Bridge Tour Promo

[tenmei]

I have very often re-read my library of classic science fiction novel (Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Bova, etc). A book I might re-read in 2017 will elicit different images in my mind of the technology being described compared to the images those exact same words might have elicited when I first read that book in, say 1987 -- or the images the words would have elicited if I read that same book when it was published in the 1960 s or 1970s.

The written descriptions don't change (obviously the words are the same), but the ideas on my mind of what those words are describing changes.

More to the point...
...I suppose If I read a Star Trek novel in 2017 that took place during "The Cage" timeline, but took place aboard a totally different ship, I would most likely not imagine that ship having gooseneck viewers, nor would I imagine that their communicators have visible resistors in their circuitry, or that they were all wearing velour turtlenecks.. I would probably imagine more futuristic-looking technology (and art direction in general) than what I saw in "The Cage".

Maybe if I read this fictitious Cage-era book in the 1960s the written descriptions might elicit "The Cage" visuals in my head, but not if I read that same book and same written description in 2017.

I like the idea that they put forward in the finale of Babylon 5 - that the entire five years and associated tv-movies (and presumably the spin-offs) were a result of the series being an in-universe dramatisation of actual events and may not have accurately portrayed the real events creating some anachronisms and/or contradictions.

Perhaps ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY were a dramatisation of key events in Federation history made post-Nemesis, whilst DISCO is the actual version of these events - or another historical dramatisation but by a different production team in 2450.

Think of how The Tudors chops and changes Henry's family ties, eliminates characters then has to retroactively insert them when they become important later or conflate them with others. The White Princess and The White Queen have the same issue - even when they're intended to be in the same continuity (and share several cast members continuing in roles), at times they contadict each other and contradict history too.

 

[Michael]

Has anyone tried to sketch the layout of the Discovery and Shenzhou Bridges yet?

Well, I put my whole Saturday into it.

A lot of conjecture there, of course. Spent a lot of time staring at screenshots and figuring out how everything fits together. I'm confident about a lot of my assumptions, but the sides of the navigator/helm consoles are never seen anywhere (as far as I know), so there's a lot of guesswork.

As always, when I work on something like this I gain a lot of appreciation for the design and artistry of it. This bridge set might not be revolutionary compared to earlier bridge sets, but they sure put a lot of thought and dedication into everything. Its angles and shapes strike me as very utilitarian, just like the outside of the ship.

 

[tenmei]

Yours is better than mine - and seems we agree on the lay-out!

I noted a corridor through the doors directly behind the Captain's chair as am sure we saw that in some of the promo-shots at some point.

 

[Tuskin38]

Have we even seen the front of the bridge yet? The Viewscreen? I feel like we haven't.

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

Have we even seen the front of the bridge yet? The Viewscreen? I feel like we haven't.

With the idea that discovery is a science vessel experimenting with new things it could see it be a testbed. I want there to be a moment on the discovery bridge where Lorca wants them to magnify on something and they can only do so much more. Then he says "let's try our new toy" or something to that effect and a view screen slides down over the window . Would never happen but it's fun to think about.

 

[tenmei]

Have we even seen the front of the bridge yet? The Viewscreen? I feel like we haven't.

@MvRojo posted the following link which says there is a view-screen and the doors at the back are a Turbolift and the door to the Ready Room -
http://www.startrek.com/article/a-day-on-the-discovery-sets

 

[F. King Daniel]

In what way? They seem to work like ordinary forcefields always worked in Star Trek.

In the TNG era, where they can summon forcefields anywhere to close hull breaches.

In TOS, we needed to depressurise and re-pressurise the shuttlebay to land a shuttle. 10 years before, the USS Shenzhou shuttlebay has an atmospheric forcefield. In Wrath of Khan, 25 years onward from DSC, we had big containment doors come down to seal hull breaches in engineering. In STVI, 35 years onward from DSC, we have containment doors sealing off breaches when a hole is blown in the saucer. The first time we see forcefields to seal hull breaches in Trek is 2293, after Jim Kirk is presumed dead on the Enterprise-B. That's 37 years after they have catastrophic hull breaches sealed with TNG-style forcefields as seen in the DSC trailer (which has a jump reminiscent of Data's dive from the Enterprise to the Scimitar)

 

[WarpFactorZ]

In TOS, we needed to depressurise and re-pressurise the shuttlebay to land a shuttle.

That's one line from one episode (Journey to Babel). Is it ever mentioned elsewhere?

In Wrath of Khan, 25 years onward from DSC, we had big containment doors come down to seal hull breaches in engineering. In STVI, 35 years onward from DSC, we have containment doors sealing off breaches when a hole is blown in the saucer.

