# 1/350 Original Enterprise in Round 2s 2012 catalog now



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks, I just was on Round 2s website and slated for an October 2012 release is their 1/350 Original U.S.S. Enterprise and it says it will be 32 inches long and designed for ease of assembly. Maybe by that time I'll want one. The Original Enterprise is near and dear to me but I am not into kits of that size. But for all of you that want it. Enjoy It!!! Guy. p.s. when you go to the Star Trek kits on Round 2s website. It was just added.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

My dream of having a 1/350 Nx-01 through -A is coming to life! So exciting!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Ooooo .... interior bridge and shuttlebay with shuttles.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> Ooooo .... interior bridge and shuttlebay with shuttles.


Bridge? I'll bet that's going to be fun to paint.

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


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

scotthm said:


> Bridge? I'll bet that's going to be fun to paint.


You read my mind. How big--er, small--would that be at 1:350?

Still, I think it is cool to include it...

And tinted windows? They are definitely thinking beyond the normal on this on. Cool stuff.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Link?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

http://www.round2models.com/models/star-trek/1-350-scale-enterprise


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Hmm... I can't help but wonder if the bridge will be designed to be installed off-set or facing forward!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm sure the bridge insert will be keyed and offset, allowing for anyone to reposition it. But don't forget the Turbolift won't be in the right place if you do.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

At that scale, the bridge would be about an inch and a half in diameter or a little less. Forward facing or offset would be up to the individual builder I'm guessing. That's an old can of worms I don't want to open. :freak:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I never understood why the bridge wasnt facing forward.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

It was offset by Matt Jefferies so that the directors could get a shot of the Capt in his seat, and a clear shot of anyone exiting the turbolift.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

It would be nice for the 1701 Club to get their update. We learned more from this public announcement about the kit than from the newsletter we haven't got yet! A viewable bridge? Very nice. I wonder if we will have crew members?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

robiwon said:


> It would be nice for the 1701 Club to get their update. We learned more from this public announcement about the kit than from the newsletter we haven't got yet! A viewable bridge? Very nice. I wonder if we will have crew members?


I would doubt it in this scale. However there are pre-painted aftermarket naval figures in 1/350 that could work nicely.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

woof359 said:


> I never understood why the bridge wasnt facing forward.


It was supposed to be. They discovered on set that you could have better angles on the turbolift and the captain if they didn't have it right behind the him, and shifted it over one bridge-wedge to stage left. When Franz Joseph drew his plans and technical manual in the 70s, he figured the only way to line up the doors on the set with the bump behind the bridge dome on the ship, was to rotate the bridge until the doors lined up with the bump. That made the bridge face 36° to port. 

While moving the set piece was a production decision, rotating the bridge on the plans was, as far as I know, strictly Franz Joseph's idea.

It's an annoying real-world solution to a theatrical on-set shortcut. The result is one of the biggest arguments in Trekdom.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

But why would it have to be pointed forward? It could be pointed bass-ackwards since the viewscreen is a viewscreen and not a window.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Its real simple. The bridge faces forward, and that outside cylinder thing is not the turbo lift. Which of course means the bridge would need to be a little smaller to accommodate an internal lift.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh, heck, it could be rotated 90° nose-UP for all the laws of physics care, given artificial gravity and accelerations fields and such.

But it makes no logical _sense _for it to be anything but facing front (IMHO). In all the years I watched the show before the plans came out, there was never any thought or on-screen indication it was otherwise. And the FJ plans are still the source of the idea, and they're not canon.

IMHO. 

And maybe we shouldn't get this argument going again. :lol:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Solium said:


> Its real simple. The bridge faces forward, and that outside cylinder thing is not the turbo lift. Which of course means the bridge would need to be a little smaller to accommodate an internal lift.


it could be the turbolift machinery at the top of the shaft - say the lift never goes all the way up into it (and given that the cylinder doesn't fully merge with the bridge dome, it would be impossible to get from that cylinder into the bridge!). Say the lift only goes up to deck two in the shaft, then shunts forward, left, and up. This leave plenty of room for spare car.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

