RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,887
Posts: 5,386,662
Members: 24,715
Currently online: 444
Newest member: Noga74

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 9 2011, 02:49 PM   #286
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
FWIW, five lights per deck is probably a pretty good average of the visual evidence. You don't get a vertical ride longer than six or seven decks in that ship, and IIRC the highest count of lights (in a scene with cuts, but probably without much "lost time") is around thirty.
Fortunately there aren't that many turbolift scenes. The one with the most visible lines I think is the one from "Tomorrow is Yesterday", IIRC. I'll have to check tonight.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Dude, it's not just the five lights. It's a ride which lasts a whole minute. To go down one deck? Forget it. It's an error. Like I said, we'll never agree, so let's just agree to disagree, and move on. OK??
An error could be the inconsistent use of the handles in the turbolift (maybe, I haven't reviewed all the turbolift scenes) or the lights only working on some of the handles. An error could be the lights moving the wrong way from the bridge.

But, labeling that scene an error when we don't know what the turbolift is doing is the wrong error call, IMO. This scene only shows a brief vertical movement and then as you point out, cuts away from the motion indicator making it impossible to know what the lift is doing. Even though it might be said in jest, there can be a host of things preventing the turblolift car from reaching the door on deck 2 even though they could already be at deck 2. As far as I can tell in your argument, it only feels too long to you that they stood there talking for almost a minute.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on both the location and whether it was an error.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 02:57 PM   #287
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

...For a "real" case of an annoying turbolift ride oddity, see the behavior of the Defiant lifts in the earliest DS9 episodes featuring that ship. At the very best, there are six decks to go, and one could run the ship from end to end in a minute! So why do,say, Sisko and Dax spend three minutes in a cab?

Then again, when Sisko got the ship, she was in a sorry state. Crawling turbocabs don't sound all that unlikely...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 03:14 PM   #288
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Dude, it's not just the five lights. It's a ride which lasts a whole minute. To go down one deck? Forget it. It's an error. Like I said, we'll never agree, so let's just agree to disagree, and move on. OK??

P.S. What are guest quarters doing on deck two anyway? That's rhetorical by the way, so please don't answer. Kirk was not being euphemistic about giving her quarters.
Port-side VIP cabin (one of two) on Deck 2...



This is one of only a few spots in the primary hull which have windows... which is sort of an expectation for a VIP cabin.

Essentially, this is the "admiral's quarters" which Scotty compared basic quarters on the 1701-D to.

That's how I view it. Of course, part of that is because this space is really unsuitable for any other use, due to low headroom. A couch, a big bed... those can go underneath that sloped ceiling, right next to those windows, and it all makes sense, though.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 03:27 PM   #289
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post


This is one of only a few spots in the primary hull which have windows
Oh, you mean the deck that contains primarily research labs, work areas for various technicians, and related duty stations, according to TMoST. Quarters, including passenger quarters, are on decks 4, 5, and 6, same source. A source that has Gene Roddenberry's name on it, I might add.

Essentially, this is the "admiral's quarters" which Scotty compared basic quarters on the 1701-D to.
According to what source are there admiral's quarters here?

it's not a good idea to ignore his points.
Who's ignoring the facts he's producing? I'm simply disagreeing with some of his opinions, with good reason.

ANYWAY, there's nothing more to discuss on this particular subject.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 03:30 PM   #290
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Oh, you mean the deck that contains primarily research labs, work areas for various technicians, and related duty stations, according to TMoST. Quarters, including passenger quarters, are on decks 4, 5, and 6, same source. A source that has Gene Roddenberry's name on it I might add.
Which appears to be the official mark for material to be ignored, at the rate these things are going. Is there anything left in TMoST that would actually hold true for the Star Trek universe?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 06:25 PM   #291
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

It should be noted that TMoST also asserts that the main filming miniature of the Enterprise is fourteen feet long with a ten foot diameter saucer.

It's a valuable resource asset, but it's not even close to infallible.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 06:43 PM   #292
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post


This is one of only a few spots in the primary hull which have windows
Oh, you mean the deck that contains primarily research labs, work areas for various technicians, and related duty stations, according to TMoST. Quarters, including passenger quarters, are on decks 4, 5, and 6, same source. A source that has Gene Roddenberry's name on it, I might add.
There's another one with Gene Roddenberry's name on it which states that Main Engineering is at the aft of the primary hull. and that the ship's main hangar bay can hold an entire fleet of modern passenger liner aircraft.

So, yeah. Gene Roddenberry's name doesn't necessarily mean "unquestionable, from on-high."
Essentially, this is the "admiral's quarters" which Scotty compared basic quarters on the 1701-D to.
According to what source are there admiral's quarters here?
Wow, you really are suffering from reading comprehension issues, aren't you. Now, run along to get your N.Z. pals to come in and do your fighting for you again.

I did not say that it is "canon" that this is there. Just like there is nothing "canon" that says that there is anything else on Deck 2.

Well, except for a line from an episode, which we're discussing, which states that the Romulan Commander is going to be put in quarters on Deck 2.

But, that's not important, is it?
it's not a good idea to ignore his points.
Who's ignoring the facts he's producing? I'm simply disagreeing with some of his opinions, with good reason.
No, you were being cocky and dismissive, WITHOUT GOOD REASON.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 06:47 PM   #293
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
It should be noted that TMoST also asserts that the main filming miniature of the Enterprise is fourteen feet long with a ten foot diameter saucer.

It's a valuable resource asset, but it's not even close to infallible.
Exactly correct. It's a great reference material, but we don't have to treat it like a Muslim must treat the Koran, and we don't have to treat Gene Roddenberry like Mohammed.

Doesn't mean we dismiss things, just that we're allowed to question them, and when and where necessary, let bits that don't reconcile with other bits "deprecate" a bit.

The hangar deck on the Enterprise couldn't even hold "an entire fleet" of anything larger than a Piper Cub. And that would still be a fairly small fleet (four or so...)
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 07:25 PM   #294
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TOS Nacelles

The Making of Star Trek does indeed contain errors. But so does the dialog in the show itself.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2011, 07:37 PM   #295
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

But we all know that. The fun is in taking the stuff and trying to make it work, and discarding the rest with a grain of salt. To make it all come together, we have to be willing to make sacrifices. At least in the sense of reaching a consensus. However on your own, you can agree or disagree with anything in Trek.

Like for me, Not only is the a/am reactors in the nacelles, but they're very much integrated with the warp system and bussards. It's not like in TNG where you can apparently just open a hatch and slide the warp core in and out (quite sexy sounding though)! They're very big, very complicated, very dangerous engines.

Some may personally disagree with me on it. But I'm just basing my conclusions on my observations on the show- throwing in some stuff that makes sense to me, disregarding the stuff that seems silly, and trying not to make up too much fantasy for this sci-fi drama.

And all the while trying to avoid getting into unproductive arguments with fellow fans. I don't mind an argument as long as it's an exchange of ideas and points of views that don't piss on other people (unless the other person is being a douchebag- then I'm okay with it)...
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 09:28 AM.

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