Yeah, I reach where your coming from CRA, and applaud you and Shaw's (and others) attempts to be more faithful to the onscreen material. That's certainly one valid aproach, I was simply pointing out that FJ's work was a product of the times, and while not strictly accurate down to the last detail, still it was a good comprimise between all the often contradictory source material, and this was, and still is, also a valid apoach (witness Warped 9's aproach to the Galileo interior/exterior problem). keeping in mind, that until Casimiro and Sinclair came along there wasn't anything like accurate plans and dimensions on the filming model (and thats just the 11 footer), and FJ's plans were/are more accurate than anything else from that time, even MJ's plans published in T.M.O.S.T! Besides even with more accurate references we still need to make comprimises to make everything fit together, because nobody, including MJ ever expected people to try to work all this out so completely and in such detail. To search for one 'official' version, (even within 'canon') is to search for a chimera. In short, all I'm saying is, FJ's stuff was no more "grossly" inacurate with what had came before than MJ's onscreen stuff was with itself. and now with all the other contradictory stuff from decades since (within itself and what came before) perhaps one should be a little more flexible in deciding what constitutes baby and what constitutes bathwater?
CRA, > This whole thing started because that's precisely what > I tried to do, do a little revision here and there to > bring those old drawings more in line with the eleven > footer, only to find out that the proportions really > are that far off, and that "a simple retcon" is > impossible with those plans. So, I started over with > Alan Sinclair's drawings and built from there. I never suggested that you compare either either the studio model or AMT based Constellation to the FJ plans. Why do you keep implying that I have? I referenced FJ in discussing a number of different things, this isn't one of them, but you keep acting like it is. I guess if I did do that you would have something to legitimately argue about, but I didn't. What I said -- that got you annoyed -- is (from a "fannish" perspective) that if registry numbers follow some semblance of numerical and temporal order (like FJ provided), then it makes sense that NCC-1017 is a refit of an older class. On the other hand (from the modern "franchise" perspective), if registry numbers are handed out haphazardly, and if the AMT version of 1017 is a "production error", then there is no logical basis for such an assumption. What I believe is annoying you is that the the existing franchise disagrees with you 110%, and only we fannish types don't think you're barking up the wrong tree. > Actually, that was one of the sticking points regarding > FJ's stuff, they're copyrighted to Franz Joseph Designs, > so no, Paramount doesn't own the copyright to his work, > his estate does. That's what I thought to until I look at the copyright page a couple of years ago. They were not copyright by FJD, or by Ballantine/Del Ray (or whomever), but by Paramount, just like the novels, comic books, etc. > (This simple fact is how Starfleet Battles is still able > to operate and thrive after all these years, even with > Paraborg going around stomping various fan efforts into > the dirt.) I mentioned legal issues regarding FJ, and this is one of them. FJ handed out "licences" to ADB and Gamescience to use his "designs", they then did that and used other Star Trek material that is in neither the Tech Manual nor the BoGP. FJ's legal basis to this supposedly was by enpowerment of Roddenberry, never mind that Paramount had bought the franchise from Desilu before TOS production ended. Paramount, awoke from its slumber (after Star Wars generated interest in ST:TMP) and started suing people. It apparently settled these suits, and ADB continues in operation not because of FJ's "rights" to all of the TOS Star Trek universe (which don't exist) but because (apparently) at the time Paramount felt it would lose more money fighting the lawsuit than it would gain by winning against a tiny game company (if you can document some other reason, please show us the evidence). ADB hasn't disclosed the details, but the agreement doesn't appear to involve them forking over money to the IP holder (and its hard to believe they could have continued to operate under those conditions). ADB, in turn, agreed to constrain itself in various way, limiting its use of Star Trek IP to the TOS universe (outside of that, it has to make up its own version), not straying beyond its original game based genre. When "Star Fleet Command" was developed as a video game the company didn't go to ADB for the rights, it got the rights from Paramount and then went to ADB for the mechanics of their game system. People have been begging ADB to computerize SFB from at least the Designer's Edition of the Game and Steve Cole's answer every time has been that their agreement with Paramount didn't allow them to do so (not their agreement with FJ). Other items on SFB fan wishlists have been similarly dismissed as outside their allowed agreement with Paramount. > In order to incorporate his work in any meaningful > fashion, beyond the occasional graphic on a monitor > screen, would require paying some serious bucks to > FJD, Inc., so not only was Paramount disinclined from > including it, the folks actually working on the show > were legally barred from using it. And your proof for this is...? > As for my "dismissive" attitude, the whole premise of > this project was to chuck all the FJ stuff, and the > fannish barnicles that had developed from it over the > decades, and start over with just the onscreen material > and build from there. Forgive me, I didn't realize that you were shucking away other people's barnacles to make way for your own. > So, with that approach from the get-go, why in any god's > name would I look to FJ inspired stuff as anything > resembling a reference, except perhaps as what not to do? Way back in the day, you asked this: > (Still haven't settled on a class name for the AMT model... > any ideas?) http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2358028&postcount=40 And I provided you with the existing answers to that question to the best of my ability, which you are now classifying as unwelcome "fannish barnicles". None of which have anything to do, in the slightest, with FJ's somewhat inaccurate plans of 1701. So, I guess, the acceptable answer I have provided to your question is: "The Good Ship Lollipop" class. If you only want to hear your own answers to your own questions I suggest you stop talking to yourself in public.
Albertese, > As I recall, there was an interview with Roddenberry > where he said he heard about or read an issue of the > Russian newspaper Pravda that said something to the > effect of "the ugly Americans are at it again! We were > in space first! And they don't even acknowledge it on > their television shows!" or such other propagandizing > "truth." (Pravda means "truth" in Russian for those > who don't already know) I never said that didn't happen. No, there wasn't a blatant Russian on the show from the start. What we don't have are equivalent Swahili, Japanese, Indian, German (etc.) newspaper stories to explain away how Roddenberry was forced to put all these nationalities and ethnicities on the ship to satisfy the raging political correctness of the 1960s network television. > So, supposedly, he included a Russian to bely the > claim. It was a young ensign as the studio wanted a > younger character to help attract a younger audience. > They wanted an english chap to capitalize on growing > Beetles fandom, but GR managed to lobby for a > Russian instead. Though, he did capitulate to allow a > Beetles/Monkees type hair-cut on the guy.... Yes, they wanted a Beatles, he gave them a commisar -- his choice, not the popular one. No one forced him to do it. Other than Roddenberry's own ego, I don't think anyone in the network took too seriously the "international implications" of that article in Pravda. From the start he wanted the ship to be representative of all mankind, and this was his opportunity, perhaps even his excuse to the studio, to add this particular flavor to the mix during the cold war (while US troops were being killed in Vientnam by Chinese and Soviet supplied weapons). That was my point, and it isn't a stretch of the imagination that the general idea of multiculturalism was mentioned during early production meetings, and perhaps with MJ present. That was my point. > Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled rant... Actually our rant did poor in the Nielsons and was knocked off the air by a Mod Squad rant. But thank you for playing.
So, how much of that Pravda anecdote is true? E.g. Wikipedia's article on the character of Pavel Chekov is full of "citation needed" remarks, but it claims that it was Roddenberry who wrote to the Pravda editor, probably in jest, to inform the Soviet Union of the introduction of a Russian character in Star Trek. No actual Pravda article on the issue existed either before or after Roddenberry's letter. Which is what one would expect, really. Timo Saloniemi
After going home last night I decided that I should attempt to dot my I's and cross my T's, so I spent an hour or so digging around and found my backup copies of FJ's Tech Manual and "The Making of Star Trek", and a few other things. The first thing I noticed was that, looking inside a 1st Edition Fifth printing of the Tech Manual it lists (emphasis mine) "Franz Joseph Designs" as the copyright holder (1975). It also states that : "The publisher gratefully acknowledges the cooperation of Paramount Television, a division of Paramount Pictures Corporation, the producers of the Star Trek television series, in granting permission to publish this volume." Rodenberry is "gratefully appreciated" in a list of "civilians" (in keeping with the "official document" nature of the project). So then I dug around and managed to find the copyright for the FJ Booklet of General Plans: Which clearly states that the BoGP is copyright (1973) by Paramount Pictures Corporation. Interestingly enough, the signature of Roddenberry is merely printed, despite the fact that he was FJ's main facilitator for the whole project (approving the project, presumably introducing him to the other people referenced in the acknowledgments). The BoGP lists the FJ version of the Constitution class registries (which are therefore copyright of Paramount, not FJD (since, as I understand it, the BoGP precedes publication of the TM): The Bonhomme Richard and Achernar class (not to mention DD/SC/DN/TT) registries and diagrams are in the Tech Manual, along with all the UFP member world data (flags, etc.), are not the BoGP so these, presumably are copyright by FJD. But, as we know, these items were used in Star Trek I, II, and III, at the least. If they were used without permission than FJD would have a legitimate beef. If they were used with permission, then one has to wonder why they are so "verbotten" of late? Answers to some of these questions can be found in various places, and one place to start is the FJ timeline. In part, Rodenberry facilitated the production of FJ's work and then Paramount came in and claimed all rights, insisting that FJ get permission from them -- not GR. An example of how this process went is contained in these quotes: http://www.trekplace.com/fj-timeline.html "FJ has made about a dozen drawings at this point and writes GR regarding proprietary rights." "GR writes back, encourages FJ to proceed, and wants to arrange with FJ to have Lincoln Enterprises (his wife Majel Barrett's ST memorabilia business) market the drawings." "GR calls FJ and is highly complimentary about the BGP. Neither he nor his staff has seen work of this caliber and they still are amazed that such a drawing of the Enterprise could be produced. GR invites FJ to