View Single Post
Old May 22 2013, 06:18 PM   #50
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

This will likely (hopefully) be my last reply on this particular subject, as I’m losing interest in this discussion and do not want to derail the thread any longer. So her goes nothing…


Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
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 I suppose.

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 conclusion?
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,
Nice words, a speech worthy of Kirk himself, too bad you don't apply them more equally and fairly to everyone. Apparently, your fellow trek fans aren't worthy of this consideration? Witness the following...

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?
See, your assuming without any evidence, other than having the testicular dimensions to disagree with your "passionate" conclusions about trek, that I and others have been "jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions"? Why not give those of us who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt, and concede that our views may be based instead on mature and unbiased conclusion, and that there may be more than one valid answer to questions that do not, and cannot, have a single "right" answer? Respect is a two-way street ya know, you gotta give a little if you want to get a little.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
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?
Whoa, there Nelly! Those are your positions not mine! I've been consistantly advocating just the opposite. You must have me confused with somebody else?

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.
Those windows you keep harping on; you do realize that the "windows" in the Capt.’s cabin set are much smaller and spaced further apart (relative to the scale) than those secondary hull windows that you think match up so well? So I dare to say that in your transdimensionally engineered universe 1+1+1+1 does not equal 4.

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".
Looks to me like he intended them to be cargo hatches and the like, just like indicated in one of his sketches, little room for guesswork on his intentions here. looks like you're the one jumping to premature and biased conclusions?

On a more speculative note; one should consider MJ's phase two drawing which, though normally having no bearing here, does in this case speak to MJ's "intent" in regards the large circular hatch at the bottom of the secondary hull.

If one looks at the bottom of the secondary hull, one will see that MJ has moved his "large circular hatch" to the back of the ship, directly under the point where the conduits descending down the new pylons would eventually meet. It seems that all things considered MJ coordinated his work with Mike Minor who was designing the new engine room, which at the time consisted only of a vertical "intermix chamber" which was (but there's no surviving proof apparently) intended to be at the back of the S/H, directly under the meeting point of the pylon conduits and not the front, as it was later redesigned to do; and, wait for it..., directly above MJ's new location for the "large circular hatch"!

So in my mature and unbiased and considered opinion, MJ most likely meant for the circular hatch to be an ejection hatch for the vertical "warp core" as it would later come to be called, at least as late as the phase two production, but who knows maybe as early as the original series?

In any case I don't think he anticipated circular hallways in the S/H, which I don't think he would countenance for a moment, no more than he would having the engine room anywhere else! IMHO, to imply he was so sloppy and careless with his design does a grave disservice to his memory.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
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, If it were only that simple. I have been disagreeing with you, but not for the reasons you suppose, yet you keep posting anyway, which is fine, but we're not likely to agree anytime soon. And not because of any "religious fanaticism" on the part of me or others who share similar views. You set the tone for this exchange, so if you can't take the heat, stay outa the kitchen.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
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.
See this is where we disagree, there's plenty of evidence to corroborate the conclusion (that should be obvious anyway) that the soundstage set was never meant to be an exact representation of any single portion of the Enterprise's interior!

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.
The shape of the Briefing Room table for one; and sure, we can rationalize this "in universe" by saying they had different shaped tables etc., but that's not the point here. The shape is wrong for whatever reason and we just don't know why, but if what's onscreen takes precedence, you might not want to use that shape in your plans?

Last edited by TIN_MAN; May 22 2013 at 07:12 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote