aging well by ’91… look at all the wood superstructure and paint deterioration

BTW let’s see some more hanger deck!!

Your wish is my command.

http://tinyurl.com/yzww96f

Paul

Secondary hull xray
http://tinyurl.com/yc7464f

Soon after the show ended.
http://tinyurl.com/ygntdla

Miarecki restoration
http://tinyurl.com/yd29arj
http://tinyurl.com/ygdq4ot
http://tinyurl.com/yllcbrk
http://tinyurl.com/ygueyul

And the nacelles DIDN’T sag on the series so there! ; )
I’m done geeking out now, back to school work.
BTW let’s see some more hanger deck!!

Paul

http://tinyurl.com/yzotx9w

Oh now you’re just being nitpicky. Everyone knows that the AMT Enterprise warp nacelles are prone to sagging.

http://tinyurl.com/yfac8kf

Khan was wrong… apparently it’s very damp in spaaaaaace.

THIS is what she actually looked like back then…

http://tinyurl.com/yenv8bp

There is clearly SOME dirtying but not like this…

Some comparisons
http://tinyurl.com/ye9tjjm

http://tinyurl.com/yzotx9w

http://tinyurl.com/yfac8kf

http://tinyurl.com/yfsnncb

And finally, a little NONA to lighten the mood a bit…

http://tinyurl.com/yl8ktr7

I realize that after the Star Trek was over the Smithsonian painted the Enterprise grey all over (except for the top of the saucer which has NEVER been painted) but it was still much more faithful to the original than this latest incarnation.
I thought Mr. Miarecki did a good job on the actual restoration, but should have let someone else paint the old girl. I mean it’s the most famous ship in science fiction history. It should have been painted by an artist, not a carpenter.
I think She’s due for an overhaul.

NOW, let the comments fly!!! (LOL)

I still wonder about those markings though – but I suppose they may well have been random artistic choices rather then a case of “and this is where they [whatever]“

The port side of the model was the undetailed side–it’s where the wiring harnesses were snaked. When Richard Datin built the 11′ Enterprise model in 1964, it didn’t have any internal lighting. You can actually glimpse the wiring harnesses and the lack of port-side detailing in three of the original F/X shots from the second season of Star Trek:

• Scene from “The Doomsday Machine”—If you look at the inner side of the starboard warp nacelle pylon, you can clearly see the wiring bundle snaking up the pylon. Those are the wires for the Bussard collector “Christmas lights” effect.
• Scene from “The Trouble With Tribbles”—Look at the port side of the interconnecting dorsal between the primary and secondary hulls and you can make out the wiring bundle for the saucer section’s internal lights. In fact, you can just barely see that wire continuing down the port side of the cigar-shaped secondary hull.
• Scene from “Metamorphosis”—In this scene, you can just barely make out the fact that the port side of the secondary hull lacks the recessed “trench” feature that’s present on the underside and starboard side of the main deflector dish area. Also of interest is that fact that—to my knowledge—this particular F/X shot was only used this one time during this episode, which makes it rather unique in TOS history!