The Cheap Sets of "Nemesis"

[jefferiestubes8]

Re: Sets of "Nemesis"

those sets are great recreations.

I've decided to make a thread about other sets being recreated for other feature films [non Trek] in the TV & Media forum.

 

[trevanian]

Re: Sets of "Nemesis"

They did recreate the pod bay and one corridor, but I think the "cockpit" was new to 2010 because they didn't want to recreate the big ring. .

There was no way they'd've even tried to do the 'ring' centrifuge, but the cockpit/flight deck WAS a decent approximation of what was in 2001 ... though I think they didn't shoot it well, because you can see in close shots of the monitors (now CRT-looking, not flatscreens like 2001) that the console material is something like foamcore, as there are creases and flecks like it is black cardboard material, and you don't get close when you're using cheap materials.

Also, the way the set is suspended is pretty obvious when you see how the blood is draining out of Scheider's face as he lies strapped in as Bowman shows up.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, I appreciated that when I just saw 2001 and 2010 a week or two ago. They did recreate the pod bay and one corridor, but I think the "cockpit" was new to 2010 because they didn't want to recreate the big ring.

No, we did see the cockpit in some portions of 2001.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

Funny! I rewatched this recently, hoping that my opinion of the movie had mellowed, but it hadnt. It is still at the bottom of my list of ST movies. I don't HATE it, but it does live at the bottom.

Anyway, as i watched the wedding reception scene i immediately noticed that GAWD AWFUL background, complete with the fakest looking greenery i'd ever seen. ISH!

 

[Maurice]

Re: Sets of "Nemesis"

Yes, I appreciated that when I just saw 2001 and 2010 a week or two ago. They did recreate the pod bay and one corridor, but I think the "cockpit" was new to 2010 because they didn't want to recreate the big ring. The corridor, though, seemed to attach to the wrong place -- directly to the side door to the pod bay. And how gravity works in the pod bay makes no sense in either film. But, true, those sets are great recreations.

The pod bay is a terrible recreation. They either didn't notice or failed to care that the exterior wall with the pod hatches isn't a at 90 degrees to the floor, but a curves up. They also left out details like what appear to be speakers on the side of the central console, plus thickened the flatscreen panel next to HAL's eye to jam a CRT monitor into it. There are numerous other gaffes like that, theat I expect are related to set budget and the fact that they decided to with with those awful CRT monitors in place of the rear-projection used to make flatscreens in 2001. I'm trying to find screencaps to illustrate the differences, but with little luck.

 

[SonicRanger]

... the cockpit/flight deck WAS a decent approximation of what was in 2001 ... though I think they didn't shoot it well, because you can see in close shots of the monitors (now CRT-looking, not flatscreens like 2001)...

Ah, that's what was bothering me about the computer monitors -- I couldn't quite place it.

And thanks for correcting me that the cockpit was in 2001 -- I'm struggling to remember when, though, we saw it.

The pod bay is a terrible recreation. They either didn't notice or failed to care that the exterior wall with the pod hatches isn't a at 90 degrees to the floor, but a curves up. They also left out details like what appear to be speakers on the side of the central console, plus thickened the flatscreen panel next to HAL's eye to jam a CRT monitor into it. There are numerous other gaffes like that, theat I expect are related to set budget and the fact that they decided to with with those awful CRT monitors in place of the rear-projection used to make flatscreens in 2001.

I missed those details even though I saw the two films about three days apart. Probably the walls at a right angle also had to do with having them walk on that surface when they first board Discovery. For a film made 16 years later and with greater budget constraints, the results were apparently passable to my eye.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Without getting into too much speculation about a plot do you think we'll see the re-use of the Romulan Senate chambers set on Romulus in STXII or STXIII?

 

[SonicRanger]

Without getting into too much speculation about a plot do you think we'll see the re-use of the Romulan Senate chambers set on Romulus in STXII or STXIII?

I'm sure the sets were completely destroyed, and many of the set decorations seem to have been auctioned off. Regardless, even if a new film shows Romulus, the film's designer should be given a chance to have his or her own turn at them.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Without getting into too much speculation about a plot do you think we'll see the re-use of the Romulan Senate chambers set on Romulus in STXII or STXIII?

I'm sure the sets were completely destroyed, and many of the set decorations seem to have been auctioned off. Regardless, even if a new film shows Romulus, the film's designer should be given a chance to have his or her own turn at them.

I think this redress stuff has to stop. And I think JJ is well aware of it. I am so glad as much time passed as it did between ENTERPRISE and XI. Had this movie been made two years earlier, I am sure we would have seen redressed Enterprise sets all over the map...

Rob

 

[Christopher]

I think this redress stuff has to stop. And I think JJ is well aware of it.

