posted
Only the curvature change is "forbidden" by the constraints of realism. As it is in the E-E revamp.
Unless, of course, the refit was similar to the final E-nil one - remove secondary hull, add new secondary hull, remove primary hull, add new primary hull, remove engines, add new engines. (There's an old Finnish recipe about boiling a loon that goes something like that. "Take loon. Gut and feather. Mildly boil in two liters of water for two hours. Throw away water. Mildly boil in two liters of milk for two hours. Throw away milk. Mildly boil in two liters of raw alcohol for two hours. Throw away loon. Serve.")
Except that here, the primary hull need not have been changed. And perhaps the original secondary hull proved impossible to de-Borgify and had to be scrapped, and we just didn't see this in "Insurrection" because the Briar Patch nebula fogged our eyes?
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: He said he had to fight to keep ILM (and Bob Justman) from covering the E-D with a billion little 3 foot square hull plates because they liked all the extra detail, even though it made no sense to build a ship out of poster board sized sheets.
Didn't they end up doing that anyway? And didn't it look a lot better, really?
They didn't do it to the six footer except to a few areas. I know I'm in the minority, but to my eye the four footer made the ship look smaller. The only thing wrong with the original six-footer was that the effects cameramen didn't know how to light it. There were a few instances where the light caught the Aztec paintjob of the six footer in such a way that really got the scale across. Generations proved the six footer could look good as well.
-------------------- "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 MrNeutron: They didn't do it to the six footer except to a few areas. I know I'm in the minority, but to my eye the four footer made the ship look smaller. The only thing wrong with the original six-footer was that the effects cameramen didn't know how to light it. There were a few instances where the light caught the Aztec paintjob of the six footer in such a way that really got the scale across. Generations proved the six footer could look good as well.
I prefer the shape of the six footer but the panelling of the four footer. I believe the 4 footer also had a better paint job. Both are lovely miniatures but I think the 6 footer is slightly better overall. If only it was lit better.
posted
Timo: Okay then, what about the moving turbolifts on the bridge of the Enterprise-A? They are at least as crazy, if you want to get worked up over that sort of thing.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I see no problem with that at all. Turbolift stops are little different from bus stops - they are not a fixed part of the "road", but simply a "signpost" planted at a suitable location next to the "road". The signpost can be moved without moving the road.
There would always be a horizontal stretch of shafting at the bridge level, to provide the "waiting slot" for one lift without hindering the movement of the other. I cannot believe Probert ever intended the ship to have two vertical shafts for the bridge - but simply two outlets for a single shaft, like Shane Johnson shows.
Extending or shortening the horizontal shafts would then be a simple matter. And if the extensions "don't fit under the hood", then one can simply move the bridge down half a deck (it's raised on a pedestal anyway in Probert's drawings) and not have it flush with the exterior dome.
The same has to be done to the TOS bridge, too, unless one wants to say the bridge was angled off centerline. The turboshaft visible at the back of the bridge exterior cannot be the location of the lift doors on the interior. Rather, I'd take it as the vertical shaft extension that's supposed to interface with starbases and the like, while the actual "lift stop" on bridge level again is on a horizontal branch, to provide the "waiting slot" needed.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
depends on which way he ship shakes.
i hardly see turbulence as something regular we can quantify.. and why bother.. it looked realistic enough to begin with, except of course when it didn't.
oh, and it was just a tv show, too. hm.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
They were only off-centreline by, what - 15 degrees? That's not much. I'm more concerned with WHY they'd do something like that. In practicality it really doesn't mean anything...
posted
Actually, that's not a bad supposition - at least where the modularity of the bridge set is concerned. According to FJ, and the set itself, the bridge is composed of segments which are identical in terms of how many degrees of the arc they occupy. For all we know, the wall segments could be functionally modular and simply arranged as the starship required - the only constant was where the door was, at the back. So on the Lexington the science station could've been just port of the viewer, on the Constellation the helm'nav and CO chairs could've been FACING the door, and on the Excalibur the door could've been right behind where we all want it to be!
posted
And of course, if the gigantic hand of an ex-Greek god grabs the bridge, and the IDFs are slow to react, it's safer if the backs of the chairs are facing front...
...As they apparently weren't on Kirk's ship.
Okay, I could buy that off-axis configuration if the saleswoman offered additional incentives. But by having the lift door position independent of vertical turboshaft position, we can solve a lot of problems in related designs - so why not go with it here, too?
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Okay, I could buy that off-axis configuration if the saleswoman offered additional incentives. But by having the lift door position independent of vertical turboshaft position, we can solve a lot of problems in related designs - so why not go with it here, too?
Cause I'm a Franz Joseph junkie...
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
On a purely aesthetic level (i.e. the one that can't stand the concept of a ship's captain bravely facing the wrong way), I agree with Timo.
But, we must also accept what we see.
1. "Balance of Terror"[TOS]: The Enterprise is struck by a plasma weapon that was in pursuit of her as she went hella-fast in reverse. We may therefore presume that she was hit on the bow. Kirk and Rand were flung to the railing which is to the starboard of the helm console.
2. "Errand of Mercy"[TOS]: The Klingon attack at the start of the episode uses the standard "torpedoes hitting the ship" shot, and these strike at the forward ventral saucer. (This should cause the ship to tip up, theoretically.) Kirk and Spock are again flung toward that same railing.
And then there's "The Cage"[TOS], with its potentially-great-but-kinda-sucky matte of a model shot and a bridge crane shot (way before 2001!). But that sucks all around, since not only does the bridge not line up with the ship's axis, but the turbolift doesn't line up with the external lift-sized feature, either.
On the other hand, we have "The Naked Time"[TOS], which involves everyone leaning back in their chairs as the ship starts zipping along.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
