Script blunders!

[Mytran]

"Day of the Dove" is very confusing for several reasons. From a story-wise POV the *A*L*F* entity is making people believe things that aren't true, so how much we can trust what the characters say in regards to the internal layout of the ship is debatable.

This is a great point and throws off the strict reliability of even Spock's statements!

The meaning of "lower decks" is also interesting since the engine room that the Klingons held was in the engineering hull. Did that mean the other 400 crew were stuck at the bottom of the engineering hull? Or were they stuck all over the ship and Spock was only describing the corridors and rooms that were not sealed off as being not "lower decks"? Lots of unknowns...

The thing is, when Uhura makes her statement about the "lower decks" she is on The Bridge...so all the decks are lower!
Fortunately, Scott later mentions the difficulty in cutting through the bulkheads to free the trapped crewmen which we can infer are blocking off areas of the larger decks as a whole. This would work well with the Pinwheel Alien's plan to restrict numbers whilst still granting enough territory to fight over. The Pinwheel Alien is manipulating everything!

As far Deck Seven's port-side and the rest of the decks not named I thought they were basically uncontrolled or "contested" between the Klingon and Enterprise forces. I do wonder how Spock counted a deck or part of the deck as "controlled" though. Did he scan and counted any entryway or hallway controlled if there were only one person of one side there? And if it were unoccupied then not controlled?

Such a statement by Spock is easier to take if only a small part of Deck 7 were still accessible at all, thanks to all those closed bulkheads...

 

[aridas sofia]

You have to remember that the entire “enterprise” of translating Jefferies’ TMoST cross section into something more detailed (and reflective of some TOS sets and other seen (and mentioned) TOS and TAS places) took as its starting point that the sets had been built like the hangar deck model - distorted to accommodate the lenses used to film them. I confirmed this when visiting the sets in Ticonderoga. Some of them are ridiculous from a real world perspective. The railing on the bridge is at knee level, and engineering looks like something from a funhouse. So yes, I bent and “warped” spaces to fit those that Jefferies had allotted on that cross section. AND here and there, I bent the cross section. Everything, as you would suspect, was a compromise. But it all fits in a 947’ hull - at least along that centerline. The project to expand that into deck plans unfortunately didn’t get very far. Not that it wouldn’t have worked- real life took precedence.

 

[Warped9]

Sometimes meeting your “heroes” in real life can be disappointing.

Anyone who has ever tried to reconcile the discrepancies of the shuttlecraft interior and exterior as well as the flight deck into a coherent whole quickly realizes that what we see onscreen are definite production compromises. I have little doubt the other sets are compromises as well.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I confirmed this when visiting the sets in Ticonderoga. Some of them are ridiculous from a real world perspective. The railing on the bridge is at knee level, and engineering looks like something from a funhouse.

This funhouse aspect of Engineering, was it just the caged pipes with their forced perspective, or is there more to your characterization?

But it all fits in a 947’ hull...

If I could tweak the ship, I would make it at least 10 percent bigger on the outside, and get rid of the saucer's undercut. Just flatten it out. Do those two things, and a lot of stuff would fall into place.

 

[blssdwlf]

Yeah, working with the TMOST cross-section is pretty challenging and you'd definitely would need to alter most major sets as seen in the episodes to fit.

As far as fitting into the 947' hull - I think you could get all the sets in there (with the one exception of the flight deck) and still be screen accurate. However those sets just wouldn't be where you would think they would be.

Anyways, on the other track, can anyone confirm Tin_Man's thinking that the Deck 5 line from "The Ultimate Computer" was a blunder?

 

[Warped9]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but for those unfamiliar with my past work…

Several years ago I set about reconciling the shuttlecraft’s exterior and exterior as well as the flight deck and how it could fit into a 947ft. Enterprise. After numerous discussions and consultations I drew up schematics then later built 3D models from those schematics. Posted below are images of what a “real” TOS shuttlecraft with a near fullsize interior would look like on a familiar flight deck within a 947ft. ship.

















The main takeaway is everything looks pretty much as it should except for scale. We can see the hangar deck miniature as seen onscreen was done with a measure of forced perspective built into the miniature in conjunction with the lens likely used to film it. Additionally the shuttlecraft miniature seen onscreen was evidently scaled way too small to accommodate an interior anything like what we saw onscreen. All of this was a collection of production compromises to achieve a desired effect.

 

[blssdwlf]

We can see the hangar deck miniature as seen onscreen was done with a measure of forced perspective built into the miniature in conjunction with the lens likely used to film it.

I love your renders but the flight deck maquette does not appear to have any forced perspective built into it.

 

[Mytran]

You have to remember that the entire “enterprise” of translating Jefferies’ TMoST cross section into something more detailed (and reflective of some TOS sets and other seen (and mentioned) TOS and TAS places) took as its starting point that the sets had been built like the hangar deck model - distorted to accommodate the lenses used to film them. I confirmed this when visiting the sets in Ticonderoga. Some of them are ridiculous from a real world perspective. The railing on the bridge is at knee level, and engineering looks like something from a funhouse. So yes, I bent and “warped” spaces to fit those that Jefferies had allotted on that cross section. AND here and there, I bent the cross section. Everything, as you would suspect, was a compromise. But it all fits in a 947’ hull - at least along that centerline. The project to expand that into deck plans unfortunately didn’t get very far. Not that it wouldn’t have worked- real life took precedence.

One feature that I really like from your cutaway (and would like include in my own deck plans one day) is the main power conduit leading to the forward upper phasers. It justifies why the turbolift is offset (because the power conduit needs the space) as well as gelling with the red outline hatch markings on the top rear saucer.

 

[Warped9]

I love your renders but the flight deck maquette does not appear to have any forced perspective built into it.

Forced perspective can also employ stretching out a model to make it look longer than it really is supposed to be. The flight deck miniature isn’t reflected in Jefferies’ own drawings of the hangar deck in his cutaway of the ship. In his cutaway the flight deck does not extend under the support pylons whereas a flight deck as seen onscreen would most certainly have to.

My goal was to follow Jefferies’ intent as close as possible yet the ultimate intent was to make it “real.”

 

[blssdwlf]

Forced perspective can also employ stretching out a model to make it look longer than it really is supposed to be. The flight deck miniature isn’t reflected in Jefferies’ own drawings of the hangar deck in his cutaway of the ship. In his cutaway the flight deck does not extend under the support pylons whereas a flight deck as seen onscreen would most certainly have to.

There are a lot of things in his cutaway that don't really match up to what's on screen so in my mind there is not a particular reason to make the cutaway constrain what was built and filmed. They are not the same ships and both you and aridas sofias demonstrated in your diagrams and models that some compromise has to be made to the filmed sets and miniatures to make it look like the cutaway. If they were the same ship, you'd be able to drop in any screen accurate model into the cutaway and vice-versa, IMHO.

My goal was to follow Jefferies’ intent as close as possible yet the ultimate intent was to make it “real.”

Yes, I agree that you're doing a wonderful realization of MJ's version of the Enterprise as I follow your thread in the arts forum.

 

[aridas sofia]

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.

As for engineering as built in Ticonderoga, the dilithium crystal chamber (or whatever you want to call it) in the middle of the floor is vastly oversized compared to what you’d expect. The ladders are undersized and everything on the walls much smaller and flattened. It was truly an odd experience, but fortunately I had Doug Drexler there to explain to me what was going on.

The truth is that a cross section can be very deceiving. I was trying to achieve the number of decks Jefferies shows, and match them to the numbering in TMoST. You end up with compromises on deck height, turbolift tube and car size, and room configuration. But if you take the distortions apparent in the decks as any indication, a “real” Enterprise just would not look like what you see when you walk the soundstage. Would it need to be 10%… 25%… 100% bigger? That would depend on the effect you were trying to achieve. If you want it to seem like a naval vessel i.e. submarine, the 947’ size would be too big. If you want the “hotel lobby” effect that was embraced beginning with TMP, then something bigger might be needed. But there is a helluva lot of room in a 947’ ship. Someday, a VR walkaround will be created that will at least let you visit all the decks and select spaces of such a ship. That was where I wanted to head with deck plans. And if what I see in my mind is accurate, you will be shocked how much real estate is there. Even that undercut won’t pose any meaningful problem to providing space for 430 people and more, plus their labs and workspaces, cargo and embarked craft.

 

[Warped9]

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.

This.

I once got to see an exhibit showing off the TNG transporter console. It looked like cheap plastic and like a toy. I was very unimpressed.

The power of film and television is to make something look much grander than it actually is.

 

[aridas sofia]

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.

 

[Warped9]

Another very good example is how spacious WW2 era submarines are often depicted in film and on television. The real subs were nowhere near that spacious.

 

[aridas sofia]

Another very good example is how spacious WW2 era submarines are often depicted in film and on television. The real subs were nowhere near that spacious.

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.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Another very good example is how spacious WW2 era submarines are often depicted in film and on television. The real subs were nowhere near that spacious.

Yes, exactly. this has always been my guiding philosophy with this sort of stuff. What we see and hear onscreen in TOS is just an artistic approximation of what the "real" ideal ship would be like, with broad tolerances allowed because nobody on the production ever thought this would be analyzed so thoroughly and in such detail. Therefore my aim has always been to reconcile the contradictions as best as possible, while accepting that there are a few irreconcilable mistakes here and there that just have to be ignored. This is partly why I brought up the subject of the possible script/dialog blunder in "TUC" because it might tell us something about "creator intent" and therefore give a more sound basis on which to further extrapolate.

 

[BK613]

One should also allow for the the fact that in real life with real ships, compromises are the rule too.

The heavy masses of powerplants are often near the center of gravity of ships because that increases seakeeping and handling. But that also introduces new issues, like long propeller shafts that need constant turning to prevent them from deforming under their own weight. And all those long narrow spaces that do nothing but house the shafts and their bearings.

On submarines, (before the Virginia class anyway) the control room location was determined the run of the periscope (up vs down).

On the stores ship I served on, all the 2nd deck repair shops had thirty-foot ceilings because the cargo holds determined deck heights for that ship for the most part. Those ceiling heights meant upper bunks in the berthing compartments were highly-prized because of the extra headroom (an average person could sit upright.) It was more structurally sound to have that continuous deck and live with the slight waste of space than have a bunch of different height decks.

So any realistic portrayal of a starship should have similar bits of compromise.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

But I would add that we have remember that the writing staff intentionally tried to keep deck references vague, especially with presumed one-of-a-kind locations like sickbay and engineering etc, whereas miscellaneous areas that were presumed to be scattered across multiple decks like briefing rooms, rec rooms, and crew quarters were sometimes given specific deck locations.

Yeah, I'm sure that even if the Writers' Guide said something like "Sickbay is located on Deck Five" (which I don't think it did), the wrong deck number could still creep into the episode for any number of reasons. Mistakes happen.

The only thing I'm really convinced of is that the TOS Enterprise only had one sickbay, transporter room, and main engineering area. There are just too many instances of the characters referring to these with the definite article "the" instead of saying "transporter room six" like they'd say on TNG. I totally agree that it makes perfect real world sense for the ship to have redundancies like multiple sickbays, cargo transporters, and such, but the show didn't really depict that, IMO. There's an auxiliary control room and maybe an impulse control room IIRC, but a whole other engineering? I don't think so.

"Day of the Dove" is very confusing for several reasons. From a story-wise POV the *A*L*F* entity is making people believe things that aren't true, so how much we can trust what the characters say in regards to the internal layout of the ship is debatable.

Yeah, "Day of the Dove" has unreliable narrators so any dialogue in that episode could be suspect.

Yep. I still remember a former member here who vehemently insisted that Sulu saying Chekov was an only child in "Day of the Dove" somehow meant that Chekov actually did have a brother Piotr.

I don't remember his justification, but it was nutty.

You have to remember that the entire “enterprise” of translating Jefferies’ TMoST cross section into something more detailed (and reflective of some TOS sets and other seen (and mentioned) TOS and TAS places) took as its starting point that the sets had been built like the hangar deck model - distorted to accommodate the lenses used to film them. I confirmed this when visiting the sets in Ticonderoga. Some of them are ridiculous from a real world perspective. The railing on the bridge is at knee level, and engineering looks like something from a funhouse.

As for engineering as built in Ticonderoga, the dilithium crystal chamber (or whatever you want to call it) in the middle of the floor is vastly oversized compared to what you’d expect. The ladders are undersized and everything on the walls much smaller and flattened. It was truly an odd experience, but fortunately I had Doug Drexler there to explain to me what was going on.

I also went on a tour of the Ticonderoga sets that Doug led back in 2016, and I remember him saying something like engineering was built at a 90% scale. It both saves space and gives the actors more presence. But man, Doug talking about the Matt Jefferies TOS sets is an education! I'd love to visit again to see what their sets look like now.

Here's my writeup of my visit if you're interested in reading it & seeing my photos. (A few of the photo links are dead, but most are still good.)

Yes, exactly. this has always been my guiding philosophy with this sort of stuff. What we see and hear onscreen in TOS is just an artistic approximation of what the "real" ideal ship would be like, with broad tolerances allowed because nobody on the production ever thought this would be analyzed so thoroughly and in such detail.

I remember TMP production designer Harold Michelson would tell Andy Probert "No one goes into the movies with a slide rule" when Probert would occasionally protest that sets like the refit Enterprise's rec deck wouldn't physically fit into the saucer.

 

[Mytran]

The only thing I'm really convinced of is that the TOS Enterprise only had one sickbay, transporter room, and main engineering area...There's an auxiliary control room and maybe an impulse control room IIRC, but a whole other engineering? I don't think so.

Which might be collectively referred to as "engine rooms"?

SCOTT: Engineers, man your stations. Engine rooms, report. Cycling station, report. This will be an emergency restart of engines.​

(The Naked Time)

While I personally think that there are multiple Transporter Rooms, Main Engineering-style engine rooms and so on, I agree that the dialogue is often more consistent with only one of each. What's not consistent is the visuals, which show us different versions of those sets, sometimes in the same episode!
There's also those changing deck references to specific sets, most notably the Transporter Room.

 

[BK613]

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."