Damage to the Enterprise D 6 foot model

Checkout some of the photos at the link in my previous post.

 

Not just the photos - the whole article is worth reading. Thanks!

 

This is not about what Mr. Probert intended or not, but the final scale of the 6-footer as seen on screen.

The 6-footer has at least two external features that enable us to conclude the correct in-universe size, i.e. the windows of the Conference Lounge at the back of the bridge and the diameter of the port docking port (i.e. "11001001").

According to those there'd be only space for one deck on the saucer's rim of the 6-footer, but that wasn't considered when the idea of Ten Forward came into being.

Apparently the rim became a lot thicker on the 4-footer to compensate, I still wonder why they didn't use the four large windows above the Captain's Yacht for the location of Guinan's bar, instead.

Bob

 

Along with the numerous other photos that have been posted by other members, here's a shot that really shows the differences.

Six Foot

Four foot


EAS also has a bunch of comparisons in their TNG-HD reviews.

 

That shows the situation well. I've often wondered, did the corresponding windows on the Engineering Hull get thickened up as well? Judging by those comparison shots I'd say yes! Which throws up the question of where Deck 36 (Main Engineering) is now. Are there still 42 decks in total? With the extra one(s) created due to the 4' refit, wouldn't there now be 44?

 

thanks... natch! I'll study these

 

ok

Thank you for the pictures. In those pictures, the larger model looks sleeker. Could be the lighting, plus it could be after improvements were made for Generations, or it could be that this was how it always looked. The four-footer definitely has a greebled look. I'm sure if I saw them in person, the four-foot would probably look better, but hey I'm impressed with the 6-footer.

Odd.

 

I like the sleeker look too, and I don't really care if the outside windows don't match up with what's supposed to be inside. My imagination is big enough to make up the difference.

 

That shot is pre-Generations.

 

I've seen the 4-footer in person, and it's pretty rough. It looks like a model kit, and time has not been kind to it. The 6-footer, though I haven't seen in person, looks awesome. Every line, every edge, perfect. On the 4-footer, edges look rough and uneven.

Pictures of the 6-footer at auction: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/EnterpriseD.html

Picture of the 4-footer at exhibition: http://0.tqn.com/d/detroit/1/0/r/7/-/-/Enterprise.JPG

 

They didn't have to re-scale anything, especially because it changed the shape of the ship and it lost its sleak lines.
So Ten Forward technically didn't fit into the original model, big whoop, 99% of the audience would never have noticed.
What many people noticed was the ship changing shape when they switched between stock footage shots.

Sets almost never fit exactly into their exteriors, it's most noticable with sitcom houses but no one would dare to change the shape of the house. At some point it is what it is, people notice, people make jokes about it and them they keep watching the show.

Having a too thin saucer rim for the entire show would have been no problem, it didn't really matter. The ship changing in appearance on the ither hand was a travesty.

 

Even in the VFX footage it always looked to me as if the ship had gotten some kind of skin or hull disease.

The reasoning to build the 4-footer is perfectly understandable to me, but all this extra surface paneling probably meant extra time - and money.

Matt Jefferies kept the original TOS Enterprise deliberately and as much as possible free from unnecessary protruding hull elements, which, IMHO, also suggested a "big" ship and the same applies to the TNG 6-footer, because I think the 4-footer makes the ship somewhat appear smaller than it actually is.

Just because we have to accept this, doesn’t mean we should or have to like this. Andrew Probert was well aware of this Hollywood attitude - first in TMP, then in TNG – and tried to design accordingly, i.e. he designed his TNG shuttle in a way so that the outside could actually match the interiors.

Why the decision was made to locate Ten Forward in the saucer’s rim is still beyond me.

The cost to build the actual set just above the (in-universe) Captain’s Yacht would have been the same and they would have had the large windows, they wanted to look outside, there too. It just shows that the people who squeezed Ten Forward into the rim didn’t understand the scale and the options the Enterprise-D had available, obviously.

Bob

 

And I though we TOSsers had it bad when the nacelle end caps changed. At least the same ship model was used!

I wonder though, according to TPTB, which E-D design is the "correct" one? The 4' model obviously took preference as the series wore on, but then they went and used the 6' model for Generations!

 

Double post

 

I'd say that since the Enterprise-D we saw first and last is one and the same, therefore the 6-footer is the "correct" one.

And from all the comments I read up to this day on the internet, I have the impression that the majority of fans prefers the 6-footer over the 4-footer.

Should CBS consider doing a TNG special edition ("updated" VFX mostly) I hope they bear this in mind.

Bob

 

I thought I'd ask, since most graphics of the E-D in other media (DS9 tech manual, E-D blueprints etc) show the thicker saucer version.

I too prefer the 6' version, but there's no way to fit the Ten Forward set into that design as intended without doubling the size of the whole ship. And TF played a prominent role throughout the entire series run, so its difficult to dismiss

 

It never bothered me. I'd rather have the more graceful six-foot model.

 

Same. I don't care if it matches, I just prefer the better looking model.

 

I never even knew there was a difference before the Internet.

Suspension of disbelief. They're both artistic interpretations of the same ship.