For those of us who don't hate the Nu Enterprise but don't love it

[trevanian]

You are quite mistaken if you ever thought this is what they were trying to do.

Chambliss' second of three takes on the bridge design was very much a retread of the original bridge (with upgraded styling), but he and Abrams were bored by that attempt. So you are quite mistaken in thinking that this was outside their scope of approach.

I was not aware of that... references, please?

I did an interview with Chambliss last month, it is from what he told me.

The magazine that commissioned the piece cancelled it in disgust and put me on MUTANT CHRONICLES, after weeks of paramount failing to deliver the cinematographer and ILM failing to deliver anybody, so I'm shopping the PD piece round by itself, though most mags seem to have either already gotten their Chambliss interviews and some other markets have gone non-paying (CFQ, you should be ashamed of yourselves.)

 

[trevanian]

I believe he may be referring to this, but it may be necessary to go to the actual SciFiNow print article, because the only thing I'm seeing which says that exactly is a comment (#99) following the TrekMovie article.

That #99 is a comment from me (I used to be KMART here too, about a decade back, but got tired of explaining it was a short form of my name.)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Winky-blinkly lights going on and off in repeating patterns at every manned station look cheesy...

Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...

Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...

Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...

Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...

In your not so humble opinon.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Chambliss' second of three takes on the bridge design was very much a retread of the original bridge (with upgraded styling), but he and Abrams were bored by that attempt. So you are quite mistaken in thinking that this was outside their scope of approach.

I was not aware of that... references, please?

I did an interview with Chambliss last month, it is from what he told me.

The magazine that commissioned the piece cancelled it in disgust and put me on MUTANT CHRONICLES, after weeks of paramount failing to deliver the cinematographer and ILM failing to deliver anybody, so I'm shopping the PD piece round by itself, though most mags seem to have either already gotten their Chambliss interviews and some other markets have gone non-paying (CFQ, you should be ashamed of yourselves.)

What do you think the problem is? Does Paramount no longer care about "behind the scenes" interviews?

While I'm at it, would your article have SHOWN us these early bridges with production concept art?

 

[JuanBolio]

Winky-blinkly lights going on and off in repeating patterns at every manned station look cheesy...

Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...

Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...

Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...

Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...

In your not so humble opinon.

I second his opinion. While I think that overall the exterior of the original Enterprise looks beautiful as is, the interiors need some major overhauls (at least in the details, if not overall desgin).

 

[trevanian]

I was not aware of that... references, please?

I did an interview with Chambliss last month, it is from what he told me.

The magazine that commissioned the piece cancelled it in disgust and put me on MUTANT CHRONICLES, after weeks of paramount failing to deliver the cinematographer and ILM failing to deliver anybody, so I'm shopping the PD piece round by itself, though most mags seem to have either already gotten their Chambliss interviews and some other markets have gone non-paying (CFQ, you should be ashamed of yourselves.)

What do you think the problem is? Does Paramount no longer care about "behind the scenes" interviews?

While I'm at it, would your article have SHOWN us these early bridges with production concept art?

I have no idea what kinds of images we'd've wound up with, since supposedly nothing had been approved for publication according to the PR rep at Par and the PR guy at ILM, not even HD screengrabs, which to my editor and I sounded like bullshit.

When my editor worked at another mag, he and several other mags had no images supplied in time to run for their MI3 coverage, so you might think this was par(amount) for the course, but I know that on CLOVERFIELD images weren't too much of a problem.

Paramount has long semi-ignored certain genre publications and tech magazines, often only supplying stuff well after a useful date (which is why you often see trek coverage a month or more late in AC and mags like that.)
Except for around the turn of the century, when cooperation seemed very open (on INSURRECTION, and on TOMB RAIDER, for which I had to sign a ton of non-disclosures but otherwise had no problems), I've always had lots of problems with Paramount shows, going back to FC and GEN, and especially on TUC (if not for associate producer Brooke Breton, who basically sent me her whole trek phone list, there would have been no story and no images.)


And I should stress this TOS-looking bridge was an intermediate design, not an initial one: Chambliss' first take on the bridge was way way way too advanced looking in his opinion, hence the scaling back second approach before settling on something in between to actually build.

It'd be nice to see a making of or art of to see what these paths not taken look like.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Winky-blinkly lights going on and off in repeating patterns at every manned station look cheesy...

Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...

Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...

Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...

Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...

In your not so humble opinon.

I second his opinion. While I think that overall the exterior of the original Enterprise looks beautiful as is, the interiors need some major overhauls (at least in the details, if not overall desgin).

I think that you both are doing grave injustice to just how much thought and planning went into some of those interiors, esp the bridge. let's take Dennis' objections one at a time:

Winky-blinkly lights going on and off in repeating patterns at every manned station look cheesy...

Or are suggestive of an extremely sophisticated system of function indicators that allow one man to operate the ship's power systems from a single station. Compare that to the huge control rooms and numerous operators that our most modern nuclear power plants require for normal operation, or even those required of a ocean going ship of similar size.

All of THIS:

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Festivale/EngineRoom-09.jpg?IctQual=100

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Festivale/EngineRoom-06.jpg?IctQual=100

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Festivale/EngineRoom-15.jpg?IctQual=100

Replaced with THIS:

http://www.deeringproductions.com/ncctrek/NCCtrekimages/eng01.JPG?IctQual=100 (crappy scale scratch built replica, but best I could find on short notice)

Same with helm and navigation functions.

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Festivale/Myself-on-the-festivale-bri.jpg?IctQual=100

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Festivale/Another-view-of-bridge.jpg?IctQual=100

As opposed to:

http://www.starshipdatalink.net/operations/images/1701-hn-1.jpg?IctQual=100

By your standard, the HUDs used in our modern aircraft (and increasingly in ocean going ships) must be "cheesy" because they're full of indecipherable (to you) squiggles and boxes and numbers.

Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...

Or represent a complex non parser/linear programming system that allows the operator to write new command paths without having to spend hours writing out thousands of lines of machine code, laid out in an ergonomicaly friendly arc relative to the seated operator, and set in repeating patterns and color-codes to aid operator training and recognition.

Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...

Or represent secondary monitors for displaying vital mission data (which was demonstrated in a few episodes). Just because the production couldn't afford the number of union slide projector operators it would have cost to have them constantly changing does not invalidate the concept.

Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...

Depends on what they were intended to represent. Remember the Rule: don't stop to "sweat the details". Characters don't need to spend five pages of dialoge explaining HOW their instruments work. It's enough that they DO work.

Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...

No more or less so than any other type of suitable chair. They didn't need to serve as "acceleration couches", after all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...the interiors need some major overhauls (at least in the details, if not overall design).

And they got that.

 

[JuanBolio]

...the interiors need some major overhauls (at least in the details, if not overall design).

And they got that.

Yeah, though I'm not 100% happy with the new bridge, either. I would've liked to see something more like the Pike-era bridge mixed with some NASA/Stargate, all with a $150 million budget.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...the interiors need some major overhauls (at least in the details, if not overall design).

And they got that.

Yeah, though I'm not 100% happy with the new bridge, either.

No, neither am I.

 

[Praetor]

Is anybody?

 

[Michael]

Scott Chambliss?

 

[JuanBolio]

Is anybody?

The makeup girls at Saks 5th Avenue seem pleased...

 

[M'Sharak]

I believe he may be referring to this, but it may be necessary to go to the actual SciFiNow print article, because the only thing I'm seeing which says that exactly is a comment (#99) following the TrekMovie article.

That #99 is a comment from me (I used to be KMART here too, about a decade back, but got tired of explaining it was a short form of my name.)

Yeah, I knew who it was. I remember talking to you back then and also when you came back under the new nick. The mention made (in the post preceding the one I've quoted here) about having conducted your own interview with Chambliss supplies the missing piece of the puzzle: you got it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

[Praetor]

Scott Chambliss?

If I know the mind of a designer (and you do too ) then probably not him either.

Is anybody?

The makeup girls at Saks 5th Avenue seem pleased...

"We're all very pleased."

An oldie, but a goodie.

 

[saddestmoon]

I don't believe there is going to be any 'reset button' that reinstates classic TOS era Trek - as we know it. If there is a reset button, it won't mean that the NuEnterprise is going to disappear, once the reset happens. IMO, the timeline might not actually be fixed - at least, not enough to reinstate the 1960s looking Trek era, by virtue of appearance, at least.

Otherwise - why introduce a new alt-enterprise, just to have a reversion back to the classic 1960s looking trek-look at the end of the movie? I think if the 1960s style of Trek tech was going to be present in this new timeline, it would have been introduced in this movie, not held back till the end of Trek XI, and introduced more completely in Trek XII (yet to come). It doesn't make a lotta sense. As a consequence, I think the NuEnterprise is the ship that will carry through into whatever sequels to Trek XI get made.

Love it or loathe it - the NuEnterprise is here to stay, IMO!

And that's just peachy-king with me!!!

 

[True Trek Fan]

The new 'white bridge' is nothing new in terms of a colour choice, I just think the new bridge is a terrible design. Compare the recent bridge photo to the one from Star Trek 4. I still prefer the bridge design created over 23 years ago to what JJ Abrams and company have come up with today.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of those two, the JJPrise bridge is clearly superior in design and a great deal more believable.

Now, I must admit to being fond of the Star Trek V bridge, myself.

 

[shapeshifter]

Someone turn off a few of those damn lights!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Someone turn off a few of those damn lights!

Yeah, really...the fluorescents along the floor on the Star Trek IV bridge serve no purpose and make no sense.