Hobbyist Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 478 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Hmmm...
Not sure what you mean by "sliding."

I like this idea's look(given the alternatives) but would suggest that perhaps what is now considered to be the turbo-lift shaft "protrusion" could be re-interpreted as an alcove covering a spiral staircase emergency exit that could be hidden behind a swinging wall to the left of the TOS turbolift.

I think the McMasters' addition of a TAS era secondary emergency exit to the bridge made sense. But if it's location was never shown on TOS or TAS I don't see why that couldn't be a better location.

Your thoughts, MGagen? Aridas? Anyone else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
BTWay, I always thought that TMP's turbolift positioning,
which MGagen was touching apon when he mentioned "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."

... always thought that that TMP positioning was kind of an admission that the bridge should have been facing forward all along, and now they were correcting the exterior of the new and improved refit.

Thoughts guys?
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,873 Posts
^^ I agree with you on that one!

I like the idea of the bridge being offset, however, as FJ shows it to be. It's the only practical solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
Hmmm...
I like this idea's look(given the alternatives) but would suggest that perhaps what is now considered to be the turbo-lift shaft "protrusion" could be re-interpreted as an alcove covering a spiral staircase emergency exit that could be hidden behind a swinging wall to the left of the TOS turbolift.
If you leave it the main turbo shaft, you can also make it a "hard dock" point which allows the sharing of turbolift cars with a space dock or spacestation. The bridge turbocar is at its station and thus is not blocking the tube. (Just a thought.)

I think the McMasters' addition of a TAS era secondary emergency exit to the bridge made sense. But if it's location was never shown on TOS or TAS I don't see why that couldn't be a better location.
Actually, something very like it was shown in TAS. McMasters merely has it recessed, rather than flush -- thereby allowing him an alcove wall to hang the displaced status board on.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
^^^ Thanks for the TAS info, MGagen.
I only saw a few episodes as a kid.
Have been waiting to see if it, TAS, would ever be released on DVD.
Hate the idea of buying videocassettes, which is the only way it's offered right now. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
BTWay, I always thought that TMP's turbolift positioning ... was kind of an admission that the bridge should have been facing forward all along, and now they were correcting the exterior of the new and improved refit.
It was an admission that it should have faced forward, but didn't by reason of someone "shuffling the deck." It was Jefferies' way of fixing that problem, along with eliminating the absurd "only one exit" problem.

One has to wonder, though, since the "problem" occured before the filming of The Cage, why he never had the exterior detail fixed when he had the chance. The model was updated at least two times before the series went into production. The easiest time would have been when they removed the bridge and turbo shaft in order to cut them down to "production" size. All it would have taken was to rotate it 36 degrees when they put it back on.

I doubt if we'll ever know the answer to that one...

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
PerfesserCoffee said:
^^ I agree with you on that one!

I like the idea of the bridge being offset, however, as FJ shows it to be. It's the only practical solution.
Practical, yes I'd have to agree.
Desirable and logical... not so much.

But that wasn't FJ's fault, and I think there's an interview of him at trekplace.com in which he says that the filming director changed the bridge(though not the turbolift's basic positioning, that was offset from the very first episode) three times in the first two years.

FJ said that he was told(probably by Roddenberry, he doesn't say who but 90% of his original trek contacts time was spent with Roddenberry) that the bridge was set where it was by the filming director solely for dramatic effect. Which suggests that Jefferies semi-modular design and his external model's attributes were sometimes intentionally ignored by whoever the "filming director" was.

Jefferies was a brilliant artist and designer, but he apparently wasn't consulted on every decision.
Or if he was, keeping everything concretely consistent was not always given top priority when the directors made the final decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Here's an "on-point" quote from the 1982 Paul Newitt interview with FJ that I was talking about:

"Q2
Newitt: ...errors?
FJ: Oh, they were endless. A typical example: in the first two years of production, the bridge was changed four times...that is, it went through four major changes...but they went unnoticed until you started to analyze the slides. I imagine, during that period, we looked at something like 100,000 film clips. Eventually you caught on, you could catch the error once you started to examine the slides in detail. They're supposed to have...I think you call it a continuity producer...or something like that. The idea is, whenever you finish filming the day before and pick up the next sequence, someone is there to be sure the actors were wearing the same clothes they wore the last time you shot, that they're wearing the same ring on the same finger, and their hair is combed the same way, and all this stuff. I assumed the TV series had it. And I assumed that whatever the format was as they were writing the scripts, and shooting the scenes, that someone was watching for continuity. If the script said the door opened in a certain room last week, it opened on the same room this week. It turns out the TV series had no such person.
If you ignored the story as you were watching an episode, and looked for detail as you were watching it, you suddenly discovered these errors and mistakes went on endlessly. Now there were many mistakes that were due to production necessities. In other words, the camera and the producer had to be in a certain place shooting with a particular camera angle, and that caused errors. I mean, those...there are mistakes that you can ignore because they're reality...it's either that or you don't shoot the scene. But take another type of error which is a major mistake. There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator. The reason being, that was where the action of the episode was coming from, and that was the camera angle the producer wanted.
In order to do this, he was shooting at a 36-degree angle to the captain's station and the bridge, so he could include the screen over to the right and the elevator over to the left. When you come to the layout of the bridge, because the elevator is on the centerline of the Enterprise in its external views, you discover the bridge is skewed off 36 degrees from the centerline. But no ST fan ever put these two things together, you don't see it until you try to make an actual layout of the starship. As I said, you just go from one error to another. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
continued, less "on-point" but still interesting FJ quote... another topic or two touched apon...

"But no ST fan ever put these two things together, you don't see it until you try to make an actual layout of the starship. As I said, you just go from one error to another. However, I'm digressing; we were talking about the things the ST fans wanted to see that never appeared in the TV series.
I started to make a layout of the ship but since the three-views didn't jibe with each other, the first thing I had to go was to generate an accurate set of loft lines. With these completed, I now had a set of line drawings in which I could make a cut at any plane, any deck level, and any cross-section. I now began the actual layout drawings of the ship and did this in the same manner it would be done in an aerospace design environment. But now I had another problem. In the TV series, and in Whitfield's book, they had stated certain (unseen) things were on certain decks as "throw away" lines for the actors. The set that had been constructed for the TV series also had a central hall with a certain degree of curvature, a specific relationship between the rooms and the corridor, rooms to the doors, and the arrangement of rooms such as the medical center, and Kirk's room. For economy, the captain's room was redressed by switching door panels, etc., to make Spock's room, and redressed again to make Yeoman Rand's room and so on. I had the plan of the stage layout from Whitfield's book so that I was able to recreate the size of the set. They gave me the basic positions and also the basic views and arrangement of the engineering section. From here, I had to work it into the spaceship they had drawn.
Now, I'll digress for another minute. When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit. In the course of getting from there to the basic design for the TV pilot, they talked with academic people who decided that when man ventured into space he would still be a gregarious animal, as has been proven by our astronaut program. On any extended voyage like this, of months or years, the survival potential of a few number of persons is very poor. The survival potential, of an interacting colony, like you had in the TV series, is much better. So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there."




Sorry for the long long posts. But I think the info in the posts were important.

It is the only non-thirdhand, independently verifiable evidence we have of anyone, in this case Franz Joseph, where anyone was shown to have directly asked the principal original people involved with TOS about the bridge issue.

According to FJ the producer, who I believe was Roddenberry, wanted that camera angle for dramatic effect.

Basically, there was no thought given at the time to the effect of the decision to the logical layout of the ship.

This info may seem self evident.
But I think it's the most important quote of someone who actually asked about this issue, and wasn't just a quote of an old staff member guessing about what they thought Jefferies was thinking without having ever specifically researching the issue.

According to FJ, the bridge was envisioned as facing front, the producer just didn't think or care at the time that the side positioning of the turbolift would cause a logical layout problem, or external prop conflict.

When asked directly about the bridge offset by FJ, the original principals couldn't explain it other then to say that the angle was needed for dramatic effect, and they either didn't consider it or had to ignore it for dramatic effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
"There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator."

