Did that set have a ceiling? I know some of the TNG sets didn't (sickbay immediately comes to mind).
Donny’s Late TOS Movie Era Interiors
- Thread starter Donny
- Start date
I don't think there were ceilings for any sets of the TOS movies/TNG, except for the bridge and corridors. I could be wrong, however.
IIRC everything possible was left celingless so they could light it easier.
That's standard in film sets, through they sometimes have full or partial ceiling they can "float" in (suspended from the catwalks above) when an angle requires seeing up.
In fact, there's a partial ceiling in the first image below, and you can see in both pix that the booth top doesn't reach ceiling height.
!
Last edited:
Gah, I've been away for a while and came back to find this. Can't wait to see what a 'Donny-ized' 1701-A would look like.
I always wondered what other ships in the fleet did about systems upgrades etc. Are there Starfleet ships that at the time of TUC are still using TMP software readouts? Or even earlier - could there be outdated Starfleet tugs that still have TOS bridge architecture, but their control panels have been upgraded?
I always wondered what other ships in the fleet did about systems upgrades etc. Are there Starfleet ships that at the time of TUC are still using TMP software readouts? Or even earlier - could there be outdated Starfleet tugs that still have TOS bridge architecture, but their control panels have been upgraded?
If so, those ships are either way overdue for an upgrade or for decommissioning.
I think I see now why the original Enterprise was facing the scrapyard a mere decade after her total overhaul. She was the first one in the fleet to get TMP technology, and (like her NASA space shuttle fore-bearer) her being the prototype for that tech doomed her to early obsolescence. Lessons learned and applied to later ships (like the Bozeman, sporting TUC-style bridge displays only five years after TMP) made it far easier and cheaper for them to get software/hardware upgrades; you'd literally have to almost dismantle and rebuild the Enterprise all over again to make her compatible, which would be a ridiculous expense for a ship whose spaceframe was pushing forty and had been though an insane number of battles.
I think I see now why the original Enterprise was facing the scrapyard a mere decade after her total overhaul. She was the first one in the fleet to get TMP technology, and (like her NASA space shuttle fore-bearer) her being the prototype for that tech doomed her to early obsolescence. Lessons learned and applied to later ships (like the Bozeman, sporting TUC-style bridge displays only five years after TMP) made it far easier and cheaper for them to get software/hardware upgrades; you'd literally have to almost dismantle and rebuild the Enterprise all over again to make her compatible, which would be a ridiculous expense for a ship whose spaceframe was pushing forty and had been though an insane number of battles.
I'm a little confused. The original ship which recieved the TMP refit was destroyed above the Genesis Planet. It was never scrapped. If you're referring to the E-A that we see in TUC, then its age is debatable. Was it a pre-existing ship renamed Enterprise as speculated in backstage material? Was it a new build as hinted at in TFF? Either way, its age may have nothing to do with the retirement mentioned in the end of TUC.
--Alex
I think "facing the scrapyard" is referring to Admiral Morrow's comments in STIII:
SCOTT: With all appreciation, sir, I'd prefer to supervise the refit of Enterprise.
MORROW: I'm afraid that won't be necessary.
SCOTT: But, sir...
MORROW: I'm sorry, Mister Scott, but there will be no refit.
KIRK: Admiral, I don't understand. The Enterprise is not...
MORROW: Jim, the Enterprise is twenty years old. We feel her day is over.
SCOTT: With all appreciation, sir, I'd prefer to supervise the refit of Enterprise.
MORROW: I'm afraid that won't be necessary.
SCOTT: But, sir...
MORROW: I'm sorry, Mister Scott, but there will be no refit.
KIRK: Admiral, I don't understand. The Enterprise is not...
MORROW: Jim, the Enterprise is twenty years old. We feel her day is over.
Cassidy Yates' ship and the Armagosa Observatory still had the TOS style control panels. They were civilian though. But when you think about it, in the real world the military often work with outdated technology, such as nuclear installations with their 1970s control systems.
Never noticed the orange colored doors until you fixed them lol. The Transporter looks awesome with the Jenolen blue. Can't wait to see more.
I have been following this article from RedGeneral https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/set-blueprint-exchange.244483/
I have found it useful in my wish to build Enterprise A Interiors but he is more focused on Voyager. He has a way of making set plans from his 3d models which I find useful because he did do the Enterprise D hallways which are the same as Star Trek 6. But at the same time some stuff is missing. It would be awesome if you could get with him and figure out how to convert your 3d models to those blueprints. Maybe do both screen accurate set and a version with your alterations. he also has an index of Star Trek set blueprints. EVERYTHING he could find online.
I have found it useful in my wish to build Enterprise A Interiors but he is more focused on Voyager. He has a way of making set plans from his 3d models which I find useful because he did do the Enterprise D hallways which are the same as Star Trek 6. But at the same time some stuff is missing. It would be awesome if you could get with him and figure out how to convert your 3d models to those blueprints. Maybe do both screen accurate set and a version with your alterations. he also has an index of Star Trek set blueprints. EVERYTHING he could find online.
Dude, please don't derail this thread too.
Guys, let's not repeat the whole thing again. Just a couple of notes: In a thread about someone who recreates the Enterprise-A sets on the computer it's not a thread derailment to ask if those virtual sets can be turned into set blueprints. Frankly, @137th Gebirg, I do find your post more of a thread derailment than anything.
By the same token: @Star Trek Apolgist, I would like for you to simply accept @Donny's answer (whatever it may be) this time around and move on without repeating the same request again and again. That would be really helpful in keeping it peaceful around here. Thank you.
By the same token: @Star Trek Apolgist, I would like for you to simply accept @Donny's answer (whatever it may be) this time around and move on without repeating the same request again and again. That would be really helpful in keeping it peaceful around here. Thank you.
Roger that. Apologies, was just concerned.
Over at RedGeneral's post my lack of understanding of his points did get me into a little trouble. But now it seems that is going to follow me forever. I was just mentioning it to Danny to see his thoughts. I am not even sure if he is going to reply as I think this post is dead.
