• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

concept art and set photos!

The second and last one has a 'Klingon Disruptor' vibe to them I kinda like. Strip off all the ridiculous panels and they may have something there but yeah, happy they passed on these.
 
I think it came out on the same day that the DVD was released, last time around, so mid-November might be a likely time to look for a new book.

According to Amazon, November 17th, although I could swear I purchased it in May. Well, reality trumps memory !
 
I think it came out on the same day that the DVD was released, last time around, so mid-November might be a likely time to look for a new book.

According to Amazon, November 17th, although I could swear I purchased it in May. Well, reality trumps memory !
I guess it may have been available for pre-order as early as May, but I know that the thread discussing it in this forum was started at the end of October (the book apparently shipped a couple of weeks ahead of time from one of the European Amazons.)
 
Not a fan of that odd Klingon design but really glad to see some of the other concept art.
 
Well, for me, I think there is a difference between what Pixar does and what the people for the Star Trek films do. People at Pixar for their latest film, Brave, went to Scotland and studied the architecture of castles. I get the feeling that the people involved in these ST filmes didn't study the architecture of ships. I am looking at the pictures of the interior of bridges, especially warships, and those bridges are not overwhelmingly white. They are lit enough for the people to work in and for them to read the consoles. And, i feel there is a disconnect between the futuristic look of the bridge, sickbay, and corridors and the engineering sets. They feel to me like two different worlds - I don't see the transition between the two.

From having watched documentaries on ships, I know that if you are going to have pipes in engineering that you going to have pipes in other parts of the ships. (Just to cite one example.) if the designers had taken some of the design ideas from TOS, such as piping in the corridors, and exposed machinery, than I might buy the idea that engineering looks like a throwback to a 20th century facility.
 
I always figure the pipes on the upper levels would be hidden by the paneling. I can see pipes in my basement but not the rest of the house, doesn't mean those pipes don't exist.
 
Well, for me, I think there is a difference between what Pixar does and what the people for the Star Trek films do. People at Pixar for their latest film, Brave, went to Scotland and studied the architecture of castles. I get the feeling that the people involved in these ST filmes didn't study the architecture of ships.

You expect them to go to the future and get inspiration from space navies for their designs ?

I want them to invent their own stuff. That's what sci-fi is all about. If you do things exactly like real-life, where's the fun ?
 
Well, for me, I think there is a difference between what Pixar does and what the people for the Star Trek films do. People at Pixar for their latest film, Brave, went to Scotland and studied the architecture of castles. I get the feeling that the people involved in these ST filmes didn't study the architecture of ships. I am looking at the pictures of the interior of bridges, especially warships, and those bridges are not overwhelmingly white. They are lit enough for the people to work in and for them to read the consoles. And, i feel there is a disconnect between the futuristic look of the bridge, sickbay, and corridors and the engineering sets. They feel to me like two different worlds - I don't see the transition between the two.

There are transitions there; they are called doors.

And, whatdoyouknow, the bridge of the warship we saw in the movie was rather dark.
 
Yes, I do, for I think the current bridge would be unworkable for anyone over a long period of time. And, the use of white as a visual metaphor for futuristic technology is not new - it has been used for decades. For instance, the interiors of the station and Discovery in 2001.

I suffer from severe anxiety and depression, and I am more attuned to colors than I suppose is humanly possible. For me, I am unable to enter a Target store without hyperventilating. The red is intense.

So, what does white signify?

Just as black is total absorption, so white is total reflection. In effect, it reflects the full force of the spectrum into our eyes. Thus it also creates barriers, but differently from black, and it is often a strain to look at. It communicates, "Touch me not!" White is purity and, like black, uncompromising; it is clean, hygienic, and sterile. The concept of sterility can also be negative. Visually, white gives a heightened perception of space. The negative effect of white on warm colours is to make them look and feel garish.
(http://www.colour-affects.co.uk/psychological-properties-of-colours)

As for the interior color of the Vengeance, that well isn't new either. In the old Westerns, the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats. As a viewer, we know the language of colors, and we associate white with good and black with bad. To see this dichotomy at work, look to the first Star Wars.

As for the interactive screens, I suppose over time that the user becomes accustomed to them. As a first time user, they seem cluttered.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top