View Single Post
Old March 31 2009, 01:04 AM   #20
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Dave,

My reconstruction is based on the original Jefferies cross-section (drawn up around 1967) which is supported by the later Jefferies Phase II cross-section (from 1977). The fact that those ideas were consistent 10 years apart support a logical argument that Jefferies views on that detail (the number of decks and their approximate placement) was unchanging during the run of the original series.
Well...

Source: # Decks (Primary Hull / ID / Secondary Hull)
MJ 1964: 4 / 3 / 4 (Pressure Compartment Schematic)
MJ 1967: 8.5 / 7 / 8
MJ Phase II: 8 / 5 / 8
(ID decks that overlap the secondary hull are counted as secondary hull.)

My first observation is that there is some variability over the years. The second observation is that you use Phase II and the Pressure Compartment Schematic as a basis for your pressure diagrams, and said pressure vessels are not consistent with the "overlapping" compartmentalization in the MJ 1967 cross-section. The final observation is that we have no publicly available internal diagrams of the ship between 1964 and May of 1967 (to the best of my knowledge). So, the internal design you are suggesting existed in 1964 (on a 200' design consisting of 11 decks), vanishes in 1967, and reapears in Phase II. To me this indicates that I am not the only one with "time challenged" studies, as you put it.

My suggestion is to make timelines... when were ideas introduced, when were they dropped (and why), and from there figure out what was the prevailing views during the production of the show. But I'll consider it in light of what your future response is like.

I started out with assumption similar to yours, and a detailed study of the whens and hows brought me to my current position.
As has already been explained, my suggestions are hypothetical, deductive, and generally not tied to a specific date. A general chronological sequence can be given, but it is largely conjectural.

More than a year ago I stopped using Jefferies' plans of the exterior and started using the 11 foot model. The primary difference between what you are doing and what I'm doing is that I decided to start from scratch in a study of the actual filming model itself, study it in every last detail (which includes documenting aspects the viewers of the show weren't supposed to notice) rather than use someone else's plans (like Sinclair's).

Compare what I have been releasing lately with the work of Sinclair or Casimiro and ask yourself why I arrived at different conclusions.
Actually, I've went back and taken a look at what you've release recently. Overall, other than some detailing on various areas (I discussed this at more length in my "lost" response) you haven't been releasing a whole lot. In fact, you stopped releasing updates, and have only relented (for which we are grateful) recently. Frankly the studies I am doing do not lend themselves to piecemeal additions. I think you would have enormous problems with me interpreting your posts, taking various changes to the design you release as partial graphics, and then trying to merge these in to your previous diagrams and represent that as your work. My intention was to do studies using Sinclair, Casimiro, other available works, and then your own 11' study when it was released. The release of the last study only took place when you challenged the validity of my statements, indicating that an alternative to your designs was plausible.

I am currently doing a full (and to the best of my ability, faithful) reconstruction of the 11 foot filming model... as a model. I may be starting with how it was in December of 1964 (for it's short appearance in The Cage), but I'll also be documenting (in later drawings) how it appeared in WNMHGB and the series.

I'll be modifying those plans of the model to represent the fictional exterior of the starship Enterprise for use in my deck plans... which is why I haven't spent much time on the interior aspects lately (waiting until after I have settled on the exterior they are going into first).
If the external plans are faithful, why will they need modification to work with your deck plans? They need modification to indicate the different phases of construction (Pilot I/Pilot II/Production I/Production II-the dome refit). Perhaps that's what you meant.

See, that looks like a massive assumption.

TMoST is not the Writer's Guide, and I've found that TMoST wasn't reflective of everything that was going on behind the scenes in TOS enough to hold it up as a good reference today. Sure, in the 1970s it was the best information that we had to work from... but today we have much better sources.
Not really. To quote Stephen E. Whitfield:

"In May, 1967, Matt Jefferies sent me a copy of The STAR TREK Guide, a set of guidelines laid out by series creator Gene Roddenberry for use by the show's many writers and directors. At that point I considered myself quite familiar with the show, partly because of the work I been doing for AMT and partly because I had seen virtually every episode that had been on the air.

My first reading of The STAR TREK Guide opened up a whole new world to me. Here was an immense wealth of background data totally new to me and equally fascinating. My immediate reaction to that first reading was, 'What a nifty basis for a STAR TREK book!'

