Photo request -- Enterprise hangar deck studio miniature

[alchemist]

If this photo is from a crafty recreation of the original shuttle hanger deck model, then the recreation is spot on. I just checked a high res scan of one of my film clips that shows the original model, and the sign between the two bays (above the six cone-like objects) appears to indeed say "FUELING STATION."

 

[Maurice]

It's not a different model; just layman photoanalysis gone horribly wrong.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I just checked a high res scan of one of my film clips that shows the original model, and the sign between the two bays (above the six cone-like objects) appears to indeed say "FUELING STATION."

Wow! Would you mind sharing this with us?

Since "FUELING STATION" is not on the signage sheet Mr. Datin stated he used for the shuttlebay, this may help us to approximate whether Mr. Datin did have bad memory (as suggested by Maurice) or not.

Bob

 

[ZapBrannigan]

This is a little off-topic, and I'm probably the last man on the planet to notice it, but here goes. I was struck by how narrow the overhead Observation Deck is in the filming miniature. If that's all there was to the Obs Deck, it would make the hallway (used by Kirk and Lenore Karidian) about two feet wide.

It turns out that Matt Jeffries' Hangar Deck plans (elevation views) in The Making of Star Trek show that the bay's inner walls are not the ship's outer hull. There's an inner shell through which only part of the Observation Deck's width pokes into the Hangar bay. This leaves a gap of about five feet between the Hangar interior and the ship's hull.

I found this surprising because over the years I've spent more time with the Franz Joseph drawings. Apparently FJ felt that the Hangar Deck would be too small in an inner shell.

 

[Warped9]

I've always accepted that the hangar walls were an inner shell and MJ's drawings show this (in TMoST) long before we get FJ's plans.

 

[Christopher]

With those doors on the side, I don't see how it could be anything but an inner shell.

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ ZapBrannigan

Apparently you are not the "last man on the planet" not to be capable to do a proper photoanalysis as this would be me.

Noticing what seem or are discrepancies and asking questions about these is "horribly wrong". I don't think the real Rod Serling (RIP) would have ever approved such an attitude.

Bob

 

[Warped9]

To me this remains one of the most fantastic set designs (even if it is miniature) in all of science fiction on television and film. The whole way it was depicted with the controlled launch/landing of the shuttlecraft and the working turntable---just awesome.

Yeah, I could nitpick, knowing the shuttlecraft is scaled too small and the hangar looks a bit too long, but the overall visual effect (enhanced with sound f/x and music) is just bloody amazing. I've seen the TOS-R remake of these scenes and they just look flat and uninspired. In addition the TOS-R shuttlecraft launches look like cartoons whereas the original makes it easy to believe the controlled launches/landings are being done on automatic (which they probably would be if real).

 

[Robert Comsol]

I could nitpick, knowing the shuttlecraft is scaled too small and the hangar looks a bit too long.

I think we are looking at the hangar with "X-ray vision", i.e. the back wall with the central piece of the U-shaped observation corridor has been conveniently "removed", because otherwise it would not have been possible to capture the entire hangar like this on film.

Bob

 

[Praetor]

Much like the engineering "cathedral," one of the things that has always intrigued me the most is just how much of a forced perspective we are looking at here. We know the miniature itself was built with a degree of forced perspective.

 

[Warped9]

Much like the engineering "cathedral," one of the things that has always intrigued me the most is just how much of a forced perspective we are looking at here. We know the miniature itself was built with a degree of forced perspective.

From what I've read I don't think the miniature actually was built with forced perspective even though the drawings in TMoST would lead you to believe so.

 

[neoworx]

@ ZapBrannigan

Apparently you are not the "last man on the planet" not to be capable to do a proper photoanalysis as this would be me.

Noticing what seem or are discrepancies and asking questions about these is "horribly wrong". I don't think the real Rod Serling (RIP) would have ever approved such an attitude.

Bob

It's a difficult thing to get your head around so I certainly understand the confusion. Think of it like this. You are assuming that the camera is in the same place and pointed in the same direction in all the shots, ie: along the center line of the deck. I am assuming that in the two "Wall" photos that the camera is first moved left and is pointed to the port wall and then the opposite way in the second.

Imagine standing 20 feet out from your garage door along its center axis. Looking forward, you'll see things slightly differently than if you move slightly left or right. You see the same stuff, but not in the same way.

That's what I think is happening here.

As for shots that are done right down the center, a normal lens would yield one type of detail while a wide angle would yield another. A telephoto would yield yet a third field of view. You can shoot with all three lenses and get the same structures in the shots, but all three will look different. Specifically, things on different planes will "move" relative to other structures.

 

[Praetor]

From what I've read I don't think the miniature actually was built with forced perspective even though the drawings in TMoST would lead you to believe so.

Interesting... what was the deal with the drawings, then?

 

[Christopher]

I just checked the shuttlebay diagrams in TMoST, and I don't see any indication of forced perspective there. They depict the length and proportions of the shuttlebay in a manner consistent with the profile drawings of the Enterprise on other pages.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I'm stuck at work now. With respect to the size of the ship's exterior, has anybody measured to see if there's really room for Jeffries' inner shell, meaning Franz Joseph's version of the Hangar is too big?

Or did FJ fix a scaling error by elimating the shell and having the Hangar's inner wall be the ship's hull?

 

[Warped9]

When Gary Kerr was researching for Round2/Polar Lights' 1/350 scale TOS Enterprise model kit he learned that you can get such a hangar deck into the ship. McGagen (who posts on Hobbytalk) has built a 3D Enterprise with a MJ hangar exactly where it's supposed to be. His work is outstanding, too.

It will fit in a 947ft. ship, but it's a close fit. A 1080ft. ship would give you a bit more room to play with. Matt Jefferies had a pretty damned good idea of what he was doing.

 

[blssdwlf]

It'll sorta fit in a 947' ship if you make the side bays very narrow. Fits comfortably in a 1084' ship. The observation deck seen from "The Conscience of the King" however will not fit in any of the observation areas as seen on screen and the only place I would or could put that space is forward of the flight deck (basically behind the camera's position.)

 

[Maurice]

Sorry, Christopher, but everything about those drawings smacks of forced perspective.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Specifically, things on different planes will "move" relative to other structures.

I am aware of the distortions created by different shooting angles and the use of different lenses.

But here is, again, what is apparently the original VFX model prior to last minute additions (signage, equipment [?] box):

And here is the color close-up that is supposedly a shot of the same and original VFX model:

In the color shot the photpgrapher has moved closer to the port side wall and logically the inner shuttlebay wall is now shielding parts of the embayments from our view.

But the long embayment is not nearly deep enough to enable the inner shuttlebay wall to possibly shield that much of this embayment (and to get this close to the "Warning Fire" sign), IMO.
Also, in the original shot the "Elevators" black direction arrow is outside the white text field while in the close-up shot it is inside the white text field!


Regarding the Jefferies sketches of the hangar deck I find it interesting that in the side view cross-section sketch the observation corridor has pairs of triple windows, while the stern view cross-section suggests only pairs ot two.

Almost looks like the shuttlebay model builders didn't know which one was the final word and went along with the suggestion of the stern view cross-section.

Bob

 

[Christopher]

Sorry, Christopher, but everything about those drawings smacks of forced perspective.

First off: Compare them to the side views of the ship several pages earlier and later. The proportions are consistent. The shuttlebay is supposed to taper toward the rear. This isn't a case where a set or miniature is tapered to create the illusion of something longer and straighter. You can clearly see that the rear of the ship itself does, in fact, taper.

Second: If it were a forced-perspective miniature, then those diagrams would be of the miniature. But they're not. They're rendered as cutaway diagrams of the "actual" ship, complete with the outer hull and the dome on top, things that wouldn't have been seen in the miniature and thus wouldn't have been built. Plus there are the people standing there for scale. So those drawings are meant to be representations of the full-size hangar bay within the ship, not construction plans for a miniature.