Which Way is Forward?

[niart17]

Just going through some screen shots from TOS Star Trek and came across this shot. Kind makes the whole "which way is the bridge facing argument" even more confusing doesn't it? This looks like it's pointing about 30 degree to the left of the main screen! What gives? they must have really not paid much attention when they were moving set pieces in and out.

Any thoughts? Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Bill

Edited December 20, 2012 by niart17

[crowe-t]

It doesn't look straight to me either. I'm sure back then no one was too particular regarding the small details. How much could be seen on the small low resolution TV's back then??? There were also a lot of people with black & white sets too.

The only other thing I can think of is maybe the angle being off is an illusion in that picture you posted.

[MHaz]

If you have a copy of Franz Joseph Designs' Star Trek Technical manual, it shows the bridge being about 30 deg. off center alignment. The turbolift alcove is inside the little "hump" on the exterior of the bridge, and the viewscreen is kicked off to an angle.

[niart17]

If you have a copy of Franz Joseph Designs' Star Trek Technical manual, it shows the bridge being about 30 deg. off center alignment. The turbolift alcove is inside the little "hump" on the exterior of the bridge, and the viewscreen is kicked off to an angle.

I understand that, but the main view screen is also normally 30 degrees off the front. The screen should be seen directly in front of the helm in this shot but it's off screen to the right. which would mean the helm is either now 60 degrees off or something else is outta whack. It's an interesting shot.

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

...I'm sure back then no one was too particular regarding the small details...

Back then??? Even today, too little attention is paid to those kinds of details. Conventional wisdom is that most people won't notice, so don't sweat the small stuff.

[niart17]

Here is where the screen should be.

not at all like that first shot.

[Charlie Cheetah]

I had always assumed they face forward and the turbo-lift was offset.

[Jay Chladek]

Here we go again. The placement of the helm console in the shot with Chekov's seat turned around I believe is from the third season episode "By Any Other Name". Just remember that while we consider the ship to be a thing, it is still in essence a set and the program had a rather hectic 5 to 7 day schedule to turn out new episodes on a relatively tight budget. What it looks like to me is the camera and lighting were set up to shoot scenes on the bridge looking a certain direction and somebody realized they needed to do a shot of Chekov with the helm console at another angle. So, rather than ripping up the lighting and camera rigs to set them up for another angle, they just rotated the helm console section instead as it meant they could get this pickup shot done with less labor needed. Nobody likely considered the chairs in the background since the focus was primarily on Chekov and in home VCRs wouldn't hit for another five years or so (those original 3/4 inch video monsters we had in grade school).

That sort of thing isn't unique to Trek television either. Watch the bridge scenes aboard the USS Grissom in Trek III and things also seem a bit odd. While the movie bridge set was also built with wild sections, it appears as though the basic layout remained essentially unchanged from the Enterprise, but they flipped it around 180 degrees with science on the opposite wall and communications opposite of it without breaking apart the set. So to obscure the fact that the viewscreen should now be directly behind the Captain's chair, they appeared to film relatively tight on just the Captain's chair, the helm console and Saavik's science console. They likely did this to save money as opposed to breaking apart the set by a lot and re-arranging it like they did for the Reliant in Trek II.

As for the bridge relative to the turbolift and the offset viewscreen, that was entirely Franz Joseph's doing as he introduced that in his "blueprints" set and Starfleet Technical Manual. These were done after Trek had been off the network air about 6 years (still running in syndication) and Paramount didn't hold control over Trek's copyrights like it does today (or Lucasfilm did with its Star Wars properties). So Franz was able to essentially buy the copyright to make it an "official" Trek source. When Paramount did begin to take more of a notice a few years later for the start of TMP's production, they closed a few of those copyright loopholes, but the Technical Manual still remained in print (and the Franz Joseph estate still holds the copyrights over his original designs, the Dreadnaught, Tug, Scout and Destroyer).

Anyway, I love the Franz Joseph stuff as I have a copy of the Technical Manual and a set of "blueprints" (deck plans is a more accurate description). But, they have some flaws brought about by the fact that is was the pre-internet and even pre-VCR period. The external configuration of the ship in his prints is very heavily based on the old AMT kit, right down to the external bridge dome shape. Both the prints and the Technical Manual use this shape instead of the more hemispherical dome shape found on the studio model. Franz was also working from one set of familiarization drawings that I believe Matt Jefferies or someone else in the art department came up with (which was printed in the Making of Star Trek book by Stephen Whitfield) which showed the size of the starship Enterprise overlaid over a drawing of the CVN aircraft carrier Enterprise. When he put two and two together, he likely found that certain things might not quite fit properly, such as an internal bridge set piece fitting inside a dome (particularly an AMT dome). So to resolve that, he cranked the bridge by 30 degrees so the turbolift doors would match the exterior shaft piece.