On the contrary, Abrams loves redressing real locations whenever possible. The Enterprise engine room in the movie is a redressed Budweiser brewery. The Kelvin interiors are a redressed factory or something. The Academy exterior and meeting hall, the Vulcan council chamber, plenty of the sets are redresses of real locations. Meanwhile, the Kobayashi Maru simulator set is a redress of the Kelvin bridge set, and all the sets of the Narada interior are actually the same set with its components moved around. So he redressed his own sets as well as locations.

It's absurd to say that redressing "has to stop," because that ignores the fact that filmmaking costs money. Finding ways to save money is always going to be a necessity, and redressing an existing set or location is a good way of doing that. It's a standard part of any filmmaker's repertoire. (Although apparently we've reached the point where it's even cheaper to create a virtual set in a computer.)

I am so glad as much time passed as it did between ENTERPRISE and XI. Had this movie been made two years earlier, I am sure we would have seen redressed Enterprise sets all over the map...

Maybe, if the producers of ENT had been aware that there would be a film followup. As it was, the ENT sets were torn down and unceremoniously discarded after the series was cancelled.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I think this redress stuff has to stop. And I think JJ is well aware of it.

On the contrary, Abrams loves redressing real locations whenever possible. The Enterprise engine room in the movie is a redressed Budweiser brewery. The Kelvin interiors are a redressed factory or something. The Academy exterior and meeting hall, the Vulcan council chamber, plenty of the sets are redresses of real locations. Meanwhile, the Kobayashi Maru simulator set is a redress of the Kelvin bridge set, and all the sets of the Narada interior are actually the same set with its components moved around. So he redressed his own sets as well as locations.

It's absurd to say that redressing "has to stop," because that ignores the fact that filmmaking costs money. Finding ways to save money is always going to be a necessity, and redressing an existing set or location is a good way of doing that. It's a standard part of any filmmaker's repertoire. (Although apparently we've reached the point where it's even cheaper to create a virtual set in a computer.)

I am so glad as much time passed as it did between ENTERPRISE and XI. Had this movie been made two years earlier, I am sure we would have seen redressed Enterprise sets all over the map...

Maybe, if the producers of ENT had been aware that there would be a film followup. As it was, the ENT sets were torn down and unceremoniously discarded after the series was cancelled.

I mean the obvious redressing of sets from the tv series, specifically. All it does is give the impression, and quite frankly the correct one, that the later TREK movies were nothing more than TWO hour episodes filmed on TV sets with TV actors. So why would Joe Q Public go spend top $$$ for a movie ticket when its clear that all you're getting is a tv-episode?

And this redress of TV sets is not lost on the reviewers who point this out in some of those reviews...

JJ's redressed sets (Budweiser) were awesome. It gave the movie a fresh feel because, as far as I could tell, nothing in that movie was a redress of a previous TREK corridor--Transporter Room--Shuttle. And that's what I mean by redressing.

If they make a new TV series, and God I hope they dont, and they start using the sets for the new movie series it will just send the message to Joe Q Public that we are back to square one; TV episodes filmed on TV sets..and this time you get to pay 14$ a ticket for it. Bad signal to send...

Now..redressing sets from the new movie? Well..yeah. I can dig that...

But I hope every ounce of every corridor and every transporter room and the engineering section built for PHASE TWO and reused over and over and over...were destroyed...

Rob

 

[Trekker4747]

Does this really look that ominous? Or like any sort of lab or reactor or whatever?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/nemesis/ch21/nemesis640.jpg

It's a Bloomin' Onion of DOOOOOMMMM!!!!

 

[RobertScorpio]

Does this really look that ominous? Or like any sort of lab or reactor or whatever?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/nemesis/ch21/nemesis640.jpg

It's a Bloomin' Onion of DOOOOOMMMM!!!!

No...its Tom Cruise's exclusive link with the Source Wall on the planet New Genesis

Rob

 

[Praetor]

I fully agree with the OP. Where "Insurrection" had an air of cheapness to the CGI, this movie had a greater air of cheapness to the interior sets. I hated the changes that were made to the bridge and observation lounge sets for this movie, too. I also preferred the redressed Voyager sickbay to this, especially when you consider that set was just a redress of the original Enterprise-D sickbay. Is it really so necessary to believe that a state-of-the-art sickbay on two ships would look completely different?

 

[Rarewolf]

I'm surprised the Romulan Warbird bridge hasn't been mentioned; its obvious when you know about it.

 

[Christopher]

If they make a new TV series, and God I hope they dont, and they start using the sets for the new movie series it will just send the message to Joe Q Public that we are back to square one; TV episodes filmed on TV sets..and this time you get to pay 14$ a ticket for it. Bad signal to send...