In "The Cage", when the camera does the fly up and over the hull and into the bridge, the set is facing forward and the lift doors do not line up with the bump on the back of the bridge dome. This is "On Screen" so must be deemed as "Canon". That is good enough for me! Mine will face forward, and I will deal with the Earth shattering ramification if and or when they arise, due to my decision!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Bridge placement is a personal choice, however true 'canon' indicates the offset. It will be your model...build it to your taste. I will build mine per 'canon' after consulting with Rick Sternbach and Micheal Okuda.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I thought "True Canon" was what was on screen........hmmmmm, Trek sure is complicated. The "rules" keep changing. Makes Irwin Allen's universe seem simple! Looks to me that in this picture, it is facing forward and the lift doors are off center and since Rick Sternbach and Micheal Okuda didn't film this shot, or have anything to do with the production of the Original Seriesm I personally will go with the visual reference!


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

If you get right down to it the turbo lift made no sense when they had transporter capabilities. What a waste of time (and space for a mechanical lift) when a transporter station on the bridge could have whipped you to any part of the ship in seconds. :wave:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's a CG image that you're referencing. It's not canon to the 1960's _Star Trek_, only to the so-called "TOS-R" 2006-09 version.

Not wanting to stoke the fires of the bridge-facing controversy, but whenever the ship was "hit" with weapons fire, it would "roll" to the left or right with the roll axis centered from the elevator doors to the right of the main viewscreen, thereby reinforcing that the bridge was indeed "offset" to the centerline of the ship.

Again, on-screen "canon":


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

Ok, my 2 cents worth.
It makes no sense to offset the bridge 36 degrees.
People being people, would build it to face forward (human nature)
OR, maybe 90 degrees.
OR even backwards (for whatever technical reason), but definately NOT an odd number like the 36 degree often quoted.

Just saying...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Trek Ace said:


> That's a CG image that you're referencing. It's not canon to the 1960's _Star Trek_, only to the so-called "TOS-R" 2006-09 version.
> 
> Not wanting to stoke the fires of the bridge-facing controversy, but whenever the ship was "hit" with weapons fire, it would "roll" to the left or right with the roll axis centered from the elevator doors to the right of the main viewscreen, thereby reinforcing that the bridge was indeed "offset" to the centerline of the ship.
> 
> Again, on-screen "canon":


Funny, it looks the same in the original, non-CG version of the shot from the original "The Cage" VHS tapes, both color and B/W, the DVD release, the shots of it used in "The Menagerie"...........well you get it. :thumbsup:

As for the other images, you understand the camera was tilting, not an actual ship. Whatever direction the camera was pointed, that is the direction the ship would go all "side to sidey". I remember at least on episode where the bridge was going side to side, due to camera placement, and the engineering section was going bow to stern, due to camera placement. Go figure??!! :freak:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

RSN said:


> As for the other images, you understand the camera was tilting, not an actual ship. :freak:


Oh, yes. I am well-aware of that! 

What I was attempting to illustrate, is that there was a specific reason why when depicting most of the "rolling" motions on the bridge, that the camera was placed where it was. It was not by accident, or some arbitrary decision by the director (with a few exceptions).

In film terms, a "tilt" refers to the pitching up or down motion of the camera, while a "roll" is the leaning to the left or right. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Trek Ace said:


> Oh, yes. I am well-aware of that!
> 
> What I was attempting to illustrate, is that there was a specific reason why when depicting most of the "rolling" motions on the bridge, that the camera was placed where it was. It was not by accident, or some arbitrary decision by the director (with a few exceptions).
> 
> In film terms, a "tilt" refers to the pitching up or down motion of the camera, while a "roll" is the leaning to the left or right. :thumbsup:


I knew you did, I was not trying to insult you, just pulling your leg. What I find funny about this is, we are discussing the "whys" of a set design, 45 years later, that was created to maximize the shot requirements, not make sense in the real model. Since everyone on the bridge would be looking at the viewscreen, the camera angle would have to be offset from the line of sight of the actors, or else you will be breaking the fourth wall in most shots. In order to maximize the shot, the elevator was moved off center to be behind the captain's chair, in a straight line, so we, the viewer, could see the actors entering the shot. I have designed a number of stage sets and all doors and stairs have to be layed out like this, even if they don't quite make sense.

