My proposed Minister of AI.

Clean shaven Mantzoukas is the spitting image of Greek antiquity. He could play Odysseus easily. Honestly, the thing that annoys me about this movie the most is how many Northern Euros are playing Greeks. Just like they played all the Jews in Oppenheimer.

Rod Roddenberry is posting vids of the 33” Enterprise filming model being restored. Here’s the most interesting one so far showing what looks like a grain of wheat bulb in the nacelle cap and wires embedded in the strut.

Newly wed couple don’t know if their adopted baby has had his dip-tet or not.

You’re right. It’s reminiscent of Mike Minor’s Phase II bridge that became the TMP bridge. That look was super 70s.

Ah, that's so much better!

Tracing the plans in vectors to make them clearer, smooth out the human errors, and fold distortions.

Of course! Here's a clearer version with no guides.

I was hoping the Phase II "K'Tinga" plans would be an accurate recreation of the D7 with the exception of the hat shape. Turns out there's a lot of changes. The only thing they nailed was the head bulb. So I'm straightening the perspective of the original D7 plans based on matching that shape.

Added the neck from my previous build really quick to make this comparison shot. Took five light light sources (two purple, two green, and one white) to recreate the same lighting as the original. Why is that chin mole missing on my model? Story for another day...

Finished with the forward hull. Crazy enough this is the easiest part. Trying to model this in a way that it could be printed one day.

I love that Rick Hunter’s face is the same in both the closeup and in the cockpit.

They should have seen the remaster coming and filmed Wheaton at 25 years old.

The plot thickens, because even though it all seems like the same sheet, the front and side views are squished, but the top views are not. I figured this out not just through matching with the other plans, but by sizing the grid to proper squares.

On no, guys! I was thinking my model was looking too flat compared to shots of the actual studio model so I compared the full blueprints (red) to the sheet with just the head details that I was working off (black) and the latter is like 30% squashed! Not a hard fix this early on.

Did not like the geometry of my previous attempt so I redid it. The shape is the same, but you can see how nice the grid is now. Also, here's the head of my previous D7 compared to this one. That's how wrong I got it while just eyeing it.

Thanks to @portalrealm.bsky.social for inspiring my latest 3D noodling. I already have a D7 model, but it was completely freehand.

Drop something ENORMOUS.

From what I can tell the set insert was shot from too close up and with too short of a lens to work with the composition of the ship they wanted. What looks like an error is actually the painter throwing his hands up in frustration and doing the best he could to accommodate for it.

They were used in the early Ferengi head dresses, too.

Don’t tease me this way, NYT Connections.

I love that all the Nikon and F logos have been covered up, and very poorly in some cases. Those are all Fs as far as I can tell, some with the standard prism and some with the extra big light meter prism. Same one Jimmy Olsen uses in Superman 1978.

What’s it like inside your head?

NO!!! I’VE GOT TO SEEEEEE!!!!

This one won't fit in the hangar either. Probert designed two sizes of shuttle, "standard" and "long range". The ones you see in the hanger storage area are the former. The Surak is the latter.

Here’s a follow up. There was no setup for the photo. They just took the picture of the model as it laid in storage. Amazing that a whole painting was cheaper than shooting the model.

Talked to Andy Probert on Instagram and asked if there was any problem with shooting the model that necessitated a painting. Seems like he’s saying this pic was nothing but a reference for the painting.