That would be cool. I know some think it should not be restored. But I think like the 11 foot model they should restore most of it and retain what they can in regards to paint.
RED ALERT Lost 3 ft TOS Enterprise found????
- Thread starter CessnaDriver
- Start date
That would be cool. I know some think it should not be restored. But I think like the 11 foot model they should restore most of it and retain what they can in regards to paint.
mach7
Well-Known Member
While I don't disagree with you, the 11 foot situation was very different. It had gone through 2 minor restos and
one major re-imaging so there was nothing original (apart from the top of the primary hull).
The last restoration was the only one that tried (and succeeded) in bringing it back to as filming condition.
As far as we know, the 3 foot model has never had a restoration, so there is some indication that the paint and finish
are original.
Thankfully, I don't have to make the decision. As long as the job is done correctly, restoration or recovery, I'll be happy.
one major re-imaging so there was nothing original (apart from the top of the primary hull).
The last restoration was the only one that tried (and succeeded) in bringing it back to as filming condition.
As far as we know, the 3 foot model has never had a restoration, so there is some indication that the paint and finish
are original.
Thankfully, I don't have to make the decision. As long as the job is done correctly, restoration or recovery, I'll be happy.
Yeah I like the fact that they kept the paint untouched on the top of the primary hull. Has a few paint bubbles but overall after 58 or so years it looks great. I will be looking forward to seeing the journey of the 3' ...
Last edited:
A fixing-up in the same spirit that Tom Spina uses with masks would be good. Heavy on conservation, light on restoration. I suspect most of the grunge could be removed harmlessly. Straighten up and add internal support for the pylons, maaaaaaybe a tiny bit of fill/paint in cracked areas, and done.
phez
Sr Member
This is good news. Maybe this will have a good outcome after all.Rod Roddenberry has released a statement on the 3 footer that was published on trekmovie.com
Rod Roddenberry In Talks To Recover What May Be The Lost Original Enterprise Model From ‘Star Trek’ [UPDATED]
A decades-long mystery about the 3-foot Enterprise model may have been solved.trekmovie.com
The person who won the storage unit auction most definitely does not have a definitive receipt of ownership of the model. At best, he has proof that he purchased the contents of the unit with the disclaimer that warranty of title to the contents, stolen goods in particular, is not guaranteed.
The lack of a receipt or written proof is no bar to assertion of legal ownership of property if there is other evidence of possession/ownership. If that were the case, gifted items or inherited/heirloom possessions could be freely stolen without consequences to the thief. Thieves are convicted of theft of such items all the time. And asserting that the Roddenberrys didn't legally own the model wouldn't make the auction buyer's claim to legal ownership any stronger.
However he came to have it, executives from Paramount, the company that acquired the Star Trek assets from Desilu, were aware that Gene Roddenberry had the model and never disputed his ownership, essentially giving him implied warranty of title even without actual written proof that they gifted it to him. With the photographic and documented evidence of the model in his possession, there's really no doubt that Roddenberry's heirs are the legal owners of the model, and there's no law bomb that Bob Loblaw can lob that'll convert legal ownership to his client.
With regards to the X-wing, who knows? Presumably the auction house cleared up the ownership rights before they sold it, because any expert who could authenticate it with any authority would certainly be aware of its history and reputed status as stolen ILM property. Which would preclude the sale of the item until that matter was settled.
I suspect that this model will go to auction, and here's why: It isn't worth the legal hassles and expense.
- Paramount could not care less about this. It would just cost them money for no return. Their ownership claims would be weak anyway.
- The language of Rod Roddenberry's letter never said anything about pursuing possession of the model, just wanting to get scans of the model for the archives. They may only be in talks with the person who found it just to get the scans. RR may try to persuade the finder to donate it to the Smithsonian or other museum, but I'm not sure Roddenberry is in a position to compel the finder to do so. Forcing the issue with a lawsuit will only create an antagonistic scenario that would make everything else they want harder.
- There is a very legitimate argument that Gene Roddenberry abandoned (in a legal sense) the model by not pursuing the recovery of the model. He lent it out; and besides a letter asking for its return, he doesn't seem to have done anything more to try to get it back for the rest of his life. This could legally be viewed as "abandonment", in which case his heirs would have a weak case for ownership.
- The cost of a lawsuit to the Roddenberrys would also be very high, with little chance of getting their money back. Too expensive for the hassle. Besides; as Rod's letter implies, if they can get the scans they want for free by being friendly, there is no incentive for them to sue.
All that being said, I do hope it ends up on public display rather than hidden away in a private collection, but that is out of my control.
Like it or not, that's what I predict.
- Paramount could not care less about this. It would just cost them money for no return. Their ownership claims would be weak anyway.
- The language of Rod Roddenberry's letter never said anything about pursuing possession of the model, just wanting to get scans of the model for the archives. They may only be in talks with the person who found it just to get the scans. RR may try to persuade the finder to donate it to the Smithsonian or other museum, but I'm not sure Roddenberry is in a position to compel the finder to do so. Forcing the issue with a lawsuit will only create an antagonistic scenario that would make everything else they want harder.
- There is a very legitimate argument that Gene Roddenberry abandoned (in a legal sense) the model by not pursuing the recovery of the model. He lent it out; and besides a letter asking for its return, he doesn't seem to have done anything more to try to get it back for the rest of his life. This could legally be viewed as "abandonment", in which case his heirs would have a weak case for ownership.
