New sets onboard ship. Scrap the brewery!

[Flake]

There is some concept art out there somewhere that depicts a Warp Core and a more believable engineering. I have been trying to find it today and post it here but I can't find it.

Ultimately I believe the use of the brewery happened because they could not afford to build an elaborate set or didn't believe it was worth it. Also Abrams favored shooting in real locations as frequently as possible to make it realistic presumably (duh) but this idea fell flat on its face when blatant 20th century industrial sets are minimally redressed to look like 23rd century state-of-the-art spaceships and only his excellent direction and fast pacing could paper over these cracks.

They need to give Scotty some kind of focal point instead of him standing next to a mass of pipes & valves!

I bet the art department where incredibly frustrated at the use of the breweryprise and kelvin-powerstation!

 

[F. King Daniel]

^I liked the Kelvin power station too!

The concept art is on Memory Alpha, on their "USS Enterprise (alternate)" page.

All Scotty needs in the brewery is some sort of master control console to bustle around.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

^I liked the Kelvin power station too!

The concept art is on Memory Alpha, on their "USS Enterprise (alternate)" page.

from the Memory Alpha page [because hyperlinks are so much easier since 1995 even with keeping with TrekBBS image 'hotlinking' rules]
Compromised engineering concepts
USS Enterprise engineering concept 1.jpg
USS Enterprise engineering concept 2.jpg
USS Enterprise engineering concept 3.jpg
Wow how cool! This is my first time seeing these!
I'd love to see these created from the original 3-D designs designed by Ryan Church into a virtual 3-D space to explore in a videogame. Surely we won't get anything like that in Star Trek: Online though...

There is some concept art out there somewhere that depicts a Warp Core and a more believable engineering.

Is it in this book? Star Trek : The Art Of The Film

If so, what page# ?
Are they the same concepts as the above 3?

 

[SalvorHardin]

^I liked the Kelvin power station too!

The concept art is on Memory Alpha, on their "USS Enterprise (alternate)" page.

from the Memory Alpha page [because hyperlinks are so much easier since 1995 even with keeping with TrekBBS image 'hotlinking' rules]
Compromised engineering concepts
USS Enterprise engineering concept 1.jpg
USS Enterprise engineering concept 2.jpg
USS Enterprise engineering concept 3.jpg
Wow how cool! This is my first time seeing these!
I'd love to see these created from the original 3-D designs designed by Ryan Church into a virtual 3-D space to explore in a videogame. Surely we won't get anything like that in Star Trek: Online though...

There is some concept art out there somewhere that depicts a Warp Core and a more believable engineering.

Is it in this book? Star Trek : The Art Of The Film

If so, what page# ?
Are they the same concepts as the above 3?

Yes, the USS Enterprise engineering concept 1.jpg is the one that's on the book, page 107

 

[Captain Rob]

Many sources have said that the difference between the TOS Enterprise and this new Enterprise is due to starship design acceleration mandated by the Narada-Kelvin incident at the beginning of the movie. For a ship to be designed for combat with a huge unknown threat such as the Narada; it has to be designed for survivability. Which means no huge wide open spaces unless absolutely needed. In other words, compartmentalization.
For example: Two real ships that had the exact same propulsion system. One ship having been reproduced in a major motion picture that I'm sure everyone has seen. Both ships had huge twin steam-powered triple cylinder piston engines driving two huge propellers. The movie ship having a smaller third prop driven by a low pressure turbine. One ship,being a US Navy warship, had it's engine room compartmentalized, separating the two engines and creating multiple levels around the engine components. All of the gearing and related systems had their own compartments as well. Both of these ships were built around 1911. The warship survived heavy duty in two world wars and is now on display near Houston,Texas. It's the Battleship Texas and I've been through it twice. Can ya'll guess what the other ship with the open engine room was? The RMS Titanic. Everyone knows what happened to it. It's also a tourist attraction. If you can afford the submarine ride two miles down.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

open engine room designs

For a ship to be designed for combat with a huge unknown threat such as the Narada; it has to be designed for survivability. Which means no huge wide open spaces unless absolutely needed. In other words, compartmentalization.

the other ship with the open engine room was? The RMS Titanic.

Here are two images of this huge engine room.
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic_prime_mover.html
scroll down to 'propulsion and power generating plant is shown in the diagram'

http://www.euronet.nl/users/keesree/construc.htm
scroll down to 'The main generator in Titanic's engine room'

 

[John Picard]

Seriously, though, that was the one set that tended to take me out of the film. It didn't have the feel of being a part of a ship, at least to me.

If you ever get a chance to see the engineering section(s) of an actual ship, the brewery isn't that far off. Yes, this is a space faring vessel, so really it's quite fitting and believable for someone like myself whose served aboard a nuclear powered vessel.

But its the 23rd century and I want to believe thats its the 23rd century. They should spend some money and make some effort into trying to accomplish that instead of projecting swirly lights onto some big tanks.

The sets from 1979 onwards are far, far, far superior to what we got in 2009 with the notable exception of the Bridge, Transporter Room and Corridors which are the only sets onboard ship they made an effort with.

There's unbelievable fantasy, and then there's believable fantasy. For all we know, the USS Brewery could very well be an extremely realistic interpretation of ships of the future. I find it very hard to believe that an engine room in the future would be surgical room clean and very quiet.

Also, when people criticized both Uhura (in nUTrek) and Worf (TNG) standing at their stations, I think about a recent article which stated that long periods of sitting are actually bad for the body. In the future, there's a chance people would actually be standing while at their posts. Heck, today's ship helmsmen stand while piloting the vessel.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

bridge and helm on large ship

I find it very hard to believe that an engine room in the future would be surgical room clean and very quiet.

Like engineering on Voyager?
or the 3-story tall set on Enterprise-E? Yeah I agree.
Both remind me of a open atrium retail shopping mall sometimes...

The NX-01 Engineering department to me though is much more believable in how industrial it is.

Check out all these photos with identification for stuff on TOS Engineering
http://www.trekplace.com/article14.html

Heck, today's ship helmsmen stand while piloting the vessel.

Oasis of The Seas: World's biggest cruise ship
http://www.ibtimes.com/contents/20091125/oasis-seas-worlds-biggest-cruise-ship-photo-news.htm
scroll down to "Clayton Van Welter (L) plots a cruise on the bridge of the Oasis of the Seas"
It is funny though how their consoles look a lot like Star Trek helm consoles but this guy is a navigator.

If they are not needed to look out of window down over the ocean there is no reason they would need to stand. A Trek viewscreen would be like a stadium seating movie theater in that everyone can see it from their seated positions.

Navigators are seated.
Here is a video tour of the
Oasis Of The Seas Day 11 Bridge Tour Cruiseguy
http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i...sis-of-the-seas-day-11-bridge-tour-cruiseguy=

at 2:30 you get to see where the helm is way down in front. With 6ft. tall windows 2 feet away for a wide field of view while standing at the helm wheel. Again unnecessary on a starship without forward facing windows on the bridge.

 

[Irishman]

I liked the idea of the brewery, but in reality it looked far too modern and pointless. There was no sense of direction or where things were. It was just a bunch of random pipes for the sake of having a bunch of random pipes. Call the old engineerings lava lamps if you want, but they had a dedicated team of production designers who tried to make sense of it all, giving the layout a purpose. The engineering in the new film lacked that entirely. Have all the random pipes giving the secondary hull a grand scale yes, but give it a set dressing/CG extension focal point to make it look like there's a central engine powering this massive ship and not a bloody water turbine.

What I take away from the brewery set and what I think was the point in not having a central focal point for engineering scenes, is that for a vessel this large, the entire engineering complex would be far too large for that. Scotty's centralized spot for monitoring the reactors and warp drive would be on the bridge, I believe.

Where it should be.

Further, look at the largest particle accelerator in the World, the LHC. Multiple kilometers around (if you've seen "Angels and Demons" you've seen a small part of it. And that's the key, it was a "small" part).

 

[startrekrcks]

I thought the brewery was cool IMO but I can understand why some people don't care about it.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I thought the brewery was cool IMO but I can understand why some people don't care about it.

I found thes threads:
talk about opinionated!
Sorry, but the NuEnt Engineering Hull is Phail
94 posts

Save the Enterprise Brewery!
93 posts

Love the movie, hate engineering

I LOVED the movie, but I don't know if I liked engineering....

New Engineering

What about bloody engineering?

and this thread has some real fun with these images:
A Nightmare in the Engineering Brewery'
LOL..

 

[Doomsday]

My own feelings on this are mixed. Personally, I find the brewery distracting and would rather see a set reflecting the aesthetic and technology of the 23rd century. Whenever I see those scenes, it makes me think of Space Mutiny, which made use of a similar technique.

That being said, it's really hard to fault Abrams from the economic POV. As much as fans may not want to this about this, movie making is a business, and it must make money or else it won't continue. With that in mind, it's hard to justify blowing maybe a million bucks on a set that might comprise 5 - 10 minutes of total screen time, and wasn't really an integral part of the story. I didn't time the scenes with a stop-watch, but clearly, they are just fleeting glimpses, and I'd be suprised if it was more screen time than that. So I can't really blame Abrams for that, given his choice. If he spent that million (or whatever those beautiful desgns would cost) where would he have to cut to make his budget? Would the bridge set have suffered? Would the opticals have suffered? Would the Narada have suffered? Those other priorities were much more integral to the story.

As to whether he will continue with the brewery in Trek X12, will depend again, on how much of the story takes place in engineering. If it's a very ship-centric story, and we spend 30 minutes or more of screen time there, I would expect a real set, since he doesn't have to construct the bridge again. But if it's just a few shots of Scotty running around and saying "I'm given it all I can", then we'll get the brewery again.

Also, if one day, this re-boot moves to TV again, I would expect a real set, because clearly, you can't hijack the brewery every week.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>it has to be designed for survivability. Which means no huge wide open spaces unless absolutely needed. In other words, compartmentalization.
For example: Two real ships that had the exact same propulsion system. One ship having been reproduced in a major motion picture that I'm sure everyone has seen. Both ships had huge twin steam-powered triple cylinder piston engines driving two huge propellers. The movie ship having a smaller third prop driven by a low pressure turbine. One ship,being a US Navy warship, had it's engine room compartmentalized, separating the two engines and creating multiple levels around the engine components. All of the gearing and related systems had their own compartments as well. Both of these ships were built around 1911. The warship survived heavy duty in two world wars and is now on display near Houston,Texas. It's the Battleship Texas and I've been through it twice. Can ya'll guess what the other ship with the open engine room was? The RMS Titanic. Everyone knows what happened to it. It's also a tourist attraction. If you can afford the submarine ride two miles down.

I haven't seen the motion picture in question, have no intention of so doing and am not sure that it really matters, but are you saying that you think more compartmentalization in the engine room would have made any difference at all for the Titanic or for those who worked in that engine room? I won't question the obvious merits of compartmentalization on a starship, but the Titanic seems an odd example to be raising here.

Edit:
The other ship seems an equally dubious example, as some of the most serious hull damage sustained during the Texas' career came as a result of being run hard aground on Block Island (off the coast of Rhode Island) in 1917, due to confusion on the part of the captain and the navigator.

 

[John Picard]

<snip>it has to be designed for survivability. Which means no huge wide open spaces unless absolutely needed. In other words, compartmentalization.
For example: Two real ships that had the exact same propulsion system. One ship having been reproduced in a major motion picture that I'm sure everyone has seen. Both ships had huge twin steam-powered triple cylinder piston engines driving two huge propellers. The movie ship having a smaller third prop driven by a low pressure turbine. One ship,being a US Navy warship, had it's engine room compartmentalized, separating the two engines and creating multiple levels around the engine components. All of the gearing and related systems had their own compartments as well. Both of these ships were built around 1911. The warship survived heavy duty in two world wars and is now on display near Houston,Texas. It's the Battleship Texas and I've been through it twice. Can ya'll guess what the other ship with the open engine room was? The RMS Titanic. Everyone knows what happened to it. It's also a tourist attraction. If you can afford the submarine ride two miles down.

I haven't seen the motion picture in question, have no intention of so doing and am not sure that it really matters, but are you saying that you think more compartmentalization in the engine room would have made any difference at all for the Titanic or for those who worked in that engine room? I won't question the obvious merits of compartmentalization on a starship, but the Titanic seems an odd example to be raising here.

Yes, it would have.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

<snip>it has to be designed for survivability. Which means no huge wide open spaces unless absolutely needed. In other words, compartmentalization.
For example: Two real ships that had the exact same propulsion system. One ship having been reproduced in a major motion picture that I'm sure everyone has seen. Both ships had huge twin steam-powered triple cylinder piston engines driving two huge propellers. The movie ship having a smaller third prop driven by a low pressure turbine. One ship,being a US Navy warship, had it's engine room compartmentalized, separating the two engines and creating multiple levels around the engine components. All of the gearing and related systems had their own compartments as well. Both of these ships were built around 1911. The warship survived heavy duty in two world wars and is now on display near Houston,Texas. It's the Battleship Texas and I've been through it twice. Can ya'll guess what the other ship with the open engine room was? The RMS Titanic. Everyone knows what happened to it. It's also a tourist attraction. If you can afford the submarine ride two miles down.

I haven't seen the motion picture in question, have no intention of so doing and am not sure that it really matters, but are you saying that you think more compartmentalization in the engine room would have made any difference at all for the Titanic or for those who worked in that engine room? I won't question the obvious merits of compartmentalization on a starship, but the Titanic seems an odd example to be raising here.

I think the inferrence is that if the Titanic's bowels were more compartmentalized, then the flooding could have been more easily contained rather than simply filling the entire lower section of the ship. The fewer wide open spaces a seafaring vessel has, the less likely it will completely fill with water in the event of a hull breach.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the brewery they filmed at will be either condemned or demolished before the next movie starts shooting. That way, JJA will have to build a real set that actually looks like something from Star Trek and not something out of a WWII submarine flick.

 

[John Picard]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the brewery they filmed at will be either condemned or demolished before the next movie starts shooting. That way, JJA will have to build a real set that actually looks like something from Star Trek and not something out of a WWII submarine flick.

Funny, considering how big cars were when Star Trek debuted, versus how small they've become 40+ years later

 

[startrekrcks]

He's in charge not some angry Trek fans who want some things changed.

 

[M'Sharak]

I think the inferrence is that if the Titanic's bowels were more compartmentalized, then the flooding could have been more easily contained rather than simply filling the entire lower section of the ship. The fewer wide open spaces a seafaring vessel has, the less likely it will completely fill with water in the event of a hull breach.

You may want to read up on the Titanic, its construction and the nature and extent of the damage it sustained. I still think it's an odd example to be raising on the subject of starship engine-room compartmentalization.

 

[M'Sharak]

He's in charge not some angry Trek fans who want some things changed.

This is an utterly pointless comment and looks a little too much like baiting for my liking. Knock it off.