And the other aircraft carrier, CV 6, which is the one with the distinguished career. (She should have been a museum ship)
That's as maybe but no model used ever had that bevelled lower third of the saucer rim, nor that ever-so-shapely secondary hull. Those are very clear and obvious differences.
I'm curious as to why you consider that, since it's clear from Datin's measurements and onscreen analysis that the miniature was not built with FP.
Not to mention ship design - is that really the side profile of the same Enterprise-C that turned up in YE?
As you probably already know, originally it was a wash; The turbolift did not lined up with the nub but the bridge also didn't face in the same direction as the outside markings on the front of the dome.
Indeed, that's why I don't usually cite the scene - it can be interpreted which ever way you prefer!
Indeed, that's why I don't usually cite the scene - it can be interpreted which ever way you prefer!
Hence I limited my observation to the turbolift and the nub (inconsistent with a 36 degree offset bridge)
IMO that scene is not meant to be taken literally, but just cinematic shorthand to give the viewers a peek into the inside of this new, giant spaceship by having the camera fly through the wall, as had been done many times on film before. This impressionistic interpretation of the Bridge-interior reveal also negates the need for a giant circular ceiling window on the TOS Bridge. Such a window would be of limited practical value as well as a terrible structural weakness, plus we see the ceiling interior in 2 different episodes and the window was conspicuously absent.
Yes, in real-life the Bridge elements were arranged according to what made the most effective camera shots. The arrangement was slightly different in WNMHGB and for a single shot in By Any Other Name but otherwise it was always the same and the actors behaved as if the viewscreen faced the front of the ship.
It this topic really derailling the thread? Given the title I'm unclear how that could be the case, but I'm happy to drop the subject if it's of no interest to people.
I'm not sure if that was the intent here since the whole ship is opaque except for that spot at the top of the Bridge dome. The "Time Warp Factor Seven" sequence later shows a properly translucent ship and crew.
The scaling of length and height for those half models was based on the official lengths. CVN-65, 1701 and 1701-A are based on Jefferies comparison, Jefferies dimensions, and the TMP stated size. Excelsior's scale to 1701-A was established by Milos Rodis-Jamero. Probert designed the Ambassador and Galaxy classes. So basically all those scale to the official original design. So it was accurate to the intended scale. It was done by the art department which is where all the official scales have been set for all the productions. Plus the carrier for real world scale - the ship which had the largest crew of any of them. The scaling for the Ent E collection of full models was not as carefully scaled and several were purchased and plated for that purpose. The other was done by Andrew Probert who accepted Jefferies scale for TOS and Phase II and set the scale for 3 of the other 4. So I consider it very definitive.
Also missing are the new carrier, CVN-80, the first carrier, CV-6, 2 steam ships and 4 sailing ships. Every one is missing some. This one is focusing more on the Star Trek designs and the CVN-65 goes along with that thanks to Jefferies using it for scale reference.
CV-6. CV-8 was the USS Hornet. And don't get my started on that hodge-podge passing itself off as CV-65. As for the rest, I guess anyone can be picky-choosy over what background info is authoritative and what is not.
Nope.
I fixed that. Thanks.
Yes we have and THIS topic is about how I am executing the interior of the TOS Enterprise. I am very set on a few things and very open about others.
No, they are minor differences that are not worth noting. Or are we going to start pointint out that the 11 foot model didn't have that third extension on the port side of the deflector dish? Or that they used the AMT kit for some shots, or that the lower saucer on the 33 inch model has a completely different curve, or that the aft end of the two models didn't match in The Cage, or that the 4 inch silver model was used for a shot with the Doomsday Machine, or that they still used shots from the pilots after changing the models? All of these are also clear differences in appearance but we all know they represent the same ship. Calling out that drawing (perhaps because they didn't replace it in the remastered version - which is yet again a different model of the ship) is an exercise in pickiness that I won't participate in. It is the Enterprise and it has a scale on it and it matches the scale in TMOS and the dimensions in TMOST, and the dimensions Franz Joseph used, and the size of the model wall in TNG, and on and on....
Every looked at Jefferies drawing or his cross section? That man did not make scale mistakes. So it has to fit behind the pylons and that sets the maximum size.
It sets the scale and the offset of the bridge. It was the 1960' and a TV pilot. They wanted to give a sense of scale and accuracy (as it is in most FX shots in Star Trek) takes 2nd place to story and cost.
