Script blunders!

[Mytran]

To me, the workaround for the transporter is for there to be a duty transporter room and crew members were responsible for knowing or finding out which transporter room was the one in use.
That would be similar to how most Navy ships have two quarterdecks (port and starboard) but the only time when you specified port or starboard was when both were in use (like when a ship was moored to yours and that ship's crew had to cross your ship). When one was in use, it was phrases like "report to the quarterdeck" and "call the quarterdeck."

That's how I rationalise it in my head as well - there would be lots of information known to the crew which wasn't spelled out for the audience. Knowing which Transporter Room was active that day and which ones were undergoing the essential regular maintenance which all energy/matter scramblers require is just routine information which our heroes were privy to. And turbolifts also.

 

[blssdwlf]

That's how I rationalise it in my head as well - there would be lots of information known to the crew which wasn't spelled out for the audience. Knowing which Transporter Room was active that day and which ones were undergoing the essential regular maintenance which all energy/matter scramblers require is just routine information which our heroes were privy to. And turbolifts also.

LOL, I have the same thinking too (except for engine rooms since you quoted the line where it was said on screen )

The hangar deck model was not, as I understand it, forced perspective. It was instead distorted both to facilitate camera access, and to accomodate the lenses used to film it.

I'm curious of this distortion - what is the reference that you compared the maquette to know it was distorted?

Yeah, Jefferies showed us exactly how big he intended the “real” hangar deck to be. It’s on his Phase II cross section, and it’s just as small as people who have dug deep into this have come to realize. It’s big enough to land the shuttlecraft. But it ain’t nothing like it was mistakenly - based on that distorted model - portrayed in TAS. The flight deck is what we see. The hangar, as you and I both showed, is below, accessed by the turntable lift.

Hmm.. is your reference the Phase II cross section?

I had the opportunity to tour the Tench-class USS Torsk (SS-423) some years ago and was shocked how small it was. I’m not sure what purpose it serves showing these ships bigger rather than smaller. You’d think there would be some dramatic benefit in showing people struggling in cramped quarters. Big ships are just as likely to make me think slow and ponderous as majestic.

I have a bit of the opposite thinking in that Big ships can be faster than smaller ships depending on the power and propulsion system. I like the sets as shown in the TOS episodes as they are of appropriate size for the TOS Enterprise. IMHO.

 

[Warped9]

One soon realizes a distinction between the sets and miniatures as they actually are, what they’re trying to represent and what they would be like if they were genuinely real.

Film and television can hide a multitude of production sins and compromises. The hero props for phasers, communicators and tricorders were distinctly rougher than the polished replicas we have seen since. A 1/350 scale Polar Lights TOS Enterprise properly put together can look a lot more exacting and refined than the actual 11ft. miniature. My own 3D shuttlecraft actually corrects certain production compromises in order to look more “real.”

 

[blssdwlf]

One soon realizes a distinction between the sets and miniatures as they actually are, what they’re trying to represent and what they would really be like.

If you have a reference, then yes you can make an objective distinction of what "they would really be like" if it were full-size. Otherwise, without a reference the distinction is "what you'd think they should be like."

So circling back to the flight deck. There is only the built maquette and no full-size reference. What could you possibly claim to be a reference to identify the maquette as being distorted?

 

[scotpens]

I had the opportunity to tour the Tench-class USS Torsk (SS-423) some years ago and was shocked how small it was. I’m not sure what purpose it serves showing these ships bigger rather than smaller. You’d think there would be some dramatic benefit in showing people struggling in cramped quarters. Big ships are just as likely to make me think slow and ponderous as majestic.

Cramped sets may be good for drama, but they're a hassle for production.

 

[BK613]

Hmm.. is your reference the Phase II cross section?

I wondered that as well. My gut feeling on the Phase II cross-section is that it is less the way MJ really wanted it and more not starting from scratch when asked to revisit it.

edit to add: One wonders if, absent TMoST, we fans would have happily built our Enterprises based on the scale reference of the flight deck.
Which of course, would have yielded a ship that was large enough to fit everything...

 

[Warped9]

From what I’ve seen it looks like all the TOS sets would fit as seen within a 947ft. ship with the exception of the flight deck. And a number of fans have done it.

Regarding the flight deck it’s not really a set, but a miniature. And like the shuttlecraft exterior and interior it’s not scaled realistically whereas the remaining ship's sets appear reasonably scaled.

 

[blssdwlf]

I wondered that as well. My gut feeling on the Phase II cross-section is that it is less the way MJ really wanted it and more not starting from scratch when asked to revisit it.

edit to add: One wonders if, absent TMoST, we fans would have happily built our Enterprises based on the scale reference of the flight deck.
Which of course, would have yielded a ship that was large enough to fit everything...

