Is the bridge at a funny angle?

Nub the way, I can easily think of a Starfeet ship where the door is directly behind the captain.

 

You are forgetting that, as has been pointed out by more than one person, even an instant's failure in the inertial dampening systems that enable human beings to survive this ship's acceleration would immediately kill all of them, and therefore no shot of them being tossed any direction ever makes any sense.

 

But...https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x18hd/arenahd268.jpg
<At least the crew are all going in right direction. >

 

Sadly I've never seen it written anywhere and even the earliest drawings show the Bridge in the classic layout.
However it is a reasonable inference, a practical reality of filming which MJ would have been aware of from the start

 

yup, which is why I always liked the fan theory that the shields are gravimetric and when hit the gravity played might at times overload. Still just a fan theory, but makes more sense to me than issues with the inertial dampeners.

 

I think the "being tossed around" was not a failure of the inertial dampening system but a subtle compensation lag to sudden changes, something which was still an issue later in TNG due to the need for dramatic visuals. You must admit it would be hard to get involved in an exciting space battle when everyone is just relaxing in their seats sipping tea.

 

It's worth noting that when the bridge plan is printed the centerline from the viewscreen through the command module isn't aligned perfectly horizontally on the page.

 

The fact that the fluctuations in the inertial dampeners are only just tossing the crew around shows just how amazing Federation technology is.

You'd guess that they're satisfied with the things staying accurate to plus or minus one gee.

 

Perhaps the tracing paper slipped when he was drawing the helm?

 

Well, the underlining on the captions for CAPTAIN, COMMAND MODULE, and MAIN SCREEN probably looks better not parallel to the center line.

If that's your consideration, then it rules out a perfectly horizontal center line.

There's also the fact that getting the figure inside a rectangle of minimal area that is aligned with the page edges after maximizing figure scale can be accomplished reasonably closely by simply manually rotating the figure without regard for whether the center line ends up perfectly horizontal.

 

I think that's why you indicate a centerline; layout on a page.can vary.

And wow, I checked out that Arena still. What a beautiful show Star Trek was!

 

23rd Century haptic technology

 

The problem of the offset bridge and turbolift in the set is one of shot framing rather than construction.

For various framing reasons, the Enterprise is usually travelling on the screen, left to right.
So, the camera is usually set up on the bridge with the characters facing right.
At that angle, the door to the bridge would not be seen.
To simplify the camera angles and sweep, the door is offset so characters would visibly enter the shot through the door, rather than just wander into shot, seemingly from nowhere. It makes for more dramatic entrances.

As such, I think we can consider that the set model introduces some inaccuracies to compromise with the camera work.

A famous aviation artist, Jack Lynnwood solved similar problems in his paintings of aircraft in order to get the most dramatic angles out of a plane by deliberately introducing inaccuracies into the paintings to get the most striking images possible. He'd reduce the size of the pilots to make the plane seem larger. Turn the rudder a little out of alignment so you could read the logo on the tail better. Put 2 contrails on a 4 engine plane so you could see them more clearly. Below is a discussion and analysis of his work by another famed aviation artist Mike Machat.

 

IIRC, the overall standing sets plan also has that centerline offset relative to the page (and building.) Though I think that there is a "half-a-station" difference in the rotation of the image.

 

The spirit of the franchise demands that the bridge be at no funny angle.

 

We should really be asking what Gene's original vision was.

 

“Out there. Thataway.”

 

Yes, but in this case that's just being accurate in relation to the rest of the figure. And the orientation of the figure is determined by aligning the stage walls with the page edges in order to maximize the figure's scale. Plus it just looks better to align the outer walls that way. In the case of the other figure, there are no such considerations.

 

Yes. Apparently the 11-footer's elevator housing had to be on the ship's center line so it wouldn't flip from side to side when the film was flipped over, with reverse decals applied to complete the illusion of traveling from right to left.

Then the bridge interior was offset, contrary to the 11-footer, so the elevator would be prominent in camera angles that were compatible with a "flying left to right" orientation you mentioned.

And it was rightly expected that no one watching 20th century TV sets would ever notice the inconsistency. When all of this was designed, nobody know The Making of Star Trek would ever be written, let alone that it would include technical drawings.

And we have a choice of fixes: let the bridge be offset to port (works fine), or scale up the Enterprise and let the exterior nub be something less obvious (works fine).

For the period, it is stunning how well Star Trek designs hang together. Thanks, Matt Jefferies.

• Compared to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, it's amazing. What's with that spiral staircase in the Seaview control room— on the top deck no less, with its curved ceiling suggesting the outer hull? Where could those stairs possibly go up to?

• There's no comparison at all with Lost in Space. The beautiful Jupiter 2 does not work. We all know it.

• Even something that should be totally realistic like the Bewitched house has problems where they cheated to optimize its looks. The window over the kitchen sink should look right into the garage, but instead we see a sunny neighborhood unobstructed. Impossible. And starting in the seventh season, they had a remodeled kitchen with its own staircase, for which there was no room in the floor plan. It was a fake staircase, built super-steep with tiny steps for forced perspective. They could only show it from one angle.

 

Agreed:
Though, I'm not certain, I believe the spiral staircase in the nose of the Seaview is a holdover from the movie version of the sub. In the movie version, there were 2 sets of windows in the bow, indicating 2 decks with the control room on the lower deck. The upper deck had a mezzanine effect with an admiral's office, I think. (Where Michael Ansara held the crew hostage with a bomb in the movie)
The TV version eliminated the upper deck (though, not the staircase) and the lower deck became the Flying Sub hangar.)

(But, there's no excuse for the Jupiter 2's 3rd deck power core.)

(Yes, it's sad that my brain is clogged up with this trivia.)