I doubt it - they're probably inspired by such edge-lit displays in actual control rooms, which is the same source of inspiration for BSG and "Stargate's" similar set pieces.
OMG first shot of the new bridge!!!
- Thread starter sojourner
- Start date
- Status
I doubt it - they're probably inspired by such edge-lit displays in actual control rooms, which is the same source of inspiration for BSG and "Stargate's" similar set pieces.
Imagine for a moment the reaction here if before the teaser came out someone posted these new pictures and that shot of the Enterprise in the teaser, claiming to be leaking them. I think the consensus would be "FAAAAKE!!!" based largely on the assumption that those in charge of this movie would have better taste than that. I'm not saying these things have to match TOS exactly, just that they have to look good and make sense, which is not the impression I'm getting from any of this, with the possible exception of the escape pod.
The little bit of the bridge we saw in the photo of Abrams working with a laptop on a bridge console looked okay, and based on that tiny bit of information and assurances from James Cawley, I was expecting much better than we're seeing here.
The little bit of the bridge we saw in the photo of Abrams working with a laptop on a bridge console looked okay, and based on that tiny bit of information and assurances from James Cawley, I was expecting much better than we're seeing here.
If that had been true - and I don't necessarily think that it would be - it's only because the fannish definition of good taste usually appears often to be "that which is in line with my taste and expectations." All of this stuff looks pretty good, so far.
If some hotshot writer/director was doing a remake of "Gunsmoke" which had Marshall Dillon roaring up to the Longbranch on a Harley with an M-16 on his back, would the proper response to this blatant incongruity be, "It's okay, it's a western"?
Then why is it they can claim to be making a story set during TOS, a period with a long established look and tradition, and totally upend the works with designs that aren't even remotely close, and get away with the excuse, "it's sci-fi"?
This is an established franchise, with some established benchmarks, and JJ & Co. have shown they're blowing by every one of 'em.
This is not just a matter of some design changes, this a clear lack of respect for what has been established and those of us who've been supporting this franchise for over four decades.
Then why is it they can claim to be making a story set during TOS, a period with a long established look and tradition, and totally upend the works with designs that aren't even remotely close, and get away with the excuse, "it's sci-fi"?
This is an established franchise, with some established benchmarks, and JJ & Co. have shown they're blowing by every one of 'em.
This is not just a matter of some design changes, this a clear lack of respect for what has been established and those of us who've been supporting this franchise for over four decades.
Captain ... the old bridge is silly-looking by today's standards. At least in the details, and even in some of the larger pieces. I knew there'd be some updates; I'd hoped they would retain more feel for the original than what they came up with, but this is what we got.
In Gunsmoke, it was a lot easier to show period-accurate horses and cowboys than they could elements of the 23rd century. Today, it's a little bit easier, but I'm sure they're still way, way off. In another forty years, I'll be sitting in the geriatric wing of Dogma Mercy, laughing my wrinkled ass off at the gumption kids are displaying with their holographic bridge set and rant about how, in my day, production companies used good, old-fashioned plastic and steel for their sets. I can only hope the nurse will have the good sense to up my meds a notch to keep me from bothering the other patients.
In Gunsmoke, it was a lot easier to show period-accurate horses and cowboys than they could elements of the 23rd century. Today, it's a little bit easier, but I'm sure they're still way, way off. In another forty years, I'll be sitting in the geriatric wing of Dogma Mercy, laughing my wrinkled ass off at the gumption kids are displaying with their holographic bridge set and rant about how, in my day, production companies used good, old-fashioned plastic and steel for their sets. I can only hope the nurse will have the good sense to up my meds a notch to keep me from bothering the other patients.
You know, the "old west" as it appears in American films is largely fictionalized, but it is based in an actual time period and historical events.
The continual attempt by some fans to rationalize the importance of Trek continuity by equating this rather Rube-Goldbergish "Trek Universe" fiction with actual period films and stories is just plain nonsensical. Analysis and arguments about a fiction based on the premise that it's somehow "real" are not really worthy of much respect.
That some people are going to be upset by changes is inevitable - it can't be helped, and the filmmakers should not try to hard to avoid it or to satisfy the most hidebound contingents in fandom.
We went through very much the same thing when the first details about TNG came out - there are still TOS purists who don't accept it, but their numbers have so dwindled since 1986 and the extent of Trek's popularity has so grown that they long ago ceased to matter to the direction of the Franchise.
This is exactly the same, except that we have a quarter century more stubborn investment in certain styles and expectations to move beyond than we did in 1986.
Oh, and I guarantee that if you really dislike this single photograph of the Bridge you'll be a lot more upset when you see the outside of the ship...although it will look enough like the Enterprise to satisfy most people on the planet who would recognize the ship - same as the TNG ship does.
If a partial shot of the bridge is getting this kind of reaction from CRA, a full exterior shot will likely make his head explode!I'm more concerned about how the crew looks than the bridge, and they look fine to me... the bridge does seems a tad bright but it's not beyond what I was expecting for a "semi-reboot" design.
..and if folks like CRA are not going to go see it because they don't like the bridge, that's up to them. No offense CRA, but you weren't JJ's target audience anyhow. [you'll probably take that as the highest praise imaginable!
] Personally I'm more concerned about what the exterior of the ship looks like than the interior...
Its rather simple, of course this isn't TOS, you can't do Star Trek as it was done in the 60's, you can't use its style nor the original actors so its either a full blown reboot at best (if they keep a shred of canon around) or at worse it will be a nice generic SF movie with faintly recognisable style and story elements and with well known names, some people will be okay with that, others not.
My two Euro cents..
My two Euro cents..
You guys keep saying the bridge looks bright, but isn't this just an illustration with photos of some of the actors photoshopped in? A real photo wouldn't give you an accurate representation of brightness, either. That depends on how lighting is handled in actual fliming.
Um...I'm pretty sure it's a real photo with real people on a real set. There was no photoshopping.
No, because it's obvious that Harleys and M-16's weren't invented in the time that Gunsmoke is set, regardless of how accurately the time period is depicted on that show.
They're not using the excuse "it's sci-fi." What lets them get away with it is that it's Star Trek, whose relationship with continuity and common sense has always been shaky at best.
They recasted some characters and redesigned some sets. This does not constitute "blowing by" every benchmark.
Again, if they had zero respect for any of us, Leonard Nimoy would not be in it!
(Just an aside, I find it ironic that I often find myself in the position of defending the movie when I intend to boycott it myself for different reasons.)
Last edited:
All this consternation over one bridge photo from the "traditionalist" and "keepers of Gene's flame" reminds me of this bit from Macbeth:
"...a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
"...a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Exactly. Case and point. I couldn't have said it better.
Oh, fer fuck's sake, that's everyone's definition of good taste.
- Status
Similar threads
