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.
Let's stick to the context, please. "Jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions" referred to the assumption "that the producers / creators didn't know what they were doing". Unless there's solid evidence they did not know what they were doing, they deserve the benefit of a doubt, don't they?
A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice.
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.
"Transdimensionally engineered universe"? Sounds interesting, I'll keep this one in mind.
Yes, I realize that the shuttered windows
in the Captain's (Mudd's, and McCoy's) cabin do not correspond to the large 6' wide panoramic windows on the engineering hull, but I can't see why the cabin windows have to be one of these.
Obviously, like suggested in this scene
from "The Mark of Gideon", the outer shutter would blend in with the hull when closed, thus such a window frame would even be less discernible than one of he infamous deflector grid lines.
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?
I agree. So that happened sooner, than you expected.
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.
You are entitled to your opinion and I'm confident that Matt Jefferies might have had different things in mind (like the turbo lift at the end of the Season One Jefferies Tube corridor because it was closest to the Bridge turbo shaft), but the directors and producers might have overruled his intentions and decided to proceed otherwise and that's what ended up on the screen, regardless whether we like it or not.
Since my concept of passion for accuracy in my deck plan project has been twisted because of erroneous assumptions, I'd like to state it: To proceed like an unbiased mindless robot / computer to assemble the corridor pieces and sets in such a manner that it matches what we see onscreen, leaves space for a credible turbo lift network and (hopefully) looks as good as possible in the end.
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?
If you are having issues with the studio set drawing (which is apparently a size-reduced reproduction attempt of the real thing
), rest assured that's not the only flaw (I'm merely using the available reproductions during the "dirty" WIP phase of my deck plans for orientation).
However, since you brought this up, I find it rather interesting that Franz Joseph kept the erroneous angle of the transporter console from the studio set drawing published in TMoST for his TM.
In addition to his erroneous type II phaser reproduction (which matches the flawed phaser photo cutout in TMoST) one could suspect that he only had TMoST to base and derive his work from.
But since I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and go with the statement that he had thousands of stills to work with, the apparent conclusion would be that none of these featured a transporter room scene from which he could have concluded that the angle of the console to the adjacent or opposite (entry) wall would rather be 90°.
To illustrate the ramifications of the "they didn't know what they were doing" suspicion amidst lack of actual knowledge, I'd like to refer to an example in my deck plan thread
(post # 177: "2 Recreation Rooms Three?").
Frankly, I had thought that Kirk carrying out Odona from a Rec Room set (near Kirk's cabin) in "The Mark of Gideon" was a production mistake.
I also thought that there was something wrong with Spock or the screenplay of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" according to which Lokai and Bele passed "Recreation Room 3" on two different decks.
hinted a solution to the riddle and suggested Rec Room 3 might have two levels, which suggested the existence of a stairway or elevator in this rec Room which then suggested that Kirk had actually entered rec Room 3 on Deck 4 and used the stairway or elevator to exit with Odona on Deck 5. It's also interesting that the same DP (Jud Taylor) was working with a redress of the rec room set in "Wink of an Eye" where huge GNDN pipes extended through the ceiling which would either leave a dead space in the rooms above or the space necessary for either a stairway or elevator.
Of course, instead of a deliberate intention this could just be a colossal coincidence. But in assuming "they didn't know what they were doing" we'd not only deprive the makers of Star Trek of their earned respect but ourselves of the opportunity to discover an interesting variation of the ship's interiors.
This particular example tells me, that I didn't look at all the alternate options (and that's definitely not the first time, I have to admit) and merely was lucky to find an alternate one. As an effect two seemingly production mistakes turned into the opposite.