visit him at Warner Studios in Burbank to discuss equipment problems he's been having with Planet Earth." "10 months have passed, and FJ has received no response from either GR or Lincoln Enterprises regarding marketing the BGP and TM. FJ takes a different tack and writes Paramount Television asking for information as to who holds the proprietary rights to Star Trek, and how FJ might obtain a licensing agreement to sell copies of the BGP at Equicon '74 in April." "Lou Mindling, Vice President of Paramount Television, calls FJ. He says Paramount holds all the proprietary rights to the Star Trek theme and that FJ will have to deal with them (not GR) in all future marketing. He says Paramount is extremely interested in marketing FJ's work through their international organization, and Paramount will offer FJ a royalty agreement after looking for a suitable publisher. He will discuss the matter with Ballantine Books and get back to FJ as soon as he has something definite." "FJ tells GR about his interaction with Paramount, and apologizes to GR, but it is obvious that Paramount has the legal/marketing rights to Star Trek and will be handling the marketing of FJ's work instead of Lincoln Enterprises." "After lengthy negotiations with Paramount over royalty percentages, FJ, Lou Mindling, and Judy-Lynn Del Rey reach an agreement. Paramount gets the lion's share of the profits." "FJ, Ballantine, and Lou Mindling go through lengthy negotiations over the proposed contract for the TM. FJ has more original work involved in the TM than in the BGP and wants a higher percentage of the profits; he also wants the book copyrighted in his name, not Paramount's." "Lou Mindling says Paramount will not contest a copyright on the TM in FJ's name." "GR writes FJ to acknowledge he has received the TM. He is bitter about his previous arrangements with Paramount during the live TV series, and he doesn't think FJ has given him a large enough acknowledgement credit in the front of the TM." "Lou Mindling calls to tell FJ that Paramount is going full-blown on the Star Trek movie, with an expected release in 1977, although they were starting from scratch. He said they would should shortly have a project for FJ and to think about "modernizing" the Enterprise. Nothing will be done to compromise GR and his ideas as creator, but Paramount wants FJ to help get this thing off the ground. FJ has no idea what they have in mind, but assumes they'll tell him when they're ready." "Lou Mindling calls FJ, and they have a long conversation. Lou asks if FJ would like to be involved with the Star Trek movie either as a writer, a consultant, an actor -- whatever. Anything. Please. FJ declines the offer, feeling it is not his place to be telling GR what to do with his creation." "FJ re-enters the hospital with symptoms that lead to a diagnosis of intestinal cancer. He has surgery May 30 and is released from the hospital June 12. [FJ's health problems this year had been draining his energy for quite some time beforehand, and were probably one of the other reasons FJ did not want to get involved with any Hollywood Star Trek projects -- he was tired all the time and having trouble just getting through day-to-day tasks. After he got through these two hurdles, his health rebounded until his final illness in 1994.]" So, how much crow do I have to eat? A little, I guess. Technically, the Tech Manual is copyright of FJD, not Paramount. However, it is published (according to the actual publishers) with the permission of Paramount. Conceivably it can only be republished with further permission of the copyright holder, though we don't know the full details of any agreement: it may be a blanket permission, or it may not, and it might be either to the author of the publisher (though the latter could be implied). What does this mean? FJD owns the copyright on a derivative work. He does not own the copyright on the original IP. In another context, a publisher may hold the rights on a particular edition of a book (and would prosecute another company who did a "knock-off" version while they hold the rights), but their derivative rights do not supercede those of the original IP holder. So in theory I was wrong regarding ownership of the DD/SC/DN/TT designs, but that did not stop Paramount from using them. Frankly, FJD would be glad to get a small amount of money for use of these materials, IMHO. I was correct about ownership of the BoGP and the FJ version of the Constitution class Registry list (the basis of my original claim), which was the main point of the discussion revolving around FJ and the Constellation. Does FJD have permission to hand out licenses to the entire Star Trek universe? No, everything Trek related, including under his own copyright, was only possible with the permission of the IP holder. In point of fact, AFAIK FJ did not sell "licenses" to either ADB or Gamescience, merely wrote back positively to inquiries that 'they could use his work'. The TM does not include any images or alien species or starships, and as such use of these TOS IP items, even if the FJ copyright held up in court, ran them afoul of Paramount's lawyers. Frankly, I would guess that these lawyers may have had a word or two to FJD regarding these "licences" and no more have (AFAIK) been granted.
