I know there were a few other odds and ends from the series that made it to the book (this was after the first run of blueprints sold, remember), but I have no idea what was left of that. I -think- he got some shots of the set mini as well, which is what a lot of the diagrams was based on. Either way, though, it's absolutely amazing what he was able to accomplish, by hand, with what resources he DID have available.
Some of them I agree with others I don't. I agree (despite the bridge) Excelsior is 467 meters. I don't agree the Defiant is 120meters It has to be 170-200. Lets say most of them are pretty accurate unless we have to make judgment calls.
Jefferies didn't even remember he had that scale model of the soundstage until they were putting together the "Star Trek Sketchbook" some years ago. FJ based his layouts on the Stage 9 drawing and the descriptions that were in TMoST.
^Well, I suppose it's possible MJ had some Photos of the mini set to share, even if he had forgotten, at the time, as to the whereabouts of the actual item? But it does seem that FJ's primary source was the floor plan in TMOST. It's even possible to trace some of FJ's minor mistakes to that source (such as the omission of the decompression chamber in sickbay).
Well, that wasn't an original set either, so it doesn't prove either here nor there. And, it's also really hard to say what was still around from 1969-1973 that disappeared before 1979. It's possible that MJ had the mini set then, and FJ did indeed see it.. but I've got no idea. I just don't want to dismiss it outright as a possibility.
My understanding is that the miniature was buried in Jefferies' garage, and it wasn't until they started digging through all the boxes of drawings that it was unearthed.
My understanding is that the miniature was buried in Jefferies' garage, and it wasn't until they started digging through all the boxes of drawings for the "Star Trek Sketchbook" that it was unearthed.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well, but there's a lotta years between the end of TOS and reasearch for the sketchbook, so who knows? plenty of time for things to be buried and resurface, only to be buried and forgotten again? By the way, didn't FJ meet MJ and they got along famously due to a mutual love of airplanes, or am I thinking of someone else?
W3ll if the numb3r thr33 starts showing up 3xc3ssivl3y in our posts, th3n w3 should d3finitl3y tak3 it as a sign.
Which it doesn't. Not even close. Probably a mix of both, depending on what part of the ship you're in.
There's a big leap from "I read on a blog somewhere that some guy was fired for doing size comparisons of the old Enterprise" to "They showed active disdain for anyone who's actually paying attention." In fact, it's a pretty BIG damn leap when you consider that to this day we have only that one no-longer-existent (and in tone, sarcastic) blog post as a reference. For all we know, Mandel was fired for squeezing Zoe Saldana's ample nacelles. Which is a big leap from a big leap and incomprehensible to me. It's like "I heard a rumor that you fired a guy because he said nice things about his homosexual friend... so how come you hate gay people?"
So it's pretty obvious the new 2009 Enterprise was designed smaller, then scaled up to fit the sets and the shuttle bay scene. I can live with that fine. Is it really any different to the original Enterprise being scaled up to fit the bridge set into the new smaller dome? Otherwise The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone before have to take place on a totally different ship. Going back to the original poster's point, which I believe was asking if there's any reason to stick to dogmatic established sizes (which is what Bernd has done) when we know interior sets and other evidence shows it to be impossible. I don't have a problem really deciding in the ST09 continuity, ships are bigger. The important thing is that they are internally relatively consistent, with the huge Kevlin and other Starfleet ships, and indeed the Narada. It's a parallel universe where Kirk looks like Chris Pine instead of William Shatner. Everyone else looks totally different, apart from Nimoy from "our" universe. Surely splitting hairs over some vfx goofs whilst ignoring this is insane!
This is Trekkies we're talking about, though. As a casual perusal of the Tech, Art and Trek XI fora can tell you, though the franchise is supposed to be about the "Human Adventure," for many fans, hypothetical nonsense tech has become more important than people.
Is it any more "hypothetical nonsense" than asking why Picard (a non-existent person) is supposed to be French but speaks with a very English accent? Some people can get very vexed when storylines and characters/races do not fit with Canon, so why can't people get miffed when the Tech doesn't fit together properly? After all, the USS Enterprise is as much a character in Star Trek as the "carbon units" are. IMHO
Somewhat true, but when the Enterprise is the ONLY character that has any development, the result is usually a pretty crappy show.