Enterprise-C Bridge Layout - Page 2

Blip · January 3 2013, 01:32 PM

Mark_Nguyen wrote:

Bry: here, under "Bridgs_Ambassador" - http://www.webolutionary.com/truespa...ry/seanr/temp/

I see the E-C bridge as presented as acceptable - it shares a similar minimalist layout as the E-D bridge, with three aft stations, CO, plus two (or four if you believe that the forward console is manned - I'm not one of those :P) forward stations. All that's missing is flanking chairs for the CO and a tactical rail. Also, the Stargazer and Hathaway (and Lantree, if you want to go that far) had similar minimalist bridges. Hathaway is literally the same set piece, too.

Mark

Yep, that's the one! Thanks for finding it.

I always felt this to be a much more logical representation of a step between Enterprises B and D...

Stargazer and Hathaway, being older vessels by probably a further 40 years over the Ent-C, I had no problem with using that bridge layout. But for the forerunner to the Galaxy class it's a little too limited by budgetary constraints IMO.

I do like the idea of the rear stations continuing round the circumference of the bridge though, to give a full-sized module. That could have been interesting.

Timo · January 3 2013, 02:00 PM

Let me get this straight: You refuted my comment on the original production intent (which is documented) on the basis that it was offscreen. And then you conjecture that hundreds of officers may be wearing enlisted jumpsuits offscreen, but we 'never saw them' to validate your viewpoint? Do you see what's wrong with that??

What I'm saying is that intent may manifest, or then not. If it does not, then it is meaningless. (And, OTOH, manifestation counts even if there is no intent behind it.)

And manifesting creates the key asymmetry here, through the fact that you can't prove a negative. Intent of officers wearing jumpsuits was manifest in DS9 and VOY, and officers wore jumpsuits, without particular intent, in TOS and TNG. That was a positive, and proved the mixed use paradigm, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

Nothing could ever prove that officers would not be entitled to wear a jumpsuit, though - nothing short of actual dialogue to that effect, that is. There would always linger the possibility that the evidence simply went unseen, the negative that cannot be proven.

The generally accepted thought on this is that Saavik was a pre-graduated Lt, who if I'm not mistaken had returned to the Academy for command training. Why else do you think she was taking the Kobayashi Maru test?

The concept of a pre-graduated Lt is a fictional one, although we do have "Acting Ensign Crusher". "Returning to the Academy", OTOH, is a valid concept in the real world, too, possibly even the very same thing as the "Advanced Tactical Training" that Ensign/Lieutenant Ro took prior to "Preemptive Strike". That somebody returning to Academy after graduation would be considered a "cadet" is again a fictional concept, and something the movie certainly does not require us to believe in, as Saavik is never addressed as Cadet.

The element of the uniform which denotes being a cadet is the bright red department undertunic, for both enlisted and officer cadets. Normal enlisted crewmembers wear a black undertunic, while officers of course have the appropriate dept colour.

Here we again run into odd fictional constructs: "enlisted cadet" doesn't exist for real. But the movie used the term "trainee" and Scotty said "the trainees ran" when we saw several of the jumpsuit people flee. So far, so good. This even creates a distinction between "trainees" and Midshipman Preston, which again is very welcome from the real-world viewpoint.

That red would denote student status is not explicit in this movie or others, though. Red reappears for Valeris (perhaps denoting instructor rather than student), while Picard in ST:NEM wears the black collar with the jumpsuit but in "Tapestry" the white collar with the tunic. And in the first movie, red had more or less the same meaning as in TOS, and was worn by Scotty; in the second movie, it is worn by Scotty's students, offering a possible alternate interpretation.

The intent of costume designer Bob Fletcher here is known, but there's no good reason to have it override the evidence of our own eyes, as Fletcher's thinking was never turned into dialogue, whereas some elements contrary to it were.

Timo Saloniemi

Mark_Nguyen · January 3 2013, 06:14 PM

Timo wrote:

Hathaway is literally the same set piece, too.

...But with exciting asymmetry. What do you think that emergency ladder pillar thingamabob was all about? Something that would descend from the ceiling for purposes of evacuation or maintenance, and be neatly stowed away in all but the most derelict ships? An intruder control system designed to knock out people who would assume the main entry door would be unobstructed?

There's one TNG pulpit up on the central pedestal, next to the CO chair, and one down to port, only barely glimpsed. Would there be another to starboard, perhaps? And how big is the viewscreen, with our heroes looking rather high up at it in some scenes, but down from Riker's eye level in others?

There's a lot that can be inferred from the Hathaway design - I'm anxiously awaiting the blu-ray aps on Trekcore, to see all sorts of new details we havne't been able to before!

The ladder thingy I always thought was an emergency support strut to keep the roof up (or the floor down). I can't remember is it was labeled at all... Still, it could be somethign that comes up or down for emergency egress.

As for the odd placement of the consoles, I figured two options:

1) It's just the way it was designed or configured for the last mission. There may or may not be another console on the other side of the bridge. Production suggests no, since the forward console props are usually made in pairs and there were probably only two made as a set (previously seen on the E-D battle bridge and various guest starship bridges - these are the oler ones with the severely-reclining chairs), with Worf's featuring an added greeblie glued on top and spraypainted to match. I certainly like the idea of an asymetrical bridge layout, but Bridge designs to tend to make a crazy sort of sense in the Trek context, and that sense usually includes a symmetrical bridge. OTOH< a "clean layout as depicted here does look kinda cool:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fadmvul...548317/detail/

2) The whole bridge module was cobbled together from whatever was lying around the supply depot or wherever the ship was sitting before (Qualor II? Strange how the Zakdorn are involved in two episodes featuring decommissioned Federation starships) for wargame purposes. The Hathaway bridge certainly doesn't seem like it was recently decommissioned. It's possible she'd been languishing in a supply depot for years, then when it came time to get a subject for a MacGyver exercise, Klim Dokachim selected a barely flightworthy hull from his list and made sure it had the bare essentials for it.

Someone could have been sent to take some crated old consoles and seats (the originals having long-since been removed to keep other Constellation-class or similar starships going), bolt them in place for a makeshift tactical and con/ops stations (we know a captain's chair can have backup con/ops controls in the armrests per Wesley, and the chair has the same popout armrest consoles as Picard's first one), and put a support strut in place to make sure the bulkheads didn't cave in (or fly off) for the duration. Someone else got some surplus seats to put at the aft consoles (they look like stripped-down USAF ejection seats from the Paramount prop stores) and they left everything else in place for the wargames crew to use as-is. Maybe they even left the matching console to Worf's seat pushed up in the corner in case someone could put it in play (it wasn't covered up, but all the other freestanding consoles were tarped over). One warp speed tow later, and there you have it.

Mark

Timo · January 3 2013, 09:08 PM

The ladder thingy I always thought was an emergency support strut to keep the roof up (or the floor down). I can't remember is it was labeled at all... Still, it could be somethign that comes up or down for emergency egress.

I recall an "EMERGENCY USE ONLY" sticker, the only legible piece of text on the set, being more or less in focus when our heroes first enter.

Which is too bad, because the bridge dome of the ship is of a somewhat exotic type in comparison with the Constitution or Miranda ones, and might warrant regular access to an upper level...

Production suggests no

I'm not sure I'd let production concerns influence this, as production also dictates the set had no forward half but we still have to postulate one for the "actual" bridge. But point taken: the set probably did not feature a third such pulpit.

There are rather few chairs there: even the TOS bridge had two seats in addition to the CO chair and the sextet (here just a duo?) of background chairs. An additional one would be rather welcome, assuming the ship still required Helm and Navigation specialists, or even if only assuming the ship had Conn but also Ops and Worf was neither. Only one of the background consoles appears properly crewed during the wargames...

The whole bridge module was cobbled together from whatever was lying around the supply depot or wherever the ship was sitting

Makes some sense: we already have reason to suspect that, in-universe, these TNG pulpits are modular units that can move around between episodes and aren't attached to the floor particularly firmly even during a given single adventure. Slap some in place of a lost or destroyed Helm/Nav console, and voila.

Incidentally, is this the reason the two chairs on the background appear so infernally uncomfortable? Were their cushions ripped out or eaten by Berellian Styrofoamworms? Them being original gear or off-the-shelf antiques in their normal condition, in-universe, is a bit dubious...

...As is them being actual furniture ITRW. The ejection seat observation sounds very plausible!

Timo Saloniemi

Blip · January 4 2013, 12:52 AM

Timo wrote:

What I'm saying is that intent may manifest, or then not. If it does not, then it is meaningless. (And, OTOH, manifestation counts even if there is no intent behind it.)

Or, you can be a little more rational, accept that the production teams on the various series and movies were only human, and therefore made mistakes; and move on -- rather than trying to twist them into some semblance of a personal canon.

Personally I think I'll stick with what was a well thought out and comprehensive design guide - most of which made it onscreen - and ignore the minor production flubs which arose later down the line.

The concept of a pre-graduated Lt is a fictional one,

On this we agree, but then I never stated otherwise.

although we do have "Acting Ensign Crusher". "Returning to the Academy", OTOH, is a valid concept in the real world, too, possibly even the very same thing as the "Advanced Tactical Training" that Ensign/Lieutenant Ro took prior to "Preemptive Strike". That somebody returning to Academy after graduation would be considered a "cadet" is again a fictional concept, and something the movie certainly does not require us to believe in, as Saavik is never addressed as Cadet.

Indeed she is not, however her status during said mission is that of a student -- hence the red undertunic. Call it command school, call it whatever you want, but this does make sense; it's clear she is under some form of instruction/tutoring at that time. For all we know she may have been a junior science officer prior to this. Or a botanist...

Here we again run into odd fictional constructs: "enlisted cadet" doesn't exist for real. But the movie used the term "trainee" and Scotty said "the trainees ran" when we saw several of the jumpsuit people flee. So far, so good. This even creates a distinction between "trainees" and Midshipman Preston, which again is very welcome from the real-world viewpoint.

Agreed. I don't recall if there were any officer cadets on the Bridge Simulator when Spock uttered "Trainees, to the briefing room," was that blond kid playing navigator at the time?

That red would denote student status is not explicit in this movie or others, though. Red reappears for Valeris (perhaps denoting instructor rather than student), while Picard in ST:NEM wears the black collar with the jumpsuit

Why are you twisting yourself up in knots trying to shoehorn production errors in again?

And in the first movie, red had more or less the same meaning as in TOS, and was worn by Scotty; in the second movie, it is worn by Scotty's students, offering a possible alternate interpretation.

And yet it's quite clear that between the two movies dept colours have been reassigned somewhat -- just as they were between TOS and TMP, TUC and TNG, etc. I fail to see why you're reaching so much here? Scotty by TWOK is wearing gold as his uniform undershirt, which from then on and into TNG onwards, is apparently considered an Engineering/services/operations dept colour.

The intent of costume designer Bob Fletcher here is known, but there's no good reason to have it override the evidence of our own eyes, as Fletcher's thinking was never turned into dialogue, whereas some elements contrary to it were.

On the contrary, good old fashioned common-sense would be better applied: We know that the subsequent production teams can and did make mistakes, either through lack of reference materials, time, money, or possibly even willpower in some cases. Why is that so hard to accept?

And furthermore, with regards how it pertains to your thoughts on the Ent-C bridge stations: Who's to say the regular bridge crew weren't already dead or injured prior to enlisted crew taking over?

Timo · January 4 2013, 01:14 AM

Or, you can be a little more rational, accept that the production teams on the various series and movies were only human, and therefore made mistakes; and move on -- rather than trying to twist them into some semblance of a personal canon.

I vastly prefer systematic over "rational" because what makes sense and what does not is always highly subjective. And what "deviates from intent", or is an "error", is a matter of opinion when the end product is considered. Much of Star Trek is just error piled upon error, but that's how fictional universes are built. The entire initial costuming of TNG is just a series of errors and misunderstood, mis-executed intent, after all: Spiner ends up with mustard rather than blue or red by sheer accident, and the concept of Operations Officer is born; Stewart looks better in red than mustard, and suddenly the concept of Redshirt is gone.

I don't recall if there were any officer cadets on the Bridge Simulator when Spock uttered "Trainees, to the briefing room," was that blond kid playing navigator at the time?

Yup. But perhaps tellingly (and purely accidentally), neither he nor Saavik made an effort to go to the briefing room when the order was given. Saavik lingered; the blonde bloke disappeared from view.

It would be nice to be able to think that "Cadet" and "Midshipman" still refer to the academic students of naval soldiering, while "Trainee" refers to the enlisted lot. Whether there is a distinction between Cadet and Midshipman might depend on whether we really believe Peter Preston was a kid of fourteen, a classic case of sailing ship era Midshipmen but different from what we'd learn about Starfleet Cadets in the spinoff shows. Perhaps Starfleet readily takes in underage Midshipmen for "learn at work" studies, but people of such a low age have to compete fiercely, TNG "Coming of Age" style, to earn Cadet status in the rare underage quota?

That's nuances, though; splitting the redcollar lot to enlisted Trainees and another, academic, eventually commissioned bunch suffices for upholding naval tradition without contradicting the evidence. And yeah, Saavik sounds like a postgraduate taking Command School after brief field experience, whereas Kirk in both timelines apparently took Command as part of his undergraduate studies (unlike Saavik, he explicitly did the supposed final exam, the Kobayashi Maru simulation, while being addressed as Cadet, and we never saw any marks of commissioning on him at the time of the exam).

Why are you twisting yourself up in knots trying to shoehorn production errors in again?

Because errors are more common than lack thereof; intent, unless extremely rigorously enforced, simply fails to stick. Especially when it comes to costuming.

Bob Fletcher devised an elaborate scheme of uniforms and department colors. Elaborate is recipe for disaster without proper supervision, which the scheme never got. We're far better off forgetting all about this supposed scheme and simply believing what we see, which is a series of random costuming decisions across a range of movies and episodes.

Who's to say the regular bridge crew weren't already dead or injured prior to enlisted crew taking over?

Well, that was one of the original possibilities, the one negating the value of onscreen evidence. But it's not the only one - and accepting that the rigid uniform scheme of Fletcher never worked only makes things simpler, not more complex.

Timo Saloniemi

Spike730 · January 4 2013, 10:50 AM

For all we know she may have been a junior science officer prior to this

That's probably the best explanation. It would also explain the grey Science Dep. slash on her uniform in TSFS.

BTW: Scotty's trainees wore red divisions bands with mustard slashes; Saavik a red band with a white slash.
http://startrekpropcollector.com/tre...100590b4b71ef9

Blip · January 4 2013, 11:36 AM

Timo wrote:

TNG is just a series of errors and misunderstood, mis-executed intent, after all: Spiner ends up with mustard rather than blue or red by sheer accident, and the concept of Operations Officer is born; Stewart looks better in red than mustard, and suddenly the concept of Redshirt is gone.

Hardly a valid argument - these are examples of pre-production decisions made to alter the departmental colours, resulting from costume & makeup screen tests with the actors; not some blatant error after the fact (such as giving Tuvok LtCmdr pips as of Caretaker in VOY, when he was only full Lt at that point).

Yup. But perhaps tellingly (and purely accidentally), neither he nor Saavik made an effort to go to the briefing room when the order was given. Saavik lingered; the blonde bloke disappeared from view.

Hmm, I'd love it if that were so... may have to get my TWOK copy out and have an abbreviated viewing!

It would be nice to be able to think that "Cadet" and "Midshipman" still refer to the academic students of naval soldiering, while "Trainee" refers to the enlisted lot. Whether there is a distinction between Cadet and Midshipman might depend on whether we really believe Peter Preston was a kid of fourteen, a classic case of sailing ship era Midshipmen but different from what we'd learn about Starfleet Cadets in the spinoff shows. Perhaps Starfleet readily takes in underage Midshipmen for "learn at work" studies, but people of such a low age have to compete fiercely, TNG "Coming of Age" style, to earn Cadet status in the rare underage quota?

He certainly looks a lot younger.. Also note Scotty makes a distinction between Preston and the trainees (not "other" trainees!) that fled engineering. Intentional? Flub? You decide...

That's nuances, though; splitting the redcollar lot to enlisted Trainees and another, academic, eventually commissioned bunch suffices for upholding naval tradition without contradicting the evidence.

See Spike730's comments re the dept colour slashes. He's entirely correct.

Kirk in both timelines apparently took Command as part of his undergraduate studies (unlike Saavik, he explicitly did the supposed final exam, the Kobayashi Maru simulation, while being addressed as Cadet, and we never saw any marks of commissioning on him at the time of the exam).

Let's not try to use the reboot as an argument for the original canon, shall we? There are more worms there than can possibly be digested in one sitting...

Because errors are more common than lack thereof;

Now that is simply not true - otherwise Kirk and co. would be department-hopping every other week.

Bob Fletcher devised an elaborate scheme of uniforms and department colors.

What he did was develop wide range of uniforms, to more closely echo a real-life navy - rather than the exact same blinking bell-bottom/tunic/boots ensemble that TOS had. The same was attempted in TMP, but with much less success. I may not agree with the Big Red Jackets, but everything else was spot on AFAIC.

Elaborate is recipe for disaster

So is simple, if the amount of mistakes made in the latter series are anything to go by. Are you going to do the same contortions in order to excuse all of their little flubs?

accepting that the rigid uniform scheme of Fletcher never worked only makes things simpler, not more complex.

Versus assuming that either at least some of those enlisted crewmembers were there because they were, in fact, fully qualified and did operate those positions; or because the regular bridge crew were already injured/dead/dying?

Riiiight.

Timo · January 4 2013, 12:00 PM

Lots of agreement with the above. Points of disagreement or ambiguity:

See Spike730's comments re the dept colour slashes. He's entirely correct.

The slash thing appears in two forms in Fletcher's notes: color on red, and red on color. Lamentably, that's not quite systematically applied in practice, as none of the Academy scenes feature the supposed "instructor" model, red on color. Dropping the concept and accepting full red as a generic Academy color applicable to instructors as well would basically eliminate some discrepancies, such as Valeris.

Let's not try to use the reboot as an argument for the original canon, shall we?

I'm curious as to what the next movie in the reboot series has to offer in the uniform, rank, and training department; so far, things don't seem to be too contradictory...

But even dismissing STXI, the backstory of ST2 has Kirk do the no-win scenario and thus supposedly complete his Command studies while a "Cadet", as per McCoy's words. Makes sense, I guess: driven individuals won't wait until after graduation. Saavik may have dedicated the precious study hours to some sciences pursuit or another, calculating that she could get the command training later on; the Academy certainly appears flexible that way, in both universes.

Now that is simply not true - otherwise Kirk and co. would be department-hopping every other week.

If we don't count onscreen hours but rather individual costuming decisions, it's not really exaggerated to say that more (main and guest) characters in TOS are introduced in "wrong" colors or ranks than in "right" ones. When they then stick to those, wrong simply becomes right.

Are you going to do the same contortions in order to excuse all of their little flubs?

Basically, I'm saying that none of the complex models created backstage are valid, and that the simple thing is to assume Starfleet in-universe uses a complex (or flexible) model that differs from the defunct intended ones. The little flubs are features rather than bugs: some science officers really wear red in TOS for some unknown but perfectly valid reason, and the "single excuse" that this just happens and should happen is better than the "double excuse" that this was an error motivated by this complex out-universe factor or other (the character looked better in that color, there were no sizes available that week for the other color, whatnot).

Versus assuming that either at least some of those enlisted crewmembers were there because they were, in fact, fully qualified and did operate those positions; or because the regular bridge crew were already injured/dead/dying?

The former seems unlikely, considering how officer-heavy all the TOS movie era bridges are under this particular uniform scheme, and how TNG goes all-officer with the next uniform scheme again.

The latter is a perfectly okay explanation. Still, those officers apparently weren't killed by exploding consoles, as the consoles are intact - begging the question of what killed or incapacitated them; did all perhaps stand beneath one of those collapsing girders? Or would this lend support to the model of a large, round bridge, where officers at forward stations were lost when half the bridge was destroyed? We could even speculate that the bridge lost life support at some point when Garrett was elsewhere (scrambing up from her quarters in the early stages of the fight?), killing everybody on the bridge, and life support was subsequently restored and the bridge crewed by the personnel we see.

But Fletcher's scheme already crumbles under the weight of errors elsewhere, so it should not be considered as a strict limiting factor when considering our options here, either.

Timo Saloniemi

Blip · January 4 2013, 03:10 PM

Timo wrote:

The slash thing appears in two forms in Fletcher's notes: color on red, and red on color. Lamentably, that's not quite systematically applied in practice, as none of the Academy scenes feature the supposed "instructor" model, red on color.

Agreed, but all we do is ignore the production failures; it's quite simple.

Dropping the concept and accepting full red as a generic Academy color applicable to instructors as well would basically eliminate some discrepancies, such as Valeris.