Timo, > So, how much of that Pravda anecdote is true? E.g. > Wikipedia's article on the character of Pavel Chekov > is full of "citation needed" remarks, but it claims > that it was Roddenberry who wrote to the Pravda > editor, probably in jest, to inform the Soviet Union > of the introduction of a Russian character in Star > Trek. No actual Pravda article on the issue existed > either before or after Roddenberry's letter. Which > is what one would expect, really. Good question. I find the Wikipedia article a little unsubstantiated. To quote from "The Making of Star Trek" p. 250 [Capitalized section is Roddenberry, other emphasis is original, except where I have used Bold]: "Second, a criticism by the youth edition of the Russian newspaper Pravda. In an official article the newspaper mentioned STAR TREK favorably but complained about the lack of a Russian crew member aboard the Enterprise. They felt Russians had been more than a little important in space exploration and should be so recognized. THE CHEKOV THING WAS A MAJOR ERROR ON OUR PART, AND I'M STILL EMBARASSED BY THE FACT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE A RUSSIAN RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. NOW IT'S RUSSIA'S TURN TO BE EMBARRASED. AFTER WE WROTE CHEKOV INTO THE SHOW, WE SENT A LONG, POLITE LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS IN MOSCOW, APOLOGIZING FOR THE ERROR AND TELLING HIM ABOUT CHEKOV. THAT WAS OVER A YEAR AGO, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED US. SO WE'RE SQUARE." The sources cited for the Wikipedia article are "Inside Star Trek". If I'm not mistaken, I personally have found some of the things said (TV interviews, etc.) over the years by one or more of the authors of that book to be highly questionable. The urban legend website's debunking quotes Solow, not Roddenberry, that the article was in Pravda, which is technically incorrect as shown above. Instead the article appeared in a children's version of Pravda instead of the normal version of the paper. The article quotes the same section of TMoST, but is careful to avoid quoting the part that signifies which newspaper the article actually appeared in. It references a reproduced (by Solow) letter from Roddenberry to Pravda mentioning the inclusion of the character. The closest the website gets to debunking the claim is quoting Shatner (or whoever Ghost writes his autobiographies) that it was a PR stunt. There is no mention of an effort to search Pravada, or more appropriately the "youth" version of it, for the article and as such there is zero effort, or evidence, to dispute the claim. The article claims that it probably wasn't a PR stunt because there was no PR about said stunt, but fails to mention a search for documentary evidence for that claim. The main criticism ends up being that since Trek wasn't shown in the Soviet Union at that tiime, it wouldn't be mentioned in Pravda. In fact, (negative) commentary on the United States was part of Soviet propaganda at the time, so (quite easily) we could imagine someone in the Soviet embassay passing along Trek's grievous omission to the appropriate state organs. The final reference appears to be a book on pop culture which I'm not familiar with, but presumably argues along similar lines (since the Wikipedia article writer doesn't quote more substantive claims). So, I'm perfectly willing to let GR's version of the story stand until we can get a definite answer about the actual paper the alleged article appeared in. As to the impact on what I have said, what GR says here in TMoST fortifies my point that he envisioned the ship as multicultural from early on, and this was on omission in terms of that vision.
