RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,799
Posts: 5,325,813
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 510
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 5 2011, 06:37 AM   #436
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Tallguy wrote: View Post
...

Plus: The only time we see crew people (or civilians?) out of uniform is in the two pilots. Shades of the Galaxy class!
Mostly true. We did see Uhura in her civvies in "The Tholian Web." But I can't think of any other example. You'd imagine there would have been someone in a rec room or someplace, but I can't remember any.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2011, 10:04 AM   #437
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Janice Rand in "Charlie X". Kirk wore a jumper over a black turtleneck in "What Are Little Girls Made Of". And he and Spock wore 20th century clothing in "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Assignment: Earth".

I'm brain-farting on "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" ... was McCoy in Yonadan garb at any point?
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2011, 02:42 PM   #438
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Okay, yeah I forgot about Rand in CX. I'm not sure I'd count Kirk in WALGMO as it's essentially the uniform of those guys on Exo III not really civilian duds.

And I really don't count Kirk and Spock in 20th C clothing in CotEoF and A:E as those were both sort of "undercover" and dressed in local costume for the mission, not in their own clothes on the ship. If we were to include those occasions then that opens it up a lot and we should also count Kirk and crew in "Return of the Archons", Kirk and Spock undercover on Organia in "Errand of Mercy," Kirk and Spock dressed to the nines in "A Piece of the Action," Kirk and McCoy undercover on Neural in "A Private Little War," Kirk, Spock and McCoy dressed as Nazis in "Patterns of Force," the guys in neo-Roman slave T-shirts on "Bread and Circuses," Kirk in Romulan gear in "The Enterprise Incident," Kirk as Kirok in "The Paradise Syndrome," and Kirk and Crew in those Greek get-ups in "Plato's Stepchildren." None of which is an example of what they might wear in their off-time on board the ship.

As for ATWIHAIHTTS, I don't think McCoy ever did change his costume.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2011, 03:39 PM   #439
Tallguy
Fleet Captain
 
Tallguy's Avatar
 
Location: Beyond the Farthest Star
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I was referring to the rank and file crew, not Our Heroes. But even with the above examples, only two apply (since the others are off ship): Uhura and Rand. And both of those were in their own quarters.

I'm just pointing out the The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before featured scenes intended to show the crew off duty and relaxing out of uniform and we never saw that sort of thing again. If it weren't for TNG I probably would never reach the conclusion that any of those people might be civilians.
__________________
-- Bill "Tallguy" Thomas
"All I ask is a tall ship..."
Tallguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2011, 05:08 PM   #440
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

There was a lot more variation in clothing early in the series. We used to see jumpsuits, anti-radiation suits, pocket-covered "load-bearing vests," special clothing for medical personnel, and so on and so on.

By the end of the third season, they were down to only the basic tunics for pretty much everybody, though. I suspect that this was a cost-management measure, but it's a shame. I really liked the variety of uniforms seen in early episodes.

Now, for civilian clothing, well.. in TOS we saw very little of that, and it was generally lacy frilly things for girls, or very basic "jumpsuits" for men. I suspect that''s part of why they went so overboard in TSFS with the various civilian styles (and I feel for Walter Koenig for having to wear the "Buster Brown collar" to this day!)
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2011, 05:23 PM   #441
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

^^
Not sure if the decreased variety of clothing as the series progressed was because of fewer uniform types or that we simple saw fewer background people in general.

Wearing the proscribed uniform of the day even during off-duty times is standard operating procedure in modern navies, especially when at sea. There are a few exceptions (on my ship, Surf 'n' Turf Sundays) but mostly it is a combat readiness thing.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by BK613; August 6 2011 at 05:24 PM. Reason: editted my incoherence :-)
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2011, 05:42 PM   #442
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

^^ Perhaps all of the above? The production especially in the last season seem to have saved in costs by not showing very many extras Fewer extras mean fewer chances to see radically groovy clothing as Cary mentions
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2011, 06:05 PM   #443
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

One more TOS-movie era volume comparison...

Enterprise-refit ~238,000 m3
Reliant ~ 254,000 m3

Enterprise measured at 1000' x 465'. Reliant beam matched to 465' with a length of 791' (241m). As I suspected, that large back section gives her alot more volume to work with. Nacelles are rough placeholders, but mostly same for both Enterprise and Reliant (Reliant's nacelle lacks the bottom blister.)