That is the real reason for the offset, how one puts it in their model will have no long lasting effects on the Earth's orbit around the sun! :wave:


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

Shouldn't Grace Whitney's hair tilt accordingly?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

As I stated before this is all a matter of choice. Build it the way it pleases you. I intend to enter mine in IPMS competition, so to keep from getting 'gigged' by some penlight happy judge I will go against asthetics and build mine with the offset.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> As I stated before this is all a matter of choice. Build it the way it pleases you. I intend to enter mine in IPMS competition, so to keep from getting 'gigged' by some penlight happy judge I will go against asthetics and build mine with the offset.


Good luck when you do enter it in competition. That is one of the reasons I no longer enter shows. I like to build to make me happy, not the judges. :thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Rotwang said:


> Shouldn't Grace Whitney's hair tilt accordingly?



Always loved that "basket Head"


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Personally, I will be building my kit with the bridge facing forward because, in my opinion, to build it any other way looks dumb.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> As I stated before this is all a matter of choice. Build it the way it pleases you. I intend to enter mine in IPMS competition, so to keep from getting 'gigged' by some penlight happy judge I will go against asthetics and build mine with the offset.


Do you think the judge will know about the offset? A non-Trekkie judge might see the offset and think _that's_ the wrong way.


----------



## Desert_Modeler (Jun 2, 2010)

The Bridge was offset 36deg to accommodate the warp field farbostat generators.. - ...Basic Warp field mechanics......


----------



## GordonMitchell (Feb 12, 2009)

Desert_Modeler said:


> The Bridge was offset 36deg to accommodate the warp field farbostat generators.. - ...Basic Warp field mechanics......


I agree with DM what he said it makes perfect nonsense:lol:
and as for IPMS judges have you all listned to yourselves lately no ofense intended here but after all its a model and when I was first building models a lot of the "old"hands would say if it looks right then it is right,its all down to personal choice build it for yourself and not what others want or think after all who has to look at it every day,I spent 5 weeks(rushed)building the Revell 1/350 Bismark for the IPMS club table(the guy that was going to do it backed out basically last minute) after spending 6 months(not Rushed)on the HMS Hood I was asked so that the display would still go ahead,both with Lion Roar etch,I am very happy with the Hood but hate the Bismark because I listned to others and rushed the model,now everybody say's its fantastic etc but I know where I went wrong due to having to work to a deadline and did not enjoy the build,I know its not the Enterprise but the same principles apply do it for yourself and never mind anyone else....its your money and your model,if someone is paying you to build it then they can critisise or comment not anyone else,and in reality its a studio prop that in most circumstances looks nowhere as good off camera and nothing like the model company's offering, or with aftermarket acurizing?parts added,we are making a model of a model and remember that the original series used AMT kits in later programs so how do we make a super accurate version of the AMT kit that was on camera in all its unaltered glory?are we not seeing to much into this?any way I've said enough my finger is getting sore and I need it along with the three others and thumb to hold a paint brush later:lollease dont take offense at any of this as its not meant as a personal attack on anyone just my obsevations on how the hobby is going,
cheers,Gordon M:thumbsup:


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Han shot first (and only)... oh, wrong argument.


----------



## galaxy_jason (May 19, 2009)

Doesn't the world end in 2012 anyway?


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I will build it whatever way makes it look better to me, since that is who I build models for.

And if anyone asks me why it is off, I will tell em



Desert_Modeler said:


> The Bridge was offset 36deg to accommodate the warp field farbostat generators.. - ...Basic Warp field mechanics......



Of course I will substitute "offset" with "not offset" depending on how it gets built


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I like pie...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Less filling......


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

thanks for letting me know why I had seen some pics of the bridge being off center, Now I know, many thanks


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> But why would it have to be pointed forward? It could be pointed bass-ackwards since the viewscreen is a viewscreen and not a window.


Exactly correct. But because people (like, say, JJ Abrams) think it's a freakin' WINDOW, it has to "face forward."

The trick to understanding the bridge is that there is only one feature that cannot be moved... that's the lift shaft. It must be where it is, because if it's not... the lift protrudes into open space through the hull.














































Basically, the lift tube is the sole "stake in the sand" here. EVERY OTHER STATION ON THE BRIDGE IS A COMPUTER CONSOLE. They can be rearranged as desired (albeit not when the ship is in active operation, obviously!)

