RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,913
Posts: 5,331,122
Members: 24,558
Currently online: 482
Newest member: laurah2215

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

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


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 13 2009, 01:05 AM   #196
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

LOL Maybe starship captains simply don't like having their backs face the door...
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 01:20 AM   #197
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Ziz wrote: View Post
OK, so TV Guide version of TIN MAN's post:

Creative thinking that solves the both interior and exterior problems at the same time isn't allowed. We should force ourselves to live with a mistake.

Are you a Catholic priest? Because that's the only other place I've ever heard that logic - pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad.
HaHa, very funny. You must suffer from ADD, since you felt the need to summerize my post, but yet couldn't take the time or effort to read it, or reply to it, correctly? Points you missed, "everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification" and this, "Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya!"
And since I was at pains to point out that everybody has different views that are equally valid, and you seem to have a hard time understanding that, then I should clarify also, that terms like "creative thinking" or what "solves" a problem constitutes, is also open to personal interpretation. No where did I say, or imply, that anything was "not allowed" or that "we should force ourselves to live with mistakes" you pulled that hat out of a rabbit, and that's no easy trick!
And this, "Are you a Catholic priest? Because that's the only other place I've ever heard that logic - pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad", comes right out of thin air, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said, but prompts me to ask, are you? If not, you've missed your calling, because I've never experianced such intolerance to opposing view pionts as you display, outside the church itself, perhaps you should consider taking vows, with your attitude and penchent for misrepresentation, you'll be Pope in no time.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 06:34 AM   #198
Ziz
Commodore
 
Ziz's Avatar
 
Location: NY
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

I did read your whole post, and it basically came off as a nicely worded version of "No matter which way you want the bridge to face, you're equally as wrong as someone who wants it to face the other way, and since MJ and FJ are both dead, who the hell are you to say what they were thinking one way or the other, so since you'll never be the last word on the subject anyway, just live with the mistake instead of trying to fix it" (That last part was where my mind pulled in the religious reference...read between the lines.)

Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome. IF ANYTHING, the opening shot of "The Cage" is proof enough that the bridge was always intended to face forward, regardless of what happened with the turbolift position change. And, in a related vein, there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense.

CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Find anything? I didn't think so.

AND, for the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life.
It's been interesting to me to comprehend the motivation of so many Trekkies to find some obscure meaning for every aspect of Matt's designs. No question that Matt was a gifted artist with an innovative mind. His U.S.S. Enterprise and Klingon Battle Cruiser are iconic masterpieces. However, he confessed to me that he intentionally allowed for the viewers of Star Trek to use their imaginations rather than having every nut, bolt, and concept explained.
Which is exactly what we're doing - using our imaginations...just like Matt wanted us to.
__________________
Modular Models - Build your fleet YOUR way.
Ziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 01:23 PM   #199
CTM
Lieutenant Commander
 
CTM's Avatar
 
Location: The exact center of my universe
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

And people resist the idea the Star Trek is a Religion....
__________________
You know what I want to discuss when I come to an Uplifting-Future Science-Fiction themed discussion board? Contemporary Politics.
CTM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 05:17 PM   #200
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Ooops. not finshed yet hit the wrong button.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 08:02 PM   #201
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Okay, Ziz for starters, this..."I did read your whole post, and it basically came off as a nicely worded version of "No matter which way you want the bridge to face, you're equally as wrong as someone who wants it to face the other way"... I'm sorry if I came off to you that way, but I honestly don't see how you could take it that way since I specifically said,"everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification" and this, "Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya!" How many times to I have to quote myself before you get it? I'm running out of emphasis here! When I quoted the old addage "two wrongs etc." I simply meant to underscore that compounding one design 'fudge' with another and another only takes us further afield from designer intent, that's all. I never said or implied that anyone was 'wrong', how could they it be, none of this is 'real' after all? This is just you reading too much into my post. You obviously feel passionate about your take on the matter, which clouds your judgement, but as I've said in other threads, I have no particular axe to grind on this or any other 'treknical' matter, I just like to put my two quatloos worth in from time to time, and CRA did invite discussion.

And then this,... "just live with the mistake instead of trying to fix it" (That last part was where my mind pulled in the religious reference...read between the lines.)"... First of all, again, I never said anything about living with mistakes instead of trying to fix them, all I did was try to explain why I prefered one solution over another, which has to do with the simplest structural and engineering design considerations rather than the 'just make it fit, damn it!' school of thought. My main point here (which you missed) is that the aproach I prefer has the advantage of internal consistancy (literaly and figuratively) and avoids the rather schitzophrenic apeal to "designer intent" one moment and then the contradictory "the way we saw it onscreen" argument the next moment. And secondly, if this is where you got your religious referance, then I still don't see how? How does living with a mistake instead of fixing it, (which is not what I said, or meant) lead to "pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad"? Aside from having nothing to with the topic, it betrays your overzealous attitude. If contemplating production mistakes in a TV show causes you to experiance pain & suffering, and your happiness comes from one and only one solution to them, then you need help dude.

Moving right along then... "Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome." I'm cool with a few feet, but half or whole way into deck 2 as some have done, goes against our old bugaboo "designers intent". This does have some utility in answering the 'vulnerability of the bridge' issue, but I personally do not think it out waighs the 'I just don't like it that way factor' for me, so sue me.

And then... "there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense."
See, now were getting to 'the simplest most effecient engineering design logic' aproach that I prefer. And thank you for bringing it up, for it may help me illustrate my other main point (which you also missed). So here goes, The fact that the T/L moves lateraly has no bearing on the bridge issue, the T/L shafts have to reach everywhere in the ship, the bridge T/L only has to reach... the bridge! It makes some sense, yes, to slide the T/L over, since none of this is real, if you prefer it that way then it's as good a solution as any. But, it doesn't exactly make perfect sense, to illustrate my point. try this, put yourself in the position of a hypothetical Starfleet Engineer, you're all about efficiancy and using the least complicated method with the minimum waste of materials, because you know that "The more you overstuff the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". So, with everything being equal, how would you design the bridge? Would you make the T/L open directly on the bridge, or would you slide it over, wasting credits and time making a more complicated structure that serves no practical purpose, in effect, a dunsel? This answers itself. (some one will bring up the refit design, but I'll answer that in the inevitable next post).

And this bit is just silly,... "CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Find anything? I didn't think so."

How can I possibly reply to you, in your own post while you're still typing it! Especially when I wasn't even online at the time? You're just being a smart ass, and this is not worth further discussion. I do have an anwser for you however, In the only 'bridge establishing shot' we have from "The Cage", there's no indication that the bridge is sunk, but this is largely irrelavent since the model and it's fictional counterpart were modified afterwards, and there's no other evidence either way, this counters your argument as much as mine, or anyone elses, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as CRA says.

AND, for the not so final nail in the coffin, so to speak, "I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life.

Quote:
It's been interesting to me to comprehend the motivation of so many Trekkies to find some obscure meaning for every aspect of Matt's designs. No question that Matt was a gifted artist with an innovative mind. His U.S.S. Enterprise and Klingon Battle Cruiser are iconic masterpieces. However, he confessed to me that he intentionally allowed for the viewers of Star Trek to use their imaginations rather than having every nut, bolt, and concept explained.
Which is exactly what we're doing - using our imaginations...just like Matt wanted us to.

Yeah, I've got his book it's really good, but most evrybody is familiar with MJ's intentions on the matter since he has said as much in interviews going way back, no surprise there. But you're last point here is moot since I've already explained I'm not trying to stiffle anyones creativity! That's your dead straw horse, not mine.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; August 14 2009 at 04:16 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 09:01 PM   #202
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

On a couple of occasions, the turbolift was shown to be moving laterally before opening onto the bridge. We've seen it moving sideways, therefore there is no reason the bridge can't be facing forward. It's basically a matter of number crunching and seeing how far things can be pushed in one direction or the other before actual fudging has to begin.

As for the design of the bridge itself, I see a lot of folks talking about the turbolift's "original position" directly behind the captain's chair, yet I have yet to see once scintilla of evidence that the doors were ever anywhere but where we saw 'em. And I've read my fair share of interviews with Matt Jefferies, but have yet to see anything addressing this issue in anything resembling this level of detail.

As was pointed out a while back, that nub was put on the dome for the sake of symmetry, in anticipation of the possibility of having to use those reversed decals to show the other side of the ship. Nobody was trying to make any kind of statement regarding the interior.

And, quite simply, I just don't think that, at the time, it was considered a big enough deal to sweat the discrepancy between the interior and the exterior. Like Richard Jefferies said, they figured the fans could use their imaginations to figure it out.

Hence, why we're here.

