Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
not to mention they had no chance to rewind and check for something.
Actors in the TNG era would occasionally grab onto the window frames where there was supposed to be glass, so it's not something limited to TOS actors by any means. (shortcut to specific examples):
I'm happy to ignore production gaffs like that if necessary, but if I can work them into the lore of the show then I think that just adds to the fun, especially if it doesn't break the episode either way.
I'm happy to ignore production gaffs like that if necessary, but if I can work them into the lore of the show then I think that just adds to the fun, especially if it doesn't break the episode either way.
With the John Doe incident in "Transfigurations(TNG)" one can just say that the transparisteel or transparent aluminum window pane doesn't begin until the back of the window frame. That one doesn't bug me as much.
They brought it back for TAS.
Even had one by the viewscreen
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/inner-turbolift-doors.262042/page-2#post-10533310
Funny like this? ...
It is strange that Chekov seemed oblivious to the weird configuration of the bridge.
I wonder why the director would film that scene with that odd bridge layout.
It is strange that Chekov seemed oblivious to the weird configuration of the bridge.
I wonder why the director would film that scene with that odd bridge layout.
End of the day, one shot needed, lights are set up for that angle already. Roll the command module into the spot that works with that lighting setup and grab the shot. That's one reason, anyway.
And most people were being oblivious to the bridge being oblivious in the end.
I think the reason for the faked helm orientation was to get the main viewing screen off camera, so it would not be seen as plain white (as in "The Enemy Within").
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x05hd/theenemywithinhd747.jpg
I wish they had remembered that they had a starfield painting available to place over the view screen, as seen in "The Doomsday Machine." That would have allowed the helm and the camera to face the viewer.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x06hd/thedoomsdaymachinehd1644.jpg
Is there any evidence for this?
I'm not sitting on a production memo detailing the reason for this camera set up, no.
The evidence is in how the main viewing screen was really just a white panel that looked out of place and disappointing without an image placed over it, which was usually done with what they called a "matte shot."
But the matte shot process could not be done on a TV production schedule unless the camera was locked down and no actor was blocking any part of the white panel. Those complications would require a lot more work in post production to create the view screen shot.
So "By Any Other Name" either had to get the view screen off camera, or give it a real image to display. There were two ways to show a real image. "The Doomsday Machine" had a physical starfield painting for the view screen, and "Spock's Brain" used a rear screen slide projector. "By Any Other Name" didn't do either of those things, and instead just cheated out the helm console.
^^ Adding to that is the fact that they are using this shot of Chekov to do the reduced-to-mineral FX. So a viewscreen shot behind him would increase the FX difficulty of the whole shot.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x22hd/byanyothernamehd0860.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x22hd/byanyothernamehd0860.jpg
Now that makes sense.
They could have shot it from a completely different angle, and adjusted the chair accordingly, if the viewscreen alone was the problem. Avoiding the viewscreen provides no explanation for why the bridge is assembled incorrectly for the shot.
That angle gives a better pov angle for what happens to Chekov. And the change in background makes the shot simpler to finish. They were all about making things easy and didn't care if accuracy suffered. We picky nerds care, but back then it was all about getting the shot and doing it under budget. That is why they reused sets so often and some of the things they did are really odd. It makes sense when you look at it from their perspective.
Honestly I must have seen that episode like 50 times over the decades and never realised something was wrong before seeing it on the internet. And I certainly watched it with better equipment than what they had back in the 60s.
Funny like this? ...
It is strange that Chekov seemed oblivious to the weird configuration of the bridge.
I wonder why the director would film that scene with that odd bridge layout.
They needed a brief pickup shot and the bridge, for whatever reason, was misaligned. (Unlike some I don't think it was deliberate, because they could have just had Rojan or Drea or whoever was doing the miniaturization step a bit to the right and shot Chekov with Scotty's station and environmental engineering in the background.) They were either unwilling or unable to fix it. I hate to repeat this as it's becoming a bit of a canard, but no one thought that people in 2022 would be studying these shots frame by frame.
They were TOTALLY planning for people in 2023 to be analyzing them, though, so we're less than 30 days away from it all making sense!
Similar threads
