posted
True, but it was obviously supposed to represent the ship, as Chekov was pionting out stuff on it. (Well he was pointing stuff out on a more detailed deck plan, and then they went to a shot of that screen with a little bleeping light on it, showing where the diturbance was. [Spock's quarters.])
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Well, and in TNG they used an Ambassador top view to represent the Excelsior class vessel Potemkin.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: True, but it was obviously supposed to represent the ship, as Chekov was pionting out stuff on it.
Now this is weird, because they could very easily have used the INTRUDER ALERT display I mentioned earlier, which shows the correct ship design AND even has a flashing indicator on the Officers Quarters Deck.
Just shows how little attention some people pay, I suppose!
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
posted
I was just looking at the cutaway of the 1701 refit I posted the other day and it occurred to me what I would have made of that thing commonly referred to as the "photon torpedo exhaust vent". If that feature had never been labeled I would have assigned it the function of engineering hull impulse engine. It's in a good spot to be that. Ah well, they didn't ask me when they were making TMP.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Just like to point out that Chekov's screen in TSFS also reads "Constitution-class"...
O.K., Actually, that is pretty good evidence that the refit-Enterprise is still a Constitution class ship.
In the 80s, it was certainly undisputed by most (if not all) fans that the refit Enterprise was an Enterprise-class vessel. In order to “explain” oddities such as the one you mentioned, we would often rationalize that while the ship had been refit and updated, perhaps not all of the “databanks” had been brought up to current specs.
Of course, that explanation is pretty weak, and I can certainly see how it might be more reasonable to presume the refit-E is still a Constitution-class vessel, as that is certainly reinforced by TUC.
To be honest with you guys, after the publishing of Okuda’s Encyclopedia, as well as the release of TUC, I (reluctantly) began referring to the new Enterprise as a “Constitution-refit.” I was not happy about it, but I decided that I could probably accept it. In fact, Starstation Aurora published a set of “Comparison charts” in the 80s that listed the refit Enterprise as the following: Enterprise-class (Constitution II) Keeping this in mind, I came to use the “Constitution-refit” designation when referring to refit-E.
However, I am most excited about the new “evidence” from the TWOK that establishes the “Enterprise-class” as being somewhat canonical. So needless to say, I am inclined to discard the “Constitution-refit” designation and revert back to “Enterprise-class.” I am, after all, an “old school Trekkie!”
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
posted
Of course, it's still the simulator that's labelled "Enterprise" class, not the ship.
"But, people like you must also come to accept that there is a faction of Trek fans out there that will always regard the refit Enterprise as an Enterprise-class vessel."
There's also a faction that regards thew Defiant as Valiant-class, but we ignore them, too. :-)
One other note... On that drawing back on the first page, there's that orange space bewteen decks 11 and 12. I'm thinking that's just part of deck 12. The line at the bottom of it needn't be a deck line. It's just the top of the "box" at the base of the neck. Part of deck 12 could extend up into the neck, to contain torpedo machinery, and such.
posted
Agreed with TSN on the torp deck thing. It would be more satisfying to have that "interdeck" be deck 12, the torp deck lower level be deck 13 (thus jibing with TUC), and the ship thus have 21 SJ'esque decks.
This has been an enlightening little thread indeed. I never even realized that one could see the windows (and out of the windows!) in the Rec Deck interior scenes - my copies of TMP have been so crappy thus far.
One solution to the Officers' Lounge problem could be that it's actually on the port side of the saucer aft rim. It's not a perfect solution, but the errors there (the viewing angle on the pylon, the shape and size of the window, and the fact that the impulse engine assembly aft tip doesn't protrude into the view) are IMHO minor compared with the problematique of trying to fit the room to the starboard side.
As we know, the saucer has these infamous double rows of windows on the rim, clustered so that they don't really make sense as the windows of two separate decks. There are some horizontally elongated windows in each cluster. The windows on the Officer's Lounge could correspond to these.
Similarly, one of the forward clusters of windows could house the steering wheel -decorated lounge from ST5. Given the crappy quality of the starstreak effects in that movie, it's not at all said that the lounge would have to be on ship centerline or anything. Deck floor level on the rim of the saucer might fall between the F and G decks if need be.
quote: Of course, it's still the simulator that's labelled "Enterprise" class, not the ship.
I wouldn't put too much stock in that as an argument against it being the ship's class designation. I spent six years in the Air Force doing simulator maintenance, and we referred to them by the type of aircraft, i.e. KC-135, SR-71, etc. Moreover, when the cockpit design differed between specific models, we referred to them in that way (B-52G vs. B-52H model).
As for the argument that the sign referred to the class being trained (i.e. the students assigned to the Enterprise), that never made any sense to me. You don't rename a simulator when a new class of flight students begins, any more than you rename your high school every year after the seniors graduate.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
posted
But it's not a big deal to "rename" the simulator, if we assume it had no name in the first place. It's just Mark IV Bridge Simulator, that's it's name. And every time a new class comes in, a new name is displayed under the name of the simulator. Today, it's the Enterprise class visiting the simulator, and it's thus configured for that specific ship. Tomorrow, the guys will swap the helm console and move the wall sections a bit, and voila, the Farragut class can come in and train on a rather good facsimile of their ship's bridge.
It *is* more or less standard practice to have the schedule of a classroom written on the door or next to it. Granted, this day's schedule seemed to be lacking the hours, but if the Enterprise class was going to spend the whole day in there...
And while the schedule *could* be in the form of crude, handwritten notes, there's no reason why it couldn't look like a semipermanent aluminum plackard as well. Heck, at my old high school the art class schedules were color prints of famous artworks.
posted
But if another class is scheduled for the simulator, they'll have to remove the whole label. The part with "Mark IV simulator" as well.
Wouldn't it be more logical to have one label with "Mark IV simulator" and one separate label for the class?
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There's something to be said for the fact that this particular simulator was quite specifically simulating the experience of commanding the Enterprise, and not just any Constitution.
Consider that the Enterprise was being slowly eased into retirement at the time, with a nice quiet life of training cadets ahead of it. It does not seem unreasonable to believe that the simulator was designed and programmed to replicate the Enterprise itself, and not just any Constitution.
When Kirk yanked her out of retirement (and then blew her up) Starfleet would have to find a new training ship, and, perhaps, rebuild (and relabel) their simulator. Republic Class, perhaps?
posted
Here is Shane Johnson’s interpretation of the location of the Officer’s Lounge as published in “Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise.” Because of the problem that STILL exists (even after the director’s edition DVD) of placing this lounge at an area where the windows would actually correspond to the exterior of the model, I am still inclined to accept this as the lounge’s location.
After all, the officer’s lounge is SUPPOSED to be in this area, and I think the placement and “viewscreen” concept is the best compromise. (Viewing screens are also about the only explanation that can be made for the forward observation lounge in Star Trek V.)
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Commander Dan: …located just forward of the lounge area glimpsed as Spock's shuttle is docking.
quote:Originally posted by mrneutron: The REAL officer's lounge are the windows just below and aft of the bridge. It's those windows through which we see Spock's shuttle arriving. That set was a miniature.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
