Star Trek Continues, Episode 4...

[GSchnitzer]

This is where I first noticed it. And most every other pic I've seen I can now see it. I can also see something of the separations between panels.



It's hard to notice because most images have the bottom edges of the windows almost at eye level. And with only a 2-3 degree difference between panels it would be very easy to miss.

I myself thought it might be an illusion or a distortion in the photograph, but once I saw it it began to be obvious to me. It's even more obvious in the colour pic you posted. But I wanted confirmation so I asked Gary Kerr who has been spending quite a bit of time researching and developing plans for Round2's shuttlecraft model kit, including an interior, and he confirmed what I could see.

Why would someone build it that way? Possibly because it was important enough to them to be as detailed as possible even given time and budgetary constraints whereas most anyone else wouldn't bother.

I think a two- to three-degree difference in the three different planes isn't "easy to miss" so much as it is "easy to hallucinate."

 

[urbandefault]

I see shadows, but not different planes.

 

[Warped9]

That's why I sought confirmation. Hey, no one has to believe me if that's their choice. I wasn't sure myself so that's why I sought confirmation.

Now if one chooses to disbelieve Gary Kerr as well as myself then that is their choice.

 

[Karzak]

I think you're seeing things. The set looks like it all lines up to me.

 

[GSchnitzer]

That's why I sought confirmation. Hey, no one has to believe me if that's their choice. I wasn't sure myself so that's why I sought confirmation.

Now if one chooses to disbelieve Gary Kerr as well as myself then that is their choice.

Okay, well I'll say it: I disagree with your interpretation of the screenshots--and with your Gary Kerr hearsay.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

^^ My glasses are so thick I can make it go either way by moving my head.

 

[feek61]

I don't know about the interior but I can tell you that the outside of the windows on the original Galileo mock-up do indeed slope down on the two outer windows. They are not all in line with each other. I found this out when I built my SS scale shuttlecraft and confirmed it by measuring the actual Galileo in person.

 

[urbandefault]

The exterior, sure. I can see the arch, and from old and recent construction pics it looks like 3 panels. But I was under the impression that we were talking about the interior set. I don't see it there.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

A strange design, come to think about it. You have to stand up to see straight ahead.

 

[Warped9]

That's why I sought confirmation. Hey, no one has to believe me if that's their choice. I wasn't sure myself so that's why I sought confirmation.

Now if one chooses to disbelieve Gary Kerr as well as myself then that is their choice.

Okay, well I'll say it: I disagree with your interpretation of the screenshots--and with your Gary Kerr hearsay.

Your loss. If you can't see it that's not my problem.

As for insinuating I'm a liar decorum keeps me from qualifying your insinuation.

When one thinks about it it makes sense. The exterior hull was meant to suggest a curving surface, but for simplicity's sake they built it as three panels slightly angled to each other. Now although they screwed up and made the interior forward bulkhead too upright and proportionately not as wide as the exterior the three cutouts were supposed to be windows matching up with what was seen from outside. So it makes sense that the interior bulkhead would suggest a similar shape as the exterior. Additionally why angle the control consoles out of line with the centre onsole given it would be counterintuitive if the forward bulkhead was flat all the way across? But if the foward bulkhead has angles to it then the two consoles could follow that for the sake of simplicity and ease of consytruction.

 

[GSchnitzer]

That's why I sought confirmation. Hey, no one has to believe me if that's their choice. I wasn't sure myself so that's why I sought confirmation.

Now if one chooses to disbelieve Gary Kerr as well as myself then that is their choice.

Okay, well I'll say it: I disagree with your interpretation of the screenshots--and with your Gary Kerr hearsay.

Your loss. If you can't see it that's not my problem.

As for insinuating I'm a liar decorum keeps me from qualifying your insinuation.

When one thinks about it it makes sense. The exterior hull was meant to suggest a curving surface, but for simplicity's sake they built it as three panels slightly angled to each other. Now although they screwed up and made the interior forward bulkhead too upright and proportionately not as wide as the exterior the three cutouts were supposed to be windows matching up with what was seen from outside. So it makes sense that the interior bulkhead would suggest a similar shape as the exterior. Additionally why angle the control consoles out of line with the centre onsole given it would be counterintuitive if the forward bulkhead was flat all the way across? But if the foward bulkhead has angles to it then the two consoles could follow that for the sake of simplicity and ease of consytruction.

Silly: hearsay is inadmissible whether it's accurate or not. The veracity of a hearsay comment is irrelevant and I'm not questioning it. Completely accurate hearsay carries the same weight as inaccurate/deceitful hearsay: that is, zero weight.

Yes, for the time being, I remain unconvinced that the front three-window panel on the shuttlecraft interior set is anything other than a single flat plane. But perhaps I'm just naïve.

