Panoramas of Enterprise interior on official site

[ST-One]

This is how it is now.

Exactly.

 

[Praetor]

I wonder if TOS would have looked more like 2001 if the budget had been bigger? We got flat-sided shuttles due to budget limitations, so maybe that's why we got flat-sided corridors too?

In designing the sets at least, Matt Jefferies obviously well-knew limitations he might encounter and tried to think out the practicality of his set designs - bridge stations that are on rollers for the camera to move in, etc. He brought a great degree of functionality to what he could do, but I'm not sure that necessarily means it's what he would have done had GR said 'have at it.'

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I wonder if TOS would have looked more like 2001 if the budget had been bigger? We got flat-sided shuttles due to budget limitations, so maybe that's why we got flat-sided corridors too?

In designing the sets at least, Matt Jefferies obviously well-knew limitations he might encounter and tried to think out the practicality of his set designs - bridge stations that are on rollers for the camera to move in, etc. He brought a great degree of functionality to what he could do, but I'm not sure that necessarily means it's what he would have done had GR said 'have at it.'

Well, flat-sided rooms and corridors make practical sense.

Have you ever lived in, or worked in, a place with sloped walls? Much less "curving" walls? It's really not very practical.

Even in structures where the actual mechanism itself is round, or rounded (think submarines, think aircraft, think trains, etc) the internal structures tend to be aligned vertically or horizontally. It's just the most efficient for people to use, and the most psychologically comfortable for us as well.

Look at the inside of the ISS. The modules are cylindrical in form, but they have wedge-like equipment modules lining them, so that the internal usable cross-section is actually square, with four flat "walls."

 

[Jon1701]

Why drag TMP into this?

Oddly enough we didn't get a little TOS back in the Trek design style until TNG. Well, I guess maybe the momentary flash of a clamshell communicator in TSFS counts...

The phasers too.

 

[Gepard]

Have you ever lived in, or worked in, a place with sloped walls? Much less "curving" walls? It's really not very practical.

Stop it. You're making the Hobbits cry.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why drag TMP into this?

Oddly enough we didn't get a little TOS back in the Trek design style until TNG. Well, I guess maybe the momentary flash of a clamshell communicator in TSFS counts...

The phasers too.

Right, I forgot.

Gee, that looks an awful lot like an Abrams-era phaser, doesn't it?

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Why drag TMP into this?

Oddly enough we didn't get a little TOS back in the Trek design style until TNG. Well, I guess maybe the momentary flash of a clamshell communicator in TSFS counts...

The phasers too.

Hey, that phaser comes with a cell phone. Boss.

 

[Jon1701]

Oddly enough we didn't get a little TOS back in the Trek design style until TNG. Well, I guess maybe the momentary flash of a clamshell communicator in TSFS counts...

The phasers too.

Right, I forgot.

Gee, that looks an awful lot like an Abrams-era phaser, doesn't it?

Fucking abrams. Stealing the TOS design aesthetic.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Have you ever lived in, or worked in, a place with sloped walls? Much less "curving" walls? It's really not very practical.

Stop it. You're making the Hobbits cry.

Well, you know how those hobbits are.. hard to keep that from happening as far as I can tell, based upon Peter Jackson...

 

[trevanian]

The phasers too.

Right, I forgot.

Gee, that looks an awful lot like an Abrams-era phaser, doesn't it?

Fucking abrams. Stealing the TOS design aesthetic.

Silly me. All these years and all this aesthetic appreciation yet I never noticed the articulated rotating phaser nozzles in SFS or TOS.

 

[Praetor]

I wonder if TOS would have looked more like 2001 if the budget had been bigger? We got flat-sided shuttles due to budget limitations, so maybe that's why we got flat-sided corridors too?

In designing the sets at least, Matt Jefferies obviously well-knew limitations he might encounter and tried to think out the practicality of his set designs - bridge stations that are on rollers for the camera to move in, etc. He brought a great degree of functionality to what he could do, but I'm not sure that necessarily means it's what he would have done had GR said 'have at it.'

Well, flat-sided rooms and corridors make practical sense.

Have you ever lived in, or worked in, a place with sloped walls? Much less "curving" walls? It's really not very practical.

Even in structures where the actual mechanism itself is round, or rounded (think submarines, think aircraft, think trains, etc) the internal structures tend to be aligned vertically or horizontally. It's just the most efficient for people to use, and the most psychologically comfortable for us as well.

Look at the inside of the ISS. The modules are cylindrical in form, but they have wedge-like equipment modules lining them, so that the internal usable cross-section is actually square, with four flat "walls."

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

 

[trevanian]

I wonder if TOS would have looked more like 2001 if the budget had been bigger? We got flat-sided shuttles due to budget limitations, so maybe that's why we got flat-sided corridors too?

In designing the sets at least, Matt Jefferies obviously well-knew limitations he might encounter and tried to think out the practicality of his set designs - bridge stations that are on rollers for the camera to move in, etc. He brought a great degree of functionality to what he could do, but I'm not sure that necessarily means it's what he would have done had GR said 'have at it.'

Well, flat-sided rooms and corridors make practical sense.

Have you ever lived in, or worked in, a place with sloped walls? Much less "curving" walls? It's really not very practical.

Even in structures where the actual mechanism itself is round, or rounded (think submarines, think aircraft, think trains, etc) the internal structures tend to be aligned vertically or horizontally. It's just the most efficient for people to use, and the most psychologically comfortable for us as well.

Look at the inside of the ISS. The modules are cylindrical in form, but they have wedge-like equipment modules lining them, so that the internal usable cross-section is actually square, with four flat "walls."

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

The compound-curve 'jello mold' bridge for phase2/tmp was insanely more expensive (a giant fiberglass shell), and for my money doesn't look as good as the original segmented circle.

 

[Praetor]

And IIRC they were still using the turbolift door alcoves on the Enterprise-E bridge in 'Nemesis.' Talk about getting your money's worth.

 

[ST-One]

And IIRC they were still using the turbolift door alcoves on the Enterprise-E bridge in 'Nemesis.' Talk about getting your money's worth.

And some of those (wall) consoles looked conspicuously like they were lifted directly from the TFF brige set.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

It was budget-mandated.

You can look at some of Jefferies' sketches for the Phase II bridge over at Trekcore. One of the things he specifies for the bridge is "Molded consoles full circular sweep. No angles."

With bigger budgets comes great opportunity.

 

[ST-One]

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

It was budget-mandated.

You can look at some of Jefferies' sketches for the Phase II bridge over at Trekcore. One of the things he specifies for the bridge is "Molded consoles full circular sweep. No angles."

With bigger budgets comes great opportunity.

Yeah, but trevanian disagrees with the 'no angles'-approach, so Jefferies must clearly have been wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Prophets are a nuisance once the Church is formed.

Dostoevsky:

The Grand Inquisitor visits [Jesus] in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs him. The main portion of the text is the Inquisitor explaining to Jesus why his return would interfere with the mission of the church.

 

[Jon1701]

Don't forget Jefferies original design for the shuttlecraft in TOS and his Phase II update.

Plenty of curves there

Curves = Expensive. AMC couldn't afford to build it.

Also, compare Andrew Probert's original design for the Enterprise D shuttle and the actual set piece. Looks like shit.

 

[Psion]

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

It was budget-mandated.

You can look at some of Jefferies' sketches for the Phase II bridge over at Trekcore. One of the things he specifies for the bridge is "Molded consoles full circular sweep. No angles."

With bigger budgets comes great opportunity.

I like that turbolift arrangement. With only one alcove interrupting console sweep, there's room for more instrumentation.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Oh I agree flat walls seem more functional. Basically, I just wonder how much was practicality and how much was budget-mandate.

It was budget-mandated.

You can look at some of Jefferies' sketches for the Phase II bridge over at Trekcore. One of the things he specifies for the bridge is "Molded consoles full circular sweep. No angles."

With bigger budgets comes great opportunity.

I like that turbolift arrangement. With only one alcove interrupting console sweep, there's room for more instrumentation.

It also creates greater difficulty in "storming the bridge." You can't see the bridge proper as you exit the lift, after all. So it's somewhat more secure.

I'd almost be inclined to have a "glass door" in front of the alcove. Make it a security "checkroom."