The "original" Ten-Forward

[Probert]

When Andrew Probert was doing initial designs on the Galaxy class, he had envisioned differently what eventually became Ten-Forward (which he dislikes, because he feels it's not really proportional to the saucer).

Quite true. As you can see, the saucer rim is way too small to accommodate that ridiculous set. It is a bit hard for me to understand why Berman insisted on stuffing that room in there when I totally provided many sizable window alcoves alluding to places of large social gatherings: restaurants, lounges, etc.

Below, you can see the windows provided for an Officer's Lounge which would have been perfect for a '10-forward'-sized space...

... but Producer Bob Justman had that set of windows (and many others) divided into smaller window sets, like the resulting odd block of windows below the saucer's shuttle bay.

Frustrating? Indeed, but I'm not the only person whose designs were/are not understood by "those in charge".

Andrew-

PS: A good example of the actual blue & green panel coloring.

 

[ST-One]

When Andrew Probert was doing initial designs on the Galaxy class, he had envisioned differently what eventually became Ten-Forward (which he dislikes, because he feels it's not really proportional to the saucer).

Quite true. As you can see, the saucer rim is way too small to accommodate that ridiculous set. It is a bit hard for me to understand why Berman insisted on stuffing that room in there when I totally provided many sizable window alcoves alluding to places of large social gatherings: restaurants, lounges, etc.

Below, you can see the windows provided for an Officer's Lounge which would have been perfect for a '10-forward'-sized space...

... but Producer Bob Justman had that set of windows (and many others) divided into smaller window sets, like the resulting odd block of windows below the saucer's shuttle bay.

Frustrating? Indeed, but I'm not the only person whose designs were/are not understood by "those in charge".

Andrew-

PS: A good example of the actual blue & green panel coloring.

It would have been so great to have seen your version of these saucer-rim-rooms, but I think these large windows looks better divided into smaller ones...
But at least this little change didn't fuck your layout for the ship as that idiotic 10-Forward-set did.

 

[ST-One]

The rim of the saucer isn't flat, it curves up to the edge. Hence the dual-level floor to help follow the curve.

Actually, it is flat. The only curve is the one the windows (on the miniature) follow.

Part of the TV-set reason, I imagine, was to allow the windows to curve under the platform floor giving an impression of depth. Had they built it one-level-only on the stage floor they couldn't have done that. Hence the raised platform as an elegant solution to the design challenge.

If only they had done that (it wouldn't have fucked with the design too much). But the windows don't even reach the floor on the set.

 

[FalTorPan]

Just to play devil's advocate, the Ten Forward set doesn't fit... but neither do the secondary shuttlebays. We can wave our hands and imagine the vertical outer wall and door as being inset from the angled outer hull and door, but what would be the point of such a discrepancy?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Just to play devil's advocate, the Ten Forward set doesn't fit... but neither do the secondary shuttlebays. We can wave our hands and imagine the vertical outer wall and door as being inset from the angled outer hull and door, but what would be the point of such a discrepancy?

I had always felt that thos were "loading bays", at the back of the shuttlebay spaces. This theory does of course ignore some of the visuals, but it makes sense from a technical standpoint.

 

[Forbin]

The rim of the saucer isn't flat, it curves up to the edge. Hence the dual-level floor to help follow the curve.

Actually, it is flat. The only curve is the one the windows (on the miniature) follow.

Holy crap, you're right.

Time passes. The memory blurs.

 

[Probert]

Hey, all,... maybe this will help-

Andrew-

 

[Probert]

Or this... ?

Andrew-

 

[ST-One]

Hey, all,... maybe this will help-

Andrew-

Or this... ?

Andrew-

Makes the designer cry, doesn't it?

 

[Trekker4747]

I dunno. It *might* work.

 

[Timo]

...Also, the four-foot model was configured a bit differently: the windows above and below the rim are in different places, and the rim is apparently slightly thicker, too. That model could plausibly accommodate Ten-Forward.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cyke101]

Or this... ?

Andrew-

Now we get to see the E-D's windshield wipers

Anyway, veering slightly off topic but back to the link in the OT, the thing about the previous bridge design that strikes me is the conference table on the bridge. I love the fact that that design element was brought over to the USS Defiant and the NX-01. Hurray consistency (whether or not it was intended)!

 

[Timo]

Veering a bit further... On the Defiant, that table apparently was introduced mainly so that one could pile phaser rifles on it. Did we ever see it used for brainstorming?

On the E-D, there should theoretically have been dedicated rooms for just about everything. Thus, the idea of using Ten-Forward for something else besides drinking is a bit awkward: identical rooms galore should have been available, permanently configured for hosting theatrical plays or archaeological conferences of poetry readings. But one might see why auteur Crusher would want her play to be performed in Ten-Forward specifically, or why Data would wish to gather his friends and drinking buddies there for performing his art.

