Shane Johnson (Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise)

[F. King Daniel]

Thank you! Just finished listening, very much enjoyed

Since Beyond is mentioned near the end, I'm curious what your initial thoughts are on the new Enterprise-A? I didn't love it (the Beyond refit Enterprise is beautiful, IMHO), although I think the time-lapse construction sequence is one the most amazing Trek visuals ever.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[RAMA]

Also just finished listening. She enjoyed the latter films. I'd love an update of Mr Scott's!

 

[Lora4October]

Thank you! Just finished listening, very much enjoyed

Since Beyond is mentioned near the end, I'm curious what your initial thoughts are on the new Enterprise-A? I didn't love it (the Beyond refit Enterprise is beautiful, IMHO), although I think the time-lapse construction sequence is one the most amazing Trek visuals ever.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I don't know...the jury's still out on the design, but I know I'd rather they hadn't already jumped to the added-letter thing. I've never been a fan of the whole idea -- it seems to me that the original hull number ("no bloody A, B, C, or D") is free to be used again once the earlier vessel is decommissioned or destroyed.

I love the ship in the 2009 movie. No complaints about its design, except maybe for the supposed size of it. Very graceful lines. Nice flow. I didn't care for the wide impulse deck of the second version.

And yes, the time-lapse was brilliant

Lora

 

[Lora4October]

I'd love an update of Mr Scott's!

Me too!

Lora

 

[NaughtyTrekkie]

Thank you! Just finished listening, very much enjoyed

Since Beyond is mentioned near the end, I'm curious what your initial thoughts are on the new Enterprise-A? I didn't love it (the Beyond refit Enterprise is beautiful, IMHO), although I think the time-lapse construction sequence is one the most amazing Trek visuals ever.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

it seems better than the orignal JJprise

It may be the first JJuniverse ship I like

 

[Praetor]

Hi Lora,

I haven't been to this board in longer than I'd care to admit, but I came across this thread while doing some casual Trekathon-inspired research and simply had to decloak to offer commendation to you and your work.

A copy of "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" has been a part of my Treknical library for the better part of twenty years. (It is in fact sitting on my Trek bookshelf at eye level as I write this.) I still remember fondly when while shopping with my mother at the shopping mall in the next town, I discovered MSGTTE at the Waldenbooks there, along with several other now-venerated tomes. I sat in the floor reading it several times while my mom did other shopping, until she eventually took pity on me and bought it. It has well-earned its treasured place on my bookshelf. If it photographed better, I would show you the indents on the front and back covers from when I would, as a kid, become inspired by reading and flip it over to draw, using it as a makeshift clipboard. There are various unintended indents of "NCC-1701," hull outlines, and the like. I promise I don't draw on it anymore, but it has served as a spiritual inspiration for my still sadly incomplete Excelsior technical manual.

So, thank you for the wonderful work and years of inspiration.

I hope you won't begrudge me two questions. You mentioned the deckplans that couldn't be included in MSGTTE due to page limits, but that these deck plans were completed by David Schmidt and company. How similar are Strategic Design Publication's Constitution rebuild plans to your original intended plans? I notice there are some differences with regards to the computer core and the like.

Secondly, and forgive me that I've been waiting since I was about fifteen for this one, how do you account for the long corridor seen outside engineering versus the placement of engineering?

Thanks again and all the best,
Praetor

 

[Lora4October]

You mentioned the deckplans that couldn't be included in MSGTTE due to page limits, but that these deck plans were completed by David Schmidt and company. How similar are Strategic Design Publication's Constitution rebuild plans to your original intended plans? Secondly, and forgive me that I've been waiting since I was about fifteen for this one, how do you account for the long corridor seen outside engineering versus the placement of engineering?

There is very little similarity at all. The Enterprise Class refit (TMP-ST III) drawings were done by myself and David Ziels, and are in the style of the Franz Joseph works. We went to great lengths to make them film accurate, meaning the site of every scene aboard ship was accounted for. The Constitution Class (ST V-VI) drawings are also based on what was seen in the films and are done in a graphic style completely unlike those of the refit or Strategic Design plans.

The long corridor cannot be accounted for, given the number of levels seen when Kirk looks down the vertical shaft and the placement of the diagonal feeds that connect the aft end of the horizontal intermix with the nacelle pylons. Engineering *has* to sit right where the original Andy Probert design sketches, the gorgeous David Kimble cutaway illustration, and my own work put it. The director's decision to go for visual impressiveness over technical accuracy is a common one in Hollywood (such as the ST V turboshaft, which *can* be explained away). Movies are a visual medium, and putting drama for the eye on-screen is the main priority.

