When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?"
my reply is how do you know it is not
? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion
You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”
I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid
It's a matter of giving somebody the "benefit of a doubt". It's the guiding principle of our ethical and political system most of us live in and one of its strongest supporters is Star Trek, e.g. "Court-Martial" which beautifully illustrates how not giving Kirk the benefit of a doubt would have resulted in an unjust verdict, since he had become the victim of foul play.
For the same reason, we should equally give the makers of Star Trek the benefit of a doubt, that they knew
what they were doing, before jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions at their expense, not to mention that this should be mandatory, considering they no longer are among us and are unable to provide a comment. It's a simple question of respect. Is that not something everybody should or could agree on?
Of course, there are occasional inconsistencies and I recently addressed one in my deck plan thread: The bedside of Kirk's cabin in the mirror universe is right next to the corridor. Thus, it's impossible for Marla to change clothes in a bathroom behind the door of the bedside.
Maybe the DP of "Mirror, Mirror" used this obvious inconsistency to emphasize what a strange place the mirror universe is, maybe they didn't pay attention. Again, we don't know.
"In-Universe" it's an inconsistency and obviously you either ignore the corridor next to Kirk's cabin or the bathroom Marla changed clothes or else. Multiple approaches are valid and one will not necessarily be more correct than another one.
And I don’t know what TV show you’ve been watching, but the captain’s cabin set does not match the secondary hull contours, in fact, MJ designed and built it to look as if it fit within the circular primary hull, which was his intention, this is so obvious I wouldn’t think that it would even need to be questioned? In this case I think your passion has led you astray.
Can you first please make up your mind whether "it's not religion, it's a TV show!" or whether every single screencap should be measured with a ruler?
Yes, it was a television series under enormous budget restraints and sets and door signs were redressed and recycled on a regular base to represent different sections of the ship. Did they intend to keep the radius of the main corridor literal for every scene we saw onscreen? Did they exlude the possibility that the briefing room set could also be used as a room in the outer rim of the saucer (because the radius curvature wouldn't match)?
Applying some common sense, I believe the answer is "no".
Since Kirk's cabin on Deck 12 (in "Mudd's Women") can't either be in the saucer or the dorsal, it can obvioulsly only be an Engineering Deck, the cabin's wall angles match the curvature of the outer hull on E-Deck 12 rather well and last but not least there are windows. Other scenes in TOS have shown circular corridors in the engineering hull, so I dare to say that even in this
part of the galaxy 1+1+1+1 equals 4, thus it's not a question of passion but a logical conclusion.
And what about the large, circular hatch at the bottom of the engineering hull which is quite a contrast to all the other rectangular surface patches / hatches? Looks to me like the genius of Matt Jefferies foresaw the use of circular corridors in the engineering hull and foresightedly provided an "excuse".
And this next quote really takes the cake, “I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel…” here, your Freudian slip says it all, you’re blinded by your passion, and cannot, or will not, see that the star trek is not a religion, it’s a TV show!
Look who's talking.
The tone of the comments (I'm tempted to say stones) being thrown at me, rather sound like something I'd expect from religious fanatics. I used an analogy to highlight that the original series and what's onscreen should be the first and ultimate point of common reference. If you disagree, just say so and you will not hear from me again.
Oh, I almost forgot; how in the world do you figure FJ "ignored" the stage set floor plans from TMoST when he not only used it for the basis of his deck seven plan, but actually inadvertently copied some of the discrepancies it had with the actual sets?
FJ may not have a VCR, he may have missed the local reruns of TOS to take notes etc. However, TMoST
provided him with the actual Season Two/Three studio set blueprint (apparently he didn't have the Season One blueprint) that revealed to him exactly what the corridor layout and alignment of rooms needed to look like, still he "ignored" to reproduce and "assemble" it accordingly and accurately and altered it into something different.
There was no scene ever in TOS where a turbo lift would be the main entry to any of the engine rooms. Whatever ship is represented here, it's definitely not the Enterprise.
And could you please elaborate what "discrepancies" or "inaccuracies" of the original studio set you have in mind, other than the one I mentioned earlier? I'm really curious.