Similarly, holding the Captain Picard Day fair in the Observation Lounge makes perfect sense, as the setting would be part of the appeal. In general, though, I'd argue that whenever we see a thinly redressed E-D set, it should be interpreted as a separate facility and not an in-universe redressing of a frequently seen facility. Something must be filling the vast interiors of that ship, even if it's just dedicated poetry reading rooms.

Timo Saloniemi

Edit/P.S. : Does anybody else have this problem? Whenever I use an emoticon in the post, and hit "send", the message at first appears without the emoticon and as if I were logged out - no editing buttons or anything. Exiting the page and returning brings back the emoticons and the logged-in look.

 

[ST-One]

I dunno. It *might* work.

Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.

And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.

 

[Trekker4747]

I dunno. It *might* work.

Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.

You've got to cut them some slack in that department. You're talking about taking a 4 or 6-foot long model made out of plastic and trying to take curved windows on it conform to a full-sized set. There's got to be a margin of error.

And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.

Ditto what I said above.

In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another when the transporters have ranges of thousands of miles, communications can occur over light years and the weapons have incredible ranges as well. (Phasers are, essentialy, beams of energy/light the Enterprise could be orbiting the moon and tag a spaceship in orbit around Earth.)

The special effects are just there to show us these things so we've an idea what we're looking at/is happening. We're not really meant to disect them and take them litteraly. Ideas and concepts change and cannot be limited to what the curvature of scale of windows are on a 4-foot long hunk of plastic.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.

 

[ST-One]

Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.

You've got to cut them some slack in that department. You're talking about taking a 4 or 6-foot long model made out of plastic and trying to take curved windows on it conform to a full-sized set. There's got to be a margin of error.

And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.

Ditto what I said above.

In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another when the transporters have ranges of thousands of miles, communications can occur over light years and the weapons have incredible ranges as well. (Phasers are, essentialy, beams of energy/light the Enterprise could be orbiting the moon and tag a spaceship in orbit around Earth.)

The special effects are just there to show us these things so we've an idea what we're looking at/is happening. We're not really meant to disect them and take them litteraly. Ideas and concepts change and cannot be limited to what the curvature of scale of windows are on a 4-foot long hunk of plastic.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.

Of course they had to make compromises during production.

But Ten-Forward is one of those cases were a perfectly good design concept was abandoned and replaced with something ... well... something.

They had the opportunity to build a visually very exciting set but didn't use it.

 

[Probert]

You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.

As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-

 

[GodThingFormerly]

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-

And Thus Spake Probert.

TGT

 

[ST-One]

You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.

As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-

Now tell us how you really feel.

 

[Trekker4747]

You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.

As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-

Mr. Probert, I've great respect for you. I do. You designed my favorite ship of the franchsie and I agree with what you just said.

TPTB, the ones with the final say in things too often sacraficed things making sense in order to save a dime or two or because they underestimated the needs of the fans.

I'm sure if they had listened to you and your co-workers closer and followed your suggestions things would've been much greater.

But, in the end, we got what we got. And, all due respect, the special effects, model shots, and how everything fits together is secondary to stories and characters.

I *know* that the Stargazer couldn't of been that big. It doesn't make sense. I also know that model and model shots were time consuming and expensive back then and it may not have been entirely possible to make the two fit into scale. So we end up with, well, something that doesn't make sense.

Now I, as the viewer, can either get upset, proclaim that the Proudcers hate me, hate the show and don't care and write of letters or complain on the internet about it or I can just assume what I'm seeing isn't "the way things are" and is just the way they're shown to me on the TV due to the limitations of the medium.

I can look at the model of the -D and see that the rim windows don't allow for 10-Fwd's windows and the scale is out of wack when we consider 10Fwd's set and either get mad and call people idiot for doing it or I can just assume the "special effects are wrong" because obviously what we're seeing on screen (the live set) tells me that 10-Fwd is on the underside of the saucer with windows to reflect that.

Would your idea of 10-Fwd been perfectly placed on the rim with upper and lower windows have been cool? You bet it would have been! And it'd have the bonus of being accurate. (I do wonder what that does to the alignment of the other decks and the 42-deck count.) But it's not, so it isn't, so I shrug and so oh-well. Doesn't effect my enjoyment of the show any and doesn't do any good to get upset over something that occured 20 years ago.



Again, sir. With all due respect and admiration of your work and ideas. I say again, had you been given a whole lot more freedom things in the series would've been a whole lot more fascinating and interesting.