The "side" of Spok's station....

[Grant]

As we know the station to the ‘left’ of Spock’s science station was removable and was in fact, the most common section removed to allow the camera to shoot into the bridge set.

What happened quite often is that the “side” of Spock’s station was visible on camera thus destroying the illusion that the bridge was a solid thing. In fact, this happened so often that they painted the side of Spock’s station to match the regular visible portions. Not only that but several times the actor at the science station let his left hand grip the side of the remaining set and therefore was gripping an “edge” that did not exist.

This makes no sense in a TV format where the illusion is that the camera is catching events as a unnoticed observer.
It would be as if in “All In The Family” the camera was pulled back far enough to reveal the fact that the wall of the house was missing and you could actually SEE that it had been removed and saw where the wall had been “cut” to allow the camera in.

Was this fairly common back then on TV where a wall was removed for filming and the audience could actually see the sides of the removed section?

Isn’t the camera supposed to be a fly on the wall and NOT a fly with X-ray ‘cut-away vision” seeing things that do not exist for the subjects of the story.

Spock’s station DOES NOT have a “side”--it connects to the next station---so the camera and the audience are seeing something that does not exist.

Any thoughts? And I wonder if I’m the only person who this ever bothered! LOL.

 

[Grant]

To the OP--it's spelled "Spock"

 

[Melakon]

Was this fairly common back then on TV where a wall was removed for filming and the audience could actually see the sides of the removed section?

It was common practice on shows to remove a wall for the camera angle, but usually you wouldn't see the unfinished sides of the set. The bridge set due to its design was an unusual case where an obvious goof sometimes made it to air. But such is the nature when trying to film a one hour show in 6 or 7 days. Those 20 minute Three Stooges shorts averaged 3 days. There's not always enough time and money to get things right.

There are some minor examples of comparison though. Think about scenes filmed on a soundstage with actors in a car or airplane mockup. Often there's no front end or even a dashboard, just a steering wheel/yoke in front of the driver/pilot.

 

[Shat Happens]

I don't have a problem with that, I consider TOS a classic in the strictest sense of the word and so nothing in it is really a flaw.

But it is on topic to note that the movie bridges were designed so to avoid that issue and facilitate the camera to see the actors' faces. Spock's station in the movies (up to III) has a roll-out console just so Nimoy could face the camera while pretending to operate controls.

The bridges in the next movies and tv series went crazy with that notion, relocating the turbolift doors and generally fubaring the classic layout entirely.

 

[Christopher]

This makes no sense in a TV format where the illusion is that the camera is catching events as a unnoticed observer.
It would be as if in “All In The Family” the camera was pulled back far enough to reveal the fact that the wall of the house was missing and you could actually SEE that it had been removed and saw where the wall had been “cut” to allow the camera in.

Was this fairly common back then on TV where a wall was removed for filming and the audience could actually see the sides of the removed section?

In theory, no, but sometimes the illusion does slip. For instance, in The Rockford Files, Jim Rockford lived in a trailer whose interior was mocked up on a soundstage and whose right-side wall (the long wall opposite the doors) was usually open for the cameras except on reverse angles. Unlike many such sets, the interior set actually matched the proportions of the exterior set pretty well. But there were some episodes where the action in the trailer scenes pretty much required the wall to be missing. For instance, there was an episode where Rockford fought a thug played by a young, surprisingly hirsute Richard Moll, and got him in a wrestling hold on a chair, pushing his head down and forward toward the camera. But if the wall had actually been there, Rockford would've been shoving Moll's face directly against it at that point, if not through it.

So the error with Spock's console is a similar situation -- a shot composed based more on the physical reality of the set than on the conjectural reality it was supposed to represent.

 

[Grant]

What I guess I am bothered by is the fact at some point---they just gave up on the illusion and stopped trying to shoot it the "right way" and went ahead and painted the side of Spock's station-----------

therefore basically throwing up their hands and admitting it was too much effort to avoid seeing the side of it.

And in fact, they were, well capable of shooting it the right way.