That's kinda why I abandoned referencing TMoST for my Enterprise...

 

[aridas sofia]

If you have a reference, then yes you can make an objective distinction of what "they would really be like" if it were full-size. Otherwise, without a reference the distinction is "what you'd think they should be like."

So circling back to the flight deck. There is only the built maquette and no full-size reference. What could you possibly claim to be a reference to identify the maquette as being distorted?

As to your first point about the relative subjectivity of any assessment of the sets as not being reflective of a realistic space, I’ve already pointed out two- the problems with the engineering set, and the railings on the bridge. You just have to stand on the upper level of the bridge to know how absurd those railings are. They are where they are I presume, not to obscure camera angles. Is that my subjective opinion? Yes. Did the railing come to my shin? Yes. Take my opinion with whatever grain of salt you wish.

As for the flight deck model, does the model match the drawing in TMoST? Do either match the space Jefferies allows for it in his cross section?

I have no idea how BK613 can say Jefferies was not correcting the TOS ship in his Phase II plans when he went out of his way to do just that with the bridge. Why put two turbolifts on the bridge to straighten its apparent offset angle and not correct the misperception left by TAS about the flight deck? Why one and not the other?

Just check to see which drawings match closest the shape of the engineering hull. It sure isn’t that drawing in TMoST. It isn’t the maquette. It is the interior he laboriously translates to a smaller space in the Phase II cross section.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Someday, a VR walkaround will be created that will at least let you visit all the decks and select spaces of such a ship.

There's already a SteamVR environment recreating the TOS sets. The detail isn't great, but you get to experience the knee-high railings on the bridge, how small everything is in general and the bizarre proportions of engineering.

It reminds me of how someone once described the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt blueprints and manual - that they weren't depicting the Enterprise exactly as it was on TV, but the hypothetical "real" ship those limited sets represented. I guess that's the near end of a sliding scale that reaches all the way to the outright rebooted designs of Strange New Worlds.

 

[blssdwlf]

As to your first point about the relative subjectivity of any assessment of the sets as not being reflective of a realistic space,

My first point was in reply to Warped9's comment of needing a reference to show objectively where and how the flight deck maquette was said to be distorted. But if there isn't any reference then the claim is really an opinion based on what someone wants it to look like.

I’ve already pointed out two- the problems with the engineering set, and the railings on the bridge. You just have to stand on the upper level of the bridge to know how absurd those railings are. They are where they are I presume, not to obscure camera angles. Is that my subjective opinion? Yes. Did the railing come to my shin? Yes. Take my opinion with whatever grain of salt you wish.

Right, those are your opinions of why and what you would alter the sets to your liking. I was simply looking for what was being referenced to say the flight deck was distorted.

As for the flight deck model, does the model match the drawing in TMoST?

No the maquette does not. So to confirm, that is the reference you are comparing the maquette to?

Do either match the space Jefferies allows for it in his cross section?

The drawing in TMoST for the flight deck does not fit in the TMoST cutaway cross-section space. The angle/curve of the drawing does not match the angle/curve of the TMoST Enterprise with the forward section too tall for the engineering section.

In both cases, the drawing in TMoST and the maquette extend under the nacelle pylons so both do not fit in the blocked off space in the TMoST cutaway cross-section.

I have no idea how BK613 can say Jefferies was not correcting the TOS ship in his Phase II plans when he went out of his way to do just that with the bridge. Why put two turbolifts on the bridge to straighten its apparent offset angle and not correct the misperception left by TAS about the flight deck? Why one and not the other?

I would consider it a correction if Jefferies was re-drawing the cross-section that was in TMoST but it is difficult to claim that since you're referencing the Phase II plans which is of a different ship in size and shape.

Just check to see which drawings match closest the shape of the engineering hull. It sure isn’t that drawing in TMoST. It isn’t the maquette. It is the interior he laboriously translates to a smaller space in the Phase II cross section.

I get the assumed connection but isn't using the flight deck of a different ship as your reference to determine that the filmed maquette is distorted a bit of a stretch? They are two different ship designs and the flight deck maquette actually aired while these drawings did not.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

To me, the workaround for the transporter is for there to be a duty transporter room and crew members were responsible for knowing or finding out which transporter room was the one in use.
That would be similar to how most Navy ships have two quarterdecks (port and starboard) but the only time when you specified port or starboard was when both were in use (like when a ship was moored to yours and that ship's crew had to cross your ship). When one was in use, it was phrases like "report to the quarterdeck" and "call the quarterdeck."

Yeah, I can certainly see the logic in that. I don't think it's really borne out by the show itself, where they were constantly having problems with "THE transporter room" and never talked about using one of the others, but it would certainly make sense if ST/Starfleet were real.