Actually, much of that impossible corridor was a backdrop painting placed against the end of the physical corridor set which, without the painting, would just about have fit the ship's exterior.

I'm glad you like my book...thank you for the kind words

Lora

 

[Praetor]

Thank you Lora.

I was guessing your deck plans were much different. Your work has a particular style that is different than those. Hopefully they see the light of day sometime soon!

Maybe the corridor painting was on the real set, to help Scotty with his well-documented claustrophobia?

 

[Mytran]

We discussed the possibility of the corridor being an actual painting back in this old thread of mine (wow, was it really 3 years ago?!?)
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/forced-perspective-painted-backdrops-and-the-refit-enterprise.231970/

However, there's really not enough room forward of the Engine Room for even a short corridor in the Probert setup, unfortunately.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Maybe the corridor painting was on the real set, to help Scotty with his well-documented claustrophobia?

He sure hid it well when he was crawling into all those Jefferies Tubes.

 

[Lora4October]

There was also a painting stretched across the aft end of the Engineering set, which made it look like the room (with its strongback arches) went that much farther. The set actually stopped at the diagonal feed shafts.

Lora

 

[Lora4October]

However, there's really not enough room forward of the Engine Room for even a short corridor in the Probert setup, unfortunately.

With minor finagling, there *is* enough room for about 8-10 feet of dead-end corridor if one wants it there. The deck plans David Ziels and I did place a small navigational deflector monitoring room there instead

Lora

 

[Mytran]

You persuaded me to look it up and sure enough, there it is!

So, if the bay forward of the Engine Room is in fact a Nav Def monitoring station, does that explain the purpose of the curious opening just starboard of the main doors? Is this in fact the route you'd need to take in order to reach the turbolift?

One extra question Lora - and TBH I've been meaning to ask since this thread began! It's to do with the scale bars in MSGTTE: Basically, when you inserted the extra storage bins into the angled corridor sections, this necessitated widening the corridor to around 10' instead of 8'. Fair enough, and no problem there.

However, when I compare the scale bar used elsewhere in MSGTTE I find many other items that also appear to have been expanded by the same 25%. For example, the junior officers apparently have a bed 5 feet wide and 10 feet long!

Is this correct? Were the beds (and other furnishings) really this oversized? I ask because back in the 1990s I attempted to map out a plan of the Enterprise using your floorplans at the given scale, and really struggled to fit them in! I realise this could just be due to the "Hollywood Effect" mentioned upthread, but since you had access to the actual sets back in the 80's, I thought I at least ought to ask!

Many thanks in advance

 

[Lora4October]

So, if the bay forward of the Engine Room is in fact a Nav Def monitoring station, does that explain the purpose of the curious opening just starboard of the main doors? Is this in fact the route you'd need to take in order to reach the turbolift?

Yes, that is where the turbolift is, but the circle drawn on the plan is not a car but the drop shaft. The turbolift station is just starboard of there.

As for the bunk, I was surprised at how large it was. On set, they only built the one (Kirk's quarters) and redressed it for Ilia by putting up a false wall to remove the office section of the room. The bed was a large rigid cradle (wood and fiberglass) that curved upward in sleigh fashion at the head and foot, atop which was a wide upholstered sofa/bed thingie.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0958.jpg

The upholstered part was missing when I saw it, leaving only the hard empty cradle.

Lora

 

[JonnyQuest037]

As for the bunk, I was surprised at how large it was.

The designers must have known that it was Kirk they were building it for.

 

[Mytran]

Yes, that is where the turbolift is, but the circle drawn on the plan is not a car but the drop shaft. The turbolift station is just starboard of there.

As for the bunk, I was surprised at how large it was. On set, they only built the one (Kirk's quarters) and redressed it for Ilia by putting up a false wall to remove the office section of the room. The bed was a large rigid cradle (wood and fiberglass) that curved upward in sleigh fashion at the head and foot, atop which was a wide upholstered sofa/bed thingie.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0958.jpg

The upholstered part was missing when I saw it, leaving only the hard empty cradle.