My assumption is that the original design involved the viewscreen at front-center, but that some captains found this... unsettling. How do YOU feel when someone walks into a room directly behind you, after all?

So, Pike (and at least two other vessel commanders in the Constitution-explorer fleet of twelve ships, specifically those of the Exeter and the Lexington) chose to have the workstation on the bridge rearranged so that they'd be able to see the bridge entryway from their chair without having to turn around.

It's likely that a Vulcan commanding officer wouldn't care all that much, so it's safe to say that the Intrepid kept the "original intent" configuration, symmetrical around the lateral plane.

When it came time to up-convert some of the Constitution exploratory heavy cruisers into the "Enterprise class" configuration, this psychological design defect of the original bridge was addressed.

But that's the thing. People keep saying that the bridge viewer "must face forward" but the only reason anyone ever gives is because "it's weird for it not to."

These people should look at the bridge configuration of the typical submarine. The helmsman on this ship isn't facing forward, but rather is facing directly towards the port (or perhaps starboard, in some cases?). It matters not one bit in which direction anyone is facing, does it?

But on a sub, it actually makes at least a LITTLE bit of difference... because there is a certain degree of "feel" involved in navigation of a sub. You can feel the incline, for example. On a starship... this wouldn't be an issue, would it be?

So... I'll ask, again, the question that nobody has ever answered with anything other than "well, dammit, because it's WEIRD IF IT ISN'T HOW I EXPECT IT TO BE."

The question is... is there any reason that the bridge viewer should face forward? Any practical, operational, functional reason... other than "because I want it to?"


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

heres another question.

Who Cares?!

Build it however you want to, if someone actually gripes at you for putting it forward or sideways, then tell them where they can point it.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yup, can o' worms. 

Can't seem to get the search function to work, but this has been discussed in extraordinary detail in past threads. I'm done with it. Build it as you like. Mine will be offset, yours can be whatever makes you happy. Peace.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The offset works fine for me. After all, it only effects _*three chairs*_.

None of the other chairs or bridge stations face directly forward, and if it were a real vessel, those people could conceivably go about their duties without psychological trauma, so why couldn't the Captain, Helmsman and Navigator?

In fact, very little of the interior of the vessel as designed faces directly forward (it's a saucer and several cylinders after all), so why should it matter whether or not the bridge does?

I look forward to seeing what they do with the kit's bridge, but I will build it how I think it should be, regardless.

By the way, the original bridge set's angled panels above the lighting cove extended twice the height as depicted in the McMaster plans, and should meet up with the base of the dome quite nicely, as illustrated in these frames:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

For me the opening of "The Cage" shows the orientation of the bridge. It was on screen so that's it. Thats how mine will be.

But I'll love to see the build photo's of everyones! If you want it offset it's no matter to me, I'll still marvel at everyones build!

I'm just happy that it looks like this kit will finally see the light of day.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm not going to show the bridge. Why?

In "The Cage" it looks like they're suggesting that upper dome is transparent like some sort of skylight. Now why would they design it this way (in a "real world" sense)? But in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" there is a shot of Kirk entering the bridge as seen from inside the turbolift and you can catch a glimpse of the upper dome...and it's solid and opaque, which to me makes more sense. I know they also did the transparent dome thing in TNG, but I'd feel a lot better with something more between my control centre and the outside vacuum then just a transparency of some kind.

I always assumed the bridge ceiling wasn't of the same curvature and shape as the outside dome on the outer hull and that the dome glowed because of a lot of sensor systems in it.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> I'm not going to show the bridge. Why?
> 
> In "The Cage" it looks like they're suggesting that upper dome is transparent like some sort of skylight.


I don't think it was ever intended to indicate that the dome roof was transparent. It was simply a clever and artistic visual effects shot. Think of it as if the virtual camera had "X-Ray" eyes. It also immediately told the audience where the bridge was on the ship. Quite ingenious really.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

Actually, the bridge is in perfect alignment with the universe, it's the rest of the ship that is cockeyed...

