Enterprise Bridge Console - discuss!

[Warp Coil]

Here's my opinion based on the facts as presented thusfar (you're welcome to disagree): the pictures of JJ sitting at a console was taken at the time of the web chat, which means it was taken while they were filming on the Enterprise bridge. What you see in the pic is a station on the new Enterprise set. It isn't a 24th century ship. It isn't an alien ship. That's the Enterprise.

So, having said that, does it look anything like the TOS bridge? Well, not really, but the picture is so vague and washed out and lacking in detail. There's no way to know what the entire set looks like. But so far I don't see a bunch of bright primary colors and massive jeweled buttons. So what does this mean? It means that this film isn't going to be a literal re-creation of TOS. It's a "re-imagining" if not a "re-boot". It makes perfect sense to me - I honestly don't want to see a re-creation of TOS. The sets, costumes and props as depicted in TOS are simply outdated by today's standards. It wouldn't hold up to today's audiences (except for Trek fans who are TOS purists, and that isn't JJ's target audience).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Arlo said:
^

Ya know, every time I see "nuBSG" I want to punch a kitten. It's just "BSG" for chrissake. If anything, the original BSG needs a modifier, not the current series.

I don't mind "nuBSG" for the same reason that I think the "it's not 'TOS' it's 'Star Trek'" attitude is self-important bullshit: the abbreviation serves its purpose, which is to make a distinction between two things, simply and succinctly.

However, I think maybe I'll drop "nuTrek" in reference to Abrams' movie in favor of nuTOS. Or not - the latter sounds like something you might spread on toast.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Warp Coil said:
Here's my opinion based on the facts as presented thusfar (you're welcome to disagree): the pictures of JJ sitting at a console was taken at the time of the web chat, which means it was taken while they were filming on the Enterprise bridge. What you see in the pic is a station on the new Enterprise set. It isn't a 24th century ship. It isn't an alien ship. That's the Enterprise.

So, having said that, does it look anything like the TOS bridge? Well, not really, but the picture is so vague and washed out and lacking in detail. There's no way to know what the entire set looks like. But so far I don't see a bunch of bright primary colors and massive jeweled buttons. So what does this mean? It means that this film isn't going to be a literal re-creation of TOS. It's a "re-imagining" if not a "re-boot". It makes perfect sense to me - I honestly don't want to see a re-creation of TOS. The sets, costumes and props as depicted in TOS are simply outdated by today's standards. It wouldn't hold up to today's audiences (except for Trek fans who are TOS purists, and that isn't JJ's target audience).

This is basically how I feel. There have already been reports before this saying the interiors would be pretty different. Nobody should've been expecting a straight TOS look... I personally don't mind some retconning for certain asthetics. As far as the pic is concerned; we know it is the Enterprise because that's where they were filming, and probably is TOS era. Pine has already spoken of sitting in "the chair". And I'm not worried about the lighting, the pic was taken with a freaking cell phone.

 

[Arlo]

Starship Polaris said:

Arlo said:
^

Ya know, every time I see "nuBSG" I want to punch a kitten. It's just "BSG" for chrissake. If anything, the original BSG needs a modifier, not the current series.

I don't mind "nuBSG" for the same reason that I think the "it's not 'TOS' it's 'Star Trek'" attitude is self-important bullshit: the abbreviation serves its purpose, which is to make a distinction between two things, simply and succinctly.

However, I think maybe I'll drop "nuTrek" in reference to Abrams' movie in favor of nuTOS. Or not - the latter sounds like something you might spread on toast.

Well, "nuBSG", has a snarky negative connotation to it that annoy me. I happen to be a fan of RDM's show (and I do have nostalgic appreciation for the original BSG as well). I guess my point is, for all intents and purposes, when someone mentions Battlestar Galactica, they mean the current show. Ergo, the "nu" is superfluous. I think it makes more sense to call the 70s series "oBSG" or "BOS" or some such.

As for the new movie, there's another thread discussing what it should be called, but I'm fine with "Star Trek", "STXI" or whatever.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Arlo said:
Well, "nuBSG", has a snarky negative connotation to it that annoy me. I happen to be a fan of RDM's show (and I do have nostalgic appreciation for the original BSG as well).

I'm a fan of Moore's version, though I consider the original to be as bad as the worst things that are said about it. I don't get much snark from nuBSG, though - it's the "GINO" idiots that are annoying.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starship Polaris said: it's the "GINO" idiots that are annoying.

Agreed.

And I say this *as* a fan of BSG-TOS. (I don't much care for the remake.) Those GINO morons give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[Arlo]

^^
Fair enough...I remember reading GINO whining about the time RDMs "manifesto" appeared up to the premier, but hadn't heard much since. Are those loonies still at it?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Arlo said:
^^
Fair enough...I remember reading GINO whining about the time RDMs "manifesto" appeared up to the premier, but hadn't heard much since. Are those loonies still at it?

I don't keep up on it much, but I know fairly recently the GINO crowd was still trolling around the BSG board at SciFi.com... Funny note, the Pegasus copy of #6, Gina, was named by RDM as a reference to the GINO squad.

 

[Patrickivan]

Babaganoosh said:

Patrickivan said:
If this is the bridge, the evidence continues to mount that this is not Star Trek TOS, but Star Trek re-boot...

It does nothing of the kind.

These things are ensured:

- Starfleet starship bridges are removable modules that can be replaced at will.

- The 1701 bridge *even within TOS* was not consistent. There were THREE different bridges: Cage, WNMHGB, and the regular one.

- The time frame of *this* bridge is completely unknown. For all we know, it's 2245 and the ship is brand new. Therefore it could have a completely different bridge from the other three we've seen.

- For that matter, the bridge might not even be finished (as a set) when that photo was taken. They may have been in the middle of building it.

- It would help if we knew what console JJ was sitting at. We don't, so we can make no assumptions about reboots and shit like that.

- As brightly lit as that thing is, it may mean something else entirely. Maybe it's not meant to be lit up like that when the ship is in flight?

Yes- you could be right- if all the TOS bridges didn't look so much alike.

You seem very angry when i say this could be a re-boot. If it does turn out to be a re-boot, are you that opposed to it?

And if you are going to quote me- keep the context and don't make up anything. I said that IF it turns out to be the bridge... Key work IF- then the EVIDENCE mounts- I didn't make any conclusive statements. When one says it is looking like, or may be, or anything to that effect, it is speculation.

The fact that the bridge console looks more TMPish then TOSish is based on what we've seen on screen.

Call it a re-boot, re-imagining, or what you will, but don't say that this is the bridge of the Enterprise from the the 2260's. Don't say this is the ship we know to DATE as THE Enterprise. It isn't. If it's NOT the ship we know, then it is therefore new. If it's new, it MUST be a re-imagining, re-boot, re-tooling, regardless of your denial.

You say that we don't know if it is the Enterprise console- I'd agree if someone didn't point out that is what TrekMovie.com said.

You say we don't know if it's new 2245, and I agree, that would make a world of difference. Maybe those big sloppy warp engines are being swapped out. Maybe that odd looking few decks below that bridge are being swapped out too.

If that were so, I am fine with it. But I qualified my speculation with a lot of IF's and that's what this forum is all about. I didn't make any actual conclusive statements, other the it will suck IF it's a re-boot.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Patrickivan said:
Yes- you could be right- if all the TOS bridges didn't look so much alike.

I don't really care about that. We did see a few other bridges in TOS, and it was obviously using the same set, but what of it? It just saves money on set design. Besides, those other bridges were all still shown while TOS was being made, so it makes sense they'd look alike.

You seem very angry when i say this could be a re-boot.

No, not angry, more like exasperated. I simply don't see any evidence it's a reboot. JJ Abrams said it won't be; so did the writers. I trust them more.

If it does turn out to be a re-boot, are you that opposed to it?

It would take a LOT of convincing to make me believe that. What I - and a fair amount of others, I'd guess - will continue to assume, is that this film takes place in the same continuity as all other Trek. Who gives a shit what it looks like. This is simply what it "always" looked like.

Call it a re-boot, re-imagining, or what you will, but don't say that this is the bridge of the Enterprise from the the 2260's.

I will say whatever I damn well please, thank you very much. Is this ship the Enterprise? Yes. Does this scene take place during the 2260's? We'll have to wait and see about that (it could be earlier). But if it is? Then it's the same ship, same crew, same timeline, same continuity, looks be damned. I will consider the matter closed at that point, and that there is no reboot - *unless* the filmmakers say it's a reboot. That will be the only explanation I will accept. I doubt I'd be alone in this.

I really could give a damn how much like TOS it looks. (You don't seriously think it should look like that, do you? It's been 40 years, for trout's sake!) It's irrelevant to me.

 

[JoeZhang]

honestly who cares? Is the emotional journey of the characters fulfilling and interesting? Is the acting and script upto par?

Those are the questions I'll be interested in on the big night not "they moved a button two inches to the left" or "it doesn't look just the same as a TV set from 40 years ago"....

 

[Arlo]

Patrickivan said:
I didn't make any actual conclusive statements, other the it will suck IF it's a re-boot.

You really believe this? That the film will be an artistic failure if it's a reboot?. If it wins 5 Oscars, if it's hailed for its writing, direction, cinematography, costume design, editing, visual effects, etc, if it makes Citizen Kane look like Plan 9 from Outer Space, the fact that its a reboot will make it "suck"?

I just want to be clear.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I hope it's a reboot.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Like I said, though...no matter how different it looks, I have decided that I will only believe it is a reboot if the filmmakers specifically say it is. Anything else is irrelevant. So it looks different. Who the hell cares? We all knew it would.

Hell, if Gene Roddenberry could seriously claim that the Klingons always looked like they did in TMP...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, it's cool if it's not a reboot, too.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Babaganoosh said:
Hell, if Gene Roddenberry could seriously claim that the Klingons always looked like they did in TMP...

Exactly! Which means its not a reboot, its a retcon

 

[Arlo]

Call me crazy, but I just want to go to the theater (hopefully IMAX), park myself dead center with my friends and popcorn (no butter), and enjoy a damn good movie.

I also look forward to JJs interpretation of the Enterprise, the characters and settings. Somehow I will survive if it doesn't all match TOS down to the nails and plywood.

 

[Patrickivan]

Babaganoosh,

Well- as long as you're not angry...

Here is the Enterprise. This is from StarTrek.com. So far, there is no other 1701 other then the variation with Pike and after- though pretty much the same. So horribly dated. I am so glad JJ "modernized" it by making it look clunky and industial!

And this bridge- another example of a dated look. Let's modernize it by making it look more clunky too!

But apparently, the movie (TMP) refit version, (explained in the movie as a refit), was based on the ship JJ is showing- I mean they undeniably look alike. So you're right- it's not a reboot. I accept that.

I'm just perplexed how JJ is going to explain how the Enterprise shown in the Teaser goes from looking like that, back to the horrible dated 60's Enterprise above (because it's NOT a reboot, it has to now), before being yet refitted again BACK to the ship (TMP) that looks a lot like the ship shown in the teaser. But it's not a reboot like he said it wasn't.

 

[aelius]

[/QUOTE]Exactly! Which means its not a reboot, its a retcon

[/QUOTE]
I agree, and you must retcon the VFX and sets to modern standards or the general audience will laugh the movie out of the theater by the end of the first weekend.
I have been watching Star Trek since age seven when it was syndicated in 1972. I have watched all of the movies and series, some better, some worse, and I remain a giant fan of the original while still enjoying the ones that came after.
Still, I want the bridge to look different, even if only a little, to account for the improvements in VFX and the way people look at technology today as opposed to the 1960's.
Yes, you can explain how the technology looks clunky by our standards but is much more capable. Fine, if you must. But these things are only props for someone who cannot stand the thought of their show being altered in any way. The old sets are classics. They set the standard for their time, but only for their time. For this time, we need new ones. Ones inspired by the old ones, but not slaves to them.
This mild adjustment to the look of the settings does not make it a new continuity, simply a recognition of the reality of improving budgets and VFX.
Exactly as The Great Bird explained when people complained about Klingons with bumpy foreheads before TMP premiered. Now they are the standard.
If some people want to allow their inflexible attachment to old standards of Treknology to limit or even ruin their enjoyment of the new movie then I can only extend my sympathy.
In closing, I believe Star Trek is about the people and setting of the galaxy that Gene Roddenberry created, the one that has been built on over the last 40+ years. And as long as the new storyline develops those characters and setting in an intelligent and creative way I will be happy with Star Trek (The New Motion Picture)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Reboot" and "reimagined" are words that don't actually mean anything specific, where entertainment is concerned.

Fans can argue until they're blue in the face about how "reboot" clearly and unambiguously means this-or-that and it still won't be true.

"Reimagined" is a marketing term essentially made up to promote Tim Burton's "Planet Of The Apes" remake.

Claiming that Abrams lied because whatever he said doesn't match up with some fan's convictions about what a "reboot" or "reimagination" or "retcon" is itself abuse of the truth and a failure of common sense.