And we're back.
Now, let me make this perfectly clear before this gets started up again. Producer and designer intent, reinforced by their own statements and the actual production of the show, clearly indicate a forward facing bridge.
I've never seen those quotes that state that the bridge faces "forward" from these guys. Much less that any casual use of "forward" means "exactly in line with the axis of the vessel." (I can be facing "forward" in my car while sitting at a slight angle... and I can be facing "north" when I'm actually at any magnetic azimuth between 45 degrees N/W and 45 degrees N/E. "Due North" is a term which came into use for a reason, after all.)
I'm sure you have the information which you believe "incontrovertably" establishes this. However, I have not seen any such information at any time whatsoever.
What I HAVE seen is clear indication from MJ, from his own drawings, that the tube at the back of the bridge is the lift tube, and that the bridge is in the bridge dome. These are widely known and widely accepted, and in contradiction to your own point.
Not thirty-some degrees to port,
straight forward. So, any speculation and/or supposition that someone in the production food chain "must have rotated the bridge because this lines up with that" is, by strict definition,
Wow.... if you're trying to make people despise you, and not listen to you, you're taking exactly the right approach. On the other hand, if you want to CONVINCE people... seriously, you need to dial back the obnoxiousness a bit. I'm one of the guys on here who likes you and enjoys y our take on things (even where we disagree), and that bit you just did, frankly, make me have the reaction "what a @#$*."
So, let's go over what we know.
The bridge faced forward.
No, we don't. We know that the bridge faces "generally forward." Not the same as saying "faces exactly forward in relation to the ship's primary coordinate system."
In "The Cage" we're shown that the bridge is up in the dome at the top of the primary hull. Facing forward.
We are also, let's be clear, shown that the bridge is on a floating platform within that dome, so that the floor level is not the same as the "X/Y plane" of the ship at all times."
Now, in my case, I choose to believe that the bridge isn't actually not lined up with the outside of the ship, and that this is just a limitation of a special-effect shot done with very limited resources and time, and which accomplished the MAIN PURPOSE of the shot... to establish the fact that this room, and these people, are inside this ship, and that the ship is approximately this size.
Since the shot is NOT a "perfect" shot, not by any stretch of the imagination... I have no problem accepting that the "exactly 0 degrees" thing isn't inviolable, either. Any more than I feel that I have to accept that the Aurora was actually a converted, salvaged Tholian hull, or that the Constellation was made from styrene and was attacked by a massive planet-killing BIC lighter.
The shot is not "flawless," but it's effective in conveying the primary intent - as an establishment, in the eyes of the audience, that the action seen on-set is related to the action seen in the SFX shots.
No drawing or diagram contemporaneous with the production of the show clearly identifies the nub on the aft side of the dome as anything, so any correlation between it and the turbolift is pure speculation.
I hardly think so. MJ drew his cross-section with the bridge clearly established as being "in the dome" and he drew a long, vertical shaft going down from there.
I think it's abundantly clear that this was his intention. It's also abundantly clear that you don't agree. But I can say with absolute certainty that it CAN work.
My point isn't to say "I'm right and you're wrong." It's all FICTIONAL, so there is no ultimate "right" and no ultimate "wrong," really. There is some evidence, and some of it conflicts with other parts of it. That's not uncommon in fiction.
ALL OF THIS is "pure speculation" when you get right down to it. The Enterprise doesn't really exist. But my own efforts to do a "what if it were real" approach have proven that it works, and works quite well, with the bridge in the position MJ intented it to be, with the tube at the back being the lift tube. And all that requires you to accept is that it's possible for a command and control center's main viewer not to face forward and to still be a perfectly functional command and control center.
The main viewscreen isn't a WINDOW, after all. It could face in literally any direction... without any exception whatsoever... and it would work just as well.
And there's no reason to believe that the consoles in the bridge are permanently locked down to a particular position. They are, after all, ultimately just computer terminals (including the main viewscreen).
For the most part, we're shown the turbolift reaching the bridge vertically, so obviously, there's a vertical shaft at that location. However, there are occasional instnaces where we see the turbolift moving horizontally before opening onto the bridge, so there is also clearly a lateral shaft up there.
No... all that demonstrates is that the production crew weren't following any particular "plan" when flipping the fluorescent tubes past that little plane of frosted Plexiglas. I put that into the same category as "Deck 78" in ST-V. Hardly any form of "proof of intent."
Also, it's apparent that in the only instance where we're explicitly shown that the bridge is up in the dome, "The Cage", it's with the larger dome, which is wide enough to accomodate the entire works, which makes that nub somewhat irrelevant. That this flies in the face of forty years of fan assumption and speculation is of no concern to me; time does not magically turn an error into a fact, no matter how fervently we may believe it.
You are absolutely correct... time doesn't turn an error into a fact, no matter how fervently we may believe it.
I consider the facing of the live-action bridge shot in "The Cage" to be just such a error.
Getting back to the rundown, when the ship is finished with its post-pilot refurbishing, the bridge dome is now half the size it was before. The bridge interior, however, is still depicted as facing forward.
