That clean, high-tech look suits Trek really well I think.
Well, if you ignore the smoke damage.
Yeah, Peter Preston's really got to quit smoking.
The bridge shots (large images)
- Thread starter Ethan_Hunt_IMF
- Start date
Yeah, Peter Preston's really got to quit smoking.
"Captain's chair for one? Your wait will be approximately 5 minutes, sir."
Sorry, but that just looks ridiculous.
You are looking at a still image that may be on screen for a second or less. We have really no way to judge what it will look like in a video presentation.
The shot from ST II reminds us that with the exception of the original TV series bridge, just about every Trek bridge has incorporated standing stations along with seated ones. Often they faced the walls - as in TMP or TWOK - but eventually they were oriented inward to face the captain and the main viewer.
Of course, current naval vessels have standing stations on their bridges.
So there's nothing either peculiar or new about this aspect of the Abrams bridge.
Of course, current naval vessels have standing stations on their bridges.
So there's nothing either peculiar or new about this aspect of the Abrams bridge.
"Captain's chair for one? Your wait will be approximately 5 minutes, sir."
Sorry, but that just looks ridiculous.
You are looking at a still image that may be on screen for a second or less. We have really no way to judge what it will look like in a video presentation.
Uh, to play devil's advocate, I don't think that console looks any different in full motion.
"Captain's chair for one? Your wait will be approximately 5 minutes, sir."
Sorry, but that just looks ridiculous.
You are looking at a still image that may be on screen for a second or less. We have really no way to judge what it will look like in a video presentation.
Uh, to play devil's advocate, I don't think that console looks any different in full motion.
When did you see it in a motion shot?
Fine, if you want to nitpick, I don't think it will look any different in full motion. It's a fixed set-piece, not a still shot of a person that might look unflattering. If you don't like it now, you won't like it in May.
One thing that personally bothers me about the look of Star Trek bridges in general is how un-futuristic they look. I mean, if you have ever seen those pictures of the Command and Control rooms aboard modern Nimitz Class aircraft carriers and Aegis equipped destroyers (not to forget the Virgina class submarine) they do not look worthy of the supposed 24th Century space fairing equivalents. Things like LCD screens, main view ports and simple touch screen interfaces are all possible today.
They need to do something cool, like have the surrounding walls and ceiling of the bridge become totally transparent during battle or for whenever the Captain wants to take a good look at the stars (extend this through the rest of the ship). No only that, but get rid of fixed computer displays, allow the crew to call up any relevant information on the wall they are standing in front of, and move the data around using their hands a la Minority Report.
Anyway, in regards to the J.J. bridge from what little we can see, I like the white ultra-modern Apple Store look. Based on what I can see of the computer interface in the background it seems they have undergone a significant overhaul, and hopefully look more futuristic than what we have seen in the recent Trek T.V. series.
They need to do something cool, like have the surrounding walls and ceiling of the bridge become totally transparent during battle or for whenever the Captain wants to take a good look at the stars (extend this through the rest of the ship). No only that, but get rid of fixed computer displays, allow the crew to call up any relevant information on the wall they are standing in front of, and move the data around using their hands a la Minority Report.
Anyway, in regards to the J.J. bridge from what little we can see, I like the white ultra-modern Apple Store look. Based on what I can see of the computer interface in the background it seems they have undergone a significant overhaul, and hopefully look more futuristic than what we have seen in the recent Trek T.V. series.
Whether it's problematic or not depends upon the angles it's actually shot from, where it is in frame, how people move around it. While it's true that set pieces are generally fixed, neither the camera POV nor actors are - and how sets look therefore are pretty much dependent upon how shots are composed and actors are shot.
The TMP bridge had an ceiling that was pretty unattractive - actually, most post-TOS Trek bridges do. It was never quite the problem that I thought the Enterprise-D bridge ceiling was, though, because the Enterprise D bridge was most often shot from the front floor level and mid and full shots therefore often included that ceiling whereas the TMP bridge ceiling was rarely emphasized.
Re: The bridge shots
Fair enough. I still like the original version better, personally.
That may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that the TOS bridge is a very iconic set and a pretty cool one at that. Just because it wouldn't look that way if designed now is irrelevant, IMO. If George Lucas was making Star Wars today, he'd probably design a lot of stuff from the OT differently than he did in 1977. What is relevant is how the bridge did wind up looking, and what kind of visuals should be associated with that. I can sympathize with some of CRA's comments, even though I'm keeping an open mind until I see the movie.
As I said before, I'm not comfortable with the production team changing stuff because they can, or because they think the visual aesthetics that have become a classic part of Trek won't work with a modern audience. They will work, or they wouldn't be considered classic. It's why I'm extremely wary of the film considering itself a reboot or a reinvention, because that sort of thing has to be managed very carefully.
Fair enough. I still like the original version better, personally.
That may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that the TOS bridge is a very iconic set and a pretty cool one at that. Just because it wouldn't look that way if designed now is irrelevant, IMO. If George Lucas was making Star Wars today, he'd probably design a lot of stuff from the OT differently than he did in 1977. What is relevant is how the bridge did wind up looking, and what kind of visuals should be associated with that. I can sympathize with some of CRA's comments, even though I'm keeping an open mind until I see the movie.
As I said before, I'm not comfortable with the production team changing stuff because they can, or because they think the visual aesthetics that have become a classic part of Trek won't work with a modern audience. They will work, or they wouldn't be considered classic. It's why I'm extremely wary of the film considering itself a reboot or a reinvention, because that sort of thing has to be managed very carefully.
Re: The bridge shots
Being considered "classic" by some people doesn't equate to "appealing to enough people to work in a big-budget modern film."
You know what worries me more than the Bridge in these photos is...everything else they've kept - the Play-Dough colored uniforms, Spock's bowl haircut and pointed ears - everything. Outside of that old, old context, transposed into these sharp new images they all look rather silly.
Which is not to say that I'm sorry they kept those things or that I don't like them, any more than I'd have been sorry to see the original Bridge recreated on a big budget - but just because I like them doesn't mean I think they're going to be an easy sell to audiences that aren't already in love with Trek.
Being considered "classic" by some people doesn't equate to "appealing to enough people to work in a big-budget modern film."
You know what worries me more than the Bridge in these photos is...everything else they've kept - the Play-Dough colored uniforms, Spock's bowl haircut and pointed ears - everything. Outside of that old, old context, transposed into these sharp new images they all look rather silly.
Which is not to say that I'm sorry they kept those things or that I don't like them, any more than I'd have been sorry to see the original Bridge recreated on a big budget - but just because I like them doesn't mean I think they're going to be an easy sell to audiences that aren't already in love with Trek.
I must be the only one who likes the bright, white look of the bridge. It reminds me of the early bridge scene in TSFS, which I always really loved. Although not as bright as the new bridge, it was certainly lighter and brighter than the TWOK bridge from one movie before.
That clean, high-tech look suits Trek really well I think.
That uniform in the back looks pretty good.
I see we're getting into full-on attack mode around here with this movie's cheerleaders, going to be a long haul until release date...
A
Amaris
Guest
I must be the only one who likes the bright, white look of the bridge. It reminds me of the early bridge scene in TSFS, which I always really loved. Although not as bright as the new bridge, it was certainly lighter and brighter than the TWOK bridge from one movie before.
That clean, high-tech look suits Trek really well I think.
That uniform in the back looks pretty good.
I see we're getting into full-on attack mode around here with this movie's cheerleaders, going to be a long haul until release date...
Only if people insist on decrying that J.J. Abrams is trying to kill Star Trek and that people are throwing temper tantrums over split second images.
I knew this would happen, but I held out hope that people could act like adults. I was wrong.
J.
My point is that it's there, it wasn't there before, and it isn't going anywhere now. There's nothing either of us can say to convince people who think it shouldn't be there otherwise and to do so has rapidly become a pointless exercise. Personally, I don't care, but I do see where the purists are coming from on this minor point.
