# A Look at the Original Pilot Bridge Dome as Depicted in the Construction BPs



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

It has always been a special interest of mine to try and ascertain, as nearly as possible at this late date, what Matt Jefferies' own concept of the Enterprise was. What had he intended the ship to be, before all of the inevitable compromises of the daily trench war of television production took their toll? Folks often glibly dismiss the idea that any vehicle in an SF show or movie could be well thought out or have a consistent design philosophy behind it. Well, after decades of studying his work, I am more firmly convinced than ever that Jefferies is an exception to this "rule." He took an uncommonly disciplined, real world approach to designing this other-worldly craft. Roddenberry's insistence that the ship must be believable was not lost on him.

Over the years I've heard many complaints lodged against designs seen on the show. The hangar deck doesn't fit; there's not enough headroom in the primary hull, the shuttlecraft is bigger on the inside than on the outside, etc. Yet in each of these instances (and more) I've found that once you peel away the production mandates and compromises to reveal what Jefferies actually designed, these objections evaporate into thin air.

Because of my interest in MJ's design methods and intentions, I'm always on the lookout for hitherto unpublished or neglected information. When I find something new that causes another piece of the puzzle to fall into place I like to share what I've learned with the dozen or so people on earth who care about such trifles.

Due to a recent opportunity to study the Enterprise construction blueprints I can now offer some new primary source data on the original Enterprise design. Specifically, a look at Jefferies' original specifications for the bridge dome on the First Pilot Enterprise! I should say that there is a small amount of interpretation involved with this drawing. I had to rely on a knowlege of drafting to project out a couple of details that, while not explicitly noted on the BP, must be added when reconciling the two views.

The drawing in the following link summarizes what I've learned. I have included three separate scales; one showing the small "approval model" specs, one showing how those specs would have been scaled up for the large model, and finally, what this means for the full size ship. 

Once I had completed the drawing, I decided to size the McMaster bridge blueprints to the same scale and see how they stacked up against it. What I found set me back on my heels!

Now keep in mind that we're looking at what Jefferies _planned_ for the ship, not exactly what was built -- although I must say that I've come away from my overall survey of the plans with an even _deeper_ respect for the talents of Richard Datin and his crew than I had before. Along those same lines, I offer the McMaster drawing as a comparison because it is a pretty good match for the official studio drawings of the set (aside from the minor 1/2 degree added to all but one of the wedges to regularize the shape). There has been some debate recently that McMaster may not represent the true shape of the alcove as built. But we are not concerned here with that, but with how well Jefferies' _intended_ designs for the interior and exterior compare with each other.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about that...

Click here for the blueprint.

M.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fascinating! 

So, as originally built (scaled to represent the 947' length) the bridge fits perfectly! :thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

It also fits nicely in the production version of the E:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1984920&postcount=739


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Interesting that the top of the lift tube was actually recessed into the dome at its forward edge. The shape of the upper dome with the recessed "lip" is fascinating, too.

MGagen: can you share the story about your opportunity to study the prints? And please any other new information you obtained from said study!

Do you suppose the 3-footer dome was originally built like this and that the changed appearance we've seen on it was one of the early Roddenberry-requested changes?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Starseeker:

Your comparison looks good but I'd check the plan of the dome, it does not appear to be symmetrical. The aft half appears to be stretched (lengthened). The forward half looks more like the correct profile.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Try this one: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1985673&postcount=756


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Interesting that the top of the lift tube was actually recessed into the dome at its forward edge. The shape of the upper dome with the recessed "lip" is fascinating, too.


 The recessed lift tube was one of the things I had to infer based on how the two views project out. The top view shows an uncompromised circle, but since part of the front edge of the tube is within the dome area at this point, it likely means he intended to have the material above the tube removed. Otherwise, the outline of the top of the tube would have had a flattened front edge in top view. The recessed lip around the dome is depicted almost like a cross section view on the drawing. That is, the front and back corners taper up and the flat surface the sensor dome sits on is a little lower between these peaks. It is subtle, but it is there. I took this to be a concave detail an have rendered it as such.



> Do you suppose the 3-footer dome was originally built like this and that the changed appearance we've seen on it was one of the early Roddenberry-requested changes?


 I can't say. I know the sensor dome on the pilot version of the "11 footer" was not like what is shown here. It was a section of a larger diameter sphere that more nearly blended in with the curve of the bridge dome itself. The original drawing looks more (in style at least) like the later "smaller but bulgier" dome they put on the production version.

I'll have more to say about some other interesting details of the construction drawing at a later date. Stay tuned...

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Here's a quick best-fit comparison of this dome vs. the pilot dome on the 11-footer. The most significant differences are the slightly flatter (less "bulgy") contours in the higher part of the dome (near the little rectangle at the upper front, for example), the larger upper dome, and the lift tube placed further from centerline and being a bit smaller diameter.








(larger version here, original image here)

Another comparison:
























I think the as-built dome was a little closer to a sperical section (cut a little above the center and flattened at the top around the "sensor dome") than was the as-blueprinted dome. The model's dome is pretty close to the blueprint, though. (Except for the "sensor dome" portion, which differs substantially from the blueprint, as MGagen has pointed out.)

Something interesting I noticed from the second photo: though it's from WNMHGB, it's actually the very same footage from The Cage as the first comparison photo, with the pink effect added. (I noticed because the yaw was the same in both photos and the little details on the dome are the same. (Other pictures of the second pilot dome have a large lighted rectangle at the front of the dome; some such pictures can be seen at cloudster.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sorry, but I refuse to accept the concept that a man as well versed in aeronautical engineering and other techincal aspects of ships and ship building as Matt Jefferies would ever, in his wildest dreams, design a bridge that faced thirty-six degrees to port.


----------



## Richard38 (Apr 16, 2002)

*old theory*

Just to throw an idea out there, it has been my rationalization that the 36 degree to port facing bridge had to do with the fact that the Enterprise almost always orbited planets counterclockwise putting the planet on the portside of the ship so the angle of the bridge helped to keep the planet horizon at the proper spot. Not bad for an 11 year old making a theory to help explain something. worked for me for 32 years.

And if that dont work for ya, you can always swap the comm station and the turbolift then every thing lines up facing forward. Simple!

Richard


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Sorry, but I refuse to accept the concept that a man as well versed in aeronautical engineering and other techincal aspects of ships and ship building as Matt Jefferies would ever, in his wildest dreams, design a bridge that faced thirty-six degrees to port.


... and that would be regardless of what Gene Roddenberry might have told him to do for dramatic effect, right...?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Sorry, but I refuse to accept the concept that a man as well versed in aeronautical engineering and other techincal aspects of ships and ship building as Matt Jefferies would ever, in his wildest dreams, design a bridge that faced thirty-six degrees to port.


I would say your opinion on said matter has been WELL documented.

We don't really need to go there again do we? You don't want Griff to bring the hammer down.

Moving right along...

Cool info MG.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> ... and that would be regardless of what Gene Roddenberry might have told him to do for dramatic effect, right...?


Whoever's call it was to put the turbolift where it was, I seriously doubt they thought it out with regard to the model.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Damn..!

Another reason to kick myself for not saying "Hi" when I saw you in the Dealers Room at WF the other week...

Nice bit of investigative work.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

And I never even had a clue that *Mgagen* was in attendance, not knowing what he looks like....


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'm there every year, with JHeilman and a couple of other friends from our neck of the woods.

Too bad. I'd have liked to meet some of you guys. I was even wearing an extra HobbyTalk nametag with MGagen on it, too. 

Of course, I'm so focussed on all of the cool stuff and exhibits that I never notice anyone else's name tags either...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Whoever's call it was to put the turbolift where it was, I seriously doubt they thought it out with regard to the model.


Well who's call was it, or did anything really change at all? Is there any "proof" anywhere that someone overrode either MJ's original bridge set design or Enterprise model plans he thought out? As designer of both MJ would be ultimately aware of how they fit with each other. So therefore I have two important questions:

1. The offset elevator bridge floorplan was designed by MJ "that way" right? (Y/N)

2. The model bridge elevator nub in the centerline of the ship model was designed by MJ "that way" too right? (Y/N) 

I just would like clarification on these two points about without theories if it makes sense to us or not. The only answers that matter above are a YES or NO. 

However we tend to rationalize how something should be designed or not a certain way, isn't relevent because it would only be a personal biased opinion. The "why" and "why not" are always in conflict making the truth escape us. I think if we could just answer with a yes or a no the two questions above, it would help make the truth obvious!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Answers: yes and yes. At least, they were his direct responsibilities, and there's no evidence to suggest that he delegated any of this.
What we can't be so sure of is the nature and strength of the outside influences.

Anyway, I must agree with JHeilman (who beat me to saying the same thing): we're all well aware that CRA and others refuse to accept an offset bridge and will continue to do so. I really don't think there's any point beating this dead horse. (And I'm a little surprised anyone took CRA's bait.)


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

I don't think I've been following this at all but...

...wasn't the bridge laid out that way for the camera angle? You can get both Helmsman, Navigator and Captain in one shot, not to mention the comm and engineering consoles...

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^No, you're just thinking logically and not going for the overanalysis that tends to run rampant in these circles.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

MGagen said:


> I was even wearing an extra HobbyTalk nametag with MGagen on it, too.


Yeap, that was what tipped me off 

Sorry, I was just in awe of everything that day (and prolly still a little jet-lagged) that I figured the last thing you'd need was a fan-boy coming up to you. My bad...

Next year though :thumbsup:


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

I hope you don’t mind a new voice jumping into the fray. I have been following this thread and similar threads very closely. I have read and processed the arguments put forward by Aridas, MGagen, CRA, and others. I have found merit to almost all. My view, for what it is worth, is this:

MJ was a meticulous designer. He took his mission directive very seriously – make the ship believable. To that end, he made sure that all of the interior sets would fit inside the hull. His cross section clearly shows a lot of thought and care went into the design (especially when you take into account the similarities with his more detailed Phase 2 cross section).

Everything being equal, I believe, MJ would have designed the bridge to face forward with the elevator station in-line at the rear. That certainly makes more logical sense than the 36 degree offset. The elevator nub was added to the bridge blister so that there would be a clear scale reference between the bridge set and the filming model. He could have just as easily sized the bridge dome to completely enclose the bridge and elevator but he did not.

At some point, it was decided that for dramatic filming purposes the elevator station looked better offset to port over the captain’s shoulder (why not to starboard?). Whether this was dictated from above or it was MJ’s own idea we will probably never know. He could have altered the filming model to have an offset elevator blister but there were two problems with that. The model was intended to only be filmed from one side as a cost saving measure but on occasion incorporate mirrored markings so that opposite side views could be created by flipping the film. This required a symmetrical model. In addition, by moving the elevator to port, the elevator blister would almost always be hidden behind the bridge dome if it were offset on the model.

I believe that MJ figured the viewing audience wouldn’t notice the discrepancy. How many people who saw the series in first run jumped up and yelled at the tv screen, “hey, the bridge doesn’t face forward!” ? I’m sure he never would have dreamed that down the road someone would produce a complete set of deck plans for the ship and thus highlight the discrepancy.

I never caught on until I saw the FJD blueprints. Granted, I was only a kid at the time but I had a copy of TMoST and it still never registered that the exterior and interior drawings implied the bridge had to be rotated and did not face forward.

Years later, without MJ for guidance, we are left with four alternatives:

1)	Offset the bridge
2)	Lower the bridge
3)	Rescale the ship
4)	Alter the bridge station arrangement

Take your pick. I vote for #1. I see it as the least revisionist. All the others require increasing deviation from the probable original intent.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yep, nice summation. Are you an attorney by day?  

I think that because we almost exclusively see the ship's starboard side, it added continuity with the interior to be viewing the bridge set primarily from the starboard side as well. Plus, there was more interaction between Kirk, Spock and Uhura necessitating putting the camera on that side. Now, I have no way of knowing, but is it possible that they anticipated that early on and decided, for ease of camera setup, to rotate the lift so it would be in frame from that starboard vantage point?

Yes, I agree that MJ would have initially designed the forward-facing bridge with the lift straight aft, but it didn't end up that way for reasons of creative preference. And no, when I was a kid watching the show I had no clue that the bridge didn't face forward. I'd bet most people who watched the show never made that connection. It's just us hard-core folk who notice such things.

Oh yeah, I know Griff has said he may not attend WF '08, but if you do, I'd love to meet you and anyone else from the board. Like MGagen, I'm too busy ogling all the expensive, sci-fi goodness to pay attention to name tags.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Yep, nice summation. Are you an attorney by day?


Thank you and no, I just tend to lurk in the shadows, soak up the collective wisdom and occasionally belch something forth.  

I have never made it to WF. Unfortunately, it is the same weekend as a local con I help with. I keep telling myself, one of these years I need to give WF a try.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

ZStar said:


> I believe that MJ figured the viewing audience wouldn’t notice the discrepancy. How many people who saw the series in first run jumped up and yelled at the tv screen, “hey, the bridge doesn’t face forward!” ? I’m sure he never would have dreamed that down the road someone would produce a complete set of deck plans for the ship and thus highlight the discrepancy.


Bingo.

Anything beyond that is overanalysis and misses the point of the design.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

First - Happy Father's Day 

A lot of conjecture here about what MJ or the fans thought at the time. MJ was smarter than that and the fans are not stupid. Funny how people here in this forum can't accept "what is" without trying to force and justify a forward facing bridge. 

The point I've been trying to make all along is it doesn't matter which way the bridge faces unless it would disorient an actual crew inside! Unless they had actual windows giving it away they could care less. 

Just because some fans are locked into wearing blinders only looking forward and can't think "outside the box" doesn't cut it. Its not like you are driving a car always looking out the side window eventually making you cross into the other lane. 

Except for the viewscreen "looking forward" most of the time, they are in effect "optically" blind but not visually blind. It doesn't matter for the bridge crew since the main viewscreen is their effective forward point of reference. 

Maybe the following is my conjecture: I think MJ was fully aware of this. It is also said that MJ "disliked the idea of a large engine room, because by his reckoning the entire ship could be run by a single panel on the bridge". By his own same logic, I believe he knew the bridge crew would use the main viewscreen (eliminating the need for windows) to see which way is straight ahead. 

MJ probably got a kick out of the illusion of an offset bridge in the 23rd century. Just as Arthur C. Clarke has said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". You don't have to be forward looking. You only have to be forward thinking.

And from a command crew member perspective, once you walk out of the elevator onto the bridge and go to your station, it wouldn't matter where the viewscreen was because it is not a window! Ask yourself how would you react walking on the bridge? Everything would seem normal to you.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

jheilman said:


> Yep, nice summation. Are you an attorney by day?


 I Thought they only came out at night!


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> A lot of conjecture here about what MJ or the fans thought at the time. MJ was smarter than that and the fans are not stupid. Funny how people here in this forum can't accept "what is" without trying to force and justify a forward facing bridge.
> 
> The point I've been trying to make all along is it doesn't matter which way the bridge faces unless it would disorient an actual crew inside! Unless they had actual windows giving it away they could care less.


Thank you for your observations, Steve. I failed to acknowledge your ideas in my summery a few posts ago. I am sorry. 

You are quite correct that the orientation of the bridge is irrelevant in the absence of windows or other cues. Given that the view screen can show any view, above, below, port, starboard, or anything in between, it decouples the bridge orientation even more from the ship’s centerline. It may well be that MJ used this very argument to justify the offset.

I do feel that the offset is an un-natural starting point. That is, it was probably not the first choice. I think that MJ would have started with the bridge facing forward and then rotated it as the need for a more dramatic or practical filming angle became apparent. Without outside influences (the filming angle and need for a symmetrical ship’s exterior as noted in my earlier post), why would the bridge not face forward?

On the other tentacle, perhaps MJ was much more of an original thinker and saw the offset bridge as more visually interesting and functionally acceptable right from the start. We will probably never know.

I don’t have a problem with the offset bridge and I did not mean to imply that I did. It is a perfectly acceptable arrangement for all the reasons Steve cited.


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Wouldn't it have been nice to have some where buried among those many blueprints a drawing for the bridge set showing the turbolift to the aft of the command chair with a
notation on it to move said elevator shaft either to left or right of the Captain's chair.
oh well we some times can't get what we want.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

What would it matter in the least which way the front of the bridge faced? With the "artificial gravity" in the ship, there would be no feeling of forward, backward, sideways, up or down. The bridge could be placed 90 degrees vertical and 132 degrees to the front and if the turbolift did a flip in its travels nobody would be able to tell. On Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft, the headshield end of the spacecraft was always denoted the "front" and the pointy end the astronauts faced was the "back". 
As for early MJ designs, there's no evidence for any changes. I was thinking that possibly a rearrangement could have been made for filming when a director noticed that the camera angle looked better but the pilot bridge was built w/o the wild sections, according to STRealStory, and proved too cumbersome to work with. It was after the original pilot that the bridge was moved to another stage, remade in plastic, and made to be as wild as possible. So there is absolutely nothing to contradict that MJ designed the bridge this way from the very beginning. 
Unless you're modeling a bridge inside the dome (which I've done twice and the offset just adds a small element of surprise and interest - doesn't look at all illogical or inconsistent with anything), who'd notice anyway?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ How about the recognition that this was a set for an underbudgeted mid 60s sci-fi show, not a proposed design for NASA? And as such, not everything was fully thought out, nor was it deemed necessary to flesh out those trivial details.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For what it's worth, here are probably the best views we're gonna get of that pilot dome, albeit the second pilot version...


















And, for comparison's sake, how it is today...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> ...I figured the last thing you'd need was a fan-boy coming up to you. My bad...


 But I _AM_ a fan-boy! I'd love the chance to meet any of you guys and shake you by the hand. (Yes, even Capt. April.)

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, that's reassuring...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

ZStar said:


> I have never made it to WF. Unfortunately, it is the same weekend as a local con I help with. I keep telling myself, one of these years I need to give WF a try.


Shouldn't be any conflict next year - WF is going to be mid-July.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

MGagen said:


> But I _AM_ a fan-boy! I'd love the chance to meet any of you guys and shake you by the hand. (Yes, even Capt. April.)
> 
> M.


Okay, if I see you next year I'll definitely say Hi 

Heck, this year I didn't even talk to John Eaves until about 5 minutes before he closed his stand on Sunday. Walked past Cult's stand I don't know how many times before introducing myself.

Low profile


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Shouldn't be any conflict next year - WF is going to be mid-July.


Thanks for the heads up. With the date change, I will definitely give it very serious consideration.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> For what it's worth, here are probably the best views we're gonna get of that pilot dome, albeit the second pilot version...


I love that forward view. So did they just cut the bottom half of the dome off for the production series? 

I'm suspicious of that bottom picture from the Smithsonian. Is that the original bubble peice at the top? It doesn't have the same curvature as the pilot bridge.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ Yup, they just chopped off the bottom half. And the clear part is most likely not original, but I don't have a close up of the production dome during production.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

IIRC, both domes were replaced by the Smithsonian. I think for a short time, one or both of the original domes were on display. But they didn't last long, if they were ever there.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Weren't there two different bridge domes (frosted clear lighted portion) during production? It seems one was higher than the other.

I think the teardrop and bridge section are original but the clear portion of the bridge dome is new.

Someone who knows or has recently waded through the Smithsonian rebuild information, please correct me if I'm in error.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Some time during the production of the series (in the third season?) it looks like they replaced the lit sensor dome with a bulgier version. Photos of the model's arrival at the Smithsonian show this was still in place when they received it. However, sometime after they put it on display this dome was replaced with a far too bulgy one. When Miarecki worked on the model he replaced this with a much more appropriate dome.

M.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Some time during the production of the series (in the third season?)


That's how I remember it.


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

ZStar said:


> I hope you don’t mind a new voice jumping into the fray. I have been following this thread and similar threads very closely. I have read and processed the arguments put forward by Aridas, MGagen, CRA, and others. I have found merit to almost all. My view, for what it is worth, is this:
> 
> MJ was a meticulous designer. He took his mission directive very seriously – make the ship believable. To that end, he made sure that all of the interior sets would fit inside the hull. His cross section clearly shows a lot of thought and care went into the design (especially when you take into account the similarities with his more detailed Phase 2 cross section).
> 
> ...


Let me make a comment about filming angles and directions, too. I read a theory somewhere (can't remember where now) that said, since most folks on this planet read from left to right, that anything that allows your eye to follow that direction would cause your brain to think "good" and anything that moved from right to left would cause your brain to think "bad." Remember in "Mirror Mirror" when the mirror Enterprise orbited the planet, it did so from right to left.

Now think about the bridge. Notice Kirk and crew are facing so they have to look towards screen right - this makes the eye follow from left to right. This is why the turbolift wasn't placed on the starboard side. 

This theory probably doesn't hold water in every situation - for instance, when both Spock and McCoy stood beside Kirk, Spock was always on screen left and McCoy was on screen right. That doesn't make McCoy bad. Also, I'm sure there are a lot of instances where directors simply didn't take that theory into account, and lots of other instances where it just doesn't apply (for practicality's sake, for instance). But that may be one of the reasons why the turbolift alcove was placed behind Kirk instead of at the aft end of the bridge, which admittedly would make more sense.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Interesting theory, but I think something like that would probably be an unconscious influence.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Finally got a response from Mike Okuda:



> Sorry for not responding sooner. We've been working 7 days a week for months. I should be working now.
> 
> I have a tremendous amount of respect for the ingenuity and the attention to detail of those who have tried to reconcile the ship as seen on screen with the theoretical design. We've all done it to one degree or another. Franz Joseph's notion of rotating the bridge to make the turbolift fit is little short of brilliant. And I'm impressed with the analysis that has gone into reconciling the size and position of the bridge with relation to whether or not one believes that the bridge should be rotated.
> 
> ...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Obviously Mr. Okuda was responding to specific questions, no-doubt provided along with a little background information. Please share the exact text of these so that we may read Mr. Okuda's response in its context.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great insight there! Thanks for posting that!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I, too, would like to see the full text of your message to him. I think it would be quite helpful to see his response in context.

Mr. Okuda is one of the fans' best friends. Someone who, while on the "inside," truly gets what Trek is all about and carries the torch for the original series. As such, we owe him a debt of gratitude. However, it is obvious from this email that he is unaware of the mounting evidence indicating how early the ship size was increased. To wit, it was already rescaled by the time Datin presented the small model to Roddenberry for the second time -- already 947 feet long before a single frame of it was shot for The Cage. The latest evidence from the construction blueprints presented in this thread pushes that re-size back even further. It seems clear from both the tube size and distance from center that the ship as depicted in the final blueprint was already 947 feet.

This is not surprising. Okuda is a professional in the TV industry, working every day in the trenches. He doesn't have the time to get into these things the way we obsessed fanboys do; keeping up with the very latest give and take. Yes, he's a fanboy at heart, too (thank heaven), but he's busy giving us more Trek to obsess over.

It is also not at issue whether Matt Jefferies wanted the bridge to face forward. Obviously, he did. It is also equally clear that he understood the implications of the turbo tube placement and chose to leave it where it was. Trek Ace's point about keeping the exterior symmetrical to allow for optical flipping is most likely the reason he chose to live with the discrepancy. When he got a second crack at the ship we also know that the made sure there was no problem facing the bridge forward since he provided two turbo tubes.

I think the final full paragraph of Mr. Okuda's email is most instructive. It _sounds_ like he's responding to an email that tried to make the case that the 947 foot size is unworkable -- perhaps not consistent with the interior sets, hangar bay, etc -- and that the ship must have been intended to be larger than that. But as we've all seen, this is pretty much the _opposite_ of what we've _actually been learning _from the researches undertaken by several of us. The ship IS surprisingly functional at 947 feet. The sets fit remarkably well in a ship of that size. Matt Jefferies put a level of thought and care into this design seldom (if ever) seen in TV or motion picture spacecraft. In the end, Okuda is unconvinced that scaling the ship larger than 947' is either justifiable or desirable. 

I think a look at the complete email that elicited his response would be most enlightening.

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

MGagen said:


> The sets fit remarkably well in a ship of that size. Matt Jefferies put a level of thought and care into this design seldom (if ever) seen in TV or motion picture spacecraft.


I definitely agree here. One only needs to look at shows - and a number of movies! - from the 50's thru even the mid-80's to see that most SciFi shows didn't seem to give nearly so much thought to functionality as the Kewleness Factor. A perfect example, IMNSHO, is almost anything from the various Irwin Allen Productions, such as the _Jupiter 2_ from LiS. 


> In the end, Okuda is unconvinced that scaling the ship larger than 947' is either justifiable or desirable.
> 
> I think a look at the complete email that elicited his response would be most enlightening.


I agree that there seems to be an underlying "tone" to indicate a certain context taken in Mr. Okuda's response and that would be interesting to have clarified. However, I don't think that we need to dwell on what also seems to be an underlying personal issue with regards to CRA and his initial email to Mr. Okuda. 

Basically, let's leave any personal issues out of the discussion. I find the information that's being imparted here quite fascinating and enjoy the discussions a great deal - the passions evidenced really help to make it that much more interesting. Let's just keep it friendly. 

And I'm not meaning to single you out, M. Gagen. I'm simply quoting your post since it was the last one in this thread that adresses the issue.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Finally got a response from Mike Okuda: "I did speak with Jefferies at some length about such matters. Matt was a pilot, and it was inconceivable to him that the bridge would face any direction but forward. Sure, "inertial dampers" and other technical reasons make it arguably unnecessary for the bridge to face forward, but Matt wanted it that way."


Thanks for the interesting feedback you got from Mr. Okuda. I feel enlightened when new info like this comes out. Too bad he didn't expand a bit more on the above statements with MJ's specific thoughts more than than he did. But I'll take it on face value alone that Mr. Okuda believes MJ said as much based on many conversations so I will have to live with that from now on.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Jefferies, for all his technical background, was a production designer for a television series, and in that role a consumate professional. I'm _convinced_ that he knew how to reconcile the conflict between technical believability and the needs of the shot. Clearly the position of the turbolift on the model and the placement of it on the bridge set are evidence of that conflict of interest. 

I submit that he and Gene probably agreed that no one would ever notice. 

Its also just as clear that no one at the time ever could have imagined that we fans would be rabidly pouring over the details like we are _40 years later!_


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Here's an interesting part of an interview with MJ (found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/interviews/jefferies/page8.shtml):


> It was pretty well established with the model that the things was going to be in a full circle. From there it became a question of how we were going to make it, how it could come apart, where the cameraman could get into it.
> 
> Of course, every director that came in wanted to pan three hundred and sixty right roundy-roundy. We’d tell them it’s just going to wind up on the cutting room floor, it isn’t going to work, but every one of them had to try it regardless.


The part I find interesting WRT the present discussion is about the shooting strategy. How to shoot the bridge would have been on his mind right from the start, as a production designer.

(BTW, when he talks about the model establishing the shape (and thus coming first), he's referring to the early "study" model, not the models made by Datin. (He discusses this model (and its flopping upside down) back on page4 of the interview.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> I think a look at the complete email that elicited his response would be most enlightening.


Okay, for what it's worth...



Moi said:


> If you ever wander over to HobbyTalk.com, in the Science Fiction Modeling section, you might've noticed a rather extensive thread regarding the question of just how big the original Enterprise was, as can be established by objectively verifiable means, and not just taking the 947' figure as sacrosanct.
> 
> Of course, any topic regarding the Enterprise requires my input, so it was off to the races.
> 
> ...


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Captain April said:


> ...they all figured it faced forward and didn't really worry about how the turbolift fit into the thing, but that's not getting a lot of mileage with this group. You'd think I announced that Jesus was a crossdresser the way they respond to the notion that the Enterprise design wasn't worked out with the same degree of precision as an Apollo command module.


I'm basically just an onlooker to this discussion, but I believe everyone who's participated can agree that there were compromises and inconsistencies to the sets and models built for _Star Trek_. I'd be quite shocked if anyone admitted otherwise.

---------------


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Rick Sternbach passed on a comment from Bob Justman that they all figured it faced forward and didn't really worry about how the turbolift fit into the thing, but that's not getting a lot of mileage with this group. You'd think I announced that Jesus was a crossdresser the way they respond to the notion that the Enterprise design wasn't worked out with the same degree of precision as an Apollo command module.


