Of steam pipes and fork lifts.....

[Captain Robert April]

We're not discussing anything that isn't publicly available in the current trailers.

Something that JJ and his merry band of miscreants seemed to have missed in their repeated trashings of the original show's production design, is that the vast bulk of the production staff were military veterans (GR and MJ in the Army Air Corps in WWII, Gene Coon in the Marines in Korea, Justman in the Navy, etc.), and they brought that working knowledge of how things work in a military environment, and more importantly, how they SHOULD work. A large part of the way Jefferies designed the bridge had to do with his frustrations of how things were laid out and accessed on B-17's, and the way the crew behaved, and how they were treated, both by each other and the top brass back at headquarters, was based upon hard, personal experience that was hard wired into them during their service.

(Sorry, but I can't get the hang of the spoiler thingie, so if you don't want to know of a gaping plot hole, skip ahead to the next message now. You have been warned.)

Third year cadet on academic suspension to full captain of the fleet's newest starship in a matter of a couple of days? Building the ship on the ground in Iowa?

Roddenberry would've fired the lot of them for even proposing such nonsense.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Given the available level of digital technology (even at a desktop level!), I'm not sure why they used a brewery instead of simply making the bulk of engineering a virtual set; I'm not saying that virtual sets are the best option for all scenes in any movie, but if they wanted to dazzle the audience with the size and complexity of the place, that sounds to me like a much better solution. It might've cost more, but given location shooting costs, including all the necessary licenses, permits, insurance, crafts services, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. I can see wanting more complexity than anything we saw on the TV screen or in the previous films, but, c'mon, a brewery?

It made perfect sense to the folks who made the decision... when, after scouting the location, they were given unlimited free samples.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I hope they got bigger samples that Anheiser-Busch usually give out on their tours. One freakin' Dixie cup of beer at the end? Frakin' tightwads...

 

[sojourner]

Are you not talking about the new film? If not then I retract my statement. It just seemed that way from what I read in your first post.

Well, the fact that you can't tell exactly what I am referring to would sorta indicate the lack of spoilers in my post.

 

[Tim]

I hope they got bigger samples that Anheiser-Busch usually give out on their tours. One freakin' Dixie cup of beer at the end? Frakin' tightwads...

Was it A-B where they filmed? Then I take back my comment about them filming in a brewery, since I have yet to sample a real beer produced by A-B.

 

[largo]

its only lame if you've convinced yourself that a warp core of blinky neon tubes is awesome.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

its only lame if you've convinced yourself that a warp core of blinky neon tubes is awesome.

That's a totally nonsensical comment.

If "blinky neon tubes" is cheesy... does that mean that unpainted 2x4s would be an improvement?

No?

Then, bringing up one "inadequate" solution in an attempt to justify another, even more inadequate solution is bad logic.

Still, I'm curious... why is this conversation taking place in the "Art" forum? I won't go in the "Trek'09" forum anymore after M'Sharak proved his character so effectively. I wanted to get away from the "let's rub it in the faces of those who don't like what this movie is going to be" crowd.

Why is that crowd bringing stuff that's specific to Trek '09 and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with creating art coming into this forum now?

There are several threads in this forum which are about creating art, and specifically about creating art relating to Abrams' take on Trek. Those, undeniably, belong here. Because they're about someone creating art.

But talking about the movie... and then mocking people who don't care for the style of the new movie... well, how does that warrant threads in this specific forum? Leave that bullshit in M'Sharak's forum, where he'll smack down anyone who disagrees with his personal biases.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think it has to do with the fact that we're discussing the art direction, and the lack thereof...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I think it has to do with the fact that we're discussing the art direction, and the lack thereof...

But this forum is about Trek Art... that is, art WE CREATE. Isn't it?

There's already a forum about the movie. The fact that it's a uniformly hostile environment to anyone who doesn't think the movie is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. That's the purpose of that forum, and not the purpose of this one. Am I wrong?

 

[largo]

its only lame if you've convinced yourself that a warp core of blinky neon tubes is awesome.

That's a totally nonsensical comment.

its a totally nonsensical thread. replying in kind seemed logical.

 

[sojourner]

I think it has to do with the fact that we're discussing the art direction, and the lack thereof...

But this forum is about Trek Art... that is, art WE CREATE. Isn't it?

There's already a forum about the movie. The fact that it's a uniformly hostile environment to anyone who doesn't think the movie is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. That's the purpose of that forum, and not the purpose of this one. Am I wrong?

Well, we're not talking about the story, plot, characters, trek tech, or acting. We are discussing what parts of the production design works and does not work. Regardless of whether we love it, hate it, or are somewhere in between. This movie will be influencing fan art for years to come. So, why not talk about it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think it has to do with the fact that we're discussing the art direction, and the lack thereof...

But this forum is about Trek Art... that is, art WE CREATE. Isn't it?

There's already a forum about the movie. The fact that it's a uniformly hostile environment to anyone who doesn't think the movie is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. That's the purpose of that forum, and not the purpose of this one. Am I wrong?

Well, we're not talking about the story, plot, characters, trek tech, or acting. We are discussing what parts of the production design works and does not work. Regardless of whether we love it, hate it, or are somewhere in between. This movie will be influencing fan art for years to come. So, why not talk about it?

Because you're supposed to be hostile to it.

 

[Gagarin]

I thought the production design obviously made the ship a bit bigger. There engineering hull and hanger spaces were vast. It looked like it was something that could be built. I appreciated the lack of gimbles or neon-glowy things. It was a fresh approach to the design of the ship. I

have to say that the inspiration looked like it came from the design of cities and buildings more than ships, perhaps - the topside is slick and ergonomic, the bottom side is mechanical and hazerdous looking like a boiler room or factory floor. (Although you won't find any glowy things in a CVN, either. It looks like girders and pipes too!).

Forklift - no problem with. It wasn't just a forklift - look at the wheels. They looked like it had some kind of greeble on it. Maybe manipulating gravity some but using the wheels to propel the thing forward like a moon buggy. Think about it - you have gravity manipulaition, but you still have to move the thing around, you still have to lift it up. Somtimes the simplest solution is the best solution.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I thought the production design obviously made the ship a bit bigger. There engineering hull and hanger spaces were vast. It looked like it was something that could be built. I appreciated the lack of gimbles or neon-glowy things. It was a fresh approach to the design of the ship.

I think you're right about the scale, and agree about the lack of big plastic things spraying blue light around the engineering decks. This ship may be closer to the size of the oldTrek Excelsior if not the Enterprise D.

Interestingly, I noticed on second viewing that the bridge on this ship is on what used to be deck two or deck three of the original design - the whole "bridge dome" is a superstructure, not just the glowly part. There's a shot from outside, in through the window that doubles as a viewscreen.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

But this forum is about Trek Art... that is, art WE CREATE. Isn't it?

There's already a forum about the movie. The fact that it's a uniformly hostile environment to anyone who doesn't think the movie is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. That's the purpose of that forum, and not the purpose of this one. Am I wrong?

Well, we're not talking about the story, plot, characters, trek tech, or acting. We are discussing what parts of the production design works and does not work. Regardless of whether we love it, hate it, or are somewhere in between. This movie will be influencing fan art for years to come. So, why not talk about it?

Because you're supposed to be hostile to it.

Odd, isn't it then, that nobody has been hostile to Madman's modeling work, huh? He's not hostile to the new flick... but he's doing what this particular forum is supposed to be about.

Or haven't you read this?

Trek Art Post your fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I wasn't a fan of the Enterprise engineering spaces either, but it didn't really take me oujt of the movie too much, but the big silver vats and the water tubes o' doom were very jarring.

The Kelvin, on the other hand, felt a lot more natural because the look was more consistent with the other sets (corridor, bridge). Personally, I liked the Kelvin sets much more than the Enterprise sets. The bridge had a sorta... cockpit-y feel to it.

And hey - a forklift is a freakin forklift. You don't have to show every single thing shooting antigravity out of its ass in the future. Wheelbarrows still have wheels, don't they? Shovels still shovel the way they have for centuries, don't they? It didn't bother me because it was in the background. If this was a George Lucas movie though, there'd be a freakin CGI forklift dance number. Then I'd complain about the forklifts.

 

[ncc-1017-e]

Anyone else feel the production team really dropped the ball at a few points? My suspension of disbelief was jarred when i saw the forklifts in that hanger sequence and the use of some generic industrial plant for "engineering". I mean come on, BSG used the "everyday items" conceit due to a lack of budget and as a way to frame the "they're just like us" aspects of the story. Star Trek doesnt have either of these excuses.

Other than that, the ship really comes into it's own seeing it in motion. They did an excellent job of finding her good angles.

I'll leave plot and characterization to other forums......

I could not agree more! I hate the use of a refinery for engineering! There is no way that could fit inside the ship! Gene Roddenberry would be died set against this! They did do a good job finding the best angle for the Edselprise! There is a major disconnect with the Enterprise sets that is hard to over look!

 

[ncc-1017-e]

When I originally heard about the current tech in the film, I was slightly worried. However, when I say it in use in the film, it felt fine. Sort of like this era was the new hay-day of Earth, after being rebuilt after WWIII.

What?

 

[ncc-1017-e]

JJ's an idiot, plain and simple.

Probably!

 

[ncc-1017-e]

Given the available level of digital technology (even at a desktop level!), I'm not sure why they used a brewery instead of simply making the bulk of engineering a virtual set; I'm not saying that virtual sets are the best option for all scenes in any movie, but if they wanted to dazzle the audience with the size and complexity of the place, that sounds to me like a much better solution. It might've cost more, but given location shooting costs, including all the necessary licenses, permits, insurance, crafts services, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. I can see wanting more complexity than anything we saw on the TV screen or in the previous films, but, c'mon, a brewery?

See now you have a great point here and I think it would have been cheaper than location shooting and would have looked much better than the refinery!