Now that I've seen it, I'll see it every time. It does look like a cosmetics section dammit!
"Trials & Tribble-ations" "In A Mirror, Darkly"
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
They look dated by todays standards, but back in the day, they looked great. The whole idea of smooth lines and bright winky blinkies were just dandy for everyone until Star Wars came out with the weathered look and the exposed plumbing feel of the ships. That's evolution, tastes change.
The original ship, outwardly, still holds up. It all depends on how it's lit. 60's lighting is too flat and bright, so yeah, it looks fake today. But with realistic lighting, with more shadow and depth, and the ship still looks great. A model is a model, everything depends on how much depth and weight the artists put into it.
The interior sets aren't bad but yeah, they'd need revision absolutely. The funny thing is, they went even MORE cheesy for the movie. They have three styles going on: "realistic" outside ship design, with 20th century brewery technology in the lower decks, and super bright, day glo Buck Rogers style bridge decor. With glass windows for the viewscreen no less. How is THAT any less cheesy or silly than the 60's sets? There were lots of way to go to update the sets and bring them up to something more realistic, but instead they went in the direction they did. Whether it's successful is a matter of opinion, but I would have preferred something less garish. Something between the Kelvin and the Enterprise (without the glass viewscreen windows) would have suited me. But eh, the film was a smash, so there.
If anyone cares about STAR TREK, say, 30-40 years from now, it will be hilarious to read about people's reactions to the "look" of the interior sets in the 2009 movie. I'll bet they'll be making some of the exact same disparaging remarks as some folks are making about the 1960's sets in this thread.
None of us has any idea what a "real" starship would look like. Everything is a tradeoff between a mix of concept art, dramatic license, and a desire to incorporate elements of "realism". If you ask me, the most plausible "style" for a starship's interior sets (assuming a large space vehicle that moves faster-than-light is even possible) would be Captain Archer's more metalic NX-01 from STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE.
That show is less than ten years old, and it would be a laugh and a half for anyone here to call it "dated". You can say it's derived from TOS (so what?) but there's nothing etched in stone to prevent anyone from saying that the NX-01 interior sets are more plausible and dramatically convincing than any other series or movie... including the 2009 movie.
I'm not endorsing everything about ENT. We all have our criticisms and praises of any entry into the TREK franchise. But ENT went quite a ways to convince me that TOS still has that appeal, even 40 years later. It never ceases to amaze me how people will go out of their way to slam TOS, but we're all still here talking about it... so TOS must have a great deal of merit to it...
Without a doubt, TOS has staying power. Nobody can dispute that or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
And there was nothing jarring or otherwise "silly" about seeing the Enterprise, Defiant or Space Station K-7 in DS9 or ENT.
And yes, the "revlon" photoshopping was a propos. And I still say the 2009 Enterprise nacelles look like sex toys. I'm half shocked that someone hasn't photoshopped a couple of condoms onto them.
None of us has any idea what a "real" starship would look like. Everything is a tradeoff between a mix of concept art, dramatic license, and a desire to incorporate elements of "realism". If you ask me, the most plausible "style" for a starship's interior sets (assuming a large space vehicle that moves faster-than-light is even possible) would be Captain Archer's more metalic NX-01 from STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE.
That show is less than ten years old, and it would be a laugh and a half for anyone here to call it "dated". You can say it's derived from TOS (so what?) but there's nothing etched in stone to prevent anyone from saying that the NX-01 interior sets are more plausible and dramatically convincing than any other series or movie... including the 2009 movie.
I'm not endorsing everything about ENT. We all have our criticisms and praises of any entry into the TREK franchise. But ENT went quite a ways to convince me that TOS still has that appeal, even 40 years later. It never ceases to amaze me how people will go out of their way to slam TOS, but we're all still here talking about it... so TOS must have a great deal of merit to it...
Without a doubt, TOS has staying power. Nobody can dispute that or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
And there was nothing jarring or otherwise "silly" about seeing the Enterprise, Defiant or Space Station K-7 in DS9 or ENT.
And yes, the "revlon" photoshopping was a propos. And I still say the 2009 Enterprise nacelles look like sex toys. I'm half shocked that someone hasn't photoshopped a couple of condoms onto them.
I always found it ironic that Paramount, the professionals who most likely had all blueprints and schematics of the entire bridge somewhere in their vaults, needed a fan produced prop because they couldn't build the damn thing themselves.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Paramount didn't have any blueprints though. They were likely struck along with everything else when the original series was canceled.
James Cawley worked with William Ware Theiss on TNG, and inherited a bunch of goodies from Theiss when he died, including original floorplans and blueprints to the TOS Enterprise bridge from the original show. That's how they were able to build their sets.
The reason they contacted Cawley for the Sulu retractable sensor scope was simply a matter of budget -- it was cheaper to have Cawley ship it to them and then ship it back than to waste time designing and building their own. It had nothing to do with being unable to build it themselves -- obviously they could -- it was more about coming in under budget.
And even then it's not the first time that's happened -- for TNG's "Relics," the production team recreated only a quarter of the original series bridge, but rented out (I believe) a fan-produced center seat and helm stations for the production. Again, to save money from actually investing the time and effort in to designing and building their own. Being that these sets were only going to be used sparingly, it makes perfect sense.
James Cawley worked with William Ware Theiss on TNG, and inherited a bunch of goodies from Theiss when he died, including original floorplans and blueprints to the TOS Enterprise bridge from the original show. That's how they were able to build their sets.
The reason they contacted Cawley for the Sulu retractable sensor scope was simply a matter of budget -- it was cheaper to have Cawley ship it to them and then ship it back than to waste time designing and building their own. It had nothing to do with being unable to build it themselves -- obviously they could -- it was more about coming in under budget.