Yeah... nice to see you didn't put any spin on your position while asking. 

You are aware (I hope) that the only member here that is truly obsessed with the 36 degree issue is, well, *you*. 

Most of us (and I believe I am speaking for most of us) don't really care what their intentions were back then (beyond the historical perspective). The thing we enjoy thinking about is how what we saw on screen might all fit together (and what it might be like to actually be there). So what if Jefferies wanted the bridge facing forward, and so what if to get it to fit only one of the 11 bridge stations actually faces sorta forward.

But strictly speaking, the only person of our little group here that has displayed anything similar to your _Jesus was a crossdresser_ reaction to this topic has in fact been you.

We have all heard your arguments (over and over and over again). What is really needed here is a little understanding on *your* part. Just because we haven't all converted to your _Trek world view_ doesn't mean we disagree with either your historical or logical arguments (I would guess that most of us agreed the first time you put them forward). But what we enjoy is what we've watched for forty years, and it doesn't really matter what the reasons were behind the set design, it is that design (and how it could fit within the Enterprise model's shape) that we are left with today.


No one here has ever gotten upset with you because you want to imagine the helm, navigation and command stations all facing forward. *Please* do us all a favor and treat us with the same respect by not insulting us for imagining it differently than you. And more importantly, stop being so threatened because we haven't adopted your beliefs on this topic.



After all, I've never said Jesus was a crossdresser... only that he wore dresses.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

More of a tunic thing maybe. Jedi robes?


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Forgive me for jumping in and adding my thoughts...apologies if anyone has already said this.

Anyone think about the fact that if the Turbo Shaft was located directly behind Kirks chair on the filming set, every time someone walked onto the bridge, the camera would not be able to see them walk in because Kirk was sitting right in front of it?

MJ probably designed it just like he built the model....with the Turbo Shaft in the center....

But when it came time to film and build the sets they realized the camera angle would not be right, so for filming purposes they moved the shaft over a bit, so you could get a clear shot of kirk and whoever was walking onto the bridge.

Gotta remember that our beautiful Trek universe is a work of fiction, so when something doesn't match up an explanation does not need to be created for any discrepancies.....like the bridge sitting at a 36 degree angle.

It is after all a TV show....no matter how much we love it!!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Now, guys, don't pile on CRA because he posted his original message to Okuda. He was just complying with our requests. 

It's too bad no one paid Jefferies to do an integrated blueprint of the Enterprise. I'm sure he would never have consented to do the complete interior, like the FJ blues, but perhaps he would have given us a detailed cross section and some of the major sets in situ. If he did so, he would have had to deal with this thorny issue of the bridge alignment in a scale drawing. Does anyone really think, given the attention to detail he exhibited in all of his work, that he would fudge this point? Of course not. He would be faced with the same choices that anyone coming after has had: either place the bridge in the dome rotated 35.5 degrees to port, lower it almost completely out of the dome so it could face forward, or alter either the exterior or interior of the ship to allow it to face forward within the dome. But barring that commission to blueprint the thing, he did all he was required to do in executing his job for the series. Production requirements overruled his original concepts in either one or both cases: The turbolift was placed off center on the set for camera angle reasons; the turbo tube was kept dead aft on the miniature to allow optical flipping. No one expected detail obsessed fans to ferret out the sleight-of-hand.

As Rick Sternbach has pointed out before, it's easy enough to use the "mental rubber band" method and just imagine the bridge faces forward anyway. The works just fine until you sit down at a drafting table. And Matt Jefferies was never required to do that -- _until Phase II._ And when he sat down to redesign the Enterprise for for that project, he _did_ confront this issue: He used Roddenberry's dictate that there be two turbolifts on the bridge to create a design that was both symetrical (inside and out) and which allowed for good camera angles. He gave us a bridge that unquestionably faces forward and is located right where we think it is...

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

newbie dooby said:


> Forgive me for jumping in and adding my thoughts...apologies if anyone has already said this.
> 
> Anyone think about the fact that if the Turbo Shaft was located directly behind Kirks chair on the filming set, every time someone walked onto the bridge, the camera would not be able to see them walk in because Kirk was sitting right in front of it?
> 
> ...


 Yes, in ad nauseum over the last several years. It's adressed in several threads here at the SF Modeling forum. 


> Gotta remember that our beautiful Trek universe is a work of fiction, so when something doesn't match up an explanation does not need to be created for any discrepancies.....like the bridge sitting at a 36 degree angle.


Yes, we know this, too. Trust me....

The bulk of us enjoy the game of trying to figure out where things "go" and how they work on this fictional ship, as well as others from the Trek 'Verse. That's been the case for longer than the Internet has been around, and has been more then evident for the last decade that I personally have been on DaNet. People do it with more than just Trek, but we're the most picked at because we're likely the most vocal and the more flamboyant of us get the most press.

The primary reason this issue, as well as others, has been discussed-to-death here is that there are dissenters to the rationalizations that some folks have come up with. So, discussions ensue, passion builds, tempers flare and you get the standard "TreknoGeek" syndrome rearing it's ugly head (relax everybody, I'm just as much the TreknoGeek as other folks here). 


> It is after all a TV show....no matter how much we love it!!!


Yes, I believe that the vast majority of us know this already, too.... 

You've been around long enough to know all of this, too, Joey.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Okay, for what it's worth...


Thanks for posting that, CRA. I appreciate your candor on posting the complete email, tho am disappointed with you casting in such a negative light those who disagree with you. 

Regardless, it does put Mr. Okuda's response into a bit more perspective, tho doesn't really change anything about his response, if only for me. Just sort of clarifies some of his points. As already mentioned by a number of folks in this thread, all of us are arm-chair quarter backing every bit of this stuff up to the point where we get confirmation from someone like Mr. Okuda, Mr. Sternbach or some other direct source. I personally have no problems with the thinking that Mr. Jeffries intended for the bridge to face forward - and have no problem with those who wish to reconcile it with the thinking that the bridge is offset or that the bridge is sunk xx meters down in to the B/C deck area so that the bridge can face forward. 

I can personally reconcile the issue being split on both points because both of them have their merits. I don't lose sleep over it and don't feel the need to insult those who's opinions differ from mine.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

With regard to the wording of my initial email, the key factor is that I already know that Mike Okuda and I come at these matters from pretty much the same viewpoint, i.e., what was the viewpoint from those in charge at the time (sort of a Strict Constructionist Trekkie p.o.v.) and I already knew he felt the same way I do regarding the bridge, that it faces forward, geometry be damned. I just wanted to know if the subject ever came up while talking to Matt Jefferies and what _his_ stance was.

As for my characterization of others' views on this, *look at the reaction I'm getting for daring to adhere to the view of the guy who designed the bloody thing in the first place.* Especially from certain individuals who like to cite "creator's intent" until the cows come home _until it comes to the bridge._ Then suddenly all authority is punted over to Franz Joseph, who didn't come up with his solution until roughly ten years after the fact. It's _that_ little block of orthodoxy that has been giving me migraines since the time I started on my deck plan project.