Two points:
The bridge done is perhaps half the volume, but not half the diameter. The reduction in diameter is minimal. (By the way, I've used the "pilot bridge dome" diameter in my model, since that reflects the original intent... whereas it's clear that they simply shaved down the part for the series and it lost a bit of diameter there. Granted, I've also used the McMaster bridge prints which are supposely very slightly larger than the real set, but things still line up VERY nicely. One might argue that the smaller "real bridge set" fits inside the "shaved down" series done, though it's very tight... that's another topic for another time.)
And second... you say that after the post-WNMHGB refit, the bridge is "facing forward?" (And by forward, you mean "the main viewer is in line with the principle axis of the ship")
Really? Other than the "Cage" shot... is there ANY indication of orientation? I have not seen any such indication, anywhere, at any time. So what on-screen evidence can you present that proves this point. Any?
There is none, so you can't. You just ASSUME that, because it's what feels natural to you. But in a ship where you are not "looking out windows" and where "inertial dampening fields" (without which the crew would be smeared into jelly at every maneuver, realize!) pretty much eliminate any incorporation of "feel" into the control of the ship (which would only be of use to one person on the ship - the helmsman - anyway!)
All the reasons that it "has to face forward" are nonsensical. And the only evidence to that effect is one flawed SFX shot made on a budget with limited resources back in the mid-1960s, for the first pilot.
Remember, rotating the bridge is not an option, because they didn't consider it rotated on the show.
Bullshit. There is NO "stake in the ground" regarding the orientation of any of the COMPUTER CONSOLES which make up the bridge (including the main viewscreen), relative to the ship's structure, except (1) the flawed shot from "The Cage" and (2) the location of the lift tube.
You don't have to rotate "the bridge." The bridge isn't a single, solid, permanently-arranged package. Any ship, and any commander, can and probably would "reorganize" his bridge to best suit his tastes.
If someone wants the big computer monitor which is the main viewscreen to be directly in line with the axis of the ship, they can have it that way. If they want it right next to the lift entrance, there is NO REASON that they can't put it there, though, is there? It's not like it would cause a problem.
I can't imagine that many officers would like the viewscreen-ahead/lift-behind configuration, because nobody with any sort of military training is ever comfortable with strangers walking in directly behind them. We tend to like to sit with our backs to a wall, facing the entrance. It's all about that feeling of "control" (or lack thereof).
Either the ship is a helluva lot bigger than the 947' we've been told all these years, or the bridge was moved from where we saw it in "The Cage".
ONLY if you stubbornly refuse to accept that the main viewscreen can potentially be at any other location than "in-line with the ship's travel."
If you accept that, it all works remarkably nicely together.
You've simply latched onto this one concept - "the viewscreen must face directly forward"... and are clinging to that to the extent that you're requiring EVERYTHING ELSE to change in order to accommodate that one concept.
You can ignore the visual angle in that one SFX shot and treat it as "an approximation," and EVERYTHING ELSE WORKS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MODIFICATION.
Or you can treat that visual angle as inviolable and require a tremendous amount of additional flailing to make that work. And, of course, you'll also have to put the bridge on a "floating platform" since the floor isn't coplanar with the X-Y plane of the ship in that shot anyway!
So why aren't more people happy with this idea?
Because you're changing the fundamental CORE concept, as clearly established on-screen (in the flawed SFX shot in "The Cage") and in MJ's section sketch, just to justify a NONSENSICAL requirement ("it has to face forward... don't ask why, IT JUST DOES, DAMMIT!") with only one piece of "vaguely supporting evidence" (the flawed SFX shot from "The Cage") behind it.
"More people don't like it" because it doesn't make sense to us.
You're welcome to do your own take, obviously. And we all enjoy seeing your work. But the "if you don't agree with me, you're a dumbass" tone you tend to take isn't really conducive to discussion of a fictional topic, and when you do that and your argument is ... well... WRONG... it certainly doesn't help.
I didn't want to jump into this fray, but after seeing you wait out the "cooling down period" just to leap in without having "cooled down" in the slightest... frankly, it pissed me off enough to feel the need to respond.
You are not "the all-knowing oracle of Trek." We... ALL OF US... who post here are used to being the "experts" in the subject matter in our regular lives. But around here, that doesn't hold. You have some great knowledge, and we all enjoy sharing in that, but I have not only not been convinced by your arguments on this topic, they've done exactly the opposite. It was, in large part, the "OMG, THE VIEWSCREEN MUST FACE FORWARD OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" thing that convinced me to do my own take on the 1701.
I'm certainly no idiot, and I'm not "wrong" about this stuff. I just happen to disagree with your position. And when you attack, with such self-righteous anger, anyone who doesn't accept your own personal views on this FICTIONAL TOPIC, you're attacking a lot of people, not just the one you happen to be writing to at the time.
Something to think about...
I can't believe I have to explain this, I'm talking about a compromise that assumes it was always that way, in the interests of recociling an inconsostancy in a fictional spaceship! 
Why is that obvious to everybody but you? What are you smoking? 
