Reused sets in the TOS movies

[Lonemagpie]

With a name like "bolognium," I assume it was supposed to be baloney.

Anyway, the labelling is redundant. It's obvious just by looking at those struts, with their telescopic structure and round bearings at the bases, that they're designed to compress and change their angles. There's no other reason for them to be designed that way.

I always sort of imagined they were there to imply the possibility that maybe the neck parts of Klingon ships could raise or lower, a bit like Concorde's nose, perhaps for landing (though when they did start landing BoPs in TVH, it didn't move)

 

[Maurice]

I always took it as a sign that, like a modern skyscraper, the ship was designed to have a certain amount of flexibility.

As to bolognium, if I'm recalling our conversation correctly Andy said bologna gives kids lots of energy ergo Bologn-ium as an engine component.

 

[Christopher]

I always took it as a sign that, like a modern skyscraper, the ship was designed to have a certain amount of flexibility.

Exactly. It's a logical adaptation to the stresses of battle. And maybe it's a sign that Klingon inertial-damping technology was less advanced than Starfleet's.

 

[Galileo7]

Here is an interesting link on the re-use of ST sets:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/reused_interiors.htm

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Funny that they reused so many sets in the movies, and yet the Enterprise bridge looked so different in each film.

 

[Mr Silver]

Funny that they reused so many sets in the movies, and yet the Enterprise bridge looked so different in each film.

A simple thing such as changing the lighting scheme or swapping out fabrics can really make a difference

 

[Christopher]

Funny that they reused so many sets in the movies, and yet the Enterprise bridge looked so different in each film.

Well, it was the most important or most heavily used set in most of them, so each director wanted to put his mark on it.

Although the different looks of the bridge in the first three films were pretty much only matters of lighting, photography, and the arrangement of the consoles (four of them were moved to different places between TMP and TWOK, most notably restoring Spock's science station to its accustomed place over the captain's right shoulder rather than directly behind him). Also the film-loop display graphics in TMP were replaced with video monitors in TWOK, changing their look somewhat (to something rather more dated).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Also the film-loop display graphics in TMP were replaced with video monitors in TWOK, changing their look somewhat (to something rather more dated).

But that did have an advantage in that the video monitors were not as noisy as the film projectors they used in TMP. I understand that they had to loop most of the bridge scenes because of the noise, which drained the scenes of a lot of life.

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but the fact remains, they didn't look nearly as good.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

^Yeah, but the fact remains, they didn't look nearly as good.

If it comes down to a choice between preserving the actors' performances versus the computer screens in the background looking marginally better, I know which way I'd decide.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying I disapprove of the choice or don't understand the practical logic behind it; I'm just saying it was part of the reason the bridge looked so different in TWOK than in TMP despite being almost exactly the same set. Heck, it's not like the TMP bridge looks perfect; the split-focus shots were very distracting, and I think they were a consequence of the need to keep the lighting low so the screens would be visible, or something. So the switch to video monitors was a downgrade in some ways but an improvement in others. And it goes to show how just subtle changes can radically alter the way a set looks onscreen.