Panoramas of Enterprise interior on official site

[trevanian]

What is this obsession people have with bulbs? I don't get it.

If I get a chance to talk with the art director this week, I'll ask him.

It's ok to just say you have no reason.

I was serious.

In the meantime, perhaps you can check to see if somebody will screw a few replacements in for you? Either that or come up with some reason why a spaceship needs to waste all that surface area with bulbs.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

If I get a chance to talk with the art director this week, I'll ask him.

It's ok to just say you have no reason.

I was serious.

In the meantime, perhaps you can check to see if somebody will screw a few replacements in for you? Either that or come up with some reason why a spaceship needs to waste all that surface area with bulbs.

Awesome. You may not want to phrase the question quite the way I did though.

I just don't see the big deal, it's not like lights would actually be burning out on a starship of the future. We should be able to agree that a corridor would need consistent lighting. Meaning, where ever you happen to be in a corridor, the amount of light remains the same. You either end up with smaller, closer spaced lights; or larger, further spaced lights. The latter tends to give that spotlight effect which I imagine would be annoying. What differentiates the Abrams ship from others, the Enterprise D for example, is the lack of a panel to diffuse the light. So are you really bothered by the amount of bulbs, or is it more the fact that you can see them?

 

[trevanian]

It's ok to just say you have no reason.

I was serious.

In the meantime, perhaps you can check to see if somebody will screw a few replacements in for you? Either that or come up with some reason why a spaceship needs to waste all that surface area with bulbs.

Awesome. You may not want to phrase the question quite the way I did though.

I just don't see the big deal, it's not like lights would actually be burning out on a starship of the future. We should be able to agree that a corridor would need consistent lighting. Meaning, where ever you happen to be in a corridor, the amount of light remains the same. You either end up with smaller, closer spaced lights; or larger, further spaced lights. The latter tends to give that spotlight effect which I imagine would be annoying. What differentiates the Abrams ship from others, the Enterprise D for example, is the lack of a panel to diffuse the light. So are you really bothered by the amount of bulbs, or is it more the fact that you can see them?

The whole hallway seems to be lights; you have the 'hidden ones on the sides that are probably enough by themselves, plus all these spots. I don't see why you need any of the spots, myself, or maybe one at every juncture, just so you can move from darkness to light from dramatic purposes.

 

[ancient]

The dramatic lighting does seem to be missing from this version of the Enterprise. It's basically just flat bright TV lighting that usually makes things look like crap on the big screen. Then again, maybe it gets darker for red alert or something.

 

[Samurai8472]

No carpeting makes it look less like the cruise ship enterprise D

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For all the variation, those corridors look remarkably alike and the Abrams version fits in just fine.

In fact, the round cross-section is a good follow-on from the corridors in "Star Trek: Enterprise." That's rather appropriate, since they're now retelling the 23rd century stories after we've actually seen stories set earlier in "history."

I don't think that the day will come where I can write more than a very short paragraph about the relative merits of corridors on fictional starships. The ones in question? They look fine to me. I mean - they're corridors. Um.

Maybe if you'd ever made a home sf movie you'd have more of an appreciation for what goes into them.

Hmm...having done that and a considerable number of other things in this realm that you haven't, I'd say ITL's sense of perspective about such things is just fine too. Don't try to one-up him instead of answering.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

The dramatic lighting does seem to be missing from this version of the Enterprise. It's basically just flat bright TV lighting that usually makes things look like crap on the big screen. Then again, maybe it gets darker for red alert or something.

Yes, the lighting looks pretty even. Don't know what the effect will really be at this point, it could be sucky. It won't be moody at least, which I appreciate.

No carpeting makes it look less like the cruise ship enterprise D

Word. And speaking of unnecessary maintenance...

 

[Rii]

What differentiates the Abrams ship from others, the Enterprise D for example, is the lack of a panel to diffuse the light. So are you really bothered by the amount of bulbs, or is it more the fact that you can see them?

In my case, mostly the latter. It lends the corridor an artificially cluttered appearance. Artificial in that it's unnecessary (it's not like there's any particular reason not to use panels) and essentially a surface detail, rather than detail that exists as a function of the underlying structure of the ship. Communications panels, access panels, signage, piping/wiring, emergency/manual controls and tools, those are details that make sense if you're looking to break up the sterile aesthetic. Exposed light fittings, not so much.

It doesn't particularly bother me, I doubt I'll have the time or inclination to nitpick the corridor design in the actual film as there'll be characters and dialogue and such onscreen, but there it is.

 

[trekkerguy]

Yeah, it says he's not a "trekkie". That's Exactly what we need for this film.

Did you happen to read the rest of the article by the way?
I know you must have a point but I'm not seeing it in the article.

The point is clear, JJ was not the right person to make a trek movie. Are you telling me and everyone here, that its ok for JJ to turn Star Trek into Star Wars?