Running for cover ...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

OK, my "Real World" take on some comments. And NO, I am not "baiting", just stating MY opinions. 

To say the clear dome is just an artistic interpretation is opposite of the facts to me. Since Gene Roddenberry was so hands on in the development of Star Trek in 1964/65, as he was with Next Generation in 1986, and both Enterprise's are seen with clear domes over the bridge, I myself conclude that this was the intent.

As for what appears to be an "opaque" dome over the TOS bridge in 2nd pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", as well as in the series. The shots that were filmed required that the standard set be augmented to allow for a lower, wider, angle. The extensions appear to be much rougher than the lower portion of the bridge roof line and are going straight up, not curved like a dome. They were designed only to hide the soundstage beyond from the camera. This was a common practice in early TV when massive lighting was needed to properly film in color and no true ceiling could be incorporated into a set. 

As a draftsman, graphic artist and set designer, I just see things in these terms, I don't have to try and make every little set detail make sense in a fictional ship. They never will, nor were they designed to, they were just there to enhance a story.

Build on!!!!!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

One wonders if pilot versions of the bridge (with the first pilot's longer railings and missing steps) will come with the pilot parts upgrade pack.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Maybe the bridge rotated and constantly pointed to true north (eh?) regardless how the ship moved! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hey, who's the blonde on the left?


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

I dunno, but she sure is staring at something....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SteveR said:


> Hey, who's the blonde on the left?


That is Yeoman Smith, played by Andrea Dromm. 2,000 "geek points" for me!! :hat:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

james tiberius said:


> heres another question.
> 
> Who cares?!
> 
> Build it however you want to, if someone actually gripes at you for putting it forward or sideways, then tell them where they can point it.


thank you!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Those "candid" pics of the bridge....from an unusual angle...seemingly showing the crew at work on a real starship really gets my inner geek going.

You just can't deny the true nerdom of TOS. :thumbsup:


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Rotwang said:


> Shouldn't Grace Whitney's hair tilt accordingly?


With all that hairspray ?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> Do you think the judge will know about the offset? A non-Trekkie judge might see the offset and think _that's_ the wrong way.


If it concerns someone so much that they think a judge would think the part was installed wrong......simply make note of it in the entry form.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

robiwon said:


> It would be nice for the 1701 Club to get their update. We learned more from this public announcement about the kit than from the newsletter we haven't got yet! A viewable bridge? Very nice. I wonder if we will have crew members?


1/350 People aren't really a problem.


There is a French? company L'Arsenal?? that make resin people in 1/350.
Different photo-etch companies make people in 1/350 scale.

Tamiya also at one time offered 1/350 people in plastic, but they were horrible.
Simply flat plastic.

Fujimi makes two sets of people in 1/350 scale. This is the best value.
You get about 100? people for about $20.00.
Decently detailed for that scale.
One set is standing upright in Stationary and walking poses.
The other set is men working.

Between the two sets, you'll never need to buy more 1/350 people again.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Solium said:


> If you get right down to it the turbo lift made no sense when they had transporter capabilities. What a waste of time (and space for a mechanical lift) when a transporter station on the bridge could have whipped you to any part of the ship in seconds. :wave:


You mean that device that broke down at every story point opportunity???


----------



## Rotwang (May 25, 2011)

It's kind of hard to have dramatic dialogue and convey story elements when you're disassembled into a quadrillion pieces.....:freak:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The point was that the turbolift used considerably less energy than the transporter--and "intra ship beaming" was supposed to be dangerous and rarely attempted. Of course that didn't really make sense to me--since you knew other parts of the ship would always be stationary relative to the location of the transporter, unlike, say, a planet or another spacecraft. But in any case it would have simply been an enormous waste of power to beam people around the ship when a turbolift could do the job.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

jbond said:


> The point was that the turbolift used considerably less energy than the transporter--and "intra ship beaming" was supposed to be dangerous and rarely attempted. Of course that didn't really make sense to me--since you knew other parts of the ship would always be stationary relative to the location of the transporter, unlike, say, a planet or another spacecraft. But in any case it would have simply been an enormous waste of power to beam people around the ship when a turbolift could do the job.


