Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 130 Next >>
Topic: More Star Trek Models from Round 2 Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Alex Prewitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2006
Posts: 1443
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 12:50am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Greg--excellent work!!! Love the Cage intro, too!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 1:16am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I like the custom stand as well...  Doing something similiar for your 1/1000 Refits, or going with the Round2 supplied one?

++++++++++++

Haven't decided.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 118010
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 5:17am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

And, as an homage to the famous zoom-in opening shot in the pilot episode, I left the upper bridge dome clear, and inserted a tiny bridge interior decal beneath it (NOT off-center, mind you--I know there's no room for the turbolift that way, but the concept of an off-center bridge drives me a bit nuts).

••

You mean rotated? Yes, it struck me as odd that the Bridge would have to be turned a few degrees relative to the long axis of the the ship -- until I realized such configurations are meaningless in a vessel with artificial gravity and "inertial dampers". The Bridge could be UPSIDE-DOWN relative to the rest of the Enterprise, and it really wouldn't matter!

As I began thinking "logically" about the design of the ship, years ago, it struck me as a poor choice to have the Bridge sitting "on top" (again, meaningless in zero G) instead of tucked away somewhere deep and safe inside.

What was your reason for omitting the "PEZ dispenser" structures on the rear ends of the nacelles on this version?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 10:47am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

You mean rotated? Yes, it struck me as odd that the Bridge would have to be turned a few degrees relative to the long axis of the the ship -- until I realized such configurations are meaningless in a vessel with artificial gravity and "inertial dampers". The Bridge could be UPSIDE-DOWN relative to the rest of the Enterprise, and it really wouldn't matter!

++++++++

Yeah, rotated is what I meant.

For those who don't know...

Matt Jefferies originally designed the ship with an "on-center" bridge. The turbolift was directly behind the Captain's chair, and thus matched the cylindrical nubbin behind the bridge on the exterior of the Enterprise model.

However, before filming began, it was decided to rearrange the consoles so that the lift was to the Captain's left--this allowed for better camera angles in terms of people entering and exiting the set. Unfortunately, this modified Jefferies' original intent, and so (unless that exerior nubbin isn't the turbolift housing) the Captain's chair, helm, and viewscreen are all rotated about 37 degrees off-center.

It's one of those naggy little things--yeah, there's absolutely no reason that the Captain and Helm have to face directly ahead...but...it...just...doesn't...feel...right! Jefferies' design for the ship is very clean and symmetrical, for the most-part, and the rotated bridge has been a sticking point for many.

There have been insanely long discussions about this design aspect of the ship among hardcore TREK fans for many years.

 

I felt justified keeping my tiny decal on-center because:

A) The pilot bridge dome was larger, and so there's theoretically more room for the bridge to not be rotated off-center.

B) The matte shot that opens the pilot has a fairly on-center bridge.

C) People looking at the model might ask me why the bridge is "crooked", and it could negatively reflect on their perception of my skills!

 

Of course, if you push me, I'll defer to the evidence, which supports a rotated bridge on the "real" ship. As you said, JB, there's absolutely no reason for the bridge to have a given orientation--it can be sideways, upside-down, whatever.

 

My next two builds of the model will have an opaque dome, so this won't be an issue.

+++++++++++

What was your reason for omitting the "PEZ dispenser" structures on the rear ends of the nacelles on this version?

+++++++++++++

The "PEZ" detail on the nacelle endcaps was exclusive to the 33" model (which was used for most shots of the ship in the pilot).

That design element was on the construction blueprints and the smaller model, yes, but it never made it onto the 11-footer, which is the version I was trying to replicate.

The 11-footer had featureless endcaps in the first pilot, the grille detail painted on in the second, and the spheres added for production.

I basically split the difference--I left the details on my Constitution, but removed them from my Enterprise.



Edited by Greg Kirkman on 23 May 2010 at 11:12am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 118010
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 11:50am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

…unless that exerior nubbin isn't the turbolift housing…

••

Which is the simplest solution, of course. And the one I have long preferred.

Problem is, once they "squashed" the Bridge, after the second pilot, they kinda messed with how everything is supposed to FIT -- unless we assume the Bridge only sticks up about halfway into the "dome". But that's not how it's drawn in cross-sectional cutaways.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 12:03pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Which is the simplest solution, of course. And the one I have long preferred.

Problem is, once they "squashed" the Bridge, after the second pilot, they kinda messed with how everything is supposed to FIT -- unless we assume the Bridge only sticks up about halfway into the "dome". But that's not how it's drawn in cross-sectional cutaways.

+++++++++

That the nubbin houses the turbolift was the original idea, of course.

Wait...are saying you prefer a centered bridge, then, with the nubbin representing something else? Or the reverse?

 

You wouldn't believe the arguments people have had about this. Some proponents of the "on-center" bridge have suggested...

A) Scaling the ship's theoretical size up to 1080 feet, which would allow the bridge to fit on-center, with the nubbin not being a lift housing.

B) Lowering the bridge into the B-deck area, so that only about about half sticks into the dome, as you said.

 

Interestingly, the classic Jefferies cutaway does support the latter somewhat--the bridge seems slightly recessed into the B/C deck superstructure.



Edited by Greg Kirkman on 23 May 2010 at 12:05pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 9:12pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

As I began thinking "logically" about the design of the ship, years ago, it struck me as a poor choice to have the Bridge sitting "on top" (again, meaningless in zero G) instead of tucked away somewhere deep and safe inside.

++++++++

Right off the bat, I can think of two possible reasons for that design choice:

A) Jefferies may have known that Roddenberry planned on the opening shot where the camera zooms in to the bridge, thus immediately tying the exterior and interior of the ship together for the audience.

B) The Bridge being located at the top level of the ship harkens back to the conning towers of naval ships.



Edited by Greg Kirkman on 24 May 2010 at 9:55am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Bill Mimbu
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 7112
Posted: 23 May 2010 at 9:42pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

From an dramatic standpoint, it also helps the audience relate at a glance where the main characters usually are during a exterior special effects shot...

I'd be hard pressed to point out where the CIC is roughly located on the new Battlestar Galactica during a fly-by, without consulting an interior schematic every time.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12736
Posted: 24 May 2010 at 7:40am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

It had damn well better be located in the deepest heart of the ship where it belongs...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 26 May 2010 at 6:48pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Been doing some preliminary research on the second pilot Enterprise, as well as 1701-A. I may have to go slowly on the latter, since Round2 will likely be releasing upgrade decals before the year is out.

 

Anyone here have any photos of their own models? I love seeing other people's work! Good, bad, or average--it's always fun to see TREK models!

 

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 118010
Posted: 27 May 2010 at 3:25am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

The Bridge being located at the top level of the ship harkens back to the conning towers of naval ships.

••

Well, sure. One of the most "unrealistic" things about STAR TREK has been, from the very beginning, the very gravity-oriented up-down-left-right configuration of 99% of the ships we see. There's no real reason for the Enterprise to be anything more than a sphere, or a cylinder, or a cube! She doesn't land, after all, and isn't, in her traditional shape, even built to land.

But the show is not about creating a realistic view of life in space. It's a whole lot about the comfort levels of the audience. One of the reasons, for instance, that two starships meeting in deep space are always "right side up" to each other. Even when severely damaged!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15686
Posted: 27 May 2010 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Exactly. The "Navy is space" analogy is what makes TREK easier to understand and relate to.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 130 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login