Discovery in Variety

[BillJ]

If that's right, I stand corrected. However, after a quick search, I couldn't find any other figures. So, it's uncertain for now.

It could be more, I can always be wrong. But the number quoted has nothing to back it up.

 

[shapeshifter]

In other words, that empty space might be where the video cameras go and hence won't be visible.

Bingo! I can't believe that needed to be said.

 

[BillJ]

Bingo! I can't believe that needed to be said.

It has never been done before. Most bridge sets come apart to allow access for close in shots. It makes the bridge look silly.

 

[Mr Awe]

Bingo! I can't believe that needed to be said.

If you haven't been around sets, it's one of those things that's not always obvious. Sets generally tend to look larger on screen, but you can also strategically hide empty spaces.

I recently visited the TOS New Voyages sets and was surprised by the size of the empty space in the transporter room between the control station and the pads. Obviously, the cameras are often there. And the space isn't obvious when you're shooting over the control station towards the pads. I took pictures and the space looks weird from angles not used on the show. But, totally normal when from the standard angles. I bet that's what happened with the photoshoot--non-standard angles.

Lenses make a huge difference too. I visited the actual TARDIS set for Doctor Who (used during the late Smith series and all of Capaldi), and I couldn't get a great photo until I popped on a wide angle lens and then it looked more like the show. In person, the set is not small, but smaller than it looks onscreen.

If the magazine photographer doesn't use all the same tricks that the show does during filming, it's going to look different.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

Agreed. Although, in a funny sense, the "pajamas" in TOS (and the Kelvin movies) might be the most practical for a crew on a starship because they look the most comfortable and good for everyday wear. The ones on TNG and beyond don't look comfortable at all.

I have a STB Kirk top and it's actually very comfortable. Neck line/dicky doesn't bother you and fabric/fit allow for easy movement.

Can easily see wearing as a duty uniform all shift w no issues

 

[Jadeb]

While I'm sure it will look different on the show, the split helm and con appear to be fixed in place, as does the captain's chair. That's a weird dead space in the middle, cameraman or no cameraman. I much prefer the traditional TOS configuration. (Never liked all the dead space on the TNG bridge, either.)

I'm guessing the viewscreen will be pretty huge to balance things out.

 

[RAMA]

It is a lot of money, but it's really not that much more that Enterprise when you adjust for inflation. Enterprise had about $5,000,000 per episode which is about $7 million in today's dollars. So, it is an increase, but not as extreme as it's frequently made out to be.

This has all been discussed before, with little agreement, though I used to keep tabs on this back in the day (feels like so long ago).

So to summarize, pattern avg budget:

1. TOS(1969): $186,000 per episode($1,227,229.00 in 2017)
2. STNG(1994): $1.4 million(Started at $1.3 million)($2,293,844.71 in 2017)
3. DS9(1999): $1.5 million($2,186,891.01 in 2017)
4. VOY(2001): $1.8 million($2,471,199.10)
5. ENT(2005): $1.5 million($1,846,976.86)

I've seen people say Enterprise was $3-5 million per episode but there is no credible evidence for this that I have seen. Also there was supposedly a drop to $850,000 in season 4, but again, there is no credible evidence.

DSC- $8.5 million

RAMA

 

[CorporalClegg]

It has never been done before. Most bridge sets come apart to allow access for close in shots. It makes the bridge look silly.

As I said up-thread, expect a lot of hand-held stuff, where modular set-pieces are kind of useless.

 

[BillJ]

As I said up-thread, expect a lot of hand-held stuff, where modular set-pieces are kind of useless.

If they're doing a lot of hand held stuff, then the huge gaping spaces really shouldn't be necessary. At least, not to the degree we're seeing on the Discovery bridge. Looks like I could park a 70's Lincoln Continental with room to spare.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

This has all been discussed before, with little agreement, though I used to keep tabs on this back in the day (feels like so long ago).

So to summarize, pattern avg budget:

1. TOS(1969): $186,000 per episode($1,227,229.00 in 2017)
2. STNG(1994): $1.4 million(Started at $1.3 million)($2,293,844.71 in 2017)
3. DS9(1999): $1.5 million($2,186,891.01 in 2017)
4. VOY(2001): $1.8 million($2,471,199.10)
5. ENT(2005): $1.5 million($1,846,976.86)

I've seen people say Enterprise was $3-5 million per episode but there is no credible evidence for this that I have seen. Also there was supposedly a drop to $850,000 in season 4, but again, there is no credible evidence.

DSC- $8.5 million

RAMA

I don't lknow if IMDB is credible evidence, but this page claims ENT had a $5M per episode budget.

The plain and somewhat minimalistic design of the Enterprise's interior from Star Trek was a financial necessity in those days. As the show was on a very tight budget, the art department couldn't afford too many accessories on the bridge, and production designer Walter M. Jefferies had to keep the design sleek and simple. (The original Star Trek had a budget of $185,000 per episode, equivalent to $1,330,000 in 2013 dollars. Star Trek: Enterprise had a budget of about $5,000,000 per episode.) One indication that this was by necessity and not by design, is that the upgraded Enterprise (the 1701) in the first 3 Star Trek films looked far more futuristic and sophisticated, consistent with the movies' substantially higher budget. Paradoxically, the old, minimalistic design has been hailed by many as an example of efficiency, and elements of the blueprint have even found their way into modern military vehicles (upon seeing the upgraded Enterprise, Jefferies complained that they had "turned it into the lobby of the Hilton").

 

[Mr Awe]

While I'm sure it will look different on the show, the split helm and con appear to be fixed in place, as does the captain's chair. That's a weird dead space in the middle, cameraman or no cameraman. I much prefer the traditional TOS configuration. (Never liked all the dead space on the TNG bridge, either.)

I'm guessing the viewscreen will be pretty huge to balance things out.

I can't disagree based on what we've seen so far, but I'll wait to judge until we see it onscreen. The spacing probably doesn't look like it does in the magazine but it remains to be seen if it looks good onscreen.

 

[Mr Awe]

I don't lknow if IMDB is credible evidence, but this page claims ENT had a $5M per episode budget.

So, it's a white hole then? Because we're back to the middle of this conversation.

Given your RD avatar, you'll get the reference!

 

[Jedi_Master]

Indeed!

And it looks huge!

Love the bridge. Sad we won't see more Michelle Yeoh on the show...

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Indeed!

And it looks huge!

Looks great. It does remind me of the TMP Enterprise bridge.

 

[Noname Given]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

Because - Motion Picture aspect ration. [And CBS is very happy with STO so maybe they want to give them a break going forward ]

Every time they rethink Star Trek I hope that they'll design sets that look plausibly like a high-tech environment where people might actually be doing work, with instruments and details that are persuasive as possibly real.

Something like the interiors in Avatar. nuBSG, even.

Trek designers never do, and Discovery hasn't either. The sets are lushly-designed, rather preposterous fantasy environments and nothing more.

Same goes for uniforms and clothing - no one expects people in Star Trek to dress like people who have things to do, and for the most part the characters don't.

Well the U.S. navy did study the TOS bridge layout and found it very functional back in the 1960ies:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=U.S.+navy+studied+Star+Trek+Bridge+layout&source=bl&ots=IFvJgP_ivk&sig=2DGZSMqQ-5N0VC8nu_M5soM4uvM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUl5TJyP_VAhXiylQKHTNjBAkQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=U.S. navy studied Star Trek Bridge layout&f=false
From that article:

And recently the U.S. Navy sent a group to study the layout of the Enterprise's command bridge. The functional and efficient bridge served as a model for a new communications center they were designing.

[See the last paragraph of the page numbered 74 in the above link]

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I have never seen Galaxy Quest.

Then you're a pig-lizard.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You aren't digging the track suits that are used in thousands of malls by senior citizens across America?!?

For me, the Discovery bridge set feels like a TV production stage.

Yeah -- but we are looking a pictures of a TV production stage, and not production stills from a finished TV show.

The photographer from Variety did not necessarily set up his camera like they would for production or use the same angles and lenses.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah -- but we are looking a pictures of a TV production set, and not production stills from a finished TV show.

You are right. The proof will be in the finished pudding. But right now? That bridge reminds me of the Enterprise-E, and that's not a good thing in my book.

 

[JD]

I love the Enterprise-E bridge.
I like the Discovery one too. I was expecting something a lot more compact, but like you guys said it could look pretty different when it's onscreen than it does in the photos.

 

[Michael]

I actually like that it's so big. Somehow makes it look more realistic to me as a workplace where everyone needs room for their station and you can realistically have a conversation on one side without disturbing the others. I look at it basically as an office room in space. Or a NASA flight control room like this one.

Looking back, some of the bridges in Star Trek have been rather cramped, like the bridge of the Defiant or even the NX-01, which I love, but isn't necessarily spacious.