RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,923
Posts: 5,389,341
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 639
Newest member: Count Spockula

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 17 2008, 06:45 AM   #31
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

...Also, the four-foot model was configured a bit differently: the windows above and below the rim are in different places, and the rim is apparently slightly thicker, too. That model could plausibly accommodate Ten-Forward.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 07:47 AM   #32
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post
Or this... ?



Andrew-
Now we get to see the E-D's windshield wipers

Anyway, veering slightly off topic but back to the link in the OT, the thing about the previous bridge design that strikes me is the conference table on the bridge. I love the fact that that design element was brought over to the USS Defiant and the NX-01. Hurray consistency (whether or not it was intended)!
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 08:10 AM   #33
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Veering a bit further... On the Defiant, that table apparently was introduced mainly so that one could pile phaser rifles on it. Did we ever see it used for brainstorming?

On the E-D, there should theoretically have been dedicated rooms for just about everything. Thus, the idea of using Ten-Forward for something else besides drinking is a bit awkward: identical rooms galore should have been available, permanently configured for hosting theatrical plays or archaeological conferences of poetry readings. But one might see why auteur Crusher would want her play to be performed in Ten-Forward specifically, or why Data would wish to gather his friends and drinking buddies there for performing his art.

Similarly, holding the Captain Picard Day fair in the Observation Lounge makes perfect sense, as the setting would be part of the appeal. In general, though, I'd argue that whenever we see a thinly redressed E-D set, it should be interpreted as a separate facility and not an in-universe redressing of a frequently seen facility. Something must be filling the vast interiors of that ship, even if it's just dedicated poetry reading rooms.

Timo Saloniemi

Edit/P.S. : Does anybody else have this problem? Whenever I use an emoticon in the post, and hit "send", the message at first appears without the emoticon and as if I were logged out - no editing buttons or anything. Exiting the page and returning brings back the emoticons and the logged-in look.
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 09:42 AM   #34
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
I dunno. It *might* work.

Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.

And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 02:48 PM   #35
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

ST-One wrote: View Post
Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
I dunno. It *might* work.

Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.
You've got to cut them some slack in that department. You're talking about taking a 4 or 6-foot long model made out of plastic and trying to take curved windows on it conform to a full-sized set. There's got to be a margin of error.

And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.
Ditto what I said above.

In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another when the transporters have ranges of thousands of miles, communications can occur over light years and the weapons have incredible ranges as well. (Phasers are, essentialy, beams of energy/light the Enterprise could be orbiting the moon and tag a spaceship in orbit around Earth.)

The special effects are just there to show us these things so we've an idea what we're looking at/is happening. We're not really meant to disect them and take them litteraly. Ideas and concepts change and cannot be limited to what the curvature of scale of windows are on a 4-foot long hunk of plastic.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 04:18 PM   #36
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Sorry, but it doesn't work.
The interior still doesn't conform to the shape of the exterior of the minature.
You've got to cut them some slack in that department. You're talking about taking a 4 or 6-foot long model made out of plastic and trying to take curved windows on it conform to a full-sized set. There's got to be a margin of error.

ST-One wrote: View Post
And, by dividing that deck into two you blow up all the other windows on the saucer into rediculous proportions.
Ditto what I said above.

In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another when the transporters have ranges of thousands of miles, communications can occur over light years and the weapons have incredible ranges as well. (Phasers are, essentialy, beams of energy/light the Enterprise could be orbiting the moon and tag a spaceship in orbit around Earth.)

The special effects are just there to show us these things so we've an idea what we're looking at/is happening. We're not really meant to disect them and take them litteraly. Ideas and concepts change and cannot be limited to what the curvature of scale of windows are on a 4-foot long hunk of plastic.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
Of course they had to make compromises during production.

But Ten-Forward is one of those cases were a perfectly good design concept was abandoned and replaced with something ... well... something.

They had the opportunity to build a visually very exciting set but didn't use it.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 06:39 PM   #37
Probert
Starfleet Design
 
Probert's Avatar
 
Location: Earth, N. America, 21st Century
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-
Probert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 06:44 PM   #38
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
 
Location: An "American" in Friedrichshafen, Deutschland
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post
These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-
And Thus Spake Probert.