Now how those power transfer shafts go from the engineering section to the nacelles on the Reliant - that's would be a challenge to map out


blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2011, 06:54 PM   #444
mattpiper
Ensign
 
Location: Carrollton, TX
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I'd suspected for awhile that the Miranda class had more interior volume than a Constitution class. Now we know for certain.
mattpiper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2011, 07:22 AM   #445
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Hmm. Studying some more there might be some interesting differences. When I match the top of the sensor domes on the bridges to each other from the top views, the Enterprise saucer diameter is somewhat larger. I had made the assumption that the saucers of the two ships were the same diameter. I wonder if the Reliant was meant to be smaller?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2011, 02:45 PM   #446
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
...what I said was only that those who treat that number as some sort of "holy article of faith" are being a bit silly, not that it's silly to prefer it. Nor was I necessarily attributing that to you... quite the contrary, in fact. As you said, you did make it quite clear that you don't have a "religious level of ferver" about this... and my comment was thus clearly not directed towards you.

There are a few people who actually get ANGRY if you question the "holy 947'" however... on the same level as if you'd suggested re-editing the entire TOS series to use the JJ-Prise instead of the TOS ship, as if a small shift in scale (which, I would argue, helps things match up better) is somehow on the same level as a total eradication of the original series design.

THOSE people are... yes, silly. I'd hope you'd agree.
I must admit to not really agreeing (though you weren't asking me). I just don't get all the discussion and disagreement over the size/scale of the original ship. It seems to stem for the most part from "wishful thinking" -- that somehow, someway, if we ignore what Jefferies told us, if we ignore the scale indicated on the two views of the ship given in "Day of the Dove", if we insist that a forced perspective (or otherwise distorted for purposes of fitting a camera) hangar deck miniature should be taken as the intended shape of that deck (even though it doesn't match the space allocated on either of Jefferies' cross sections)... if we do ALL these things and more, we can somehow get that big hangar deck shown in TAS. I'm not saying that this is why any particular person advocates dumping what was established onscreen, just that it seems to be a recurring theme in these discussions. "That hangar deck just isn't big enough for four shuttlecraft". And yet, it is. A 947' ship fits the bridge as filmed, and the hangar as it is meant to be (and as was drawn by Jefferies in the Phase II cross section).

We know what the designer intended. We know the shuttlecraft fit. We know the bridge fits. We know the size indicated on a scale bar onscreen. I just don't see the ongoing problem.

The only thing that I can see that leads you to a bigger ship is if we insist all the decks are as tall as those sets indicate. And yet Jefferies shows us that isn't the case. He has decks of varying heights, and decks that vary in height even on the same level. So, even here the only problem exists if we insist the ship to be something other than what we are told it is. Which is sort of like insisting it is over 1000' long when we are told it is 947'.


Last edited by aridas sofia; August 23 2011 at 04:55 PM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2011, 03:53 PM   #447
Tallguy
Fleet Captain
 
Tallguy's Avatar
 
Location: Beyond the Farthest Star
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Over 1000'?!?! I KEEL YOUUUUUU!

I want the to see the ship where the hangar can hold a fleet of airliners.
__________________
-- Bill "Tallguy" Thomas
"All I ask is a tall ship..."
Tallguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2011, 04:58 PM   #448
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Tallguy wrote: View Post
Over 1000'?!?! I KEEL YOUUUUUU!

I want the to see the ship where the hangar can hold a fleet of airliners.
That would be Ariel.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2011, 05:02 AM   #449
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
...what I said was only that those who treat that number as some sort of "holy article of faith" are being a bit silly, not that it's silly to prefer it. Nor was I necessarily attributing that to you... quite the contrary, in fact. As you said, you did make it quite clear that you don't have a "religious level of ferver" about this... and my comment was thus clearly not directed towards you.

There are a few people who actually get ANGRY if you question the "holy 947'" however... on the same level as if you'd suggested re-editing the entire TOS series to use the JJ-Prise instead of the TOS ship, as if a small shift in scale (which, I would argue, helps things match up better) is somehow on the same level as a total eradication of the original series design.

THOSE people are... yes, silly. I'd hope you'd agree.
I must admit to not really agreeing (though you weren't asking me). I just don't get all the discussion and disagreement over the size/scale of the original ship. It seems to stem for the most part from "wishful thinking" -- that somehow, someway, if we ignore what Jefferies told us, if we ignore the scale indicated on the two views of the ship given in "Day of the Dove", if we insist that a forced perspective (or otherwise distorted for purposes of fitting a camera) hangar deck miniature should be taken as the intended shape of that deck (even though it doesn't match the space allocated on either of Jefferies' cross sections)... if we do ALL these things and more, we can somehow get that big hangar deck shown in TAS. I'm not saying that this is why any particular person advocates dumping what was established onscreen, just that it seems to be a recurring theme in these discussions. "That hangar deck just isn't big enough for four shuttlecraft". And yet, it is. A 947' ship fits the bridge as filmed, and the hangar as it is meant to be (and as was drawn by Jefferies in the Phase II cross section).

