Better POV than what? Something else that shows the chair? There are other angles from the back of the console that avoid the viewscreen altogether.
Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
Yup. Or just have the Kelvan step to the console's own left for a very familiar angle of Chekov at his (main) post, which would have served perfectly well.
You all do realize this is not the only time the center console was moved, right? They put it where it looked best on film. They gave no thought to the things we are thinking today. This is basically any set from that era. When you apply logic to TV series sets, they don't make sense. Everything was designed for the camera. Getting the camera in to make the shot was more important than the logic of the set.
Look at the angle of the shot. The camera is sitting next to Spock's station. How many times did we see the end of his station because the rest was removed. They wanted Chekov facing the aliens and they might have had the other shot already. It was easier to move the island than remove Spock's station. I bet if we saw the order of shooting that day it would make complete sense.
Look at the angle of the shot. The camera is sitting next to Spock's station. How many times did we see the end of his station because the rest was removed. They wanted Chekov facing the aliens and they might have had the other shot already. It was easier to move the island than remove Spock's station. I bet if we saw the order of shooting that day it would make complete sense.
And this is still the case today. These aren't the most current examples, but look at the establishing shots on Friends or Seinfeld sometime. The exterior of the Friends apartment building does not show Monica & Rachel's balcony at all, nor does it have Central Perk underneath. And the exterior of Monk's Restaurant on Seinfeld does not conform to the interior set at all.
And 99% of the time, audiences don't notice or care that they don't match. The only time that TV series sets tend to make total sense is when they're shot inside the same building they use for exteriors, like Sacred Heart on Scrubs (shot at a real shut down hospital) or police headquarters on Homicide: Life on the Street (shot at an old ballroom in Baltimore, now a luxury hotel).
Heck, the shape of Jerry's apartment and the hallway outside don't even line up with the apartment set. It's become such a running joke and even meme on the Internet that the Seinfeld apartment is treated like some '90s New York version of a TARDIS.
That's not really so clear and there's really no need to get agitated about it.
Maybe they wanted to use the "left of Spock" section for the camera as you posit, but it's strange that no one said, "Hey, why don't you just have one of the Kelvans (I think it's Rojan who shrinks Chekov) make like they're stepping off to the right, then shoot Walter from his right like the series has done countless times to date."
Also, I'm not sure it would have been impossible to take a shot of Walter at his station from the area of the captain's chair or behind it without removing everything.
I'm far from agitated. Bemused maybe.
To understand the shot you have to think like a 1960's film crew. Things are filmed out of order. Things are filmed on a tight schedule. This is an FX shot so you need the actor and then a clean plate. Put all the production pieces together and everything makes sense. There is no question in my mind what was going on. It was done that way to maximize production efficiency. The specific why would depend on some other factors, but the general why is totally understandable - time and money.
And you can tell where it was shot from because of the island angle and the portion of the bridge behind it.
Indeed, indeed. Which is why it is highly amusing that us fans spend years and decades attempting to put logic to something that largely only has a rough logic. The same is true with timing. "The Menagerie" famously has a continuous shot of Spock guiding Captain Pike to the turbolift, and the camera moves to Kirk who looks at the viewscreen to immediately see Pike and Vina running back to the underground Talosian residence. That's quite the turbolift ride!
I'm not questioning where it was shot from, but why. I'm not as certain as you are of the reasons.
There is something awesome about the island rotating. On those external shots where the Enterprise is rapidly yawing it'd be neat to see the island yawing a little to that direction change as a subtle motion queue. YMMV
The 1978 Battlestar Galactica bridge did have a rotating central station for the captain. That was one of the coolest sets in sci-fi history. And I think they had a rotating workstation in Space: 1999's Main Mission set.
While you're just making things up, in for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
You have literally nothing to cite to support what you're alleging, the boldfaced especially.
Well, there is the final scenes in Engineering in the Day of the Dove. You remember, Kirk and Mara beam in to make peace with Kang.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x07hd/dayofthedovehd1218.jpg
Notice that they beam in by the grate and in front of the big drum thingie.
Later when they need a row of Klingons in the background, guess what's not there anymore.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x07hd/dayofthedovehd1379.jpg
By the way, just what is Kirk looking at? Oh yeah, the Entity.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x07hd/dayofthedovehd1380.jpg
Floating above the stairs. Which we all know are somewhere else.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x07hd/dayofthedovehd1267.jpg
Yep, on-screen proof that Engineering has TWO sets of stairs.
Last edited:
Sorry, one, several, or even many negative examples do not prove "never."
Not to mention, how things turned out does not tell us what their considerations actually were.
Not to mention, how things turned out does not tell us what their considerations actually were.
Last edited:
Your view on this must have changed, what, a full 35 degrees.
The island was rotated an different amount in WNMHGB. There are many examples of them needing a reverse angle shot and instead of building a wall, they setup the shot against an existing background. The number of examples I can cite off the top of my head is small, but I've watched Star Trek innumerable times and I've seen all sorts of odd things with the sets. I have actually taken the time to draw the set plans for every major room we've seen. There are variations. Especially with the Transporter room and its every changing back wall. Consistency was not high on their priority list. Getting the shot and staying on budget were. I've studied how TV and movies are shot for years and while some productions try hard for consistency and realism, others don't. Even some very modern movies have some major slipups. Probably the most famous is the interior vs. the exterior of the Millennium Falcon. They changed the exterior just as shooting was starting and they changed the sets to match, but they didn't do it quite right. And they again changed the sets for the next two major uses (TESB and TFA) and then again for Solo. I applaud them for never fixing that initial mistake and keeping the interior so consistent (even Smuggler's Run at Disneyland has the mistake). The set has the tube to the bridge at 45 degrees while on the model it is about 15 to 25. They have the correct angle at the cockpit, but not to the rest of the set. It is hilarious when you think about it. Star Wars also has some fun shots of R2-D2 inserted that were shot on the Death Star (in the red control room) but they are used for the Millennium Falcon. And can we talk about deck 78 in Star Trek V. Or how the bridge turbolifts in Star Trek V and VI won't fit under the bridge dome. Or how about the various mirrored shots. That's another fun one that happens often.
So when I propose explanations for what happened, I am not doing off the cuff. I have a lot of supporting information from Hollywood in general as to how they do things. And I have watched a fair share of interviews on the Star Trek production where they emphasized budget and timing. Two very typical things in Hollywood. I understand how things work there and how little they care about being technically accurate when the entire production is on the line. That is how you get Kirk without an emblem on his uniform. Or on the wrong side of his uniform. That is how you get a room full of Enterprise uniforms in Court Martial. That is how you get the enlisted uniforms in Star Trek II-VI. That is how you get the movie uniforms sans shirt for the prior uniforms in TNG. That is why the Excelsior, Miranda, and Oberth classes were so often seen in TNG and DS9. That is why the sets built for Star Trek Phase II stood for 20 years until Voyager ended. Reuse, recycle, make it work, do what fastest, easiest, and cheapest. We got the 3 new models for Trials and Tribbleations because Greg Jein spent his own money on them.
So the reason why Chekov is shot with the wrong background is that something about that setup saved time and/or money. The specific reason is unknown and likely could be figured out by examining the production of that episode in detail (the call sheets, the order the shots were filmed, etc.). But it is far from a mystery as to why it was done. And it is not the only example of expediency overriding accuracy. On the contrary it is just the way of things in Hollywood. And I'm sure we can carry that over to other filming cultures, such as the UK. The final goal of any production is to tell a story and a close examination of many productions will find this sort of thing is quite common and usual, especially when time and money are a concern.
Oh, well played! Well played!
Similar threads