Personal opinion on what MJ would've done if he'd been comissioned to do full-on blueprints: Forward facing bridge, with some slight tweaking in the size/shape of the bridge dome, lowered slightly into the superstructure, and a slight enlargement of the overall size of the ship. His design, he could do pretty much whatever he wanted, and I wouldn't argue much. And this has been, more or less, my guiding principle in doing my blueprints, "how would Jefferies do this?", with a few extra restrictions, like avoiding any major changes to the size and shape of the outer hull like the plague.

And that's the name of that tune.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Regardless, there's no need to get upset about it. I understand the frustration, but you lose a lot of credibility with folks when you resort to insults. Especially when it's uncalled for. And by "you" I mean the parenthetical "you" of anyone who does that sort of thing. It's immature and I know a lot of folks who just ignore anything a person writes after the point were the insults starting to fly. It's not at all conducive to a civil discussion. 

At this point, tho, I'd like to thank you publicly for not resorting to that for this discussion. If someone else starts in, I'll do my best to catch it and remind those folks not to do so.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> With regard to the wording of my initial email, the key factor is that I already know that Mike Okuda and I come at these matters from pretty much the same viewpoint, i.e., what was the viewpoint from those in charge at the time (sort of a Strict Constructionist Trekkie p.o.v.) and I already knew he felt the same way I do regarding the bridge, that it faces forward, geometry be damned. I just wanted to know if the subject ever came up while talking to Matt Jefferies and what _his_ stance was.


Great info imparted here! :thumbsup: Thanks again for the MJ and MO viewpoints. 

I agree with the idea of sticking to the original intentions of the creator but I can understand those who want to change things, too, in order to create a more "real-world" version according to their interpretations. We've gotten some really interesting viewpoints and different versions on various threads that really are inspiring.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

I seem to remember reading long ago in the book "The Making of Star Trek" that the bridge was off center. Matt or who everever was being quoted, said that it was to show that due to the technology of the time, what with the large viewscreen and all, it was not necessary for the bridge to face directly ahead. I'll see if I can find the passage that I'm referring to.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> As for my characterization of others' views on this, *look at the reaction I'm getting for daring to adhere to the view of the guy who designed the bloody thing in the first place.* Especially from certain individuals who like to cite "creator's intent" until the cows come home _until it comes to the bridge._ Then suddenly all authority is punted over to Franz Joseph, who didn't come up with his solution until roughly ten years after the fact. It's _that_ little block of orthodoxy that has been giving me migraines since the time I started on my deck plan project.


 I've closely followed this debate for several years now (my first post to your thread was back in 2003) and I've *never* heard anyone appeal to Franz Joseph as a source of authority on this subject. This is a mischaracterization of your opponents. 

All most of us have been saying is that while MJ (and the rest of us) would like a forward facing bridge, we believe he knew it couldn't actually fit that way. Certainly he wouldn't have fudged the issue if he had sat down to make integrated blueprints. He was too much of a pro to cheat it in. Since you are making such blueprints, though, you have to deal with the issue. 

In truth, most of our "back and forth" occurred in the first three years throughout which you steadfastly maintained that no compromise was needed -- that the bridge could fit facing forward in the dome just fine as it was. After I gave up on offering any input on your project, you adopted one of the work-arounds I had suggested three years earlier and lowered the bridge enough to turn it. Since then I've only crossed verbal swords with you when you've mischaracterized what went before. Like the above.

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alright, I hope you two got this out of your system. Let's not bring up any more personal issues like this - take 'em to email or PM.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Hope someone finds that Making of Star Trek quote if it exists. If not I accept MJ prefered it forward facing as if he were piloting it through a glass canopy. Like many have stated before it comes down to personal preference. You can't make everyone happy. I guess since MJ didn't make exterior to interior blueprints, there is a 50/50 chance any of us are right. I just want a good scale drawing of the exterior bridge dome then I can put the bridge in the way it makes most sense to me. None of us is going to build a full scale real life Enterprise so who cares. We only answer to ourselves anyway


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

"The Making of Star Trek" says nothing about the orientation of the bridge, only that it's up top under the dome.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm pretty sure there's no such quote in TMOST. I'm not sure where it might be. It's likely just another of those repeated-so-many-times-it's-taken-as-fact things.
On memory-alpha, you'll find two such statements-as-fact with no reference cited.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Constitution_class#Designing_the_bridge


> A long issue with the bridge design among fans is the single offset turbolift. The location does not line up with Enterprise model, which shows a turbolift alcove directly behind the main bridge. *According to Jeffries*, this off-set placement was necessary to allow characters to walk onto the bridge and photographed without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair.
> Jeffries also mentioned that Spock's sensor hood is a tip of the hat to early radar used by World War II battleships. Ambient room light would wash out the weak signals of early radar imagery, so hoods were used to cover radar screens. Because modern radar imagery is brighter, viewing hoods are no longer needed.


http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Constitution_class#Screen_vs._Turbolift_On_the_Centerline


> Originally, the turbolift was to line up center right behind the captain's chair, and the bridge module was set front to back. The model of the Enterprise was lined up accordingly. However, during the initial filming of "The Cage", the directors noted that Chris Pike was blocking the view of the lift. Seeing this as a problem, the turbolift was swapped with another part of the modular bridge, scooting it over. The model was not changed. This is what led to the 'offset' problem.


I'd love to see reliable references for these oft-repeated "facts," but I'm not holding my breath for them to turn up.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> In truth, most of our "back and forth" occurred in the first three years throughout which you steadfastly maintained that no compromise was needed -- that the bridge could fit facing forward in the dome just fine as it was. After I gave up on offering any input on your project, you adopted one of the work-arounds I had suggested three years earlier and lowered the bridge enough to turn it. Since then I've only crossed verbal swords with you when you've mischaracterized what went before. Like the above.
> 
> M.


What was missing in your offerings was the rationale for lowering the bridge away from its traditionally assumed position. When Aridas pointed out the difference between the pilot and production domes, it all clicked and I had the rationale for lowering the bridge.

Basically, when I come up against something like this, I look for an explanation that solves the problems on all levels, technical, canonical, and creator's intent. 

With engineering, it really wasn't that hard once you realize that they never really did define that that big tube assembly actually was. They only, by implication, showed that it had soemthing to do with the ship's power. Put it up by the impulse engines, and you screw up the references that imply it's in the secondary hull, and vice verse. But once you separate that tube assembly from the nacelle struts, or the innards of the impulse engines, take your pick, and you can work it somewhere in the middle to satisfy both sets of references.

The bridge is a tougher nut to crack, because we've got two apparently contradictory factors, the assumption by the designer and producers that the thing faced forward, and an outer hull that ain't big enough without some very questionable adjustments, one way or the other.

Like Mr. Okuda says, it all depends on which datapoints you choose to finese or outright ignore.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> I'm pretty sure there's no such quote in TMOST. I'm not sure where it might be. It's likely just another of those repeated-so-many-times-it's-taken-as-fact things.
> On memory-alpha, you'll find two such statements-as-fact with no reference cited.
> 
> http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Constitution_class#Designing_the_bridge
> ...


As edited...



