The changes in the Enterprise-D bridge in Generations...
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
- Status
Yep. The TV version was a lot better.
We are in agreement, gentlemen.
I often see the GENS bridge being held up as better than the television incarnation. But I think a moodier lighting scheme and more bridge stations kind of misses the point of the television bridge. What appeals to me so much about the 1701-D bridge was the way it had that clean, uncluttered look. Compared to so many sci-fi series which have dark and dirty ships full of hundreds of pointless blinking background computer screens that we may never actually see anybody using, the 1701-D's decor was fresh, bright and completely different to anything else on television. It was unique. And that counts for a lot.
While I do understand why they made the changes that they did in GENS (the darker lighting hides the fact that the sets built for television looked a bit on the cheap side for a movie production), for me the television version has just got a certain... something which the GENS version lacks.
Last edited:
The moral? Never leave Riker in charge.
Was Troi flying that saucer, too?
Indeed. People moan about the "living room" feel. that is what I love about it. Best bridge ever in my opinion (E-D...Series that is).We are in agreement, gentlemen.
I often see the GENS bridge being held up as better than the television incarnation. But I think a moodier lighting scheme and more bridge stations kind of misses the point of the television bridge. What appeals to me so much about the 1701-D bridge was the way it had that clean, uncluttered look. Compared to so many sci-fi series which have dark and dirty ships full of hundreds of pointless blinking background computer screens that we may never actually see anybody using, the 1701-D's decor was fresh, bright and completely different to anything else on television. It was unique. And that counts for a lot.
While I do understand why they made the changes that they did in GENS (the darker lighting hides the fact that the sets built for television looked a bit on the cheap side for a movie production), for me the television version has just got a certain... something which the GENS version lacks.
Count me as another fan that thought the Generations bridge was the best one for the E-D. The combination of the more cinematic lighting and extra consoles sold me on the realism of the set more than most of the episodes did (but TNG-R shows that the big problem was with the tape they used to edit the show, since it made everything look worse). It's a shame they blew up the ship in Generations, because the Generations bridge would've meshed wonderfully with the DS9/FC uniforms.
That's because they still used the corridors behind those removable computer "plugs" in the wall in order to use the Engineering open area to represent other parts of the ship. They took out the plugs, took out the pool table, turned off the Engineering computer panels, etc. and suddenly we have extra corridors for the characters to walk through.
Here's an example from "The Pegasus" -- that's "Engineering" behind them, but it isn't in-universe:
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x12/thepegasus019.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x12/thepegasus019.jpg
I wonder why they filmed it from that angle. Dropping the hazard door looks really crude. Usually when they wanted to use that area as a corridor they filmed it from the other angle with master sit board and simply turned off the Warp core lights.
I think TNG was the only modern Trek series with an engineering set that was so generally designed that it could be used for multiple purposes.
I agree with the above poster that the added stations and extras to man them would probably have been done during the series if there had been money available for the extras.
As for elevating the command chairs and giving Worf a seat, that was done to get everyone to fit into the 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio. The set was designed for essentially a square TV format so the actors positions had to be compressed a bit to fit a rectangular frame for long shots towards the rear of the set.
The much improved dramatic lighting was partially to hide set flaws (they were designed for lower-resolution TV), and partially because the sets would have been much too light when exposed on film. Notice how much better the uniform colors look and how much darker the blacks in the costumes are in the film when compared to the TV show. I'll bet that on the show they would have liked to light sets more like the film but they would have looked murky and TOO dark on a small TV screen. On film, with a big theater screen, you can see so much more detail that dramatic lighting like that is possible.
As for elevating the command chairs and giving Worf a seat, that was done to get everyone to fit into the 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio. The set was designed for essentially a square TV format so the actors positions had to be compressed a bit to fit a rectangular frame for long shots towards the rear of the set.
The much improved dramatic lighting was partially to hide set flaws (they were designed for lower-resolution TV), and partially because the sets would have been much too light when exposed on film. Notice how much better the uniform colors look and how much darker the blacks in the costumes are in the film when compared to the TV show. I'll bet that on the show they would have liked to light sets more like the film but they would have looked murky and TOO dark on a small TV screen. On film, with a big theater screen, you can see so much more detail that dramatic lighting like that is possible.
Can't help but wonder if there was also the consideration of hiding flaws in the appearance of the actors themselves, given the size of the theater screen and close ups?
I wonder what set flaws were actually there that we could not see? I know that the DS9, Voyager and Enterprise sets were built to cinematic standards. I'm just curious what that means at a practical level. After all, most of the TNG sets were just retrofits of the sets for the TOS films...and some were actually used in V and VI.
I loved the new features on the E-D Bridge. For such a big starship, with over 1000 people onboard, the flagship of the Federation, the bridge only had a maximum capacity of 11 (13 if you include the small benches next to Riker and Troi)? That always seemed odd to me. The new consoles made it look busier and not so disjointed (our heroes are at the front whilst nameless extras can just be seen in the far background, the GEN Bridge brought them forward into the action).
Worf getting a seat made a lot of sense, and rising the command arena up also gave them a little bit more importance.
As for what the new consoles did, I believe the port side was science and starboard was communications (or is it the other way round?).
Worf getting a seat made a lot of sense, and rising the command arena up also gave them a little bit more importance.
As for what the new consoles did, I believe the port side was science and starboard was communications (or is it the other way round?).
I take it you haven't seen TNG in HD yet?
I remember being surprised they didn't have a chief engineer as a regular cast member, as well, which fits with that idea. LeVar Burton should have done that from the beginning. The amusing Blind Navigator jokes aside.
Agreed.
Bly Ray is a 2013 purchase for me. I look forward to seeing it, though.
I've just finished watching the entire series again and I've noticed that in a few episodes you can tell that the doors and walls are just painted wood.
From a cinematic perspective it made perfect sense. The original TV bridge was built with a 4:3 aspect ratio, while the movie bridge needed to fit a 16:9 aspect ratio. Had they kept the original bridge for the movie, then everything would be bunched up in the center, and if they had to zoom in to the captain (removing the side station additions), then Worf would be cut off.
From a practical perspective, I though the changes made sense as well. This was an explorer type vessel, with the the likelihood of multiple first contact missions. In the past, Worf served double duty as Security Officer and as someone who handles hailing. In complicated situations a stations devoted to communications would be necessary. Additionally, it would be one of those stations where line of sight with both the captain and view screen would be necessary. This should also apply for science stations, as experiments in outer space would be better viewed on screen. Having a station in the back and turning around to view the view screen or talk to the captain is not very economical. Putting something like Engineering, Environmental Controls, and axillary stations in the back will make more sense overall because they do not need direct view of the view screen.
From a practical perspective, I though the changes made sense as well. This was an explorer type vessel, with the the likelihood of multiple first contact missions. In the past, Worf served double duty as Security Officer and as someone who handles hailing. In complicated situations a stations devoted to communications would be necessary. Additionally, it would be one of those stations where line of sight with both the captain and view screen would be necessary. This should also apply for science stations, as experiments in outer space would be better viewed on screen. Having a station in the back and turning around to view the view screen or talk to the captain is not very economical. Putting something like Engineering, Environmental Controls, and axillary stations in the back will make more sense overall because they do not need direct view of the view screen.
Paint and wood--the basic components of every Star Trek bridge set from TOS to Star Trek XII.
- Status
Similar threads
