Best and Worst Standing Sets in Sci-Fi TV

[Christopher]

I have to agree with Atlantis and I think that's one of the major reasons I never liked the show as much as SG-1. Stargate Command felt like home, while Atlantis was nothing more than a bunch of rooms without character. Sets don't have to be expensive or technically impressive; they just need to be homely.

Well, "homely" in the British/Canadian sense; an American would say "homey." In America, "homely" means "ugly."

My favourite sets:

Sunnydale Library (Buffy)

Some might say that was an implausibly elaborate library for a public high school. But my high school's library was modeled on the library at Monticello and is absolutely gorgeous, so it works for me.

 

[DarthTom]

What could be even more ridiculous is that if Riker had said something like. "Computer, Lights" the Remen's could have been blinded given that race seems to prefer low light levels.

Exactly. The federation seemed to have run out of high wattage light blubs for the Remen attack.

 

[C_Miller]

My favourite sets:

Sunnydale Library (Buffy)

YES! Can't believe I forgot this one.

 

[Maurice]

. . . The Jupiter II interiors never impressed me, though - and looking at them for reference a great deal back in 2007-2008 they just struck me (as with so much else on the show) as being TV-budget knock-offs of the C57-D.

Complete with a smaller and much simplified version of the C-57D’s bubble-topped astrogation device. And a robot that looked like Robby’s poor relation (designed by the same guy, Robert Kinoshita, as we geeks all know. )

Easy to pick on the fact that's it's not the C-57-D, but the sets had the impression of practical ceilings, lots of glass (the astrogator, the freezing tubes, etc.) and a lot of mechanical details, the practical elevator, the cool ladder, etc. Hell, even though they rarely used it, the domed astrogator actually could telescope up and fit into the dome on the top of the ship.

 

[23skidoo]

I thought about mentioning the TARDIS, but in truth, it always felt like a bit of a cheat since it had nothing that it needed to match with.

It was never bad, but I think because it was essentially just a room that could be any shape, it never feels extraordinary.

But that's the extraordinary part. With the bridge of the Enterprise you couldn't change a chair around without a plot-related reason (actually IIRC they actually made a plot point out of changing a chair in an Enterprise episode). In nuBSG unless something blew up there was no way you'd see the Galactica bridge remodelled.

With the TARDIS, the sky is literally the limit. The 1996 TV movie made it a gothic cathedral/library (and yes that counts as a standing set as it was built for the TV series that never happened - it cost $1M IIRC so they intended it to stick around). The 2005-2010 version reflected the new direction of the series; the newer version was specifically designed to be "sexy". And even the original white-walled version still had the potential to surprise, even if some of those surprises took place off screen or were added on the fly as stories required.

Outside Doctor Who, the best "standing set" in SF TV in my opinion (and I'm cheating mercilessly here) is Portmeirion, the surreal resort village in North Wales that portrayed The Village in The Prisoner. Best part about that one is you can hop a plane (or get in your car) and go there 40 years later and it looks pretty much the same as it did when Patrick McGoohan filmed there.

Alex

 

[sojourner]

^That would not be a "set" but a "location".

 

[Maurice]

By definition a "standing set" is one that appears consistently in many episodes. They are so-called because they are left "standing" and not "struck" (dismantled) after use. Seldom used sets, which can typically be folded or and stored in the wings, are called "swing" sets. Partial sets or sets with nothing around them (the black void in "The Empath) are called "limbo" sets.

On Star Trek the main sets (bridge, engine room, transporter, corridors, etc.) were standing sets. Some other rooms (brig, observation deck) were swing sets.

 

[Christopher]

^So I guess the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers Command Center would be a limbo set.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Each "bulge" in the hull was a separate pressure sphere. In particularly deep dives, the idea was that the sphere's would seal up, and the connecting passages would be flooded to help the ship withstand the immense deep sea pressures it would encounter.

You can see that in these blueprints made for an aborted tech manual:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2227858301/
Here's a blueprint of the season 1 bridge too. It's unlabelled, sadly, but it's a thousand times better than the one sketch of the season 2 bridge I've found:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2228650970/

Thanks for posting those...God I miss that show!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The orbital space station interior in 2001 uses the curved corridor design.

And was actually built that way - the centrifuge was real, all the way around.

The space station? Surely you must be thinking of the Discovery's centrifuge

Oops, you're right, my bad

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

They pretty much were. The wall containing the windows is closer to horizontal than vertical. By my estimates, their slope is in the 20-25 degree range, which is a pretty close match to the blueprints.

The only thing that bugged me is that they didn't build the window wall to be invertible so they could show quarters on the underside of the ship.

IIRC, the set was built so the wall and windows coud be inverted, but it was never used much to Andy Probert's dismay. (However, I may be misremembering something I read in an interview.)

SPACE: 1999. Nice standing sets at least in the first year.

Main Mission, the tube shuttle and a corridor or two were the only standing set in Year One. The corridors and other sets were panels that could be rearranged over and over again to create new sections, like crew quarters or the medical section.

