The listing went down quickly, and Roddenberry’s son is trying to track it down.
Even though the future fate of the model is uncertain, the username for the account and its other listings suggest that it specializes in selling artifacts found in storage lockers that end up without an owner, either due to failure to pay, abandonment, or death, perhaps giving a hint as to how the model was found.
Gonna be a lit episode of Storage Wars
Yeeeeeeeeppppppp!
Turns out it was behind the fridge
Dank, hope the thief gets charged.
Not one for reading the article eh?
Even though the future fate of the model is uncertain, the username for the account and its other listings suggest that it specializes in selling artifacts found in storage lockers that end up without an owner, either due to failure to pay, abandonment, or death, perhaps giving a hint as to how the model was found.
It was stolen, the locker likely had a name associated at some point, that’s a Clue the rest is up to investigation.
So yes I read it but I can also do math and understand grand theft investigations given it’s value is likely tens of thousands.
It doesn’t sound like anyone nor Rod Roddenberry is wanting an investigation though. They just want the model.
Aren’t these things so old that the would be thief is likely dead anyway? Hence the dilapidated locker? Just feels like a needless revenge-boner to me.
Again - from the article - it went missing after being leant to the original motion picture production.
Quite a few people who were around in 1979 are still hanging on today :)
Bingo. Someone probably just didn’t pay their bill, it’s way more common than you’d think.
If they want it or not fans will do it anyway, it’s in their best interest to get the police involved so fans meddling are committing obstruction.
Maybe? We don’t know that’s the point of investigation. Dude stole history and should be punished for it, why are you implying a theft over time is absolved?
Ed: should I point out that knowingly keeping stolen property is a crime as well so whomever has it right now is commiting a new and fun crime unless they immediately get into contact with the Roddenberry’s.
The studio is the owner right or the producers? I mean who really paid for the model is the owner. Not sure if that’s the Roddenberry’s or some other person from back in the day. I didn’t realize there was a great search for the original small scale model.
Cool that it might be found.
Gene is, it was built for Gene at genes direction and he continually requested it back.
It aught to be as interesting to find out how it came to be where it is as it is to the inevitable detailed inspection/investigation of the model should be.
Ed:
According to Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, “That particular ship was a real model and it *was Gene’s *– he loaned it to someone and Gene forgot to get it back and it was never returned. It’s a shame because it’s a piece of stolen property and since it has historical value – it is quite priceless.”
Ed:
https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2023/11/01/has-gene-roddenberys-missing-enterprise-been-found/
The model was made by prop-maker Richard Datin Jr under the direction of Star Trek series creator Gene Roddenberry in the preproduction phase of the series before it even had a full series order. It preceded an 11-foot model that was used for most of the shots in the series. However, the 3-footer was used for the opening credits sequence and all but one of the shots of the Enterprise in the series’ pilot, because the 11-foot version was not ready in time for shooting. It was also used sporadically in other shots in later episodes, including one where it actually acted as a model of the Enterprise sitting on a table.
It was not at any time the studios, it was made for Gene before the series started.
@CCMan1701A has a point. The model was built for production purposes, so it would have almost certainly been paid for - and therefore owned - by either by Desilu Studios or Norway Corporation (aka Norway Productions) depending on how the accounting was set up back in 1964. So unless Desilu/Norway sold or gifted the model to Roddenberry at some point, ie formally passed title to him, technically it would still be the property of the original corporate owner.
What I think quite possible though is that after TOS was cancelled Roddenberry took possession of a bunch of production assets nobody ever thought would have any value. Star Trek, after all, was a failed show. IIRC it was known that he used to do stuff like that, eg selling off merchandise to fans that - technically - he didn’t own. It’s just that nobody really cared too much back then.
Now as it so happens, Norway was actually Roddenberry’s production company, but technically that doesn’t matter, as there’s a legal distinction between a corporation you own on the one hand, and you as an individual on the other. That’s the whole purpose of setting up businesses as separate legal entities. So even if the model was originally purchased by and owned by Norway (as opposed to Desilu, which was sold to Paramount during the show’s run) then Norway (Roddenberry’s company) would still have needed to pass ownership to Gene Roddenberry the individual (via a gift or sale) in order for Majel Roddenberry’s statement that “it was Gene’s” to be strictly true. Of course, that would have been a cinch to do: Roddenberry, as owner/executive of Norway, simply sells or gives the model to Roddenberry the individual.
It’s possible that this happened, ie that Desilu or Norway sold or gifted the model to Roddenberry, but it’s also possible (especially if the model was owned by Desilu/Paramount) that he merely ended up with it, and that nobody questioned his legal right to it in the years since.
Personally, regardless of whether technically (ie from a legal or accounting perspective) Roddenberry did or did not own the model, I fully understand that Rod Roddenberry would be interested in recovering this seminal piece of Star Trek memorabilia, and I wouldn’t have any issues if it stayed in the Roddenberry family or was gifted to an institution like the Smithsonian.
I’m serious when I ask this. Can you point me to a source saying it was stolen? I can’t find one.
Sure, roddennberry lent it to the motion picture set guys and it was never returned even with gene asking for it directly. No 0 one misplaces ≈50lbs of wood that’s 3ft long and has specific storage requirements.
Historians, like model-maker David Shaw, who wrote a detailed history of the lost 3-foot model, believe that for at least a time, the model sat on Roddenberry’s desk and was his property. They believe Roddenberry loaned it to people working on the production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but it was never returned. There is even a record of Roddenberry writing to contacts at the production house inquiring to get it back to no avail.
Ed: off work. And yes it was actually reported stolen.
https://www.therpf.com/forums/threads/red-alert-lost-3-ft-tos-enterprise-found.354596/
Ed: estimated value given current sales of available studio models. ≈3 million+
The Roddenberry’s what now?
The Roddenberry’s as in the family or foundation. You act like it’s an incomplete sentence and it isn’t.
The apostrophe makes it possessive or a contraction when it’s meant to be a plural instead.
You are failing to use Hanlon’s Razor. Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by laziness or stupidity.
The model got loaned out to a movie production. It got stored and forgotten about. No one stole it, they just failed to return it because they were busy making a movie.
No. That something you can use not something you have to use especially as the value both historic and monetary goes up.
If it were a painting we wouldn’t be having this hedging conversation.
So, the statute of limitations on stolen property is one year in California, so probably not possible.
One year from Discovery. So one year from October 31 2023 iirc.