Now, my approach does have the dubious advantage of being in line with the thinking of Chairmen Sternbach & Okuda ("dubious" in that some folks consider that reason alone to discount the whole idea, because it dares to conflict with the Holy Writ of St. Franz Joseph), so at least I consider myself to be in pretty good company as far as the fleshing out of this ship goes.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2009, 09:58 PM   #203
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

OK CRA, I follow you. except on this,
"As was pointed out a while back, that nub was put on the dome for the sake of symmetry, in anticipation of the possibility of having to use those reversed decals to show the other side of the ship. Nobody was trying to make any kind of statement regarding the interior."
Question; who pointed this out, and where's the documentation to this effect? Wasn't the design and working drawings finished before the model was built? And while I can see symmetry being a consideration for not moving the 'nub' after the assumed relocation of the T/L station on the the set, It still does not speak to the fact that both the bridge turbo lift display seen in TOS and the cutaway diagram (from TMOST) seen in TAS, both drawn by MJ, and both showing the T/L shaft in line with the 'nub', pretty much proves that the 'nub' was always intended to be the top of the T/L shaft. So symmetry considerations aside, it was intended to correspond to the interior.

And on this we're in complete agreement;
"I just don't think that, at the time, it was considered a big enough deal to sweat the discrepancy between the interior and the exterior."

But on this I beg to differ;
"Like Richard Jefferies said, they figured the fans could use their imaginations to figure it out."
Umm, more like they figured nobody would notice! Remember, at the time of which we are speaking, there were no Star Trek fans.

P.S. Just for the record, I'm not one of those who consider FJ's stuff to be "Holy Writ", I disagree with with alot of his choices, but I do agree with some others. Like everyone's take on this, it's a mixed bag.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15 2009, 09:08 AM   #204
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

There are some indications that when the cross section diagrams that were used on set were drawn up, the ship was still considered around 500+ feet long, with half as many decks as she wound up with. It's also debatable how literal to take those in the first place, since they're general informational displays, not construction blueprints. Certain liberties with details are expected.

As for who raised the "nub is there for symmetry" argument, it was one of the posters around here, who is bound to identify himself at some point in this discussion. Remember, this neverending topic has been running, off and on, for around five years. It's tough to keep track of who raised which point when. The symmetry argument fits, though, with the concept they had of using reversed decals so they could do shots depicting the port side of the ship (only used explicitly once, in "Dagger of the Mind", although one flyby shot, upon close inspection, shows reversed registry numbers on the underside of the primary hull; ironically, in neither case do you have any chance at all of seeing the bridge). For the whole concept to work, the exterior of the ship, at least design-wise, has to be symmetrical.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15 2009, 08:09 PM   #205
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Originally Posted by Captain Robert April
"There are some indications that when the cross section diagrams that were used on set were drawn up, the ship was still considered around 500+ feet long, with half as many decks as she wound up with. It's also debatable how literal to take those in the first place, since they're general informational displays, not construction blueprints. Certain liberties with details are expected."
Agreed.
But, being "general informational displays" as you say, they were, after all, meant to convey information! Like perhaps, where the the T/L shafts are? Plus, the fact that one (and perhaps the only) repeated consistency over all the years, in all of MJ's diagrams, including those from TMOST/TAS and even the Phase II (both of which have a more sccurate # of decks) was the placement of the T/L shaft behind the bridge, directly on the centerline. So MJ had plenty of time to think about it, and change his mind, if he wanted to, which he didn't, so this pretty much nails down "designer intent" on this matter, as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's the fact that we see on screen the T/L diagram on the physical set (albeit rarely clearly) and we see on screen the "nub" at the back of the bridge dome (on the centerline of the physical model, corresponding to the diagram) pretty much locks down "the way we saw it on screen" aproach as far as "the nub is supposed to be the top of the T/L shaft" stance goes, IMHO. You can, of course, use the fact that these are small details as a reason to ignore them if you want. After all, were gonna have to compromise somewhere, if were to make any headway at all. But it seems to me, that if we are to be logicaly consistant, then an apeal to both "designer intent" and having it "like we saw on screen" only supports one conclusion and that puts one squarely in "the bridge must be rotated" camp. Of course this goes against what we saw in "The Cage" and MJ's statement to the effect he couldn't see it as facing any other way but forward.