You shouldn't be so dismissive of TV sets. They're often much more detailed and durable than film sets, because they're meant to be used for years and shot from every conceivable angle, while film sets are generally meant to stand for only a few days or weeks before being torn down. The only reason the TMP sets were able to be reused for subsequent films, TNG, and VGR is because they were originally built for the abandoned Phase II TV revival, and thus were built to last. And look at the Promenade on DS9. That's one of the most amazing sets ever built. It was on the scale of something from a James Bond movie. It cost 2 million dollars to build the Promenade alone, which was more than an entire single episode of DS9 cost at the time.

But I hope every ounce of every corridor and every transporter room and the engineering section built for PHASE TWO and reused over and over and over...were destroyed...

Now, that's harsh. The sets were finally torn down completely after VGR because the wooden superstructure was rotting through, so they've been gone for eight years now. But they were a remarkable creation and they have a place in Hollywood history as the longest-lived standing sets ever made. They deserve respect.

 

[RobertScorpio]

If they make a new TV series, and God I hope they dont, and they start using the sets for the new movie series it will just send the message to Joe Q Public that we are back to square one; TV episodes filmed on TV sets..and this time you get to pay 14$ a ticket for it. Bad signal to send...

You shouldn't be so dismissive of TV sets. They're often much more detailed and durable than film sets, because they're meant to be used for years and shot from every conceivable angle, while film sets are generally meant to stand for only a few days or weeks before being torn down. The only reason the TMP sets were able to be reused for subsequent films, TNG, and VGR is because they were originally built for the abandoned Phase II TV revival, and thus were built to last. And look at the Promenade on DS9. That's one of the most amazing sets ever built. It was on the scale of something from a James Bond movie. It cost 2 million dollars to build the Promenade alone, which was more than an entire single episode of DS9 cost at the time.

But I hope every ounce of every corridor and every transporter room and the engineering section built for PHASE TWO and reused over and over and over...were destroyed...

Now, that's harsh. The sets were finally torn down completely after VGR because the wooden superstructure was rotting through, so they've been gone for eight years now. But they were a remarkable creation and they have a place in Hollywood history as the longest-lived standing sets ever made. They deserve respect.

Okay...not destroyed. But a new law, signed by Barak Obama, and ratified by the entire world population, that would make the reuse of any of those sets against the law.

Oh..and I have nothing against reusing TV Sets..just not your own. I remember taking my friend, my star wars friend, to see one of those TREK movies and his laughing at the obvious reused sets (corridor/transporter room). He was right..it just looks cheap when they do it...

Rob

 

[Praetor]

I'm surprised the Romulan Warbird bridge hasn't been mentioned; its obvious when you know about it.

Yeah, I agree, but no less obvious than the redress done in "Improbable Cause"/"The Die is Cast." But, at least it's a bit superior in quality to the 'alien of the week' type bridge used in "Contagion" and "Face of the Enemy," among others. By no means was it the Klingon bridge from TMP, though.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Sets of "Nemesis"

I'm surprised the Romulan Warbird bridge hasn't been mentioned; its obvious when you know about it.

At least it was better than the warbird bridge from TNG's "The Face of the Enemy". Or as I read in a review once: "Romulan Pizza Kitchen".

The corridor, though, seemed to attach to the wrong place -- directly to the side door to the pod bay.

Well, to be fair, we never saw Dave or Frank actually use that corridor in the original. We never saw how they get in or out of the cockpit. So as far as we know, 2010's treatment was accurate.

And how gravity works in the pod bay makes no sense in either film.

In the original film, the pod bay has those velcro bits in the floor. (Meant to stick to the crew's shoes, so they don't float around.) But in the sequel, the velcro bits were replaced by generic black colored flooring, and they did ignore the zero-G problem. (Zero-G wasn't dealt with AT ALL in 2010, apart from that weird sequence aboard the Leonov with the floating pen, which doesn't even jibe with the rest OF THAT SAME SCENE.)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Re: Sets of "Nemesis"

And I am amazed at the work in the Romulan Senate chambers done by set designer Alan S. Kaye & Production Designer Herman F. Zimmerman.

Yes, I thought the Romulan Senate chambers were well done. I love the benches -- ancient history buffs may recognize them.



That was left over from two movies earlier.

I can watch the scenes set on the recreated Discovery over and over in "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984).

Yes, I appreciated that when I just saw 2001 and 2010 a week or two ago. They did recreate the pod bay and one corridor, but I think the "cockpit" was new to 2010 because they didn't want to recreate the big ring. The corridor, though, seemed to attach to the wrong place -- directly to the side door to the pod bay. And how gravity works in the pod bay makes no sense in either film. But, true, those sets are great recreations.

On CINEMAX late night I was watching one of their soft-porn movies. Not sure what it was called. But I swear they were using the KLINGON set from STAR TREK movies. Did anyone else see this?

And what about my CONGO thread from last year? I still maintain that the control room they walk through at the start of that movie is the BRIDGE set from the movies...its so blatant AND a paramount movie as well..

Rob

Screencap?