Now as to if it is correct or not (or should I use the dreaded word "canon"?), I don't necessarily believe so. The pull in footage on the bridge from the pilot episode "The Cage" (which also appeared in Trek season 1 in "The Menagerie" part 1, making it "canon" because it appeared in an aired Trek episode) seemed to indicate the bridge with its command chair and helm console (and the viewscreen) were more in keeping with the centerline of the ship rather than cranked over by 30 degrees. Somebody did do some goofy photo analysis a couple years ago to determine that the bridge should actually be pointing a little bit to starboard when considering the angle of the effects model to the internal set camera view, but that got a little bit too anal for my taste (and the bridge would also have about a 7 degree list to the left as well). Still, the angle of the camera I think was only off by only 10 degrees or so at most, meaning it was down to normal fudge factor as opposed to anything deliberate.

Screen cap from "The Cage" (the original model and film shot as opposed to the remastered version)

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

Screen cap from the remastered "The Cage" where some CGI and Photoshop elements were done to the shot to resolve some of the angle issues to match the interior to the exterior a little better.

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0040.jpg

So, my conclusion is that the viewscreen is centered and the turbolift is cranked over by 30 degrees even if it might not quite fit the given external details of the studio model. But, massage things a little bit and it could be made to fit. Besides, all it means is the turbolift car coming up just has to move forward into the dome and slide sideways once its gets to that level before the doors open. It makes a good safety feature as well since it means if Ensign redshirt is coming to the bridge to man his station and the ship takes a hit that kills power to the turbolifts (but the gravity controls still work). He might get stuck in the turbolift if he reaches the bridge deck, but he won't go tumbling to his death in the turbolift car falling down a vertical shaft if the emergency brakes also fail. So the Enterprise potentially saves more redshirts that way. ;)

Point being though, I am going viewscreen centered, turbolift offset. You can do it however you want on your models. But, I am a pilot and I know from experience that it is kind of dumb to fly a plane with your body craned over by 30 degrees (unless you want to induce a BAD case of vertigo in a pilot). Sure, in space you've got artificial gravity, inertial dampers... blah blah blah. But ultimately, Star Trek essentially was and still is a television show and since Roddenberry was a pilot, Matt Jefferies an aviation artist with a piloting background and the like, I am making an educated guess they weren't thinking about having the pilots of the ship flying it at that offset angle, since they intuitively knew more about atmospheric flight than spaceflight and most of the TV watching public at the time would be the same way.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jay Chladek

[niart17]

I'm with you Jay, I think Jefferies intended the helm to face straight forward. It would be silly offset from that, everybody knows you look forward while you fly. I think it was more than likely some set designers or shot composer's idea to move the lift doors on the set since most of the bridge shots were taken looking from the front bridge right to back left and that would allow people entering the bridge to be on screen as the doors open. They probably should have gotten with the model department and said "hey we need to move the elevator shaft so move it on the model". But like you say, it wasn't a major concern as most people would never notice.

And looking at the shot you posted fromt the pilot, it looks like they intended the bridge to face forward. Though even in that shot it shows the elevator shaft directly behind the captains chair and the doors open into outer space over to the right. That would be a heck of an elevator trip!

It's a nice theory you have about the elevator shifting over to the left once it reached the bridge (though there doesn't seem to be external space to do that, but it's cool) but the elevator would have had to go both up and down and back and forth in order to get everywhere they show it going in the ship.

I just thought it was an odd shot showing how we pay more attention to that stuff then the guys making it at the time. Who would have thought they would have spurred such debates.

Bill

Edited December 20, 2012 by niart17

[crowe-t]

I also agree with Jay on the placement of the bridge. In both the original and the CGI shot of the bridge from the Pilot the Turbolift doors are shifted 30 degrees so I take that as 'canon' since it aired that way. I'll build mine with the view screen facing forward.

Edited December 20, 2012 by crowe-t

[Jay Chladek]

It's a nice theory you have about the elevator shifting over to the left once it reached the bridge (though there doesn't seem to be external space to do that, but it's cool) but the elevator would have had to go both up and down and back and forth in order to get everywhere they show it going in the ship.