- The cost of a lawsuit to the Roddenberrys would also be very high, with little chance of getting their money back. Too expensive for the hassle. Besides; as Rod's letter implies, if they can get the scans they want for free by being friendly, there is no incentive for them to sue.
All that being said, I do hope it ends up on public display rather than hidden away in a private collection, but that is out of my control.
Like it or not, that's what I predict.
DarkMoon
New Member
Rod Roddenberry In Talks To Recover What May Be The Lost Original Enterprise Model From ‘Star Trek’ [UPDATED]
apparently they are trying to acquire it
TrekMovie can confirm that Rod Roddenberry, son of Star Trekcreator Gene Roddenberry and the President of Roddenberry Enterprises, is actively trying to authenticate and acquire the model that sat on his father’s desk at Paramount for years
apparently they are trying to acquire it
TrekMovie can confirm that Rod Roddenberry, son of Star Trekcreator Gene Roddenberry and the President of Roddenberry Enterprises, is actively trying to authenticate and acquire the model that sat on his father’s desk at Paramount for years
You may be correct. I have been saying it all along..... If it was so cut and dried and the storage unit guy didn't have a leg to stand on his lawyers would have told him to give the model up. Hopefully we are wrong and it does make its way into a museum.
Maurice
New Member
We have no idea what he did or didn't do either himself or through his attorney. And what was he supposed to do? Call every single member of the fired ASTRA group and everyone who worked at Trumbull's and Dykstra's shops who might've inherited stuff from ASTRA and ask if they have took it? And expect they'd answer truthfully?
Gein Jein told me that by the end of TMP they had so much leftover stuff and no budget to store it that they'd tell people, "Here, have a planet," and send them on their way. In such environments it wouldn't be surprising if the model just got carried off by someone.
No, that isn't a legitimate argument. People have recovered stolen artworks decades after the theft without ongoing active recovery efforts. Abandonment has a specific legal definition with regards to personal property that isn't met here.
That door swings both ways. With the legal ownership of the model in dispute, it can't be sold legitimately until that matter is settled. Anyone who could pony up the millions of dollars to buy it at auction would almost certainly be advised to wait until then as well. I don't doubt for one second that Rod Roddenberry has deeper pockets than some storage unit reseller vulture picking the bones of the dead and could wait him out. Especially since Gene Roddenberry's estate has the stronger claim of ownership.
No they wouldn't. For an item of such value, they'd advise him to do nothing with it other than keep it safe until its authenticity and legal ownership is determined. That takes time, certainly more than two weeks.
|
KojiroVance
Sr Member
Just catching wind of this. Wow ... for years I've wondered whose garage or storage locker or attic the 33" model ended up in. That someone "stole" it from Robert Abel & Associates (where it is believed to have last been photographed, on loan from Roddenberry, for reference in Phase II preprod) is questionable and up to endless, futile debate. That it went missing is known -- the Great Bird even sent a letter to Katzenberg asking for it to be found and returned.
Anyhoo, CessnaDriver tells me this thread hasn't yet seen this contact sheet of 33" model photographs from back in the day.I seem to recall these were test shots for lighting, angle, and lens for VFX work. Remember that in addition to the opening VFX of "The Cage" pilot, there are several insert VFX shots of the model at the end of the pilot. I believe these are that same setup. (I rather think that these were inserted particularly to show NBC, "here, this is what we can do for exterior shots of the spaceship.")
YES I realized my error a day later. You don't have to correct me.
Yes, folks, fire up your Blu-ray player and go watch "The Cage" again. (IMHO it was a better pilot than "WNMHGB." YMMV.) Raise a snifter of Saurian brandy to the long lost 33" model which is finally, hopefully coming home to the Roddenberrys. (Substitute "green stuff" as needed.)
Anyhoo, CessnaDriver tells me this thread hasn't yet seen this contact sheet of 33" model photographs from back in the day.
YES I realized my error a day later. You don't have to correct me.
Yes, folks, fire up your Blu-ray player and go watch "The Cage" again. (IMHO it was a better pilot than "WNMHGB." YMMV.) Raise a snifter of Saurian brandy to the long lost 33" model which is finally, hopefully coming home to the Roddenberrys. (Substitute "green stuff" as needed.)
Last edited:
Those contact sheets feature the model with its post-pilot modifications, so I'd guess that they were shot for publicity/reference.
alensatemybuick
Well-Known Member
Just one nobody’s opinion, but I don’t think the 1/4 scale model should be displayed permanently at NASM. Much as I‘ve loved visiting the big E at NASM over the years, its ending up there was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances that really just can’t be duplicated. I’m glad the Big E is back on prominent display. And I hope to get the chance to see the smaller model in a museum somewhere. Perhaps it could even be put on temporary display along with its big sister. I think that’d be great. But wherever it ends up, I’ll make a point if visiting it. That is, if such a thing becomes possible while I’m still upright.
The question of whether the model was maliciously "stolen" or merely "misplaced" is not relevant to the issue of who rightfully owned it. Gene definitely owned it at the time and he lent it out with the expectation of getting it back. When that didn't happen, he made it clear in writing that he wanted it back. It never stopped being his.
asalaw
Master Member
You're confusing the property law issues, which have been copiously explained above, with the criminal law concept of intent. No one has made any criminal referrals in the matter, and it would be tricky to figure out who, if anyone, "stole" it. Besides, the identity of the supposed thief isn't relevant to the property law issue of whether an innocent downstream buyer can keep a stolen item (no, he can't).
Similar threads