Several days later I was in Gene Roddenberry's office, explaining the book idea to him. Gene was immmediately excited by the project. He not only gave it his blessing, but gave me carte blanche access to the studio in order to assist my research for the book"." (TMoST p. 11-12) [capitalization in original]


So TMoST is based on the writer's guide plus full access to the production and its staff. This is why I do not selectively read TMoST, this is why I don't simply accept the parts that agree with a particular theory I might have and ignore or dismiss the parts that do not. Dismissing TMoST, by dismissing aspects that are contradictory, is a perilous and unwise endeavor IMHO.

As for Jefferies and the final design of the 11 foot model... the model was close enough to his plans to go forward with it. But the 11 foot model was not what Jefferies drawings represented even after it was being used, Jefferies continued to use his ideas of how the ship was arranged (he, for example, liked the nacelles further apart than either the 11 foot or 33 inch model's nacelles actually were... and it took nearly 30 plus years before people started noticing)
While Jefferies' concepts, from whatever era, for the model are of great historical interest, the primary object of study is the 11' model itself. I have no interest in retconning the model to match either plans or theories. Correcting its known flaws (asymmetry, any warping, etc) is more than enough. Using the "hero" starboard side (as opposed to the neglected port) is probably the best way to do that in many instances.

Funny, I came to a similar conclusion years ago.

But here is the difference... I see the Jefferies glass as half full while you seem to be obsessing on the fact that it is half empty.
I view it this way: He has concepts before the 11' model was built, he has concepts after (including during the production), but in the final analysis the 11' model trumps any differences with it.

I have said that Jefferies had a changing view of the ship, but for me, the only Jefferies view that matters is the one between the start of production of The Cage (November of 1964) and the end of the original series (June of 1969). I've been interested in what was consistent over that period. The size of the ship didn't change, most of the same sets were used throughout (so the actual set plans are better than Joseph's interpretations... which call for short decks)... in fact it was that consistency that inspired Joseph (a non-fan) to spend as much time on this as he did.
During "The Cage" the ship was much smaller than it was later, at one point as small as 200 feet (TMoST, p. 89, 134). This changed for the second pilot, where the length was set by Jefferies as 947 feet. (TMoST, p. 134) Since we know that other sizes were bandied about during this period (1080 feet for example), presumably these changes would have had some impact on the internal design.

I would go so far as to say that if Joseph hadn't relied on TMoST so closely, that he would have been able to make a more faithful version of his plans and manual to the actual show. But he assumed (like you) that TMoST had some extra special information... when in fact it was a hastily put together collection of Trek stuff to profit on the excitement surrounding the show.
Other than this statement being contrary to the facts, and dismissing the aspects of the Writer's Guide as "hastily put together" (but not specially manufactured???) that disagree with your own theories, what is the point of this statement.

Don't get me wrong... I enjoy reading your analysis (and recall a time when I shared many of those same view points), but I would really appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my positions on things. As I said, more than a year ago I started using my early study sketches of the 11 foot model rather than my reconstruction of Jefferies construction plans.
From my perspective I honestly don't see that I have mis-characterized anything, you perhaps you didn't read what I said carefully. I was discussing the internal design of the ship, comparing your approach (which uses Phase II and the pressure diagram as its primary sources). You seemed to take what I said as an accusation that you had never looked at the 11' model. That's not the case. I presented an alternative, and briefly explained why it differed from your own ideas, that is neither a misrepresentation nor inappropriate.

Your views should be able to stand on their own without needing to misrepresent mine to make your points.
Respectfully, your own views should be able to be compared with those of other's without you seeing that as mere incompetence or something underhanded.

Well, it is interesting in that a lot of this depends on Alan Sinclair's drawings being accurate to the 11 foot model. Sadly, they aren't.

Are they the most accurate plans available to the public? I'd have to say that on the whole... no. While both Casimiro and Sinclair have errors (some of which are totally different from each other), overall Casimiro's plans are better.
My intention was to do Sinclair studies, than Casimiro, and eventually your own (when they are finalized). And anything else that seems appropriate. Your assumption that the conclusions solely rests upon AS is a bit unfounded. It would be equally fair to point out that your own claims don't seem fully substantiated and then ignore the fact that you aren't done with your research.

Given that, am I worried that my sketches from more than a year ago don't match up with Sinclair... not really. Sinclair is the worst available window placement reference, so that plus the fact that I stated that the finalized deck placement would have to wait for my finalized exterior plans means those are super old sketches that are at best a general outline of where I was heading.
If you're not worried, there shouldn't be much need for complaint. Here's how this came about. I started a deck study to work from the externals of the ship to the internals (removing and moving as many decks as necessary to align with the window placement). I expected that this would match your own results or be very close. This did not happen. I then checked your own preliminary internal layout and that of MJ 1967. Neither "worked". My intention was to repeat this with Casimiro, but I was in no hurry because your work was preliminary and I intended to "sit on" this information waiting for your final release so I could check that.

