Discovery in Variety

[Michael]

The "SS" in "Class" does seem to match the letters that would be "SS" in "Crossfield" if your friend was right:

You know, I think you are right!

Since I don't think the lighting and color grading for a magazine shoot necessarily reflects how the set will look in the show, I tried to visualize what the set would look under more neutral light:

 

[BillJ]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

 

[Refuge]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

(It has to be that big to fit Isaacs ego in).

 

[Mudd]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

Or, like the bridge of the Protector ii in Galaxy Quest. Which is the set it most resembles.



That thing was HUGE, and largely empty - it seemed to have been designed around the demand for one scene in which dozens of people crowd on to the platform behind Taggart to watch him launch the ship.

 

[Tosk]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

Reminds me of the NSEA Protector. The real one, not the TV one.

 

[BillJ]

Or, like the bridge of the Protector ii in Galaxy Quest. Which is the set it most resembles.

Reminds me of the NSEA Protector. The real one, not the TV one.

I have never seen Galaxy Quest.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

I had the exact same thought.

There's certainly no in-universe reason why a starship bridge would ever need to be so big. And about a dozen reasons why it might be a bad idea.

I'm trying to think of a real-world reason, and besides the widescreen camera angles someone mentioned before, the only other thing I can think of is if they intend for a lot of hand-held close-ups and they wanted to allot enough space for the camera people to run around in.

I have never seen Galaxy Quest.

Nerd fail.

 

[Pure Antiproton]

Every day is a new drop of goodness. Love the Discovery bridge. $8m an episode to boot. Great time to be a fan! Cannot wait for the 24th. Invites are going out for my viewing party this weekend.

 

[Mudd]

I have never seen Galaxy Quest.

Every time they rethink Star Trek I hope that they'll design sets that look plausibly like a high-tech environment where people might actually be doing work, with instruments and details that are persuasive as possibly real.

Something like the interiors in Avatar. nuBSG, even.

Trek designers never do, and Discovery hasn't either. The sets are lushly-designed, rather preposterous fantasy environments and nothing more.

Same goes for uniforms and clothing - no one expects people in Star Trek to dress like people who have things to do, and for the most part the characters don't.

 

[BillJ]

Same goes for uniforms and clothing - no one expects people in Star Trek to dress like people who have things to do...

You aren't digging the track suits that are used in thousands of malls by senior citizens across America?!?

For me, the Discovery bridge set feels like a TV production stage.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Every time they rethink Star Trek I hope that they'll design sets that look plausibly like a high-tech environment where people might actually be doing work, with instruments and details that are persuasive as possibly real.

Something like the interiors in Avatar. nuBSG, even.

I agree somewhat.

I also think, funny enough, that Voyager probably came the closest to this. It was the most functional-utilitarian of the bunch. I would say the NX would be next.

 

[pst]

You know, I think you are right!

Since I don't think the lighting and color grading for a magazine shoot necessarily reflects how the set will look in the show, I tried to visualize what the set would look under more neutral light:

you're forgetting that we've already seen portions of the bridge under different lighting conditions, the back walls may or may not have a gold tinge to them:

 

[Mudd]

I agree somewhat.

I also think, funny enough, that Voyager probably came the closest to this. It was the most functional-utilitarian of the bunch. I would say the NX would be next.

I'd reverse the order, but yeah those two stand out. The Kelvin from Star Trek 2009 is another one I like - part of that was Abrams's style of shooting, which was to place the viewer in the midst of the environment and successfully give the sense that a great deal is going on all around them.

 

[pst]

Trek designers never do, and Discovery hasn't either. The sets are lushly-designed, rather preposterous fantasy environments and nothing more.

Same goes for uniforms and clothing - no one expects people in Star Trek to dress like people who have things to do, and for the most part the characters don't.

star trek now more than in the 70s, 80s and 90s is a reflection of the 1960s ideal of the future, not so much a grounded, realistic approach, i think.

 

[Rahul]

So now we know Discovery is one of the top 3-4 most expensive shows in history for sure. It's also already in profit. This must be one of the biggest early success stories in TV history because usually at this point, studios are biting their nails at the outcome with such an outlay of money. Not so in this case. It's all about the name.

RAMA

It was already profitable. Way back during production, when they estimated 5-4 mio. per episode and had that nice Netflix-deal with a release in 2016. Then they had more than a year of delays, and the cost ballooned to more than 8 mio. per episode.

Also, I can guarantee you that they have to pay penalties to Netflix - they had a done deal, Netflix payed a lot of money, and then didn't get a product on time. Investors hate that. There are clauses for that.

At this point, the producers can need any viewer they can get. And even then, I suspect a budget cut for next season - 8 mio. is simply too extravagant, if you're not the final season of Game of Thrones. Otherwise they severly risk the Star Trek: Beyond-type of failure: Good enough reviews. A sizeable amount of viewers. But overall a monetary loss, because of massively inappropriete spending.

You know, I think you are right!

Since I don't think the lighting and color grading for a magazine shoot necessarily reflects how the set will look in the show, I tried to visualize what the set would look under more neutral light:

Dayum! I really didn't like the dark-blue filter with lens-flares-look in the trailer. One can say I hated it, and thought the Shenzhou-brige (and the Discovery one) looked ugly in that colour. But damn. This is actually a nice bridge! IF THEY WOULD FILM IT LIKE YOU WOULD FILM REAL THINGS. Gosh. What's it with the overuse of filters in modern productions??

Nice Job!

I have never seen Galaxy Quest.

You go home and watch that movie right now! Do it!
It's actually one of the best Trek movies around. And it got Sigourney Weaver, Alan Rickman, Sam Rockwell, Tony Shalhoub ('Monk') and Tim Allen in it.

 

[Mudd]

It was already profitable.

And still is, despite tortured rationalizations to the contrary.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And still is, despite tortured rationalizations to the contrary.

Money well spent, Dennis.

 

[Rahul]

And still is, despite tortured rationalizations to the contrary.

Probably. Maybe not. If not yet - the difference won't be so big, so even with abysmal viewership the first season will be profitable. Interesting will be the second season. When the viewership numbers are known, what Neflix will pay then, and how many people will buy CBS All Access.

Honestly, I don't care about some mega-corporations finances. Only about the results. That are: Most like a (slightly) reduced budget for the next season, to a more sensible number. (Which could be easily achieved without fewer vfx or downgrading production values - simply by keeping the creative personal and not showing everyone the door and retool it in the midst of production). And if DIS gets cancelled or not depends not so much on it's own merits, but mostly on wheather All Access is profitable or not - something we have no clue about and can't do much about.

 

[RAMA]

Why is the bridge so huge? It reminds me of the comically oversized bridges from Star Trek Online.

Lots of people thought the Enterprise-D was huge compared to the original 1701, but in fact the sets had the same footprint. I'm thinking the camera lenses make the sets look bigger than they are, and the Discovery bridge isn't significantly different in size.

 

[Mudd]

That are: Most like a (slightly) reduced budget for the next season, to a more sensible number.

No.