Lora

Thanks for confirming the scale issue Lora. We never actually see Kirk using it as a bed (just Capt Stiles, in ST3) but I imagine anyone would have to sit up extremely carefully to avoid banging their head on that overhanging structure! Was it really as low as your screencap shows?

Another reason why I raised the scale issue is because MSGTTE is about the only source we have for the massive Recreation Deck set, so I wanted to be certain of the dimensions. I mentioned upthread that I had some trouble fitting the cabins into the listed size of the Enterprise, but the Rec Deck was an absolute pig!
The span of the Rec Deck square windows from left to right on the floor plan is approx 52'
Compare that to (even more approximately) 25' on the model!
At the time I did my deck plans this was a real mystery - since then I read a lot more about the conflicts between the set designer and ship designer, so I can just put this down to Hal Michelson wanting his Rec Deck to be as grand as possible for the movie.

However, the other thing that made me wonder about the 25% scale bar increase was the botanical gardens, which never appeared in the movie (and so didn't have to conform to oversized movie sets). The model (again assuming a 460.5' saucer) depicted the botanical garden windows as spanning around 36'. The floor plans in MSGTTE show the span as around 48' - slightly over a 25% increase this time!

If this wasn't a scale bar issue wasn't just an error on behalf of the printing company, it is certainly a curious coincidence (and thus worth mentioning).

All this talk of scale bars circles round to one question really, concerning the Rec Deck - was it really 90' front to back?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Really quickly: Mind=blown that Styles' quarters was a tiny corner of the Kirk/Illia quarters set from TMP. Yes it makes perfect sense they'd do that, but I never noticed it before.

 

[Lora4October]

All this talk of scale bars circles round to one question really, concerning the Rec Deck - was it really 90' front to back?

Yes, the Rec Deck was that big. I did my drawing from the set floor plan, with the addition of restrooms, etc in order to flesh things out beyond the visible walls.

The scale issue involving the various sets stems largely from the fact that sets are built to look impressive on camera, not to fit into a fictitious ship exterior. Whether or not a given room fits a supposed space well is very low on the priorities list. If the illusion of consistency is even minimally maintained while creating visual drama, set designers and directors are happy. The Jupiter 2 from Lost in Space is a prime example - there is just no way to fit two decks into the established exterior, but that hasn't stopped decades of fans from trying.

Generally, Star Trek has done better than many shows and films in staying consistent, especially given how many hours of Star Trek there are, but there are problems here and there. The afore-mentioned Rec Deck simply cannot fit into the saucer rim. The interior set of the Galileo shuttlecraft, as built, does not fit into the established exterior. Nor would the port and starboard bridge turbolifts seen in ST VI fit into the ship's hull, but we just say "that looks cool" and move on.

Lora

 

[Mytran]

Yes, the Rec Deck was that big. I did my drawing from the set floor plan, with the addition of restrooms, etc in order to flesh things out beyond the visible walls.

And for that, I will always be jealous! ;-)

The scale issue involving the various sets stems largely from the fact that sets are built to look impressive on camera, not to fit into a fictitious ship exterior. Whether or not a given room fits a supposed space well is very low on the priorities list. If the illusion of consistency is even minimally maintained while creating visual drama, set designers and directors are happy. The Jupiter 2 from Lost in Space is a prime example - there is just no way to fit two decks into the established exterior, but that hasn't stopped decades of fans from trying.

Generally, Star Trek has done better than many shows and films in staying consistent, especially given how many hours of Star Trek there are, but there are problems here and there. The afore-mentioned Rec Deck simply cannot fit into the saucer rim. The interior set of the Galileo shuttlecraft, as built, does not fit into the established exterior. Nor would the port and starboard bridge turbolifts seen in ST VI fit into the ship's hull, but we just say "that looks cool" and move on.

Oh trust me, I've done my share of mental gymnastics in order to fit the live action Star Trek sets into the ships themselves! Fortunately (and due to the limitations of special effects at the time) there's a fair bit of flexibility in TOS as how big things really are (and why I'd never want to tackle the Jupiter 2)
I suppose that's why it's even more surprising that we ended up with such a gigantic Rec Deck set, which would be more at home in a doubled-up Enterprise 2,000 feet long!

 

[starburst]

... Nor would the port and starboard bridge turbolifts seen in ST VI fit into the ship's hull, but we just say "that looks cool" and move on.

One of the reasons why even though I have always liked the colours (other than the clocks, that should be part of the display) etc of the ST6 Bridge I have always thought of the ST5 as the better layout.