So, considering the physical model, did FJ favor having the bridge face almost rearward (or at least straight to one side) so that the lift wouldn't be behind the captain? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
ClubTepes said:
The more I think about my take on it.... Move the exterior turbo-lift housing over 36 degrees
As long as we're revising what was actually seen onscreen, I revise the interior to match the exterior: let the lift doors be directly behind the con.

As to the military disadvantage of this...
1. the E is really not a military ship
2. technology should be able to effectively prevent unauthorized lifts (and passengers) from getting anywhere near the bridge. (Such technology is perfectly feasible but sure limits story potential.)
3. remember MGagen's point about it being like the cabin of an airplane, where entry is from the rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
uss_columbia said:
"There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator."

So, considering the physical model, did FJ favor having the bridge face almost rearward (or at least straight to one side) so that the lift wouldn't be behind the captain? :)
I think he probably would have favored that, though he knew it wasn't designed or envisioned that way.

Also, I'd like to point out something that someone else brought up on that point.

Being very oldschool, FJ was thinking of a naval vessel's design. However as he himself stated when talking about the way the ship was originally envisioned:

"When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit."

Well this first sketching of the Enterprise conceptually refutes FJ's mode of thinking. The ship was originally thought of as being designed in a way similar to a large aircraft - not a naval vessel.

Not too many aircraft - military or otherwise - have side entrances to their cockpits! :)

Ideally, as the sets progressed and the crew compliment and ship size changed they would have updated the exterior to simply move the "protrusion."

But they didn't. :(

How one deals with that when trying to model or draw an accurate compromise between interior and exterior details is the question.

My purpose of quoting FJ was to simply confirm that someone DID specifically ask about why this incongruity existed, and the answer they gave him was that it was done for the dramatic filming effect of having the entrant to the bridge, side view of the Captain and helm, and also the viewscreen - all in one shot.

Anybody who now wants to find a way to justify the interior and exterior just has to deal with it.

It can be dealt with by setting the bridge off-center, jimmying with the exterior in a manner like or similar to the way MGagen did in his post above, you could just make the ship ridiculously larger(would one of you 3D of draftsmen wizards please figure out how much bigger, regardless of how ridiculous?), OR, you might sink the bridge almost completely into "B deck," a solution Aridas Sofia has proposed and plans to draw someday.

Any progress on those plans, Aridas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Bravo! Much good meat in this thread!

I do want to address some things from the FJ quotes:

First of all, I want to express my admiration for him and what he contributed to our little game. Copies of the first printing of the Booklet of General Plans and Technical Manual are prized items in my collection. Just wanted to make it clear I'm not bashing him when I take issue with a couple of points.


There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator.
Thanks, USS Columbia, for pointing out my earlier post mentioning the aircraft cockpit analogy. Jefferies was an aeronautical man and knew that every aircraft commander sits with his back to the door.


I started to make a layout of the ship but since the three-views didn't jibe with each other, the first thing I had to go was to generate an accurate set of loft lines.
The problem here was not with Jefferies' 3-view drawing -- it is reproduced with major lens distortion in TMOST. The views agree quite well on the original artboard. FJ also missed the boat bigtime with the Hanger Deck. He failed to notice that the drawing in TMOST was of the forced-perspective miniature set. It is not an orthographic drawing. I can't blame him too much -- I studied it myself for decades before I realized this. But I did notice the converging lines once I started to analyze it in order to make a 3D model. I wonder how he could have corrected the diminishing-height observation corridor without making the connection. I believe it comes from not giving enough credit to Jefferies and company. It's the same with the 3-view: he just assumed it was sloppy work and moved on -- and in doing so, he missed the boat.


...the bridge is skewed off 36 degrees from the centerline. But no ST fan ever put these two things together...
Actually, I noticed it as soon as I got my copy of TMOST, back in 1971 -- and that was well before anyone had heard from FJ. I think this was pretty commonly understood by the real "fans" back then (yes, there were geeks back in the 70s :p ).


When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top.
I believe FJ is telling us something true and reliable here.


So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there.
Here he misses a step. He seems to be unaware that there was another intermediate design. I believe the 8-man crew version was merely the original "concept." This may even pre-date the saucer, cigar and nacelles configuration. What I do know is that the construction plan used to build the 3-footer called for a 540 foot ship. This is the design that was enlarged "without changing the proportions and external arrangement." But Jefferies seems to have put a reasonable amount of careful thought into how to make it work at the larger size.


