Hobbyist Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 478 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Even though I've got a few set of blueprints for the TOS Enterprise bridge, I was wondering. Whos or what set is the most accurate dimensionally?


Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
I think it's generally accepted that Michael McMaster's are the most accurate. They certainly seem quite close from my own investigations.

They do intentionally deviate from the set in one particular: The sensible addition of a secondary exit. He installs a door to the left of the main viewscreen. I believe he moves the status display that was originally there to one side of the alcove leading to the door.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
This detail was based on Gene Roddenberry's intention to add a second exit to the bridge. This second exit was represented in the animated series at Roddenberry's request, and so it is reflected in Michael McMaster's blueprints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
So who else made bridge blueprints other then McMasters?

Can't imagine them being any more detailed or accurate, or not relying on McMasters' work to a great degree.
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,237 Posts
Who else? Franz Joseph, in the original Tech Manual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Yep. That one should have been obvious.
But a "few" would imply more then two sets.

How many sets were you talking about ClubTepes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
uss_griffin said:
The best ones show the turbolift directly behind the captain's chair, inline with the viewscreen! *ducks*
I suspect that just such a plan was drawn initially by Jefferies. I'd love to know if anyone's seen it.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
MGagen said:
I suspect that just such a plan was drawn initially by Jefferies. I'd love to know if anyone's seen it.

Mark
I talked to Majel Roddenberry the other day over coffee.
She says she was standing next to Jefferies while he drew it that way.

She had a copy of those plans, but they were stapled to that 3 foot Enterprise model Gene loaned out... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
^^^Of course if Majel ever really had such a set, Lincoln Enterprises would have sold 100,000 illegal copies. Then Gene would have gone around to conventions talking about how he begged Paramount not to go after fan produced stuff "for the good of Trek fans everywhere."

Would have had nothing to do with wifey selling tons of stuff with no license, not to mention tons of stuff with FJ's copyrighted "Federation of Planets" design on it.

Majel's intimated several times that Gene loaned the 3 footer to some friend, yet she won't or can't name them. Apparently no one can remember the name of the person they "loaned" what they knew to be an extremely valuable prop(okay, maybe much more valuable today, but even then, they knew it was valuable).

Seems kind of hard to believe. Also that she knew it was loaned to a friend, but has no idea of who.

I've often wondered if this prop was ever formally given to Gene or not. Paramount seemed to be able to get back one of the Klingon props when they wanted it.

Anyhow, I wonder if whoever has it now could sell it?

If they tried and it turned out they couldn't, I'd also like to see who got the retrieve it, Majel or Paramount?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
I thought that UFP logo appeared on one of the episodes, on some sort of flaglike thing. I have no real idea which episode, maybe the one with Gorgon the Friendly Lawyer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
I'm talking about the one with the starfield and two faces, which is on the cover of the FJ Tech Manual.
I think the one you are talking about just had the letters UFP.

I believe that one of TMP prop guys used FJ's logo in homage.
Later, after realizing that they didn't have the copyright to it Paramount came out with a virtually identical one that used olive branches instead of side views of humanoid male/female faces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Chuck_P.R. said:
Yep. That one should have been obvious.
But a "few" would imply more then two sets.

How many sets were you talking about ClubTepes?
I've got another set that compares the TMP Bridge and the TOS Bridge.

Though after looking more closely at that set, it APPEARS (covering my legal a$$) that the TOS portions are copied from the McMaster plans.

SOoooooo..........
Throwning a big monkey wrench into all the bridge arguments.....

I've been building a Constitution class ship in Lightwave based on the Alan Sinclair blueprints.

Following in the footsteps of people like Phil Broad I got curious about fitting the actual bridge dimensions into the exterior dimensions.
So my conclusions suggest that the set will fit into the space alloted
EXCEPT
The turbolift alcove protrudes ouside the exterior hull dimensions.
This even after lowering the bridge past what would commonly be accepted.

So, as much as I would like to accept Ziz's idea that the bridge is alligned with the CL of the ship and that a turbolift 'slides over' into the position that we see on screen, I can't see that happening without increasing the size of the ship overall (which would blow JohnP's mind).

I agree with Phil's argument that the ship SHOULD be the larger dimension
due to the fact that the rim of the saucer is not thick enough to support two full decks. (Unless you were doing 'Being John Malcovich' and had a deck 7 1/2).
BUT, if we increased the size of the ship then the turbo-lift protrusion on the exterior would not line up with the turbo-lift location on the set.

So I have a new take (new to me) that I'm sure would not be very popular.
Have the bridge be lined up with the CL of the ship and slide over the turbo-lift protrusion the 36 degrees to the port side of the ship.
So yes, it would minutely change the exterior, but in my mind, would be more likely if such a ship were really to be built.


Funny how putting the turbo-lift in the position its in due to the fact that it made for some good camera framing, would create such a debate so many years later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
What's this, ClubTepes?

Is there some dispute as to whether or not the bridge should face forward or off-center?:confused:

Does anybody perhaps have an opinion on this? Maybe MGagen or Captain April have spent some time thinking about this...

Any chance you two guys might have an opinion? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
ClubTepes said:
Following in the footsteps of people like Phil Broad I got curious about fitting the actual bridge dimensions into the exterior dimensions.
So my conclusions suggest that the set will fit into the space alloted
EXCEPT
The turbolift alcove protrudes ouside the exterior hull dimensions.
This even after lowering the bridge past what would commonly be accepted.
It's amazing how a little disciplined 3D work can bring home this point so clearly, isn't it?.

So I have a new take (new to me) that I'm sure would not be very popular.
Have the bridge be lined up with the CL of the ship and slide over the turbo-lift protrusion the 36 degrees to the port side of the ship.
So yes, it would minutely change the exterior, but in my mind, would be more likely if such a ship were really to be built.
Or you could do what I proposed many moons ago. If you must have a forward facing bridge, why not provide an exterior construction to contain that sideways shuffle of the turbolift. In the images that follow, I have added just such a pathway. Since I've made it lower than the main tube, it is not all that obvious from the usual viewing angles. One might almost be able to claim it was always there, but we never noticed it.






I do not really advocate this solution, but if you must rotate it -- why not do it this way?

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
Is there some dispute as to whether or not the bridge should face forward or off-center?:confused:
Yes.

Chuck_P.R. said:
Does anybody perhaps have an opinion on this? Maybe MGagen or Captain April have spent some time thinking about this...
YES.

Chuck_P.R. said:
Any chance you two guys might have an opinion? :)
Chances are 100%, but just not the same one.

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
MGagen said:
It's amazing how a little disciplined 3D work can bring home this point so clearly, isn't it?.



Or you could do what I proposed many moons ago. If you must have a forward facing bridge, why not provide an exterior construction to contain that sideways shuffle of the turbolift. In the images that follow, I have added just such a pathway. Since I've made it lower than the main tube, it is not all that obvious from the usual viewing angles. One might almost be able to claim it was always there, but we never noticed it.






I do not really advocate this solution, but if you must rotate it -- why not do it this way?

Mark
Sadly, its a problem that no one will ever agree on.
The more I think about my take on it, the more I like it. Move the exterior turbo-lift housing over 36 degrees and forget the sliding thing. This way, when they went to do the refit, all that they had to do was to add another turbolift shaft.
EITHER WAY one would have to add to the exterior to cover the turbo-lift alcove.
 
1 - 20 of 478 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top