And if it were a "real" scenario that would be completely and utterly stupid: You'd have no way to distinguish between a graduated Lt who works as an Academy instructor, and a Lt who is at the Academy and attending further training courses.

Valeris was a costuming error; it's as simple as that. By rights she ought to have been wearing operations gold for her undertunic, so the fact that they mixed in a red undertunic is the absolute least of my concerns.

Saavik may have dedicated the precious study hours to some sciences pursuit or another, calculating that she could get the command training later on; the Academy certainly appears flexible that way, in both universes.

On this it seems we all agree. I'd go so far as to suggest that Saavik had graduated as a junior science(s) officer some time prior to TWOK, supported by her manning Navigation during that film (Chekov setting the precedent, IIRC he was able to stand-in at the science station in TOS), and then assigned as Science Officer, probably Head of Sciences; or possibly even Exec on Grissom.

If we don't count onscreen hours but rather individual costuming decisions, it's not really exaggerated to say that more (main and guest) characters in TOS are introduced in "wrong" colors or ranks than in "right" ones.

A) TOS has little to do with this, as the 1701-C appeared in a TNG episode.
B) Go and count all of the costumes used for Starfleet guest appearances on TNG, go on. I dare ya. When you compile a complete list and you've determined how many were right or wrong, come back and we'll talk.

When they then stick to those, wrong simply becomes right.

And when have they stuck with these mistakes? Even Tuvok eventually was given appropriate rank insignia. (and then later on promoted up to LtCmdr).

Basically, I'm saying that none of the complex models created backstage are valid, and that the simple thing is to assume Starfleet in-universe uses a complex (or flexible) model that differs from the defunct intended ones.

Trying to wrangle up some other "complex (or flexible) model" for Starfleet is not the simple option. You're trying to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with. And as far as those models being valid is concerned: I'll take Bob Fletcher's word over yours any day of the week!

It sounds more like what you're saying is: You want to replace one model which was perfectly rational, and despite your protestations is not really that complex; comes from a member of the original production team, and furthermore was adhered to in all subsequent productions (albeit somewhat sloppily by the time of TNG) with something infinitely less consistent, and over-complicated -- all so you can fit production flubs into your personal head canon.

The former seems unlikely, considering how officer-heavy all the TOS movie era bridges are under this particular uniform scheme, and how TNG goes all-officer with the next uniform scheme again.

And yet we see a large number of extras in the later TOS movies manning assorted stations on the various bridges. It could very well be that by the 2340s we see the outcome of a long slide towards greater complements of enlisted crew versus officers. Likewise, there are a good 20/+ years until TNG rolls out so that the reverse may have occurred (though with the Ent-D being the flagship by that point, this may not be par for the course throughout the fleet!) ETA: I assume of course you mean rank scheme, not uniform; since by that era the uniforms are... *ahem* uniform for all personnel.

Not that I'm necessarily arguing the point on this one - it's merely a possibility.

Still, those officers apparently weren't killed by exploding consoles, as the consoles are intact - begging the question of what killed or incapacitated them;

Good point - this could be taken as supporting that this is merely an Auxiliary Control, and that the regular bridge officers are corpses somewhere on the Main Bridge.

But Fletcher's scheme already crumbles under the weight of errors elsewhere, so it should not be considered as a strict limiting factor when considering our options here, either.

In your opinion. Personally I'll take the official production materials as they were intended, and consider this to be another TNG-era production c^ck up...

Timo · January 4 2013, 10:16 PM

To put the fundamental problem simply, it is your approach that is "head canon", because it is in clear conflict with onscreen facts, that is, the Star Trek universe as portrayed to us. Errors are onscreen facts, therefore real. Schemes are offscreen ideas, therefore unreal and irrelevant. They just confuse the issue, creating expectations the actual show doesn't always meet.

I'll go for the dare over the weekend, but I'll just clarify in advance that I'll be counting speaking-part guest stars rather than recycled extras (speaking or non-speaking). Although the latter present a problem of their own when the same face is associated with multiple colors of uniform...

Good point - this could be taken as supporting that this is merely an Auxiliary Control, and that the regular bridge officers are corpses somewhere on the Main Bridge.

That's a strong candidate for an explanation. OTOH, that would force us to invent an excuse for why Garrett abandoned her post up there...

