ST:TMP Technical Details

[Patrickivan]

I was reminiscing over the old TMP fly by. Listening to the music score and watching the detail differences between the original and HD, and it wasn't until I saw the HD that you can really appreciate the incredible detail and thought they put into the models.

Obviously the detail on this scene is from the giant sectional model they built.

Just this docking scene blows me away. How the mating receiver to the shuttle matches so exquisitely!

This is the HD Screen Cap from Trek Core.

This is the HD Screen Cap from Trek Core.

I should have posted the larger image. But if you to their page (4), you can see it more clearly.

And this is the standard version. The detail on the film is still great, but the screen cap doesn't have the detail I wanted to see.

I'd like to see more examples of this kind of thought.

But just this little scene alone makes it remarkable for me. Hence my remarks here.

 

[Forbin]

I'm of two minds (no, not schizophrenic) (well, not much). On the one had, I LOVE techie stuff, and TMP-era tech is my favorite. On the gripping hand, I've always been a little disappointed that the TMP era's extremely detailed tech took away a lot of the mystique of TOS. The TOS E didn't have obvious hatches, docking ports, RCS emplacements, skin plates, and so forth. It made me think there was some wonderous tech under that seamless (grown?) skin. TMP took all that away and showed us what was under the hood, for good or bad.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm trying to paint and light a 1:350 scale TMP refit. The detail was amazing. My favourite ship by a mile.

 

[Patrickivan]

I get what you mean, Forbin... I guess what I'm trying to convey about the models for filming, is that an amazing amount of thought seems to have been put into all the little details that we can't even see unless getting a frame shot. It's pretty impressive.

That said, one thing that started to bug me about post TOS, TMP, and TNG ships was the crazy amount things they just kept putting on ships to add more and more details.

TOS was sleek and very clean. TMP was a more tecky and artistic. TNG started off cooler (with it's colours, shapes, and details) but kept getting more and more cluttered as time went on, leading to Voyager, DS9, et c. Seemed unnecessary at times.

So there seemed to be a lack of cohesive design in ships (inside and out) as time when on.

Pauln6, I'm always hunting on the internet for TMP E model photos. Post them! I'm presently in the stages of building mine too.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ BK613 had posted two great links here.

Bob

 

[Pauln6]

Pauln6, I'm always hunting on the internet for TMP E model photos. Post them! I'm presently in the stages of building mine too.

I'm only about a third done - just started on the shuttle bay but it's so fiddly.

I also snapped up a load of Citadel TMP figures from the 80s. Going to paint em too and have them in the foreground, including a few customs. I think I have enough for about 50 crew. I even did an Uhura head swap onto a security torso to make Thel'Darra (image left)

 

[137th Gebirg]

I get what you mean, Forbin... I guess what I'm trying to convey about the models for filming, is that an amazing amount of thought seems to have been put into all the little details that we can't even see unless getting a frame shot. It's pretty impressive.

That said, one thing that started to bug me about post TOS, TMP, and TNG ships was the crazy amount things they just kept putting on ships to add more and more details.

TOS was sleek and very clean. TMP was a more tecky and artistic. TNG started off cooler (with it's colours, shapes, and details) but kept getting more and more cluttered as time went on, leading to Voyager, DS9, et c. Seemed unnecessary at times.

So there seemed to be a lack of cohesive design in ships (inside and out) as time when on.

I suspect that, from TMP on, Trek felt it had to "keep up with the Joneses" on the visual effects front, with Star Wars having emerged as the arguably more dominant genre franchise of the day and providing some stiff visual competition (as well as marketing, merchandising and other new business models). The original art design of TOS simplicity was likely dismissed as "boring" and the rest is history. This is likely one of the reasons why all the Phase II designs (Enterprise, K'T'Inga, etc.) were revamped to contain massive amounts of detail to increase their "scales" on the big screen. To seal Trek's visual fate, ILM and Image-G got involved after the bath Paramount took on the TMP VFX and continued in the tradition of over-teching the ships, starting with the greeble-covered Reliant, shortly followed thereafter by the Excelsior and its Imperial Star Destroyer-inspired shuttlebay and the equally overgreebeled Spacedock, Merchant Vessel and Klingon Bird of Prey. Interestingly, only the Grissom seemed to retain the elegant simplicity of TOS (lending additional credence to the theory that it was an older vessel, along with its low registry number). Sad that it was so weak, underpowered and vulnerable to attack and met a quick death on screen with its mediocre Captain. In the context of this particular discussion, it's almost symbolic in a way...

 

[Patrickivan]

I was going to mention Grissom as I was reading your reply. It's funny also that it was one of the ships that made it so far into the future along with ships like the BoPs, and Excelsiors.

What's also funny is how the new trek E, a ship that I could like if not for some silly things (well things I find silly) is so loved, yet so devoid of all the greebles that everyone has come to love. I mean, the scale is too big for me (but whatever), and I absolutely hate the nacelles, and proportions of some bits relative to others, but there it's not over detailed unnecessarily. It has what it needs and doesn't go too far.

So maybe that will bring a small reprise to the over crazy looking ships (ignore the Vengence when you read what I'm writing )

I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

How is that? The exterior windows of the TOS E (and the vertical spacing in-between to suggest deck levels) conveyed a pretty good sense of size along with the exterior of the Bridge, IMHO.

Its lack of detail was partially owned to Matt Jefferies' design philosophy, but I'd think also to the low resolution of 1960's TV sets.

For the high resolution big screen they obviously couldn't resist to show off as many details as possible. Frankly, I don't really like the Aztec pattering because it created a patchwork look I wouldn't expect in 23rd Century ship building. And I think that, too, is one of the reasons why Grissom looked credible to pass as a vessel of the 23rd Century.

Bob

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ There was also the recent development and deployment of the space shuttle fleet at the time. I remember that Trumble or some others who worked on the refit paint job wanted to replicate the paneling and details that could be visible on a "real" spaceship. Between that and the Star Wars phenomenon, Trek really had no choice but to "up their game" visually.

 

[Patrickivan]

I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

How is that? The exterior windows of the TOS E (and the vertical spacing in-between to suggest deck levels) conveyed a pretty good sense of size along with the exterior of the Bridge, IMHO.

Its lack of detail was partially owned to Matt Jefferies' design philosophy, but I'd think also to the low resolution of 1960's TV sets.

For the high resolution big screen they obviously couldn't resist to show off as many details as possible. Frankly, I don't really like the Aztec pattering because it created a patchwork look I wouldn't expect in 23rd Century ship building. And I think that, too, is one of the reasons why Grissom looked credible to pass as a vessel of the 23rd Century.

Bob

The windows work now because we all have a better understanding how big TOS is supposed to be. At the time, those windows could have been 10' high for all we knew. And the changing bridge exterior confused things.

That said, I don't disagree with you on the backwards philosophy ST took on the futuristic sleep design ships took to more and more patchwork looking.

I was only stating that the thought put into the details in TMP were impressive. And that how there were visuals that were put in place that people could relate to in real life- AKA doors on the outside of the ship. And I don't think that really violated the simplicity of a Starship design.

What bugged me a lot about hull paneling is how it became more and more pronounced. And then in new Trek, watching the ship being welded together in little bits seemed absolutely insane. Hell, even now we build big sections of ships and THEN lego those sections together. But 200 years+ in the future with all their super tech and their welding little panels on a giant ship in patchwork? Just silly in my opinion and made it too contemporary for me.

 

[Robert Comsol]

The windows work now because we all have a better understanding how big TOS is supposed to be. At the time, those windows could have been 10' high for all we knew. And the changing bridge exterior confused things.

I think already general audiences back in the 1960's could get a good understanding of the ship's size just by watching the episodes

• The interiors were approximately 10' high, so it stood to reason that the exterior windows, especially on the engineering hull, belonged to the corresponding deck levels
• Recycling the footage from "The Cage" revealed the approximate size of the Bridge by the time of "The Menagerie". It was changed by getting lowered (displacing Deck 2) but didn't get wider
• "The Galileo Seven" revealed the clamshell doors from within. Add to this many stern views of the ship, I think the size was visually clear

The thought put into the details in TMP were impressive. And that how there were visuals that were put in place that people could relate to in real life- AKA doors on the outside of the ship. And I don't think that really violated the simplicity of a Starship design.

