And there's a little joke about another Peter Graves role buried in there, too.
On topic: Does this book mention if there was anything filmed regarding Admiral Nogura?
TMP Myths Debunked via Return to Tomorrow and Beyond
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
And there's a little joke about another Peter Graves role buried in there, too.
On topic: Does this book mention if there was anything filmed regarding Admiral Nogura?
The Nogura scene was cut from the script after its May 17, 1978 draft, and wasn't in the shooting script completed a month later. It was never shot.
If you mean the bit about Phelps being a former Pan Am pilot (which I also thought was an Airplane! nod at first), endnote 22 says that was actually part of the backstory that Peter Graves devised for Phelps when he was originally cast back in 1967.
I made that post before I got to the endnotes.
Originally those curved panels were exposed brushed aluminum, but over time, they were a pain to keep looking pretty and unscratched, and eventually were painted, though I could not say precisely when the change happened.
Rick
I'm curious about why there was a decision to go with smaller corridors in TMP than there were in the series. I've always wanted to know that.
If they had to fit the movie corridors inside the framework of the Phase 2 ones, that would certainly leave less room, especially with the C shaped walls of the movies.
But, I mean, why use the angled walls at all, since it meant less space in the corridors? Did someone in production like it better with angled walls than with vertical walls? Are you saying that that decision in conjunction with the existing stage layout necessitated smaller corridors? Or, was the argument made that there wasn't really enough space in-universe inside the saucer for larger corridors?
It seems like less space meant it would be harder for the crew to move things around inside the ship. I always thought that the smaller corridors would be something that the designers in-universe wouldn't have considered an improvement, when upgrading from the TOS layout, unless there was no other way to fit everything they needed to inside the saucer.
Sorry to bring this back briefly, but I can confirm now the Bridge scenes for the Memory Wall sequence were shot. On November 7, 1978, in fact, according to the book Chekov's Enterprise. (Had to go dig it up.)
Interesting. So going back to your list:
As I previously noted the "Spock catches a sensor, lets it go" scene must have been shot as well, since there is at least one picture with Spock holding a sensor in his hand. Also I believe the scenes where "Kirk and Spock fly to the inner wall" were shot, there are several pictures of Kirk and Spock together in the trench set.
.jpg)
This would leave out only the initial scenes where Spock before and then Kirk enter the trench, and the scenes where they both follow the sensor bees inside the opening.
These would all be mostly long shots. Looking at pictures, my idea is that for the long shots they were using stuntmen, so it could be that all of the Shatner and Nimoy scenes were shot, while they still had to do most of the scenes with the stuntmen.
It's a movie. The corridors were changed to be visually interesting and that's all. As the sets were largely built and the rigging for them already up they were modified in place, hence the fixed corridor width. As to in-universe... it's a drama, not a documentary. Harold Michelson didn't care if it fit, and—in his defense—most art directors don't. Most film sets don't actually fit in the buildings shown as their exteriors.
But, I mean, why use the angled walls at all, since it meant less space in the corridors? Did someone in production like it better with angled walls than with vertical walls? Are you saying that that decision in conjunction with the existing stage layout necessitated smaller corridors? Or, was the argument made that there wasn't really enough space in-universe inside the saucer for larger corridors?
It seems like less space meant it would be harder for the crew to move things around inside the ship. I always thought that the smaller corridors would be something that the designers in-universe wouldn't have considered an improvement, when upgrading from the TOS layout, unless there was no other way to fit everything they needed to inside the saucer.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, the curved corridor set on TNG is in fact the Phase II corridor seen in the photo. The TNG curved corridor set would have been given details to unify it with the rest of the TNG sets but essentially the walls we see in the photo were the walls of the TNG set? If so, that's really incredible to consider that the "bones" of that set, constructed in 1978 were used throughout Trek's TV history.
It's a movie. The corridors were changed to be visually interesting and that's all. As the sets were largely built and the rigging for them already up they were modified in place, hence the fixed corridor width. As to in-universe... it's a drama, not a documentary. Harold Michelson didn't care if it fit, and—in his defense—most art directors don't. Most film sets don't actually fit in the buildings shown as their exteriors.
But, I mean, why use the angled walls at all, since it meant less space in the corridors? Did someone in production like it better with angled walls than with vertical walls? Are you saying that that decision in conjunction with the existing stage layout necessitated smaller corridors? Or, was the argument made that there wasn't really enough space in-universe inside the saucer for larger corridors?
It seems like less space meant it would be harder for the crew to move things around inside the ship. I always thought that the smaller corridors would be something that the designers in-universe wouldn't have considered an improvement, when upgrading from the TOS layout, unless there was no other way to fit everything they needed to inside the saucer.
OK, thanks, that completely answered the basic question about why they were made the way they were and different from the series.
So the theory was: flat surfaces have nothing going on, so that's not interesting, whereas with angled surfaces, there's something going on, ergo it's comparatively interesting?
Regarding the comment as to whether it fit, that was put in there just to outline the parameters of the basic question with respect to why they were changed.
Yes, the underlying framework and set shapes were the same from Phase II through the movies through TNG through Voyager. They were all on Paramount Stage 9 (not to be confused with Desilu Stage 9 where TOS was shot, which is now Paramount Stage 31). I don't know if the actual visible surface of the walls was the same, though; after nearly a decade, they might've needed to be replaced.
That's what I would expect. It's a bit more visually interesting and distinctive to the Star Trek production. Plus little things like that can ``Martian up'' the proceedings, adding a sprinkle of exotic-ness without being too demanding of attention.
It's been like 20 years, but I recall the Vegas corridors being considerably wider, probably to move a large group of people through as quickly as possible.
Similar threads