Chuck_P.R. said:
My purpose of quoting FJ was to simply confirm that someone DID specifically ask about why this incongruity existed, and the answer they gave him was that it was done for the dramatic filming effect of having the entrant to the bridge, side view of the Captain and helm, and also the viewscreen - all in one shot.
I'm not sure I ever saw a shot like that in the whole run of the series. It would take a very wide angle lens. Perhaps he was talking about a "pan."

Thanks, Chuck, for the FJ quotes. They are indeed fertile grounds for discussion.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Lets not forget the visual clues in TOS as to the orientaion of the bridge.
First of course is the opening shot of 'The Cage' where the camera tracks right into the bridge from space. While not perfect my impression is that the bridge is in line with the CL.
Secondly, though we know that the view screen isn't a 'window' there is a rectangular detail on the exterior of the bridge.
And finally in 'Requiem For Methuselah', when the Enterprise is reduced in size to a table centerpiece, Kirk looks into the bridge through the front of the ship, not off to the side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
ClubTepes said:
Lets not forget the visual clues in TOS as to the orientaion of the bridge.
First of course is the opening shot of 'The Cage' where the camera tracks right into the bridge from space. While not perfect my impression is that the bridge is in line with the CL.
This sequence is so far off in all spatial dimensions as to be worthless in determining bridge orientation. Even the orientation we're interested in changes throughout the scene. It is also the taller dome, not the later series configuration. Even if it did tell us something, it doesn't apply to the series bridge.


Secondly, though we know that the view screen isn't a 'window' there is a rectangular detail on the exterior of the bridge.
This strikes me as tenuous at best. It has as much to do with the orientation of the bridge, as which side the gas cap is on determines which side of a car has the steering wheel.


And finally in 'Requiem For Methuselah', when the Enterprise is reduced in size to a table centerpiece, Kirk looks into the bridge through the front of the ship, not off to the side.
I must say you've stumped me here. What can this possibly have to do with it? As I recall the scene, Kirk looks at the front of the ship. We then cut to an interior shot of the main view screen with Kirk's mug on it. Conclusion: Kirk is looking at the front of the ship and his image is being picked up by the forward scanners. Unless I am missing something, this tells us nothing about the orientation of the bridge.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
In Requiem, I do get the impression that Kirk is trying to peer inside his ship, into the bridge. This is ridiculous considering how well established it is that the viewscreen is NOT a window. Perhaps Kirk was peering into those two little "windows" on the deck 2/3 area (which FJ labels as the torpedo tubes). Of course, it's been a long time since I watched Requiem. I'll have to dig out the video and have a look.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Think I mentioned your earlier cockpit analogy somewhere above in the quote, MGagen. It was an apt point.

Note about the viewscreen not being a window. It may have originally intended to be both. I believe the first "A deck" did indeed have a rectangular detail on the very front. Though at the very least it would have to have been a optical port only as a last resort...

I have a pic of it somewhere, but am not home right now. Maybe someone else can post it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
I like the idea of a last-resort viewport with a holographic view "screen" normally projected in front of it. This for a next-generation era ship, though (where the holo technology is more advanced/ubiquitous).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
uss_columbia said:
I like the idea of a last-resort viewport with a holographic view "screen" normally projected in front of it. This for a next-generation era ship, though (where the holo technology is more advanced/ubiquitous).
There may or may not be a last resort viewport on the Enterprise E.

We do know from Nemesis, though, that the bridge definitely faces forward by that point in time. Just ask the helmsman who got sucked out the front of the bridge. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
Think I mentioned your earlier cockpit analogy somewhere above in the quote, MGagen. It was an apt point.

Note about the viewscreen not being a window. It may have originally intended to be both. I believe the first "A deck" did indeed have a rectangular detail on the very front. Though at the very least it would have to have been a optical port only as a last resort...

I have a pic of it somewhere, but am not home right now. Maybe someone else can post it...
Here is that pic I was talking about earlier...
 
21 - 40 of 478 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top