In "Yesterday's Enterprise" we got our first look at the Ambassador-Class and for me it was love at first sight. I've been wondering though just what bridge posts would a ship of that era have? There is of course the Captain's Chair, then the two stations in front seemed to be Helm and Tactical (seeing as that was where Castillo and Yar sat for the Klingon attack and Yar once again resumed on re-entering the anomaly). After that its really anyone's guess. There were the three stations at the back of the bridge and the freestanding console between Helm/Tactical and the viewscreen. One of which has to be Operations, as a non-com was assigned to it as they prepared to depart. But would that era still have Navigation (seeing as how Castillo was referred to as Helm and Flight Control Officer)? I would assume Communications would be no longer, handled by Ops. Thoughts? Opinions? Wild guesses?
Just a few days ago I came across this. Just about every prime-Trek bridge variant can be found here. Although I don't agree with all of them (the Stargazer in particular - the way the crew enter the bridge suggests what they've labelled as a turbolift is actually a curved corridor), they're fascinating to look through and see how some of he odder bridges we've seen over the years (like the USS Sutherland) would fit into the bridge modules on the models.
As shown in "Yesterday's Enterprise," the bridge of the Enterprise-C was so... meh. I'd love to assume, as others have suggested, that what we saw was the auxiliary control room/battle bridge instead and assume the C had a much nicer main bridge we just didn't see.
I'm not sure if this is exactly on topic, but... There has been a lot of inconsistency in the ancillary Bridge Stations seating arrangements. Captain Nav/Ops always have seats, but the others may or may not. (same Bridge) With frequent violent percussions from Phasers/Torpedoes in battle, you'd think that a Chair and Seat Belts would have been standard equipment.
The Ent-C fascinates me. The bare metallic bridge and incomplete Wrath of Khan uniforms give the impression of a militarized Starfleet going through some kind of budget crisis. Although, and I'm not sure the angles used on the set actually allow for this interpretation, I've wondered if we were supposed to assume that those large rear consoles we see are supposed to continue around what would be a massive circular bridge?
Agreed... in some ways she even suggests to me a "throwback." Many of her visual cues suggest to me the TOS era. I've always inferred that Starfleet might have been over-extended during this era, possibly due to a sudden expansion and increased uncertainties with the Klingons and Cardassians. A worthy theory that makes me wish we didn't know what the set actually looked like. As I recall, that set was the battle bridge set, which was in turn a redress (and later rebuild) of the TMP film set, with the loss of several sections, serving as the bridge of Stargazer and Hathaway. I think the Lantree too. Plus, the courtroom in "Measure of a Man." Starfleet seemed to get unimaginative for a bit there eh? I seem to recall, although I'm not certain of the accuracy of this, that there was a fire on the sound stage where the TMP bridge was around '86 or '87, after the filming of the TVH scenes, that destroyed a good chunk of the set, and that's why, ultimately, the set wasn't a completely circular bridge. The other thing that bothered me about the C bridge? That damn forward console ahead of helm and navigation.
I'd like to see (future) Bridges in full Holographics. Where the area in front of Ops/Nav showed a full Tactical view of the Ship and surroundings, instead of that flat 2-deminsion view screen approach.
Didn't the Enterprise-E have a "holographic" viewscreen in First Contact? Oh and evidently Voyager's viewscreen is projected on a hologrid ala the Holodecks.
Yes to both. I believe the holoscreen on the E was replaced for "Insurrection." As I recall, we see Voyager's hologrid structure in "Year of Hell" when there's a hole there. It almost has to be some degree of holographic, since when we the viewers see it from the side, we actually see the subject on the screen from the side.
Why do you want a nicer bridge for that ship? In terms of aviation Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C (conference lounge wall display) rather has the sleek lines of a "Connie" while in comparison the Enterprise-C debuting in "Yesterday's Enterprise" rather invokes allusions of a "BUFF" B-52 Stratofortress. Considering that this was the only Starship Enterprise being defeated and humiliated, I wonder if what we saw on the conference lounge wall was actually the very first Enterprise-C before something happened to her like that Constitution Class starship that became NCC-1701-A. This might have been a period of time Starfleet doesn't really want to remember too well, doesn't want visitors to inquire to deeply about the actual history of the Enterprise-C, and therefore displays the "first" version of the C on the wall display and not the one we saw built as a VFX model. Just another rationalization attempt, I know. But I won't give up. Bob
Yes, I'm sure Starfleet is so humiliated by the fact that the Enterprise-C took on four Romulan warbirds by herself and gave them enough of a pasting to save a colony and guarantee peace between the Federation and Klingons that they try to forget it existed.
You are right, of course, but a defeat is a defeat nonetheless in the superficial eyes or ears of visitors that may not care for the actual details as much as we Terrans and Trekkers do. Usually the political agenda of the UFP is to adopt new members and highlight the advantages of strength of this kind of alliance. The wall display invites small talk, therefore I'm confident that UFP representatives would like to highlight accomplishments, but defeat, regardless against how many adversaries, might not actually qualify as such. Bob
She sacrificed herself for a planet full of non-Federation members. I'd be highlighting that on the UFP new members application. "If this is what we do for those guys, imagine what we'd do for you as a full member!"
Correction: "if this is what we do for <b>our enemies</b> imagine what we'd do for you as a full member!" dJE