So, where does this leave us concernig the bridge orientation problem as it relates to "The Cage" zoom in shot? I dunno, other than the sad realization that TOS was sometimes (GASP ) inconsistant with itself! Sliding the T/L in and over isn't really an option, IMHO, because there's really not enough room, unless you re-size the ship (again) but this creates more issues than it solves, and this solution as an end in itself does not justify the means. Given the chioce of what to ignore from "on screen" evidence I would opt for the zoom in shot, at least in so far as evidence for the orientation of the bridge is concerned, because this is an optical insert, and does not therefore relate to any real physical relationships, and because, this was the "pilot" episode and by definition, was somewhat of a trial run, and mistakes were made, and things were far from finalized? Suffice it to say that this one shot does not outweigh all the evidence to the contrary suggesting that the bridge must nevertheless be off center?

But you my be right CRA, we'll see how the bigger pilot dome works, this could solve the problem, at least as far as "The Cage" shot is concerned, but again I dunno? I do like the idea -I think it was yours?- of having two T/L cars on the bridge, one opening to the bridge and one to the maintainance corridor. If it does work then we're still stuck with the smaller dome of the production version of the ship, but perhaps this is where the "sink the bridge for better protection" theory comes in (but not by a whole deck)? This could even explain when and how the fictional bridge got rotated some 30 degrees during the refit, since the lack of room in the now smaller dome would necessitate such an imperfect solution?

Originally Posted by Captain Robert April
"As for who raised the "nub is there for symmetry" argument, it was one of the posters around here, who is bound to identify himself at some point in this discussion. Remember, this neverending topic has been running, off and on, for around five years. It's tough to keep track of who raised which point when. The symmetry argument fits, though, with the concept they had of using reversed decals so they could do shots depicting the port side of the ship (only used explicitly once, in "Dagger of the Mind", although one flyby shot, upon close inspection, shows reversed registry numbers on the underside of the primary hull; ironically, in neither case do you have any chance at all of seeing the bridge). For the whole concept to work, the exterior of the ship, at least design-wise, has to be symmetrical."
I was just wondering if there was any documentation to that effect, or if this was just fan speculation? Because as such, it doesn't hold any more water than the "T/L doors were moved" theory. And yeah, I'm familiar with the whole "flip the image" trick used in TOS, it's just that the whole "nub is there for symmetry" theory is largely erelevant, for as I hope I have demonstrated above, the nub is supposed to be the top of the T/L shaft regardless, and it's position isn't really the issue since there's no self-inconsistancy here. It's the T/L alcove on the bridge and it's relationship to the orientation of the bridge relelative to that "nub", and what to do about it, that is the issue here.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; August 16 2009 at 12:55 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2009, 01:25 AM   #206
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

For the sake of convenient nitpicking, that nub is never identified in any contemporary drawings from Jefferies. Not as the turbolift housing, not as an outhouse, no identification at all.

Again, it's likely to have been intended as the outer turbolift housing, but since they never identified it as such, and, let's be fair, there were a lot of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers, it's a useful out to call it something else and not contradict a thing.

So far, it appears that Shaw's estimates of how wide the pilot dome was is even a scrunch bigger than my estimates, so my idea might work even better than originally thought. Or even keep it as the turbolift housing while adding a little maneuvering room for the turbolift car.

As for rotating the bridge, as far as this project is concerned, the entire issue is a nonstarter. At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I. It faced forward, from "The Cage" to "Turnabout Intruder" and on through the animated episodes.

The only thing to do is to figure out how.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2009, 02:19 AM   #207
AudioBridge
Captain
 
AudioBridge's Avatar
 
Location: USA - Nemo me impune lacesset
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
For the sake of convenient nitpicking, that nub is never identified in any contemporary drawings from Jefferies. Not as the turbolift housing, not as an outhouse, no identification at all.

Again, it's likely to have been intended as the outer turbolift housing, but since they never identified it as such, and, let's be fair, there were a lot of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers, it's a useful out to call it something else and not contradict a thing.

So far, it appears that Shaw's estimates of how wide the pilot dome was is even a scrunch bigger than my estimates, so my idea might work even better than originally thought. Or even keep it as the turbolift housing while adding a little maneuvering room for the turbolift car.

As for rotating the bridge, as far as this project is concerned, the entire issue is a nonstarter. At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I. It faced forward, from "The Cage" to "Turnabout Intruder" and on through the animated episodes.