Timo Saloniemi

Mr. Laser Beam · January 4 2013, 10:36 PM

Mark_Nguyen wrote:

As for the odd placement of the consoles, I figured two options:

1) It's just the way it was designed or configured for the last mission. There may or may not be another console on the other side of the bridge.

I thought that there was (i.e. that the counterpart to Worf's console on the Hathaway had just been removed or dismantled, leaving his as the only one left) but that's not the case. On that ship, the captain's chair and that one console are all that there is at that location. You can tell by the pedestal they're sitting on. There's no room for an equivalent console on the other side of the captain - the pedestal is built for exactly that width, for the command chair and the one console. That's it. Neither of them is at center.

Which is odd, really. Although I chalk this up to my irritating sense of order. I hate it when bridges aren't symmetrical.

Crazy Eddie · January 4 2013, 10:59 PM

Timo wrote:

To put the fundamental problem simply, it is your approach that is "head canon", because it is in clear conflict with onscreen facts, that is, the Star Trek universe as portrayed to us. Errors are onscreen facts, therefore real.

But not always meaningful, and therefore could be ignored as being either isolated cases or just minor breaches of protocol that nobody noticed. In the case of Valeris' shirt, for example, it actually works just as well to assume that the quartermaster simply ran out of red shirts in her size and gave her a white one instead.

Blip wrote:

And yet we see a large number of extras in the later TOS movies manning assorted stations on the various bridges. It could very well be that by the 2340s we see the outcome of a long slide towards greater complements of enlisted crew versus officers. Likewise, there are a good 20/+ years until TNG rolls out so that the reverse may have occurred (though with the Ent-D being the flagship by that point, this may not be par for the course throughout the fleet!) ETA: I assume of course you mean rank scheme, not uniform; since by that era the uniforms are... *ahem* uniform for all personnel.

Considering Chief O'Brien has effectively never been an officer throughout TNG, despite occasionally having the pips for it, it's entirely likely that a lot of the extras running around on the ship during TNG's run aren't actually officers at all. There may be some cosmetic difference in O'Brien's pips that doens't show up on screen; say, the officers pips are silver while the noncoms are bronze? The only thing indicating O'Brien might be an officer is when Riker calls him "Lieutenant" in that one episode; easily explained by saying Riker wasn't paying attention and misspoke.

Mark_Nguyen · January 4 2013, 11:15 PM

I thought that there was (i.e. that the counterpart to Worf's console on the Hathaway had just been removed or dismantled, leaving his as the only one left) but that's not the case. On that ship, the captain's chair and that one console are all that there is at that location. You can tell by the pedestal they're sitting on. There's no room for an equivalent console on the other side of the captain - the pedestal is built for exactly that width, for the command chair and the one console. That's it. Neither of them is at center.

Well, by "other side of the bridge", I meant that there might be a match to the other console that we see on the side of the bridge when everyone first comes in. We don't see the corresponding part of the set on the starboard side, so there conceivably could be one sitting there. In production reality theyre probably wasn't, since that and Worf's console are two elements of a pair of consoles we usually see on guest starships; but in-universe, assuming the side console was part of a symmetrical setup, there could have been a third console on teh starboard side of the bridge.

But as I mentioned earlier, I like the notion that the two-seat central config we saw was hastily slapped together by someone before the Hathaway was towed to the site of the exercises. IMO it could easily represent the bare minimum that a crew would need to fly and fight the ship (something we sorta see again in "Relics" with Geordi manning the CO seat with con/ops panels and Scotty backing him up on the engineering console in that case) so that's what they started with.

For all we know, in the latter part of the episode both the side console we see and a potential third console were both manned and simply out of sight since we don't see them at all after the establishing shot later on. IMO no, but we can't positively rule it out.

Mark

Mr. Laser Beam · January 4 2013, 11:29 PM

Mark_Nguyen wrote:

Well, by "other side of the bridge", I meant that there might be a match to the other console that we see on the side of the bridge when everyone first comes in. We don't see the corresponding part of the set on the starboard side, so there conceivably could be one sitting there.

IIRC, the dual setup of Riker's command chair and Worf's console is at the dead center of the bridge. Both of those things themselves are off center, of course, but the midpoint between them is the center.

Although I do agree that this was probably an emergency bridge just thrown together at random. There's no way Starfleet would design a real bridge that looked like that. As I said, it looks bad because it's not symmetrical.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US