Both Excelsior and Amabassador are shown by the class original design and both were done before either ship was depicted as being different. Sternbach used Probert's side view (used on the wall) and changed the secondary hull and pylons, but the saucer and nacelles are nearly identical.Not to mention ship design - is that really the side profile of the same Enterprise-C that turned up in YE?
Yes we have and I gave my response at the time:
Jefferies did draw a FP cross section of the Flight Deck. However, Datin's miniature (while incorporating features based on that sketch) was not built according to the same dimensions, nor was it built in FP.
Not trying to change your mind - there are lots of different approaches one can take to scale in TOS. But there are also very few datapoints to use so I want to be as correct on them as possible (and to be corrected if I'm wrong).
First you have to correct for the force perspective. To do that you have to know what it is. It means the dimensions are not square or true. There are several ways to do this, but really the best way is to look at what else Jefferies drew. It was not just the two drawings. He revisited this for Phase II. Combine them all and you get a hanger that fits the space and the design.Yes we have and I gave my response at the time:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-4#post-13639285
On the one hand it is explained by the simple realities of film-making: The camera was in a standard 3/4 view of the captain's chair which in turn meant it was centred on the turbolift doors when it was tilted - the actors were simply lined up with that.
In-universe the Enterprise is hit with the DM's energy beam and the Bridge crew are thrown in a direction which is sideways and slightly backwards (in relation to the helm console). Then we switch to the exterior view and the ship is already tilted (perhaps explaining the odd direction the crew flung themselves in) before it rotates in a clockwise direction.
None of this supports or refutes a forward facing Bridge.
Jefferies did draw a FP cross section of the Flight Deck. However, Datin's miniature (while incorporating features based on that sketch) was not built according to the same dimensions, nor was it built in FP.
If the Jefferies cross section had been used as is (and assuming the scale was as accurate as you state) then we'd be looking at a MUCH larger Enterprise and that's even before we start to "straighten out" the FP length...
Not trying to change your mind - there are lots of different approaches one can take to scale in TOS. But there are also very few datapoints to use so I want to be as correct on them as possible (and to be corrected if I'm wrong).
I am familiar with forced perspective, which is why I know that the "true" size of a Flight Deck which the FP drawing represents is going to be longer than the stated length, not shorter.
OK now I'm really confused - how have you corrected for FP? As far as I can tell you've just ignored the stated scale for Jefferies' Flight Deck sketch and simply imported selected elements of it into the space aft of the pylons (matching the Phase 2 cutaway)There are several ways to do this, but really the best way is to look at what else Jefferies drew. It was not just the two drawings. He revisited this for Phase II. Combine them all and you get a hanger that fits the space and the design.
And that is how you correct for forced perspective and Hollywood shortcuts. It fits and it looks right and if you did CG with the right lens for the camera position, the visuals would turn out close. Also reference the Star Trek V hanger, which is similar to what I drew (pink) and the Phase II hanger. And in 947 feet.
In the case of this hanger set, the goal was to make it seem large and have an opening large enough for the camera to fit in. So the adjustments from what I'll call realistic dimensions were to make it feel real in camera. Datin didn't follow all of his instructions, the same way he didn't for the two Enterprise models. So the shell was built with the angles Jefferies intended and Datin took a short cut for the rest. but to make it fit as Jefferies intended (and I believe he likely had that intent from the outset as every series production drawing was made long after he had set the size a 947 feet (that happened during production on The Cage). So the hanger model was build to create a realistic image.
That's some interesting speculation on what Datin did.
The size of the drawing indicates the size of the hanger model. Like many sets, it does not reflect how it would have fit in the ship. and I have no idea when he drew that drawing (or its companion one from the open end), but it likely was between April 1966 when the script was written and January 1967 when the episode aired. So very early in the first season. The 947' length was already well established. Other research shows that size was decided sometime in late 1964, before shooting on the Cage started or either model was built. The old crew size got left in the script, but other than that everything changed before the sets or models were built. I don't for a minute think that Jefferies made any errors in that drawing. I think every angle is very deliberate to make the model built from it seem like a cavernous hanger while he intended it to fit where he placed it in his cross section. That Datin didn't angle the galleries is on Datin. Just like the secondary hull he built didn't follow Jefferies more complex shape from the drawings. Due to how iconic Datin's model has become, it has become the standard design of the Enterprise, but it is based on how Datin badly executed the plans. He kept it to a shape he could turn, which was probably agreed to due to price. Another one of those things that affects Hollywood productions. But that aft end was very little changed from Jefferies drawings to Datin's models. So Jefferies intentions to fit the hanger behind the pylons should be honored.
