FJ got the angles right. The geometry of the TOS bridge is fixed and immutable. The number of sections that make up the 360 degrees is known to be ten, so being offset by one section is 36 degrees.
Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
FJ got the angles right. The geometry of the TOS bridge is fixed and immutable. The number of sections that make up the 360 degrees is known to be ten, so being offset by one section is 36 degrees.
There are ten stations, evenly divided around a full circle. Like the man says, math.
Yes, well, obviously 360 / 10 = 36. But the question is, do the ten sections really each subtend the same angle on the set itself. That's a question for experts familiar with the set.
Perhaps someone like @Shaw could comment.
The TOS-R does support a larger Enterprise size in other scenes, too. I'd eyeball it at ~28% increase or a ~1200 foot ship.
Has anyone heard from the Remastered production team as to their concept/design on the TOS-E size? The ship cross-section graphic in the mirror episode of ENT shows the larger Defiant size. I don't think the Remaster team was involved in that episode.
Assuming that the Bridge sketch on the set plans is anywhere accurate, then no they don't - more like 35.5 degrees for all wedges except the viewscreen segment, which was 40.5 degrees
(I am assuming that the 35 and 36 degree wedges below are a drafting error, since anything else makes little sense)
Thank you, that was the point of my question.Assuming that the Bridge sketch on the set plans is anywhere accurate, then no they don't - more like 35.5 degrees for all wedges except the viewscreen segment, which was 40.5 degrees
(I am assuming that the 35 and 36 degree wedges below are a drafting error, since anything else makes little sense)
Hold on: that drawing was made by hand on paper, as a set illustration not a construction plan. It didn't have to be precise, which would require immense care by the draftsman in those days. Today you'd have to make the angles wrong on purpose, but in the pre-computer era, getting the angles precisely right was the furthest thing from automatic.
On top of that, the processes to reproduce and print it in 1967 might have introduced some slight distortion.
Then, to be published, the paper had to be photographed on film that might not be perfectly flat in the camera, and by a lens that might not be perfectly parallel to the document, which might not have been lying perfectly flat on the table.
There's even another link in the chain: when it was scanned for the digital era, was the paper perfectly flat on the glass platen? If it wasn't exquisitely flat, it will have some slight distortion.
It seems clear to me (and Franz Joseph and Michael McMaster) that the design intention was ten equal sections that supply 36 degrees each. The 1967 floor plan looks imperfect, the carpenter-built set might have been imperfect, but in-universe it would be idealized because 23rd century spaceships are built just right.
On top of that, the processes to reproduce and print it in 1967 might have introduced some slight distortion.
Then, to be published, the paper had to be photographed on film that might not be perfectly flat in the camera, and by a lens that might not be perfectly parallel to the document, which might not have been lying perfectly flat on the table.
There's even another link in the chain: when it was scanned for the digital era, was the paper perfectly flat on the glass platen? If it wasn't exquisitely flat, it will have some slight distortion.
It seems clear to me (and Franz Joseph and Michael McMaster) that the design intention was ten equal sections that supply 36 degrees each. The 1967 floor plan looks imperfect, the carpenter-built set might have been imperfect, but in-universe it would be idealized because 23rd century spaceships are built just right.
That makes sense. And it would make sense to round measurements down for all but the last one made, so that they didn't end up with something that wouldn't close into a circle, and then cut the last piece to fit to complete the circle perfectly.
If that was the plan for how it was constructed (and under the assumption that the figure is correct, at least to the degree that the viewscreen piece was measurably wider), it would explain why all but one piece are pretty close to subtending 36 degrees but slightly less, and it would be either a happy accident or wise and sensible choice to choose the viewscreen piece to be the wider, left over remainder piece.
It would be neat to know more about the construction process. Maybe James Cawley has some insights.
Something else occurred to me.
40 degrees is over 11% larger than 36 degrees. That's a noticeable width increase. If there were any fan films that adhered strictly to the Joseph or McMaster blueprints (and I've put neither ruler nor protractor to the McMaster plans, so I'll take peoples' word that it has an offset of 36 degrees), and if the TOS set viewscreen station subtended 40 degrees or more, there should be a noticeable difference in the appearance of those fan film viewscreens in shots framed to be similar to those in TOS. The aspect of the screen itself might even be telling.
[edit - See https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-11#post-13697493 below for more.
In clarification, the McMaster viewscreen in fact subtends more than 36 degrees, whereas the Joseph viewscreen appears to subtend 36 degrees.]
40 degrees is over 11% larger than 36 degrees. That's a noticeable width increase. If there were any fan films that adhered strictly to the Joseph or McMaster blueprints (and I've put neither ruler nor protractor to the McMaster plans, so I'll take peoples' word that it has an offset of 36 degrees), and if the TOS set viewscreen station subtended 40 degrees or more, there should be a noticeable difference in the appearance of those fan film viewscreens in shots framed to be similar to those in TOS. The aspect of the screen itself might even be telling.
[edit - See https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-11#post-13697493 below for more.
In clarification, the McMaster viewscreen in fact subtends more than 36 degrees, whereas the Joseph viewscreen appears to subtend 36 degrees.]
Last edited:
Just saying , but are we even sure that the original set actually closed right anyway? Let’s remember that at least some of the bulkheads were regularly removed to place the camera outside the set.
The pie wedges were on wheels and just rolled out as needed. The stations between Spock's and the viewer were rarely in place. You can see some of them in the background in some publicity photos of Nichols.
Last edited:
Good question.
These photos just go to show that even when you think you've seen all the Trek photos that exist...there are always more!
These definitely give clear evidence of how they are moved around!
I think they could close the circle neatly, with the sections being accurately built enough to do that much. But someone (Justman and Solow maybe?) said that every director who came on the show wanted to do a shot showing the completely enclosed bridge, and nobody could get it done satisfactorily. The trouble must have been the size of the camera in those days, and how little unobstructed floor space there was. (A handheld camera was used along with the big camera for the bar fight in "The Trouble with Tribbles," but that was for footage that was okay to look loose and frantic.)
I'm not sure here if the Command section was this badly aligned with the main view-screen due to carpentry issues, or if the central platform was turned slightly to starboard on purpose to get the desired shots:
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x01hd/spocksbrainhd0247.jpg
We know the central platform wasn't nailed down, due this impossible shot that eliminated any need for an image on the main view-screen:
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x22hd/byanyothernamehd0858.jpg
And they knew their business, too. I watched for decades as a devout fan, but the eye is so drawn to Chekov and what's about to happen to him that I probably didn't notice the set behind him until we had Internet photos. They absolutely got away with this.
In universe, the console position was adjustable based on the needs of the tactical situation. The helmsman needed a better view of the view screen to do his job in that situation so he slid the console over a little. Nothing was happening on the screen and the action was behind the navigator, so, Chekov spun the console around to see the action unfolding on the bridge.
Oookkayyy.
Similar threads