 

[Maurice]

The teeny apparent difference in those photos could easily be caused by lens distortion or even imprecise cutting on the part of the crew that built the interior. It really doesn't make much sense to have composed the front wall out of three panels that deviate by such a tiny degree. I just looked at the HD photos of the shuttlecraft interior From "The Galileo Seven", "The Immunity Syndrome", and "Metamorphosis" and despite the various angles the nose interior was shot from I do not see anything that would imply such angle changes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see it or understand why they'd have bothered.

 

[Richard Baker]

The teeny apparent difference in those photos could easily be caused by lens distortion or even imprecise cutting on the part of the crew that built the interior. It really doesn't make much sense to have composed the front wall out of three panels that deviate by such a tiny degree. I just looked at the HD photos of the shuttlecraft interior From "The Galileo Seven", "The Immunity Syndrome", and "Metamorphosis" and despite the various angles the nose interior was shot from I do not see anything that would imply such angle changes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see it order understand why they'd have bothered.

I tend to agree- the difference so slight it takes careful examination to even detect hardly seems worth the effort. Much has been made of Treks limited budget- I think it could be the result of running low on materials and piecing together a larger section from smaller ones. It would be logical to use the windows as a dividing reference.
Star Trek used a lot of angular shapes in their set construction, I think if they intended to have the front of the cabin in angular sections they would have been more pronounced.

 

[Warped9]

But as I understand it the TOS staff didn't build the shuttlecraft interior. It was part of the deal made with AMT who supplied the exterior mockup, the miniature and the interior in exchange for the rights to market the Enterprise model kit.

It was also explained to me why the angle of the forward bulkhead was steeper than that of the exterior and why the chairs were set unusually low--because originally the interior was to have been smaller. When it was scaled up to accommodate the filming equipment they simply raised the roof and changed the angle of the forward bulkhead to meet it. The chairs were made low to originally make it easier to film over the actors' head and shoulders in a smaller space. When they made the set taller they didn't bother changing the chairs.

 

[GSchnitzer]

But as I understand it the TOS staff didn't build the shuttlecraft interior. It was part of the deal made with AMT who supplied the exterior mockup, the miniature and the interior in exchange for the rights to market the Enterprise model kit.

It was also explained to me why the angle of the forward bulkhead was steeper than that of the exterior and why the chairs were set unusually low--because originally the interior was to have been smaller. When it was scaled up to accommodate the filming equipment they simply raised the roof and changed the angle of the forward bulkhead to meet it. The chairs were made low to originally make it easier to film over the actors' head and shoulders in a smaller space. When they made the set taller they didn't bother changing the chairs.

As we seem to get away from whether the front nose of the shuttlecraft interior is a single plane or three minutely different planes, it would be interesting if someone skilled in trigonometry could figure out how high the ceiling would have been if the front nose were not made steeper but instead matched the exterior slope. How much head-height did raising the slope buy them?

 

[Warped9]

To know that you would need to know exactly how tall the set seen onscreen actually was as well as the height of where the angle starts above the deck. If we can assume the interior angle would match the exterior then you could have your answer.

 

[Treadwell]

That would be cool if they start releasing BTS pics, but I think that one may be from the Turnabout Intruder vignette that ended on the bridge.

It's from episode 4 or 5 (I honestly can't remember which one featured the wraparound). Here's a trick for recognizing bridge shots from these recently shot episodes: they're the first ones in which the bridge panel buttons are backlit. Other recent upgrades include an accurately laid-out and backlit Library Computer panel, working comm panel lights, and slots for data tapes. (And something else that I will let be a surprise.) The first production to capture these on camera was Farragut's "The Crossing" but I don't know if that will be released prior to STC Ep 4.

 

[Treadwell]

And Mignogna also wore it in the STC vignette "Happy Birthday, Scotty."

But I'm sure Warped9 meant "not seen in TOS" since season 2, in the context of STC's mission statement as continuing straight on from Turnabout Intruder.

Anyway, the fact that the green shirt appeared in a STC vignette which was clearly set in the season-3 version of the transporter room means we shouldn't jump to any conclusions about a sequel to a season 2 episode merely because of the green shirt. In fact, the vignette introduced a new style of phaser, so it must be set later in time.

The vignette is set prior to Ep 1. The new style of phaser was seen in Eps 1 and 2...but not in 3 for obvious reasons!

 

[Warped9]

The wraparound is being worn for Ep. 5.

 

[BoredShipCapt'n]

And Mignogna also wore it in the STC vignette "Happy Birthday, Scotty."

But I'm sure Warped9 meant "not seen in TOS" since season 2, in the context of STC's mission statement as continuing straight on from Turnabout Intruder.

Anyway, the fact that the green shirt appeared in a STC vignette which was clearly set in the season-3 version of the transporter room means we shouldn't jump to any conclusions about a sequel to a season 2 episode merely because of the green shirt. In fact, the vignette introduced a new style of phaser, so it must be set later in time.

The vignette is set prior to Ep 1. The new style of phaser was seen in Eps 1 and 2...but not in 3 for obvious reasons!

Sure; I only meant later in time than TOS.