TMP Myths Debunked via Return to Tomorrow and Beyond
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
That's really cool! If I remember correctly, on one of the behind the scenes from 09, the new bridge does the same. I wonder if some of the functions coded in were actually relevant to the movie and if the actors had scripted "button pushes."
How did they do the reactor effect? It looked similar to Voyager's, is it the same?
Basically, the Voyager version is a redo of the TMP effect. How it's done is described in the book, but it's difficult to parse without photos of the thing they built. In short, a tube of rear projection material was lowered into the clear shaft and in the middle of that they lowered a rig which contained a built a bunch of what they call "light guns" which were shot into various elements to throw light off in abstract patterns. I've love to see a diagram of how it worked.
Last edited:
No mention of the Fury of the fans?
According to Billy Van Zandt (Alien Bridge Ensign), each console operator was expected to memorize the instructions and button positions for his or her own panel. He was upset when he, manning Internal Security, didn't get to report the Ilia Probe turning up in the sonic shower.
I haven't been getting through this as quickly as I'd like (I've a few books on the go and the others are easier to put in my bag and take to work), but even at my glacial pace of the odd page here and there it remains a fascinating read thus far.
I've also found a good example of the sort of thing I was talking about earlier that shows these interviews aren't automatically to be trusted more than later ones. In the quote from Nimoy where he talks about why he wasn't going to do Phase 2, his only reasons is the start of shooting clashed with a play he was already committed to. There's no mention of any other reasons, and he makes it sound as if he never hesitated once it became a film with a different start date. He's also keen to emphasise that the size of his salary had nothing to do with it (which is probably being strictly truthful if it was the money issue was about residuals and royalties from the old show) and the truth is far duller than people are making out.
Ironically "People" in this case means the other people involved in the making of the film who are quoted alongside Nimoy here, who are quite happy to come out and say he was holding out over royalties. Though none of the other reasons he's talked about in the years since (such as his falling out with Roddenberry over things like the selling of the blooper tapes) are even slightly hinted at.
So I think that shows that, even though they're certainly not all acting as a homogeneous mass, there are people interviewed here who are being polite/political in their responses to the interviewer.
It'll actually be interesting to see how the big falling out between Livingston and Roddenberry is handled, as other's have said, the book so far has actually been far kinder on old Gene than pretty much any retrospective book about Trek has been in years.
Oh, and that photo of the Phase 2 corridors is fantastic! I always assumed the flat walled corridors in TNG had been built especially for the show, I didn't realise they were just the originals with the added film walls removed.
I've also found a good example of the sort of thing I was talking about earlier that shows these interviews aren't automatically to be trusted more than later ones. In the quote from Nimoy where he talks about why he wasn't going to do Phase 2, his only reasons is the start of shooting clashed with a play he was already committed to. There's no mention of any other reasons, and he makes it sound as if he never hesitated once it became a film with a different start date. He's also keen to emphasise that the size of his salary had nothing to do with it (which is probably being strictly truthful if it was the money issue was about residuals and royalties from the old show) and the truth is far duller than people are making out.
Ironically "People" in this case means the other people involved in the making of the film who are quoted alongside Nimoy here, who are quite happy to come out and say he was holding out over royalties. Though none of the other reasons he's talked about in the years since (such as his falling out with Roddenberry over things like the selling of the blooper tapes) are even slightly hinted at.
So I think that shows that, even though they're certainly not all acting as a homogeneous mass, there are people interviewed here who are being polite/political in their responses to the interviewer.
It'll actually be interesting to see how the big falling out between Livingston and Roddenberry is handled, as other's have said, the book so far has actually been far kinder on old Gene than pretty much any retrospective book about Trek has been in years.
Oh, and that photo of the Phase 2 corridors is fantastic! I always assumed the flat walled corridors in TNG had been built especially for the show, I didn't realise they were just the originals with the added film walls removed.
It's interesting to note that the extreme edges of the corridors (only really visiable at the junctions) were the same width as the ones in TOS, specifically 8 feet.
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.
If that's true, it would certainly be a fine testament to how impracticle those corridor designs were! But as Maurice pointed out upthread, these designs were meant to look good on the big screen, first and foremost. And they do look nice!
One additional byproduct of adding K-beams to the corridors (not to mention curved walls on the bridge, low support beams and ceilings in virtually every set) is that many rooms on the refitted Enterprise actually feel smaller, more cramped than the original. For a vessel that was supposed to be larger than the original* it is a curious feature!
* I personally disagree with that assessment, but that's another argument!
Speaking of the corridors...
...not sure if this applies to both the radial and curved corridors, but if so the base of the beam cuts down the floor width of the corridor by 18" per side. As the unmodified corridors are about 8' wide, this would reduce a radial corridor floor width to about 5' and the circular one to 6.5'.
...not sure if this applies to both the radial and curved corridors, but if so the base of the beam cuts down the floor width of the corridor by 18" per side. As the unmodified corridors are about 8' wide, this would reduce a radial corridor floor width to about 5' and the circular one to 6.5'.
Some, but not many. Lee Cole's P2/TMP "Flight Manual" as reproduced here includes hand-written instructions for the actors specific to the Communications, Engineering, and Science stations, as well as the TMP version of the weapons console. Actually, the handwriting looks suspiciously like that of a certain Mr. Rick Sternbach, though I could be wrong...
Speaking of the corridors...
...not sure if this applies to both the radial and curved corridors, but if so the base of the beam cuts down the floor width of the corridor by 18" per side. As the unmodified corridors are about 8' wide, this would reduce a radial corridor floor width to about 5' and the circular one to 6.5'.
Ah, so, this is a K-beam? (I'm getting it, because it looks like a K!)
That'd be a K-beam indeed, prince of the impractical corridor designs!
The circular corridor ones were of a slight different design that jutted out more towards the ceiling (I think the 18" at floor level was the same though). There were also the accompanying inner corridor "flat" panels which would have eaten up another 6". So although the curving corridors may technically have had more floor width, in practical terms they were probably just as bad as the radial ones.
The circular corridor ones were of a slight different design that jutted out more towards the ceiling (I think the 18" at floor level was the same though). There were also the accompanying inner corridor "flat" panels which would have eaten up another 6". So although the curving corridors may technically have had more floor width, in practical terms they were probably just as bad as the radial ones.
^The image you link to only shows a straight corridor, so I don't see what you're saying about the curved ones.
Yes, but you can also see the K-beams of the curved corridor that it intersects, and they are indeed angled differently.
^Are you sure? The detailing on the face of the added portions is different, but I can't really tell from that angle whether the arch itself really has a different shape.
^Yes, I agree that it is visibly different, but I'm not convinced that proves the shape of the arch itself, the open space of the corridor, is shaped any differently. The differences in the patterning of the stuff between the old corridor walls and the new corridor walls may be creating an optical illusion of the new corridor walls having a different shape.
I think it's amazing that those basic sets stood for as long as they did.
"If these walls could talk ... "
"If these walls could talk ... "
Yeah, I was in a hurry and that was the first one I came across. These two should illustrate the differences better:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0528.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0531.jpg
Or combined, for your convenience:
Hopefully this demonstrates the differences that the curved corridors had a little better
Last edited:
Similar threads