Since hull breach / venting to space is probably THE biggest hazard on a starship, I would think they are designed with multiple redundant protective measures against it. In both cases you mention, if the hull breaches weren't already sealed by something (force field), the crew we see fleeing would have to fight being blown into space.

It stands to reason that the containment doors we see coming down are there in case the force field fails, to protect other parts of the ship. Also, the doors coming down in TUC are on the Excelsior, which suffered no hull breach. See 4:00 here:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

By the time TNG rolls around, force field technology has simply reduced the need for these extra doors.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It wasn't one line from TOS, we saw the pressure gauge outside the door to the shuttlebay!

If they had the Discovery forcefields in TOS, why weren't they used to stop Bele and Lokai during their silly runaround? Or to contain the Klingons in "Day of the Dove"? Or a dozen other examples?

This whole "pretend the stuff that wasn't even thought of in 1966 was always there but unseen" mindset is ridiculous. Touchscreens? Nope. 3D hologram communications? A new technology in Deep Space Nine, set over a century later.

Just accept they've taken massive creative liberties. I have.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

This whole "pretend the stuff that wasn't even thought of in 1966 was always there but unseen" mindset is ridiculous.
...
Just accept they've taken massive creative liberties. I have.

Better to pretend it was always there, then demand it not be there because it wasn't before. I'm accepting that the tech is consistent with TOS, just as I accept that Klingons have always had bumpy foreheads. I'll enjoy the show my way, you enjoy it yours.

 

[fireproof78]

If it's fun and entertaining, with intriguing characters. then minor inconsistencies are easy to ignore or dismiss.

 

[kirk55555]

But no one appointed you King of All Trekkies and Arbiter of who are or are not TrueFans. This nonsense where you attack the people making a movie or series because they fail your extreme standards of ideological purity is out of line and needs to stop. Insinuating that people, some of whom have spent the bulk of their career working in and around the franchise, don't care about Star Trek or making a decent product is insulting and frankly stupid. Just because they're more flexible than you and understand that slavishly following the bridge design from half a century ago is less important then making good stories with good characters and good dialogue doesn't mean they don't care about Star Trek. And whenever it's possible, they have gone the extra mile to make sure things like the props match up with their TOS counterparts, but that's not the top priority, nor should it be.

Well, I don't believe they're making good stories, good characters or good dialog, either. I mean, having those but failing the design is a failed show anyway in this case, but there is nothing shown about those other elements that was anything but horrible. As of right now I'm sure Enterprise Season 1 will end up having been more successful at those elements. As for props, I haven't seen one yet that had more then a passing resemblance to a TOS prop, in that they look vaguely similar but around 30-50 years more advanced, like the tricorder and communicator.

The worst part about it is, you almost always end up going back on your earlier comments once you see the finished product and find out it wasn't as bad as what you thought it would be, yet you never learn from that and dial down the vitriol beforehand. It's not against the rules to insult the showrunner's Trek fan purity, so you're not in any trouble, but you have to know how people react to your over-the-top rants by this point well enough to know when you're going to be pushing buttons. Stop it.

Well, off the top of my head only Wonder Woman and GOTG2 have every had me go back on earlier comments, so I'm doing pretty well in that regard. Almost everything I think will be terrible ends up being terrible, and the two exceptions I can think of were superhero movies. I'm solid at Science Fiction predictions (meaning predicting my own opinion obviously, not predicting the general consensus). That said, I will stop making personal comments about the production crew. That is understood, and I think my opinion on them is well known at this point anyway.

I do resent the implication that I'm trying to rile anyone up because I "know the reaction" to my posts, or that I rant or go over the top. I post my own opinion, some people can handle opposing opinions and then sometimes I do get too heating defending myself, I'll admit that. But I never intentionally try to piss people off.

You keep repeating this notion ad nauseum as if it's a given, but you do not provide any explanation or support whatsoever for it.

I find that the Discovery bridge looks a lot more utilitarian and industrial in comparison to the advanced, comfortable nature of the TNG era. Discovery is a workhorse. The Ent-D is a flying luxury hotel.

Kor

The images released are all the support I need. It looks like the bridge of the Enterprise-J from Enterprise, not a ship that is around at the time of the original Enterprise. Its hilariously advanced compared to TNG, much less TOS or 10 years before TOS. It seems obvious to me with all the touch screens and all the displays that are decades more advanced at minimum then anything TNG had.

 

[Tuskin38]

It looks like the bridge of the Enterprise-J from Enterprise,

We never seen that bridge.

Kirk, Discovery would never have looked remotely like Cage Era tech, no matter who made it.

No modern audience would buy an advanced space ship from the 23rd century with what TOS had.

It worked in the 60s, but it doesn't work in the 21st century.

Hell, the way real life tech is going, by the real 2150s we'd probably have less buttons then what was shown in Enterprise.

 

[The Librarian]

The images released are all the support I need. It looks like the bridge of the Enterprise-J from Enterprise, not a ship that is around at the time of the original Enterprise. Its hilariously advanced compared to TNG, much less TOS or 10 years before TOS. It seems obvious to me with all the touch screens and all the displays that are decades more advanced at minimum then anything TNG had.

You still refuse to answer my question and actually say what is more advanced about the touchscreens. TNG had touchscreens on basically every surface. Every time you seen an LCARS-style interface, that's a touchscreen. They've always been described as such and routinely shown that way in close-ups.

 

[Kor]

You still refuse to answer my question and actually say what is more advanced about the touchscreens. TNG had touchscreens on basically every surface. Every time you seen an LCARS-style interface, that's a touchscreen. They've always been described as such and routinely shown that way in close-ups.

This.

And the Discovery bridge goes back to using manual buttons and switches. Obviously, it is not more advanced than the TNG era.

Actually, I was thinking how I can totally believe everyday office chairs are a natural precursor to what Kirk's bridge had.

Not just a precursor. The chairs in TOS were a slight variation of the futuristic mid-century modern "tulip" design originally by Eero Sarinen for Knoll company and copied by Burke of Dallas Texas:
http://www.filmandfurniture.com/2014/11/startrek-tulip-chair/

Kor

 

[Campe]

The images released are all the support I need. It looks like the bridge of the Enterprise-J from Enterprise, not a ship that is around at the time of the original Enterprise. Its hilariously advanced compared to TNG, much less TOS or 10 years before TOS. It seems obvious to me with all the touch screens and all the displays that are decades more advanced at minimum then anything TNG had.

Well... gosh... again, they've chosen to extrapolate a future from this year, 2017, to create a futuristic visual style in the 2250s. As someone else suggested, neither the Shenzou's nor the Discovery's sets were going to look like the Enterprise from "The Cage."

You can choose not to like it or you can choose to accept it. However, it's really time for fandom to accept the fact that this is the way it is.

 

[mdtauk]

It seems, this article on StarTrek.com says the bridge of the Discovery is comparable in size to the Enterprise D's
http://www.startrek.com/article/a-day-on-the-discovery-sets

 

[Mirror Mirror]

It seems, this article on StarTrek.com says the bridge of the Discovery is comparable in size to the Enterprise D's
http://www.startrek.com/article/a-day-on-the-discovery-sets

It listed VOY as well. And it looks a bit larger than the Intrepid bridge, but sets have kept getting larger.

 

[mdtauk]

It listed VOY as well. And it looks a bit larger than the Intrepid bridge, but sets have kept getting larger.

AFAIK the Galaxy Class and Intrepid Class bridges were on the sound stage and similar in size. Just different in shape

 

[kirk55555]

We never seen that bridge.

Kirk, Discovery would never have looked remotely like Cage Era tech, no matter who made it.

No modern audience would buy an advanced space ship from the 23rd century with what TOS had.

It worked in the 60s, but it doesn't work in the 21st century.

Hell, the way real life tech is going, by the real 2150s we'd probably have less buttons then what was shown in Enterprise.

I didn't mean literally, I mean that you could tell me it was the Enterprise-J's bridge and I'd believe you because it was advanced enough.

Also, modern audiences in 1992, 1996 and 2005 accepted the bridge, no reason that tech couldn't work in 2017. Heck, I'd even accept the same tech with maybe less color and screens that actually show something besides squiggly lines. I'm willing to meet them half way, but not with this "Reboot tech but more advanced and set before tOS" BS they're doing. To be fair, the show has so many fatal problems that the bridge and other tech being way too advanced is just another nail in the coffin at this point, but as someone who enjoys the tech stuff in Trek it still irritates me.

Well... gosh... again, they've chosen to extrapolate a future from this year, 2017, to create a futuristic visual style in the 2250s. As someone else suggested, neither the Shenzou's nor the Discovery's sets were going to look like the Enterprise from "The Cage."

You can choose not to like it or you can choose to accept it. However, it's really time for fandom to accept the fact that this is the way it is.

I will never accept terrible work or bad design, period. STD gets no pass from me. They didn't put in the quality of work Trek deserves so they'll get the criticism they deserve. For this and every other thing they've completely screwed up.