CRA, > This whole thing started because that's precisely what > I tried to do, do a little revision here and there to > bring those old drawings more in line with the eleven > footer, only to find out that the proportions really > are that far off, and that "a simple retcon" is > impossible with those plans. So, I started over with > Alan Sinclair's drawings and built from there. Is this in reference to your theories that the bridge has to be oriented forward (rather than counter-clockwise) and therefore the ship has to be larger than pretty much everyone else believes, or are you referring to some other general errors? In what I was discussing, retconning it to a related but different sub-class (Constitution MK III, effectively) should resolve just about any discrepancy there is, so I frankly am baffled how you think retconning is an inadequate solution.
TIN_MAN, > Yeah, I reach where your coming from CRA, and applaud > you and Shaw's (and others) attempts to be more > faithful to the onscreen material. That's certainly one > valid aproach, I was simply pointing out that FJ's work > was a product of the times, and while not strictly > accurate down to the last detail, still it was a good > comprimise between all the often contradictory source > material, and this was, and still is, also a valid apoach > (witness Warped 9's aproach to the Galileo interior/ > exterior problem). We'll see how CRA answers my previous question before we address his own efforts. Assuming we need to. FJ's work was the best available at the time, with the possible exception of Matt Jefferies (and then there is the issue of completeness and level of detail). No one from within the production team offered him better blueprints than what he worked up on his own. When he was asked to submit a design for a U.S. postage stamp he contacted Paramount for materials and was told, by executives he apparently was on friendly terms with, that they had nothing in terms of TOS materials. Considering that this was an era before the common use of VCRs, that all he had to work with were publicity stills and printed frames from Lincoln Enterprises, and the diagram in TMoST, he did a tremendous job, and that's what former members of the production thought (to the point that GR had him work on non-Trek projects and the studio wanted him involved in ST:TMP). So, is his work inaccurate? Yes, its inaccurate in a way similar to how all the AMT models were "inaccurate", even differently inaccurate, as the years went on and they were updated. They missed the mark by varying degrees, but we still use them, and only paying close attention do we notice the difference. Frankly, I'm under the impression -- though I have no empirical data -- that FJ's design is much closer than the AMT versions, at least until the "cutaway" version was released. I've even had people insist that the AMT design is wrong because they 'followed FJ's design', which as a claim is neither true nor accurate on all points. The new Polar Lights model is more accurate, but I've read that the decal guide is inaccurate, perhaps purposefully so? How is it inaccurate? I'm not an expert on the subject, and I would be glad to hear from one on the topic, but I'll put in what little I know (some of which may be wrong as its from hearsay. In general, some of the decks of the primary hull are "off", in the sense that partial decks become full decks in FJ's plans (which could be considered an effort to intentionally correct of design "flaws"). The module (pod, whatever) directly beneath the bridge is shaped incorrectly (making it much roomier in the process). The secondary hull is not correctly shaped, particularly the forward area, but this is not extreme. In terms of the interior, he seems to have taken the forced perspective diagrams as literal, and this has caused errors. In his effort to locate where engineering was he settled on "impulse engineering" being the area we were familiar with, a solution which solves certain inconsistencies in the canon material while creating discrepancies with other canon tidbits. He missed some canon items, such as the emergency manual monitor room in engineering (a toilet seems to be in its position). He "perfected" some of the room designs (such as sickbay) to match his internal layout rather than how the set was actually constructed. My own pet peeve is that certain known locations were depicted differently than televised (auxillery control, for example), and I don't know the reasons for that. In general, externally if there are differences of more than a few meters the blame probably has to be laid on the source materials, but I'm willing to listen to wiser heads on the matter. On the other hand. Sternbach's blueprints for 1701D have been criticized on several points (even to some extent originality) by some, so even today with full access to all production materials and the assistance of modern computers and software he wasn't able to satisfy all critics. > keeping in mind, that until Casimiro and Sinclair came > along there wasn't anything like accurate plans and > dimensions on the filming model (and thats just the > 11 footer), and FJ's plans were/are more accurate than > anything else from that time, even MJ's plans published > in T.M.O.S.T! An important difference here is that these gentlemen were able, to some extent, to study the original 11' model. FJ had no opportunity to do so, AFAIK. > Besides even with more accurate references we still > need to make comprimises to make everything fit together, > because nobody, including MJ ever expected people to try > to work all this out so completely and in such detail. The importance of the work of David Shaw, and others, is that many details we assumed were neglected may in fact have been worked out by MJ, and the devil may really be in the details. > To search for one 'official' version, (even within > 'canon') is to search for a chimera. In short, all I'm > saying is, FJ's stuff was no more "grossly" inacurate > with what had came before than MJ's onscreen stuff was > with itself. Well, there are inadequacies within the canon. Intersplicing footage from both pilots and the production version (to which there were minor alterations) in pretty much every episode is an issue (unless the ship is a "Transformer!"). Technical issues also cause problems with the footage. One would have hoped that TOS Remastered would have corrected what was flawed and left what worked but instead we have been presented with underlit models of questionable quality, and "interesting" design choices in their construction and livery. > and now with all the other contradictory > stuff from decades since (within itself and what came > before) perhaps one should be a little more flexible > in deciding what constitutes baby and what constitutes > bathwater? My guess is that CRA has no problems disposing of one or the other. My other guess is that the orientation of the bridge in the FJ designs has settled that question once and for all for him. But we will see what he has to say.
All good points Whorfin, however I just started a new thread along these lines so we can let poor CRA have his thread back. come on over and join in, all of you.
> All good points Whorfin, however I just started a > new thread along these lines so we can let poor > CRA have his thread back. come on over and > join in, all of you Yes, I actually intended to help CRA, not annex his thread, so I hearby turn the conn back over to him.
CRA, I hope you understand that as annoying as what I was saying seemed to you, what you said had a similar effect on me. I apologize that the conversation got as heated as it did. Hopefully we can do better in the future. Whorfin
Hm. Lotsa questions to slog through. And this is as good a time as any for a review and a restatement of the mission. In short, FJ's questionable choice of the orientation of the bridge is only the most visible example of the problems I've got with the plans themselves (and he even acknowledged the weirdness of the choice himself, but for whatever reason, chose not to work it through so that the bridge can face forward like every other bridge on every vessel ever built, real or imagined; he probably just went with the stance that with artificial gravity and inertial dampeners, there's no reason why the bridge has to face forward, never quite realizing that he now begs the question, why have the bridge arranged internally like it does face forward, then point it thirty-six degrees to port?). Further studies of the blueprints, and discovering the works of Alan Sinclair and Charles Casimiro, only confirmed my belief that we needed a fresh take on this matter, with the relentless attacks of the FJ faithful only making me that much more determined to make this sucker work. So, the ground floor was, "What was on screen." With the usual amounts of fudging and tweaking to avoid as many outright contradictions as possible (episodes like "The Alternative Factor" require a tap dance routine worthy of Bojangles himself, but even that glistening turd can be brought into line with the right pair of Foster Grants). Next, to take into account the rest of the onscreen canon Star Trek universe that had grown up around the beloved Gray Lady, and the concepts that I'd be building upon anyway, like a central M/AMR feeding power to the nacelles, registry numbers that aren't apparently sequential (always remember that these are not the only ships that Starfleet has in its inventory, so there's no reason to think that the intervening numbers aren't being used somewhere). Others, like Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, Mike Okuda, etc. had also taken a look at FJ's stuff and had come to the same conclusions I had, that the warp nacelles were not the equivelent of jet engines and do not generate the power, they use it, and that Engineering is *SUPRISE!* in the Engineering Hull! And since they were a) paid for these observations, and b) had Gene Roddenberry's blessing for these observations, their stock was well above stuff coming from the peanut gallery (and, no, not everything GR pulled out of his ass was gold, and not even he was considered the absolute final authority on these matters, but stuff from that side of the shop at least got listened to intently before judgment was given). Supplementary material was accepted so long as it fit with what was on screen, and the closer the source of the material was to the actual production, the better, although even Matt Jefferies had some notions that didn't necessarily pan out, so noboby was accepted unconditionally. I also decided to do this whole thing [Ed Sullivan]right here on our stage[/Ed Sullivan], not only so that I could show off, but also to elicit input, find out which concepts worked with the intended audience (namely, us) and which ones fall flat. On that front, I think it's actually worked out well, despite the occasional flame wars that sprung up with folks who normally I would probably march in lock step with. So, with all that, I started off with, in my estimation, the best overall drawings that are publically available, Alan Sinclair's, and started breaking down the various deck levels and plotting out where the major systems would be located that not only made the most sense, but also matched up with the onscreen references (or at least didn't outright contradict any references). Probably the best idea to come out of that process was in making that big tube assembly a power transfer manifold, so that its position in relation to the nacelle struts became irrelvant, thus provding a lot more leeway in just where to put the engine room (even allowing for the inclusion of both the first and season versions, to allow for as many different references as possible). I even managed to work in certain late comers like the Defiant's aft weaponry that was on display in "In A Mirror, Darkly". Then, there's the bridge. Cue the blood curdling scream. Short version of a very long and bloody story, the tentative final version, pending Shaw's findings in his study of the 11-footer, is that the bridge was at the very tippy top, and facing forward, at the time of the pilots, but by the time of the "The Corbomite Maneuver", the whole works was lowered inside the B/C superstructure, for added safety (in other words, the "pilot dome" is still there, but only half of it is still showing). The rest is details.
