View Single Post
Old August 27 2009, 08:32 PM   #184
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: WIP - TMP Enterprise, deck by deck

To this portion, if I were to design a ship, I'd probably have the intermix chamber further back in the engineering hull, not connect to the impulse system (no real need, and the neck is a vulnerable point to the matter/antimatter system anyhow), and allow the split for the pylons and the drop door. I'd have the drop door simply not cut the shaft in half if I were to do it over again. I'd also use one photorp chamber, large-size, and chalk up the 'clean' photorp room to production oversight.

That said, I think CTM is doing great work trying to adhere as closely as possible to the plans, and that's what I'd be doing as well - try to be as true as possible to the plans, while accommodating the flawed production. CTM - you are doing great work, and I look forward to each update on this thread.

At some point in the future, with this experience in hand, perhaps you could work a 'dream TMP Enterprise' taking into account the conflicting accounts, and correcting them to make it work more logically. But that's for a different time. Excellent work on this!!


Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
DiamondJoe wrote: View Post
The Enterprise D cutaway could be seen in main engineering (during 'Generations' for example, when the Duras sisters view it via Geordi's visor). I think (although I could be wrong) that the E cutaway was displayed at the rear of the bridge.
Ah, I see your error.

You're assuming that because someone did a "cross-section view" that this is either (a) accurate to what we see on screen, or (b) means that there are "deck plans" associated with it.

Neither is true.

In fact, for a great example of this look at DS9, and the Defiant. There are multiple versions of the "cross section" (what we call the "MSD" for "master situation display") Depending on which version you look at, the ship is a different number of decks thick. Does this mean that the ship "grew" a few decks during it's life? Nahhhh...
That corridor is not only featured in TMP. During Khan's first phaser strike we see the cadets fleeing engineering and some of them exit through that door and out through the corridor. And I don't think there's even ten feet to spare there.
All we REALLY see is cadets running out of the damaged area. Whether the corridor continues forward by some distance, or if it's a short "T" and they're fleeing to either side, ultimately, has no impact on the scene, and virtually nobody who didn't freeze-frame that sequence frame-by-frame would notice any details of that corridor. It's an exit. We don't know, and don't care, what's in front of Main Engineering. There's no STORYTELLING reason to be a stickler about something that you barely see for a couple of seconds of screen time, if by doing so you have to TOTALLY TRASH the primary design intent of the set in question.

The "vertical intermix shaft" goes from the bottom of the secondary hull to the impulse deflection chamber. PERIOD. If you don't want to buy that, that's your prerogative, and since the ship doesn't "really" exist, you can decide that in your own "personal canon." But the TMP ship is based upon this as one of the most central aspects of the design. To change it is sort of like saying that you don't really NEED that spine going from your pelvis to your skull.
And even if it is only seen twice - well, its still there, isn't it, no matter how many times you see it?
Not so much, no. The set no longer exists, so the only place it "exists" is on about 2 seconds worth of film, in the background.

I can live with it being "not exactly as seen" for those two seconds of film. Especially if you have to totally compromise the design of the ship, both in terms of internal arrangement and in terms of scale, to accomplish that trivial change.
And my argument isn't really about storytelling - its about the reconciliation with what is seen on-screen (ie, canonical Trek) with the technical realisation and design of the ship from a practical standpoint. I have seen Mr Probert's drawing and I appreciate that was the design intent. My point is that the intent doesn't mesh with canon, and concepts are simply that - concepts. Not final realisations.
Sorry, you're playing "revisionist" in order to make your PERSONAL PREFERENCE take precedence over some other items.

In other words... where two features don't necessarily "match" perfectly, you've chosen the one you'll reject and the one you'll keep.

That's perfectly fine... but it's NOT fine to insist that everyone else accept that the choice you've personally made is the one that they have to accept as well.

You clearly have a preference in how you look at things towards the existing sets. I have a preference towards making sets and external ship design "match up" properly. CTM has a preference towards implementing a physical version of a drawing set he has and turning it, with the least amount of "tweaking" possible, into a 3D "world."

All are OK. All are simply personal preference. After all, NONE of this is real.

You can make recommendations, but if your recommendations are rejected... please let it go. This is CTM's project, not yours, and he's doing this for his own purposes, not in order to meet YOUR requirements (or mine, or anyone elses!)

I've made my own suggestions to CTM, and he's taken a few and left a few alone, and that's FINE with me. I think his work is terrific, and a lot of fun to watch. Enough that I'm starting to think that I might try this one next, if I ever really get around to finishing my TOS one (I've been distracted by real life... specifically, the female portion thereof... recently! )
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote