Unseen TOS....

[aridas sofia]

I’ve said it before, but one day I’m going to 3D model the TMP refit more in the TOS aesthetic. Could be interesting.

The model before it got the final work over at the behest of Douglas Trumbull, then painted and decaled with TOS graphics. And get rid of the big ocean liner windows, and Those RCS thrusters you mentioned. And maybe get rid of the docking ports, too.

I have a 1/350 kit of the refit that I’d like to do in this way once I can model and 3D print the parts to do it right.

http://beyondthemarquee.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Enterprise-Scale-Reference_2-600x387.jpg

I have over the years come to believe that - at least for me, who spent the 1970s hoping for a return of Star Trek (and who loved TMP but realized even then that it was something else) - I never did get the return of the Star Trek I was hoping for. I got umpteen films and series, but nothing like Star Trek. With TMP, Roddenberry gave us what he thought Star Trek should be, then in TWOK et al Bennett and Meyer gave us what they thought it should be. Yet Roddenberry had only been a (admittedly important) part of the TOS magic, while Bennett/Meyer not at all. TOS was definitely a magic of many hands, made all the more so by the weird mix of escapism and waning optimism that defined the time it was made. By 1979 that zeitgeist was long gone, replaced by pervasive cynicism. You couldn’t make TOS because TOS was aimed at an audience mindset that no longer existed in any meaningful way.

For awhile I thought the real indispensable human ingredient was Gene Coon, who left after “Bread and Circuses” in the second season and after whose departure the show very much changed in tone. By 1973, Coon was dead. No later Treks had the benefit of his deft hand. And yet, I don’t think even Coon could have made a revived TOS Star Trek work in the post-1960s world. It is one thing to comment on the human condition. It is quite another to do so to an audience whose faith that the world can be a much better place is deeply shaken.

 

[Warped9]

Sad, you cannot hit 1969 again. As a fan the point of view is already skewed.

It’s a tough job. In this thread I am making a point of trying to ignore post TOS influences to try getting into the mindset of what the creative staff could do back in the day. It ain’t easy. And thats with me already rejecting any post TOS Trek as totally irrelevant to the task at hand.

One has to be a fanatic.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s a tough job. In this thread I am making a point of trying to ignore post TOS influences to try getting into the mindset of what the creative staff could do back in the day. It ain’t easy. And thats with me already rejecting any post TOS Trek as totally irrelevant to the task at hand.

One has to be a fanatic.

Hmmm...yes and no. A fanatic would not be able to think outside the box like you are trying to do.

 

[Warped9]

Hmmm...yes and no. A fanatic would not be able to think outside the box like you are trying to do.

It’s a matter of perspective. I’m not playing in the same box most others are content to be in. I’m trying to get into the box most people ignore.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s a matter of perspective. I’m not playing in the same box most others are content to be in. I’m trying to get into the box most people ignore.

Indeed. That's how production mindsets sometimes have to work.

 

[trynda1701]

It’s a matter of perspective. I’m not playing in the same box most others are content to be in. I’m trying to get into the box most people ignore.

That's an interesting way to put it!

What is it you're currently working on here, time permitting of course?

 

[Dukhat]

It’s a tough job. In this thread I am making a point of trying to ignore post TOS influences to try getting into the mindset of what the creative staff could do back in the day. It ain’t easy. And thats with me already rejecting any post TOS Trek as totally irrelevant to the task at hand.

This is why I'm a fan of Star Fleet Battles. Imagine an entire universe based solely on TOS/TAS/Franz Joseph/etc., without any of the dilution of the TOS films and the TNG era, not to mention any TOS 'prequels' made long after the fact.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Didn't SFB eventually use "X-Ships" that were direct tie-ins to TMP-era refits and upgrades?

 

[Shaw]

Back in the day Jefferies had a reason for designing the ship as he did. The smooth hull also conveyed the idea of very advanced engineering and technology that made it look far beyond contemporary understanding.

I'm going to throw this out here, but please feel free to ignore my ramblings.

From what I've been able to gather, Jefferies had become disillusioned with the cylindrical engines of the Enterprise by 1965. When the show was picked up and money became available to improve the model, Jefferies requested replacing the engines with a more visually interesting design. The idea was shot down by the producers because such radical changes would effectively nullify their recent investment in stock footage shot during production of WNMHGB.

Jefferies didn't give up on the idea, he would later work it into the design of the Klingon Battle Cruiser and finally see it through in his redesign of the Enterprise for the Star Trek II TV series.

I mostly point this out so that people don't think Jefferies' redesign was him following a 70's style of ship design.



On a personal note, in 1978 (shortly after the release of the TMP teaser posters) I got to ask Scotty (James Doohan) a question at a convention. My question was "Why does it look like the Enterprise is using Klingon engines in the poster?" His answer was that much like cars, the design of the Enterprise has changed over time.

Shortly after that I took the engines from my Klingon model and added them under my Enterprise model's primary hull (tug style) so there could be warp ability after saucer separation.

 

[Dukhat]

Didn't SFB eventually use "X-Ships" that were direct tie-ins to TMP-era refits and upgrades?

From what little Google-fu I've done, I didn't see any reference to X-ships that had to do with TMP-era upgrades. I could be wrong, though.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Hmmm... Maybe I'm thinking of Q-ships then. Been a long time - going back over 30 years now...

 

[trynda1701]

Didn't SFB eventually use "X-Ships" that were direct tie-ins to TMP-era refits and upgrades?

I'll let a SFB player explain what they are about, and why they can't look exactly like the TMP-TUC movie era Enterprise.

 

[Warped9]

I'm going to throw this out here, but please feel free to ignore my ramblings.

From what I've been able to gather, Jefferies had become disillusioned with the cylindrical engines of the Enterprise by 1965. When the show was picked up and money became available to improve the model, Jefferies requested replacing the engines with a more visually interesting design. The idea was shot down by the producers because such radical changes would effectively nullify their recent investment in stock footage shot during production of WNMHGB.

Jefferies didn't give up on the idea, he would later work it into the design of the Klingon Battle Cruiser and finally see it through in his redesign of the Enterprise for the Star Trek II TV series.

I mostly point this out so that people don't think Jefferies' redesign was him following a 70's style of ship design.



On a personal note, in 1978 (shortly after the release of the TMP teaser posters) I got to ask Scotty (James Doohan) a question at a convention. My question was "Why does it look like the Enterprise is using Klingon engines in the poster?" His answer was that much like cars, the design of the Enterprise has changed over time.

Shortly after that I took the engines from my Klingon model and added them under my Enterprise model's primary hull (tug style) so there could be warp ability after saucer separation.

I had heard that MJ preferred the flattened box like nacelles. They work on the TMP refit, but I’ve long felt they didn’t look right on the Phase II E as it was very much like the TOS E. It just looked wrong to my eyes.

 

[StarCruiser]

They kind of "clash" with the hull's TOS styling...

Yeah - the Phase II E always looked a bit off to me as well. Not horrible but, not right either.

 

[trynda1701]

I had heard that MJ preferred the flattened box like nacelles. They work on the TMP refit, but I’ve long felt they didn’t look right on the Phase II E as it was very much like the TOS E. It just looked wrong to my eyes.

If I remember correctly, in the "Star Trek Sketchbook", as Jeffries drew what was nearly the final TOS configuration, isn't there is a smaller sketch with box like nacelles, labelled 'first refit' or something like that, but also "1701-A"?

 

[Warped9]

I had never heard, until now, that Jefferies wanted to swap out the cylindrical nacelles for flat ones during TOS’ production. I gotta say I’m glad that didn’t happen.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Nothing was more disappointing for me was when I saw the construction of the Constitution Class Enterprise in TMP because of the construction aspect of the series of sequences; it felt so 20th Century thinking. Watching TOS I thought a Starfleet vessel like the Starship Class Enterprise and the fellow vessels in its design would be built like how the movie character LeeLoo was created in "The 5th Element" something done organically. TMP's drydock was a product of that movie and I don't feel it meshes well with the Starship Class vessel design, I would think if TOS did have such a docking establishment, it would be more in the vain of space station K-7 than anything done in TMP universe.

 

[aridas sofia]

Nothing was more disappointing for me was when I saw the construction of the Constitution Class Enterprise in TMP because of the construction aspect of the series of sequences; it felt so 20th Century thinking. Watching TOS I thought a Starfleet vessel like the Starship Class Enterprise and the fellow vessels in its design would be built like how the movie character LeeLoo was created in "The 5th Element" something done organically. TMP's drydock was a product of that movie and I don't feel it meshes well with the Starship Class vessel design, I would think if TOS did have such a docking establishment, it would be more in the vain of space station K-7 than anything done in TMP universe.

I think the TMP problem as relates to that drydock is that it is depicted in a very contemporary, stick-built way, with humans driving workbees like Fred Flintstone driving a brontosaurus crane. The drydock itself is fine - if it were an autonomous thing, synthesizing parts and beaming them into place, guiding drones that weave hull sections and then apply thermocoat over them, with the occasional person in the occasional workbee just acting as shepherds observing and sometimes guiding operations.

 

[Atolm]

I've always looked at Trek as many alternate continuities or time lines, as each of these had retconned or blatantley changed a lot from the previous series and thus changed further from TOS.
I place them as the following:
0-Cage
1-TOS
2-TAS
3-TMP
4-TWoK through UDC
5-TNG
6-TNG Film Series
7-DS9 and VOY
8-ENT
9-JJverse
10-Disc, PIC
11-Lower Decks
13-Prodigy (I have not seen this series yet, so do not know for sure where his actually belongs)

If you look at this breakdown, you will see that every one of these has it's own continuity...they don't all jive together. Even DS9/Voyager strayed and retconned a lot from TNG, in terms of technology levels, morality, species mannerisms ...
Side note: The Borg of TNG's Q-who, are the "borg", the rest after that, became micro-quandaries and continuity errors unto themselves...more so than any other race besides humans of Trek.

 

[Michael]

Well, if you're going to get that fastidious with timelines/continuities in your Trek, you're almost getting to a point where every other scene would have to be a separate continuity. Every time they make some goof during production with the costumes from shot to shot, every time Beverly has a new hairstyle because a new season started between scenes, every time an actor slightly mispronounces the name of a character or species, every time the transporter process takes slightly longer than the last time …

I imagine it's going to get unnecessarily complicated real fast. Isn't it easier to just accept that these are multiple separate productions, made by a multitude of different groups of people, each with different ideas, strengths and viewpoints, created over a span of decades? Sure, they want you to accept that it's all happening in one connected universe. But in the end it's the individual stories that matter, not the details. As much fun as it can be examining them.