Do you think that it was Jeffries intention to lower the bridge dome for the purpose of "in story" protection of the bridge, or was it simply because he thought that the bridge dome should be lowered after it was decided that the ship was supposed to be twice as big as it was originally intended to be, or both? If it was the latter, then it seems it was unecessary because the bridge still works better (space wise) with the higher dome.
Jefferies didn't have anything to do with the shortening of the bridge structure... the shortening was done to fix a mistake made in the first modification of the model just before the second pilot in which a pair of rectangular holes were cut into the structure. The shortening of the structure corresponds to the maximum height you could get after cutting out those holes. The dimensions of the ship were determined long before construction of the 11 foot model was started (and even before the 33 inch model was started). No ulterior motives existed behind this other than to remove those unfortunate holes in the model. Had those holes not been put in, the bridge structure would not have needed shortening.
Huh. I always thought that the dome was shortened when they doubled the size of the ship to more approximately represent the size of the bridge set visually to the audience. Double the size of the ship = half size dome. (Of course that's based on the assumption that representing the set was part of their goals in the first place.) I wonder why they didn't just fill the holes?
Do we know why they put holes in, in the first place, or why they took them out in the second place? The story I always heard was that when the models and sets were being built, Jeffries was playing around and measuring the size of the bridge set and comparing it with the dome on the model, and realised that the ship would have to be twice as big as it was here-to-fore planned, and so the decision was made to arbitrarily double the size. And that's why, when the model was refurbed for production, the dome was lowered, more windoows were added, and the numbers along the side of the secondary hull, which were also originally supposed to be an indication of scale, got all screwed up and meaningless?
The finalized fictional dimensions were done in November of 1964... those dimensions were used in adding the windows to the model plans (which originally had no windows) and the models themselves (of which only the 33 inch version had been started when the windows were added). All sorts of things were done to the model to add detail for the second pilot... but there are no windows on the bridge that match the ones cut into the model, and the windows were massive which would have been hard to rematch the original shape in those areas. It was easier to cut the model at the base of the highest of those windows and use the rest for the bridge. From their perspective, a short bridge was less of a problem on screen than big windows that didn't exist on the set. We have all of the dates of when the dimensions were finalized (before The Cage), and all the hull markings were done on one of the earlier (prefinalized) drawings of the Enterprise... the actual model construction plans had no hull markings on them. The shapes on the earlier drawings weren't all that different, and they didn't need to be exact, just close enough to let the graphics people make those markings, numbers and pendants. The Enterprise as we are familiar with it (and as it appeared on the plans used for the models) was never the smaller size. Those hull markings came from that even earlier drawing used for the hull graphics. Also, the squatter bridge on the 33 inch model was a mistake made while rushing it for approval... originally it was never going to be seen on screen anyways, but the 11 foot model was running late so it became an effects model.
Ah, that clears up a lot, especially in regard to why the 3-footer made its way onscreen. So they had already enlarged the ship before the models were being built? Do you suppose the 'crew of 203' line by Pike was just a holdover from when the ship was smaller? Thanks, Shaw!
Most likely... it isn't the type of thing that would have been addressed for the pilot. Though there are still people today that believe that that was a more realistic crew size for the fictional dimensions of the Enterprise. I think some things changed after consultants from places like Rand had some input too. There was almost 2 years between the 203 figure and the later 430 being referenced.