Exactly! If I could have it my way, I´d remove that console altogether and have a secondary exit there.
There was a running gag in Police Squad! where Ted the scientist would open the door and walk into the adjacent laboratory room and, as the camera tracked back to follow him, Frank Drebin would just walk around the false wall.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.
Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization...
Exactly! If I could have it my way, I´d remove that console altogether and have a secondary exit there.
Exactly! If I could have it my way, I´d remove that console altogether and have a secondary exit there.
But not until after “Space Seed” because the Bridge crew was trapped up there by Khan.![]()
@ Christopher
My statement had a somewhat ironic nature which I had hoped the Smiley would convey.
And having been around here much longer than myself, you know there are plenty of fans - myself included - that just have a great time looking for in-universe rationalizations.
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.
We saw a lot of the Bridge port side during the pilots and in TOS, but if I recall correctly we never saw that station until this one TOS episode where Kirk walked the entire outer Bridge platform counter-clockwise.
It got even worse than the walls. In one episode from the final season (I think), the ship suddenly had a deck below the living quarters, just so the monster of the week could fall to his death into the power core.. . .on Lost in Space, where the interior walls of the Jupiter 2 seemed to expand when the script called for it, even as the exterior set sold a hard, fixed structure of limited interior space.
Thus no second exit for Mario de Monti, I'm afraid ...
I now can't refrain from telling this anecdote I once read about "Lost in Space":
One episode had run out of budget and the production manager came to Irwin Allen, telling him they couldn't afford to built the antagonist alien's spaceship anymore. Allen supposedly got very mad, but then he said "Then the alien is going to walk."
Bob
I can see that left station being temporary removed for repairs or upgrades. Why can't another secondary station be configured to take over for a while?
Surely there must be some kind of convincing in-universe rationalization...
Why "must" there be? Some things are just stagecraft. The earliest known stage performances were in Egypt around 4000 years ago. Motion pictures have only been around for about 125 years or so. That means that for at least 97 percent of the history of dramatic performance, audiences have been able to clearly see the edges of the stages the performers played upon, yet still suspend disbelief and accept the conceit that the stage was merely a representation of a conjectural reality that they filled in with their own imaginations. If hundreds of generations of our ancestors could do that with no difficulty, why should it be any harder for us?
Why "must" there be? Some things are just stagecraft. The earliest known stage performances were in Egypt around 4000 years ago. Motion pictures have only been around for about 125 years or so. That means that for at least 97 percent of the history of dramatic performance, audiences have been able to clearly see the edges of the stages the performers played upon, yet still suspend disbelief and accept the conceit that the stage was merely a representation of a conjectural reality that they filled in with their own imaginations. If hundreds of generations of our ancestors could do that with no difficulty, why should it be any harder for us?
Well, obviously, because we're a more sophisticated audience than our forebears were.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.