No, everything I read in that article is very positive he IS the right person.
And since he's NOT turning Trek into Star Wars, everything is cool.

The point is clear, JJ was not the right person to make a trek movie.

So far, everything we know indicates that he's doing a good job.

Yupyup.

 

[trevanian]

For all the variation, those corridors look remarkably alike and the Abrams version fits in just fine.

In fact, the round cross-section is a good follow-on from the corridors in "Star Trek: Enterprise." That's rather appropriate, since they're now retelling the 23rd century stories after we've actually seen stories set earlier in "history."

I don't think that the day will come where I can write more than a very short paragraph about the relative merits of corridors on fictional starships. The ones in question? They look fine to me. I mean - they're corridors. Um.

Maybe if you'd ever made a home sf movie you'd have more of an appreciation for what goes into them.

Hmm...having done that and a considerable number of other things in this realm that you haven't, I'd say ITL's sense of perspective about such things is just fine too. Don't try to one-up him instead of answering.

Outside of CG spaceships, I doubt there's anything in that 'realm' you've done that I haven't, so your judgement here is as suspect as it is in all other things you trumpet. And editing my reply to make it seem I wasn't answering when I did should be warnable, even for ol' bulletproof you. Next time you try to thank someone for playing, why not try one-uping yourself first instead?

 

[number6]

For all the variation, those corridors look remarkably alike and the Abrams version fits in just fine.

In fact, the round cross-section is a good follow-on from the corridors in "Star Trek: Enterprise." That's rather appropriate, since they're now retelling the 23rd century stories after we've actually seen stories set earlier in "history."

Maybe if you'd ever made a home sf movie you'd have more of an appreciation for what goes into them.

Hmm...having done that and a considerable number of other things in this realm that you haven't, I'd say ITL's sense of perspective about such things is just fine too. Don't try to one-up him instead of answering.

Outside of CG spaceships, I doubt there's anything in that 'realm' you've done that I haven't, so your judgement here is as suspect as it is in all other things you trumpet. And editing my reply to make it seem I wasn't answering when I did should be warnable, even for ol' bulletproof you. Next time you try to thank someone for playing, why not try one-uping yourself first instead?

Which Star Trek episodes did you write?

 

[Brent]

Just saw this thread, I LOVE the interior! I know it doesn't look like TOS, but you know what, i don't care, this is what TOS SHOULD have looked like! It does have a "retro" kinda feel to it anyway. I love it.

 

[Kirk1980]

S'what I've said, Franklin.

But people said I was nuts when I said the bridge was headache-inducing for that reason.

Do you like nuts, Franklin? DO YOU??!

 

[trevanian]

For all the variation, those corridors look remarkably alike and the Abrams version fits in just fine.

In fact, the round cross-section is a good follow-on from the corridors in "Star Trek: Enterprise." That's rather appropriate, since they're now retelling the 23rd century stories after we've actually seen stories set earlier in "history."



Hmm...having done that and a considerable number of other things in this realm that you haven't, I'd say ITL's sense of perspective about such things is just fine too. Don't try to one-up him instead of answering.

Outside of CG spaceships, I doubt there's anything in that 'realm' you've done that I haven't, so your judgement here is as suspect as it is in all other things you trumpet. And editing my reply to make it seem I wasn't answering when I did should be warnable, even for ol' bulletproof you. Next time you try to thank someone for playing, why not try one-uping yourself first instead?

Which Star Trek episodes did you write?

We're talking about filmmaking here in this little exchange -- the 'realm' he called into question, in case you weren't paying attention -- so the question would be, 'what haven't you done? And the answer would be, not much. I've loaded and shot 16mm, processed ektachrome, edited using single and double system sound, designed and built forced perspective fullsize and miniature sets, written and directed films running from 1min up to 45 min, acted in a ton of them, and apart from the zero budget stuff, documented the making of many professional features for various mags.

EDIT ADDON: You should have followed Polaris' example and let this thread sink quietly below the horizon rather than dragging it back up, it ain't gonna put you in any decent light this time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Outside of CG spaceships, I doubt there's anything in that 'realm' you've done that I haven't, so your judgement [sic] here...

So outside of the things I've done that you haven't done, there's nothing I've done that you haven't done? Got it.

 

[BigC]

Good God's. When will the Storm troopers and Vader come around the corner?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Good God's. When will the Storm troopers and Vader come around the corner?

That's generally not a problem as long as you file by April 15th.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Good God's. When will the Storm troopers and Vader come around the corner?

Maybe if you squint your eyes?

 

[ST-One]

Good God's. When will the Storm troopers and Vader come around the corner?

Maybe if you squint your eyes?

NOW I finally see how Star-Wars-ian it looks...

 

[Ghrakh]

These two corridors are as similar to each other as the JJprise is to the original Enterprise.