TGT
GodThingFormerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 07:26 PM   #39
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post
Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-
Now tell us how you really feel.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 11:05 PM   #40
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post
Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-
Mr. Probert, I've great respect for you. I do. You designed my favorite ship of the franchsie and I agree with what you just said.

TPTB, the ones with the final say in things too often sacraficed things making sense in order to save a dime or two or because they underestimated the needs of the fans.

I'm sure if they had listened to you and your co-workers closer and followed your suggestions things would've been much greater.

But, in the end, we got what we got. And, all due respect, the special effects, model shots, and how everything fits together is secondary to stories and characters.

I *know* that the Stargazer couldn't of been that big. It doesn't make sense. I also know that model and model shots were time consuming and expensive back then and it may not have been entirely possible to make the two fit into scale. So we end up with, well, something that doesn't make sense.

Now I, as the viewer, can either get upset, proclaim that the Proudcers hate me, hate the show and don't care and write of letters or complain on the internet about it or I can just assume what I'm seeing isn't "the way things are" and is just the way they're shown to me on the TV due to the limitations of the medium.

I can look at the model of the -D and see that the rim windows don't allow for 10-Fwd's windows and the scale is out of wack when we consider 10Fwd's set and either get mad and call people idiot for doing it or I can just assume the "special effects are wrong" because obviously what we're seeing on screen (the live set) tells me that 10-Fwd is on the underside of the saucer with windows to reflect that.

Would your idea of 10-Fwd been perfectly placed on the rim with upper and lower windows have been cool? You bet it would have been! And it'd have the bonus of being accurate. (I do wonder what that does to the alignment of the other decks and the 42-deck count.) But it's not, so it isn't, so I shrug and so oh-well. Doesn't effect my enjoyment of the show any and doesn't do any good to get upset over something that occured 20 years ago.



Again, sir. With all due respect and admiration of your work and ideas. I say again, had you been given a whole lot more freedom things in the series would've been a whole lot more fascinating and interesting.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2008, 11:42 PM   #41
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

ST-One wrote: View Post
Probert wrote: View Post
Shrekker4747 wrote: View Post
You've got to cut them some slack in that department.
In the end the model and the effects are there just to give us an "idea" of what is going on. If we're going to examine every single model shot in this series then we're going to have a LOT of questions. As to why the size of the Stargazer is so great compared to the Ent-D (when the Constellation would be much smaller in comparison), the sizes of the BOPs tend to be much greater, starships routinely encounter one another practicaly sitting ontop of one another.

This is anal-ness to a great degree.

Cut-away diagrams have been done fitting the 42-decks into the ship, fudging 10-forward into the saucer-rim. It's what's established as "canon" from what we've seen on screen. Now we must "make" it work while also cutting them some slack.
As Science Fiction fans, all too frequently disappointed by the crap these ignorant idiot producers force on us, I don't think we should be giving them any slack. That's how this stuff keeps coming back on us.

Imagine a movie about the beheading of Marie Antoinette that shows her head being sawed off with a plastic butter knife (because it was a cheaper prop). Would you give those producers some slack?

One of the reasons I left TNG was the constant battles I had trying to get "those in charge" to understand their audience and it's expectations. When the E-D was too large for the ILM Space Dock, the Producers (not Gene, who wasn't in charge by then) shrugged and stated that it was now a larger Dock. When I asked everybody why the guest-ship-of-the-week was ALWAYS too large, they told me it would be hard to see the smaller ship. When I explained that it would show the true size of the E-D,... they shrugged it off. The same narrow-mindedness embraced the nose-to-nose ship rendezvous, with consideration of scale ignored by those who were incapable of understanding it. The Conference Lounge had a door label containing that designation all through the show until the sets were struck, yet Burman suddenly decides to call it an "observation lounge",... so that now is supposed to be canon? Observation Lounges were designed into the rim of the ship's two hulls, and the Conference Lounge was designed for Command Officers' meetings... all approved by Gene.

These people are more interested in placing their own egotistical brand on something than honor the norm, not to mention understanding the concept of continuity. That's why you have different uniforms, weapons, and communicators in every Trek motion picture. Look at the movie with the Regula space station. Everybody knows it's the Space Office complex turned upside down and they were too cheap/lazy to even change the windows... or they assumed we all were too stupid to notice it. So how does that work? You drop to your knees to look out the damn windows???

That's why spaceships fly like airplanes (except in 'Babylon 5', thank you). That's why the new Godzilla didn't look like it was supposed to. That's why the flying saucer in the upcoming 'Day The Earth Stood Still' will look like a frickin' bubble, and that's why the new Trek movie will look the way it does.

No,... these people are degrading the genre and they deserve NO slack.

Andrew-
Now tell us how you really feel.
?

Probert just took a not-at-all veiled swipe at the precious and inviolate Star Trek XI. Let him have it!

(Aside to Mr. Probert: You are, of course, completely right.)
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2008, 01:03 AM   #42
Probert
Starfleet Design
 
Probert's Avatar
 
Location: Earth, N. America, 21st Century
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Please don't get me wrong... I'm not upset at what you all are saying, in fact every thread I've visited, on this BBS, has been full of helpful critiques and valuable opinions and this one is no exception. I enjoy your insights, intellect, and humor.

Yes, I totally agree that the visuals are there to support the story; no question. But what gets me is the fact that people are typically put in charge of projects they don't understand. Here's an example: Berman was asked if we (the FX guys) could shoot the Enterprise departing,... not horizontally like we see time after time at the end of each episode,... but angle straight up or veer downward to it's next destination. He said no "because it would confuse the audience". * What ??? * Space is three dimensional... it would be awesome to see an unexpected move like that.

Let's hope things get better. I'm still working on my own show, FRONTIER, so maybe that will be the real eye-opener for me.

Andrew-
Probert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2008, 01:13 AM   #43
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Well, Berman was an idiot.

The spiraling demise of the franchise with Voyager and Enterprise proved that. As he vastly underestimated the audience. VASTLY.

He wanted "show vanilla" just generic TV he could shovel out and make a dime on. And I say this as someone who LOVES TNG but even I realize how "vanilla" it was at times compared to how it should've been,

Anyone, ANYONE in charge rather than Berman could've done great things. The guy only should've been running the money and financing of the show, not making creative decisions like that. If he given the creators a bit more of looser leash it'd of been amazing what TNG, Voyager and Enterprise could've become.

But stories like your are "par for the course" on things I've read on those who've worked with Berman. He was only interested in putting the basest of "product" out there, not caring about quality or creativity. I mean, wasn't he the one who insisted on switching over to "music wallpaper" rather than much bolder music?
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2008, 01:28 AM   #44
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post
Please don't get me wrong... I'm not upset at what you all are saying, in fact every thread I've visited, on this BBS, has been full of helpful critiques and valuable opinions and this one is no exception. I enjoy your insights, intellect, and humor.

Yes, I totally agree that the visuals are there to support the story; no question. But what gets me is the fact that people are typically put in charge of projects they don't understand. Here's an example: Berman was asked if we (the FX guys) could shoot the Enterprise departing,... not horizontally like we see time after time at the end of each episode,... but angle straight up or veer downward to it's next destination. He said no "because it would confuse the audience". * What ??? * Space is three dimensional... it would be awesome to see an unexpected move like that.

Let's hope things get better. I'm still working on my own show, FRONTIER, so maybe that will be the real eye-opener for me.

Andrew-
Your own show? I'm intrigued. Any other details, or is this Majestic 12/Area 51 levels of secrecy?
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2008, 03:18 AM   #45
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: With the Dead Poets
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: The "original" Ten-Forward

Probert wrote: View Post

Yes, I totally agree that the visuals are there to support the story; no question. But what gets me is the fact that people are typically put in charge of projects they don't understand. Here's an example: Berman was asked if we (the FX guys) could shoot the Enterprise departing,... not horizontally like we see time after time at the end of each episode,... but angle straight up or veer downward to it's next destination. He said no "because it would confuse the audience". * What ??? * Space is three dimensional... it would be awesome to see an unexpected move like that.
It's the Dilbert Principle at work. Just the other night, we got an email at my workplace from someone in management. We have these uniform T-shirts which were made to commemorate the number of people our business locally served in 2007 (a bit more than 10,000), and we've been wearing them interchangeably with our other work shirts. That's been true for probably a good six months now.

So this email we got yesterday said that, effectively immediately, we were only allowed to wear these T-shirts one day a week instead of whenever we chose to wear them to work. Their reasoning? T-shirts are "casual" clothes and don't look as "professional" as our other shirts. Even those that are clearly designed as a uniform. I don't really mind personally, but I do think management was bored.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.