 

[aridas sofia]

“but it is difficult to claim that since you're referencing the Phase II plans which is of a different ship in size and shape.”
“I get the assumed connection but isn't using the flight deck of a different ship as your reference to determine that the filmed maquette is distorted a bit of a stretch? They are two different ship designs and the flight deck maquette actually aired while these drawings did not.”

But they are NOT two different ships. The Phase II ship is a much less thorough refitting of the TOS ship than what was depicted in TMP. Jefferies went out of his way to show it with the same appearance hangar deck and all he did was make it fit the space he’d allotted in his original cross section. The only difference is on the Phase II refit, he moves the pylons forward to give himself a bit more room. Given that the space is blacked out on the TOS cross section, I was left to think the hangar deck hadn’t been fully envisioned when he drew it. Once it was, he was left with what he had drawn and Datin had built to accommodate filming. I don’t see that as any different than the offset turbolift on the bridge. A “real” bridge has the turbolift behind the captain, and railings much higher.

Are these my opinions? Of course. I’m a historian and would be the first to admit that any exercise in historical reasoning is subjective. But those opinions are guided by the available evidence, and shouldn’t be critiqued for being opinions (which they of course are) but rather for the quality of their reasoning based on the available evidence.

 

[TIN_MAN]

In regards to the transporters, I've always reasoned that "transporter # 1" is the one they always use, unless it's scheduled for maintenance, in which case they'd use #2. But in any case, whatever one they were using at any given time would always be referred to as "the" transporter because its the only in use -under ordinary circumstances.
And in those instances where we see "the" transporter isn't working and nobody bothered to use one of the other transporter rooms, I just chalk up to dramatic license and not reflective of how the "real" ship and crew would operate. After all, if we really want to get nit picky about it, there's a lot of instances throughout the series where the action and drama wouldn't play out the same in real life circumstances as it does on the show (and yes, we can rationalize these in a variety of ways, but then if it made perfect real world sense to begin with, we wouldn't need to rationalize in the first place).
The writers guide says that it is assumed there is more than one transporter, so that's proof of creator intent, but that doesn't mean that -for dramatic purposes- the production staff can't bend the rules occasionally, in the service of crafting a good entertaining episode.

 

[TIN_MAN]

It reminds me of how someone once described the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt blueprints and manual - that they weren't depicting the Enterprise exactly as it was on TV, but the hypothetical "real" ship those limited sets represented. I guess that's the near end of a sliding scale that reaches all the way to the outright rebooted designs of Strange New Worlds.

I believe it was his daughter Karen, who first pointed out FJ's intent, although other people, myself included, have brought it up from time to time.
As for SNW, it's definitely on the opposite end of the scale of realism, but rather changing things to meet today's production necessities and sense of dramatic license.

 

[aridas sofia]

If transporter room one is out, it might mean just that room, or it might mean the ship’s ability to transport is totally out. Which brings us to the underlying assumption we need to confront when postulating how many transporters there are- how much power do these things use? If you want to say not very much compared to those warp engines, then maybe you could beam fifty people at a time from nine different rooms. They become a possible method of emergency escape as strongly hinted at in Doomsday Machine. But in that same episode we get the strong impression that the transporter meeds warp-level power and if that is on the fritz, you can’t even beam one person. So somehow Constellation could beam everyone quickly from a wrecked ship, while Enterprise couldn’t beam one guy from a minimally damaged ship. Constellation did it faster than they could decouple the saucer and fly it down. It’s a bit of a conundrum to figure out, but I am left to think Constellation had emergency transporters but it was very difficult to disengage the saucer, while Enterprise maybe only had a few transporter rooms and an easier way to detach the saucer.

 

[Unicron]

I've sometimes felt the number of shuttles on the ship is too small, given that the transporters are not always reliable as an alternative (even if there's multiple transporters on some vessels).

 

[F. King Daniel]

Another big reason to consider the Enterprise sets as less than literal is "Court Martial", unless the search for Finney was literally them circling those 2 big transformers in that one room until he materialised.

 

[Henoch]

For my head canon, I have two (or multiple if you want) transporter rooms, but only one central transporter mechanism on the ship. When "the transporter" goes down, the individual rooms also go down. The transporter pads are the input/output devices to the central system and the ship's transport beaming apparatus. The main transporter room is used in most general situations. The secondary transporter room is normally used for longer term science missions (hence the need for food slots). Both rooms where continuous modified over the next two seasons to remove the food slots and add the enhanced sensor information consoles and displays.

 

[Warped9]

The real bones of contention at play is that while some things might be nailed down as they went they weren’t really scrutinizing the scripts enough to make certain all references to tech, hardware and ship locales were kept consistent. Everything was at the mercy of get the show in the can and no one is gonna be scrutinizing this anyway.

Little did they know…