> Originally, the turbolift was to line up center right behind the captain's chair, and the bridge module was set front to back. The model of the Enterprise was lined up accordingly. However, during the initial filming of "The Cage", the directors noted that Chris Pike was blocking the view of the lift. Seeing this as a problem, the turbolift was swapped with another part of the modular bridge, scooting it over. The model was not changed. This is what led to the 'offset' problem.
> 
> The first 'official' explanation for this came in the Constitution Class Deck Plans, from Franz Joseph, and authorized by Gene Roddenberry. In those plans, the offset is indicated to exlpain the discrepancy between the bridge set and the filming model. This is repeated in the Tech Manual a couple of years later.
> 
> ...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Originally "only a few of the sections were removable", according to whom? Never heard that before.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Is there anyone alive who actually was part of the bridge film crew?


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Originally "only a few of the sections were removable", according to whom? Never heard that before.



In the book "Inside Star Trek" by Solow and Justman, bottom of page 113 and top of 114, Justman tells how difficult it was to film on the pilot bridge because not enough sections were wild. When they set up for regular series production they made all sections wild.

Bob Justman was there in the trenches. He should know.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's also mentioned in "The Making of Star Trek".


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> In the book "Inside Star Trek" by Solow and Justman, bottom of page 113 and top of 114, Justman tells how difficult it was to film on the pilot bridge because not enough sections were wild. When they set up for regular series production they made all sections wild.


Did he say which parts were wild? (My copy is boxed up right now, so I can't check.)

It's not necessary for the turbolift and adjacent station to be wild; it's just as good if the viewscreen and adjacent station, along with the center stations, were wild.

(And if it's deemed essential to swap stations once, they needn't be wild to do it. They can be cut apart, moved, rejoined, and some patch/finish work done to remove the scars.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The rather limited number of camera angles used in the first pilot is a big clue, specifically the stations directly to the captain's right. Also, as I mentioned previously, note how in the pilots, the handrails are solid, whereas with regular production, suddenly there are seams.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Solid/seamed handrails aren't relevant to whether the stations could be swapped (unless you mean there are not just seams but actual gaps and the handrail sections move with the wild sections, which does not appear to be the case). But with the alternate swap of viewscreen and neighbor along with center consoles, the railings would have to move, too. If there was a station swap, it was more likely to be Communications and Turbolift.
Personally, I think the moving of the turbolift happened on paper only, before actual set construction. Not much evidence, but we do know Jefferies thought about how shots would be done. (I posted part of an interview where he says as much back in post 53 of this thread.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

This should illustrate things a bit...










And here's a sneaky peek at what they did _after_ the pilots...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Actually, they might well have been able to do what is seen in that last picture with the pilot bridge (the station next to Spock's was certainly wild). However, it would make sense that only the consoles might have been wild, not the floor, as you say. Still, having the floor move out of the way allows the camera dolly to roll in and would have been desireable right from the start.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Wow! The handrails are much more different than just solid/seamed. I hadn't noticed this before.








Long rail, no side steps.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Edit: never mind. (I was thinking some shots needed a wild viewscreen section, too. But I've convinced myself I could place the camera between teh viewscreen and the helm/nav in each case.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Quick recap of the history of the bridge set:

First set made of wood, was heavy, creaky, only a couple of wild sections, not very practical. When the production moved from Culver City to Gower Street, the original set was scrapped, fiberglass copies of the original stations were made, and all the stations were made wild. It also got some carpeting to cut down on those loud footsteps.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

More bridge changes:

Between the two pilots: side stairs were added, railings changed from two big ones to four little ones; little flexi-viewers removed from helm/nav stations; new colors.
New bridge: "ceiling lights" added around the edge, above the stations, "kick panels" added below the consoles; viewscreen replaced (square corners); flexi-viewers omitted; high-backs added to chairs.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Trek core has this picture of the unfinished pilot bridge set (with cast) and the lift is already not behind the captain's chair. If it was moved, it was moved before the set was finished.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ BTW, MJ did say they were still wiring up one part of the set while filming was done on the other side. The above unfinished set is likely _during_ shooting.
(MJ's comment was on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult, IIRR, but the site's down right now.)

Edit:
Confirmed: that piece of plywood or cardboard we see in the "unfinished" photo appears in many of the bridge scenes in the actual show. They may well have not finished the port side of the command/nav/helm platform at all for the Cage. (They always shoot it from the starboard side.) They did finally get the cardboard/plywood out of the shot (the black platforms, too).

With plywood/cardboard:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=12
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=365

Without:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=62


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Between the two pilots: side stairs were added, railings changed from two big ones to four little ones; little flexi-viewers removed from helm/nav stations; new colors.


One more: added the raised platform under the captains chair. (I wonder if this is because Shatner's much shorter than Hunter?)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> Did he say which parts were wild? (My copy is boxed up right now, so I can't check.)


No, Justman does not indicate exactly which sections of the pilot bridges are wild.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

The Making of Star Trek page102:

'...The original bridge was built in eight "wild" [separate] sections...'

which was made into ten before filming the first season.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Wow! Who's that attributed to in the book?
(The obvious seams between stations made me think they were wild. April's comment about the limited filming angles is correct, though: they don't seem to use very many wild sections. Maybe there were 8 but they were a bear to move.)


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Sorry I failed to attribute that quote. It was Matt Jefferies.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> What was missing in your offerings was the rationale for lowering the bridge away from its traditionally assumed position.


 I wish I could say I thought you were joking... 

The rationale for lowering the bridge was to find a way to face it forward without altering the external configuration of the ship. As in:

"Why would the bridge be lowered most of the way into deck two?"
"So the viewscreen can point forward and everyone will feel better."



> When Aridas pointed out the difference between the pilot and production domes, it all clicked and I had the rationale for lowering the bridge.


 This _might_ be characterized as an in-universe rationale to explain the extra head room over the bridge -- but unfortunately, it turns out to be null and void as an explanation for a forward-facing bridge. As the new reference material from the construction drawing at the beginning of this thread shows, the pilot dome itself was not large enough to contain the turbolift. Unless you resort to some kind of asymmetrical off-centered placement for it, the bridge simply cannot face forward within the pilot dome.

Of course, placing the circular bridge off-center within the circular dome would require a rationale of its own...

M.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Another difficulty with shuffling the bridge sections, though surely not an insurmountable one, is that the entire soundstage on which the pilots were filmed was built with a raked floor. The Culver City facility dated back to the silent era and for whatever reason, they followed the old theatrical custom of having the stage floor slanted lower on the audience side. Never mind that the audience in a movie is the camera, and that camera can be located anywhere within a set. They hadn't thought these things through back in the early days. 

Anyway, every ship set needed to have a floor platform constructed in order to level it up. As you can guess, this could cause quite a headache for a set as complex as the bridge. Imagine trying to relevel any wild sections after a re-shuffle when the new position was at an entirely different angle relative to the sloping floor...

M.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

It is not uncommon for sets to be built on raised platforms above the stage floor. I've seen quite few built like that, although the reasons why are not always readily apparent. The point of this is to say that the Trek construction people probably built such a platform for the bridge, thus allowing each wild section to be built the same and make it easier to shuffle them around without re-leveling. Of course the draw back is the higher chances for noise in the form of squeaking floors.

