I unfortunately was on mobile otherwise I would have taken a picture.
Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
Well, that isn't likely to be a 947' Enterprise....It's part of an ongoing update project to an original cutaway by Matthew Paul Cushman
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Matthew_Paul_Cushman
Here's an expanded view of that shot:
The solution I use is to open up the little-arrow-link in a new tab; then it doesn't matter if the text is on the same page or not
If the bridge was at no funny angle either before “The Cage” (Short Treks) or after “The Cage” (DSC), then the angle probably wasn’t funny during “The Cage” either, right?
The original pilot is just as much a candidate for an offset bridge as the rest of TOS, but we’re specifically letting DSC’s production design take precedence in Continuity 2021.
The constraints are basically in place and encircling what we know of TOS, so the only question is if this is convincing enough or if we’d have to wait for a flash-forward to Kirk’s time with the Enterprise redesigned to an extent, but not enough to make one believe the bridge angle needed to be changed for whatever reason.
The original pilot is just as much a candidate for an offset bridge as the rest of TOS, but we’re specifically letting DSC’s production design take precedence in Continuity 2021.
The constraints are basically in place and encircling what we know of TOS, so the only question is if this is convincing enough or if we’d have to wait for a flash-forward to Kirk’s time with the Enterprise redesigned to an extent, but not enough to make one believe the bridge angle needed to be changed for whatever reason.
DSC-era production design is not what this thread is about.
It’s not purely a behind-the-scenes thread, and ‘Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series’ are part of the same official continuity as DSC, Short Treks and the upcoming SNW.
If it were a behind-the-scenes thread, then the question would be mostly what Matt Jefferies was thinking all the way from TOS to Phase II.
I doubt too many people give a shit about the "official" continuity. The folks who are now working on Trek had nothing to do with "The Cage" or TOS, their interpretations of the material have no place in this thread.
Know the room.
I did double-check the intent before going for this particular solution. From the post which opened this discussion:
The word canonically immediately brings in Star Trek canon as a whole, and there is nothing (yet) that officially places DSC and its spin-offs in a different timeline, merely a different artistic interpretation. Which way the bridge faced has become a part of history; if Spock were asked to recall what the angle was in 2258, he would be expected to reply in accordance with DSC.
Dude, you're like some young punk who's crashed the old folks' home, looking for a rave on bingo night.
It's part of an ongoing update project to an original cutaway by Matthew Paul Cushman
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Matthew_Paul_Cushman
Here's an expanded view of that shot:
Very nice work!
This thread is specifically referring to the ST: TOS version of NCC-1701.
Oh, for corn’s sake can you just not?
I know it’s your shtick to go into other people’s threads and challenge the premise, but it’s really irritating.
And since the OP hasn’t posted in this thread since page 1 (give that some thought), I agree with others who have said this is about TOS Enterprise and nothing else. That’s what this forum is, that’s what this thread is.
So let’s move on from this digression and go back to the 45 page debate about the angle of the bridge everyone is actually talking about.
How am I challenging a premise which nobody has bothered to clarify in the title? The “shtick” here is to end the discussion, to help bring this issue to a rousing finale, especially since it has gone on for not just 45 pages but also fifty years or so. The fun is in looking for ways to do that. While we may never find out what Matt Jefferies was thinking at the time, at least we can use DSC, Short Treks and eventually SNW to answer the question in canonical terms, bringing that part of the issue to a close.
But instead I’m getting answers here that suggest not even that should work, because it’s DSC, a different forum, so why am I talking about it in a TOS forum? Are we saying The Trek BBS isn’t interested in the franchise view of continuity, where TOS is just one show among many, increasingly constrained by whatever the latest iterations choose to do? Those are not just for different forums but also different age groups?? I thought we were all Star Trek fans, free to engage with everyone on how a particular iteration should fit or be improved, rather than split into factions to minimize friction.
I watch everything so I can say what I think in forums appropriate to the individual parts of the overall continuity, without thinking for one second that the shows I have issues with somehow “don’t apply”. If I did that I wouldn’t be talking about Star Trek at all, because what goes into Star Trek is not up to me. So either let’s discuss this from all aspects or simply retitle the topic “Did Matt Jefferies ever intend a funny angle for the bridge?” or “Is the bridge at a funny angle in TOS independent of the franchise?” I don’t see much point to the latter, but at least it would clarify that the question is about a hypothetical vision “free” of the latest continuity.
But instead I’m getting answers here that suggest not even that should work, because it’s DSC, a different forum, so why am I talking about it in a TOS forum? Are we saying The Trek BBS isn’t interested in the franchise view of continuity, where TOS is just one show among many, increasingly constrained by whatever the latest iterations choose to do? Those are not just for different forums but also different age groups?? I thought we were all Star Trek fans, free to engage with everyone on how a particular iteration should fit or be improved, rather than split into factions to minimize friction.
I watch everything so I can say what I think in forums appropriate to the individual parts of the overall continuity, without thinking for one second that the shows I have issues with somehow “don’t apply”. If I did that I wouldn’t be talking about Star Trek at all, because what goes into Star Trek is not up to me. So either let’s discuss this from all aspects or simply retitle the topic “Did Matt Jefferies ever intend a funny angle for the bridge?” or “Is the bridge at a funny angle in TOS independent of the franchise?” I don’t see much point to the latter, but at least it would clarify that the question is about a hypothetical vision “free” of the latest continuity.
Last edited:
Looks at the title of the thread. Looks at the sub-forum the thread is posted in. Seems pretty effing clear to me.
It isn’t an issue for them. The TOS Enterprise was created before most of the current PTB were even born. Their shows are theirs and have no bearing on creative decisions made on TOS.
Only if you treat TOS as an entity independent of what came after, which is not the official view of the franchise, or we wouldn’t have all-encompassing reference books like the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Shows like DSC inform the official vision of TOS, by placing constraints on it that favor some interpretations over others.
If it weren’t like that, then to use a different example, you could have a different thread discussing whether or not TOS is set in the 2260s or even the 23rd century. Still another thread could debate circumstances surrounding Cochrane’s invention of space warp, totally disregarding the events in FC.
It’s not explicitly a behind-the-scenes thread, hence the suggestion to use a different title.
No, but they have bearing on how those creative decisions are interpreted in the context of the overall franchise, as opposed to an alternate reality where there was no Star Trek after TOS.
So are the nacelle struts straight or angled? The design changed, we can't discuss them both at the same time and pretend it didn't.
When watching the show it doesn't matter and I can accept both versions as the same ship but a discussion like this can only be about one version, it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Threads like that do exist and there are hints in TOS that it takes place much further in the future than the 23rd century. It is possible to talk TOS and ignore the wider canon for the sake of discussion when it comes to decisions made by the production team in the 60s.
Especially in a forum set aside to have those kinds of discussions.
Edit to add: also probably not wise for a poster to continue "a digression" after the forum mod was explicit about moving on.
Last edited:
Similar threads
