View Single Post
Old July 25 2011, 09:52 PM   #403
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

MGagen wrote: View Post
I support everyone's right to the Enterprise of their imagination.

However, 947' was MJ's intention. Discarding that figure primarily because the hangar deck doesn't seem to fit ignores a more important and better documented full size set that does fit the 947' size: The bridge. At the intended scale, and only at the intended scale, does the turbolift fit into the visible tube at the back of the bridge dome. It seems misplaced to reject the 947' feature because the miniature hangar set (which we're not really sure of the dimensions and configuration of) doesn't fit, while throwing out the obvious and well documented bridge scale cue. At the very least, hanging on to the intended length is not "silly."

Once again, I'm not saying one cannot have a bigger E if one wants it. I'm merely pointing out that staying with MJ's size is not silly or indefensible.

M.
The bridge fits perfectly well in my version. And my version is 1067' in length. So I disagree with that comment.



I do agree that there is no one approach that is inherently "right" and another which is "wrong." I personally think that the 947' doesn't work, unless you compromise on the sets. You've got four requirements, and they simply don't match up.

1) The physical appearance of the outside of the ship.
2) The (presumed) scale of the ship.
3) The described layout of the ship.
4) The sets as seen on-screen.

You have to compromise on at least one of those... there is no way around it. You can say that the corridors and rooms have to be lower than seen on-screen. You can say that the exterior shape (and in particular the window locations) need to be adjusted. You can alter the interior arrangement. Or you can alter the scale.

But you have to alter at least one of those.

(And by the way, even then, we have to compromise on a few other issues. There is not enough room in the ship to have 430 individual full-sized cabins, even if there were nothing but the sets we saw on-screen. You have to at least double-up, and frankly, in most cases quadruple up, to fit the full crew into that ship. Doubling up can give you a cruise-liner, but to have a working vessel, most of the crew needs to be four to a cabin.)

This is an argument that gets a whole lot of "absolutist" focus from some folks... ie, they say that "947' is the correct length and you'd better accept it. If you don't, you're WRONG-WRONG-WRONG."

Well, we can't really ask M.J. anymore, but I sincerely doubt he'd have been nearly as dedicated to that number as most of those who defend it tend to be. He gave us a SKETCH... not a fully-realized design (down to the individual structural members, wiring routes, etc). He had ideas... but we know in real life, you have to compromise sometimes, and you choose what's most important to you.

To me, getting the correct outwards appearance and matching the correct inwards appearance elements to that is what matters.

I find the near-religious-ferver that a few people seem to have when discussing the "holy 947' length" to be... well, yes, silly.

Those who don't take it quite that much as an article of religious faith, on the other hand, don't get the same response from me.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote