Dunno if we'll ever see a Technical Manual or Booklet of General Plans from this new timeline published, but it'd be interesting to see how they label the beer tanks in the Communications Center: "Subspace Resonance Chamber" perhaps?
Dunno if we'll ever see a Technical Manual or Booklet of General Plans from this new timeline published, but it'd be interesting to see how they label the beer tanks in the Communications Center: "Subspace Resonance Chamber" perhaps?
I don't remember the details on budget JJ wanted vs. budget JJ got, but something else comes to mind: in a recent bit of video, Roger Guyett from ILM was seen stating that the space jump sequence comprised more than a third of the effects shots for the entire film, and also that that sequence had not been part of the original script. Might it be that the engineering sets, as conceived, ended up falling casualty to the decision to add the space jump sequence to the story? That one sequence had to represent a significant chunk of change reallocated from the effects budget originally intended for other scenes.
If push came to shove, I'd rather have the amazing and thrilling space jump sequence than another science-fictiony engineering set. Moreover, I preferred the in-camera use of an existing facility to yet another CGI set extension.
That's just one more thing to add to the looooooooooong list of stuff in this movie that make absolutely no logical sense at all.
Indeed it does have to do with the tech manual.
If the sets make no logical sense,
then it would be very dificult to do a tech manual based upon what was seen on screen.
From what I recall reading, Abrams' idea was one which quite a few directors have been employing: rather than use CGI wherever possible, which had been the trend for quite a few years up until relatively recently, the move has lately been toward using physical sets as often as possible and reserving CGI sets and set extensions for occasions where it's either wholly impractical or completely impossible to do the scene with a completely built set. The space jump and drilling platform sequence would be a perfect example of this and, as I suggested earlier, the decision to use the little-modified brewery location as the turbine-room set may well have been the trade-off which allowed them to get the space jump sequence into the movie while still remaining under budget and on schedule.I don't remember the details on budget JJ wanted vs. budget JJ got, but something else comes to mind: in a recent bit of video, Roger Guyett from ILM was seen stating that the space jump sequence comprised more than a third of the effects shots for the entire film, and also that that sequence had not been part of the original script. Might it be that the engineering sets, as conceived, ended up falling casualty to the decision to add the space jump sequence to the story? That one sequence had to represent a significant chunk of change reallocated from the effects budget originally intended for other scenes.
If push came to shove, I'd rather have the amazing and thrilling space jump sequence than another science-fictiony engineering set. Moreover, I preferred the in-camera use of an existing facility to yet another CGI set extension.
Which is ironic since the space jump sequence is one long CGI set extension/background replacement![]()
...The initial engineering design sketches from the art of the movie book looked a whole lot like something out of Star Trek. JJA couldn't have that.
Unfortunately, if they had built that set, it would have actually looked like something that could have been from a 23rd century starship. And JJA couldh't have that.
Actually, I was pretty serious (yet somewhat sarcastic at the same time). The original ads for the movie declared that this was "not your father's Star Trek". And that was quite true. Apparently the entire movie was designed to distance itself as far from the original series as possible while still retaining the name "Star Trek". Hence the rediculous engineering deck set (obviously) in a brewery. Apparently, based on the initial design sketches, if it looked too futuristic or "Star Treky", it was jetisoned in favor of more primitive looking, 20th century design aesthetics. A direction I find absolutely baffling.
I don't remember the details on budget JJ wanted vs. budget JJ got, but something else comes to mind: in a recent bit of video, Roger Guyett from ILM was seen stating that the space jump sequence comprised more than a third of the effects shots for the entire film, and also that that sequence had not been part of the original script. Might it be that the engineering sets, as conceived, ended up falling casualty to the decision to add the space jump sequence to the story? That one sequence had to represent a significant chunk of change reallocated from the effects budget originally intended for other scenes.
If push came to shove, I'd rather have the amazing and thrilling space jump sequence than another science-fictiony engineering set. Moreover, I preferred the in-camera use of an existing facility to yet another CGI set extension.
Which is ironic since the space jump sequence is one long CGI set extension/background replacement![]()
Actually, I was pretty serious (yet somewhat sarcastic at the same time). The original ads for the movie declared that this was "not your father's Star Trek". And that was quite true. Apparently the entire movie was designed to distance itself as far from the original series as possible while still retaining the name "Star Trek". Hence the rediculous engineering deck set (obviously) in a brewery. Apparently, based on the initial design sketches, if it looked too futuristic or "Star Treky", it was jetisoned in favor of more primitive looking, 20th century design aesthetics. A direction I find absolutely baffling.
If push came to shove, I'd rather have the amazing and thrilling space jump sequence than another science-fictiony engineering set. Moreover, I preferred the in-camera use of an existing facility to yet another CGI set extension.
Which is ironic since the space jump sequence is one long CGI set extension/background replacement![]()
Yes, CGI was employed for the long and wide shots (and the jump) but most of the action was shot tightly, in-camera, on an outdoor set piece using natural lighting. Moreover, most of the close-up jump sequence was filmed using in-camera tricks and natural lighting rather than relying heavily on green screen.
Moreover, the sequence is, as I said, thrilling and daring. It contained all the sense of adventure I've felt had been bled out of Trek over four spin-off series and several lackluster movies. A CGI engineering set would've been flat, expected and not terribly exciting. Oh, look, another pulsing tube of light...seen it.
I know you're having a bit fun, ST-One, but I felt the need to clarify.
Oh, I got the sarcasm, and I think I can make out fairly well the serious points underlying it, but trust me - compared to the guy I had in mind, you're quite the wit, and a good deal more reasonable.Actually, I was pretty serious (yet somewhat sarcastic at the same time).
The "not your father's Star Trek" tagline was one spot only, unless I'm mistaken, and it didn't come until relatively late in the ad campaign -- only two or three months before the movie went into general release, when the push was being made to address demographics which had not for years (or never at all) been any part of the Star Trek fanbase.The original ads for the movie declared that this was "not your father's Star Trek".
Balderdash.And that was quite true. Apparently the entire movie was designed to distance itself as far from the original series as possible while still retaining the name "Star Trek".
So, you lack an imagination?I used to work years ago in a plating plant not unlike the "brewery" used in the movie and not once did I ever imagine that I was actually in the engineering section of a 23rd Century Starship.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.