The Bridge of the Klingon ship (in the first movie, I think) was built on a platform about eight feet above the stage floor but I could not see why. IRC there were some elements that swivelled, thus requiring a mechanism below but eight feet high? After all, there was already about four feet of space available under the normal stage floor. If the floor slopes however, then you have a good reason to build a level platform.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Good grief. Does that mean that the torpedo room STARTED at eight feet high and then went up?!?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Er, no. The Torpedo room was re-erected on a smaller stage (one of the former "Brady Bunch" stages). The set had been taken down and put into storage between movies, when it was re-assembled they built it directly on the stage floor.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> This should illustrate things a bit...


Is it just me or does this plan look lopsided? The viewscreen area is skewed crooked too?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

That drawing is only slightly better than a free-hand sketch.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> I wish I could say I thought you were joking...
> 
> The rationale for lowering the bridge was to find a way to face it forward without altering the external configuration of the ship. As in:
> 
> ...


Let me rephrase.

I needed a better rationale for _me_. I felt I need to at least pay some lip service to that shot in "The Cage" where we see the bridge up top. Lowering just for the *heck* of it wasn't enough, I needed that extra tidbit of the change in domes to make it work _for me._

Remember, I'm not just looking at this ship from a technical standpoint, but a storytelling one as well.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm not sure what the deal is, CRA, but you went and did it again w/the adult language. If you thought I was bluffing, well, you're going to find out about that. 10 Days, as promised.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Think about this, Jeffrey: is it really _*adult*_ language?  

I thought I used adult language when I used big words. 

I like to call it "immature" language. :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Call it coarse language if that works better for you. I call the use of big words "high falutin'", whatever that means. 

The point being that Hank's got a ZERO TOLERANCE policy if he catches it and folks get Perma-BANNED. I'd prefer to avoid that if at all possible. Sometimes folks just don't seem to want to listen, no matter how many times you send them a PM. 

So, there ya go.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> The point being that Hank's got a ZERO TOLERANCE policy if he catches it and folks get Perma-BANNED. I'd prefer to avoid that if at all possible.


I hate that it happens since it's got to take some of the enjoyment of the forum away from you when you have to attend to such matters. 

Anyways, back to topic:

I find it fascinating to find new (to me) information on this subject, either speculative or factual since they both give me some ideas on the matter and how the bridge may or may not fit into the ship.

After digesting some of the info presented here, I now lean towards the idea that it was just production/artistic license that resulted in the offset elevator but I do think that MJ would have fit the bridge in forward facing if he'd attended to the matter at all--somehow justifying it. The offset bridge, while an interesting idea, just wouldn't make the grade, IMHO.

I can't find my copy of TMOST but I don't recall any mention of the offset elevator. I would take what comes out of there seriously if there were any info regarding this.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

He most likely would have found a way to face it forward. And if he'd moved the tube around to port, who would have argued with him -- he's the guy who designed her. He might have even left the tube in place and added a path for the lift to come around, like the one I proposed years ago:










It isn't all that noticeable from the usual screen angles:










But the point is, being a professional, he would make some change to accommodate it. He wouldn't fudge it with sleight of hand. When you make a scale drawing, you can't play fast and loose with the numbers. 

Those of us who come after have to decide what changes we're willing to make. Those who are loath to make any change (it must be in the dome, it must be the proper scale, the hull must not be altered) are simply stuck with a skewed bridge. It's just the immutable laws of geometry. 

Jefferies knew this. That's why he made an adjustment to the hull for his Phase II design. We'll never know what kind of changes he might have introduced if he had made a consistent blueprint of the TOS version. What we _do_ know is that he would be forced to make _some_ _change_, or else live with a skewed bridge.

M.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^ you forgot about the usual rear view screen angle with the camera between the nacelles looking forward. I don't like messing with the exterior design at all.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Yes, it would be visible in that shot.

By the way, I created this option years ago for those who simply _*must*_ have the bridge face forward and yet remain in the dome. It was _never_ my preferred take on the ship. 

Put me in the camp who will live a skewed bridge in order to keep it where Jefferies placed it. If forced to turn it forward, I'd opt for sinking it low enough that the turbolift is contained within the tear drop of decks 2 & 3 (the _other_ solution I suggested back in '03).

M.


----------



## Rick Sternbach (Mar 2, 2006)

MGagen said:


> Yes, it would be visible in that shot.
> 
> By the way, I created this option years ago for those who simply _*must*_ have the bridge face forward and yet remain in the dome. It was _never_ my preferred take on the ship.
> 
> ...


That's the nice thing about fooling around with this stuff. We can play with it in different ways. Since Bob Justman said that they put the turbo where it was because they wanted to, I could say that if I ever built a model of the bridge, I'd swap the turbo segment with Urura's console in a heartbeat. (Let the gasping and shrieking begin!) And then everything would fall right into place. Outside of the obvious IP/commercial portion of the franchise, Trek is ours to play with, without having to adhere completely to some images recorded onto color neg film in the 1960s.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Hear hear! I'm in the swap-lift-and-communications camp as well.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ I could live with that too. Although an offset bridge doesn't bother me either. Either way, I just need a good 3 view profile drawing of the bridge exterior so I could build that to encase around a scratchbuilt scale model of the TOS bridge set.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Here's a taste of what it would look like. This way the Captain, helm, and navigation can have their backs DIRECTLY to the door. Not a problem since we know the E's security forces are top notch. Heh.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ I think it looks cool. With security such as we've seen, I don't think the 35.5 degree offset was much help anyway. They should be stopping people *before* they even get near the bridge. But great security and reliable systems cut off so many plot devices at their knees.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

In the interest of a complete list of bridge changes...



Captain April said:


> Quick recap of the history of the bridge set:
> 
> First set made of wood, was heavy, creaky, only a couple of wild sections, not very practical. When the production moved from Culver City to Gower Street, the original set was scrapped, fiberglass copies of the original stations were made, and all the stations were made wild. It also got some carpeting to cut down on those loud footsteps.





uss_columbia said:


> More bridge changes:
> 
> Between the two pilots: side stairs were added, railings changed from two big ones to four little ones; little flexi-viewers removed from helm/nav stations; new colors.
> 
> New bridge: "ceiling lights" added around the edge, above the stations, "kick panels" added below the consoles; viewscreen replaced (square corners); flexi-viewers omitted; high-backs added to chairs.


Additional changes with the new bridge (post pilots): no "welcome mat" in front of the lift doors; dedication plaque etc.; "light panels" on wall next to viewscreen.

TAS: extra door; actual ceiling

Things I'm not clear on timeframe:
Sulu's pop-up viewer: was it there in Season 1, or did it come later?
Spock's scanner: housing color change from black to white (or light gray): when?
Engineering station scanner: appeared in Seaons 1? Did it have the color change like Spocks?
(I'd go look at framegrabs, but somebody probably already knows the answers.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> Here's a taste of what it would look like...


While that looks pretty cool to me, I can't help but notice that the best position to have to evacuate the bridge would be the captain's chair.

I guess rank on that bridge would really have it's privileges.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I do love to see the changes from "The Cage" to production that I never noticed before. Thanks for those.


----------