It has always bothered me that they would never show a simple staircase, I refuse to believe they don't exist.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Prologic9 said:


> It has always bothered me that they would never show a simple staircase, I refuse to believe they don't exist.


From a design perspective, fictional or real life, stairs take up way too much diagonal space. They did have vertical shafts with ladders in them to connect decks. As for stairs, there were the ones on the bridge and transporter room. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Prologic9 said:


> It has always bothered me that they would never show a simple staircase, I refuse to believe they don't exist.


Even aboard Navy vessels, the closest you get to stairs is an inclined ladder.
With a little practice a person can navigate them like a staircase. Their use aboard a Starship doesn't make any more sence than on a warship.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

An "inclined ladder" is probably more what I imagine, I couldn't really think of anything other than "stairs" as a description. 

The point is that a couple of turbolifts is neither efficient nor sufficient for a crew of 400 people to maneuver around the ship, and I don't believe jefferies tubes would be their only alternative.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> You mean that device that broke down at every story point opportunity???


To true!:lol: But of course there should be an emergency stair case regardless if there is a turbo life or not.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'm hoping that Round 2 merely gives us a properly _in-scale_ bridge piece with integral turbolift -- _with NO instructions on HOW it is installed_.

Then each builder can have the satisfaction of placing it into the dome and rotating it until it CLICKS into the only orientation that it fits: 35.5 degrees counterclockwise from forward.

Those who still want their bridges to face forward instead can either get out their sprue nippers and clip the turbolift off, or use their Dremels to bore a hole in the bridge dome so it can stick out into space. 

Case CLOSED. :tongue:

M.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Meany! :lol:


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

All I know is that when I see someone's bridge installed cockeyed to the orientation of the ship, I'm going to point at it and think, "that looks really stupid."


----------



## faefrost (May 10, 2011)

woof359 said:


> I never understood why the bridge wasnt facing forward.


dramatic filming and shot composition. They originally planned to have it centered. But in filming the show they came to the conclusion that having the doors centered behind the captain was too disruptive to the shots and broke up the flow of the drama. Whereas shifting them off to the side rear kept the more traditional flow of character motion on the set or in the scene. Ever notice how the main entrance door in every single TV shows living room is in exactly the same place? And I mean EVERY ONE. They are all off to the right and slightly to the rear. Star Treks ended up in the same place because when you are filming a TV show that's where you put the door, and that's how all of the experienced people know how to stage and shoot a small set scene.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

GSaum said:


> All I know is that when I see someone's bridge installed cockeyed to the orientation of the ship, I'm going to point at it and think, "that looks really stupid."


Curiously, that's the same response I have whenever I hear someone saying that the bridge "must face forward."


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

seriously, who the heck cares?!

rivet counters are ridiculous sometimes


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

In 1/350 scale the bridge will be what.....the diameter of a nickel ? All of the fussing about such a small detail ! Rivet counters are soooo entertaining !


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

HabuHunter32 said:


> In 1/350 scale the bridge will be what.....the diameter of a nickel ? All of the fussing about such a small detail ! Rivet counters are soooo entertaining !


Closer to the size of a Susan B. Anthony Dollar!  :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I actually find it amusing that most of what we discuss in these forums are details, details and more details. But when any go beyond what some think is the appropriate level of detail, they're chided for being rivet counters. For example...

Geek one: "Well, I calculated the diameter as 38.5cm."

Geek two: "Really? I stayed up last night, starting from scratch and recalculated and came up with 38.53cm."

Geek one: "Woah!"

Geek three: "I took into account the perspective distortion and developed a new method to calculate which compensated for that and came up with 38.52187cm."

Geek one: "Dude, it's only a movie."

Geek two: "Yeah, get a life freak!"


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

jheilman said:


> Geek one: "Dude, it's only a movie."
> 
> Geek two: "Yeah, get a life freak!"


You know, I'm pretty sure one of them would have said something like _"I don't want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."_ :tongue:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Shaw said:


> You know, I'm pretty sure one of them would have said something like _"I don't want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."_ :tongue:


156. Which is, not coincidentally, the number of corrugations on the Enterprise nacelle's aft cap.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yeah, the end caps have 144 ridges.


----------

