Ent-E bridge WINDOW?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by F. King Daniel, Mar 21, 2014.

  1. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Nov 5, 2008
    King Daniel Beyond
    Was the refitted Enterprise-E at the end of Nemesis supposed to have an actual window replacing the viewscreen-where-a-window-would-be that was a Trek staple until ST'09? The zoom-out at the end of the alternate ending (the one with Commander Madden and the new, seatbelt-equipped captain's chair) looks like it was meant to continue and be CG'd over with the exterior of the ship.
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Former Democrat Admiral

    Jan 30, 2001
    Probably just where the viewscreen is suppose to go. Plug and play.
  3. Kemaiku

    Kemaiku Admiral Admiral

    Dec 23, 2004
    Northern Ireland
    Yeah, they likely meant to show that the gap was still there, that the forcefield was in place until the new and improved viewscreen was plugged in.

    It doesn't look like a window, too much "missing".
  4. Timby

    Timby wo thats a big twinkie Administrator

    May 28, 2001
    Wasn't the viewscreen actually a window in Nemesis? During the battle, the bridge gets hit, there's the sound of shattering glass to go along with the shattering viewscreen.
  5. Mage

    Mage Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jun 17, 2007
    Wouldn't it be a massive use of power to have an EMERGENCY forcefield on all the time, even if it is in spacedock? I doubt they'd cover a hole in the bridge with a forcefield just so people could walk around there. Heck, the rest of the bridge seems perfectly fine and repaired, so I doubt they'd leave that gaping hole Shinzon blew in it while the rest of the bridge was fine.
  6. Bry_Sinclair

    Bry_Sinclair Vice Admiral Admiral

    Sep 28, 2009
    Orbiting Urectum
    Deleted scene so not exactly canon.
  7. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    Hard to tell, because the damage doesn't consist of intact walls and a hole the shape and size of the former viewscreen; the frame is extensively torn, too. I doubt a window was intended, though, as it's clear from the exterior shots that there's no corresponding opening on the outside of the ship.

    Probably not, considering that forcefields are in constant or near-constant use in other applications, most of them at least as crucial as keeping air in. Say, forcefields supposedly prevent the antimatter fuel from blowing up the ship - for years at an end. Somewhat shorter-duration forcefields also keep prisoners in the cells, and air inside the shuttlebays whenever the doors are open, etc.

    Timo Saloniemi
  8. publiusr

    publiusr Vice Admiral Admiral

    Mar 22, 2010
    Now that bridge set was designed to shake, and I just think we are seeing camera pass thrus as the camera platforms themselves were on the main floor--with arms reaching through the holes in the set. The two columns to either side are probably some bracing to hold everything so. Then the Greenscreen is just beyond, with lights shining on the actors faces also aimed through the holes.

    I don't think that is to represent a window...

    What you might call a working set.
  9. Captain Mike

    Captain Mike Commodore Commodore

    May 22, 2004
    Warren, Pa.
    No, if I remember correctly in First Contact, that the "viewscreen wasn't just that. Wasn't it a holographic image projected onto it?
  10. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    In ST:FC, the viewscreen was turned off when we first saw it - just like in TOS. When it was turned off, it looked like this:


    Hologram or not? All the viewscreen images are "projections" of some sort. And in TNG, they were always three-dimensional: if you walked to the side of the bridge when Tomalak was raving and ranting on screen, you would see his cheek. The same would have been true of TOS, had the TOS viewscreen been filmed from the side rather than from directly ahead - it's cheaper to shoot imagery of Tomalak or Kor from the side and insert that into the shot than to shoot imagery of the opponent from front and then optically distort that so that it looks as if viewed from an angle.

    I guess we could make the point that the TOS image was projected onto an obvious canvas the size of the image, whereas the ST:FC "canvas" is just a bit of wall...

    Timo Saloniemi
  11. Shat Happens

    Shat Happens Captain Captain

    Jul 24, 2013
  12. Nebusj

    Nebusj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jan 27, 2005
  13. Redfern

    Redfern Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Sep 28, 2006
    Georgia, USA
  14. Tiberius

    Tiberius Commodore Commodore

    Sep 28, 2005
    Not always. I distinctly remember a few times when the image we saw was 2D, like a television. I suppose it would be whether the person you are talking to is transmitting a 3D or 2D image.
  15. Richard Baker

    Richard Baker Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Nov 11, 2008
    Warrior, AL
    I hated the FC viewscreen being projected like a curtain over a blank wall- imagine spending the whole day with that wall right in front of you instead of a nice moving starfield...

    It does look like a window in that shot- it could also just be the socket where they plug in a viewsceen later since they are still assembling the bridge in that scene. Star Trek resorted to the concept of Bridge Modules to explain how that part of the ship changed from movie to movie. Logically they would just unplug the wrecked bridge and plug in a replacement instead of doing things piecemeal. Perhaps the Sovereign class was too new to have a bunch of modules available for this...
  16. starburst

    starburst Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Mar 8, 2007
    Earlier in the deleted scene you can see through the gap in the bridge and the dock afterwards, I took it to mean they simply hadn't finished replacing the hull plating around the bridge.

    Kinda shoots the 'plug and play' bridge module theory in the foot.

    At any rate that gap is meant to be there in the finished shot however it did look like an unfinished repair than a decision to put in a window.