Donny's Late TNG Era Interiors
- Thread starter Donny
- Start date
Never noticed that before. Definitely seems like a callback to the TOS scrim lighting they used in their turbolift alcove.
They added similar scrim lighting to the bridge alcoves for Generations.
https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd0458.jpg
https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1135.jpg
https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd0458.jpg
https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1135.jpg
Last edited:
IIRC, the TNG bridge alcoves and corridor sets were rigged to use such scrim lighting, but the way the sets were lit in the series run didn't take advantage of them (although they did in the corridor scenes of TUC). When Generations came around, they finally decided to light the sets as originally intended, lending to their much more dramatic appearance.
I didn't even realize they were made of bird feeders!
One thing I discovered with my E bridge research, is that in Insurrection and Nemesis, the turbolift alcove walls were moved inward towards the center of the bridge a bit (probably to accommodate for the bit of corridor erected to the port side of the bridge connecting to the observation lounge/banquet hall in Insurrection). This means that the emergency hatchways on the bridge were done away with after First Contact.
Last edited:
Those are hard to find; you should buy it, if you still can. If only to resell to a prop replica collector.
According to Andy Probert it was there at the beginning, they just never used it on the series. They never used the Ready Room's roll-out bed, either (the "couch" was just the end of the bed sticking out of the wall, they just never rolled it out in any show).
Took a break from getting the broad strokes in place to do some fun detailed work. I was excited to do this because, for all the Trek work I've done, this is only the second dedication plaque I've made.
(Just noticed I made an error: the title above Roddenberry's name at the end should read "Chief of Staff". I also misspelled Sternbach's last name. Already corrected)
(Just noticed I made an error: the title above Roddenberry's name at the end should read "Chief of Staff". I also misspelled Sternbach's last name. Already corrected)
Last edited:
Spent the last few days getting both the First Contact and Insurrection versions of the forward alcoves and viewscreens modeled and in place, and taking the opportunity to experiment with lighting to try and capture the slightly different look of the two films.
First Contact and it's holographic projection viewscreen (in deactivated mode for now), and slightly earthier lighting scheme:
Insurreciton and it's more traditional viewscreen, and added aluminum slats between the cushioned panels, and a slightly brighter, cooler lighting scheme:
First Contact and it's holographic projection viewscreen (in deactivated mode for now), and slightly earthier lighting scheme:
Insurreciton and it's more traditional viewscreen, and added aluminum slats between the cushioned panels, and a slightly brighter, cooler lighting scheme:
Very nice!
I've always been kind of ambivalent about the front of the bridge; the holographic viewscreen was kind of a cool idea, but sort of meh in execution (but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of a movie where the ship has most of its systems down for a large portion of the film and they don't need to use the viewer anyway). And in both versions, the strip of blinky lights are difficult to see because the conn and ops stations block the camera's line of sight. (FC INS NEM).
I've always been kind of ambivalent about the front of the bridge; the holographic viewscreen was kind of a cool idea, but sort of meh in execution (but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of a movie where the ship has most of its systems down for a large portion of the film and they don't need to use the viewer anyway). And in both versions, the strip of blinky lights are difficult to see because the conn and ops stations block the camera's line of sight. (FC INS NEM).
Yeah, the story goes is that the row of blinkies was added as an afterthought after Drexler complained to Eaves that those blinkies had been part of every Enterprise viewscreen (forgetting the TMP one, obviously) and MUST be there (I like Drexler's style). But yeah, they're hard to see, and I'm assuming it's because they were added as an afterthought.
I personally like the idea of a holographic viewscreen like we got in FC as a natural progression of treknology, but I definitely prefer the look of the more traditional viewscreen that we got in INS. Just as long as it's not a window. We don't need windows at the front of a bridge and that's part of what makes Star Trek Star Trek. At least to me. Realizing as a kid that it wasn't a window and was instead a screen which could look at any direction blew my mind. So...you can imagine my scoffing in the theater in 2009 that continues to this day
Last edited:
The problem with the FC implementation was it was just the regular screen, except you could turn it off. There didn't appear to be anything different in the way it displayed content.
I didn't even notice it was different at first. It's one of those blink and you'll miss it moments.
I didn't even notice it was different at first. It's one of those blink and you'll miss it moments.
^Exactly. Maybe if they'd tried to do something different with it, like show a 3D tactical plot of the battle, that would have been... well, it would have been something.
Last edited:
The thing that drives me nuts is that FC was part of the ongoing shift to more stagey bridges where everyone faces forward so it's easier to film them, but that means most stations on the bridge are oriented so everyone has a clear view of... a blank wall. There's probably a way to make an on-demand screen make sense, but it should probably be something other than a blank wall in the most prominent part of the room that everyone is pointed at when it's not in use.
Last edited:
I wonder if that’s part of the reason they reverted back towards a traditional view screen in the next film. Or maybe the holographic view screen was just another level of special effects photography difficulty that just wasn’t worth it.
This mirrors my thoughts exactly. What's the point of a holographic viewscreen that just covers an otherwise blank section of wall?
Throw some immersive 3D in there!!!
It's not like they hadn't toyed with such things - early TNG tried to show the main viewer was 3D by playing with camera angles.
I guess for the film it was a budgetary thing mainly. There's what, one or two shots of the viewer? They probably avoided showing it any more precisely because it required an expensive optical.
I wonder if you could hide "behind" the holographic projection and jump out and surprise people.
