Why *was* the bridge turbolift offset?

[uniderth]

What "onscreen evidence" are you talking about?

Here you can see the doorway lines up with the two left most segments of the railing in front of it:

Yet here you can see the left side of the doorway aligns with the center of the gap behind the captains chair:

Also there is another shot in an episode where the navigation section is rotated at an angle from the viewscreen but I can't remember which one it is right now.

The only canonical evidence I'm aware of that even might settle the question is this scene in "The Cage" that was also used in "The Menagerie":

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage011.jpg

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0032.jpg

The original VFX are dodgy at best, and they arguably support not only the case that the cylinder immediately aft of the bridge does not align with the elevator doors but also the case that the helm module does not face forward. So, it's really inconclusive.

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x11/themanagerie1_427.jpg

All that proves is that the bridge is actually a two dimensional plane set on top of the bridge dome.

 

[Christopher]

All that proves is that they rearranged the pieces of the set to get the shots they wanted. You can't take every last production detail as literal in-universe fact. Like I said, they never expected fans to be poring over the exact details of their sets 50 years later, so they moved things around or faked things sometimes.

I mean, there are a lot of shots where you can clearly see the edge of Spock's console, even though it was supposed to be flush with the station counterclockwise from it. That doesn't "prove" that the console was actually removed in-universe, just that the director neglected to hide the illusion.

 

[uniderth]

All that proves is that they rearranged the pieces of the set to get the shots they wanted. You can't take every last production detail as literal in-universe fact. Like I said, they never expected fans to be poring over the exact details of their sets 50 years later, so they moved things around or faked things sometimes.

I mean, there are a lot of shots where you can clearly see the edge of Spock's console, even though it was supposed to be flush with the station counterclockwise from it. That doesn't "prove" that the console was actually removed in-universe, just that the director neglected to hide the illusion.

I don't disagree with this. But these production issues do allow for some interesting possibilities. For example when they switch between stock pilot footage of the Enterprise and the series version. Perhaps in-universe the Enterprise actually is able to changes its external details. The Bridge dome may be able to rise and sink in the hull. The spikes can protrude and recede from the nacelle domes. The dish can expand its diameter.

Sure we know the REAL reason for this stuff. But why not be a little creative and come up with in universe explanations for these things rather than chalking it up as an error or production necessity. And no, not everything has to have an in-universe explanation, but let's have a little fun with it.

Spoiler: Click Here for a Rant About the Remastered Version.

That's another reason why I hate the remastered, becasue they try and fix the "mistakes." Well who says they have to be mistakes.

Like specifying what the Ion Pod is. Not knowing, is part of the fun. We get to imagine what all these things are and come up with all sorts of interesting theories. But the Remastered denies us this.

 

[Christopher]

Sure we know the REAL reason for this stuff. But why not be a little creative and come up with in universe explanations for these things rather than chalking it up as an error or production necessity. And no, not everything has to have an in-universe explanation, but let's have a little fun with it.

I've spent the past 14 years writing Star Trek tie-in fiction for Pocket Books. What you're describing is a large part of what I do for a living. But some details are more worth coming up with clever explanations for than others. There comes a point where it just becomes annoyingly overliteral.

 

[uniderth]

I've spent the past 14 years writing Star Trek tie-in fiction for Pocket Books. What you're describing is a large part of what I do for a living. But some details are more worth coming up with clever explanations for than others. There comes a point where it just becomes annoyingly overliteral.

Sure. Like the walls of the starship are actually made out of plywood in universe becasue we see Spock crack one when he falls against it. though seeing as how we are talking about the positioning of the bridge, observed changes in orientation of elements is relevant. But as my snark about the bridge being a flat plane was pointing out; yes, it is just a TV show, and no, we don't have to come up with an explanation for everything. Just saying, the rotating bridge idea has merit and on screen evidence to back it up.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

the rotating bridge idea has merit and on screen evidence to back it up.

Sorry, but, it doesn't have merit. Kirk's chair already rotates. There is no need for the helm and navigation stations to revolve around too, with the viewscreen already in front of them. The same goes for the outer stations revolving around the inner: there is no need for that function, as the swiveling of the captain's chair offers all the utility that is needed.

 

[Christopher]

Just saying, the rotating bridge idea has merit and on screen evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. After all, sometimes those inconsistencies in the orientation of the command chair, helm console, and railings are between alternating shots in a single scene. It's just artistic license -- sometimes they rotated the central portion because it was easier than moving the cameras and lights, and they just figured nobody would notice that it didn't line up right with the background, because TV screens were smaller and fuzzier at the time.

Also, what in-universe merit could there be to rotating the center section of the bridge? The captain's chair already rotates, and there's no reason for the helm/nav consoles to face anything but the main viewer.

