^What I'm saying is, I'd like to see an engine room that's actually designed to be a 23rd-century Starfleet engine room, rather than some present-day location that's being passed off as a Starfleet engine room. I don't get why that's unclear.
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
When I read it, it seemed like you were just defining what a set was. That makes sense though, building an engine room from the ground up would be nice. If we're getting a new Enterprise after this film, getting one that used some of the concept art they had for it would be cool.
Yes, in an attempt to clarify what I was talking about in the earlier posts. The "engine rooms" seen in the previous two movies were not movie sets, but pre-existing locations. There was an engine room set designed by production designer Ryan Church for the 2009 film, but because of budget limitations, Abrams chose to use a real-world location instead of building a set. So we got an "engine room" that looked like a brewery. In STID, we got some stuff in a brewery, some stuff in a high-energy physics lab, but they were still locations, not sets.
What does a 23rd century engine room look like?
Umm, there's this show called Star Trek...
What about it?
Grillwork, forced perspective and an ever changing floor plan.
Grillwork, forced perspective and an ever changing floor plan.
That certainly describes Engineering in both TOS and the TOS films.
I know I'm in the minority, but I really don't see much difference...
A location is not a set per se, but you are "on the set" when you are on the part of a location where a film is being shot (say, the "double dumb ass" corner at the intersection of Columbus and Pacific in TVH). The "base camp" on a location is not the set, just as the makeup trailers on the studio lot aren't the set. Sets can be built on location, of course, and if you add enough to a location the line gets fuzzy. In broadest film shorthand "set" means in the studio and "on location" means someplace else.
^Yes, yes, of course, but I was using the word "set" in the sense of "something that is not a pre-existing location." I thought that was clear enough from context.
Seriously, what is going on here? It wasn't that long ago that the Trek-movie threads on this BBS were full of complaints about how the movies used a brewery instead of an engine-room set. This was an ongoing and familiar source of criticism within this very group. Now I'm alluding to that and it's like nobody knows what I'm talking about. I don't understand that.
Seriously, what is going on here? It wasn't that long ago that the Trek-movie threads on this BBS were full of complaints about how the movies used a brewery instead of an engine-room set. This was an ongoing and familiar source of criticism within this very group. Now I'm alluding to that and it's like nobody knows what I'm talking about. I don't understand that.
It is a bit perplexing...
The pod people have arrived.
I didn't like the style choice of the brewery at the time and thought they could have done better. But that's not the same thing as saying it's wrong.
I was really disappointed with the planet designs in TFA because they didn't feel alien enough to me, but I'd never say "Oh a desert planet in a distant galaxy would never look like that..." I have no idea what it might look like. For all I know, every inhabitable planet in the universe looks exactly like Earth. My disappointment is with the artistic style choice, not the practicality of it all.
It's the same way with the brewery. For all anyone knows, the prevailing ship designer of the 23rd century could have a foundress of old American breweries and draws heavily from them.
Where did I say "wrong?" I just wondered if we'd be getting a set this time instead of a location.
"I'd like to see an engine room that's actually designed to be a 23rd-century Starfleet engine room" is fairly implicit.
Similar threads