I concur, I think the docking ports were an incredibly good idea to convey the size, because we saw these in real-size first (orbital complex) before watching the ship. Cleverly done.

Unfortunately, these doors somehow suggest the ship to be only 1,000 feet long while it's probably closer to 1,164'

But 200 years+ in the future with all their super tech and their welding little panels on a giant ship in patchwork? Just silly in my opinion and made it too contemporary for me.

Absolutely. And any ambitioned model kit builder will tell you that trying to recreate the Aztec patchwork pattering is a pain in the rectum.

Bob

 

[treknician1701]

The thing that I notice about this scene, every time that I watch STTMP is that the transport, carrying Kirk and Scotty has to go thru a pool of light, so that it can back up to the docking port. You can see the pool of light on the hull surface, and when it hits the one side of the transport, there is no shadow on the Enterprise hull surface, as you would expect there to be.

Or, is it just me?

Greg

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The thing that I notice about this scene, every time that I watch STTMP is that the transport, carrying Kirk and Scotty has to go thru a pool of light, so that it can back up to the docking port. You can see the pool of light on the hull surface, and when it hits the one side of the transport, there is no shadow on the Enterprise hull surface, as you would expect there to be.

Or, is it just me?

Greg

No, it's not just you.

It can only work if the point of view is almost in line with the lamp, or nearly coincident to it, and even in those cases, not really well either.

Here it is about to happen.

 

[Tosk]

Looks to me like the light is coming from below and is wide enough to hit both the pod and the side of the Enterprise...so the shadow caused by the pod could easily be way up high, higher than we can see in the frame.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Looks to me like the light is coming from below and is wide enough to hit both the pod and the side of the Enterprise...so the shadow caused by the pod could easily be way up high, higher than we can see in the frame.

Just so we're all clear, the shadow most fall somewhere in the pool of light made by the beam that the pod crosses. Since we can't see the shadow, 1) either the shadow must be either eclipsed by the pod itself, 2) or the pod passes through a beam that is making a different pool of light on the ship than we're led to believe (i.e. the one prominently in the background), 3) or the pod passes through a beam not aimed at the surface of the ship at all. The later two possibilities seems contrary to the intent of the shot, which is why I go with #1.

 

[Tosk]

Just so we're all clear, the shadow most fall somewhere in the pool of light made by the beam that the pod crosses.

Why? How do you know the entire beam of light is hitting the Enterprise hull? It is on a curved edge and looks like it tapers off, which could indicate that only part of the beam is on the Enterprise.

And if you disagree with that, there are other "magic" light sources during that sequence anyway so maybe this one has the power to not create shadows?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Just so we're all clear, the shadow most fall somewhere in the pool of light made by the beam that the pod crosses.

Why? How do you know the entire beam of light is hitting the Enterprise hull? It is on a curved edge and looks like it tapers off, which could indicate that only part of the beam is on the Enterprise.

And if you disagree with that, there are other "magic" light sources during that sequence anyway so maybe this one has the power to not create shadows?

Yeah, I thought I covered that in (2) and (3), but whatever. The part that you are quoting there makes no assertion that the pod passes must make a shadow falling on the Enterprise. The passage you quoted only asserts that it must block the beam through which it passes.

 

[Tosk]

My assertion is that the beam could be both hitting the hull and extending past the ship, which isn't really what 2 or 3 say, but maybe I'm being too semantic. If so, I apologize.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

My assertion is that the beam could be both hitting the hull and extending past the ship, which isn't really what 2 or 3 say, but maybe I'm being too semantic. If so, I apologize.

No worries.

You are correct that it's possible that some rays from a lamp hit the ship while others don't. The light on the impulse drive would seem to be an example of that.

FWIW, I didn't intend to suggest in possibility (2) that all rays from the lamp in that case must intersect the surface the ship. I judge that the prominent pool of light under the port pylon itself to be entirely on the surface of the ship, with none of it "falling off the edge," though I'll admit that I could be wrong about that.