But I loved the sets in SPACE:1999, especially that first year.

RE: Babylon 5

I was never too impressed by John Iacovelli's production design. He had a mostly theater background and it shows in his approach to set design. The station sets didn't have that realism that JMS promised when he was promoting the show before it even aired. Nor did they look particularly sturdy.

I though the B5 sets looked better in "The Gathering" than they did during the series run. That's because the more dynamic lighting and smoke of the pilot hid a lot of the flaws in the set design. That being said, I was impressed by the central corridor set and how that could be redressed as the Zocolo or any other part of the station. Although, Peter Ledger's concept drawing of the central corridor included a tram in the middle ... that would've been neat to see.

Also loved the heavy jackknife doors of the sets.

Moreover, I thought the CRUSADE sets were much better.

RE: TNG

The Enterprise sets looked much better in the first two years of the series. It's a shame that Andy Probert and Herman Zimmerman left after the first year. I felt the production design for other Enterprise sets became more boxy and unimaginative under Richard James' watch. The curves of Zimmerman and Probert's approach seemed to vanish when they left the production.

Re: Seaquest

The sets were spectacular in the first year when they filmed at Universal in LA. But the set design plummeted when they moved the production to Universal in Florida. The bridge in the first year is spectacular. I loved how they had four conn controls to move the sub and a conning officer directing them. I also like how, like BSG, didn't have a huge captain's chair dead center on the bridge. (Yeah, they had one off to the side ... I know, but it wasn't dead center).

 

[Christopher]

The only thing that bugged me is that they didn't build the window wall to be invertible so they could show quarters on the underside of the ship.

IIRC, the set was built so the wall and windows coud be inverted, but it was never used much to Andy Probert's dismay. (However, I may be misremembering something I read in an interview.)

You may be right. Maybe the reason I'm disappointed they never did that is because I read it was possible and was hoping they'd follow through.

SPACE: 1999. Nice standing sets at least in the first year.

Main Mission, the tube shuttle and a corridor or two were the only standing set in Year One. The corridors and other sets were panels that could be rearranged over and over again to create new sections, like crew quarters or the medical section.

Wouldn't the Eagle cockpit count as a standing set?

 

[bullethead]

Re: Seaquest

The sets were spectacular in the first year when they filmed at Universal in LA. But the set design plummeted when they moved the production to Universal in Florida. The bridge in the first year is spectacular. I loved how they had four conn controls to move the sub and a conning officer directing them. I also like how, like BSG, didn't have a huge captain's chair dead center on the bridge. (Yeah, they had one off to the side ... I know, but it wasn't dead center).

Ironically, the probable reason they had four helmsman (regular subs had two, so a big sub like seaQuest would need more) doesn't exist anymore since subs like the Virginia class use a "fly by wire" system that allows one dude to handle all the maneuvering.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

SPACE: 1999. Nice standing sets at least in the first year.

Main Mission, the tube shuttle and a corridor or two were the only standing set in Year One. The corridors and other sets were panels that could be rearranged over and over again to create new sections, like crew quarters or the medical section.

Wouldn't the Eagle cockpit count as a standing set?

Yes! Derp, I'd forgotten about the Eagle set. Not just the cockpit but the passenger cabin as well.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One irritating thing that dates the Space: 1999 sets is the use of computer printout to yield what's usually just one line of computed data, often in the form of a number (say, the moon will collide with the planet in "25.1 hours"). Today we know that there should be more monitor screens, with such results displayed there. No doubt (ETA: or maybe I should just say "perhaps") including as many monitors as there should have been would have increased the expense of producing the show to prohibitive levels, given their decision to use actual CRT's, though maybe they could have gotten creative with a lot of dummy monitors.

Still, the details of the consoles notwithstanding, overall the Main Mission set from year one was a really cool set I thought. I loved the layout, the balcony, and the windows. The Eagle interior was also very well done, especially for a TV show.

 

[Psion]

I thought about mentioning the TARDIS, but in truth, it always felt like a bit of a cheat since it had nothing that it needed to match with.

It was never bad, but I think because it was essentially just a room that could be any shape, it never feels extraordinary.

But that's the extraordinary part. With the bridge of the Enterprise you couldn't change a chair around without a plot-related reason (actually IIRC they actually made a plot point out of changing a chair in an Enterprise episode). In nuBSG unless something blew up there was no way you'd see the Galactica bridge remodelled.

With the TARDIS, the sky is literally the limit. The 1996 TV movie made it a gothic cathedral/library (and yes that counts as a standing set as it was built for the TV series that never happened - it cost $1M IIRC so they intended it to stick around). The 2005-2010 version reflected the new direction of the series; the newer version was specifically designed to be "sexy". And even the original white-walled version still had the potential to surprise, even if some of those surprises took place off screen or were added on the fly as stories required.

Well, I'm just impressed that they could, even in the old days on such a slim budget, fit all those sets into that little box. Pure genius!