I just thought it was an odd shot showing how we pay more attention to that stuff then the guys making it at the time. Who would have thought they would have spurred such debates.

Bill

LOL, indeed. Shades of the William Shatner SNL Trek convention skit (what was the combination of your safe?). :D I also liked how Galaxy Quest also poked a bit of fun at that as well with the chompers ("This episode was badly written!").

But my main point is if things get massaged a little here and there (such as minutely increasing the size of the outer dome or ever so slightly cutting down the bridge interior) things can be made to fit as there is more than enough fudge factor to work from. Adding an inch or two here (or half a foot) to an external contour isn't going to make much difference on a 1/350 or smaller model. Even Gary Kerr who helped to design the 1/350 kit had to get creative in the main shuttle bay assembly and use a little bit of visual trickery to get to to both fit inside the model without interfering with the engine placement and make it look right when in reality, the original shuttle bay miniature is TOO long to fit in the available space. I admit there can be limits though to what can be done. Kudos to the BBC for coming up with the TARDIS as that can explain practically any set discrepency now a days. :D

I'll give Matt Jefferies credit though, he did tend to put more thought into some of his designs than art directors and set designers who came after him. I had a discussion with a buddy of mine who wrote a certain book about the Enterprise refit (I'm not naming names to help protect the innocent). It was a licensed book from Paramount and while he worked rather closely with one of the original TMP art designers, they had a little falling out due to how the author (who also had a drawing background) had to interpret some things to get them to physically fit in a certain space. The straw that apparently broke the camel's back was the turbolift car. In TMP, the designer made it look like an oversized version of a medicine capsule with hemispherical domes (making it twice as tall as it needed to be) and he didn't like it when the author turned them into much more shallow domes in his reinterpreted drawings. The author correctly pointed out that since he was doing a book about the fictional Enterprise, he had to alter the turbolift to get the thing to fit through the available deck space, otherwise, there would be these big welts in the hull to make space for these huge turbolift car domes. The two men have since patched their differences, but it did create a bit of a rift between them for about a decade.

[Thorsten Wieking]

[....]In TMP, the designer made it look like an oversized version of a medicine capsule with hemispherical domes (making it twice as tall as it needed to be) and he didn't like it when the author turned them into much more shallow domes in his reinterpreted drawings. The author correctly pointed out that since he was doing a book about the fictional Enterprise, he had to alter the turbolift to get the thing to fit through the available deck space, [...]

Great story!

Cheers

Thorsten

[Rocky]

Point being though' date=' I am going viewscreen centered, turbolift offset. You can do it however you want on your models. But, I am a pilot and I know from experience that it is kind of dumb to fly a plane with your body craned over by 30 degrees (unless you want to induce a BAD case of vertigo in a pilot). Sure, in space you've got artificial gravity, inertial dampers... blah blah blah. But ultimately, Star Trek essentially was and still is a television show and since Roddenberry was a pilot, Matt Jefferies an aviation artist with a piloting background and the like, I am making an educated guess they weren't thinking about having the pilots of the ship flying it at that offset angle, since they intuitively knew more about atmospheric flight than spaceflight and most of the TV watching public at the time would be the same way.[/quote']

Oh no, Jay, that is just wrong! As you know, the turbo lift is clearly centered on the studio model, and the bridge is oriented 30 degrees off of that. Franz Joseph was simply being faithful to the series. I know the asymetry seems strange, and I was annoyed by that in my youth, but that is just the way it is. And you are right, the ship has artificial gravity, there is no up or down in space, and everything is done by instruments. Save your pilot's experience for Star Wars X wing fighters and Battlestar Galactica Vipers. The Enterprise isn't an aircraft, and it moves by warp drive, not by rockets. Vertigo can not be an issue. If the crew actually felt the ship move and accelerate, the bridge crew would end up as a thin red and green film (only Spock's smear could be identified) on the aft bulkheads as the Enterprise went from orbit to faster than light speed in just seconds! The bridge could be upside down and point sideways - it would make no difference to the crew.

[niart17]

Well Rocky, I'd say that the image Jay posted from "The Cage" pretty much gives good evidence he's right. http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0032.jpg

It's pretty much the only shot that shows both interior and exterior in relation to one another. It's clear the doors leading to the elevator and the shaft don't line up. In that pic, the elevator shaft is directly behind the captians chair right behind Uhura's station or at least much closer to that orientation than the other. So I think the original intent was to be forward and the interior set designers made it different for the sake of shot composition. I don't think they much cared if the two spaces lined up properly. Not nearly as much as we do anyway. So I don't think it's fair to say Jay is wrong. I think both situations are possible.