A
Amaris
Guest
That's the problem though. This movie isn't for the purists. If they thought it was, they were deluded, or they weren't listening. This movie is not for them. If they like it, good. If not, too bad. This movie is out to capture fresh blood and new minds for the Star Trek mythos. Enjoy it or not, it's coming, and it will change things. I love Star Trek. I love the original series. I love the characters and the stories, and I have no problem with this movie. I realize things will change. If I don't like the movie, I have 3 seasons of TOS on DVD, 7 seasons of TNG, 7 Seasons of DS9, 7 seasons of VOY, 4 seasons of ENT, and 10 movies. If people are whining and crying over the fact that this movie is different, then they're selfish. They have so much and want more without considering that things needed to change. They can disagree, but it did, and it has.
J.
No, but it is supposed to adhere to the canon, and to many, that includes the look as well as the backstory and characterization. While many like me forgive the former (like shots of two different Enterprise models back to back on both TOS and TNG), some can't and will get in an uproar even if the yeoman console wasn't there on the new bridge. I might be able to look past the changes, but there's a lot of old fans out there (not just on Trek sites, if my reading is correct) who won't buy into what's been shown.
A
Amaris
Guest
And I'm saying it doesn't matter. This movie is not just for the trek fans. It's for fresh blood and new minds. New butts in the seats. There is a massive, MASSIVE amount of established Star Trek canon to fall back on if people don't like this movie. People getting upset over this new movie have lost perspective. They're forgetting what Star Trek is all about. They're so caught up in the minutae of design and canon, they've let go of the prize. Many will never realize this and will continue to, in vain, rail against the atrocities that J.J. Abrams has wrought upon their fragile little lives. It's a pity is what it is, and I'm disappointed to see so many people emotionally collapse in anguish at the things they're seeing on the screen. Those people can stay away from Star Trek, and I say that as someone who adores the show and has never been ashamed to call himself a Trekkie.
J.
Re: The bridge shots
uh oh commence burning of files on the military funded "Project Enterprise"
Look directly into this
*FLASH*
There is no real "thing" what you saw was swamp gas reflected off the light of venus
uh oh commence burning of files on the military funded "Project Enterprise"
Look directly into this
*FLASH*
There is no real "thing" what you saw was swamp gas reflected off the light of venus
Killjoy.
They really do have medication you can take these days. So much negativity cannot be very healthy for you.
You may think JJ Abrams raped your childhood, but you are raping my optimism. Please stop calling us names for our opinions.
1. I think from the stills we have, the bridge is overly lit.
Hopefully that will be corrected by the time it is released. 2. Those bright, third-degree lights above the screens would be most distracting, especially during red alert status.
3. "Table for two, non-smoking?" is still the impression given in the bridge shot we have seen. I hope they eventually lose it.
4. I will still go see the movie (and bring shades just in case.) In no way does this curb my enthusiasm for the new movie though!
Re: The bridge shots
I meant in the sense that the original the Star Trek of the 1960's still occured. From what I've read about Roddebnberry over the years, I still think he'd redesign the thing if he got the opportunity to do so now. Possibly he'd stick a bit closer to the original than abrams and company but I still think it would look quite different.
Fair enough. I still like the original version better, personally.
That may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that the TOS bridge is a very iconic set and a pretty cool one at that. Just because it wouldn't look that way if designed now is irrelevant, IMO. If George Lucas was making Star Wars today, he'd probably design a lot of stuff from the OT differently than he did in 1977. What is relevant is how the bridge did wind up looking, and what kind of visuals should be associated with that. I can sympathize with some of CRA's comments, even though I'm keeping an open mind until I see the movie.
As I said before, I'm not comfortable with the production team changing stuff because they can, or because they think the visual aesthetics that have become a classic part of Trek won't work with a modern audience. They will work, or they wouldn't be considered classic. It's why I'm extremely wary of the film considering itself a reboot or a reinvention, because that sort of thing has to be managed very carefully.
I meant in the sense that the original the Star Trek of the 1960's still occured. From what I've read about Roddebnberry over the years, I still think he'd redesign the thing if he got the opportunity to do so now. Possibly he'd stick a bit closer to the original than abrams and company but I still think it would look quite different.