We know what the designer intended. We know the shuttlecraft fit. We know the bridge fits. We know the size indicated on a scale bar onscreen. I just don't see the ongoing problem.

The only thing that I can see that leads you to a bigger ship is if we insist all the decks are as tall as those sets indicate. And yet Jefferies shows us that isn't the case. He has decks of varying heights, and decks that vary in height even on the same level. So, even here the only problem exists if we insist the ship to be something other than what we are told it is. Which is sort of like insisting it is over 1000' long when we are told it is 947'.

Except, of course, that that's not true. Deck placements are established by window positions, as seen on-screen. Deck heights and room configurations are indicated by on-screen scenes. Exterior shape is indicated by on-screen scenes.

The 947' number is never indicated at all, on-screen. It can only, and only just BARELY, be "derived" from a single illustration which does NOT list the length at all, but only shows a small scale-bar, and which was no more intended to be able to be read on-screen than the "insurance remaining" indicator on the TNG sickbay displays, or the "giant rubber ducks" on the TNG engineering displays, were intended to be studied in detail.

The fact remains that you simply cannot match EVERYTHING we've been given up. In your case, you tend to say that "sets can be smaller than we saw on-screen," so you can fit the remaining details.

And that's just fine... it's a fair approach, but it's a COMPROMISE. It is in violation of what is seen on-screen. You do have to acknowledge that, don't you?

To me, I just think that the sets... which were seen in every single episode, week after week, for three seasons, are far more relevant to "canon" than a single illustration which was never really even visible on-screen in any degree of detail, which was only seen for a brief few moments, and which shows a ship which is only marginally similar to the ship we actually see on-screen for every one of the 79 episodes of the series.

We're all forced to choose which bits we'll keep, and which we'll allow to "bend" a little bit. My approach is to say that what we see on-screen is what matters, far more than anything else, overall. Yours is to choose the 947' and to try your best to make things fit into that. BOTH APPROACHES ARE COMPROMISES, and neither is 100% in agreement with every bit of information out there.

Because some of that information is simply contradictory... it is literally impossible to get a perfect, 100% match-up.

Is the primary hull of the 1701 eleven decks thick (per the writer's guide) or is it eight decks thick (per MJ's diagrams)? Is there any undercut on the primary hull underside (as per the 11' and 3' models) or is that surface flat (per MJ's diagrams)? Where are the phasers? What is the shape of the ship overall? What is the window configuration?

How do you reconcile 100% of everything seen? The answer is... you can't. It's simply not possible.

Of course, it's far easier with Star Trek than it is for, say, Star Wars... just try fitting the Millennium Falcon's interior sets into the exterior (and which exterior? The one seen in the first film? The one seen in the Hoth hangar? The miniature from the first film, or one of those from the second and third films?). Or try figuring out where, on the Star Destroyer, that bridge really is, just for starters.

In my case, I discovered that by increasing the size of the ship just very slightly, I could get virtually everything to work out without even needing "tweaks."

I even discovered that I could put the standard "on-set corridor arc" onto more than half of my primary hull decks... six out of eleven of them (or rather, six out of ten... my deck 11 is basically a "crawl-space"). If it was at 947, I could only put this corridor arc onto four decks, and one of them would have no useable rooms on the outer side of that ring...

I barely "tweaked" the window locations... less than six inches up or down in most cases, from what was indicated on the various sets of prints I was using as a reference. And they ended up lining up nearly perfectly, with set distances from floor to window C/L.

At NO POINT did I ever try to match the "TAS" shuttle bay... my own shuttle bay is situated entirely behind the engine pylons, and I've been able to nearly perfectly replicate the on-screen image of the hanger bay in Maya using a virtual "wide-angle-lens." This would not have been possible had the ship been a bit smaller, though... I'd have had to compromise a lot more.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your own drawing of the Enterprise "guts," though I find the extensive terraced "stair-stepping" and the huge variety of different craft stuffed in there to be far too different than what was seen on-screen for me to "accept" it as the "correct" presentation. That's the fun thing... trying to make everything fit in a way which works with the image each of us carries around in our head, isn't it?

For me, I just know that the Enterprise isn't "really" 947' long. I know it's longer, but not dramatically so... 1067', in fact.

Meanwhile, you know that it's exactly 947' long, and that the sets we saw on-screen aren't "really" as big as we see.

Since the ship doesn't actually exist... it's hard to say which one is the "right" answer, now, isn't it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2011, 06:34 AM   #450
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I think it's funny how many people will casually throw out the 24 foot reference to a shuttlecraft's size from "The Galileo Seven" but religiously adhere to the 947 foot figure, which was never explicitly stated on screen.

Weird, huh?

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
decks, interior, movies, tos

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.