Bill

Edited December 21, 2012 by niart17

[DutyCat]

Jay is right. Symmetry is important to designers of any ilk. I am sure Matt Jeffries put the turbolift in line with the centerline of the ship for that reason. On the set, the turbolift was placed in the back left of the bridge for shot composition reasons. Also, if you look at one of the pilot versions of the bridge, the "view screen" appears to be an electronic array or window, set at the very front of the bridge, like in this model... Yes, I know it is a mirror universe paint job.

So, that pretty much seals it, for me, at least.

They could not have imagined that we would be having detailed debates like this almost 50 years later. Frankly, I am surprised they did as well as they did. We don't have a ship with a pointy nose and rockets blasting out of the back of engines. The fact that they even thought about a "space warp" drive or a deflector dish is amazing to me. The whole concept was just WAY forward thinking, which is why the show holds up so well today. TOS Star Trek got so much right, that it can be forgiven for details like the turbo-lift door position, candy button and rocker switch controls, limited special effects, and some of the trappings of 60's pop culture in the writing. Whenever I hear people complain about the campiness of the TOS, or how they think TNG was the best, etc, I just raise the BS flag. The original was the best, simply because it was the first. Gene Roddenberry and his pals had to think it up and do it from scratch. Everything Trek after TOS is standing on the shoulders of giants. Later Trek iterations with larger budgets, better technology, and a broader pool of talent to draw from, could manage better special effects and better writing because of the path blazed by the original.

I also find it amazing that we are getting this PL 1/350 ship, which represents no small investment on the part of PL, almost 50 years after the show was first broadcast. Aside from the continued popularity of the Trek, which is getting lots of attention with DVD releases and Blu-Ray remasters, it is due to advances in moldmaking technology, lighting, and electronics. But still, it is a leap of faith. The big NX-01 did not sell well (even though now you can barely get your hands on one), although I think the refit E did. The classic E with all the lighting, etc, is going to represent months of work and an investment of nearly $400. If you want to put it under glass with a professional base, you can add another $100 plus to that.

On top of that, now we are getting a new tool 1/32 shuttlecraft, and the big NX-01 kit is supposedly getting a repop. If they want to make it sell well, they should offer the option of building it as a refit like they are doing on the 1/1000 NX-01 kit. That would mean many folks who already have a NX-01 kit from the first production run will purchase the new kit with the refit option. Oh, and add in the body decalling sheets as well, like in the 1701A repop.

Edited December 22, 2012 by DutyCat

[Rocky]

Well Rocky, I'd say that the image Jay posted from "The Cage" pretty much gives good evidence he's right. http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0032.jpg

It's pretty much the only shot that shows both interior and exterior in relation to one another. It's clear the doors leading to the elevator and the shaft don't line up. In that pic, the elevator shaft is directly behind the captians chair right behind Uhura's station...

I don't think that shot properly shows any relation. If you look at it, the helm still isn't lined up with the centerline of the ship. Our perspective on the bridge just doesn't match our perspective on the model. The shot sent the message of where the bridge was on the Enterprise, but they clearly didn't take the time or go to the expense of getting everything exactly right. And if you remember all the nonsense special effects showing the Enterprise flying through the stars as it travels between planets in the same star system, or the shuttlecraft flying through the stars as it goes into orbit from the surface of a planet, you know that getting the perspective right was not a priority.

[crowe-t]

Screen cap from "The Cage" (the original model and film shot as opposed to the remastered version)

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

This picture of the bridge Jay posted may not be 100% lined up with the studio model but it's darn close to being straight. Besides the turbolift doors of the bridge are no where near the external turbolift tube on the studio model. Even though the bridge used a view screen it would be simply ridiculous to have the bridge installed on an angle. I'm sure when they designed the bridge set the decision to locate the turbolift doors off to the left was to accommodate the camera angle used so crew members entering the bridge would be seen in the center of the screen. The same way the shuttle bay set didn't quite fit into the dimensions of the studio model. I would bet that back when the show was being produced no one thought this much about this stuff.

It's great that Round 2 is giving the option to install the bridge in either angle so it will satisfy everyone.

Edited December 21, 2012 by crowe-t

[Jay Chladek]

Rocky, you can build it however you want. Nobody is stopping you.

Otherwise, I have to wonder if you might be trying to troll, especially when your first line is "Oh no, Jay, that is just wrong!"

