Nerds. 
How big was the Enterprise?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Nerds.
No need to change the 947' size based on realistic scales. Barely if the other hero ships would be appropriately scaled.
I think I asked before in the thread, but are the sets we see supposed to be taken 100% literally? The ship is meant to be bigger than the one stretch of corridor we saw over and over again, and because of the saucer curve it should curve differently depending on where you are. Scotty's engine room was forced-perspective. The sets were designed for massive TV cameras to access.
Everyone wants to change the ship to fit the sets, but only Franz Joseph Schnaubelt had the courage to change the sets to match his idealised version of the Enterprise.
Everyone wants to change the ship to fit the sets, but only Franz Joseph Schnaubelt had the courage to change the sets to match his idealised version of the Enterprise.
The more literal you take them, the more literal you can take the episodes and I love taking what I see seriously. Though yeah the curve can't be exactly what we're seeing unless the characters never leave the core of the saucer.
My point of view is, I build my understanding of the ship and the universe based on what we see on screen, and if anything contradicts that (like a character saying the wrong number of decks) then I disregard it as a mistake. The size of '947 feet' was shown on screen once in the tiniest of text about as visible as the jokes on the Enterprise-D MSD, so it feels better to me to find a better number rather than trying to squeeze everything in to make it match.
My point of view is, I build my understanding of the ship and the universe based on what we see on screen, and if anything contradicts that (like a character saying the wrong number of decks) then I disregard it as a mistake. The size of '947 feet' was shown on screen once in the tiniest of text about as visible as the jokes on the Enterprise-D MSD, so it feels better to me to find a better number rather than trying to squeeze everything in to make it match.
Matt Jefferies designed the ship and he was quite meticulous in doing so. If post-production staff and others make changes beyond that I still defer to Jefferies. In any production of this nature there are inevitable production compromises, but for me Jefferies’ intent matters.
I’m perfectly fine with a 947ft. ship as he established it.
I’m perfectly fine with a 947ft. ship as he established it.
I'm fine with the ship as presented on screen and never knew the size.
It's a vehicle for adventure and it might be cliche but I don't really care about the size of things.
It's a vehicle for adventure and it might be cliche but I don't really care about the size of things.
My ally is the Force!So, you’re saying “size doesn’t matter”…
Me too. I'm not a fan of this "what you saw on TOS wasn't REALLY the way things were" philosophy some like to subscribe to.
Yes.So, you’re saying “size doesn’t matter”…
Unless it's dinky.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
**slinks away in shame**
It seems to be the most respectful thing to do, as far as the original series is concerned.
It's not about TOS specifically, it's about television.
Where does the music come from, and why are the ships brightly lit in deep deep space? Why is there sound in space? Why is up seemingly universal in Trekland? Why do ships never move as if in a vacuum? Where is the line where it has to be taken literally and seriously and where do you say it's a fantasy I'm enjoying on my TV and those things don't matter?
They worked at their limits. The sets, were just that sets. Had anyone here seen a live stage performance? The sets are designed to include the whole audience. So, in other words they are basically pie slices.
In the 1960s as far as I can tell, they, and the rest of Hollywood were transitioning to a more realistic version of how things would actually be.
Face it, do you guys have any idea as to how expensive having an actual set for each deck would be???
So the set that is seen, is used as a stand in, for all others.
This is known as being rational by accounting definitions.
I can just picture the fully complete deck seven...
The accountants would be pulling their hair out, every day.
In the 1960s as far as I can tell, they, and the rest of Hollywood were transitioning to a more realistic version of how things would actually be.
Face it, do you guys have any idea as to how expensive having an actual set for each deck would be???
So the set that is seen, is used as a stand in, for all others.
This is known as being rational by accounting definitions.
I can just picture the fully complete deck seven...
The accountants would be pulling their hair out, every day.
Not completely unbelievable given that the radius of the corridor is 51 feet and would fit fine on several decks of the saucer, plus the rooms they often visit (Sickbay, Transporter Room, Briefing Room, officers' quarters) would be more likely to be located towards the middle of the saucer.
For my own work I like to replicate the onscreen sets (including the corridors!) but I understand why most deckplans adapt the curvature of the corridors, shape of rooms etc since different projects have different design goals and slavish literallness may not be among them
And TV shows often have to make compomises for the medium.
What does baffle me is why almost every deck plan I've ever seen feels the need to offset the turbolift on the Bridge.
This was an adjustment to the set to allow for better framing and prevents the Captain from easily seeing all the stations and officers, which was the original design intention of the circular layout. Just put the door behind the captain where it belongs!
It's a bit late to adjust it back now, they've already finished all the filming.
Just put the door behind the captain where it belongs!
I would far rather move the nub on the back of the model.
