Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by King Daniel Beyond, May 17, 2013.
The sets looked fine.
Booh ! Who wants logic ? We want cool sets !
Nothing. It's a colour.
From what I've read, this was partially intentional as well as financial. Abrams wanted to create an engineering where the parts were exposed and easily accessible. Purely for function. It's the guts of the ship.
Consider it like the gritty engine room of the Titanic and luxurious upper class suites and facilities. Even the lower class berths had relatively few pipes and exposed components compared to the boiler rooms.
Not meaning to pick on you, throwback, but somehow I get the feeling the two of you will have a hard time agreeing on what is visually "fine" and what is not...
Cultures do give meaning to color. I think to say that colors have no meaning shows cultural insensitivity.
In China, white represents purity (a belief shared with the West), brightness, and fulfillment. It, also, was the color of mourning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_in_Chinese_culture) The color white represents death in some Asian and Slavic countries. This belief was shared by the ancient Egyptians, who associated black with life (black soil of land enriched by the Nile). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White)
The Titanic was a passenger liner, not a ship of exploration. I would think the expectations of passengers, especially the well-heeled, would be different from the crew. And I would think the crew of an explorer ship would be expecting their ship to be designed differently from a passenger liner. Form matches function.
It's also going to play host to diplomatic functionaries at some point. There's no reason to assume that they also wouldn't want to create a level of comfort for the crew. Particularly assuming that they were designing the Enterprise for a long term mission.
Even modern warships are designed for better comfort now, the still being built HMS Queen Elizabeth has ensuite toilets and showers and a cinema.
I never thought that the bridge was bright. Well lit, aye, but not star-bright.
You know what the dominant color on most research vessels is? White. And even when in combination with other colors, white is almost always present.
You know what a lot (if not most) bridges on research vessels look like? White with interactive screens, clean lines, and not a bunch of piping everywhere.
You know what engine rooms on research vessels look like? Big mass of piping, machinery, turbines, generators, catwalks and railings.
So, if they "studied the architecture" of modern exploratory vessels, which you mentioned as a good source of inspiration, then I think they did a pretty damn good job of getting the basic appearance down.
Also, you invalidated your own point with your answer to Belz's question:
You say you want them to get inspiration from other futuristic spacecraft, and then say it's been used as a visual metaphor for futuristic technology for decades. So, uh, what's the problem then? It would seem as if they did exactly what you wanted them to.
You mention the Discovery in 2001, but also contrast the crew spaces versus the engineering and working spaces aboard the Nostromo and Sulaco in Alien and Aliens, respectively. The crew corridors, medbay, cryosleep chamber, computer center, and mess hall were stark white, while the engineering corridors and spaces were darker, full of piping and machinery, etc.
Also, the Enterprise bridge is not completely white anyway. It has a red floor, blue roof, blue and black displays, grey and black accents, etc.
Color of the walls aside, putting those round track-lights right within eye-line is just going to burn holes in the crew's retinas. The only purpose they serve is lens-flare generation.
Okay? It's not a real spaceship. It is a set from a movie. There has to be a cool factor to it.
I think there are too many lights on the bridge, though. It's a bit distracting but I don't mind. I just think we'd get a better view of the details and it would seem more like an actual bridge if there were fewer blinding light all over the place.
As you can see in the second photo, the lights point down at the horizontal "desktop" surface of the consoles, not in anyone's eyes.
What we see onscreen with the camera trickery and lighting adjustments is not indicative of what the bridge would be like for someone standing on it. The lights would be much more subdued.
Thank you for the images.
I haven't yet seen them invent their own stuff. I could be wrong. If I am, do what you did above - point it out.
I think the overuse of lens flares detracts from the visual appearance of the bridge.
But that's the opposite of what you said you wanted them to do when you stated that they should have studied ship architecture, exploration vessels, and depictions of futuristic spacecraft in fiction.
Funnily enough, when I was paying attention to the dialogue and events of the movie, the lens flares barely even registered with me. Besides, they're far less prominent in STiD than they were in the previous film. They're an occasionally amusing --if overused-- joke about Abrams Trek, not any real detriment to the film, IMO.
How did they _not_ invent their own stuff ? New sets, new props, new uniforms, new stories. What do you want from them ?
Not to distract from the discussion, but I quite like this picture of all the modern-day bridges:
And if you're at all familiar with the movie Mister Roberts, you know what I'm looking at in the upper left picture!
Henry Fonda threw the captain's palm tree overboard in protest because he wouldn't grant him a transfer to a ship going into combat, right? Man, I haven't seen that movie in about twenty years. Downer of an ending, though.
Yup! Although Pulver's reaction to the news more than made up for the downer, IMO.
Separate names with a comma.