I've given my evidence (classic episode screen cap and remastered screen cap which is more centered than before) and my reasoning for why I came to that conclusion to answer the question that was posed. It was very similar to what Tracy, Dutycat and I did for the grid topic that was brought up. My conclusions are not necessarily anymore right than wrong in the case of the turbolift as it comes down to reading the intent of Trek's producers. Until we come up with a Matt Jefferies memo that says "the bridge is centered to the viewscreen, not the turbolift," that question is never going to be answered to 100% satisfaction of everyone. I have lots of friends out there that also think the bridge is offset by 30 degrees (technically, 36 degrees), same as you. Thanks to a little forethought from Round 2 (thanks to a suggestion by one of their advisors and which was also suggested by me without knowing they had already implemented it) the bridge can be installed either way. Or it can be left out entirely if one just wants the dome lit with no interior visible.

In forum threads like this one, I give advice, whether it be on topics like Trek ship models, space shuttles, or aircraft models like the Spitfire, F-14 Tomcat, Brewster Buffalo... etc. (all are subjects I have built models of and plenty more that I've collected research on). Advice is a curious thing. It can be followed, it can be ignored. Just because I say it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be followed or even that I am necessarily right. I do try to be whenever I can, particularly on factual subjects such as aircraft or spacecraft (and if I am wrong there, I try to correct the error). But even on SF subjects I've accumulated mountains of research (fan done and production done) and talked to plenty of people who are more in the know about certain things. SF subjects will always be a bit of a judgement call though unless the topic is about some aspect of a specific studio model or set.

Somebody asked a question, I give my answer, simple as that. Others are free to agree or disagree with my conclusions however they want.

[Rocky]

Rocky, you can build it however you want. Nobody is stopping you.

Otherwise, I have to wonder if you might be trying to troll, especially when your first line is "Oh no, Jay, that is just wrong!"

Somebody asked a question, I give my answer, simple as that. Others are free to agree or disagree with my conclusions however they want.

I'm not trying to troll, just giving my opinion. I doubt they gave the question any thought when they built the set. They may have even thought both orientations were true at the same time! Just as the helm normally faces the viewscreen most of the time, but suddenly it doesn't when they need to get the camera in place, reality and logic need not apply on tv.

But it still makes more sense if the bridge is offset. ;)

[Jay Chladek]

But it still makes more sense if the bridge is offset. ;)/>

LOL. Just remember, what ever orientation you go with on you model, please post some pictures of it as I know a lot of us would like to see it. That's my philosphy with modeling... to amaze both myself and others and see others amaze me with their builds. :D

[Vidar 710]

That's the bottom line. The production team gave no thought what-so-ever to how the bridge fit inside the dome. It's a cheap effect they thought no one would notice on a TV show most thought would disappear into oblivian. Conjecture on how the bridge fit inside the hull is purely FANON. You can go either way, and that's just what they did in the new 1/350 kit. It's left up to you.

Tracy

[niart17]

That's the bottom line. The production team gave no thought what-so-ever to how the bridge fit inside the dome. It's a cheap effect they thought no one would notice on a TV show most thought would disappear into oblivian. Conjecture on how the bridge fit inside the hull is purely FANON. You can go either way, and that's just what they did in the new 1/350 kit. It's left up to you.

Tracy

See Tracy, now why you want to go and throw logic into a good heated discussion about such serious things? :whistle:/>

Next you're going to say it doesn't matter if the grid pattern is recessed, raised, penciled or weathered or even there at all. <_</>

No, seriously, I get what you're saying and I agree that some may get a little too carried away with the discussion (when it turns heated, that's too extreme). But it can be fun to have these little debates and research projects on fictional ships and/or real models. It is both silly and really remarkable that such details are even discussed about a television show from waaay back then. It just shows how art (in this case T.V.) can spark a lot more than just the sum of what it is, and what it was intended to be.

Or as someone would say "Fascinating" :coolio:/>

Bill

Edited December 26, 2012 by niart17

[bullitt3980]

My thought on the photo of Chekov--they filmed it that way to save money not having to add the viewscreen effect. Ever since I learned the 350 would have a viewable bridge I assumed it would be offset because thats how Ive thought of it since the 1970's, thanks to The Blueprints--but Im thinking Ill orient it straight. If anyone questions me I'll just explain that cylinder behind the bridge is an area where elevators "park" so that there is always one available as soon as one is used. Giving the builder a choice in this matter is another example of how well engineered this kit is