It would as if they was a shot of Archie Bunker hanging a picture on the wall where we usually saw the camera POV shot from and as he was hanging the picture Edith was standing beside him with her hand on the cutaway--in effect her hand is "in" the wall instead of leaning against it.

And on top of that they just went ahead and said "screw it" and wrapped the wallpaper over the edge.

So basically we it takes a lot of effort to do this right so instead lets pretend the wall is supposed to look like that and extend the wallpaper over the missing section.

I'm not faulting them because I am aware of the terrible time constraints in shooting 26 episodes at a rate of one per workweek. But painting the side of his station was basically saying ahead of time, "We're not going to get this right."

Interesting posts by the way. It would have been funny if the next shot of the trailer exterior had a "head-sized" bump protruding from that spot!

 

[ZapBrannigan]

It was expected that the vast majority of Star Trek viewers would never study the floor plans. Most people who even noticed Spock's hand would not know for sure that there was no such gap in the "real" console.

While the bridge set was unique, many conventional TV shows would intentionally go beyond the fourth wall for a particular kind of camera shot. When an actor walks through a set door from one room into another, often the camera will move along with him, briefly exposing the edge of the separating wall. There's no way to shoot that in a real house, but a TV family's house with no fourth wall? No problem.

An more extreme example of this "open architecture" style is seen in The Ladies Man (1961), a Jerry Lewis comedy. The fabulous 4-story set Lewis had built enabled the camera to see the goings on in giant mansion, all at once:

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/the-ladies-man-set.png

 

[Mario de Monti]

That never bothers me. After all, I know it´s "just a TV show" so that extra reminder doesn´t make a difference to me. BTW, it wasn´t only the side, but in some instances they removed also the top part of the console to shoot over the bottom part, so that you could see the surface where the top was usually attached. But I don´t mind, I just chuckle

 

[Michael]

Not only that but several times the actor at the science station let his left hand grip the side of the remaining set and therefore was gripping an “edge” that did not exist.

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a specific episode in mind, where this actually happens? I think I must have missed this all these years.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Good for you?! The moment Grant mentioned it, it instantly and painfully came back to my mind.

Mario had a good example but it doesn't stop there. Other TOS examples for "X-ray vision" or wall removal are a couple of transporter room scenes where the wall opposite the entry door had been removed (makes the room seem bigger than it is), the angled wall of Kirk's / Grant's cabin in "The Deadly Years" and last but not least the Hangar Deck VFX footage (from the Jefferies' observation corridor opposite to the clamshell doors we would not have seen the whole of it as featured).

Bob

 

[F. King Daniel]

Spock's console didn't bother me at all. It's right up there with sound in space, the completely unrealistic fantasy manner in which space and science are depicted, and that everybody is mentally and physically well at the beginning of each episode no matter what trauma they endured the previous week.

 

[Mario de Monti]

Not only that but several times the actor at the science station let his left hand grip the side of the remaining set and therefore was gripping an “edge” that did not exist.

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a specific episode in mind, where this actually happens? I think I must have missed this all these years.

Here is an example.

 

[Melakon]

. . .and last but not least the Hangar Deck VFX footage (from the Jefferies' observation corridor opposite to the clamshell doors we would not have seen the whole of it as featured).

I'm not even sure which episode or stock shot you're referring to, since I don't recall an episode ever describing a view of the hangar deck as being from a Jeffries tube observation point. At least not in the original production.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Here is an example.

Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization like this: When the captain approaches and nobody works adjacent to Spock's station this station or parts of it retract and from the bottom a panel lifts a tablet with several cups of coffee.

When the captain leaves his chair and goes to Spock's station the ship's computer has "learned" that the captain is about to get a long lecture or report from Spock, so he definitely needs lots of coffee (as does the rest of the Bridge crew).

. . .and last but not least the Hangar Deck VFX footage (from the Jefferies' observation corridor opposite to the clamshell doors we would not have seen the whole of it as featured).