In the mean time people are interested in drawing out deck plans NOW. So I just let them know that there might be a viable alternative. If you are wrong in your claims there still is a viable alternative, and in any case people should be allowed to make their own minds up. The 24-deck study stands on its own, your work was referenced as an alternative. When called, I showed my hand, none of this is reason for offense. I did not categorically state that your work was wrong, just that it wasn't compatible to the design it was being compared to.

When were which windows placed where?

The WWWWPW question brings up some interesting aspects of the models history. First, the original windows weren't functioning at all, they were just painted on. The second attempt at putting windows on the model required drilling holes into the wood and using plexiglas tubes to help illuminate them (one would generally assume that those early lit windows are in the same places... but I haven't, so I've been cross checking their placement). The third time around, the producers just wanted more windows, period.
Presumably then, for the production model, MJ was doing this himself rather than having an outside company do the work, or is this incorrect? I'm interested in the evolution of the model's windows and lighting but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, I wasn't comparing all the versions of the model, just a particular reconstruction of a particular version.

See, originally there were only three rows of windows on the secondary hull... two above and one below the pendant on the side. But Jefferies did draw onto the original plans where he wanted the windows to go (when his hand was forced and Roddenberry insisted on windows). That window placement (which was followed pretty closely on the 33 inch model) is significantly off from the 11 foot model. My original deck levels sketch was based on an early assumption that the original window placement by Jefferies on the construction plans were pretty closely followed in the dorsal. They were not, and when I move from the sketch phase to final placement phase I'll be going off of the final placement of windows that I have reached in my year long study of the 11 foot model (as opposed to using someone else's studies and hoping they were as thorough as I would have liked).
Ultimately, the production version of the model is the most reasonable candidate for resolving any contradictions (should they exist) with the pilot versions. Its unlikely that decks would be added or moved (unless the secondary hull was replaced, which is a possibility), so if we "pretend" its a real ship I would prefer minor retcons to the pilot versions than retconning the production version to match the pilots. But this is irrelevant to historical studies of the model, and only matters from the "fictional" interpretation that this was a real ship.

Please note... very important... Sinclair's windows on the rim of the primary hull are wrong. That is not how the models windows are actually placed, they are actually too close together to make for nice placement for two decks.
Noted and logged.

On a side note... your studies seem to be time challenged.
As mentioned, there's a lot of that going around.

In the case of the 11 foot model, you seem to want to forget that it has three different states for how it appeared on screen, and it reached those states under different conditions. What they were trying to do in the beginning, what they did in the interim, and what was finally done for the series were all greatly effected by environmental factors which often had more to do with how the model looked on screen rather than how true they were being to Jefferies' vision of the ship.
I'm aware there were multiple adjustments to the model. In terms of "environment" there was lighting, film stock, and processing. In turn, you seem to want to criticize specific studies for things that are beyond their scope.

In a very similar manner, you seem to not understand that I am sharing sketches of ideas... works in it's most raw states, trying out ideas to see if they fit or not.
That's why the word "preliminary" is used in referring to these interior layouts. So, no, I do understand, and have made that point clear to my readers. My point should have been equally clear to you.

More than a year ago when I started, I decided not to use Sinclair or Casimiro (for the reason stated above) and so my internal sketches were based on very early external sketches of the 11 foot model. Those raw early external sketches were fine for playing with ideas, but I stated many times that none of that stuff was even close to finalized... in fact, none of that stuff will be used (other than concepts) in the final plans. There are aspects (with relation to the actual filming model) from my sketches a year ago that have no reflection on where things are going... and I stated as much back then.
Well, I'm not the one that stopped you from sharing more recent work. And I understand your time constraints, and am waiting patiently for the final product. But in turn you have to understand that you have put your work out there, and represent it as correct, and are seemingly currently representing it as the only correct public reconstruction despite the fact that its unfinished. Do you honestly think we don't have any right to discuss it? Or criticize it? Even if incorrectly due to a lack of information?

You can't have it both ways, you can't expect to be able to criticize other reconstruction efforts and then expect your own work to be immune from analysis and criticism. You can't critique other people's work with your partial results and then be irate when people talk about it.

Continued on next page due to posting limits
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote