Panoramas of Enterprise interior on official site

[Classic Fan]

Wow! Pretty obvious that this
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tff/ch5/thefinalfrontier0300.jpg

Is a cheap redress of this
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tff/ch9/thefinalfrontier0717.jpg

I keep forgetting how cheap TFF was.

Errrr, wernt they both supposed to be access/engineering corridors anyway? Thus, they would look the same.

Wow, that engineering set is quite similar. Abrams wants STXI to be like TFF, you heard it here first!

Actually, the design work from TFF was the best of any of the movies, imo, regardless of what people say about the movie itself. They had the bright white bridge going on in TFF too.

I too liked the design aspects of TFF. The bridge, maybe the shuttle bay as it looks close to TOS. Some aspects such as the obvious re-use of TNG transporter room and engine room. but aside from that, i like the design elements. The enterprise bridge being my fave, all bright, newutral colours, the light on the neck holding up the helm was a cool addition, gave the set more body.
The captains chair though was too similar to TNG era chairs but fit in very well, thanks for the angled control panels again, Zimmerman.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Zimmerman and company also very specifically went back to having the Captain in a big chair while everyone else had small pedestal chairs - complete departure from the previous movie bridges and from TNG.

McMasters's blueprints were referenced, BTW, during the design of the wall consoles also obviously the exact cross-sections were not used.

 

[DaveyNY]

If you embrace anxiety about minutiae as a lifestyle, how do you expect to feel?

(I just can't resist this new zinger tag-line of yours...)


PERSONALLY..., I EXPECT TO FEEL... WITH MY FINGERS !


Oh, OT... I liked the style of Trek V too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you embrace anxiety about minutiae as a lifestyle, how do you expect to feel?

(I just can't resist this new zinger tag-line of yours...)

It is, in fact, a fairly honest question...something I've wrestled with a bit myself for quite a while.

 

[Ptrope]

It looks incredible, very 2001 like.
Which is the pinnacle of Science Fiction design.

Awesome job J.J.and Co.

THANK YOU J.J. I love this!!! very 2001ish, ( ONE of my top ten favs!)

Very 2001ish.

Kinda like it. It does look very 2001 - and that's a good thing.

Very nice. I like it. Very 2001-ish or somethink that NASA would build.

Now let me get this straight: Enterprise, designed in the mid-'60s: "Designs from 1969 are too old-fashioned for today's audience."

2001: A Space Odyssey, designed in the mid-'60s: "The pinnacle of science fiction design"; the template for everything to come, applauded for its influence on JJTrek, a film which 'must' bring the Luddites who liked the design from the mid-'60s kicking and screaming into 2009.

O ... kay.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most people think that 2001 was better designed than Star Trek.

People thought so in 1969, they think so now.

This accounts for, among other things, the fact that Star Wars borrowed a lot visually from 2001 and not at all from Star Trek.

It's not that hard to get.

 

[Ptrope]

It's not a matter of "getting" it. I just find the arguments - yours sometimes included - that lump design from the '60s together and state as though it were fact that anything designed back then is now dated and unacceptable to the modern 'taste,' and yet here we are drooling over similarly 'dated' design for the interiors. I liked the 2001 design aesthetic as well as the Trek one, and when it comes down to it, the exterior of the original ship is simpatico enough with that design aesthetic that all it needs is a bit of up-close detailing to bring it up to big-screen glamour. I just find it an interesting dichotomy - "The '60s is over; get used to it - Oooh, look! Cool '60s interiors!"

 

[ST-One]

It's not a matter of "getting" it. I just find the arguments - yours sometimes included - that lump design from the '60s together and state as though it were fact that anything designed back then is now dated and unacceptable to the modern 'taste,' and yet here we are drooling over similarly 'dated' design for the interiors. I liked the 2001 design aesthetic as well as the Trek one, and when it comes down to it, the exterior of the original ship is simpatico enough with that design aesthetic that all it needs is a bit of up-close detailing to bring it up to big-screen glamour. I just find it an interesting dichotomy - "The '60s is over; get used to it - Oooh, look! Cool '60s interiors!"

The 2001 sets, for the most part, just didn't don't have that 60s look to them or, at least, we do not associate it with the 60s.
2001's design is far more timeless than TOS's.

 

[trevanian]

It's not a matter of "getting" it. I just find the arguments - yours sometimes included - that lump design from the '60s together and state as though it were fact that anything designed back then is now dated and unacceptable to the modern 'taste,' and yet here we are drooling over similarly 'dated' design for the interiors. I liked the 2001 design aesthetic as well as the Trek one, and when it comes down to it, the exterior of the original ship is simpatico enough with that design aesthetic that all it needs is a bit of up-close detailing to bring it up to big-screen glamour. I just find it an interesting dichotomy - "The '60s is over; get used to it - Oooh, look! Cool '60s interiors!"

The 2001 sets, for the most part, just didn't don't have that 60s look to them or, at least, we do not associate it with the 60s.
2001's design is far more timeless than TOS's.

That's an unusual association on your part, since 2001 is often referred to, along with BLOWUP and a few others, as having the quintessential 60s look design-wise. It is almost a direct translation of the way the future was supposed to look as imagined by designers of the late 50s and 60s, but with some additional packaging -- not just prettifying by art director Tony Masters, but also legitimate extrapolation by art director Harry Lange.

If you look at 2001 and then look at 60s era space toys like MAJOR MATT MASON, you can see strong similarities because they are both a product of their era. Kubrick pushed things further along, but it is still a 60s product.

And that's not a dig at 2001, which is probably among the dozen best designed flicks of all time. CITIZEN KANE also clearly reflects its era, and that doesn't take away from it in the slightest. The power of shadow and darkness (in KANE's case, black velvet to suggest huge darkened interior spaces, in 2001's case, the environment of space itself) is enormous. But it is an approach clearly of that era.

If you consider the 2001 look timeless, do you group SPACE 1999 in the same category? It certainly tried to evoke 2001 ... It tried, and died.

The 2001 / newtrek comparison falls on its face right out of the gate anyway, since in 2001 the diffused lighting creates a totally different effect from the glaring harsh lighting seen in the trek stuff. There IS hard light in 2001 when appropriate, but the variety in lighting qualities is significant, especially on shipboard stuff in 2001, whereas TREK looks to be extremely unpleasant looking shipboard.

If you want solid ripoffs of 2001 visually, go to DePalma ... the CIA computer room in the first M:I really IS a 2001 doppleganger, as is some stuff toward the end of MISSION TO MARS, not that I recommend anybody try to sit through all of the latter.

 

[ST-One]

It's not a matter of "getting" it. I just find the arguments - yours sometimes included - that lump design from the '60s together and state as though it were fact that anything designed back then is now dated and unacceptable to the modern 'taste,' and yet here we are drooling over similarly 'dated' design for the interiors. I liked the 2001 design aesthetic as well as the Trek one, and when it comes down to it, the exterior of the original ship is simpatico enough with that design aesthetic that all it needs is a bit of up-close detailing to bring it up to big-screen glamour. I just find it an interesting dichotomy - "The '60s is over; get used to it - Oooh, look! Cool '60s interiors!"

The 2001 sets, for the most part, just didn't don't have that 60s look to them or, at least, we do not associate it with the 60s.
2001's design is far more timeless than TOS's.

That's an unusual association on your part, since 2001 is often referred to, along with BLOWUP and a few others, as having the quintessential 60s look design-wise. It is almost a direct translation of the way the future was supposed to look as imagined by designers of the late 50s and 60s, but with some additional packaging -- not just prettifying by art director Tony Masters, but also legitimate extrapolation by art director Harry Lange.

If you look at 2001 and then look at 60s era space toys like MAJOR MATT MASON, you can see strong similarities because they are both a product of their era. Kubrick pushed things further along, but it is still a 60s product.

And that's not a dig at 2001, which is probably among the dozen best designed flicks of all time. CITIZEN KANE also clearly reflects its era, and that doesn't take away from it in the slightest. The power of shadow and darkness (in KANE's case, black velvet to suggest huge darkened interior spaces, in 2001's case, the environment of space itself) is enormous. But it is an approach clearly of that era.

If you consider the 2001 look timeless, do you group SPACE 1999 in the same category? It certainly tried to evoke 2001 ... It tried, and died.

The 2001 / newtrek comparison falls on its face right out of the gate anyway, since in 2001 the diffused lighting creates a totally different effect from the glaring harsh lighting seen in the trek stuff. There IS hard light in 2001 when appropriate, but the variety in lighting qualities is significant, especially on shipboard stuff in 2001, whereas TREK looks to be extremely unpleasant looking shipboard.

If you want solid ripoffs of 2001 visually, go to DePalma ... the CIA computer room in the first M:I really IS a 2001 doppleganger, as is some stuff toward the end of MISSION TO MARS, not that I recommend anybody try to sit through all of the latter.

Since those visuals still can be ripped off of 2001 and be used in modern films without being recognized be the any large group of movie-goers as being designed in the 1960s, I'd say their are indeed pretty damn timeless.

 

[trevanian]

The 2001 sets, for the most part, just didn't don't have that 60s look to them or, at least, we do not associate it with the 60s.
2001's design is far more timeless than TOS's.

That's an unusual association on your part, since 2001 is often referred to, along with BLOWUP and a few others, as having the quintessential 60s look design-wise. It is almost a direct translation of the way the future was supposed to look as imagined by designers of the late 50s and 60s, but with some additional packaging -- not just prettifying by art director Tony Masters, but also legitimate extrapolation by art director Harry Lange.

If you look at 2001 and then look at 60s era space toys like MAJOR MATT MASON, you can see strong similarities because they are both a product of their era. Kubrick pushed things further along, but it is still a 60s product.

And that's not a dig at 2001, which is probably among the dozen best designed flicks of all time. CITIZEN KANE also clearly reflects its era, and that doesn't take away from it in the slightest. The power of shadow and darkness (in KANE's case, black velvet to suggest huge darkened interior spaces, in 2001's case, the environment of space itself) is enormous. But it is an approach clearly of that era.

If you consider the 2001 look timeless, do you group SPACE 1999 in the same category? It certainly tried to evoke 2001 ... It tried, and died.

The 2001 / newtrek comparison falls on its face right out of the gate anyway, since in 2001 the diffused lighting creates a totally different effect from the glaring harsh lighting seen in the trek stuff. There IS hard light in 2001 when appropriate, but the variety in lighting qualities is significant, especially on shipboard stuff in 2001, whereas TREK looks to be extremely unpleasant looking shipboard.

If you want solid ripoffs of 2001 visually, go to DePalma ... the CIA computer room in the first M:I really IS a 2001 doppleganger, as is some stuff toward the end of MISSION TO MARS, not that I recommend anybody try to sit through all of the latter.

Since those visuals still can be ripped off of 2001 and be used in modern films without being recognized be the any large group of movie-goers as being designed in the 1960s, I'd say their are indeed pretty damn timeless.

thanks for all the thought that went into your restating your premise.
No.
Perhaps any large group of movie-goers who have no sense of history wouldn't recognize the origin (and that includes young-uns who must never have seen an episode of MAD MEN either) as being from that era, but it really takes an epic lack of info or understanding to not see the history of where it is from.

 

[ST-One]

Perhaps any large group of movie-goers who have no sense of history wouldn't recognize the origin (and that includes young-uns who must never have seen an episode of MAD MEN either) as being from that era, but it really takes an epic lack of info or understanding to not see the history of where it is from.

Well done, you managed to cover the 'unwashed masses' and 'kids today' in one sentence.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with willfull ignorance but a certain lack of interest; not everyone obsesses about movie-designs as much as we do.
Most people just want to be entertained when they watch a movie and don't give a damn about the designs as long as they work within the fictional reality they represent and fit with the general expectations of the audience.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Perhaps any large group of movie-goers who have no sense of history wouldn't recognize the origin (and that includes young-uns who must never have seen an episode of MAD MEN either) as being from that era, but it really takes an epic lack of info or understanding to not see the history of where it is from.

Well done, you managed to cover the 'unwashed masses' and 'kids today' in one sentence.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with willfull ignorance but a certain lack of interest; not everyone obsesses about movie-designs as much as we do.
Most people just want to be entertained when they watch a movie and don't give a damn about the designs as long as they work within the fictional reality they represent and fit with the general expectations of the audience.

Trevanian's point is pretty clear from my perspective. What I see him saying here (and Trev, straighten me out if I'm mischaracterizing your position) isn't that "white with black-trim sets" like we see here is good, or bad... but rather than it's inherently "very late-60s-to-early-70s." And it's being embraced. Meanwhile, people are denigrating the classic 1701 design as being "very late-60s-to-early-70s" and thus being outdated and in need of a revisitation."

In other words, he's pointing out a bit of evident hypocrisy in some of the various positions being argued on here.

Either both styles are dated, or neither is dated.

Personally, I have no trouble with either style.

I like the white-with-black-trim style... very "Saturn V." Very "Space Shuttle." Very "Space 1999" (which, despite some horrible storytelling, had some excellent design work, thanks largely to Brian Johnson and a few others). Very "The Andromeda Strain." And yes, very "2001."

I also like the classic Trek design style, too. Obviously, that's not the same as saying "I like plywood flats and vacuum-formed appliques." But you can use the same style while updating the manner of construction... the two aren't the same thing at all. I'd hope we can all agree on that, at least.

This new movie seems to have abandoned, pretty much totally, the TOS style. It's replaced it with a combination of various styles which are no more or less dated, but which aren't really particularly reminiscent of the TOS style. The sole exception to that, so far, is the uniforms, and they're not "perfect," just "good enough," as far as I'm concerned.

The issue that folks keep having here isn't "this is a horrible design" (though there are horrible aspects to it... I can't get Andrew's comment about "The Revlon Bridge" out of my mind!) but more that it's totally abandoned the style and "feel" of the original series. A style which is not a "better" or "worse" style (from a purely artistic standpoint) but rather is a "totally unrelated" style.

 

[ST-One]

This new movie seems to have abandoned, pretty much totally, the TOS style. It's replaced it with a combination of various styles which are no more or less dated, but which aren't really particularly reminiscent of the TOS style.

Why drag TMP into this?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why drag TMP into this?

Oddly enough we didn't get a little TOS back in the Trek design style until TNG. Well, I guess maybe the momentary flash of a clamshell communicator in TSFS counts...

 

[SGCSG1]

Blueprints. I want blueprints. And a new 'Mr. Scotts Guide to the Enterprise' with Simon Pegg on the cover. And a cutaway painting. In other words, I want newer versions of all the crap I bought in the last 40 years. It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

 

[Kemaiku]

Well I'm not loving the new super bright slip and slide corridors but one things for sure, if Nero brings along a few Reman boarding teams, they're pretty fucked this time.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

This new movie seems to have abandoned, pretty much totally, the TOS style. It's replaced it with a combination of various styles which are no more or less dated, but which aren't really particularly reminiscent of the TOS style.

Why drag TMP into this?

I agree, TMP also abandoned the style of TOS. It had a better argument in its favor (it wasn't supposed to be representing the same thing, after all) but still... it was very different. You're right.

If they'd said, in TMP, that this is how it had "always been," I'd say that the argument was the same. However, even if it was only "lip service," they did, clearly, establish that it wasn't "really the same."

 

[ST-One]

This new movie seems to have abandoned, pretty much totally, the TOS style. It's replaced it with a combination of various styles which are no more or less dated, but which aren't really particularly reminiscent of the TOS style.

Why drag TMP into this?

I agree, TMP also abandoned the style of TOS. It had a better argument in its favor (it wasn't supposed to be representing the same thing, after all) but still... it was very different. You're right.

If they'd said, in TMP, that this is how it had "always been," I'd say that the argument was the same. However, even if it was only "lip service," they did, clearly, establish that it wasn't "really the same."

But Star Trek also doesn't claim that this is how it's always been.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is how it is now.