I'm not even sure which episode or stock shot you're referring to, since I don't recall an episode ever describing a view of the hangar deck as being from a Jeffries tube observation point. At least not in the original production.

According to Jefferies‘ sketch of the hangar deck (check out this older thread post # 95) there is a “back wall”.

In the VFX shots of the hangar deck we should be looking at this back wall with the “Jefferies observation corridor” cross-section including the figure for scale reference, but then we would have no idea what the hangar deck behind looked like in its full glory.

Thus this back wall was omitted / never built as a miniature to enable us to have an unobstructed view of the hangar deck’s upper level (aka flight deck).

Bob

 

[Robert Comsol]

Here is an example.

Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization like this: When the captain approaches and nobody works adjacent to Spock's station this station or parts of it retract and from the bottom a panel lifts a tablet with several cups of coffee.

When the captain leaves his chair and goes to Spock's station the ship's computer has "learned" that the captain is about to get a long lecture or report from Spock, so he definitely needs lots of coffee.

. . .and last but not least the Hangar Deck VFX footage (from the Jefferies' observation corridor opposite to the clamshell doors we would not have seen the whole of it as featured).

I'm not even sure which episode or stock shot you're referring to, since I don't recall an episode ever describing a view of the hangar deck as being from a Jeffries tube observation point. At least not in the original production.

According to Jefferies‘ sketch of the hangar deck (check out this older thread post # 95) there is a “back wall”. In the VFX shots of the hangar deck we should be looking at this back wall with the “Jefferies observation corridor” cross-section including the figure for scale reference, but then we would have no idea what the hangar deck behind looked like in its full glory.

Thus this back wall was omitted / never built as a miniature to enable us to have an unobstructed view of the hangar deck’s upper level (aka flight deck).

Bob

 

[Robert Comsol]

Here is an example.

Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization like this: When the captain approaches and nobody works adjacent to Spock's station this station or parts of it retract and from the bottom a panel lifts a tablet with several cups of coffee.

When the captain leaves his chair and goes to Spock's station the ship's computer has "learned" that the captain is about to get a long lecture or report from Spock, so he definitely needs lots of coffee.

. . .and last but not least the Hangar Deck VFX footage (from the Jefferies' observation corridor opposite to the clamshell doors we would not have seen the whole of it as featured).

I'm not even sure which episode or stock shot you're referring to, since I don't recall an episode ever describing a view of the hangar deck as being from a Jeffries tube observation point. At least not in the original production.

According to Jefferies‘ sketch of the hangar deck (check out this older thread http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=34793&page=7 post # 95) there is a “back wall”. In the VFX shots of the hangar deck we should be looking at this back wall with the “Jefferies observation corridor” cross-section including the figure for scale reference, but then we would have no idea what the hangar deck behind looked like in its full glory.

Thus this back wall was omitted / never built as a miniature to enable us to have an unobstructed view of the hangar deck’s upper level (aka flight deck).

Bob

 

[Melakon]

All right, I follow you now. I'm familiar with those sketches from having one of the first paperback printings of Whitfield's Making of ST back when the show was in production. I was usually more focused on the stage set plans showing the main corridor, sickbay, etc.

I didn't worry whether that rear view as the shuttle goes through the opened hangar doors matched concept designs. I naturally assumed that rear bulkhead was never there to begin with, just to give a wide angle effect of the miniataure hangar deck set.

I used to play with trying to make small dioramas and stuff, and then filming them. I once did a crude Time Tunnel set using a shoebox with a viewing hole in one end, and the tunnel and computer equipment made out of paper. It was still sort of convincing, even if crude.

 

[Mytran]

Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization...

I like to think that any of the Bridge consoles could be removed for maintainence or upgrades, similar to what happened in WNMHGB. It's just that the console next to Spock gets worked on more than most ;-)

 

[Melakon]

That station next to Spock's was probably hinged so that the ship's crew could get to those toilets we never saw, and Uhura was always leaving it partly ajar because she was frightened by something again.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Add to this it's only a sub-station for navigational readouts. How often did we actually see it on screen to even be aware it's there?

Bob