And even then it's not the first time that's happened -- for TNG's "Relics," the production team recreated only a quarter of the original series bridge, but rented out (I believe) a fan-produced center seat and helm stations for the production. Again, to save money from actually investing the time and effort in to designing and building their own. Being that these sets were only going to be used sparingly, it makes perfect sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that while the helm console used in "Relics" was a fan creation, the command chair was actually the original item, and one of Paramount's legal weenies pointed out that, technically, that chair was stolen property, putting all concerned in quite a tight spot.
Not sure how it all worked out, but I think the studio essentially reclaimed the command chair, only to auction the thing off several years later (not the big Christie's auction, the chair that was sold in that one was the reproduction used on ENT).
I'm expecting a post from Mike Okuda any time now...
Not sure how it all worked out, but I think the studio essentially reclaimed the command chair, only to auction the thing off several years later (not the big Christie's auction, the chair that was sold in that one was the reproduction used on ENT).
I'm expecting a post from Mike Okuda any time now...
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
According to the TNG Companion, you're wrong:
Now, granted, I've got the red edition of the TNG Companion that only covers stuff up to Generations... and given the very spotty fact-checking that was done on the book, I fully acknowledge this may be contradicted later on or at worst, incorrect information.
Hm. If true, that might explain why neither the Sulu-scope nor the wraparound style command tunic that was made for Scott Bakula's measurements was ever returned to James Cawley by Paramount--although someone made a pretty penny off them at auction. We at Phase II really could have used that money--or it would have been nice to get the prop and costume back after "In a Mirror, Darkly" wrapped production--if nothing else.
There was no response from Paramount to James Cawley's Phase II team's demand for this?
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Wow, now THAT is something I never knew about.
I'm unclear though on why, exactly, renting set pieces for "Relics" in 1992 would have any bearing on items the production rented/borrowed from you guys in 2005?
I'm unclear though on why, exactly, renting set pieces for "Relics" in 1992 would have any bearing on items the production rented/borrowed from you guys in 2005?
Well, it was mostly a tongue in cheek comment: Captain Robert April commented that he understood that one of the "legal weenies" at Paramount was concerned that the Captain's chair from "Relics" was given "back" to Steve Horsch when it allegedly wasn't actually part of Horsch-supplied bridge set stuff. My tongue extremely in cheek suggestion was that, in a tit-for-tat fashion, perhaps Paramount would keep the fan-made scope and shirt that wasn't theirs as compensation for "their" chair that went "back" to a fan.
Demand? Us demanding something from Paramount? You're joking, right? I don't think James pushed too hard to get the stuff back from Paramount. Being granted the opportunity to provide stuff to decorate an actual Paramount TOS-era bridge is probably gratification enough even if the stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Also, our little goofy show exists purely because of the good graces of Paramount and CBS. I can easily imagine that their very simple response to us asking for the stuff back would be a terse Cease and Desist order.
In truth, I'd be willing to pay considerable amounts for the privilege of having any of my props used in a "real" Trek production and if they never got returned, it would all still be worth it.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Hmm. While I certainly "get" Paramount's point of view on the issue ... it's still kind of douche-y.
I don't know that we actually know what Paramount's "point of view" is on the issue. The folks responsible for the prop and costume after the shooting wrapped might not have been the people responsible for acquiring the stuff in the first place. I wouldn't attribute "douchiness" to something that might be simple miscommunication or forgetfulness. We have more Suluscopes and more wraparounds, so all is well with the world. If that's the biggest problem our production faces, we're in good shape.
So since it sounds like James and you are fine with how it all turned out, that's good. That is all that matters for your continued brilliant work at Phase II New Voyages.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
They don't if I understand it correctly.
The Command Chair used in Relics, if I read the post right, was the ORIGINAL chair from the 60s, which someone swiped and it found it's way into the collectors' hands. Paramount reclaimed it as "stolen property".
The Sulu-scope and tunic seem to be a a case negligent conversion or simple negligence in returning borrowed/rented property.
The Command Chair used in Relics, if I read the post right, was the ORIGINAL chair from the 60s, which someone swiped and it found it's way into the collectors' hands. Paramount reclaimed it as "stolen property".
The Sulu-scope and tunic seem to be a a case negligent conversion or simple negligence in returning borrowed/rented property.
^Awaiting some corroboration, but yeah, that's the general idea.
No, the "Relics" chair is not the original chair. If you look at photos side-by-side, you can see that they are constructed differently. The black vinyl part of the Relics chair upper back is slightly shorter than the original, and is padded differently (A bit more "puffier"). Also, the Relics seat pan is constructed as a one-piece (Madison chairs, which were used as the basis of the original captain's chair, have two-piece seat construction). As for the gray cradle part of the chair, you can see that the Relics chair appears to have a horizontal piece of plywood across the entire bottom of the cradle, while the original chair does not have this construction feature.
There might be more differences, but it's hard to tell using the standard-def screengrabs available at Trekcore.
There might be more differences, but it's hard to tell using the standard-def screengrabs available at Trekcore.
Sounds pretty definitive to me, thanks.
So, who did have that original chair, that eventually went in that "Profiles In History" auction? And did its surfacing have anything to do with "Relics"?
So, who did have that original chair, that eventually went in that "Profiles In History" auction? And did its surfacing have anything to do with "Relics"?
I guess we'll just chalk it up to another one of those rumors/myths.
So just how much more of the bridge did this guy have?
So just how much more of the bridge did this guy have?
Similar threads
