Star Trek X & XI sets.....

[treknician1701]

The big problem that I have with the sets, and I just watched the first movie last night, is that you have a super futuristic bridge, but the engine room looks like a disused water reclaimation plant from the south of Los Angeles, that they used for the lower sections of the Enterprise.
With huge plexiglass tubes for Scotty to swim through, with "I" beams with rivets, like a building that was over 300 years old! It's just not logical for a ship in the year 2260!
There are a lot of other prop and device problems that I noticed, but the sets were SO obvious.

Just my opinion

 

[The Wormhole]

the engine room looks like a disused water reclaimation plant from the south of Los Angeles,

It was in fact a brewery.

 

[Smellmet]

Yeah I wasn't happy with those sets either, the ones from the TNG films look better and they were penny pinching efforts to say the least, it's a minor quibble for me though that was addressed in the second movie

 

[F. King Daniel]

I know I'm in the minority, but I loved the engineering sections. They looked to me like the TOS engine room cranked up 1000 fold in scale and complexity.

The NIF target chamber warp core in Into Darkness is awesome too, and (as Simon Pegg points out in the BR extras), the architecture is a perfect mix of the shiny white bridge and pipe-filled guts of the Enterprise.


P.S. my inner OCD forces me to point out that it's XI and XII.

P.P.S. TNG's engine room had a pot-bellied stove for a warp core, a high-tech pool table in the middle of the room and a row of ATM machines in Geordi's office

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I thought that the STID warp core was awesome, especially from the outside.

 

[Ryan8bit]

It may have similar elements to the engineering of the past, but the OP is right in that there is a larger design inconsistency between engineering and the bridge in these movies. I think that's kind of interesting though, to not have every area of the ship be in some nice, neat package.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

I get what the OP is saying for sure. I also get the the designers in the movie were going for.

It's a shock to the system, because if there is one thing in common with Trek ship designs over the last 50 years it was consistency.

While Engineering didn't look exactly like the bridge there were more than enough common elements in the room that said "we are still on the ship".

It stood out to me more in ST09 than it did in STiD, but we really became accustom to uniform ship design. And the engine room scenes in ST09 specifically didn't feel like they took place in the same place.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It may have similar elements to the engineering of the past, but the OP is right in that there is a larger design inconsistency between engineering and the bridge in these movies. I think that's kind of interesting though, to not have every area of the ship be in some nice, neat package.

Abrams had stated that he wanted the "lower decks" to have a very rough and unfinished look, like sea-faring vessels.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It may have similar elements to the engineering of the past, but the OP is right in that there is a larger design inconsistency between engineering and the bridge in these movies. I think that's kind of interesting though, to not have every area of the ship be in some nice, neat package.

Why would engineering look like the bridge? They serve different functions.

 

[The Doctor]

I have to commend the OP on his/her originality. This topic has never been discussed before on this forum, or indeed, the entire Internets.

 

[Ryan8bit]

It may have similar elements to the engineering of the past, but the OP is right in that there is a larger design inconsistency between engineering and the bridge in these movies. I think that's kind of interesting though, to not have every area of the ship be in some nice, neat package.

Why would engineering look like the bridge? They serve different functions.

Yeah, it doesn't really make too much sense. It seems more like something done by an artist with a focus on consistency (and possibly having everything being designed neatly) rather than done by someone looking to make something functional or mirroring something modern. I think the idea of consistency was thought of as futuristic, but I think it's more interesting to have variety. It wouldn't hurt if there was at least some thread of consistency, but I don't think it's necessary.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Why would engineering look like the bridge?

Why would it look like a brewery?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why would engineering look like the bridge?

Why would it look like a brewery?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ship+engine+room

Scroll through the images, keeping in mind that the question is, "Why would an engine room on a ship have visual similarities with a brewery?" Also, keep in mind that there is no such thing as an FTL starship, and consequently, there is nothing in the real world to use for comparison, or even just as a guide, when depicting the engine room of such a thing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why would engineering look like the bridge?

Why would it look like a brewery?

Because it has liquids and gases that need to be transported via pipes and stored in containers. There also so might be power conduits and large equipment. So why wouldn't it?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Why would engineering look like the bridge?

Why would it look like a brewery?

Because it has liquids and gases that need to be transported via pipes and stored in containers.

Yes, water, malted barley, hops, and yeast. But where does the anti-matter go?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why would it look like a brewery?

Because it has liquids and gases that need to be transported via pipes and stored in containers.

Yes, water, malted barley, hops, and yeast. But where does the anti-matter go?

The engine room doesn't contain malted barley, hops, and yeast, even if the vessels in it look the same as ones in a brewery that do. The guy who started this thread thought it looked like a water reclamation plant. Are malted barley, hops, and yeast stored and used at water reclamation plants too? Or perhaps beer is made from waste water?

The antimatter goes in an antimatter containment vessel. As to which of the containers seen it might be, I couldn't say, as it was not pointed out in the film.

The whole, a setting can only be what it is in real life argument, is ridiculous.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The engine room doesn't contain malted barley, hops, and yeast, even if the vessels in it look the same as ones in a brewery that do. The guy who started this thread thought it looked like a water reclamation plant. Are malted barley, hops, and yeast stored and used at water reclamation plants too? Or perhaps beer is made from waste water?

Never tasted Bud Light, have you?

 

[M'Sharak]

The engine room doesn't contain malted barley, hops, and yeast, even if the vessels in it look the same as ones in a brewery that do. The guy who started this thread thought it looked like a water reclamation plant. Are malted barley, hops, and yeast stored and used at water reclamation plants too? Or perhaps beer is made from waste water?

Never tasted Bud Light, have you?

I believe that would be "beer made as waste water".

 

[Nerys Myk]

The engine room doesn't contain malted barley, hops, and yeast, even if the vessels in it look the same as ones in a brewery that do. The guy who started this thread thought it looked like a water reclamation plant. Are malted barley, hops, and yeast stored and used at water reclamation plants too? Or perhaps beer is made from waste water?

Never tasted Bud Light, have you?

I would have said Coors.

 

[Hober Mallow]

If they're going to go to the trouble of giving Scotty a brewery, the very least they could do if have him brew some Guinness.