Although I think the bridge set in the original Battlestar Galactica had a raised central platform that could rotate.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Well, submarines don't have main viewscreens, because there's not that much to see underwater. They mostly just have monitors at individual stations. And I don't think they really have captain's chairs either, at least not in the sub movies I've seen. The captain's standing up and moving around supervising everyone.

And manning the periscope when they're near the surface.

 

[Kor]

Everything seen visually on screen must be considered an undeniable in-universe fact. Especially the slightly peeling edges of Spock's prosthetic ears.

Anything less than that violates the true vision of Star Trek.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Everything seen visually on screen must be considered an undeniable in-universe fact. Especially the slightly peeling edges of Spock's prosthetic ears.

Anything less than that violates the true vision of Star Trek.

Once I was able to see Star Trek on a good enough TV to make out details (and colors), I started to wonder why Spock wore so much eye shadow...

 

[Spock's Barber]

And manning the periscope when they're near the surface.

Commander Murdock has a periscope on his bridge...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FormerLurker]

Although I think the bridge set in the original Battlestar Galactica had a raised central platform that could rotate.

It did indeed. Never did figure out why, though. It made it hard to get up the stairs to the thing.

 

[Christopher]

It did indeed. Never did figure out why, though. It made it hard to get up the stairs to the thing.

I went looking for online plans of the original Galactica bridge to see if there was an explanation for the rotation. Here are scans of the official blueprint set, which, unlike Trek blueprint sets, are actual production blueprints rather than being passed off as in-universe plans. There are several sheets showing the design and construction of the rotating pedestal, but no clear answer for why it needs to rotate. Unless maybe it's because there's a "scan screen" at bridge aft, so maybe sometimes the commander needs to face that screen and sometimes they need to face the consoles and the front viewport.

I also found this nifty 1979 Starlog article about the design and then-cutting-edge computer display technology behind the Galactica bridge set. Impressive stuff there. While ST:TMP around the same time was using animated film loops to simulate computer screen displays, BSG was using actual computers, from a company that supplied equipment to the Space Shuttle, to create and coordinate the graphics on multiple screens. Almost seems like it should be the other way around. It sounds like the makers of Galactica put far more thought, care, and realism into the set design than they put into the plots or characters.

 

[Maurice]

The command post on the Galactica rotates for the same reason the Enterprise bridge has different levels: visual interest.

And it wasn't because "TV screens were smaller and fuzzier at the time" because what's being described is a common "cheat" (in film parlance) to save time, and is/was done in major motion pictures too, in part because most people would never notice it, especially in the days before home video allowed people to pick these things apart.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think Roddenberry (or maybe Solow and Justman?) said somewhere that you'd never have a duty station where the commanding officer had the door right behind his back.

Which actually makes perfect sense. Why make it any easier for a sniper to get a clear line of sight to the captain while hiding in the turbolift?

It reminds me of the original idea for the Romulan ship in TNG's "Face of the Enemy" (the one where Troi is a Romulan). The plan was to have the Romulan bridge with the captain's chair at the extreme aft portion - so that there's literally nothing and no one behind it. The reasoning being that Romulan captains would never place their command post anywhere where somebody could sneak up on them.

 

[Timo]

...Cardassians in "Return to Grace" appeared to solve the problem by giving the captain a massive armored backrest! And Klingons of course follow the opposite philosophy, making the captain lead from the front. Except for Kruge.

Associating the top knob of Kirk's ship with the turbolift seems pretty futile no matter what type of source material one wishes to accept, adopt or adapt. But the original "insight" scene at the beginning of "The Cage" is amusingly supportive of the rotated bridge interpretation, although utterly coincidentally. And of course the remake in TOS-R "The Menagerie" is conscious of this, taking pains to both make Pike look dead ahead and to zoom there in such a fashion that it's actually impossible to tell.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[alensatemybuick1]

I refer to discussions like this one as "sucking the joy out of the room". Same goes for debate over the "in universe" size of the Galileo.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Also there is another shot in an episode where the navigation section is rotated at an angle from the viewscreen but I can't remember which one it is right now.

Pretty sure you are thinking of the one from "By Any Other Name" where Chekov is sitting almost "Donald Trump-style" bebore being icosahedronized.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Pretty sure you are thinking of the one from "By Any Other Name"

Yeah, they obviously cheated by rotating the helm platform to the left. I suppose this spared them from showing the main view screen with Chekov in front of it, which in turn would have required them to set up the rear screen projector, or at least put up the starfield painting they used to such great effect in "The Doomsday Machine."

What I don't get is, why didn't they leave the helm platform facing forward and just shoot Chekov from the side. That would be easier and floorplan-accurate.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I refer to discussions like this one as "sucking the joy out of the room". Same goes for debate over the "in universe" size of the Galileo.

So why are you participating?

Pretty sure you are thinking of the one from "By Any Other Name" where Chekov is sitting almost "Donald Trump-style" bebore being icosahedronized.