Which WARP CORE look do you like better? 1701-REFIT or 1701-A
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
- Status
Actually, on that note, the best engine room is from TAS:
http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Engineering_Big.jpg
I prefer TMP's core because it's an authentic design for that movie. And I feel like its illumination is more majestic.
The TUC set is borrowed back from a TV redress, and on the (seeming) condition that the movie employ the TV series' production designer so that no one else could tamper with his redressed sets.
The TUC set is borrowed back from a TV redress, and on the (seeming) condition that the movie employ the TV series' production designer so that no one else could tamper with his redressed sets.
Seems spurious. Zimmerman was also production designer on ST5, and that didn't use many TNG sets beyond a few corridors and some misc bits and pieces. Not to mention that Trek is renowned for re-using sets all over the place, quite often without involving the person who was originally responsible for them.
I'm aware of his work on both films. The difference is that TNG was in production during both movies and they needed those sets to remain intact, limiting the extend to which they could be redressed for the movies. So the sets that did get used (borrowed from TNG, borrowed "back" from TNG, whatever) were very recognizable for being what they were.
Actually, Zimmerman was only the production designer on TNG's first season - Richard James took over the role for the rest of the show's run. And from what I recall, Shatner just hired Zimmerman on the previous film because he happened to like his work (and possibly also to create a visual link with the TNG era).
Not sure what Meyer's reasoning for sticking with Zimmerman on TUC was, but it could have been as simple as the fact that he already knew both the TNG sets and the few dedicated Enterprise-A sets, which would have saved time that new production designer might have needed to get to grips with the sets.
Not sure what Meyer's reasoning for sticking with Zimmerman on TUC was, but it could have been as simple as the fact that he already knew both the TNG sets and the few dedicated Enterprise-A sets, which would have saved time that new production designer might have needed to get to grips with the sets.
What rationale would explain the sets that got heavily modified?
I personally find the restricted budget a much more compelling reason for all the mildly recognizable TNG sets than some odd restriction on who could or couldn't redress the sets. Unless you have information to the contrary? I apologize if I've been guessing and you actually have knowledge on the matter.
I'm not aware that any sets got "heavily" modified, because all the ones I've heard confirmed were already very obvious for what they were. The president's office was already obvious for being Ten-Forward. The corridors and engineering meanwhile were more recognizably TNG than their TNG configuration was recognizably TMP. It's just obvious from what's on screen that they were filming in between seasons of a TV show that needed those sets.
I don't have actual knowledge. Please note the parentheses in my original post.
Was the warp engine shown in TTF? Herman did a great design for 1701-A. I wasn't pleased with Meyer's decision to use TNG Engine Room because now it pre-dates 1701-D which was supposed to be state of the art. I never liked the idea of a warp core because of the internal hazard issues which could happen.
Like a disgruntled redshirt firing a phaser into it after getting chewed out on his shift?
The Final Frontier I believe used a "tube" corridor set (I don't believe it's one of the D's regular sets unless I'm mistaken) for both engineering and later the Jeffries tube where Scotty bonks his head. It might even have been original for the movie? Pretty sure we've seen it since on DS9 and VOY though.
It's a practical design and I think it looks at lot better than TMP 1701 or TUC/TNG Warp engine.
Last edited:
^yes, the pink warp core I imagine being just off-camera on the STV set is the best!
Most of the biases are based on the successes of the films and not their actual quality and creativity of the production designs.
Noted. And apologies if my contrary stance on the matter came across as too combative.
Yes, you are probably right.
However, for myself, it is based on the production designs not a film's success, e.g., I like the TFF 1701-A Bridge better than TMP/WOK/SFS Bridge just as I like TMP/WOK/SFS Warp core better than TFF Warp core.
Last edited:
That's a load of crap. People like what they like, if that weren't so, you wouldn't find many fans of TMP or TFF.
- Status
Similar threads
