But where does it end?!?!?
For the love of ptomaine, are you also going to make sure the walls of the corridors actually bend and move in your plans when someone slams into them ... or are you going to make every single curved corridor have exactly
the same radius and degree of arc? After all, that's all we saw onscreen! The same
corridor at the same
curvature over and over and over again. If you're going to say that there are other corridors on other parts of the saucer that are at different curvatures, then that's not being true to the onscreen evidence. That's making a bigger pie than we were shown
This is exactly the kind of feedback I'd seriously love to see more in my deck plan thread, critical questions that deserve answers.
We all do know (
) that we are looking at an ambitioned 1960's TV production with severe budget restraints requiring our imagination to fill in some gaps or blanks, and nobody expected that all these production details would be examined by later generations with a magnifying glass as we do today.
Therefore we could / should regard a number of details with a grain of salt, but the (philosophical) question is, indeed, where you draw the line. Obviously, as in my thread this discussion just came up, there appears to be a difference in opinion between blssdwlf
My approach tries to satisfy what the interested TOS viewer expects to "find" on these deck plans (without the use of magnifying glasses or rulers and going into rationalization "overdrive") but also what a hardcore TOS fan expects to see.
IMHO, the physical studio set and its rooms had to present not only the main, inner corridor but also outer corridors with a different radius and outer rooms (I believe that the reception room in "Journey to Babel" was close to the three circular bow windows which we didn't see because of budget restraints - and therefore have to rely on our imagination but also disregard for that moment the actual curvature of the briefing room set...).
The transition from "Kirk's corridor" at the beginning of "Journey to Babel" to a more innermost one is what I regard as proof for the aforementioned theory.
But, of course, if you are allowed to extend the radius of the studio corridor why should it be forbidden to reduce it to place a narrower circular corridor into the engineering hull and wrap it around the Engineering Core?
Essentially, that's what I did and the great yellow circle marking at the bottom of the engineering hull provided the perfect excuse.
While we hardcore fans do know the actual radius of the Studio set and can find fault with this approach, the "interested" viewer would most likely not notice.
All he expects to see is a circular corridor where - as the characters proceed through it - the doors in the background eventually disappear from sight, regardless of the actual corridor configuration.
I really dislike what I had
to do here, but the only other option was assuming a length of the Enterprise
exceeding 1,048 or 1,080' and that's a price I wasn't willing to pay for (what I should not
have done in the drafts was to fill the corridor walls around the E-Core with black paint, because now it sticks out like a sore thumb. I assume the hard job of my friend Andy and myself will be to design the blank and unseen areas surrounding the core in a fashion that it will hopefully make the whole thing look more believable and better).
Well, at least in the saucer deck plans I try to slavishly adhere to accomodate all "medical ward" corridors seen onscreen with their studio set compliant actual radius on Decks 5 thru 7.