The only thing to do is to figure out how.
Perhaps you've already considered this, but the simplest solution to me has always been to face the bridge forward, keep the turbolift as seen onscreen, and move the nub on the exterior to match the turbolift position. It doesn't have to be symmetrically placed. There are asymmetrical features on other starships.
AudioBridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2009, 04:27 AM   #208
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

AudioBridge wrote: View Post

Perhaps you've already considered this, but the simplest solution to me has always been to face the bridge forward, keep the turbolift as seen onscreen, and move the nub on the exterior to match the turbolift position. It doesn't have to be symmetrically placed. There are asymmetrical features on other starships.
Yeah, it's been consisdered, and sure, it's as good a solution as any I suppose, it's just not one I favor for all the reasons I mentioned above.

'Edit': Also, I guess alot depends on whether one is interested in the technical details, or just wants a quick mental fix and then get on with enjoying the show? Both aproaches are equally valid. But for those of us interested in the tech and/or contemplating our own (or others) blueprints, then the devil is in the details, and I think we need to hold to a higher standard of consistancy when it comes to the inevitable compromises, and always keep in mind that we're working with what we have, not re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; August 18 2009 at 07:59 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2009, 08:21 PM   #209
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Another aspect of this project is to not alter anything, interior or exterior, unless absolutely necessary (like the various tweaks that have been done to come up with a version of the shuttlecraft that reasonably fits both the oversized interior and undersized exterior).

One thing that Andrew Probert brought up (and was already explored, rejected, but may be revisited) is questioning the whole idea that the bridge has to be centered under the dome. Who's to say it isn't slid forward a tad? If nothing else, it's a useful last-ditch fix, and does kind of go with a mid-60's aesthetic.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2009, 10:14 PM   #210
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

I debated whether or not to post a reply, but in the interests of nitpicking, here goes...


Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
"that nub is never identified in any contemporary drawings from Jefferies. Not as the turbolift housing, not as an outhouse, no identification at all."
This is where I believe MJ " allowed viewers to to use their imaginations instead of having every nut, bolt, and concept explained" In other words he wanted us to put 2 + 2 together and conclude that the 'nub' was the top of the T/L shaft?! But by you're logic, 2 +2 = 5 or 10 or 20, anything but 4?!

"Again, it's likely to have been intended as the outer turbolift housing, but since they never identified it as such, and, let's be fair, there were a lot of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers, it's a useful out to call it something else and not contradict a thing. "
Except maybe, common sense? Since you're willing to concede that it's likely the outer shaft housing, and yet you conveniantly ignore this anyway! You do realize, of course, that this forfeits your right to use "designer intent" as an argument in support of anything else, up to and including a foreward facing bridge?! You can't have it both ways CRA.
And if you're are going to be "fair" and say "there were lots of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers" then why not concede this includes the direction the bridge faces?

"So far, it appears that Shaw's estimates of how wide the pilot dome was is even a scrunch bigger than my estimates, so my idea might work even better than originally thought. Or even keep it as the turbolift housing while adding a little maneuvering room for the turbolift car."
Agreed, this is my estimate also.

"As for rotating the bridge, as far as this project is concerned, the entire issue is a nonstarter. At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I. It faced forward, from "The Cage" to "Turnabout Intruder" and on through the animated episodes."
If this issue is a "nonstarter" and you're unwilling to compromise, then why invite discussion? If you're willing to dismiss designer intent on other points, then why not on this? And that "At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I." is hardly conclusive since it's mere speculation, and if we're allowed to speculate, then why not assume they didn't give it much thought either way, and were in all likelihood, blissfully unaware that there was any discrepancy in the first place? Also, only MJ, and perhaps Pato Guzman, would likely know that the bridge set didn't match up with the models bridge dome oreintation?

The only thing to do is to figure out how.
I'm trying to meet you half way CRA, but you're not making it easy.
Since we only saw a forward facing bridge in "The Cage" and only in that configuration could we have a forward facing bridge, and the smaller dome of the production version procludes this arangement, we are justified in considering that the bridge may have been rotated later (fictionaly speaking)? Also we have no evidence to the contrary, barring the occasional exception to the rule, showing the T/L sliding over at the bridge, instead of opening directly as we know it was intended to (and those on the show knew it was intended to)! Besides appealing to such "mistakes" in an attempt to "fix" others, doesn't "solve" the problem, it only makes it worse.

Just trying to keep you on your toes pal.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; August 19 2009 at 01:59 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
enterprise deck plans

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 06:44 AM.

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